Home Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Re: It's in the grooves

First to keep things in *some* perspective, this is germane to the discussion on the Fischer Mahler 2nd and numerous other SACDs (and DVD-A I'm sure) is that now there are *routinely* many wide-ranging recordings out there that are not found and will probably not ever be found on vinyl (not without dialing back the dynamics so that all (not a select few) turntables can track them *perfectly*. There are now more discs that have "1812" type dynamics than ever before as the quest to approach the dynamics of a live scenario (for better or worse) continues. The beauty of SACD is that any player can track the most dynamic recordings out there (or at least it doesn't take an expensive set). This is simply not true for vinyl as far as I know. Remember tracking and tracking perfectly are very two different things.

****I have seen LPs with very narrow groove spacing that has dynamics far in excess of LPs with wide groove spacing.****

Absolutely! That's why it is important you compare a specific disc(s)that has *both* very quiet passages and very loud passages in the same performance. In that case (unless the engineer was riding gain, that is, compressing the loud passages) the loud passages will always consume more vinyl space (wider passages) than the quiet passages. (Or unless they are trying to squeeze more on the LP side than can be comfortably accomodated). The loud passages need more real estate everything else being equal.

This is *definitely* the case with the two specific 1812 Overture examples I gave to you.

So, agreed, you may (will) see LPs with very narrow groove spacing that has dynamics exceed LPs with wide groove spacing but probably not from the same label (or recording team). There are many examples of 6 cylinder engines that are more powerful than 8 cylinder engines, but generally not within same product line.

So before you compare labels to each other (which is what you have seem to have done) first compare Telarc to Telarc or RCA to RCA, preferably with the same recording team. You will find in both cases that the loud passages will have wider grooves that the quiet passages. True, you may find that the loud passages on the RCA are actually less wide than the more quiet passages of the Telarc. You will also find that the Telarc with the wide spacing for the loudest passages will (generally) *sound* less compressed and much more dynamic.

"So, if a stylus can track pops so well, one can infer it should be able to handle "normal" music (yes, even the cannons in 1812) with no problems, even if the groove spacing is narrow."

I don't see a "complete" correlation here, (especially since typically the narrow grooves, that contain the quiet passages are easier to track) so I won't address that point. But all 1812 recordings hardly give tone arms the same challenge. Some are no challenge at all! And they sound like it. What wide ranging 1812 Overture that you own that utilizes narrow grooves (especially in relation to the quiet passages on *that* disc)? Even my compressed Ormandy version has grooves that are *visibly* wider than the quiet passages on that disc.

Also, there were then and as now set ups that could track the Telarc 1812, but only with *great* difficulty and at great cost or compromise to sound quality. The very best sounding (that are often the heavist tracking) couldn't track it very well. Even today high-end dealers do not want to risk embarrassment by that disc. How well does your set up track it (Telarc)?

While I have thousands of vinyl I have not purchased any in 7 years. I'm sure there may be *some* but in the vinyl world are discs being routinely pressed that approach what we are seeing today with SACDs?

Do you have the Fischer Mahler 2nd?




Robert C. Lang


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.