[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.pro ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.pro ScottW wrote:
Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of
a record to see if the stylus dragging over the top
can be detected?
Couldn't you just watch the strobe and see if it
changed during soft vs loud passages?
Not nearly enough resolution and I seriously doubt that
the increase in friction matters here.
Any decent motor should motor right through that.

Then why did you ask? I must be confused...

Clearly, we're not discussing
gross changes in rotational velocity (wow and flutter).
We're talking about vibration in the vinyl.

I already debunked that myth.

As far as heavy modulation affecting playback speed goes, that would be most
readily determined by playing a groove cut with the same test tone cut at
widely varying different levels.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic
energy
out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the
acoustic impedance. But where does it then go?

What a load of crap. Guffaw.

I've got a great suggestion for you. Replace the coax
that connects your cable system to your TV with coax
having a significantly different impedance. What do you
see?

Not a heck of a lot of difference. For example, if you replace 20' of coax
with 50' of 300 ohm twin lead, or 300 ohm twin lead with 110 ohm twisted
pair, or coax or twin lead with 18 gauge lamp cord, and signal strengths are
adequate and EMI is reasoanble, then there will probably be no visible
difference.

If you want to see standing waves due to impedance mismatches really make a
difference, do the same thing with a computer network, or a video cable
going to a high resolution analog video monitor. Traditional TV signals
just aren't all that picky.

The mechanical principle is exactly the same as the
electrical..

Mechanical impedances vary far more than the electrical impedances of common
cables.

[William Sommerwerck]

There's no way to prevent the LP's surface from being set
into motion, unless you could find an LP material that
was infinitely stiff. One approach is to clamp the disk
against a soft pad. * Another is to make a platter whose
mechanical impedance is similar to that of vinyl. This
impedance match allows the vibrations to march into the
platter, rather than being reflected back.

* I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago
when James Boyk at Caltech sent a review LP with a severe
warp. The side with the warp "up", so that it could not
be pressed against the Platter Matter pad I was using,
had a much different tonal balance (brighter, thinner)
from the other side.

A typical James Boyk experiment -- no reliable evaluation
of results and no quantfication of the effect in terms of its
probable audible effects.

A typical Arny Krueger response.

This was not a James Boyk experiment -- it was a defective record. It had a
rather severe warp of about 3" length on the circumference -- the sort that
(presumably) occurs when the disk is removed from the press before it's
sufficiently hardened.

At that time I was using a Lux PD-121 whose felt-flocked rubber mat I had
replaced with a Platter Matter pad. I don't remember which side I played
first, but I think it was the side where the warp projected down. Using a
record clamp, the disk made full contact with the mat.

When I played the other side, the warp was "up" -- there was no way to
flatten it. I didn't know what to expect, sonically -- I wasn't expecting
any particular difference in sound. But there was a noticeable one -- the
sound was thinner and brighter and more "brittle". I ascribed it to the
failure to fully damp the disk surface.

You don't need a warped record to duplicate this experiment -- just an
unsupported one. There was a time when turntable platters had a dished or
stepped surface (eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
comparison using a thin pad of damping material.


The vibration of a record is caused by the effective mass of the
stylus acting on the mass of the record. A LP playback stylus
has an effective mass of from 0.3 to 1 milligram. A LP record
weighs over 100 grams. The record weighs from 100,000 to 300,000
times as much. The ratio of masses puts any reactions by the vinyl
at least 80-100 dB down.

This is akin to saying that because the total mass of the air in a room is
much greater than the mass of a dome tweeter, that the tweeter can't move it
sufficiently to produce a useful sound level.

There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily, and setting up
vibrations in it. If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel
with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound -- even
though its bodily movement was nil.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

All this is for naught unless the vinyl record is actually glued to
the platter. The interface will never be tight enough to transfer the
energy adequately through the pair of impedance discontinuities
otherwise. It may, of course touch in a few places, but certainly no
everywhere.

Absolutely. That's why record clamps and weights, combined with a soft
mat, are so important.

To be honest I am not sure what the total contribution of platter ringing
to the system is. My suspicion is that even on the best systems, worrying
about arm resonances will still buy you more improvement than worrying
about platter resonances. But a quick play of the square wave track on
the test record and an FFT analyzer will tell you that for sure.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

And it would not even help if you put that 20-ton block of steel
on a real[ly] heavy object, eg, [the] Earth, to absorb the vibrations.

Oh, but it would. The vibrations would die out more quickly of the block
were damped.

[anahata]

ScottW wrote:

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?

Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Jenn]

In article ,
anahata wrote:

ScottW wrote:

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?

Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.

Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
anahata wrote:

ScottW wrote:

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?

Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.

Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

I heard a rather expensive TT once with a motor that required more than
15 minutes to get up to speed. It also had a large flywheel
for stability and filtering motor vibe.
I really didn't care for the idea of having to remove records on
the fly .

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
anahata wrote:

ScottW wrote:

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?

Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.

Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

I heard a rather expensive TT once with a motor that required more than
15 minutes to get up to speed. It also had a large flywheel
for stability and filtering motor vibe.
I really didn't care for the idea of having to remove records on
the fly .

ScottW

lol Do you remember what TT it was?

On a trip to the SF bay area yesterday, I heard an SME TT/arm with a
Brinkmann cartridge. Really fine.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
(eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
comparison using a thin pad of damping material.

Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency response of a
cartridge with a test record twice, first with the record sitting on a felt
or rubber mat, followed up by a similar test with the record supported just
above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done that, and it doesn't
make a heck of a lot of difference.

The vibration of a record is caused by the effective
mass of the stylus acting on the mass of the record. A
LP playback stylus
has an effective mass of from 0.3 to 1 milligram. A LP
record weighs over 100 grams. The record weighs from
100,000 to 300,000 times as much. The ratio of masses
puts any reactions by the vinyl at least 80-100 dB down.

This is akin to saying that because the total mass of the
air in a room is much greater than the mass of a dome
tweeter, that the tweeter can't move it sufficiently to
produce a useful sound level.

There are big differences between the propagation of vibrations in the air
in a room and in a LP record. For example the LP record is many, many
times smaller than a room.

There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
and setting up vibrations in it.

At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is such that it is in
essence moving as single unit at low and medium frequencies. The speed of
sound in common plastics is about six times that of air.

If I banged -- even
lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel with a ball-peen
hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound -- even
though its bodily movement was nil.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I just said that
compared to the stimulus, the stimulus was very weak and the response was
even weaker.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
And it would not even help if you put that 20-ton block
of steel
on a real[ly] heavy object, eg, [the] Earth, to absorb
the vibrations.

Oh, but it would. The vibrations would die out more
quickly of the block were damped.

Again quantification.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
news
Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test this hypothesis.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news
Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test this hypothesis.

Nor a more tortured sentence.

Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many uncontrolled
variables to be conclusive IMO.

ScottW

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 19:50:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency response of a
cartridge with a test record twice, first with the record sitting on a felt
or rubber mat, followed up by a similar test with the record supported just
above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done that, and it doesn't
make a heck of a lot of difference.

I don't believe that anything significant would be measured
by frequency response testing. After all, the reflections
are both much smaller and at the same frequency.


I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I just said that
compared to the stimulus, the stimulus was very weak and the response was
even weaker.

Perhaps I'm parsing the above incorrectly, but let me just add
that the source of internal vibrations is comparable in
translatable size to the translated original signal. Deformation
actually gives a larger "area" than the groove itself,
and the work done upon the groove contact surfaces while
accelerating the stylus effective mass is very considerable.

It's probably commonly within the order of magnitude of engraved
signal, so reflections need to be small compared to engraved
signal.

A convincing test disk could be cut with click impulses
followed by silences. We're pretty good at distinguishing
between the sounds of differing clicks if they're recorded
for quick comparison, and we'd also likely find that Scott's right
(gee, what're the odds?) that tonearms matter a lot more, relatively.


Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"Money doesn't buy happiness. But happiness isn't everything."
- Jean Seberg

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
(eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
comparison using a thin pad of damping material.

Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency response of a
cartridge with a test record twice, first with the record sitting on a felt
or rubber mat, followed up by a similar test with the record supported just
above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done that, and it doesn't
make a heck of a lot of difference.

Hard to see the slight differences. Try doing an impulse response or
square wave response instead. It'll show up resonances like this a lot
more easily (although it may be hard to see them under all the arm and
cartridge peaks).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
(eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
comparison using a thin pad of damping material.

Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency response of a
cartridge with a test record twice, first with the record sitting on a
felt
or rubber mat, followed up by a similar test with the record supported
just
above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done that, and it doesn't
make a heck of a lot of difference.

One can hear things that are below the levels that would cause
interference-based changes in frequency response.


There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
and setting up vibrations in it.

At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is such that it is in
essence moving as single unit at low and medium frequencies. The speed of
sound in common plastics is about six times that of air.

You're determined to win this argument by any means, aren't you?

I'm reasonably certain that, at low frequencies, a woofer does not move the
air in a room "bodily".


If I banged -- even
lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel with a ball-peen
hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound -- even
though its bodily movement was nil.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I just said that
compared to the stimulus, the stimulus was very weak and the
response was even weaker.

But your argument justifying the relative levels of stimulus and "response"
is invalid.

[RapidRonnie]

Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

I heard a rather expensive TT once with a motor that required more than
15 minutes to get up to speed. It also had a large flywheel
for stability and filtering motor vibe.
I really didn't care for the idea of having to remove records on
the fly .



Did manually giving the platter a good flick to start it up boost the
spool-up appreciably? If so, that's probably what the "designer"
counted on.

It was a crappy design to be certain, manual assist or no manual
assist.

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news
Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test this hypothesis.

Besides which -- to repeat -- on some turntables you can actually see the
strobe lines move when the stylus tracks more heavily-modulated passages.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
(eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
comparison using a thin pad of damping material.

Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency
response of a cartridge with a test record twice, first
with the record sitting on a felt or rubber mat,
followed up by a similar test with the record supported
just above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done
that, and it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference.

One can hear things that are below the levels that would
cause interference-based changes in frequency response.

There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this is a totally false
statement.

There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
and setting up vibrations in it.

At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is
such that it is in essence moving as single unit at low
and medium frequencies. The speed of sound in common
plastics is about six times that of air.

You're determined to win this argument by any means,
aren't you?

I'm using my favorite *cheat* - presentation of relevant scientific facts.
Try them sometimes William - you might like them.

I'm reasonably certain that, at low frequencies, a woofer
does not move the air in a room "bodily".

Follow that thought William, and even you might see how false your beliefs
are.

If I banged -- even
lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel with a ball-peen
hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound --
even though its bodily movement was nil.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
was very weak and the
response was even weaker.

But your argument justifying the relative levels of
stimulus and "response" is invalid.

Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news
Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
this hypothesis.

Nor a more tortured sentence.

Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on the grounds of
sentence syntax. It's your greatest strength!

Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.

What uncontrolled variables?

[William Sommerwerck]

One can hear things that are below the levels that would
cause interference-based changes in frequency response.

There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this is
a totally false statement.

Such as attending a live concert? One hears delayed sounds that are 30 or
40dB below the direct sound, yet mixing a sine wave with a delayed sine wave
40dB below its level would have almost no effect on its level. Even at 20dB
down, the worst-case change would be a change of about 1dB.


There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
and setting up vibrations in it.

At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is
such that it is in essence moving as single unit at low
and medium frequencies. The speed of sound in common
plastics is about six times that of air.

You're is confusing the motion of a body as a whole with the movement
required to set up vibrations in it. A whale doesn't have to move all the
water in all the oceans of the world to make a sound.


You're determined to win this argument by any means,
aren't you?

I'm using my favorite *cheat* - presentation of relevant scientific
facts. Try them sometimes William -- you might like them.

Arny's persistant appeal to "scientific facts" -- rather than reasoning from
basic principles -- is unsettling.


If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel
with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would vibrate and
produce sound -- even though its bodily movement was nil.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
was very weak and the response was even weaker.

But your argument justifying the relative levels of
stimulus and "response" is invalid.

Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

It's invalid because the stylus doesn't have to move the entire mass of the
LP to set up vibrations in it, any more than a woofer has to move all the
air in the room. By Arny's "reasoning", striking a heavy object A with light
object B would produce little or no sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 19:50:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency
response of a cartridge with a test record twice, first
with the record sitting on a felt or rubber mat,
followed up by a similar test with the record supported
just above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done
that, and it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference.

I don't believe that anything significant would be
measured
by frequency response testing. After all, the reflections
are both much smaller and at the same frequency.

Yes, but they aren't in phase, so that shows up as a response irregularity.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
was very weak and the response was even weaker.

Perhaps I'm parsing the above incorrectly, but let me
just add
that the source of internal vibrations is comparable in
translatable size to the translated original signal.
Deformation actually gives a larger "area" than the
groove itself,
and the work done upon the groove contact surfaces while
accelerating the stylus effective mass is very
considerable.

All fine and good, but does not change the analysis.

It's probably commonly within the order of magnitude of
engraved signal, so reflections need to be small compared
to engraved signal.

My point.

A convincing test disk could be cut with click impulses
followed by silences.

If you want to go that route, fine.

We're pretty good at distinguishing
between the sounds of differing clicks if they're recorded
for quick comparison, and we'd also likely find that
Scott's right (gee, what're the odds?) that tonearms
matter a lot more, relatively.

I agree that the resonances of the vinyl are small influences compared to
other sources, tone arm resonances in the 0-100 Hz range being one of them.
Tone arms have two or three very unfettered degrees of freedom, while the
vinyl has far stronger built-in mechanical constraints.


Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"Money doesn't buy happiness. But happiness isn't
everything." - Jean Seberg

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
One can hear things that are below the levels that would
cause interference-based changes in frequency response.

There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this
is
a totally false statement.

Such as attending a live concert?

Never try that line with me William - I listen to more live music by
accident than you have ever heard on purpose.

One hears delayed
sounds that are 30 or 40dB below the direct sound,

Only if they are not masked. If they are at the same frequency or in the
same critical band as the stimulus (i.e., linear distortion which includes
reflections) then they are well, masked.

yet mixing a sine wave with a delayed sine wave 40dB below
its level would have almost no effect on its level.

Actually, the experiement you describe has an up to 0.1 dB effect.
Variations of 0.1 dB are relatively huge on the scale of measurable effects,
outside of acoustical measurements.

Even at 20dB down, the worst-case change would be a change of
about 1dB.

Finally, you profided some correct quantification, but 1 dB variations are
huge squared.

There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
and setting up vibrations in it.

At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is
such that it is in essence moving as single unit at low
and medium frequencies. The speed of sound in common
plastics is about six times that of air.

You're is confusing the motion of a body as a whole with
the movement required to set up vibrations in it.

I'm not confused like you are William. I don't quake and shake when someone
says measure 0.1 dB variations.

A whale
doesn't have to move all the water in all the oceans of
the world to make a sound.

BTW William, is there something that would keep you from doing this
experiment for yourself? The only things that stop me is the time it would
take to pull my Rega off the shelf, and the proven fear that were I to do
the experiment, everybody would **** on my turntable.

You're determined to win this argument by any means,
aren't you?

I'm using my favorite *cheat* - presentation of relevant
scientific facts. Try them sometimes William -- you
might like them.

Arny's persistant appeal to "scientific facts" -- rather
than reasoning from basic principles -- is unsettling.

Sue me for preferring established facts combined with the simplest possible
logic, to constructs wholey formed of questional speculations, poor logic,
misinterpreted facts, and ignorance of well-known effects like masking.

If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of
steel with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would
vibrate and produce sound -- even though its bodily
movement was nil.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
was very weak and the response was even weaker.

But your argument justifying the relative levels of
stimulus and "response" is invalid.

Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

It's invalid because the stylus doesn't have to move the
entire mass of the LP to set up vibrations in it, any
more than a woofer has to move all the air in the room.

Typical of your bad logic William. Everybody who took acoustics 101 knows
that sounds propagate by means of pressure waves, not movement of air.

By Arny's "reasoning", striking a heavy object A with
light object B would produce little or no sound.

More proof that William can't learn. I've never said that there is no sound
or vibration, just that the sound and vibrations are so small and of a
nature that is unlikely to be relaibly perceived. How many times do I need
to say this?

[William Sommerwerck]

There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this
is
a totally false statement.

Such as attending a live concert?

Never try that line with me William - I listen to more live music by
accident than you have ever heard on purpose.

Not fair -- you don't have to pay to attend.


BTW William, is there something that would keep you from doing this
experiment for yourself? The only things that stop me is the time it would
take to pull my Rega off the shelf, and the proven fear that were I to do
the experiment, everybody would **** on my turntable.

Why should I or anyone else "dump" on your turntable? A 'table doesn't have
to be Horribly Expensive to be good.

I described the experiment I wished to perform in an earlier post. It
requires two arms, two pickups, two preamps, and a special LP (unless I can
find one in my collection with both music and a blank groove -- preferably
locked -- on the same side). The experiment you suggests seems -- to me --
to have only a peripheral relationship to what I'm talking about.


If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of
steel with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would
vibrate and produce sound -- even though its bodily
movement was nil.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
was very weak and the response was even weaker.

But your argument justifying the relative levels of
stimulus and "response" is invalid.

Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

It's invalid because the stylus doesn't have to move the
entire mass of the LP to set up vibrations in it, any
more than a woofer has to move all the air in the room.

Typical of your bad logic William. Everybody who took acoustics 101 knows
that sounds propagate by means of pressure waves, not movement of air.

Which is exactly the point, Arny. EXACTLY THE POINT. The mass of an object
does not, per se, have any effect on the ability to set up vibrations in it.

Has anyone else out there noticed that the overall "sound" of LP recordings
is influenced by the thickness of the record?

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
Has anyone else out there noticed that the overall
"sound" of LP recordings is influenced by the thickness
of the record?

IME, the thinner LPs were the ones where other parts of
the production process were "sliced thin" as well. Some
of them sprang into a shape like a bell-washer as soon
as they were removed from the cardboard sleeve. There
were so many other corners cut, dunno how one could
ascribe any appreciable part of the disappointing experience
exclusively to the thickness of the pressing.

[g]

On Jun 30, 9:50 am, John Phillips
wrote:
On 2007-06-30, William Sommerwerck wrote:

The BEST turntable you can buy is a Neumann record cutting lathe.
You can get them for a few thousand dollars if they do not come
with the desirable stereo cutting heads and mastering chains.
Anyone who says any audiophile table yet made is any better is
full of **** and knows it. Other pro lathes are okay and less money.

There are good reasons why a high-quality audiophile turntable might very
well be better than a Neumann. To wit, having a plastic platter that makes a
good impedance match with the vinyl of the LP.

OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy out of the vinyl
and into the platter by matching the acoustic impedance. But where does
it then go?

Through the bearing? Not much I suspect. There's the plastic/metal
impedance mismatch to start with and then it's only a small area for
transmission.

I suspect the unwanted acoustic energy (assuming a longitudinal wave)
gets mostly reflected back at the platter/air boundary impedance
mismatch underneath the platter and then gets transmitted back to the
vinyl because of the excellent vinyl/platter impedance match.

The only hope is for the platter to be acoustically lossy. Ideal
materials aren't lossy, of course. But I have never looked up the
acoustic loss coefficients of real plastics so I don't know if this is
a reasonable hope.

I largely agree. Ultimately there must be a lossy medium somewhere. I
would use
a record clamp at all times, so the record does make good contact with
the mechanism,
otherwise its not heavy enough to do so on its own.

greg

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:



Typical of the Krooglishly untutored, attack an idea on the grounds of
sentence syntax. It's your greatest strength!


I called Rosetta Stone.
Unfortunately, they have no plans for a Krooglish language
instruction program. We are helpless!

[Clyde Slick]

Never try that line with me William - I listen to more live music by
accident than you have ever heard on purpose.


Krooglish decoded:
The voices in Arny's head are humming a simple tune.




The only things that stop me is the time it would
take to pull my Rega off the shelf, and the proven fear that were I to do
the experiment, everybody would **** on my turntable.



We acknowledge that we can't beat you in the poop department,
even on a collective basis.


I've never said that there is no sound
or vibration, just that the sound and vibrations are so small and of a
nature that is unlikely to be relaibly perceived. How many times do I need
to say this?


As many times as you like. We can't hear you. You are but a
tiny speck of insane lint, beating on the giant drum of sanity

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
this hypothesis.
Nor a more tortured sentence.

Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on the grounds of
sentence syntax. It's your greatest strength!

Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.

What uncontrolled variables?

VTA for one.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com
On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of
a record to see if the stylus dragging over the top
can be detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
this hypothesis.
Nor a more tortured sentence.

Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on
the grounds of sentence syntax. It's your greatest
strength!

Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.

What uncontrolled variables?

VTA for one.

Not necessarily.

Next time, try to be relevant.

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message

ups.com





On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of
a record to see if the stylus dragging over the top
can be detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
this hypothesis.
Nor a more tortured sentence.

Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on
the grounds of sentence syntax. It's your greatest
strength!

Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.

What uncontrolled variables?

VTA for one.

Not necessarily.

Obviously.....but did you?
Apparently not.


Next time, try to be relevant.

As relevant as your detailed test descriptions
of "been there, done that".

I look forward to a meaningful report of your
elevated record test.
Frankly, I doubt if such a test ever took place and
as yet, you've provided no evidence it did.
Since your credibility is questionable I
must demand evidence or discard your
claims as simply anecdotal.
No more credible than the individual
making them.

ScottW

[anahata]

Jenn wrote:
anahata wrote:

I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.


Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
allegedly audible in the speakers.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[William Sommerwerck]

I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch
was allegedly audible in the speakers.

As opposed to, say, near the cat's litter box?

I've heard such stories, too. Perhaps such things occurred in the days of
much higher tracking forces. Regardless, it would have had to have been a
badly designed 'table.

[Jenn]

In article ,
anahata wrote:

Jenn wrote:
anahata wrote:

I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.


Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
allegedly audible in the speakers.

Hard to believe, when we're talking about LP groove widths of something
like 1 mil.

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 7:21 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Has anyone else out there noticed that the overall "sound" of LP recordings
is influenced by the thickness of the record?

Can't say that I have. Most LPs that I have a 180g version and a
thinner version are also different masters.

ScottW

[Scott Dorsey]

anahata wrote:
Jenn wrote:
anahata wrote:

I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.

Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
allegedly audible in the speakers.

This is definitely audible and visible on even some idler-drive tables.
I'd be surprised if anything BSR made _didn't_ do this.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 11:41 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
anahata wrote:
Jenn wrote:
anahata wrote:

I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.

Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
allegedly audible in the speakers.

This is definitely audible and visible on even some idler-drive tables.
I'd be surprised if anything BSR made _didn't_ do this.

Hey, they weren't called BSR Groovegrinders for nothing.
But seriously, consider the cermic carts, steel syli, spring
loaded arms etc...hardly relevant to vinylphiles.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 7:06 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

Nor a more tortured sentence.

Yeah, but get a load of this one:

"Most LPs that I have a 180g version and a
thinner version are also different masters."

What imbecile could torture English like this?

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:


What imbecile could torture English like this?

Arny, of course.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com
On Jul 2, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message

ups.com





On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom
of a record to see if the stylus dragging over the
top can be detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do
test this hypothesis.
Nor a more tortured sentence.

Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on
the grounds of sentence syntax. It's your greatest
strength!

Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.

What uncontrolled variables?

VTA for one.

Not necessarily.

Obviously.....but did you?
Apparently not.


Next time, try to be relevant.

As relevant as your detailed test descriptions
of "been there, done that".

You're confused as usual Scotty. The description lacked detail, true. But it
was completely relevant.


I look forward to a meaningful report of your
elevated record test.

Complete with airtight controls on VTA. HOwever, you must first provide your
all-inclusive list of other factors that in your opinion must be controlled.

Frankly, I doubt if such a test ever took place

That's very dubious of you, Scotty.

and as yet, you've provided no evidence it did.

Please state what form all-inclusive evidence that the test was done must
take.

Since your credibility is questionable I
must demand evidence or discard your
claims as simply anecdotal.

See above.

No more credible than the individual
making them.

Given all the weirdness you provde and expect to be credible Scotty, a low
bar indeed.