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 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 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.

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.

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?

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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

"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

"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

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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 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 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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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.

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.

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 =---

"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 =---

"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 =---

Arny Krueger wrote:

"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 argument there. The method is sound. See the following
post titled, " Need help with interpreting turntable
strobe" on rec.audio.tech 2003-12-12:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com