Audiophile "spam"


tss_steve_990
 

The only thing more irritating to read on this board than the occasional porno-spammer is the group of participants that find it necessary to spend whole threads making jokes about audiophiles. An informative discussion re: black beauty caps and the comment that Stan sold them to some audiophile starts the whole yuk yuk about oxygen free copper yuk yuk etc. etc. I feel like I'm on a board with a bunch of old retired deaf guys debating if there there really is such a thing as sound.

The post re: the whining capacitors in an industrial application is an example that there are often effects that can be heard by those who have a practiced ear, but the scientific explanation for what is being heard is lagging far behind. To discount out of hand that the differences being heard are imagined or not there is really just as unscientific as many of the marketing types who have devised ways of parting music lovers and their money.
It would be a lot more fun in this group if we were to stick to scopes and other stuff which the majority in this group have real knowledge to share.

I will now duck and cover.

Steve Hogan


Jeff W <vwthingy@...>
 

Steve Hogan wrote:

It would be a lot more fun in this group if we were to stick to
scopes and other stuff which the majority in this group have real
knowledge to share.

So why did you start this inflammatory thread? Please stay on topic.

Jeff


Mark Anton
 

To a certain extent. a bit of diversion is alright too....We have and do use our tek scopes to repair other stuff too. and is neat to hear about others experiences in the field of electronics.

As far as the audio thing . i think some of it a bit extreme....seems like many of the audiophiles feel that the money that is spent on the equipment and wiring the better the sound will be.

I remember seeing an article a few years ago ....think in wireless world......and the author of the article tested many speaker cables for several characteristics.....and found that an extension cord with ends cut off measured up the best. :)

Sorry this is a bit off topic too....however, think that is part of fun of this group, relating some of each of our unique background in electronics too.

The porn spam i could do without. But really not all that many......would have to say the good outweigh the bad here. :)

Take care

Mark



Mark Anton, Owner
Heights TV & VCR Service
3946 Central Ave. NE
Columbia Heights MN, 55421

Phone is 763-789-1767







----Original Message Follows----
From: "Steve Hogan" <stevehogan@soundsteward.com>
Reply-To: "Steve Hogan" <stevehogan@soundsteward.com>
To: <Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [TekScopes] Audiophile "spam"
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:53:09 -0800

The only thing more irritating to read on this board than the occasional porno-spammer is the group of participants that find it necessary to spend whole threads making jokes about audiophiles. An informative discussion re: black beauty caps and the comment that Stan sold them to some audiophile starts the whole yuk yuk about oxygen free copper yuk yuk etc. etc. I feel like I'm on a board with a bunch of old retired deaf guys debating if there there really is such a thing as sound.

The post re: the whining capacitors in an industrial application is an example that there are often effects that can be heard by those who have a practiced ear, but the scientific explanation for what is being heard is lagging far behind. To discount out of hand that the differences being heard are imagined or not there is really just as unscientific as many of the marketing types who have devised ways of parting music lovers and their money.
It would be a lot more fun in this group if we were to stick to scopes and other stuff which the majority in this group have real knowledge to share.

I will now duck and cover.

Steve Hogan




_________________________________________________________________
Say �goodbye� to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)


eboytoronto
 

I am sorry that members of the group have have caused offense. I sure that they do not have malicous intent towards audiophiles.

I am interested in photography and have a collection of Canon professional and Haselblad (Zeiss) lens. Both take excellent but, ask me to tell them apart in a "blind test", I can not. Before I get corrected, a blind test is not much use in photography ;-).

Myself, I am not blessed with the ears to be able to detect the difference that these kind of modifications make. I do not have a love of music. Perhaps if I did I would be a better person.

As a practicing design engineer I do have the following believes:

I am sure that the mass market component engineers are not concerned about how good their capacitors sound, and for the majority of applications it is not important. It is therefore possible that some capacitors do sound better than others.

I am also question about audiophiles quest for equipment that improves the sound that is better than the equipment that was used to record it origianlly.

I subscribe to the magzine Electronics World, (formerly Wireless World), for its 'other content'. I have read many of the audiophile
articles and I am interested by the techniques that are used to measure the components.

I am sure that the quest for the perfect sound is a rewarding and interesting. Apart from being damaging the wallet, it is harmless to society and the environment.

I hope on balance that you find the tekscopes forum a rewarding experience.

Sincerely,


John Barnes.

Incidently I can report that replacing the recitifiers in a power supply, with fast recovery diodes, DOES reduce the noise conducted back on the line. This was determined will performing EMC measurements on large industrial power supplies.


----Original Message Follows----
From: "Steve Hogan" <stevehogan@soundsteward.com>
Reply-To: "Steve Hogan" <stevehogan@soundsteward.com>
To: <Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [TekScopes] Audiophile "spam"
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:53:09 -0800

The only thing more irritating to read on this board than the occasional
porno-spammer is the group of participants that find it necessary to spend
whole threads making jokes about audiophiles. An informative discussion re:
black beauty caps and the comment that Stan sold them to some audiophile
starts the whole yuk yuk about oxygen free copper yuk yuk etc. etc. I feel
like I'm on a board with a bunch of old retired deaf guys debating if there
there really is such a thing as sound.

The post re: the whining capacitors in an industrial application is an
example that there are often effects that can be heard by those who have a
practiced ear, but the scientific explanation for what is being heard is
lagging far behind. To discount out of hand that the differences being
heard are imagined or not there is really just as unscientific as many of
the marketing types who have devised ways of parting music lovers and their
money.
It would be a lot more fun in this group if we were to stick to scopes and
other stuff which the majority in this group have real knowledge to share.

I will now duck and cover.

Steve Hogan




_________________________________________________________________
Say ?goodbye? to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet
connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average.
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



tss_steve_990
 

John,

Thanks for your comments.

I do not think the group is malicious at all, they just need to spread the humor around to a variety of foibles. My complaint was that the audiophile cracks are recurring in thread after thread. I think we have exhausted all the humor there is to be had in oxygen free copper wire and reverse spinning electrons, etc. It was funny the first five or six times.

I am interested in photography and have a collection of Canon professional and Haselblad (Zeiss) lens. Both take excellent but, ask me to tell them apart in a "blind test", I can not. Before I get corrected, a blind test is not much use in photography ;-).
The analogy to camera equipment is actually apt. Much commercial (including professional) equipment has circuitry that can be compared to a cardboard box single use camera. The resulting prints are totally acceptable to the majority of consumers, even though the resolution, chromatic aberration, focus and everything about the picture is medoicre.

If you take your large-format Hasselblad and take a slightly out-of-focus picture, however, you are immediately aware of the fact that it is out of focus--the higher resolution makes the focus problem immediately apparent. In a similar way, in a low distortion audio system, one is able to hear subtle changes that would be obscured in a fuzzier "sound photo". In the high-resolution systems I work on, I am able to hear much more subtle changes than I can on my own humble boombox.
Human hearing has a much wider dynamic range than vision, by the way. In video a 50 dB signal to noise ratio is considered plenty. In audio it isn't nearly good enough even for cheap commercial systems.

I am also question about audiophiles quest for equipment that improves the sound that is better than the equipment that was used to record it origianlly.
My comment about seeking equipment better than that used to record the music is that in the case of most commercial recordings that will always be true. The stuff used in most studios isn't really very good. The high resolution systems actually expose the poor quality of many recordings, but on the ones that are very carefully recorded with really good gear, the music can be very realistic and satisfying indeed. Playing back crap on a crappy system makes the whole thing even crappier. The distortions are additive.

Best wishes to all in our group,

Steve


John Miles <jmiles@...>
 

As far as the audio thing . i think some of it a bit
extreme....seems like
many of the audiophiles feel that the money that is spent on the
equipment
and wiring the better the sound will be.
The best comment I've ever heard on the subject (although it's somewhat
flamebait-ish): Music fans listen to the music. Audiophiles listen to the
equipment.

I remember seeing an article a few years ago ....think in wireless
world......and the author of the article tested many speaker cables for
several characteristics.....and found that an extension cord with
ends cut
off measured up the best. :)
Bob Pease at National Semiconductor, a man known for his horse sense, gave
the issue some thought at one point. If I remember correctly, he concluded
that the best-possible speaker cable would be a computer-style ribbon cable
with alternating conductors tied together to form a 2-conductor Litz-style
cable.

Sorry this is a bit off topic too....however, think that is part
of fun of
this group, relating some of each of our unique background in electronics
too.
Agreed 100%. Tek scopes *do* have uses besides troubleshooting other Tek
scopes. :)

-- john KE5FX


Scott Newell <newell@...>
 

Bob Pease at National Semiconductor, a man known for his horse sense, gave
the issue some thought at one point. If I remember correctly, he concluded
that the best-possible speaker cable would be a computer-style ribbon cable
with alternating conductors tied together to form a 2-conductor Litz-style
cable.
I recall reading a JAES paper on cables some years ago. I think someone in
this group wrote it.


newell


Stan & Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@...>
 

Hi Steve,

You are right, of course, we should not waste our time by poking fun at
another group here on the TekScopes reflector. Also, you are right that I
am somewhat old (64) and deaf and can't really appreciate good sound when it
is sent my direction. I certainly agree that there are nuances in sound
that I will never appreciate but others will. If my old black beauty caps
helps them appreciate audio, then I am glad to provide them. For most scope
guys, these caps a junk, but to the audiophiles I sold them to, they are
things of beauty and, for all I know, they do exactly what the buyers want
them to do. For me, it turns some garbage into a little cash I can use to
fix another scope and, if the buyer is happy, then I am happy. One of the
points I wanted to make was that what sometimes appears to be junk to one,
is treasure to another and black beauty caps are good examples. Instead of
just tossing them in the landfill, I suggest we recover some money from them
and make an audiophile or two happy at the same time. No insult intended .
. .

When an audiophile scraps a perfectly good 545A to recover the 6DJ8's and
12AX7's for his audio projects, that only tells me that he values the pieces
more than the whole and its HIS 545A, so he is entitled to do what he wants
with it. I have a friend who brings me de-tubed scopes all the time that I
either retube with unpopular brands of tubes or scrap for other valuable
parts. He WAS taking them to the landfill . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Hogan" <stevehogan@soundsteward.com>
To: <Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:53 PM
Subject: [TekScopes] Audiophile "spam"


The only thing more irritating to read on this board than the occasional
porno-spammer is the group of participants that find it necessary to spend
whole threads making jokes about audiophiles. An informative discussion re:
black beauty caps and the comment that Stan sold them to some audiophile
starts the whole yuk yuk about oxygen free copper yuk yuk etc. etc. I feel
like I'm on a board with a bunch of old retired deaf guys debating if there
there really is such a thing as sound.

The post re: the whining capacitors in an industrial application is an
example that there are often effects that can be heard by those who have a
practiced ear, but the scientific explanation for what is being heard is
lagging far behind. To discount out of hand that the differences being
heard are imagined or not there is really just as unscientific as many of
the marketing types who have devised ways of parting music lovers and their
money.
It would be a lot more fun in this group if we were to stick to scopes and
other stuff which the majority in this group have real knowledge to share.

I will now duck and cover.

Steve Hogan








Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Robert Morein <morepub@...>
 

Even more disgusting, there is good theory why a large diameter cable made of conductive plastic would be an excellent speaker cable. As the bulk conductivity and current density goes down, so does the skin effect.

But try talking an audiophile into buying plastic spark plug wire for his system :).

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Newell
To: Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: [TekScopes] Audiophile "spam"


>Bob Pease at National Semiconductor, a man known for his horse sense, gave
>the issue some thought at one point. If I remember correctly, he concluded
>that the best-possible speaker cable would be a computer-style ribbon cable
>with alternating conductors tied together to form a 2-conductor Litz-style
>cable.

I recall reading a JAES paper on cables some years ago. I think someone in
this group wrote it.


newell


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Miroslav Pokorni
 

No John, you do not know the lingo. Any audiophile worth its salt will never
say 'blind test', it is always 'double blind'.

A friend told me about an audiophile who was looking into buying a piece of
equipment and asked whether there is something with less features but at the
higher price.

We all have our own little ways.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbarnes" <jbarnes@aztec-net.com>
To: <Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com>; "Mark Anton" <heightstv@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Audiophile "spam"

I am interested in photography and have a collection of Canon professional
and Haselblad (Zeiss) lens. Both take excellent but, ask me to tell them
apart in a "blind test", I can not. Before I get corrected, a blind test is
not much use in photography ;-).


tss_steve_990
 

ehsjr wrote:
So you think old or retired or deaf guys are worse than porno-spammers.
Nice.
Perhaps you might consider re-reading what I wrote.

The only thing more irritating to read on this board than the occasional
porno-spammer is the group of participants that find it necessary to spend
whole threads making jokes about audiophiles. An informative discussion re:
black beauty caps and the comment that Stan sold them to some audiophile
starts the whole yuk yuk about oxygen free copper yuk yuk etc. etc. I feel
like I'm on a board with a bunch of old retired deaf guys debating if there
there really is such a thing as sound.

My complaint (which I now regret) is against the practice of making jokes
about audiophiles. Perhaps I was not clear in my analogy which was really
not intended to disparage the age, the work status, or the hearing accuity
of anyone on this board. The point was that just because someone is not able
to perceive something himself (deaf) does not necessarily mean that it
doesn't exist (sound). My sincere apologies go out to every member of this
group who was hurt my my post. I should have been more careful and
sensitive.

Let me again clarify: There was nothing offensive whatsoever about Stan's
original post about unloading the black beauty caps on some
audiophile --Caveat Emptor (I would never consider using such a junky cap in
any piece of audio gear, but that's another story). My complaint was the
round of jokes that followed about the oxygen free wire etc. all of which
have been told many times before and seem to me to happen any time the word
"audiophile" appears in any post in any context. The reason those jokes
bugged me is because of the underlying viewpoint that everything
"audiophile" is bunk and unscientific and medicine show etc. Some of it
is-- some of it isn't.
I love a good joke too, the one about the vacuum-tube life support machine
had me doubled over laughing for 5 minutes. I will have to leave
instructions not to put me on one, though, in case it were to develop a
heater to cathode short and take me blissfully away.

ehsjr wrote:

Lets get to something more related to this group. I assume you are an
audiophile
with good to great hearing.
You assume wrong. Although my latest hearing test shows I have no
significant hearing losses other than those that naturally occur with age (I
am 51), I would not consider myself an "Audiophile". I was serious that
the only working "stereo" I own is my boombox. I do, however, design and
build and service and modify equipment that is used to make "audiophile"
quality recordings that my "audiophile" clients enjoy. (Cobbler's children
have no shoes.)
Many of my clients listen for a living. They own private high-end recording
studios and they work really hard to make recordings that are
state-of-the-art.
I can usually hear the differences that my circuit modifications make, but
they ALWAYS can.

What kind (and cost) of instrumentation
does it take
to detect distortion that cannot be detected by audiophiles with great
hearing?
And wht kind (and cost) of instrumentation can great hearing beat at
detecting
distortion?
I have read these two questions about 10 times and I still am not sure what
you are asking, but I will try to give some insight from my point of view.
I can tell a lot about a piece of analog gear by looking at its square wave
response on a scope. It shows low frequency rolloffs, high frequency
bandwith, overshoot and ringing of circuits and transformers, group delay
problems. Fixing the circuitry so it passes clean square waves is my first
start to making equipment sound better. Cost is that of a decent square
wave generator and a good scope.

Audio Precision System One or System 2 are the industry standard audio
measurement tools for thd, intermod distortion and a host of other
measurements. Cost depends on options, but figure between 10 and 20 thousand
dollars. I don't have one.

Some of the problems that people hear turn out to be dynamic problems like
overload recovery latch-ups, power amp current limiting weirdnesses and
other things that are really hard to find with any kind of conventional
measurements.

Jitter is a serious problem in Digital audio. Measuring and mimimizing it
goes a long way to making the sound better. There are various ways to
measure jitter and the people on this board have much more knowledge about
it than I do.


Albert LaFrance <lafrance@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miroslav Pokorni" <mpokorni2000@yahoo.com>
To: <jbarnes@aztec-net.com>; <Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com>; "Mark Anton"
<heightstv@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Audiophile "spam"


No John, you do not know the lingo. Any audiophile worth its salt will
never
say 'blind test', it is always 'double blind'.
<SNIP>

And he probably disparages such testing as a means of determining the
relative performance of any given item of audio equipment, thus banishing
any hope of scientifically evaluating his assertions!

Albert


Robert Morein <morepub@...>
 

Guys,
I'm a hard core audio debater, as my presence on rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.tech will indicate. But out of respect for the people who want this list used for it's chartered purpose, I suggest we take it elsewhere.

See ya on rec.audio.opinion,
Bob Morein

----- Original Message -----
From: Albert LaFrance
To: Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: [TekScopes] re: Audiophile "spam"


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miroslav Pokorni" <mpokorni2000@yahoo.com>


kiyoinc@...
 

** Reply to note from <stevehogan@soundsteward.com> 25 Nov 2003 22:45:20 -0000

There are lots of viewpoints and similar to the audiophile slamming,
I've detected a reverse prejudice in the Ham Radio circles.

It's the belief that a modern, computerized, digital signal processing,
radio has a profound advantage over a 30/40 year old boat anchor.

In this case, the belief can be substantiated using state of the art
test equipment to compare the specifications. Modern radios have fully
agile IF filters, noise rejection, notch filters, and tricks that were
only appoximated using analog devices.

On another list, someone pointed out that a good analyzer would show
the unevenness of the old 6 pole crystal filters compare to the
square IF filter in a modern radio.

Then there's VFO accuracy and tightness of the AGC etc.

All true but the problem is that in real world usage, multi-skip
propagation, atmospheric noise, and so on, you can't hear the advantage
of the modern radio.

If you need a ten thousand dollar piece of equipment to show you the
difference, then you'll never hear it in an on-the-air trial.

Similar conflict of beliefs, old vice new.

== But ==

Here's the question for the list. Anyone have an 8072 tube, socket,
and heat sink? I believe these were used in land mobile radios. I
need a set up for a radio restoration.

Just so no one gets in a tizzy about being off-topic, Yes, I used my
TDS-210 and my 2215 to repair this radio. These worked quite nicely as
I was able to: 1) compare the waveforms produced by the two analog
VFO's and 2) get an approximation of the frequency.

As I dig deeper into the high power RF section, I'll depend more on the
2215 and less on the TDS-210.


Miroslav Pokorni
 

My dear Albert,

You would be surprised if you were to examine all those 'double blind
tests'. In most cases, they turn out not to be blind, at all.

As for 'hope of scientifically evaluating assertions', the very quality of
flying in face of current knowledge does not prove validity of an assertion.
The cases when new thinking shows that a decease comes from bacteria rather
than sawdust are quite rare, at least in these days. I am not trying to say
that a pinnacle of knowledge has been reached, but some strides have been
made. Assertions made about some qualities of sound reproduced by tubes,
oxygen free copper, etc. are closer to cold fusion and gravity shields then
to anything rational.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert LaFrance" <lafrance@att.net>
To: <Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: [TekScopes] re: Audiophile "spam"


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miroslav Pokorni" <mpokorni2000@yahoo.com>
To: <jbarnes@aztec-net.com>; <Tekscopes@yahoogroups.com>; "Mark Anton"
<heightstv@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Audiophile "spam"


No John, you do not know the lingo. Any audiophile worth its salt will
never
say 'blind test', it is always 'double blind'.
<SNIP>

And he probably disparages such testing as a means of determining the
relative performance of any given item of audio equipment, thus banishing
any hope of scientifically evaluating his assertions!

Albert




Craig Sawyers <c.sawyers@...>
 

Assertions made about some qualities of sound reproduced by tubes,
oxygen free copper, etc. are closer to cold fusion and gravity
shields then
to anything rational.
Anyone want to give a rational and scientific explanation of precisely how
the ear/brain interface works? Because that is the "sensor" that is used in
all this debate.

Professor Roger Penrose at Oxford University (read The Emperor's New Mind
and Shadows of the Mind) believes that there is a missing science of
consciousness, and that this is that the operation of the neurons and
synapses is quantum mechanical. Sure can't measure that with any piece of
Tek gear that I know of.

Craig


Craig Sawyers <c.sawyers@...>
 

Professor Roger Penrose at Oxford University
And if anyone prefers an American point of view, read the philosopher
Professor Daniel Dennett's (Director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies at
Tufts) "Consciousness Explained" or Douglas Hofstadter's (Indiana, Director
of the Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition) Pulizer prizewinning
"Goedel, Escher and Bach".

Craig


Albert LaFrance <lafrance@...>
 

One of the things which puzzles me about audiophiles, beyond their explicit
or implied assertions that acoustical energy has unmeasurable yet audible
parameters, is many practitioners' apparent lack of curiousity about, or
unwillingness to investigate, the nature of those parameters and how they
might be rendered measurable - even as they design and use products intended
to affect those parameters. I can't think of another area of science or
engineering where that situation exists.

Albert


Miroslav Pokorni
 

Hello Albert,

I would say that a conflict of interest should not be forgotten in that
whole audiophile business. After all, if it is measurable, it can not be
magic any more, neither wool can be pulled over people's eyes by saying
'science did not reach that level of understanding'.

As an aside, did you notice that in that whole business of magic audio, the
physiology of human ear and imperfections of the speakers are not given much
considerations, though both subjects are crucial in sound reproduction and
have been quite well studied and understood in engineering acoustics. Many
years back, when I was trying to make a very good amplifier, my boss at the
time, an avid audiophile and very knowledgeable engineer told me: 'you can
never make an amplifier so bad to match performance of speakers'.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert LaFrance" <lafrance@att.net>
To: "TekScopes" <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:53 AM
Subject: [TekScopes] Re: Audiophile "spam"


One of the things which puzzles me about audiophiles, beyond their
explicit
or implied assertions that acoustical energy has unmeasurable yet audible
parameters, is many practitioners' apparent lack of curiousity about, or
unwillingness to investigate, the nature of those parameters and how they
might be rendered measurable - even as they design and use products
intended
to affect those parameters. I can't think of another area of science or
engineering where that situation exists.

Albert






Craig Sawyers <c.sawyers@...>
 

Many
years back,
That is the key statement

'you can
never make an amplifier so bad to match performance of speakers'.
Well, go and listen to a current-generation pair of either Sonus Faber
(Italian), Wilson (USA) or Martin-Logan (USA) before making too many
comments based on opinion and not on listening evidence.

I'm a follower of Ivor Tieffenbrun's philopsophy (founder of Linn) when he
said "If it sounds better - that's because it *is* better". In the 1970's
Ivor (an engineer by training) had built a turntable (the Linn Sondek) that
no shop would stock. If you look at audio reviews from that time you will
see the reason why. Reviewers in the audio press were techies who tested
audio gear in the lab and never listened to it. So decks were measured for
speed stability, and arm/cartidge combinations for frequency response and
distortion using a test record - and of course according to those tests most
decks measured just fine. The only way that Ivor got the Sondek off the
ground was by driving around the country from shop to shop and saying "just
LISTEN to it! *Then* decide".

Craig