Timing

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

>>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?

> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any
> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about
> the medium just something about that CD.

NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.

> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.

I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com...
> michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>> >
>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base
>> > line
>> > though.
>> >
>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>> >>non-musical program noise.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers,
>> > only the
>> > universitality of it.
>
>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>> use--even Windows applications.
>
>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>> experiment.
>
> Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
> of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
> digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>
> Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
> medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
> is to be, well, in denial. Digital capture and display of vinyl
> transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
> ignored, but it's always there.
>
Since a cantilever/tonearm must ride up and down stereo grooves regardless
of the equipment or the LP in question, that very ride contributes to grunge
and noise which must be at least hundreds of times greater than digital
silence. Take a peek at "digital silence" on a scope and compare what you
see to LP "silence".

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
>>> > though.
>>> >
>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>> >>non-musical program noise.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only
>>the
>>> > universitality of it.
>>
>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>>
>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>>> use--even Windows applications.
>>
>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>>> experiment.
>>
>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>
>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>is to be, well, in denial.
>
> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.

Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
surface noise...

Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?

>
> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>ignored, but it's always there.
>
> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>>

It is the same in that the noise is always there. It can always be
heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
the vinyl is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Dec 2004 16:12:30 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> S888Wheel wrote:

>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the
>>> > universitality of it.

>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>
>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>is to be, well, in denial.
>
>Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.

How about "I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your*
transfers, only the universitality of it."

You seem determined to insist that surface noise somehow magically
lowers on top-class vinyl rigs. Hint - it doesn't.

> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>ignored, but it's always there.
>
>It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.

But it is *never* lower than 60-65dB below peak level on other than
direct-cut LPs, which is the *real* point.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Dec 2004 16:14:58 GMT, michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any
>> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about
>> the medium just something about that CD.
>
>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.

Well, -93dB anyway, and since there exists not one single music master
tape with more than 80-85dB dynamic range, we can reasonably call it
'zero' for the playback medium. Also essentially zero distortion, and
ruler-flat FR from less than 10Hz to more than 20Hz, with less than
-80dB crosstalk at all frequencies. Compare and contrast with
vimyl..................

>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
>some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
>others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

Scott is of course just trotting out the tired old 'you've never heard
a decent vinyl rig' strawman. Well, I own a pretty decent vinyl rig,
and I have listened at length to what many would call the ultimate
vinyl rig - a Rockport Sirius III fitted with Clearaudio Insider
cartridge, set up personally by Andy Payor. Since it was playing
*vinyl*, it still suffered from surface noise, treble splash and inner
groove distortion, all perfectly audible.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/29/04 11:14 AM, in article cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com, "michael"
<pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>> From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find
>> any
>> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything
>> about
>> the medium just something about that CD.
>
> NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
> not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
> This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
> the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
> recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
> noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
> are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
> and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
> is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
> techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.

Yup the quantization noise of CD is 96dB down, and the native noise floor of
the CD player is likely higher than that. The source material if from
analog is likely to be no better than 70dB, and if recorded digitally with
standard equipment is likely 24 bit/96kHz, making the acoustics and ambient
noise of the recording environment much bigger factors to the "pristine"
sound - which is what one ideally like.

Records have a lot of surface noise - and some records are better than
others, and some stylii are better at rejecting it than others - but the
most amazing thing is that some people hear right through the stuff, while
others are driven out of the room by it. It is amazing how the brain can
"ignore" this type of noise. Since it is a function of the brain
("software/hardware" if you will) it really depends on the person, and you
may be able to measure it, though it may not matter to the people who like
the medium, because after a short period of time, they aren't hearing it
anymore - and the things the LP does right (and it does a few things right)
is being listened to.

Sure, this is additive distortion, but it is, for many, an easily ignored
additive phenomenon.

>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
> I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
> will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
> some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
> others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

Sure - but it may not be perceptible without concentration after a brief
period of time listening by a large number of people.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/29/04 11:12 AM, in article cqul1e02por@news3.newsguy.com, "S888Wheel"
<s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:

>> Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>> medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>> is to be, well, in denial.
>
> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.

Actually, the surface noise may be perceptible by a machine, but the brain,
in many cases, is capable of "ignoring" it.

Experiment to do:
If you turn on a air fan (one that is not too loud, though any volume will
work to a greater or lesser degree) and have a conversation that it
engrossing - then have someone sneak in and turn off the fan, the people in
the conversation will be most aware of the noise by its absence. With some
concentration, you can again hear the fan at any time - but the point is
that the brain tries to edit it out as soon as you don't want to hear it.
This may be similar to how some people perceive surface noise on records.
ON a good recording that is engrossing, the imperfections of the medium are
ignored.

This is no way is trying to be an apologist for LP's - I am happy with CD's
and no longer own a turntable - but it is sometimes more helpful to ask the
question
"Why would this easily measurable phenomena be acceptable and imperceptible
by some?"

Rather than the usual "Why are these people wrong or crazy?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/30/04 11:17 AM, in article cr19nb0bco@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> treble splash

What is "treble splash?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/30/04 11:17 AM, in article cr19m60bc9@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>
> But it is *never* lower than 60-65dB below peak level on other than
> direct-cut LPs, which is the *real* point.

Since I think I recall that you said that the human ear has difficulty
discerning distortion 40dB down - this would place it near the threshhold of
human hearing, especially if played at sane volumes?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/30/04 11:12 AM, in article cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com, "Chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?

If you define "heard" as perceived - the brain tends to edit out background
noise which this would qualify. Kind of like being able to hear a friends'
words in a crowded party (within limits).

The noise is there - and if you want to hear it, you will. If you are
listening to the music, most people won't hear this background noise very
much at all, though some would be driven out of the room from it.

I think the reason there is no consensus amongst people who discuss the high
end, is because it is a question of perception. The reason that some people
love vinyl is that they are listening to the music, not the noise - their
brain is editing out the noise effectively and the software between the ears
is obliging to do this. Some people can do this really well, some can't.
The same way that some can perceive a sound stereo image and some cannot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base
>line
>>>> > though.
>>>> >
>>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>>> >>non-musical program noise.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers,
>only
>>>the
>>>> > universitality of it.
>>>
>>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>>>
>>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>>>> use--even Windows applications.
>>>
>>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>>>> experiment.
>>>
>>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>>
>>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>>is to be, well, in denial.
>>
>> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.
>
>Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
>experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
>statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
>to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
>surface noise...

Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience was
indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His statement
wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific
meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I was
simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily evidence
of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig.

>
>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?

Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.

>
>>
>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>>ignored, but it's always there.
>>
>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>>>
>
>It is the same in that the noise is always there.

It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records though.

It can always be
>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>the vinyl is.

I disagree. It is not always noticable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find
>any
>> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything
>about
>> the medium just something about that CD.
>
>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.

No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig. You
seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise floor
of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
capable of better.

>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.

Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for your
rig.

Vinyl
>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.

Agreed.

Some Lps
>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.

That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of it
based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits of
the medium just your stuff.

There
>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>
>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that
>is
>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.

I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with SOTA
records.

Obviously
>some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
>others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

Actually it is when you are talking about your stuff because that additional
noise from your stuff is present in your tests.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:cr19ut0bj0@news3.newsguy.com...

> This is no way is trying to be an apologist for LP's - I am happy with
> CD's
> and no longer own a turntable - but it is sometimes more helpful to ask
> the
> question
> "Why......

Simple, you want to hear something that's on a LP and unavailable on CD, or
you like to tinker with tonearm geometry, switch cartridges, etc. for the
sheer fun of it.

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base
>>line
>>>>> > though.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>>>> >>non-musical program noise.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers,
>>only
>>>>the
>>>>> > universitality of it.
>>>>
>>>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>>>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>>>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>>>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>>>>> use--even Windows applications.
>>>>
>>>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>>>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>>>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>>>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>>>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>>>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>>>>> experiment.
>>>>
>>>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>>>is to be, well, in denial.
>>>
>>> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.
>>
>>Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
>>experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
>>statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
>>to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
>>surface noise...
>
> Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience was
> indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His statement
> wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific
> meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I was
> simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily evidence
> of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig.

Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.

>
>>
>>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
>
> Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.

Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
more carefully...

>
>>
>>>
>>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>>>ignored, but it's always there.
>>>
>>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>>>>
>>
>>It is the same in that the noise is always there.
>
> It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records though.
>
> It can always be
>>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>>the vinyl is.
>
> I disagree. It is not always noticable.
>

You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>
>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig. You
>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise floor
>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
>capable of better.

I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.

>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>
>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for your
>rig.

The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned. To
suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.

> Vinyl
>>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Some Lps
>>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.
>
>That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of it
>based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits of
>the medium just your stuff.

However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III. No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.

> There
>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>>
>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.

Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
was playing *vinyl*.

>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.
>
>I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
>with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
>levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with SOTA
>records.

Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
an *inherent* problem of vinyl.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cr6m9v0gjh@news3.newsguy.com...
> S888Wheel wrote:
> >>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
> >>Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com>
> >>
> >>S888Wheel wrote:
> >>>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
> >>>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
> >>>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal
base
> >>line
> >>>>> > though.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
> >>>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly
considering
> >>>>> >>non-musical program noise.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your*
transfers,
> >>only
> >>>>the
> >>>>> > universitality of it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go
back
> >>>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
> >>>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
> >>>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
> >>>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
> >>>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
> >>>>
> >>>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself
some
> >>>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
> >>>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on
Linux;
> >>>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
> >>>>> use--even Windows applications.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
> >>>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and
down
> >>>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
> >>>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for
monitoring.
> >>>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times,
or
> >>>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
> >>>>> experiment.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface
noise
> >>>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
> >>>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
> >>>>
> >>>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
> >>>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
> >>>>is to be, well, in denial.
> >>>
> >>> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface
noise.
> >>
> >>Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
> >>experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
> >>statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
> >>to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
> >>surface noise...
> >
> > Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience
was
> > indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His
statement
> > wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific
> > meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I
was
> > simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily
evidence
> > of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig.
>
> Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
> digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
> That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
> recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
> an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
> higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.

That's not an extraordinary claim at all as anybody with a really good vinyl
rig and properly installed line-contact stylus can tell you. The noise
simply becomes virtually inaudible at any normal listening level during
normal playback and even between tracks, no matter what the meters show (and
I can see it plain enough on my Marantz CD Recorder).


>
> >
> >>
> >>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
> >
> > Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.
>
> Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
> more carefully...
>

No, Chung, you need to listen to a few really good top-end vinyl systems
before you start in based on "theory".

> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
> >>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
> >>>>ignored, but it's always there.
> >>>
> >>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>It is the same in that the noise is always there.
> >
> > It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records
though.
> >
> > It can always be
> >>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
> >>the vinyl is.
> >
> > I disagree. It is not always noticable.
> >
>
> You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.

Nope, count me in...and virtually every audiophile who continues to enjoy
vinyl.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr6mds0gnm@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>
>>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
>You
>>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
>floor
>>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
>>capable of better.
>
>I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.

I bet it is.


>
>>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>>
>>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
>your
>>rig.
>
>The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
>record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.

And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is using
the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium but
the limits of *his* records.


To
>suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.

I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents the
limits of the medium is plainly false though.


>
>> Vinyl
>>>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>Some Lps
>>>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>>>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.
>>
>>That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of
>it
>>based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits
>of
>>the medium just your stuff.
>
>However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
>Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.

Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.

No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
>surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.

Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
Michael's measurements.


>
>> There
>>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>>>
>>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just
>the
>>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that
>is
>>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
>Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
>exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
>was playing *vinyl*.

So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually measure
the surface noise? If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
cable sound.


>
>>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.
>>
>>I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
>>with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
>>levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with
>SOTA
>>records.
>
>Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
>passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
>an *inherent* problem of vinyl.

My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean your
records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
playing there is something substandard in the mix.

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:

>>
>> Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
>> digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
>> That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
>> recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
>> an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
>> higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.
>
> That's not an extraordinary claim at all as anybody with a really good vinyl
> rig and properly installed line-contact stylus can tell you. The noise
> simply becomes virtually inaudible at any normal listening level during
> normal playback and even between tracks, no matter what the meters show (and
> I can see it plain enough on my Marantz CD Recorder).


Thanks for agreeing that the noise is noticeable on the meter, even on
your presumably SOTA vinyl rig. Mr. Wheel seems to think that not all
vinyl setups have noise that show up like what Michael saw. That was the
extraordinary claim.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
>> >
>> > Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.
>>
>> Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
>> more carefully...
>>
>
> No, Chung, you need to listen to a few really good top-end vinyl systems
> before you start in based on "theory".
>

Boy, there again is that rather contemptuous assumption that anyone who
understands the inferioe noise floor of vinyl has not lisrtened to
top-end vinyl...

And it is not just theory. It's theory, measurements and listening.

>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>> >>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>> >>>>ignored, but it's always there.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>It is the same in that the noise is always there.
>> >
>> > It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records
> though.
>> >
>> > It can always be
>> >>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>> >>the vinyl is.
>> >
>> > I disagree. It is not always noticable.
>> >
>>
>> You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.
>
> Nope, count me in...and virtually every audiophile who continues to enjoy
> vinyl.

I enjoy certain vinyl records (and I have been listening to them for
almost 40 years), and I always notice the noise. But of course whether
one is bothered by that noise or not is a separate issue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cr6mds0gnm@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
>>>
>>>
>>You
>>
>>
>>>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
>>>
>>>
>>floor
>>
>>
>>>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
>>>capable of better.
>>>
>>>
>>I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.
>>
>>
>
>I bet it is.
>
>
Evidence of this please, as you so forcefully request later...

>>>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>>>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
>>>
>>>
>>your
>>
>>
>>>rig.
>>>
>>>
>>The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
>>record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.
>>
>>
>
>And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is using
>the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium but
>the limits of *his* records.
>
>
> To
>
>
>>suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.
>>
>>
>
>I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents the
>limits of the medium is plainly false though.
>
>
>
>
>>> Vinyl
>>>
>>>
>>>>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>Some Lps
>>>
>>>
>>>>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>>>>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of
>>>
>>>
>>it
>>
>>
>>>based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>the medium just your stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
>>Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.
>>
>>
>
>Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
>between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.
>
> No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
>
>
>>surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.
>>
>>
>
>Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
>Michael's measurements.
>
>
Why cite references... you're simply sniping at personal experience,
then you turn around and make
unsubstantiated claims to the contrary... what a useless monolog

>>Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
>>exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
>>was playing *vinyl*.
>>
>>
>
>So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
>noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually measure
>the surface noise? If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>cable sound
>
and just about anyone else living in the real world believing in more
than fairy tales. Vinyl noise exists,
is audible, adds a gauze over the sound, and can be easily measured with
rudimentary tools. Whether or
not you choose to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, or don't
understand the difference between the signal
and the noise is your business, and no one is attempting to state
otherwise. But to claim that vinyl noise is
inaudible is quite simply wrong.

>>>records.
>>>
>>>
>>Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
>>passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
>>an *inherent* problem of vinyl.
>>
>>
>
>My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean your
>records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
>playing there is something substandard in the mix.
>
>
Great.. that's your experience... my experience over forty plus years is
to the contrary... and apparently most
of the rest of the world thinks the same, else where are all of the
record stores selling new vinyl? Maybe you
ought to get a decent digital rig and experience true fidelity without
noise . You'll thank yourself for removing
the blinders and waking up to smell the roses.

John L
Auplater

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Jan 2005 16:52:27 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>news:cr6m9v0gjh@news3.newsguy.com...

>> Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
>> digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
>> That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
>> recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
>> an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
>> higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.
>
>That's not an extraordinary claim at all as anybody with a really good vinyl
>rig and properly installed line-contact stylus can tell you. The noise
>simply becomes virtually inaudible at any normal listening level during
>normal playback and even between tracks, no matter what the meters show (and
>I can see it plain enough on my Marantz CD Recorder).

No, it's audible any time the music is quiet, as anyone in possession
of a high-quality vinyl rig, but *not* in possession of a pro-vinyl
agenda, will confirm.

>> >>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
>> >
>> > Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.
>>
>> Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
>> more carefully...
>>
>No, Chung, you need to listen to a few really good top-end vinyl systems
>before you start in based on "theory".

Tired old strawman argument, and absolute rubbish.

>> > It can always be
>> >>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>> >>the vinyl is.
>> >
>> > I disagree. It is not always noticable.
>> >
>> You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.

>Nope, count me in...and virtually every audiophile who continues to enjoy
>vinyl.

Nope, I enjoy vinyl, otherwise I wouldn't have a decent vinyl rig, but
I do not choose to blind myself to its *inherent* flaws. I pity those
who find it necessary to stick their heads so firmly in the sand -
this ruins treble reproduction!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering