In article <sbqd0n$6ji$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 03/07/2021 18:07, charles wrote:
> > I remember a tv dealer in Fort William telling me he had to put top cut
> > filers in tv sets when uhf appeared. Up to then, 405 tv sound could get
> > as kight a 8kHz (on a good day).

> I heard a week or so that the dealer has closed now.

Last time I was in Ft Wm was in 2017, but I didn't go into the town; I went
on the train across Rannoch Moor - and back.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:24:17 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have time to
> 'digitise' them.

I expect you'll have time when you're dead.

On 03/07/2021 15:21, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> washing machines that had to be manually switched from
> wash to spin,

You had a washing machine?

Bill

On 03/07/2021 23:54, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:24:17 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have time to
>> 'digitise' them.
>
> I expect you'll have time when you're dead.

In the meantime, unless it's a very esoteric collection, Spotify will
have done it already, and better.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 16:20:19 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

[big snip]
>I don't disagree with any of that, all fine. Just don't find vinyl
>has a lack of detail. If vinyl playback is so lacking in detail that
>it stands out as your earlier comments suggest, then there is
>something wrong with the vinyl playback system or maybe the record is
>knackered.

I don't quite follow the logic of that. If an LP sounds inferior to
the corresponding CD, then yes there must be a deficiency somewhere in
the LP signal path, but it doesn't have to be the playback equipment.
Knowing how the gramophone system works, it's easy to see that there
are unavoidable deficiencies and inaccuracies inherent to the system
itself which even a perfect playback system could not eliminate.
That's where my suspicion would fall first.

I haven't possessed any equipment for playing records for several
decades now, but at one time I had what I think was fairly good
equipment for records, CDs and cassettes too (because cassettes were a
thing then), and some of my favourite recordings on all three formats.
I was also working in broacasting at the time so had plenty of
opportunities to hear what professional equipment was capable of.
Cassettes were an attempt to eliminate the mechanical deficiencies of
gramophone records and the sheer awkwardness of handling them, which
they did, but at the expense of frequency response. I liked the
convenience of cassettes and really wanted to like the sound but it
was never quite good enough. Then one day a colleague let me listen on
headphones to one of those newfandangled CD machines I'd been reading
about and on which he'd just spent a fortune, and I had to save up and
buy one too. I've never bought a gramophone record since.

Rod.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 18:07:22 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>I remember a tv dealer in Fort William telling me he had to put top cut
>filers in tv sets when uhf appeared. Up to then, 405 tv sound could get as
>kight a 8kHz (on a good day).

I'm surprised any audio above 8kHz got as far as Fort William in the
days of analogue distribution. That was about the upper limit for
Pontop Pike.

I remember once going on a touring holiday of Scotland with a friend,
he with his ham radio gear, me with my portable FM Hacker radio
modified for stereo on headphones, listening to whatever we could find
along the way, and was able to hear the quality becoming steadily
worse the further north we got. From Rosemarkie, BBC FM sounded almost
like medium wave but with no background noise apart from the
occasional valve clanking or telephone dialling clicks. Foreign FM was
vastly superior, and often in stereo.

Rod.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 15:58:29 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>I don't remember washing machines that had to be manually switched from
>wash to spin. It either had twin tubs and the washing was physically
>moved from one to the other, or a separate spinner was used.

Our family's first machine (brand name "Thor" I think) was a top
loader with a sort of gearstick on an angled panel on the front. It
could be turned to several positions, and you had to push down hard on
the control to be able to turn it, which clearly engaged or disengaged
something mechanical so it wasn't just an electrical switch. There was
no timer or programmer as on a modern machine. You just had to leave
it doing whatever it was doing until you thought it had had enough and
then change it manually. At the time it was considered pretty clever.

Rod.

Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 03/07/2021 23:54, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:24:17 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have time to
> >> 'digitise' them.
> >
> > I expect you'll have time when you're dead.
>
> In the meantime, unless it's a very esoteric collection, Spotify will
> have done it already, and better.
>
They've done about 1% of my collection, maybe. It really isn't worth
searching usually, all I ever find is people selling the vinyl I
already have at silly prices.

--
Chris Green
·

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 05:21:10 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>On 03/07/2021 15:21, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> washing machines that had to be manually switched from
>> wash to spin,
>
>You had a washing machine?
>
>Bill

Not at first, as I remember our family's acquisition of our very first
one. My Dad had to make a platform for it over a drain in a kind of
scullery area out the back because there was no provision for anything
so modern in the main kitchen. We attached its input hose to a tap
when we wanted to use it, and let it empty into the drain.

Rod.

Indy Jess John wrote:

>My car has a screenwash of sorts. It is a dashboard mounted manually
>operated pump on the opposite end of the useful switches to the choke
>control and with the same type of knob, to make the controls and
>instruments look symmetrical. It works and I don't have to remember
>which stalk it is on.

The Beetle was my first car. It had an interesting screenwash
system. The water reservoir was connected to, and pressurised by,
the spare wheel, which lived under the bonnet. You simply pushed
a button and water squirted.

Only when it eventually stopped working did it become clear that
there was also a pressure limiter to make sure that you didn't
run the tyre flat.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

In article <5945dc03c7bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5945afcd6enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <sbmmdq$3lr$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > <MrSpud_7pzl8z8xf@ev0xgp_q2d.tv> wrote:

> > > Something these nutters forget is that the room they're in and the
> > > physical source material makes far more difference to the sound than
> > > any audiofool bollocks like that. The irony is a lot of them think
> > > vinyl is Gods own format which shows just how technically illterate
> > > they are.

> > I've come to assume that the reality is that some/many simply like the
> > changes than LP cutting and replay make to the audio signals. But then
> > often aren't willing to accept this is essentially an 'effect' due to
> > factors like distortion or some level compression added to make the
> > audio more amenable for the limits of LP cutting, etc.

> Why does this debate have to come down to name calling and very negative
> views about other people.

I don't think I did that. But I can see why it happens given the claims
some proceed to make about the 'reasons' for LP sounding good.

I'm happy to accept some prefer the sound. That's fine. The difficulty
arises when they make false claims as to a 'reason'.

> > I suspect a parallel in the area of 'high rez' where some feel the
> > sample rate has to cover up to *well* above 20kHz. The result might be
> > in some cases that the added HF far above 20kHz is - in itself -
> > inaudible. But leads to intermodulation effects later in the signal
> > path that add in audible changes which some 'like'. OTOH maybe it's
> > just "my ears are better than yours' gamemanship...

> I have a few high rez flac recordings and in most cases I cannot tell
> the difference between 16/44.1k recording and higher rez but there have
> been cases where I can. On a couple of these recordings I made 16/44.k1k
> down conversions from the 24/192K and found they sounded better than the
> official release and indistinguishable from the high-rez. I'm assuming
> at the moment that the recordings where I can hear differences are due
> to what happened in the production not the sample rate or bit rate. I
> may get proved wrong on that, I sort of hope I do. :-)

That area is a nightmare because many 'versions' exist when we have no idea
what changes have been made.

MQA (my current focus) is a prime example.

the '2L' company now offers a range of 'versions' of files at different
sample rates, etc, inc MQA-CD as well as CD. So you might think this makes
comparing MQA with non-MQA easy. Yes, you can decide which ones sound the
same/different/better/worse. But determining *why* is a different task
because they make *other* changes than simply the rate/format without you
knowing.

In addition, they have removed their original high rate versions at 96k or
88k and replaced them with what comes *out* of an MQA encode-decode cycle.
So if you want to compare what you get from MQA with with what was put into
it, you can't.

MQA adds dispersion, which alters the peak/mean ratio of the signals. Which
in turn affects the distortion levels when the result is run though later
kit. Which lets intermod take some HF and generate LF that wasn't in the
source material. Which might be an audible change, causing people to have a
'preference' that isn't actually due to the extended HF as such. etc, etc,
etc.

Personally, I'm happy to enjoy decent LPs regardless of their nominal
defects. Just as I still like good R3 FM. Just as I like well-made CDs.
What concerns me is the way nonsense claims get made about them.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <9u64rh-qp321.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > For me it's simple, some people like the whole LP thing. For whatever
> > reason they like vinyl and all its oddities. Some say they actually
> > prefer the sound of vinyl to digital and I don't even have a problem
> > with that. It's only at the point where they claim vinyl is actually
> > better where I raise an eyebrow.
> >
> However, can they actually tell the difference in a double blind test?

I suspect that it will be clear enough in many cases. You have to process
material for LP cutting, cutters are *far* from linear and low distortion,
and playback is also far from distortion free - particularly near
end-of-side.

Add in that many modern cartridges have a response curve that is way
different to being flat, usually also with different responses for the L+R
and L-R modulations. Also note that many LP replay systems have a distinct
LF resonance that lifts the LF. Add in some arm resonances.

Making a decent LP is a skill, and requires a cutter system in good order,
but even so the result has to get though the above.

Compared with that digital is trivial, albeit that the music 'biz' still
messes them up fairly often. Yet made with care and played well, an LP can
still sound good.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <a1m2eg9ucf98u5n5cio7bjk40245pij4ac@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 16:20:19 +0100, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> [big snip]

> >I don't disagree with any of that, all fine. Just don't find vinyl
> >has a lack of detail. If vinyl playback is so lacking in detail
> >that it stands out as your earlier comments suggest, then there is
> >something wrong with the vinyl playback system or maybe the record
> >is knackered.

> I don't quite follow the logic of that. If an LP sounds inferior to
> the corresponding CD, then yes there must be a deficiency somewhere
> in the LP signal path, but it doesn't have to be the playback
> equipment. Knowing how the gramophone system works, it's easy to
> see that there are unavoidable deficiencies and inaccuracies
> inherent to the system itself which even a perfect playback system
> could not eliminate. That's where my suspicion would fall first.

As I have already said, vinyl playback is full of problems, noise
distortion etc. etc. none of that is in dispute and i prefer
listening to flac to any other source. My only issue with your
position is where you claim that vinyl lacks detail. This I strongly
disagree with.

I would suspect that if people who hold that opinion were to listen
to a "good" system in "good" working condition they would be very
surprised. After accepting the noise, distortion reality, the
remaining sound from vinyl is very good. When I have young people in
the house (when it's allowed) it is common for them to want to hear
the "novelty" turntable. The surprise on their faces when they hear
it is amusing. They thought it would be awful, it isn't.

It will likely crackle a bit, it will measurably distort a bit but it
doesn't lack detail. If you find one that does, then there is
something wrong with that system.

I have no more I can add.

Bob.

PS. Good = properly working moderate system.

On 03/07/2021 18:07, charles wrote:
> In article <sbpvgu$56o$1@dont-email.me>,
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2021 12:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> There's no romance about old technology even though it can be
>>> interesting.

>> Like you used to hear people say they preferred Medium Wave because it
>> had a "warmer" sound i.e. none of those nasty higher frequencies and
>> limiter working hard to make it louder! :-)
>
> I remember a tv dealer in Fort William telling me he had to put top cut
> filers in tv sets when uhf appeared. Up to then, 405 tv sound could get as
> kight a 8kHz (on a good day).

Treble cut - as single "tone controls" on equipment invariably was - was
to compensate for lack of bass.

--
Max Demian

On 04/07/2021 08:42, Chris Green wrote:
> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2021 23:54, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:24:17 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have time to
>>>> 'digitise' them.
>>>
>>> I expect you'll have time when you're dead.
>>
>> In the meantime, unless it's a very esoteric collection, Spotify will
>> have done it already, and better.

£10 pcm. Too expensive for occasional use.

> They've done about 1% of my collection, maybe. It really isn't worth
> searching usually, all I ever find is people selling the vinyl I
> already have at silly prices.

I've either bought the corresponding CD, or downloaded the MP3s (for
free). YouTube is currently the best source of free music.

--
Max Demian

On 03/07/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Add in that many modern cartridges have a response curve that is way
> different to being flat, usually also with different responses for the L+R
> and L-R modulations.

That is a good description of the human ear too.

One thing to bear in mind is that the frequency response of the normal
pentode valve doesn't amplify all frequencies to the same degree, and by
coincidence (I don't think the circuit designers in those days were
clever enough to do it deliberately) it matched the variable response of
the human ear. That is why the early transistorised circuits sounded
flat in comparison.

Admittedly between then and now that difference has been designed out.
However a good vinyl recording played on a decent deck through a valve
amplifier does still sound good to me.

Jim

On 03/07/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Making a decent LP is a skill, and requires a cutter system in good order,
> but even so the result has to get though the above.
>
> Compared with that digital is trivial, albeit that the music 'biz' still
> messes them up fairly often. Yet made with care and played well, an LP can
> still sound good.

On the other hand, while a good record deck and cartridge will give
results comparable with a good CD player, a bad CD player can sound
considerably worse than a bad analogue system.

Limitations of analogue are largely limited to frequency response and
distortion; add various problems in the digital domain and things can go
downhill very quickly.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><

Sent from something that isn't from apple.
~~~ Random (signature) 1.6.1

Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 04/07/2021 08:42, Chris Green wrote:
> > Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >> On 03/07/2021 23:54, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:24:17 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have time to
> >>>> 'digitise' them.
> >>>
> >>> I expect you'll have time when you're dead.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, unless it's a very esoteric collection, Spotify will
> >> have done it already, and better.
>
> £10 pcm. Too expensive for occasional use.
>
> > They've done about 1% of my collection, maybe. It really isn't worth
> > searching usually, all I ever find is people selling the vinyl I
> > already have at silly prices.
>
> I've either bought the corresponding CD, or downloaded the MP3s (for
> free). YouTube is currently the best source of free music.
>
Again, very little of what I have on vinyl that I want to listen to
frequently is available on CD or downloadable. I have digitised much
of those I listen to a lot. I do still have a few cassettes that I
want to copy as well.

--
Chris Green
·

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 10:13:25 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>As I have already said, vinyl playback is full of problems, noise
>distortion etc. etc. none of that is in dispute and i prefer
>listening to flac to any other source. My only issue with your
>position is where you claim that vinyl lacks detail. This I strongly
>disagree with.

I don't think I ever said anything so sweeping as "vinyl lacks
detail", simply that on first hearing CD versions of the recordings I
was already familiar with from the corresponding LPs by having
listened to them many times, I became aware of details I hadn't
previously noticed. It was a bit like hearing the music properly for
the first time.

Rod.

In article <4k04eg96sgv0sikq64chbb1mm89oh8j889@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 10:13:25 +0100, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >As I have already said, vinyl playback is full of problems, noise
> >distortion etc. etc. none of that is in dispute and i prefer
> >listening to flac to any other source. My only issue with your
> >position is where you claim that vinyl lacks detail. This I strongly
> >disagree with.

> I don't think I ever said anything so sweeping as "vinyl lacks
> detail", simply that on first hearing CD versions of the recordings I
> was already familiar with from the corresponding LPs by having
> listened to them many times, I became aware of details I hadn't
> previously noticed. It was a bit like hearing the music properly for
> the first time.

other than the source, were you using the same listening equipment?
My first "listening to LP" experience was on my parents Philips' Disk
Jockey which only had 5" speaker. When I acquired a radio with a 10"
spealer, I discovered that Schubert's Unfinished Symphony had a lot of
double bass playing which I'd never heard before. (The radio only had MW
and LW)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 10:56:28 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 15:14:05 +0000 (UTC), MrSpud_K7dbw0v@ro7.gov.uk
>wrote:
>
>>>I've come to assume that the reality is that some/many simply like the
>>>changes than LP cutting and replay make to the audio signals. But then
>>
>>I suspect a lot simply like the ritual of putting on an LP , in a similar way
>
>>that some like that of making and pouring green tea, an utterly vile brew
>>that seems to have its own mythology around it just like LPs.
>
>I wonder what percentage of the people with this nostalgic view are
>old enough to remember having to go through the complicated rigmarole
>of playing gramophone records because there was no choice?

When I was a kid I had some vinly that I played on my mums old 60s deck.
The arm was so heavy it literally ploughed the groove and every time you
played a record there was a fine coating of black dust left behind. After
maybe 50 plays the record was ruined. Once I could afford a CD player I was
done with vinyl and never looked back.

In article <ffq0egt2pns8h949chj2ki1trp3n8hmq1q@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> What I mean by "inherently imperfect" would include, for example, the
> fact that the groove is cut in a radial path but usually tracked in a
> curved one, and the fact that vertical movement of the groove is
> followed by a stylus whose vertical movement is actually tilted forward
> because the shank of the stylus has to be hinged above the surface level
> of the record. Even an absolutely pristine record being played for the
> first time will have these distortions, and there are plenty more it
> will acquire with subsequent handling and playing. If properly managed,
> digital material can be kept unchanged forever.

Hi-Fi enthusiasts from the era when the Shure V15 ruled would be surprised
to see the weird responses, etc, shown these days by the MC carts that
command high praise and prices these days... and moder reviews tend to,
erm, skate over, their tracking abilty. As a result I suspect some get
chosen on a "You'll like ketchup with that" basis.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5946389107bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> To be honest I find that hard to imagine. Yes, vinyl has a host of
> failings where CD is very much better but detail certainly isn't one of
> them.

> As it happens, this last week I've fitted a new power suppply to my
> turntable and I've been testing it. Ignoring surface noise and the odd
> click I thought it sounded really good and certainly no detail missing.

In general I also find that many of my old LPs still sounded good when I
played them to make digital transfers. The transfers sound the same apart
from having removed the clicks and pops, and are easier to play.

In some cases they also sound like a different balance/mix to the CDs. So
useful to be able to choose/compare.

The basic problem with LP was/is the same as for other formats. Having the
people making them do so with due care. Not bash them out after sloppy
mastering. However the bigger differences tend to show up with wide-range
'classcal' music rather than 'pop' which tended to be tailored to sound
good via LP. Alas, PPP level classical tends to expose small but
distracting pops and clicks which pop is loud enough to make pass without
notice.

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <a1m2eg9ucf98u5n5cio7bjk40245pij4ac@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Then one day a colleague let me listen on headphones to one of those
> newfandangled CD machines I'd been reading about and on which he'd just
> spent a fortune, and I had to save up and buy one too. I've never bought
> a gramophone record since.

I have. Because some items were available on LP but haven't (yet) appeared
on CD. So a second-hand LP in decent condition can be welcome.

That said, my experience is that the above works best for Jazz.

2nd hand Pop music LPs tend to have been Dansetted-to-death. Classical ones
often have been worn down and gained pops and clicks that cleaning doesn't
remove because past playing caused the stylus to use them to damage the
groove.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 20:20:35 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <4k04eg96sgv0sikq64chbb1mm89oh8j889@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 10:13:25 +0100, Bob Latham
>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >As I have already said, vinyl playback is full of problems, noise
>> >distortion etc. etc. none of that is in dispute and i prefer
>> >listening to flac to any other source. My only issue with your
>> >position is where you claim that vinyl lacks detail. This I strongly
>> >disagree with.
>
>> I don't think I ever said anything so sweeping as "vinyl lacks
>> detail", simply that on first hearing CD versions of the recordings I
>> was already familiar with from the corresponding LPs by having
>> listened to them many times, I became aware of details I hadn't
>> previously noticed. It was a bit like hearing the music properly for
>> the first time.
>
>other than the source, were you using the same listening equipment?
>My first "listening to LP" experience was on my parents Philips' Disk
>Jockey which only had 5" speaker. When I acquired a radio with a 10"
>spealer, I discovered that Schubert's Unfinished Symphony had a lot of
>double bass playing which I'd never heard before. (The radio only had MW
>and LW)

Yes, you're right to question this but I think I have it covered. I've
always used the same loudspeakers (or headphones) and amplifier for
all audio sources, radio, television, or playback of anything
recorded, otherwise it wouldn't be a proper comparison.

Loudspeakers were (and still are) by Bowers and Wilkins, headphones by
Sennheiser. I've had a variety of amplifiers over the years, beginning
with home made ones, currently Cambridge Audio. I've never been
wealthy enough (or daft enough) for the wilder extremes adopted by
some hi-fi nuts, but I don't buy rubbish either. I've also experienced
the sound of professional audio equipment, and live orchestral music.

At the time, my record playing equipment consisted of a Garrard 401
turntable, SME pickup arm and Shure cartridge (can't remember the
number but it was a good one) so probably a good example of what the
gramophone system can achieve. The first CD player I ever heard was a
Sony portable belonging to a friend, and the first one I bought for
myself wasn't even a particularly expensive or special one. In fact I
later found out that it was only decoding 14 bits and used a single
DAC alternating between the two stereo channels, which was a common
money-saving ploy then (and maybe still is), and yet it *still*
sounded dramatically better than anything I'd heard from records. Many
of my early CD purchases were re-issues of favourite recordings of
which I already had the LPs, and in some cases the cassette version as
well, so I think it was a fair comparison of the different formats.
Had my first experience of CDs been of different music from different
boxes I probably wouldn't initially have been so impressed, and it
would have taken me longer to "convert".

The effect of the same DAC alternating between channels is to make
them delayed relative to each other. There was an excellent series of
articles by John Watkinson in Wireless World about how the system
works, in which he calculates that this delay amounts to about 11.3
milliseconds, and advises that in order to compensate for it, the
listener needs to sit with one ear closer to its corresponding
loudspeaker - by about 3.5 millimetres. Maybe I neglected to do that.

Rod.