ChrisK Posted June 1, 2002 Author Share Posted June 1, 2002 C&S, I'm guessing the human ear will not decipher between the exact same sound produced either digitally or otherwise. However, I also believe there is more to this issue. For example, when I first got the computer I'm using now, I was pretty happy with the video display. Then a friend of mine who is far more knowledgeable in such things adjusted the refresh rate of my monitor. Wow, what a difference. The display looked exactly the same, but somehow it was much more pleasing to look at. It seemed to help my eyes relax. There was less eyestrain. He explained that there was now more video information being utilized than before. Is it possible that an analog recording has more information? Are there compromises made when reproducing a musical performance digitally? Are there limits to digital reproduction and playback that analog does not share? I really don't know, but I kinda think so. It sure sounds like it. Chris ------------------ 2 channel Klipsch Cornwalls (1978) Cary CAD 300SEI amp (WE 300B's, various NOS 6SN7's) Arcam Alpha MCD cd player Accuphase T-101 Tuner Clearaudio Champion TT Rega RB250 ST arm (Six Stream wire and cable) Benz MicroAce Cartridge EAR Phono Stage HT Klipsch KG2.5 (front & rear) Klipsch KV2 (center) Klipsch SW12 (sub) Marantz SR7000 receiver Toshiba DTS DVD JVC SVHS VCR Sony Hi8 VCRs> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Clipped and CJK: There is much to what you are saying. The first "live or recorded" demo was done in the acoustic days well before electrical recording. A live violinist and a gramophone were set up behind curtains...and, surprise, the audience was unable to tell which was which. Seems ridiculous now, but it is all about EXPECTATIONS and ear training. Our TVs, even HD sets, are terrible at producing anything like reality. Besides the cartoon colors, they are FLAT as a pancake. The image equivalent of mono. They will not even fool a cat or dog (thought the sound will). However, we go on and on about how beautiful our TV images are. Audio is far more advanced than video, but we should not be fooled into thinking we've truly approached reality. Our grandchildren will not be impressed with our systems or sources. Many suggest the percieved advantage of SACD to be in it's sample rate. That would imply that the 44.1 rate is the audio equivalent to "pixelated" compared to SACD. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 I am inclined to think that CDs have too much information rather than the other way around. Maybe the higher degree of digital information cannot always recreate some nuances that the analog stylus presents to us, kind of like how a paint analyzer might come up with the formula for the color of a flower you submit to it, but you still see or feel a difference between the analyzed color and the color of the flower...I don't know.... +++++++ed and ----------ed ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 While I have my pet theories, we are in agreement on the base issue. There IS a difference. Just what it is would make any of us quite famous and able to afford a really spiffy system if we could demonstrate it. The number of people returning to or discovering analog truly astonishes me. Certainly still, and likely to remain, a commercially insignificant group (to the big boys...not to the entrepreneurial audiophile), but still a lot of folks. Probably the most extraordinary thing is the number of younger folks who have little or no exposure to the LP that are going ape **** . I love it! But it is still all about the music, and I really don't care how it arrives as long as it does. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Some interesting theories here. I tend to totally agree that on the whole, the recordings were much better back then besides the few companies that adhere to more sonically based principles (including mic-mixing-equipment). On the whole, as said, recording engineers are a sorry lot indeed. I was one and have seen what goes on. Having been on both sides of the music chain, it's amazing how little the sonics or even a basic understanding of what makes music engaging is employed. Still, there are some great engineers but far more mediocre ones. I have a large collection of vintage jazz LPs as well as material from the 60s and 70s. Yet I also have over 2000 LPs made from the late 80s to this year. These are recordings that were done at this time and not reproductions of earlier works. I also have close to 10-20% of these releases also on CD, hence a good comparison can be made. I have excellent vinyl and digital setups and many people have heard my system with digital and said it was the best sound they have heard. Until they listened to the vinyl. I tend to really depart from what is said here as I think it is far more than the frequency being rolled off at the top end or cut off at the bottom, or even boosted. Analog goes VERY well with 20hz-20khz and beyond (depending on system of course). I think the human brain can and does sense the difference here and it is because analog at this stage contains FAR MORE information than digital and it departs said information in a less offensive way that is more pleasing. Digital, for all its promises, still does not capture all the information and what it does catch is more often than not, converted with more offensive artifacts with timing problems along with spurious artifacts that have nothing to do with music. Much of what you all are debating has already been ascertained and discussed openly in print. Even proponents of digital reproduction are aware of the faults of digital. There are countless articles on this subject. Everything from Clock Jitter to the brick filters has been rehashed with the negatives weighed in. There is a lot more that is going on here. Ed Meitner developed the LIM Detector years ago that measured this jitter in the word clock. There is discussion of Random Jitter which is referred to as "White Jitter" which actually raises the "noise floor" which can be perceived as a troubling presence. Jitter that is specified in the frequency will be converted to analog intact and these are what is sonically detrimental. Most attribute this as a good portion of the cause of the hardness or glare riding along with digital. It's certainly not a question of rolled off or LESS information being the positive. This idea of perfection in 0s and 1s is WAY simplified. Analog filters have been a major problem as well. Processors have trouble with low level signals in conversion to analog. But on top of that, moving unwanted artifacts (spurious images) outside the audio bandwidth to just above the band was a common solution and BIG PROBLEM with digital reproduction. These Brickwall analog filters were extremely unmusical and introduced phase shift/ringing/ etc. At least digital filters have done a better job here. And the better sampling rate of 96khz over 44.1 offers an improvement (and now 192Khz). This time smearing from the lessor analog and digital filters is much better now. We have been living with distortions here for quite a while lying in time domain as smear and ringing. This resulted in a "loss of definition and tranparency, and also brought about that dreaded "collapse of the sense of space" that made digital sound flat and sterile. A greater sampling of 96 or 192Khz can lead to a much less harsh and abrupt filtering. One thing is certain, even digital proponents realize Digital's shortfall since it is a VERY young format. They also realize the great potential it has. Robert Harley, an Engineer who has also clocked time in the recording studio as well as being a staunch digital proponent over the years has some interesting words about the subject, words that I happen to agree with. He has been the digital Tech editor for several magazines, written books and papers on the subject, and has served as a consultant to Audio companies concerning digital audio. He was one of the first people to make the public aware of Jitter related problems as has also reviewed CD players and digital audio for quite a few publications since the 80s. I am going to quote a few interesting paragraphs from Robert Harley on his take on analog vs. digital: "...in many respects, digital audio has yet to sound better than the best analog formats. Virtually anyone who's listened to a live microphone feed, then the same signal played back both from analog tape and after encoding into digital form, will attest that the analog take produces a truer representation of the music. Similarly, a comparison of a properly played LP and CD of the same music reveals musical virtues in the analog representation not heard from the digital medium... This quandary - LP vs. CD- emerges from the fact that today's State-of-the-Art digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP playback system. At the very highest level of music reproduction, there's not even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD. "I must qualify that last statement: a high-quality, properly set-up LP playback system, playing a record in good condition, will sound better than ANY CD. If, however, the record is played on a low-quality or poorly set-up system, the CD will usually offer higher sonic performance. The general public's perception that CD is vastly superior to LP is perpetuated because very few listeners have heard high-quality LP playback. When done right, LP playback has an openness, transparency, dynamic expression, and musicality not matched by CD. There's just a fundamental musical rightness to a pure analog source (one that has never been digitized) that seems to better convey the music's expression."c>Robert believes digital format is the future of audio and only in its infancy. The jump from 16bit to 20bit and then 24bit digital was a significant one. Yet the resolution with the CD is SECOND rate to good analog. Harley admits the LP has tremendous downfalls and suffer from a variety of distortions and wear issues. He does believe that digital audios second rate status is only temporary and I tend to agree with him. I don't believe many of the people that argue this point have heard vinyl. Having compared modern recordings done both ways on high quality versions of both media, vinyl actually conveys the music, including hall and live recording information with a far more life like and convincing manner. Digital is a more defacto connect-O-do drawing of the event with problems still existing in the conversion. But it is changing. I can enjoy both types of media. Buying by SPECS is a sure fire way to disappointment as the current crop of low priced 24Bit/96khz units don't always bring higher resolution as the quality of many are sub par. I have heard 18bit machines trounce claimed 24bit DVD or cheaper decks/processors. As of now, my vinyl rig is still musically superior, even to the top dollar digital rigs audio buddies have dropped by. I am looking for the day when that wont be the case. I still listen to both mediums but when able to devote full attention, I'll pick the LP over the CD of the same recording any day. What am I listening to right now? I'm enjoying Paul Desmond Quartet LIVE...via CD. Heh... kh ------------------ Phono Linn LP-12 Vahalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 06-01-2002 at 08:06 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Would some please define "low quality" LP playback. What are we talking here? And what constitutes a "...a high-quality, properly set-up LP playback system." Can I get this with $200, or $10,000? No one ever seems to say for sure. It was one of the reasons I went digital. ------------------ Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Well, Mr. Homeless, your fame on the list is well deserved. One of the things I've always known in my guts, but really have no way of quantifying is the question of "Just how much of the original information is really in a 16/44.1 CD?" Seems mathmatically that almost all of it is interpolated from what is, for the real world, a very minute sampling of the original material. Now, just what, if anything, that means is open to debate...as we've seen. As to Dean's question, I can certainly state that an old Dual 1210 with a 40.00 Grado cartridge playing a 78 will yield a better, more musical, more exciting sound than the same 78 transferred through any process I've ever experienced. I gave up purchasing 78 reissues because they always seemed to have all of the problems of the technology (pops, surface noise, limited dynamic range, limited frequency response, etc.) and none of the excitement that Bix Biederbecke or Paul Whiteman could raise. However, the original disks have all that. I cannot explain the technical reasons for this as well as Mr. Homeless may have done, but it is no hallucination (I've had those too). In the LP arena, my basic rule of "How much" basically works out that I've yet to hear a CD player at any price match any turntable/cartridge combo that spun at least close to speed, had at least rumble low enough not to waste your woofer, flutter that doesn't make a flute sound like its under water, and a stylus not so worn as to recut the disc. You can get that pretty cheap, Dean. What did you pay for your CD player? Actually, that is my problem with digital. I can't afford a CD player that sounds decent...and I truly believe there is one. If it weren't for analog, I couldn't play at all. My Khorns were a bargain compared to what decent digital goes for. Anyway...good stuff, MH. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisK Posted June 2, 2002 Author Share Posted June 2, 2002 DeanG, As I stated in my first post on this thread, my loaner tt was a $200.00 Music Hall. It sounded wonderful. Way better than my $1,000 cdp. With your listed rig all you'd need is a decent tt, like phono stage, and some reasonable cable. You'd be on your way. I bet you could get a real good taste of vinyl for less than $300-400 tops. Just remember what has been stated here and everywhere else, the records need to be clean, quality recordings. And lastly, be careful, vinyl can ruin you for cd listening. I find myself more concerned in the sound quality than the actual musical performance...help me....... Chris ------------------ 2 channel Klipsch Cornwalls (1978) Cary CAD 300SEI amp (WE 300B's, various NOS 6SN7's) Arcam Alpha MCD cd player Accuphase T-101 Tuner Clearaudio Champion TT Rega RB250 ST arm (Six Stream wire and cable) Benz MicroAce Cartridge EAR Phono Stage HT Klipsch KG2.5 (front & rear) Klipsch KV2 (center) Klipsch SW12 (sub) Marantz SR7000 receiver Toshiba DTS DVD JVC SVHS VCR Sony Hi8 VCRs> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 I agree completely that is is FAR MORE EXPENSIVE to get a decent sounding CD player than analog rig! My turntable/arm/cartridge cost me about 1/7 what my CD player cost and I use it about 10 times as often. CD Player: BAT VK-D5 ($4500 2 1/2 years ago) Analog rig: Thorens TD-124/SME 3012/Orotfon SPU GT/E (about $700 invested--but would set you back about twice that today). The BAT is a GREAT CD player, the first one I have owned that does hurt my ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triode Pete Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 Spent the last 3 of 4 days at the HES show in Manhattan (Stereophile Show). One thing I noticed was the abundance of tube amps and vinyl rigs. These newfangled turntables (Walker Promescius, TNT Hot Rod, Clearaudio Max Solution, Verdia India??, etc.) are not only an audiophile's dream but real pieces of (industrial) art! The only thing lacking at the show was a lot of horn speakers. The ones there really worth mentioning was Classic Audio Reproductions, Calix, Rethm and the Taiwan Phoenix (impressive sound). No Klipsch whatsoever...too bad! Sorry to ramble... one demonstration worth mentioning was the one by Jeff Joseph * EvaMarie Manley. They played 3 CD selections, 1 SACD & finally one vinyl. The Redbook CDs sounded OK, the SACD very good & the vinyl (Louis Armstrong St. James funeral march) was unbelievably outstanding. Louis was there. Of course the vinyl set-up probably cost $35 G with the Manley phone stage & wild turntable. I'm definitely setting up a vinyl system with some good, used equipment. SACD is great but well done vinyl sounds naturally better. My $0.02. Pete Pete's rig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 Several things to toss in here. Mdeneen: Yes, I have PCM playback. I have a Sony RM-500 DAT deck that I use for location recording (amateur mostly, paid when I can get it). I always record at 16/44.1 to avoid transcoding. Unless I am badly mistaken, the audio CD format is just that, a file format. When I dump to hard drive, I dump in the pure digital domain and only the file type information changes from the DAT deck to a WAV file. The information is not altered. This is where I learned just how crappy my Sony CD player was. The sound of the DAT master was much superior in all ways to the CD's I burned. The sound from the HDD, while not quite as good as the DAT, was better than the CD's. Wondering it something was happening to the files, I reversed the process by dumping the CD back to a DAT tape. The sound was identical to the master. Just yesterday I listened to a clarinet/piano recital I recorded. The sound was the best I get from any source I own, including my LP rig, which is not exactly a audiophile grade (hope to fix that SOON). The clarinet is so real it is frightening. As to the artifacts of LP or 78's...yes, they are quite annoying. However, one simply ignores it for the beauty of the music. Even my oldest, most worn 78's have such presence and sense almost of time travel to the source that the noise simply cannot compete. With a really bad CD, there is still no such noise, but it seems sort of like trying to fill up on rice cakes...you just never quite get satisfied. Now, on a different tack but still germane subject, I've contacted the Japanese manufacturer of the laser turntable and told them of the large numbers of folks in the Klipsch forum interested in or devoted to the LP. I had noticed that they offered to do IN HOME demos when they had enough to make a trip from Japan worthwhile. My hope is that they will be even more interested in demoing to a significant group of horn heads in MY house. 6000.00 is out of my price range for a turntable...but there are those on the list who can afford it, and at least I'd get to play with it. Lots of questions about what such a device might sound like...all the problems of LP and CD combined? I suppose that's the worst case. In theory it could be wonderful, and there is probably no reason the price could not decline to a thousand or so with significant volume...after all, they started out at 25k. No idea whether or how they will respond, but will let you all know. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 mdeneen, you bring up a good point concerning the analog artifacts you mention. Yes, these can be a great source of pain as you know. Indeed, with poor records and a subpar setup, vinyl can sound like a mess, no matter WHAT you have following the source! On the other hand, it seems these artifacts, if not too horrifying, on a good system (especially good tubes), tends to not be as objectionable. They are outside the scope of the music riding over top of the music. Actually, I have found that good tube amps/preamp can literally make these artifacts to sound APART from the process as if on a separate plane. It is a very strange event but once heard, is really eye opening. The first time I heard this was at this old guy's house in the early 80s with vintage tubes and some QUAD speakers on stands. IT was eerie. But apart from this, the artifacts that ride along with digital are more objectionable in that these distortions come across as unmusical and more objectionable just as certain distortions tend to grate more than others. The digital artifacts on poor systems can really lend to the glare, hardness, and sterile nature, things that are hard to ignore, whether you are talking CD, DAT, etc. Still, your point is a valid one in that if the vinyl source is poor and loaded with pops etc, then it will be hard to ignore as well. I have found good analog setups to actually minimize these problems to a certain extent. In addition, a good vacuum record cleaning machine such as the VPI 16.5 is amazing in what it can do with dirty vinyl. On the other hand, if there is a SCRATCH, all the cleaning in the World is not going to help (although some styli do better with scratches than others). BTW, Triode Pete is right, there are more analog rigs right now than EVER BEFORE! The choice is staggering! There are many more options in all price ranges. But the high-end table has really taken off. kh ------------------ Phono Linn LP-12 Vahalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 I too can enjoy vinyl by putting the extraneous noise on a whole other plane. This is especially true if the music is very engaging and especially if there is percussion which masks it a bit (cymbals, guiro, maracas, etc.) I can even listen to old 78s and tune out the noise as if it was on a whole other plane as mobile says. I can, believe it or not, even do this with classical LPs. A well recorded LP with noise is not nearly as bad as a perfectly clean LP which is poorly recorded, the latter is virtually hopeless sometimes. Perfectly recorded audiophile LPs of mediocre or artistically insignificant music are just as worthless, imo. I have collected vinyl for many many decades, sometimes picking up bargains and sometimes with definite motivated collecting focus. I am now fortunate to own a very nice collection which includes a lot of the jazz that I like, along with several other categories. I was in many cases just lucky to be there back when.... I am wondering if all the newly converted fans of vinyl have discovered the current prices for desirable vinyl titles in Near Mint condition? It is not like they are still pressing this stuff like they used to. Depending on your focus, that is if you are wanting something that is specific and desirable and thus desirable to other motivated competitors, the price will far exceed the already inflated prices of CDs. In many cases, more than I wish were true, there is an absolute coincidence of quality and rarity. The really good stuff is often the rare stuff and thus the expensive stuff, this is eerily just the way it is! If you think your dollar doesn't go very far when buying CDs for $16-$20, wait until you desire vinyl LPs that go for $25-$800. My point is that a $12K turntable is merely the price of a handful of really cool rare vinyl LPs in a condition worth playing on such a set up, so everying balances out here and is in perfectly normal perspective. The question is: why you will pay $12K for the turntable of choice and complain about the $250 LP of choice, isn't the music the important thing here? - I mean the really great definitive music in its original recording. Most collectors I know hold out on buying CD reissues for $13, and hunt for the same on original vinyl for $250. They really, REALLY, believe in VINYL, really! and great turntables, and tubes, and vinyl washing machines and great speakers. Like dope dealers they have to buy and sell vinyl to get their own vinyl fixes for themselves. http://www.wildsscene.com/wsounds/index.html -McClipped and McShorned ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components This message has been edited by Clipped and Shorn on 06-03-2002 at 11:07 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShapeShifter Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 C&S, Thanks for that link! Wes ------------------ KLIPSCH IS MUSICf> My Systems f>s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brunner Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Is there any decent preamps out there for around #100.00 based on the following criteria: Dual 1257 Tuntable w/ULM tonearm Ortofon OM10 Super Cartridge Going into HK AVR Receiver Tape inputs I did purchase one of those $20.00 jobbers and got nothing but a bad hummmmmm. I am presently using an older Sony receiver Phono inputs going to the Tape In in the HK. No hum, but I would rather not have to use that big thing if you know what I mean. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Wes, Tony's site keeps going and going, I hope you explored all the nooks and crannies....I learned a bit from him on the vinyl safari.... -Clippster and Shornman ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Well, you would get a major increase in sound quality with other upgrades as well. That HK AV Receiver is a major stumbling block. Still, there are phono options such as this used Rotel unit for $125 (offer less): http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?preatran&1027955993&class&3&4& Another component in that range is the Parasound PPH-100: http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=PARPPH100&product_name=PPH-100%20Compact%20Phono%20Preamp Lastly, take a look at the Sumiko Pro-Ject Phono that looks interesting as well. http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=SUMPHONO&product_name=Pro-Ject%20Phono%20Box%20MM/MC%20Phono%20Preamp Well, I have not heard any of these units but they all will do better than the $20 RatShack Surprise. Still, you would receive tremendous gains find some good amplification. kh ------------------ Phono Linn LP-12 Vahalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShapeShifter Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Clipped and Shorn: Wes,....I hope you explored all the nooks and crannies.... C&S, Looked in rather quickly before leaving for work this morning. Saw some LP's in the Jazz/Latin category that interest me. Unless I overlooked them, don't remember seeing any links to Blues Titles? Plan to explore more closely though. Wes ------------------ KLIPSCH IS MUSICf> My Systems f>s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brunner Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 To Mobile Homeless: Just curious as to why you say HK is a major stumbling block? Thanks for your input Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 After clicking around you get to: http://www.wildsscene.com/music/home.html good source for evaluating LPs unkown to you. -C&S ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.