You can spin it as accurately as you like, but if you don't address the record eccentricity its a waste of time. JP now has a Nakamichi TX-1000. I am mildly jealous
What about cart/tonearm motion, record warp, etc.? Put on the 3150Hz test track and see a .0001% flatline Ha, Ha, Ha? a cool 35k I suppose with cart and interconnects I could get up to 50k
Last edited:
Hah, Tobydog.
Seriously smart guy, strong opinions, very eccentric, and a style of language all to his own (which I'm fine with but isn't so kind on non-native English speakers, so most everyone that isn't Dutch on this forum).
And has a, ummmm, rather idiosyncratic form of English.
Seriously smart guy, strong opinions, very eccentric, and a style of language all to his own (which I'm fine with but isn't so kind on non-native English speakers, so most everyone that isn't Dutch on this forum
).
You can spin it as accurately as you like, but if you don't address the record eccentricity its a waste of time. JP now has a Nakamichi TX-1000. I am mildly jealous
The linear tracking arms should be better than traditional arms, even without the TX-1000. You don't have a nulls and sweet spots in the arc, without an arc. But clearly the value of centering is beyond the numbers themselves. Well the numbers are small, but matter.
I've been interested in centering since watching a video of the TX-1000... Still I think vinyl is better for many reasons. But I am one for improving it within reason. Sadly the TX-1000 isn't really an option. They aren't exactly available.
A DIY/ cheap centering method would be cool to come up with. Maybe a machine that clamps and then drills an extra large hole and you insert a precision "hole" after measuring? I guess then you have to have a custom spindle/trust that your spindle is perfect. This might take some brain power that will have to be put forth in a longer amount of time than to type it...
But significant. Take a look in the turntable speed stability thread to see what a TX-1000 does in operation. It's very impressive.
I have a removable spindle so can adjust the record. That is not the challenge, the problem is measuring the eccentricity accurately in the first place. You are trying to measure things under 0.1mm quickly and in a home environment.
The adjustment bit is IMO easy. It's the measuring that's a PITA. In record cutting they use a microscope with graticule (for example here) About vinyl GZ Vinyl so you could use an off line method for calculating the correction vector. Whether a USB microscope is up to the job I am not sure, but suspect proper lathe scopes are pricey.
EDIT: after a think a gain of 100-250 should be more than enough and looking at images on the internet you can get the contrast you need. So whilst not as quick as an optical scope with graticule you should be able to spin the record to find min and max position and then work out correction.
EDIT: after a think a gain of 100-250 should be more than enough and looking at images on the internet you can get the contrast you need. So whilst not as quick as an optical scope with graticule you should be able to spin the record to find min and max position and then work out correction.
Last edited:
I am thinking a microscope with a drawn line (maybe a couple). You spin the record and adjust so that you get as consistent as you can. Perhaps a really fine thread knob could push a record you offset a hair to start with. When it is spinning you dont have to calculate an average, you can see well enough to get it balanced.
This could end being a tone arm device perhaps, so you can move it quickly. (Like it occupies an extra tonearm spot)
This could end being a tone arm device perhaps, so you can move it quickly. (Like it occupies an extra tonearm spot)
Surely there must be a mechanical solution for goosing the spindle on the fly, once the proper offset is determined? Also, the initial offset measurement could probably be automated via camera/Arduino etc.
And if you really wanted to go nuts, you could use the above or similar setup to snap a pic of the record label for future identification, so that individual offsets could be recalled automagically for each title?
And if you really wanted to go nuts, you could use the above or similar setup to snap a pic of the record label for future identification, so that individual offsets could be recalled automagically for each title?
Curious since most contect today (like 99.999%) originates as digital. I would have thought that a digital copy using any of the myriad possible ways to copy would sound like the original.
Vinyl rarely sound much like to original analog tape under ideal conditions (lacquer playback right after cutting) and processing into a slab of vinyl does nothing good for it. Mastering sessions with experienced mastering engineers working with superb tapes still get a lot of tweaking before reaching the cutter head. The limitations of the two mediums are quite different.
One serious challenge to centering the disk is that the cut is a spiral with a different pitch every 1/4 turn. (And usually there is a digital delay line to the cutter head to enable this).
people like the euphonics of both LP's and tape. digital is essentially free of those colorations and its not a comfortable experience. The same holds for a movie shot in 35 MM vs 2K video. The video is clearly sharper and free of registration errors (film moving randomly in the gate) but lacking the randomness of the film grain makes it less comfortable to watch for most dramatic content. There is an "app" for that. . . .
That's it and nothing else. But almost no one would be willing to admit this.
Especially in case of the tape, the 'magic' of noise modulation by wow/flutter together with specific behavior at high frequencies at higher amplitudes is quite complex and difficult to emulate in the digital zone. And again the inevitable basic hiss.
I certainly prefer the sound quality from vinyl and sometimes, analog master tapes. They do have a good deal of low order harmonic and IM distortion, but I just don't notice it much. It just sounds more REAL than any digitial playback that I have ever heard.
Right now I am using an OPPO 105, with only one internal upgrade, and I just don't listen to it much.
My friends have recently modified an OPPO 205, with both direct (like power supply substitution, coupling cap removal) and lots of quantum upgrades and they claim that it now can sound as good as the vinyl system that that three of us play back with, but I have not heard it, as of yet.
However, at the Rocky Mountain Audio ... just a few months ago, vinyl sounded better than the equivalent digital playback from Constellation. Why, I don't know, didn't Demian design the digital for them? He is a good engineer, but everybody agreed that the vinyl sounded more involving or natural. It was refreshing to compare the two with 50+K Wilson speakers.
Right now I have an ESS 9038 evaluation board and a power supply to drive it. I already see PROBLEMS just on the schematic, but maybe we can make it better. I hope so.
As far as I to V conversion is concerned, I first tried it more than 40 years ago and I found it was not the optimum load for MC cartridges that I tried, usually 50-300 ohms works best for my associates. However, I do prefer I to V loading for analog tape reproduce heads, as it suppresses the head resonance, and extends the playback response. This is what I did for the 30ips analog master recorder that I made for Dave Wilson 35 years ago, and it still apparently is difficult to beat, according to people who have listened to master tapes through it, within the last year or so. I haven't listened to it recently, unfortunately.
Right now I am using an OPPO 105, with only one internal upgrade, and I just don't listen to it much.
My friends have recently modified an OPPO 205, with both direct (like power supply substitution, coupling cap removal) and lots of quantum upgrades and they claim that it now can sound as good as the vinyl system that that three of us play back with, but I have not heard it, as of yet.
However, at the Rocky Mountain Audio ... just a few months ago, vinyl sounded better than the equivalent digital playback from Constellation. Why, I don't know, didn't Demian design the digital for them? He is a good engineer, but everybody agreed that the vinyl sounded more involving or natural. It was refreshing to compare the two with 50+K Wilson speakers.
Right now I have an ESS 9038 evaluation board and a power supply to drive it. I already see PROBLEMS just on the schematic, but maybe we can make it better. I hope so.
As far as I to V conversion is concerned, I first tried it more than 40 years ago and I found it was not the optimum load for MC cartridges that I tried, usually 50-300 ohms works best for my associates. However, I do prefer I to V loading for analog tape reproduce heads, as it suppresses the head resonance, and extends the playback response. This is what I did for the 30ips analog master recorder that I made for Dave Wilson 35 years ago, and it still apparently is difficult to beat, according to people who have listened to master tapes through it, within the last year or so. I haven't listened to it recently, unfortunately.
Last edited:
Could you disclose the so called "app" or is it under NDA? Is it publicly available? Good enough or still needs some work?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.