Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Another recording nominee

Expand Messages
  • Edward Mast
    I don t think there s anyone on this forum who would want to go back to pre-digital days. But Tom s correct in saying cleaning machines and modern styluses
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't think there's anyone on this forum who would want to go back to pre-digital days.  But Tom's correct in saying cleaning machines and modern styluses make reasonably quiet vinyl possible.  There's much wonderful music in very good performances sitting on my record shelves, and pace Ted, I don't mind a bit getting up to turn a record over after twenty minutes.  Actually, I prefer getting up every twenty minutes or so to sitting motionless for eighty minutes.  Active listening can be both taxing and invigorating, and a brief break (about 20 seconds?) occasionally, seems to me a good thing.  But as always, each to his or her own.

      Ned


    • HM
      The opposite is the case, IMO. The lowest detection of damaged grooves or dirt in the groove is achieved by the conical stylus. This can be seen from this
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        The opposite is the case, IMO.
        The lowest detection of damaged grooves or dirt in the groove is achieved by the conical stylus.
        This can be seen from this picture:
        http://www.vinylengine.com/images/forum/stylus_shapes/diferenciaentreagujas.jpg
        Optimized stylus shapes aim for minimum expansion in the tangent orientation, see
        http://www.vinylengine.com/images/forum/stylus_shapes/quadrahedral3871664.jpg
        So to keep surface pressure low they must expand in the vertical contact area, not leaving out any groove problem caused by any earlier stylus tracking the groove.

        Keeping contact area big reduces friction and future record wear.
        http://www.vinylengine.com/images/forum/stylus_shapes/Stylidiagrams.jpg
        I would use such advanced stylii for new records only. Second hand records with unknown past I better play with a conical stylus.
        BR HM

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mallin <tmallin4@...> wrote:
        >
        > The combination of a good record cleaning machine and the use of a modern
        > line-contact stylus will remove most of the ticks and pops on even used
        > records, as REG says. That combination floats most of the crud out of the
        > grooves and then the modern microridge stylus rides in a different spot
        > along the groove wall than old conical and elliptical styli, making any
        > actual groove wall damage less obvious.
        >
        > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Peter <alcomdata@...> wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > > But there's a goldmine of cheap vinyl out there!
        > >
        > > You're right. All the vinyl I heard Sunday was "used" in the sense that
        > > somebody else owned it before Bob got it.
        > >
        > > In any event, I think Bob's just holding onto it until a former TAS
        > > reviewer stops back to pick it up.
        > >
        > > *From:* Will_H <will_hum@...>
        > > *To:* "regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com" <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
        > > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:30 PM
        > > *Subject:* Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Another recording nominee
        > > **
        > >
        > > But there's a goldmine of cheap vinyl out there!
        > >
        > > Sent from my iPhone
        > >
        > > On 2013-04-02, at 1:18 PM, "Ted Rook" <mailto:rooknrol%40warwick.net<rooknrol%40warwick.net>>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > > You left out, only twenty minutes before you have to turn it over.......
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > On 2 Apr 2013 at 10:01, Peter wrote:
        > > >
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>> At my usual "polite" playback levels, the perspective seems more
        > > >> distant than
        > > >> that served up by many big label recordings.
        > > >> I think this may be a function of "the curve formerly known as
        > > >> Fletcher Munson,"
        > > >> which is one of the main reasons I prefer realistic playback levels,
        > > >> at least for
        > > >> modern recordings.
        > > >> By the way, over the weekend I had a chance to listen to some vinyl
        > > >> on a friend's
        > > >> system. Even though he takes good care of his records, I had
        > > >> forgotten the joys
        > > >> of listening to ticks, and pops, and scratches, and hiss, and
        > > >> constricted
        > > >> dynamics, and ground-loop hum (only through the phono input).
        > > >>
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > ****
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      • Robert
        I surely agree with this. Of course digital properly done works better. But life is short. There is a lot of music available for very low prices on vinyl--I
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 3, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I surely agree with this. Of course
          digital properly done works better.
          But life is short. There is a lot
          of music available for very low prices
          on vinyl--I typically pay $1 or $2
          per record. And very good and interesting
          music ,too.
          It is really audiophilia unchecked and
          out of control to suppose that music
          is only interesting in multichannel digital
          or the like. The vinyl heritage is a huge
          storehouse of interesting music.
          And while hearing some standard rep
          piece in ideal sound can be very gratifying,
          trying out unfamiliar music or an unsual
          and previously unknown performance for $1
          is surely an intriguing prospect to my mind.

          I hope it is obvious that I am interested
          in how to reproduce ideal sound, or as close
          to that as one can get. But the real musical
          truth is that hearing the Saint Saens Organ Symphony
          is not high on my musical priority list.
          Intriguing perhaps to hear it sound particularly
          good--and I do like the piece--but musically
          this is a bit, how shall I say it, over-familiar.

          There is a big wide world out there of wonderful
          new(to one's self and/or new to the world) music
          and however one can hear it is worthwhile.
          I listen to a lot of things on YouTube!

          Audio is one thing, music another. When they
          fit together, fine. But one would have to
          be something of a musical "dummy dog"(what
          we call the dogs on the rare occasions that
          they do something wrong) to turn down the chance
          to hear some interesting music because it was
          on vinyl. Not to mention an old favorite.
          (How often I have listened to Novaes on Vox vinyl--
          pops and all).

          A lot of musical people feel that things like
          multichannel surround are a kind of gimmick, a distraction
          from actually hearing the music. As a review in
          The Absolute Sound said about some high tech ultra
          audiophile digital-processed recording some years ago
          "Mr. Mozart, he dead"

          REG
          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Edward Mast <nedmast2@...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't think there's anyone on this forum who would want to go back to pre-digital days. But Tom's correct in saying cleaning machines and modern styluses make reasonably quiet vinyl possible. There's much wonderful music in very good performances sitting on my record shelves, and pace Ted, I don't mind a bit getting up to turn a record over after twenty minutes. Actually, I prefer getting up every twenty minutes or so to sitting motionless for eighty minutes. Active listening can be both taxing and invigorating, and a brief break (about 20 seconds?) occasionally, seems to me a good thing. But as always, each to his or her own.
          >
          > Ned
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.