[[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/goldmu...ive-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/...005_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
news
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."