73b- Yeah, but there are very badly mastered CDs out there too. Most of 'em in my opinion. Here's what actually pushed me "back" to lp: I record a CD version of an lp that I have. I compare recording levels to the lp. I find that to not "spike" the meters, the lp level has to be much lower. Pops and clicks? No, not really. Just that most modern CD mastering is extremely limited and compressed, in a stupid attempt to make the recording sound "louder", which to an MP3-lover (!) might be construed as better. Poor mastering isn't limited to lps, not by a long shot.

See, that's one thing that really "chaps my hide" about CDs. The dynamic range *is* better than of lp. But except for *maybe* through the early 90's, recordings haven't come close to taking advantage of it.

LP then CD. Then MP3, and maybe now DVD-A/SACD. At least there's a lot of choice...

I agree, it would be wonderful if the master/mixing process got the careful attention it should and that poor mastering isn't limited to LPs. Consequently, it would seem that "audiophile" CD's or possibily SACD/DVD Audio are the way to go.

FWIW, I know that my wife does not appreciate dynamic range at all. She wants to be able to set the volume and have it stay there. This is especially frustrating in home theater. I have noticed my youngest daughter taking the same stance. I wonder if this is a more common occurance that recording engineers are aware of and possibly pander to while mixing?

There are times when a less-than-original dynamic range is helpful via "expansion and compression," such as listening in a noisy environment or when listening while you are busy with other tasks and are not available to pay attention to nuance. If there were full dynamic range at those times, you would either miss the “quiet” sounds or be “blown away” by the larger signals. Then there are the inconsistencies between one recording and another that, without expansion/compression, would leave you adjusting the volume on each song. The problem comes when you have a good system and the time to listen for listening sake. The effects and results of expansion/compression and other processing can be easily heard when they have been applied with a heavy hand, and they become irritating.

A non-viable solution, but one I would like, would be to leave a full dynamic range on each recording, even though that would make mixing more of a challenge, and let the consumer add expansion/compression as needed for the listening environment at the time. The problem is that so many consumers have trouble with the options already available to them that providing more options does not make good mass marketing business sense. There are many out there choosing sound equipment based not on the excellence of the sound, but based on the simplicity of operation. Some pay dearly for “less.” And how many out there really want to learn about “attack, release, threshold, ratio, peak,” etc., and become proficient in the use of such? And who will pay an extra $300 to $2k or more just for the privilege? Maybe a few, but that would be a special minority. Most consumers would say, “Isn’t that the job of the professionals anyway?”

So, there are different recording/mastering styles for different purposes, not to mention the “suits” trying to squeeze the production budget, that there is no single way to make everyone happy.

Personally I wouldn’t mind having ‘full range’ recordings available, which I would modify via software in my PC and then burn a ‘limited range’ version. That way I would have the appropriate version at the appropriate time.

Now let me put a foot in another quagmire … “radio” listening, whether good ‘ol FM, or streaming internet audio, or cable/satellite audio, or whatever … all these mediums modify the original signal for one reason or another, and usually the bottom line of all the various considerations is, “What makes the most sense for our business?” The “absolute best” audio is rarely the “real” consideration for those that make certain decisions and never “touch a knob.”

I think that "non-viable" solution is VERY viable. In fact, there is already a consumer precedent for it. Most Dolby Digital receivers and processors (the 950 included) have an adjustable "Night" setting that adds compression to the sound to narrow the dynamic range.

I suppose it is viable in some cases. If all the source material I would like to listen to came in non-compressed, full dynamic range, then adding my own compression, via the 950 or otherwise for some uses, would be a choice. The choice in many cases, however, is whether or not to add more compression to already compressed/processed material. There is no magic "go back to the original dynamics" button.

I'm still happy about the 950 and 770 and the sound I can hear from an Outlaw enhanced system!

- Dave

[This message has been edited by bestbang4thebuck (edited July 15, 2003).]

I remember my room mate and I had all kinds of processing boxes in the late 70's early 80's for dealing with vinyl pops/ticks/dynamic range. I also remember replacing the tweeter in one of my ADS speakers twice (not enough power).

The most important element in appreciating vinyl is impending middle age (or beyond). When I get my vinyl out it sounds really good on my 1979 Technics turntable with the 25 year old MicroAcoustics 2002e cartridge. Let's see, 2000 circa electronics and speakers, same turntable/ cartridge/ vinyl. Fewer (objectionable) tic and pop. Maybe the vinyl annealed in the attic. Or could it be I don't hear so well anymore?

I remember using a kit for cleaning and then "sealing/lubricating" my LPs. I think it might have been by 3M. Does anyone remember such a kit? You would spray the cleaner on and lightly buff it with a special applicator. You then HAD to follow it by spraying a protectant on the album and buff it also with a special brush. I used to use this before the virgin spin, it actually helped. Much better than just using the plain old Discwasher. There is another wonderful thing about vinyl that I haven't seen mentioned - WARPS. The worse was Jefferson Starship's "Red Octopus." I can still see the tone arm rising up and down and fearing what this was doing to my woofers. You know, I actually like pushing the skip button vs lowering the arm into an approxiamate grove. But I do miss the strobe light to set the pitch. And CD players just don't look as cool when they are playing.

Does anyone have or did have any of the tone arms that tracked the record horizontally?

Did these really work? Did they hold up to prolonged use? I remember seeing some with chain drives that seemed like they were extremely delicate.

I used to have a Rabco arm on my AR turntable. It worked well enough, but every time the small motor started to move the arm over, I could hear the acoustic feedback of it through the speakers to a slight degree. And of course when the battery (a "D" cell) went flat, the arm skipped!!! Good old days....

Back in my college days, I owned a turntable that had a main arm and a smaller lighter auxiliary arm. The cartridge head could pivot slightly in the horizontal plane. This meant that as the arm swung from the outermost groove area toward the innermost, the angle of the cartridge remained very close to 90 degrees from the radius of the groove at all times. An example of this method can be seen on a windshield wiper that has two parallel arms for a single blade assembly. As the wiper arms move through their arc, the blade can remain vertically oriented, instead of changing its angle of attack as the angle of the main wiper arm changes.