Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Analog Playback
In the Thread: Eq for 78's
Post Subject: Fremer's blindness and Graham’s objectives…Posted by Romy the Cat on: 12/25/2005
abortion pill
buy
cheap abortion pill
 guy sergeant wrote: |
|
Hm, this Graham is certainly sounds attractive but there is something in there that very-very much alerts me. They proposed that this unit “greatly reduced record noise” and THIS is very essential evidence that this phonostage was made by people who have absolutely no know what they are doing and that this phonostage might be very much juts a piece of typical audio garbage.
Why so harsh judgment? Because the redaction of the surface noise by the analog means while preserving the linear response is possible only via a twisting the harmonic balance, making sound “sharp” (musically #). The are great number of the too# phonocorrectors on market and all of them are undauntedly faulty as they are interfere with the propose parabola with wish the note rolling in and out to it’s pitch. Yes, making sound too# does reduce the surface noise but it also, truncating the lower harmonics, remove all complexity from music, converting Sound into the isolated sounds.
Look, even the Stereophile’s clown Michael Framer noted that: "I couldn't believe …the lack of noise from the old shellac”. As far as I concern by making his statement the Framer, unknowingly, stacked a large nail into the coffin of the Graham phonocorrector.
As I can see they have a free trail… that is nice. Get one, play it and pay attention to the fool bloom of second harmonics. If it “intensifies” it and make the first reflection subjectively faster then the sequences of the fundamentals might require then return it back instantaneously…
Rgs,
Romy the Cat
Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site