"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:

You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than
the
table under test.

True. However the measurements I just mentioned show a peak to peak
speed variation of 1.2 Hz in 303.8 =0.004 This mainly at the
rotational frequency and could be accouted for by the LP off-centre 2
thou/ inch of radius say 10 thou at radius of 5 inches. The rest of
the w/f above the second harmonic of this are down in the region of
1/10th to 1/100th of this, say +/- 0.0002. This test record is not
that bad. . .


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.
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.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.

In the example I showed (300_1-fmfft.jpg) there is very little FM to
be seen at the tone arm resonant frequency of around 10 Hz

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be
measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate
them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere


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

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com...

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:

You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than
the
table under test.

True. However the measurements I just mentioned show a peak to peak
speed variation of 1.2 Hz in 303.8 =0.004 This mainly at the
rotational frequency and could be accouted for by the LP off-centre 2
thou/ inch of radius say 10 thou at radius of 5 inches. The rest of
the w/f above the second harmonic of this are down in the region of
1/10th to 1/100th of this, say +/- 0.0002. This test record is not
that bad. . .


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.
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.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.

In the example I showed (300_1-fmfft.jpg) there is very little FM to
be seen at the tone arm resonant frequency of around 10 Hz

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be
measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to
compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate
them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere


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

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is




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?

Carl

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com...

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:

You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than
the
table under test.

True. However the measurements I just mentioned show a peak to peak
speed variation of 1.2 Hz in 303.8 =0.004 This mainly at the
rotational frequency and could be accouted for by the LP off-centre 2
thou/ inch of radius say 10 thou at radius of 5 inches. The rest of
the w/f above the second harmonic of this are down in the region of
1/10th to 1/100th of this, say +/- 0.0002. This test record is not
that bad. . .


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.
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.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.

In the example I showed (300_1-fmfft.jpg) there is very little FM to
be seen at the tone arm resonant frequency of around 10 Hz

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be
measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to
compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate
them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere


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

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is




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?

Carl

"cwvalle" wrote in message
y.com...

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:

You can't tell rotational accuracy if the test record has more w/f than
the
table under test.

True. However the measurements I just mentioned show a peak to peak
speed variation of 1.2 Hz in 303.8 =0.004 This mainly at the
rotational frequency and could be accouted for by the LP off-centre 2
thou/ inch of radius say 10 thou at radius of 5 inches. The rest of
the w/f above the second harmonic of this are down in the region of
1/10th to 1/100th of this, say +/- 0.0002. This test record is not
that bad. . .


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.
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.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The effects of the
tone arm, and cartridge however cannot be determined this way.

In the example I showed (300_1-fmfft.jpg) there is very little FM to
be seen at the tone arm resonant frequency of around 10 Hz

The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be
measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to
compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate
them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere


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

There is no way I chicken out. Not now not ever
Specify your email and you will get a tone

my email is




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?

Carl

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

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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 .

"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 .

"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 .

"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.

"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.

"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.

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:
The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere

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.

I still have Carl's WAV file, David. E-mail me an address where I can
send it to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:
The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere

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.

I still have Carl's WAV file, David. E-mail me an address where I can
send it to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "cwvalle"
wrote:
The crux of the problem is that turntable performance can only be measured
in a partial way. Even if the exact same test record were used to compare
tables, the combination of effects could mask defects, or exaggerate them.
The net result however is as you say, a lot better than a kick anywhere

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.

I still have Carl's WAV file, David. E-mail me an address where I can
send it to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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

"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

"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

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

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

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

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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

"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

"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