Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main

Date: 12 Dec 2006 19:25:06
From: bernie
Subject: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Following the thread on coffee shop operation and your dialogue on hi fi
equipment. My wife is asking me what I want for Christmas. I'd like a
turntable that I will run through a HTR 5730 receiver/amp from Yamaha
which I inherited from my late brother in law. No idea of the quality it
can drive. I will be playing old vinyl from the 60's & 70's. What would
be as a good match for the Yamaha? Would it be the cheapie ones that
Best By would carry or could the amp handle a higher quality. The
speakers are standard issue Bose that came with the amp and an older set
of JBL mid-range. Thanks.
Bernie

Date: 13 Dec 2006 17:53:22
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

bernie wrote:
> Following the thread on coffee shop operation and your dialogue on hi fi
> equipment. My wife is asking me what I want for Christmas. I'd like a
> turntable that I will run through a HTR 5730 receiver/amp from Yamaha
> which I inherited from my late brother in law. No idea of the quality it
> can drive. I will be playing old vinyl from the 60's & 70's. What would
> be as a good match for the Yamaha? Would it be the cheapie ones that
> Best By would carry or could the amp handle a higher quality. The
> speakers are standard issue Bose that came with the amp and an older set
> of JBL mid-range. Thanks.
> Bernie

I'm not either of the above either, but for vintage decks, of which
there should be many around, look for Thorens TD range - 160 etc, even
an old Bang & Olufson ('scuse spelling) can sound OK - I use one here
(but stylii can be expensive or non-existent) Technics decks are OK in
a non-audiophile way - SL-B10/12 etc, Linn Sondek of course (but these
come with an array of armes & cartridges etc), Garrard SP for a
vintage deck, or if you want a Versalab-type approach, then:

http://www.elpj.com/ has got to be worth a look!

Numark are used these days for disco decks, along with the Technics.
Rega Planar used to be a good entry level audiophile deck, and should
be around on Ebay. To be honest, anything that doesn't slip (if belt
drive) and can have a light tonearm, together with anti-skid should be
fine. We always used Stanton broadcast cartidges and stylii, but
there are many better cartidges around.

You still can't beat vinyl version of some albums - Pink floyd sound
better on vinyl (Dark side of the Moon), IMHO, as does Eric Clapton
and other "unplugged" albums.

--
Regards, Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)

Date: 13 Dec 2006 04:34:55
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Bernie, sorry I am not the above mentioned users.

You need a decent turntable / arm into which you mount a good
cartridge.

There are still new ones to be had and a zillion used. $100 or more
for a decent table and cartridge.

pioneer PL 990?

a crappy one will give poor fidelity -- but worse -- can permanently
damage your records.

Date: 13 Dec 2006 00:18:16
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:55:07
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Wow, Bernie, you found a lot of experts, didn't you?

I concur with Ian's suggestions.

Happy holidays and good listening.

bernie wrote:
> Following the thread on coffee shop operation and your dialogue on hi fi
> equipment. My wife is asking me what I want for Christmas. I'd like a
> turntable that I will run through a HTR 5730 receiver/amp from Yamaha
> which I inherited from my late brother in law. No idea of the quality it
> can drive. I will be playing old vinyl from the 60's & 70's. What would
> be as a good match for the Yamaha? Would it be the cheapie ones that
> Best By would carry or could the amp handle a higher quality. The
> speakers are standard issue Bose that came with the amp and an older set
> of JBL mid-range. Thanks.
> Bernie

Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:03:01
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Wow, Bernie, you found a lot of experts, didn't you?
>
> I concur with Ian's suggestions.
>
> Happy holidays and good listening.

Actually, I don't believe any of the respondants claimed to be
experts. I certainly didn't.

--
Regards, Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)

Date: 18 Dec 2006 11:40:03
From: bernie
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Wow, Bernie, you found a lot of experts, didn't you?
>
> I concur with Ian's suggestions.
>
> Happy holidays and good listening.
>
>
>
>
> bernie wrote:
>
>>Following the thread on coffee shop operation and your dialogue on hi fi
>>equipment. My wife is asking me what I want for Christmas. I'd like a
>>turntable that I will run through a HTR 5730 receiver/amp from Yamaha
>>which I inherited from my late brother in law. No idea of the quality it
>>can drive. I will be playing old vinyl from the 60's & 70's. What would
>>be as a good match for the Yamaha? Would it be the cheapie ones that
>>Best By would carry or could the amp handle a higher quality. The
>>speakers are standard issue Bose that came with the amp and an older set
>>of JBL mid-range. Thanks.
>>Bernie
>
>

I'm still reading the posts! Thanks to all who responded.
Bernie

Date: 19 Dec 2006 19:35:31
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:40:03 -0700, bernie <bdigman@zianet.com > wrote:

>
> I'm still reading the posts! Thanks to all who responded.

i know bugger all about this <off > topic, but it's been a rather
interesting read! thanks everyone!

--barry "not all OT is bad"

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Date: 19 Dec 2006 19:07:04
From: bernie
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:40:03 -0700, bernie <bdigman@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm still reading the posts! Thanks to all who responded.
>
> i know bugger all about this <off> topic, but it's been a rather
> interesting read! thanks everyone!
>
> --barry "not all OT is bad"
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

'specially when there are those on the ng who obviously know what
they are speaking of and have some serious chops in the the biz.
Bernie (still thinking Dylan sounds best in monorual)D.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:38:24
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

That's because pre-electric Dylan is really chanelling Woody Guthrie 78's.

"bernie" <bdigman@zianet.com > wrote in message
news:45889ac9@nntp.zianet.com...
> Bernie (still thinking Dylan sounds best in monorual)D.

Date: 20 Dec 2006 02:48:41
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:07:04 -0700, bernie <bdigman@zianet.com > wrote:

>Bernie (still thinking Dylan sounds best in monorual)D.

but bob & doug mckenzie sound better in stereo.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 06:23:52
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:25:06 -0700, bernie <bdigman@zianet.com > wrote:

>Following the thread on coffee shop operation and your dialogue on hi fi
>equipment. My wife is asking me what I want for Christmas. I'd like a
>turntable that I will run through a HTR 5730 receiver/amp from Yamaha
>which I inherited from my late brother in law. No idea of the quality it
>can drive. I will be playing old vinyl from the 60's & 70's. What would
>be as a good match for the Yamaha? Would it be the cheapie ones that
>Best By would carry or could the amp handle a higher quality. The
>speakers are standard issue Bose that came with the amp and an older set
>of JBL mid-range. Thanks.
>Bernie

Sorry about the delay... in Sibu, Sarawak

For my 2p, I would never buy a used table from any one less demented
than myself or Will. Who knows what little buggers yanked on the
arm... never cleaned and lubed the bearing, spindle, motor, etc.

There is a line of tables that is excellent and reasonable. I heard
them in a shop in Preston earlier this year and they sounded fine.
http://www.project-audio.com/ Also heard their big daddy in a shop in
Canada and it was superb.

The smallest information recorded in a vinyl disk is in the micron
level. If you use an inferior arm, you have a lathe...

Bon chance

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Dec 2006 10:39:57
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

I'm no hifi expert. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere about a
turntable that "reads" the vinyl by bouncing a laser beam off the groove,
which would make a lot of sense. I'm sure that no matter how light the arm
or the stylus, every trip thru must result in some wear and there are a lot
of records that at this point are literally irreplaceable. Have they gotten
anywhere with these or are they too "digital" to please analog enthusiasts?

I suppose another alternative at this point is to rip your vinyl to CD or
disk for everyday use and only play the vinyl on rare occassions when you
are doing serious listening. Given the level of the rest of Bernie's
system, I doubt that he would notice much degradation from playing a rip vs.
the original and even a moderately bad turntable won't take off too much on
a single playing for ripping purposes. And the vinyl is preserved for future
use when non-contact readout is perfected, you want to make a better rip
into some future technology, etc. The digital file can be copied from
device to device and if you lose or scratch the CD you can just burn
another.

"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dvb5o2huj5v5g8s5lpde8auqnr9vlh8ea4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:25:06 -0700, bernie <bdigman@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> The smallest information recorded in a vinyl disk is in the micron
> level. If you use an inferior arm, you have a lathe...

Date: 15 Dec 2006 10:12:08
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On 2006-12-15, Jack Denver <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

> I suppose another alternative at this point is to rip your vinyl to CD or
> disk for everyday use and only play the vinyl on rare occassions when you
> are doing serious listening. Given the level of the rest of Bernie's
> system, I doubt that he would notice much degradation from playing a rip vs.
> the original and even a moderately bad turntable won't take off too much on
> a single playing for ripping purposes. And the vinyl is preserved for future
> use when non-contact readout is perfected, you want to make a better rip
> into some future technology, etc. The digital file can be copied from
> device to device and if you lose or scratch the CD you can just burn
> another.

The problem with digital compared to analog is digital is just not as
full, end of story. Even with CD, which Sony helped pioneer, the
algorithm used saves media storage space by eliminating notes. Sony
discovered, for all practical purposes, the human ear can't
effectively hear every note. It tends to hear only the lower note of
two notes of the same pitch but an octave or more apart. So, to save
storage, the alorithm discards the higher pitched of the two notes.
Well, maybe the ear can't distinguish the two notes, but I believe it
can detect the depth or warmth of analog over the less full sound of
digital. Granted, as sampling rates improved so did the fidelity.
But, it's now going backwards again as ripped wav files get mp3'd. In
the meantime, vinyl is making a comeback. I just purchased a brand
new copy of Ian & Sylvia's Northern Journey, an LP I lost years ago
and have never wanted in digital. I now dust off my Pioneer direct
drive turntable with Ortofon oval stylus and light up the tubes on my
Fisher 400 which is running through my JBL Metragon speakers. Sorry,
but with respect to sound, you'll never convince me digital is better.
Give me a couple pops over sterile digital every time. ;)

nb

Date: 15 Dec 2006 14:58:03
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

To me, if something is indistinguishable, then it's really
indistinguishable. If "golden ears" in blind tests can't tell which is
digital and which is analog on an A/B test, then you're in the realm of
metaphysics. MP3 by now is old technology - there are better compression
algorithms - Ogg/Vorbis, AAC+, etc. which if you rip at a high enough bit
rate you won't be able to tell the difference, especially since Bernie has a
cheap Yamaha home theater amp and speakers and not some lovely tube amp.

Again given the fact that so much vinyl is out of print and literally
irreplaceable I think it makes a lot of sense to keep the records in their
sleeves as much as possible and work from copies, even if that only gives
you a 90% experience and not the 100% real thing. Most people don't give
100% attention to music much of the time anyway. 5 or 10 years from now when
there are even better compression schemes (or storage is so massive and
cheap that you don't need to compress at all and can rip at higher than CD
bit rates - you can do this today by ripping to a DVD format) the record
will still be there in prisitine condition to be re-ripped.

"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com > wrote in message
news:MpadnZbmS6jFVB_YnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> The problem with digital compared to analog is digital is just not as
> full, end of story. Even with CD, which Sony helped pioneer, the
> algorithm used saves media storage space by eliminating notes. Sony
> discovered, for all practical purposes, the human ear can't
> effectively hear every note. It tends to hear only the lower note of
> two notes of the same pitch but an octave or more apart. So, to save
> storage, the alorithm discards the higher pitched of the two notes.
> Well, maybe the ear can't distinguish the two notes, but I believe it
> can detect the depth or warmth of analog over the less full sound of
> digital. Granted, as sampling rates improved so did the fidelity.
> But, it's now going backwards again as ripped wav files get mp3'd. In
> the meantime, vinyl is making a comeback. I just purchased a brand
> new copy of Ian & Sylvia's Northern Journey, an LP I lost years ago
> and have never wanted in digital. I now dust off my Pioneer direct
> drive turntable with Ortofon oval stylus and light up the tubes on my
> Fisher 400 which is running through my JBL Metragon speakers. Sorry,
> but with respect to sound, you'll never convince me digital is better.
> Give me a couple pops over sterile digital every time. ;)
>
> nb

Date: 15 Dec 2006 14:44:52
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:58:03 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

>To me, if something is indistinguishable, then it's really
>indistinguishable. If "golden ears" in blind tests can't tell which is
>digital and which is analog on an A/B test, then you're in the realm of
>metaphysics. MP3 by now is old technology - there are better compression
>algorithms - Ogg/Vorbis, AAC+, etc. which if you rip at a high enough bit
>rate you won't be able to tell the difference, especially since Bernie has a
>cheap Yamaha home theater amp and speakers and not some lovely tube amp.
B
U
L
L

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 17 Dec 2006 20:35:21
From: Neal Reid
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

In article <MpadnZbmS6jFVB_YnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
notbob <notbob@nothome.com > wrote:

> Even with CD, which Sony helped pioneer, the
> algorithm used saves media storage space by eliminating notes. Sony
> discovered, for all practical purposes, the human ear can't
> effectively hear every note. It tends to hear only the lower note of
> two notes of the same pitch but an octave or more apart. So, to save
> storage, the alorithm discards the higher pitched of the two notes.

Um - let's get the story straight.

Everything you say is true - and completely irrelevant. COMPRESSED
ENCODING systems drop bits as a means of saving space. BUT CDs as
such do not compress, they simply convert from analog to digit
with a sampling frequency of 44 khz IIRC. That means, for
frequencies up to 22 khz, everything is there.

I've personally been involved in blind testing at the National
Research Council (in Canada) during the development of compression
systems - where the same piece is played analog, digital, and
digital compressed with various algorithms. I could identify SOME
of the compressed schemes, but all other things equal, unless one
has exceptional high end hearing, distinguishing sampled digital
from analog is HARD >

That " all other things equal" phrase is key. For example, if the
volume level of test samples is not equal, many people will prefer
the louder, regardless of technology. In the end, I have many
vinyl, CD pairs. Depending what I want to prove, I can A/B and
'prove' that vinyl is better or that CD is better. The quality of
the engineering SO exceeds the difference in technology that the
technology disappears. That is, in plain english, there's good
vinyl and lousy vinyl. There are good CDs and bad CDs. The are
MANY re-releases of vinyl on CD that where just that - re-releases
as opposed to re-engineered. They're uniformly TERRIBLE!

That doesn't prove CDs suck or that vinyl is better. It only
supports GOOD,FAST, CHEAP - pick any two - and the industry
chooses FAST CHEAP

--
M for N in address to mail reply

Date: 18 Dec 2006 02:50:17
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:35:21 -0500, Neal Reid <NealReid@Nagma.ca >
wrote:

>That means, for
>frequencies up to 22 khz, everything is there.

And More!!! The filters introduce phase shift and / or amplitude
variation. Couldn't possibly hear that could we?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:30:19
From: Neal Reid
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

In article <nurco2lsapqqljpb2qudlu239ldsgdc29r@4ax.com >,
"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:35:21 -0500, Neal Reid <NealReid@Nagma.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >That means, for
> >frequencies up to 22 khz, everything is there.
>
> And More!!! The filters introduce phase shift and / or amplitude
> variation. Couldn't possibly hear that could we?

Back to quality APPLYING the technology independent of the
technology. Yes, I can hear amplitude variations - and if they're
there in a conversion, it's a lousy conversion.

Phase shifts I can't comment on with confidence

--
M for N in address to mail reply

Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:56:23
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:39:57 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

> I suppose another alternative at this point is to rip your vinyl to CD or
>disk for everyday use and only play the vinyl on rare occassions when you
>are doing serious listening.

way back when... we did this to cassette and ran the tapes all the
time (it's really hard to keep a turntable from skipping in a
landcruiser; hell, it's hard to keep a tape deck from skipping in a
landcruiser!). a whole bunch of my vinyl has only been on a turntable
once.

--barry "fleetwood mac once self-ejected"

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:10:24
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Jack Denver wrote:
> I'm no hifi expert. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere about a
> turntable that "reads" the vinyl by bouncing a laser beam off the groove,
> which would make a lot of sense. I'm sure that no matter how light the arm
> or the stylus, every trip thru must result in some wear and there are a lot
> of records that at this point are literally irreplaceable. Have they gotten
> anywhere with these or are they too "digital" to please analog enthusiasts?

It's in the link I posted in my reply to Bernie.

--
Regards, Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:03:56
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Thanks - that's the device I was thinking of. What does something like this
cost? It sounded ominously expensive and not something that would fit in
with a $200 home theater receiver. A lot of the "high end" stuff is
expensive because the volumes sold are so low and there are no economies of
scale - if Sony only sold 1000 CD players a year, they'd cost $10,000+ each
too, but instead they sell 1,000,000 players at $100 and the Chinese sell
10,000,000 for $10.

"Danny" <danny@nospam.gaggia-espresso.com > wrote in message
news:4uga77F180atuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jack Denver wrote:
>> I'm no hifi expert. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere about a
>> turntable that "reads" the vinyl by bouncing a laser beam off the groove,
>> which would make a lot of sense. I'm sure that no matter how light the
>> arm or the stylus, every trip thru must result in some wear and there are
>> a lot of records that at this point are literally irreplaceable. Have
>> they gotten anywhere with these or are they too "digital" to please
>> analog enthusiasts?
>
> It's in the link I posted in my reply to Bernie.
>
>
> --
> Regards, Danny
>
> http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
> http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)
>

Date: 15 Dec 2006 21:26:21
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Jack Denver wrote:
> Thanks - that's the device I was thinking of. What does something like this
> cost? It sounded ominously expensive and not something that would fit in
> with a $200 home theater receiver. A lot of the "high end" stuff is
> expensive because the volumes sold are so low and there are no economies of
> scale - if Sony only sold 1000 CD players a year, they'd cost $10,000+ each
> too, but instead they sell 1,000,000 players at $100 and the Chinese sell
> 10,000,000 for $10.

$15,000.

--
Regards, Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)

Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:59:13
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:26:21 +0000, Danny
<danny@nospam.gaggia-espresso.com > wrote:

>Jack Denver wrote:
>> Thanks - that's the device I was thinking of. What does something like this
>> cost? It sounded ominously expensive and not something that would fit in
>> with a $200 home theater receiver. A lot of the "high end" stuff is
>> expensive because the volumes sold are so low and there are no economies of
>> scale - if Sony only sold 1000 CD players a year, they'd cost $10,000+ each
>> too, but instead they sell 1,000,000 players at $100 and the Chinese sell
>> 10,000,000 for $10.
>
>$15,000.

does it come with an espresso machine?

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:49:02
From: Felix
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

I- >Ian advises:
> For my 2p, I would never buy a used table from any one less
> demented than myself or Will.

I agree, but I've bought several used 'tables before so there's no
shortage of dementia :-)

> There is a line of tables that is excellent and reasonable.
> I heard them in a shop in Preston earlier this year and they
> sounded fine.
> http://www.project-audio.com/

This is an appropriate recommendation, since it might be the only
company that makes a 'table with a built-in phono preamp worth buying.
On the other hand, though the entry-level models are affordable by
audiophile standards, they might be a bit out of place feeding a
sub-$200 home theater receiver, etc.

Coincidentally, I'm shopping for a phonograph for a friend who also has
a modest system. This is a hard problem, metaphorically like navigating
through a minefield to get to a swamp, partly because the turntable
market has fragmented into budget, dj, and audiophile segments. None of
these seem appropriate in my case, so I'm visiting a local repair shop
tomorrow.

Bernie, the first step is assessing your vinyl collection to determine
how large a budget is justifiable. As far as I know, your receiver does
not have a phono input, so the next step is allocating some money for a
phono preamp of suitable quality. If there's a local store with a good
reputation, it's worth a visit. The right solution probably costs more
than you want to spend if you buy it new. If I were you, I'd gamble on
used equipment. If you'd like me to refer you to mail-order dealers,
send me email.

Felix

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:16:27
From: bernie
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Felix wrote:

> Bernie, the first step is assessing your vinyl collection to determine
> how large a budget is justifiable.
> Felix
>

Well... Some of the records I had before I was drafted in '72. They
have a lot of sentimental value. Many of them I aquired with my
then-partner who lived with me in Germany in a small but adequate
apartment with her son who I raised. She is now my beloved wife of three
decades or so. I'm a grandpa now to his two sons. Some of the vinyl was
played on cold and dreary days deep in the heart of Bavaria by a young
man half a world away from his family and not so sure of his next step
in life. Other platters were played when our apartment became the home
to go to on holidays for lots of ex-patriate and service connected
countrymen during some rough times in the real world. There are albums
in there which were used to express feelings, hopes, fears and youthful
exhuberance toward life when conversation failed. Some of the music was
incredibly meaningful at a pivitol time of life. Then there are albums
which were aquired when we got back to the states and started our life
here and were caught between the insular military life we'd had in
Europe and what craziness was happening in the country upon our return
after not having been in the states for 3 1/2 years. Some of the albums
were purchased when the cost was actually a concern in our budget. I can
still recall having made a least half a dozen trips to a record store
looking at an album before giving in and making the purchase and hoping
it wouldn't be too extravagant or that my partner would forgive my
indulgence. I'm reminded of some of the albums being background in our
younger days together when the evenings were sweet and the son put to
bed and we'd splurged on a bottle of $3 wine and the only light was from
some candles and the glow of the lights from the stereo. As our son grew
into a man we are very proud of it was fun to pull out some of those
albums and play them and he'd remember the words and be amazed that much
of the music he likes was stuff we'd been listening to for decades.
So, that's my assessment of the collection. =)
Bernie

Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:34:43
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

mrfuss@earthlink.net wrote:

> And I'm also looking at LP-to-CD/DVR solutions.

A soundcard will an adequate sample rate to match the input, perhaps a
Turtle Beach or SoundBlaster, some patience and maybe a ground-loop
isolator from Radio Shack. Needn't bother compressing with
psychoacoustic models, but stay with WAV files. More or less patience
and the computer does the rest. Some songs that may fit fifty to a
DVR, unless the walls are lined floor to ceiling with vinyl.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 17:07:44
From: John Frank
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

An alternative selection for a decent/good turntable is the Music Hall
Turntable model MMF-2.1. I'm not sure how it compares to the line of
turntables recommended by Ian, but you can ask around and see what you
can find out. I own a Music Hall turntable and I like it. It may cost
more than you want to spend (around $350), but you'll enjoy listening
to your music on it and it won't prematurely age your records.

John

bernie wrote:
> Following the thread on coffee shop operation and your dialogue on hi fi
> equipment. My wife is asking me what I want for Christmas. I'd like a
> turntable that I will run through a HTR 5730 receiver/amp from Yamaha
> which I inherited from my late brother in law. No idea of the quality it
> can drive. I will be playing old vinyl from the 60's & 70's. What would
> be as a good match for the Yamaha? Would it be the cheapie ones that
> Best By would carry or could the amp handle a higher quality. The
> speakers are standard issue Bose that came with the amp and an older set
> of JBL mid-range. Thanks.
> Bernie

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:41:15
From:
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:18:28
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Jack, if you can design a speaker with digital inputs, I'm your man.
Until then, there is a lot more to audio than "knowing diddly about
digital."

Date: 19 Dec 2006 07:26:41
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

I- >Ian wrote eloquently in response to Jack Denver

Ian, my friend, you keep taking the words out of my fingers before I
can type them. If only it were as simple as the (non-audio) engineers
make it sound. I'm inclined to hip hop on the theme of "it's da DACs,
Jack." But, of course, it is much more than just the DACs.

And, yes, Jack, as much as it may boggle your mind, the tapes used for
"running the space shuttle or a jetliner" would not be good enough for
quality audio. "It's da facts, Jack"

Hmmmm....move over, Snoop.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 20:38:08
From: Felix
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Jack Denver writes:
> What you heard was a hardware problem with certain CD
> players (and one that could have been fixed cheaply with
> a little read ahead buffering).

That's a nice theory, but I think you made a stronger claim. The $1000
CD transport is a bad value only if it isn't that hard to pay less for
something that works as well, or if you don't care that much about how
well it works. Whether the lesser players can be fixed cheaply isn't
relevant. On the other hand, their existence is.

> If they would just stay with the pure digital data for
> as long as possible, it would be better [...]

That's not a new idea. However, the consumers seem to prefer some
degree of deconstruction, presumably so they can customize the
distortion they desire by substituting fancy cables, old-fashioned
vacuum tube amplifiers, etc.

Felix

Date: 20 Dec 2006 13:25:30
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On 2006-12-20, Felix <felixyen@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Jack Denver writes:

>> If they would just stay with the pure digital data for
>> as long as possible, it would be better [...]
>
> That's not a new idea. However, the consumers seem to prefer some
> degree of deconstruction, presumably so they can customize the
> distortion they desire by substituting fancy cables, old-fashioned
> vacuum tube amplifiers, etc.

Well, the sooner we get rid of that pesky fair use stuff, the better.
Go all digital so you can get that panicky look-over-your-shoulder
feeling you've missed so much since settling for legal drugs like
caffeine and nicotine.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/12/19/AM200612192.html

nb

Date: 20 Dec 2006 15:16:12
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Attempts at "copy protection" are a joke. If you can see or hear the
programming you can capture it. I know that Hollywood thinks that
all-digital will enable them to lock up their content but they've yet to
produce an encryption format that hasn't been cracked (DVD encryption was
cracked long ago by some 16 yr old kid), and according to encryption theory
it's not really possible (because they have to give you the key in order for
you to be able to see/hear the content - the only way to protect a cipher is
to keep the key separate from the cipher). The definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The
content industry is like Charlie Brown and the football - THIS time the
snake oil salesmen really have sold us unbreakable protection. Ooops, no,
that didn't work. Repeat. Any cryptographer could tell them they are going
after the Holy Grail but they are blinded by greed. So let them try locking
stuff up - there is an endless supply of 16 yr. old programmers waiting to
crack their idiot schemes.

"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com > wrote in message
news:OcidnWRlO6O3ExTYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> On 2006-12-20, Felix <felixyen@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Jack Denver writes:
>
>>> If they would just stay with the pure digital data for
>>> as long as possible, it would be better [...]
>>
>> That's not a new idea. However, the consumers seem to prefer some
>> degree of deconstruction, presumably so they can customize the
>> distortion they desire by substituting fancy cables, old-fashioned
>> vacuum tube amplifiers, etc.
>
> Well, the sooner we get rid of that pesky fair use stuff, the better.
> Go all digital so you can get that panicky look-over-your-shoulder
> feeling you've missed so much since settling for legal drugs like
> caffeine and nicotine.
>
> http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/12/19/AM200612192.html
>
> nb
>

Date: 20 Dec 2006 15:22:05
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On 2006-12-20, Jack Denver <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
> Attempts at "copy protection" are a joke. If you can see or hear the
> programming you can capture it.

Capturing something is one thing. Copying and using it is another.
Ask the thousands who've been sued by the RIAA.

> cracked long ago by some 16 yr old kid),

Who eventually ended up in court and spent time in jail.

> snake oil salesmen really have sold us unbreakable protection. Ooops, no,
> that didn't work.

You're not paying attention. It's not breaking the code that's the
problem, it's breaking the law. I'm sure you are perfectly capable of
shoplifting a pair of socks or driving while intoxicated. Would you?

nb

nb

Date: 20 Dec 2006 20:54:48
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Not a single day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen

He continues to crack "protection" schemes - didn't "protection" used to
mean when gangsters would hold you up by threatening to break your windows
if you didn't pay. I guess it still does.

>
> Who eventually ended up in court and spent time in jail.
>

Date: 20 Dec 2006 20:18:57
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On 2006-12-21, Jack Denver <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

> Not a single day:
>

Not even an hour!?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen

I looked, but didn't see a single thing about jail. If he didn't, I'm
happy for him. But, like I said, it's the law that's coming down and
people are being incarcerated. Feel free to hide your head in the sand.

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-admin-sent-to-prison/

nb

Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:54:54
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Lighten up, Danny. No one was taking a shot at you...or anyone.

I might have considered myself something of an analog expert years ago
but I've been 100% digital for a long time. Yeah, heresy, I know...

Danny wrote:
> Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wow, Bernie, you found a lot of experts, didn't you?
> >
> > I concur with Ian's suggestions.
> >
> > Happy holidays and good listening.
>
> Actually, I don't believe any of the respondants claimed to be
> experts. I certainly didn't.
>
>
> --
> Regards, Danny
>
> http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
> http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)

Date: 15 Dec 2006 21:33:26
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Lighten up, Danny. No one was taking a shot at you...or anyone.
>
> I might have considered myself something of an analog expert years ago
> but I've been 100% digital for a long time. Yeah, heresy, I know...
>

I don't need to lighten up, nothing was implied in my post. But,
looking at Bernies setup - normal household audio - I didn't want him
to just receive the top-end advice - much as we do with steam toy
users when they ask for advice here (the absolute minimum entry level
requirement is for a Mazzer and a prosumer HX machine - not). I'm
familiar with many decks that I've used that are often available and
needn't cost the earth.

I'm in both camps viz analogue/digital. I wouldn't dream of not
listening to vinyl, preferably with an old class A or valve amp, (of
which I own many), but I also record/download/buy many tracks and have
a USB reader on the car stereo.

My hearing isn't worth decent quality - a good friend has an audio
setup easily worth half the value of my house - Naim, completely
independent mains wiring from the house etc and I can't really
appreciate it.

--
Regards, Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)

Date: 15 Dec 2006 10:08:57
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

a LASER BEAM!

(snicker)

dave

Date: 17 Dec 2006 07:15:46
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Flasherly wrote:
> A soundcard will an adequate sample rate to match the input, perhaps a
> Turtle Beach or SoundBlaster, some patience and maybe a ground-loop
> isolator from Radio Shack. Needn't bother compressing with
> psychoacoustic models, but stay with WAV files. More or less patience
> and the computer does the rest. Some songs that may fit fifty to a
> DVR, unless the walls are lined floor to ceiling with vinyl.

Yikes! Soundcards? Honey, if you are satisfied with the audio that
comes out of a sound card or an Ipod, don't worry about what kind of
turntable to buy. Just go to your nearest hock shop and pick up
whatever they have on the shelf.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 12:48:09
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

There are soundcards (some quite cheap ones - like $20 or 30) with optical
digital outputs, so if you play raw wav files on them they would sound
identical to a CD player with optical out. I can understand the concept of a
"high end" digital to analog converter but what always makes me laugh are
the "high end" CD transports - either you pull the digital data off a CD or
you don't - remember that in a data file if there is even 1 bit wrong the
program may not run. A $20 CDROM pulls digital data off a CD as well as a
$2000 "hi fi" CD transport.

Optical out also gets rid of any ground loop potential. Of course getting
the analog data IN to the sound card from the phono and converting it to
digital presents more of a problem.

<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166368546.417912.235190@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Flasherly wrote:
>> A soundcard will an adequate sample rate to match the input, perhaps a
>> Turtle Beach or SoundBlaster, some patience and maybe a ground-loop
>> isolator from Radio Shack. Needn't bother compressing with
>> psychoacoustic models, but stay with WAV files. More or less patience
>> and the computer does the rest. Some songs that may fit fifty to a
>> DVR, unless the walls are lined floor to ceiling with vinyl.
>
> Yikes! Soundcards? Honey, if you are satisfied with the audio that
> comes out of a sound card or an Ipod, don't worry about what kind of
> turntable to buy. Just go to your nearest hock shop and pick up
> whatever they have on the shelf.
>

Date: 17 Dec 2006 20:59:27
From: Neal Reid
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

In article <T8WdnauqQJ5HHxjYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Jack Denver" <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

> A $20 CDROM pulls digital data off a CD as well as a
> $2000 "hi fi" CD transport.

This is true - and for an audio system - so what? What does it DO
with the data before delivering an analog signal to an amplifier?

Take a well engineered CD through a $20 transport into a well
matched amp/speaker set and again through a $2000 transport - and
pretty much anybody who can hear at all - let alone someone with
golden ears - CAN hear the difference.

(I won't mention - oh, I guess I am mentioning - that I'm not
convinced this is always a good thing. When I do this demo,
stacking a Yamaha 5 disc player against a Revox, I use a Maisky
cello CD. On the Yamaha, it's pleasant cello. On the Revox, you
here every hammer on/off and rosin slide on the strings. Very real
life, but musically, one COULD argue that it's distracting)

--
M for N in address to mail reply

Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:42:17
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:48:09 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

>There are soundcards (some quite cheap ones - like $20 or 30) with optical
>digital outputs, so if you play raw wav files on them they would sound
>identical to a CD player with optical out. I can understand the concept of a
>"high end" digital to analog converter but what always makes me laugh are
>the "high end" CD transports - either you pull the digital data off a CD or
>you don't - remember that in a data file if there is even 1 bit wrong the
>program may not run. A $20 CDROM pulls digital data off a CD as well as a
>$2000 "hi fi" CD transport.
>
>

Believe it or not, this is incorrect. The laser has to track the pits
and read the 0's and 1's correctly. If the laser mistracks, error
correction has to guess at what is written on the CD. Depending on the
severity of the misread, the correction may or may not be audible.

Better transports have better power supplies, bearings, lasers,
lenses, drive mechanisms, isolation, firmware, etc. None of which
could possibly make any difference?

What makes me laugh are self annointed experts who haven't got a clue
what they are talking about. I've had to laugh at myself more than
once, but not on this topic.

>Optical out also gets rid of any ground loop potential.
Here you are correct.

>Of course getting
>the analog data IN to the sound card from the phono and converting it to
>digital presents more of a problem.
>
>
>
> <Omniryx@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1166368546.417912.235190@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Flasherly wrote:
>>> A soundcard will an adequate sample rate to match the input, perhaps a
>>> Turtle Beach or SoundBlaster, some patience and maybe a ground-loop
>>> isolator from Radio Shack. Needn't bother compressing with
>>> psychoacoustic models, but stay with WAV files. More or less patience
>>> and the computer does the rest. Some songs that may fit fifty to a
>>> DVR, unless the walls are lined floor to ceiling with vinyl.
>>
>> Yikes! Soundcards? Honey, if you are satisfied with the audio that
>> comes out of a sound card or an Ipod, don't worry about what kind of
>> turntable to buy. Just go to your nearest hock shop and pick up
>> whatever they have on the shelf.
>>
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:44:05
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Oh, I see have wandered into the snake pit. Yes, none of it makes any
difference in a digital medium. Either you read the data correctly or you
don't. A $20 CDrom has no problem reading the data off my Microsoft Office
disk, every last bit of it correctly - if it flipped even one bit, the
program wouldn't run at all. One bit wrong on my Excel spreadsheet and the
books don't balance. So why can't it read a music CD? If you are worried
about error correction, timing, etc. then set up a read ahead buffer and
reclock the data on the way out - this is simple to do in software. Hell,
read the whole disk ahead of time, each sector 3 times to be sure, and
buffer it all to a wav file on the hard disk - a $300 PC is still cheaper
than a $1000 CD transport. Buy yourself a nice big hard disk and you can
store several hundred CDs with no compression (or even more with lossless
compression) and you won't have to worry about the CD's getting scractched.
Once you get to the "hifi" wonderland, simple data read and error correction
tasks that are considered trivial in the digital world suddenly become
magically difficult and in need of expensive hardware.

"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:cmgbo2t7lkpr4idgv07a6ovorbkogrdaio@4ax.com...
>
> Better transports have better power supplies, bearings, lasers,
> lenses, drive mechanisms, isolation, firmware, etc. None of which
> could possibly make any difference?
>
>

Date: 17 Dec 2006 10:25:16
From: Dave S
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Date: 17 Dec 2006 12:21:53
From: Felix
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Jack Denver writes:
> I can understand the concept of a "high end" digital to analog
> converter but what always makes me laugh are the "high end" CD
> transports - either you pull the digital data off a CD or you
> don't - remember that in a data file if there is even 1 bit
> wrong the program may not run. A $20 CDROM pulls digital data
> off a CD as well as a $2000 "hi fi" CD transport.

If the DAC doesn't reclock the signal (not unusual), the transport must
deliver the bits at the correct rate. Processing real-time data isn't
the same as processing data files.

> Of course getting the analog data IN to the sound card from the
> phono and converting it to digital presents more of a problem.

Right, returning to the original OT topic ... making digital copies of
LPs can be a more demanding task than simply playing the LPs, because
the copy process sometimes anticipates improvements to the playback
system. So when I reintroduced my sister to one of her favorite Bach
sonata recordings, I had a friend make the copy because his equipment
is better than mine. For example, his Benz phono preamp retails for
over $1K whereas mine lives on a circuit board along with other things,
e.g. its power supply.

He also has a better cartridge, a fancy ADC feeding his computer, and
software that can make a DAO recording. We decided to burn one track
per side, with index marks for each sonata. On the other hand, if
you're just adding a turntable to a modest home theater system, a used
NAD PP-2 preamp ($90) would be fine. In the used market, it's possible
to buy a decent turntable and tonearm for less than $100, but don't
gamble on a used cartridge!

Playing LPs is a bit like grinding coffee. The problem isn't difficult,
but if you try to get by with a cheap solution ... Bernie, if I had to
guess, I'd say that you need $400 for this project. In the end, we pay
more than we wanted to pay, because the alternative is even worse.

Felix

Date: 17 Dec 2006 11:39:35
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Flasherly wrote:
> > A soundcard will an adequate sample rate to match the input, perhaps a
> > Turtle Beach or SoundBlaster, some patience and maybe a ground-loop
> > isolator from Radio Shack. Needn't bother compressing with
> > psychoacoustic models, but stay with WAV files. More or less patience
> > and the computer does the rest. Some songs that may fit fifty to a
> > DVR, unless the walls are lined floor to ceiling with vinyl.
>
> Yikes! Soundcards? Honey, if you are satisfied with the audio that
> comes out of a sound card or an Ipod, don't worry about what kind of
> turntable to buy. Just go to your nearest hock shop and pick up
> whatever they have on the shelf.

He's saying CD/DVR in the same sense that I think means CD-audio and
DVD +/-R data streaming. There isn't an industry DVD audio standard,
I'm aware of, and Digital Video Recording -- $1000 three years ago,
$500 early last year, and $50 now at Walmart -- doesn't seem quite in
keeping for plugging into a turntable and directly assaying sound
editing. If that's what is intended. Rather like discussing music
with someone from some band at some coffeebar late into the night, and
suddenly be told common tabletop VCR tapes offer superior dynamic
headroom for fantastic recording sessions. Name of the band, perhaps
it was Deer Hunter. Plugging into a computer sound device is
acceptable, given good equipment. Conversely, there's little reason not
to come out -- short of an acceptable demand in qualifying the useage
environment -- given I'm aways apart from broadcasting, sound
engineers, studio or concert recording facilities. For nearly a year,
years ago, every morning, I would run aside a couple of 3-head cassette
decks feeding into a soundcard. An album a side, two or three albums
daily, often online while chitter-chattering away with the squirrels.
Third generation, as I also laid the vinyl to cassette. The soundcard
is a dated, but at the time of the conversions, one of the best
mid-range units for input sampling. The results are all now on another
computer just across the room. There's the remote infrared keyboard
and mouse on a glass coffee table in front a 37" LCD screen that's set
close to the floor. Above, on one side, a mini computer I built feeds
the display beneath, along with the amplifier, compander/expander and a
half-octave equalizer on the other side. All that's survived, the rest
being in a closest, instead of the hock shop.

http://www.stereophile.com/computeraudio/1104echo/index1.html

Date: 18 Dec 2006 05:32:40
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

I- >Ian wrote:
> And More!!! The filters introduce phase shift and / or amplitude
> variation. Couldn't possibly hear that could we?

Oh, of course not. Can't hear any of that. No, no indeed.

I THINK that I can hear a little difference between an original vinyl
and an excellent digital copy. Others claim the difference is glaring
(but usually don't want to try an ABX on it, as previously discussed).
For me, the quality of digital sound when reproduced on top notch gear
is so close to analog that I simply found that vinyl was no longer
worth the hassle. Not to mention the inescapable pops and ticks. Of
course, for some people, fiddling with the Keith-Monks or the Loricraft
(or the air compressor on a VersaDynamics, if Jim happens to be reading
this) is part of the fun. Me? I'd rather sip a single malt and
listen.

Oh, and by the way, Dave, the equipment used by good studios to make
vinyl-to-digital transfers has as much relationship to a home sound
card as a Lamborghini has to a Geo Metro.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:42:03
From: Dave S
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:

> Oh, and by the way, Dave, the equipment used by good studios to make
> vinyl-to-digital transfers has as much relationship to a home sound
> card as a Lamborghini has to a Geo Metro.
>

What 'good' studio is making vinyl-to-digital transfers? For commercial
resale? Got any examples?

As far as I know, any company issuing a CD of material that was
originally issued on vinyl, will go back to the original tapes for the
conversion, not to vinyl.

When Marshall said he was "also looking at LP-to-CD/DVR solutions" I
understood that to be for him to convert his own vinyl to CD. That will
require a computer sound card.

I have personally converted about 50 disks to CD. In every case, it is
only worth while if the material is out-of-publication. Using a much
better than average sound card and noise reduction software, the
needle-dragged-along-a-disk artifacts are still too audible.

Dave S.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:41:56
From: Neal Reid
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

In article <Owzhh.7047$a14.1202@newsfe24.lga >,
Dave S <dabcschell@mts.not > wrote:

> Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Oh, and by the way, Dave, the equipment used by good studios to make
> > vinyl-to-digital transfers has as much relationship to a home sound
> > card as a Lamborghini has to a Geo Metro.
> >
>
> What 'good' studio is making vinyl-to-digital transfers? For commercial
> resale? Got any examples?
>
> As far as I know, any company issuing a CD of material that was
> originally issued on vinyl, will go back to the original tapes for the
> conversion, not to vinyl.

Read my posts yesterday? I can walk to my collection and play you
any number of CDs which were obviously produced from a vinyl
recording - or worse, recorded from vinyl masters c/w RIAA
correction still in place.

This may not be as common today as it was a few years ago when
demand for CDs exceeded supply. But there's LOTS of them out there!

--
M for N in address to mail reply

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:48:48
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On 2006-12-18, Dave S <dabcschell@mts.not > wrote:
>
> When Marshall said he was "also looking at LP-to-CD/DVR solutions" I
> understood that to be for him to convert his own vinyl to CD. That will
> require a computer sound card.
>
> I have personally converted about 50 disks to CD. In every case, it is
> only worth while if the material is out-of-publication. Using a much
> better than average sound card and noise reduction software, the
> needle-dragged-along-a-disk artifacts are still too audible.

Take a look at this one:

http://masl.to/?L3E41346E

nb

Date: 18 Dec 2006 05:22:27
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Neal Reid wrote:
> (I won't mention - oh, I guess I am mentioning - that I'm not
> convinced this is always a good thing. When I do this demo,
> stacking a Yamaha 5 disc player against a Revox, I use a Maisky
> cello CD. On the Yamaha, it's pleasant cello. On the Revox, you
> here every hammer on/off and rosin slide on the strings. Very real
> life, but musically, one COULD argue that it's distracting)

Very true, Neal. I suspect that Madonna would sound a good deal better
on my partner's iPod than on my Utopia Grandes.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:31:51
From: Neal Reid
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

In article <1166448147.489876.41920@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote:

> Neal Reid wrote:
> > (I won't mention - oh, I guess I am mentioning - that I'm not
> > convinced this is always a good thing. When I do this demo,
> > stacking a Yamaha 5 disc player against a Revox, I use a Maisky
> > cello CD. On the Yamaha, it's pleasant cello. On the Revox, you
> > here every hammer on/off and rosin slide on the strings. Very real
> > life, but musically, one COULD argue that it's distracting)
>
> Very true, Neal. I suspect that Madonna would sound a good deal better
> on my partner's iPod than on my Utopia Grandes.

Madonna - sound better? Better than what? :-)

--
M for N in address to mail reply

Date: 18 Dec 2006 05:19:30
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Thank you, Ian, for saving me the trouble of writing this. :)

I- >Ian wrote:
> Believe it or not, this is incorrect. The laser has to track the pits
> and read the 0's and 1's correctly. If the laser mistracks, error
> correction has to guess at what is written on the CD. Depending on the
> severity of the misread, the correction may or may not be audible.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:49:53
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Felix wrote:
> I agree that audiofool manufacturers have a regrettable tendency to
> deconstruct components, effectively blaming their customers for not
> spending enough money. If the amplifier sounds bad, buy the outboard
> power supply. If the tuner isn't sensitive enough, there's a signal
> enhancer. If you think your CDs sound bad, replace your player with a
> transport, DAC, and an expensive cable. I am as disgusted as you are.
> Soon, they'll be selling electronic equipment without power cords.
>
> On the other hand, I know the situation isn't as simple as you make it
> seem. For a long time, many people dreamed of combining the convenience
> of a multi-disk CD changer with the fidelity of a good DAC, and many
> changers had digital outputs. Nobody ever found that grail. The simple
> things you see are all complicated ...

Truer words were seldom spoken, Felix.

My better half had a good chortle over the comparison of audio
equipment to computer equipment. "I wonder," he mused, "if people
realize that the very best computer tape that one could buy--in the
days when it was used--was about the quality of the very cheapest audio
tape ever sold."

Date: 19 Dec 2006 00:15:27
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

That's because a computer tape just has to distinguish between a 1 and a 0,
whereas an audio tape has all kinds of shades in between. Those cheap
"computer grade" tapes are good enough to record every single bit of
critical data and program files for say running the space shuttle or a
jetliner, where a single bit error could cost lives, so they should be good
enough to hold your Madonna songs. As for the distinction between
(digital) audio equipment and computer equipment, their ain't any - a
digital file is a digital file. It could be video or audio or a program or
a spreadsheet - it's all a bunch of 1s and 0s that are the same to the
computer. This is the part that audiophiles can't seem to wrap their head
around. I get the feeling that some manufacturers don't want you to.

<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166500193.620068.268870@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Felix wrote:
>> I agree that audiofool manufacturers have a regrettable tendency to
>> deconstruct components, effectively blaming their customers for not
>> spending enough money. If the amplifier sounds bad, buy the outboard
>> power supply. If the tuner isn't sensitive enough, there's a signal
>> enhancer. If you think your CDs sound bad, replace your player with a
>> transport, DAC, and an expensive cable. I am as disgusted as you are.
>> Soon, they'll be selling electronic equipment without power cords.
>>
>> On the other hand, I know the situation isn't as simple as you make it
>> seem. For a long time, many people dreamed of combining the convenience
>> of a multi-disk CD changer with the fidelity of a good DAC, and many
>> changers had digital outputs. Nobody ever found that grail. The simple
>> things you see are all complicated ...
>
> Truer words were seldom spoken, Felix.
>
> My better half had a good chortle over the comparison of audio
> equipment to computer equipment. "I wonder," he mused, "if people
> realize that the very best computer tape that one could buy--in the
> days when it was used--was about the quality of the very cheapest audio
> tape ever sold."
>

Date: 19 Dec 2006 06:32:16
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:15:27 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

>That's because a computer tape just has to distinguish between a 1 and a 0,
>whereas an audio tape has all kinds of shades in between. Those cheap
>"computer grade" tapes are good enough to record every single bit of
>critical data and program files for say running the space shuttle or a
>jetliner, where a single bit error could cost lives, so they should be good
>enough to hold your Madonna songs.

It's simple for a tape to record 0 and 1. The playback amplifier says
anything below here is 0 and anything above here is 1. The 1's are
recorded well above the threshold, and the 0's well below.

A 'Madonna' track has the possibility of all values from 0 to 0xFFFF,
er 65535 to you mortals, for 14 bit audio, 6 bits shy of a quality
that can be considered approaching HiFi. Additionally, any value
between the whole numbers is available as well. Much tougher than a 0
or 1.

> As for the distinction between
>(digital) audio equipment and computer equipment, their ain't any - a
>digital file is a digital file. It could be video or audio or a program or
>a spreadsheet - it's all a bunch of 1s and 0s that are the same to the
>computer. This is the part that audiophiles can't seem to wrap their head
>around. I get the feeling that some manufacturers don't want you to.

Dude, ever listen to anything?

Theoretically, a digital file is a digital file, all 0's and 1's.

Practise, playing audio, does not meet theory.

I'm no expert on CD encoding and playback, but I'll relate a tale that
satisfies me that it ain't all 0's and 1's.

I'd never mastered a CD from a digital recording because I'd never
cared for the 'sound' of the digital recorders extant.

A few years back, Jay Graydon recorded a jazz album to showcase the
now defunct Alesis M20 20bit digital recorder. From the initial
recording sessions through myriad roughs to the final CD master, I
listened to the music uncounted times.

When the store bought disc arrived, I stuck it in the CD player in the
car as I jumped, er crawled, onto the Ventura parking lot, er freeway.
I was so taken aback that I turned around at the next exit and went
back home for a CD master. Sure enough, the master sounded fine and
the store bought, veiled. The same on my office Teac Mini and my Rotel
RCD-02 HDCD at home. Very strange. I copied both CDs to my computer
and binary compared the files. No difference. At the time, I was
working at dts, a company that knows a thing or two about digital
audio. I gave the brain trust guys the CDs and asked for a full
analysis. "No binary difference, but clearly an audible one."

Without telling my wife anything, I gave her a store bought for her
car. She said it sounded like it was playing in the next room.

About that time, a mutual friend from Sweden visited who had heard
several of the roughs, the master CD and the store bought. I asked him
how he liked the final mixes and and he said, "Der last vun [ store
bought ] sounds like dey need to open der vindow."

Independent listeners familiar with the music all heard a sonic
difference in 'identical' files on diverse ROTM playback equipment.
Veiled, next door, closed window are close enough for jazz.

Determined to find what was causing the differences, I borrowed a
Clover Systems QA-101 [ http://www.cloversystems.com/Verify.htm ] and
analysed the disks. Sure enough, all error rates were much higher,
some times as much as 10x higher, for the store bought CDs than the
Masters. All the CDs were A grade with error rates well below Redbook
A grade values. All errors were correctable and therefore 'inaudible.'

The 0's and 1's all line up and the discs are digitally 'identical',
but all listeners clearly heard a difference when they expected none.

'nuff said.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Dec 2006 11:01:16
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

I can see you don't know diddly about digital. FFFF is just hexadecimal
notation that is convenient for humans to use..it's a lot easier to write F
than it is to write 1111. Each group of 4 binary numbers reduces to exactly
1 hexadecimal #, so FFFF is the same as 16 1's. The computer /CD player
never sees FFFF, what it sees is 1111111111......., or some string of 1's
and 0's for lesser values. So you were right the first time - all the
digital playback has to do is distinguish between 1 and 0. A whole bunch of
1's and 0's (16 of them for each sample x 44k samples/second x 2 tracks).
This is not much tougher than a 0 or 1, it's the exact same thing. Now
reconstructing the 1's and 0's back to analog music (or converting the music
to that string of 1's and 0's in the first place) without introducing
artifacts is another story, but just getting the raw data down and playing
it back isn't that hard, which was my original point.

As for your story about the CD, it's possible that some CD players,
designed for real time playback, have lousy error correction methods and
will just interpolate data - most people would rather have muffled sound
than a CD that won't play at all.

However, as you said, the CD read in your computer bit for bit the same as
the master - even with errors there is enough redundacy that the file can be
reconstructed bit for bit (if not necessarily in real time because you might
have to read some sectors more than once). So if you had played the data of
the CD back on a computer CDrom thru a program with decent buffering and
error correction or spooled it to a WAV file first, it would have sounded
just the same. What you heard was a hardware problem with certain CD
players (and one that could have been fixed cheaply with a little read ahead
buffering).

I think the problem that a lot of hifi people have is that they have an
analog background and so they tend to attack digital problems in an analog
way, which leads to poor results. If they would just stay with the pure
digital data for as long as possible, it would be better - digital data can
be made error free and can be easily manipulated. In the long run, I think
you'll see more of this where the analog conversion is not done until the
last moment e.g. in the speakers and the data travels around optically.
Then there's no hum, no ground loops, no worry about cable length, etc.

"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:gfpfo2ddhqpcdpugve5vm9rlfnsqureh9v@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:15:27 -0500, "Jack Denver"
> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>That's because a computer tape just has to distinguish between a 1 and a
>>0,
>>whereas an audio tape has all kinds of shades in between. Those cheap
>>"computer grade" tapes are good enough to record every single bit of
>>critical data and program files for say running the space shuttle or a
>>jetliner, where a single bit error could cost lives, so they should be
>>good
>>enough to hold your Madonna songs.
>
> It's simple for a tape to record 0 and 1. The playback amplifier says
> anything below here is 0 and anything above here is 1. The 1's are
> recorded well above the threshold, and the 0's well below.
>
> A 'Madonna' track has the possibility of all values from 0 to 0xFFFF,
> er 65535 to you mortals, for 14 bit audio, 6 bits shy of a quality
> that can be considered approaching HiFi. Additionally, any value
> between the whole numbers is available as well. Much tougher than a 0
> or 1.
>
>> As for the distinction between
>>(digital) audio equipment and computer equipment, their ain't any - a
>>digital file is a digital file. It could be video or audio or a program
>>or
>>a spreadsheet - it's all a bunch of 1s and 0s that are the same to the
>>computer. This is the part that audiophiles can't seem to wrap their head
>>around. I get the feeling that some manufacturers don't want you to.
>
> Dude, ever listen to anything?
>
> Theoretically, a digital file is a digital file, all 0's and 1's.
>
> Practise, playing audio, does not meet theory.
>
> I'm no expert on CD encoding and playback, but I'll relate a tale that
> satisfies me that it ain't all 0's and 1's.
>
> I'd never mastered a CD from a digital recording because I'd never
> cared for the 'sound' of the digital recorders extant.
>
> A few years back, Jay Graydon recorded a jazz album to showcase the
> now defunct Alesis M20 20bit digital recorder. From the initial
> recording sessions through myriad roughs to the final CD master, I
> listened to the music uncounted times.
>
> When the store bought disc arrived, I stuck it in the CD player in the
> car as I jumped, er crawled, onto the Ventura parking lot, er freeway.
> I was so taken aback that I turned around at the next exit and went
> back home for a CD master. Sure enough, the master sounded fine and
> the store bought, veiled. The same on my office Teac Mini and my Rotel
> RCD-02 HDCD at home. Very strange. I copied both CDs to my computer
> and binary compared the files. No difference. At the time, I was
> working at dts, a company that knows a thing or two about digital
> audio. I gave the brain trust guys the CDs and asked for a full
> analysis. "No binary difference, but clearly an audible one."
>
> Without telling my wife anything, I gave her a store bought for her
> car. She said it sounded like it was playing in the next room.
>
> About that time, a mutual friend from Sweden visited who had heard
> several of the roughs, the master CD and the store bought. I asked him
> how he liked the final mixes and and he said, "Der last vun [ store
> bought ] sounds like dey need to open der vindow."
>
> Independent listeners familiar with the music all heard a sonic
> difference in 'identical' files on diverse ROTM playback equipment.
> Veiled, next door, closed window are close enough for jazz.
>
> Determined to find what was causing the differences, I borrowed a
> Clover Systems QA-101 [ http://www.cloversystems.com/Verify.htm ] and
> analysed the disks. Sure enough, all error rates were much higher,
> some times as much as 10x higher, for the store bought CDs than the
> Masters. All the CDs were A grade with error rates well below Redbook
> A grade values. All errors were correctable and therefore 'inaudible.'
>
> The 0's and 1's all line up and the discs are digitally 'identical',
> but all listeners clearly heard a difference when they expected none.
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:46:19
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Neal Reid wrote:
> Madonna - sound better? Better than what? :-)

Better than a blender pulverizing a Coke bottle?

Date: 18 Dec 2006 22:44:26
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On 2006-12-19, Omniryx@gmail.com <Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote:

> Better than a blender pulverizing a Coke bottle?

See for yourself:

http://www.willitblend.com/videos.aspx?type=unsafe

nb

Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:10:37
From: Felix
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Jack Denver writes:
> A $20 CDrom has no problem reading the data off my
> Microsoft Office disk, every last bit of it correctly [...]
> So why can't it read a music CD?

Nobody said it couldn't.

> If you are worried about error correction, timing, etc.
> then set up a read ahead buffer and reclock the data
> on the way out - this is simple to do in software.

Nothing is simple to do in software :-)

> Hell, read the whole disk ahead of time, each sector 3 times
> to be sure, and buffer it all to a wav file on the hard disk -
> a $300 PC is still cheaper than a $1000 CD transport.

True, but the expensive transport doesn't introduce a perceptible delay
whereas creating a file and then feeding those bits to a DAC would.
What would happen when I press the fast-forward button on my remote
control unit?

I agree that audiofool manufacturers have a regrettable tendency to
deconstruct components, effectively blaming their customers for not
spending enough money. If the amplifier sounds bad, buy the outboard
power supply. If the tuner isn't sensitive enough, there's a signal
enhancer. If you think your CDs sound bad, replace your player with a
transport, DAC, and an expensive cable. I am as disgusted as you are.
Soon, they'll be selling electronic equipment without power cords.

On the other hand, I know the situation isn't as simple as you make it
seem. For a long time, many people dreamed of combining the convenience
of a multi-disk CD changer with the fidelity of a good DAC, and many
changers had digital outputs. Nobody ever found that grail. The simple
things you see are all complicated ...

Felix

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:35:01
From: Felix
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

bernie writes:
> Well... Some of the records I had before I was drafted in '72.
> They have a lot of sentimental value. [...]
> So, that's my assessment of the collection. =)

I might have guessed ... The collection I got from my parents was also
acquired over many years. In their own way, they treasured their
records. But one or both of them had this idea that the stylus was much
harder than vinyl, so it didn't need to be replaced very often, if at
all. By the time I rescued the collection, it was too late.

In spite of their careful handling, and their feelings for their
collection, the process of culling it became a grim exercise. I didn't
play each disc from beginning to end, but I played a little of most of
them, and though discarding records is a bit like burning books to me,
I made weekly dumpster deposits for a while. Only about 15% survived.

Bernie, it would be so much easier to help you if you just published
your budget. Judging from your response, my previous estimate of $400
was way too low.

Felix

Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:18:10
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

On 18 Dec 2006 17:35:01 -0800, "Felix" <felixyen@hotmail.com > wrote:

>bernie writes:
>> Well... Some of the records I had before I was drafted in '72.
>> They have a lot of sentimental value. [...]
>> So, that's my assessment of the collection. =)
>
>I might have guessed ... The collection I got from my parents was also
>acquired over many years. In their own way, they treasured their
>records. But one or both of them had this idea that the stylus was much
>harder than vinyl, so it didn't need to be replaced very often, if at
>all. By the time I rescued the collection, it was too late.
>
>In spite of their careful handling, and their feelings for their
>collection, the process of culling it became a grim exercise. I didn't
>play each disc from beginning to end, but I played a little of most of
>them, and though discarding records is a bit like burning books to me,
>I made weekly dumpster deposits for a while. Only about 15% survived.
>
>Bernie, it would be so much easier to help you if you just published
>your budget. Judging from your response, my previous estimate of $400
>was way too low.
>
>
>Felix

Often, old records were played with a big fat stylus that rode on the
top of the groove. Assuming there was not a large gritty hairball
dragged along by the stylus, often cleaning with a mild soap and water
will remove crud.

[ Used to use a Nitty Gritty Record Cleaning Machine. ]

The now clean groove, when played with a modern tiny stylus, often
plays significantly better than one might imagine. I used to amaze my
Dad by resurrecting some of his LPs from the early 50's that had seen
better days.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Dec 2006 16:15:14
From: bernie
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

Felix wrote:
> bernie writes:
>
>>
> Bernie, it would be so much easier to help you if you just published
> your budget. Judging from your response, my previous estimate of $400
> was way too low.
>
>
> Felix
>

I can spend pretty much what I need to, Felix, but I don't want to
overbuy a turntable based on my previous posts of the off-the-shelf
yamaha it will be running through. If a $1500 turntable is what it takes
thats okay, but not if the yamaha will be making it sound like a $150
table. Thanks for the help.
Bernie

Date: 19 Dec 2006 21:14:00
From: Felix
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

bernie responds:
> I can spend pretty much what I need to, Felix, but I don't
> want to overbuy a turntable based on my previous posts
> of the off-the-shelf yamaha it will be running through.

Like using a Ditting for a percolator ... Hanging a diamond in a vinyl
groove is getting a bit old, so a bunch of us took a shot at buying our
last turntable thinking that the market would dry up. It didn't, but I
don't regret my decision. In other words, you might not want to let the
receiver constrain your purchase.

Unfortunately, your observation threatens to blow the lid off the
project as it were. You might be able to justify replacing the
receiver, or augmenting it with electronics dedicated to two-channel
(and monaural) recordings. Your speakers also deserve some scrutiny.
This could get expensive ...

Sometimes, it's better to deal with the right people than to try to
acquire a lot of expertise and then apply it. The audio equipment
market is especially confusing (to me) because the religious debates
are so numerous. Judging from what I own, it's possible to get good
sound via passive preamplification, and active preamplification, via
solid-state amplification, and vacuum tube amplification. I have a tube
tuner, a solid-state one, and a digital one. I sold a bunch of others,
so I must like these :-)

You should spend half an hour on the phone with the guy who sold me
most of my equipment. I've known him for about 15 years, and am putting
him in my will.

Felix

Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:43:04
From: Felix
Subject: Re: Ian and Omniryx: Totally OT question

I- >Ian writes:
> Assuming there was not a large gritty hairball dragged
> along by the stylus, often cleaning with a mild soap
> and water will remove crud.
>
> [ Used to use a Nitty Gritty Record Cleaning Machine. ]
>
> The now clean groove, when played with a modern tiny
> stylus, often plays significantly better than one might
> imagine.

I've read such anecdotes before, but my experience hasn't been so
positive. I've cleaned with mild soap and water, borrowed a Nitty
Gritty, and own a record cleaning maching similar to VPI's HW-16.5.
Maybe my stylus isn't tiny enough :-)

Felix