[LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant.

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 28 December 2012 01:38:20 Ralf Mardorf did opine:

> On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 15:56 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > For the sound quality you only need a good
> > > pickup/needle and IMO start-up, pitching range, isn't that
> > > important,
> > 
> > Moving magnet or moving coil. The source is extremely important, any
> > problems there, and no matter how good the rest of the gear is the
> > damage is already done.
> 
> Most amps only support MM inputs and MM IMO is ok. The cartridge's
> company seems to be important. I still couldn't pay for a new cartridge,
> so I'm using an Audio Technica, because the old needle for a better
> cartridge gets broken. The Audio Technica does sound ugly, no bass, so I
> talked to one of those Technics MK2 users and he experienced the same.
> 
> With a good cartridge my record player does sound better than my CD
> player. With the Audio Technica cartridge I can't stand to listen to my
> records, the CD player does sound better.
> 
> When they introduced CD players, they gouged holes in CDs and then they
> demonstrated, that this doesn't effect the sound quality. They simply
> were lying, as we all know today, it's more likely that a CD is visually
> perfect, but anyway it can't be played any more. The reason to introduce
> "better" technologies usually is to make money. It's seldom that it's
> really better technology with a suitable better quality. I still own
> records from my childhood and I could hand down those records. So why
> buying all the I records I already own as CD, a media that won't last as
> long as a record does?
> 
> Assumed the sound quality of new CDs is better, when comparing it with a
> new record. How will the sound quality be comparing a 60 years old CD
> with a 60 years old record? It's not important, since the top ten in 60
> years are not the same top ten of today :D and the sound quality of the
> mobiles in 60 years is less good than what we already need to listen
> too, if we use public transport and have to listen to all those mobiles
> playing crap as Madonna and Black Eyed Peas by the mobiles "speaker".
> 
> I noticed a loss in consumer audio quality and btw. consumer video
> quality might be better today, but video/audio sync is out of style. A
> better viewing quality with audio quality that still is ok for video
> isn't an improvement for me, when there is no lips sync any more.
> 
> Today good consumer equipment is unpayable, there's no need to use the
> cheapest crap, but to get a real impression if e.g. a CD or a record
> does sound better, I guess we should compare an averaged good record
> player from the past, with an averaged good CD player from today.
> Comparing professional equipment is useless, since nearly nobody owns
> professional equipment.
> 
> 2 Cents,
> Ralf
> 
When I was seriously involved with that the last time I was at a radio 
station, they were using Stanton 500 cartridges in some old grey "battle 
ship" turntable/arm combo's when I walked in the door.

The grey's were ok, rumble was nearly 65db down, but those Stantons, 
tracking at about 6 grams, were eating 2 copies of Olivia Newton Johns 
"Physical" a week. The needles were shot, resembling wood chisels under the 
glass, cue burns and cut over grooves were a constant hazard, as was the 
crappy sound from groove damage after 2 plays.

One of my first acts was a trip to the local shack where they were selling 
the Shure RE15's for a bit over a $50 bill each.  Carbon brush to clean the 
grooves ahead of the elliptical needle, brush and needle total weight on 
the scale was 1.5 grams. 3/4 for the brush, 3/4 for the needle.

I put the first one in and the difference was breathtaking, so I did the 
other table too the same day.  Cecil nearly had a cow till I walked him 
into the control room to have a good listen in the monitors.

Last I heard about the cost, and we finished up the flight of Physical in 
the top ten on the same copy of the record I had pulled off the shelf when 
I put the 2nd cartridge in.  We were able to drop our orders for the top 
records by 80% or more & never ever heard a 'cue burn' again.  

Records for radio stations are specially licensed and cost more, so that 
nominally $105 1982 dollars for those two cartridges saved Cecil about 
$10,000 a year.  A bit hard for the part timers on the evening shifts to 
get used to, but in two years they only managed to bend one needle and I 
was able to straighten it as the microscope said it was still good.

Great cartridge in its day.  With good preamps you could play one of Emory 
Cooks "Command" records copy of Earthquakes and watch the AR-2 monitor 
cones moving about 1/2" each way.  You couldn't hear that much, but the 
room was breathing. He had also gone to Trinidad to do some steel drums and 
while there set a mic out the window one night & recorded about 20 minutes 
worth of the local crickets at about 17 kilohertz.  That cartridge had no 
problems with those records, all of which were cut at 78 rpm.  I don't 
believe you could have had it better without an airplane ticket to go 
listen live.

Cheers, Gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene> is up!
Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.
I was taught to respect my elders, but its getting 
harder and harder to find any...