On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:26:24 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message

cut

I would be delighted to process your test tone with my polar plotted
FM detector(tm). I expect to see a flower shape with petals
corresponding to the number of poles but we may never know. You might
not like what you would see but at least it would test your and
other's beliefs mentioned in Message-ID:

If I were you I would chicken out. . . On the other hand the width of
the plot published in Stereophile might just be due to a hole in a
record being off-centre.


I do not have the WAV file that I sent to JA and he used to produce that
graph.
I can make another one if you want.

I have several test records

Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100
Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74

The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make the
WAV file I sent to JA

I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now

Heck, let's do them all!

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever

Heck, you put Dick Moelfre to shame.

Specify your email and you will get a tone


I don't have email. . . on purpose. Do you have a http server? Can you
push by ftp? Otherwise I could set up a tempory email account. . .

my email is

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!

So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?

so, you can't see that 2000 was the highest year, over
4,000 higher than the next highest year. And that the three years
after 2000 are typical compared to the 6 years before 2000?

Sockpuppet, since your audio system is mostly a technological relic from
more than 30 years ago, I can see why you weight statistics from the
previous millennium more highly than the current statistics.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?

So you can't see this isn't what you said to begin with?

I can see that I had to clarify it by adding more obvious information.


You can't see that what you said to begin with was plainly wrong?

Absolutely.

You can't see
that you were picking and choosing your evidence to support your
attack against me personally and my claim that you were plainly
wrong?

Sue me for paying more attention to current data than data from the previous
millennium.

You can't see that Art pointed out just one aspect of how you
were wrong?

Art obviously lives in the past, given the technology that dominates his
audio system, as do you.

You can't see that even with the evidence you cherry
picked that your conclusion was at best a presumption?

I didn't cherry pick data, I simply picked the current data. I don't live in
the past the way you and Art seem to, sockpuppet.

You don't understand why many of us laugh when you present yourself as
objective?

Obviously you are an almost illiterate sockpuppet, given how many times I've
said that I don't think I'm perfectly objective, even in the past several
weeks. Or, you have a memory that is about 30 seconds long.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!
LOL!

It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the
numbers are clearly falling. Perhaps this is a good sign and people
are wising up to the fact that most of what passes for high end
exists only in the mind of some unreliable reviewer or salesman.

It's obviously a combination of things.

Speaking of unreliable not to mention insane, I wonder what Fremer's
doing these days.

Testing out jackets where the sleeves fasten in the back?

Hopefully not having screaming fits at people who
point out he doesn't know what he's talking about like he did with
Nousaine, years back.

If RAO had a sound track, most of the Atkinson supporters would be screaming
most of the time.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

"The measured playback frequency was 998.5Hz, but as I don't know the
accuracy of the tone recorded on the test LP (HFS 81, produced by
the late John Wright for the long-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi Sound),
the 1.5Hz difference can't be used to judge the LP12's speed
accuracy."

Odd Atkinson can't find a test record with accurate tones.

No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.

I find it questionable that a strobe could actually measure speed with
sufficient accuracy to justify a final number with 4 significant digits.

Illuminated strobes aren't the best way to measure the speed of turntables
because the power line itself is prone to short-term frequency variations.

I have at least one very popular (in its day) test record for which the
signal source was specified, and for which strong claims for rotational
accuracy were made. I believe it was sold by a competitive magazine, which
is probably one reason why you don't want to use it, Atkinson.

If there is a serious question about the speed accuracy of a test record, it
could be resolved by means of microscopic examination.

However, this is just more example of "Look over there, cake", by Atkinson.
The more serious issue, is his highly questionable presentation of a test
that clearly shows relatively high levels of modulation distortion, and
suggests either deceit or technical incompetence on his part.

"cwvalle" wrote in message
m
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing
a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely
to
the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at
precisely
the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the
test
record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the
Linn
did turn at 33.33 rpm.

This is not actually true. You don't need to know the frequency of
the signal source _and_ the speed of the cutting lathe. You _just_
need to know the number of cycles/ revolution and this is something
that can easily be measured using just the LP and a soundcard and
some sort of audio editor. The sound card does not need an accurate
timebase either. If you don't follow, you could search google groups
for "John's dad say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick
in balls."

The number of cycles per revolution on a LP track of a steady wave can also
be measured with a microscope. In fact it was once common practice to
confirm the technical properties of a number of different tracks on test
records with a microscope.

Test records from the days when they were taken quite seriously can still be
acquired for a reasonable price on eBay. Most of these are IME in pristine
or near-pristine condition.

You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f
than the table under test.

That's false because wow and flutter can be averaged out quite easily.

I think that this may well be the case, we are talking about very
small values here. The strobe may also not be accurate enough.

I seriously doubt that Atkinson's tests with a strobe are accurate enough to
support the number of decimal digits he presented. It's typical of his
sloppy and naive experimentalism to present data that is bogus in this
fashion.

The only way to do this would be to set up some kind detector on the
platter itself and this could measure the accuracy of rotation.

One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial. Play the
LP and digitize the results and measure the distance between the tics. With
CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims to use) this can easily be done
with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond. A single rotation at 33.33 rpm takes
1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus, measuring the time it takes for one rotation
is accurate within no more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes for
multiple rotations can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or more. A
20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy measurements
with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be obtained
without even buying a test record.

This kind of accuracy calls into question the time base of the means used to
collect the data (sound card) but the accuracy of the sound card can be
measured by using it to digitize tones transmitted by the NIST.

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq...l/pdf/1383.pdf

A sound card capable of sampling at 192 KHz could even be checked by
digitizing the carrier of the atomic clock-derived radio transmitter in
Colorado. Any sound card can be used with the tones described on page 59 of
the cited document.

The effects of the tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined
this way.

This is a false claim. The tone arm and cartridge, being fixed-mounted to
the same structure that the turntable is mounted on, has zero average
velocity with respect to the turntable. Therefore, they can't introduce
long-term speed errors.

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can
only be measured in a partial way.

The scratched-LP method can be used to make highly-accurate measurements.
The clocks of quality sound cards have accuracy that itself can be measured
and traced back to govenerment frequency standards. If atomic-clock type
accuracy does not suit you, I guess you might still have a complaint...

Even if the exact same test record
were used to compare tables, the combination of effects could mask
defects, or exaggerate them.

Wrong again. The world of vinyl seems to be full of fuzzy-headed
experimentalists that defeat themselves in their own minds. I think this is
because they fear the truth about vinyl.

The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere.

Not if you are a worshipper of vinylism, whether for fun or profit.

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com

I have several test records

Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100
Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74

The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to
make the WAV file I sent to JA

I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

Then, send you tone wave file to my "arnyk" email account at "comcast.net"

Then, digitize every test record you have and put the .wav files on one or
more CDRs and mail them to me at the address you can find at
http://www.pcavtech.com/pcta/index.htm .

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com

now i have a problem
i just checked the Telarc disc and indeed it has at least .001 inch
larger hole than the spindle diameter
that is the limit of my ability to check it with a runout micrometer
and that is only the mechanical measurement of the hole, not of the
actual grooves which could be worse
so what do i do now?

Shim it with layer(s) of paper.

Wrap as much thin, strong paper as is required to make a tight fit around
the turntable spindle.

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:
The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere

I would be delighted to process your test tone with my polar plotted
FM detector(tm). I expect to see a flower shape with petals
corresponding to the number of poles but we may never know.

I still have Carl's WAV file, David. E-mail me an address where I can
send it to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger wrote:

... A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times ...

Sounds a bit high to me.
Would you believe 20 min x 33-1/3 RPM = 666-2/3 revolutions?

henryf said to ****-for-Brains:

... A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times ...

Sounds a bit high to me.
Would you believe 20 min x 33-1/3 RPM = 666-2/3 revolutions?

Arnii Krooger is the same creature who has argued that ignoring a
summons is the best way to win a lawsuit, that he himself is the
(unknown) progenitor of all digital audio workstations in existence,
and that daytime begins at 4 a.m. at Michigan's latitude.

But what can you expect from a demented demon-chaser who says things
like "Not if you are a worshipper of vinylism"? Krooger is lucky if
he makes it from breakfast to lunch without a fit of screaming
paranoia.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 06:55:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial. Play the
LP and digitize the results and measure the distance between the tics. With
CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims to use) this can easily be done
with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond. A single rotation at 33.33 rpm takes
1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus, measuring the time it takes for one rotation
is accurate within no more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes for
multiple rotations can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or more. A
20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy measurements
with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be obtained
without even buying a test record.

Maybe I'm dense, but wouldn't the rotation at 33.33 rpm be constantly
variable on an LP disc and that your figure of 1,800,000 milliseconds
only be accurate at one point on the platter? Where do you determine
the point of the disc where this exact figure occurs and them decide
which part of the groove you measure two tics?

Please don't be snide in your answer just because it's me asking,
Arnold. I'm not trying to be an asshole by asking this. I'm just
wondering about the figure that you quote and how its derived.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com

I have several test records

Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100
Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74

The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to
make the WAV file I sent to JA

I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

Then, send you tone wave file to my "arnyk" email account at "comcast.net"

I believe Carl was responding to David Wareing, Mr. Krueger.

Then, digitize every test record you have and put the .wav files on one or
more CDRs and mail them to me at the address you can find at
http://www.pcavtech.com/pcta/index.htm .

I assume you are praying Carl will have forgotten the torrent of abuse you
heaped on him the last time this subject was discussed on r.a.o.? ROFL.

And I cannot believe your over-reaction to the single comment in my Linn
review, Mr. Krueger. I mentioned the frequency of the tone on the test LP
purely to prevent readers from assuming the player was running slow. Yet
you have used up kilobytes of bandwidth with increasingly hysterical
postings about this while at the same time ducking out of threads where
you have been asked questions about your own claims. By your own logic,
that means you concede each of those arguments, of course :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

So what are you planning for your next career, John ?

I kinda fancy pool attendant at the Cancun Club Med.
Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

There'll be no more music for you if you become the WH Chief of Staff.
By the way, do they let Brits do that position? smile
John

John M. said:

Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-)

By the way, do they let Brits do that position? smile

They let crooks do it, so why not?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!

So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?

so, you can't see that 2000 was the highest year, over
4,000 higher than the next highest year. And that the three years
after 2000 are typical compared to the 6 years before 2000?

Sockpuppet, since your audio system is mostly a technological relic from
more than 30 years ago, I can see why you weight statistics from the
previous millennium more highly than the current statistics.



It's called comparative analysis. I compared the most recent three years
with a previous six year period, after discarding the anomaly of the one
intervening high sales year.

I see that you have resorted to your ususal
personal attacks, since you have no logical or rational basis to counter my
claim.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message



You can't see that Art pointed out just one aspect of how you
were wrong?

Art obviously lives in the past, given the technology that dominates his
audio system, as do you.


In "The World According to Arny", my selection of my stereo
system is offered as proof that my analysis of magazine
subscription data is wrong!!!

Good one, my honored objectivist!!!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"henryf" wrote in message
k.net...
Arny Krueger wrote:

... A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times ...

Sounds a bit high to me.
Would you believe 20 min x 33-1/3 RPM = 666-2/3 revolutions?


I can't believe he missed that.
666 is his favorite number.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny said


So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?

I said


So you can't see this isn't what you said to begin with?


Arny said


I can see that I had to clarify it by adding more obvious information.

Bull****. You had to fix it because, as i said, it was plainly wrong. You asked
and you got your answer but didn't like it.Of course you went on to make an ass
of yourself over the whole thing.

I said



You can't see that what you said to begin with was plainly wrong?


Arny said


Absolutely.


If you can now see that you were plainly wrong then just deal with it and move
on. All your bull**** about my math made you look stupid.But then apparently
only one of us knew that an LP doesn't rotate 13,000 times per side played.

I said




You can't see
that you were picking and choosing your evidence to support your
attack against me personally and my claim that you were plainly
wrong?

Arny said


Sue me for paying more attention to current data than data from the previous
millennium.

Thanks for admitting to picking and choosing data.

I said



You can't see that Art pointed out just one aspect of how you
were wrong?

Arny said


Art obviously lives in the past, given the technology that dominates his
audio system, as do you.

So you have a phobea with things that aren't absolutely new? Maybe you better
toss out your CD player. By your logic SACDs and DVDs have made it obsolete. Be
sure to never watch a movie again too. Film is obsolete since video came along.
Don't eat any meals prepared with fresh food either, canned food made it
obsolete. Yes Arny, older technology dominates my system. With time came
refinement and maturity of those technologies. That is why my system sounds so
much more like live music than yours. Of course, by your logic, live music is
obsolete.


I said


You can't see that even with the evidence you cherry
picked that your conclusion was at best a presumption?

Arny said


I didn't cherry pick data, I simply picked the current data. I don't live in
the past the way you and Art seem to, sockpuppet.

What a ridiculous rationalzation for cherry picking. You still haven't figured
out why your cherry picking lead you to an eroneous conclusion have you?

I said


You don't understand why many of us laugh when you present yourself as
objective?


Arny said



Obviously you are an almost illiterate sockpuppet, given how many times I've
said that I don't think I'm perfectly objective,

Thanks for the proof of your lack of integrity. I didn't say "perfectly
objective." I said "objective" which without qualification implies to people
with a normal level of comprehension that a normal, reasonable level of
objectivivty was meant.Something you clearly lack.

Arny said

Or, you have a memory that is about 30 seconds long.

Did you forget that I said "objective" and not "perfectly objective" or are you
simply incapable of being honest when you are loosing a debate?

It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers
are clearly falling.

Are you parroting Arny's stupidity or are you being independently stupid? Here
is a hint. you changed tense in mid-sentence. You also ignored the data that
doesn't support your eronous conclusion.


Mike said

Perhaps this is a good sign and people are wising up
to the fact that most of what passes for high end exists only in the mind of
some unreliable reviewer or salesman.

Wishful thinking on your part perhaps?

Mike said


Speaking of unreliable not to mention insane, I wonder what Fremer's doing
these days

Judging by his website, he seems to be doing well. I bet that ****es you off.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 06:55:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial.
Play the
LP and digitize the results and measure the distance between the
tics. With
CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims to use) this can easily
be done
with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond. A single rotation at 33.33 rpm
takes
1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus, measuring the time it takes for one
rotation
is accurate within no more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes
for
multiple rotations can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or
more. A
20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy
measurements
with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be
obtained
without even buying a test record.

Hmmm. I get 666 revolutions, not 13,000. Do we have a math problem
here?

Norm Strong

Uncle Troll sasses the Krooborg.


A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy measurements
with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be obtained
without even buying a test record.

Hmmm. I get 666 revolutions, not 13,000. Do we have a math problem
here?

As you've told us many times, Arnii Krooger is an impeccable
"scientist". ;-)






This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

On 4 Jan 2004 05:41:44 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

I still have Carl's WAV file, David. E-mail me an address where I can
send it to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Many thanks. I have an E-mail address, just for the day, note.:

Last time I did this and lied about my age, (I said was 105 yrs) I got
my very first spam for Viagra. . . when what I really wanted was p****
e**********

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:30:52 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 06:55:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial.
Play the
LP and digitize the results and measure the distance between the
tics. With
CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims to use) this can easily
be done
with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond. A single rotation at 33.33 rpm
takes
1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus, measuring the time it takes for one
rotation
is accurate within no more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes
for
multiple rotations can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or
more. A
20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy
measurements
with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be
obtained
without even buying a test record.

Hmmm. I get 666 revolutions, not 13,000. Do we have a math problem
here?

Norm Strong

Just wanted to note that there is nothing from me in this message.
Norm, I'd prefer that next time, you show a little more care in your
editing.

Thanks.

"henryf" wrote in message
k.net
Arny Krueger wrote:

... A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times ...

Sounds a bit high to me.
Would you believe 20 min x 33-1/3 RPM = 666-2/3 revolutions?

Yes.

Still enough to get really pretty good speed accuracy measurements, right?

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 06:55:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial.
Play the LP and digitize the results and measure the distance
between the tics. With CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims
to use) this can easily be done with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond.
A single rotation at 33.33 rpm takes 1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus,
measuring the time it takes for one rotation is accurate within no
more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes for multiple rotations
can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or more.

(Following paragraph corrected)

20 minute
LP side rotates about 666 times so speed accuracy measurements
with errors and ambiguities smaller than 0.0002% can easily be
obtained without even buying a test record.

Maybe I'm dense, but wouldn't the rotation at 33.33 rpm be constantly
variable on an LP disc and that your figure of 1,800,000 milliseconds
only be accurate at one point on the platter? Where do you determine
the point of the disc where this exact figure occurs and them decide
which part of the groove you measure two tics?

LP's are constant-angular velocity (CAV) playback devices. IOW every
revolution takes place at 33.333 rpm as you play the disk. Therefore, they
all take 1,800 milliseconds to complete when played at the right speed.

You're probably thinking of CD's which are constant-linear-velocity playback
devices. Their rotational speed varies as you play the disc so that the
linear velocity of the track remains the same as the radius increases. Yes,
CDs are played from the inside-out.

If LPs were constant-linear velocity (CLV) devices, high frequency inner
groove distortion would be a little less of an issue. But CLV is tough with
data that doesn't contain a constant frequency clock.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:26:24 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


I do not have the WAV file that I sent to JA and he used to produce that
graph.
I can make another one if you want.

I have several test records

Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100
Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74

The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make the
WAV file I sent to JA

I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is



Thanks.
JA has said he will send the orginal. We could try some others
afterwards.

My E-mail for now is: (4Mb)

I will E-mail the results to you and JA and make them available to all
later, if both of you are happy for this to happen.

In general, I would prefer if the data were available to all, (peer
review and all that) and with no strings attached but in this case
there is a delicate history.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com

now i have a problem
i just checked the Telarc disc and indeed it has at least .001 inch
larger hole than the spindle diameter
that is the limit of my ability to check it with a runout micrometer
and that is only the mechanical measurement of the hole, not of the
actual grooves which could be worse
so what do i do now?

Shim it with layer(s) of paper.

Wrap as much thin, strong paper as is required to make a tight fit around
the turntable spindle.



That only works if the hole is centered?
carl

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


henryf said to ****-for-Brains:

... A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times ...

Sounds a bit high to me.
Would you believe 20 min x 33-1/3 RPM = 666-2/3 revolutions?

Arnii Krooger is the same creature who has argued that ignoring a
summons is the best way to win a lawsuit, that he himself is the
(unknown) progenitor of all digital audio workstations in existence,
and that daytime begins at 4 a.m. at Michigan's latitude.

But what can you expect from a demented demon-chaser who says things
like "Not if you are a worshipper of vinylism"? Krooger is lucky if
he makes it from breakfast to lunch without a fit of screaming
paranoia.





If the rotational accuracy of the turntable fluctuated at the frequency of
rotation, the resolution of measurement at one rpm would not be adequate to
show it. This is in fact the case if we are talking about off center
pressings is it not?

Carl

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"henryf" wrote in message
k.net
Arny Krueger wrote:

... A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times ...

Sounds a bit high to me.
Would you believe 20 min x 33-1/3 RPM = 666-2/3 revolutions?

Yes.

Still enough to get really pretty good speed accuracy measurements, right?



No
not at all.

cwvalle said:

Arnii Krooger is the same creature who has argued that ignoring a
summons is the best way to win a lawsuit, that he himself is the
(unknown) progenitor of all digital audio workstations in existence,
and that daytime begins at 4 a.m. at Michigan's latitude.

But what can you expect from a demented demon-chaser who says things
like "Not if you are a worshipper of vinylism"? Krooger is lucky if
he makes it from breakfast to lunch without a fit of screaming
paranoia.

If the rotational accuracy of the turntable fluctuated at the frequency of
rotation, the resolution of measurement at one rpm would not be adequate to
show it. This is in fact the case if we are talking about off center
pressings is it not?

Aha -- another "worshiper of vinylism" uncloaked. Take care, sir --
your days are numbered.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can
survive in today's complicated media market.

BTW, one has to act whether this recisitation of the circulation
controversy is just another lame attempt to distract attention from
Atkinson's highly questionable and technically deficient Linn LP-12
review: http://www.stereophile.com/analogsourcereviews/1103linn

No, Mr. Krueger, As I said in the posting that started this thread, I
posted the historical data for Stereophile's circulation to a comment
from Rusty Boudreaux (in message )
that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for
circulation," while _you_, Mr. Krueger, had stated (in message
) that you thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

By your logic, Mr. Krueger, it was _you_ were trying to divert
attention away from the Linn review :-) (Or perhaps the shenanigans on
your website.)

I see Arny Krueger is up to his old snipping tricks, refusing to answer
the text above of mine and deleting it from his reply. :-)

And of course, elsewhere in this thread, as has been pointed out by others,
he has been selectively choosing among the data I provided just those
figures that support his predetermined conclusion. "Data dredging" this is
called in scientific circles, or "pulling a Ferstler," here on r.a.o.

"The measured playback frequency was 998.5Hz, but as I don't know the
accuracy of the tone recorded on the test LP (HFS 81, produced by
the late John Wright for the long-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi Sound),
the 1.5Hz difference can't be used to judge the LP12's speed
accuracy."

Odd Atkinson can't find a test record with accurate tones.

No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of
knowing a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was
set precisely to the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe
was turning at precisely the correct speed. All the reviewer can do,
therefore, is specify the test record used and the result obtained.
A strobe, BTW, indicated that the Linn did turn at 33.33 rpm.

I find it questionable that a strobe could actually measure speed with
sufficient accuracy to justify a final number with 4 significant digits.

Why? The velocity of any precession will in a way act as a vernier. But if
there is no precession, it can be assumed that the rotational velocity is
exactly 33 and one third rpm, no?

Illuminated strobes aren't the best way to measure the speed of
turntables because the power line itself is prone to short-term
frequency variations.

Not by enough to matter too much. But there are plenty of battery-powered
strobe illuminators available these days, of course.

And as I said, why all this fuss over a remark I made about readers not
taking the departure from 1000Hz with the HFS81 record as indicating the
Linn LP12 has a speed accuracy problem?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny said:

Stereophile's circulation has shrunk steadily for three years and you can't
see it?

And what will you say if 2004 is better than 2003? It's an anomaly? The truth
is, three years is too small of a sample. And you've always been a complete
idiot when it comes to interpreting statistics. Or would you like to tell me
again how Oakland University is a superior learning institution because of the
amount of surrounding land available for agriculture?

Boon

Arny said:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"dave weil" wrote in message


Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two
segments to account for changing markets.

Correction:

The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is
volume 9 number 1.

The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its
circulation for the next 6 years.

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Wanna try again?

Sure. Just show the other publication's circulation numbers over the same
period of time just to see how long it took to build an audience. Could it
have taken off over the last three years?

Hmmm....

Boon

dave said:

Please don't be snide in your answer just because it's me asking,
Arnold. I'm not trying to be an asshole by asking this. I'm just
wondering about the figure that you quote and how its derived.

We have to remember that Arny is usually so hypnotized by what's happening on
his computer screen that he often leaves the stylus spinning on the inner
groove for hours. That's where the 13,000 figure comes in.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Stereophile's circulation has shrunk steadily for three years and you
can't
see it?

And what will you say if 2004 is better than 2003? It's an anomaly? The
truth
is, three years is too small of a sample. And you've always been a
complete
idiot when it comes to interpreting statistics. Or would you like to tell
me
again how Oakland University is a superior learning institution because of
the
amount of surrounding land available for agriculture?



So that's where he stores his manure!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:26:24 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


I do not have the WAV file that I sent to JA and he used to produce that
graph.
I can make another one if you want.

I have several test records

Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100
Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74

The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make
the
WAV file I sent to JA

I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is



Thanks.
JA has said he will send the orginal. We could try some others
afterwards.

My E-mail for now is: (4Mb)

I will E-mail the results to you and JA and make them available to all
later, if both of you are happy for this to happen.

In general, I would prefer if the data were available to all, (peer
review and all that) and with no strings attached but in this case
there is a delicate history.


I have no problem with this
Carl

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


cwvalle said:

Arnii Krooger is the same creature who has argued that ignoring a
summons is the best way to win a lawsuit, that he himself is the
(unknown) progenitor of all digital audio workstations in existence,
and that daytime begins at 4 a.m. at Michigan's latitude.

But what can you expect from a demented demon-chaser who says things
like "Not if you are a worshipper of vinylism"? Krooger is lucky if
he makes it from breakfast to lunch without a fit of screaming
paranoia.

If the rotational accuracy of the turntable fluctuated at the frequency
of
rotation, the resolution of measurement at one rpm would not be adequate
to
show it. This is in fact the case if we are talking about off center
pressings is it not?

Aha -- another "worshiper of vinylism" uncloaked. Take care, sir --
your days are numbered.






I know all to well that my days are numbered
I think my vinyl will last longer than i will
Carl

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:08:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 06:55:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial.
Play the LP and digitize the results and measure the distance
between the tics. With CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims
to use) this can easily be done with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond.
A single rotation at 33.33 rpm takes 1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus,
measuring the time it takes for one rotation is accurate within no
more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes for multiple rotations
can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or more.

(Following paragraph corrected)

20 minute
LP side rotates about 666 times so speed accuracy measurements
with errors and ambiguities smaller than 0.0002% can easily be
obtained without even buying a test record.

Maybe I'm dense, but wouldn't the rotation at 33.33 rpm be constantly
variable on an LP disc and that your figure of 1,800,000 milliseconds
only be accurate at one point on the platter? Where do you determine
the point of the disc where this exact figure occurs and them decide
which part of the groove you measure two tics?

I should have expressed this better. when I say "constantly variable",
I'm talking about placing two points on two adjacent grooves radially
from the center (i.e. a straight line from center to edge, as I say in
the next paragraph).

LP's are constant-angular velocity (CAV) playback devices. IOW every
revolution takes place at 33.333 rpm as you play the disk. Therefore, they
all take 1,800 milliseconds to complete when played at the right speed.

That doesn't make sense to me. Maybe the part I'm missing is what you
mean by "reasonably radial". I'm envisioning a scratch in the normal
sense of a scratch, which proceeds from center to outer edge in a
straight line. If you do this, the two points of adjacent grooves at
the inner part of the disk will obviously occur at a quicker speed
than two points at the outer edge of the disk and as you get closer to
the center, the gap between the two points on adjacent grooves will
narrow.

Are you saying that you devise a scratch that *follows* the groove
somehow?

You're probably thinking of CD's which are constant-linear-velocity playback
devices. Their rotational speed varies as you play the disc so that the
linear velocity of the track remains the same as the radius increases. Yes,
CDs are played from the inside-out.

I'm not really trying to envision the rotational speed of the data in
the groove itself (so to speak). I'm just trying to envision how you
place a scratch in the fashion that you are talking about to measure
the rotation. Does this make sense?

If LPs were constant-linear velocity (CLV) devices, high frequency inner
groove distortion would be a little less of an issue. But CLV is tough with
data that doesn't contain a constant frequency clock.

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com...


I know all to well that my days are numbered
I think my vinyl will last longer than i will
Carl


So, do you have any plans for it after your gone?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---