If you have a Monks cleaning machine, we need to give you a pass
on the cars.
Tonight I played more tapes on my ATR. Sue has no idea as to the
cost of the ATR as I' dragged about 30 pro RTR machines home over
the last year. They all look the same and she's gotten used to it.
The ATR is different as it looks new. Sue has overlooked the
acoutrements of the machines so they all look the same to her, that's
good for me!! She knows that tape machines are old and cheap<*>
The sound of great analog can be appreciated on a system set up
in an appropriate room with good gear. Neither the room nor gear
need to be expansive or expensive, but it helps.
Those of you that have the ability to record live music in a real
space can appreciate the talent you've refined over the years. Being
an audiophile, I have the option of listening to the music recorded
by the best; whatever the medium will be.
On Aug 27, 2008, at 10:45 PM, David Lennick wrote:
> I can't remember the last time my timbers were shivered. But my
> faithful Monks Record Cleaning Machine cost more than my first two
> cars combined.
> Ken Fritz wrote:
>> If you play LP's on a Silvertone changer, handed down from your
>> dad, listen on a system from Best Buy, You'll concur with this
>> With all due respect to those that posted to this topic, Vinyl
>> cleaned properly, played on a top of the line TT - arm -
>> cartridge set up will sound good enough to shiver your timbers.
>> In some cases, the cost of a vinyl playback system to shiver your
>> timbers may cost as much as a a fine German sports car.
>> Until you hear vinyl on a GREAT system, you won't realize how
>> good the medium of the past really is.
>> Being an analog guy myself; CD's, digital and pro tools take
>> second place to the sound my Ampex ATR , Koetsu, Dynavector and
>> My Sonic Labs cartridges deliver. Being 66 years of age, I may
>> be wrong but my ears are happy.
>> Relax, and enjoy the music. Ken
>> On Aug 27, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Charles Lawson wrote:
>>> Tom Fine writes:
>>>> The LP has just too many limitations -- fuzzy midrange on peaks,
>>>> and pops, rumble
>>>> and surface noise, poor channel separation at certain
>>>> frequencies. It's
>>>> always amazing to me when
>>>> the things sound great -- I tip my hat to the mastering folks and
>>>> pressing folks who make that
>>>> happen. I'm old enough to remember the era before CD's. NO THANKS!
>>> Iím right there with you, Tom. Iíd never go back.
>>> I hope it was clear from my postings that I am not *advocating*
>>> using disc
>>> restorations as the preferred method of transferring older
>>> recordings to
>>> the digital realm. I am only noting that, in some cases when the
>>> tapes have deteriorated far enough, disc restorations can yield a
>>> listenable product than the bad masters. OF COURSE digital re-
>>> should be made from original source materials if those materials are
>>> well-cared-for and in good shape. However, I have heard (and own
>>> a few)
>>> major label CD re-issues that suffer from all sorts of problems
>>> that the
>>> same material originally issued on LP does not exhibitóand itís
>>> not just
>>> poor quality-control at the digital remastering stage.
>>> The LP as a medium has all kinds of problems that bug me (as LPs
>>> have!), but some of my old LPs when thoroughly cleaned and played
>>> the LT with DSP EQ, etc. yield a more listenable product than
>>> some of the
>>> CD re-issues that supposedly use original masters. Properly
>>> vinyl will generally hold up better than audio tape. Itís just
>>> I am booked up pretty solidly for the next little while, but if I
>>> can put
>>> together a few A-Bs, Iíll be happy to share íem.
>>> Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast & Internet