http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/52963362 (http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/52963362)
I thought this was interesting.
Here we go again. I had to stop at page 5.
In mathematical terms, a typical Blu-ray song contains 2,304,000 bits of information. A CD contains a third of that — about 705,600 bits.
But a digital version — an MP3 downloaded from iTunes or the Internet — captures just 70,000 bits.
For all of the hundreds or thousands of minute human-driven adjustments of microphones, sound boards, mixing and mastering that go into constructing a professional album, it's a computer software program that uses a standard algorithm that decides which of the millions of bits of information aren't necessary for the human ear — in effect, which parts of a song a listener can do without.
Dynamic ranges (louds and softs) and frequency responses (high and low notes) are often casualties of the compression process.
Must be a very short "typical song". Only one argument is true here: high notes are often casualties. But guess why they are. And I feel kinda insulted by the "standard algorithm".
Chris
The article, if you may even call it that for it's lack of real information and extreme brevity, to me shows a good trend and a bad trend. The good thing is sound quality appears to become a concern for some engineers, and I hope we will see better mastering in the future. The bad thing is that the article, as so many recently, fails to grasp what the real problem is. I assume the article aims at "selling" high-res masters to the crowd. The "3%" number (3% of what actually?) is a meaningless sales pitch to bring people to believe that possible "studio quality" masters will give huge benefits over well encoded MP3s. The things described as missing can be captured by good recording and put on CD with no problems, or are not perceptible by humans. In my book the main problems are bad mastering habits and poor end-user audio reproduction hardware, but maybe the former might improve in the future. I think the businesses should invest into teaching and learning about digital audio and understanding what is available now, rather than expensive new gear and formats, which aim at reproducing inaudible parts of the music. The sad thing is that the resurgence of proper mastering habits will probably coincide with the advent of the sale of high-res audio, and most people will attribute the "better sound" to the latter rather than the former.
As a sidenote, I hope the screenshot doesn't show the engineer comparing waveforms of lossless and lossy encodes to bring his point across. What is often missed is that lossy encoding aims towards perceptual reproduction, not data reproduction.
EDIT: OK, I just noticed how to expand the article at the bottom below the facebook comments. How inconvenient. And the article itself looks like it has even more horrific claims than the excerpt, Chris already picked one of them, but the parts talking about Vinyl look just as horrible.
Here's the full page article (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-04/nashville-sound-quality/52963362/1?csp=34news).
Speaking as a music lover and consumer of high-fidelity digital audio, even if hi-rez digital downloads became a common item for purchase, that fact in itself is not a good enough reason for me to purchase. The presentation of the product is just as important to me as the actual consumption.
For example, there is an official vendor on the internet named "HDTracks" who supply such content right now. But every time I look at the presentations for an release, I feel insulted; my intelligence is being insulted; I don't want to be a hi-rez consuming rabbit. I want to be presented with ALL facts about the product from every possible angle; presentational, technical, engineering, artistic, fanatical, historical, factual ...everything!
Publish some screenshots of the audio waveform and spectrum ...I am fascinated in the technical details; let me have a look!
Publish the facts about the engineering facility and the engineers names and all the other behind-the-scenes stuff!
View the product page as a thread in a forum; allow the users to leave comments and interact (such as done at Amazon.com).
Basically, what I am trying to say is this...
Until the day comes where I see an album presented to me by an official site that looks like a cross between Discogs.com and 'unofficial' vinyl ripping blogs, then that's the day I will be a regular official consumer.
With small assault of such articles recently (say, there's also one ~from Neil Young floating nearby, and I think I've seen one more under discussion). it starts to look like some orchestrated attempt to create artificial demand which otherwise would be hardly there (and with good reasons)...
...like if some media-influential Big Music execs just decided that the already high-quality* music is becoming too much of a ~commodity, and of course that might get in the way of extracting maximum prices.
*Well, at least technically high-quality; mastering is another issue and I don't really believe "HD music" would help - not for long.
Kinda like what also happens recently, again, with stereoscopy (of the visual, cinematic, TV kind), under the "3D" label (a bit unfortunate label BTW; there are for example more impressive, less flawed, much "more 3D" methods than stereoscopy, which are "just" beyond our present technical capabilities, mass-implementation probably a few decades away - but in the meantime, it looks like marketers are working hard to put off people from "3D" overall) - I guess largely because nice & big "normal" LCD TVs are getting pleasantly inexpensive, the horror!
HDTracks
Who, in addition to anything else that might be said, have a rather questionable approach to marketing their products (emphasis mine):
Q: Will I really hear the difference between the various formats?
A: You should hear a substantial difference when listening to the music on a home stereo. The music will sound cleaner, the bass will be tighter and you will notice a higher definition in all the instruments. If you are going to pay for digital music, you might as well own it in the highest-quality format available.
Q: Why do you charge more for tracks?
A: Many web-based music downloading sites sell tracks for $0.99. However, they are selling you low-quality MP3-compressed files. Full CD-quality files use more bandwidth and storage space so our costs are higher. In addition, we use specialized audiophile encoding processes to get the best sound. With HDtracks you might pay more per download, but you are getting a much higher-quality product.
Perhaps this brings them quite neatly in line with the article being discussed.
So, it's not article worth of reading, then?
Because the article is by default displayed as a short page, actually the first of nine, and the link to display it all at once is buried away down the page, here is said link for convenience:
http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/5296336...ViewMode=single (http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/52963362?preferredArticleViewMode=single)
So, it's not article worth of reading, then?
Well, I am no expert, but this seems so silly that that would seem to be no prerequisite! Some quotations:
By the time a recording makes its way to fans via iTunes or over Internet radio, it possesses a fraction of the total sound information captured in the studio — as little as 3% of the original, live sound waves. Even CD formats are stripped of up to 90% of the live recording to fit onto a 4 3/4-inch disc.
Often gone are the last lingering notes of a bass guitar, the echo of a drumbeat, the very high and very low notes.
Still, the steep drop in sound quality as digital music has taken hold remains a source of aggravation for artists and music professionals — and audiophiles among consumers — who argue that music is losing many of the subtle qualities that gave it emotion, spaciousness and depth in order to make songs Internet ready.
Analog captures the entire spectrum of sound, as does vinyl, because the music isn't compressed or squeezed to fit.
Digital recordings, on the other hand, are captured by computers, which record only certain slices of sound at split-second intervals that are then encoded into computer language.
Although no medium is capable of duplicating exactly the quality of a live performance, the best audio recordings and playback equipment capture the entire range of sound in the studio.
Vinyl is the most faithful medium, with no compression or translation of music.
[/size]
So, I guess not!
Bandwidth probably will expand, allowing for bigger digital music files that store more sound frequency.
[/size]This is almost word salad . . . which fits with everything else.
So, it's not article worth of reading, then?
No, not when reading obvious bull like:
Digital recordings, on the other hand, are captured by computers, which record only certain slices of sound at split-second intervals that are then encoded into computer language. All those 1's and 0's end up representing a numeric interpretation of sound.
I have - maybe most of those here have done so too - compared records in AB with CD, and the sound quality was at best indistinguishable, at worst noticeable (not in favour of the LP) because of the increased noise of the lp between tracks.
Vinyl is the most faithful medium, with no compression or translation of music.
The idiot writing the article doesn't even have the foggiest about the RIAA compression curve.
Was the video demo of the difference between MP3 and WAVE done correctly? That is, time aligned and no gain changes.
Can we have this logo:
(http://shrani.si/f/2V/Dl/1FzY5Lm6/emotion.png)
pretty please?
I would characterize this article as completely worthless nonsense. But it's rather typical of a certain faction of poorly-informed consumers with lots of disposable income. The audio equivalent of tin foil hat wearers to me.
No, not when reading obvious bull like:
Digital recordings, on the other hand, are captured by computers, which record only certain slices of sound at split-second intervals that are then encoded into computer language. All those 1's and 0's end up representing a numeric interpretation of sound.
Uh, if you call an A/D converter a computer, what's so wrong about this statement?
Not everything in this article is bull, but there are dozens of dubious "facts" without any sources cited/referenced.
Speedskater: I seriously doubt it. From my experience, when done correctly, you should hear only shaped noise, and it should be impossible {
Edit: or at low bit-rates, difficult} to identify the fundamental chords / pitch. Here it's easy to hear, so either gain or time alignment - or both - are a little bit off. Anyway, yet another wowdifferencesignaljusthearwhatsmissing!
Chris
I wonder if part of the point of this kind of rubbish is anti-piracy: make people believe MP3s (and other lossy codecs, though they probably don't really know there are such things) are low quality, so the cool kids won't collect pirated MP3s. Could be one reason for capitalizing on the vinyl fad, too.
Uh, if you call an A/D converter a computer, what's so wrong about this statement?
I do not consider a DAC/ADC a computer, but part of one, and not a necessary one unless you enter analogue signals into your machine. I used to digitize all my analogue signals via a sample rate converter to be processed further via deq's.
I then later switched to a PC setup that included all the elements.
The use "computer" in this case is clearly used to impress the big unwashed with verbiage.
Digital recordings, on the other hand, are captured by computers, which record only certain slices of sound at split-second intervals that are then encoded into computer language. All those 1's and 0's end up representing a numeric interpretation of sound.
Uh, if you call an A/D converter a computer, what's so wrong about this statement?
This, in particular...
'which record only certain slices of sound at split-second intervals that are then encoded into computer language'
..is a misrepresentation of the digital recording process. It's weighted to suggest that '
only certain slices of sound ... are ... encoded'. It implies that certain other slices of sound are
not encoded. Which, of course, is a misrepresentation in the case of PCM.
It's fascinating to see how much misinformation, distortion and evocation of prejudice can be crammed into a short text.
'All those 1's and 0's' - it's terrifying to think about them all running amok in there doing their disgusting digital thing
'end up' - they started out as good little normal alphanumerics but they ended up the
same as all the rest'representing a numeric interpretation of sound'. What a hideous conception. How could anybody in their right mind imagine that music,
pure, sweet music, could be represented by philistine, crass
numbers. It's like saying that an astrophysicist could play the guitar, Brian.
Veils lifted.
Was the video demo of the difference between MP3 and WAVE done correctly? That is, time aligned and no gain changes.
Not to my ears.
Having done this kind of thing a lot myself, I believe there was a gain mismatch. That's why some of the original music, as well as the expected coding artefacts, was audible.
It could have been a time alignment issue instead. It's quite easy to tell the two apart when listening properly (small time alignment = mostly high frequencies break through; small level alignment = all frequencies break through) - but on a recording of this poor quality, captured through crappy speakers, it's not easy to be sure.
This is just journalists doing what journalists do: writing about things they don't understand to make a living.
I guess parts of the industry in some conscious or not so planned way, have decided that this is the way audio will re-invent itself. Or at least, some people have always believed this, and now the time is somehow right for them to spread their vision of the future, and get some people to write about it.
Doesn't mean it will happen. CD was the last worldwide physical audio format. mp3 is a worldwide virtual audio format. It's a brave person who can predict what the
next worldwide virtual audio format will be - or if there
will be
one.
I suspect it's like FM radio - no single worldwide successor.
Cheers,
David.
I wonder if part of the point of this kind of rubbish is anti-piracy: make people believe MP3s (and other lossy codecs, though they probably don't really know there are such things) are low quality, so the cool kids won't collect pirated MP3s. Could be one reason for capitalizing on the vinyl fad, too.
Yeah. They will download pirated FLAC files; torrent trackers are full of them.
Because the article is by default displayed as a short page, actually the first of nine, and the link to display it all at once is buried away down the page, here is said link for convenience:
http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/5296336...ViewMode=single (http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/5296336...ViewMode=single)
That's still the mobile link, the normal link is in post #4.
BTW, HA favorite Michael Fremer makes an appearance in the comments, indignant at a critic, as always.
I had to stop reading. My blood pressure is more important than trying to parse this gibberish.
HA favorite Michael Fremer makes an appearance in the comments
Ooo, thanks for that - straight through to his facebook page.
I like the photos of his record collection. I can sympathise with the lack of space! He also has interesting screen caps showing the result of the loudness wars on vinyl mastering.
...but how can he believe things like this...
I know many well known recording engineers---and they agree that vinyl sounds more like what they put to tape than does the CD version. if it's a high resolution digital recording, the vinyl is more likely than not to sound more like the file than is a truncated CD version. I wish I could post here an MP3 of properly played back vinyl...even in that awful format you can hear what I'm talking about.
(from the comments section of http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/20...62/1?csp=34news (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-04/nashville-sound-quality/52963362/1?csp=34news) )
If you add in the indisputable facts that mp3 is either worse than, or equivalent to, CD - and that mp3, decoded, can be losslessly written to CD - then what you have there is that vinyl sounds better than CD, and to prove it, Michael will send you a messed up recording of some vinyl (i.e. an mp3) which you can copy perfectly onto CD to hear how much better it is than CD!!!??!?!
Or simply...
master > vinyl > mp3 > CD
is better than
master > CD
I think the guy is trying to explain what he thinks he hears - i.e. that most of the time, vinyl sounds better than CD. But he can't find a rational explanation, so falls back on irrational non-logic, pseudo science, and things-we-don't-know / can't-measure / our-ears-are-too-clever.
Cheers,
David.
I think the guy is trying to explain what he thinks he hears - i.e. that most of the time, vinyl sounds better than CD. But he can't find a rational explanation, so falls back on irrational non-logic, pseudo science, and things-we-don't-know / can't-measure / our-ears-are-too-clever.
Don't they all? No one does righteous indignation better than Fremer too.
Because the article is by default displayed as a short page, actually the first of nine, and the link to display it all at once is buried away down the page, here is said link for convenience:
http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/5296336...ViewMode=single (http://m.usatoday.com/article/tech/5296336...ViewMode=single)
That's still the mobile link, the normal link is in post #4.
Yeah, thanks; I missed that the first time round and only noticed it after posting. Oh well!
I know many well known recording engineers---and they agree that vinyl sounds more like what they put to tape than does the CD version. if it's a high resolution digital recording, the vinyl is more likely than not to sound more like the file than is a truncated CD version.
That's the real problem right there. Even the people who should know better, the engineers, have no clue. If they don't trust in what they can measure and/or prove anymore, and start to believe in irrational assumptions, they are just charlatans.
That's the real problem right there. Even the people who should know better, the engineers, have no clue.
The problem that there are many of self-proclaimed "sound engineers". Those aren't actually engineers at all. There are some short careers (2 years or so) with title of "multimedia designer" or "sound recording" etc. They actually don't know how
exactly Fourier transform is calculated but they can speak about it hours.
Ironically it's not rarely to see that some audio producers aren't actually sound engineers but electric/electronic engineers. Because they can
measure and they don´t use terms like "musical", "warm-tube", "clinical".
Even if it were real engineers, I wonder what actual percentage of them believe in such stuff. For example, there are a few real MDs who don't accept evolution, and many that peddle alternative "medicines". Between thousands of engineers (or MDs) it shouldn't be that hard to find a few that conform to your prejudices even if it goes against their field's well established consensus.
The problem that there are many of self-proclaimed "sound engineers". Those aren't actually engineers at all. There are some short careers (2 years or so) with title of "multimedia designer" or "sound recording" etc.
In Germany, at least, you can't just call yourself "engineer" (Ing.), since the job title is protected by law. You have to have a degree from an university (of applied sciences) to be allowed to take the job title. Though this has only been the case for 40 years now. I gathered this info from the german wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenieur#Berufsbezeichnungen_und_akademische_Grade). So here self-proclaimed engineers should be rare to find. Maybe that's why I am shocked when statements like in the article are made by engineers.
Even if it were real engineers, I wonder what actual percentage of them believe in such stuff.
I don't suspect (or hope) that there are a lot of engineers who think that way, maybe the surge of articles dealing with the anti-digital engineers has a sampling bias by the media. It is probably not as interesting to report about engineers who know what they're doing and don't make up colorful terms when talking about their craft.
The article has no scientific signature. There is no solid data, no measurements.
Pay atention to wording. There are no professional terms like dynamic range, physical properties of media, the measurements of noise, comparisons.
Not even single term.
Now that is worth to read -> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ths_%28Vinyl%29 (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29)
Not because it's trying to demyth Vinyl but it has a serious material with a correct wording.
Here we go, the education of Pat McMakin is 2 years and he calls himself "engineer". http://www.linkedin.com/pub/pat-mcmakin/3/745/9b8 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/pat-mcmakin/3/745/9b8)
I don't think there are many true professionals ( with solid knowledgment of physics, analog/digital technologies) prefer Vinyl.
Because it's very well known that dynamic range of Vinyl is at best 70-75 db (melt state.)
Now there are people who admit that Vinyl is technologicaly inferior to CD but still prefer it because it add some pleasant harmonic distortion. And It's OK indeed! But some people go beyound of that and start to create then own "theory" to defend their preferements from digital followers.While the actual generations (young and 30 years. old people) prefer a clean sound of CD. Just notice that most of the time the Vinyl layers are pretty old people. Not descrimination but observation.
From linkedin of Pat McMakin:
I have a business education...
Who give him the right to opinate in technological field?!
His opinion is not competent here. It doesn't matter the years of the experience.
The medics to operate people must be professionals. The same is for technologies.
It's as bad as scam.
Now there are people who admit that Vinyl is technologically inferior to CD but still prefer it because it add some pleasant harmonic distortion
It is not only that, vinyl technology permits relatively easy tweaking: cartridges, tonearms, mats, phono preamps (not all of them make an audible difference, but might look good on your rig)
which cannot be done with the same effect as with cd or PC playback.
Also, a vinyl rig can look more stunning than anything else in audio.
I know, I have four TT still in operation and two more in the cupboards), among them a Transcriptors Hydraulic Reference Turntable, two Thorens TD 125 with different arms and a Technics SL10.
I usually listen to the PC server most of the time, but sometimes I feel the need to do the vinyl ritual: clean the LP, put it on, and drop the arm and listen. Plus the artwork on a 12" Lp has so much more impact then the display on the monitor or on a CD jewel case.
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/5564/rackandplayers.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/rackandplayers.jpg/)(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7830/transcriptordec06.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/transcriptordec06.jpg/)
Great points! And nice equipment.
I usually listen to the PC server most of the time, but sometimes I feel the need to do the vinyl ritual: clean the LP, put it on, and drop the arm and listen. Plus the artwork on a 12" Lp has so much more impact then the display on the monitor or on a CD jewel case.
I’ve thought both these things before. The physicality of the medium and size/scope of the artwork/packaging sometimes seem appealing. And I
have bought vinyl editions of some of my most favourite albums. However, considerations of space, ease, efficiency, cost, the environment—, and who knows what else—mean that I wouldn’t buy vinyl records on a regular basis. Heck, I don’t even really have anything to play them on! Just an ancient Pye all-in-one hi-fi that apparently has one broken speaker/output… heh.
Back to your main argument, though, I completely agree that vinyl can be appreciated for its genuine distinctive qualities (whether audible [
i.e. distortion] or not) and that there only starts to be a problem when people inevitably begin to spread unsubstantiated woo and FUD. Woo and FUD. Does anyone want to start a cartoon with characters called those?
Funny, I grew up in the transitional period from vinyl to CD, and played both media regularly at my parent's home. As a child I always found the crisp tech-ness, the compactness, the tiny booklet of the CD case and CD itself, and the sleekness of the CD-player far more appealing than the stuffy, floppy sleeves, unwieldy, fragile, dust-prone records and ditto player. Combine that with how a lot of album art is, in fact, something only a mother could love, and see me waving a fond good-riddance to all things vinyl.
So I suppose that makes me irrationally biased against vinyl?
Nah dhromed, I don't think it makes you irrationally biased. Sounds more like a rational preference
@ Kraut: that is a nice looking setup you have there. Looks like you've quite a collection of LPs as well.
I love digital audio. It was a blessing to me when I got my first CD player. I hated the cassettes I grew up with and didn't buy much on vinyl. Looking back I wish I had because those tapes were a nightmare...favorite ones were always getting chewed up.
I find myself interested in vinyl for the collectible aspects. I have to agree with db1989: I too will pick up a copy of some of my favorite albums on record. Just for the hell of it. (I like to think of it as supporting the artists I really love...even though I bought the CD or iTunes version.) They don't sound "better." They just sound "different."
My belief is that it is mostly nostalgia. When certain "audiophiles" stop crying about digital and begin admitting that it's all just "tradition" then I believe many will cease in their (very successful) efforts to debunk their bullshit.
So I suppose that makes me irrationally biased against vinyl?
Why irrationally? Biased is just fine on its own.
I usually warn every one off who as a newbie wants to get into vinyl. That is why I rarely participate anymore in threads when someone asks advice.
In my experience there is no, absolutely no vinyl out there that is without surface noise, and I have to rely on almost fifty years of vinyl playback.
Even in the golden age of vinyl, often enough I put on a new LP that started with a barrage of surface noise on the lead in track, to continue like that throughout the record in between songs.
No amount of cleaning would do.
I have one among two thousands records I own at present one (there maybe one or two more at max)that is really quiet, and could be mistaken for a CD - a first Canadian pressing of the first Stones album. But even there - Some noise can be still heard on some breaks between tracks, but it is pleasantly unobtrusive.
I buy all my vinyl used, some is still from my original collection from the sixties and seventies. I ran wet, and still do on the Thorenses today. On the Technics that is not possible, with the result that even on clean records (I clean before every playback with 50/50 Isoprop/aqua dest.) after playback I have dust bunnies collected on the stylus because of the static attraction.
I love vinyl still because I grew up with it, my first TT was a Braun (1966) with considerable rumble, and it was then I started to tweak to get the noise down. The Transcriptors in the picture above I own since 1971, when I picked it up from a dealer in Oxford Street, London.
Yes, there is tacky artwork out there, but that applies to CD's as well. And if it is tacky (like the Hendrix EL with the nudes) - I want to see it in the full revealed glory of at least 12" x 12".
I embraced CD fully when it came out, and after a relapse triggered in part by Fremer's tirades I set up my vinyl again in 1995, only to conclude after AB comparisons that the CD sound is in no way inferior, and superior to the LP being free of surface noise.
I still have the players as I like the "tangibility" of vinyl and the accompanying rigging (I clean and maintain and tweak all players myself), and the nostalgia of my own life with HIFI.
I was a wee lad in the 80's. Yes, my bias against vinyl was intuitively practical in nature (small hands, large record), but my preference for CD was 100% emotional, as I had absolutely no technical concept of audio -- save for a "laser" that would reflect off a "pattern" on the pretty shiny CD.
My final sin against sanity, putting heart over mind, was ripping my all-time favourite CD at 48KHz/320CBR. After that I wizened up.
Yes, there is tacky artwork out there, but that applies to CD's as well.
All the more reason to make this art as small and unobtrusive as possible.
two Thorens TD 125 with different arms
Hm, none of which seem to look like mine. Lots of them here: http://thorenshistorypage.tripod.com/ (http://thorenshistorypage.tripod.com/) .
Some even equipped them with a tangential arm: http://www.wired4sound.net.au/sources/thorens/thorens.htm (http://www.wired4sound.net.au/sources/thorens/thorens.htm)
Mine looks a bit like this: http://www.retrohifi.co.uk/thorens_125.html (http://www.retrohifi.co.uk/thorens_125.html) . With SME 3009. Last seen fitted with an Ortofon MC-30 Super (not even a Supreme) ... once in a different millennium. But selling my vinyl? Naaaah ...
As the thread is off the rails for now...
The one Thorens has a plinth made of three layers of marine plywood, and sports an SME III tonearm.
The other Thorens is just painted black (any good audio equipment has to be black imho) and is equipped with an tangential air bearing MG1.
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/6403/td125sme30093.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/td125sme30093.jpg/) (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/79/td125dec06gall.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/td125dec06gall.jpg/)
I have no interest on keeping electronic artifacts I use pristine for collectors purposes. I change them and - sometimes - succeed in "upgrading" them, making them more useful.
Also, a vinyl rig can look more stunning than anything else in audio.
I must respectfully disagree:
http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/200...urntable_48.jpg (http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/10/08/sme-30-turntable_48.jpg)
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=transcriptor...XBAw&zoom=1 (http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=transcriptor+transcriber&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Oft&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3a%6ffficial&channel=s&biw=1280&bih=530&tbm=isch&tbnid=fJWpJgweMgrqpM:&imgrefurl=http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/general-av-discussions/59344-transcriptor-transcriber-turntable.html&docid=6-wxbDzlloRx4M&imgurl=http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b133/gib48189/Transcriber/165-c.jpg&w=1024&h=768&ei=MZcxT8GTF8nXiALm2NXBAw&zoom=1)
http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_p...tprestige_2.jpg (http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/Thorens_Gallery/Dani_Triode/dtprestige_2.jpg)
(any good audio equipment has to be black imho)
Well ... a web search suggests that the JBL Paragon was at one point in time available in black, so ... that means Avantgarde (http://www.avantgarde-acoustic.com/basshorn-size-en.html) has no valid excuse anymore?
I'm willing to forgive these guys for choosing red, though. It probably doesn't make the big difference to the spouse acceptance factor:
http://www.mollamusic.com/uploads/images/w..._18-08-2004.jpg (http://www.mollamusic.com/uploads/images/work/2004/021_18-08-2004.jpg)
Edit: Haha! http://community.klipsch.com/forums/storag...20119967914.jpg (http://community.klipsch.com/forums/storage/4/1082989/Goto%20horn%2030Hz%202%20-%20119967914.jpg)