[brassplyer]

Ever heard an exotic turntable in action? Do you have one? Do you feel the difference between it and say a correctly set up Technics SL1200MK2 is night and day?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 16:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Brassplyer
wrote:

Ever heard an exotic turntable in action? Do you have one? Do you feel the difference between it and say a correctly set up Technics SL1200MK2 is night and day?

The rumble, hiss and crackles are much clearer on the exotic
turntable. If you are going to attempt to polish a turd, buff it for
all you are worth.

But do hold your nose. It is still a turd.

d

[Trevor]

On 5/08/2018 3:50 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 16:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Brassplyer
wrote:

Ever heard an exotic turntable in action? Do you have one? Do you feel the difference between it and say a correctly set up Technics SL1200MK2 is night and day?

The rumble, hiss and crackles are much clearer on the exotic
turntable. If you are going to attempt to polish a turd, buff it for
all you are worth.

But do hold your nose. It is still a turd.

:-)

But back in the day the BEST reason for having a *good*
turntable/tonearm/cartridge was you didn't destroy your records every
time you played them! Better sounding **** was mainly a bonus. Now most
people don't care, (not that they ever did) their records sounding
crappier and crappier every time they play them adds to their "appeal"
now apparently. And they still get to perform the "rituals" they missed
out on with digital media. :-)

[John Williamson]

On 05/08/2018 08:02, Trevor wrote:

But back in the day the BEST reason for having a *good*
turntable/tonearm/cartridge was you didn't destroy your records every
time you played them! Better sounding **** was mainly a bonus. Now most
people don't care, (not that they ever did) their records sounding
crappier and crappier every time they play them adds to their "appeal"
now apparently. And they still get to perform the "rituals" they missed
out on with digital media. :-)


I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

Except when running the disco, in which case the singles were
consumables, and only got played a few times anyway before they dropped
out of the playlist...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/5/2018 3:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

I'm too old to have done that. When I first started buying records, I
didn't have a tape recorder. And my record playing system was far better
than the tape recorders I could afford when I could finally add one to
my system. Today, I have no compelling reason to buy a phonograph record.

Ticks and pops don't bother me. Wow and flutter does, so I spent my
money on a good turntable and that justified a good cartridge and stylus.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 05/08/2018 12:10, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/5/2018 3:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

I'm too old to have done that. When I first started buying records, I
didn't have a tape recorder. And my record playing system was far better
than the tape recorders I could afford when I could finally add one to
my system. Today, I have no compelling reason to buy a phonograph record.

Nor do I, but my local Tesco superstore has just started stocking a
(very) limited range of vinyl.

As most of what is there is classic rock titles, I would hope they've
not suffered any remastering other than making new stampers. I'll still
be listening to the CD versions, though.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Brassplyer wrote:
Ever heard an exotic turntable in action? Do you have one? Do you feel the difference between it and say a correctly set up Technics SL1200MK2 is night and day?

I have, and some of them are very good and some of them are very very bad.

The Technics can sound pretty good if you put a good arm and cartridge on it,
but the arm, cartridge, and preamp are much of the equation. It still cogs
audibly a little bit and that can be annoying. It adds a slight sense of blur,
much like scrape flutter on tape machines. But put an SME arm and a good MC
cartridge on it and it will be as good as some of the systems seen in the
high end shops.

Go to a high end show and listen to some of the systems there, they are often
all over the place. Very clean sounding systems next to horribly honky ones.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 5 Aug 2018 10:08:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Brassplyer wrote:
Ever heard an exotic turntable in action? Do you have one? Do you feel the difference between it and say a correctly set up Technics SL1200MK2 is night and day?

I have, and some of them are very good and some of them are very very bad.

The Technics can sound pretty good if you put a good arm and cartridge on it,
but the arm, cartridge, and preamp are much of the equation. It still cogs
audibly a little bit and that can be annoying. It adds a slight sense of blur,
much like scrape flutter on tape machines. But put an SME arm and a good MC
cartridge on it and it will be as good as some of the systems seen in the
high end shops.

Go to a high end show and listen to some of the systems there, they are often
all over the place. Very clean sounding systems next to horribly honky ones.
--scott

Yep, some of them are so good they come up to level about 5% of that
of a cheap CD player.

d

[John Williamson]

On 05/08/2018 16:40, Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Aug 2018 10:08:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Go to a high end show and listen to some of the systems there, they are often
all over the place. Very clean sounding systems next to horribly honky ones.
--scott

Yep, some of them are so good they come up to level about 5% of that
of a cheap CD player.


About as good as a 64kbps mp3 file, then?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 17:04:09 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 05/08/2018 16:40, Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Aug 2018 10:08:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Go to a high end show and listen to some of the systems there, they are often
all over the place. Very clean sounding systems next to horribly honky ones.
--scott

Yep, some of them are so good they come up to level about 5% of that
of a cheap CD player.


About as good as a 64kbps mp3 file, then?

Well, that's pushing it a little maybe - not really that good.

d

[John Williamson]

On 05/08/2018 17:44, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 17:04:09 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 05/08/2018 16:40, Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Aug 2018 10:08:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Go to a high end show and listen to some of the systems there, they are often
all over the place. Very clean sounding systems next to horribly honky ones.
--scott

Yep, some of them are so good they come up to level about 5% of that
of a cheap CD player.


About as good as a 64kbps mp3 file, then?

Well, that's pushing it a little maybe - not really that good.

Grin


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 6/08/2018 12:08 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2018 12:10, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/5/2018 3:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

I'm too old to have done that. When I first started buying records, I
didn't have a tape recorder. And my record playing system was far
better than the tape recorders I could afford when I could finally add
one to my system. Today, I have no compelling reason to buy a
phonograph record.

Nor do I, but my local Tesco superstore has just started stocking a
(very) limited range of vinyl.

As most of what is there is classic rock titles, IÂ* would hope they've
not suffered any remastering other than making new stampers. I'll still
be listening to the CD versions, though.



Or one can make a digital recording of the LP, and have a CD version
that faithfully documents all the limitations and flaws that the
enthusiasts find to be supposedly 'superior to digital'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 6/08/2018 9:45 AM, geoff wrote:
On 6/08/2018 12:08 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2018 12:10, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/5/2018 3:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

I'm too old to have done that. When I first started buying records, I
didn't have a tape recorder. And my record playing system was far
better than the tape recorders I could afford when I could finally
add one to my system. Today, I have no compelling reason to buy a
phonograph record.

Nor do I, but my local Tesco superstore has just started stocking a
(very) limited range of vinyl.

As most of what is there is classic rock titles, IÂ* would hope they've
not suffered any remastering other than making new stampers. I'll
still be listening to the CD versions, though.



Or one can make a digital recording of the LP, and have a CD version
that faithfully documents all the limitations and flaws that the
enthusiasts find to beÂ* supposedly 'superior to digital'.

geoff


Oh yeah, and have the speakers going at full listening level when
recording, in order to capture any physical excitation of the
transcription chain that may contribute to 'The Sound Of Vinyl'.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:

Or one can make a digital recording of the LP, and have a CD version
that faithfully documents all the limitations and flaws that the
enthusiasts find to be supposedly 'superior to digital'.

For that, though, you need a really good turntable, as mentioned initially
in this thread.

You can also do this for LPs that will never, ever be issued on CD.
There are plenty of those.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 5/08/2018 5:22 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2018 08:02, Trevor wrote:
But back in the day the BEST reason for having a *good*
turntable/tonearm/cartridge was you didn't destroy your records every
time you played them! Better sounding **** was mainly a bonus. Now
most people don't care, (not that they ever did) their records
sounding crappier and crappier every time they play them adds to their
"appeal" now apparently. And they still get to perform the "rituals"
they missed out on with digital media. :-)


I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

Me too back in the day. Played the record, recorded onto reel for home
and cassette for car. Then only played the record for serious listening.
By the time digital came along though, there was no need to buy vinyl,
or record CD's onto tape.

[Trevor]

On 5/08/2018 10:08 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2018 12:10, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/5/2018 3:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

I'm too old to have done that. When I first started buying records, I
didn't have a tape recorder. And my record playing system was far
better than the tape recorders I could afford when I could finally add
one to my system. Today, I have no compelling reason to buy a
phonograph record.

Nor do I, but my local Tesco superstore has just started stocking a
(very) limited range of vinyl.

As most of what is there is classic rock titles, IÂ* would hope they've
not suffered any remastering other than making new stampers. I'll still
be listening to the CD versions, though.

Hope away. Many are digitally remastered before being made into vinyl
for people more interested in "the look and feel", than the sound. And
most of the new albums on vinyl are recorded digitally too. But those
who buy the vinyl will still swear they are superior of course. :-)
Never hear anyone admit they simply *prefer* the vinyl anomalies and
degradations. I'll admit the covers are better though. Hardly enough for
me to buy one now.

[Trevor]

On 6/08/2018 2:04 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2018 16:40, Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Aug 2018 10:08:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Go to a high end show and listen to some of the systems there, they
are often
all over the place.* Very clean sounding systems next to horribly
honky ones.
--scott

Yep, some of them are so good they come up to level about 5% of that
of a cheap CD player.


About as good as a 64kbps mp3 file, then?

Only if you add wow, flutter, rumble, tics, pops, distortion etc. to
that MP3 file. Once did that to a 128kbs MP3 to see how many people
preferred it to the CD it was taken from (without telling them what I
was playing of course) No surprise there were a few. :-)

[geoff]

On 6/08/2018 1:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 5/08/2018 10:08 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2018 12:10, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/5/2018 3:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I've always been one of those that plays the record once, while
recording it on to the best tape or digital medium I have available.

I'm too old to have done that. When I first started buying records, I
didn't have a tape recorder. And my record playing system was far
better than the tape recorders I could afford when I could finally
add one to my system. Today, I have no compelling reason to buy a
phonograph record.

Nor do I, but my local Tesco superstore has just started stocking a
(very) limited range of vinyl.

As most of what is there is classic rock titles, IÂ* would hope they've
not suffered any remastering other than making new stampers. I'll
still be listening to the CD versions, though.

Hope away. Many are digitally remastered before being made into vinyl
for people more interested in "the look and feel", than the sound. And
most of the new albums on vinyl are recorded digitally too. But those
who buy the vinyl will still swear they are superior of course. :-)
Never hear anyone admit they simply *prefer* the vinyl anomalies and
degradations. I'll admit the covers are better though. Hardly enough for
me to buy one now.



I recently purchase the LP version of Thick As A Brick. Just for the
cover and add-ins. Dog ate my old one ;-/

Probably won't ever listen to the disc though, except maybe late one
night after a few too many wines and a fit of nostalgia.

geoff

[Phil W]

Trevor:
On 6/08/2018 2:04 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2018 16:40, Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Aug 2018 10:08:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Go to a high end show and listen to some of the systems there, they are
often
all over the place. Very clean sounding systems next to horribly honky
ones.
--scott

Yep, some of them are so good they come up to level about 5% of that
of a cheap CD player.


About as good as a 64kbps mp3 file, then?

Only if you add wow, flutter, rumble, tics, pops, distortion etc. to that
MP3 file. Once did that to a 128kbs MP3 to see how many people preferred
it to the CD it was taken from (without telling them what I was playing of
course) No surprise there were a few. :-)

Izotope´s old "Vinyl" plug-in is still around and has even been "renewed"
somehow some years ago... so, there´s also a bit of "vintage digital" for
those, who are mainly after "vintage" whatever...

[Chuck[_11_]]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 16:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Brassplyer
wrote:

Ever heard an exotic turntable in action? Do you have one? Do you feel the difference between it and say a correctly set up Technics SL1200MK2 is night and day?
Yes, I have heard quite a few. Back in the late 80s I worked for a
company that sold turntable - arm combos that sold for thousands of
dollars. I own a Technics SL1200MK2. If there is a major difference, I
can't hear it. Cartridges, however can vary greatly in all parameters.
Linear arm turntables, like the Revox and Rabcos will have less
distortion on the inner tracks but they also have other drawbacks. If
I were you, I'd keep the table you have and, if you want better sound,
upgrade the cartridge.

[[email protected]]

Linear arm turntables, like the Revox and Rabcos will have less
distortion on the inner tracks........

YEP


It was a subtle thing but I always liked the first cut one each side the best, and the last cut the least.
Then i found out why.

the tracking distortion on the inner most tracks which were also usually the loudest, is one of the "features" I am most happy to be rid of.

m

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Linear arm turntables, like the Revox and Rabcos will have less
distortion on the inner tracks........

YEP

It's not as big a win as you might think. With a conventional turntable,
the zenith angle changes between the outer grooves and the inner grooves,
but the actual error on the outer grooves is as bad as on the inner ones.

Yes, the zenith error is a source of distortion, but the REAL problem is
the lower linear velocity at the center of the disc, which may be a tenth
that of the velocity on the outer edge.

The linear arm systems vary a lot. The servo-controlled ones always seem
to have weird rumbling and bumping sounds from the servo moving the arm
back and forth. Folks in the seventies didn't care so much but today we're
likely to have better low end extension and so it can be a big issue.

My ex's husband used an Eminent technology air bearing arm for years, and
it didn't have any of the rumble issues of the servo units and was very
clean-sounding, but I honestly don't think the tracking on inner grooves
was audibly any better than my old SME arm.

It was a subtle thing but I always liked the first cut one each side the best, and the last cut the least.
Then i found out why.

the tracking distortion on the inner most tracks which were also usually the loudest, is one of the "features" I am most happy to be rid of.

If the inner track is the loudest, the producer and mastering engineer should
be ashamed of themselves. Always put something quiet without a lot of high
end on the inner track. I know with classical music this isn't always
possible, but with rock albums it's not a big deal. (With classical music
you can always just leave the last couple inches blank and make the record
a twofer).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: " If the inner track is the loudest, the producer and
mastering engineer should be ashamed of themselves. Always"

What if the client wanted it that way?

Remember, if the chef in Restaurant A
won't char table # fifteen's steak to a
crisp, that customer will simply eat
elsewhere!

[None]

theckmah wrote in message
...

Scott Dorsey wrote: " If the inner track is the loudest, the producer and
mastering engineer should be ashamed of themselves. Always"

What if the client wanted it that way?

You can't let that one go, can you? But you can still pretend that you know
better than those who are not dumb ****s. FCKWAFA!

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/7/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
If the inner track is the loudest, the producer and mastering engineer should
be ashamed of themselves. Always put something quiet without a lot of high
end on the inner track.

There was a formula, or maybe a rule of dumb, that defined what the
first and last tracks should be (on a pop record). The first track on
Side 1 was always the hit because that was the easiest for a DJ to cue.
The first track on Side 2 was the one you wanted to be the next hit, for
the same reason. The second to last track on Side 2 was a loud throwaway
so the last track could be the "calm release." TI don't remember what
the last track on Side 1 was supposed to be, but none of these "rules"
had to do with linear velocity.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: " If the inner track is the loudest, the producer and
mastering engineer should be ashamed of themselves. Always"

What if the client wanted it that way?

That's why they invented CDs - so there weren't different types of
distortion built into the different tracks. So now the DJ can cue up
Track 11 and a different song than what he's expecting plays.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: " but none of these "rules"
had to do with linear velocity. "

Wowww. Skeptical even of something one
of your equals stated?

Regarding impedance numbers on the backs
of amplifiers in my stereo thread, you stated
they served as " a guide for salesmen".

I doubt that all labelling - on audio equipment
and even on forms of physical media - as
well as how songs are sequenced on a piece of
vinyl - is for marketing purposes and should be
taken with a grain of salt.

[None]

theckmah jammed his head up his colon again in message
...

flush theckmah's turds

Well, there you go. More proof that you don't come here to learn; you come
here to make a big display of what a moron you are.

It's too bad that you never actually use speakers for listening (you rant
and kookdance about anyone using their ears). Maybe it's hard to hear the
speakers with the lining of your rectum pressing so hard against your ears.

Retarded dumb ****.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: " If the inner track is the loudest, the producer and
mastering engineer should be ashamed of themselves. Always"

What if the client wanted it that way?

Then you make everything else quieter in order to compensate so you don't
have to cut the last one so hot. OR, you put less time on the record.

Remember, if the chef in Restaurant A
won't char table # fifteen's steak to a
crisp, that customer will simply eat
elsewhere!

He can't, because you can't fight physics. You can only cut so much excursion
before the record won't play at all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 10:58:18 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

Linear arm turntables, like the Revox and Rabcos will have less
distortion on the inner tracks........

YEP

It's not as big a win as you might think. With a conventional turntable,
the zenith angle changes between the outer grooves and the inner grooves,
but the actual error on the outer grooves is as bad as on the inner ones.

Yes, the zenith error is a source of distortion, but the REAL problem is
the lower linear velocity at the center of the disc, which may be a tenth
that of the velocity on the outer edge.


good point

the sound was noticeably worse on the inner tracks

so what you are saying is that even the fancy "linear tracking" tables that had zero tracking error across the entire disc, would still suffer with this "feature" of worse performance on the inner tracks.

m

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/7/2018 5:04 PM, wrote:
so what you are saying is that even the fancy "linear tracking" tables that had zero tracking error across the entire disc, would still suffer with this "feature" of worse performance on the inner tracks.

It's not exactly the same thing, but functionally, it's like losing
headroom as you move toward the inner grooves. Because the noise floor
is relatively quiet, with a lower maximum level before distortion, you
have less dynamic range available. You may think that's not a big deal
since most pop music is cut with less than 6 dB of dynamic range, but
they do that so they can take advantage of the maximum level and make
everything loud. But try to do that close to the center of the disk, and
you end up with distortion.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

so what you are saying is that even the fancy "linear tracking" tables that had zero tracking error across the entire disc, would still suffer with this "feature" of worse performance on the inner tracks.


Yeah, it might be a little better than a conventional arm, but it won't be
much better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
is relatively quiet, with a lower maximum level before distortion, you
have less dynamic range available. You may think that's not a big deal
since most pop music is cut with less than 6 dB of dynamic range, but
they do that so they can take advantage of the maximum level and make
everything loud. But try to do that close to the center of the disk, and
you end up with distortion.

Back in the Disco era, people went to clubs where they listened to systems
with huge horn-loaded speakers that had a lot of thumpy bass and coupled
into the room and made everything vibrate. This was necessary since they
were out of their mind on cocaine and their perception of low frequencies
was impaired.

The DJ or Disquere in a big club like Studio 54 would have the turntables
isolated in a sand table, but in cheaper places there would often be feedback
problems from the room vibration being coupled into the turntables.

Because of this, DJs wanted discs with greater and greater bass excursion.
These were LPs, so limiting didn't really get you any loudness the way it
did with a CD which is amplitude-limited. The LP was rate-limited
mechanically, so all you could do was try and cut hotter and faster.

This made it VERY difficult to cut with low linear velocity. You couldn't
cut close to the center at all. So guys would be cutting 12" singles were
half the record surface was empty because they wanted to get those outer
grooves and they wanted to hit them as loud as possible.

You'll still see a lot of dance and DJ records cut this way. You'll see
12" singles cut at 45 rpm for more linear velocity and the ability to get
even louder.

I don't cut discs like that anymore.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
is relatively quiet, with a lower maximum level before distortion, you
have less dynamic range available. You may think that's not a big deal
since most pop music is cut with less than 6 dB of dynamic range, but
they do that so they can take advantage of the maximum level and make
everything loud. But try to do that close to the center of the disk, and
you end up with distortion.

Back in the Disco era, people went to clubs where they listened to systems
with huge horn-loaded speakers that had a lot of thumpy bass and coupled
into the room and made everything vibrate. This was necessary since they
were out of their mind on cocaine and their perception of low frequencies
was impaired.

The DJ or Disquere in a big club like Studio 54 would have the turntables
isolated in a sand table, but in cheaper places there would often be feedback
problems from the room vibration being coupled into the turntables.

Because of this, DJs wanted discs with greater and greater bass excursion.
These were LPs, so limiting didn't really get you any loudness the way it
did with a CD which is amplitude-limited. The LP was rate-limited
mechanically, so all you could do was try and cut hotter and faster.

This made it VERY difficult to cut with low linear velocity. You couldn't
cut close to the center at all. So guys would be cutting 12" singles were
half the record surface was empty because they wanted to get those outer
grooves and they wanted to hit them as loud as possible.

You'll still see a lot of dance and DJ records cut this way. You'll see
12" singles cut at 45 rpm for more linear velocity and the ability to get
even louder.

I don't cut discs like that anymore.
--scott

Thanks for the history lesson Scott. Did anyone ever plot the equivalent of
the Fletcher-Munson curves for cocaine?

[PStamler]

Don, Trevor, e know you don't like LPs. Guess what: Those of us who collect music on LPs are as aware of their flaws as you are, maybe more so. To put it simply: from a technical point of view LPs suck. But, in many cases, *that's where the music is". An awful lot of LPs were never reissued on more proficient media, or were reissued badly.

What good turntables do is to retrieve the music with as little effect from the disc's flaws as poaaible. Some of the expensive, fancy tables do that well, some of them do it badly. My own preference is to copy the LP into the computer, use iZotope RX to eliminate the scratches, ticks and pops, do a little judicious filtering to eliminate infrasonic crap (good power amps aren't affected mu ch infrasonics, but radio station processing goes haywire -- and the goal is to broadcast the music -- then divide up into bands and burn a Cd, which is what gets played on the air. CDs are way easier to cue, too.

This is all a pain in the butt, but if, say, you're looking for music by Rev. Pearly Brown, well, you're not going to find that except on LP -- in our case, an LP that's in rough shape. His singing and playing, though, make the work worthwhile, and a good turntable helps. What do I mean by "good"? One that doesn't add significant rumble to what comes from the cutting lathe.. One with a cartridge/arm system that doedn't resonate a typical warp frequencies. One without significant wow & slutter (and, in the case of servo-controlled drive systems, one without cogging). Et cetera, et cetera. Oh yeah, one with a good clamping system to minimize warp. And a tone arm that doesn't resonate.

Like I said, the more you work with LPs, the more you know just how bad they can be. Digital recording has now gotten sufficiently transparent that if a record gets played back well, you can make a good digital recording of it and use software to clean up a lot of the remaining flawsremaining flaws. And finally get to the music, which is what it's really about.

Here's what still needs to be done: a variably off-center spindle to compensate for the wow caused by off-center stampers. Nakamichi had a system to deal with that in the 1970s, but it was kind of cobbled-together at best, and it aoon disappeared from the market. I can hear that wow, a lot, and short of reaming out the center hole, there aren't any good ways to deal with it. Back in the 60s we used to call one another on the phone when we got a Folkways record with the stampers properly centered on both sides -- it was that rare and exciting. To my mind, this is one of the biggest unsolved audible problems in LP (and 78) reproduction right now.

Pesce,
Psul

[PStamler]

Oh, and by the way: to the guy who said linear groove speed at the inside of an LP is 1/10 that at the outside -- naah. The diameter of the inner part of the LP's groove (4.75") is specified as 42%of the diameter of the outer part (11.5"). So, since, circumference is equal to pi times diameter, the circumference of the inner part, and hence the linear speed, should be 42% as much as the outside. Still far from ideal, but not as bad as it might be -- and was, in the days of small-label 78s.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

Here's what still needs to be done: a variably off-center spindle to compensate for the wow caused by off-center stampers. Nakamichi had a system to deal with that in the 1970s, but it was kind of cobbled-together at best, and it aoon disappeared from the market.




the rep rate is going to be = to the rpm of the disc.

the depth depends on the severity of the excentricity

and the timing is random

could make an interesting dsp project.

was that automatic or did you have to "dial in the compensation paramters"

[Scott Dorsey]

Pamela wrote:

I've never understood this properly but on a linear arm turntable,
wouldn't there still be a lateral force experienced by the stylus
(which some sensor then picks up and activates the arm servo)?
Isn't that lateral force going to introduce at least some audio
distortion?

Yes, there's a small skating force, resulting in slightly more lateral
force on the inner groove than the other. And yes, it results in a
new kind of tracking distortion.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 4:03:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Here's what still needs to be done: a variably off-center spindle to compensate for the wow caused by off-center stampers. Nakamichi had a system to deal with that in the 1970s, but it was kind of cobbled-together at best, and it aoon disappeared from the market.




the rep rate is going to be = to the rpm of the disc.

the depth depends on the severity of the excentricity

and the timing is random

Not random; the pitch varies in a sinusoial pattern.


could make an interesting dsp project.

Much easier to do the job mechanically, I suspect.

was that automatic or did you have to "dial in the compensation paramters"

It was mechanical; as I recall the turntable moved. Not a very elegant solution. Back when I had a Dual 1019 I'd remove the spindle, turn it upaide down and pull the record to a point where the groove was centered, then mark the direction on the label with a Sharpie.

Peace,
Paul

[Trevor]

On 9/08/2018 6:32 AM, PStamler wrote:
Don, Trevor, e know you don't like LPs. Guess what: Those of us who
collect music on LPs are as aware of their flaws as you are, maybe
more so. To put it simply: from a technical point of view LPs suck.
But, in many cases, *that's where the music is". An awful lot of LPs
were never reissued on more proficient media, or were reissued
badly.

We who lived through the vinyl era, and still have a couple of thousand
LP's are well aware of that.


What good turntables do is to retrieve the music with as little
effect from the disc's flaws as poaaible. Some of the expensive,
fancy tables do that well, some of them do it badly. My own
preference is to copy the LP into the computer, use iZotope RX to
eliminate the scratches, ticks and pops, do a little judicious
filtering to eliminate infrasonic crap (good power amps aren't
affected mu ch infrasonics, but radio station processing goes haywire
-- and the goal is to broadcast the music -- then divide up into
bands and burn a Cd, which is what gets played on the air. CDs are
way easier to cue, too.

Well I don't play on air, but transcribed most of my "never issued on
CD" LP's to digital years ago.


This is all a pain in the butt, but if, say, you're looking for music
by Rev. Pearly Brown, well, you're not going to find that except on
LP -- in our case, an LP that's in rough shape. His singing and
playing, though, make the work worthwhile, and a good turntable
helps. What do I mean by "good"? One that doesn't add significant
rumble to what comes from the cutting lathe. One with a cartridge/arm
system that doedn't resonate a typical warp frequencies. One without
significant wow & slutter (and, in the case of servo-controlled drive
systems, one without cogging). Et cetera, et cetera. Oh yeah, one
with a good clamping system to minimize warp. And a tone arm that
doesn't resonate.

Well my Thorens TD125/SME/Shure V15VMR still does that for me. I'd NEVER
pay that much money for a turntable now IF I didn't own it before CD
came along though.



Like I said, the more you work with LPs, the more you know just how
bad they can be. Digital recording has now gotten sufficiently
transparent that if a record gets played back well, you can make a
good digital recording of it and use software to clean up a lot of
the remaining flawsremaining flaws. And finally get to the music,
which is what it's really about.

I am not sure if you think you are telling us something we haven't been
well aware of for the last 2-3 decades?



Here's what still needs to be done: a variably off-center spindle to
compensate for the wow caused by off-center stampers. Nakamichi had a
system to deal with that in the 1970s, but it was kind of
cobbled-together at best, and it aoon disappeared from the market. I
can hear that wow, a lot, and short of reaming out the center hole,

Yep, I just reamed out the centre hole if it was really bad.