Last typewriter factory in the world shuts its doors

[Mike]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM, James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>>
>> It's funny: I just don't think of vinyl sound reproduction and tube
>> amplification as  belong to yesteryear.
>
> It's funny people still think that.  There are a couple of reasons why I say
> that.
>
> 1) Those vacuum tube heaters generate a *LOT* of thermal noise and tubes are
> also sensitive to microphonics etc.
>
Yeah, yeah... who said I was considering these technologies on
technical merit alone? And stop tapping on the tubes! ;-)


> 2) The dynamic range of the best vinyl is over 20 dB poorer than CDs and
> also doesn't have the same frequency range.  It's also sensitive to various
> mechanical noise sources that don't affect CDs.
>

The problem is that in reality, most CD masterings done in the last 15
years have increasingly compressed dynamic range into the top few dB,
never mind 70dB, let alone 96. Vinyl? Hah! Cassette would suffice! No
NR!  (see "Loudness Wars").

Rampant dynamic range compression has, ironically, made many original
vinyl recordings sound much better than the latest CD remasterings,
even though the CD still arguably remains superior in many ways.

Industrial dynamic range compression notwithstanding, I've been
digitizing vinyl recordings for years now. There's something just a
little weird about listening to what is clearly my old turntable in my
car, for example :-) If I'm in a hurry, I'll even leave in the needle
drops.


> There are apparently a lot of people who like the characteristic distortions
> caused by tube gear, but not the more accurate reproduction of good solid
> state equipment.  Tubes tend to produce even order harmonics, which are less
> disturbing than the odd order harmonics that bipolar transistors generate.
>  On the other hand, field effect transistors have distortion characteristics
> similar to tubes.  What it all boils down to is the amp transfer function
> i.e. input vs output.  A perfect amp would have a completely linear
> (amplitude, frequency and phase) response but, of course, such a thing
> doesn't exist.  Incidentally, several years ago, Bob Carver (of Carver amps
> fame) conducted a blind test, where he set up a transistor amp to have the
> same transfer function as a tube amp.  The people who preferred tube amps
> couldn't tell the difference between the tube and transistor amps.

I think that, practically, it depends on what you're listening to, and
how you like to hear it. Was my old 30W tube amp less accurate than my
100W solid-state? No contest! Was it still a joy to listen to for
extended periods? Absolutely!

The other thing that seems to become lost in the argument of tubes vs.
semiconductors is that  recordings of anything other than completely
acoustic music have all been processed in some way before ever
reaching the tape head, cutting lathe, or ADC. Jimi Hendrix, anyone?
Congotronics?

*cough* ...speaking of typewriters *cough*

Cheers,
Mike
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists