[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:13:39 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track
better, have better stylus profiles,lower moving mass,
and lower distortion than their predecessors.

I know only of technical measurements that show this to not be true.

If you have reliable evidence that show that there is some cartrdige that
outtracks a V15 IV-V on real world LPs, please provide it.

There aren't any. As I said, the V15 is the exception. However there are
cartridges that have better stylus profiles (or at least different ones) that
ride in a different section of the V-groove and which can track a different
portion of the groove-wall than did the standard 2 X 7 Mil elliptical and
therefore on older, slightly worn records can provide lower distortion, less
surface noise, and better high-frequency response.

One of the problems with characterizing the performance of cartriges is that
there are significant sample variations and that optimization of the
mounting of the cartrdige can have signficant effects. Therefore a
definitive study would involve more than one or two tests of each make and
model of cartrige.

Quite true. Like with any transducer, there will be unit-to-unit variations.
because cartridges have tiny moving masses, these variations are likely to be
larger than with microphones or speakers.

The only
exception that I know of in the distortion department was
the Shure V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very
low.

The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that
there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was
competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that
are competitive and only modestly priced.

Tracking is fairly well understood these days, and I know that many can match
the V-15 IV-V, I'm not sure that any can beat it however. I usually subject
cartridges to the Torture test track on the Shure test record (as well as the
CBS test record and the Orion test record) and every modern cartridge that
I've tried seems to have no problem there.

It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer
the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce".

Judging by the plethora of excellent performing MM. MC, and VR designs on the
market today many do "duplicate the Shure's magic sauce" and do so without
reverse engineering it. Being a transducer, cartridges can be designed to do
specific things that it's designer deems to be critical to HIS tastes in
playback, sometimes at the expense of other things (just like speakers). It
depends upon what the designer's design criteria are. For instance, while the
V-15s had great tracking, exceptionally low distortion, and flat, smooth
frequency response, I always felt that it didn't image very well when
compared to some others.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:14:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.

No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to
vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA.

You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
anything other than digital.

Of course I never said that.

You certainly implied it:

" I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
recording technology."

Direct quote.

I stand by what I wrote and I renounce your self-serving misinterpretation
of it.

I can only interpret what I read. Seems to me that your statement is pretty
unambiguous. If you meant something else, it's up to you to clarify that
point. None of us are mind readers.

It is obvious to anybody who does music production these days that digital
signal processing and storage has cut hours, even days out of the production
process.

No argument there. But that has little to do with one's ability to enjoy
music.

Many projects that would have been too expensive or time consuming
in the days of analog-only are now feasible, even pretty easy. This means
that we can now enjoy music that would have never been produced and
distributed.

I agree, and if that's what you meant by your above comment, you should have
been more clear about it. Like I said, I can only respond to your words not
your intentions.

You are free to misinterpret what I wrote as you will, but I will not be
silent if you continue to do so in public.

Like I said, I went by ONLY what you wrote. It's simply not my fault if what
you wrote didn't convey what you actually meant. Since we were talking about
vinyl playback in that exchange, I can only assume that you too were talking
about playback. That you were talking about commercial PRODUCTION is not made
clear. But since you have NOW clarified your meaning, I agree with you
wholeheartedly. I have new recordings of classic film soundtracks (and
releases of newly mastered archival material from film company vaults) that
would NEVER have been released were it not for digital and CD. Some
soundtracks that I have were only pressed in lots of 1000 or fewer for the
ENTIRE WORLD. If we only had analog (vinyl) it's likely that these titles
would never have been released, or if they were, they would be so expensive
(amortizing production costs over fewer copies) that most people would be
unable or unwilling to pay the price.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 1, 9:03=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Aug 30, 6:17=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea
that audible noise and distortion can distract from
enjoyment of the music and therefore the=3D y should be
avoided whenever possible.
Or it can make it better.

You're asserting your preferences,

No Arny I used your preferences as stated by you to illustrate my
point. I don't know whay you chose to snip that part of my post.

you aren't addressing the fundamental
precept.

Sure I am. I am finding it to be fundamentally flawed and used your
preferences to illustrate that fact.

=A0You'd have to change any number of encyclopedias and dictionaries
if you wanted to even *start* changing the idea that =A0"One of the basic
precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion c=
an
distract from =A0enjoyment of the music and therefore they should be =A0a=
voided
whenever possible."

Which "encyclopedias and dictionaries" would that be Arny? Citations
please. I couldn't find that precept in any of the ones I usually go
to.


It goes both ways.

??????????????

Go back and reread the part of my post that illustrates that using
your stated preferences. You will find the answer there.

[vlad]

On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
her
and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
all
night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
I
want for my Alfa!

There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
ell,
I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
as
well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
experiences?

I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it.
I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference.

I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved
emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details
available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume)
higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional
response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I
feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just
because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after
couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted
emotionally and cannot continue.

This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:20:23 -0700, David wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
her
and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
all
night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
I
want for my Alfa!

There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
ell,
I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
as
well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
experiences?

I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it.
I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference.

I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved
emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details
available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume)
higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional
response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I
feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just
because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after
couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted
emotionally and cannot continue.

This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome.

vlad


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live concert for several hours
would be even more fatiguing, yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

[Arny Krueger]

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight recording live
music, producing over 40 separately distributed recordings per day. I was
pretty thoroughly fatigued.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 3, 8:23=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more
to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. =A0Even i=
f
you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a
reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? =A0I suspect they=
'd
still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic
wood.

Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
you are speaking of.

Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge.

OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
what? A "family" of cartridges? How many cartridges do you think are
hand wound with "exotic wood" bodies.


It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body and was pretty
expensive. I do indeed prefer it to the Shure V 15. And yes the
comparisons were done blind and level matched. I prefer it by a
margin that is suprisingly in line with the price difference. Not
something one would expect with the laws of diminishing returns.

So I've heard. =A0I wonder whether people would like it quite so much if
it wasn't expensive, hand-wound, and made from wood.

I can't speak for others but I can say that a win is a win in any
blind shoot out. So far it has won every time.

=A0(Rosewood isn't
very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)

Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
years old. What do you consider to be an exotic wood? every time I
look up exotic woods I see rosewood.
http://www.exoticwoodgroup.com/
http://www.cookwoods.com/LumberPageMain.htm
http://www.woodworkerssource.com/2_latin.html

Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand
out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. When I get around to upgrading to the platinum version I think
I will go with the Jade body. Just because it is cool.


Do tell me though, what "witchcraft" are you speaking of? What
"snake oil" are you refering to? What actual engineering is missing
from a Koetsu Rosewood signature? =A0Or perhaps you were speaking of
some other hand wound cartridge with an exotic wood body?

I would love to know why people prefer the Koetsu Rosewood signature
sound, if indeed they do. =A0I'm not sure that any public research has
been done to find out.


For me it simply sounds better over a broader number of LPs than any
other cartridge I have compared it with except for it's platinum big
brothers. In what ways might you ask? On the really good recordings it
simply sounds more like the real thing. On bad recordings things just
sound less bad. It gives the illusion of being very transparent yet it
clearly adds a nice sugar coating. With the Shure in in particular,
compared to the Koetsu the Shure sounds very lifeless, has a smaller
soundstage, sounds vieled, does not do as well in creating an illusion
of live music. The Koetsu sounds richer, warmer, more detailed yet not
quite as bright.

I think "public research" in preferences is pretty lacking in audio.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight recording live
music, producing over 40 separately distributed recordings per day. I was
pretty thoroughly fatigued.


14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting - especially WORK. I don't
see what the above comment has to do with this conversation. We're talking
about listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work days and high
stress levels.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
recording live music, producing over 40 separately
distributed recordings per day. I was pretty thoroughly
fatigued.

14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
to do with this conversation. We're talking about
listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
days and high stress levels.

The point is that there's no magic in live music. It gets old after a
little while, too.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 09:35:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
recording live music, producing over 40 separately
distributed recordings per day. I was pretty thoroughly
fatigued.

14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
to do with this conversation. We're talking about
listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
days and high stress levels.

The point is that there's no magic in live music. It gets old after a
little while, too.

It's a poor example of that fact. Like I said, 14 hours/day of doing anything
would be exhausting. I love to drive fast, but after a few hours at Laguna
Seca race track, I'm exhausted! Anyone would be. Just because one "loves"
some activity, doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't get tiresome, after a
while. Especially, if what your doing requires concentration.

1) I've never heard of anybody listening attentively to music, for pleasure,
for 14-hours straight. In the background, while doing other things, maybe,
but not actually listening.

2) You weren't just "listening," you were working. Complete with all the
stress normally associated with 14-hour work days.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
recording live music, producing over 40 separately
distributed recordings per day. I was pretty thoroughly
fatigued.

14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
to do with this conversation. We're talking about
listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
days and high stress levels.

The point is that there's no magic in live music. It gets old after a
little while, too.

Under extreme conditions, of course it does.

By the way, 14 hours a day for several days straight... is the ONE
festival? If so, they are abusing you, as well as the judges!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 09:35:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more
fatiguing, yet I never feel fatigued by live music,
just exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've
heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days
straight recording live music, producing over 40
separately distributed recordings per day. I was
pretty thoroughly fatigued.

14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
to do with this conversation. We're talking about
listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
days and high stress levels.

The point is that there's no magic in live music. It
gets old after a little while, too.

It's a poor example of that fact. Like I said, 14
hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting.

Probably the first 3 or 4 hours of the first day, and an hour of the
succeeding days are interesting.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 4, 9:35=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message







On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
recording live music, producing over 40 separately
distributed recordings per day. =A0I was pretty thoroughly
fatigued.
14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
to do with this conversation. =A0We're talking about
listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
days and high stress levels.

The point is that there's no magic in live music. =A0It gets old after a
little while, too

I was at the Santa Fe Chamber music festival weekend before last. I
saw three nights of performances. Each one about an hour and a half.
The coolest thing about this festival is the open rehersals. I saw
about three hours of rehersals each day. Got to see my new co-favorite
painist Yuja Wang perform twice and reherse twice. Also got to meet
and shoot the breeze with all the musicians. It may not be magic in
the literal sense but figuratively speaking it was quite magical. It
sure didn't "get old after a little while." Listener fatigue was
never an issue. I'm no expert but I think Yuja Wang may be the most
talented pianist ever. She is a pretty cool kid to boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8alxBofd_eQ

Maybe it does get old after a while. I suppose just about everything
does. But that would be a loooooooooooong while with music and
musicians like this.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:23?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells
has more to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual
engineering. Even if you could come up with a very
high-performance cartridge at a reasonable price, would the
"high-end" crowd buy it? I suspect they'd still prefer
expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic wood.

Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
you are speaking of.

Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge.

OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
what?

It's based on the way high-end cartridges are marketed and talked
about. Maybe no-one cares about the exotic materials and loving care
that goes into making these things, but if they don't they sure do
talk about it a lot.

(Rosewood isn't
very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)

Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
years old.

LOL! That's wonderful! Maybe next they'll cut up a Stradivarius and
use that. There are supposedly a few that are unplayable, so why
not...

Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand
out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. When I get around to upgrading to the platinum version I think
I will go with the Jade body. Just because it is cool.

Well, quite. Not much to do with engineering, but totally cool.

For me it simply sounds better over a broader number of LPs than any
other cartridge I have compared it with except for it's platinum big
brothers. In what ways might you ask? On the really good recordings
it simply sounds more like the real thing. On bad recordings things
just sound less bad. It gives the illusion of being very transparent
yet it clearly adds a nice sugar coating. With the Shure in in
particular, compared to the Koetsu the Shure sounds very lifeless,
has a smaller soundstage, sounds vieled, does not do as well in
creating an illusion of live music. The Koetsu sounds richer,
warmer, more detailed yet not quite as bright.

OK, but I still wonder if, even if some manufacturer managed to
duplicate the doubtless lovely sound of one of these things at lower
cost, it would sell without the cachet of the high-end materials.

I think "public research" in preferences is pretty lacking in audio.

It certainly is. Imagine that someone made a circuit that would
duplicate the sound of one of these cartridges, at least to the extent
that no-one could distinguish it in a blind test. That's not entirely
infeasible, given what can be done with DSP. It might be a tremendous
cost saving. It would also go some way towards explaining why certain
cartridges are so well thought of. It might even provide some
information about what makes a recording sound like the "real thing".
Even if they tried and failed to duplicate the sound, that would still
be an interesting result. But maybe the high-end cartridge industry
is perfectly happy with things as they stand.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 5, 2:58=A0pm, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:23?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells
has more to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual
engineering. =A0Even if you could come up with a very
high-performance cartridge at a reasonable price, would the
"high-end" crowd buy it? =A0I suspect they'd still prefer
expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic wood.

Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
you are speaking of.

Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge.

OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
what?

It's based on the way high-end cartridges are marketed and talked
about. =A0Maybe no-one cares about the exotic materials and loving care
that goes into making these things, but if they don't they sure do
talk about it a lot.

Well it's marketing. Marketing hype is nothing new or unique to high
end cartridges. I still don't see the alleged snake oil or
witchcraft.


=A0(Rosewood isn't
very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)

Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
years old.

LOL! =A0That's wonderful! =A0Maybe next they'll cut up a Stradivarius and
use that. =A0There are supposedly a few that are unplayable, so why
not...

let's hope not. The idea, as I heard it, was that the aged wood would
be more stable. I don't know how true that is. I know that it's a good
idea to age wood for stability. I guess this was as close to a sure
thing as Y Sugano could get.


Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand
out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. When I get around to upgrading to the platinum version I think
I will go with the Jade body. Just because it is cool.

Well, quite. =A0Not much to do with engineering, but totally cool.

And note that no one from Koetsu says otherwise.


For me it simply sounds better over a broader number of LPs than any
other cartridge I have compared it with except for it's platinum big
brothers. In what ways might you ask? On the really good recordings
it simply sounds more like the real thing. On bad recordings things
just sound less bad. It gives the illusion of being very transparent
yet it clearly adds a nice sugar coating. With the Shure in in
particular, compared to the Koetsu the Shure sounds very lifeless,
has a smaller soundstage, sounds vieled, does not do as well in
creating an illusion of live music. The Koetsu sounds richer,
warmer, more detailed yet not quite as bright.

OK, but I still wonder if, even if some manufacturer managed to
duplicate the doubtless lovely sound of one of these things at lower
cost, it would sell without the cachet of the high-end materials.

The entry level Koetsu Black is less costly, has none of the exotic
materials (relatively speaking, they may be exotic compared to that of
a Shure V15) and does capture a good deal of that sound. I think it
is Koetsu's top selling cartridge. A lot of cartridges are marketed as
such.


I think "public research" in preferences is pretty lacking in audio.

It certainly is. =A0Imagine that someone made a circuit that would
duplicate the sound of one of these cartridges, at least to the extent
that no-one could distinguish it in a blind test. =A0That's not entirely
infeasible, given what can be done with DSP. =A0It might be a tremendous
cost saving.

I'm all for it.

=A0It would also go some way towards explaining why certain
cartridges are so well thought of. =A0It might even provide some
information about what makes a recording sound like the "real thing".
Even if they tried and failed to duplicate the sound, that would still
be an interesting result. =A0But maybe the high-end cartridge industry
is perfectly happy with things as they stand.


Well I'm not sure what the motivation would be to "duplicate" that
which one has already achieved with their product by other means. I
would think this would be a project for someone who works in digital.
I think R&D is still an on going thing with cartridge manufacturers.
Ironically Y Sugao of all people was a notorious measurement and
corolation freak. Fans may like to talk about the mystique of a
product like a Koetsu but that doesn't mean it wasn't built on solid
engineering principles and careful R&D. The folks at Koetsu talk about
the magnets, the suspesion material, the stylus shape, the canteliver
material and the wire used for the coils. They don't talk all that
much about the exotic wood or magic. This is from their SE Asia
distributor
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~angmelvin/Range.html

I'm guessing what bugs you is this kind of ad copy
http://store.acousticsounds.com//s/90/Koetsu_Cartridges

"Koetsu owners decorate their homes with originals, not prints. They
smoke Cubans rather than Swisher Sweets. They drink single malt. They
favor vinyl to CDs, and their systems sound better than their
buddies'. Koetsu owners require the best. And they know the
difference."

No snaikeoil but a lot of tude. Who cares? I don't smoke cigars,
drink any liquor and I have far more LE prints than originals. I think
the ad copy is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure that was the
intent.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:39:28 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 4, 9:35=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message







On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
recording live music, producing over 40 separately
distributed recordings per day. =A0I was pretty thoroughly
fatigued.
14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
to do with this conversation. =A0We're talking about
listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
days and high stress levels.

The point is that there's no magic in live music. =A0It gets old after a
little while, too

I was at the Santa Fe Chamber music festival weekend before last. I
saw three nights of performances. Each one about an hour and a half.
The coolest thing about this festival is the open rehersals. I saw
about three hours of rehersals each day. Got to see my new co-favorite
painist Yuja Wang perform twice and reherse twice. Also got to meet
and shoot the breeze with all the musicians. It may not be magic in
the literal sense but figuratively speaking it was quite magical. It
sure didn't "get old after a little while." Listener fatigue was
never an issue. I'm no expert but I think Yuja Wang may be the most
talented pianist ever. She is a pretty cool kid to boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8alxBofd_eQ

Maybe it does get old after a while. I suppose just about everything
does. But that would be a loooooooooooong while with music and
musicians like this.


The point is that Mr. Kruger (who's opinions I respect, even if I don't
always agree with them) was WORKING 14 hour days, not MERELY listening and he
was complaining about being fatigued. My response was, essentially, who
wouldn't be?

[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:58pm, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:23am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
It certainly is. Imagine that someone made a circuit that would
duplicate the sound of one of these cartridges, at least to the extent
that no-one could distinguish it in a blind test. That's not entirely
infeasible, given what can be done with DSP. It might be a tremendous
cost saving.

I'm all for it.

It would also go some way towards explaining why certain
cartridges are so well thought of. It might even provide some
information about what makes a recording sound like the "real thing".
Even if they tried and failed to duplicate the sound, that would still
be an interesting result. But maybe the high-end cartridge industry
is perfectly happy with things as they stand.

Well I'm not sure what the motivation would be to "duplicate" that
which one has already achieved with their product by other means.

Cost, surely. Granted, that many not be much of a motivation for a
company that already specializes in making expensive things for well-
heeled customers.

I'm guessing what bugs you is this kind of ad copy
http://store.acousticsounds.com//s/90/Koetsu_Cartridges

"Koetsu owners decorate their homes with originals, not prints. They
smoke Cubans rather than Swisher Sweets. They drink single
malt. They favor vinyl to CDs, and their systems sound better than
their buddies'. Koetsu owners require the best. And they know the
difference."

It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.

Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? The marketroids
don't say, but want you to think it's important.

No snaikeoil but a lot of tude. Who cares? I don't smoke cigars,
drink any liquor and I have far more LE prints than originals. I
think the ad copy is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure that
was the intent.

Maybe. On the other hand, maybe what you call "'tude" I'd call "snake
oil"!

Andrew.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

The point is that there's no magic in live music. It
gets old after a little while, too.

Under extreme conditions, of course it does.

By the way, 14 hours a day for several days straight...
is the ONE festival? If so, they are abusing you, as
well as the judges!

The judges get don't judge the whole festival stright through. They rotate
through other positions. They take time slots and even whole days off.

Yes, I do that same sort of scene. You should get the same deal.

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
: OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
: what? A "family" of cartridges? How many cartridges do you think are
: hand wound with "exotic wood" bodies.

:
: It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body and was pretty
: expensive.
: =A0(Rosewood isn't
: very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)

: Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
: all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
: years old. What do you consider to be an exotic wood? every time I
: look up exotic woods I see rosewood.
: http://www.exoticwoodgroup.com/
: http://www.cookwoods.com/LumberPageMain.htm
: http://www.woodworkerssource.com/2_latin.html

Some clarification is in order. (I'm a woodworker). A lot of woods are=20
commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine, beech, cherry, birch, etc. Prett=
y=20
much any wood that isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic. =20
Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood) fall into that=20
class. Some rosewoods (particularly Indian Rosewood) are commercially=20
plnted and harvested.

But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be particularly=20
suited to musical reproduction (it's dense, but not as dense as a number=20
of other woods; it's also got wild grain, which means inconsistent=20
density), nor that it should justify the cost of=20
a $5000 cartridge. Rosewood is expensive, but the amount of wood in a=20
cartridge is something like 1-2 cubic inches maximum (I estimate, correct=
=20
me if I'm wrong). Even if you pick high-end rosewood that sells for $25-6=
0=20
a board foot (=3D 144 cubic inches), we're talking about less than a=20
dollar's worth of rosewood.

-- Andy Barss

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 8, 9:00=A0am, Andrew Barss wrote:


Some clarification is in order. =A0(I'm a woodworker). =A0A lot of woods =
are
commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine, beech, cherry, birch, etc. =A0Pre=
tty
much any wood that isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic. =A0
Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood) fall into that
class. =A0Some rosewoods (particularly Indian Rosewood) are commercially
plnted and harvested.

But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be particularly
suited to musical reproduction (it's dense, but not as dense as a number
of other woods; it's also got wild grain, which means inconsistent
density),

No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a body.


nor that it should justify the cost of
a $5000 cartridge. =A0Rosewood is expensive, but the amount of wood in a
cartridge is something like 1-2 cubic inches maximum (I estimate, correct
me if I'm wrong). Even if you pick high-end rosewood that sells for $25-6=
0
a board foot (=3D 144 cubic inches), we're talking about less than a
dollar's worth of rosewood.


I'm sure more money goes into the wood working itself of a Koetsu
Rosewood body than the wood itself. But you aren't just paying for a
body when you buy a Koetsu.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:38:36 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 8, 9:00=A0am, Andrew Barss wrote:


Some clarification is in order. =A0(I'm a woodworker). =A0A lot of woods =
are
commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine, beech, cherry, birch, etc. =A0Pre=
tty
much any wood that isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic. =A0
Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood) fall into that
class. =A0Some rosewoods (particularly Indian Rosewood) are commercially
plnted and harvested.

But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be particularly
suited to musical reproduction (it's dense, but not as dense as a number
of other woods; it's also got wild grain, which means inconsistent
density),

No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a body.


nor that it should justify the cost of
a $5000 cartridge. =A0Rosewood is expensive, but the amount of wood in a
cartridge is something like 1-2 cubic inches maximum (I estimate, correct
me if I'm wrong). Even if you pick high-end rosewood that sells for $25-6=
0
a board foot (=3D 144 cubic inches), we're talking about less than a
dollar's worth of rosewood.


I'm sure more money goes into the wood working itself of a Koetsu
Rosewood body than the wood itself. But you aren't just paying for a
body when you buy a Koetsu.


The wood body on some cartridges is mere "lily gilding" . It is mostly
cosmetic. While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that they
look good. As far as performance is concerned, many of the better cartridges
seem to eschew cartridge bodies altogether.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Andrew Barss
wrote:


Some clarification is in order. (I'm a woodworker). A
lot of woods are commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine,
beech, cherry, birch, etc. Pretty much any wood that
isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic.
Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood)
fall into that class. Some rosewoods (particularly
Indian Rosewood) are commercially plnted and harvested.

But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be
particularly suited to musical reproduction (it's dense,
but not as dense as a number of other woods; it's also
got wild grain, which means inconsistent density),

No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a
body.

The Koetsu web site makes exactly that claim:

http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products.htm

"Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously carved
stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and science."

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 9/5/2010 7:03 PM, Scott wrote:

No snaikeoil but a lot of tude. Who cares? I don't smoke cigars,
drink any liquor and I have far more LE prints than originals. I think
the ad copy is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure that was the
intent.

I don't collect LPs, nor CDs. I do collect music for reproduction.

But I do collect collectibles. Mine are all originals, and are
by only one artist, the greatest artist the world, or ever will know. Some are
older than others. The price of the ones I own varies between
that of a cup of coffee (in 1970) and that of a nice midrange car.

What are they?

Answer: mineral specimens.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 9/6/2010 10:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:

It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.

Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? The marketroids
don't say, but want you to think it's important.



Well, no, it does not matter. The difference is that the more
nines, the better the electrical and thermal properties. These
don't really matter for a cartridge.

But they do matter for such things as tube-amp output transformers
and speaker voice coils. The would matter for speaker cables, except
that its just as good for cables to simply use bigger wires.


Doug McDonald

[C. Leeds]

Audio Empire wrote:
While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that they
look good.

Please tell us how you've established this supposed "fact" to be true.

[C. Leeds]

Doug McDonald wrote:

I don't collect LPs, nor CDs. I do collect music for reproduction.


What is it exactly that you collect? Cassettes? MP3s? Sheet music?

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:01:37 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that
they
look good.

Please tell us how you've established this supposed "fact" to be true.


Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple physics.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 9, 9:40=A0am, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 9/6/2010 10:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:

It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.

Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? =A0The marketroids
don't say, but want you to think it's important.

Well, no, it does not matter. The difference is that the more
nines, the better the electrical and thermal properties. These
don't really matter for a cartridge.

But they do matter for such things as tube-amp output transformers
and speaker voice coils. The would matter for speaker cables, except
that its just as good for cables to simply use bigger wires.


Electrical properties do not matter for a cartridge?
Color me skeptical of this assertion.

[Andrew Barss]

Arny Krueger wrote:
: "Scott" wrote in message
: On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Andrew Barss
:
: But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be
: particularly suited to musical reproduction (it's dense,
: but not as dense as a number of other woods; it's also
: got wild grain, which means inconsistent density),
:
: No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a
: body.

: The Koetsu web site makes exactly that claim:

: http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products.htm

: "Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
: musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously carved
: stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and science."

They sure are pretty.

But "purity"? Not very hard to demonstrate that a piece of rosewood is
pure rosewood!

And several of the materials (coralstone, the woods, rhodondite) are not
going to be internally uniform -- the example of "coralstone" (whatever
that is) contains a piece of a fossilized shell. And I have no idea
what the standard for musical purity in coralstone/rosewood/jade, for
example, would be -- resonance? Lack thereof?

But, they're very pretty. Of course, for a tenth the price you could get
an entire jewelry box made of any of those materials, "meticulously
carved", and more visible from across the room.

-- Andy Barss

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 9, 9:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Andrew Barss
wrote:

Some clarification is in order. (I'm a woodworker). A
lot of woods are commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine,
beech, cherry, birch, etc. Pretty much any wood that
isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic.
Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood)
fall into that class. Some rosewoods (particularly
Indian Rosewood) are commercially plnted and harvested.

But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be
particularly suited to musical reproduction (it's dense,
but not as dense as a number of other woods; it's also
got wild grain, which means inconsistent density),

No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a
body.

The Koetsu web site makes exactly that claim:

http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products.htm

"Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously carved
stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and science."

Well not "exactly." Words, language etc. This seems to be a
translation from something. Here is another version from a different
source
"All materials must pass a stringent test for purity and musicality.
When combined with the art of hand-wound coils, innovative
construction techniques, and the centuries-old tradition of hand
craftsmanship in the arts of woodworking and painting, all become one
to create his masterpiece: the Koetsu Cartridge."
http://www.tweakshop.com/Koetsu.html

"Ultra-pure iron square plate formers were sourced for their most
predictable magnetic characteristics and lowest oxidation. Pre-aged to
the perfect consistency, rubber suspension parts are sourced under
license with a rubber damper manufacturer. Special magnetic materials,
including Alnico have been featured. Today, samarium-coblalt is used
with platinum magnets reserved for the flagship models. Japanese
craftsmen carve the rosewood bodies, lacquer coat the Urushi bodies,
or cut stone for the onyx Platinum. Styli are specially designed and
precision ground for Koetsu.

Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously
carved stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and
science."
http://www.musicloversaudio.com/prod...er.php/koetsu/

I think what is being missed here and understandably so is that there
are two things about Koetsu being squashed into limited ad copy. The
bodies are little works of art. Beutifully hand crafted gems. The
inside is where the engineering is. No doubt second and third parties
will say all kinds of things in their marketing. But this doesn't come
from Koetsu. From everything I have read of Koetsu and Y Sugano
himslef the idea was to offer the best performance AND eye candy. No
different than what you get from Lamborghini.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 21:08:52 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 9, 9:40=A0am, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 9/6/2010 10:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:

It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.

Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? =A0The marketroids
don't say, but want you to think it's important.

Well, no, it does not matter. The difference is that the more
nines, the better the electrical and thermal properties. These
don't really matter for a cartridge.

But they do matter for such things as tube-amp output transformers
and speaker voice coils. The would matter for speaker cables, except
that its just as good for cables to simply use bigger wires.


Electrical properties do not matter for a cartridge?
Color me skeptical of this assertion.

He's right, he just didn't express it well enough. The differences between
4-nines copper and 6-nines copper in the few turns that make-up the coil of
an MC cartridge is likely of no consequence. It won't make the coils lighter,
it won't increase the voltage output any. The resistance difference between
99.99% and 99.9999% pure copper is so miniscule that it would likely take
hundreds of feet of the stuff to even be able to measure it AT ALL.

[C. Leeds]

Audio Empire wrote:

While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that
they
look good.

I asked:
Please tell us how you've established this supposed "fact" to be true.

Audio Empire answers (in full):

Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple physics.

I don't think you can use physics to support your claim that it's a
"fact" that "most people' think these materials just look good.

I don't think your "fact" withstands scrutiny. How do you know what
"most people" think? Please tell us.

[Dennman6[_2_]]

On Aug 29, 10:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Three =A0things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that=
most
of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live
events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly
finished. =A0Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental
attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily
listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. The third prob=
lem
is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly
audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me.

I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today
were we still hobbled by analog recording technology.

This last sentence strikes a valid point on listening to records as a
means of "getting the music" vs. CDs. Last January while moving my
brother from Winston-Salem to Indianapolis we stopped at a friend's
house in Virginia to pick up a 1926 Victor Credenza Orthophonic
Victrola-top of the line record player in that year. Noticeable hints
at bass and treble, and LOTS of midrange! After getting the
reproducer rebuilt & settling in to listen to much classical music &
dance band 78s of the 1920s, I found it less tedious to listen to the
pop tunes. Why? Because of getting up every 4 minutes to turn over a
classical 78 to continue the experience. A dance record is done after
the 3 or 4 minutes-not so with a concerto, symphonic, or overture in
the classics.

I love using the Credenza and having that vintage musical experience a
few times a week, but Arny is spot on as regards the difficulties
music lovers went through to satisfy their cravings. Even Lps "break
the mood" for long-form works after the usual 22-28 minutes of "hi fi"
per side. Even the venerable CD format shows us to be fortunate in our
current audio age, compared to dear old Grandad and his Victrola.

Dennis Forkel

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:01:37 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for
woods and
exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and
onyx as being somehow beneficial to performance, the
fact is that most people just think that they
look good.

Please tell us how you've established this supposed
"fact" to be true.

Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple
physics.

Only true if use of exotic materials was the only way to obtain the given
mass, and only if obtaining that particular mass was required for the best
possible performance.

Fact of the matter is that case mass is relatively non-critical, and that
lower mass could be obtained with less expensive materials.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:49:55 -0700, Dennman6 wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 29, 10:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Three =A0things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that=
most
of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live
events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly
finished. =A0Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental
attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily
listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. The third prob=
lem
is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly
audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me.

I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today
were we still hobbled by analog recording technology.

This last sentence strikes a valid point on listening to records as a
means of "getting the music" vs. CDs. Last January while moving my
brother from Winston-Salem to Indianapolis we stopped at a friend's
house in Virginia to pick up a 1926 Victor Credenza Orthophonic
Victrola-top of the line record player in that year. Noticeable hints
at bass and treble, and LOTS of midrange! After getting the
reproducer rebuilt & settling in to listen to much classical music &
dance band 78s of the 1920s, I found it less tedious to listen to the
pop tunes. Why? Because of getting up every 4 minutes to turn over a
classical 78 to continue the experience. A dance record is done after
the 3 or 4 minutes-not so with a concerto, symphonic, or overture in
the classics.

I remember a cartoon by the renown cartoonist Rodriguiz in High-Fidelty
Magazine back in the 1960's. It showed what was obviously supposed to be a
radio announcer sitting at his broadcast console, speaking into the
microphone hanging before him, with a pair of headphones on his head and a
pair of turntables flanking him. The caption read, "And now for a real treat,
the 1938 Bayreuth Festival recording of Wagner's "Die Gotterdamerung" on the
original 78's". In the background was a fork-lift truck being driven through
the studio door by an assistant with a palette stacked high with scores of
records. Yes, classical 78 albums, usually on 12" discs, were heavy and some
that I own have as many as 7 records (14-sides) in them. They had to be
changed every 4-5 minutes. That's why record changers became so popular
during 78 days.

I love using the Credenza and having that vintage musical experience a
few times a week, but Arny is spot on as regards the difficulties
music lovers went through to satisfy their cravings. Even Lps "break
the mood" for long-form works after the usual 22-28 minutes of "hi fi"
per side. Even the venerable CD format shows us to be fortunate in our
current audio age, compared to dear old Grandad and his Victrola.

I don't mind flipping an LP once, but yes, something like a Wagnerian opera
on four or five LPs did become tedious. Sometimes though, it was worth it.

Dennis Forkel

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:21:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:01:37 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for
woods and
exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and
onyx as being somehow beneficial to performance, the
fact is that most people just think that they
look good.

Please tell us how you've established this supposed
"fact" to be true.

Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple
physics.

Only true if use of exotic materials was the only way to obtain the given
mass, and only if obtaining that particular mass was required for the best
possible performance.

But it isn't, is it? And in fact, increasing mass MIGHT not even be desirable
at all.

Fact of the matter is that case mass is relatively non-critical, and that
lower mass could be obtained with less expensive materials.

Championing the obvious again, I see. 8^)

[David[_21_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
another
and then another.

Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened to a
LOT less music.

D

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
another
and then another.

Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened to a
LOT less music.

D

This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.

Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in dynamic
range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?
Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue with
CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs.

I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that CD
presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism at
work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforded by
CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by excessive
exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by listening
to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfect technology of the
recording and playback process.

Nonsense!

[vlad]

On Sep 14, 7:43=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
(in article ):



"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do somethi=
ng
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I lis=
ten
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
another
and then another.

Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened=
to a
LOT less music.

D

This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.

Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in dyn=
amic
range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?
Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue wi=
th
CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs. =A0

I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that C=
D
presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism a=
t
work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforded =
by
CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by exces=
sive
exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by liste=
ning
to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfecttechnologyof the
recording and playback process.

Nonsense!

A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, my
be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves that
reproduction from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

I do not mean of course "live symphony in a park" type
performances, where people coming with lunch baskets and sitting on a
grass for the whole afternoon. Usually they spend more time
socializing with friends then listening to music.

vlad

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete,

It is now just a niche product.

wrought with unlistenable distortions

That would be your story, not a general truth.

and background noise

A problem that was never solved.

and severely limited in dynamic range

In the end the dynamic range of the LP is almost enough for most music.

would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?

The error here is attributing the desire to listen to the media instead of
the humans involved.

This is a common audiophile error - many of them tend externalize their
preferences when every competent psychologist and sociologist will tell you
that our preferences are very complex things based on a lifetime of
experiences. Our preferences are in us, not in our equipment.

Obviously, while many insist that CDs are
capable of being damn nigh to perfect, others suffer (and
rather quickly too) from listening fatigue with CDs that
they DON'T get when they listen to LPs.

What you don't get from CDs is a lifetime of memories associated with
listening to LPs.

I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by
them saying that CD presents so much more musical detail
than LP that the brain has to work harder to hear it all.

Sure that happens, but you are ignoring the fact that some people have been
telling you all along that its your preferences, not the hardware that is
speaking in sentences like the one above.


I say rubbish to that argument.

A statement that many insightful people might say is rather lacking as a
reflection of self-awareness, were they to care strongly enough to say it
and pay the consequences.