just another vinyl article

[TLS Guy]

I have to say I still love playing LPs, and for the reasons already stated. The jacket, with its art work and information is closer to the human scale.

I do have a couple of comments on the article. The first is that there are actually three common categories of cartridge, the moving coil, moving magnet and the moving iron variable reluctance cartridge. The latter needs the same playback arrangement as moving magnet. One of the best examples of these cartridges is the Decca London range.

I do not think the moving coil has the superiority over the others. They have high moving mass usually and can not match the best of the other types in compliance and trackability. Whilst MCs can sound superb on certain recordings, they can be dogs on others. I like cartridges that will do a good job of the vast majority of recordings in my collection.

I take issue with his comments about the RIAA curve. At least in the heyday of the LP, from whence the recordings in my collection come, the companies were very exact about the RIAA curve. Good LP play back equipment then and now corrects it just about perfectly.

Obviously an RC network generating the curve is going to produce some frequency dependent phase shifts. However these will cancel with accurate correction of the curve on playback. This is in no way comparable to the phase and time aberrations introduced by loudspeaker crossover networks.

I do think analog and vintage should have its own forum, so we can go in to issues of properly setting up turntables, matching cartridge mass and compliance with arm mass. We could also have information on record care. I had some response when I floated this before, but the interest seems to me to build.

 

[3db]

I have to say I still love playing LPs, and for the reasons already stated. The jacket, with its art work and information is closer to the human scale.

I do have a couple of comments on the article. The first is that there are actually three common categories of cartridge, the moving coil, moving magnet and the moving iron variable reluctance cartridge. The latter needs the same playback arrangement as moving magnet. One of the best examples of these cartridges is the Decca London range.

I do not think the moving coil has the superiority over the others. They have high moving mass usually and can not match the best of the other types in compliance and trackability. Whilst MCs can sound superb on certain recordings, they can be dogs on others. I like cartridges that will do a good job of the vast majority of recordings in my collection.

I take issue with his comments about the RIAA curve. At least in the heyday of the LP, from whence the recordings in my collection come, the companies were very exact about the RIAA curve. Good LP play back equipment then and now corrects it just about perfectly.

Obviously an RC network generating the curve is going to produce some frequency dependent phase shifts. However these will cancel with accurate correction of the curve on playback. This is in no way comparable to the phase and time aberrations introduced by loudspeaker crossover networks.

I do think analog and vintage should have its own forum, so we can go in to issues of properly setting up turntables, matching cartridge mass and compliance with arm mass. We could also have information on record care. I had some response when I floated this before, but the interest seems to me to build.

I asked Audioholics to put a turntable review section out as well but they feel there is not enough interest in this.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

If you never hear anything harsh in a concert hall, you are probably not listening very closely. An orchestra can play very harshly, and for some pieces of music, harshness is required to play the piece properly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "harsh." An orchestra can sound dissonant. They can sound loud. But I've never heard a "harsh" orchestra. I heard one active with harmonics and decay, the same way I heard it on vinyl, but don't on CD.

I missed it for a time, too, when I switched to CDs. But I would never want to go back to all that bother now. This, by the way, is obviously a reason for your preference that has absolutely nothing to do with the sound.

I just recently purchased a decent turntable. I've been buying and playing CDs for several decades while my vinyl collection was collecting dust. I enjoy returning to all the bother because I think the trouble is worth it since the sound is superior.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
But I'm sure you'll agree that it would be silly to buy a set of speakers without listening to them. And I'm also sure you'll agree that what one person likes in a speaker another will probably not feel the same way.
.

Yes, I can agree to the first part but only partially to the second
Hard to add more to what Pyrroh posted on this but speakers are anything but linear in all respects. The variations are just too great. then, the room will also affect the outcome compared to most, not all, other components.

On the second part, testing shows that most do prefer the same speaker performance, otherwise it would be difficult to design speakers for anyone. But, that sameness comes from testing by minimizing human bias impact on selections process At least that is what good research has shown.

 

[DD66000]

I'm not sure what you mean by "harsh." An orchestra can sound dissonant. They can sound loud. But I've never heard a "harsh" orchestra. I heard one active with harmonics and decay, the same way I heard it on vinyl, but don't on CD.
I just recently purchased a decent turntable. I've been buying and playing CDs for several decades while my vinyl collection was collecting dust. I enjoy returning to all the bother because I think the trouble is worth it since the sound is superior.

Many, if not all, cds seem to lack depth, compared to vinyl.
During the last two years, I've gotten back to vinyl, picking up a set of Citation pre-amp/power amp, with my old direct drive TT, and connected vintage custom speakers.

I have never cared much for the sound cds put out, so getting back to vinyl is great. And those new 180 & 200 gram lps are superb.
I've been reading up on the newer and much more expensive TTs. One brand, in particular, VPI, use spikes on their TT, but for an additional cost of $300, one can upgrade the spikes with Mini Stabilizer-Feet.

By the looks of them, on VPI's web site, they look very much like the feet, that came standard, on my '79 Yamaha TT. So what is with these fairly high end TTs ($2500) that lack quality feet, w/o paying another $300?

 

[tbewick]

Well, numbers help, you're right on that. Back in the dark ages of audio (the 70s) we were all concerned with S/N ratios, wow and flutter, rumble, frequency responses, and all that. Even a 0.01% difference between gear was a big thing.

I don't get that sense with today's afficianados. Maybe it's because all the gear is so competitive in that area. Or maybe that's not as important as total watts and the number of inputs and outputs something has, since a lot of people today are more home theater oriented than pure audio.

My contention has always been, however, that you take the best gear, then take the best turntable and the best CD player, use similar source material (meaning the same album on pristine vinyl and CD), I doubt that many people would be able to tell the difference in overall quality, but I do think that the vinyl will sound fuller and warmer and closer to the ideal of what music is.

But that again could be my own prejudice against digital since music is analog.

This article is worth looking at:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page1.html
Lesurf, J. "Analog or Digital?", The Scots Guide to Electronics.

A quote from the above source:

'When the Compact Disc system was originally launched some people criticised it on the grounds that, ‘Sound signals are inherently analog, i.e. sound is a smoothly varying (continuous) pattern of pressure changes. Converting sound information into digital form “chops it up”, ruining it forever.’ This view is based on the idea that — by its very nature — sound is inherently a wave phenomenon. These waves satisfy a set of Wave Equations. Hence we should always be able to represent a given soundfield by a suitable algebraic function whose value varies smoothly from place to place and from moment to moment. Since the voltage/current patterns emerging from our microphones vary in proportion to the sound pressure variations falling upon them it seems fairly natural to think of the sound waves themselves as having all the properties we associate with ‘analog’ signals, i.e. the sound itself is essentially an analog signal, carrying information from the sound sources to the microphones. But how can sound be ‘analog’ if the theories of quantum mechanics are correct?'

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

On the second part, testing shows that most do prefer the same speaker performance, otherwise it would be difficult to design speakers for anyone. But, that sameness comes from testing by minimizing human bias impact on selections process At least that is what good research has shown.

I disagree. If we all did prefer the same speaker performance, then there would only be a need for one speaker.

Just look at the preferences on this board alone. People will argue that their speaker is the best, that they hate the sound of other brands, some are too bright, some too warm, some too neutral.

 

[Alex2507]

testing shows that most do prefer the same speaker performance

Something tells me that you're refering to some scientific testing done by Dr. Floyd Toole? IIRC around 75% of the people liked the same kind of behavior out of a speaker consistently from day to day. The other 25% needed to have their ears checked.

Hey, seriously, SF, you must have heard of these "White Papers" by now. Have you read 'em? I think that mtry is refering to them.

 

[DD66000]

I disagree. If we all did prefer the same speaker performance, then there would only be a need for one speaker.

Just look at the preferences on this board alone. People will argue that their speaker is the best, that they hate the sound of other brands, some are too bright, some too warm, some too neutral.

Yes, that's right, we all have different hearing, which is why there are so many different speaker brands. If we all had the same hearing, we would only need maybe 3 speakers, low cost, for people who don't want to spend much; middle priced speakers for the majority; and high end speakers for anyone who could afford them.
But everyone could tell the exact same differences between the three levels of speakers.
But in reality, we DO have different hearing. There are some brands of speakers that other people just rave about, that I wouldn't take for free.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Hey, seriously, SF, you must have heard of these "White Papers" by now. Have you read 'em? I think that mtry is refering to them.

As a technical writer, I've written white papers, but I don't know what you mean by THE "White Papers."

Oh, and my biggest reason for enjoying my turntable is that all my music is still on vinyl. Most of it hard to get or non-existent in CD and to replace everything is just too cost prohibitive.

But in reality, we DO have different hearing. There are some brands of speakers that other people just rave about, that I wouldn't take for free.

Bose?

 

[DD66000]

_Ferret;411019]As a technical writer, I've written white papers, but I don't know what you mean by THE "White Papers."

On the Harman International web site, Dr Floyd Toole has done extensive work on accoutics.
http://www.harmaninternational.com/about_harman/technology_leadership.aspx

Bose?

Among others

 

[Alex2507]

On the Harman International web site, Dr Floyd Toole has done extensive work on accoutics.
http://www.harmaninternational.com/about_harman/technology_leadership.aspx

That link doesn't work anymore. Would somebody please post a valid link please?

SF, sorry, I thought there were only those one White Papers. I'm not a technical writer. I bet you could tell. Beyond that, there's quite a bit of info there that puts me out of my depth but some of the stuff is simple enough.

 

[DD66000]

That link doesn't work anymore. Would somebody please post a valid link please?

SF, sorry, I thought there were only those one White Papers. I'm not a technical writer. I bet you could tell. Beyond that, there's quite a bit of info there that puts me out of my depth but some of the stuff is simple enough.

They work just fine.
You click on the word "papers", that takes you to a list of topics, click on the word "read" at the end of each topic line.

 

[3db]

Many, if not all, cds seem to lack depth, compared to vinyl.
During the last two years, I've gotten back to vinyl, picking up a set of Citation pre-amp/power amp, with my old direct drive TT, and connected vintage custom speakers.

I have never cared much for the sound cds put out, so getting back to vinyl is great. And those new 180 & 200 gram lps are superb.
I've been reading up on the newer and much more expensive TTs. One brand, in particular, VPI, use spikes on their TT, but for an additional cost of $300, one can upgrade the spikes with Mini Stabilizer-Feet.

By the looks of them, on VPI's web site, they look very much like the feet, that came standard, on my '79 Yamaha TT. So what is with these fairly high end TTs ($2500) that lack quality feet, w/o paying another $300?

My ProJect Xpression II came with adjustable spiked feet as standard for $600, taxes in. Taxes here are 14%