Ready to try vinyl

Apologies to the OP, by the way. My $.02? Big diference between plug and play and tweak/diy/hunt/no dealer support. If you like the latter sort of thing, there are lots of options, but it's a big commitment and involves at least as much obsession and fiddling as listening to music. If that's your bag, go for it. Otherwise, get a Rega P3, get it set up with care by someone who knows what they are doing, and then start tapping your toes, 'cause vinyl sounds great.

Johnxxxx,

I have no doubt your Lenco sounds great. I absolutely agree that blind A/B comparison, done with care and patience, is the most probative way, though hardly foolproof, to decide what one is likely to prefer as a purchase for long term listening.

How did I miss your point? Was it just that the experts may be wrong? Duh. Did I say anything to the contrary?

Your comparison of yourself as an idler wheel crank to Galileo as a heliocentrist crank and Darwin as an evolutionist crank are absurd and ridiculously pretentious. Yeah right, idler wheel vs. direct drive vs. belt drive is a matter of revolutionary science, and you are a revolutionary scientist.

Moreover:

"empirical science, rests on experiment and observation" is not a definition (any logician could tell you that). Looking out the window to see whether it's raining or not is based on experience and it ain't empirical science.

Your Bacon quotation is pretty, and back in the day, it was important in the effort to overthrough scholastic appeal to authority as the gold standard in all matters of inquiry, but its idea of neutral collection of observational evidence was shallow, and hasn't been taken seriouly, except as a target of criticism, by theorists of science for a very long time. Obervation itself is theory laden -- that's the term of art in science studies -- so no observation is a pure foundation for theory.

The Galileo case illustrated the point perfectly. He didn't prove the Earth revolved around the sun. he showed how how one interprets various 'pure observations" will depend upon one's presuppositions, and that various bits of evidence cited by geocentrists against heliocentrism depended for their evidential force on question-begging assumptions involving the stationary character of the Earth. When it comes to "proving" the Earth does move, you need not just observations, but theory as well, and the former can never itself prove the latter. This point can be made as a matter of logic, by the way, which I dare say I understand better than you. If you knew any logic or actual theory or history of science, you wouldn't be so dogmatic in the absolute value of your "observations". And you'd realize that your own conviction that the Earth revolves around the sun isn't based on observation, but on appeal authority -- which is as it must be in most things. Knowing which authorities to trust is an essential epistemological skill, not reducible to some rule, and certainly not a matter of pure observation.

Oh, and yeah, some equipment sounds better than others. Duh. Your jumping up and down and screaming that the sky is falling doesn't make it so, however.

>>Ummm, I've been meaning to ask, why do you persist in calling me "Johnmathis", is it some secret code?<<

Maybe he knows something about you that hasn't been outed for the rest of us.

R-xxxx, it was not "experts" who discovered the world was not flat, you miss the point AGAIN: they were, by definition, cranks, since they went against the orthodox opinion which existed at the time. In Galileo's day, the "experts" spent a lot of time and effort working out complex epicycles to fit the observed movements of the stars in a scheme which placed earth at the center. Then the cranks Galileo and Copernicus came along and told them that all those years of belief and effort were wrong (sound familiar?), that if you placed the sun at the centre of the universe then all the movements made sense. It was not only the Church which opposed Galileo, but nearly the entirety of the scholars of Europe. In fact, Copernicus was so afraid of the battle his theory would bring with it that he waited until the end of his life to publish it. And you do not address in any of your posts the issue of an unexamined assumption, and science is FILLED with unexamined assumptions, something which would make scientists nervous should it ever get out. This might lead to a little thing called "independent thought", which would go a long ways to dimishing the unquestioned power of the "experts". Another word for "unexamined assumptions" is "paradigm", and a profound shift in science (or any area of thought) caused by a re-examination and change of fundamental assumptions is called a "paradigm shift". As to Bacon's dicta being quaint, a lawyer's trick, sophistry to defend routine scientific actions denying the results of experiments (often by simply cvalling them "anomalies" and sweeping them under the carpet) to support cherished theories contradicted by them; the increasing reliance on theory with no means of testing them (18-dimensional space which is as relevant and testable as the number of angles which dance on the head of a pin) is an example of the degeneration of science, not its evolution. And as to comparing myself to Galileo and others, this is called an "example", a "precedent", a "comparison". I do not equate myself with Galileo, we're talking record players here. The point is the case of Galileo and Darwin are examples everyone knows, so they understand what I'm talking about: one fellow everyone is now familiar with, says everyone is wrong, and is later declared right, as everyone knows. Should I instead refer to "Dweeble Wainright" who invented a better dough for donuts to make the point for fear someone like you will come along and accuse me of thinking I rank with them? Are we then to always avoid referring to well-known figures in ANY discussion for fear we will be charged with megalomania? No more referrals to Shakespeare in a discussion of literature, because this means you are equating yourself to him, and thus showing your megalomania. Can't have that, so let's make the process infinitely longer, research nobodies no one ever heard of, spend hours and pages of text explaining them, and THEN use them to make a point. These tactics are a standard argumentative device peddled out by scientists and scholars to discredit those whose ideas they don't like: nail them on another cooked-up issue, the history of science is filled with such manipulations. Either you're too dumb to understand the concept of precedent, or you are deliberately trying to represent me in a negative light, and damn that old concept integrity and fairness anyway. As to observation being theory-laden, theory is derived from observations, without observation and controlled experiment we're back to believing horses are impregnated by the wind. There IS no science without observation and experimentation, without them, then it is simple blowing wind, which is my point. In the case of Lencos, they must be compared. And nowhere did I write that the very fact "experts" agree on something is the reason they must be wrong, I used the EXAMPLE of "experts" agreeing on something having been shown to be wrong to suggest they might be wrong in the case of belt-drive, as I have tried to make clear, and thought I HAD made clear, several times: "Did ANY of these companies say "Gee, I think I'll try out a Garrard 301, and then a Technics SP10 MKII, to decide for myself which approach I should adopt"?, or did they say "Gee, even if they're better, the cost of manufacturing would be too high and the project too complex and intimidating"? or finally and most likely "Idler-wheel, direct-drive, say what?"." The same happened with tubes long ago when solid state was deemed superior and tubes largely abandoned until, hey, someone actually decided to go back and listen and found it actually DOES sound good!" Jeez, is it someting in the water, this is turning into a nightmare!

So does this mean that I believe record players are as important as Galileo's work?! Nowhere did I write this, does no one understand the concept of a comparison?!!! Well, let's answer this anyway, because probably the concept of a "rhetorical question" has also faded from the degenerating mind of Western citizens: NO, of course not, but science is science, and evidence (AND logic, an illogical theory is a wrong one) is ALWAYS stronger than theory, meaning if an experiment shows a theory to be false, then that theory is false, this is called "integrity", or do you believe that the principles of science are only to be applied in larger issues of biology and astronomy, but not in other fields of research, and not in lesser points in those very areas of research, or indeed anywhere outside the control of famous scientists?

Finally, if the humble Lenco can humiliate so many highly-regarded belt-drive turntables, as it does when someone actually sits down for a fair comparison, then one must find the reason why (or you could not rock the boat, support the status quo, and sweep the evidence under the carpet, since that Bacon was so primitive in his simplistic beliefs, NOW we're talking modern routine scholarship and science). The Lenco is not a totally stupendous piece of engineering like Albert's Walker is, or indeed even most of its "competitors", in fact it is quite humble, so what can be the reason? This may not be of cosmic significance, but it is EXACTLY what makes science so fascinating, which is why I refer to science so much in promoting the Lenco Challenge, it makes the whole project fascinating and fun, you do understand the concept of fun and fascination don't you? It allows even us little spuds to dabble in and learn about the scientific process, or are you against the general population using their own heads and their own hands to participate in the scientific process to come to their own decisions, rather than allow themselves to be led by the "experts," who will charge them with megalomania should they have the temerity to think they too can apply fundametal principles and come to their own understanding? NOW we get to the theory part you think I've missed in my simple-minded megalomania (or more likely, any port in a storm in an argument): observation shows the Lenco is far better than its simple construction indicates, and what differentiates it from the belt-drives is its idler-wheel system, a system which ruled until belt-drives came along. Now while I am NOT saying this is of cosmic significance, I AM saying that principles are principles, and if evidence at whatever level shows a dominating theory to be wrong, then, especially in an arena which allows so many to participate (this hobby is filled with DIYers, and record players are easily accessible, no lab equipment other than a stereo system required), we should encourage these experiments, not try to suppress them. Should education be limited to children, or are we allowed to continue to learn as we grow older? Or will the scientific world shake and quake becaue audiophiles are tinkering in their living rooms and thinking?!

To the person who initiated this thread, I apologize for hijhacking this thread, I had no idea when I dared to state that since experts in the past had been wrong then experts now might be wrong I would be opening such a HUGE can 'o worms, which I suppose explains why so many (as Copernicus in his day....ooops, not allowed to use "examples", so Frederick Gorbudarian in his day) decide to simply keep quiet. As I wrote far above, I do love analogue (evidently) and applaud your choice in moving ahead to find out for yourself (yes being active in an experiment to come to your own decisions) to see if vinyl rates. I hope this starts a whole new area of enjoyment for you, I know I never stopped loving the old vinyl. Enjoy.

Hey Jean des Nantes,

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, or understand it to the extent you passed your eyes over it. And don't try to tell me my Kuhn, or my history of science, you dillatante.

Anyway, I am gratefully humbled. I had though *I* was pompous and long winded!

Long live glass and particle board!