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

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

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
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.

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


You're welcome David. I also enclosed one of the WAV files for my Linn, to
give you a frame of reference for my published measurements.

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**********

I am increasingly puzzled why I get so much spam offering me help with my
(non-existent) cesspit. But it's all part of life's rich tapestry. Must
sign off now. Apparently an uncle I never knew in Nigeria has died and
left me a fortune. All I have to do is send a complete stranger in another
country my bank account details.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
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.

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


You're welcome David. I also enclosed one of the WAV files for my Linn, to
give you a frame of reference for my published measurements.

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**********

I am increasingly puzzled why I get so much spam offering me help with my
(non-existent) cesspit. But it's all part of life's rich tapestry. Must
sign off now. Apparently an uncle I never knew in Nigeria has died and
left me a fortune. All I have to do is send a complete stranger in another
country my bank account details.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
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.

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


You're welcome David. I also enclosed one of the WAV files for my Linn, to
give you a frame of reference for my published measurements.

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**********

I am increasingly puzzled why I get so much spam offering me help with my
(non-existent) cesspit. But it's all part of life's rich tapestry. Must
sign off now. Apparently an uncle I never knew in Nigeria has died and
left me a fortune. All I have to do is send a complete stranger in another
country my bank account details.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:08:32 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"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


Thanks, you get a preview, anyhow.

Here is an example of my polar frequency plot (Nick's Linn)
http://www.wareing.dircon.co.uk/imag...1-polar_fm.jpg
It is just over two revolutions ( anticlockwise) You can see the bulk
of the errors repeating, indicating something is off-centre (offset
"circle") and also there are imperfections in the drum or record
(bumps in "circle"). The frequency is radial, 302 Hz centre to 305 Hz
ouside circle. The angle represents the rotation of the turntable.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:08:32 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"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


Thanks, you get a preview, anyhow.

Here is an example of my polar frequency plot (Nick's Linn)
http://www.wareing.dircon.co.uk/imag...1-polar_fm.jpg
It is just over two revolutions ( anticlockwise) You can see the bulk
of the errors repeating, indicating something is off-centre (offset
"circle") and also there are imperfections in the drum or record
(bumps in "circle"). The frequency is radial, 302 Hz centre to 305 Hz
ouside circle. The angle represents the rotation of the turntable.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:08:32 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:


"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


Thanks, you get a preview, anyhow.

Here is an example of my polar frequency plot (Nick's Linn)
http://www.wareing.dircon.co.uk/imag...1-polar_fm.jpg
It is just over two revolutions ( anticlockwise) You can see the bulk
of the errors repeating, indicating something is off-centre (offset
"circle") and also there are imperfections in the drum or record
(bumps in "circle"). The frequency is radial, 302 Hz centre to 305 Hz
ouside circle. The angle represents the rotation of the turntable.

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


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?


Ha! Good one! Personally, I can't stand politicians.
John

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


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?


Ha! Good one! Personally, I can't stand politicians.
John

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


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?


Ha! Good one! Personally, I can't stand politicians.
John

"cwvalle" wrote in message
.com
"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?

(1) Cut paper in narrow strips and shim nonuniformly, as required.

(2) Put some tacky poster hanging putty on turntable in vicinity of where
label sits. If pad is made of felt or some material that the putty won't
pull free of, cut a circle of thin plastic to protect it. Then position
record for maximum concentricity with the spindle.

"cwvalle" wrote in message
.com
"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?

(1) Cut paper in narrow strips and shim nonuniformly, as required.

(2) Put some tacky poster hanging putty on turntable in vicinity of where
label sits. If pad is made of felt or some material that the putty won't
pull free of, cut a circle of thin plastic to protect it. Then position
record for maximum concentricity with the spindle.

"cwvalle" wrote in message
.com
"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?

(1) Cut paper in narrow strips and shim nonuniformly, as required.

(2) Put some tacky poster hanging putty on turntable in vicinity of where
label sits. If pad is made of felt or some material that the putty won't
pull free of, cut a circle of thin plastic to protect it. Then position
record for maximum concentricity with the spindle.

"henryf" wrote in message
news
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...lm=12cbb4d6.03
12121140.3ad19048%40posting.google.com]


Please notice the following:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=aX...r15.news .pro
digy.com

From: "Arny Krueger"
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:36:38 EST

It's reasonably easy to take a digital recording of a locked groove and
measure the number of milliseconds between the pulses that are generated
when at the point where the stylus enters the locked groove. You get one
pulse per revolution as long as the record spins and the stylus is in the
groove.

Ideally, at 33.33 rpm, there will be one pulse every 1800.00 milliseconds.

"henryf" wrote in message
news
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...lm=12cbb4d6.03
12121140.3ad19048%40posting.google.com]


Please notice the following:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=aX...r15.news .pro
digy.com

From: "Arny Krueger"
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:36:38 EST

It's reasonably easy to take a digital recording of a locked groove and
measure the number of milliseconds between the pulses that are generated
when at the point where the stylus enters the locked groove. You get one
pulse per revolution as long as the record spins and the stylus is in the
groove.

Ideally, at 33.33 rpm, there will be one pulse every 1800.00 milliseconds.

"henryf" wrote in message
news
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...lm=12cbb4d6.03
12121140.3ad19048%40posting.google.com]


Please notice the following:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=aX...r15.news .pro
digy.com

From: "Arny Krueger"
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:36:38 EST

It's reasonably easy to take a digital recording of a locked groove and
measure the number of milliseconds between the pulses that are generated
when at the point where the stylus enters the locked groove. You get one
pulse per revolution as long as the record spins and the stylus is in the
groove.

Ideally, at 33.33 rpm, there will be one pulse every 1800.00 milliseconds.

"dave weil" wrote in message

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).

Such as what happens if you place a straight edge across a record, bisecting
the spindle hole, and make a scratch along it.

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.

That works.

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.

They don't. Try it on a junk disc.

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

No, it goes across the grooves.

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole, and make
a scratch along it.

Or just measure the time between "thunks" on the locked portion of the
leadout groove. The more thunks you measure, the more accuracy you will
obtain.


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 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).

Such as what happens if you place a straight edge across a record, bisecting
the spindle hole, and make a scratch along it.

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.

That works.

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.

They don't. Try it on a junk disc.

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

No, it goes across the grooves.

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole, and make
a scratch along it.

Or just measure the time between "thunks" on the locked portion of the
leadout groove. The more thunks you measure, the more accuracy you will
obtain.


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 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).

Such as what happens if you place a straight edge across a record, bisecting
the spindle hole, and make a scratch along it.

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.

That works.

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.

They don't. Try it on a junk disc.

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

No, it goes across the grooves.

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole, and make
a scratch along it.

Or just measure the time between "thunks" on the locked portion of the
leadout groove. The more thunks you measure, the more accuracy you will
obtain.


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 19:20:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole, and make
a scratch along it.

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:20:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole, and make
a scratch along it.

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:20:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole, and make
a scratch along it.

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see
why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is
constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time
between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

Linear velocity changes. Angular velocity remains contant.

Pretend we have two tonearms. One on the innermost groove and
one on the outermost groove.

Visualize when the scratch hits the two tone arms....it hits both
at the same time on every revolution.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see
why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is
constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time
between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

Linear velocity changes. Angular velocity remains contant.

Pretend we have two tonearms. One on the innermost groove and
one on the outermost groove.

Visualize when the scratch hits the two tone arms....it hits both
at the same time on every revolution.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see
why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is
constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time
between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

Linear velocity changes. Angular velocity remains contant.

Pretend we have two tonearms. One on the innermost groove and
one on the outermost groove.

Visualize when the scratch hits the two tone arms....it hits both
at the same time on every revolution.

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:30:56 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

What *is* your problem?

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:30:56 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

What *is* your problem?

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:30:56 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

What *is* your problem?

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:20:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole,
and make a scratch along it.

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

If this still gives you a lot of concerns, just use the lead-out groove of a
record. It's always the the same length, and always rotating at the speed fo
the turntable.

You can measure as many repetitions of it as you want, laid end-to-end in a
digital recording.

Plus, you can have as many test samples as you have LPs, without damaging
the music part of any record. The thunks are fatter than a tic, but they
generally have some very distinctive parts that you can synch up on.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:20:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole,
and make a scratch along it.

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

If this still gives you a lot of concerns, just use the lead-out groove of a
record. It's always the the same length, and always rotating at the speed fo
the turntable.

You can measure as many repetitions of it as you want, laid end-to-end in a
digital recording.

Plus, you can have as many test samples as you have LPs, without damaging
the music part of any record. The thunks are fatter than a tic, but they
generally have some very distinctive parts that you can synch up on.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:20:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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?

Place a straight edge across a record, bisecting the spindle hole,
and make a scratch along it.

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?

If this still gives you a lot of concerns, just use the lead-out groove of a
record. It's always the the same length, and always rotating at the speed fo
the turntable.

You can measure as many repetitions of it as you want, laid end-to-end in a
digital recording.

Plus, you can have as many test samples as you have LPs, without damaging
the music part of any record. The thunks are fatter than a tic, but they
generally have some very distinctive parts that you can synch up on.

"Lionel" wrote in message

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

I can't see giving Middius aversion therapy one of the very few times he
made a serious, factual post.

"Lionel" wrote in message

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

I can't see giving Middius aversion therapy one of the very few times he
made a serious, factual post.

"Lionel" wrote in message

George M. Middius a écrit :



Don't know the technical terminology, but what it amounts to is the
speed of rotation is higher the farther you are from the center point
of rotation. This part is intuitive: Imagine a 6" disc sitting on top
of the 12" LP. Both rotate at the same speed, right? But you know the
distance traveled by a point on the edge of each one has to be
different because their circumferences are different. The velocity of
a point on a circle closer to the center has to be less than a point
farther from the center.


Hey asshole, you should ask to a worker in a mechanic plant he would
explain that better than you with the exact technical terminology. :-)

I can't see giving Middius aversion therapy one of the very few times he
made a serious, factual post.

"John Atkinson" wrote

Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

Actually no. The HT magazines in general are not
maintaining readership as well as Stsreophile.
S&V, foe xample, recently dropped its ratebase by
a significant amount.

Has the age demographic profile for subscribers
changed over the last ten years... different from
what I posted for 1994?

"John Atkinson" wrote

Based on the current demographics of the
age groups I suspect that HT magazines are
attracting the larger portion (30 - 49 years) of new
subscribers over Stereophile.

Actually no. The HT magazines in general are not
maintaining readership as well as Stsreophile.
S&V, foe xample, recently dropped its ratebase by
a significant amount.

Has the age demographic profile for subscribers
changed over the last ten years... different from
what I posted for 1994?