john curl said:
John,
You're a hard man to read...I stared at this post for five minutes before figuring out that you meant Scott.
I own a Goldmund Studio, but managed to spend an enjoyable afternoon with a Goldmund Reference once upon a time. Prices for the top tables have gotten so high that I can't run with the big dogs anymore (not even if I had access to accommodation pricing; which I don't at this time). For that matter, the same applies to nearly all the top equipment these days.
Hence DIY...
I don't know how my piddlings stack up against the current crop of gear, but they acquit themselves admirably against the state of the art, ca. early to mid-eighties.
Grey
Scott,
Which Grado cartridge do you use and what turntable and arm is it mounted on...........😉
Regards,
Jam
Which Grado cartridge do you use and what turntable and arm is it mounted on...........😉
Regards,
Jam
GRollins said:
Wow, you're way over my head. I bought the original VPI and Sumiko MMT arm that the Absolute Sound reviewer got after the review. The only problem that I have had was a toasted motor that was replaced with a call to Mrs Weisfeld. I have the second down Grado, not the really expensive one.
I transfered for example a copy of the RCA .5 series Reiner Plays Wagner which so blew away the CD release that I wonder sometimes how broken things are in the music biz. This is not rock music but stuff supposedly transfered by people who care for a small audience of music lovers.
scott wurcer said:
Today's modern-now-a-go-go record companies want to introduce
elevators and shopping malls to the glories of Mahler, and an
adequate amount of compression will allow it to be heard over the
background noise.
I think it started with Dolby.
You don't count, I am asking Scott. You are just confusing the issue. I am trying to establish the relative quality of Scott's phono playback system, just so what he hears on vinyl playback may possibly compared to mine. It has nothing specific to do with Grado specifically, as he makes phono cartridges that retail between $50 to $2500. This is obviously a big spread in reproduction quality, and I have tried the $50 version and know that it did not give enough to me in audio reproduction. For the record, I use an $1100 MC cartridge, but I consider it just tolerable, and I wish I had gotten the cartridge that cost twice as much, as the previous cartridge that I had sounded better, although it was made by the same manufacturer.
Fellow designers (folks) please let me explain what I am TRYING to get at, at this time.
I am addressing Scott Wurcer, someone who I have known for more than 20 years. We are distant colleagues, only.
I am trying to determine the playback level that Scott Wurcer uses on a consistent basis to determine if we are talking about apples, or we are talking about oranges. This means: Does my vinyl playback system, maybe $5000, compare to what Scott uses, i.e. Grado (second down), VPI, Sumiko arm. Actually, this is not as bad as I expected.
Scott thinks that IM distortion is important, BUT he has never tried to measure IM distortion in an analog tape. He might be VERY surprised.
We have found over the decades, that this inherent distortion, either IM or harmonic, generally does not tell you what a recording will sound like when played back. I do know that the IM and harmonic distortion is musically related to the music itself, and we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of it, and still get to the essence of the music. I also know that the distortion on both vinyl and analog tape reduces in a predictable way as the music level decreases, and where our ears are more linear as well.
Digital recordings measure well at high levels, but must lose information with variable signals at lower levels, even though it might look OK with continuous tones at low levels.
What matters is what sounds good, not what 'measures' good by the CONVENTIONAL test methods used BEFORE digital was even in existence.
I have found vinyl to be the best, except for a good analog master tape (30ips full track) which will sound better when transcribed to vinyl and not so good (but useful) if transcribed to CD. Wilson Audio made these comparisons many years ago.
DVD and SACD are better than CD, but are limited in musical selection and quality reproducers cost as much as a good phono playback system.
40 years ago, I purchased my first professional Ampex tape recorder that used a 15ips, 1/2 tr format (fully professional). Even then, I could not transcribe a quality record to tape and have it sound as good as the original vinyl. There was nothing wrong with the analog tape recorder, in fact it was better than many, even today. Still, I learned the limits of analog tape recording.
Perhaps, the best hi fi source is a DIRECT DISC as made by Sheffield, Crystal Clear, and many other record companies 20-30 years ago. In my opinion, it is important to know the differences, and weight them properly.
I am addressing Scott Wurcer, someone who I have known for more than 20 years. We are distant colleagues, only.
I am trying to determine the playback level that Scott Wurcer uses on a consistent basis to determine if we are talking about apples, or we are talking about oranges. This means: Does my vinyl playback system, maybe $5000, compare to what Scott uses, i.e. Grado (second down), VPI, Sumiko arm. Actually, this is not as bad as I expected.
Scott thinks that IM distortion is important, BUT he has never tried to measure IM distortion in an analog tape. He might be VERY surprised.
We have found over the decades, that this inherent distortion, either IM or harmonic, generally does not tell you what a recording will sound like when played back. I do know that the IM and harmonic distortion is musically related to the music itself, and we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of it, and still get to the essence of the music. I also know that the distortion on both vinyl and analog tape reduces in a predictable way as the music level decreases, and where our ears are more linear as well.
Digital recordings measure well at high levels, but must lose information with variable signals at lower levels, even though it might look OK with continuous tones at low levels.
What matters is what sounds good, not what 'measures' good by the CONVENTIONAL test methods used BEFORE digital was even in existence.
I have found vinyl to be the best, except for a good analog master tape (30ips full track) which will sound better when transcribed to vinyl and not so good (but useful) if transcribed to CD. Wilson Audio made these comparisons many years ago.
DVD and SACD are better than CD, but are limited in musical selection and quality reproducers cost as much as a good phono playback system.
40 years ago, I purchased my first professional Ampex tape recorder that used a 15ips, 1/2 tr format (fully professional). Even then, I could not transcribe a quality record to tape and have it sound as good as the original vinyl. There was nothing wrong with the analog tape recorder, in fact it was better than many, even today. Still, I learned the limits of analog tape recording.
Perhaps, the best hi fi source is a DIRECT DISC as made by Sheffield, Crystal Clear, and many other record companies 20-30 years ago. In my opinion, it is important to know the differences, and weight them properly.
I don't know about started, but it seems to me extensive compression was a popular way to make AM radio work in a noisy car. Many pop tunes were heavily compressed for teen agers in their cars. IMHO It just sort of spread from there.Nelson Pass said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.