Between TOS#8, TOS#2, and TOS#5 pretty much this entire thread deserves to be binned.

Quote from: jensend on 2017-07-06 21:31:37

Between TOS#8, TOS#2, and TOS#5 pretty much this entire thread deserves to be binned.

Pretty sure it deserves it for the title typo alone (there should be ToS for that tbh). In the words of a wiser man, 'when you're so incompetent at writing English there is no possibility of a reasonable conversation.'

Doomed from the get-go!

With all due respect, could you quote the exact passages that you feel violate the terms of service rather than just making vague assertions of misconduct, please?

As well, and with all due respect,  I'll reiterate my original point, that it seems that this is a taboo subject here at Hydrogen Audio that cannot be discussed without either abuse, insults or any real chance of an open or honest discussion. If you do close this thread down, wouldn't that be just an admission that some people at this forum can't deal with this topic?

Quote from: 2tec on 2017-07-06 21:50:57

With all due respect, could you quote the exact passages that you feel violate the terms of service rather than just making vague assertions of misconduct, please?

No, I'm not going to have a lawyer go through all 100 of these useless posts line-by-line so he can file a 30-page civil complaint. The post that finally prompted me to say this was Atmasphere's dismissal of the very clear xiph.org factual demonstration as just a "belief" while enshrining an outdated misconception (based on assuming the limitations of simple analog filters still apply to complex digital filters) as truth because it was once taught in universities. But the insults from both sides and at least half of the other quality claims from the vinyl side are also obvious TOS violations, and since none of this thread has really addressed the OP it's arguably all a TOS5 violation.

Quote from: 2tec on 2017-07-06 21:50:57

As well, and with all due respect,  I'll reiterate my original point, that it seems that this is a taboo subject here at Hydrogen Audio that cannot be discussed without either abuse, insults or any real chance of an open or honest discussion. If you do close this thread down, wouldn't that be just an admission that some people at this forum can't deal with this topic?

The taboo subject at HydrogenAudio is anything about audio quality that isn't backed up by scientifically reproducible perceptual testing. Yes, we are happy to admit that we "can't deal" with those kinds of conversations. Such conversations are even more useless than arguments between different auditory-gustatory synesthetes as to how a piece of music tastes.

The actually reproducible facts about vinyl have been discussed at this site countless times, and pages and pages of ill-tempered biased arguments aren't going to add anything.

I understand that the subject seems settled to you. Great, carry on and let those who are still dealing with this, discuss it. Closing down the discussion doesn't seem like the way to resolve our concerns, or interests,

one of which is the dismissiveness that some people here have to those who have an interest in enjoying music conveyed by an analog medium. Look, I get it's not for some people, but other people seem to be ok with it. Why that really bothers some digital "purists" is, quite frankly, beyond me. If people want to stick to digital reproduction chains, great! I totally get it, and I even appreciate your position, however, to deny the "fact" that analog seems adequate just seems biased, sorry.

Take your stupid straw man and stuff it. People are welcome to enjoy listening to music on music box cylinders or wax cylinders or asphalt or whatever medium they want to listen to. Nobody here has ever disputed that. What have been disputed are the unscientific and thus TOS8-violating claims about the sound quality of particular analog media.

With all due respect, and politely, let me ask you this, if there was some piece of music you cared about, and it was only on vinyl or tape, would that keep you from listening to it?

The post that finally prompted me to say this was Atmasphere's dismissal of the very clear xiph.org factual demonstration as just a "belief" while enshrining an outdated misconception (based on assuming the limitations of simple analog filters still apply to complex digital filters) as truth because it was once taught in universities.

It's not a "straw man" argument to me as that is the reason I often need to resort to analog.

Quote from: 2tec on 2017-07-06 23:32:53

It's not a "straw man" argument to me as that is the reason I often need to resort to analog.

You apparently fail to understand what a straw man is. A straw man argument is where you deliberately misrepresent others' claims and then argue against the misrepresentation rather than their real claims.

Not a single person here has ever said that it's impossible or impermissible to enjoy music played back from analog media. For you to pretend others are saying that, rather than attempting to deal with what they've actually said, is patently offensive. It is dishonest and rude.

Vinyl is not.  You play it back and you get something that is fairly different from what you recorded. 

The relevant issue is not analog in general, but some examples of legacy media (analog tape and LP)  with well known and generally accepted audible and other practical flaws of a very serious nature.

... See above. The rule of thumb being that phase shift can be measured to about 1/10th the cutoff frequency; from this we can see that no current audio recording system has wide enough bandwidth- yet. This is basic filter theory and is why amps and preamps have had 100KHz bandwidth going back to the 1950s.

... You don't need state of the art to get 40KHz bandwidth- nearly any modern era LP pickup can do that with ease. They can probably go higher but most cutter electronics are bandwidth limited (ours are limited to 42KHz) to prevent stability issues so the recordings needed for such proof can't be made without special consideration. I've not seen the need for that so far.

Pinch Effect- That's actually funny!  This statement is blatantly false and clearly made without measurements or hands-on experience. That's the sort of thing in which subjectivists engage! Some here are probably to young to recall, but RCA marketed color video recordings on vinyl, played back with a stylus. Again my recommendation is to work with a lathe rather than engaging in myth and rumor. As I pointed out in my remarks earlier, I had many of these same false impressions until working with the real thing set me straight. 

Quote from: 2tec on 2017-07-06 23:32:53

With all due respect, and politely, let me ask you this, if there was some piece of music you cared about, and it was only on vinyl or tape, would that keep you from listening to it?

Once digitzed it may be a good listen.

however, to deny the "fact" that analog seems adequate just seems biased, sorry.

Quote from: Coreda on 2017-07-06 21:55:50

Quote from: jensend on 2017-07-06 21:31:37

Between TOS#8, TOS#2, and TOS#5 pretty much this entire thread deserves to be binned.

Pretty sure it deserves it for the title typo alone (there should be ToS for that tbh). In the words of a wiser man, 'when you're so incompetent at writing English there is no possibility of a reasonable conversation.'

Doomed from the get-go!

This may not be a serious thread /discussion, but we should be able to discuss this subject politely anyways, shouldn't we?

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2017-07-06 18:18:32

... See above. The rule of thumb being that phase shift can be measured to about 1/10th the cutoff frequency; from this we can see that no current audio recording system has wide enough bandwidth- yet. This is basic filter theory and is why amps and preamps have had 100KHz bandwidth going back to the 1950s.

You may wish to qualify that. You're only right for some simple cases of second-order filter response.

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2017-07-06 18:18:32

... You don't need state of the art to get 40KHz bandwidth- nearly any modern era LP pickup can do that with ease. They can probably go higher but most cutter electronics are bandwidth limited (ours are limited to 42KHz) to prevent stability issues so the recordings needed for such proof can't be made without special consideration. I've not seen the need for that so far.

By your reasoning quoted above, the phase shift of your cutter therefore goes increasingly bad above 4 KHz.

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2017-07-06 18:18:32

Pinch Effect- That's actually funny!  This statement is blatantly false and clearly made without measurements or hands-on experience. That's the sort of thing in which subjectivists engage! Some here are probably to young to recall, but RCA marketed color video recordings on vinyl, played back with a stylus. Again my recommendation is to work with a lathe rather than engaging in myth and rumor. As I pointed out in my remarks earlier, I had many of these same false impressions until working with the real thing set me straight. 

Pinch effect is quite real, though sometimes overstated. As for RCA's recordings, they bore almost no resemblance to what you do.
There were two competing systems. Both used FM modulated carriers. One system used a vertically modulated groove tracked with a strain-gauge stylus . The other used a system of alternating pits and lands similar to CD (but larger) tracked with a capacitive sensing stylus.  Both systems suffered from premature stylus and disc wear problems.

 I also have photomicrographs of CD-4 grooves after a dozen or so plays with the correct cartridge and stylus profile, showing the carrier almost completely worn off the part of the groove contacted by the stylus.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-07-06 01:45:46

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2017-07-05 20:18:31

I run a small LP master facility. We master LPs from all sources. [snip]

Quote

The above is false or misleading or both. For example, measuring the speed of a turntable for playback is painfully easy and takes no special equipment at all. You just do a needle drop of a test record with a known frequency test tone. You measure its frequency in the digital domain, and it is what it is. This is different from how one properly sets up a cutting lathe but come to think of it, many of the cutting lathes I've seen can be used to play records, even having a built in tone arm with cartridge,

No false of misleading statements were made; the above claim to that effect is in itself false.

Clearly you've no experience with the Timeline.

The Sutherland Timeline is much better than the suggestion here (although that works too, but not nearly as well). If you want to see the effects of stylus drag (which is highly variable from machine to machine) the suggested technique won't pick it up and the Timeline will.

Absolutely untrue. If the record speed changes the frequency of a test tone cut on the record changes in a corresponding and intimately connected way. That's only common sense.  It is backed up by the laws of physics. My suggested technique corresponds almost exactly to actual use, and so it can correctly reflect any problems that arise in actual use.  Digital means to measure frequency are hundreds or thousands of times more sensitive than the human ear, but also can duplicate the sensitivity of the human ear quite well.

Quote

that is moot in the real world due to that slight technicality of having to play it with a real-world stylus.

Quote

This statement is false; as stated earlier we see 40KHz bandwidth with our lowly Technics SL1200 and an entry level Grado cartridge played through an 1970s receiver.

Saying so does not make it so, given all of the well-documented contrary evidence. Furthermore, since you obviously don't understand the importance of power bandwidth, there's no reason to think that your evaluations take it into account. Your posts contain numerous exceptional claims and provide zero reliable supporting evidence.

Quote

We use such gear specifically to see how our cuts will play out on common equipment.

What gear? So far you've only mentioned an overpriced toy that any skilled technician can live well with out.

Quote

Clearly you don't need the bandwidth for its own sake;

Of course you do. Signals have to be fairly robust to be heard.

Quote

it helps to reduce phase shift in the audio passband (which is audible in the soundstage because the ear uses phase for sound location).

False and false. Power and phase accuracy are vastly different things. Power bandwidth is irrelevant to phase shift. You can have lots of one and none of the other or vise-versa or a little bit of both. Phase shift applied equally to both channels, is BTW yet another inherent flaw of LP technology - the inner side of the groove and the outer side of the groove have significantly different forces applied to them.  One of them pushes the arm across the record, but there is no such thing as pulling it,  However when the phase shifts applied to both channels are very similar as they are typically with digital, then they work toge
ther.

Similar considerations apply to the cleanliness of freshly-cut lacquers. Unfortunately they have to be played to be meaningful. However vibration in the cutting lathe can be added to the cut groove in the lacquer.  So all this cutting-side theoretical goodness suffers because in the real world, we play them.

Clearly you have not spent any time in this arena; in a nutshell you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

A lathe makes noise, but if set up correctly and in good condition it can do -95db (weighted) no worries. My suggestion is to work with a lathe before making such bold/false statements!

See above. The rule of thumb being that phase shift can be measured to about 1/10th the cutoff frequency; from this we can see that no current audio recording system has wide enough bandwidth- yet. This is basic filter theory and is why amps and preamps have had 100KHz bandwidth going back to the 1950s.

It is also untrue. The relevant item is power bandwidth. That is, the ability to reproduce a signal with useful amplitude an  low distortion. For the LP it is a little more than 12-15 KHz for a SOTA LP player.

You don't need state of the art to get 40KHz bandwidth- nearly any modern era LP pickup can do that with ease. They can probably go higher but most cutter electronics are bandwidth limited (ours are limited to 42KHz) to prevent stability issues so the recordings needed for such proof can't be made without special consideration. I've not seen the need for that so far.

Pinch Effect- That's actually funny!  This statement is blatantly false and clearly made without measurements or hands-on experience.

Some here are probably too young to recall, but RCA marketed color video recordings on vinyl, played back with a stylus.

See above. The rule of thumb being that phase shift can be measured to about 1/10th the cutoff frequency; from this we can see that no current audio recording system has wide enough bandwidth- yet. This is basic filter theory and is why amps and preamps have had 100KHz bandwidth going back to the 1950s.

I didn't make that rule; they teach that in engineering class at the universities.

Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on 2017-07-06 12:22:51

You and I clearly cannot communicate effectively together. I know what a run out groove is, thanks for the link. "Moral equivalent of a run out groove", on the other hand... I also don't understand "term of art for recordings", but I'm sure that's just me.

There's a reason why I don't post on for what are for me foreign languge forums. Something about actually doing something worthwhile, and not making a fool out of  myself.

Quote

I think you're getting confused.  There is no music "in the digital domain".

I'll be generous and chalk up "The digital domain" as yet one more common English phase that you are clueless about.

Quote

Be definition this must be converted to analogue before it's "music".

Wrong. Music can be expressed in any of a large number of mediums and formats and in English, we call them all music.

Your ignorance of physics is such that you apparently don't know that all acoustic events are quantized at some level, not just digital.  If we agreed with  you, then a signal in a wire that represents music isn't music because it has to be converted to an acoustic sound to be heard. In reality we native English speakers  call it all music, whether the signal in the wire is analog or digital.

You're right, Funkstar. You are so incompetent at reading and writing English that there is no possibility of a reasonable conversation with you. I suspect the problem is more your state of mind or lack thereof, and not your native language.

Arnold, by digital domain, I am asserting that until you convert those 1&0s to an analogue signal and out put it from a loudspeaker device, it is not music, but a representation of music.

So a measurement directly of the 1&0s is an unrealistic exercise.

Arnold, by digital domain, I am asserting that until you convert those 1&0s to an analogue signal and out put it from a loudspeaker device, it is not music, but a representation of music. So a measurement directly of the 1&0s is an unrealistic exercise.

I find your arguments to be very confrontational on a personal level, and that does not further the understanding of your points.

Also, I suspect that neither you nor I are qualified to comment on "all acoustic events are quantized at some level". Nor do I see it's relevance to the argument.

Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on 2017-07-08 09:15:00

Arnold, by digital domain, I am asserting that until you convert those 1&0s to an analogue signal and out put it from a loudspeaker device, it is not music, but a representation of music. So a measurement directly of the 1&0s is an unrealistic exercise.

Well my Funky friend, you are studying this English you were mangling, and you are becoming at least an understudy to your star-like pretense.  So now you are not purely wrong, but have achieved being partially right and unfortunately still wrong at the end.

Some parts of music production are still unchanged, such as playing the instruments, and picking them up with microphones. Of course a decent amount of  music is now synthesized in the digital domain, so it is only the actual creation of the selection of the  notes inside a human body that remains in the analog domain. The music becomes digital when it is written down or encoded via software by a human. It won't be that long before large parts of the actual creation part becomes digital via artificial intelligence. One day, probably within my life, I'll hear the first revelation that a top music hit was written by an AI, and the creation of music will be 100.000% digital.

Regardless, today everything else up to the voice coil of the electromechanical  transducer (often called a loudspeaker or headphones) can, often, and perhaps even usually  takes place in the digital domain. So when you say "So a measurement directly of the 1&0s is an unrealistic exercise." you show that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion for reason of unconscious irrelevance. Wake up!

Quote

I find your arguments to be very confrontational on a personal level, and that does not further the understanding of your points.

I've written perhaps a half million posts over a period of more than 20 years  directed at people who were silly enough to think that they could correct people like me, my peers, my superiors, and my associates. These were people  who were as wrong about audio technology as you, or the rare ones who were even worse off.

There is a scientifically recognized mental malady called "The Kruger-Dunning Syndrome" which in short describes the natural human tendency to overestimate one's own competence. BTW, that Kruger was not myself or a relative.

Quote

Also, I suspect that neither you nor I are qualified to comment on "all acoustic events are quantized at some level". Nor do I see it's relevance to the argument.

That's an insult, and it is also wrong. That audio in the natural world at a molecular level is  quantized is actually well known and accepted in knowledgeable circles including many who post here. You are just so over your head!

However, the fact that you lowered yourself to actually study a matter before further commenting on it is very hopeful. Keep it up!

Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on 2017-07-08 09:15:00

Arnold, by digital domain, I am asserting that until you convert those 1&0s to an analogue signal and out put it from a loudspeaker device, it is not music, but a representation of music.

Just like an analog electrical signal is not music either, but a representation of music.

Quote

So a measurement directly of the 1&0s is an unrealistic exercise.

I don't see why that would follow from what you wrote above. Why is it an "unrealistic exercise"?

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2017-07-05 20:18:31

... The cutter head of any mastering system take a few watts to drive. But the cutter amps as a rule of thumb make about 10X whatever the power the cutter needs. Example: our cutter (Westerex 3D) takes about 7-8 watts maximum. The amps make about 125 watts at full power. The amps, as you can imagine, don't make that much distortion even at full power. The reason this is so of course is so that the amps cannot be clipped. Period. ...

Interesting. I always thought the amps needed that capability so they could provide enough voltage swing to compensate for the rising impedance of the cutter head coils at high frequencies.

Quote from: Atmasphere on 2017-07-05 20:18:31

... (BTW if you want to test speed stability in a turntable, get a Sutherland Timeline. ...

Or Feickert's PlatterSpeed:
http://archimago.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/musings-measurement-thoughts-on-vinyl.html