[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
materials and manufacturing technology to move forward.

Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
that this whole discussion centers on.

Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
noted) has a lot of information stored in it,

Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the music. Vinyl lacks both
dynamic range and power bandwidth. While it can theoretically respond to
high frequencies, the response is extremely weak and/or distorted. This is
one reason why the CD-4 system fails to be reliable, after a few playings
the ultrasonic carrier can't be recovered with adequate level and
cleanliness to be useful. This happens quite quickly to any high frequency
information that may be recorded on a LP. Furthermore, the dynamic range of
a good live performance isn't there. These two limitations mean that the
information is simply not there, no matter what fantasies that audiophiles
have been told by greedy merchants over the years.

and better cartridges retrieve more of it than do poorer cartridges.

To an extent that is true. However, beyond a surprisingly minimal
performance point, better cartrdiges don't retrieve any more, because you
can't retrieve what isn''t there.

The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no
secret then, and since the laws of physics have not
changed in any relevant way since then, it is no secret
now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving
piece of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog
grooves, ca. late 60s early 70s performance is all you
are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead horse.

That's not true at all. I am amazed at how much better
modern cartridges - on the whole- sound and track over
their forbearers.

Persaonal anecdote with no reliable evidence to back it up.

There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next
step that failed miserably. One was the DMM process
which removed a mechanical step from the tooling process
of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame
attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change
the mode of data coding from direct analog to FM and
possibly even digital, with a contact-based capacitive
pickup. This actually came close to seeing the light of
day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based
storage blew it all out of water before it ever went
mainstream. The Laser Disc in both FM and digital audio
formats was generally accepted technology for years
before the CD was introduced.

Huh? By the RCA "FM" attempt, I assume that you are
talking about Q4? It only used FM for the subcarrier
attached to each channel in order to encode 4 discrete
channels into a two channel disc. It never worked right.

No, I'm talking about the RCA Selectavision CED system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdDskCvk6Uo

There is no
doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these
days from Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a
few, is equal to or superior to the best cartridges
available 20-30 years ago,

I own one of those Grados and it has a chance of
approaching the M97XE.

yet they use the same
generating principles as they did then.

More significantly they have the same old analog noose
around their neck.

What has changed
are the materials used in the stylus suspensions, the
stylus shank itself, and even the magnets used.

Not so much.

Yes, much.

Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.

Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for
shaping and polishing the stylus as well as how the
stylus is mounted to the cantilever and even assembly
techniques.

That's probably more automated than it was in the day.
The inflation adjusted price of a Grado Black is still
far more than a late-60s V15.

Ah, the V-15. Tracked so much better than it needed to
track, and sounded like crap.

Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.

Finally, the V-15-VxM actually sounded decent (not great though), then
they
dropped it.

Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
materials and manufacturing technology to move forward.

Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
that this whole discussion centers on.

Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
noted) has a lot of information stored in it,

Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the music.

I disagree. Are you more qualified to judge the reproduced SOUND of
music than are others?

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:16:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]


I've concluded that audiophiles, by their very nature of devotion to
something better must be out there, always disdain a well accepted and
readily available mass market product no matter it's performance. They
must because if a mainstream product provides the pinnacle of
performance and is as good as it gets then their basis for being
audiophiles disappears.

ScottW

That may well be, but I have yet to audition a "mainstream" product that
sounded as good as certain others, often produced by folk who prize a single
goal...sound quality...over other considerations. For example, for what one
paid for a Dynaco Preamp and Power Amp back in the day, you could also buy
any number of integrated amplifiers with lots of bells and whistles that
many considered very fine hi-fi. Only thing is...music played through them
just didn't sound as "real" as through the Dynaco and were often lacking in
deep bass power. The Dynaco's were not considered mainstream, but
eventually they earned a place of respect among audiophiles ever though they
were not terribly expensive.....simply because they sounded better than the
"mainstream" of that day.



I can only assume that by "Dynaco pre-amp and amp" you were referring to the
tube stuff, the PAS-3 and the Stereo 70, or Mark II, or Mark III tube
equipment because the Solid State PAT-5 and Stereo 120 were terrible (and the
Stereo 120 was unreliable too).

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 28, 7:44*am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:


So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?


In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

Which ARC preamp do you have? I still use an SP-11 and to this day have never
heard anything better!

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:17:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
materials and manufacturing technology to move forward.

Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
that this whole discussion centers on.

Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
noted) has a lot of information stored in it,

Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the music.

That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound very good.

Vinyl lacks both
dynamic range and power bandwidth.

As if that's all there is to it....

While it can theoretically respond to
high frequencies, the response is extremely weak and/or distorted.

Again, that's an opinion.

This is
one reason why the CD-4 system fails to be reliable, after a few playings
the ultrasonic carrier can't be recovered with adequate level and
cleanliness to be useful.

While true, most of them wouldn't play reliably the first time. The decoders
didn't work very well, and the Shibata-stylused cartridges designed to play
these discs were not very flat in the 20KHz-50KHz region -where the
subcarriers lived. Also, most arms of the day weren't good enough to track
that high-frequency stuff.

This happens quite quickly to any high frequency
information that may be recorded on a LP.

Photomicrographs of high frequencies on vinyl records show this not to be the
case with cartridges that aren't mistracking. While high frequencies are
deformed by the passing stylus, vinyl has a memory and they spring back to
their former shape very quickly. Now, what you say is true for frequencies
above about 15 Khz, They are attenuated by wear after a few playings, but
they're not all that important anyway.

Furthermore, the dynamic range of
a good live performance isn't there. These two limitations mean that the
information is simply not there, no matter what fantasies that audiophiles
have been told by greedy merchants over the years.

There's more to a performance than your obviously biased opinions of vinyl's
shortcomings. They still give a great deal of sonic pleasure to many, and no
greedy merchant put that idea in MY head, I haven't bought a new LP in over a
decade.

and better cartridges retrieve more of it than do poorer cartridges.

To an extent that is true. However, beyond a surprisingly minimal
performance point, better cartrdiges don't retrieve any more, because you
can't retrieve what isn''t there.

But you'd be surprised how much of what IS there poor cartridges and poor
'tables miss.

The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no
secret then, and since the laws of physics have not
changed in any relevant way since then, it is no secret
now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving
piece of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog
grooves, ca. late 60s early 70s performance is all you
are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead horse.

That's not true at all. I am amazed at how much better
modern cartridges - on the whole- sound and track over
their forbearers.

Persaonal anecdote with no reliable evidence to back it up.

There's as much evidence to back my assertions as you have provided to back
yours...

There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next
step that failed miserably. One was the DMM process
which removed a mechanical step from the tooling process
of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame
attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change
the mode of data coding from direct analog to FM and
possibly even digital, with a contact-based capacitive
pickup. This actually came close to seeing the light of
day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based
storage blew it all out of water before it ever went
mainstream. The Laser Disc in both FM and digital audio
formats was generally accepted technology for years
before the CD was introduced.

Huh? By the RCA "FM" attempt, I assume that you are
talking about Q4? It only used FM for the subcarrier
attached to each channel in order to encode 4 discrete
channels into a two channel disc. It never worked right.

No, I'm talking about the RCA Selectavision CED system.

That was VIDEO! You should have made clear that you were talking about the
RCA CED video disc system. In that system, the stylus wasn't used to retrieve
information, the grooves had NO mechanical modulation in them, they were used
only to track the groove to allow the capacitive pick-up, which rode above
the surface to read the disc. It has nothing to do with phonograph records.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdDskCvk6Uo

There is no
doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these
days from Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a
few, is equal to or superior to the best cartridges
available 20-30 years ago,

I own one of those Grados and it has a chance of
approaching the M97XE.

yet they use the same
generating principles as they did then.

More significantly they have the same old analog noose
around their neck.

What has changed
are the materials used in the stylus suspensions, the
stylus shank itself, and even the magnets used.

Not so much.

Yes, much.

Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.

Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for
shaping and polishing the stylus as well as how the
stylus is mounted to the cantilever and even assembly
techniques.

That's probably more automated than it was in the day.
The inflation adjusted price of a Grado Black is still
far more than a late-60s V15.

Ah, the V-15. Tracked so much better than it needed to
track, and sounded like crap.

Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.

Finally, the V-15-VxM actually sounded decent (not great though), then
they
dropped it.

Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.

You first....

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 28, 7:44 am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:


So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?


In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

Which ARC preamp do you have? I still use an SP-11 and to this day have
never
heard anything better!

Agree. I never could afford it, but wished I could (or an SP-10). But I
use an ARC-6B to this day which ain't far behind those two.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


(and the Stereo 120 was unreliable too).

So much so that I have a factory-wired Stereo 120 that is 100% original
parts many decades after it was built. When bench tested a couple of years
back, it beat factory specs. I use it with a pair of KEF Q10 speakers that
do just about everything that a speaker can do to destroy amps it or at
least sound horrible with a marginal amp. Sounds great!

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:16:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]


I've concluded that audiophiles, by their very nature of devotion to
something better must be out there, always disdain a well accepted and
readily available mass market product no matter it's performance. They
must because if a mainstream product provides the pinnacle of
performance and is as good as it gets then their basis for being
audiophiles disappears.

ScottW

That may well be, but I have yet to audition a "mainstream" product that
sounded as good as certain others, often produced by folk who prize a
single
goal...sound quality...over other considerations. For example, for what
one
paid for a Dynaco Preamp and Power Amp back in the day, you could also
buy
any number of integrated amplifiers with lots of bells and whistles that
many considered very fine hi-fi. Only thing is...music played through
them
just didn't sound as "real" as through the Dynaco and were often lacking
in
deep bass power. The Dynaco's were not considered mainstream, but
eventually they earned a place of respect among audiophiles ever though
they
were not terribly expensive.....simply because they sounded better than
the
"mainstream" of that day.



I can only assume that by "Dynaco pre-amp and amp" you were referring to
the
tube stuff, the PAS-3 and the Stereo 70, or Mark II, or Mark III tube
equipment because the Solid State PAT-5 and Stereo 120 were terrible (and
the
Stereo 120 was unreliable too).

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

On the other hand, at the time the Dynaco stuff went transistor and sounded
like crap, there were many even more awful sounding stuff
introduced....remember Acoustech? But I was referring to the line that
established Dynaco...and the integrated amps I referred to were also tube.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:17:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
materials and manufacturing technology to move
forward.

Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
that this whole discussion centers on.

Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
noted) has a lot of information stored in it,

Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the
music.

That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
very good.

That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can logically transfer to
anybody else. 99% of all music lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for
general music listening because of their inconvenience and substandard sound
quality.

Vinyl lacks both
dynamic range and power bandwidth.

As if that's all there is to it....

If you understood Information Theory and its practical ramifications w/r/t
music listening, you'd understand that dynamic range and power bandwidth are
almost all of *it*, if by *it* you mean sonic accuracy.

While it can theoretically respond to
high frequencies, the response is extremely weak and/or
distorted.

Again, that's an opinion.

No, its a scientific fact, and one that well-known even 30+ years ago. You
need to read and understand Poul Ladegaard's (Bruel and Kjaer) 1977 paper
about turntable vibrations. I think it is somewhere on the Vinyl Engene's
web site.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:17:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
materials and manufacturing technology to move
forward.

Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
that this whole discussion centers on.

Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
noted) has a lot of information stored in it,

Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the
music.

That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
very good.

That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can logically transfer to
anybody else. 99% of all music lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for
general music listening because of their inconvenience and substandard sound
quality.

99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of convenience and
availability, not for the sake of fidelity (which, given how small the audio
community has become in the past few decades, must be about 99% of that
99%!). The fact that record stores the world over switched, virtually
overnight from LP to CD in such a way that LP became, essentially,
unavailable, sort of forced the issue. It's not like people had much choice.
But, yes, the CD is better, and yes, people recognize that it is better, but
just because the market turned over toward CD doesn't instantly (or
otherwise) make the older medium worthless as you assert.

Vinyl lacks both
dynamic range and power bandwidth.

As if that's all there is to it....

If you understood Information Theory and its practical ramifications w/r/t
music listening, you'd understand that dynamic range and power bandwidth are
almost all of *it*, if by *it* you mean sonic accuracy.

Oh, pish. Accuracy, paccuracy. Most people are interested in an emotionally
satisfying recreation of a musical event. If that recreation sounds good and
engages the listener, then that's the better recreation. That recreation can
be on 78's, LP, CD, SACD, reel-to-reel tape or even live FM. To dismiss an
entire media technology because it has flaws is like throwing the baby out
with the bath water and does no one a good service.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:57:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


(and the Stereo 120 was unreliable too).

So much so that I have a factory-wired Stereo 120 that is 100% original
parts many decades after it was built. When bench tested a couple of years
back, it beat factory specs. I use it with a pair of KEF Q10 speakers that
do just about everything that a speaker can do to destroy amps it or at
least sound horrible with a marginal amp. Sounds great!


We've been through this before. At some point, Dynaco FIXED the Stereo 120's
problems. Later ones no longer used 2N3055 output transistors that had to be
selected at the factory for V sub CEO lest the transistors instantly self
destruct when power was applied. They also re-biased the amp more strongly
into class A-B to eliminate the horrible cross-over notch that first
generation 120's exhibited. If you look on the web (I did it once and
published the results for you last year, I'm not going to search for it
again) you can find a list of the old parts vs the revised 120's parts list
and see this for yourself (although, in actuality, you already have).

I'm not sure exactly when Dynaco did this, but it was well after the amp had
lost much of it's original "must-have" appeal. I bought mine in 1968 and kept
it until about 1973 when I replaced it with a Citation 12. In that time it
blew it's output transistors and complementary-pair of driver transistors
FOUR times (if any of those four transistors went, it took the other three
with it). The last time I repaired it was in late 1972 and Dynaco was still
supplying selected 2N3055s and selected drivers as replacements.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:23 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:16:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]


I've concluded that audiophiles, by their very nature of devotion to
something better must be out there, always disdain a well accepted and
readily available mass market product no matter it's performance. They
must because if a mainstream product provides the pinnacle of
performance and is as good as it gets then their basis for being
audiophiles disappears.

ScottW

That may well be, but I have yet to audition a "mainstream" product that
sounded as good as certain others, often produced by folk who prize a
single
goal...sound quality...over other considerations. For example, for what
one
paid for a Dynaco Preamp and Power Amp back in the day, you could also
buy
any number of integrated amplifiers with lots of bells and whistles that
many considered very fine hi-fi. Only thing is...music played through
them
just didn't sound as "real" as through the Dynaco and were often lacking
in
deep bass power. The Dynaco's were not considered mainstream, but
eventually they earned a place of respect among audiophiles ever though
they
were not terribly expensive.....simply because they sounded better than
the
"mainstream" of that day.



I can only assume that by "Dynaco pre-amp and amp" you were referring to
the
tube stuff, the PAS-3 and the Stereo 70, or Mark II, or Mark III tube
equipment because the Solid State PAT-5 and Stereo 120 were terrible (and
the
Stereo 120 was unreliable too).

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

On the other hand, at the time the Dynaco stuff went transistor and sounded
like crap, there were many even more awful sounding stuff
introduced....remember Acoustech? But I was referring to the line that
established Dynaco...and the integrated amps I referred to were also tube.

I agree. The original Dyna Stereo 120 (their first SS amp) was crap. But to
be fair, they were pushing the envelope. Getting 60 Watts RMS out of a pair
of 2N3055s was playing with fire and the amps using that transistor
complement would blow if you looked at it wrong. I have often thought that
Dynaco would have been much better-off had they released that design as a
"Stereo 80" rather than as a Stereo 120. They'd have been much more reliable.
But of course, that still wouldn't have addressed the terrible crossover
notch that these amps exhibited. This was caused by biasing them much more
into class "B" than into class "A-B" (in order to get the power, no doubt)
which was the main reason that these amps sounded so crappy.

But like you say, they weren't the only ones. The Acoustech amps used to
self-destruct as well, but for a different reason, as I recall. The Acoustech
amp was unstable and couldn't make up it's mind whether it wanted to be a
power amplifier or a runaway ultrasonic power oscillator! ;-)

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:57:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 28, 7:44 am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:


So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?


In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

Which ARC preamp do you have? I still use an SP-11 and to this day have
never
heard anything better!

Agree. I never could afford it, but wished I could (or an SP-10). But I
use an ARC-6B to this day which ain't far behind those two.



True. I have a friend who still uses an ARC SP-9 brought up to Mark III specs
by the factory. It still sounds excellent.

For power amps, I use a pair of VTL 140 monoblocks the combo of the SP-11 and
the VTLs is magic with my Martin Logan Vistas (and my Sunfire subwoofers)

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:57:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 28, 7:44 am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:


So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?


In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

Which ARC preamp do you have? I still use an SP-11 and to this day have
never
heard anything better!

Agree. I never could afford it, but wished I could (or an SP-10). But I
use an ARC-6B to this day which ain't far behind those two.



True. I have a friend who still uses an ARC SP-9 brought up to Mark III
specs
by the factory. It still sounds excellent.

For power amps, I use a pair of VTL 140 monoblocks the combo of the SP-11
and
the VTLs is magic with my Martin Logan Vistas (and my Sunfire subwoofers)

Having owned VTL's myself (although a more lowly model) I can only imagine.
The magic was there when driving a pair of Thiel 3.5's (and later 2 2's).

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
very good.

That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.

99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction of the CD, just
about everybody who listened to music did so with LPs. Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have. Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the same music in the CD
format to the same people who already had that music on LPs, due to the CDs
improved sound quality.

For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the CD, CDs were in short
supply and there was only a limited selection of titles. The least expensive
CD players that were available in the early days cost 10 times or more than
a minimal LP player, but did of course sound fantastically better.

Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3 times) over what
the same music on LP sold for in the same store. If you walked into a store
in those days there could easily be far more floor space devoted to LPs than
CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The first year there might have
been only a few feet of bin space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard
after yard of LPs.

In order to prevail, the CD format had to overcome strong competition for
the music-lover's dollar, which did eventually happen to the point of nearly
extincting the LP format.

[Norman Schwartz]

On Jun 30, 8:32*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):





On Jun 28, 7:44 am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:

So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it only
hifi ?

In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

Which ARC preamp do you have? I still use an SP-11 and to this day have never
heard anything better!- Hide quoted text -


Although not my every day pre-amp, I maintain a perfectly performing
ARC SP-3-A1(black faceplate), with all of ARC's updates and the last
Van Alstine mod on top of those..

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:57:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


(and the Stereo 120 was unreliable too).

So much so that I have a factory-wired Stereo 120 that
is 100% original parts many decades after it was built.
When bench tested a couple of years back, it beat
factory specs. I use it with a pair of KEF Q10 speakers
that do just about everything that a speaker can do to
destroy amps it or at least sound horrible with a
marginal amp. Sounds great!


We've been through this before. At some point, Dynaco
FIXED the Stereo 120's problems.

So then you admit that your initial claim that the Stereo120 was unreliable
is an over-simplification?

The fact of the matter is that some early production was unreliable, but by
taking a little more care in the choice of output devices, it became
reliable.

"I bought mine in 1968 and keptit until about 1973 when I replaced it with a
Citation 12."

My records show that the ST-120 was introduced in late 1966, so it is quite
possible that yours was still one of the early ones. I don't have
information that relates serious numbers to build dates, so I don't know
when mine was built. In those days 5 or so years was all the longer that
most audiophiles kept power amps before they traded up.

The Citation 12 was HK's second generation SS power amp (after the Citation
B) and came almost 5 years after the ST-120 in a time when SS device
technology was improving very rapidly. It was quickly eclipsed by power amps
with several times the power output but competitive pricing.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 2, 6:54*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction of the CD, just
about everybody who listened to music did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market share.
Convenience in portability being the obvious driving force in that
switch over.

Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have.

That is not true. Cassettes were more convenient and when CD players
became cheap and mobile they were also more convenient for most people
who clearly valued portability over everything else. CD didn't really
take off until then.

Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the same music in the CD
format to the same people who already had that music on *LPs, due to the CDs
improved sound quality.

Where is the direct evidence of causality? That is not to say that
many people didn't percieve CDs to be sonically superior at the time.
I know I did. And it was quite superior to my Yamaha rack system
turntable with my factory suplied P mount cartridge. When one compares
inferior vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual for one to
prefer CD playback. Most people never have had the opportunity to make
the comparisons with a geniune high end rig much less a state of the
art high end rig. So most opinions were and still are profoundly
uninformed.


For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the CD, CDs were in short
supply and there was only a limited selection of titles. The least expensive
CD players that were available in the early days cost 10 times or more than
a minimal LP player, but did of course sound fantastically better.

Indeed. Rather *inconvenient* wouldn't you say? But it was not a case
of no stock available to consumers. Anyone with the money could walk
into any hifi store and buy a CD player and CDs. But when LPs were
practically wiped off the shelves a vinylphile could not do the same.
That was an artificial market situation.


Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3 times) over what
the same music on LP sold for in the same store. If you walked into a store
in those days there could easily be far more floor space devoted to LPs than
CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The first year there might have
been only a few feet of bin space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard
after yard of LPs.

And now we have audiophile LPs selling for an even greater premium at
5 times the price of some CDs of the same title. And these LPs are
selling out on a regular basis and then comanding upwards of 250
bucks.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:54:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
very good.

That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.

99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction of the CD, just
about everybody who listened to music did so with LPs. Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have. Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the same music in the CD
format to the same people who already had that music on LPs, due to the CDs
improved sound quality.

There is no evidence for that. The evidence points to the fact that CDs were
more convenient than LP; required less care in handling, were less fragile,
took-up less space, etc. Most people don't care about fidelity as is
witnessed by the popularity of MP3. For the average buyer, the CD represented
a simply better medium irrespective of how it sounded.

For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the CD, CDs were in short
supply and there was only a limited selection of titles. The least expensive
CD players that were available in the early days cost 10 times or more than
a minimal LP player, but did of course sound fantastically better.

And only the well-heeled enthusiasts bought them. I remember driving 60 miles
one long lunch hour in 1984 to buy the little Magnavox top loader (gorgeous
little player. Only 14-bits but it sounded so much better than the first
Japanese players that wasn't funny. Beautifully built too. I remember getting
a good deal on it: Only $525 instead of $600.

Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3 times) over what
the same music on LP sold for in the same store. If you walked into a store
in those days there could easily be far more floor space devoted to LPs than
CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The first year there might have
been only a few feet of bin space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard
after yard of LPs.

The record stores were the main proponents of the CD. As soon as they could,
they replaced LPs with CDs on a storewide, exclusive basis.

In order to prevail, the CD format had to overcome strong competition for
the music-lover's dollar, which did eventually happen to the point of nearly
extincting the LP format.

That's correct, but to attribute that hegemony to any sonic advantage of CD
or sonic disadvantage of LP (other than scratches, ticks and pops) is an
error. Most buyers simply didn't care which sounded better. And believe me, I
have enough early CDs in my collection to tell you that they mostly sounded
wretched due to inexperience with the transfers and poor mastering equipment.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:48:39 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 30, 8:32*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):





On Jun 28, 7:44 am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:

So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it only
hifi ?

In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

Which ARC preamp do you have? I still use an SP-11 and to this day have
never
heard anything better!- Hide quoted text -


Although not my every day pre-amp, I maintain a perfectly performing
ARC SP-3-A1(black faceplate), with all of ARC's updates and the last
Van Alstine mod on top of those..

All ARC preamps are special, and I bet yours sounds just fine, thank you! I
have a friend who lives in Seattle who has an original SP3 that he bought at
a flea market for twenty bucks! I've never heard it, but he loves it. Said
that all he needed to do was re-tube it and clean the pots and switches with
some "tuner cleaner" from Radio Shack (at my suggestion, I might add) and it
was as good as new. Quite an endorsement for the build quality and parts
quality of ARC goods. I've often thought that this is one of the "percs" of
high-end gear. The stuff is usually so over-designed and so well made, using
such high-quality parts that the stuff tends to last a long time. Long after
a cheap Japanese receiver has found its way to the dumpster, high-end gear is
still in somebody's system, delivering the goods day after day - even if one
can't tell the sonic difference between the high-end piece and the Japanese
receiver in a double-blind test.

And this guy's $20 aside, Tube high-end gear tends to hold it's value better
than anything else too. My VTL 140's are more than 15 years old, but I've
been offered $4000 for the pair and the SP-11, when it shows up on E-bay
still sells for more than $3K. While this stuff usually doesn't appreciate
like a Ferrari GTO (where a car originally costing $20,000 in the day, now,
often goes, at auction, for $20 million), it doesn't go from it's original
selling price to nothing in a few years either.

[Guenter Scholz]

In article ,
Norman Schwartz wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:32*pm, Sonnova wrote:


..... snips...


Although not my every day pre-amp, I maintain a perfectly performing
ARC SP-3-A1(black faceplate), with all of ARC's updates and the last
Van Alstine mod on top of those..

pardon me for interjecting, having followed the discussions here for
a while with some interest. The above comment leaves me a bit puzzled re
a 'high-end' audiophile discussion. I had that preamp as well and sold it
asap... how can 'any' electronic item be considered state of the art if it
can't even do a rudimentary chore like volume control... those a carbon pots
with at best 10% accuracy and depending on the volume the channel tracking
was horrendous, never mind all it's other problems.

the SP3 in it's incarnations was a fancier Dyna that Johnson cut his
teeth on as modifier via his Electronic Industries... if that stuff is high
end I'd be please to sell it to anyone who'd like to buy pre Audio Research
efforts by Johnson including his modified Dyna Mk3. This stuff simply isn't
high end... not saying that it doesn't sound nice.

cheers

cheers

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:35:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:57:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


(and the Stereo 120 was unreliable too).

So much so that I have a factory-wired Stereo 120 that
is 100% original parts many decades after it was built.
When bench tested a couple of years back, it beat
factory specs. I use it with a pair of KEF Q10 speakers
that do just about everything that a speaker can do to
destroy amps it or at least sound horrible with a
marginal amp. Sounds great!


We've been through this before. At some point, Dynaco
FIXED the Stereo 120's problems.

So then you admit that your initial claim that the Stereo120 was unreliable
is an over-simplification?

No. Since we've been through this before, I didn't think it was necessary to
couch the statement in caveats.

The fact of the matter is that some early production was unreliable, but by
taking a little more care in the choice of output devices, it became
reliable.
\
Yeah, after FIVE years of production. They changed the transistor type.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:37:32 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 2, 6:54*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction of the CD, just
about everybody who listened to music did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market share.
Convenience in portability being the obvious driving force in that
switch over.

Yep. And the very fact that cassette sales eclipsed LP sales is another nail
in the coffin of the notion that people switched to CDs for sonic reasons.
Not even Arny can successfully argue that cassettes sounded better than LPs.
They never were high-fidelity. Even Dolby B and HX-pro didn't change that.

Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have.

That is not true. Cassettes were more convenient and when CD players
became cheap and mobile they were also more convenient for most people
who clearly valued portability over everything else. CD didn't really
take off until then.

Agreed.

Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the same music in the CD
format to the same people who already had that music on *LPs, due to the CDs
improved sound quality.

Where is the direct evidence of causality? That is not to say that
many people didn't percieve CDs to be sonically superior at the time.
I know I did. And it was quite superior to my Yamaha rack system
turntable with my factory suplied P mount cartridge. When one compares
inferior vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual for one to
prefer CD playback. Most people never have had the opportunity to make
the comparisons with a geniune high end rig much less a state of the
art high end rig. So most opinions were and still are profoundly
uninformed.

That's correct too. LP was a bit of a paradox in that respect. Put a cheap
record deck up against a cheap CD player and the CD is better in every way,
but put a well designed and well made LP deck with a good arm and cartridge
against a very good CD deck in the early days and the LP would knock it out
of the ring, sonically, every time. That's not true any more, but it
certainly was in the time frame we're discussing.


For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the CD, CDs were in short
supply and there was only a limited selection of titles. The least expensive
CD players that were available in the early days cost 10 times or more than
a minimal LP player, but did of course sound fantastically better.

Indeed. Rather *inconvenient* wouldn't you say? But it was not a case
of no stock available to consumers. Anyone with the money could walk
into any hifi store and buy a CD player and CDs. But when LPs were
practically wiped off the shelves a vinylphile could not do the same.
That was an artificial market situation.


Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3 times) over what
the same music on LP sold for in the same store. If you walked into a store
in those days there could easily be far more floor space devoted to LPs than
CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The first year there might have
been only a few feet of bin space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard
after yard of LPs.

And now we have audiophile LPs selling for an even greater premium at
5 times the price of some CDs of the same title. And these LPs are
selling out on a regular basis and then comanding upwards of 250
bucks.

While I don't have any THAT expensive, I do have a number of Classic releases
of both RCA and Mercury titles mastered at 45 RPM on 200 gram vinyl and
pressed on only one side. Many sound significantly better than the CD/SACD of
the same title. I believe, that when I purchased them, they were about $60 a
title. Which IS about 5X the $12-$13 that a normal CD costs these days.

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

All ARC preamps are special, and I bet yours sounds just fine, thank you! I
have a friend who lives in Seattle who has an original SP3 that he bought at
a flea market for twenty bucks! I've never heard it, but he loves it. Said
that all he needed to do was re-tube it and clean the pots and switches with
some "tuner cleaner" from Radio Shack (at my suggestion, I might add) and it
was as good as new. Quite an endorsement for the build quality and parts
quality of ARC goods. I've often thought that this is one of the "percs" of
high-end gear. The stuff is usually so over-designed and so well made, using
such high-quality parts that the stuff tends to last a long time. Long after
a cheap Japanese receiver has found its way to the dumpster, high-end gear is
still in somebody's system, delivering the goods day after day - even if one
can't tell the sonic difference between the high-end piece and the Japanese
receiver in a double-blind test.

ARC SP3 preamps had really large errors in the RIAA equalization. Now
that's a 'perc' with very tangible results (meaning a lot of people
liked it) to say nothing of design incompetence.

But then, that's pretty normal for the so-called 'high-end'...

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:16:37 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

All ARC preamps are special, and I bet yours sounds just fine, thank you! I
have a friend who lives in Seattle who has an original SP3 that he bought
at
a flea market for twenty bucks! I've never heard it, but he loves it. Said
that all he needed to do was re-tube it and clean the pots and switches
with
some "tuner cleaner" from Radio Shack (at my suggestion, I might add) and
it
was as good as new. Quite an endorsement for the build quality and parts
quality of ARC goods. I've often thought that this is one of the "percs" of
high-end gear. The stuff is usually so over-designed and so well made,
using
such high-quality parts that the stuff tends to last a long time. Long
after
a cheap Japanese receiver has found its way to the dumpster, high-end gear
is
still in somebody's system, delivering the goods day after day - even if
one
can't tell the sonic difference between the high-end piece and the Japanese
receiver in a double-blind test.

ARC SP3 preamps had really large errors in the RIAA equalization. Now
that's a 'perc' with very tangible results (meaning a lot of people
liked it) to say nothing of design incompetence.

But then, that's pretty normal for the so-called 'high-end'...

Can't comment. I've never heard one. But I do know that my SP-11 has no such
RIAA errors in it's phono preamp because I've measured it. BTW, my friend
with the SP-3? He doesn't have any LPs and listens only to CD and SACD with
some FM thrown in for good measure.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:37:32 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 2, 6:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in
message
That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs
sound very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the
introduction of the CD, just about everybody who
listened to music did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market
share. Convenience in portability being the obvious
driving force in that switch over.

Yep.

Wrong.

And the very fact that cassette sales eclipsed LP
sales is another nail in the coffin of the notion that
people switched to CDs for sonic reasons.

The claimed connection is speculative.

Not even Arny
can successfully argue that cassettes sounded better than
LPs.

Won't try, because my ears tell me a different story, as does the
technology.

They never were high-fidelity. Even Dolby B and
HX-pro didn't change that.

I think that they were high fidelity for most eople as long as they didn't
have to compete with digital.

That's correct too. LP was a bit of a paradox in that
respect. Put a cheap record deck up against a cheap CD
player and the CD is better in every way, but put a well
designed and well made LP deck with a good arm and
cartridge against a very good CD deck in the early days
and the LP would knock it out of the ring, sonically,
every time.

Wrong. Remember that many people, like me and most of my close audiphile
friends put the first CD players sold up against top LP systems of the day,
and the LP systems went into the closet as soon as we had enough CDs to
play. The number of people who favor LP over CD is vanishingly small. Not
even most of the declining subscribers of the high end ragazines all believe
that the LP rules.

Unlike some people, the audiophiles I hung with were far more sophisticated
than the average audiophile. Many were audio professionals, members of the
AES, etc. Two of them were not only AES members, but also AES Fellows.
Others were AES board members and regional chairmen.

CD technology solved the egregious inherent audible problems of the LP.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jul 2, 6:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in
message
That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs
sound very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction
of the CD, just about everybody who listened to music
did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market
share. Convenience in portability being the obvious
driving force in that switch over.

Don't think so. Cassettes were strong at the time, but not that strong. They
had obvious sound compromises, so most of their market was portable.

Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have.

That is not true.

In the context where you are using it, yes.

Cassettes were more convenient

Only mattered for portable applications. There had been vinyl players for
cars and that didn't work out. 8-track was a quick-and dirty solution for
car audio, but that wasn't really working out due to bulk, reliability, and
sound quality issues. Cassette did work in cars and it was also working out
for personal use.

There never was an inherent sound quality problem with CDs, and they were
portable for cars and personal use as well.

CD players became cheap and mobile they were also more
convenient for most people who clearly valued portability
over everything else. CD didn't really take off until
then.

Since you've used the utterly vague phrase "reall take off", your comment is
impossible to confirm or deny.

Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the
same music in the CD format to the same people who
already had that music on LPs, due to the CDs improved
sound quality.

Where is the direct evidence of causality?

Self-evident.

That is not to
say that many people didn't perceive CDs to be sonically
superior at the time. I know I did. And it was quite
superior to my Yamaha rack system turntable with my
factory supplied P mount cartridge.

The CD format is technically superior to every LP playback system that has
ever existed. There is no reliable evidence of some hidden factor that would
contradict the technical evidence. All we have is a noisy, excruciatingly
tiny group of people who think otherwise based on their emotions.

When one compares
inferior vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual
for one to prefer CD playback.

When one compares any vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual for
one to prefer CD playback when all other things are equal.

Most people never have had
the opportunity to make the comparisons with a genuine
high end rig

But most of those who have done so under bias-controlled conditions know
that other than speakers high end audio has no general sonic superiority at
this time.

much less a state of the art high end rig.
So most opinions were and still are profoundly
uninformed.

Being informed does not change the situation.

For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the
CD, CDs were in short supply and there was only a
limited selection of titles. The least expensive CD
players that were available in the early days cost 10
times or more than a minimal LP player, but did of
course sound fantastically better.

Indeed. Rather *inconvenient* wouldn't you say?

Of course, which belies the claims that convenience was a determining
factor.

But it was not a case of no stock available to consumers.

Except it was. I remember walking into stores even several years after the
introduction of the CD and seeing 100's of CD titles and 1,000's of LP
titles.

Anyone
with the money could walk into any hifi store and buy a
CD player and CDs.

Very few actual high fi stores stock significant numbers of CD titles.

But when LPs were practically wiped
off the shelves a vinylphile could not do the same.

It took the better part of the decade for LP stocks on sale to show any
pinching.

That was an artificial market situation.

It was a natural consequence of the market changing its preferences. Those
of us who were old enough to have been through the same thing for LPs and
stereo saw the same thing happen.

Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3
times) over what the same music on LP sold for in the
same store. If you walked into a store in those days
there could easily be far more floor space devoted to
LPs than CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The
first year there might have been only a few feet of bin
space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard after yard
of LPs.

And now we have audiophile LPs selling for an even
greater premium at 5 times the price of some CDs of the
same title.

That's a consequence of being obsolete for 25 years.

And these LPs are selling out on a regular
basis and then commanding upwards of 250 bucks.

That's a consequence of being obsolete for 25 years.

[Norman Schwartz]

On Jul 3, 9:24*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:16:37 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

All ARC preamps are special, and I bet yours sounds just fine, thank you! I
have a friend who lives in Seattle who has an originalSP3that he bought
at
a flea market for twenty bucks! I've never heard it, but he loves it. Said
that all he needed to do was re-tube it and clean the pots and switches
with
some "tuner cleaner" from Radio Shack (at my suggestion, I might add) and
it
was as good as new. Quite an endorsement for the build quality and parts
quality of ARC goods. I've often thought that this is one of the "percs" of
high-end gear. The stuff is usually so over-designed and so well made,
using
such high-quality parts that the stuff tends to last a long time. Long
after
a cheap Japanese receiver has found its way to the dumpster, high-end gear
is
still in somebody's system, delivering the goods day after day - even if
one
can't tell the sonic difference between the high-end piece and the Japanese
receiver in a double-blind test.

ARCSP3preamps had really large errors in the RIAA equalization. *Now
that's a 'perc' with very tangible results (meaning a lot of people
liked it) to say nothing of design incompetence.

But then, that's pretty normal for the so-called 'high-end'...

Can't comment. I've never heard one. But I do know that my SP-11 has no such
RIAA errors in it's phono preamp because I've measured it. BTW, my friend
with theSP-3? He doesn't have any LPs and listens only to CD and SACD with
some FM thrown in for good measure.-

I'm an original owner of a SP-3-1 used in conjugation with 2-ARC D76As
(bridged) and a ARC-EC-2a cross-over driving bi-amped Tympani 1Cs
loudspeakers back in the days when the entire system was marketed by
the ARC. IIRC the SP-3 with its phono section garnered first class
ratings by both the editor and crowd at the TAS. In the earliest days
of the CD era it was my custom to learn whatever I could by comparing
the sound from that format to their counterpart digital LPs. The SP-3
allows for 2 phono inputs and I used both Linn-Sondek LP-12 and
Thorens TD-125 turntables. I also used both MM and MC cartridges (ML
JC1-AC headamp). I had a friend who also used a SP-3-A1 in
conjunction the 8 panelled Tympani IIIAs, (and later The Apogee
original) and aTechnics SP-10 turntable in a custom base with a Decca
arm and cartridge. I know we listened to 331/3, and IIRC correctly 78s
as well. Back then RIAA equalization errors were never a concern to us
or anyone else. Of course variances amongst SP-3 units shouldn't be
ruled out.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:25:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:37:32 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 2, 6:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in
message
That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs
sound very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the
introduction of the CD, just about everybody who
listened to music did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market
share. Convenience in portability being the obvious
driving force in that switch over.

Yep.

Wrong.

I remember "Billboard" articles about how cassettes had eclipsed LP sales, so
I doubt if we're wrong here.

And the very fact that cassette sales eclipsed LP
sales is another nail in the coffin of the notion that
people switched to CDs for sonic reasons.

The claimed connection is speculative.

Not really. LP might have a limited dynamic range, but cassette was more
limited. LPs might have been somewhat noisy (especially if they weren't
properly handled and cared for) but cassettes were worse. They suffered from
self erasure of high-frequencies at high levels (even HX-pro didn't eliminate
that problem, it only lessened it - and far from every cassette duplicator
used HX-pro, and when they did it was often so that they could use even
cheaper duplicating tape and still maintain the same lack of performance that
they had before employing HX-pro.

Not even Arny
can successfully argue that cassettes sounded better than
LPs.

Won't try, because my ears tell me a different story, as does the
technology.

They should. Commercially duplicated cassettes had little response above 7.5
Khz at anything above -20 dB of recording level, and were lucky to achieve a
S/N ration of -55 dB. At one and seven-eighths inches per second, wow and
flutter were usually very high and the tracks were so narrow that very few
magnetic domains crossed the head gaps at any given time which was the main
reason for the poor performance. Things like FeCr and other so-called metal
tape formulations helped, but again, most duplicating facilities didn't use
them.

They never were high-fidelity. Even Dolby B and
HX-pro didn't change that.

I think that they were high fidelity for most eople as long as they didn't
have to compete with digital.

Looks to me Arny, like you will say anything to make arguing points. You will
even contradict your own previously stated positions.

That's correct too. LP was a bit of a paradox in that
respect. Put a cheap record deck up against a cheap CD
player and the CD is better in every way, but put a well
designed and well made LP deck with a good arm and
cartridge against a very good CD deck in the early days
and the LP would knock it out of the ring, sonically,
every time.

Wrong.

Again, that's your extremely biased opinion. You have spent months here
dissing LP in favor of digital to the point where you have lost much of your
credibility with regard to the subject. While most of us here agree with you
that digital is superior to LP NOW, it wasn't the case in the beginning.
Early CDs sounded lousy for the most part. Sure, they had the aforementioned
convenience advantage from the get-go, low noise, small form factor,
portability and a low defect and return rate (which the retailers LOVED),
didn't degrade as they were played, etc. but they could also be ear-
bleedingly shrill and/or distorted, with flat, lifeless sound stages and no
imaging. They could lack hall ambience and sound dry when compared to the LP
of the same recording, etc. It's rare to get a poor sounding CD these days,
but when the format first started, many articles and papers were written
about the sonic problems of CD. I still have quite a few early CDs, and can
demonstrate these shortcomings to anyone who doubts me. I remember
especially, an early DGG CD of Richard Strauss' '"Alpine Symphony" that
sounded so bad that I literally threw it away. The brick wall filters of the
early players didn't help matters either, and I probably should have kept
that CD. As I recall, it was a nice performance and possibly with today's
players it wouldn't sound so terrible.

Remember that many people, like me and most of my close audiphile
friends put the first CD players sold up against top LP systems of the day,
and the LP systems went into the closet as soon as we had enough CDs to
play.

Yeah, and many didn't. Especially those who were in the hobby for the music
and not the technology. They kept their LPs and their record decks because
the music they loved wasn't available on CD. A lot of it still isn't. I also
remember seeing letters to the editor in magazines like Audio and TAS where
music lovers were likening the sound of CD to a "musical cartoon" of the
performance or an audio "pasteboard cut-out" of the music. While I found
those people a little extreme, they had a point. Early on, the CD Emperor,
indeed, had no clothes.

The number of people who favor LP over CD is vanishingly small. Not
even most of the declining subscribers of the high end ragazines all believe
that the LP rules.

Nobody with any technical knowledge or who have developed the listening
acumen often referred to as "golden ears" believes that LP rules, and
certainly I don't. To me, LP is just another signal source, as I've said
before. Like everyone else, I mostly listen to and enjoy CD and SACD. BUt I
still have LPs, I still listen to them and I still enjoy them and see nothing
wrong with format as long as one keeps in mind it's limitations. Just because
I didn't throw the baby out with the bath water like many doesn't mean that
I'm an advocate of the LP over CD. I just recognize the LP for what it is -
another source of music. Hell, I still have some cassettes with performances
that I like to listen to listen to (mostly air-checks of my own recordings
made for NPR back in the day).

Unlike some people, the audiophiles I hung with were far more sophisticated
than the average audiophile.

Elitist remarks like that don't further your arguments one iota.

Many were audio professionals, members of the
AES, etc. Two of them were not only AES members, but also AES Fellows.
Others were AES board members and regional chairmen.

Lot's of people are and were professionals and members of the AES. That
doesn't carry any weight at all. I've known fellow AES members that I
wouldn't believe if they were to swear on a stack of Bibles. Anyone with the
$90 to pay the annual dues can get a membership to the AES. It's no guarantee
of authority. And I can probably find lots of AES papers which contradict
every one of your assertions (or mine) made on this forum, so don't quote
them as an authority either.

CD technology solved the egregious inherent audible problems of the LP.

And who is arguing against that? Certainly not me. My only argument is that
CD, as good as it can be, certainly hasn't rendered LP unlistenable, just as
LP didn't render 78's unlistenable. It's the music that's important, not the
medium or the "fi".

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:02:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jul 2, 6:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in
message
That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs
sound very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction
of the CD, just about everybody who listened to music
did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market
share. Convenience in portability being the obvious
driving force in that switch over.

Don't think so. Cassettes were strong at the time, but not that strong. They
had obvious sound compromises, so most of their market was portable.

Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have.

That is not true.

In the context where you are using it, yes.

Cassettes were more convenient

Only mattered for portable applications. There had been vinyl players for
cars and that didn't work out. 8-track was a quick-and dirty solution for
car audio, but that wasn't really working out due to bulk, reliability, and
sound quality issues. Cassette did work in cars and it was also working out
for personal use.

There never was an inherent sound quality problem with CDs, and they were
portable for cars and personal use as well.

You're joking, right? Most early CDs sound TERRIBLE. It took a number of
years for CD to start to sound like what it's inventors promised. I.E.
"Perfect sound, forever." And the jury's still out on the "forever" part!

CD players became cheap and mobile they were also more
convenient for most people who clearly valued portability
over everything else. CD didn't really take off until
then.

Since you've used the utterly vague phrase "reall take off", your comment is
impossible to confirm or deny.

Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the
same music in the CD format to the same people who
already had that music on LPs, due to the CDs improved
sound quality.

Where is the direct evidence of causality?

Self-evident.

That is not to
say that many people didn't perceive CDs to be sonically
superior at the time. I know I did. And it was quite
superior to my Yamaha rack system turntable with my
factory supplied P mount cartridge.

The CD format is technically superior to every LP playback system that has
ever existed.

Nobody is saying that it isn't. But there was, initially, anyway, a lot of
difference between the "promise" of CD and the "reality".

There is no reliable evidence of some hidden factor that would
contradict the technical evidence. All we have is a noisy, excruciatingly
tiny group of people who think otherwise based on their emotions.

Music listening is an emotional pass time (or at least it SHOULD be). Of
course people's opinions about musical reproduction are based on emotion. It
wouldn't be much of a hobby if that weren't so.

When one compares
inferior vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual
for one to prefer CD playback.

When one compares any vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual for
one to prefer CD playback when all other things are equal.

Except that all things usually aren't equal.

Most people never have had
the opportunity to make the comparisons with a genuine
high end rig

But most of those who have done so under bias-controlled conditions know
that other than speakers high end audio has no general sonic superiority at
this time.

That's irrelevant to the point at hand. We're talking CD and LP here, not
amplifiers and pre-amps.

much less a state of the art high end rig.
So most opinions were and still are profoundly
uninformed.

Being informed does not change the situation.

Really? Why not?

For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the
CD, CDs were in short supply and there was only a
limited selection of titles. The least expensive CD
players that were available in the early days cost 10
times or more than a minimal LP player, but did of
course sound fantastically better.

Indeed. Rather *inconvenient* wouldn't you say?

Of course, which belies the claims that convenience was a determining
factor.

You're right. It wasn't a determining factor, it was often THE determining
factor.

But it was not a case of no stock available to consumers.

Except it was. I remember walking into stores even several years after the
introduction of the CD and seeing 100's of CD titles and 1,000's of LP
titles.

Anyone
with the money could walk into any hifi store and buy a
CD player and CDs.

Very few actual high fi stores stock significant numbers of CD titles.

But when LPs were practically wiped
off the shelves a vinylphile could not do the same.

It took the better part of the decade for LP stocks on sale to show any
pinching.

That was an artificial market situation.

It was a natural consequence of the market changing its preferences. Those
of us who were old enough to have been through the same thing for LPs and
stereo saw the same thing happen.

Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3
times) over what the same music on LP sold for in the
same store. If you walked into a store in those days
there could easily be far more floor space devoted to
LPs than CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The
first year there might have been only a few feet of bin
space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard after yard
of LPs.

And now we have audiophile LPs selling for an even
greater premium at 5 times the price of some CDs of the
same title.

That's a consequence of being obsolete for 25 years.

And these LPs are selling out on a regular
basis and then commanding upwards of 250 bucks.

That's a consequence of being obsolete for 25 years.

That's a ridiculous statement any way you look at it. If there was no market
for LP, there would be no $250 pressings available. The fact they DO exist
means that the LP is far from obsolete. It may be a niche market, but with
the number of new turntables, arms, and cartridges that are introduced every
year, it seems to be a pretty healthy niche market. Now, just to ne clear
here, I wouldn't buy a $250 LP - especially when the SACD of the same
performance is available for less than $10 (RCA Red Seals and Mercury Living
Presence hybrid SACDs).

[bob]

On Jul 3, 11:02*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market
share. Convenience in portability being the obvious
driving force in that switch over.

Don't think so. Cassettes were strong at the time, but not that strong.

Ah, but they were. Here's a good graph:

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/4146447

Vinyl album sales peaked in 1977, and cassette caught up in 1983, the
same year CD was introduced. Obviously, the Walkman ignited the
cassette boom, but people who bought cassettes then played them at
home, too.

As the graph shows, however, CD at first stole market share from
vinyl, not cassettes. Vinyl was dead by 1990; CD didn't surpass
cassettes until 1992.

Drawing any kind of conclusion about sound quality from this data is,
IMHO, silly.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 3, 8:02*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Jul 2, 6:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in

That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs
sound very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction
of the CD, just about everybody who listened to music
did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market
share. Convenience in portability being the obvious
driving force in that switch over.

Don't think so. Cassettes were strong at the time, but not that strong. They
had obvious sound compromises, so most of their market was portable.

The facts are against you there. Cassettes were already well ahead of
LPs in sales when CDs were introduced to the market.



Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have.
That is not true.

In the context where you are using it, yes.

Cassettes were more convenient

Only mattered for portable applications. There had been vinyl players for
cars and that didn't work out. 8-track was a quick-and dirty solution for
car audio, but that wasn't really working out due to bulk, reliability, and
sound quality issues. Cassette did work in cars and it was also working out
for personal use.


Thank you for proving my point. Cassettes were more convenient and
only more convenient. And by that single virtue they overtook LPs in
sales


There never was an inherent sound quality problem with CDs, and they were
portable for cars and personal use as well.


There certainly were problems with the execution back then.



CD players became cheap and mobile they were also more
convenient for most people who clearly valued portability
over everything else. CD didn't really take off until
then.

Since you've used the utterly vague phrase "reall take off", your comment is
impossible to confirm or deny.

No. All you have to do is look at the sales before and after portable
and car players became widely sold and you will see how it obviously
directly affected the sales of CDs.



Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the
same music in the CD format to the same people who
already had that music on LPs, due to the CDs improved
sound quality.
Where is the direct evidence of causality?

Self-evident.


Wrong. Too may factors in play.



That is not to
say that many people didn't perceive CDs to be sonically
superior at the time. I know I did. And it was quite
superior to my Yamaha rack system turntable with my
factory supplied P mount cartridge.

The CD format is technically superior to every LP playback system that has
ever existed. There is no reliable evidence of some hidden factor that would
contradict the technical evidence. All we have is a noisy, excruciatingly
tiny group of people who think otherwise based on their emotions.

This is such a flawed argument. superiority is a matter of subjective
opinion. sound quality is judged subjectively. So to claim sonic
superiority on objective grounds is to simply not understand the point
of high end audio.



When one compares
inferior vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual
for one to prefer CD playback.

When one compares any vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual for
one to prefer CD playback when all other things are equal.

Do tell us of your controlled tests with state of the art vinyl
playback equipment and CDs and LPs with exactly the same mastering. I
can tell you about mine. The LP won. Let me know if you want the
details. I can actually produce them. heck anyone who want's to come
over can hear the same comparison for themsleves.


Most people never have had
the opportunity to make the comparisons with a genuine
high end rig

But most of those who have done so under bias-controlled conditions know
that other than speakers high end audio has no general sonic superiority at
this time.


Your argument is nothing more than an appeal to some vague unnamed
authority. OTOH I have done so under bias controlled conditions and
found otherwise. All of which is irrelevant to my point.




much less a state of the art high end rig.
So most opinions were and still are profoundly
uninformed.

Being informed does not change the situation.


So you are saying an uninformed opinion is no different than an
informed opinion. A rather unconventional belief. I'll keep that in
mind in all of our future exchanges.




For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the
CD, CDs were in short supply and there was only a
limited selection of titles. The least expensive CD
players that were available in the early days cost 10
times or more than a minimal LP player, but did of
course sound fantastically better.
Indeed. Rather *inconvenient* wouldn't you say?

Of course, which belies the claims that convenience was a determining
factor.

Um no, it supports the claim. When CDs were less convenient they flew
under the radar and sales were very low. Less convenient=lower sales.
Simple math.



But it was not a case of no stock available to consumers.

Except it was. I remember walking into stores even several years after the
introduction of the CD and seeing 100's of CD titles and 1,000's of LP
titles.

Sorry but your anecdote is not any sort of meaningful evidence. I have
plenty of anecdotes that run contrary to yours.



Anyone
with the money could walk into any hifi store and buy a
CD player and CDs.

Very few actual high fi stores stock significant numbers of CD titles.


Prove it.




But when LPs were practically wiped
off the shelves a vinylphile could not do the same.

It took the better part of the decade for LP stocks on sale to show any
pinching.


Not at all. it was a very brief period.




That *was an artificial market situation.

It was a natural consequence of the market changing its preferences. Those
of us who were old enough to have been through the same thing for LPs and
stereo saw the same thing happen.


Nope. There was a focused effort on the part of the major labels to
make the switch as quickly as possible. Had nothing to do with
consumer demand.



Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3
times) over what the same music on LP sold for in the
same store. If you walked into a store in those days
there could easily be far more floor space devoted to
LPs than CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The
first year there might have been only a few feet of bin
space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard after yard
of LPs.
And now we have audiophile LPs selling for an even
greater premium at 5 times the price of some CDs of the
same title.

That's a consequence of being obsolete for 25 years.

Really? Do explain the "reasoning" behind this assertion. Do try to
keep in mind that LP production, turntable production etc never ever
ceased (hence your premise of obsolesence is erroneous) and that these
LPs are selling out while one has the option to buy the same titles
for a fraction of the cost on CD or even on a previously issued (all
be it inferior pressing and mastering) LP?


And these LPs are selling out on a regular
basis and then commanding upwards of 250 bucks.

That's a consequence of being obsolete for 25 years

Explain that again?

[bob]

On Jul 2, 10:16*pm, Sonnova wrote:

That's correct too. LP was a bit of a paradox in that respect. Put a cheap
record deck up against a cheap CD player and the CD is better in every way,
but put a well designed and well made LP deck with a good arm and cartridge
against a very good CD deck in the early days and the LP would knock it out
of the ring, sonically, every time.

Vinyl has always sounded better to people who listen with their
wallet.

That's not true any more, but it
certainly was in the time frame we're discussing.

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

bob

[[email protected]]

Norman Schwartz wrote:

IIRC the SP-3 with its phono section garnered first class
ratings by both the editor and crowd at the TAS.

Meaning what exactly?

Back then RIAA equalization errors were never a concern to us
or anyone else.

Which says a quite a lot about the state of the high-end biz...

Of course variances amongst SP-3 units shouldn't be
ruled out.

No, the errors are inherent in the choice of component values in the
phono section feedback network, they are very audible and entirely
avoidable by proper design that was well understood decades before ARC
existed.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 10:16 pm, Sonnova wrote:

That's correct too. LP was a bit of a paradox in that respect. Put a
cheap
record deck up against a cheap CD player and the CD is better in every
way,
but put a well designed and well made LP deck with a good arm and
cartridge
against a very good CD deck in the early days and the LP would knock it
out
of the ring, sonically, every time.

Vinyl has always sounded better to people who listen with their
wallet.

That's not true any more, but it
certainly was in the time frame we're discussing.

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto all the way
through without changing sides had anything to do with it?

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:02:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jul 2, 6:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in
message
That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs
sound very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
music listening because of their inconvenience and
substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the introduction
of the CD, just about everybody who listened to music
did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market
share. Convenience in portability being the obvious
driving force in that switch over.

Don't think so. Cassettes were strong at the time, but not that strong.
They
had obvious sound compromises, so most of their market was portable.

Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have.

That is not true.

In the context where you are using it, yes.

Cassettes were more convenient

Only mattered for portable applications. There had been vinyl players for
cars and that didn't work out. 8-track was a quick-and dirty solution for
car audio, but that wasn't really working out due to bulk, reliability,
and
sound quality issues. Cassette did work in cars and it was also working
out
for personal use.

There never was an inherent sound quality problem with CDs, and they were
portable for cars and personal use as well.

You're joking, right? Most early CDs sound TERRIBLE. It took a number of
years for CD to start to sound like what it's inventors promised. I.E.
"Perfect sound, forever." And the jury's still out on the "forever" part!

I think this gets to the crux of Arny's belitting of the LP. Since he is so
"on the record" as saying that early CD's and players sounded just fine, to
admit that so many people in the audio hobby found them wanting, and still
have the disks to prove it (I have a few myself) is to either (a) admit that
his hearing standards and discrimination (at least in that day) were sub-par
compared to the majority of audio hobbyists, or (b) admit at the very least
that he let his love of technology blind him to the shortfall of the early
disks and players. In either case, his insistent belittling of the LP is
tiresome, and as you say, tends to make him a "one-note-johnny".

snip

[bob]

On Jul 4, 10:45*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto all the way
through without changing sides had anything to do with it?

It didn't hurt. But the classical fans I knew did not seem to think
they were sacrificing sound quality—quite the opposite. Be interesting
to take a look at Gramophone from around 1985. See how much kvetching
there was about sound quality among the classical cognoscenti.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:25:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:37:32 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 2, 6:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in
message



On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in
message
That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs
sound very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for
general music listening because of their
inconvenience and substandard sound quality.
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
convenience and availability,

Obviously false because at the point of the
introduction of the CD, just about everybody who
listened to music did so with LPs.

Actually cassettes had already taken over the top
market share. Convenience in portability being the
obvious driving force in that switch over.

Yep.

Wrong.

I remember "Billboard" articles about how cassettes had
eclipsed LP sales, so I doubt if we're wrong here.

Absence of supporting evidence noted. However, your comment made two
separable claims, and even if the numerical sales are correct, there's still
room for falsification.

And the very fact that cassette sales eclipsed LP
sales is another nail in the coffin of the notion that
people switched to CDs for sonic reasons.

The claimed connection is speculative.

Not really. LP might have a limited dynamic range, but
cassette was more limited.

It was a price that was paid to enable use in lifestyle situations that had
never been possible before. With the CD, one could have both superior sound
quality and portability. Just becasue cassettes had poorer SQ has no bearing
on why people chose a different media in a different context.

LPs might have been somewhat
noisy (especially if they weren't properly handled and
cared for) but cassettes were worse.

Actually, a well-made Dolby B/C tape made with a good HQ deck on the best
tape would trounce the LP for dynamic range, even so if one were to loose
his mind and ignore the incessant tics and pops that only vinylphiles seem
to be able to fail to find irritating.

They suffered from
self erasure of high-frequencies at high levels (even
HX-pro didn't eliminate that problem, it only lessened it

The LP format has a form of self-erasure of high frequencies, too. The walls
of the vinyl groove spring back, reducing detail at high frequencies.

- and far from every cassette duplicator used HX-pro, and
when they did it was often so that they could use even
cheaper duplicating tape and still maintain the same lack
of performance that they had before employing HX-pro.

Not even Arny
can successfully argue that cassettes sounded better
than LPs.

Won't try, because my ears tell me a different story, as
does the technology.

They should. Commercially duplicated cassettes had little
response above 7.5 Khz at anything above -20 dB of
recording level,

True for ferric tape, but largely addressed by the best metal tapes and HQ.
But, neither could equal the high speed analog tape machines that were used
for masters in those days. Only modern digital can touch that which it does,
and nicely eclipses it.

and were lucky to achieve a S/N ration
of -55 dB. At one and seven-eighths inches per second,
wow and flutter were usually very high and the tracks
were so narrow that very few magnetic domains crossed the
head gaps at any given time which was the main reason for
the poor performance. Things like FeCr and other
so-called metal tape formulations helped, but again, most
duplicating facilities didn't use them.

Flutter and wow in good mag tape is not as intractable or as sonically ugly
as that inherent in LPs.

They never were high-fidelity. Even Dolby B and
HX-pro didn't change that.

I think that they were high fidelity for most eople as
long as they didn't have to compete with digital.

Looks to me Arny, like you will say anything to make
arguing points.

Not anything, just supportable reliable technical facts.

You will even contradict your own previously stated positions.

You mean I am not allowed to correct myself?

That's correct too. LP was a bit of a paradox in that
respect. Put a cheap record deck up against a cheap CD
player and the CD is better in every way, but put a well
designed and well made LP deck with a good arm and
cartridge against a very good CD deck in the early days
and the LP would knock it out of the ring, sonically,
every time.

Wrong.

Again, that's your extremely biased opinion.

No, I have the reliable facts to back it up. Last I looked, I even have a
CDP 101 to demonstrate my claims with.

You have
spent months here dissing LP

No, I've only said what the scientific papers of the day and subsequent
science show to be true.

in favor of digital to the
point where you have lost much of your credibility with
regard to the subject.

I'm still very credible with the vast majority of music lovers who have
experience with the LP and set it aside decades ago. They number in the
billions.

While most of us here agree with
you that digital is superior to LP NOW, it wasn't the
case in the beginning.

I see no reliable facts or the hope of any to support that claim. Just
anecdote and urban legend.

Early CDs sounded lousy for the most part.

Wrong. There were occasional failures but they weren't due to any basic or
even any implemented failures of the technology. In general they related to
careless work during production.

Sure, they had the aforementioned convenience
advantage from the get-go, low noise, small form factor,
portability and a low defect and return rate (which the
retailers LOVED), didn't degrade as they were played,
etc.

And that isn't enough?

but they could also be ear- bleedingly shrill and/or
distorted, with flat, lifeless sound stages and no
imaging.

Careless work is a real PITA, no?

They could lack hall ambience and sound dry when
compared to the LP of the same recording, etc.

CD's can "do" anything, because they are a faithful reproduction of the
recording you made them from.

LP's impose so much of their own characteristics and limiations on the
recording that they are made from that there are sonic places they can't go,
for better or worse.

It's rare
to get a poor sounding CD these days, but when the format
first started, many articles and papers were written
about the sonic problems of CD.

These articles strangely enough appeared primarily in the golden-eared
press, thus preparing the way for an ongoing revenue stream for their
*analog* advertisers.

I still have quite a few
early CDs, and can demonstrate these shortcomings to
anyone who doubts me. I remember especially, an early DGG
CD of Richard Strauss' '"Alpine Symphony" that sounded so
bad that I literally threw it away.

DGG was well known for the sound quality that was absent from their LPs in
those days, as well.

CD's can sound horrid far better than LPs, because they are a faithful
reproduction of the recording that they were made from. There are
horrid-sounding places that no LP can go.

The brick wall
filters of the early players didn't help matters either,
and I probably should have kept that CD.

The alleged problem of brick-wall filtering has been studied extensively
over the past 25 years. It has been found that brick wall filters 20 KHz
are sonically innocious even if they do horrid things to oscilliscope
traces. Furhtermore, I have previously shown that a common audiophile
misapprehension about pre-ringing is just that - a common audiophile
misapprehension.

As I recall, it
was a nice performance and possibly with today's players
it wouldn't sound so terrible.

Yet another wistful, but completely unbstantiated idea.

Remember that many people, like me and most of my close
audiophile
friends put the first CD players sold up against top LP
systems of the day, and the LP systems went into the
closet as soon as we had enough CDs to play.

Yeah, and many didn't.

Yes, the golden-ear press had some success in continuing the revenue stream
for their *analog* advertisers.

Especially those who were in the
hobby for the music and not the technology. They kept
their LPs and their record decks because the music they
loved wasn't available on CD. A lot of it still isn't. I
also remember seeing letters to the editor in magazines
like Audio and TAS where music lovers were likening the
sound of CD to a "musical cartoon" of the performance or
an audio "pasteboard cut-out" of the music. While I found
those people a little extreme, they had a point. Early
on, the CD Emperor, indeed, had no clothes.

The number of people who favor LP over CD is vanishingly
small. Not
even most of the declining subscribers of the high end
ragazines all believe that the LP rules.

Nobody with any technical knowledge or who have developed
the listening acumen often referred to as "golden ears"
believes that LP rules, and certainly I don't.

As you have claimed, people were so tired of the audible degradation that is
inherent in the LP format that they were willing in just about anything to
avoid it, even cassette tapes with all of their audible flaws, in their
typical commercial implementation.

To me, LP
is just another signal source, as I've said before.

One that you are willing to make false claims about the CD format in order
to justify. :-(

Like everyone else, I mostly listen to and enjoy CD and SACD.

Wrong. Almost nobody listend to CD *and* SACD. Billions listen to CDs, but
only a tiny, nearly vanishingly small minority bother with SACD.

Unlike some people, the audiophiles I hung with were far
more sophisticated than the average audiophile.

Elitist remarks like that don't further your arguments
one iota.

Many were audio professionals, members of the
AES, etc. Two of them were not only AES members, but
also AES Fellows. Others were AES board members and
regional chairmen.

Lot's of people are and were professionals and members of
the AES.

But very few are honored as AES Fellows. You conveniently forgot that.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 10:16 pm, Sonnova wrote:

snip
I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto all the way
through without changing sides had anything to do with it?

Hmmm...that would seem a rather dubious argument for several reasons:

1. If it was for convenience only, as you seem to imply, then those
persons would have long before switched over to cassette, no? Or are
you arguing that CD is *so* close to perfect that just that minor
convenience point tipped the scale so dramatically?

2. We're talking about people for whom "quality mattered", remember, so
are you discounting the possibility that being able to listen to a
symphony or concerto all the way through without interruption provided,
for such individuals, such an added level of emotional involvement in
the musical performance that any of your perceived shortcomings of CD
vs. LP were simply overshadowed? For such individuals, the CD would
provide a more emotionally satisfying experience than the LP, making CD,
to them, the musically superior format. Now, of course, those same
individuals might compare some "snippet" of the performance on CD and
LP, and the results might be different. I trust you are not making that
argument?

3. I, and every music fan I personally know who are concerned with
quality reproduction, switched to CD for the sound, not the convenience.
The convenience is a plus, granted, but the prospect of replacing
many hundreds of LP's, for many thousands of dollars, would have
completely overridden any convenience factors (at least for those in my
socioeconomic stratum at the time) had quality *not* been the
overarching reason.

4. Frankly, cassette provides perfectly adequate sound quality in
*most* auto listening situations (certainly for most vehicles on the
road when the CD was introduced). At the time of CD introduction, and
for many years afterwards as well (prior to cost effective CD-R),
cassette provided the means to achieve convenience and portability, for
all your already purchased LP music, at a small fraction of the cost of
a CD purchase. Where was the impetus for CD then, if it was only
convenience?

Keith Hughes

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 03:14:54 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 2, 10:16*pm, Sonnova wrote:

That's correct too. LP was a bit of a paradox in that respect. Put a cheap
record deck up against a cheap CD player and the CD is better in every way,
but put a well designed and well made LP deck with a good arm and cartridge
against a very good CD deck in the early days and the LP would knock it out
of the ring, sonically, every time.

Vinyl has always sounded better to people who listen with their
wallet.

That's a pretty meaningless statement.

That's not true any more, but it
certainly was in the time frame we're discussing.

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

And my recollection was that most classical fans found early CD to be
unlistenable. Certainly I and all of my audiophile friends found it so. We
seem to have an impasse of opinion here.