On Jul 30, 6:00=A0am, John Nunes <john_nu...@att.net> wrote:
> On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracki=
ng
> > distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious
> > consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least =
in my
> > considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and
> > different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digit=
al,
> > and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's t=
he
> > faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads=
from
> > the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or p=
ops,
> > mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that ca=
n
> > plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to a=
void
> > those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
> > unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it =
made
> > digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT t=
hose
> > unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something.
>
> You mention wow and flutter:
>
> One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many
> expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with
> fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic
> drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly
> reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually
> do to some extent.
>
> Then what happens is that end users play their records that have
> off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by
> very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that
> the fancy table has.
>
> Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in
> this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the
> off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. =A0This is
> true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the
> eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. =A0Yet t=
o
> this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a
> LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they
> end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's
> really happening. =A0The effect bothers the hell out of me.
>
> The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two
> Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. =A0If I
> recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey"
> despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst
> problems with vinyl playback.
>
> "High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there
> is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed
> "differences." =A0At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and
> ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this
> off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room
> acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms
> properly. =A0To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to
> Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it
> can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with
> no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it.
>
> I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different
> way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults.
>
> - John

Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is
audible depending on the severity. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an
issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason,
are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. I don't know of
anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their
playback though.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:00:02 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking
>> distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious
>> consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least in my
>> considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and
>> different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital,
>> and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the
>> faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from
>> the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
>> mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can
>> plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid
>> those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
>> unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made
>> digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those
>> unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something.
>
> You mention wow and flutter:
>
> One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many
> expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with
> fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic
> drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly
> reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually
> do to some extent.
>
> Then what happens is that end users play their records that have
> off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by
> very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that
> the fancy table has.

There's very little a record player company can do about warped or eccentric
records, but there have been attempts. Some Japanese company (I forget which)
came out with a very expensive 'table in the late '80's (I believe) which
used a very strong vacuum to pull a warped record hard to the patter (of
course a badly warped record couldn't be helped because the record had to be
flat enough to begin with to be able to pull a vacuum under it) and it used
the tone arm as a "centricity" sensor. When the arm tried to play an
eccentric (off center) record it would swing too-and-fro with the
eccentricity. Using sensors in the arm itself, the spindle, itself mounted
off-center, would move, thus moving the record until the arm swing was
nulled-out. I have no idea how well these systems worked as I've never
actually seen one of these 'tables. just read about it.

> Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in
> this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the
> off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. This is
> true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the
> eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. Yet to
> this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a
> LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they
> end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's
> really happening. The effect bothers the hell out of me.

It bothers me as well. I used to take records back when I encountered this
phenomenon. But when that was impossible or impractical (I used have
traveling friends and collegues buy records for me in places like London or
Paris or Moscow and bring them back), I'd use a rat-tail file to enlarge the
hole and then put an arrow on the label with a pen to indicate where on the
periphery of the hole I should have the spindle touching. This meant that I
only had to find the venter ONCE.
>
> The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two
> Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. If I
> recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey"
> despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst
> problems with vinyl playback.

Yep, that's the one I was referring to above. That it wasn't a very good
record deck (few of those Japanese direct-drive units were) doesn't surprise
me. I don't even know if it was effective at it's "selling point" tasks of
addressing warped and eccentric records.

> "High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there
> is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed
> "differences." At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and
> ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this
> off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room
> acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms
> properly. To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to
> Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it
> can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with
> no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it.
>
> I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different
> way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults.

To be fair, although I've encountered warped records from all labels and
genres, but I've only encountered eccentric records with "light music" labels
(folk, rock, film soundtracks, broadway musical cast albums, etc.) I don't
ever remember getting an eccentric classical record, even from cheap labels
like Vox, RCA Victrola, CBS Odyssey, Angel Seraphim, etc. Even records made
in what were then Socialist, "Iron Curtain" countries, like "Hungarotone",
East German "Parlophone", and the Soviet "Melodya" records were generally all
pretty well made using 100% virgin vinyl, usually at least 180 grams weight
(sometimes 200 grams) and never off-center. Of course, ANY record, even the
most carefully manufactured ones, can warp AFTER manufacture. It just needs
to be poorly packed at some point and sit in a rail car on a siding for a
couple of days in 100 degree summer heat....

"Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
>
>> "Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>> On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob <nabo...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of
>>>>>> the various distortions characteristic of vinyl
>>>>>> playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but
>>>>>> technology finds a way:
>>>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>>> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would
>>>>> be a good idea if it were done right without the
>>>>> cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make
>>>>> something that will actually do the job.
>>>>
>>>> What is "getting vinyl"?
>>
>>> Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be
>>> found with vinyl.
>>
>>>> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of
>>>> importance to most people:
>>
>>> Sorry you don't get to speak for most people.

>> Not only most but the vast majority of people have long
>> since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data
>> makes that quite clear.

> Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still
> pressed and hundreds of manufacturers still make
> turntables, some costing a small fortune, Cartridges are
> still available at all price points from $20 on the low
> end to tens of thousands on the high end with new ones
> being introduced all the time. Not to mention a myriad of
> phono preamps available, again at all price points, as
> well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps
> that have phono stages either built-in as standard or
> available as an option.

Two words: Niche products.

> Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated.
>
>>> Especially given your well documented prejudices on
>>> vinyl.
>>
>> What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my
>> comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed
>> by published, peer-reviewed technical papers,
>> statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and
>> decades of personal experience?

> Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft
> stated disdain for vinyl is what gives away your
> prejudice.

That's where you've got me wrong. I have no more or less disdain for vinyl
than I have for any other audio media with similar performance levels.
Furthermore, I have repeated defended the use of vinyl based on the unique
musical content that it carries.

>>> This product misses the mark IMO.
>>
>> But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In
>> fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever
>> actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions
>> of it are based only on prejudice?
>>
>>> I am speaking as an
>>> audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of
>>> sound
>>
>> Given that you have presented no first hand information
>> about the sound of this product...

> Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow,
> flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops
> automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by
> ANY music lover?

Those very same performance problems do not diqualify vinyl itself,
according to the paragraph that forms your initial response to my post.

> People who listen to vinyl, at least in
> my considerable experience, still listen to it because of
> two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds
> that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other
> faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's
> the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM
> radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither
> like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
> mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the
> other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if
> not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The
> fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
> unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the
> point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded,
> well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted
> artifacts, then he'd have something.

I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree exists. Digital
recordings on occasion fail to sound good simply because they are accurate
reproducers of mediocre technical work. Saying that DIGITAL needs some
add-on to make it sound good rather obviously paints all forms of digital
media with the same overly-broad brush. Anybody who is familiar with the
ins and outs of the process of producing musical recordings should be
well-aware of the fact that there is no single magic box that will undo all
of the careless and slipshod work that has been recorded on digital.

Indicting DIGITAL, as we frequently see being done here is a clear case of
shooting the messenger.

"Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org>
> wrote:
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article <8bdigqF8u...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>
>>>> Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have
>>>> long since forgot= about vinyl. The RIAA market share
>>>> data makes that quite clear.
>>
>>> hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables,
>>
>> Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS?
>>
>> Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production,
>> independent manufacturers of turntables.

> If I name fifty to I get a prize?
> http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableM...urersLinks.htm


Scott, you still need to document that the list is composed 100% of
manufacturers who are in business and have independent products. There's
obviously some rebranding going on.

One need read only a few items on the list you linked to see that the list
may be bogus - since when is the well-known online retailer Amazon an
independent producer of turntables? Or is this a reference to "Amazon Audio
Products" (note my detective work and probable indentification of the
complete name of an actual German turntable manufacturer), thus putting the
accuracy and completeness of the list in a poor light from the standpoint of
accuracy and completeness of its entries?

"Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)

> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
> yes it is audible depending on the severity.

Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl
causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as
flutter.

There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone
arms that are not linear tracking.

> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable
> to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
> sensitive to that sepcific problem.

We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me
that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that
causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

>I don't know of
> anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of
> their playback though.

>From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion
that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who
listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the category
of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> "Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>> On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article <8bdigqF8u...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>
>>> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>>
>>>>> Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have
>>>>> long since forgot= about vinyl. The RIAA market share
>>>>> data makes that quite clear.
>>>
>>>> hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables,
>>>
>>> Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS?
>>>
>>> Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production,
>>> independent manufacturers of turntables.
>
>> If I name fifty to I get a prize?
>> http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableM...urersLinks.htm
>
>
> Scott, you still need to document that the list is composed 100% of
> manufacturers who are in business and have independent products. There's
> obviously some rebranding going on.

I know of none. While it's true that some Rega, Music Hall, and Pro-ject
low-end tables are very similar, but if you look at them in the flesh, you
will see that they are not the same units at all.

> One need read only a few items on the list you linked to see that the list
> may be bogus - since when is the well-known online retailer Amazon an
> independent producer of turntables? Or is this a reference to "Amazon Audio
> Products" (note my detective work and probable indentification of the
> complete name of an actual German turntable manufacturer), thus putting the
> accuracy and completeness of the list in a poor light from the standpoint of
> accuracy and completeness of its entries?

That's true. Amazon does not make turntables (or any other audio products).

There are easily 50 manufacturers making so-called high-end tables today,
perhaps more, but unlike my earlier flight of hyperbole, I think you'd really
have to struggle to reach 100. Still and all, that's a lot of manufacturers
vying for a piece of what is a pretty small market. I will predict this, that
vinyl production will outlive the physical CD.

Audio Empire wrote:
> There are easily 50 manufacturers making so-called high-end tables today,
> perhaps more, but unlike my earlier flight of hyperbole, I think you'd really
> have to struggle to reach 100. Still and all, that's a lot of manufacturers
> vying for a piece of what is a pretty small market.

That's a lot of manufacturers, but it fails to account for
what the actual sales of units is. I am, in fact, working
with someone involved in several of these manufacturers
on a tone arm project, and I can say the annual sales of
some of these manufacturers are, in some cases, in the
single digits. Several others count themselves loucky if
their annual sales are in the realm of 50 units.

This is a FAR cry from the days when manufacturers like
Garrard, Dual and others were selling HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS
of units annualy.

I'd not be the least surprised if someone like Linn has
annual unit sales are not that much different than they
were 25 years ago, but in that intervening quarter century,
those nbumbers took them from the bottom of the heap to
near the top in terms of annual units sold.

> I will predict this, that vinyl production will outlive
> the physical CD.

And there's a place about 20 miles south of me that has done
a good busuiness for the last 25 years doing rennaissance
faires. This is long after the last civial war enactments
happened around here. So what?

No one is denying there's a market. But you and everyone else
have yet to show that it is not a niche market, and, by
sheer annual unit salkes, NOT by the nu,ber of manufacturers,
it is a very SMALL market, especially compared to what it
was in the early to mid 1970's. If you want to dispute those
facts, go argue with the LP equipment and media manufacturers,
it's their numbers.

Now, once again, this is not syaing LPs are bad, LPs are good,
or LPs are anything one way or another. But the simple fact
is that it's a very much smaller market than it used to be.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:10:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> "Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>
>> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
>> yes it is audible depending on the severity.
>
> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl
> causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as
> flutter.
>
> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone
> arms that are not linear tracking.

Actually, the distortions caused by properly designed and set-up radial
tracking arms turns out to be negligible, and the advantages of linear
tracking turn out to be a tertiary effect.
>
>> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable
>> to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
>> sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>
> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me
> that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that
> causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

>> I don't know of
>> anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of
>> their playback though.
>
>> From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion
> that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who
> listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the category
> of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback.

Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen to records that are
warped, eccentric, of full of FM distortion. I know that I don't.

On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>
> > Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
> > yes it is audible depending on the severity.
>
> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl
> causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as
> flutter.
>
> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone
> arms that are not linear tracking.
>
> > But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable
> > to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
> > sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>
> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.

> This suggests to me
> that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that
> causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

It would be interesting to put your ability to the test under blind
conditions to hear all those nasty distortions on a real high end
player with a quality LP. I know that will never happen but my money
would be against you. And you wonder why some of us think you have a
severe prejudice against vinyl? Do show us the peer reviewed published
literature that supports this nonsense about those of us with this
alleged "hearing disorder."

>
> >I don't know of
> > anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of
> > their playback though.
> >From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion
>
> that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who
> listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the categor=
y
> of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback=

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> "Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
>>
>>> "Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>> On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob <nabo...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of
>>>>>>> the various distortions characteristic of vinyl
>>>>>>> playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but
>>>>>>> technology finds a way:
>>>>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>>>> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would
>>>>>> be a good idea if it were done right without the
>>>>>> cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make
>>>>>> something that will actually do the job.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is "getting vinyl"?
>>>
>>>> Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be
>>>> found with vinyl.
>>>
>>>>> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of
>>>>> importance to most people:
>>>
>>>> Sorry you don't get to speak for most people.
>
>>> Not only most but the vast majority of people have long
>>> since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data
>>> makes that quite clear.
>
>> Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still
>> pressed and hundreds of manufacturers still make
>> turntables, some costing a small fortune, Cartridges are
>> still available at all price points from $20 on the low
>> end to tens of thousands on the high end with new ones
>> being introduced all the time. Not to mention a myriad of
>> phono preamps available, again at all price points, as
>> well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps
>> that have phono stages either built-in as standard or
>> available as an option.
>
> Two words: Niche products.

One word: Irrelevant. MacDonalds sells more hamburgers in an hour than
Morton's or Ruth's Chris steak houses sell steaks in a year, does that make
these "high-end" restaurants "niche" restaurants? Market share is no
indication of viability in markets catering to different strata of the same
market or different markets.

>
>> Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated.
>>
>>>> Especially given your well documented prejudices on
>>>> vinyl.
>>>
>>> What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my
>>> comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed
>>> by published, peer-reviewed technical papers,
>>> statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and
>>> decades of personal experience?
>
>> Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft
>> stated disdain for vinyl is what gives away your
>> prejudice.
>
> That's where you've got me wrong. I have no more or less disdain for vinyl
> than I have for any other audio media with similar performance levels.

You should re-read the above. Your disdain for vinyl is palpable here and I
don't believe we've ever discussed "other audio media with similar
performance levels".

> Furthermore, I have repeated defended the use of vinyl based on the unique
> musical content that it carries.

There's a phrase that covers that. It's called "damning with faint praise".

>>>> This product misses the mark IMO.
>>>
>>> But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In
>>> fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever
>>> actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions
>>> of it are based only on prejudice?
>>>
>>>> I am speaking as an
>>>> audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of
>>>> sound
>>>
>>> Given that you have presented no first hand information
>>> about the sound of this product...
>
>> Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow,
>> flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops
>> automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by
>> ANY music lover?
>
> Those very same performance problems do not diqualify vinyl itself,

That's because those are not inherent qualities of phonograph records
themselves, they are, however, possible DEFECTS in phonograph records. I must
say that my collection exhibits very few of any of those defects. And while
they might show-up more often than any record listener might like, it does,
in no way. alter the fact that these defects are unwanted.

> according to the paragraph that forms your initial response to my post.
>
>> People who listen to vinyl, at least in
>> my considerable experience, still listen to it because of
>> two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds
>> that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other
>> faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's
>> the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM
>> radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither
>> like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
>> mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the
>> other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if
>> not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The
>> fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
>> unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the
>> point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded,
>> well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted
>> artifacts, then he'd have something.
>
> I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree exists. Digital
> recordings on occasion fail to sound good simply because they are accurate
> reproducers of mediocre technical work.

I wish that were true. The fact is that most CD releases do not represent,
accurately, the information that is on the master tape. CD is capable, with
out being a so-called "high-resolution" format such as SACD or DVD-A or even
high-definition download formats such as 24/96 or 24/192, of much higher
levels of performance than most commercial releases put on them. Fact is,
most commercial releases, irrespective of the level of performance available
on CD or other digital media, is a pale shadow of the master. I've heard it
dozens of times. One here's a master or a copy of a master, and then buys the
CD when it's released only to find that it's been compressed and limited and
had whatever else done to it to render it extremely disappointing. This seems
to be the rule rather than the exception and I don't know why. CD can be
astonishingly good, but it rarely is - even so-called "audiophile releases"
sound nowhere as good as the digital masters from which they were cut. Hell,
I have highly touted recordings where the vinyl reissue sounds so much better
than the CD of the same performance, that it's hard to believe that both
renditions came from the same master tape.

Saying that DIGITAL needs some
> add-on to make it sound good rather obviously paints all forms of digital
> media with the same overly-broad brush.

Nothing wrong with digital. It's potentially as good as technology can
provide. There is a lot wrong with most releases, however. It's funny that a
lot of people spend a lot of money and time chasing these high-resolution
formats around the Internet, when the truth is that most of them have never
even heard a glimpse of what plain-old Redbook CD is capable of doing.

I play Redbook CDs for people made from my own digital recordings without any
signal processing whatsoever, and their jaws drop at the quality. Most have
simply never heard anything that sounded THAT real. The funny part is, it's
relatively easy to make recordings of this quality. Why commercial interests
feel that they have to water recordings down so much before releasing them is
beyond me.

> Anybody who is familiar with the
> ins and outs of the process of producing musical recordings should be
> well-aware of the fact that there is no single magic box that will undo all
> of the careless and slipshod work that has been recorded on digital.

While that is true as well, a lot of seems to me to be deliberate.

> Indicting DIGITAL, as we frequently see being done here is a clear case of
> shooting the messenger.

Well, you certainly won't find me condemning digital AS A PROCESS, but I will
condemn what most commercial record companies do with it. And increasing the
bit-rate and depth won't help much because most of those so-called
high-resolution releases are flawed in the same manner as the Redbook
releases of the same materials.

Like I have often said on this forum. Vinyl LP is NOT the end-all or the
be-all of high-fidelity listening, but it is another viable source of music
(KEY phrase here). Often, it's preferred to the digital releases of the same
recordings because it's more honest to the original master tape than are the
digital releases. It just seems that often, the processing that occurs in
vinyl mastering does less audible (or at least more musically pleasing)
damage to what was captured on the "master tape" than is the CD mastering of
the same material. Again, I don't pretend to know why this would be so. All I
know is that it's there for all to hear who want to hear it.

But again, (Another KEY phrase coming) regular old Redbook CD is capable of
astonishing levels of quality playback, but the average consumer doesn't get
to hear that quality because it's NOT transferred to the CD by the record
companies.