[bigshot]

Perhaps I'll see if bigshot will demo his stereo for me...(really like to hear it, if only we were near by!)

The neighbors will attest that you don't need to be nearby to hear it!

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

I hope it is evident to everybody from this post my intentions are good - in no way I intend to  discredit anybody who has honestly contributed to the cause of better recording or reproduction of the sound - and specially not you, who have kindly shared your knowledge regarding analog mastering and azimuth in particular. It is just the fact I can not pull the magnitude or % of distortion from thin air due to (temporary) lack of measuring equipment - but if it is visible on the scope with naked eye, it can not be low enough to ignore.
 

 
I, for one, enjoy reading your thought provoking posts. 
 
This is obviously not a peer reviewed scientific journal, so I read it in that context.
 
Keep up the good work,
thx,
C J

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

 
I never wrote/said anything regarding audio cables. <snip>
 

That was directed at Moncrieff.  That's the kind of thing he does.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

The neighbors will attest that you don't need to be nearby to hear it!

I'm in the Midwest.
 
Turn it up!

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

That was directed at Moncrieff.  That's the kind of thing he does.

Unfortunately true. 
 
On the other hand, dismissing his original if sometimes outlandish ideas and approach altogether would be foolish - beacause even if he was right only in 0.00000000000000000000000001 % of cases, that one in which he IS right might be the most important of and key to them all. 
 

“A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”

- Frank Zappa

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

 
I, for one, enjoy reading your thought provoking posts. 
 
This is obviously not a peer reviewed scientific journal, so I read it in that context.
 
Keep up the good work,
thx,
C J

I openly admit to lack formal education to be able to do that in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
 
The gripe I have with peer reviewed scientific journals ? In general, they tend to admit anything that is not conventional to the max so that each and every of the peers feels comfortable with it only if and when enough information regarding the topic in question "leaked" to the interested public that not admitting it would clearly present them in bad light.
 
The reason behind it will usually be money and commercial interests. Just an example how this is usually done : Somebody invents something good and patents it. A large corporation buys the rights - and puts that invention in bunker to be able to continue selling its inferiour product which was the best in respective field up to the appearence of the invention in question.
 
That invention is usually never seen or heard of again. Because in intervening time it spent in the bunker, technology progress in general will usually render it obsolete - making it "never happened".

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Unfortunately true. 
 
On the other hand, dismissing his original if sometimes outlandish ideas and approach altogether would be foolish - beacause even if he was right only in 0.00000000000000000000000001 % of cases, that one in which he IS right might be the most important of and key to them all. 
 

“A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”

- Frank Zappa

Ok, here's a parachute that only opens 0.00000000000000000000000001 % of the time.  
 
Go ahead and jump. If it opens, it'll be your best skydive ever.

 

[bigshot]

I openly admit to lack formal education to be able to do that in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

The gripe I have with peer reviewed scientific journals ? In general, they tend to admit anything that is not conventional to the max so that each and every of the peers feels comfortable with it only if and when enough information regarding the topic in question "leaked" to the interested public that not admitting it would clearly present them in bad light.

You're writing TV soap operas now! I want some of that stuff you're smokin'!

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

You're writing TV soap operas now! I want some of that stuff you're smokin'!

Wish I were. For both of your statements . The last cigarette, let alone anything stronger, smoked more three decades ago. You would be shocked to learn just what was suppresed about the way described. All audio combined, let alone phono cartridges, is absolutely nothing compared to that. And it does concern each and every one individual in the so called civilised world - YOU included.
 
Trouble is, the capital behind it is so powerful that it not just might, but may well result in "something happening to you"  for bringing it out. It is quite capable of ordering enough perfectly scientifically supported "research" and have it published in the most prestigious scientific journals. It might not hold the water forever - long enough is all that is needed. Like waiting for the competition with better idea but not enough cash to bring that idea to full fruition to "die of natural causes". Science is, unfortunately, business as anything else - it can be used for true research and development - as well as for holding back the very same research and development.
 
One super benign case: there was a man from New Zealand IIRC who built in his garage a racing motorcycle that put all the motorbike industry taken together to shame - by winning practically any race at which his bikes appeared. Because the design was revolutionary and was far superiour to anything else. The man did not have luck - he is no longer with us - terminal disease. Did anybody even try to use some of his invention(s) to improve upon the present state ? The show goes on mainly as if nothing has ever happened - everybody more or less content to be able to continue the old ways. At least, the man had a chance to present his work to the world and at least some of us will remember him; were his innovation more groundbraking on global level with more financial consequences involved, he may have well been prevented to do it at all.
 
So, I will stick with trying to improve sound wherever I still find a possible way to do it, despite the opposition of the people with more conservative views. Much better/safer for one's health, too.

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

Ok, here's a parachute that only opens 0.00000000000000000000000001 % of the time.  
 
Go ahead and jump. If it opens, it'll be your best skydive ever.

Parachutes are unfortunately too familiar with me or I with them not to double/triple/multimultiple check them first before using them - for rocket models, let alone for a human being. I used to be very competitive in model rocket competitions back in the day, because I mastered the CONTROL of the parachute - what use is the best flying model in the world if you can not retrieve it in time required for the prepositions of the competition.? Can be done - if you know how to use the chute according to the  weather conditions etc. NEVER had a chute not performing according to pre-set conditions, let alone malfunctioning or failing to deploy at all. Had test chutes stored folded/ready to fly for more than a year - ALWAYS worked 100 %. The club I used to be a member of ages ago did hold and might still/again hold  some world records in various, particularly height categories. ARK V.M. Komarov from Ljubljana. Sadly, no longer exists under its original name occupying its original premises as a direct consequence of the budget constraints on the part of the city, but has now found its new home as a part of the activity of the high school I was attending in my time.
 
 
I certainly get your drift - the problem with Moncrieff cartridge paper is that it is the other way around with numbers - he did miss to properly intepret or use some of the cartridge types ( along with ANYBODY else ), but did correctly describe mechanisms behind their operating principle(s) and consequent performance - better than anyone else in my opinion.
 
That 0.00000000....01 % DID allow me to find a solution - in 1993, when everybody were telling me analog turntable is finished for good and even phono cartridge manufacturers I contacted were acting as not interested or were openly/directly negative about ANY improvements/changes. I was not naive enough to reveal just exactly it is - only the improvement in performance was described in foggy enough manner they could not put the two and two together just like that and steal it right there and then. 
 
It is (2012+1 ) now - and it is ( almost ) safe to say that new turntable models outstrip new models of CD players in number. So...

 

[bigshot]

I feel like I'm adrift without rudder or sail in a sea of words... No shore to be seen on any horizon.

 

[MatsP]

It is funny how people think that an audio device will sound sharper/harsher if it has more extended frequency response. Exactly opposite is true - the more extended the rsponse, the more naturally rounded "nothing to comment upon" sound emerges. Want proof ? Go to the   
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

 
 

Exactly my sentiments. The guys at 2L really know what they're doing, for the record. I would be hard pressed to find any better sounding recordings. By the way, the real benefit of having more bits and a higher sample rate at disposal is not really the extended frequency response, but the fact that there are more bits available in order to produce a more faithful reproduction of the original analog waveform. This is particularly important at lower levels and at lower frequencies.

 

[spruce music]

   
 
Exactly my sentiments. The guys at 2L really know what they're doing, for the record. I would be hard pressed to find any better sounding recordings. By the way, the real benefit of having more bits and a higher sample rate at disposal is not really the extended frequency response, but the fact that there are more bits available in order to produce a more faithful reproduction of the original analog waveform. This is particularly important at lower levels and at lower frequencies.

Not to be too snarky, but you have a misunderstanding of how digital audio works.  A higher sample rate produces lower frequencies not one bit better, more accurately or different than a lower sample rate would do.  It uses more bits to produce the same waveform to the same level of accuracy.  I know that seems intuitively wrong, but it is in fact the case.  Reconstruction of any wave below 20 khz is exactly the same at 44.1 khz as at 768 khz. 
 
If you need further info, this video explains why:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
 
 
I agree 2L makes excellent recordings.

 

[MP53]

I speculate that the difficulty may be that a piano is a quassi-percussion and string instrument, that spans 8 octaves.  It has a sustain pedal and a soft pedal to control dynamics.  Still, I find wind instruments to be the most difficult to reproduce.  Capturing the airiness, realism and dynamics (a wailing sax, for example, would send one running out of the room when played in close proximity - not from volume, but from the visceral, dynamic, sensation.).

 

[Ruben123]

I played Barenboim's Mozart's piano concertos (EMI) through my Technics speakers, and while the speakers are quite good, they are far from the best. It sounded like a real piano was playing in the room. Certainly recommended to listen to. No clue how they've done it though.