"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?

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:59:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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.

I wasn't really concerned about it, nor did I want to test the speed
of my turntable. I was just wondering about your statements about the
speed of one revolution, as it didn't seem to be correct that the time
between clicks would be constant on a disk.

However, I'm not surprised about much. I remember once when I was
younger, I checked out a Vanguard recording of Tibetian monks chanting
(during my John Cage phase). Some friends of mine and I were listening
to it and one of us thought that it would be funny to listen at 78
rpm, thinking that they might sound like chipmunks. Keep in mind that
this was pretty much random chanting with no musical content. We were
all completely flabbergasted to find that the chanting sounded
virtually the same. There was no real perceptual "speedup" of the
chanting and the pitch of the voices sounded almost the same as well.
We tried at 45 rpm and it was the same.

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.

I've found a disk that I'm going to try out. I just have to find a
stopwatch or something to measure the difference between the beginning
and end of the record.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:59:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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.

I wasn't really concerned about it, nor did I want to test the speed
of my turntable. I was just wondering about your statements about the
speed of one revolution, as it didn't seem to be correct that the time
between clicks would be constant on a disk.

However, I'm not surprised about much. I remember once when I was
younger, I checked out a Vanguard recording of Tibetian monks chanting
(during my John Cage phase). Some friends of mine and I were listening
to it and one of us thought that it would be funny to listen at 78
rpm, thinking that they might sound like chipmunks. Keep in mind that
this was pretty much random chanting with no musical content. We were
all completely flabbergasted to find that the chanting sounded
virtually the same. There was no real perceptual "speedup" of the
chanting and the pitch of the voices sounded almost the same as well.
We tried at 45 rpm and it was the same.

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.

I've found a disk that I'm going to try out. I just have to find a
stopwatch or something to measure the difference between the beginning
and end of the record.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:59:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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.

I wasn't really concerned about it, nor did I want to test the speed
of my turntable. I was just wondering about your statements about the
speed of one revolution, as it didn't seem to be correct that the time
between clicks would be constant on a disk.

However, I'm not surprised about much. I remember once when I was
younger, I checked out a Vanguard recording of Tibetian monks chanting
(during my John Cage phase). Some friends of mine and I were listening
to it and one of us thought that it would be funny to listen at 78
rpm, thinking that they might sound like chipmunks. Keep in mind that
this was pretty much random chanting with no musical content. We were
all completely flabbergasted to find that the chanting sounded
virtually the same. There was no real perceptual "speedup" of the
chanting and the pitch of the voices sounded almost the same as well.
We tried at 45 rpm and it was the same.

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.

I've found a disk that I'm going to try out. I just have to find a
stopwatch or something to measure the difference between the beginning
and end of the record.

"Powell" wrote in message

"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.

No comment about any changes in the SP rate base.

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

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing some for drop-off due
to increased mortality with age.

"Powell" wrote in message

"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.

No comment about any changes in the SP rate base.

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

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing some for drop-off due
to increased mortality with age.

"Powell" wrote in message

"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.

No comment about any changes in the SP rate base.

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

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing some for drop-off due
to increased mortality with age.

dave weil a écrit :
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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

dave weil a écrit :
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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

dave weil a écrit :
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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote

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

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing
some for drop-off due to increased mortality with age.

What’s unknown is the source of new (by age)
subscribers given an average 4.8 year subscription
turnover. If baby boomers still are the largest source
of new business then what you infer maybe true.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

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

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing
some for drop-off due to increased mortality with age.

What’s unknown is the source of new (by age)
subscribers given an average 4.8 year subscription
turnover. If baby boomers still are the largest source
of new business then what you infer maybe true.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

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

It's 9-10 years later, right? Add 8-9 years, allowing
some for drop-off due to increased mortality with age.

What’s unknown is the source of new (by age)
subscribers given an average 4.8 year subscription
turnover. If baby boomers still are the largest source
of new business then what you infer maybe true.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

Wrong. You obviously do.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

Wrong. You obviously do.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

Wrong. You obviously do.

dave weil a écrit :
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil a écrit :


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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


Wrong. You obviously do.

Do you know the difference between a gay and an homosexual ?

dave weil a écrit :
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil a écrit :


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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


Wrong. You obviously do.

Do you know the difference between a gay and an homosexual ?

dave weil a écrit :
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil a écrit :


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?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)


I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


Wrong. You obviously do.

Do you know the difference between a gay and an homosexual ?

Lionel said:

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 thought his explanation was very clear.
As was mr. Boudreaux's, almost visible :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Lionel said:

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 thought his explanation was very clear.
As was mr. Boudreaux's, almost visible :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Lionel said:

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 thought his explanation was very clear.
As was mr. Boudreaux's, almost visible :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

(John Atkinson) said:

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.

Well well mr. Atkinson, I'm no *complete* stranger to you, hm? :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

(John Atkinson) said:

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.

Well well mr. Atkinson, I'm no *complete* stranger to you, hm? :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

(John Atkinson) said:

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.

Well well mr. Atkinson, I'm no *complete* stranger to you, hm? :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

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. :-)

Well, anyone would explain it better than Gorge. Most of us would
simply refer to the inner grooves of the same 12" LP..............

Even Trots should explain it better, since he's a fan of laserdiscs,
which you could get in both CAV and CLV forms.

What *is* your problem?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

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. :-)

Well, anyone would explain it better than Gorge. Most of us would
simply refer to the inner grooves of the same 12" LP..............

Even Trots should explain it better, since he's a fan of laserdiscs,
which you could get in both CAV and CLV forms.

What *is* your problem?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:39:43 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

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. :-)

Well, anyone would explain it better than Gorge. Most of us would
simply refer to the inner grooves of the same 12" LP..............

Even Trots should explain it better, since he's a fan of laserdiscs,
which you could get in both CAV and CLV forms.

What *is* your problem?

Your *gay* 50% ! ;-)

I'm sorry that you have problems with gay people. I don't.

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)

But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 08:37:17 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:59:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m

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.

I wasn't really concerned about it, nor did I want to test the speed
of my turntable. I was just wondering about your statements about the
speed of one revolution, as it didn't seem to be correct that the time
between clicks would be constant on a disk.

It is constant on an LP, and it doesn't happen on CDs. LP's play at
33.333 rpm, hence it doesn't matter *where* on the disc the scratch
is, the clicks will occur at precise 1.8 second intervals. Unless of
course you have a Linn Sondek, which was speeded up so that it sounded
more 'dynamic' than more accurate decks.

However, I'm not surprised about much. I remember once when I was
younger, I checked out a Vanguard recording of Tibetian monks chanting
(during my John Cage phase). Some friends of mine and I were listening
to it and one of us thought that it would be funny to listen at 78
rpm, thinking that they might sound like chipmunks. Keep in mind that
this was pretty much random chanting with no musical content. We were
all completely flabbergasted to find that the chanting sounded
virtually the same. There was no real perceptual "speedup" of the
chanting and the pitch of the voices sounded almost the same as well.
We tried at 45 rpm and it was the same.

Perhaps you needed a better deck? :-)

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.

I've found a disk that I'm going to try out. I just have to find a
stopwatch or something to measure the difference between the beginning
and end of the record.

On an LP, of course there *is* no difference. Why would there be? On a
CD, which has constant linear velocity (CLV) the speed difference is
easily determined simply by measuring the radius. OTOH, getting
'clicks' out of a CD is going to be a rather tricckier exercise......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 08:37:17 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:59:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m

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.

I wasn't really concerned about it, nor did I want to test the speed
of my turntable. I was just wondering about your statements about the
speed of one revolution, as it didn't seem to be correct that the time
between clicks would be constant on a disk.

It is constant on an LP, and it doesn't happen on CDs. LP's play at
33.333 rpm, hence it doesn't matter *where* on the disc the scratch
is, the clicks will occur at precise 1.8 second intervals. Unless of
course you have a Linn Sondek, which was speeded up so that it sounded
more 'dynamic' than more accurate decks.

However, I'm not surprised about much. I remember once when I was
younger, I checked out a Vanguard recording of Tibetian monks chanting
(during my John Cage phase). Some friends of mine and I were listening
to it and one of us thought that it would be funny to listen at 78
rpm, thinking that they might sound like chipmunks. Keep in mind that
this was pretty much random chanting with no musical content. We were
all completely flabbergasted to find that the chanting sounded
virtually the same. There was no real perceptual "speedup" of the
chanting and the pitch of the voices sounded almost the same as well.
We tried at 45 rpm and it was the same.

Perhaps you needed a better deck? :-)

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.

I've found a disk that I'm going to try out. I just have to find a
stopwatch or something to measure the difference between the beginning
and end of the record.

On an LP, of course there *is* no difference. Why would there be? On a
CD, which has constant linear velocity (CLV) the speed difference is
easily determined simply by measuring the radius. OTOH, getting
'clicks' out of a CD is going to be a rather tricckier exercise......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 08:37:17 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:59:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m

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.

I wasn't really concerned about it, nor did I want to test the speed
of my turntable. I was just wondering about your statements about the
speed of one revolution, as it didn't seem to be correct that the time
between clicks would be constant on a disk.

It is constant on an LP, and it doesn't happen on CDs. LP's play at
33.333 rpm, hence it doesn't matter *where* on the disc the scratch
is, the clicks will occur at precise 1.8 second intervals. Unless of
course you have a Linn Sondek, which was speeded up so that it sounded
more 'dynamic' than more accurate decks.

However, I'm not surprised about much. I remember once when I was
younger, I checked out a Vanguard recording of Tibetian monks chanting
(during my John Cage phase). Some friends of mine and I were listening
to it and one of us thought that it would be funny to listen at 78
rpm, thinking that they might sound like chipmunks. Keep in mind that
this was pretty much random chanting with no musical content. We were
all completely flabbergasted to find that the chanting sounded
virtually the same. There was no real perceptual "speedup" of the
chanting and the pitch of the voices sounded almost the same as well.
We tried at 45 rpm and it was the same.

Perhaps you needed a better deck? :-)

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.

I've found a disk that I'm going to try out. I just have to find a
stopwatch or something to measure the difference between the beginning
and end of the record.

On an LP, of course there *is* no difference. Why would there be? On a
CD, which has constant linear velocity (CLV) the speed difference is
easily determined simply by measuring the radius. OTOH, getting
'clicks' out of a CD is going to be a rather tricckier exercise......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)