Timing

[Guest]

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

On 2 Jan 2005 16:55:55 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (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.

Name your wager - I bet $10,000 that a SOTA rig is not more than 6dB
better in this regard than any basic 'entry level hi-fi' vinyl rig.
Say for instance something that you would sneer at - a Rega Planar 3
(or equivalent) with a Shure V-15 cartridge.

This is easily established with *any* vinyl of your choice.

>>>>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.

Oh, so now you're saying it's the *record* that matters?

> 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.

Funny, I thought that was *exactly* what you were suggesting above.
Please get back to me when you have a *consistent* argument to offer.

>>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.

I'm an engineer, and I've listened to the Sirius.

> 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.

Measure any vinyl you have on any rig you can find, then get back to
me. I won't be holding my breath.

>>> 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?

No measurement necessary, it was clearly audible on records chosen by
Andy to demonstrate the Sirius. Besides, why are you *now* demanding
measurements? Wasn't your point that it's not *audible* on a good rig?

> If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>cable sound.

Sure, so I'd be happy if *you* could supply any solid evidence in
rebuttal to what is basically common knowledge, and in accordance with
known measurements of surace noise.

>>>>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.

No, it's an *inherent* flaw in the medium. Maybe you ought to clean or
adjust your prejudices...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 1/2/2005 12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr9jvk0h82@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>On 2 Jan 2005 16:55:55 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (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.
>
>Name your wager -

This old ridiculous routine? Get in line. I'm still waiting for Tom Nousaine to
make good on his offer to bet 1,001 dollars that my isolation devices make no
audible difference. I don't take such offers seriously.

I bet $10,000 that a SOTA rig is not more than 6dB
>better in this regard than any basic 'entry level hi-fi' vinyl rig.

That's laughable. You are now saying that 6db is not significant.


>Say for instance something that you would sneer at - a Rega Planar 3
>(or equivalent) with a Shure V-15 cartridge.

Why introduce something that wasn't even being discussed? Why don't we stick to
the argument on hand? How about we take Michael's rig and Michael's records and
compare them to something SOTA with SOTA pressings?


>
>This is easily established with *any* vinyl of your choice.

I doubt it is so easily established. But the whole thing is a joke if you are
going to take the position that 6db difference is insignificant. But please
feel free to make a proposal as to how we would do this comparison and then
tell us how you would draw the line on what is and is not a *significant*
difference. I would only insist on the following, SOTA pressings on SOTA vinyl
playback be compared to Michael's rig and Michael's records that he used for
his post. And that the measurements be made by a neutral party that has
varifaible expertise in making such measurements.


>
>>>>>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.
>
>Oh, so now you're saying it's the *record* that matters?

I have been saying it all along. Please pay better attention.


>
>> 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.
>
>Funny, I thought that was *exactly* what you were suggesting above.

Nope. I was expressly talking about the limits of the medium itself. There is
no question that poor pressings are noisier but poor pressings do not represent
the limits of the medium.


>Please get back to me when you have a *consistent* argument to offer.

Please get back to me when you reread my posts and see that there is no such
lack of consistency.


>
>>>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.
>
>I'm an engineer, and I've listened to the Sirius.

IOW you are offering an opinion as a fact. You have no hard data to support
your assertion.


>
>> 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.
>
>Measure any vinyl you have on any rig you can find, then get back to
>me. I won't be holding my breath.

I see you have no citations to offer. I won't be holding my breath either.


>
>>>> 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?
>
>No measurement necessary,

Actually you are wrong. Without the measurement all we have is the your biased
anecdote of a sighted listening experience.

it was clearly audible on records chosen by
>Andy to demonstrate the Sirius.

Just like audible differences between cables are clearly audible under sighted
conditions.

Besides, why are you *now* demanding
>measurements?

The question is why are you now settling for anecdotes as a basis for
assertions of fact about audibility?

Wasn't your point that it's not *audible* on a good rig?

No, my point was that Michael's measurements of Micheal's records on Micheal's
rig were not representative of a universal threshold for the medium itself but
just representative of performance of his rig with his records. Please read my
posts more carefully so I do not have to waste time repeating myself.


>
>> If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>>cable sound.
>
>Sure, so I'd be happy if *you* could supply any solid evidence in
>rebuttal to what is basically common knowledge, and in accordance with
>known measurements of surace noise.

I'd be happy if you could offer any solid evidence to support your assertions.


>
>>>>>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.
>
>No, it's an *inherent* flaw in the medium. Maybe you ought to clean or
>adjust your prejudices...................

So says the guy who bases his assertions on his own sighted listening
experiences. I guess you aren't worried about your biases. I have no sympathy
for such double standards.

 

[Guest]

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

Let us assume (for the moment) that with a state of the art
TT/arm/cartridge combo that surface noise IS inaudible on some special
records. Do most audiophiles have a total collection of these records?
If they are truly listening to music, it would seem that many of their
records are run-of-the mill pressings. This would mean that vinyl noise
WOULD be present most of the time except when the special records were
being played.


---MIKE---

 

[Michael]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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

>>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.


First, I'd like to comment on the notion that, at normal listening
levels, vinyl noise is inaudible. I think that in a home environment
with the usual ambient noise this may be true most of the time.
Especially if one is not really paying attention. On the other hand,
using headphones noise is quite pronounced during low level passages and
in between cuts regardless of whether one is critically listening.


The fact that in a normal home environment this gross noise is masked
really makes me wonder about the critical abilities of those that claim
to hear sonic differences from devices such as interconnects, or
amplifiers whose level of distortion is infinitely smaller than what we
are talking about here. I expect that some of those who argue about how
imperceptible vinyl noise is are the first ones to hear differences
among items which, under controlled conditions, make no contribution to
the sound at all. In fine, components that, if they have any measurable
distortion at all, the measured distortion is so low as to be meaningless.


In any case, there is obviously a big difference among records regarding
quality and quantity of noise. With the V-15xMR cartridge tracking at
one gram (plus another half for the damper) I measured the following:


A brand new, only played once copy of "John Coltrane Live at the Village
Vanguard, Again"; 180 gram Virgin Vinyl "Audiophile Remastered" Impulse
disc: silent grooves peaked at -33 dB below 0 (where the loudest
passage on the disc registered -2dB below 0. During the quiet "Intro to
My Favorite Things" passage, surface noise was audible both on
headphones and listening to my Boston Acoustic PC speakers (about 2 feet
away).


An almost new "played a couple of times" copy of "Sound of Joy" by Sun
Ra and the Arkestra on Delmark--a standard LP with no pretensions of
being audiophile grade. Here, the silent tracks peaked at -18 dB below
0. On this record surface noise was even more obvious.


Are my measurements trivial? I think not, but anyone can say anything,
so please don't take my word for it. Indeed, for those of you arguing
that these artifacts are less than important, or somehow only valid for
my specific set up I'd like you to provide your own measurements for the
newsgroup. I for one would certainly be interested in reading about how
a "modern" rig measures up when compared to a 30 year old Thorens TD 160
(although it does have a new belt, an aftermarket felt mat, and one of
those fancy pseudo high-end weights* that sit on the top of the record 🙂).


*it's only pseudo high-end since it came from Audio Technica Signet and
only cost about $10.00 new. I've seen real high-end weights that cost
10 to 20 times more, but before I spend that kind of dough I first need
to save up to get a set of those magic wooden thingys to place under the
turntable. You know, the ones with the funny name and that are supposed
to improve the sonic pace and the timing, whatever that means.


michael

 

[Guest]

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

On 3 Jan 2005 00:19:48 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 1/2/2005 12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cr9jvk0h82@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 2 Jan 2005 16:55:55 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (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.
>>
>>Name your wager -
>
>This old ridiculous routine? Get in line. I'm still waiting for Tom Nousaine to
>make good on his offer to bet 1,001 dollars that my isolation devices make no
>audible difference. I don't take such offers seriously.
>
> I bet $10,000 that a SOTA rig is not more than 6dB
>>better in this regard than any basic 'entry level hi-fi' vinyl rig.
>
>That's laughable. You are now saying that 6db is not significant.

From 60 to 66dB is not significant, when you consider that *all* CDs
have 93dB available dynamic range. Are you once again trying to
chgange the rulkes as you go along? Are you admitting that a basic
vinyl rig has a noise floor *less* than 6dB worse than a SOTA rig? If
so, then your argument collapses in hysterical laughter!

>>Say for instance something that you would sneer at - a Rega Planar 3
>>(or equivalent) with a Shure V-15 cartridge.
>
>Why introduce something that wasn't even being discussed? Why don't we stick to
>the argument on hand? How about we take Michael's rig and Michael's records and
>compare them to something SOTA with SOTA pressings?

How about we use the same records on both rigs, so that wer are
comparing apples with apples?

>>This is easily established with *any* vinyl of your choice.
>
>I doubt it is so easily established.

Sure it is - that's what meters and 'scopes *do*.

>But the whole thing is a joke if you are
>going to take the position that 6db difference is insignificant.

Actually, it's a joke if you think that a 6dB difference in total
noise floor from 'mid-fi' to SOTA *is* significant.

> But please
>feel free to make a proposal as to how we would do this comparison and then
>tell us how you would draw the line on what is and is not a *significant*
>difference. I would only insist on the following, SOTA pressings on SOTA vinyl
>playback be compared to Michael's rig and Michael's records that he used for
>his post. And that the measurements be made by a neutral party that has
>varifaible expertise in making such measurements.

You are not then comparing only the equipment. You keep insisting that
the difference is the SOTA replay rig, but now you want to include the
records as well? Could that be because you already *know* that surface
noise is dependent on the *vinyl*, not on the replay equipment? In
other words, you're just plain *wrong*, but refuse to admit it?

>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Oh, so now you're saying it's the *record* that matters?
>
>I have been saying it all along. Please pay better attention.

No, you have been complaining that Michael is not using SOTA
equiopment, and hence is not qualified to comment on surface noise.
You are now backpedalling at light speed.................

>>> 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.

Sure, but that's all we have, for any given musical performance not
available on CD. To suggest that *any* vinyl has surface noise less
than 60dB below 1cm/sec is just risible.

>>Funny, I thought that was *exactly* what you were suggesting above.
>
>Nope. I was expressly talking about the limits of the medium itself. There is
>no question that poor pressings are noisier but poor pressings do not represent
>the limits of the medium.

The medium does however have readily measured limits - never more than
60dB below 1cm/sec. Don't believe me? Get out your measuring gear.


>>Please get back to me when you have a *consistent* argument to offer.
>
>Please get back to me when you reread my posts and see that there is no such
>lack of consistency.

Sure there is. Youy started out with the usual sneer that Michael's
gear was the problem, now you're backpedalling furiously with no data
to back you up.

>>>>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.
>>
>>I'm an engineer, and I've listened to the Sirius.
>
>IOW you are offering an opinion as a fact. You have no hard data to support
>your assertion.

Sure I do, I've built numerous phono preamps, and I've looked at their
noise floors, and noted how much that jumps when they're playing
vinyl. BTW, I have noticed less than 6dB difference between top-class
vinyl such as Sheffield direct-cuts and heavyweight JVC, and the
rattiest of '70s recycled rubbish. While the 'good stuff' is more
consistent, so lacks the cyclic 'swooshing' of poor-quality vinyl, the
basic noise level is not greatly different IME. Of course, *dirty* and
*damaged* vinyl from car boot sales is a different matter, but I trust
that you're not going to attempt to use *that* as a reference.

>>> 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.
>>
>>Measure any vinyl you have on any rig you can find, then get back to
>>me. I won't be holding my breath.
>
>I see you have no citations to offer. I won't be holding my breath either.

So, you admit that you have no evidence, and are simply offering an
unsubstantiated opinion?

>>>>> 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 note that you are now backpedalling rapidly from this position,
depite your denials above. Do you not even *read* your own posts
before contradicting yourself?

>>>>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?
>>
>>No measurement necessary,
>
>Actually you are wrong. Without the measurement all we have is the your biased
>anecdote of a sighted listening experience.

Nice try, but blind listening is only necessary for *subtle*
differences, not for noting the existence of vinyl surface noise!

> it was clearly audible on records chosen by
>>Andy to demonstrate the Sirius.
>
>Just like audible differences between cables are clearly audible under sighted
>conditions.

Competely different principle, since surface noise is *always* readily
audible, despite your attempts to ignore it. Cable differences don't
actually exist, but *anyone* can tell the difference between the
surface noise of an LP and the noise floor of the equivalent CD, every
time, 100%.

> Besides, why are you *now* demanding
>>measurements?
>
>The question is why are you now settling for anecdotes as a basis for
>assertions of fact about audibility?

Seems to be what you do all the time. I note that you demand different
standards from your opponents, but I'm happy to make some measurements
any time you like.

> Wasn't your point that it's not *audible* on a good rig?
>
>No, my point was that Michael's measurements of Micheal's records on Micheal's
>rig were not representative of a universal threshold for the medium itself but
>just representative of performance of his rig with his records. Please read my
>posts more carefully so I do not have to waste time repeating myself.

Actually, you don't repeat yourself so much as contradict yourself.
Hopwever, since you now seem to feel that 6dB is a 'significant'
difference, can we agree that subtracting 6dB from Michael's figures
will equate to your 'SOTA' surface noise? And is hence easily audible?

>>> If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>>>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>>>cable sound.
>>
>>Sure, so I'd be happy if *you* could supply any solid evidence in
>>rebuttal to what is basically common knowledge, and in accordance with
>>known measurements of surace noise.
>
>I'd be happy if you could offer any solid evidence to support your assertions.

See above. What I am stating is common knowledge, proveable by anyone
with suitable measuring gear. What *you* are claiming is mere
hand-waving, with no support whatever. *You* are the one making the
extraordinary claims, so *you* need to come up with some solid
evidence to rebut the eminently reasonable figuures already provided
by Michael.

>>>>>>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.
>>
>>No, it's an *inherent* flaw in the medium. Maybe you ought to clean or
>>adjust your prejudices...................
>
>So says the guy who bases his assertions on his own sighted listening
>experiences. I guess you aren't worried about your biases. I have no sympathy
>for such double standards.

I base my statements about surface noise both on listening *and* on
measurements, and Michael's figures aren't unreasonable, so where is
*your* evidence in rebuttal?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 3 Jan 2005 00:34:06 GMT, twinmountain@webtv.net (---MIKE---) wrote:

>Let us assume (for the moment) that with a state of the art
>TT/arm/cartridge combo that surface noise IS inaudible on some special
>records.

Actually, it's not, but your following point is of course *the* point
- most good *music* is not to be found on 'audiophile' pressings.

>Do most audiophiles have a total collection of these records?
>If they are truly listening to music, it would seem that many of their
>records are run-of-the mill pressings. This would mean that vinyl noise
>WOULD be present most of the time except when the special records were
>being played.

It's present anyway, even on my top-class and pristine MFSL and
Sheffield pressings. Even the best vinyl is still just vinyl.

Now, I'll grant you that I can't hear surface noise on heavy metal
LPs, but there's a good reason for that! 🙂
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Michael]

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

---MIKE--- wrote:

> Let us assume (for the moment) that with a state of the art
> TT/arm/cartridge combo that surface noise IS inaudible on some special
> records. Do most audiophiles have a total collection of these records?
> If they are truly listening to music, it would seem that many of their
> records are run-of-the mill pressings. This would mean that vinyl noise
> WOULD be present most of the time except when the special records were
> being played.


For those of you who are interested to see what I am talking about (and,
maybe, would like to experiment for yourselves) I have provided a visual
you can look at. Feel free to compare your results to mine.


http/bellsouthpwp2.net/p/m/pm279/snapshot3.png


The top window shows the amplitude of the signal. As you can see, prior
to the first set of large peaks the line is flat. This is the portion
of the test where the stylus is not yet on the record. The large peaks
shown at 1.5 indicate first stylus contact on the groove. This
generated enough energy to clip the signal in the right channel, as can
be seen from both the graph and the VU meter's red "peak save"
indicator. The left channel's "peak save" at the time of the stylus
contact is -17dB.


The bottom window was taken during the lead in track, where no signal
was recorded. The dark red area records peak value, while the lighter
red shows the average value.


The record is the 180 gram "Audiophile Master" virgin vinyl disc of
"John Coltrane at the Village Vangaurd, Again" on Impulse. The
cartridge is the Shure V-15xMR.


michael

 

[Guest]

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

Just did this experiment.

Took a copy of Khachaturian's Gayne Ballet Suite out of its jacket. This is
a "$2.00 special" classic Everest recording from the late '50's. As such it
is a bit bass-shy, and slightly "tinny" in sound, as was the wont when
stereo cutters were new. I've played this disk once since purchasing...from
the wear and tear on the cover it was hardly kept in virgin condition by its
previous owner. The record had not been "Lasted" by me as I usually do
eventually with records whose sound and performance I like and wish to
preserve.

Put it on the phono and listened to about 2/3rd's of side one. One
noticeable noise..a two-groove-repeated "pop" about an inch in...other than
that I could not hear noise..even between tracks. So I turned on my Marantz
professional CD recorder, which is calibrated to the
phono/preamp/headamp/cartridge so that most LP's hit "0" peak without
further adjustment. Sure enough, the peaks were just lighting the "0" db
indicator. Got to the next between tracks silent groove...the noise level
dropped to the -50 db level, with one slight flicker of the "-40" db level.
The noise was virtually inaudible, even standing beside one of the speakers.
This is pretty typical of what I experience with my records with my setup.
I must say that a great deal of it has to do with a properly set up line
contact stylus...I can put the record on my second turntable with an .02 x
...07" elliptical Shure stylus and get much more audible noise.

The experience above is why S888Wheel keeps saying you must take both the
quality of the setup and the quality of the records themselves into account
when deciding whether vinyl noise is present in bothersome amounts. For
him, me, and many others, it simply isn't. And I suggest that to those for
whom it is, that a good record cleaning, and a top-quality cartridge with
line-contact stylus properly adjusted for VTA will doubtless improve things
dramatically.


"michael" <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news: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.
> 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?)

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 12/30/2004 8:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr19nb0bco@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>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.

No, I am simply pointing out the *fact* that measurements on any old turntable
with any old record is not neccessarily representative of the limits of the
medium.You seem to want to take issue with this fact. It is a fact regardless
of all the irrelevant and misconstrued interpretations you try to extract from
my posts. But feel free to cite where I said someone has not "heard" a "decent"
vinyl rig if you wish to stand by this assertion.
I said no such thing nor did I imply any such thing. I fail to seee how anyone
can extract such a notion from anything I have said on this thread.

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.


A lovely anecdote with all the value one can attach to any other garden variety
audiophile anecdote.

 

[chung]

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

Harry Lavo wrote:
> Just did this experiment.
>
> Took a copy of Khachaturian's Gayne Ballet Suite out of its jacket. This is
> a "$2.00 special" classic Everest recording from the late '50's. As such it
> is a bit bass-shy, and slightly "tinny" in sound, as was the wont when
> stereo cutters were new. I've played this disk once since purchasing...from
> the wear and tear on the cover it was hardly kept in virgin condition by its
> previous owner. The record had not been "Lasted" by me as I usually do
> eventually with records whose sound and performance I like and wish to
> preserve.
>
> Put it on the phono and listened to about 2/3rd's of side one. One
> noticeable noise..a two-groove-repeated "pop" about an inch in...other than
> that I could not hear noise..even between tracks. So I turned on my Marantz
> professional CD recorder, which is calibrated to the
> phono/preamp/headamp/cartridge so that most LP's hit "0" peak without
> further adjustment. Sure enough, the peaks were just lighting the "0" db
> indicator. Got to the next between tracks silent groove...the noise level
> dropped to the -50 db level, with one slight flicker of the "-40" db level.
> The noise was virtually inaudible, even standing beside one of the speakers.
> This is pretty typical of what I experience with my records with my setup.
> I must say that a great deal of it has to do with a properly set up line
> contact stylus...I can put the record on my second turntable with an .02 x
> ..07" elliptical Shure stylus and get much more audible noise.

I wouldn't call noise that is -50dB from peak "virtually inaudible".
More likely, you are accustomed to that level of noise from vinyl. Note
that the modern CD has better than 90dB signal-to-noise ratio.

>
> The experience above is why S888Wheel keeps saying you must take both the
> quality of the setup and the quality of the records themselves into account
> when deciding whether vinyl noise is present in bothersome amounts. For
> him, me, and many others, it simply isn't. And I suggest that to those for
> whom it is, that a good record cleaning, and a top-quality cartridge with
> line-contact stylus properly adjusted for VTA will doubtless improve things
> dramatically.

For sure, there is less noise from clean vinyl, and no one is arguing
against that. But still, the conclusion that noise cannot be heard,
given your -50dB measurement, seems to indicate a certain
less-than-golden-eared capability from a high-end audiophile...

Whether that noise is bothersome clearly depends on the listener.
Michael was simply pointing out that the noise *is* there.

 

[Guest]

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

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:crcsm302rfr@news2.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > Just did this experiment.
> >
> > Took a copy of Khachaturian's Gayne Ballet Suite out of its jacket.
This is
> > a "$2.00 special" classic Everest recording from the late '50's. As
such it
> > is a bit bass-shy, and slightly "tinny" in sound, as was the wont when
> > stereo cutters were new. I've played this disk once since
purchasing...from
> > the wear and tear on the cover it was hardly kept in virgin condition by
its
> > previous owner. The record had not been "Lasted" by me as I usually do
> > eventually with records whose sound and performance I like and wish to
> > preserve.
> >
> > Put it on the phono and listened to about 2/3rd's of side one. One
> > noticeable noise..a two-groove-repeated "pop" about an inch in...other
than
> > that I could not hear noise..even between tracks. So I turned on my
Marantz
> > professional CD recorder, which is calibrated to the
> > phono/preamp/headamp/cartridge so that most LP's hit "0" peak without
> > further adjustment. Sure enough, the peaks were just lighting the "0"
db
> > indicator. Got to the next between tracks silent groove...the noise
level
> > dropped to the -50 db level, with one slight flicker of the "-40" db
level.
> > The noise was virtually inaudible, even standing beside one of the
speakers.
> > This is pretty typical of what I experience with my records with my
setup.
> > I must say that a great deal of it has to do with a properly set up line
> > contact stylus...I can put the record on my second turntable with an .02
x
> > ..07" elliptical Shure stylus and get much more audible noise.
>
> I wouldn't call noise that is -50dB from peak "virtually inaudible".
> More likely, you are accustomed to that level of noise from vinyl. Note
> that the modern CD has better than 90dB signal-to-noise ratio.
>

Here we go with your "theoreticals" again. 50db is a very large dynamic
range above any realistic noise floor, in reality. For example, in a
concert hall with 40db of ambient noise, 50db gets you to 90db, a reasonably
loud performance level. Moreover, since it is possible to hear details like
decay and ambience well below the noise level, the actual musical impact is
substantially more.

Nobody is arguing that CD's aren't quieter than LP's, only that on a good
rig well cared-for LP's can have a noise level that is simply not obtrusive,
as so many here seem to feel it is.



> >
> > The experience above is why S888Wheel keeps saying you must take both
the
> > quality of the setup and the quality of the records themselves into
account
> > when deciding whether vinyl noise is present in bothersome amounts. For
> > him, me, and many others, it simply isn't. And I suggest that to those
for
> > whom it is, that a good record cleaning, and a top-quality cartridge
with
> > line-contact stylus properly adjusted for VTA will doubtless improve
things
> > dramatically.
>
> For sure, there is less noise from clean vinyl, and no one is arguing
> against that. But still, the conclusion that noise cannot be heard,
> given your -50dB measurement, seems to indicate a certain
> less-than-golden-eared capability from a high-end audiophile...
>

Sorry, but my left ear hearing extends out to 18khz even at my age.

> Whether that noise is bothersome clearly depends on the listener.
> Michael was simply pointing out that the noise *is* there.

No, he was pointing out that it was *there* at an obtrusive level.

 

[chung]

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

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:crcsm302rfr@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > Just did this experiment.
>> >
>> > Took a copy of Khachaturian's Gayne Ballet Suite out of its jacket.
> This is
>> > a "$2.00 special" classic Everest recording from the late '50's. As
> such it
>> > is a bit bass-shy, and slightly "tinny" in sound, as was the wont when
>> > stereo cutters were new. I've played this disk once since
> purchasing...from
>> > the wear and tear on the cover it was hardly kept in virgin condition by
> its
>> > previous owner. The record had not been "Lasted" by me as I usually do
>> > eventually with records whose sound and performance I like and wish to
>> > preserve.
>> >
>> > Put it on the phono and listened to about 2/3rd's of side one. One
>> > noticeable noise..a two-groove-repeated "pop" about an inch in...other
> than
>> > that I could not hear noise..even between tracks. So I turned on my
> Marantz
>> > professional CD recorder, which is calibrated to the
>> > phono/preamp/headamp/cartridge so that most LP's hit "0" peak without
>> > further adjustment. Sure enough, the peaks were just lighting the "0"
> db
>> > indicator. Got to the next between tracks silent groove...the noise
> level
>> > dropped to the -50 db level, with one slight flicker of the "-40" db
> level.
>> > The noise was virtually inaudible, even standing beside one of the
> speakers.
>> > This is pretty typical of what I experience with my records with my
> setup.
>> > I must say that a great deal of it has to do with a properly set up line
>> > contact stylus...I can put the record on my second turntable with an .02
> x
>> > ..07" elliptical Shure stylus and get much more audible noise.
>>
>> I wouldn't call noise that is -50dB from peak "virtually inaudible".
>> More likely, you are accustomed to that level of noise from vinyl. Note
>> that the modern CD has better than 90dB signal-to-noise ratio.
>>
>
> Here we go with your "theoreticals" again. 50db is a very large dynamic
> range above any realistic noise floor, in reality. For example, in a
> concert hall with 40db of ambient noise, 50db gets you to 90db, a reasonably
> loud performance level. Moreover, since it is possible to hear details like
> decay and ambience well below the noise level, the actual musical impact is
> substantially more.

No, these are not theoreticals; you provided that 50 dB measurement.
Noise floor that is only 50 dB down from peak is simply audible. It's
interesting how you said that 50 dB is a very large number, yet
SACD's/DVD-A's were often claimed by people like yourself to have an
advantage over CD because the former has 120 dB range or higher compared
to CD's 90+dB. Certainly there are people who believe that it is
necessary to have 120 dB range to capture live sound.

No one argues whether you can hear details into the noise or not. The
issue is whether that noise is audible.

By the way, a 50 dB S/N is insufficient to capture the dynamics of a
concert hall performance.

>
> Nobody is arguing that CD's aren't quieter than LP's, only that on a good
> rig well cared-for LP's can have a noise level that is simply not obtrusive,
> as so many here seem to feel it is.

Actually people here have said that vinylists have a high tolerance for
such noise. And of course, there are also people who are used to digital
who find the noise intrusive.

>
>
>
>> >
>> > The experience above is why S888Wheel keeps saying you must take both
> the
>> > quality of the setup and the quality of the records themselves into
> account
>> > when deciding whether vinyl noise is present in bothersome amounts. For
>> > him, me, and many others, it simply isn't. And I suggest that to those
> for
>> > whom it is, that a good record cleaning, and a top-quality cartridge
> with
>> > line-contact stylus properly adjusted for VTA will doubtless improve
> things
>> > dramatically.
>>
>> For sure, there is less noise from clean vinyl, and no one is arguing
>> against that. But still, the conclusion that noise cannot be heard,
>> given your -50dB measurement, seems to indicate a certain
>> less-than-golden-eared capability from a high-end audiophile...
>>
>
> Sorry, but my left ear hearing extends out to 18khz even at my age.

And yet -50dB noise is inaudible? And what about the right ear ?

>
>> Whether that noise is bothersome clearly depends on the listener.
>> Michael was simply pointing out that the noise *is* there.
>
> No, he was pointing out that it was *there* at an obtrusive level.

Actually, I looked at his posts carefully. He did not comment on whether
the noise is obtrusive to everyone or not; he just said that the noise
is visibly apparent when he uses his recording software. And in any
event, he certainly would be correct to feel that the noise was
obtrusive to him, if that's how he feels. And Mr. Wheel seems to think
that the noise would not be visibly apparent if better records/equipment
were used. And now you said that the noise is "virtually inaudible".

 

[Guest]

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

On 4 Jan 2005 04:23:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>news:crcsm302rfr@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >Sure enough, the peaks were just lighting the "0"db
>> > indicator. Got to the next between tracks silent groove...the noise level
>> > dropped to the -50 db level, with one slight flicker of the "-40" db level.
>> > The noise was virtually inaudible, even standing beside one of the speakers.
>> > This is pretty typical of what I experience with my records with my setup.
>> > I must say that a great deal of it has to do with a properly set up line
>> > contact stylus...I can put the record on my second turntable with an .02 x
>> > ..07" elliptical Shure stylus and get much more audible noise.
>>
>> I wouldn't call noise that is -50dB from peak "virtually inaudible".
>> More likely, you are accustomed to that level of noise from vinyl. Note
>> that the modern CD has better than 90dB signal-to-noise ratio.
>>
>Here we go with your "theoreticals" again. 50db is a very large dynamic
>range above any realistic noise floor, in reality. For example, in a
>concert hall with 40db of ambient noise, 50db gets you to 90db, a reasonably
>loud performance level. Moreover, since it is possible to hear details like
>decay and ambience well below the noise level, the actual musical impact is
>substantially more.
>
>Nobody is arguing that CD's aren't quieter than LP's, only that on a good
>rig well cared-for LP's can have a noise level that is simply not obtrusive,
>as so many here seem to feel it is.

I regard a 'silent groove' noise level only 50dB below peak level as
*definitely* obtrusive. Obviously, you don't, which is 'interesting'.

>> For sure, there is less noise from clean vinyl, and no one is arguing
>> against that. But still, the conclusion that noise cannot be heard,
>> given your -50dB measurement, seems to indicate a certain
>> less-than-golden-eared capability from a high-end audiophile...
>>
>Sorry, but my left ear hearing extends out to 18khz even at my age.

However, you claim that surface noise only 50dB below peak level is
'virtually inaudible'. Interesting................

>> Whether that noise is bothersome clearly depends on the listener.
>> Michael was simply pointing out that the noise *is* there.
>
>No, he was pointing out that it was *there* at an obtrusive level.

It *is*, but vinylphiles seem happy to ignore its existence. Some of
us have higher standards.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 31 Dec 2004 16:09:12 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>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?

While the music is playing at peak level, yes - that kind of masking
effect is the basis of codecs such as Dolby Digital and MP3. However,
when the music is playing more quietly, the sensitivity of the ear
adjusts, and surface noise is often less than 20dB below the average
signal level, even without rests and fadeouts. With CD made from
digital master tapes the noise floor can remain at least 40dB below
the quiet musical passages - given good microphone technique.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering