molnar@utflis.UUCP (Tom Molnar) (05/15/85)
[..] It has been almost a year since I have last listened to my sound system, but now that I have the time, I would like to ask Audiophiles a few questions. After purchasing Stax Sigma ear speakers, I noticed a significant difference in the clarity of the sound when bypassing the preamp section of my Luxman tuner amplifier (model: R1120A). The source I am using is an Oracle Delphi turntable with a SAEC WE407 arm (Stax head shell), Fulton cables through the arm, SAEC cable to prepreamp, and a Dynavector Ruby Cartridge. Years ago (two or three) bypassing the preamp section did not result in such a significant difference. Could it be that the Stax ear speakers are so superior to my old ADS L910s? Or could it be that the preamp pots have become soiled (volume control, tone controls etc)? I have purchased the Cramolin contact cleaners ($50 for two cans of spray??!!) and cleaned all the external contacts I could reach. The sound did improve (I think, or are my ears trying to justify the money spent on Cramolin?) but I was wondering if anyone had bothered to clean the pots inside a preamp, and if they had, what precautions should be taken? My Luxman is 5 years old now, but it still sounds acceptable. Rather than suggestions to trash the unit and buy a newer unit, I'd appreciate advice on how to spring clean the unit. One final question: Any Oracle/Linn/similar owners out there compared good quality CD players with one of the above turntables (with a good mc cartridge such as the Koetsu or Diamond etc.)? What are your opinions? For convenience sake, I am contemplating the purchase of a good CD unit.... The discussions I have read so far (and I have only been able to read three weeks worth of net.audio) seem to indicate that high end analogue just might still "sound" a little "better" than CD units (I find it hard to qualify "sound" and "better" with more descriptive terms). Thanks for reading this far, Tom Molnar ------- "I've stopped listening to trains and cannon shots, and started listening to the music..."
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (05/17/85)
>One final question: Any Oracle/Linn/similar owners out there compared >good quality CD players with one of the above turntables (with a good >mc cartridge such as the Koetsu or Diamond etc.)? What are your opinions? >For convenience sake, I am contemplating the purchase of a good CD unit.... >The discussions I have read so far (and I have only been able to read >three weeks worth of net.audio) seem to indicate that high end analogue >just might still "sound" a little "better" than CD units (I find it hard to >qualify "sound" and "better" with more descriptive terms). It seems unfortunate, but in the audio world most people are, to use a euphimism, extremely opinionated. If A is good, then B is trash. Another group argues why B is the answer and anyone who likes A is out of his mind. So it is with CDs. Many of my friends are this way. I have several who claim to be unable to listen to records since buying their CD player. A single pop or tick would ruin their day. Meanwhile I read in the high-end publications that CD players are totally incapable of providing adequate sound reproduction. Trying to enjoy music with one is analogous to squeezing blood from a granite wall. A low resolution synthesis of the original music. Crazy. To my ears, they both sound pretty good. Listen, CDs and LPs are not mutually exclusive in an audiophile system. Each medium has its advantages and disadvantages. But, let me give you my impressions.. First my system: Oracle Alexandria MkII w/Oracle Prelude arm Monster Alpha-2 mc cartridge Revox B225 CD player Threshold FET 2 II preamp Hafler DH500 power amp ProAc Elixir speakers Plexus Audio SWS-1 subwoofer Now, advantages of the CD player: - Freedom from noise. The sound from a digital or recent analog recording emerges from a blanket of complete silence. - Superb dynamic range. Only the best audiophile records can come close to the uncompressed sound available on most CDs. (read the reviews though, a few CDs are not good in this regard) - Flat frequency response. The CD player provides frequency response equal to or better than the best cartridges, yet the cost of a CD player is substantially lower than a high quality record player and arm fitted with one of these cartridges. - Freedom from most forms of distortion. No need to worry about having your needle fly out of the groove while playing the Telarc 1812 overture. (Actually, the Alpha-2 does a pretty good job with this record, but not as good as the CD) - Freedom from the hassles of record maintenance. No more disc cleaning. No need to turn the record over. No stylus to clean. And of course, no record wear. Advantages of a good record player: - Better imaging. CD players introduce phase distortions which kill psychoacoustic cues. Audiophile records have more depth, and instrument placement is more focused. - More musicality. This one is tough to qualify. But, strings have less bite. Voices have less squeak. Flutes are less shrill. Music is 'easier' to listen to. - And of course records are cheaper, more titles are available on records, and the cover art is bigger. OK, so which do I prefer? For the ultimate in sound, I'd have to go with my best records. I simply don't have any CDs which as good as the best records from Reference Recordings and Sheffield Labs. They have a natural musical sound that the best CDs just have not been able to capture. For sound that is more spectacular, but not quite as good, I turn to my best CDs. Two kinds of musical enjoyment, different but both enjoyable. If you can afford it, I'd go for the CD player. You already own good analog equipment; the CD will give you first hand experience with a technology that is bound to revolutionize the industry. Ben Broder ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben ..pesnta!moncol!ben
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (05/21/85)
I agree with the stated advantages of the CD players but believe most of the following advantages to be pure fabrications of expensive cartridge and turntable manufacturers (wether conscious or unconscious) to justify their high ticket existence. > Advantages of a good record player: > - Better imaging. CD players introduce phase distortions which kill > psychoacoustic cues. Audiophile records have more depth, and > instrument placement is more focused. Lets be serious, try checking out the phase distortions in your high falutin cartridges, step-up transformers and RIAA equalization networks. Compare to digital filtered CD players with shallow filters (no contest). > - More musicality. This one is tough to qualify. But, strings have > less bite. Voices have less squeak. Flutes are less shrill. Music > is 'easier' to listen to. It's tough to qualify because its a lot of crap. In my not so humble opinion all these factors are a matter of recording techniques used in mastering the CDs vs. the LPs and has nothing to do with the medium. Try listening to Dave Grusin's "Nightlines" on CD sometime it will give you just a small sample of all the crispness, taut and deep bass, awesome transients, sense of crystal clarity that you've been missing with LPs. > - And of course records are cheaper, more titles are available on > records, and the cover art is bigger. Not much to say about this. > > > OK, so which do I prefer? For the ultimate in sound, I'd have to go > with my best records. I simply don't have any CDs which as good as > the best records from Reference Recordings and Sheffield Labs. They > have a natural musical sound that the best CDs just have not been able > to capture. For sound that is more spectacular, but not quite as good, > I turn to my best CDs. Two kinds of musical enjoyment, different but > both enjoyable. Obviously, I disagree. I think CDs superior to even the best LPs. > > If you can afford it, I'd go for the CD player. You already own good > analog equipment; the CD will give you first hand experience with > a technology that is bound to revolutionize the industry. At least we agree about this. Sorry to start this discussion again but I couldn't let this stupid "musicality" crack slip by and didn't want the person at which the reply was aimed to think that everyone excepted said comments as the gospel. David Albrecht General Electric
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (05/24/85)
One of the problems with the CD vs. LP debate is the difference in cost
of the hardware. You can buy a top CD player for the cost of just the
turntable (no arm or cart). The difference is especially true in the low
end. The Magnavox CD player will beat the pants off of any combination
of table, arm, and cart for $300.
There is no question (in my mind, anyway) that dollar for dollar CD
players produce better sound, better imaging, better dynamics and lower
distortion, than LP players.
However, if you are willing to spend more money on the analog player,
then things become confusing. When things are set up properly a good
analog player is simply amazing. (The LP advocates are knowingly nodding
their heads and smiling at this point. The CD advocates have already hit
the 'n' key.) I listened to a small jazz group and could place the exact
position of each drum and cymbal. Of course the front end cost over
$3000 (Sota Star Saphire, Souther arm, a Kiseki (I forget which one)
cart feeding a Klyne pre-preamp). I've never heard such precise imaging
from a CD. But is this worth $2000?
Top CD players and top LP players both produce very good sound, but the
sounds are different. Who is to say which is better? At best, you are
comparing the sound that you hear through your audio system with what
you think you remember the "real" thing sounds like.
As an example, imaging at a concert may be absolutely horrible because
of the hall acoustics. You are not limited to hearing though. Visual
cues will often give you the impression that the imaging is terrific.
If the recording engineer exagerates the left/right separation on the LP
to compensate for the hall acoustics (most (all?) LPs have exagerated
separation) but the guy doing the recording for the CD decides to be
accurate, which recording is correct? Which one is better?
There is also the question of what you are used to. If you have listened
to LP's since the beginning of time, you are probably going to like the
"LP sound" (nobody makes sushi like my mom). More to say, but I've
rambled too long already.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (05/26/85)
Some time Bob Carver concluded that the superior musicality and imaging of moving coil cartridges (relative to CD's) were caused by the MCs' overemphasis of the L-R signal and a dip in response near 5 kHz. The L-R (difference signal) overemphasis improves the imaging in many cases (a poor man's Sinoc Hologram). A reduction in the 5 kHz region often improves musicality; I often make the same adjustment myself with an EQ. The result of observations was the "Digital Time Lens" which allows a CD to sound as an LP. I doubt the DTL adds sufficient noise and distortion to make a complete simulation, but nobody's perfect. What has been interesting to note is the improvement in FM sound quality when CD's replace LP's. Like most classical FM stations, KYTE-FM, 101.1 is not as fastidious as WFMT in caring for its records. But, you can't make a CD sound fuzzy by mistreating it. The CD either plays right or it obvioulsy doesn't. The superior S/N of most CD's permits the usual compression without raising rumble, hiss, and scratch to 50% modulation during quiet passages. BTW, for a smooth sounding CD, try a Hungaroton CD of Les Preludes (HCD 12446-2). -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ..!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect)
sjc@angband.UUCP (Steve Correll) (05/27/85)
> > Advantages of a good record player: > > - Better imaging. CD players introduce phase distortions which kill > > psychoacoustic cues. Audiophile records have more depth, and > > instrument placement is more focused. > Lets be serious, try checking out the phase distortions in your high > falutin cartridges, step-up transformers and RIAA equalization networks. > Compare to digital filtered CD players with shallow filters (no contest). Some numbers (not guaranteed to be meaningful or representative): the current issue of Stereo Review reports that a Technics SL-P3 CD player exhibits less than 4 degrees interchannel phase difference at 20kHz, despite having only one D/A, thanks to the use of an all-pass phase shifter. The June 85 issue of Audio reports (without verification) that ADS claims their new CD player exhibits less than 5 degrees of phase shift at 20kHz relative to mid-frequencies. And the March 1984 Audio reported a 130 degree interchannel phase difference at 20kHz for a Sumiko Talisman S cartridge (later reduced to 13 degrees by tweaking the preamp input capacitance) and a 38 degree interchannel phase difference at 20kHz for a Linn Asak moving-coil cartridge. Anybody have any numbers handy on cartridge phase response w.r.t. frequency? On step-up transformers? -- --Steve Correll sjc@s1-b.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc
karn@petrus.UUCP (05/29/85)
Sorry. The best LP player may sound a little better than your average run-of-the-mill turntable, but it is still a far cry from even the cheapest CD player (assuming the CDs aren't too dirty...early cheap models had lousy error correction.) It's a simple, provable, measurable fact. Phil
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (05/29/85)
>However, if you are willing to spend more money on the analog player, >then things become confusing. When things are set up properly a good >analog player is simply amazing. (The LP advocates are knowingly nodding >their heads and smiling at this point. The CD advocates have already hit >the 'n' key.) I listened to a small jazz group and could place the exact >position of each drum and cymbal. Of course the front end cost over >$3000 (Sota Star Saphire, Souther arm, a Kiseki (I forget which one) >cart feeding a Klyne pre-preamp). I've never heard such precise imaging >from a CD. But is this worth $2000? Absolutely true. The nature of the technology is such that you need high quality components at each point in the chain. I'd take it a step further than Marty did, and say that a quality preamp is an absolute necessity also. For a CD player, the preamp is little more than a volume control, but for a record player, it provides not only many times more amplification, but also the RIAA recording de-emphasis. Properly done, the amplification and equalization are transparent, and the preamp adds no sonic signature of its own. But a lesser preamp can kill all the magic that $3000 worth of turntable cartridge and headamp have preserved. Ben Broder ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (05/29/85)
>Sorry. The best LP player may sound a little better than your average >run-of-the-mill turntable, but it is still a far cry from even the >cheapest CD player (assuming the CDs aren't too dirty...early cheap >models had lousy error correction.) > >It's a simple, provable, measurable fact. > >Phil Sorry Phil but it is these stupid sweeping generalizations that make CD vs LP a war, rather than an intelligent discussion. First it is not simple, each medium has its disadvantages and advantages, and even the experts disagree. Second, it is neither provable nor measurable that CD players sound better since the things being measured may not be the most significant factors contributing to better sound. Why don't you go to a high end salon with an open mind and listen to some really top-notch analog equipment. (Try a dealer that carries Sota, Oracle or Goldmund) Ask him to play something on Reference Recordings or Sheffield Labs using his best equipment. Then ask him to play a Compact Disk on the same system. You may still prefer the compact disk, but if you are really honest with yourself, I am sure you will be able to hear that the imaging and dimensionality of these recordings has never been equalled by a CD.
karn@petrus.UUCP (05/30/85)
> Sorry Phil but it is these stupid sweeping generalizations that make > CD vs LP a war, rather than an intelligent discussion. I must admit that I always smile when I get a comment like this. Baiting the digiphobes is like eating cashews; you can't stop until they're all gone. We all have our weaknesses. I guess I'm not the only one who makes such "stupid sweeping generalizations". Consumer Reports in its latest issue made essentially the same statement. I can hear it now: "If you trust Consumer's Reports, you must be a gullible fool". Well, perhaps so, but I've heard similiar ad-hominem attacks on other reasonably well-established experts from flat-earthers, creationists and ESP-believers, and I've long expected an article from the CSICOP (the group that debunks pseudoscience) on the golden-ears. Even if I had no objective evidence for my claim (which exists in abundance) a look at the motivations of the various parties involved can be very illuminating. I would classify the die-hards into two categories: a) Those who have plunked thousands of dollars into "high end" analog playback systems. (ihuxl!messina beat me to this one). People are naturally reluctant to admit such mistakes to themselves, and persist in face-saving attempts to rationalize and justify their decisions. b) Those who simly delude themselves through ppseudo-scientific arguments based on a misunderstanding of well-established theory. Both groups share something that is the touchstone of pseudoscience: the refusal to use objective measurements and to properly control comparative experiments. Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the terms "imaging" and "dimensionality" are supposed to mean? Or are they used because they're deliberately vague? Phil Karn
jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham) (05/30/85)
> ... > Why don't you go to a high end salon with an open mind and listen to > some really top-notch analog equipment. (Try a dealer that carries > Sota, Oracle or Goldmund) Ask him to play something on Reference > Recordings or Sheffield Labs using his best equipment. Then ask him > to play a Compact Disk on the same system. You may still prefer the > compact disk, but if you are really honest with yourself, I am sure > you will be able to hear that the imaging and dimensionality of these > recordings has never been equalled by a CD. Imaging and dimensionality have less to do with the equipment than with the recording engineer ( assuming reasonably good equipment ). In effect, your argument boils down to lack of experience ( on the engineers part ) recording on a new, and much less forgiving medium ( the CD ) and not an inherent defect in CDs and CD players. My personal opinion is that most people get used to a certain sound, possibly also certain defects, and accept them as the real thing. Then they complain when something new shows up claiming to be better, and gets knocked since what is perhaps better according to technical specifications sounds very different and is thought then to be inferior. What this boils down to is sound is extremely subjective. -- Jon M. Allingham (201)386-3466 AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH "Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/30/85)
In article <60@angband.UUCP> sjc@angband.UUCP (Steve Correll) writes: >Anybody >have any numbers handy on cartridge phase response w.r.t. frequency? On >step-up transformers? > --Steve Correll >sjc@s1-b.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc most transformers i know state within 20 degrees (or better) for the transformer alone. coupled with the cartridge, the shift depends primarily on the mechanical damping of the cantilever and almost not at all on the cartridge load, after the phase shift of the transformer has been accounted for. if memory serves me correct, the two phase shifts are usually in the same direction and so sum to a greater phase shift. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/30/85)
In article <359@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP writes: >Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the terms "imaging" and "dimensionality" >are supposed to mean? Or are they used because they're deliberately vague? > >Phil Karn well, i might as well be the first to be flamed. "imaging" commonly means the reproduction of stereo (or quadrophonic etc.) sound such that instruments being played can appear to be placed at specific locations in front of (and sometimes behind) the listener. this includes, left/right, vertical and near/far positioning. the effect is primarily psychoacoustic and depends on aural cues such as the relative loudness of the sound coming from the two channels, the relative phase of the two signals (from the same instrument), the frequency balance (spectral energy received at the ear), and the reverb (both recorded and created by the room). a system images better when it is easier to locate instruments with high precision, and the instruments do not wander with time unless the effect is deliberately recorded. this does not imply that the actual instruments were actually in the relative positions perceived, although this is usually the case. "dimensionality" usually refers to the apparent size of the stereo image, although it is also used by some to include the amount of low level detail present even when the music (i assume you listen to music for these tests) is being played loudly. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/31/85)
> Sorry. The best LP player may sound a little better than your average > run-of-the-mill turntable, but it is still a far cry from even the > cheapest CD player (assuming the CDs aren't too dirty...early cheap > models had lousy error correction.) > > It's a simple, provable, measurable fact. > It's also simply and provably wrong. My SLP-7 cheapo one dac $230 CD player does not play somethings as well as my $250 turntable/microaccoustics cartridge combination. There are errors that occur with the relatively low sample rates and cruddy analog filters in these DECs. I still love them. The S/N is tremendous, and the media beats anything yet designed for audio. The MAGNAVOX and the other hypersamplers do better, but there are still times when the reproduced signal isn't right. What digital does allow you do to is get good stuff, without a lot of craftsman ship. The best turntables cost a lot because there is a lot of precision of manufacturing to get them to be stable. A CD just uses a crystal oscillator. This is the same revolution that has brought watch prices down to nothing. That's why the Meridian (perhaps one of the best CD players on the market) starts with a $300 CD player. The analog part is the expense in this area. -Ron
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/31/85)
> a) Those who have plunked thousands of dollars into "high end" analog > playback systems. (ihuxl!messina beat me to this one). People are naturally > reluctant to admit such mistakes to themselves, and persist in face-saving > attempts to rationalize and justify their decisions. > > b) Those who simly delude themselves through ppseudo-scientific arguments > based on a misunderstanding of well-established theory. > You were the one who brought up MEASUARABLE. Yes, you can MEASURE both the advantages and disadvanges of CD's. You can measure the increased S/N on CD's You can measure the increased S/N of digital mastering. You can measure the longevity of the medium. You can measure the speed stability. You can measure the frequency response compared to magnetic media. You can measure the significant distortion that you get when operating near the top of the frequency range You can measure the EQ differences due to cruddy analog parts on cheap decks You can count the number of titles available in both medium and find that CD's only scratch the surface of the musical library. I have no need for $3000 worth of anything, but I do have over $200 in a turntable cartridge and I will spend $75 for a new stylus when it wears out. I will keep buying D4 and discwashers. I will keep buying records because CD's are not available in reasonable selection yet. I've spent $400 on a CD player (albeit a poor one) because I wanted one early so I could start assmebling the library. I'm likely to go out and get a D5 for my desk and CAR. I'm likely to buy one of the newer decks to get better output filtering so I won't have to wretch during the crescendoes of Also Sprach Zarathustra. The scientific arguments are valid. It's whether in your taste it's worth the money to conquer any one of these measurable points. I consider myself a mid-range audiophile. My whole stereo system cost lest than $3000, compared to that of my high range but not overly exotic friends who have spent that much just on speakers. Yes, I can hear the difference in the systems, but not enough to make it worth doubling the amount of money I have in them. The problem with making sweeping generalizations is putting up with the shit when your wrong. -Ron
sjc@angband.UUCP (Steve Correll) (06/02/85)
> You can measure the EQ differences due to cruddy analog parts on cheap > decks > You can count the number of titles available in both medium and find that > CD's only scratch the surface of the musical library. Have you numbers for the frequency response discrepancies in cheap CD players? With one exception, all of the magazine reports I recall have shown flat response within +-1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz, often within +-0.25dB. ("High Fidelity" measured the Technics SL-P7, for example, at +-0.25dB.) The exception, the Sony D-5 described in the December 84 "Stereo Review", still has flatter frequency response than the $1100 Van Den Hul moving-coil phono cartridge described in the July 84 "Audio" (+7.5dB at 20kHz, on its way to an impressive 15dB peak at 30kHz--lock up the dog and lock down your tweeters) or the $475 Monster Cable Alpha-1 described in the January 1984 "Audio" (+6dB at 20kHz) or the $1000 Ortofon MC2000 described in the December 85 "Audio" (+4dB at 20kHz, though the results were distinctly different with two different test records--so much for the RIAA standard) or the $450 Decca Van Den Hul (+5dB at 20kHz) or the $300 Argent 500HR (+12dB at 20kHz) or the $20 Grado GTE+1 (-2dB at 6kHz, +4dB at 18kHz) or the $425 Talisman Alchemist IIIS (+9dB at 20kHZ), all of the latter reviewed in a recent issue of Stereophile. I've deliberately picked flagrant examples, but the evidence suggests to me that frequency response varies more widely among phonograph cartridges--particularly the much-praised moving-coil designs--than among CD players. As for the paucity of titles on CD, I can only echo your complaint. -- --Steve Correll sjc@s1-b.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc
jj@alice.UUCP (06/02/85)
That's crap, Ron, this newsgroup has already been over the problems with using masters indended for discs with CD's. Your snide, offensive, and totally off the wall comments about craftmanship are just that, snide, offensive, and off the wall. There are a lot of badly recorded CD's. That's not a problem with the medium, it's a problem with the recording engineers who have the same additude you do, and thus dont' try to make the recordings right. -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "What's the use of bearing bracers, hats or spats or shoes with laces, or the things they buy in places down on Brompton Row? (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (06/03/85)
Response to Phil Karn's article: > > a) Those who have plunked thousands of dollars into "high end" analog > playback systems. (ihuxl!messina beat me to this one). People are naturally > reluctant to admit such mistakes to themselves, and persist in face-saving > attempts to rationalize and justify their decisions. > There is no good reason for hating CD's just because you've spent a lot of money on good analogue gear. I have and enjoy a CD player and, now, a number of CD's, yet I would still buy a good analogue turntable and cartridge if I had the money now. Why? Because I have over 2000 analogue LP's, most of which are in excellent shape and have a great deal of musical enjoyment to offer. Many of them are not now, or likely to be in the future, available on CD and, even if they were made available, would cost far more than the high quality turntable and cartridge to replace in that format. > b) Those who simly delude themselves through ppseudo-scientific arguments > based on a misunderstanding of well-established theory. > > Both groups share something that is the touchstone of pseudoscience: the > refusal to use objective measurements and to properly control comparative > experiments. > There are those who fit that description but there are others who have made a valid point in questioning current measurement techniques. These people do not refuse to acknowledge objective measurements, but are convinced that there are significant, measureable factors in sound reproduction which are not adequately measured by current methods and equipment. > Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the terms "imaging" and "dimensionality" > are supposed to mean? Or are they used because they're deliberately vague? > I don't think people are being deliberately vague. The difficulty is that of trying to describe the perceptions of one sense (in this case, hearing) in terms of other senses (visual), using a medium (words) which is yet different. Since I like words and attempts to bridge these gaps I'll have a shot at defining these: "Imaging" is the ability of recordings and sound reproduction equipment to create a sound in which those objects (instruments, voices, etc.) being reproduced appear to emanate from a fixed location in space. In stereo recordings, those considered to present the best "imaging" are those from which a listener could determine within a very narrow tolerance precisely where in the room each instrument or voice is placed. "Dimensionality" is closely related to imaging in that it normally refers to the reproduction of the space between individual objects on a recording. The term is particularly used to describe the ability (or lack of ability) to hear instruments reproduced with some being closer to the listener, others being further back behind those. This relates to imaging in that the more precisely you can fix the location of individual instruments, the more precisely you can sense the space between them. - Greg Paley
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/04/85)
> > That's crap, Ron, this newsgroup has already been over the problems > with using masters indended for discs with CD's. Your snide, > offensive, and totally off the wall comments about > craftmanship are just that, snide, offensive, and off the > wall. There are a lot of badly recorded CD's. That's > not a problem with the medium, it's a problem with the > recording engineers who have the same additude you do, > and thus dont' try to make the recordings right. > And if you would read the message to which you are responding you will see that I was talking aboiut CD PLAYERS and TURNTABLES not how masters tapes and the media are recorded. Plain and simple: It's cheaper to mass produce a good CD player than it is a good turntable. -Ron