Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:26:24 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message cut I would be delighted to process your test tone with my polar plotted FM detector(tm). I expect to see a flower shape with petals corresponding to the number of poles but we may never know. You might not like what you would see but at least it would test your and other's beliefs mentioned in Message-ID: If I were you I would chicken out. . . On the other hand the width of the plot published in Stereophile might just be due to a hole in a record being off-centre. I do not have the WAV file that I sent to JA and he used to produce that graph. I can make another one if you want. I have several test records Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100 Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74 The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make the WAV file I sent to JA I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now Heck, let's do them all! There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever Heck, you put Dick Moelfre to shame. Specify your email and you will get a tone I don't have email. . . on purpose. Do you have a http server? Can you push by ftp? Otherwise I could set up a tempory email account. . . my email is |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "S888Wheel" wrote in message 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? you are wrong. Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384 Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ! LOL! Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!! So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000? so, you can't see that 2000 was the highest year, over 4,000 higher than the next highest year. And that the three years after 2000 are typical compared to the 6 years before 2000? Sockpuppet, since your audio system is mostly a technological relic from more than 30 years ago, I can see why you weight statistics from the previous millennium more highly than the current statistics. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000? So you can't see this isn't what you said to begin with? I can see that I had to clarify it by adding more obvious information. You can't see that what you said to begin with was plainly wrong? Absolutely. You can't see that you were picking and choosing your evidence to support your attack against me personally and my claim that you were plainly wrong? Sue me for paying more attention to current data than data from the previous millennium. You can't see that Art pointed out just one aspect of how you were wrong? Art obviously lives in the past, given the technology that dominates his audio system, as do you. You can't see that even with the evidence you cherry picked that your conclusion was at best a presumption? I didn't cherry pick data, I simply picked the current data. I don't live in the past the way you and Art seem to, sockpuppet. You don't understand why many of us laugh when you present yourself as objective? Obviously you are an almost illiterate sockpuppet, given how many times I've said that I don't think I'm perfectly objective, even in the past several weeks. Or, you have a memory that is about 30 seconds long. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "S888Wheel" wrote in message 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? you are wrong. Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384 Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ! LOL! Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!! LOL! It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers are clearly falling. Perhaps this is a good sign and people are wising up to the fact that most of what passes for high end exists only in the mind of some unreliable reviewer or salesman. It's obviously a combination of things. Speaking of unreliable not to mention insane, I wonder what Fremer's doing these days. Testing out jackets where the sleeves fasten in the back? Hopefully not having screaming fits at people who point out he doesn't know what he's talking about like he did with Nousaine, years back. If RAO had a sound track, most of the Atkinson supporters would be screaming most of the time. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om "The measured playback frequency was 998.5Hz, but as I don't know the accuracy of the tone recorded on the test LP (HFS 81, produced by the late John Wright for the long-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi Sound), the 1.5Hz difference can't be used to judge the LP12's speed accuracy." Odd Atkinson can't find a test record with accurate tones. No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of knowing a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely to the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at precisely the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the test record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the Linn did turn at 33.33 rpm. I find it questionable that a strobe could actually measure speed with sufficient accuracy to justify a final number with 4 significant digits. Illuminated strobes aren't the best way to measure the speed of turntables because the power line itself is prone to short-term frequency variations. I have at least one very popular (in its day) test record for which the signal source was specified, and for which strong claims for rotational accuracy were made. I believe it was sold by a competitive magazine, which is probably one reason why you don't want to use it, Atkinson. If there is a serious question about the speed accuracy of a test record, it could be resolved by means of microscopic examination. However, this is just more example of "Look over there, cake", by Atkinson. The more serious issue, is his highly questionable presentation of a test that clearly shows relatively high levels of modulation distortion, and suggests either deceit or technical incompetence on his part. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"cwvalle" wrote in message
m "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On 3 Jan 2004 05:52:39 -0800, (John Atkinson) wrote: No, Mr. Krueger, I have plenty of test LPs. But there is no way of knowing a) that the signal source used to prepare the master was set precisely to the specified frequency and b) that the cutting lathe was turning at precisely the correct speed. All the reviewer can do, therefore, is specify the test record used and the result obtained. A strobe, BTW, indicated that the Linn did turn at 33.33 rpm. This is not actually true. You don't need to know the frequency of the signal source _and_ the speed of the cutting lathe. You _just_ need to know the number of cycles/ revolution and this is something that can easily be measured using just the LP and a soundcard and some sort of audio editor. The sound card does not need an accurate timebase either. If you don't follow, you could search google groups for "John's dad say : "Ratiometric measurement lot better than kick in balls." The number of cycles per revolution on a LP track of a steady wave can also be measured with a microscope. In fact it was once common practice to confirm the technical properties of a number of different tracks on test records with a microscope. Test records from the days when they were taken quite seriously can still be acquired for a reasonable price on eBay. Most of these are IME in pristine or near-pristine condition. You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than the table under test. That's false because wow and flutter can be averaged out quite easily. I think that this may well be the case, we are talking about very small values here. The strobe may also not be accurate enough. I seriously doubt that Atkinson's tests with a strobe are accurate enough to support the number of decimal digits he presented. It's typical of his sloppy and naive experimentalism to present data that is bogus in this fashion. The only way to do this would be to set up some kind detector on the platter itself and this could measure the accuracy of rotation. One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial. Play the LP and digitize the results and measure the distance between the tics. With CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims to use) this can easily be done with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond. A single rotation at 33.33 rpm takes 1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus, measuring the time it takes for one rotation is accurate within no more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes for multiple rotations can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or more. A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy measurements with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be obtained without even buying a test record. This kind of accuracy calls into question the time base of the means used to collect the data (sound card) but the accuracy of the sound card can be measured by using it to digitize tones transmitted by the NIST. http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq...l/pdf/1383.pdf A sound card capable of sampling at 192 KHz could even be checked by digitizing the carrier of the atomic clock-derived radio transmitter in Colorado. Any sound card can be used with the tones described on page 59 of the cited document. The effects of the tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way. This is a false claim. The tone arm and cartridge, being fixed-mounted to the same structure that the turntable is mounted on, has zero average velocity with respect to the turntable. Therefore, they can't introduce long-term speed errors. The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured in a partial way. The scratched-LP method can be used to make highly-accurate measurements. The clocks of quality sound cards have accuracy that itself can be measured and traced back to govenerment frequency standards. If atomic-clock type accuracy does not suit you, I guess you might still have a complaint... Even if the exact same test record were used to compare tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them. Wrong again. The world of vinyl seems to be full of fuzzy-headed experimentalists that defeat themselves in their own minds. I think this is because they fear the truth about vinyl. The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere. Not if you are a worshipper of vinylism, whether for fun or profit. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com I have several test records Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100 Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74 The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make the WAV file I sent to JA I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever Specify your email and you will get a tone Then, send you tone wave file to my "arnyk" email account at "comcast.net" Then, digitize every test record you have and put the .wav files on one or more CDRs and mail them to me at the address you can find at http://www.pcavtech.com/pcta/index.htm . |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
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? |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 06:55:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: One such detector is a LP with a scratch that is reasonably radial. Play the LP and digitize the results and measure the distance between the tics. With CoolEdit/Audition (the tool Atkinson claims to use) this can easily be done with accuracy of +/- 1 millisecond. A single rotation at 33.33 rpm takes 1,800.000 milliseconds. Thus, measuring the time it takes for one rotation is accurate within no more than 0.1%. Measuring the time it takes for multiple rotations can extend the accuracy by factors of 10, 100 or more. A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy measurements with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be obtained without even buying a test record. Maybe I'm dense, but wouldn't the rotation at 33.33 rpm be constantly variable on an LP disc and that your figure of 1,800,000 milliseconds only be accurate at one point on the platter? Where do you determine the point of the disc where this exact figure occurs and them decide which part of the groove you measure two tics? Please don't be snide in your answer just because it's me asking, Arnold. I'm not trying to be an asshole by asking this. I'm just wondering about the figure that you quote and how its derived. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "cwvalle" wrote in message y.com I have several test records Command Stereo Check Out - CSC 100 Telarc Digital Omnidisc - DG-10073, '74 The Telarc is the one I use as a standard, and is the one i used to make the WAV file I sent to JA I have a CBS STR 100, 102 but I dont know where it is right now There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever Specify your email and you will get a tone Then, send you tone wave file to my "arnyk" email account at "comcast.net" I believe Carl was responding to David Wareing, Mr. Krueger. Then, digitize every test record you have and put the .wav files on one or more CDRs and mail them to me at the address you can find at http://www.pcavtech.com/pcta/index.htm . I assume you are praying Carl will have forgotten the torrent of abuse you heaped on him the last time this subject was discussed on r.a.o.? ROFL. And I cannot believe your over-reaction to the single comment in my Linn review, Mr. Krueger. I mentioned the frequency of the tone on the test LP purely to prevent readers from assuming the player was running slow. Yet you have used up kilobytes of bandwidth with increasingly hysterical postings about this while at the same time ducking out of threads where you have been asked questions about your own claims. By your own logic, that means you concede each of those arguments, of course :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
So what are you planning for your next career, John ?
I kinda fancy pool attendant at the Cancun Club Med. Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile There'll be no more music for you if you become the WH Chief of Staff. By the way, do they let Brits do that position? smile John |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
John M. said: Either that or Howard Dean's White House Chief of Staff. :-) By the way, do they let Brits do that position? smile They let crooks do it, so why not? |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "S888Wheel" wrote in message 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? you are wrong. Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384 Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ! LOL! Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!! So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000? so, you can't see that 2000 was the highest year, over 4,000 higher than the next highest year. And that the three years after 2000 are typical compared to the 6 years before 2000? Sockpuppet, since your audio system is mostly a technological relic from more than 30 years ago, I can see why you weight statistics from the previous millennium more highly than the current statistics. It's called comparative analysis. I compared the most recent three years with a previous six year period, after discarding the anomaly of the one intervening high sales year. I see that you have resorted to your ususal personal attacks, since you have no logical or rational basis to counter my claim. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "S888Wheel" wrote in message You can't see that Art pointed out just one aspect of how you were wrong? Art obviously lives in the past, given the technology that dominates his audio system, as do you. In "The World According to Arny", my selection of my stereo system is offered as proof that my analysis of magazine subscription data is wrong!!! Good one, my honored objectivist!!!! ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"henryf" wrote in message k.net... Arny Krueger wrote: ... A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times ... Sounds a bit high to me. Would you believe 20 min x 33-1/3 RPM = 666-2/3 revolutions? I can't believe he missed that. 666 is his favorite number. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Arny said
So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000? I said So you can't see this isn't what you said to begin with? Arny said I can see that I had to clarify it by adding more obvious information. Bull****. You had to fix it because, as i said, it was plainly wrong. You asked and you got your answer but didn't like it.Of course you went on to make an ass of yourself over the whole thing. I said You can't see that what you said to begin with was plainly wrong? Arny said Absolutely. If you can now see that you were plainly wrong then just deal with it and move on. All your bull**** about my math made you look stupid.But then apparently only one of us knew that an LP doesn't rotate 13,000 times per side played. I said You can't see that you were picking and choosing your evidence to support your attack against me personally and my claim that you were plainly wrong? Arny said Sue me for paying more attention to current data than data from the previous millennium. Thanks for admitting to picking and choosing data. I said You can't see that Art pointed out just one aspect of how you were wrong? Arny said Art obviously lives in the past, given the technology that dominates his audio system, as do you. So you have a phobea with things that aren't absolutely new? Maybe you better toss out your CD player. By your logic SACDs and DVDs have made it obsolete. Be sure to never watch a movie again too. Film is obsolete since video came along. Don't eat any meals prepared with fresh food either, canned food made it obsolete. Yes Arny, older technology dominates my system. With time came refinement and maturity of those technologies. That is why my system sounds so much more like live music than yours. Of course, by your logic, live music is obsolete. I said You can't see that even with the evidence you cherry picked that your conclusion was at best a presumption? Arny said I didn't cherry pick data, I simply picked the current data. I don't live in the past the way you and Art seem to, sockpuppet. What a ridiculous rationalzation for cherry picking. You still haven't figured out why your cherry picking lead you to an eroneous conclusion have you? I said You don't understand why many of us laugh when you present yourself as objective? Arny said Obviously you are an almost illiterate sockpuppet, given how many times I've said that I don't think I'm perfectly objective, Thanks for the proof of your lack of integrity. I didn't say "perfectly objective." I said "objective" which without qualification implies to people with a normal level of comprehension that a normal, reasonable level of objectivivty was meant.Something you clearly lack. Arny said Or, you have a memory that is about 30 seconds long. Did you forget that I said "objective" and not "perfectly objective" or are you simply incapable of being honest when you are loosing a debate? |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers are clearly falling. Are you parroting Arny's stupidity or are you being independently stupid? Here is a hint. you changed tense in mid-sentence. You also ignored the data that doesn't support your eronous conclusion. Mike said Perhaps this is a good sign and people are wising up to the fact that most of what passes for high end exists only in the mind of some unreliable reviewer or salesman. Wishful thinking on your part perhaps? Mike said Speaking of unreliable not to mention insane, I wonder what Fremer's doing these days Judging by his website, he seems to be doing well. I bet that ****es you off. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Uncle Troll sasses the Krooborg. A 20 minute LP side rotates about 13,000 times so speed accuracy measurements with errors and ambiguities no less than 1 ppm can easily be obtained without even buying a test record. Hmmm. I get 666 revolutions, not 13,000. Do we have a math problem here? As you've told us many times, Arnii Krooger is an impeccable "scientist". ;-) This post reformatted by the Resistance, laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
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. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
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. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Arny said:
Stereophile's circulation has shrunk steadily for three years and you can't see it? And what will you say if 2004 is better than 2003? It's an anomaly? The truth is, three years is too small of a sample. And you've always been a complete idiot when it comes to interpreting statistics. Or would you like to tell me again how Oakland University is a superior learning institution because of the amount of surrounding land available for agriculture? Boon |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Arny said:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? Sure. Just show the other publication's circulation numbers over the same period of time just to see how long it took to build an audience. Could it have taken off over the last three years? Hmmm.... Boon |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
dave said:
Please don't be snide in your answer just because it's me asking, Arnold. I'm not trying to be an asshole by asking this. I'm just wondering about the figure that you quote and how its derived. We have to remember that Arny is usually so hypnotized by what's happening on his computer screen that he often leaves the stylus spinning on the inner groove for hours. That's where the 13,000 figure comes in. Boon |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Arny said: Stereophile's circulation has shrunk steadily for three years and you can't see it? And what will you say if 2004 is better than 2003? It's an anomaly? The truth is, three years is too small of a sample. And you've always been a complete idiot when it comes to interpreting statistics. Or would you like to tell me again how Oakland University is a superior learning institution because of the amount of surrounding land available for agriculture? So that's where he stores his manure! ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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 |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
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. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"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 =--- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Alpine CD Changer Ejecting Magazine | Car Audio | |||
Remove magazine from Sony CDX-656 changer | Car Audio | |||
- TAS magazine Website Updated - | Audio Opinions | |||
- TAS Magazine Website Updated - | General | |||
Car Audio Magazine back issues | Car Audio |