Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?
Dear @frogman : """
what does "understanding" have to do with any of this. Is it not about what we hear and what we feel when we listen to recorded music? I know very well what I hear and feel when I hear analog vs digital. """ yes, all is about what we hear and feel but when we are listening MUSIC in a home audio system we can't be as a " robot " that just listen with out ask our slf nothing with out know why we are listening what we are listening and with out ask our self how to improve the listening experiences. To improve those listening experiences we have to " understand " what is happening down there because if we do not know why we are listening " something " how can we improve it, don't yo think? I don't think that you or any one else that's in home audio system and when started this hobby bougth and builded his first system and after that he never made any single changes/tweacks or up-grade steps . What moves each one of us to look for up-grades? how can we now what needs an up-grade/date in our system if we do not understand what and why is happening? Subwoofers are not used inside a symphonic orchestra with Mahler scores but even with a more " simple " scores self powered subwoofers are a must in any home audio system that have passive loudspeakers. Subwoofers are a necessity in a home audio system as is not to listen to unipivot tonearms or all metal build tonearmsor tubes or.... or.... or...I don't know you but I learned the why's about when I understand its really weak role in what I listening day by day trhotugh many years in my home system. If your target or other people target is just listening then we don't need to think on up-grade/dates in our system. How you or your friends or the ones that disagree witn me about today importance on digital alternative can disagree with out follow that 3 months test listening exclusively to digital? Some of you said that already heard digital but only for a 2-3 hours and not each single day, this kind of experiences is prove of nothing. We can't " desintoxicate " our brain in only a few hours when we have 20-30-40+ years accustomed to the analog experience ! ! ! We just can't, it does not happens that way. Well, I hope you can understand my take and why I post here and elsewhere what I post. Every thing has a reason if we work to find out. Nothing comes by free in audio, evry day we have to learn but to learn we have to be willing to do it. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@rauliruegas Yeras ago I explain it in wide way and I don't have the time to get back again.The JVC X-1 MK2 is different and at the front of the stylus holder statest is for 4-channels, even the stylus holder is different and larger than the normal one.You don't own the JVC X-1 MK2, sorry. Enough. Finally i can spread the light on that 4 Channel stylus you have mentioned. Now everyone can look at this picture to make sure that cantilever is different from the serial model, because it's much thicker in diameter and there is no tension wire on the tail (different from the serial models for X-1, X-2 and X-1II with X-1IIe). BTW on this picture someone trying to put together non compatible stylus and generator. The stylus is for X-1II (X-2) series and the (big) size of the clear plastic is similar to X-1II replacement combo, but the generator is just regular JVC X-1 (aka Victor X-1). The most interesting is the 4 Channel stylus/cantilever which is unique, i think it is not a serial model, but just a sample. And you have (had) the same sample, but with the right generator? Now we see what's the difference, but since the cartridge designed strictly for 4 Channels records i'm not sure it is better for 2 Channel (Stereo) records. Maybe this is the reason why JVC Victor serial models are different, they are made for normal Stereo records. |
Raul, this was written in response to your previous to last post directed at me. I will briefly address your most recent post at the end. ************************ Dear Raul, There is an expression often used by orchestral musicians: "No one is fired for having a bad tone". A bit of an exaggeration to be sure since a good tone is something that is expected of all players, but it makes a very important point. The point is that in the world of music making there are aspects of a player's ability that are far more important than sound or tone which is how in the audio world these matters are usually discussed. The aspects of a player's musical abilities, and hence personality, that I refer to fall mainly in the categories of timing, rhythmic feel and expression. I bring this up because I am not quite sure how to address your request to explain beyond what I wrote previously why it is that I and most musicians feel that analog GENERALLY does a better job than digital of capturing/reproducing music and that it is not simply that we "like it better". Well, we do like it better. We like it better because to our ears it sounds more like live music; or, at least, what we feel are the most important elements of music as stated above. As I said in my previous post I feel that in these discussions/debates the focus is usually and almost entirely on "the sound": tone, frequency response and absence or presence of noise, and little or no commentary about rhythm and expression...the things that are most important in music. I am a musician and audiophile not an engineer and my understanding and ability to explain why I hear what I hear in technical terms will be limited at best. Bottom line: while I always like to know, I really don't care that much because I know what I hear and if I don't know why this doesn't cause me to doubt what I hear. I can and will try, however, to surmise based on that limited technical understanding and extrapolate that to what I do know applies to the basics of music making. Apologies to all not interested in this sort of thing for the length of this post. First, I would like to point out that I have been an audiophile about as long as I have been a professional musician, and have always felt that there exist many parallels between what audiophiles go through and experience in assembling and tweaking a sound system and what musicians go through with their equipment. If ever there was a good way to make the argument for resonance/isolation tweaking of audio components it is seeing what players go through when optimizing their instruments. iow, if these things matter with a musical instrument, is it any surprise that they would matter with the equipment that reproduces the sound of musical instruments? In general, these tweaks to instruments offer very subtle but important changes to the way an instrument sounds and, even more importantly, feels to the player. Would you believe that gold (or silver) plating the small brass screw that secures the neck of a saxophone to the body of the instrument makes a difference(s) that the player can feel? Or a simple small rubber band around the very end of a flute foot-joint? And these are just two small examples; never mind the much bigger and well documented effects of the use of different materials in the construction of the instruments. I bring this up only to point out the kind of incredibly subtle changes in sound and feeling that players are dealing with. Likewise, in the area of expression; the way musicians interact in an ensemble or turn a phrase when playing solo. As I tried to explain previously this is the area where analog consistently does a better job than digital of capturing the musicians' intent. Why? As I said, I can only surmise based on the little I know about the technology and what I think is simple logic. It is extremely difficult to explain just how fine a level of expressive detail is what distinguishes, for instance, a player's tendency to play ever so slightly behind the beat which is what produces a relaxed feeling and a tendency to play more on the front side of the beat which gives the playing a more rhythmically aggressive feeling; and this is just "scratching the surface" (pun intended). Now, consider that within a single short musical phrase a player may, for expressive purposes, "play" with the rhythm and at some point within that single phrase lay back and ever so slightly play behind the beat, only to then play ahead of the beat for just an instant. This is just one example of many of the kind of expressive detail that digital seems to blur. Why? Again, I can only surmise, but it is very real. The way I understand digital technology is that the process assigns a series of ones and zeros to the music present at a specific and discreet point in time. Then it "guesses" at and synthesizes what the information that connects that discreet point in time to the next point in time and it's corresponding series of ones and zeros might be. Knowing what an incredibly fine level of detail is present in the process of music making, it is no surprise to my simple mind that a technology that has to chop up the flow and expressive nuance of music and then reconstruct it using a synthesized "musical glue" should produce a recreation that often sounds less emotionally involving as it is often described by listeners. Another good example of how digital tends to distort musicians' musical intent to a greater degree than analog: Consider a symphonic score in which the principal clarinet has to play a unison line with the first chair violin. The two players are physically separated by a good distance. One of the things that excellent players strive for in a situation like this is to create a blend of the two very different sounds that becomes a new sound or tonal color; this is what a good composer intends and is what players call "getting inside each others' sound". In live and a good analog recording that feeling of blend is palpable. With digital it is often portrayed as two discreet sounds; the blend, the human element is diminished. This is may be a reason for the tendency of digital recordings to have a greater degree of tonal sameness than analog recordings. Which brings me to a comment that you made that is not correct. All those subtle and not so subtle colors created by musicians and which give individual players and ensembles personality and individuality are diminished. You suggested that in an orchestra individual players'personality is not heard. This is not true at all. There is much room for individual expression and personality within the confines dictated by the score and the conductor's musical vision. Again, it's all a matter of degree and points to how these subjects are usually discussed in terms that are way too broad. There is much more nuance at play than is usually considered. This musical nuance is what analog consistently does better. And, btw, the differences between the two technologies are are plainly heard, and sometimes more so, during direct playback of master recordings in either the control rooms of studios or remote recording locations. So, the argument that many listeners' digital playback equipment is not up to snuff does not hold water as concerns this debate. Analog simply preserves more of the magic* that is such a great ingredient of good music making. As before, you made a comment in your post recent post that I think may explain our disagreement and fundamentally different approaches to all this: **** when we are listening MUSIC in a home audio system we can't be as a " robot " that just listen with out ask our slf nothing with out know why we are listening what we are listening and with out ask our self how to improve the listening experiences. **** Exactly the problem. In my opinion, being a "robot" is precisely the opposite of what you describe. Being a robot is to not be able to listen to music and it's beauty and emotion without always also thinking about the technical aspects of its reproduction. I'll make you a deal; a gentleman's agreement. At home I will listen to music only on CDs for three months (your prescribed length of time) and you promise to listen to music for three months without once concerning yourself with the technical and trying "understand" why things sound the way they do. We'll compare notes in three months time. I predict that at the end of that period you will love music far more and I will be....I shudder to think what. Just kidding... Regards. Sent from my iPad |
Dear frogman, I learned much from logician since Frege. He first exlained that the simple grammar of the ''S is P'' form contains 4 different logical forms. Consider for our contex the quantifier ''all'' in the ''S'' place. The most people see this ''S'' place as the place where a name belongs. But ''all'', ''some'', ''most'', etc. are not names. We the Serbians would like to kill all Croats and other way round. We assume that like an particular object all Croats have the same property ; the bad one. This make no sense because there are no two persons in the world who are identical (aka ''the same'') To say whatever about ''all Croats'' the necessary condition is to know them all individualy. As a kind of ''opposition'' in relation to ''universal quantifier'' (''all'') there is the so called ''numerical quantifier''. Say: ''there are exactly 40 person in this class''. We in Europe have problems with refugee. There is political division between those who want ''all refugee to get asylum'' and those who ask the question ''how many can we bear?'' The curious thing is that no single politician in Europe has mentioned any number. At last ''digital versus analog''. Digital must have ''nummerical values'' analog has ''universal values''. Like the generative capability of language to produce ''endless numbers of sentences with limited numbers of words'' the musicians are capable to produce ''endless'' variations in musical expression. Numerical limitation would kill creative expression. |
