Why are the hits frequently the last (most distorted) track on the side??

[Doc]

I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit
single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of
course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the
inner tracks? At least this is my observation.

[Sasquatch]

> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
> Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit
> single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of
> course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the
> inner tracks? At least this is my observation.

I believe the reason they did this was not a decision made by the engineers
nor any of the guys whose primary concern was the sound quality but rather
an artistic and marketing decision. First, let's put the hit at the end of
the side so that people will be more likely to listen to the tunes leading
in. Second, let's arrange this album like a concert so that our best tunes
are the last tunes. Let's build this thing up to a climatic end. Besides,
popular music has never been to concerned with the audiophile community. The
recording and mastering processes have proven this time and again.

Sasquatch


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004

[Arny Krueger]

Doc wrote:
> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
> Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit
> single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of
> course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the
> inner tracks? At least this is my observation.

No doubt one reason the industry was so happy to go digital - the technology
puts fewer constraints on art and merchandising.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> > I just got an LP of the classic 70's album... they
> > put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of
> > side one. ... Surely the record companies knew
> > this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
> > hits on the inner tracks?
> >
> No doubt one reason the industry was so happy to
> go digital - the technology puts fewer constraints on
> art and merchandising.
>
Quack, quack, quack....

[Powell]

"Doc" wrote

> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
> the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
> the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
> track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
> have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
> hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
>
Exactly how would a record company know what
tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
"hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic
or what? How come some albums don't have any
hits... didn't they know that, too?

[Arny Krueger]

Powell wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album... they
>>> put the hit single "Get It On" on the last track of
>>> side one. ... Surely the record companies knew
>>> this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
>>> hits on the inner tracks?
>>>
>> No doubt one reason the industry was so happy to
>> go digital - the technology puts fewer constraints on
>> art and merchandising.
>>
> Quack, quack, quack....

If it sounds like a duck it must be a duck. Powell appears to be the only
duck posting on Usenet. Quite an accomplishment, I'd say!

[Arny Krueger]

Powell wrote:
> "Doc" wrote
>
>> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
>> the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
>> the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
>> track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
>> have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
>> hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
>>
> Exactly how would a record company know what
> tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
> "hits"?

That is one reason why they pay record company execuitives the big bucks.

>Do you think record producers are psychic or what?

No, but they often have an *ear* for hits.

>How come some albums don't have any hits... didn't they know that, too?

Stuff gets released against some people's better judgment. Also, most humans
are fallible.

[R. Totale]

On Thu, 6 May 2004 08:28:13 -0400, "Powell" >
wrote:

>
>"Doc" wrote
>
>> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
>> the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
>> the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
>> track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
>> have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
>> hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
>>
>Exactly how would a record company know what
>tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
>"hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic
>or what? How come some albums don't have any
>hits... didn't they know that, too?

In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two
before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also
made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record
on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer
tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost
tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables
which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up.

[Arny Krueger]

R. Totale wrote:


> They also
> made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record
> on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer
> tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost
> tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables
> which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up.

You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high frequencies
and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is well-understood, and
absolutely inherent in the technology. There are several AES papers by Ben
Bauer (one of the all-time experts in LP technology from CBS labs) that
describe this problem and its ramifications in great detail.

Basically, the inner grooves of an LP travel past the stylus at a far lower
linear speed - something like half. Your 33 1/3 rpm LP becomes more like a
16 rpm LP.

The diameter of the stylus effectively doubles so it can't track high
frequency undulations nearly as well.

I'm sure you've been told that there are magic turntables that can overcome
this inherent problem. Anybody who tells you that is either ignorant of the
basics of LP technology or a liar.

Do the math.

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Doc)
>Date: 5/5/2004 6:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
>Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit
>single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of
>course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the
>inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
>
>

Maybe it is a case of noticing the problem when it is a problem and not
noticing it when it isn't.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/6/2004 4:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Doc wrote:
>> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
>> Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit
>> single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of
>> course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the
>> inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
>
>No doubt one reason the industry was so happy to go digital - the technology
>puts fewer constraints on art and merchandising.
>

"The industry" being? Certainly the record companies were happy. It meant
reselling their catalog at increased prices with lower costs. The opinions
amoung the artists seemed to have been quite mixed. No doubt though, CDs
offered greater flexibility with song order and length for new titles. I think
the art work for the packaging suffered.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Powell"
>Date: 5/6/2004 5:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Doc" wrote
>
>> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
>> the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
>> the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
>> track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
>> have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
>> hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
>>
>Exactly how would a record company know what
>tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
>"hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic
>or what? How come some albums don't have any
>hits... didn't they know that, too?
>

They don't know but they do anticipate what will and will not hit. It is not
like every track is released as a single. Thought does go into the question of
what will and will not hit.

[S888Wheel]

>From: R. Totale
>Date: 5/6/2004 5:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Thu, 6 May 2004 08:28:13 -0400, "Powell" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Doc" wrote
>>
>>> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
>>> the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
>>> the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
>>> track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
>>> have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>>> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
>>> hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
>>>
>>Exactly how would a record company know what
>>tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
>>"hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic
>>or what? How come some albums don't have any
>>hits... didn't they know that, too?
>
>In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two
>before the full album came out, and knew they were hits.

That is true. In fact in many cases albums were only afterthoughts and the
singles were the real focus of the record companies.

They also
>made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record
>on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer
>tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost
>tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables
>which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up.
>

This is completely wrong. It isn't a question of turntables operating correctly
or incorrectly. It is all matters of degree. The fact is turntable technology
had been improving over the years. The best turntables in the world were
designed and built well after the early days of LPs. Inner groove distortion
has never been eliminated. It's effects can be greatly reduced with a well
designed inear tracking pickup arm but the only solution to inner groove
distortion is to not cut the records so close to the label. A number of
audiophile ressue companies have been doing this. By the way, some of the
better tables are harder to set up while some are not.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:

> The fact is turntable technology had been improving over the years.

Which begs the question when the practical benefits of turntable/arm
technological improvements leveled off.

> The best turntables in the world were designed and built well after the
early days of LPs.

That would be some time since June, 1948...

could you narrow that down a bit?

;-)

IMO, the last significant technological improvement in the LP was DMM.
Other enhancements like higher-weight pressings just reversed craven
cheapening of the product in the past.

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...
>I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
>Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit
>single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of
>course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the
>inner tracks? At least this is my observation.

Record companies can't always tell which songs are gong to be hits and
which are going to be duds.
--------------
Alex

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/6/2004 8:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> The fact is turntable technology had been improving over the years.
>
>Which begs the question when the practical benefits of turntable/arm
>technological improvements leveled off.

It makes for an interesting question. I cannot speak for the latest crop of
attacks on the state of the art but I can say that noticible improvements in
sound quality were wrought in designs at up until the Forsell Air Reference. I
stopped comparing after that table. That table with the flywheel came out in
the early nineties.


>
>> The best turntables in the world were designed and built well after the
>early days of LPs.
>
>That would be some time since June, 1948...


>
>could you narrow that down a bit?
>
>;-)

I could broaden it a bit. I was thinking early fifties to mid sixties given the
discussions of song orders chosen for LPs.


>
>IMO, the last significant technological improvement in the LP was DMM.
>Other enhancements like higher-weight pressings just reversed craven
>cheapening of the product in the past.
>


IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there is evidence
via the product it produces that the current cutting lathe at RTI is superior
to any lathe preceding it. That would make for a fairly recent improvement in
the state of the art in production.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high frequencies
> and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is well-understood

You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion is
what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking
error is what the previous poster was referring to. Before you go
deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want
to listen to what the other person is saying.

Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner
grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better
designed ones.

See ya
Steve

--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:

>
> IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there
> is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting
> lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make
> for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in production.

The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio cutting
computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them, and at least
one has already come up on the used equipment market. Cutting computers
primarily increase the amount of audio you can get on a side. Sound quality
benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight
zone.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>
>> IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there
>> is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting
>> lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make
>> for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in production.
>
>The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio cutting
>computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them, and at least
>one has already come up on the used equipment market. Cutting computers
>primarily increase the amount of audio you can get on a side. Sound quality
>benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight
>zone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There is this.



Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system possible. Any
desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal processing, not the
system itself. In order to fulfill this goal, most of the analog electronics
were built from scratch. Our system features custom transformerless, discrete,
pure Class-A electronics from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to
retain all of the warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master.

[Arny Krueger]

Stephen Worth wrote:

> In article >, Arny Krueger
> > wrote:

>> You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high
>> frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is
>> well-understood

> You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion is
> what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking
> error is what the previous poster was referring to.

The OP said:

"In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two
before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also
made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record
on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer
tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost
tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables
which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up."

It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion and
inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's deceptive
of you to claim he was talking about only one of these well-known problems.
Both are inherent in the basic technology. You tried to cover up the
evidence that indicts your false claims by eliminating the OP text.

It turns out that both the distortion and the wear are due to the wavelength
effects of decreasing radius, among other things. Specifically, inner-groove
wear increases because the stylus has effectively become larger, compared to
the wavelengths of the undulations in the grooves. Among other things, the
larger stylus is more prone to "pinch effect".

http://smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm

"A tip of finite radius will vary its depth of penetration according to the
waveform, hence the changing diameter for an exact fit seen in the diagram;
the resulting vertical motion of the stylus, known as pinch effect,
produces."

Furthermore Stephen, your post obfuscates the fact that these effects are
inherent in the geometry of existing LPs, which was the point of my post.
You tried to divide and conqueror by making a false distinction.

We can't fix these geometric effects in most LPs by changing the turntable
because legacy LPs are what they are. Note that S888wheel sensibly points
out that newer LPs can be cut with a larger inner diameter, reducing these
geometric effects to some degree.

> Before you go
> deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want
> to listen to what the other person is saying.

Stephen, given what you deleted because it undermined your false claims,
what I said that you twisted, and what you ignored.... Your post has the
classic appearance of a Morien-style hatchet-job, complete with elimination
of relevant OP text that disembowels your false claims.

> Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner
> grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better
> designed ones.

Please note that methodologies for designing and building tone arms with
minimal inner groove tracking error have been well-known for at least 40
years. Furthermore, it costs little or nothing more to build a tone arm with
proper geometry, once even mid-fi price levels are reached. If you think
that straight-line tracking is required, consider what the prices of
straight line tracking tone arms were in the days when vinyl was king.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there
>>> is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting
>>> lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make
>>> for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in
>>> production.
>>
>> The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio
>> cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them,
>> and at least one has already come up on the used equipment market.
>> Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio you can get
>> on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site
>> seems to be in the twilight zone.

> There is this.

> Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system
> possible. Any desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal
> processing, not the system itself. In order to fulfill this goal,
> most of the analog electronics were built from scratch. Our system
> features custom transformerless, discrete, pure Class-A electronics
> from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to retain all of the
> warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master.

That sort of thing is hardly an innovation. It is a means, not an end in
itself.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/6/2004 1:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Stephen Worth wrote:
>
>> In article >, Arny Krueger
>> > wrote:
>
>>> You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high
>>> frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is
>>> well-understood
>
>> You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion is
>> what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking
>> error is what the previous poster was referring to.
>
>The OP said:
>
>"In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two
>before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also
>made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a record
>on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than the outer
>tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on the innermost
>tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now, turntables
>which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set up."
>
>It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion and
>inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's deceptive
>of you to claim he was talking about only one of these well-known problems.
>Both are inherent in the basic technology. You tried to cover up the
>evidence that indicts your false claims by eliminating the OP text.
>
>It turns out that both the distortion and the wear are due to the wavelength
>effects of decreasing radius, among other things. Specifically, inner-groove
>wear increases because the stylus has effectively become larger, compared to
>the wavelengths of the undulations in the grooves. Among other things, the
>larger stylus is more prone to "pinch effect".
>
>http://smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm
>
>"A tip of finite radius will vary its depth of penetration according to the
>waveform, hence the changing diameter for an exact fit seen in the diagram;
>the resulting vertical motion of the stylus, known as pinch effect,
>produces."
>
>Furthermore Stephen, your post obfuscates the fact that these effects are
>inherent in the geometry of existing LPs, which was the point of my post.
>You tried to divide and conqueror by making a false distinction.
>
>We can't fix these geometric effects in most LPs by changing the turntable
>because legacy LPs are what they are. Note that S888wheel sensibly points
>out that newer LPs can be cut with a larger inner diameter, reducing these
>geometric effects to some degree.

To a pretty large degree.


>
>> Before you go
>> deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want
>> to listen to what the other person is saying.
>
>Stephen, given what you deleted because it undermined your false claims,
>what I said that you twisted, and what you ignored.... Your post has the
>classic appearance of a Morien-style hatchet-job, complete with elimination
>of relevant OP text that disembowels your false claims.
>
>> Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner
>> grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better
>> designed ones.
>
>Please note that methodologies for designing and building tone arms with
>minimal inner groove tracking error have been well-known for at least 40
>years. Furthermore, it costs little or nothing more to build a tone arm with
>proper geometry, once even mid-fi price levels are reached. If you think
>that straight-line tracking is required, consider what the prices of
>straight line tracking tone arms were in the days when vinyl was king.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I was not aware of any mid-fi price leveled linear tracking arms that were
actually good though. Linear tracking arms have their own baggage. What
inexpensive (mid fi priced) linear tracking arms are out there that aren't
dogs? Do you know of any?

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/6/2004 2:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think there
>>>> is evidence via the product it produces that the current cutting
>>>> lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That would make
>>>> for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the art in
>>>> production.
>>>
>>> The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio
>>> cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have them,
>>> and at least one has already come up on the used equipment market.
>>> Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio you can get
>>> on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary. Zumaudio's web site
>>> seems to be in the twilight zone.
>
>> There is this.
>
>> Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system
>> possible. Any desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal
>> processing, not the system itself. In order to fulfill this goal,
>> most of the analog electronics were built from scratch. Our system
>> features custom transformerless, discrete, pure Class-A electronics
>> from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to retain all of the
>> warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master.
>
>That sort of thing is hardly an innovation. It is a means, not an end in
>itself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I suppose so but if it makes the best product that would make it SOTA. I might
add that it seems Steve Hoffman does throw in some tube amplification into the
chain to color the sound when he is involved in the mastering. The folks at
King Super Analog also do a terrific job of mastering records. Some times the
best technologies aren't all that new. Sometimes SOTA comes through refinements
of existing technologies. It could be that no inovations have impacted the SOTA
in LP mastering for quite some time.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 5/6/2004 1:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> Stephen Worth wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Arny Krueger
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> You really need to read up on vinyl technology. Loss of high
>>>> frequencies and dynamic range on the inner grooves of a LP is
>>>> well-understood
>>
>>> You are talking about two different things. Inner groove distortion
>>> is what you are talking about. Inner groove wear caused by tracking
>>> error is what the previous poster was referring to.
>>
>> The OP said:
>>
>> "In the olden days, they sometimes used to release a single or two
>> before the full album came out, and knew they were hits. They also
>> made turntables which operated correctly, and when you played a
>> record on one of those the inner tracks had no more distortion than
>> the outer tracks, and repeated plays did not spoil the grooves on
>> the innermost tracks. They still make them today. But, then and now,
>> turntables which work correctly are more expensive and harder to set
>> up."
>>
>> It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion
>> and inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's
>> deceptive of you to claim he was talking about only one of these
>> well-known problems. Both are inherent in the basic technology. You
>> tried to cover up the evidence that indicts your false claims by
>> eliminating the OP text.
>>
>> It turns out that both the distortion and the wear are due to the
>> wavelength effects of decreasing radius, among other things.
>> Specifically, inner-groove wear increases because the stylus has
>> effectively become larger, compared to the wavelengths of the
>> undulations in the grooves. Among other things, the larger stylus is
>> more prone to "pinch effect".
>>
>> http://smartdev.com/LT/Align.htm
>>
>> "A tip of finite radius will vary its depth of penetration according
>> to the waveform, hence the changing diameter for an exact fit seen
>> in the diagram; the resulting vertical motion of the stylus, known
>> as pinch effect, produces."
>>
>> Furthermore Stephen, your post obfuscates the fact that these
>> effects are inherent in the geometry of existing LPs, which was the
>> point of my post. You tried to divide and conqueror by making a
>> false distinction.
>>
>> We can't fix these geometric effects in most LPs by changing the
>> turntable because legacy LPs are what they are. Note that S888wheel
>> sensibly points out that newer LPs can be cut with a larger inner
>> diameter, reducing these geometric effects to some degree.
>
> To a pretty large degree.
>
>
>>
>>> Before you go
>>> deciding that someone must be ignorant or a liar, you might want
>>> to listen to what the other person is saying.
>>
>> Stephen, given what you deleted because it undermined your false
>> claims, what I said that you twisted, and what you ignored.... Your
>> post has the classic appearance of a Morien-style hatchet-job,
>> complete with elimination of relevant OP text that disembowels your
>> false claims.
>>
>>> Many cheap turntables caused a great deal of damage to inner
>>> grooves because they didn't track as well at that angle as better
>>> designed ones.

>> Please note that methodologies for designing and building tone arms
>> with minimal inner groove tracking error have been well-known for at
>> least 40 years. Furthermore, it costs little or nothing more to
>> build a tone arm with proper geometry, once even mid-fi price levels
>> are reached. If you think that straight-line tracking is required,
>> consider what the prices of straight line tracking tone arms were in
>> the days when vinyl was king.

> I was not aware of any mid-fi price leveled linear tracking arms that
> were actually good though. Linear tracking arms have their own
> baggage. What inexpensive (mid fi priced) linear tracking arms are
> out there that aren't dogs? Do you know of any?

Nothing new!

Perfectionists like to turn their noses up at the clutch of mid-fi
linear-tracking arms, many integrated with turntables, that came out in the
late 70s and early 80s. OTOH, many people have reported that they were
happy with them. They clearly addressed the geometry problem.

Agreed that tracking arms at a wide variety of price levels often introduce
serious issues of their own.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 5/6/2004 2:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think
>>>>> there is evidence via the product it produces that the current
>>>>> cutting lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That
>>>>> would make for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the
>>>>> art in production.
>>>>
>>>> The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio
>>>> cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have
>>>> them, and at least one has already come up on the used equipment
>>>> market. Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio
>>>> you can get on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary.
>>>> Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight zone.
>>
>>> There is this.
>>
>>> Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system
>>> possible. Any desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal
>>> processing, not the system itself. In order to fulfill this goal,
>>> most of the analog electronics were built from scratch. Our system
>>> features custom transformerless, discrete, pure Class-A electronics
>>> from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to retain all of the
>>> warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master.

>> That sort of thing is hardly an innovation. It is a means, not an
>> end in itself.

> I suppose so but if it makes the best product that would make it
> SOTA.

Different issue.

>I might add that it seems Steve Hoffman does throw in some tube
> amplification into the chain to color the sound when he is involved
> in the mastering.

That would be a step back from SOTA.

> The folks at King Super Analog also do a terrific
> job of mastering records.


> Some times the best technologies aren't all that new.

There is also the issue of best technologies within a given context. This
would be a given context.

> Sometimes SOTA comes through refinements of existing
> technologies.

I look at the words "SOTA" and see that if you refine a technology, you
change waht constitues SOTA. However, at best that constitues a move from
old-SOTA to new-SOTA.

> It could be that no inovations have impacted the SOTA
> in LP mastering for quite some time.

It could be. ;-)

[Doc]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...

> Exactly how would a record company know what
> tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
> "hits"?

It's magic..

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/6/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 5/6/2004 2:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 5/6/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IME the best sounding LPs were not mastered on metal. I think
>>>>>> there is evidence via the product it produces that the current
>>>>>> cutting lathe at RTI is superior to any lathe preceding it. That
>>>>>> would make for a fairly recent improvement in the state of the
>>>>>> art in production.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main new technology at RTI appears to be the "Zuma" Zumaudio
>>>>> cutting computer. Other vinyl mastering labs also seem to have
>>>>> them, and at least one has already come up on the used equipment
>>>>> market. Cutting computers primarily increase the amount of audio
>>>>> you can get on a side. Sound quality benefits are secondary.
>>>>> Zumaudio's web site seems to be in the twilight zone.
>>>
>>>> There is this.
>>>
>>>> Our philosophy is to provide the most transparent audio system
>>>> possible. Any desired coloration, therefore, may be added by signal
>>>> processing, not the system itself. In order to fulfill this goal,
>>>> most of the analog electronics were built from scratch. Our system
>>>> features custom transformerless, discrete, pure Class-A electronics
>>>> from tape head to cutterhead. It was designed to retain all of the
>>>> warmth, punch and detail recorded on your master.
>
>>> That sort of thing is hardly an innovation. It is a means, not an
>>> end in itself.
>
>> I suppose so but if it makes the best product that would make it
>> SOTA.
>
>Different issue.

As the threads wind their way sometimes it is hard to keep track of the issue.
I was under the presumption that we were discussing improvements in technology
for LP playback since the "early days" of LP.


>
>>I might add that it seems Steve Hoffman does throw in some tube
>> amplification into the chain to color the sound when he is involved
>> in the mastering.
>
>That would be a step back from SOTA.

I suppose that would be a matter of perspective. If the effect is prefered it
would be a step forward I think.


>
>> The folks at King Super Analog also do a terrific
>> job of mastering records.
>
>
>> Some times the best technologies aren't all that new.
>
>There is also the issue of best technologies within a given context. This
>would be a given context.

I think the older technology, laquer masters, have wrought better sounding
records than the newer technology, metal masters.


>
>> Sometimes SOTA comes through refinements of existing
>> technologies.
>
>I look at the words "SOTA" and see that if you refine a technology, you
>change waht constitues SOTA. However, at best that constitues a move from
>old-SOTA to new-SOTA.

Agreed


>
>> It could be that no inovations have impacted the SOTA
>> in LP mastering for quite some time.
>
>It could be. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
OTOH I think many inovations over the years have improved the sound from the
table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days of LPs.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> OTOH I think many inovations over the years have improved the sound
> from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days
> of LPs.

I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were introduced. To say
that the sound quality of playback equipment improved since then is a gross
understatement. IMO, the rate of improvement was fairly decent until the
early 70s.

There was then a long dry spell in significant improvements of front-end
quality until CDs came out.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >> I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
> >> the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
> >> the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
> >> track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
> >> have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
> >> knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
> >> hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
> >>
> > Exactly how would a record company know what
> > tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
> > "hits"?
>
> That is one reason why they pay record company
> execuitives the big bucks.
>
Please define..."record company execuitives?"
How would you identify this role in a large or
small company?

The "big bucks" metaphor, I already know...
*prejudiced view and intolerant of those enjoying
greater financial success over Arny K.*.


> >Do you think record producers are psychic or what?
>
> No, but they often have an *ear* for hits.
>
Yes, sometimes that’s relevant. Other times it’s
not relevant to the product’s success. There is a
multitude of factors to consider and individual “hits”
is way down the list. Money and management are
first on any companies survival list. No record
producing company makes a living surviving off
“hits.” It’s a pitty you never took any business
classes in pre-engineering school. You wouldn’t be
spending your days planted like a flower in front
of your CRT :).


> >How come some albums don't have any hits... didn't
> > they know that, too?
>
> Stuff gets released against some people's better
> judgment.
>
How could you possibly know (empirical) the
politics of marketing and production dynamics?

For your edification two books: This Business of Music,
the definitive guide to the music industry, 588 pages
($30). Legal Aspects of the Music Industry, an
insider’s view of the legal and practical aspects of
the music business, 494 pages ($30).










>

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> It is quite clear that the OP mentioned both inner groove distortion and
> inner groove wear, not just wear as you've falsely claimed. It's deceptive
> of you to claim he was talking about only one of these well-known problems.
> Both are inherent in the basic technology. You tried to cover up the
> evidence that indicts your false claims by eliminating the OP text.

Good lord! You are a clown masquerading as a lawyer!

I was agreeing with you that some records had problems with inner
grooves independent of wear. But that doesn't mean that all records
have inner groove problems. If side timings are kept to a reasonable
length, and the groove pitch is well judged, there is no difference
between the inner and outer grooves. And if a good turntable is aligned
properly, you can play this record a thousand times with no real
difference in wear between the inner and outer grooves.

Feel free to bluster and pontificate though. I enjoy it.

See ya
Steve

--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/


----== 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 =---

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, George M.
Middius > wrote:

> Stephen, meet the Krooborg. Don't waste your time trying to "fix" him.
> He's broken and he's going to stay that way.

I like him. He's silly!

See ya
Steve

--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/


----== 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 =---

[GMAN]

In article >, (Doc) wrote:
>I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by the late Bill
>Chase, and find that as often seems to be the case, they put the hit
>single "Get It On" on the last track of side one. The inner tracks of
>course always have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
>knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the hits on the
>inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
Get a better turntable that tracks at the proper angle the whole way thru. i
have no such problems on my linear tracking table.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> OTOH I think many inovations over the years have improved the sound
>> from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days
>> of LPs.
>
>I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were introduced. To say
>that the sound quality of playback equipment improved since then is a gross
>understatement. IMO, the rate of improvement was fairly decent until the
>early 70s.
>

What was SOTA in the early seventies? The AR table? What cartridge? What arm?
That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then the Goldmund
Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by the Versa Dynamics 2.0.
IMO a pretty noticable improvement. Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a
noticable improvement over the one before it. These tables all pretty much all
kill the old AR tables. Am I overlooking something from the early seventies
that competes with these more modern tables?


>There was then a long dry spell in significant improvements of front-end
>quality until CDs came out.
>

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>> OTOH I think many innovations over the years have improved the sound
>>> from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early
>>> days of LPs.
>>
>> I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were
>> introduced. To say that the sound quality of playback equipment
>> improved since then is a gross understatement. IMO, the rate of
>> improvement was fairly decent until the early 70s.

> What was SOTA in the early seventies?

There was no agreement. I still had the TD-125 I bought in the late 60s all
through the 70s and into the 80s. While there were new models, most if not
of its innovations and refinements had been picked up by others.

>The AR table?

Not hardly. It was a child of the 60s, and by the 70s it was clearly
obsolete. I bought my first one around 1965. Its arm was falling behind
cartridge technology by 1969.

>What cartridge?

Again, it depended who and what you believed. Shure was flogging the V-15
series quite successfully. I had several. The ADC XLM was impressing some
people. I had one. MC cartridges were becoming more popular.

> What arm?

Again, who to believe, what to believe? I had a 3009II, but it was not the
latest-greatest any more.

> That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then
> the Goldmund Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by
> the Versa Dynamics 2.0. IMO a pretty noticeable improvement.

In what sense?

>Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a noticeable improvement over the
one before it.

In what sense?

> These tables all pretty much all kill the old AR tables.

The AR turntable was always a value play, not a SOTA play. It was a rehash
of earlier technology. Weathers did a clock-motor lightweight turntable in
the late 50s. Empire had done a turntable with a soft damped suspension and
hidden separate platform for the table and arm (598) a few years earlier.
The AR arm was never all that good - it had friction problems.

The charm of the AR TT was its price, which initially started at just over
$50, which was also the street price of Garrard's second-most-expensive
changer. You could have a Garrard AT-6 or a AR TT for about the same money.
The Garrard rumbled, had a stiff, undamped suspension and tinny chassis, and
was actually a cheaper model with fancier arm, turntable overlay, and trim.

Dual was still finding their niche. The first changer they exported was a
sight to see. Quirky is an understatement. The cartridge retracted and the
tone arm rode over the turntable on little wheels looking for the edge of
the record. If it didn't find the edge of the record it presumed the record
was 12". It had only a 10" TT platter. Due to the mechanical complexity it
was not the most reliable thing.

The competitive Miracord changers looked great but rumbled, fluttered and
had questionable tone arms.

Empire sold a lot of massive turntables for far higher prices, but their
massive tonearms were not well-suited for high-compliance cartridges.

Phillips had a neat-looking turntable in the late 60s called the GA-312 that
was sort of a low-priced mass-produced clone of the TD-125. There was also
the Lenco turntable that looked cool, but had a high-friction arm.

People were still buying Rek-O-Kut turntables which hadn't changed much
since the 50s. Arms by ESL and B&O were seen around. Japanese arms were not
being imported in large volumes until the early 70s. ADC did not come out
with the Pritchard arm until then. I replaced my AR with a TD-125 in the
late 60s and I was very happy with the combination for over 10 years.

> Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
> with these more modern tables?

I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125. The
only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's
introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to
flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application.
The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control,
low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s.

As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate
miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items. The
big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after
frequency response curves showing that there were resonances in the best
earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated?

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OTOH I think many innovations over the years have improved the sound
>>>> from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early
>>>> days of LPs.
>>>
>>> I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were
>>> introduced. To say that the sound quality of playback equipment
>>> improved since then is a gross understatement. IMO, the rate of
>>> improvement was fairly decent until the early 70s.
>
>> What was SOTA in the early seventies?
>
>There was no agreement. I still had the TD-125 I bought in the late 60s all
>through the 70s and into the 80s. While there were new models, most if not
>of its innovations and refinements had been picked up by others.
>
>>The AR table?
>
>Not hardly. It was a child of the 60s, and by the 70s it was clearly
>obsolete. I bought my first one around 1965. Its arm was falling behind
>cartridge technology by 1969.
>
>>What cartridge?
>
>Again, it depended who and what you believed. Shure was flogging the V-15
>series quite successfully. I had several. The ADC XLM was impressing some
>people. I had one. MC cartridges were becoming more popular.
>
>> What arm?
>
>Again, who to believe, what to believe? I had a 3009II, but it was not the
>latest-greatest any more.
>
>> That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then
>> the Goldmund Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by
>> the Versa Dynamics 2.0. IMO a pretty noticeable improvement.
>
>In what sense?


The major technical difference between the two table/arm systems was the use of
low tolarance high preasure bearings and a vacuum clamp in the Versa. They
already shared advancements in damped sprung suspensions tuned to a very low
frequency along with inovations use of materials to create plinths and platters
that were both very stiff and dead. The sonic difference between the two IME
was a noticable reduction in colorations that I thought were inherent in the
medium. Groove noise was reduced, Loud passages became uncongested and
efforless. The dynamics were better. So much of the typical vinyl colorations
were reduced to the point of apparent removal in comparison to the Goldmund or
any other table I had heard.


>
>>Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a noticeable improvement over the
>one before it.
>
>In what sense?

From the Versa to the Rockport the big technical differences were the
suspension,the Rockport settled on an active pneumatic suspension, and the
drive system, The Rockport pretty much rethought the whole idea of driving a
platter. The drive system in the Rockport is very sophisticated and very
inovative. The Rockport took the use of materials for the purpose of creating a
system that maximized stiffness and vibrational inertness to higher levels as
well. The audible improvement was one of further refinement of all the things
the Versa did well along with the elimination of the brightness that could be
heard with the Versa. That was the Versa's one distinguishable audible problem.

From the Rockport to the Forsell, I am at a loss to talk about technical
"improvements." On paper the Forsell looks inferior to me. But in a direct head
to head comparison the Forsell took the Rockport to the cleaners. The Forsell
had the same reduction of colorations associated with vinyl playback that the
Rockport had but it was richer, warmer, livelier and simply more realistic and
beautiful sounding than the Rockport. Why? I dunno. The one thing it did not do
as well as the Rockport was handle loud complex passages as effortlessly. I
found that a suspension system took care of this one problem quite effectively.
>


>> These tables all pretty much all kill the old AR tables.
>
>The AR turntable was always a value play, not a SOTA play. It was a rehash
>of earlier technology. Weathers did a clock-motor lightweight turntable in
>the late 50s. Empire had done a turntable with a soft damped suspension and
>hidden separate platform for the table and arm (598) a few years earlier.
>The AR arm was never all that good - it had friction problems.
>
>The charm of the AR TT was its price, which initially started at just over
>$50, which was also the street price of Garrard's second-most-expensive
>changer. You could have a Garrard AT-6 or a AR TT for about the same money.
>The Garrard rumbled, had a stiff, undamped suspension and tinny chassis, and
>was actually a cheaper model with fancier arm, turntable overlay, and trim.
>
>Dual was still finding their niche. The first changer they exported was a
>sight to see. Quirky is an understatement. The cartridge retracted and the
>tone arm rode over the turntable on little wheels looking for the edge of
>the record. If it didn't find the edge of the record it presumed the record
>was 12". It had only a 10" TT platter. Due to the mechanical complexity it
>was not the most reliable thing.
>
>The competitive Miracord changers looked great but rumbled, fluttered and
>had questionable tone arms.
>
>Empire sold a lot of massive turntables for far higher prices, but their
>massive tonearms were not well-suited for high-compliance cartridges.
>
>Phillips had a neat-looking turntable in the late 60s called the GA-312 that
>was sort of a low-priced mass-produced clone of the TD-125. There was also
>the Lenco turntable that looked cool, but had a high-friction arm.
>
>People were still buying Rek-O-Kut turntables which hadn't changed much
>since the 50s. Arms by ESL and B&O were seen around. Japanese arms were not
>being imported in large volumes until the early 70s. ADC did not come out
>with the Pritchard arm until then. I replaced my AR with a TD-125 in the
>late 60s and I was very happy with the combination for over 10 years.
>

Well. thank you for the history lesson. When I got into hifi I never really
paid much attention to the older equipment.


>> Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
>> with these more modern tables?
>
>I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
>outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125.

That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a table I
would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for comparisons. I
think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.

The
>only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's
>introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to
>flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application.
>The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control,
>low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s.
>

I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance. I think
suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonances is also a
substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter isolation is also
pretty big. But the proof is in the listening.


>As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate
>miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items.

Low friction compared to an air bearing?

The
>big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after
>frequency response curves showing that there were resonances in the best
>earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
How about compared to the modern arms?

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >

>>> Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
>>> with these more modern tables?

>> I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
>> outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens
>> TD-125.

> That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a
> table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for
> comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.

The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the
same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and
away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching
and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison.

> The
>> only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the
>> TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped
>> records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything
>> like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt
>> drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow,
>> were all there in the late 60s.

> I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance.

They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they
introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as
it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up
the mass of tone arms.

> I think
> suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
> measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's
> is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter
> isolation is also pretty big.

>But the proof is in the listening.

Agreed.

The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured
effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the
listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring
but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary
artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine
his heart away, without fear of false positives.

>> As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago.
>> Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are
>> off-the-shelf items.

> Low friction compared to an air bearing?

Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus
pressure due to the mass, not just friction.

> The
>> big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published
>> before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were
>> resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design
>> eliminated?

> How about compared to the modern arms?

That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large
tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies
intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world?

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 5/7/2004 2:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>
>>>> Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
>>>> with these more modern tables?
>
>>> I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
>>> outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens
>>> TD-125.
>
>> That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a
>> table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for
>> comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.
>
>The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the
>same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and
>away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching
>and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison.

The Forsell allows for very precise speed adjustments. I cannot speak for any
of the Thorens tables. Level matching is a bit tricky. I suppose recording some
test tones would be the best way.


>
>> The
>>> only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the
>>> TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped
>>> records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything
>>> like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt
>>> drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow,
>>> were all there in the late 60s.
>
>> I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance.
>
>They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they
>introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as
>it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up
>the mass of tone arms.

Agreed. Air bearing tone arms are not simple to design well.


>
>> I think
>> suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
>> measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's
>> is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter
>> isolation is also pretty big.
>
>>But the proof is in the listening.
>
>Agreed.
>
>The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured
>effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the
>listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring
>but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary
>artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine
>his heart away, without fear of false positives.

A fair subjective test would one in which the listener does not know what the
sources are. But I must say, even in sighted listening comparisons my ears were
not always in agreement with my expectations or my biases.


>
>>> As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago.
>>> Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are
>>> off-the-shelf items.
>
>> Low friction compared to an air bearing?
>
>Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus
>pressure due to the mass, not just friction.
>
>> The
>>> big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published
>>> before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were
>>> resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design
>>> eliminated?
>
>> How about compared to the modern arms?
>
>That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large
>tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies
>intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My arm uses a pretty thin tube made of laminated carbon fiber. I like what I
hear.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott Wheeler wrote:


>>From: "Arny Krueger"
>>Date: 5/7/2004 2:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>
>>>>> Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
>>>>> with these more modern tables?
>>
>>>> I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
>>>> outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens
>>>> TD-125.
>>
>>> That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a
>>> table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for
>>> comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.
>>
>>The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the
>>same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and
>>away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching
>>and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison.
>
>The Forsell allows for very precise speed adjustments. I cannot speak for any
>of the Thorens tables. Level matching is a bit tricky. I suppose recording
>some
>test tones would be the best way.
>

As far as trying to compare 2 turntables running at exactly the same speed,
there are also several electronic speed controllers, made by both VPI and
Walker, that can be used in tandem with most AC synchronous motors and that
have a range of adjustments. While definitely not SOTA, I use a VPI PLC (power
line conditioner/electronic speed controller) on my Aries, and while I haven't
conducted any measurements, it definitely sounds better *with* the appropriate
speed "dialed in" (approximately) than when leaving it to chance and/or the
vagaries of the current feeding the table. Of course, VPI makes a newer, more
sophisticated electronic controller, the SDS, that is reported to provide even
greater subjective improvements in the experience of most listeners.


>
>>
>>> The
>>>> only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the
>>>> TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped
>>>> records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything
>>>> like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt
>>>> drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow,
>>>> were all there in the late 60s.
>>
>>> I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance.
>>
>>They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they
>>introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as
>>it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up
>>the mass of tone arms.
>
>Agreed. Air bearing tone arms are not simple to design well.
>
>

Also agreed. I had an Eminent Technology 2.5 air-bearing linear tracking arm
for a while, and it performed quite well. But it was quite massive, and the
pump was fairly noisy, so there are some tradeoffs sometimes involved. The ET,
at least (still in production) also requires a relatively sturdy platform and
is not hard to mount on VPI's, but would be more problematic perhaps on a
spring suspension turntable or one providing a less stable platform.


>>
>>> I think
>>> suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
>>> measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's
>>> is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter
>>> isolation is also pretty big.
>>
>>>But the proof is in the listening.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured
>>effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the
>>listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring
>>but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary
>>artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine
>>his heart away, without fear of false positives.
>
>A fair subjective test would one in which the listener does not know what the
>sources are. But I must say, even in sighted listening comparisons my ears
>were
>not always in agreement with my expectations or my biases.
>
>
>>
>>>> As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago.
>>>> Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are
>>>> off-the-shelf items.
>>
>>> Low friction compared to an air bearing?
>>
>>Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus
>>pressure due to the mass, not just friction.
>>
>>> The
>>>> big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published
>>>> before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were
>>>> resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design
>>>> eliminated?
>>
>>> How about compared to the modern arms?
>>
>>That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large
>>tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies
>>intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> My arm uses a pretty thin tube made of laminated carbon fiber. I like what I
>hear.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Powell]

"Paul Dormer" wrote

> >No record producing company makes a living surviving
> >off "hits."
>
> Ever heard of Stock, Aitken and Waterman.... aka "The Hit
> Factory"?
>
Thank you. Interesting article below.

http://www.cafe80s.freeserve.co.uk/interv/saw05.htm

[Forgnog Zambrucken]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doc" wrote
>
> > I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
> > the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
> > the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
> > track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
> > have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
> > knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
> > hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
> >
> Exactly how would a record company know what
> tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
> "hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic
> or what? How come some albums don't have any
> hits... didn't they know that, too?


you dont need to be psychic.
'hits' are a formula.
i can tell (i being no one special, exept a guy
with too many records) if a song will be a 'hit'
after hearing it twice.
when it fits the formula (wich im sure
we could come up with if we spent some
time talking instead of flaming) and is marketed
right (agressively), it WILL be a hit.

[Powell]

"Forgnog Zambrucken" wrote

> > > I just got an LP of the classic 70's album "Chase" by
> > > the late Bill Chase, and find that as often seems to be
> > > the case, they put the hit single "Get It On" on the last
> > > track of side one. The inner tracks of course always
> > > have the most distortion. Surely the record companies
> > > knew this, is there a reason they so frequently put the
> > > hits on the inner tracks? At least this is my observation.
> > >
> > Exactly how would a record company know what
> > tracks, if any, the public would come to consider
> > "hits"? Do you think record producers are psychic
> > or what? How come some albums don't have any
> > hits... didn't they know that, too?
>
>
> you dont need to be psychic.
> 'hits' are a formula.
> i can tell (i being no one special, exept a guy
> with too many records) if a song will be a 'hit'
> after hearing it twice.
> when it fits the formula (wich im sure
> we could come up with if we spent some
> time talking instead of flaming) and is marketed
> right (agressively), it WILL be a hit.
>
Hehehe... wrong! 85% of all record albums don't
make money for record companies.