[Philip Meech]

Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert
old LPs to CDs?

[Tim]

Sure!!! A Numark TTUSB, the Turntable includes Turntable (of course) mounted
cartridge, USB cable, and editing software.
You can buy the TT just about anyware, Amazon, Buy.com etc.
"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

[DGG]

Here's one cheap solution:
http://www.costco.com/Common/Search....rch&lang=en-US

"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

[Serge Auckland]

"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

It depends:- If the LPs are in good condition, then the best you can afford.
If they are worn, then why bother, the quality will be pretty poor. However,
as someone who buys a lot of LPs in charity shops and garage sales, get
yourself a vacuum record cleaning machine, or have the LPs cleaned
professionally. I have the most ratty looking LPs that play flawlessly once
cleaned. It *really* makes a difference. I would also use a line contact
stylus as it tends to play the part of the groove that wasn't worn to death
by whatever it was previously played on.

Apart from that, anything from a Lenco GL75 to an EMT.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Walt]

Philip Meech wrote:

Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert
old LPs to CDs?

What are your audio quality standards? Basically the CD is going to
sound about as good as the turntable and cartridge you're using to
transcribe.

If the turntable/cartridge you're using now to listen is acceptable
quality, the CD's should also be acceptable.

My take is that unless they are very rare recordings (i.e. not available
as CD reissues and not likely to be in the near future) it's more cost
effective to just buy the professionally remastered CD's. An hour of my
time is worth more to me than the fifteen bucks for the CD. YMMV.

//Walt

[MC]

"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

Depends on the condition of the LPs. I'm guessing they are not necessarily
pristine.

Beware of low tracking weights. 2.5 to 3.5 grams is better for tracking LPs
that are worn or slightly warped.

As you know, some turntables include a preamp so that you can plug their
output directly into "line in" of your sound card.

I have had good results with the Audio-Technica AT-PL120 ($160 at Amazon)
and even the Audio-Technica AT-PL50 ($80). Both track at 2.5 to 3.5 grams.

This is not "high end" of course, but using modern technology, it is
surprisingly good.

[DaveW[_3_]]

You also need a phono preamp of some sort (receiver, preamp with phono
in/out, etc.)in order to obtain the RIAA frequency corrections. Cartridges
fo NOT output flat frequency response, or even close.

--
---------------------
DaveW
"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

[Philip Meech]

Philip Meech wrote:

Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert
old LPs to CDs?

I read Michael Fremer's article in Stereophile and decided to
substitute a Music Hall 5 for the Project Turntable. I think I will use
it with the Griffin Technology Imic to save a few bucks. I still have a
much better turntable than my old Marantz with a Sumiko Blue Point.

It seems that whatever one does, the result of archiving to digital is
an inferior product to good vinyl playback- if you can hear the difference!

"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

If the turntable and cartridge are adequate to listen to the LP, they're
adequate to copy it to CD.

Norm Strong

[[email protected]]

Philip Meech wrote:

Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert
old LPs to CDs?

No minimum-anything that sounds acceptable over your speakers or headphones
is adequate. Be aware that you cannot plug your turntable directly into
the sound card, but must use your preamplifier rec out jacks, instead.

You should familiarize yourself with editing software, though. That way,
you can edit out the lead in "silent" passages making whatever it is you
are recording start only at the program source. For the occasional pop and
clicks you can expand the waveform and cut the offending pop with usually
satisfactory results.

mp

[Arny Krueger]

"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...

Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

Don't forget the preamp and audio interface.

The minimum tolerably quality would relate to how much noise, distortion and
record wear that you can tolerate.

More to the point might be an estimation of the point where diminishing
returns sets in.

[MC]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

It depends:- If the LPs are in good condition, then the best you can
afford.
If they are worn, then why bother, the quality will be pretty poor.
However,
as someone who buys a lot of LPs in charity shops and garage sales, get
yourself a vacuum record cleaning machine, or have the LPs cleaned
professionally. I have the most ratty looking LPs that play flawlessly
once
cleaned.

One more point: In my experience, an LP can be dirty now even if it was
clean when it went into the jacket 20 years ago. There is apparently just a
bit of sloughing of matter from the surface, or something. So clean them
all.

How does washing under running water, with some detergent and a bit of
brushing with a soft brush, compare to vacuum cleaning (Nitty Gritty)?

[Steven Sullivan]

Philip Meech wrote:
Philip Meech wrote:

Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert
old LPs to CDs?

I read Michael Fremer's article in Stereophile and decided to
substitute a Music Hall 5 for the Project Turntable. I think I will use
it with the Griffin Technology Imic to save a few bucks. I still have a
much better turntable than my old Marantz with a Sumiko Blue Point.

It seems that whatever one does, the result of archiving to digital is
an inferior product to good vinyl playback- if you can hear the difference!

Well, that's one possibility. Others include but are not limited to:

- the CD transfer sounds better than the LP, because after transfer the LP picked up dirt,
tics, scratches, etc
- the CD transfer sounds the same as the LP, the 'differences' being imaginary

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Harry Lavo]

"Tim" wrote in message
...
Sure!!! A Numark TTUSB, the Turntable includes Turntable (of course)
mounted
cartridge, USB cable, and editing software.
You can buy the TT just about anyware, Amazon, Buy.com etc.
"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?


The J&R ad in the latest edition of S&V has an add for a Technics turntable
and cartridge combo with built in preamp for feeding directly into line-in
on your computer, along with PYRO solftware for editing out clicks and pops
and saving as MP3 or WMA files and burning disks of same. Price is $200.
Quality? Who knows....but J&R has decent return policies so it may be worth
a try.

[bob]

On Jul 10, 7:26 pm, Philip Meech wrote:
I read Michael Fremer's article in Stereophile

Well, that was your first mistake. ;-)

and decided to
substitute a Music Hall 5 for the Project Turntable. I think I will use
it with the Griffin Technology Imic to save a few bucks.

This could be your second. The iMic is a notoriously noisy device.
Griffin doesn't list specs--apparently because they would be an
embarrassment. I've used the following device to digitize cassettes,
but I haven't tried LPs yet:

http://www.adstech.com/products/RDX-...sp?pid=RDX-150

Neither it nor the Griffin allows you to control input levels, so
you'll need to do that out of your preamp.

I still have a
much better turntable than my old Marantz with a Sumiko Blue Point.

It seems that whatever one does, the result of archiving to digital is
an inferior product to good vinyl playback- if you can hear the difference!

That would not be true. See this test:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

bob

[MC]

It seems that whatever one does, the result of archiving to digital is
an inferior product to good vinyl playback- if you can hear the
difference!

Well, that's one possibility. Others include but are not limited to:

- the CD transfer sounds better than the LP, because after transfer the LP
picked up dirt,
tics, scratches, etc
- the CD transfer sounds the same as the LP, the 'differences' being
imaginary

- the CD transfer sounds distinctly better than the LP because noise has
been removed through signal processing, and equalization can be altered.

The last of these is my usual experience. LPs are far from a perfect
recording medium. It's striking how much you can improve an LP by using a
really good noise-reduction algorithm.

[Gijs Rietveld]

"Philip Meech" schreef in bericht
...
Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge needed to convert old
LPs to CDs?

It depends on what you expect. A $ 10.000 turntable with a $5.000 cartridge
will give a better result compared with a $150 USB player. Just link the
turntable with a 'good' preamplifier to your soundcard and the results will
be nearly the same as your analogue system.
Succes, Gijs

[Serge Auckland]

"MC" wrote in message ...
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

It depends:- If the LPs are in good condition, then the best you can
afford.
If they are worn, then why bother, the quality will be pretty poor.
However,
as someone who buys a lot of LPs in charity shops and garage sales, get
yourself a vacuum record cleaning machine, or have the LPs cleaned
professionally. I have the most ratty looking LPs that play flawlessly
once
cleaned.

One more point: In my experience, an LP can be dirty now even if it was
clean when it went into the jacket 20 years ago. There is apparently just
a
bit of sloughing of matter from the surface, or something. So clean them
all.

How does washing under running water, with some detergent and a bit of
brushing with a soft brush, compare to vacuum cleaning (Nitty Gritty)?

Washing with running water etc will work to remove some of the surface
contamination but won't get right down to the bottom of the grooves and
remove what's been caked on there over the years. Also, drying the record is
a problem with water as it will leave chalky residues unless you are using
demineralised water and a tiny amount of detergent. Vacuum cleaning (I use
the Moth machine) after washing with a mixture of 25% isopropyl alcohol and
75% demineralised water with a small amount of photographic wetting agent,
leaves the record dry and clean.
I always use a new plastic inner sleeve after cleaning so as not to
contaminate the record from a dirty inner sleeve. I also clean new records,
firstly to remove traces of the mould release agent used in the vinyl and to
remove the amazing amount of dust found even on new LPs, especially those
new old stock LPs which may have been in a warehouse somewhere for 20+
years.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Philip Meech]

Serge Auckland wrote:

"MC" wrote in message ...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

It depends:- If the LPs are in good condition, then the best you can
afford.
If they are worn, then why bother, the quality will be pretty poor.
However,
as someone who buys a lot of LPs in charity shops and garage sales, get
yourself a vacuum record cleaning machine, or have the LPs cleaned
professionally. I have the most ratty looking LPs that play flawlessly
once
cleaned.

One more point: In my experience, an LP can be dirty now even if it was
clean when it went into the jacket 20 years ago. There is apparently just
a
bit of sloughing of matter from the surface, or something. So clean them
all.

How does washing under running water, with some detergent and a bit of
brushing with a soft brush, compare to vacuum cleaning (Nitty Gritty)?


Washing with running water etc will work to remove some of the surface
contamination but won't get right down to the bottom of the grooves and
remove what's been caked on there over the years. Also, drying the record is
a problem with water as it will leave chalky residues unless you are using
demineralised water and a tiny amount of detergent. Vacuum cleaning (I use
the Moth machine) after washing with a mixture of 25% isopropyl alcohol and
75% demineralised water with a small amount of photographic wetting agent,
leaves the record dry and clean.
I always use a new plastic inner sleeve after cleaning so as not to
contaminate the record from a dirty inner sleeve. I also clean new records,
firstly to remove traces of the mould release agent used in the vinyl and to
remove the amazing amount of dust found even on new LPs, especially those
new old stock LPs which may have been in a warehouse somewhere for 20+
years.

S.

Thank you for the thoroughness of your reply. In American demineralized
water is distilled water, right?

[MC]

"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...

Thank you for the thoroughness of your reply. In American demineralized
water is distilled water, right?

No, it's slightly less pure, purified by a different method. Distilled
water will certainly replace it.

[Serge Auckland]

"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:

"MC" wrote in message ...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

It depends:- If the LPs are in good condition, then the best you can
afford.
If they are worn, then why bother, the quality will be pretty poor.
However,
as someone who buys a lot of LPs in charity shops and garage sales, get
yourself a vacuum record cleaning machine, or have the LPs cleaned
professionally. I have the most ratty looking LPs that play flawlessly
once
cleaned.

One more point: In my experience, an LP can be dirty now even if it was
clean when it went into the jacket 20 years ago. There is apparently
just a
bit of sloughing of matter from the surface, or something. So clean them
all.

How does washing under running water, with some detergent and a bit of
brushing with a soft brush, compare to vacuum cleaning (Nitty Gritty)?


Washing with running water etc will work to remove some of the surface
contamination but won't get right down to the bottom of the grooves and
remove what's been caked on there over the years. Also, drying the record
is a problem with water as it will leave chalky residues unless you are
using demineralised water and a tiny amount of detergent. Vacuum cleaning
(I use the Moth machine) after washing with a mixture of 25% isopropyl
alcohol and 75% demineralised water with a small amount of photographic
wetting agent, leaves the record dry and clean.
I always use a new plastic inner sleeve after cleaning so as not to
contaminate the record from a dirty inner sleeve. I also clean new
records, firstly to remove traces of the mould release agent used in the
vinyl and to remove the amazing amount of dust found even on new LPs,
especially those new old stock LPs which may have been in a warehouse
somewhere for 20+ years.

S.

Thank you for the thoroughness of your reply. In American demineralized
water is distilled water, right?

Demineralised water is what we now call distilled water. For some reason
over here the term distilled fell out of use. It is now either deionised or
demineralised. I have no idea why.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Philip Meech" wrote in message

Philip Meech wrote:

Any thoughts on the minimum turntable and cartridge
needed to convert old LPs to CDs?

I read Michael Fremer's article in Stereophile and
decided to substitute a Music Hall 5 for the Project Turntable. I
think I will use it with the Griffin Technology Imic to save a few bucks.

The Griffen iMic is pretty good on the playback side, but pretty horrid on
the record side.

Most newer computer's onboard audio interfaces will significantly
outperform it for recording, but can't beat it for playback.

[c. leeds]

MC wrote:

Beware of low tracking weights. 2.5 to 3.5 grams is better for tracking LPs
that are worn or slightly warped.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no
inherent relationship between vertical tracking force ("tracking
weight") and the tracking of any type of record: worn, warped or otherwise.

The ability of an LP playback system to properly track a disc involves a
number of factors, including the characteristics of the particular
cartridge and the pickup arm it is mounted in. These two form a system;
it's difficult to assess them individually.

A cartridge's correct VTF is expressed as a range by the manufacturer.
Some cartridges are designed to track in the 3 gram range, while many
are designed to track at lower forces. Exceeding a manufacturer's
recommended VTF may result in damage to the phono cartridge.
Insufficient VTF can result in damage to the disc.

Most important, cartridges designed for higher VTFs may not necessarily
track more accurately. Many other variables - such as cartridge mass,
stylus shape, tonearm mass and effective tonearm mass - have an
influence over tracking accuracy. In fact, some of the best tracking
cartridges are low mass units designed for low mass pickup arms and
track with a VTF below 2 grams. Far below.

I have had good results with the Audio-Technica AT-PL120 ($160 at Amazon)
and even the Audio-Technica AT-PL50 ($80). Both track at 2.5 to 3.5 grams.

This is not "high end" of course...

Agreed. Not even close.

[MC]

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
MC wrote:

Beware of low tracking weights. 2.5 to 3.5 grams is better for tracking
LPs that are worn or slightly warped.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no inherent
relationship between vertical tracking force ("tracking weight") and the
tracking of any type of record: worn, warped or otherwise.

I speak only from experience, not from theory.

[bob]

On Jul 10, 11:08 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

The J&R ad in the latest edition of S&V has an add for a Technics turntable
and cartridge combo with built in preamp for feeding directly into line-in
on your computer, along with PYRO solftware for editing out clicks and pops
and saving as MP3 or WMA files and burning disks of same. Price is $200.
Quality? Who knows....but J&R has decent return policies so it may be worth
a try.

Think you meant Audio-Technica, not Technics:

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4159402

If you need an all-in-one solution at that price, it might be the best
you can do. But my *minimum* turntable/cartidge combination would be
something that takes a tracking force less than 5g. Maybe an actual
Technics:

http://snipurl.com/1o7dm

Of course, you'd need to add a USB input device and software, a
preamp, and maybe an upgraded cartidge as well. Figure $300+ before
you're through.

bob

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
"Philip Meech" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:

"MC" wrote in message ...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

It depends:- If the LPs are in good condition, then the best you can
afford.
If they are worn, then why bother, the quality will be pretty poor.
However,
as someone who buys a lot of LPs in charity shops and garage sales, get
yourself a vacuum record cleaning machine, or have the LPs cleaned
professionally. I have the most ratty looking LPs that play flawlessly
once
cleaned.

One more point: In my experience, an LP can be dirty now even if it was
clean when it went into the jacket 20 years ago. There is apparently
just a
bit of sloughing of matter from the surface, or something. So clean
them
all.

How does washing under running water, with some detergent and a bit of
brushing with a soft brush, compare to vacuum cleaning (Nitty Gritty)?


Washing with running water etc will work to remove some of the surface
contamination but won't get right down to the bottom of the grooves and
remove what's been caked on there over the years. Also, drying the
record
is a problem with water as it will leave chalky residues unless you are
using demineralised water and a tiny amount of detergent. Vacuum
cleaning
(I use the Moth machine) after washing with a mixture of 25% isopropyl
alcohol and 75% demineralised water with a small amount of photographic
wetting agent, leaves the record dry and clean.
I always use a new plastic inner sleeve after cleaning so as not to
contaminate the record from a dirty inner sleeve. I also clean new
records, firstly to remove traces of the mould release agent used in the
vinyl and to remove the amazing amount of dust found even on new LPs,
especially those new old stock LPs which may have been in a warehouse
somewhere for 20+ years.

S.

Thank you for the thoroughness of your reply. In American demineralized
water is distilled water, right?

Demineralised water is what we now call distilled water. For some reason
over here the term distilled fell out of use. It is now either deionised
or
demineralised. I have no idea why.

You might choose to drink, wash your dishes, do laundry, run your coffeee
maker etc. using deionised or demineralised water but there's no need to use
distilled water for such things. There's not only one type of destilled
water; glass distilled water is purer than that prepared in a metal type
still, (at least that was the situation the last time I looked).
Additionally, it's unhealthy to drink distilled water.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[c. leeds]

MC wrote:

2.5 to 3.5 grams is better for tracking
LPs that are worn or slightly warped.

I answered:
There is no inherent
relationship between vertical tracking force ("tracking weight") and the
tracking of any type of record: worn, warped or otherwise.
(detailed explanation snipped.)

MC now says (in full):

I speak only from experience, not from theory.

Your experience must be very limited, indeed! Some of the world's best
tracking cartridges use very low VTF - what you mistakenly call
"tracking weight."

If you meant to suggest I wrote more from theory than experience, then
you are mistaken about that, too.

[[email protected]]

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:

Additionally, it's unhealthy to drink distilled water.

I'd not heard that, but a quick Google kind of indicates that the jury is
still out on that one. On the other hand, a psychiatrist friend (I never
held that against him) once told me that in areas with naturally occurring
lithium in the water the incidence of manic illness is less than otherwise
might be expected. So, I guess, if you find yourself up for several days
talking nonsense, and if your friends are starting to look at you strangely
it might be worth a move.

But, really, for years I've just used a simple Discwasher and a home made
mix of isopropyl-purified water very lightly misted on the plush pad. This
quickly removes surface lint. I don't know about the microscopic grundge
hidden deep down, but I've never really suspected that there is anything
inside the grooves that the stylus doesn't simply push aside. At least in
most cases.

Keep your records put away when not in use and don't touch the grooved
surface with your hands. They'll last a long time if you do that.

Once of my cartridges, a V-15xMR, has a nifty little damped brush which also
pushes airborn lint aside during play, as well as adding resonance damping.
Unfortunately, Shure does not make this item anymore. I always liked the
sound of the expensive Stantons (and their Pickering twins), but they too
are not made anymore, and I was never convinced their brush was as
sophisticated as those on the Shure.

I've heard very good things about the commercial cleaning machines, but,
again, I never felt the need to purchase one. If I was slumming garage
sales it might be different, I suppose.

mp

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 11:08 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

The J&R ad in the latest edition of S&V has an add for a Technics
turntable
and cartridge combo with built in preamp for feeding directly into
line-in
on your computer, along with PYRO solftware for editing out clicks and
pops
and saving as MP3 or WMA files and burning disks of same. Price is $200.
Quality? Who knows....but J&R has decent return policies so it may be
worth
a try.

Think you meant Audio-Technica, not Technics:

Thanks for the correction, Bob. Of course the turntable is from
Technics...they are about the only ones making a fairly solid, reliable
popular priced tables these days...a result of their supplying the DJ trade
for all these last two decades. They OEM them to everybody. Apparently A-T
has entered the field...probably as a way to sell cartridges. But in any
case it looks like a cost-effecitve way to do it, assuming their is some
quality there (AT cartridges are genterally pretty good). I also failed to
mention that it does 78's....a big plus when it comes to archiving.

[MC]

Think you meant Audio-Technica, not Technics:

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4159402

If you need an all-in-one solution at that price, it might be the best
you can do. But my *minimum* turntable/cartidge combination would be
something that takes a tracking force less than 5g.

That one is about 3 g, adjustable, and has interchangeable head shells.

[isw]

In article ,
"c. leeds" wrote:

MC wrote:

2.5 to 3.5 grams is better for tracking
LPs that are worn or slightly warped.

I answered:
There is no inherent
relationship between vertical tracking force ("tracking weight") and the
tracking of any type of record: worn, warped or otherwise.
(detailed explanation snipped.)

MC now says (in full):

I speak only from experience, not from theory.

Your experience must be very limited, indeed! Some of the world's best
tracking cartridges use very low VTF - what you mistakenly call
"tracking weight."

Most important to tracking imperfect discs is that the arm-cartridge
assembly have the lowest possible total weight -- including the arm
counterweight, if there is one. An arm with a ten kilogram weight on the
backside and 9.997 kg on the stylus side would have a tracking force of
only three grams, but it couldn't follow the slightest warp.

Isaac

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

"bob" wrote in message

Think you meant Audio-Technica, not Technics:

Thanks for the correction, Bob. Of course the turntable is from
Technics...they are about the only ones making a fairly solid, reliable
popular priced tables these days...a result of their supplying the DJ
trade

I notice that Denon makes a relatively inexpensive turntable with, I think,
an integral phono preamp. It kind of looks like a knock-off of some of the
cheap Brit tables--maybe not a bad thing. It's belt drive with what looks
like a decent straight arm, and it comes with a cartridge.

Regarding Denon, a company that once made more turntables than you thought
possible, I also note they make one expensive DD table. It uses a quartz
clock and their proprietary tape head reading a magnetic strip placed
inside the platter rim--just like the old days. The base does not look to
be as substantial as the Technics. The arm, however, appears to be an OEM
Technics. But it does not seem to offer VTA adjustment like the Technics
arm, so it may not be as refined from a usability standpoint.

Finally, in their spec sheet the table is shown with what looks to be a
cheaper Audio-Technica cartridge. Very strange marketing coming from a
company that still makes some of the best MC cartridges.

http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/Turntables.asp

mp

[bob]

On Jul 12, 11:39 pm, "MC" wrote:
Think you meant Audio-Technica, not Technics:

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4159402

If you need an all-in-one solution at that price, it might be the best
you can do. But my *minimum* turntable/cartidge combination would be
something that takes a tracking force less than 5g.

That one is about 3 g, adjustable, and has interchangeable head shells.

Recommended VTF is 3-5g. And, like most carts, it tracks a lot better
at the top of its range--a little heavier than I'd like to go.

bob

[bob]

On Jul 12, 11:38 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Thanks for the correction, Bob. Of course the turntable is from
Technics...they are about the only ones making a fairly solid, reliable
popular priced tables these days...a result of their supplying the DJ trade
for all these last two decades.

DJs have certainly helped ensure a continued market. But Technics
quality predates the turntablist era. There's a lot of solid,
amortized R&D behind their current products.

They OEM them to everybody. Apparently A-T
has entered the field...probably as a way to sell cartridges. But in any
case it looks like a cost-effecitve way to do it, assuming their is some
quality there (AT cartridges are genterally pretty good). I also failed to
mention that it does 78's....a big plus when it comes to archiving.

Absolutely, if you've got 78s to archive! BTW, www.kabusa.com modifies
Technics tables to play 78s.

bob

[c. leeds]

isw wrote:

Most important to tracking imperfect discs is that the arm-cartridge
assembly have the lowest possible total weight -- including the arm
counterweight...

No, that's completely false. Tracking isn't that simple. If the
arm/cartridge resonance falls within the warp frequency region, tracking
of warped LPs will be limited. The amount of the resonance is also a
factor in the trackability of an arm/cartridge combination.

The mass of an arm/cartridge combination - by itself - can't tell us
anything about its ability to track a warped disc.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 13, 11:04 am, isw wrote:
Most important to tracking imperfect discs is that the arm-cartridge
assembly have the lowest possible total weight -- including the arm
counterweight, if there is one. An arm with a ten kilogram weight on the
backside and 9.997 kg on the stylus side would have a tracking force of
only three grams, but it couldn't follow the slightest warp.

Simplified to the point of being wrong.

It;s not the total mass of the arm that's the issue, it's the
effective mass at the stylus tip. I'm not talking about tracking
force, I'm talking about effective inertial mass. And your
implicit claim that it's the same as the total mass is
completely wrong.

As an illustration. Keeping everything else the same,
including tracking force, increasing the mass of the
counterweight will DECREASE the effective mass
of the system. It doesn't seem intuitively correct, but
it's yet another example of the audiophile world using
its intuition and getting it wrong as a result.

Here's what's going on: because the masses rotate
around a pivot, the problem is one of calculating the
effects of the combined moments of inertia. For simple
point masses, the moment of inertia is equal to the
mass times the distance to the pivot squared. Sum
all of those moments and then divide by the pivot-to-
stylus distance squared to get the effective mass.

Let's take a simple example: assume a cartridge
weighs 5 grams and it's situated 20 cm from the pivot.
To neutral balance it requires the torque applied by the
cartridge to be cancelled. That torque is the mass
times the force of gravity time the distance, or G*5*20
or 100G (where G=980cm/s^2).

Now, assume a 50 g counterweight. It would have
to be placed 100G/50g or 2 cm from the pivot.

That's fine. Now what's the effective mass of the arm?
You would have us believe it's 55g, and you'd be wrong
if that's what you're saying.

Instead, calculate the total moment of inertia of the
system:

M = 5g * (20cm)^2 + 50g * (2 cm)^2
M = 2000 g cm^2 + 200 g cm^2
M = 2200 g cm^2

What's immediately apparent is that since the moment
proportional to the SQUARE of the distance from the
pivot, the farther the distance, the greater the moment
is. And from that we can learn that it's the masses
farthest from the pivot that dominate the effective mass,
like the headshell and the cartridge body and the
headshell coupling (for removable headshells
and the like).

The resulting effective mass at the stylus point 20 cm
away from the pivot is:

m(eff) = 2200 g cm^2 / (20 cm)^2
m(eff) = 2200 g cm^2 / 400 cm^2
m(eff) = 5.5 g

Now, let's try it agan, and let's make the counterweight
heavier. Let's make it TEN times heavier, or 500 g. This
would require it to be only 0.2 cm from the pivot to achieve
the same balance, so:

M = 5 * (20 cm)^2 + 500 * (0.2 cm)^2
M = 5g * 400 cm^2 + 500g * .04 cm^2
M = 2000 g cm^2 + 20 g cm^2
M = 2020 g cm^2

And the effective mass is:

m = 2020 g cm^2 / (20 cm)^2
m = 2020 g cm^2 / 400 cm^2
m = 5.05 g

So making the counterweight TEN times REDUCED
the effective mass by nearly 10%.

A more complete derivation can be found at:

http://www.cartchunk.org/audiotopics...mMechanics.pdf

And as suggested by another poster, the mass itself is
not an indicator of quality or trackability or anything other
than mass. The arm/cartidge/record/stylus must be treated
as a system, and it's the system behavior that rules.

[George Graves]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:45:00 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

isw wrote:

Most important to tracking imperfect discs is that the arm-cartridge
assembly have the lowest possible total weight -- including the arm
counterweight...

No, that's completely false. Tracking isn't that simple. If the
arm/cartridge resonance falls within the warp frequency region, tracking
of warped LPs will be limited. The amount of the resonance is also a
factor in the trackability of an arm/cartridge combination.

The mass of an arm/cartridge combination - by itself - can't tell us
anything about its ability to track a warped disc.


Yes, system resonance is very important to avoiding the dread "warp-wow."
It's worse when the arm/cartridge resonance is around 11 Hz. The ideal is
either to be below that or above it. Lowering the mass does tend to raise the
resonant frequency - all else being equal - but it rarely is. Also the PROPER
tracking force is much more important than the "lightest" tracking force.
Nothing will destroy an LP faster than too little a tracking force for the
cartridge being used.