Amazon hawking obsolete TVs at top dollar prices?

In article , "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article
,
Kent wrote:

The
industry actually refers to "Blu-Ray DVD's" as BD's or Blu-Ray Discs
but who knows
what the general public will refer to them as in a few years.

Wait a minute--Blu-Ray DVDs?

BVDs?

Sounds like a winner to me.
The beatles brown album

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:27:53 -0800, UCLAN wrote:

Stewart wrote:

They still call new releases albums and record, though none of them
will ever really make it to vinyl.

New vinyl releases are growing at a pace faster than CDs.

Math challenged again;-0)
If I sell 3 of something this year, which I sold 2 of last year, I've
had a phenominal growth rate . . . percentagewise.

This quote, date 6/11/2009,from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/musi...t-in-2009.html

"Of course, if someone wants to rain on the vinyl good news, there's
this stat: Vinyl sales were up 90% in 2008 over 2007, and the rate of
growth has certainly slowed."

wrote:

They still call new releases albums and record, though none of them
will ever really make it to vinyl.

New vinyl releases are growing at a pace faster than CDs.

Math challenged again;-0)
If I sell 3 of something this year, which I sold 2 of last year, I've
had a phenominal growth rate . . . percentagewise.

I'd say "math challenged" is totally inaccurate. Your example is almost
as ludicrous as was the "none of them will ever really make it to vinyl"
statement.

The high-end audio newsletter that I get weekly has almost totally dropped
the CD format in favor of vinyl. Not quite totally, but almost.

G-squared wrote:

Actually, the sales of vinyl grew over 30% from 2006 to 2007, while
CD sales
dropped. They only represent about 1% of the market, and I have
not seen
more recent statistics, but there definitely is a market for it.

Leonard

When you're less than 1% of a market, it doesn't take a lot of change to go
up (or down) some big number.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-9906397-47.html
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo...wn_lp_sales_up
http://wiredset.com/blogs/markghunei...les-graph.html
http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoasts...-2008-sales-f/

My question is, how many of those vinyl
releases were actually mastered from analog sources?

The original master tape in most cases.

that negate the vinyl 'advantage' ?

I've got a NEC Pinwriter typewriter for sale. Extra ribbon cartridges
and print heads included.

On Dec 27, 2:59*pm, "LightByrd" wrote:
snip
So Leonard...
My professional audio experience was in the 60s-70s
I still have an amazing analog setup. (turntable, reel2reel, etc.)
Am I correct in assuming that many audiophiles are gravitating to
analog
recordings because they are not subject to digital sampling and
therefore
are a more accurate representation of the original material?

I do know that watching world class electric guitarists usually
reveals that
many/most of them are plugged into old Fender (& others) tube amps.
Ironically, Fender amps have very high distortion specs and passive
tone
controls. *Put a vocal mic through one and it sounds AWFUL!
But they make Telecasters, Les Pauls, and Rickenbackers sing!

--
Regards,
Richard Harison

Analog is more accurate? In what universe? There is SO much that can
get screwed up in analog recording, some of which can be 'tweaked' out
IF you know what you're doing. Some simply cannot be fixed. Period. I
do not deny that some forms of distortion can be what you like but as
a capture / reproduce medium, I'll take digital any day of the week.
Wow, flutter, dropouts, noise, interchannel phase shifts (tape
wandering in the path) and continuous deterioration with each play, oh
yeah, that's what _I_ want in my recordings. No thank you and Happy
Holidays to you all.

G²

"G-squared" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 2:59 pm, "LightByrd" wrote:
snip
So Leonard...
My professional audio experience was in the 60s-70s
I still have an amazing analog setup. (turntable, reel2reel, etc.)
Am I correct in assuming that many audiophiles are gravitating to
analog
recordings because they are not subject to digital sampling and
therefore
are a more accurate representation of the original material?

I do know that watching world class electric guitarists usually
reveals that
many/most of them are plugged into old Fender (& others) tube amps.
Ironically, Fender amps have very high distortion specs and passive
tone
controls. Put a vocal mic through one and it sounds AWFUL!
But they make Telecasters, Les Pauls, and Rickenbackers sing!

--
Regards,
Richard Harison

Analog is more accurate? In what universe? There is SO much that can
get screwed up in analog recording, some of which can be 'tweaked' out
IF you know what you're doing. Some simply cannot be fixed. Period. I
do not deny that some forms of distortion can be what you like but as
a capture / reproduce medium, I'll take digital any day of the week.
Wow, flutter, dropouts, noise, interchannel phase shifts (tape
wandering in the path) and continuous deterioration with each play, oh
yeah, that's what _I_ want in my recordings. No thank you and Happy
Holidays to you all.


*** I think analog is being considered as more "accurate" because the entire
sound is captured on the vinyl or tape, even with whatever noise may be
present.

With digital, the sampling rate used does not capture _all_ of the sound, so
there is always some amount of sound not being captured when compared to the
analog recording, even at sampling rates as high as 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz.
Think about harmonics and overtones of various orders, there's always part
of the sound missing with a digital sample of the sound, interpolation has
to be used to calculate the points in between, and that may or may not
recreate the same sound as the analog recording.

That said, I don't miss clicking and popping inherent to playing vinyl when
the record and needle are not absolutely free of dust or dirt of any kind,
nor do I miss the tape hiss inherent to analog tape. I'm also not sure that
a digital-to-audio converter is that much inferior to a tube amp, when
playing material that has been digitally mastered from the start instead of
mastered using analog equipment.

"G-squared" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 2:59 pm, "LightByrd" wrote:
snip
So Leonard...
My professional audio experience was in the 60s-70s
I still have an amazing analog setup. (turntable, reel2reel, etc.)
Am I correct in assuming that many audiophiles are gravitating to
analog
recordings because they are not subject to digital sampling and
therefore
are a more accurate representation of the original material?

I do know that watching world class electric guitarists usually
reveals that
many/most of them are plugged into old Fender (& others) tube amps.
Ironically, Fender amps have very high distortion specs and passive
tone
controls. Put a vocal mic through one and it sounds AWFUL!
But they make Telecasters, Les Pauls, and Rickenbackers sing!

--
Regards,
Richard Harison

Analog is more accurate? In what universe? There is SO much that can
get screwed up in analog recording, some of which can be 'tweaked' out
IF you know what you're doing. Some simply cannot be fixed. Period. I
do not deny that some forms of distortion can be what you like but as
a capture / reproduce medium, I'll take digital any day of the week.
Wow, flutter, dropouts, noise, interchannel phase shifts (tape
wandering in the path) and continuous deterioration with each play, oh
yeah, that's what _I_ want in my recordings. No thank you and Happy
Holidays to you all.

G²

Wasn't talking about recording...only listening
Only talking about final fidelity of sound to many ears.
I defy you to hear any flutter in a 30 ips 2" master tape
I love digital, but I can still hear warmth in many analog recordings that
don't come across in digital.
True you have to have a system that can translate it.
Boom boxes and MOR stereos are not in that category.

--
Regards,
Richard Harison

In article "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." writes:

*** I think analog is being considered as more "accurate" because the entire
sound is captured on the vinyl or tape, even with whatever noise may be
present.

But it isn't. The analog recording systems all have non-linear distortion
inherent in the recording process. One of the particular advantages of digital
recording on tape is that the non-linearities of tape cease to be a problem.

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.


With digital, the sampling rate used does not capture _all_ of the sound, so
there is always some amount of sound not being captured when compared to the
analog recording, even at sampling rates as high as 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz.

Huh? No recording system captures ALL the sound. That is why they list
frequency response ranges.

Within the frequency range of the system, digital does way better than
analog. Done properly, it is an exact copy.


Think about harmonics and overtones of various orders, there's always part
of the sound missing with a digital sample of the sound, interpolation has
to be used to calculate the points in between, and that may or may not
recreate the same sound as the analog recording.

Huh? The harmonics are part of the waveform of the signal. They are
sampled just as the fundamental. The reconstruction filter generates a
perfectly smooth copy of the original signal, with no missing points to
interpolate.


That said, I don't miss clicking and popping inherent to playing vinyl when
the record and needle are not absolutely free of dust or dirt of any kind,
nor do I miss the tape hiss inherent to analog tape. I'm also not sure that
a digital-to-audio converter is that much inferior to a tube amp, when
playing material that has been digitally mastered from the start instead of
mastered using analog equipment.

Tube amps are great at adding distortion that happens to be pleasing
to some folks ears. Of course, as the tubes age, that distortion will
change somewhat.

Alan

In article "LightByrd" writes:

Wasn't talking about recording...only listening
Only talking about final fidelity of sound to many ears.
I defy you to hear any flutter in a 30 ips 2" master tape

But, how many recordings do you have in that format? Can you
play that at home?

I love digital, but I can still hear warmth in many analog recordings that
don't come across in digital.

You are more likely hearing the limited frequency response, or added
distortion from analog equipment.

It sounds nice, and in some cases I like the sound, but I recognize
that it is not "fidelity", but it is adding distortion to make me happy.
I can do the same thing with an all-digital source, and adding the effects
at the end.

Alan

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:52:33 -0500, LightByrd wrote:

Wasn't talking about recording...only listening
Only talking about final fidelity of sound to many ears.
I defy you to hear any flutter in a 30 ips 2" master tape
I love digital, but I can still hear warmth in many analog recordings that
don't come across in digital.

Warmth is just an euphemism for attenuated high frequency response.
Toss a comforter over your speakers if you want warmth when listening to
digital recordings.

What is really impressive is when audiophile cables achieve "warmth"
-- cables so incredibly mediocre that they fail to have a flat frequency
response for high audio frequencies.