Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 111993	2010-08-19 07:51:00	Record/LP player	Fifthdawn (9467)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1129506	2010-08-22 04:27:00	What is the point of getting the very finest in valves and vinyl if people will persist in putting the speaker leads on at random without even bothering to identify which end should be the amplifier and which end is for the speaker? Really, they do. They may as well be using ordinary copper wire for speaker leads. (Shudder.) . Roughly reporting conversations between a group of the "golden ears brigade" - - they walk amongst us.	R2x1 (4628)
1129507	2010-08-22 07:23:00	Hang on Billy - any chance you could clarify your meaning a bit? I read your post a few times, and from what I can see we're actually in agreement, and partly talking about the same thing (although you've gone into more detail about the process of an end-to-end production entirely on vinyl, whereas most of my post was concerned with digital sampling and vinyl playback). Best you reread the first paragraph of my response, it gives the simple physical reasons why there is a frequency limit on vinyl. Also, were you aware that during the playing of a vinyl record, the point-contact pressure of the stylus actually deforms (flows) the vinyl at that point? That means that you can never reproduce with 100% accuracy what was stamped into the vinyl, and this is why a laser 'stylus' system was developed, ostensibly to gain the maximum fidelity from LP records. It was a technical triumph, but extraordinarily expensive and probably a total commercial failure because most audiophiles preferred CDs. We know they did because there are CD players with valve preamplifiers (go figure) to complement their valve amps! Decoding is still by integrated circuit. Vinyl has many attributes, and I like it myself, but digital is technically capable of higher fidelity if you want to spend the money, and most people just wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway. By the time they have enough money to indulge their acoustic fantasies, their ears are shot, as I already mentioned. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
1129508	2010-08-22 08:38:00	Heaps of money is spent by the pop enthusiasts in order to hear the guitar fuzz in perfect clarity..... :banana upload.wikimedia.org ( en.wikipedia.org ) For me with my 1920s 78 rpm music, quite simple systems more than suffice ;)	Terry Porritt (14)
1129509	2010-08-22 23:30:00	Thanks for your explanation, Erayd. Very interesting. I record a (mainly) spoken word programme as an mp3 for broadcast and the requirements are 128kbps and 44100 Hz. I have been told that anything below that is not acceptable.	Roscoe (6288)
1129510	2010-08-23 03:00:00	Roscoe - bitrates lower than that are ok in some cases if you're recording spoken stuff, depending what it's needed for. I was talking about music. :pf1mobmini:	Erayd (23)
1129511	2010-08-23 03:54:00	I record a half hour spoken programme with a 20 second musical introduction and ending for The Radio Reading Service. (See the link below.) They are happy to have the programme as an mp3 because it is mainly speech as long as I keep to their parameters. I suppose it is similar to the use of open reel tape recording. 7½ips was the acceptable speed for music. Some would use 3¾ but it was not as good. No-one would use 1⅞ for anything else but speech. And then came the cassette player in the mid 1970s and 1⅞ for music became acceptable. Even lovers of orchestral music tried to convince themselves and others that cassettes did the job. But when you have a tape that is half the width of open reel tape moving at a quarter of the speed, something had to suffer. I found cassettes acceptable for playing in the car in the same way that I find mp3s alright for listening on the move. Cassette tapes and mp3s are similar in that respect, eh?	Roscoe (6288)
1129512	2010-08-23 04:10:00	In case anybody is interested: Laser Record Player (www.elpj.com) Sit down before reading prices. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
1129513	2010-08-23 04:49:00	In case anybody is interested: Laser Record Player (www.elpj.com) Sit down before reading prices. Cheers Billy 8-{) OMG I had better get my order in now before GST goes up.	martynz (5445)
1129514	2010-08-23 06:06:00	In case anybody is interested: Laser Record Player (www.elpj.com) Sit down before reading prices. Cheers Billy 8-{) US$12000, hmm, that is not a bad price. If you want to play cylinder records then you need an Archeophone.....this will set you back about the same amount, but accessories are extra...:thanks www.archeophone.org www.mainspringpress.com	Terry Porritt (14)
1129515	2010-08-23 07:00:00	Best you reread the first paragraph of my response, it gives the simple physical reasons why there is a frequency limit on vinyl.I never said that vinyl had no frequency limit - I'm sorry if you found my post unclear on that point (although that certainly explains why you thought I was wrong). The point I was making was that the frequency limit on vinyl cannot be defined as an absolute number the way it can for CDs, because of the analogue nature of the medium - there are so many different variables it depends on that it's impossible to put a hard and fast number on it that applies to all vinyl recordings. As such, Goodiesguy's claim of an absolute figure of 192kHz was bogus. I was also implying that the fidelity of vinyl wasn't as good as Goodiesguy claimed (particularly as compared to digital), although I didn't say that in so many words. Also, were you aware that during the playing of a vinyl record, the point-contact pressure of the stylus actually deforms (flows) the vinyl at that point?I wasn't aware of this, but it does make sense - being a slightly elastic medium, pressure at such a small point could distort the surface profile. ...but digital is technically capable of higher fidelity if you want to spend the money, and most people just wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway...I agree - this is what I've been saying all along, since my first post in this thread...	Erayd (23)
1 2 3 4 5 6