Anyone ordering the SRV box set?

NorthStar said:
Lol Eric, I used to take girlfriends @ the restaurant and sometimes the bills were higher than all those SRV remastered LPs.
...Even approaching the 45rpm set ($400), on occasions.
Click to expand...

uh, ok.
I wish I could take a girl to any restaurant just once, but I don't have any part of what is needed to do that and it won't happen in my lifetime.......what there is left of it. Come to think of it though, is not good companionship worth way way more than a box set of records?
 
MusicDirector said:
Oh, I see, so based on the 3 posts you just presented, you have the right to state your opinion based on the experience with your ears claiming it as official word, but I am not allowed to post what I clearly state as only my opinion? Do you know what ad-homonym is?
I was not arguing the point of 33.3 vs 45, I just stated that I find it a hard cipher and personally am fine with either one for the most part. I have some T-Bone Burnett LPs that are 45 RPM and some that are 33.3 RPM and I can't favor one over the other, both sound extremely good to me. Perhaps that may be something to do with the ability of the producer?
Click to expand...

Dude, everything being equal, mine is a fact, not an opinion. Go and read up about the technical results between the two speeds.

Perhaps it has something to do with the resolution of your table? I hardly think you're experience is what the majority experience with their analog rigs. Not to mention, I also compare when possible to the 15 ips tape copy.
 
Turntables use constant angular velocity (as opposed to CDs, that use constant linear velocity).
Therefore, any "circular" groove of a record takes the same time to play, whether it's the first one after lead-in or the last one before lead-out. This arrangement has one main problem: the last groove(s) are much shorter than the first one(s), but still have to store the same amount of information (almost 2 seconds of music, for 33.3 RPM), which cause difficulties in the cutting and playback processes of treble (represented by a denser change in the groove geometry).
So, at least in theory, a higher number of RPM would offer better results, since any groove is only asked to store less info (just 1.33 seconds of music).
 
Myles B. Astor said:
Dude, everything being equal, mine is a fact, not an opinion. Go and read up about the technical results between the two speeds.

Perhaps it has something to do with the resolution of your table? I hardly think you're experience is what the majority experience with their analog rigs. Not to mention, I also compare when possible to the 15 ips tape copy.
Click to expand...

Oh, but everything is not equal to you, you are superior in your view and everything you say is gospel. Sorry, but I can't adhere to that.
I tried to be nice, but I guess you aren't happy unless your competing all the time or feeding your ego or something it seems. I NEVER said that my experience is what EVERYONE or ANYONE else's experience is or should be! You said that! For the fifth time, all I said is that I personally hear no real dynamic difference between them, both sound great to my ears on the gear I have. That in no way makes my ears better than anyone else's or my gear better or anything. So you can stop putting words in my mouth. In your view I'm not allowed to enjoy them the same and I must only listen to and follow you. Sorry, can't do that. I'm not about to get rid of all my 33.3 LPs just because some data someplace says that 45 rpm is subtly superior to 33.3 rpm. Hey, that's great and all, but is it really that important? It might be to you or everyone here or everyone in the world except me, so what? My enjoying both somehow impacts your life or anyone else's? I don't see how.

Going forward, I would appreciate it if you find someone else to play with or whatever your doing and I won't be requiring your help or assistance with anything now or in future, thank you.
 
MusicDirector-There is no need to get your shorts in a bunch up your butt crack. If you think the 33 1/3 LPs sound just as good as the 45 RPM versions, that just means you saved yourself some cash. It doesn't mean other people don't hear a significant difference and would rather opt for the 45 RPM version. I have no idea what your table/arm/cartridge/phono section is so I have no idea of what type of resolution your system is capable of with regards to pulling information from the grooves. I know of some audiophiles that prefer playing 33 1/3 LPs over 45 RPM LPs because they don't want to get up and flip the records as often, but not because they think they both sound equally good.

I think Myles point was that your position that 33 1/3 and 45 RPM LPs sound the same (to you) is possibly a rather isolated position.
 
MusicDirector said:
Oh, but everything is not equal to you, you are superior in your view and everything you say is gospel. Sorry, but I can't adhere to that.
I tried to be nice, but I guess you aren't happy unless your competing all the time or feeding your ego or something it seems. I NEVER said that my experience is what EVERYONE or ANYONE else's experience is or should be! You said that! For the fifth time, all I said is that I personally hear no real dynamic difference between them, both sound great to my ears on the gear I have. That in no way makes my ears better than anyone else's or my gear better or anything. So you can stop putting words in my mouth. In your view I'm not allowed to enjoy them the same and I must only listen to and follow you.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

Sorry, can't do that. I'm not about to get rid of all my 33.3 LPs just because some data someplace says that 45 rpm is subtly superior to 33.3 rpm. Hey, that's great and all, but is it really that important? It might be to you or everyone here or everyone in the world except me, so what? My enjoying both somehow impacts your life or anyone else's? I don't see how.
Click to expand...

Really we're feeling rather sensitive aren't we? Again did I say get rid of your records? Did I tell did I tell you not to enjoy your LPs? No. But for those looking for a record that most closely approximates the sound of the master tape, 45 rpm (and actually one company even experimented with 78 rpm stereo) is the way to go.

Going forward, I would appreciate it if you find someone else to play with or whatever your doing and I won't be requiring your help or assistance with anything now or in future, thank you.
Click to expand...

In your view and every post -including the recent one on record cleaning machines-you have come across like an authority on the subject when in reality you admitted you never ever played with any of them. If you don't want to pay the money, fine. Given that, you saw fit to disparage the advantages of the newer US machines.

You also made a disparaging comment about the vinyl quality of records pressed at QRP (that you never addressed) when in fact they are hands down the BEST record pressing facility and clearly state-of-the-art and Gold standard.

For the sixth time, if you take the exact same master tape, same mastering engineer, the 45 rpm is hands down sonically superior. Since you are unwilling to even investigate the matter, here's a quote from a 45rpm 1962 Connoisseur Society done by the renowned Alan Silver and David Jones. I quote, "of the currently available records, it can be shown mathematically that 45 rpm permits full fidelity for the longest playing time. (Perhaps you should compare the 45 and 33 rpm Connoisseur releases such as Ali Akbar Khan Master Musician of India). If a 45 rpm disc is recorded to a diameter of no less than 61/2 inches, the inner groove will track up to 16,000 cps, as compared to the inner groove of a 331/3 disc, which is limited to a maximum of 8000 cps....REPRESENTS THE LOSS OF ONE-half of this audible range, and of that portion of of it which includes not only musical sounds as such, but the sense of atmosphere, and the feeling of "air" around the instruments." So basically you are saying you can not hear the loss of a sizeable portion of the musical spectrum?
 
Or as recently appeared on HighFidelityReport:

A few notes on the 12” 45rpm format. The grooves on a 45rpm LP are spread out wider than that of a 33rpm LP. Because of the higher speed, the cutting stylus is able to produce a longer path, stretching out the information over a greater distance. Thus, the playback cartridge has an easier time tracing the groove, allowing for greater accuracy in the retrieval of information. There is also the problem concerning the physical shape of the LP itself. According to mastering engineer Kevin Gray (of AcousTech Mastering fame): “In record mastering, the higher the recorded level and frequency, the greater the groove curvature. Curvature isn’t usually a problem, per se, on the outside of a 12” 33 1/3 record, but as the groove moves toward the center, its relative speed slows down and curvature increases. Yes, it is still turning at 33 1/3 revolutions per minute, but consider: one revolution takes 1.8 seconds. 1.8 seconds at a 12” diameter is covering a lot more territory than at the minimum 4.75” diameter. The result is actually a loss in high frequencies, and increase in distortion as the groove moves to the center. The problems start when the curvature of the groove equals or exceeds the diameter of the playback stylus.”
 
iosiP said:
Turntables use constant angular velocity (as opposed to CDs, that use constant linear velocity).
Therefore, any "circular" groove of a record takes the same time to play, whether it's the first one after lead-in or the last one before lead-out. This arrangement has one main problem: the last groove(s) are much shorter than the first one(s), but still have to store the same amount of information (almost 2 seconds of music, for 33.3 RPM), which cause difficulties in the cutting and playback processes of treble (represented by a denser change in the groove geometry).
So, at least in theory, a higher number of RPM would offer better results, since any groove is only asked to store less info (just 1.33 seconds of music).
Click to expand...

It's the same thing with a CD player; if the player has a CD-ROM drive running at four times the speed of a conventional CD drive, the bits should be more accurate (bit-perfect), meaning less data errors due to more amounts of data analysis of multiple read, and so better music reproduction. ...Generally.

There's no tonearm in a CD player, so no disadvantage from the beginning to the end of the laser reading.
In a turntable it is one of the reasons why some prefer a linear arm drive, just like when you cut the record.

And when you cut a record there are so many moving parts that they need to be perfectly in sync; not so easy to cut a perfect record.

And Open-Real tape decks too are high maintenance demanding reproducing tools.

____________________

I'm no expert, but for the general public I think that well made high-res quality audio downloads (music servers) are the 2014 way to go.
Less headaches, maintenance, moving parts, and speed's derivation. ...They also cost less in the long run.
And high-res audio files in a USB stick are easily portable. ...FLAC, WAV, DSD, DSF, WMA, ALAC, etc. ...24, 32, 64-bit/88, 96, 176, 192, 352, 384kHz.

...And asynchronous USB DAC, with jitter elimination.

Analog versus digital audio reproduction; it don't matter, what does is that you can't carry a turntable with you in your pocket, and that you're restricted to only two channels (stereo).
...And you can't carry a R-2-R tape deck either. ...Unless a mini Nagra one. :)

_________________

I've read articles before of people comparing various methodologies, and some high-end golden ears were mighty impressed by SACD,
to the point of finding a close relation with the master tape (indistinguishable).

SRV should also be awesome on SACD. :) ...I just don't know in comparison to those 200gr 45rpm LPs though, but to their CD counterparts they shine gold.
 
This would be really nice to have in the collection. I agree with others that SRV can get to be too much of a good thing at times, but when the mood strikes to have some good rocking' tunes cranking this will do nicely.

Let us know how it sounds Mike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top