IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
To get into vinyl, or not?, I was set on constructing an analogue system, but..
pdq
post Nov 29 2012, 14:38
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 3315
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (dhromed @ Nov 29 2012, 05:34) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 29 2012, 10:51) *
Listen to this man. He is too modest to tell you just how much experience he has with vinyl.


I'm not familiar enough with cliveb's history to know if this is sarcasm or not.

Definitely not sarcasm. cliveb is possibly the most knowledgeable person at HA when it comes to vinyl.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almostmitch
post Nov 29 2012, 16:08
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 27-November 12
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 104798



QUOTE (DVDdoug @ Nov 28 2012, 17:22) *
When it comes to phono cartridges, I figure you can't go wrong with Shure's best which you can get for less than $100, so I wouldn't spend much more than that.

Of course, good speakers will be nice with analog and digital sources. When it comes to sound quality, speakers make the biggest difference (especially with a digital source).


The Debut Carbon ships with the Ortofon 2M Red which, from what I've read, is very respectable. One reason why I was set on this TT.
I'll be sure to choose speakers of the best quality I can afford, b/c even if the TT starts to see less usage, the speakers will still be used for my digital files.
As for recievers/amps, I had this in mind. From what I've seen it has good functionality and power for the price. One thing I'm still unsure about is impedance and how to correctly match wattage between the amp and speakers. If this amp is rated at 60 watts a channel, my speakers will need to handle at least that much, correct? Or is there more to it?


QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Nov 28 2012, 21:42) *
I just connect my iPod Touch to my receiver via a cheap headphone jack-to-RCA cable. I thought about buying a dock but when I heard the "cheap solution" it sounded terrific. (Substitute "iPod Touch" for whatever device you use to playback your digital files as appropriate.) They perform well above their price-point IMO. It doesn't hurt that they say "Polk Audio" on them either. Resale value is often found in a recognized brand name. smile.gif They will pack more than enough punch: I was prepared to add a sub, but after I heard them in my room I happily noticed that that wouldn't be necessary.

So I would spend at least that much on speakers, or you'll quickly come down with a really itchy case of upgradeitis from cheap ones. If you want to be thrifty, I recommend doing so on the receiver. You could always find a good used one at a thrift store or on Craigslist. 2-channel amp is preferable for your usage.

...but as to the tired vinyl vs. digital debate: If we keep bringing it up over and over it's sort of like trying to resurrect that proverbial dead horse; it has long since been beaten to death and rotted away.


I'll use the 3.5 mm to RCA to connect my laptop. Seems like the most logical option. As for the speakers, they are the last thing I want to be thrifty on. You make a strong case for the Polks. I'm not sure if their bass will satisfy a guy that's used to two 12 inch woofers worth of bass. So I'll just have to try em and see, I can always add a sub. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing that would make these floor standing speakers worth the extra $100 over the seemingly identical bookshelf speakers you suggested.
I agree with your last point. Vinyl just isn't the best or logical option anymore.

QUOTE (Porcus @ Nov 29 2012, 04:20) *


Thanks for the very informative read. I'm glad I know that information now and not after it's too late.


QUOTE (RonaldDumsfeld @ Nov 29 2012, 07:12) *
Audio Technica LP120-USB

Plus a built in phono pre amp and USB connection.

I find it hard to believe the internals can be up to the standard of the venerable 1210s but you never know? With a sticker price of £219 it looks a bargain whichever way you look at it.


Discogs is an excellent site for the vinyl enthusiast.
That's all you need mate. Good luck and have fun.


Thanks for the info. I think I'd feel safer spending an extra $100 for the belt drive, and more reputable cartridge on the Debut Carbon, but I will take the Audio Technica into consideration. And yes I agree, Discogs is an excellent resource, been using it for some time now.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Nov 29 2012, 16:31
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 3315
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I wouldn't worry about impedances and wattage ratings. All modern receivers will work just fine with all modern speakers. The only exception would be if you a) want to fill a large space with music, or b) listen to music so loud that your neighbors complain, or c) choose speakers that are unusually inefficient and need more than the usual watts to drive them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Nov 29 2012, 17:19
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (almostmitch @ Nov 29 2012, 10:08) *
...
I'll use the 3.5 mm to RCA to connect my laptop. Seems like the most logical option. As for the speakers, they are the last thing I want to be thrifty on. You make a strong case for the Polks. I'm not sure if their bass will satisfy a guy that's used to two 12 inch woofers worth of bass. So I'll just have to try em and see, I can always add a sub. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing that would make these floor standing speakers worth the extra $100 over the seemingly identical bookshelf speakers you suggested.
I agree with your last point. Vinyl just isn't the best or logical option anymore.


If you have the room for those floor-standing Polks, I think you should scoop them up. A powered sub may be in order, based on your musical tastes, but that can be had at a later time if you're running low on funds. I'm not the best person to ask about bass-related stuff: about the only album I own that would really give a sub some work is my Paul's Boutique record by the Beastie Boys.

BTW: I'm not trying to discourage you from getting into vinyl...I like it. I had very few records in the eighties as a kid. Mostly cassettes. That boiled down to convenience then as digital does now. (Except digital doesn't suck ass like cassettes did...that's an analogue format I have no nostalgia for.)

I think that the case for wear of records is often overstated. (Ditto for "speed variations" but that's another story.) I pick up used eighties American vinyl of unknown origin quite frequently. Granted I get picky over the way it looks before I buy it...but none of them sound "worn" and many sound better than some of the new vinyl I have. Your stylus OTOH should be replaced as needed. The records themselves really only have to last for your lifetime or as long as you use them. Your grandchildren aren't going to want a record collection of your old-fart music. wink.gif


QUOTE (RonaldDumsfeld @ Nov 29 2012, 07:12) *
Audio Technica LP120-USB

It is dead ringer for the now discontinued and much missed, classic Technics 1210 DD turntable. With all the standard tweeks pre implemented. Plus a built in phono pre amp and USB connection. The AT95E cartridge is pretty decent as well.

Looks to be an excellent one stop shop for the aspiring vinylophile.

I find it hard to believe the internals can be up to the standard of the venerable 1210s but you never know? With a sticker price of £219 it looks a bargain whichever way you look at it.

Anyone have any hands on experience to report?

...


@ RonaldDumsfeld: If you have time and revisit this thread could you tell me a bit more about those pre-implemented tweaks? I'm really curious about this TT as well. I'm actually considering paying about 1200 USD for a NIB SL-1210. If this is even close to it for that sort of price, I'd be mighty stupid to not want to spend that extra cash I could save on something else.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post Nov 29 2012, 20:12
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 2452
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



QUOTE
One thing I'm still unsure about is impedance...
I second what pdq said... You shouldn't need to worry about impedance. The unofficial standard for home speakers is 8 Ohms. It's all pretty-well standardized and virtually all amplifiers will work with 8 Ohm speakers. (Car speakers are usually 4 Ohms.) With lower resistance (or lower impedance), you get more current with a given voltage. So typically, you'll get twice the power with 4 Ohm speakers.

An amplifier rated for 4 or 2 Ohms will work fine with 8 Ohm Speakers.

However, if the speaker impedance is lower than the amp's impedance rating, or if you hook-up too many speakers, you can "pull" too much power from the amp and damage the amp.

Or if you hook-up two pairs of 8 Ohm speakers, you'll have 4 Ohms (on each channel) and you'll get (about) twice the power... Makes sense, right? 100W from each speaker means 200W with 2 speakers and 400W with 4 speakers...


QUOTE
... and how to correctly match wattage between the amp and speakers. If this amp is rated at 60 watts a channel, my speakers will need to handle at least that much, correct? Or is there more to it?
This can get really tricky... So, I'm going to give you several different answers answers... biggrin.gif

For most living room situations and most home speakers, 100 Watts is more than enough. If you double the power you get +3dB more volume (or half the power is -3dB). That's "noticable", but it's not a big difference. If you want to rattle the walls, that usually takes big woofers/subwoofers and big amplifiers.

It's pretty much impossible to predict how much power you need in a home situation... We don't know the SPL level you like to listen at. And, speaker efficiency varies all over the place. One speaker might be 6dB (or more) more efficient than another, and it takes a power factor of 4 to make a 6dB difference (4 times the power is +6dB, or 1/4th the power is -6dB). So a 50W amp/speaker combination may be play louder than a 200W amp/speaker combination. If you feel like you need to go louder, it's often better to get more efficient speakers than to get a bigger amp (or both wink.gif ).

Pro PA speakers tend to be very efficient, so a PA speaker rated at 500W (maximum) might "blow out the windows" in your house with a 25W amp.

I generally wouldn't worry about connecting 25W speakers to a 200W amp, as long as you don't drive the speakers into distortion. To much power s rarely a problem. But if there are loud parties and beer involved, you might want to be more cautious. biggrin.gif

For professional music/performance installations, JBL recommends using an amplifer with twice the rating of the speaker. For guitar/instrument applications where there is often intentional distortion, they recommend the opposite... an amp with half the power of the speaker rating.

Speaker power ratings are complicated (and sometimes just plain made-up or exaggerated). They are rated for undistorted music which has an average power that's about 1/10th the peak power, with a particular frequency distribution (approximately pink noise). And tweeters cannot handle the power of the woofer, so you can burn-up the tweeter in a 100W speaker with less than 100W if you run high-power, high-frequency, test tones into it.

Sometimes the speaker manufacturer will have a "recommended minimum power" rating. This could be useful information, but its often meaningless. I've seen two speakers from the same manufacturer with same efficiency/sensitivity (the same loudness with the same power), yet the bigger speaker with a higher maximum power rating will have a higher recommended minimum power.

This post has been edited by DVDdoug: Nov 29 2012, 20:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almostmitch
post Nov 29 2012, 22:26
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 27-November 12
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 104798



QUOTE (pdq @ Nov 29 2012, 10:31) *
I wouldn't worry about impedances and wattage ratings. All modern receivers will work just fine with all modern speakers. The only exception would be if you a) want to fill a large space with music, or b) listen to music so loud that your neighbors complain, or c) choose speakers that are unusually inefficient and need more than the usual watts to drive them.


Oh okay thanks. Makes sense.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Nov 29 2012, 11:19) *
If you have the room for those floor-standing Polks, I think you should scoop them up. A powered sub may be in order, based on your musical tastes, but that can be had at a later time if you're running low on funds.


I definitely have the room for the floor standing Polk's but budget is coming into play. I know you said I should go for them but will the added performance justify the extra $100 spent? I guess I'm just wondering what difference(s) between the two will cause what differences in sound. I assume the differences in acoustics will give the floor standings deeper bass, but will they actually be louder?

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Nov 29 2012, 11:19) *
BTW: I'm not trying to discourage you from getting into vinyl...I like it.


No worries, nothing you've said has come off that way to me. And no, that was not sarcastic laugh.gif

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Nov 29 2012, 11:19) *
I think that the case for wear of records is often overstated. (Ditto for "speed variations" but that's another story.) I pick up used eighties American vinyl of unknown origin quite frequently. Granted I get picky over the way it looks before I buy it...but none of them sound "worn" and many sound better than some of the new vinyl I have. Your stylus OTOH should be replaced as needed. The records themselves really only have to last for your lifetime or as long as you use them. Your grandchildren aren't going to want a record collection of your old-fart music. wink.gif


Yeah Shure probably does exaggerate a tad on that. It'd be cool if my grandchildren shared my music taste, probably a crap shoot though laugh.gif Regardless, I'll take good care of my vinyl.

QUOTE (DVDdoug @ Nov 29 2012, 14:12) *
I second what pdq said... You shouldn't need to worry about impedance.


Lots of info in your post, thanks. At least I have a better understanding of it now. I won't worry about it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Nov 30 2012, 09:42
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly. This not only minimises wear but also most of the vinyl's other weaknesses. Do take the time to read up on it if you're not already familiar with the procedure, and then use an alignment protractor to assist with the set up - Google will find you some free ones that you just have to download and print. Also don't be tempted to go for a light tracking force in the belief it will reduce wear. It's much more likely to cause mistraGood luck
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RonaldDumsfeld
post Nov 30 2012, 14:40
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 310
Joined: 12-June 09
Member No.: 70617



QUOTE
I'd feel safer spending an extra $100 for the belt drive,


Why spend extra on an inferior product? The myth that belt drive TTs are intrinsically superior to direct drives has been known to be a canard for 30 years.

In 20 years as a naive audiophile I went through 8 belt drive TTs. Including models from well known brands including Dual, Linn and Thorens. They all broke down. Or needed constant preventive maintainence. Or both. Twenty years ago I bought a set of Technics 1210. They offer superb performance, have never given a moments trouble and, with 10 minutes elbow grease, could pass as new. Not only that, they are worth more today than they cost new in 1992.

QUOTE
could you tell me a bit more about those pre-implemented tweaks?


Technics enthusiasts discovered that could mod their kit very easily by simple rewiring or changing jumpers. These include balanced output, strobe disable, doubling the pitch change range, reverse play and slam stop. Google the specialist sites for full details on all these and more. What I noticed on the AT LP120_USB was a front panel buttons to instantly change the pitch slider between +/- 8 and +/- 16 and a reverse button.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
clobon
post Nov 30 2012, 16:30
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 22-August 07
From: Europe
Member No.: 46411



QUOTE (Light-Fire @ Nov 28 2012, 09:19) *
CDs can handle a larger dynamic range than LPs.


What does sound better: an LP with good mixing or a standard CD with maximum lodness (aka clipping and compression) making it sound flat?
Which by the why leads the "better" dynamic range of the CD ad absurdum. An interesting link (maybe): The Loudness War Analyzed
If CDs were mixed like LPs used to be I'd go for CD anytime. But for now I keep my old records to remind myself what music used to sound like.

Just my thoughts.

Regards, Clobon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almostmitch
post Dec 3 2012, 14:43
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 27-November 12
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 104798



QUOTE (botface @ Nov 30 2012, 03:42) *
The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly.


I'll definitely have to read up on this. Is it something that should come properly setup out of the box? Or will it require fine tuning? Thanks.

QUOTE (clobon @ Nov 30 2012, 10:30) *
QUOTE (Light-Fire @ Nov 28 2012, 09:19) *
CDs can handle a larger dynamic range than LPs.


What does sound better: an LP with good mixing or a standard CD with maximum lodness (aka clipping and compression) making it sound flat?
Which by the why leads the "better" dynamic range of the CD ad absurdum. An interesting link (maybe): The Loudness War Analyzed
If CDs were mixed like LPs used to be I'd go for CD anytime. But for now I keep my old records to remind myself what music used to sound like.


Interesting point. Even further justifies my future purchase smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Dec 3 2012, 16:42
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (almostmitch @ Dec 3 2012, 08:43) *
QUOTE (botface @ Nov 30 2012, 03:42) *
The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly.


I'll definitely have to read up on this. Is it something that should come properly setup out of the box? Or will it require fine tuning? Thanks.

...



If you're still intent on purchasing the Debut III, then the cartridge will be factory-fitted and adjusted. You may still want to read up on it for future cartridge changes. (Assuming you don't want to just take it to a specialist to have it done. One of my local audio dealers is very knowledgeable and charges a fair price. I personally feel more comfortable that way...up to you.)

I highly recommend you use a good stylus brush (Always brush the stylus gently and only in the proper direction/same as that which it operates during playback.) A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almostmitch
post Dec 3 2012, 18:20
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 27-November 12
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 104798



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Dec 3 2012, 10:42) *
If you're still intent on purchasing the Debut III, then the cartridge will be factory-fitted and adjusted. You may still want to read up on it for future cartridge changes. (Assuming you don't want to just take it to a specialist to have it done. One of my local audio dealers is very knowledgeable and charges a fair price. I personally feel more comfortable that way...up to you.)

I highly recommend you use a good stylus brush (Always brush the stylus gently and only in the proper direction/same as that which it operates during playback.) A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here.


Thanks for the info. I'm set on the Debut Carbon (similar enough) and will begin hunting for the best place to purchase it from. I'll be sure to read up on the subject and get a brush as well.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Dec 3 2012, 19:49
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



QUOTE (almostmitch @ Dec 3 2012, 13:43) *
QUOTE (botface @ Nov 30 2012, 03:42) *
The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly.


I'll definitely have to read up on this. Is it something that should come properly setup out of the box? Or will it require fine tuning? Thanks.



I guess you can expect a factory installed arm/cartridge to be set up properly. I'd still want to check though even if only for reassurance that things haven't gone "off" in transit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almostmitch
post Dec 3 2012, 20:15
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 27-November 12
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 104798



QUOTE (botface @ Dec 3 2012, 13:49) *
I guess you can expect a factory installed arm/cartridge to be set up properly. I'd still want to check though even if only for reassurance that things haven't gone "off" in transit.


This was something I considered. I will most likely double check things, because as you implied, you never know what kind of beating the box took in transit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Dec 4 2012, 03:16
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 2161
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (mjb2006 @ Nov 28 2012, 11:17) *
As for people's gripes about vinyl, take them with a grain of salt. In this forum we are used to being rather, um, detail-oriented. We speak the truth, but we often seem to contradict ourselves: when the topic of lossy encodings comes up, we will insist that nothing matters but transparency as ascertained by double-blind testing, and that objective differences, no matter how measurably huge, are irrelevant. But at the same time, some of us will point to things like the lacquer cutting head moving across the master disc in a straight line, while the playback stylus on a turntable sweeps in an arc, and swear, or at least imply, that the resulting distortion is truly a nightmare and a reason CD is infinitely superior.



Perceptual coding and mistracking aren't really analogous.


QUOTE
There was a time when we just listened to the music, and we did this everywhere—at home, in our cars, on our Walkmans, blasting from tiny speakers on transistor radios and out in public shops. We said "oh good, I love this song" when we heard something we liked, not "better not turn it up too loud or we'll hear that it's on vinyl; God, the signal-to-noise ratio is horrendous as compared to CD. And man, I can't believe the stereo separation and dynamic range is so bad. Listen to that tracing distortion!" No, if you asked most of us at age 20 what we didn't like about vinyl, the list of problems would be very short, and would focus on the medium needing to be kept clean and scratch-free, and stored upright and away from heat so it won't warp. We wouldn't be talking about distortion, transducers, rumble, wow, stereo separation, electrical noise, and every other shortcoming as compared to digital. Those things didn't matter to us until we learned about them and started listening for them and comparing vinyl to CD.



Some of those things certainly did matter to me. I was endlessly frustrated by vinyl, back in the day when it was the best format we had (or at least, those of us who couldn't afford a reel-to-reel deck)


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rgtb
post Dec 4 2012, 08:24
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 26-September 12
Member No.: 103446



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Dec 3 2012, 16:42) *
A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here.

in what regard is the carbon-fiber brush you linked better than a cheap $5 one? the $25 brush wouldn't be the first bit of voodoo itt...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Dec 4 2012, 10:09
Post #42


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 825
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (rgtb @ Dec 4 2012, 07:24) *
in what regard is the carbon-fiber brush you linked better than a cheap $5 one? the $25 brush wouldn't be the first bit of voodoo itt...

Price may not be a factor, but you should be wary of the way the brush itself is designed to be cleaned.

I have owned two carbon fibre brushes. The first was a Decca one, and the way you removed the dust from the brush itself was to drag it lengthways over a ridge on a plastic stand it came with. What this did was distort and loosen the fibres, which would then be deposited onto the record surface.

I replaced it with a Goldring which is cleaned by sweeping a pivoted metal flange sideways across the fibres. I've never had any problems with it, and must have owned it for at least 20 years now. The Audioquest brush linked to by Engelsstaub looks pretty much identical to my Goldring. It's probably made in the same OEM factory and just has a different name stamped on it.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Dec 4 2012, 15:46
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (rgtb @ Dec 4 2012, 02:24) *
QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Dec 3 2012, 16:42) *
A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here.

in what regard is the carbon-fiber brush you linked better than a cheap $5 one? the $25 brush wouldn't be the first bit of voodoo itt...


I'm pretty certain I never said it was. For your convenience I went over the original quote, as reiterated above, and added particular emphasis to the word "like."

My brush is identical to that in function but cost less as well. In linking to the brush I was merely trying to illustrate the type of brush that I felt should be used. cliveb did a far better job of describing such a brush verbally than I would have. That's why I, perhaps lazily, linked to a similar one.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rgtb
post Dec 4 2012, 17:58
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 26-September 12
Member No.: 103446



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Dec 4 2012, 15:46) *
I'm pretty certain I never said it was. For your convenience I went over the original quote, as reiterated above, and added particular emphasis to the word "like."

you wrote twice that he should get a good fiber brush. and the one you linked to is $25. mentioning "good" twice suggests that bad ones exist. and one would suspect from your post as well that you linked to a "good" brush, not a bad one.

in any case, here in germany i buy brushes for €4 or so. the brush comes in some kind of mounting bracket and you clean the brush by turning it 360 degrees. (there is some plastic thingy in the mounting.)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Dec 4 2012, 22:08
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (rgtb @ Dec 4 2012, 11:58) *
QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Dec 4 2012, 15:46) *
I'm pretty certain I never said it was. For your convenience I went over the original quote, as reiterated above, and added particular emphasis to the word "like."

you wrote twice that he should get a good fiber brush. and the one you linked to is $25. mentioning "good" twice suggests that bad ones exist. and one would suspect from your post as well that you linked to a "good" brush, not a bad one.

in any case, here in germany i buy brushes for €4 or so. the brush comes in some kind of mounting bracket and you clean the brush by turning it 360 degrees. (there is some plastic thingy in the mounting.)


This sort of nitpicking is really obnoxious. I did not say the OP needed a twenty-five dollar brush. I'm glad you can find a brush for four Euro in Germany. (That's impressive...must not be made in any German-speaking country or it would cost a whole lot more than the one I linked to as a point of illustration.)

Let me be very clear: the word "like" implies that there are other brushes too. Please stop reading unnecessary things into my posts to start a trivial fight or introduce me to your super bargain-hunting skills.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 5 2012, 00:09
Post #46





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



When you say something without obvious emphasis (bolding) you don't get to pretend the emphasis was obvious and dismiss someone else's take as nitpicking. Take the high road and acknowledge that people may interpret what has been written differently than what was intended rather than be overly-defensive to the point that your tone becomes combative. At the same time I think we tend to be overly-alert for snake-oil peddling to the point that we cry foul too quickly.

It's time to take a deep breath and understand the point is to provide helpful information. We are not going down that path, currently. I think we can all agree that knowing that a good brush can be had at a quarter of the price is a good thing.

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 5 2012, 00:30


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Dec 5 2012, 00:22
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



That's fair enough, greynol. I was providing helpful information to the OP.

This was in need moderation prior to my tone becoming combative. I'm not the only poster here who tried to correct this obvious nit-picking. I wish it would not almost always go unchecked until an on-topic poster becomes defensive.

Edit: I took the time to explain what I meant once. That should be exactly enough. If someone is still going to tell you what you really mean after that I would expect you to get a tone, as you often do.

This post has been edited by Engelsstaub: Dec 5 2012, 00:31


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 5 2012, 07:51
Post #48





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Yes, that you have been helpful was not lost on me or vrtually anyone else, I'm sure. Telling someone that a good brush can be had for less than $25 is also helpful.

He was telling you how he interpreted your comment and then you dismissed him again as nitpicking. How many times it takes to make yourself understood is not your call to make.

Regarding your feelings about when someone should step in, I've followed this discussion regularly since it began and have already binned or split off-topic posts. I became involved in this instance specifically because of your tone.

Lastly, and directed at everyone involved in bickering (yes, I'm dismissing these extra posts as bickering), communication always goes more smoothly when you seek first to understand, then attempt to be understood.

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 5 2012, 08:14


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Dec 5 2012, 15:14
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



I apologize for the tone and my part in the bickering.

In an attempt to be helpful and be understood even again I'm including a picture of the no-name generic brush I use which, when compared to the one I linked to, is obviously far cheaper.



I now wish I had just done this rather than lazily linked to another brush that would be seen as too expensive (as perhaps compared to a VPI record-cleaning machine? biggrin.gif ) Again, I'm sorry. ...but moving forward: I hope that we can all see that the brush that cliveb and I are both recommending is of this design.

Now, in recommending such a carbon-fibre brush with pivoting flange, I hope there's no concern that I'm implying that some other type of brush is necessarily bad. I can only personally recommend this type of brush from own experience. If anyone else has a brush of different design that I've either never used or had a bad experience with I'm happy to take your word that it is equally effective.

A word of caution: I believe any carbon fibre brush is capable of leaving dislodged fibres on the record's surface. Since many records are still black vinyl it could be very difficult to see one if it happens. I was thinking there may be some sort of a paint-marker that would work well on carbon fibre. If the upper parts of the fibres (the parts that don't actually contact the record's surface) were painted a bright orange for example, it would be difficult not to see fibres that could have been left on record.

Anybody's thoughts on that last part are most appreciated.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almostmitch
post Dec 5 2012, 15:52
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 27-November 12
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 104798



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Dec 5 2012, 09:14) *
A word of caution: I believe any carbon fibre brush is capable of leaving dislodged fibres on the record's surface. Since many records are still black vinyl it could be very difficult to see one if it happens. I was thinking there may be some sort of a paint-marker that would work well on carbon fibre. If the upper parts of the fibres (the parts that don't actually contact the record's surface) were painted a bright orange for example, it would be difficult not to see fibres that could have been left on record.


Good point. Are there any brushes with this feature?

I have an idea, instead of bickering at each other; how about everyone turns this into positive efforts of finding the best quality brush, for the best price! laugh.gif
..because I would like to get a brush.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th April 2014 - 04:25