Anyone heard this $300K turntable?

[[email protected]]

Goldmund Reference II. Anyone heard one in optimal conditions - i.e.
room, amp, speakers, audiophile quality record. Does it have any
legitimate sonic superiority over far less pricey units or is it
purely in the "have it because I can" category?

If not, what turntable/tonearm/cartridge do you feel represents the
best possible performance, anything beyond which is just pointlessly
throwing money around?


http://www.bornrich.org/entry/goldmunds-300000-turntable-is-worlds-most-expensive-turntable/

[William Sommerwerck]

> Goldmund Reference II. Anyone heard one in optimal conditions - i.e.
> room, amp, speakers, audiophile quality record. Does it have any
> legitimate sonic superiority over far less pricey units or is it
> purely in the "have it because I can" category?

> If not, what turntable/tonearm/cartridge do you feel represents the
> best possible performance, anything beyond which is just pointlessly
> throwing money around?

There's an old saw -- which might or might not be true -- that the last 10%
of improvements represent 90% of the price. The "law of diminishing
returns", if you like.

Your question is essentially unanswerable, because it depends on highly
subjective judgements... Can you hear a difference, and if so, how much does
it mean to you?

I have a Well-Tempered arm and table. They aren't cheap, but their design is
both brilliant and simple. My gut feeling is that it would be difficult to
significantly improve LP playback much beyond what these provide. Of course,
I might be wrong -- there might be "decks" that cost 1/5 as much, but sound
comparably good, or $100K 'tables that are noticeably superior. Who knows?

Consider that some people consider the $11K/pair QUADs to be _the best_
speaker you can buy, overall. Consider that Parasound makes moderately
priced amplifiers that are considered truly fine amplifiers, without regard
for their price. Spending lots of money doesn't guarantee quality -- so why
would anyone in their right mind consider buying a $300,000 turntable -- or
a $30,000 one, for that matter? Look at all the recordings you could buy for
that money! Isn't that what it's all about -- enjoying music at home?

[Robert Orban]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>> Goldmund Reference II. Anyone heard one in optimal conditions - i.e.
>> room, amp, speakers, audiophile quality record. Does it have any
>> legitimate sonic superiority over far less pricey units or is it
>> purely in the "have it because I can" category?
>
>> If not, what turntable/tonearm/cartridge do you feel represents the
>> best possible performance, anything beyond which is just pointlessly
>> throwing money around?
>
>There's an old saw -- which might or might not be true -- that the last 10%
>of improvements represent 90% of the price. The "law of diminishing
>returns", if you like.
>
>Your question is essentially unanswerable, because it depends on highly
>subjective judgements... Can you hear a difference, and if so, how much does
>it mean to you?
>
>I have a Well-Tempered arm and table. They aren't cheap, but their design is
>both brilliant and simple. My gut feeling is that it would be difficult to
>significantly improve LP playback much beyond what these provide. Of course,
>I might be wrong -- there might be "decks" that cost 1/5 as much, but sound
>comparably good, or $100K 'tables that are noticeably superior. Who knows?

Interesting...I have exactly the same arm and table, which I used mostly for
LP-to-CD transfers. Cartridge is a Shure V15VxMR because I feel that tracking
is everything -- I can tweak any other parameter in software after I've
digitized the signal, but if the cartridge introduced nonlinear distortion in
the original playback, then there's nothing to be done.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 9:11?am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > Goldmund Reference II. Anyone heard one in optimal conditions - i.e.
> > room, amp, speakers, audiophile quality record. Does it have any
> > legitimate sonic superiority over far less pricey units or is it
> > purely in the "have it because I can" category?
> > If not, what turntable/tonearm/cartridge do you feel represents the
> > best possible performance, anything beyond which is just pointlessly
> > throwing money around?
>
> There's an old saw -- which might or might not be true -- that the last 10%
> of improvements represent 90% of the price. The "law of diminishing
> returns", if you like.
>
> Your question is essentially unanswerable, because it depends on highly
> subjective judgements... Can you hear a difference, and if so, how much does
> it mean to you?
>
> I have a Well-Tempered arm and table. They aren't cheap, but their design is
> both brilliant and simple. My gut feeling is that it would be difficult to
> significantly improve LP playback much beyond what these provide. Of course,
> I might be wrong -- there might be "decks" that cost 1/5 as much, but sound
> comparably good, or $100K 'tables that are noticeably superior. Who knows?
>
> Consider that some people consider the $11K/pair QUADs to be _the best_
> speaker you can buy, overall. Consider that Parasound makes moderately
> priced amplifiers that are considered truly fine amplifiers, without regard
> for their price. Spending lots of money doesn't guarantee quality -- so why
> would anyone in their right mind consider buying a $300,000 turntable -- or
> a $30,000 one, for that matter? Look at all the recordings you could buy for
> that money! Isn't that what it's all about -- enjoying music at home?

The best 'table I've ever heard was a Wilson-Benesch Act ONE with a
Breuer tonearm. And I've heard the Continuum Caliburn and Criterion,
Clearaudio Statement and Rockport Sirius. Then again, every 'table I
hear with a Breuer arm is the best 'table I've ever heard.
Regardless, I'm talking about a $6000 tonearm on a 'table that cost
$5000 new when it was discontinued almost a decade ago. So you may be
right about the Law of Diminishing Returns there.

You're right about the Quads, too. Actually, I prefer the Harbeth
Monitor 40s to the Quads, and they retail for yes, you guessed it,
$11,000 a pair. I heard a $50,000 pair of speakers a couple of days
ago, and while they were excellent, I'm not sure I'd pay the extra
$39,000 for them. The Zu Audio Definitions are around the same
amount, and they're pretty tough to beat, too.

Boon

[RapidRonnie]

>
> > I have a Well-Tempered arm and table. They aren't cheap, but their design is
> > both brilliant and simple. My gut feeling is that it would be difficult to
> > significantly improve LP playback much beyond what these provide. Of course,
> > I might be wrong -- there might be "decks" that cost 1/5 as much, but sound
> > comparably good, or $100K 'tables that are noticeably superior. Who knows?
>
> > Consider that some people consider the $11K/pair QUADs to be _the best_
> > speaker you can buy, overall. Consider that Parasound makes moderately
> > priced amplifiers that are considered truly fine amplifiers, without regard
> > for their price. Spending lots of money doesn't guarantee quality -- so why
> > would anyone in their right mind consider buying a $300,000 turntable -- or
> > a $30,000 one, for that matter? Look at all the recordings you could buy for
> > that money! Isn't that what it's all about -- enjoying music at home?
>
> The best 'table I've ever heard was a Wilson-Benesch Act ONE with a
> Breuer tonearm. And I've heard the Continuum Caliburn and Criterion,
> Clearaudio Statement and Rockport Sirius. Then again, every 'table I
> hear with a Breuer arm is the best 'table I've ever heard.
> Regardless, I'm talking about a $6000 tonearm on a 'table that cost
> $5000 new when it was discontinued almost a decade ago. So you may be
> right about the Law of Diminishing Returns there.
>

The BEST turntable you can buy is a Neumann record cutting lathe. You
can get them for a few thousand dollars if they do not come with the
desireable stereo cutting heads and mastering chains. Anyone who says
any audiophile table yet made is any better is full of **** and knows
it. Other pro lathes are okay and less money.

There is no reason for a new table to cost more than a few thousand
dollars and that should include a heavy damped stand. The most
expensive bearing on a TT is about two hundred bucks, most-including
what Linn uses-are in the $20 range.

Any really serious table needs a heavy platter, but not necessarily
more than ten pounds. You need a fairly heavy platter, a smooth motor,
a transmission system of some sort-rubber belts, O-rings, and
recording tape seem to work well, I bet 16mm double sprocketed cinema
film would too-and a suspension, and you need a way to put all
resonances either under or over the audio band.

Everything else is secondary.

As far as the Quads-the old ones were nice for listening to music of
wide bandwidth but limited peak levels, i.e., chamber music. Better
electrostats exist today certainly.

[William Sommerwerck]

> The BEST turntable you can buy is a Neumann record cutting lathe.
> You can get them for a few thousand dollars if they do not come
> with the desirable stereo cutting heads and mastering chains.
> Anyone who says any audiophile table yet made is any better is
> full of **** and knows it. Other pro lathes are okay and less money.

There are good reasons why a high-quality audiophile turntable might very
well be better than a Neumann. To wit, having a plastic platter that makes a
good impedance match with the vinyl of the LP.


> As far as the Quads -- the old ones were nice for listening to music
> of wide bandwidth but limited peak levels, i.e., chamber music.
> Better electrostats exist today certainly.

Such as the newer QUADs. Ever heard one?

[drichard]

Impedance match??? Between the vinyl disc and the platter? Please
explain.

On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
> > The BEST turntable you can buy is a Neumann record cutting lathe.
> > You can get them for a few thousand dollars if they do not come
> > with the desirable stereo cutting heads and mastering chains.
> > Anyone who says any audiophile table yet made is any better is
> > full of **** and knows it. Other pro lathes are okay and less money.
>
> There are good reasons why a high-quality audiophile turntable might very
> well be better than a Neumann. To wit, having a plastic platter that makes a
> good impedance match with the vinyl of the LP.
>
> > As far as the Quads -- the old ones were nice for listening to music
> > of wide bandwidth but limited peak levels, i.e., chamber music.
> > Better electrostats exist today certainly.
>
> Such as the newer QUADs. Ever heard one?

[studiorat]

Is that for professional use? Bet you would scratch it to bits in no
time!
That costs more than it does to make a lot of the records you would
play on it. Now that just can't be right!
As a piece of art I can understand wanting one, it does look the
business.

Personally I prefer this...

http://www.chicagobauhausbeyond.org/gallery/SouthSuburbanTour2005_02/15.html

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard > wrote:
>Impedance match??? Between the vinyl disc and the platter? Please
>explain.

He's talking about mechanical impedance. If there is a vibration in the
record, you want it to be transferred into the platter and absorbed, rather
than be reflected back into the record causing a high frequency resonance
issue.

In fact, there's no reason you can't arrange a proper platter and mat on
a Neumann lathe, but you don't want something so compliant when you're
cutting records so you'd need to swap it and just use it for playback.
Note the Neumann is also intended to throw a lot of torque into the record
so there isn't a flutter issue as the cutting stylus drag changes. That's
a non-issue for playback since the stylus drag is a lot lower.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Impedance match??? Between the vinyl disc and the
>> platter? Please explain.

> There's a goofy idea the platter should be made of the
> same stuff as the record, or nearly so.

There's nothing goofy about the idea, any more than connecting a 75-ohm
antenna to a receiver with a 75-ohm input with 72-ohm cable (I don't think
there's any 75-ohm coax) is a goofy idea.

One of the requirements for "good" LP playback is to minimize all "unwanted"
vibrations, either by damping them or avoiding them in the first place.
Phono playback is, after all, mechanical. (Just thinking about it upsets me.
Uck.)

The LP itself is not mechanically "dead". Playing it causes the _both_ the
stylus and the LP to vibrate in an image of the recorded sound. The
vibrations in the LP take a finite amount of time to die away and will
"play" the stylus. This effect is one of the reasons that LP lovers complain
that digital recording is lacking in ambience -- what they're hearing is the
record surface playing the stylus more than once.

There's no way to prevent the LP's surface from being set into motion,
unless you could find an LP material that was infinitely stiff. One approach
is to clamp the disk against a soft pad. * Another is to make a platter
whose mechanical impedance is similar to that of vinyl. This impedance match
allows the vibrations to march into the platter, rather than being reflected
back.

* I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago when James Boyk at
Caltech sent a review LP with a severe warp. The side with the warp "up", so
that it could not be pressed against the Platter Matter pad I was using, had
a much different tonal balance (brighter, thinner) from the other side.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Twaddle. Plastic platters SOUND WORSE...

Why? Why _wouldn't_ you want to play an LP on a surface that either provided
heavy damping, or matched the mechanical impedance of the vinyl? What's the
physical reason?

[John Phillips]

On 2007-06-30, William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> The BEST turntable you can buy is a Neumann record cutting lathe.
>> You can get them for a few thousand dollars if they do not come
>> with the desirable stereo cutting heads and mastering chains.
>> Anyone who says any audiophile table yet made is any better is
>> full of **** and knows it. Other pro lathes are okay and less money.
>
> There are good reasons why a high-quality audiophile turntable might very
> well be better than a Neumann. To wit, having a plastic platter that makes a
> good impedance match with the vinyl of the LP.

OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy out of the vinyl
and into the platter by matching the acoustic impedance. But where does
it then go?

Through the bearing? Not much I suspect. There's the plastic/metal
impedance mismatch to start with and then it's only a small area for
transmission.

I suspect the unwanted acoustic energy (assuming a longitudinal wave)
gets mostly reflected back at the platter/air boundary impedance
mismatch underneath the platter and then gets transmitted back to the
vinyl because of the excellent vinyl/platter impedance match.

The only hope is for the platter to be acoustically lossy. Ideal
materials aren't lossy, of course. But I have never looked up the
acoustic loss coefficients of real plastics so I don't know if this is
a reasonable hope.


--
John Phillips

[William Sommerwerck]

> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy
> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the acoustic
> impedance. But where does it then go?

It's absorbed by the plastic itself. I'm not claiming _all_ of it is
absorbed (or for that matter, that "all" the energy leaves the LP). Rather,
the platter provides a much bigger chunk of substance to dissipate the
energy than the LP by itself.

This effect is audible on a smaller scale simply by comparing "heavy" (180g)
LP pressings with regular pressings. Not surprisingly, they sound "deader",
less spacious and "lively".


> I suspect the unwanted acoustic energy (assuming a longitudinal
> wave) gets mostly reflected back at the platter/air boundary impedance
> mismatch underneath the platter and then gets transmitted back to the
> vinyl because of the excellent vinyl/platter impedance match.

All this could be proven (or disproven) with an LP having two sets of
grooves -- one unmodulated, the other with lots o' loud music. If both
grooves were played simultaneously, one could judge the damping effect of
the platter, mats, etc.

By the way, about 10 years ago a well-known Canadian manufacturer produced a
platterless LP player -- the disk was supported only at the center! The
designer (whose name I will not repeat) claimed that air made a better
impedance match to the LP than a metal or plastic turntable platter! Not
surprisingly, this product didn't last long. If nothing else, it failed to
provide a stable azimuth for the pickup.


> The only hope is for the platter to be acoustically lossy.
> Ideal materials aren't lossy, of course.

The Well-Tempered platter -- and some others -- have lead centers. Sort of a
plumbum Tootsie Pop.


> But I have never looked up the acoustic loss coefficients of real
> plastics so I don't know if this is a reasonable hope.

I haven't looked it up, either. But you can get an idea by tapping the
platter.

[dizzy]

John Phillips wrote:

>> There are good reasons why a high-quality audiophile turntable might very
>> well be better than a Neumann. To wit, having a plastic platter that makes a
>> good impedance match with the vinyl of the LP.
>
>OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy out of the vinyl
>and into the platter by matching the acoustic impedance. But where does
>it then go?

What a load of crap. Guffaw.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy
>> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the acoustic
>> impedance. But where does it then go?

> What a load of crap. Guffaw.

I've got a great suggestion for you. Replace the coax that connects your
cable system to your TV with coax having a significantly different
impedance. What do you see?

The mechanical principle is exactly the same as the electrical..

[John Phillips]

On 2007-06-30, William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy
>> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the acoustic
>> impedance. But where does it then go?
>
> It's absorbed by the plastic itself. I'm not claiming _all_ of it is
> absorbed (or for that matter, that "all" the energy leaves the LP). Rather,
> the platter provides a much bigger chunk of substance to dissipate the
> energy than the LP by itself.

If you do need to remove acoustic energy from the vinyl I suspect that
plastic(s) alone in the platter may not have a great acoustic loss factor
[0] so, as you said, you do need to make sure the platter is acoustically
lossy with some proper engineering.

> By the way, about 10 years ago a well-known Canadian manufacturer produced a
> platterless LP player -- the disk was supported only at the center! The
> designer (whose name I will not repeat) claimed that air made a better
> impedance match to the LP than a metal or plastic turntable platter! Not
> surprisingly, this product didn't last long. If nothing else, it failed to
> provide a stable azimuth for the pickup.

Yes indeed. The acoustic impedance of air is very low indeed [1].
It's about 10 million times less than vinyl. It's a VERY poor match so
the reflection coefficient is very close to 100%. At least in a vinyl -
aluminium interface the acoustic impedance change is just 3:1 or so and
the reflection coefficient is about 25% (i.e. 75% of the acoustic energy
is transmitted).

[0] A quick Google search didn't reveal that much detail so I am assuming
this and I may be wrong. I was also looking for the loss factor of
vinyl itself but with no luck so far.

[1] For longitudinal waves, acoustic impedance is the square root of the
product of the material's density and its Young's modulus.

--
John Phillips

[Don Pearce]

On 30 Jun 2007 16:25:58 GMT, John Phillips
> wrote:

>On 2007-06-30, William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy
>>> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the acoustic
>>> impedance. But where does it then go?
>>
>> It's absorbed by the plastic itself. I'm not claiming _all_ of it is
>> absorbed (or for that matter, that "all" the energy leaves the LP). Rather,
>> the platter provides a much bigger chunk of substance to dissipate the
>> energy than the LP by itself.
>
>If you do need to remove acoustic energy from the vinyl I suspect that
>plastic(s) alone in the platter may not have a great acoustic loss factor
>[0] so, as you said, you do need to make sure the platter is acoustically
>lossy with some proper engineering.
>
>> By the way, about 10 years ago a well-known Canadian manufacturer produced a
>> platterless LP player -- the disk was supported only at the center! The
>> designer (whose name I will not repeat) claimed that air made a better
>> impedance match to the LP than a metal or plastic turntable platter! Not
>> surprisingly, this product didn't last long. If nothing else, it failed to
>> provide a stable azimuth for the pickup.
>
>Yes indeed. The acoustic impedance of air is very low indeed [1].
>It's about 10 million times less than vinyl. It's a VERY poor match so
>the reflection coefficient is very close to 100%. At least in a vinyl -
>aluminium interface the acoustic impedance change is just 3:1 or so and
>the reflection coefficient is about 25% (i.e. 75% of the acoustic energy
>is transmitted).
>
>[0] A quick Google search didn't reveal that much detail so I am assuming
>this and I may be wrong. I was also looking for the loss factor of
>vinyl itself but with no luck so far.
>
>[1] For longitudinal waves, acoustic impedance is the square root of the
>product of the material's density and its Young's modulus.

All this is for naught unless the vinyl record is actually glued to
the platter. The interface will never be tight enough to transfer the
energy adequately through the pair of impedance discontinuities
otherwise. It may, of course touch in a few places, but certainly no
everywhere.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[William Sommerwerck]

> All this is for naught unless the vinyl record is actually glued
> to the platter. The interface will never be tight enough to
> transfer the energy adequately through the pair of impedance
> discontinuities otherwise. It may, of course touch in a few
> places, but certainly no everywhere.

This is a logical criticism, but it doesn't seem to apply in practice.

Most turntables have a screw-down "puck" (or similar device) that presses
the disk firmly against the platter.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:05:40 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>> All this is for naught unless the vinyl record is actually glued
>> to the platter. The interface will never be tight enough to
>> transfer the energy adequately through the pair of impedance
>> discontinuities otherwise. It may, of course touch in a few
>> places, but certainly no everywhere.
>
>This is a logical criticism, but it doesn't seem to apply in practice.
>
>Most turntables have a screw-down "puck" (or similar device) that presses
>the disk firmly against the platter.
>

Yup, my turntable has one of those. It pulls the label into very close
contact with the platter. Shame I don't play the label, though - it
really does very little for the rest, although it does help flatten
out the warps; but that is really about the limit.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[ScottW]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Impedance match??? Between the vinyl disc and the
>>> platter? Please explain.
>
>> There's a goofy idea the platter should be made of the
>> same stuff as the record, or nearly so.
>
> There's nothing goofy about the idea, any more than connecting a 75-ohm
> antenna to a receiver with a 75-ohm input with 72-ohm cable (I don't think
> there's any 75-ohm coax) is a goofy idea.
>
> One of the requirements for "good" LP playback is to minimize all "unwanted"
> vibrations, either by damping them or avoiding them in the first place.
> Phono playback is, after all, mechanical. (Just thinking about it upsets me.
> Uck.)
>
> The LP itself is not mechanically "dead". Playing it causes the _both_ the
> stylus and the LP to vibrate in an image of the recorded sound. The
> vibrations in the LP take a finite amount of time to die away and will
> "play" the stylus. This effect is one of the reasons that LP lovers complain
> that digital recording is lacking in ambience -- what they're hearing is the
> record surface playing the stylus more than once.
>
> There's no way to prevent the LP's surface from being set into motion,
> unless you could find an LP material that was infinitely stiff.

Having a bit of experience in testing the vibration transmissibility of
material, I have to say that soft plastics like vinyl are rather poor
transmitters. Vinyl being so compliant will have a rather low cutoff
freq. I've also read that this is to it's benefit in surviving the stress
applied by the stylus and remaining in plastic state allowing
recovery without permanent deformation.

> One approach
> is to clamp the disk against a soft pad. * Another is to make a platter
> whose mechanical impedance is similar to that of vinyl. This impedance match
> allows the vibrations to march into the platter, rather than being reflected
> back.
>
> * I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago when James Boyk at
> Caltech sent a review LP with a severe warp. The side with the warp "up", so
> that it could not be pressed against the Platter Matter pad I was using, had
> a much different tonal balance (brighter, thinner) from the other side.

I think this issue is better handled by improved cart technology
lowering the eq. mass of the stylus and the force it imparts on
the record than on the other side.

ScottW

[John Phillips]

On 2007-06-30, Don Pearce > wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2007 16:25:58 GMT, John Phillips
> wrote:
>> If you do need to remove acoustic energy from the vinyl I suspect that
>> plastic(s) alone in the platter may not have a great acoustic loss factor
>> [0] so, as you said, you do need to make sure the platter is acoustically
>> lossy with some proper engineering.
>
> All this is for naught unless the vinyl record is actually glued to
> the platter. The interface will never be tight enough to transfer the
> energy adequately through the pair of impedance discontinuities
> otherwise. It may, of course touch in a few places, but certainly no
> everywhere.

Good point. Maybe there's not so much difference in practice between
platter materials after all ...

--
John Phillips

[ScottW]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Twaddle. Plastic platters SOUND WORSE...
>
> Why? Why _wouldn't_ you want to play an LP on a surface that either provided
> heavy damping, or matched the mechanical impedance of the vinyl? What's the
> physical reason?

You might be creating a system with gross resonance at frequencies
that can be stimulated by typical record flaws, warps and out of round.

Plus...the fact that the back side of the record usually has music on it
the idea that you can effectively mate surfaces to prevent vibration
reflections (should they even really exist) is absurd. Recall all the V cuts
and air gaps on the bottom side. And vinyl is so compliant, clamping the center
won't do much a few inches out. If you have a material of equal compliance
as the vinyl and apply a sufficient clamp to really couple
you probably just cup the whole thing
and aggravate skating forces.

Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?

ScottW

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago when
>> James Boyk at Caltech sent a review LP with a severe warp.
>> The side with the warp "up", so that it could not be pressed
>> against the Platter Matter pad I was using, had a much different
>> tonal balance (brighter, thinner) from the other side.

> I think this issue is better handled by improved cart technology
> lowering the eq. mass of the stylus and the force it imparts on
> the record than on the other side.

The point I was making had nothing to do with warps..

[John Stone]

On 6/30/07 12:22 PM, in article
, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago when
>>> James Boyk at Caltech sent a review LP with a severe warp.
>>> The side with the warp "up", so that it could not be pressed
>>> against the Platter Matter pad I was using, had a much different
>>> tonal balance (brighter, thinner) from the other side.
>
>> I think this issue is better handled by improved cart technology
>> lowering the eq. mass of the stylus and the force it imparts on
>> the record than on the other side.
>
> The point I was making had nothing to do with warps..
>
This brings to mind the vacuum platter turntables that were popular 20+
yrs.ago. I had a Luxman PD300 with an external auto vacuum pump. Pain in the
ass to get the record to seal properly, and the outer seal had to be kept
perfectly clean. But the audible effect was very obvious, and for the
better. It truly did remove all the warps, which was a great help for the
Dennesen air bearing tonearm I had matched to it. There were many theories
about the vacuum system permanently damaging the grooves, etc., but I never
had a problem. It was a major pain in the ass to maintain, and I ultimately
got too busy to get much use out of it. By then CD's were good enough to
justify my switching over. I still maintain a Pioneer PL 1000 linear
tracker, which is fine for the little vinyl I still play.

[ScottW]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy
>>> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the acoustic
>>> impedance. But where does it then go?
>
>> What a load of crap. Guffaw.
>
> I've got a great suggestion for you. Replace the coax that connects your
> cable system to your TV with coax having a significantly different
> impedance. What do you see?
>
> The mechanical principle is exactly the same as the electrical..

That may be....but clamping a rough surface won't achieve
the coupling you desire. Far better to remove the source of
stimulation at the stylus.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago when
>>> James Boyk at Caltech sent a review LP with a severe warp.
>>> The side with the warp "up", so that it could not be pressed
>>> against the Platter Matter pad I was using, had a much different
>>> tonal balance (brighter, thinner) from the other side.
>
>> I think this issue is better handled by improved cart technology
>> lowering the eq. mass of the stylus and the force it imparts on
>> the record than on the other side.
>
> The point I was making had nothing to do with warps..

My point applies to much more than dealing with warps.
You can't achieve coupling to the platter without severely
clamping or bonding the entire record.
The fact the other side has grooves will prevent
clamping even the entire suface of the record from achieving your
goal unless your willing to apply sufficient load to crush
them flat.

ScottW

[William Sommerwerck]

> This brings to mind the vacuum platter turntables that were popular 20+
> yrs.ago. I had a Luxman PD300 with an external auto vacuum pump.

There were claims that the vacuum accelerated the leaching of plasticizers
from the vinyl.

[Arny Krueger]

"drichard" > wrote in message
oups.com

> On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:

>> There are good reasons why a high-quality audiophile
>> turntable might very well be better than a Neumann. To
>> wit, having a plastic platter that makes a good
>> impedance match with the vinyl of the LP.

> Impedance match??? Between the vinyl disc and the
> platter? Please explain.

There is a belief that the vinyl record is vibrating to a significant degree
when it is being played. If this is true, then damping this vibration would
be a good idea.

Just like the electrical impedances we are familiar with, there are also
such a thing as mechanical impedance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_impedance

Damping works best when there is a a match between the mechanical impedance
of the vibrating object and the substance providing the damping.

[[email protected]]

In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
: Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
: to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?

Couldn't you just watch the strobe and see if it changed during
soft vs loud passages?

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
> : Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
> : to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?
>
> Couldn't you just watch the strobe and see if it changed during
> soft vs loud passages?

Not nearly enough resolution and I seriously doubt that
the increase in friction matters here.
Any decent motor should motor right through that.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
: > wrote in message
: ...
: > In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
: > : Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
: > : to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?
: > Couldn't you just watch the strobe and see if it changed during
: > soft vs loud passages?
: Not nearly enough resolution and I seriously doubt that
: the increase in friction matters here.
: Any decent motor should motor right through that.

Then why did you ask? I must be confused...

[William Sommerwerck]

> There is a belief that the vinyl record is vibrating to a significant
> degree when it is being played. If this is true, then damping this
> vibration would be a good idea.

If someone would perform the experiment I described earlier, the issue could
pretty much be resolved.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
> : > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
> : > : Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
> : > : to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?
> : > Couldn't you just watch the strobe and see if it changed during
> : > soft vs loud passages?
> : Not nearly enough resolution and I seriously doubt that
> : the increase in friction matters here.
> : Any decent motor should motor right through that.
>
> Then why did you ask? I must be confused...

Clearly, we're not discussing
gross changes in rotational velocity (wow and flutter).
We're talking about vibration in the vinyl.

ScottW

[AZ Nomad]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:57:59 -0700, William Sommerwerck > wrote:


>>> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy
>>> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the acoustic
>>> impedance. But where does it then go?

>> What a load of crap. Guffaw.

>I've got a great suggestion for you. Replace the coax that connects your
>cable system to your TV with coax having a significantly different
>impedance. What do you see?

>The mechanical principle is exactly the same as the electrical..


I'll keep that in mind next time I play an FM encoded record.

Why don't you do your experiment on some video broadcasts that aren't
transmitted on any kind of carrier signal. Try running a line level video
signal through 100' of 300ohm twin lead and report back on how impedance has
no effect.

[dizzy]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy
>>> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the acoustic
>>> impedance. But where does it then go?
>
>> What a load of crap. Guffaw.
>
>I've got a great suggestion for you. Replace the coax that connects your
>cable system to your TV with coax having a significantly different
>impedance. What do you see?
>
>The mechanical principle is exactly the same as the electrical..

Umm... You see... Using the "same material" does not get you the
"same acoustic impedance".

Sheesh. I thought I'd heard everything.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message


> One of the requirements for "good" LP playback is to
> minimize all "unwanted" vibrations, either by damping
> them or avoiding them in the first place. Phono playback
> is, after all, mechanical. (Just thinking about it upsets
> me. Uck.)

Counterpoint:

Newton taught us that F=MA, and other than the relativistic adjustment per
Einstein, its still today.

The vibration of a record is caused by the effective mass of the stylus
acting on the mass of the record. A LP playback stylus has an effective
mass of from 0.3 to 1 milligram. A LP record weighs over 100 grams. The
record weighs from 100,000 to 300,000 times as much. The ratio of masses
puts any reactions by the vinyl at least 80-100 dB down.

> The LP itself is not mechanically "dead". Playing it
> causes the _both_ the stylus and the LP to vibrate in an
> image of the recorded sound. The vibrations in the LP
> take a finite amount of time to die away and will "play"
> the stylus. This effect is one of the reasons that LP
> lovers complain that digital recording is lacking in
> ambience -- what they're hearing is the record surface
> playing the stylus more than once.

As is usual with most golden ear myths, its all about quantification. There
is no doubt that the playing a LP causes it to vibrate along with the
musical waveform. It is just that the vibrations are so far below the noise
floor that even though we can hear coherent sounds well below the noise
floor, we still can't hear them.

> There's no way to prevent the LP's surface from being set
> into motion, unless you could find an LP material that
> was infinitely stiff. One approach is to clamp the disk
> against a soft pad. * Another is to make a platter whose
> mechanical impedance is similar to that of vinyl. This
> impedance match allows the vibrations to march into the
> platter, rather than being reflected back.

> * I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago
> when James Boyk at Caltech sent a review LP with a severe
> warp. The side with the warp "up", so that it could not
> be pressed against the Platter Matter pad I was using,
> had a much different tonal balance (brighter, thinner)
> from the other side.


A typical James Boyk experiment - no reliable evaluation of results and no
quantfication of the effect in terms of its probable audible effects.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In rec.audio.pro ScottW > wrote:
>>>>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of
>>>>> a record to see if the stylus dragging over the top
>>>>> can be detected?
>>>> Couldn't you just watch the strobe and see if it
>>>> changed during soft vs loud passages?
>>> Not nearly enough resolution and I seriously doubt that
>>> the increase in friction matters here.
>>> Any decent motor should motor right through that.
>>
>> Then why did you ask? I must be confused...
>
> Clearly, we're not discussing
> gross changes in rotational velocity (wow and flutter).
> We're talking about vibration in the vinyl.

I already debunked that myth.

As far as heavy modulation affecting playback speed goes, that would be most
readily determined by playing a groove cut with the same test tone cut at
widely varying different levels.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic
>>> energy
>>> out of the vinyl and into the platter by matching the
>>> acoustic impedance. But where does it then go?
>
>> What a load of crap. Guffaw.
>
> I've got a great suggestion for you. Replace the coax
> that connects your cable system to your TV with coax
> having a significantly different impedance. What do you
> see?

Not a heck of a lot of difference. For example, if you replace 20' of coax
with 50' of 300 ohm twin lead, or 300 ohm twin lead with 110 ohm twisted
pair, or coax or twin lead with 18 gauge lamp cord, and signal strengths are
adequate and EMI is reasoanble, then there will probably be no visible
difference.

If you want to see standing waves due to impedance mismatches really make a
difference, do the same thing with a computer network, or a video cable
going to a high resolution analog video monitor. Traditional TV signals
just aren't all that picky.

The mechanical principle is exactly the same as the
> electrical..

Mechanical impedances vary far more than the electrical impedances of common
cables.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> There's no way to prevent the LP's surface from being set
>> into motion, unless you could find an LP material that
>> was infinitely stiff. One approach is to clamp the disk
>> against a soft pad. * Another is to make a platter whose
>> mechanical impedance is similar to that of vinyl. This
>> impedance match allows the vibrations to march into the
>> platter, rather than being reflected back.

>> * I heard the effectiveness of this about 25 years ago
>> when James Boyk at Caltech sent a review LP with a severe
>> warp. The side with the warp "up", so that it could not
>> be pressed against the Platter Matter pad I was using,
>> had a much different tonal balance (brighter, thinner)
>> from the other side.

> A typical James Boyk experiment -- no reliable evaluation
> of results and no quantfication of the effect in terms of its
> probable audible effects.

A typical Arny Krueger response.

This was not a James Boyk experiment -- it was a defective record. It had a
rather severe warp of about 3" length on the circumference -- the sort that
(presumably) occurs when the disk is removed from the press before it's
sufficiently hardened.

At that time I was using a Lux PD-121 whose felt-flocked rubber mat I had
replaced with a Platter Matter pad. I don't remember which side I played
first, but I think it was the side where the warp projected down. Using a
record clamp, the disk made full contact with the mat.

When I played the other side, the warp was "up" -- there was no way to
flatten it. I didn't know what to expect, sonically -- I wasn't expecting
any particular difference in sound. But there was a noticeable one -- the
sound was thinner and brighter and more "brittle". I ascribed it to the
failure to fully damp the disk surface.

You don't need a warped record to duplicate this experiment -- just an
unsupported one. There was a time when turntable platters had a dished or
stepped surface (eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
comparison using a thin pad of damping material.


> The vibration of a record is caused by the effective mass of the
> stylus acting on the mass of the record. A LP playback stylus
> has an effective mass of from 0.3 to 1 milligram. A LP record
> weighs over 100 grams. The record weighs from 100,000 to 300,000
> times as much. The ratio of masses puts any reactions by the vinyl
> at least 80-100 dB down.

This is akin to saying that because the total mass of the air in a room is
much greater than the mass of a dome tweeter, that the tweeter can't move it
sufficiently to produce a useful sound level.

There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily, and setting up
vibrations in it. If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel
with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound -- even
though its bodily movement was nil.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>All this is for naught unless the vinyl record is actually glued to
>the platter. The interface will never be tight enough to transfer the
>energy adequately through the pair of impedance discontinuities
>otherwise. It may, of course touch in a few places, but certainly no
>everywhere.

Absolutely. That's why record clamps and weights, combined with a soft
mat, are so important.

To be honest I am not sure what the total contribution of platter ringing
to the system is. My suspicion is that even on the best systems, worrying
about arm resonances will still buy you more improvement than worrying
about platter resonances. But a quick play of the square wave track on
the test record and an FFT analyzer will tell you that for sure.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> And it would not even help if you put that 20-ton block of steel
> on a real[ly] heavy object, eg, [the] Earth, to absorb the vibrations.

Oh, but it would. The vibrations would die out more quickly of the block
were damped.

[anahata]

ScottW wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
> to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?

Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
when describing it.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Jenn]

In article >,
anahata > wrote:

> ScottW wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
> > to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?
>
> Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
> whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
> enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
> when describing it.

Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
being the case.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> anahata > wrote:
>
>> ScottW wrote:
>> >
>> > Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
>> > to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?
>>
>> Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
>> whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
>> enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
>> when describing it.
>
> Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
> being the case.

I heard a rather expensive TT once with a motor that required more than
15 minutes to get up to speed. It also had a large flywheel
for stability and filtering motor vibe.
I really didn't care for the idea of having to remove records on
the fly :).

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > anahata > wrote:
> >
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
> >> > to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?
> >>
> >> Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
> >> whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
> >> enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
> >> when describing it.
> >
> > Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
> > being the case.
>
> I heard a rather expensive TT once with a motor that required more than
> 15 minutes to get up to speed. It also had a large flywheel
> for stability and filtering motor vibe.
> I really didn't care for the idea of having to remove records on
> the fly :).
>
> ScottW

lol Do you remember what TT it was?

On a trip to the SF bay area yesterday, I heard an SME TT/arm with a
Brinkmann cartridge. Really fine.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

> You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
> experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
> when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
> (eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
> comparison using a thin pad of damping material.

Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency response of a
cartridge with a test record twice, first with the record sitting on a felt
or rubber mat, followed up by a similar test with the record supported just
above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done that, and it doesn't
make a heck of a lot of difference.

>> The vibration of a record is caused by the effective
>> mass of the stylus acting on the mass of the record. A
>> LP playback stylus
>> has an effective mass of from 0.3 to 1 milligram. A LP
>> record weighs over 100 grams. The record weighs from
>> 100,000 to 300,000 times as much. The ratio of masses
>> puts any reactions by the vinyl at least 80-100 dB down.

> This is akin to saying that because the total mass of the
> air in a room is much greater than the mass of a dome
> tweeter, that the tweeter can't move it sufficiently to
> produce a useful sound level.

There are big differences between the propagation of vibrations in the air
in a room and in a LP record. For example the LP record is many, many
times smaller than a room.

> There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
> and setting up vibrations in it.

At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is such that it is in
essence moving as single unit at low and medium frequencies. The speed of
sound in common plastics is about six times that of air.

> If I banged -- even
> lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel with a ball-peen
> hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound -- even
> though its bodily movement was nil.

I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I just said that
compared to the stimulus, the stimulus was very weak and the response was
even weaker.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> And it would not even help if you put that 20-ton block
>> of steel
>> on a real[ly] heavy object, eg, [the] Earth, to absorb
>> the vibrations.
>
> Oh, but it would. The vibrations would die out more
> quickly of the block were damped.

Again quantification.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message


> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
> record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
> detected?

It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test this hypothesis.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > anahata > wrote:
>> >
>> >> ScottW wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a record
>> >> > to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be detected?
>> >>
>> >> Nothing quite so scientific, but I've heard of belt driven turntables
>> >> whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
>> >> enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
>> >> when describing it.
>> >
>> > Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
>> > being the case.
>>
>> I heard a rather expensive TT once with a motor that required more than
>> 15 minutes to get up to speed. It also had a large flywheel
>> for stability and filtering motor vibe.
>> I really didn't care for the idea of having to remove records on
>> the fly :).
>>
>> ScottW
>
> lol Do you remember what TT it was?

Forsell

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
>> record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
>> detected?
>
> It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test this hypothesis.

Nor a more tortured sentence.

Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many uncontrolled
variables to be conclusive IMO.

ScottW

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>message
>
>> You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
>> experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
>> when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
>> (eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
>> comparison using a thin pad of damping material.
>
>Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency response of a
>cartridge with a test record twice, first with the record sitting on a felt
>or rubber mat, followed up by a similar test with the record supported just
>above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done that, and it doesn't
>make a heck of a lot of difference.

Hard to see the slight differences. Try doing an impulse response or
square wave response instead. It'll show up resonances like this a lot
more easily (although it may be hard to see them under all the arm and
cartridge peaks).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

>> You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
>> experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
>> when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
>> (eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
>> comparison using a thin pad of damping material.

> Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency response of a
> cartridge with a test record twice, first with the record sitting on a
felt
> or rubber mat, followed up by a similar test with the record supported
just
> above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done that, and it doesn't
> make a heck of a lot of difference.

One can hear things that are below the levels that would cause
interference-based changes in frequency response.


>> There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
>> and setting up vibrations in it.

> At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is such that it is in
> essence moving as single unit at low and medium frequencies. The speed of
> sound in common plastics is about six times that of air.

You're determined to win this argument by any means, aren't you?

I'm reasonably certain that, at low frequencies, a woofer does not move the
air in a room "bodily".


>> If I banged -- even
>> lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel with a ball-peen
>> hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound -- even
>> though its bodily movement was nil.

> I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I just said that
> compared to the stimulus, the stimulus was very weak and the
> response was even weaker.

But your argument justifying the relative levels of stimulus and "response"
is invalid.

[RapidRonnie]

> > Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
> > being the case.
>
> I heard a rather expensive TT once with a motor that required more than
> 15 minutes to get up to speed. It also had a large flywheel
> for stability and filtering motor vibe.
> I really didn't care for the idea of having to remove records on
> the fly :).
>


Did manually giving the platter a good flick to start it up boost the
spool-up appreciably? If so, that's probably what the "designer"
counted on.

It was a crappy design to be certain, manual assist or no manual
assist.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>> You don't need a warped record to duplicate this
>>> experiment -- just an unsupported one. There was a time
>>> when turntable platters had a dished or stepped surface
>>> (eg, Dual). It should be possible to set up a valid
>>> comparison using a thin pad of damping material.
>
>> Actually, all you need to do is measure the frequency
>> response of a cartridge with a test record twice, first
>> with the record sitting on a felt or rubber mat,
>> followed up by a similar test with the record supported
>> just above the mat, but not touching it. Been there done
>> that, and it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference.
>
> One can hear things that are below the levels that would
> cause interference-based changes in frequency response.

There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this is a totally false
statement.

>>> There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
>>> and setting up vibrations in it.

>> At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is
>> such that it is in essence moving as single unit at low
>> and medium frequencies. The speed of sound in common
>> plastics is about six times that of air.

> You're determined to win this argument by any means,
> aren't you?

I'm using my favorite *cheat* - presentation of relevant scientific facts.
Try them sometimes William - you might like them.

> I'm reasonably certain that, at low frequencies, a woofer
> does not move the air in a room "bodily".

Follow that thought William, and even you might see how false your beliefs
are.

>>> If I banged -- even
>>> lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel with a ball-peen
>>> hammer, the steel would vibrate and produce sound --
>>> even though its bodily movement was nil.

>> I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
>> just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
>> was very weak and the
>> response was even weaker.

> But your argument justifying the relative levels of
> stimulus and "response" is invalid.

Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
>>> record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
>>> detected?
>>
>> It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
>> this hypothesis.

> Nor a more tortured sentence.

Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on the grounds of
sentence syntax. It's your greatest strength!

> Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
> uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.

What uncontrolled variables?

[William Sommerwerck]

>> One can hear things that are below the levels that would
>> cause interference-based changes in frequency response.

> There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this is
> a totally false statement.

Such as attending a live concert? One hears delayed sounds that are 30 or
40dB below the direct sound, yet mixing a sine wave with a delayed sine wave
40dB below its level would have almost no effect on its level. Even at 20dB
down, the worst-case change would be a change of about 1dB.


>> There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
>> and setting up vibrations in it.

> At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is
> such that it is in essence moving as single unit at low
> and medium frequencies. The speed of sound in common
> plastics is about six times that of air.

You're is confusing the motion of a body as a whole with the movement
required to set up vibrations in it. A whale doesn't have to move all the
water in all the oceans of the world to make a sound.


>> You're determined to win this argument by any means,
>> aren't you?

> I'm using my favorite *cheat* - presentation of relevant scientific
> facts. Try them sometimes William -- you might like them.

Arny's persistant appeal to "scientific facts" -- rather than reasoning from
basic principles -- is unsettling.


>>>> If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of steel
>>>> with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would vibrate and
>>>> produce sound -- even though its bodily movement was nil.

>>> I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
>>> just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
>>> was very weak and the response was even weaker.

>> But your argument justifying the relative levels of
>> stimulus and "response" is invalid.

> Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

It's invalid because the stylus doesn't have to move the entire mass of the
LP to set up vibrations in it, any more than a woofer has to move all the
air in the room. By Arny's "reasoning", striking a heavy object A with light
object B would produce little or no sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>> One can hear things that are below the levels that would
>>> cause interference-based changes in frequency response.
>
>> There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this
>> is
>> a totally false statement.
>
> Such as attending a live concert?

Never try that line with me William - I listen to more live music by
accident than you have ever heard on purpose.

> One hears delayed
> sounds that are 30 or 40dB below the direct sound,

Only if they are not masked. If they are at the same frequency or in the
same critical band as the stimulus (i.e., linear distortion which includes
reflections) then they are well, masked.

> yet mixing a sine wave with a delayed sine wave 40dB below
> its level would have almost no effect on its level.

Actually, the experiement you describe has an up to 0.1 dB effect.
Variations of 0.1 dB are relatively huge on the scale of measurable effects,
outside of acoustical measurements.

> Even at 20dB down, the worst-case change would be a change of
> about 1dB.

Finally, you profided some correct quantification, but 1 dB variations are
huge squared.

>>> There is a huge difference between moving a mass bodily,
>>> and setting up vibrations in it.

>> At low frequencies the wavelength of sound in the LP is
>> such that it is in essence moving as single unit at low
>> and medium frequencies. The speed of sound in common
>> plastics is about six times that of air.

> You're is confusing the motion of a body as a whole with
> the movement required to set up vibrations in it.

I'm not confused like you are William. I don't quake and shake when someone
says measure 0.1 dB variations.

> A whale
> doesn't have to move all the water in all the oceans of
> the world to make a sound.

BTW William, is there something that would keep you from doing this
experiment for yourself? The only things that stop me is the time it would
take to pull my Rega off the shelf, and the proven fear that were I to do
the experiment, everybody would **** on my turntable.

>>> You're determined to win this argument by any means,
>>> aren't you?

>> I'm using my favorite *cheat* - presentation of relevant
>> scientific facts. Try them sometimes William -- you
>> might like them.

> Arny's persistant appeal to "scientific facts" -- rather
> than reasoning from basic principles -- is unsettling.

Sue me for preferring established facts combined with the simplest possible
logic, to constructs wholey formed of questional speculations, poor logic,
misinterpreted facts, and ignorance of well-known effects like masking.

>>>>> If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of
>>>>> steel with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would
>>>>> vibrate and produce sound -- even though its bodily
>>>>> movement was nil.
>
>>>> I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
>>>> just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
>>>> was very weak and the response was even weaker.
>
>>> But your argument justifying the relative levels of
>>> stimulus and "response" is invalid.
>
>> Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

> It's invalid because the stylus doesn't have to move the
> entire mass of the LP to set up vibrations in it, any
> more than a woofer has to move all the air in the room.

Typical of your bad logic William. Everybody who took acoustics 101 knows
that sounds propagate by means of pressure waves, not movement of air.

> By Arny's "reasoning", striking a heavy object A with
> light object B would produce little or no sound.

More proof that William can't learn. I've never said that there is no sound
or vibration, just that the sound and vibrations are so small and of a
nature that is unlikely to be relaibly perceived. How many times do I need
to say this?

[William Sommerwerck]

> >> There is plenty of compelling evidence saying that this
> >> is
> >> a totally false statement.
> >
> > Such as attending a live concert?
>
> Never try that line with me William - I listen to more live music by
> accident than you have ever heard on purpose.

Not fair -- you don't have to pay to attend.


> BTW William, is there something that would keep you from doing this
> experiment for yourself? The only things that stop me is the time it would
> take to pull my Rega off the shelf, and the proven fear that were I to do
> the experiment, everybody would **** on my turntable.

Why should I or anyone else "dump" on your turntable? A 'table doesn't have
to be Horribly Expensive to be good.

I described the experiment I wished to perform in an earlier post. It
requires two arms, two pickups, two preamps, and a special LP (unless I can
find one in my collection with both music and a blank groove -- preferably
locked -- on the same side). The experiment you suggests seems -- to me --
to have only a peripheral relationship to what I'm talking about.


>>>>>> If I banged -- even lightly -- on a 20-ton block of
>>>>>> steel with a ball-peen hammer, the steel would
>>>>>> vibrate and produce sound -- even though its bodily
>>>>>> movement was nil.

> >>>> I never said that there were no vibrations in the LP, I
> >>>> just said that compared to the stimulus, the stimulus
> >>>> was very weak and the response was even weaker.

>>>> But your argument justifying the relative levels of
>>>> stimulus and "response" is invalid.

> >> Reliable, independent, quantified evidence????????

>> It's invalid because the stylus doesn't have to move the
>> entire mass of the LP to set up vibrations in it, any
>> more than a woofer has to move all the air in the room.

> Typical of your bad logic William. Everybody who took acoustics 101 knows
> that sounds propagate by means of pressure waves, not movement of air.

Which is exactly the point, Arny. EXACTLY THE POINT. The mass of an object
does not, per se, have any effect on the ability to set up vibrations in it.

Has anyone else out there noticed that the overall "sound" of LP recordings
is influenced by the thickness of the record?

[g]

On Jun 30, 9:50 am, John Phillips >
wrote:
> On 2007-06-30, William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
> >> The BEST turntable you can buy is a Neumann record cutting lathe.
> >> You can get them for a few thousand dollars if they do not come
> >> with the desirable stereo cutting heads and mastering chains.
> >> Anyone who says any audiophile table yet made is any better is
> >> full of **** and knows it. Other pro lathes are okay and less money.
>
> > There are good reasons why a high-quality audiophile turntable might very
> > well be better than a Neumann. To wit, having a plastic platter that makes a
> > good impedance match with the vinyl of the LP.
>
> OK, so you get substantially all unwanted acoustic energy out of the vinyl
> and into the platter by matching the acoustic impedance. But where does
> it then go?
>
> Through the bearing? Not much I suspect. There's the plastic/metal
> impedance mismatch to start with and then it's only a small area for
> transmission.
>
> I suspect the unwanted acoustic energy (assuming a longitudinal wave)
> gets mostly reflected back at the platter/air boundary impedance
> mismatch underneath the platter and then gets transmitted back to the
> vinyl because of the excellent vinyl/platter impedance match.
>
> The only hope is for the platter to be acoustically lossy. Ideal
> materials aren't lossy, of course. But I have never looked up the
> acoustic loss coefficients of real plastics so I don't know if this is
> a reasonable hope.

I largely agree. Ultimately there must be a lossy medium somewhere. I
would use
a record clamp at all times, so the record does make good contact with
the mechanism,
otherwise its not heavy enough to do so on its own.

greg

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:


>
> Typical of the Krooglishly untutored, attack an idea on the grounds of
> sentence syntax. It's your greatest strength!
>

I called Rosetta Stone.
Unfortunately, they have no plans for a Krooglish language
instruction program. We are helpless!

[Clyde Slick]

> Never try that line with me William - I listen to more live music by
> accident than you have ever heard on purpose.
>

Krooglish decoded:
The voices in Arny's head are humming a simple tune.




> The only things that stop me is the time it would
> take to pull my Rega off the shelf, and the proven fear that were I to do
> the experiment, everybody would **** on my turntable.
>


We acknowledge that we can't beat you in the poop department,
even on a collective basis.

>
> I've never said that there is no sound
> or vibration, just that the sound and vibrations are so small and of a
> nature that is unlikely to be relaibly perceived. How many times do I need
> to say this?


As many times as you like. We can't hear you. You are but a
tiny speck of insane lint, beating on the giant drum of sanity

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
> >>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of a
> >>> record to see if the stylus dragging over the top can be
> >>> detected?
>
> >> It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
> >> this hypothesis.
> > Nor a more tortured sentence.
>
> Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on the grounds of
> sentence syntax. It's your greatest strength!
>
> > Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
> > uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.
>
> What uncontrolled variables?

VTA for one.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of
>>>>> a record to see if the stylus dragging over the top
>>>>> can be detected?
>>
>>>> It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
>>>> this hypothesis.
>>> Nor a more tortured sentence.
>>
>> Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on
>> the grounds of sentence syntax. It's your greatest
>> strength!
>>
>>> Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
>>> uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.
>>
>> What uncontrolled variables?
>
> VTA for one.

Not necessarily.

Next time, try to be relevant.

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
> >>>>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom of
> >>>>> a record to see if the stylus dragging over the top
> >>>>> can be detected?
>
> >>>> It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do test
> >>>> this hypothesis.
> >>> Nor a more tortured sentence.
>
> >> Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on
> >> the grounds of sentence syntax. It's your greatest
> >> strength!
>
> >>> Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
> >>> uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.
>
> >> What uncontrolled variables?
>
> > VTA for one.
>
> Not necessarily.

Obviously.....but did you?
Apparently not.

>
> Next time, try to be relevant.

As relevant as your detailed test descriptions
of "been there, done that".

I look forward to a meaningful report of your
elevated record test.
Frankly, I doubt if such a test ever took place and
as yet, you've provided no evidence it did.
Since your credibility is questionable I
must demand evidence or discard your
claims as simply anecdotal.
No more credible than the individual
making them.

ScottW

[anahata]

Jenn wrote:
> anahata > wrote:

>>I've heard of belt driven turntables
>>whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
>>enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
>>when describing it.
>
>
> Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
> being the case.

I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
allegedly audible in the speakers.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[William Sommerwerck]

> I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch
> was allegedly audible in the speakers.

As opposed to, say, near the cat's litter box?

I've heard such stories, too. Perhaps such things occurred in the days of
much higher tracking forces. Regardless, it would have had to have been a
badly designed 'table.

[Jenn]

In article >,
anahata > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > anahata > wrote:
>
> >>I've heard of belt driven turntables
> >>whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
> >>enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
> >>when describing it.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
> > being the case.
>
> I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
> allegedly audible in the speakers.

Hard to believe, when we're talking about LP groove widths of something
like 1 mil.

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 7:21 am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
>
> Has anyone else out there noticed that the overall "sound" of LP recordings
> is influenced by the thickness of the record?

Can't say that I have. Most LPs that I have a 180g version and a
thinner version are also different masters.

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 11:12 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> anahata > wrote:
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > anahata > wrote:
>
> > >>I've heard of belt driven turntables
> > >>whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
> > >>enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
> > >>when describing it.
>
> > > Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
> > > being the case.
>
> > I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
> > allegedly audible in the speakers.
>
> Hard to believe, when we're talking about LP groove widths of something
> like 1 mil.

I recall a friend having an AR with a worn out belt and that thing
couldn't hold speed while playing....but anecdotes about defective
units is all that seems to be out there on this.

ScottW

[Scott Dorsey]

anahata > wrote:
>Jenn wrote:
>> anahata > wrote:
>
>>>I've heard of belt driven turntables
>>>whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
>>>enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
>>>when describing it.
>>
>> Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
>> being the case.
>
>I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
>allegedly audible in the speakers.

This is definitely audible and visible on even some idler-drive tables.
I'd be surprised if anything BSR made _didn't_ do this.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ScottW]

On Jul 2, 11:41 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> anahata > wrote:
> >Jenn wrote:
> >> anahata > wrote:
>
> >>>I've heard of belt driven turntables
> >>>whose speed varied with sound level because the motor "wasn't strong
> >>>enough to drag the needle though the loud bits", as my friend put it
> >>>when describing it.
>
> >> Hmmm, I'd sure like to hear a demonstration of that. I can't imagine it
> >> being the case.
>
> >I don't remember the details, except that the drop in pitch was
> >allegedly audible in the speakers.
>
> This is definitely audible and visible on even some idler-drive tables.
> I'd be surprised if anything BSR made _didn't_ do this.

Hey, they weren't called BSR Groovegrinders for nothing.
But seriously, consider the cermic carts, steel syli, spring
loaded arms etc...hardly relevant to vinylphiles.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 7:06 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Nor a more tortured sentence.

Yeah, but get a load of this one:

"Most LPs that I have a 180g version and a
thinner version are also different masters."

What imbecile could torture English like this?

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

>
> What imbecile could torture English like this?

Arny, of course.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Jul 2, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom
>>>>>>> of a record to see if the stylus dragging over the
>>>>>>> top can be detected?
>>
>>>>>> It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do
>>>>>> test this hypothesis.
>>>>> Nor a more tortured sentence.
>>
>>>> Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on
>>>> the grounds of sentence syntax. It's your greatest
>>>> strength!
>>
>>>>> Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
>>>>> uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.
>>
>>>> What uncontrolled variables?
>>
>>> VTA for one.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
> Obviously.....but did you?
> Apparently not.
>
>>
>> Next time, try to be relevant.
>
> As relevant as your detailed test descriptions
> of "been there, done that".

You're confused as usual Scotty. The description lacked detail, true. But it
was completely relevant.


> I look forward to a meaningful report of your
> elevated record test.

Complete with airtight controls on VTA. HOwever, you must first provide your
all-inclusive list of other factors that in your opinion must be controlled.

> Frankly, I doubt if such a test ever took place

That's very dubious of you, Scotty.

> and as yet, you've provided no evidence it did.

Please state what form all-inclusive evidence that the test was done must
take.

> Since your credibility is questionable I
> must demand evidence or discard your
> claims as simply anecdotal.

See above.

> No more credible than the individual
> making them.

Given all the weirdness you provde and expect to be credible Scotty, a low
bar indeed.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> On Jul 2, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 6:02 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Has anyone ever put an accelerometer on the bottom
>>>>>>>> of a record to see if the stylus dragging over the
>>>>>>>> top can be detected?
>>>
>>>>>>> It is hard to imagine a more ineffective way to do
>>>>>>> test this hypothesis.
>>>>>> Nor a more tortured sentence.
>>>
>>>>> Typical of the technically untutored, attack an idea on
>>>>> the grounds of sentence syntax. It's your greatest
>>>>> strength!
>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I've heard your ideas and they have too many
>>>>>> uncontrolled variables to be conclusive IMO.
>>>
>>>>> What uncontrolled variables?
>>>
>>>> VTA for one.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> Obviously.....but did you?
>> Apparently not.
>>
>>>
>>> Next time, try to be relevant.
>>
>> As relevant as your detailed test descriptions
>> of "been there, done that".
>
> You're confused as usual Scotty. The description lacked detail, true. But it
> was completely relevant.

Of course your claims of relevance vs an accel are just
that, unsubstantiated claims.

>
>
>> I look forward to a meaningful report of your
>> elevated record test.
>
> Complete with airtight controls on VTA. HOwever, you must first provide your
> all-inclusive list of other factors that in your opinion must be controlled.

I have to define your experiment which was already conducted?
Sorry you pathetic windbag. Obviously no such experiment was ever
conducted by you with any attempt to control anything.

>
>> Frankly, I doubt if such a test ever took place
>
> That's very dubious of you, Scotty.
>
>> and as yet, you've provided no evidence it did.
>
> Please state what form all-inclusive evidence that the test was done must
> take.

I'm sure a thorough guy like you would have taken a picture of such a
complicated
setup. Lets start there.

>
>> Since your credibility is questionable I
>> must demand evidence or discard your
>> claims as simply anecdotal.
>
> See above.
>
>> No more credible than the individual
>> making them.
>
> Given all the weirdness you provde and expect to be credible Scotty, a low bar
> indeed.

I'm not the one making bogus claims of large portfolio
of experimentation with random been there done thats
as everyone knows you're prone to do.
Oh well, I call BS and everyone hears the air
whistling as your ego deflates.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 1, 7:06 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Nor a more tortured sentence.
>
> Yeah, but get a load of this one:
>
> "Most LPs that I have a 180g version and a
> thinner version are also different masters."
>
> What imbecile could torture English like this?
>

I see you're back to your buttsniffing useless POS
ways. Only now making an ass of yourself across multiple
groups.

Bob's looking to improve someones life. Yours is obviously
in great need if sniffing my ass is all you have to do.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:


> >>>
> >>> Next time, try to be relevant.
> >>
> >> As relevant as your detailed test descriptions
> >> of "been there, done that".
> >
> > You're confused as usual Scotty. The description lacked detail, true. But it
> > was completely relevant.
>
> Of course your claims of relevance vs an accel are just
> that, unsubstantiated claims.
>
> >
> >
> >> I look forward to a meaningful report of your
> >> elevated record test.
> >
> > Complete with airtight controls on VTA. HOwever, you must first provide your
> > all-inclusive list of other factors that in your opinion must be controlled.
>
> I have to define your experiment which was already conducted?
> Sorry you pathetic windbag. Obviously no such experiment was ever
> conducted by you with any attempt to control anything.
>


It is a known fact that Arny is totally incapable of
controlling both his sphinter and his snot glands.


>
> I'm sure a thorough guy like you would have taken a picture of such a
> complicated
> setup. Lets start there.
>


Ooh, goodie!
I haven't seen an rny photo
since his infamous basement photo.




> >
> >> Since your credibility is questionable I
> >> must demand evidence or discard your
> >> claims as simply anecdotal.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> >> No more credible than the individual
> >> making them.
> >
> > Given all the weirdness you provde and expect to be credible Scotty, a low bar
> > indeed.
>
> I'm not the one making bogus claims of large portfolio
> of experimentation with random been there done thats
> as everyone knows you're prone to do.
> Oh well, I call BS and everyone hears the air
> whistling as your ego deflates.
>


Hold your nose, that was definitely
not the deflation of Arny's ego.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 2, 6:47 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:06 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Nor a more tortured sentence.
>
> > Yeah, but get a load of this one:
>
> > "Most LPs that I have a 180g version and a
> > thinner version are also different masters."
>
> > What imbecile could torture English like this?
>
> I see you're back to your buttsniffing useless POS
> ways. Only now making an ass of yourself across multiple
> groups.

I'm adding useful contributions, just like you are, 2pid. Compare and
be amazed!

> Bob's looking to improve someones life. Yours is obviously
> in great need if sniffing my ass is all you have to do.

So we're back to the ass again.

Did you lose another pool boy?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..

>> HOwever, you
>> must first provide your all-inclusive list of other
>> factors that in your opinion must be controlled.

> I have to define your experiment which was already
> conducted?

I propose to redo the experiment.

[ScottW]

On Jul 3, 5:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> HOwever, you
> >> must first provide your all-inclusive list of other
> >> factors that in your opinion must be controlled.
> > I have to define your experiment which was already
> > conducted?
>
> I propose to redo the experiment.

So we're left with two choices. You either lied and never
did the experiment or you screwed it up so bad you don't
want to tell us what you did.

Either way, I look forward to your proposal but I'm not
holding my breath.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 3, 5:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 5:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >> HOwever, you
> > >> must first provide your all-inclusive list of other
> > >> factors that in your opinion must be controlled.
> > > I have to define your experiment which was already
> > > conducted?
>
> > I propose to redo the experiment.
>
> So we're left with two choices. You either lied and never
> did the experiment or you screwed it up so bad you don't
> want to tell us what you did.
>
> Either way, I look forward to your proposal but I'm not
> holding my breath.

So it took you this long to figure out that good old Arns is an insane
liar?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Jul 3, 5:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> HOwever, you
>>>> must first provide your all-inclusive list of other
>>>> factors that in your opinion must be controlled.
>>> I have to define your experiment which was already
>>> conducted?
>>
>> I propose to redo the experiment.

> So we're left with two choices. You either lied and never
> did the experiment or you screwed it up so bad you don't
> want to tell us what you did.

Charming.

> Either way, I look forward to your proposal but I'm not
> holding my breath.

The ball is in your court, Scott. You propose the experimental controls or
there will be none.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > On Jul 3, 5:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> . ..
> >>>> HOwever, you
> >>>> must first provide your all-inclusive list of other
> >>>> factors that in your opinion must be controlled.
> >>> I have to define your experiment which was already
> >>> conducted?
> >>
> >> I propose to redo the experiment.
>
> > So we're left with two choices. You either lied and never
> > did the experiment or you screwed it up so bad you don't
> > want to tell us what you did.
>
> Charming.
>
> > Either way, I look forward to your proposal but I'm not
> > holding my breath.
>
> The ball is in your court, Scott. You propose the experimental controls or
> there will be none.

with and without a butt plug.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> On Jul 3, 5:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> HOwever, you
>>>>> must first provide your all-inclusive list of other
>>>>> factors that in your opinion must be controlled.
>>>> I have to define your experiment which was already
>>>> conducted?
>>>
>>> I propose to redo the experiment.
>
>> So we're left with two choices. You either lied and never
>> did the experiment or you screwed it up so bad you don't
>> want to tell us what you did.
>
> Charming.
>
>> Either way, I look forward to your proposal but I'm not
>> holding my breath.
>
> The ball is in your court, Scott. You propose the experimental controls or
> there will be none.

I would have 2....the rise in elevation can't alter the arm cart VTA or
arm resonance.

The album support structure must have the same mechanical response
as the platter....it can't be introducing mechanical response that will
alter the outcome. Good luck with this.
I submit that it is far easier to modify a platter and place a sensitive
accel on the bottom side and see if vibration correlating to the cart
passing above can be detected show that the cart does put enough energy
into the vinyle to transmit vibration to the bottom of the record.
If it does then reflection is unavoidable IMO and the solution
is in improving the cart/stylus...not the record platter interface.
Or perhaps a better idea is an unmodulated groove..non-spiraling
with a cart tracking it on the bottom of the record and we'll see if
anything audible from a cart tracking the top side modulated
groove appears.
Or have you been there and done that too?

ScottW

[Walter Bushell]

In article >,
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:

> The LP itself is not mechanically "dead". Playing it causes the _both_ the
> stylus and the LP to vibrate in an image of the recorded sound. The
> vibrations in the LP take a finite amount of time to die away and will
> "play" the stylus. This effect is one of the reasons that LP lovers complain
> that digital recording is lacking in ambience -- what they're hearing is the
> record surface playing the stylus more than once.

That's why you need to play the record in another room acoustically
isolated from the speakers.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 11, 10:16 pm, Walter Bushell > wrote:
> In article >,
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>
> > The LP itself is not mechanically "dead". Playing it causes the _both_ the
> > stylus and the LP to vibrate in an image of the recorded sound. The
> > vibrations in the LP take a finite amount of time to die away and will
> > "play" the stylus. This effect is one of the reasons that LP lovers complain
> > that digital recording is lacking in ambience -- what they're hearing is the
> > record surface playing the stylus more than once.
>
> That's why you need to play the record in another room acoustically
> isolated from the speakers.

No -- it why you need a tonearm system that can mechanically shunt the
vibrations that the cartridge sends to the headshell and arm and damp
them out, so as not to pollute your reference playback. If you play
your music at nominal levels, masking effects will prevent you from
hearing the mini loudspeaker that your stylus becomes. Having lived
with my TT that mounted in another room to minimize structure borne
and air borne vibrations, I can tell you it is not worth it,
especially if you are at the Goldmund level of table -- no need.

The euphonic character of some noises is worth debating -- look at
tube amps. I prefer to think that LP lovers like a well recorded LP
over its dead CD counterpart more by virtue of its analogue nature.
Rather than being sliced/diced and reassembled music, LP's have a
sense of aliveness: Nyquist theory not withstanding, if you chop a
'live' snake into 44K pieces and then [through some miracle of
science] reassemble the snake by matching two points of segmented
skin, in the end you are still left with a dead snake. I will take my
double played noisy record surfaces any day week - especially if it is
played back on a Goldmund or Continuum Caliburn or SME20 or 30 TT.

[[email protected]]

On this point:

On Jun 28, 12:40 pm, wrote:
> If not, what turntable/tonearm/cartridge do you feel represents the
> best possible performance, anything beyond which is just pointlessly
> throwing money around?

I would have to say the point of no return on investiment is an SME
Model 30 at 25K [and worth every penny] -- a tour de force of
engineering, addressing each and every single point that can
significantly effect sound in a turntable. You are just throwing
money away after this. It was the pinnacle of Alastair Robertson-
Aikman's [http://www.stereophile.com/news/110606ara ] thoughts on what
analogue playback should be. What says it all is that most reviewers
'complained' of its neutrality -- to my mind this is the greatest
compliment they could give it -- It simply gets out of the way and
does not impart any sound of its own -- only what was on the LP, as
played back by the second most important transducer in an audio
playback train. That is, of course, if we can agree that the
important aspects in a turntable's design are as follows:

-- the ability to provide constant rotational force at the desired
speed, even with large vinyl modulations.
-- the ability to isolate and damp air-borne and structure-borne
vibrations.
-- the ability to shunt and damp vibrations generated by vinyl and the
cartridge/tonearm transducer system during playback.
-- the ability to provide a rigid and vibrationally isolated mounting
point for the cartridge/tonearm transducer system.
-- the ability to operate (soundlessly) without generating any masking
vibrations or noises.

Charles