PDA

View Full Version : Record/LP player



Fifthdawn
19-08-2010, 07:51 PM
Hello everyone,

I was just wondering if anyone knows a place in Auckland where I could purchase an new record/LP player (is there a difference between the two). I must admit that I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to this subject, having grown up with mp3's :(

Reason is that my fathers one just broke and I'm sure a new one would make a great gift; just have to make sure not to buy a dud!

Thanks!

Snorkbox
19-08-2010, 07:57 PM
Is this for connection to a PC or Stereo?

Here maybe but more info needed I think.

http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4c6cd527019e22cc273fc0a87f3b06ec/Product/View/A1361

goodiesguy
19-08-2010, 08:15 PM
what snorkbox suggested. i own the LAB-1100 and its a very good turntable for its price. it plays my records extremly well, although it does not have any counter weights or tracking weight settings.

gary67
19-08-2010, 08:55 PM
A real Hifi shop try the yellow pages

Billy T
19-08-2010, 08:56 PM
If you just want a turntable, JayCar have one at $95 with analog or USB output.

Next up is a turntable with amplifier & speakers (built in) for $119, also with analog and USB outputs.

After that it is $239 for the whole deal with all the fruit, record player, CD & cassette players, AM/FM radio and MP# player/encoder.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

Roscoe
19-08-2010, 08:58 PM
I would be inclined to put some or all of his LPs on CD - much easier to play CDs than LPs. If you convert them to mp3s you could put a good portion of his LPs on a few CDs.

You could most probably download most of his LPs which might be cheaper than buying a turntable.

But then there are the purists who will tell you that nothing sounds as good as LPs and that much of the quality is lost when compressed to mp3s.

I was brought up with 45s and LPs but I prefer mp3s and CDs for their convenience.

gary67
19-08-2010, 09:02 PM
CD's are fine MP3's are just cheap throwaways with all that compression. Best to rip as flac

Snorkbox
19-08-2010, 09:17 PM
As I have already mentioned. More info needed in my humble opinion.

Personally I don't have a stereo and use my turntable hooked up to my PC for music. I use Audacity to make CD's from Vinyl which then go into the CD player in my car. I can get approx 200 MP3s onto one CD for playing in the car which works for me.

But we don't know yet if amplifiers are needed on the turntable or not as if the Vinyl is being is being played on a stereo system then the turntable just may be plugged into a pre amp or whatever.

Trev
19-08-2010, 09:50 PM
What about this. (http://www.demoroom.co.nz/linn-majik-lp12.html)
:)

paulw
19-08-2010, 09:56 PM
I bought a similar one of this from Sony. Sounded quite good on my HT system compared to how crappy other turntables I have used in the past sounded like..

http://www.sony.co.nz/product/pslx300usb

goodiesguy
19-08-2010, 10:13 PM
I would be inclined to put some or all of his LPs on CD - much easier to play CDs than LPs. If you convert them to mp3s you could put a good portion of his LPs on a few CDs.

You could most probably download most of his LPs which might be cheaper than buying a turntable.

But then there are the purists who will tell you that nothing sounds as good as LPs and that much of the quality is lost when compressed to mp3s.

I was brought up with 45s and LPs but I prefer mp3s and CDs for their convenience.

Why would you want to put vinyl to CD? CD's and mp3's are inferior quality. if you were going to transfer vinyl, it would be sensible to transfer to a superior format which doesn't drop the quality a **** load.

CD's and mp3's may be convenient but vinyl is far superior when treated with care and a good turntable with a good stylus. there is many documents and write up and videos proving this.

Fifthdawn
19-08-2010, 11:01 PM
Thanks for all the suggestions and help, sorry I forgot to mention that it would probably be used with a Sony receiver, which i guess uses RCA plugs?

He has quite the collection of records and I think its mainly for nostalgic reasons that he still uses them :)

Trev
19-08-2010, 11:01 PM
Yes vinyl dose sound superior when played on a $20,000 turntable and $20,000 Hi Fi which I have heard, but on the joe average system CDs sound superior. Actually vinyl sounds flat and dead after listening to cds. I have a $1000 turntable and a mediocre $150 Shure cartridge and after playing vinyl for awhile it is good to get back and listen to the more dynamic cds.
:)

goodiesguy
20-08-2010, 12:40 AM
Trev, i think you mean that cd's sound flat and dead. even on an average joe system vinyl is superior. i played a 50 year old 45 of Chubby Checkers The Twist, then played the same song on cd, the vinyl won hands down. and why do you say that cds are more dynamic, once again, vinyl is far more dynamic, just read around. CD's are compressed and only go up to 44.1hz, 16-bit, vinyl goes up to 192hz, plus, vinyl is not digitally compressed. When vinyl is in good condition and played right, it sounds millions better than cds. I played a Beatles vinyl compilation i got which was released in 1976, it has no background noise and it sounded ten times better than the 2009 cd remasters.

I used to think cds were better, until i read all the technical stuff (which even i found abit hard going).

Trev, you can like cds, but vinyl is far superior and far more dynamic. Most cds today are brickwalled (eg, they are amlplified so they are the loudest the waveform can be) which causes them to sound ****.

Snorkbox
20-08-2010, 01:04 AM
But there again Goodiesguy do you have perfect hearing and are in actual fact an audiophile?

I like getting out my Vinyl and playing it as recorded. I also like remastering via Audacity and making Benney Hill sound like the Chipmunks. I did not really have to do that as he already sounded that way anyway. Probably OK at the time but rather passe these days in my opinion.

goodiesguy
20-08-2010, 01:32 AM
My hearing is very good, i notice lots of bad things with cds, though i bought a Motown CD for $6 at warehouse, and apart from 2 tracks which are in mono and crackly, the rest sounds very good for a cd, though my vinyl still beats it.

i also notice background noise quite easily. i am careful with my vinyl to keep it clean and not to damage it. So i probably am an audiophile, i use a well built sturdy amplifier from the 70/80's for my pc sound, i have 18 year old Phillips Speakers connected to it. The Bass and treble responce is amazing. the bass is just so bassy and really ads the the sound.

Snorkbox
20-08-2010, 01:41 AM
OK! Have you ever listened to Saxaphone, Flute or Clarinet music?

Snorkbox
20-08-2010, 03:39 AM
Try this for a bit of comedy perhaps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Rf4u2_D1w&feature=related

It opened on March 14, 1885, in London.

Words have been changed to protect the innocent and are up to date more or less. :)

Roscoe
20-08-2010, 09:25 AM
Why would you want to put vinyl to CD? CD's and mp3's are inferior quality. if you were going to transfer vinyl, it would be sensible to transfer to a superior format which doesn't drop the quality a **** load.

CD's and mp3's may be convenient but vinyl is far superior when treated with care and a good turntable with a good stylus. there is many documents and write up and videos proving this.

I was not saying that CDs or mp3s were superior, I was just saying that they are more convenient.

I love being able to take my music in the car and find it awkward trying to stop the stylus skipping, but CDs play fine. Putting mp3s on a CD means that there is no need to continually change the CD and the difference in quality is not noticed in the usual poor quality of the car system.

At home I have a reasonable system and so love to play my vinyl, but CDs and mp3s do have their uses.

goodiesguy
20-08-2010, 09:32 AM
fair enough

wmoore
20-08-2010, 11:10 PM
The problem with audio is that it is so subjective. Each side will fight for why their way is better. vinyl vs CD's tubes vs Solid state the list goes on. Also how people like their music to sound...warm and laid back or bright and in your face, etc.


At the end of the day enjoy whatever music you have.

Erayd
21-08-2010, 01:18 AM
...CD's are compressed and only go up to 44.1hz, 16-bit, vinyl goes up to 192hz...Might I point out that, as an analogue medium, vinyl has no such absolute value as to the highest audible frequency it can carry, and as such your 'up to 192kHz' claim is complete garbage?

Next up - standard audio CDs aren't compressed. At all. Whichever website you found that information at is incorrect, I suggest you pick a different source for your research. CDs generally contain uncompressed, 16bit PCM wave files at a 44.1kHz sampling rate.

It's also worth pointing out that humans can't even hear sounds that high - we can't even hear sounds above ~20kHz or so, so any sampling frequency higher than that needed to reproduce a waveform up to ~20kHz with reasonable accuracy is a waste of time (note that this *doesn't* imply a sampling frequency of ~20kHz).

Next point - CDs preserve the original dynamics of the sound more faithfully than vinyl because there's no mass involved in the read / write head, which has the tendency to suppress the high range to some degree. Some people do prefer the way vinyl sounds, but please bear in mind that it's not as accurate as a digital recording with no moving parts involved (other than the mics / instruments etc).

With a really good head and high quality media, vinyl can produce a higher resolution than CDs due to its analogue nature - this resolution is limited by the density and hardness of both the vinyl and the head.

If you want to experience really good audio quality, try a source that uses end-to-end 96kHz / 32bit floating point digital audio. Most people can't tell the difference between this and a standard DVD soundtrack, but for those who can it's a treat. And sorry to be the bearer of bad news Goodiesguy, but it beats the socks off vinyl :p.

Snorkbox
21-08-2010, 01:51 AM
I don't have time to go shopping for Vinyl as it would require me to travel maybe an hour each way with no gaurantee I would find what I wanted. I have about 50 lps here which I have put through Audacity via a turntable. I spent some time removing snaps crackles and pops from the originals.

wmoore also makes a very good point in my view.

There is also Youtube where you can often find what you are looking for on the odd occaision you want to hear whatever takes your fancy at the time.

Trev
21-08-2010, 09:49 AM
Might I point out that, as an analogue medium, vinyl has no such absolute value as to the highest audible frequency it can carry, and as such your 'up to 192kHz' claim is complete garbage?

Next up - standard audio CDs aren't compressed. At all. Whichever website you found that information at is incorrect, I suggest you pick a different source for your research. CDs generally contain uncompressed, 16bit PCM wave files at a 44.1kHz sampling rate.

It's also worth pointing out that humans can't even hear sounds that high - we can't even hear sounds above ~20kHz or so, so any sampling frequency higher than that needed to reproduce a waveform up to ~20kHz with reasonable accuracy is a waste of time (note that this *doesn't* imply a sampling frequency of ~20kHz).

Next point - CDs preserve the original dynamics of the sound more faithfully than vinyl because there's no mass involved in the read / write head, which has the tendency to suppress the high range to some degree. Some people do prefer the way vinyl sounds, but please bear in mind that it's not as accurate as a digital recording with no moving parts involved (other than the mics / instruments etc).

With a really good head and high quality media, vinyl can produce a higher resolution than CDs due to its analogue nature - this resolution is limited by the density and hardness of both the vinyl and the head.

If you want to experience really good audio quality, try a source that uses end-to-end 96kHz / 32bit floating point digital audio. Most people can't tell the difference between this and a standard DVD soundtrack, but for those who can it's a treat. And sorry to be the bearer of bad news Goodiesguy, but it beats the socks off vinyl :p.
Very will put Erayd. Goodiesguy if you want to hear some high quality CDs you can't go past anything on the Telarc label far far better than the $9 crap cds you buy from The Warehouse.
:)

Scouse
21-08-2010, 02:03 PM
Thank you Erayd. Well put and informative.

gary67
21-08-2010, 03:06 PM
Thank you Erayd. Well put and informative.

Thanks for me too as Scouse says very informative :thanks

Snorkbox
21-08-2010, 04:06 PM
The other small point is I do not have a turntable in my car so Vinyl gets ripped to MP3 format so I can play same in my car.

Roscoe
21-08-2010, 04:50 PM
The other small point is I do not have a turntable in my car so Vinyl gets ripped to MP3 format so I can play same in my car.

Which is what I do. And why not?

Erayd: I too, found your piece very enlightening, but you made no comparison between records, CDs and mp3s.

Snorkbox and I, and many others no doubt, rip to mp3s. Is there as much loss as we are told and if so, are you able to tell the difference when you play those mp3s on your shitty little car stereo? Or most other stereos?

Personally, I notice little difference and as long as it sounds okay - and it does - then I'm not too worried about any loss due to the compression - but I am interested in what difference there is and if it is discernible.

goodiesguy
21-08-2010, 05:22 PM
I can tell the difference easily when ripping to mp3, mp3's (even most 320kbps) sound like they have had shoe polish put over them and they sound all compressed and funny

Agent_24
21-08-2010, 05:45 PM
I would definitely not be using MP3 if I was recording from vinyl (or anything else)
320k MP3 is the limit for most people where they can't tell the difference but even then, why use something that is designed to be lossy if you want a proper copy?

128k MP3 is definitely bad, if you can't tell the difference there then you should probably get your ears checked.

Use a lossless codec, and out of those, FLAC is the best.

Also, get a GOOD sound card and turntable.

goodiesguy
21-08-2010, 05:49 PM
I use flac and i refuse to listen to 128k mp3s.

im thinking of getting a good sound card, as im using my onboard and want a good one. any reccomendations?

i could always use my old PCI genius sound maker card, but i'm not sure if thats better than realtek ac97 onboard.

gary67
21-08-2010, 06:23 PM
MP3 sounds crap on my home stereo which is a good old fashioned amp coupled to a decent CD player that doesn't play MP3, the best speakers that I could afford at the time. I also run a computer into the amp for MP3 and film watching (TV goes to the amp too) and I can really tell the difference when listening to MP3

goodiesguy
21-08-2010, 06:26 PM
I use a good old fashioned Amp too. though the cassette player part of it (which is dolby, plays chrome and metal tape, with mic imputs and vu meters) needs fixing as the cassette mechanism has gone stiff :(. i should probaby post a thread about it so somebody can tell me how to fix it.

My pc is hooked the the amp, and i use 18yr old Phillips Speakers, which are very good

Agent_24
21-08-2010, 06:46 PM
I use flac and i refuse to listen to 128k mp3s.

im thinking of getting a good sound card, as im using my onboard and want a good one. any reccomendations?

i could always use my old PCI genius sound maker card, but i'm not sure if thats better than realtek ac97 onboard.

The Asus Xonar series are quite good. They are based on the C-Media Oxygen so any card which uses that chipset will be good too.

There are also some by M-Audio which should be good.

(Check around on pricespy)

goodiesguy
21-08-2010, 06:49 PM
thanks for the info :)

Scouse
21-08-2010, 06:56 PM
I can remember some many years ago that a Wellington retailer put me off spending really big bucks on a newer sound system by telling me that the average voter over 45 (me, then) would be wasting much of the money because he/she would not hear/appreciate the sound quality. Never found out how true this was but put my wallet away.

gary67
21-08-2010, 08:57 PM
That's why I buy the best I can afford and not what everyone else says is the best and costing mega bucks

Billy T
21-08-2010, 11:44 PM
Might I point out that, as an analogue medium, vinyl has no such absolute value as to the highest audible frequency it can carry, and as such your 'up to 192kHz' claim is complete garbage?

May I point out that this statement is incorrect? The highest audible (or any other) frequency that can be impressed upon or played from vinyl is limited by the diameter of the stylus in the vinyl-contact area and the compliance of the cartridge mechanism that allows the stylus to actually follow the impressed track. Anything higher than that is distortion artefacts.

The maximum frequency in any particular instance would be determined by the players' instruments, the original response of the cutter during recording, the quality of the master and the subsequent pressings, and finally by the stylus and cartridge combination as mentioned above.

Never mind that the average adult ear has a frequency response that cuts off well before 20kHz and is several dbs down by that time as well.

We hear what we think we want to hear, as in those who pay premium prices to buy valves that have been specially deep-frozen (yes, really, you send them in, the pop them in the cryogenic chamber, or not, as the case may be! :devil) for their retro amplifiers, which then pump into transformers with magnetising losses and inter-winding capacitances that alter the audio response, followed by acoustic transducers (loudspeakers) with a frequency response plot with more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas and are usually pumping air into a room with more reflections than Marilyn Munroes' bedroom mirror.

A top quality disc, stylus, cartridge, turntable, amp and speakers, in a decent listening environment will still sound only as good as the response of the ears of the listener, and that will very rarely approach 18kHz, let alone 20kHz.

Dreams may be free, but some people are prepared to pay through the nose for them.

Cheers

Billy 8-{) :rolleyes:

Erayd
22-08-2010, 04:07 AM
Hang on Billy - any chance you could clarify your meaning a bit? I read your post a few times, and from what I can see we're actually in agreement, and partly talking about the same thing (although you've gone into more detail about the process of an end-to-end production entirely on vinyl, whereas most of my post was concerned with digital sampling and vinyl playback).

You've challenged my statement that vinyl doesn't have an exact, absolute 'max resolution' due to its analogue nature, but you never said why - if you're going call me out on something, it would be nice to know the reason, because as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with that statement. As no part of your post actually contradicts me, it's difficult to understand why you think I'm wrong.

Erayd
22-08-2010, 04:04 PM
...but you made no comparison between records, CDs and mp3s.

Snorkbox and I, and many others no doubt, rip to mp3s. Is there as much loss as we are told and if so, are you able to tell the difference when you play those mp3s on your shitty little car stereo? Or most other stereos?

Personally, I notice little difference and as long as it sounds okay - and it does - then I'm not too worried about any loss due to the compression - but I am interested in what difference there is and if it is discernible.There's definitely a difference - how much depends on the bitrate of the MP3 file, the quality of the encoder (although most are pretty good these days), the quality of the original file, and (most importantly) the quality of your ears.

There will always be some loss of quality - MP3 achieves its small file size by throwing away a lot of the information - but once you get over approx 250kbits/sec most people won't be able to tell the difference between that and a CD unless they're actually listening for it, and have good hearing. If your hearing is good enough, you'll notice compression artifacts in the high range - this sounds like someone is playing the high frequencies through a drainpipe (distorted and hollow), while the lower frequencies generally still sound fine.

If your audio system is sub-par, compression artifacts are less noticible, because the sound is so bad already that it masks them. You can usually still hear them if you try, but it's no longer your main problem :rolleyes:.

Unless you're incredibly picky, MP3 files are just fine for the car - to be honest, they're fine for most home stereo systems too (provided you use a high enough bitrate), unless you have very good hearing.

Avoid bitrates *below* 128kbits/sec or so with MP3 - it's low enough that even those with bad hearing will be able to easily hear the resulting compression artifacts, and MP3 isn't terribly efficient at low bitrates at the best of times. If you must use a low bitrate, pick a codec that was designed for it (e.g. AAC+).

R2x1
22-08-2010, 04:27 PM
What is the point of getting the very finest in valves and vinyl if people will persist in putting the speaker leads on at random without even bothering to identify which end should be the amplifier and which end is for the speaker? Really, they do. They may as well be using ordinary copper wire for speaker leads. (Shudder.)
.

Roughly reporting conversations between a group of the "golden ears brigade" - - they walk amongst us.

Billy T
22-08-2010, 07:23 PM
Hang on Billy - any chance you could clarify your meaning a bit? I read your post a few times, and from what I can see we're actually in agreement, and partly talking about the same thing (although you've gone into more detail about the process of an end-to-end production entirely on vinyl, whereas most of my post was concerned with digital sampling and vinyl playback).

Best you reread the first paragraph of my response, it gives the simple physical reasons why there is a frequency limit on vinyl. Also, were you aware that during the playing of a vinyl record, the point-contact pressure of the stylus actually deforms (flows) the vinyl at that point?

That means that you can never reproduce with 100% accuracy what was stamped into the vinyl, and this is why a laser 'stylus' system was developed, ostensibly to gain the maximum fidelity from LP records. It was a technical triumph, but extraordinarily expensive and probably a total commercial failure because most audiophiles preferred CDs. We know they did because there are CD players with valve preamplifiers (go figure) to complement their valve amps! Decoding is still by integrated circuit.

Vinyl has many attributes, and I like it myself, but digital is technically capable of higher fidelity if you want to spend the money, and most people just wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway. By the time they have enough money to indulge their acoustic fantasies, their ears are shot, as I already mentioned.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

Terry Porritt
22-08-2010, 08:38 PM
Heaps of money is spent by the pop enthusiasts in order to hear the guitar fuzz in perfect clarity..... :banana http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Guitar_with_fuzz.ogg

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzbox )

For me with my 1920s 78 rpm music, quite simple systems more than suffice ;)

Roscoe
23-08-2010, 11:30 AM
Thanks for your explanation, Erayd. Very interesting.

I record a (mainly) spoken word programme as an mp3 for broadcast and the requirements are 128kbps and 44100 Hz. I have been told that anything below that is not acceptable.

Erayd
23-08-2010, 03:00 PM
Roscoe - bitrates lower than that are ok in some cases if you're recording spoken stuff, depending what it's needed for. I was talking about music.

:pf1mobmini:

Roscoe
23-08-2010, 03:54 PM
I record a half hour spoken programme with a 20 second musical introduction and ending for The Radio Reading Service. (See the link below.) They are happy to have the programme as an mp3 because it is mainly speech as long as I keep to their parameters.

I suppose it is similar to the use of open reel tape recording. 7½ips was the acceptable speed for music. Some would use 3¾ but it was not as good. No-one would use 1⅞ for anything else but speech. And then came the cassette player in the mid 1970s and 1⅞ for music became acceptable. Even lovers of orchestral music tried to convince themselves and others that cassettes did the job. But when you have a tape that is half the width of open reel tape moving at a quarter of the speed, something had to suffer.

I found cassettes acceptable for playing in the car in the same way that I find mp3s alright for listening on the move.

Cassette tapes and mp3s are similar in that respect, eh?

Billy T
23-08-2010, 04:10 PM
In case anybody is interested:

Laser Record Player (http://www.elpj.com/main.html)

Sit down before reading prices.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

martynz
23-08-2010, 04:49 PM
In case anybody is interested:

Laser Record Player (http://www.elpj.com/main.html)

Sit down before reading prices.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

OMG I had better get my order in now before GST goes up.

Terry Porritt
23-08-2010, 06:06 PM
In case anybody is interested:

Laser Record Player (http://www.elpj.com/main.html)

Sit down before reading prices.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)

US$12000, hmm, that is not a bad price. If you want to play cylinder records then you need an Archeophone.....this will set you back about the same amount, but accessories are extra...:thanks

http://www.archeophone.org/warcheophone_specifications.php

http://www.mainspringpress.com/electrocylinder.html

Erayd
23-08-2010, 07:00 PM
Best you reread the first paragraph of my response, it gives the simple physical reasons why there is a frequency limit on vinyl.I never said that vinyl had no frequency limit - I'm sorry if you found my post unclear on that point (although that certainly explains why you thought I was wrong). The point I was making was that the frequency limit on vinyl cannot be defined as an absolute number the way it can for CDs, because of the analogue nature of the medium - there are so many different variables it depends on that it's impossible to put a hard and fast number on it that applies to all vinyl recordings. As such, Goodiesguy's claim of an absolute figure of 192kHz was bogus.

I was also implying that the fidelity of vinyl wasn't as good as Goodiesguy claimed (particularly as compared to digital), although I didn't say that in so many words.


Also, were you aware that during the playing of a vinyl record, the point-contact pressure of the stylus actually deforms (flows) the vinyl at that point?I wasn't aware of this, but it does make sense - being a slightly elastic medium, pressure at such a small point could distort the surface profile.


...but digital is technically capable of higher fidelity if you want to spend the money, and most people just wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway...I agree - this is what I've been saying all along, since my first post in this thread...

Billy T
24-08-2010, 03:05 PM
Might I point out that, as an analogue medium, vinyl has no such absolute value as to the highest audible frequency it can carry.

I understand plain english, and I tell it like I see it.

I'm not into "I heard what you said but I know what you meant"; the written word has always carried more weight than the spoken and civil courts are full of people who now wish they had phrased their comments, undertakings or offers with more attention to literal meanings.

That aside, I saw what you wrote, but understand what you meant...... I think. :D

Cheers

Billy 8-{) :thumbs:

goodiesguy
24-08-2010, 04:34 PM
I just bought an original 1973 NZ pressing on Harvest of Dark Side of the Moon for $20. It sounds far better than any cd or mp3 i have ever heard of it.

goodiesguy
25-08-2010, 03:21 PM
Audio frequency range of LP vs. CD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48)

Snorkbox
25-08-2010, 03:55 PM
Audio frequency range of LP vs. CD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48)

Same old religious war that's been going on for yonks.

Much like PC vs Mac.
Holden vs Ford.
AMD vs Intel

Ad nauseum.

Have a read of this ( very long ) article if you can be bothered. I just mostly skimmed it.

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/890awsi/

Terry Porritt
25-08-2010, 06:37 PM
I was brought up on Henry Hall's 1932 recording of Teddy Bear's Picnic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZANKFxrcKU). (The other side was Hush Hush Hush Here Comes The Bogey-Man ) - Years later I found out that this record was used by the BBC as a test record for many many years because whilst a 78rpm, it had a fantastic frequency range...............:clap