In article ,


And in any case, a £50 quid CD player these days out outperforms a £1000
turntable.

A CD player cannot cope with vinyl. Anyway, a digitally encoded signal can
by definitition, never be as good as a pure analogue signal. No matter what
the sampling rate, you can never reproduce the original accurately.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article ,


And in any case, a =A350 quid CD player these days out outperforms a
=A31000
turntable.

A CD player cannot cope with vinyl.

bit of a killer than one


Anyway, a digitally encoded signal can
by definitition, never be as good as a pure analogue signal. No
matter what
the sampling rate, you can never reproduce the original accurately.

You can never reproduce the original accurately via either method.

NT

T i m wrote:
On 4 May 2005 05:59:12 -0700, wrote:

It would be an education for her to hear just how totally sh1te
those
grams sound, but would no doubt put her right off records. 8 tracks
next, or wire recorders?

Well you have touched on part of the 'goal' here .. and that's her
education. We have 'talked' to her about stuff from a babe, and have
played / demonstrated with stuff as well. I had her soldering at 5
years old and angle grinding / pillar drilling and MIG welding at 8.
She also raced 12th scale cars and was winning ballroom dancing
awards. I believe exposing her to all this stuff, old or futuristic
is
all part of what helps round her as a person. Some of her mates are
more intelligent but come across as naive re worldly things in
comparison?

sounds like great parenting, too many think cotton wool and naivety is
good for kids. Angle grinding at 8 though? Sounds scary.


78s are a lot more flexible, so to speak, in that you can

The couple across the road have some ... maybe we can 'play' over
there .. ;-)

The very early ones were recorded on one side only, and had etchings of
angels etc on the other side.


You can always make your own pickup and feed it thru the hifi. I had
good results (ok, delete the 'good') with earpieces, copper wire and
assorted needles.

Sounds like fun .. the the first sounds from your first Xtal set ..
;-)

Yes, though technically the first sounds from my first crystal set were
total silence. And the 2nd 3rd and 4th sets.

I even have instructions somewhere from the 30s on how to make an
answerphone using a pair of 78 decks. It used ali discs.


And watch the pickup geometry as it progressively twists
relative to the grooves.

Yep and that any compensation has to work with those effects?

There is partial precompensation, though its not perfect, but I dont
know how one would compensate at the playing end. Linear tracking
maybe.


And explain why it howls when you turn the
volume up,

I even 'resolved' that one for my nephew recently on the CD system
they were about to throw away ... I lifted it up off the same shelf
as
the speakers ...

funny isnt it. Kids now dont even know what a record is half the time.


and where all the snap crackle and pop comes from.

Breakfast?

apply breakfast directly to record...


I think her IQ is reasonable (she's been offered a place at one of
those "Gifted and Talented Childeren" orgs but "I don't want to play
chess with geeks thanks" was her reply g) and is genuinley
entertained by the stuff her and her old dad play with (mostly) ;-)

thats great. Maybe they offer something other than chess?


We were talking this morning about the new Hitchhikers film and she
said she didn't want to see it as it looked from the clips like it
didn't follow the image of the key characters like Marvin and Zaphod
from the book and TV shows very well. I said "well they aren't trying
to .. they are trying to follow the spirit of it whilst putting a
more
modern slant on it ..?" She replied "like it needs more slant .. any
more slant and it would be horizontial!" (well it made me chuckle
anyway) ;-)

Heh. I liked the old hitchhikers film, but was always disappointed by
the 2 headed Zaphod. I somehow hoped they'd figure out how to make his
2 heads a bit more convincing, but sadly no such surgery was ever
forthcoming.


NT

T i m wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 13:37:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Well if you are anywhere near west suffolk, Ive got a direct drive
parallel tracking revox doing not much these days, with an ortofon in it.


You are very kind .. ( I'm not *near* wast suffolk but have been
known to go that way sometimes .. used to go to USAF Mildenhall quite
a bit). I also had a vertical tracking Sharp system. The record had to
be pushed onto the hub like a laptop CD drive. There were little in
the way of tracking errors (being parallel) and being vertical there
was no heavy arm to counterbalance and therefore low inerita? From
memory it worked fairly well but not the sort of thing you would find
on an audiophiles shopping list!


p.p.s. I bought some 'special 'Superglue' at the Model Engineering Exp
this year that is very good for bonding rubber. The guy demos it by
cutting through a large 'O' ring, dabing a drop of the stuff on the
end (butt) joint and 3 seconds later playing tug-of-war with the
biggest bloke standing nearby .. nearly pulled me over! blush

Yup. Its how I make tyres for the toy planes. Using bits of foam cord

from a vintage car parts supplier...

Is this 'toy' or RC model?

Is there a difference?


All the best ..

T i m

raden wrote:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes

Yes, but we aren't comparing CD's to LPs but cd players to turntables.

Asssuming they are accurately timed and have decent D to A converters
- (1 bit 4 x oversampling with maybe interploation) and decent
fliters, then they are going to be free of all wow flutter and
resonance, and have a razor flat respionse from DC to the Nyquist
cutoff minus the necessary guard band, and be as high S/N ratio as the
recording methodology allows. 50 quid

To do that with a turntable means mounting it on a huge slab of
conceret, possibluy ins a soundproof casing. using a hiuege
electromecahniacl system to spin it at exactly teh right RPM,
probabluyy air beraiungs to stop teh rumble, and a very very well set
up arm and cartridge accurately matched to a very carefully designed
low noise pre-amp. 5000 quid.

But when listening to ZZtop etc, does it really matter ?

Frankly it doesn't matter at all unless listening to Mr Shures nice
sinewaves on vinyl in an anechoic room..or selling hifi magazines...

Adrian C wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snipped agreed with stuff

You may LIKE all those subtle rumbles and resonances - lots of people
do - but they are in no way a sign of technical excellece.


But with me, it IS the recorded media that I have collected. I do have
(naturally as time marches on and things get remastered) a lot of CD
recordings that trounce over 'groove-crammed' tracks I still have on
vinyl. Play those CD's on a £50 player & the vinyl on that OTT £5000
(it's gone up now - your last post £1000! ah... Gold plating) and I
might agree (but the post-digital stuff in that £50 player will be
suspect still...)

Nope. Modern chipsets are stunningly good, and the rest is very simple
to do accurately.

The only places where its hard to make good electronics are low noise
low sensitivity stuff - magnetic pickups - and power amps.

The first generation D to A converters were pretty crap s far as
crossover distortion went, but the 1 bit oversampling stuff is just
seriously good. You no longer NEED an acurate filter either on teh back
end to kill teh smapling frequencies. A cheapo will do.



I have though got a few LP's where it's the other way round - and even
though mechanical wow & flutter, clicks and scratches *might* diminish
the experience, It's still an experience which still keeps my deck
spinning and makes me yern to spend more money on this mechanical marvel
before audio shops of the world stops selling them.

Must get along to Wickes for some more concrete...


Your choice.

I spent many years of my life designing and testing audio kit. Now I
hardly even listen to it.

:-)
---
Adrian

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

In article ,


And in any case, a £50 quid CD player these days out outperforms a £1000
turntable.


A CD player cannot cope with vinyl. Anyway, a digitally encoded signal can
by definitition, never be as good as a pure analogue signal. No matter what
the sampling rate, you can never reproduce the original accurately.


Shows how little you understand.

It can outperform it easily if the noise to signal ratio of the
analogue exceeds the quantization errors of the digital by an order of
magnitude...

....after all analogue is only digital, where the bits are individual
electrons...or perhaps you hadn't appreciated that?


Look up noise, shot noise, and thermal noise and see what I mean.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The only places where its hard to make good electronics are low noise
low sensitivity stuff - magnetic pickups - and power amps.

The first generation D to A converters were pretty crap s far as
crossover distortion went, but the 1 bit oversampling stuff is just
seriously good. You no longer NEED an acurate filter either on teh back
end to kill teh smapling frequencies. A cheapo will do.

You still need a decent analogue reconstituting filter on the output of
the D to A stage to reduce the quantisation noise though. You also need
a clock design with good stability. So there are areas where a bit of
care an attention to detail will yield better results that just
expecting a "chipset" ro do it all for you.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

In article ,


And in any case, a =A350 quid CD player these days out outperforms a
=A31000
turntable.


A CD player cannot cope with vinyl. Anyway, a digitally encoded
signal can
by definitition, never be as good as a pure analogue signal. No
matter what
the sampling rate, you can never reproduce the original accurately.


Shows how little you understand.

It can outperform it easily if the noise to signal ratio of the
analogue exceeds the quantization errors of the digital by an order
of
magnitude...

...after all analogue is only digital, where the bits are individual
electrons...or perhaps you hadn't appreciated that?


Look up noise, shot noise, and thermal noise and see what I mean.

You make incorrect assumptions.

Why dont you tell us what analogue recording method you have in mind
when you say theres something of comparable quality to digital.


NT

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:40:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Yup. Its how I make tyres for the toy planes. Using bits of foam cord

from a vintage car parts supplier...

Is this 'toy' or RC model?

Is there a difference?

I think so. A 'toy' plane might be a static model or crude hand lauch
free-flight kids glider etc. Or maybe a die cast thing or plastic
clip-together kit?

An RC IC or even electric model are often a fairly complex mix of
materials, and technologies.

I would also suggest that afirst full function self build kit would
challenge the skills / patence of yer average DIY'r as we normally
understand the description?

Oh, and the other difference between toy and RC Model is the cost!

My other observation is the current trend toward RTF (ready to fly)
models .. taking (for some) the whole 'point' of RC modelling out of
the loop?

I mostly 'enjoy' the building (mainly competition cars and boats) but
it's the using that is the draw for me .. be it the odd dash about a
car park / pond / lake or a scheduled race meeting.

My daughter and I currently race the RC Laser (sailing dinghy).

All the best ..

T i m

On 6 May 2005 02:07:29 -0700, wrote:

all part of what helps round her as a person. Some of her mates are
more intelligent but come across as naive re worldly things in
comparison?

sounds like great parenting, too many think cotton wool and naivety is
good for kids.

Around here 'parenting' is what you get into from un-protected sex.
The 'benifits' of parenting is the child allowance, the duties ..
well none (else the parents of the kid that was standing on the roof
of my kit car the other day would have stopped them wouldn't they ..?)

Angle grinding at 8 though? Sounds scary.

Well it was a bit (for me anyway). However, she had on ear defenders,
clear face mask, leather apron, leather gloves, fully covered arms /
legs and in a well lit area. The 'job' she was working on offered no
surprises that were likely to catch the tool / wheel and apart frrom
when I took the picture of her in a shower of sparks, was standing
over her. ;-)

Sounds like fun .. the the first sounds from your first Xtal set ..
;-)

Yes, though technically the first sounds from my first crystal set were
total silence. And the 2nd 3rd and 4th sets.

Aww .. bless .. but at least you tried and tried again? I have always
been fairly lucky when it comes to electronics / PC's .. or maybe it's
more of an infinite patience? It was a VERY rare time when I gave up
on anything. When I was 15 I bought a Fiat 850 with a seized engine. I
stripped and rebuilt it but after re-assembly it wouldn't fire up? ;-(
At 3am I woke up and realised the distributor could be fitted one of
two ways ..

I even have instructions somewhere from the 30s on how to make an
answerphone using a pair of 78 decks. It used ali discs.

And wern't they very inventive in those days .. now it's all done with
a PIC ?

Yep and that any compensation has to work with those effects?

There is partial precompensation, though its not perfect, but I dont
know how one would compensate at the playing end. Linear tracking
maybe.

I remember seeing loads of fine monofilament running over tinlt
pulleys and little chrome weights n stuff .. ;-)


funny isnt it. Kids now dont even know what a record is half the time.

Or many fresh vegetables it seems?


I think her IQ is reasonable (she's been offered a place at one of
those "Gifted and Talented Childeren" orgs but "I don't want to play
chess with geeks thanks" was her reply g) and is genuinley
entertained by the stuff her and her old dad play with (mostly) ;-)

thats great. Maybe they offer something other than chess?

Well, they offer a fairly large range of subjects but she's not really
interested in any of them. She's not particularly acedemic but luckily
seems to have a reasonable amount of common sense. I'm just about to
drop per off to her recorder group (she's grade5) then she's going
skating with a bunch of mates.


Heh. I liked the old hitchhikers film, but was always disappointed by
the 2 headed Zaphod.

But the 'dummy' head on Zaphod was sorta part of the cornyness of the
thing wasn't it?

I somehow hoped they'd figure out how to make his
2 heads a bit more convincing, but sadly no such surgery was ever
forthcoming.

;-)

All the best ..

T i m

T i m wrote:
On 6 May 2005 02:07:29 -0700, wrote:

Sounds like fun .. the the first sounds from your first Xtal set
...
;-)

Yes, though technically the first sounds from my first crystal set
were
total silence. And the 2nd 3rd and 4th sets.

Aww .. bless .. but at least you tried and tried again? I have always
been fairly lucky when it comes to electronics / PC's .. or maybe
it's
more of an infinite patience? It was a VERY rare time when I gave up
on anything. When I was 15 I bought a Fiat 850 with a seized engine.
I
stripped and rebuilt it but after re-assembly it wouldn't fire up?
;-(
At 3am I woke up and realised the distributor could be fitted one of
two ways ..

Sounds very familiar.


I even have instructions somewhere from the 30s on how to make an
answerphone using a pair of 78 decks. It used ali discs.

And wern't they very inventive in those days ..

Had to be. The 405 line tv tech in particular was very clever.


NT

wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:


In article ,



And in any case, a £50 quid CD player these days out outperforms a

£1000

turntable.


A CD player cannot cope with vinyl. Anyway, a digitally encoded

signal can

by definitition, never be as good as a pure analogue signal. No

matter what

the sampling rate, you can never reproduce the original accurately.


Shows how little you understand.

It can outperform it easily if the noise to signal ratio of the
analogue exceeds the quantization errors of the digital by an order

of

magnitude...

...after all analogue is only digital, where the bits are individual
electrons...or perhaps you hadn't appreciated that?


Look up noise, shot noise, and thermal noise and see what I mean.


You make incorrect assumptions.

Why dont you tell us what analogue recording method you have in mind
when you say theres something of comparable quality to digital.



I never said that.

I said that digital was at least as good as and probably better than,
analogue.

I never mentioned any implementation. Just the basic fact that all
electronics ) and indeed the whole physical world)is ultimately
'digital' in nature..

NT

T i m wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:40:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Yup. Its how I make tyres for the toy planes. Using bits of foam cord

from a vintage car parts supplier...

Is this 'toy' or RC model?

Is there a difference?


I think so. A 'toy' plane might be a static model or crude hand lauch
free-flight kids glider etc. Or maybe a die cast thing or plastic
clip-together kit?

An RC IC or even electric model are often a fairly complex mix of
materials, and technologies.

Oh well. Its RC models etc etc.


I would also suggest that afirst full function self build kit would
challenge the skills / patence of yer average DIY'r as we normally
understand the description?

Dunno really. Depends on what you pick and who you are.


Oh, and the other difference between toy and RC Model is the cost!


Id you can refer to a new Ferarri as a 'toy' I don';t see why a couple
of hudred quid of model can't be a toy as well.

My other observation is the current trend toward RTF (ready to fly)
models .. taking (for some) the whole 'point' of RC modelling out of
the loop?

I mostly 'enjoy' the building (mainly competition cars and boats) but
it's the using that is the draw for me .. be it the odd dash about a
car park / pond / lake or a scheduled race meeting.


I actually like building as much as - possibly more than - flying.

My daughter and I currently race the RC Laser (sailing dinghy).


Nice. I would. if the pond were bigger, too.

All the best ..

T i m

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:40:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Is this 'toy' or RC model?

Is there a difference?

I think so.

I would have thought anything you cant climb into and fly is a toy.
Unless of course youre using it for surveillance, or rapid
carrier-pigeon style delivery of important documents. Or chopping the
heads off your enemies etc. Or applying selective weedkiller and
fertiliser to a roof garden... any more?


NT

On 7 May 2005 17:58:00 -0700, wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:40:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Is this 'toy' or RC model?

Is there a difference?

I think so.

I would have thought anything you cant climb into and fly is a toy.
Unless of course youre using it for surveillance, or rapid
carrier-pigeon style delivery of important documents. Or chopping the
heads off your enemies etc. Or applying selective weedkiller and
fertiliser to a roof garden... any more?

Probably ;-)

*My* definition of 'Toy' is something played with by children and
would generally be ready made. You go to Toys R Us, buy it, play with
it etc. That's not to say adults can't / don't play with 'toys' (and
I'm not talking 'adult toys even here g) .. stuff like Scalextric
seems to spread over a very wide age range ;-)

"Models* are often higher detail, and played with less casually, more
for the enthusiast than toys .. stuff like Hornby 'Model' railway?

A shame (to me anyway) is that now folk have more spending power and
kids seem to have less respect for stuff so you see quite nice / high
quality / expensive toys / moidels being abused / smashed up .. stuff
that a few years ago would have only been used under supervision ..
and that brings in another issue ..

All the best ...

T i m (Model maker & big kid) ;-)

T i m wrote:

A shame (to me anyway) is that now folk have more spending power and
kids seem to have less respect for stuff so you see quite nice / high
quality / expensive toys / moidels being abused / smashed up .. stuff
that a few years ago would have only been used under supervision ..
and that brings in another issue ..

Yes, and I think this extensive problem is just as bad with adults.

NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article ,


A CD player cannot cope with vinyl. Anyway, a digitally encoded
signal can
by definitition, never be as good as a pure analogue signal. No
matter what
the sampling rate, you can never reproduce the original
accurately.

It can outperform it easily if the noise to signal ratio of the
analogue exceeds the quantization errors of the digital by an order
of
magnitude...

...after all analogue is only digital, where the bits are
individual
electrons...or perhaps you hadn't appreciated that?

Look up noise, shot noise, and thermal noise and see what I mean.

You make incorrect assumptions.

Why dont you tell us what analogue recording method you have in
mind
when you say theres something of comparable quality to digital.

I never said that.

I said that digital was at least as good as and probably better than,

analogue.

I never mentioned any implementation.

A lil minor issue there


Just the basic fact that all
electronics ) and indeed the whole physical world)is ultimately
'digital' in nature..

really? Do tell.


NT


PS I guess my fingers are digital.

wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

In article ,



A CD player cannot cope with vinyl. Anyway, a digitally encoded

signal can

by definitition, never be as good as a pure analogue signal. No

matter what

the sampling rate, you can never reproduce the original

accurately.


It can outperform it easily if the noise to signal ratio of the
analogue exceeds the quantization errors of the digital by an order

of

magnitude...

...after all analogue is only digital, where the bits are

individual

electrons...or perhaps you hadn't appreciated that?

Look up noise, shot noise, and thermal noise and see what I mean.


You make incorrect assumptions.

Why dont you tell us what analogue recording method you have in

mind

when you say theres something of comparable quality to digital.


I never said that.

I said that digital was at least as good as and probably better than,


analogue.

I never mentioned any implementation.


A lil minor issue there



Just the basic fact that all
electronics ) and indeed the whole physical world)is ultimately
'digital' in nature..


really? Do tell.


Quantum reality.

This dicates the ultimate noise floor of any sound system for example.

Yes, you can actually hear the individual atoms and molecules banging on
the microphone diaphragm. And your eardrum apparently.

The noise floor in electronics is actually related to the number of
electrons in the seimiconductor device that comprise the signal. You
can't get better than +- 1 electron resolution no matter what you do,
with electronics.

If you boost your signal and digitise it accurately enough, that +- 1
electron might be +- 4 bits or so, at which point your quantization
noise is well below the digital noise of the (so called) analogue signal
anyway.


Just because w like to model the world in smooth continous lineaer
functions, doesn't mean that is how the world actually is. It's just a
reasonable approximation at the macro level we live at.

At the quantum level is all either yes or no type stuff. The integral of
all the quantum states approximates to the smooth functions we think are
the natural laws.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:

Just the basic fact that all
electronics ) and indeed the whole physical world)is ultimately
'digital' in nature..

really? Do tell.

Quantum reality.

This dicates the ultimate noise floor of any sound system for
example.

Yes, you can actually hear the individual atoms and molecules banging
on
the microphone diaphragm. And your eardrum apparently.

The noise floor in electronics is actually related to the number of
electrons in the seimiconductor device that comprise the signal. You
can't get better than +- 1 electron resolution no matter what you do,

with electronics.

If you boost your signal and digitise it accurately enough, that +- 1

electron might be +- 4 bits or so, at which point your quantization
noise is well below the digital noise of the (so called) analogue
signal
anyway.

can you tell us any real world implementation that does this though.
Anyone can dream.


Just because w like to model the world in smooth continous lineaer
functions, doesn't mean that is how the world actually is. It's just
a
reasonable approximation at the macro level we live at.

At the quantum level is all either yes or no type stuff. The integral
of
all the quantum states approximates to the smooth functions we think
are
the natural laws.

Indeed, but none of that makes real life digital.

NT

wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:


Just the basic fact that all
electronics ) and indeed the whole physical world)is ultimately
'digital' in nature..


really? Do tell.


Quantum reality.

This dicates the ultimate noise floor of any sound system for

example.

Yes, you can actually hear the individual atoms and molecules banging

on

the microphone diaphragm. And your eardrum apparently.

The noise floor in electronics is actually related to the number of
electrons in the seimiconductor device that comprise the signal. You
can't get better than +- 1 electron resolution no matter what you do,


with electronics.

If you boost your signal and digitise it accurately enough, that +- 1


electron might be +- 4 bits or so, at which point your quantization
noise is well below the digital noise of the (so called) analogue

signal

anyway.


can you tell us any real world implementation that does this though.
Anyone can dream.


?eh? its prefectly possible for any recording studio to push a mic
channel to the point where the noise exceeds the quantization level of
the A to D. In fact most would do so routinely.



Just because w like to model the world in smooth continous lineaer
functions, doesn't mean that is how the world actually is. It's just

a

reasonable approximation at the macro level we live at.

At the quantum level is all either yes or no type stuff. The integral

of

all the quantum states approximates to the smooth functions we think

are

the natural laws.


Indeed, but none of that makes real life digital.


Er...are you as thick as you appear to be?

NT

T i m wrote:
Hi all,

My 14 yr old daughter has just bought herself a some 'records'
(remember them) from a boot sale and of couse we don't have anything
set-up to play them on (some Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Quo and ZZ Top btw
g!)

Waste of time trying to get the TT working.
Those tracks can all be downloaded for nowt

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:

Just because w like to model the world in smooth continous lineaer
functions, doesn't mean that is how the world actually is. It's
just a
reasonable approximation at the macro level we live at.
At the quantum level is all either yes or no type stuff. The
integral of
all the quantum states approximates to the smooth functions we
think are
the natural laws.

Indeed, but none of that makes real life digital.

Er...are you as thick as you appear to be?

I think your definitions of digital vs analogue are off. The fact that
all analogue signals are a given whole number quantity of electroncs
does not make them digital, despite the obvious similarity.

You keep making assumptions that I dont really think are accurate.


NT

In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, even with the p&p doubling the cost it still might just be
cheaper than driving to my *local* HiFi shop if I knew where that was
(but thanks for that Geoff) and being ripped off for one (£5.99
against £2.99 at Maplin if I one was near?). Either way it still seems
a lot of money for a rubber band?

I've got a Thorens belt driven deck and it's anything but a rubber band.
It's a carefully made rubber band with a controlled width and thickness.
And a rough surface for maximum friction.

FFS, what's a fiver for something that works properly and has a life of
about 10 years + ?

--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article .com,
wrote:
I think your definitions of digital vs analogue are off. The fact that
all analogue signals are a given whole number quantity of electroncs
does not make them digital, despite the obvious similarity.

Most analogue signals went through a magnetic tape stage at some point,
and the size of the individual magnets on that tape - ie the coating -
were surprisingly analogous to digital recording. As are the size of the
individual polymers? on a vinyl disc.

Some think that analogue gives an infinite variety of levels and
'sampling' but this just ain't true when listening to a recording.

Good analogue can easily give a sig noise of about 100dB if it's not
recorded on analogue. Digital can be what you require it to be - but
limited by the analogue at both source and destination.

--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, even with the p&p doubling the cost it still might just be
cheaper than driving to my *local* HiFi shop if I knew where that was
(but thanks for that Geoff) and being ripped off for one (£5.99
against £2.99 at Maplin if I one was near?). Either way it still seems
a lot of money for a rubber band?

I've got a Thorens belt driven deck and it's anything but a rubber band.
It's a carefully made rubber band with a controlled width and thickness.
And a rough surface for maximum friction.

Agreed, but you can drive it with a rubber band quite happily (FSVO
"quite happy"), as I found while waiting for the right belt to arrive


--
geoff

On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:40:14 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
However, even with the p&p doubling the cost it still might just be
cheaper than driving to my *local* HiFi shop if I knew where that was
(but thanks for that Geoff) and being ripped off for one (£5.99
against £2.99 at Maplin if I one was near?). Either way it still seems
a lot of money for a rubber band?

I've got a Thorens belt driven deck and it's anything but a rubber band.

But that's not a cheap / basic turntable is it Dave? I've got a Rover
but it's anything but a Porche? ;-)

It's a carefully made rubber band with a controlled width and thickness.
And a rough surface for maximum friction.

I'm sure it is.

FFS, what's a fiver for something that works properly and has a life of
about 10 years + ?

Ok, howabout you buy it for me and then you can have the deck for the
9.99+ years after we have finished experimenting with it? ;-)

*If* I have need to order something from Maplin and can tack a belt
onto the order or if I actually go past a HiFi shop that has one for
less than a fiver I might just buy one. In the mean time the deck is
back in the loft where it has spent the last 10+ years ... ;-(

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I could easily find 10 things to spend 'just' 5 quid on ..

On Mon, 09 May 2005 15:57:51 +0100, OldBill
wrote:

T i m wrote:
Hi all,

My 14 yr old daughter has just bought herself a some 'records'
(remember them) from a boot sale and of couse we don't have anything
set-up to play them on (some Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Quo and ZZ Top btw
g!)

Waste of time trying to get the TT working.
Those tracks can all be downloaded for nowt

Well indeed .. other than it was partly an excercise for my daughter
re 'records' ;-)

"Oh, you can use both sides ... how do you select the next track ..
how do you do random or shuffle .. where does it plug into my PC ... "
?

All the best ..

T i m

T i m wrote:
Well indeed .. other than it was partly an excercise for my daughter
re 'records' ;-)

If they're worthless records can they be played with a drawing pin
through the back of a paper cup?

"Oh, you can use both sides ... how do you select the next track ..
how do you do random or shuffle .. where does it plug into my PC ... "
?

And for my next trick, how to work a twirly dial telephone...

Owain

On Mon, 09 May 2005 22:03:08 +0100, Owain
wrote:

T i m wrote:
Well indeed .. other than it was partly an excercise for my daughter
re 'records' ;-)

If they're worthless records can they be played with a drawing pin
through the back of a paper cup?

Well I'm not sure she thinks they are worthless .. but then she hasn't
heard these particular tracks before (they are older offerings). Maybe
I can find one of the other arf's Cliff albums to 'play with' ..evil
grin

"Oh, you can use both sides ... how do you select the next track ..
how do you do random or shuffle .. where does it plug into my PC ... "
?

And for my next trick, how to work a twirly dial telephone...

Funny, I was explaining that one to the missus tonight .. why our
replacement MF PBX was 'better' than the LD one ..

Cheers ..

T i m

In message , T i m
writes
On Mon, 09 May 2005 22:03:08 +0100, Owain
wrote:

T i m wrote:
Well indeed .. other than it was partly an excercise for my daughter
re 'records' ;-)

If they're worthless records can they be played with a drawing pin
through the back of a paper cup?

Well I'm not sure she thinks they are worthless .. but then she hasn't
heard these particular tracks before (they are older offerings). Maybe
I can find one of the other arf's Cliff albums to 'play with' ..evil
grin

Anyone know the telephone number for the NSPCC ?


--
geoff

raden wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:

against =A32.99 at Maplin if I one was near?). Either way it still
seems
a lot of money for a rubber band?

I've got a Thorens belt driven deck and it's anything but a rubber
band.
It's a carefully made rubber band with a controlled width and
thickness.
And a rough surface for maximum friction.

Agreed, but you can drive it with a rubber band quite happily (FSVO
"quite happy"), as I found while waiting for the right belt to arrive

exactly the downside with stationery bands is the rubber perishes
relatively quickly. Also some get lumpy or wonky when stretched, and
they tend to be weaker (the proper belts arent very stretchy). But if
its only for short use theyre usually fine.


NT

T i m wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2005 15:57:51 +0100, OldBill

Waste of time trying to get the TT working.
Those tracks can all be downloaded for nowt

Well indeed .. other than it was partly an excercise for my daughter
re 'records' ;-)

"Oh, you can use both sides ... how do you select the next track ..
how do you do random or shuffle .. where does it plug into my PC ...
"
?

lol!


NT

On Mon, 09 May 2005 22:24:58 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Mon, 09 May 2005 22:03:08 +0100, Owain
wrote:

T i m wrote:
Well indeed .. other than it was partly an excercise for my daughter
re 'records' ;-)

If they're worthless records can they be played with a drawing pin
through the back of a paper cup?

Well I'm not sure she thinks they are worthless .. but then she hasn't
heard these particular tracks before (they are older offerings). Maybe
I can find one of the other arf's Cliff albums to 'play with' ..evil
grin

Anyone know the telephone number for the NSPCC ?

And the NSPCH (Husbands) while we are there! ;-)

T i m

wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:


Just because w like to model the world in smooth continous lineaer
functions, doesn't mean that is how the world actually is. It's

just a

reasonable approximation at the macro level we live at.
At the quantum level is all either yes or no type stuff. The

integral of

all the quantum states approximates to the smooth functions we

think are

the natural laws.


Indeed, but none of that makes real life digital.


Er...are you as thick as you appear to be?


I think your definitions of digital vs analogue are off. The fact that
all analogue signals are a given whole number quantity of electroncs
does not make them digital, despite the obvious similarity.

? what is digital if not a systemn of encoding using a whole number of
finite sized elements?


Analogue is simply digital encoding using a finite sized electron as the
smallest 'bit'.


You keep making assumptions that I dont really think are accurate.


I think you will find that is your problem, not mine.


The world apprears to be - as far as quantum physicists are concerned -
made up of a huge number of binary transitions between quantum states.

The great mystery - and believe me it is a mystery - is why these
average out so that we can crudely represent them by linear equations.

Nevertheless, as we go deeper, the quantum nature is revealed - in the
hiss and noise of our electronics. That is more or less us hearing
individual quantum jumps.

If you boost the level and then convert to a higher resoulution digital
signal than the hiss suggets, your quantization noise is totally buried
in the 'analogue' noise so in theory, you can can approach the quantum
limits as closely as you like.

In the limit, there is no such thing as 'analogue' in the sense that
most people mean, and 'digital' is every bit as good on noise and
jitter, and in every other way better.

Now of copurse if you choose to try and comp[ress our data into an
inadeqyuate number of bits, then that is an entirely different story.

Nevertheless, CD sampling rates are good enough to exceed vinyl type
performamnce in almost every single respect, quie easily.





NT

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nevertheless, CD sampling rates are good enough to exceed vinyl type
performamnce in almost every single respect, quie easily.

It's the second harmonic distortion inherent in vinyl that most appear to
like.

If you copy an LP to CD carefully and set up a proper double blind test
between that LP and that copy, none will tell the difference.

Do it the other way - copy a CD to LP, (and I have ;-)) - everyone will
notice a difference.

FWIW, it's not the same thing buying the same piece which has been
released on both vinyl and CD - they may (probably) have gone through
different mastering - ie are not just straight transfers from the same
master.

In other words, vinyl is not and never was a clone of the master. It adds
its own footprint. Some types of music *may* be enhanced by this to some
ears. But an accurate recording medium it's not.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message . com,
writes
raden wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:

against £2.99 at Maplin if I one was near?). Either way it still
seems
a lot of money for a rubber band?

I've got a Thorens belt driven deck and it's anything but a rubber
band.
It's a carefully made rubber band with a controlled width and
thickness.
And a rough surface for maximum friction.

Agreed, but you can drive it with a rubber band quite happily (FSVO
"quite happy"), as I found while waiting for the right belt to arrive

exactly the downside with stationery bands is the rubber perishes
relatively quickly. Also some get lumpy or wonky when stretched, and
they tend to be weaker (the proper belts arent very stretchy). But if
its only for short use theyre usually fine.

What a surprise


I was only looking for a short term fix

--
geoff

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevertheless, CD sampling rates are good enough to exceed vinyl type
performamnce in almost every single respect, quie easily.


It's the second harmonic distortion inherent in vinyl that most appear to
like.

Third harmonic I would buy. second would be assymetric, and I suspect
unlikely

If you copy an LP to CD carefully and set up a proper double blind test
between that LP and that copy, none will tell the difference.

Do it the other way - copy a CD to LP, (and I have ;-)) - everyone will
notice a difference.

FWIW, it's not the same thing buying the same piece which has been
released on both vinyl and CD - they may (probably) have gone through
different mastering - ie are not just straight transfers from the same
master.

In other words, vinyl is not and never was a clone of the master. It adds
its own footprint. Some types of music *may* be enhanced by this to some
ears. But an accurate recording medium it's not.


I agree.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevertheless, CD sampling rates are good enough to exceed vinyl type
performamnce in almost every single respect, quie easily.



It's the second harmonic distortion inherent in vinyl that most appear to
like.

Third harmonic I would buy. second would be assymetric, and I suspect
unlikely

Any medium which saturates (how many don't?) will generate odd
harmonics. Records are also prone to some strange distortions, such
as the one produced by a radial arm tracking a groove created by a
parallel-tracking master cutter, and the one produced by tracking
a groove cut with a cutting head, using a stylus. The more hyper-
elliptical, the better, but you can never get it right.