How do you get past the pops and hiss of LPs?

Viridian, I have a better idea of what you mean by dynamic range and signal to noise ratio, but even accepting that definition does not yield more than about 80db range for vinyl, while CD has at least 100db. And these figures I have measured using LP's and CDs. The direct to disc recordings (organ) has about 80db. BTW its surface noise is at about -70db. Pinned the needles at +10db!

Salut, Bob P.

Rockinroni, can we hope that you are abandoning this thread? If so, that should really clear things up!

salut, Bob P.

Bob, measureing dynamic range at home is fraught with difficulties. One tends to end up measuring signal to noise ratio even when using a scope. An interesting working of the maths can be found at http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html , as the author quite rightly points out, the results are the theoretical limits of the media and practical applications will yeild much lower actual dynamic range in both media. He clearly shows that the limit on lp replay is about 110db as opposed to 96db in redbook compact disc replay. Interestingly, this coincides with my subjective evaluations. But don't get me wrong; the compact disc has much to recommend it, both technically and aurally.

Veridian, yes, but I am talking about actual measurements and what the recording industry is (or has) actually done with the "theoretical limits". It is much easier to exploit the CD limits than the LP limits, hence the LP's contain less dynamic range as witnessed by my measurements. I might be off by 2-3Db, but that doesn't invalidate my findings.
I still love my record collection, it is just different from my CD's, not necesarily better.

Kevin- In addition to what has already been said about cleaning records, aligning the cartridge and maybe upgrading your table/cartridge, a DBX 3BX running through the tape loop would yeild pretty good results with your current table/cartridge noise issue. If you upgrade, the 3BX becomes less of a factor as the noise floor of the upgraded table/cartridge drops.

Also, as someone mentioned earlier, there were several "tick & pop" eliminators manufactured such as the Burwin TNE 7000 and a couple of models from SAE. Again, if you upgrade, there won't be much of a need for this kind of signal processing. (My TNE has been in storage for 15 years, but I still have occasion to use the 3BX.)

And, much as I fear weighing in on the LP vs CD lunacy, it's notable that, from a strictly sonic (the music only) standpoint, most "experts", including CDP makers, have concluded that analog sounds better. (Many CDP makers strive to sound like analog and claim their product "sounds almost like analog" while exactly zero turntable makers attempt to "sound almost like digital".) I suspect alot of folks take issue with this fact because they mistakenly think that "sounds better" is an all-encompassing phrase which means that "analog is always better at anything and everything all the time" which, of course, is not true.

LP's are more work and they are not as convenient to play as CD's. And, if one prefers to listen to numbers on a page(something I gave up doing 20 years ago), CD's can sometimes have a "better" S/N ratio and dynamic range. CD's can also sometimes be quieter between tracks or in quieter passages. CD's don't have "ticks and pops". CD's are getting better. Etc, etc, etc. (BTW- Analog is getting better, too- ALOT better.)

Obviously, many have had great experiences with analog and find it to be worth the effort. Your mileage may vary. If you need help, there are alot of very knowledgeable folks here for you.

And, yes, for the record, I do have a fairly good CDP and a whole bunch of CDs that I listen to and enjoy frequently.

Regards
Jim