"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5946ad46b3noise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> 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.

With classical music, there is the added problem that there is much greater
dynamic range. Loud parts are *very* loud, which is not a problem as long as
the cutter keeps its linear response and as long as it doesn't break through
into the next groove, and as long as the playing stylus is also linear. But
there are a lot of periods when the music is very soft - so much so that
background noise such as scratches, dust-clicks and roughness of vinyl
become very noticeable.

I remember my parents bought a record of classical guitar music by John
Williams and Julian Bream. The tracks close to the centre of the disc on
both sides were badly marred by sandpaper-like roughness - both as constant
background noise and as noise which was modulated by the music. It was a
reputable record label (it may even have been Deutsche Gramafon) so you'd
expect them to use high-quality (smooth) vinyl. They took it back and bought
another copy - which was just the same.

Having recently digitised a lot of LPs for my parents-in-law, I know about
the problems of noise on records: constant crackle and pops, distortion on
loud passages and distortion that is more evident on one channel than the
other of a mono record (when played with a stereo stylus/amplifier). For the
mono records, I found it was often better to discard one of the two channels
(not always the same one, even on the same side of the same record) and keep
the less noisy, less distorted one. Choral music (Christmas carols in a
cathedral) seemed to be particularly affected by distortion.

Were shellac-on-aluminium "transcription discs", as used by the BBC for
making recordings, as an alternative to mag tape, made using a normal 78 rpm
needle (ie larger tip than 33/45) or did they need something special? We
have a recording of a talk that my grandpa made on Children's Hour in the
1950s and that has horrendous scratchy noise, even when played with a "78
rpm" needle.

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:82e5eg9c22lf4o1db2lpk1rsu0q7s26stk@4ax.com...

> 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.

I'm intrigued by the numbers. CDs are sampled at 44.1 kHz, which means the
time difference between one sample and the next is 1/(44100) = 22.7 usec. If
a CD player plays a sample from one channel followed by a sample from the
other channel (and then back to the first) that would mean a delay between
channels of 22 usec - about 1/1000 of the figure you mention. Assuming your
numbers are correct, there's some other factor at work if there are delays
of 11 msec. Ah, the mention of 3.5 mm clinches it: the speed of sound is
about 300 m/sec, so a delay of 11 msec would be a difference of 3 m in the
speaker position. I think you must have got your milli and micro mixed up
;-)

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:42:29 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:82e5eg9c22lf4o1db2lpk1rsu0q7s26stk@4ax.com...
>
>> 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.
>
>I'm intrigued by the numbers. CDs are sampled at 44.1 kHz, which means the
>time difference between one sample and the next is 1/(44100) = 22.7 usec. If
>a CD player plays a sample from one channel followed by a sample from the
>other channel (and then back to the first) that would mean a delay between
>channels of 22 usec - about 1/1000 of the figure you mention. Assuming your
>numbers are correct, there's some other factor at work if there are delays
>of 11 msec. Ah, the mention of 3.5 mm clinches it: the speed of sound is
>about 300 m/sec, so a delay of 11 msec would be a difference of 3 m in the
>speaker position. I think you must have got your milli and micro mixed up
>;-)

I'm sure there is some analogue trickery that could be used to provide a
22us delay on one of the output channels anyway.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:42:29 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:82e5eg9c22lf4o1db2lpk1rsu0q7s26stk@4ax.com...
>
>> 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.
>
>I'm intrigued by the numbers. CDs are sampled at 44.1 kHz, which means the
>time difference between one sample and the next is 1/(44100) = 22.7 usec. If
>a CD player plays a sample from one channel followed by a sample from the
>other channel (and then back to the first) that would mean a delay between
>channels of 22 usec - about 1/1000 of the figure you mention. Assuming your
>numbers are correct, there's some other factor at work if there are delays
>of 11 msec. Ah, the mention of 3.5 mm clinches it: the speed of sound is
>about 300 m/sec, so a delay of 11 msec would be a difference of 3 m in the
>speaker position. I think you must have got your milli and micro mixed up
>;-)

Yes, I think you're right. Tricky little blighters decimal points.

Rod.

On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 12:59:06 UTC+1, MB wrote:
> On 02/07/2021 10:31, 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 am surprised that no one has persuaded that they need to do the job
> properly and have copper busbars.
>
> A HiFi nut and his wallet are easily parted. :-)

Well not just technical - they need to get their ears syringed as well. Back in 1986/7 Signal Radio used to run a CD program on Friday evenings, when I often had the misfortune to be parked on the M6. Even with the best studio vinyl decks, an FM radio segment, stock [BMW] car speakers and all the road and engine noise of driving at ~70mph, I could easily tell which tracks were CD and which vinyl before the DJ even announced it.

Not content with the wow, flutter, low S/N ratio, inferior dynamic range, disk wear and damage audiophiles like to play their records back through overdriven valve amplifiers imagining that the pink / thermal noise and soft clipping somehow adds to the ambience.

One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how subjectively using a £££ silver mains lead resulted in improved audio quality!

On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 20:48:04 UTC+1, Chris Green wrote:
> Bob Latham <b...@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?
>
> --
> Chris Green
> ·
One can very easily tell the difference in the first couple of seconds - see my other post - and in reality it is no contest.

On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 11:42:41 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> "Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:82e5eg9c22lf4o1db...@4ax.com...
> > 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.
> I'm intrigued by the numbers. CDs are sampled at 44.1 kHz, which means the
> time difference between one sample and the next is 1/(44100) = 22.7 usec. If
> a CD player plays a sample from one channel followed by a sample from the
> other channel (and then back to the first) that would mean a delay between
> channels of 22 usec - about 1/1000 of the figure you mention. Assuming your
> numbers are correct, there's some other factor at work if there are delays
> of 11 msec. Ah, the mention of 3.5 mm clinches it: the speed of sound is
> about 300 m/sec, so a delay of 11 msec would be a difference of 3 m in the
> speaker position. I think you must have got your milli and micro mixed up
> ;-)
Pretty rare and very cheapskate to use a multiplexed DAC, one per channel far more common.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
"R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how subjectivel=
>y using a =C2=A3=C2=A3=C2=A3 silver mains lead resulted in improved audio q=
>uality!

Sounds par for the course. I remember pens being sold that were basically
felt tips but the manufacturer/scammer claimed that if you painted the
outside of a CD with them it would keep the laser light in and give a better
signal. I would say you couldn't make it up but clearly they did!

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
"R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 11:42:41 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>> a CD player plays a sample from one channel followed by a sample from the
>> other channel (and then back to the first) that would mean a delay between
>> channels of 22 usec - about 1/1000 of the figure you mention. Assuming your
>> numbers are correct, there's some other factor at work if there are delays
>> of 11 msec. Ah, the mention of 3.5 mm clinches it: the speed of sound is
>> about 300 m/sec, so a delay of 11 msec would be a difference of 3 m in the
>> speaker position. I think you must have got your milli and micro mixed up
>> ;-)
>Pretty rare and very cheapskate to use a multiplexed DAC, one per channel far
>more common.

Was extremely common in early CD players.

In article <628097fe-c8a7-4e12-baa7-ac316025c8d9n@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

> Back in 1986/7 Signal Radio used to run a CD program on
> Friday evenings, when I often had the misfortune to be parked on
> the M6. Even with the best studio vinyl decks, an FM radio
> segment, stock [BMW] car speakers and all the road and engine noise
> of driving at ~70mph, I could easily tell which tracks were CD and
> which vinyl before the DJ even announced it.

Sorry, utter nonsense.

Bob.

"R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:628097fe-c8a7-4e12-baa7-ac316025c8d9n@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 12:59:06 UTC+1, MB wrote:
>> On 02/07/2021 10:31, 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 am surprised that no one has persuaded that they need to do the job
>> properly and have copper busbars.
>>
>> A HiFi nut and his wallet are easily parted. :-)
>
> Well not just technical - they need to get their ears syringed as well.
> Back in 1986/7 Signal Radio used to run a CD program on Friday evenings,
> when I often had the misfortune to be parked on the M6. Even with the
> best studio vinyl decks, an FM radio segment, stock [BMW] car speakers and
> all the road and engine noise of driving at ~70mph, I could easily tell
> which tracks were CD and which vinyl before the DJ even announced it.
>
> Not content with the wow, flutter, low S/N ratio, inferior dynamic range,
> disk wear and damage audiophiles like to play their records back through
> overdriven valve amplifiers imagining that the pink / thermal noise and
> soft clipping somehow adds to the ambience.
>
> One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how
> subjectively using a £££ silver mains lead resulted in improved audio
> quality!

I read of a double-blind test between an all-analogue reproduction of a
piece of music (firstly on tape, secondly on LP) versus CD. People preferred
the LP sound over the tape sound or the CD sound. That suggests that it is
the modifications that RIAA curves make to the cutting and playing of an LP
which people prefer, and not the fact that CD is "too pure". I wonder
whether audiophiles similarly prefer LP over live broadcast by FM radio
because the latter lacks the RIAA modifications.

The almost total immunity to repeated-playing glitches of a CD (no dust, no
scratches) is the thing that really "sold" CDs to me. The lower noise and
greater dynamic range were a close second. I remember a group of us at
university went to a hi-fi shop when CDs were in their infancy and most of
us had never heard them before. The sound quality certainly blew people's
minds. But the salesman then went on to demonstrate the immunity to
scratches. He got out an old CD and made a radial scratch on it with a
sewing needle. It played fine. My mate, who was a burly Mancunian who was
built like a brick shithouse, said "Giz it here" and gouged out a huge
trench in the CD. It played, with a little bit of skipping every now and
again. "Now I'm *really* impressed," my mate said. "Do that on a record and
you'd rip the f-ing needle off".

Was there ever a lossless-compression format of CDs, to fit more recording
time on than uncompressed 44100*2*16 bit/second CD can fit? Obviously it
would need the player to be able to recognise and expand that compression.
Or was the amount of compression achievable judged to be too small to
justify making this format unplayable on older CD players? I presume the
ability to expand lossless compression was too expensive to implement on
early players which is why it didn't become part of the standard right from
the outset.

<MrSpud_z2@4rw9jakakys66qadyq.edu> wrote in message
news:sbupm4$1da0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
> "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how
>>subjectivel=
>>y using a =C2=A3=C2=A3=C2=A3 silver mains lead resulted in improved audio
>>q=
>>uality!
>
> Sounds par for the course. I remember pens being sold that were basically
> felt tips but the manufacturer/scammer claimed that if you painted the
> outside of a CD with them it would keep the laser light in and give a
> better
> signal. I would say you couldn't make it up but clearly they did!

You mean you painted it on the rim of the disc? As if that would make any
difference. Fools and money are soon parted ;-) People hear what they want
to hear and disregard the rest.

On 05/07/2021 09:30, MrSpud_48@iomri.eu wrote:
> 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.

There usually was a little metal strip with holes in to adjust the
spring counterweight under the arm of cheap [1] record players. You set
it so the needle just about stayed on the record.

[1] "Cheap" as in what most people had, even expensive radiograms.
Turntables with actual counterweights were mostly the ones that
enthusiasts had, with magnetic pickups.

--
Max Demian

On 05/07/2021 12:35, NY wrote:

> Was there ever a lossless-compression format of CDs, to fit more
> recording time on than uncompressed 44100*2*16 bit/second CD can fit?
> Obviously it would need the player to be able to recognise and expand
> that compression. Or was the amount of compression achievable judged to
> be too small to justify making this format unplayable on older CD
> players? I presume the ability to expand lossless compression was too
> expensive to implement on early players which is why it didn't become
> part of the standard right from the outset.

Well you can put music files on a data CD and play it on one of the many
CD players that advertise MP3 playback. I know that MP3 is usually
lossy, but some may play other formats. I have one that plays AAC files,
but I think that is somewhat lossy.

--
Max Demian

In article <628097fe-c8a7-4e12-baa7-ac316025c8d9n@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 12:59:06 UTC+1, MB wrote:
> > On 02/07/2021 10:31, 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 am surprised that no one has persuaded that they need to do the job
> > properly and have copper busbars.
> >
> > A HiFi nut and his wallet are easily parted. :-)

> Well not just technical - they need to get their ears syringed as well.
> Back in 1986/7 Signal Radio used to run a CD program on Friday evenings,
> when I often had the misfortune to be parked on the M6. Even with the
> best studio vinyl decks, an FM radio segment, stock [BMW] car speakers
> and all the road and engine noise of driving at ~70mph, I could easily
> tell which tracks were CD and which vinyl before the DJ even announced it.

> Not content with the wow, flutter, low S/N ratio, inferior dynamic range,
> disk wear and damage audiophiles like to play their records back through
> overdriven valve amplifiers imagining that the pink / thermal noise and
> soft clipping somehow adds to the ambience.

> One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how
> subjectively using a £££ silver mains lead resulted in improved audio
> quality!

and one similar magazine told us that a gold plated mains plug improved
stereo separation.

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

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 12:35:57 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>Was there ever a lossless-compression format of CDs, to fit more recording
>time on than uncompressed 44100*2*16 bit/second CD can fit? Obviously it
>would need the player to be able to recognise and expand that compression.
>Or was the amount of compression achievable judged to be too small to
>justify making this format unplayable on older CD players? I presume the
>ability to expand lossless compression was too expensive to implement on
>early players which is why it didn't become part of the standard right from
>the outset.

Maybe, but OTOH CDs use reed solomon error correction which is reasonably
compute intensive but I supposd if the error corretion fails it can still
bung out the word and hopefully things won't sound too bad, whereas if
uncompression fails you're stuffed until the next block comes along.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 12:40:28 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
><MrSpud_z2@4rw9jakakys66qadyq.edu> wrote in message
>news:sbupm4$1da0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
>> "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how
>>>subjectivel=
>>>y using a =C2=A3=C2=A3=C2=A3 silver mains lead resulted in improved audio
>>>q=
>>>uality!
>>
>> Sounds par for the course. I remember pens being sold that were basically
>> felt tips but the manufacturer/scammer claimed that if you painted the
>> outside of a CD with them it would keep the laser light in and give a
>> better
>> signal. I would say you couldn't make it up but clearly they did!
>
>You mean you painted it on the rim of the disc? As if that would make any

Yup.

>difference. Fools and money are soon parted ;-) People hear what they want
>to hear and disregard the rest.

Indeed. You have to hand it to these companies that fleece the audiophools,
they're as good at psychology as electronics :)

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:06:07 +0100
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 05/07/2021 12:35, NY wrote:
>
>> Was there ever a lossless-compression format of CDs, to fit more
>> recording time on than uncompressed 44100*2*16 bit/second CD can fit?
>> Obviously it would need the player to be able to recognise and expand
>> that compression. Or was the amount of compression achievable judged to
>> be too small to justify making this format unplayable on older CD
>> players? I presume the ability to expand lossless compression was too
>> expensive to implement on early players which is why it didn't become
>> part of the standard right from the outset.
>
>Well you can put music files on a data CD and play it on one of the many
>CD players that advertise MP3 playback. I know that MP3 is usually
>lossy, but some may play other formats. I have one that plays AAC files,
>but I think that is somewhat lossy.

Thats not part of the original red book standard though.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 12:55:47 +0100
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 05/07/2021 09:30, MrSpud_48@iomri.eu wrote:
>> 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.
>
>There usually was a little metal strip with holes in to adjust the
>spring counterweight under the arm of cheap [1] record players. You set
>it so the needle just about stayed on the record.

In theory it did, in practice it had 2 settings - gouge the record or fly off
at the slightest bump, land back on it elsewhere and create a nice scratch.

In article <r7Kdnd98if2eN3z9nZ2dnUU78UnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Laurence
Taylor <laurence@nospam.plus.com> wrote:
> 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.

"Will" used as synonym for "can when all is well".

Many things "can" be true whilst not *invariably* true. :-)

I've heard good and bad examples of both.

> 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.

Often, but there is far more to it than the above admits.

e.g. you missed out details like 'wow', clicks and pops and wooshes,
'Golden Wonder' shaped LPs, or ripples, etc, etc[1]. So with both analog
and digital systems various types of problem can poke their nose into the
tent.

e.g. 2 The large peak resonance of many modern carts may add a 'zing' to
something like electric guitar - so may make a sound which listeners
prefer - but combined with end-of-side distortion can add a quite harsh
sound to massed strings for a classical work. Unless the sound level is
so low that pops and clicks become even more noticable during the work.

Hence reality is more complex than "Four legs good, two legs bad!" 8-]

And, alas, some in the music biz can turn out damaged goods - whatever
the format. The main aim of those in charge is to make money, not music.
That's just a means to their main aim. Your wallet. :-)

Jim

[1] One of the LPs I got in a recent set has a flaw I've never seen before.
Rather than smoothly scrolling inward it 'jumps' once per cycle. Audible
effect and you can see the arm wobble each time. Not a 'normal' (sic)
ripple as the wobble is in the disc plane, not vertical as happens with a
big ripple. This was one of the discs in the Beatles Mono LP box set.
Nominally a high-grade release. Otherwise a good set, but a weird flaw.
It will depend on how your arm/cart's LF resonance behaves if you can see
this. Ripples and wow are far more common.

--
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 <82e5eg9c22lf4o1db2lpk1rsu0q7s26stk@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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,

The early Sony designs did use a 14 bit DAC. So did the 1st gen Philips
players.

*BUT* They oversampled x4 to get 16bit resolution. So you got 16bit
resolution (assuming a linear DAC). Indeed, the early Philips chipset was
more linear that the 1st gen Japanese 16bit chipsets. Philips did this
because at the time they could make the 14bit x4 chips work better when
mass produced than the straight 16bit x1 types.

The time offset due to Sony 'sharing' one DAC by alternation could be
'cured' by having one speaker a gnat's todger further from you than the
other. However if you pressed in a mono button on your hifh it would also
droop the HF response. :-)

Jim

Details of the early Phlips DACs, etc, were in a special issue of their
Tech Journal. Vital reading at the time if you worked in audio.

--
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 Monday, 5 July 2021 at 12:55:57 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
> On 05/07/2021 09:30, MrSp...@iomri.eu wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 10:56:28 +0100
> > Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 15:14:05 +0000 (UTC), MrSpud_...@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.
> There usually was a little metal strip with holes in to adjust the
> spring counterweight under the arm of cheap [1] record players. You set
> it so the needle just about stayed on the record.
>
> [1] "Cheap" as in what most people had, even expensive radiograms.
> Turntables with actual counterweights were mostly the ones that
> enthusiasts had, with magnetic pickups.
>
> --
> Max Demian

IIRC one could buy a little balance that effectively weighed the down force on the needle, although expensive arms and heads gave this in the specifications.

On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 12:02:56 UTC+1, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 12:59:06 UTC+1, MB wrote:
> > On 02/07/2021 10:31, 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 am surprised that no one has persuaded that they need to do the job
> > properly and have copper busbars.
> >
> > A HiFi nut and his wallet are easily parted. :-)
>
> Well not just technical - they need to get their ears syringed as well. Back in 1986/7 Signal Radio used to run a CD program on Friday evenings, when I often had the misfortune to be parked on the M6. Even with the best studio vinyl decks, an FM radio segment, stock [BMW] car speakers and all the road and engine noise of driving at ~70mph, I could easily tell which tracks were CD and which vinyl before the DJ even announced it.
>
> Not content with the wow, flutter, low S/N ratio, inferior dynamic range, disk wear and damage audiophiles like to play their records back through overdriven valve amplifiers imagining that the pink / thermal noise and soft clipping somehow adds to the ambience.
>
> One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how subjectively using a £££ silver mains lead resulted in improved audio quality!

Channel separation on vinyl is poor too...

On 05/07/2021 12:16, MrSpud_z2@4rw9jakakys66qadyq.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
> "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One hilarious report in an audiophile mag' I read explained how subjectivel=
>> y using a =C2=A3=C2=A3=C2=A3 silver mains lead resulted in improved audio q=
>> uality!
>
> Sounds par for the course. I remember pens being sold that were basically
> felt tips but the manufacturer/scammer claimed that if you painted the
> outside of a CD with them it would keep the laser light in and give a better
> signal. I would say you couldn't make it up but clearly they did!
>

21 years ago, I had a re-union with former fellow students of
electronics at Essex Uni.

Now, one of our number was a manager in a string of hifi shops
and we all met up in his house where installed was an impressive
range of equipment.

He asked us to evaluate two of his systems which, being electronic
nuts, we readily agreed to do.

So he disappeared into another room for the tests, and we were
fairly uniform in agreeing that the second systeam that we heard
was the best audio.

Now, here's the rub.

There was only one system under test, and the the two consecutive
tests were with two copies of the same CD, with the second CD
having green felt tip pen around the edge.

Needless to say, we were incredulous, and it resulted in
an extensive discussion, and the conclusion we reached
was that there were multiple optical paths bouncing
between the two layers of the CD, and the effect of the green
ink was to absorb some of the reflections, so reducing the
error ratein pickup photo cell.

So, all electronic engineers, and far from gullible***** audio
enthusiasts, but completely flabbergasted by the outcome.

***** Gullible is the one word in the English language that
is not listed in any dictionary.

gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now, here's the rub.
>
> There was only one system under test, and the the two consecutive
> tests were with two copies of the same CD, with the second CD
> having green felt tip pen around the edge.
>
Were you all 'blind to each other'? If not then it wasn't really a
very significant result. Even if you were doing a 'secret ballot'
there could be all sorts of reasons why you chose the same one. I.e.
all chose the first one (or the second one), something happened in
between the two test samples, etc. etc. etc.

--
Chris Green
·