@Walterwalter,
Sorry, after all it was a very simple problem.
Take a hand drilling machine and a drill of 8,0, 8,5 or 9.0 mm and make the hole in the eccentric record wider. Put the record on the platter, the stylus in the most inner groove and turn the platter by hand so you can observe the eccentricity (see drawing). Now correct the eccentricity with some careful “tick’s” with your finger. The longer the attached bar (2 sided tape), the more accurate the centricity of the record (an inflexible carbon tube – 500 x 4 x 1 mm – weights 3,7 gram and costs about 3 euro).
Before, you have to drill the diameter of the spindle with a pillar drill machine in a small and thin metal or hard plastic disk. Modern glues fasten within one or two seconds so everything is ready now. The eccentric record will be perfect centric. Every owner of a pile of vinyl records can do the job.
Sorry, after all it was a very simple problem.
Take a hand drilling machine and a drill of 8,0, 8,5 or 9.0 mm and make the hole in the eccentric record wider. Put the record on the platter, the stylus in the most inner groove and turn the platter by hand so you can observe the eccentricity (see drawing). Now correct the eccentricity with some careful “tick’s” with your finger. The longer the attached bar (2 sided tape), the more accurate the centricity of the record (an inflexible carbon tube – 500 x 4 x 1 mm – weights 3,7 gram and costs about 3 euro).
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Before, you have to drill the diameter of the spindle with a pillar drill machine in a small and thin metal or hard plastic disk. Modern glues fasten within one or two seconds so everything is ready now. The eccentric record will be perfect centric. Every owner of a pile of vinyl records can do the job.
Last edited:
Hi Tom,
Unfortunately I can only second Marks experience with non-aligned stampers.
For a cheap solution of this problem check the spindle design of the Artemis Labs turntable that I designed in 2006. You'll find the spindle to have a "waist" from mat level to about 3mm above. The waist is 6.5mm in diameter(iIrc) and the spindle above the waist has a "standard" diameter of 7.15mm. When dropped, the record "lands" centered, but your aforementioned "tick" with a finger(with some practice) will get you much closer to perfect concentricity.
The other, rather important advantage is that (fairly)well centered records will not make physical contact with the spindle. One less source of noise.....
@ Ralf. Won't be making it to CES in Jan (BUMMER!). The servo just needs a second(cue and runout groove) mode that, when a displacement over time > x is sensed, switches to pure servo(sans pitch factor). That's doable
But it is a problem in general to allow for the user to cue a servo-controlled linear tracking arm "free-handedly" and not à la Pioneer PL-L1000 or similar...
All the best to all the best
Frank
Unfortunately I can only second Marks experience with non-aligned stampers.
For a cheap solution of this problem check the spindle design of the Artemis Labs turntable that I designed in 2006. You'll find the spindle to have a "waist" from mat level to about 3mm above. The waist is 6.5mm in diameter(iIrc) and the spindle above the waist has a "standard" diameter of 7.15mm. When dropped, the record "lands" centered, but your aforementioned "tick" with a finger(with some practice) will get you much closer to perfect concentricity.
The other, rather important advantage is that (fairly)well centered records will not make physical contact with the spindle. One less source of noise.....
@ Ralf. Won't be making it to CES in Jan (BUMMER!). The servo just needs a second(cue and runout groove) mode that, when a displacement over time > x is sensed, switches to pure servo(sans pitch factor). That's doable
But it is a problem in general to allow for the user to cue a servo-controlled linear tracking arm "free-handedly" and not à la Pioneer PL-L1000 or similar...
All the best to all the best
Frank
@Mark Kelly,
Because of the explanation of Berlinta I now understand what you mean. And your massage is: when the manufacturer of the record spends too few attention to the centricity of the record, they also will take insufficient care to align the grooves on both sides of the record.
Well, because of your warning I inspected the centricity of a new jazz album I bought recently: Trichotomy – Fact finding mission – of the NAIM label. The NAIM-label is advertising themselves as the “exclusive top hifi”, but the record is not exactly centric on both sides and the eccentricity of both sides differs...
The designer of a tonearm cannot wipe out the influence of warped and eccentric records. You can “smear it out” over the frequency spectrum so it is hardly observable with the spectrum analyzer. But it is impossible to eliminate the influence of the wiggling to the stylus and cantilever of the phono cartridge. A well fabricated record is the foundation that underlies vinyl hifi. Bad centred records are simply no high fidelity...
Conclusion: everyone who spends more than about 1000 euro for a new turntable with tonearm and cartridge is in fact a dumb consumer. Because for 1000 euro he can buy a quality CD-player and enjoy real hifi. Moreover, every hifi shop must have a warning on their website: all the state of the art turntables, tonearms and cartridges can only reproduce high quality music if the record is a high quality fabricated vinyl record. These records are not widely available!
Well, let us see what can be done. The question is how we can centre a record when the grooves of both sides of the record have not the same centre point. First, it must be comfortable for the person who wants to play a vinyl record. Second, side one and side two must be centred separately. So we have to make a choice. For example the red pawls are side one of the record and the blue ones side two. So we have to mark them separately with nice appropriate stickers on both sides of the record.
Centring the record – after widening the centre hole – can be done according to my previous post. Next, one needs a mould/matrix to drill the holes at the right place from the spindle and at right angles to each other (so the spindle have to be the point of reference). Not by using a big drilling machine (3,1 mm holes are fine), but by a small electro motor that fits into two concentric pipes with a loose spring. The thickness of the middle section of a record is 2,0 – 2,8 mm so one AA battery is more than enough power to drive the small electro motor with attached drill (a small collet to fetch the small and short drill is enough).
I realize that the suggested way to centre the record is “really shameful” in modern times. So it is great there are really small gadgets that can project a small red dot on the wall (Power point gadgets). The pawls are not rarely: a lot of technical/mechanical equipment is suited with this kind of alignment (the spring must be loose so the record is not lifted by the invisible pawls for side two of the disk). Fetching these pawls in a acrylic platter is just drilling 4 holes with the mould/matrix (next step is to drill the correct diameter and depth). And metal platters? If there is enough room beneath just glue them at the other side (increasing the surface of the glue with one or more rings that fit).
Because of the explanation of Berlinta I now understand what you mean. And your massage is: when the manufacturer of the record spends too few attention to the centricity of the record, they also will take insufficient care to align the grooves on both sides of the record.
Well, because of your warning I inspected the centricity of a new jazz album I bought recently: Trichotomy – Fact finding mission – of the NAIM label. The NAIM-label is advertising themselves as the “exclusive top hifi”, but the record is not exactly centric on both sides and the eccentricity of both sides differs...
The designer of a tonearm cannot wipe out the influence of warped and eccentric records. You can “smear it out” over the frequency spectrum so it is hardly observable with the spectrum analyzer. But it is impossible to eliminate the influence of the wiggling to the stylus and cantilever of the phono cartridge. A well fabricated record is the foundation that underlies vinyl hifi. Bad centred records are simply no high fidelity...
Conclusion: everyone who spends more than about 1000 euro for a new turntable with tonearm and cartridge is in fact a dumb consumer. Because for 1000 euro he can buy a quality CD-player and enjoy real hifi. Moreover, every hifi shop must have a warning on their website: all the state of the art turntables, tonearms and cartridges can only reproduce high quality music if the record is a high quality fabricated vinyl record. These records are not widely available!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Well, let us see what can be done. The question is how we can centre a record when the grooves of both sides of the record have not the same centre point. First, it must be comfortable for the person who wants to play a vinyl record. Second, side one and side two must be centred separately. So we have to make a choice. For example the red pawls are side one of the record and the blue ones side two. So we have to mark them separately with nice appropriate stickers on both sides of the record.
Centring the record – after widening the centre hole – can be done according to my previous post. Next, one needs a mould/matrix to drill the holes at the right place from the spindle and at right angles to each other (so the spindle have to be the point of reference). Not by using a big drilling machine (3,1 mm holes are fine), but by a small electro motor that fits into two concentric pipes with a loose spring. The thickness of the middle section of a record is 2,0 – 2,8 mm so one AA battery is more than enough power to drive the small electro motor with attached drill (a small collet to fetch the small and short drill is enough).
I realize that the suggested way to centre the record is “really shameful” in modern times. So it is great there are really small gadgets that can project a small red dot on the wall (Power point gadgets). The pawls are not rarely: a lot of technical/mechanical equipment is suited with this kind of alignment (the spring must be loose so the record is not lifted by the invisible pawls for side two of the disk). Fetching these pawls in a acrylic platter is just drilling 4 holes with the mould/matrix (next step is to drill the correct diameter and depth). And metal platters? If there is enough room beneath just glue them at the other side (increasing the surface of the glue with one or more rings that fit).
Last edited:
Suppose, I make a tangential tonearm (the tangential movement of the tonearm is done by the stylus). I put an high quality record on the platter, start playing the music and watch the cartridge slowly moving to the inner side of the record. Everything is just fine!
Back to reality. Because I have a lot of really lightweight tubes, I attached a carbon tube of 0,7 mm x 500 mm to my fixed pivot tone arm. When I looked up the specifications of 30 cm vinyl records (IEC98-1987) I read the tolerance of the diameter of the spindle hole in relation to the spiral of the groove: 0,2 mm.
I have measured the (ec)centricity of a lot of the best quality records, but none of them showed a steady movement of the tonearm when I observed the moving point of the carbon tube all along the groove. However, is this all eccentricity or is it partly the vibration of the cartridge, caused by the stylus and cantilever?
I have checked this (finishing groove) and the “score” is about 40% vibrations by the cartridge and 60% eccentricity. The smallest eccentricity at the tip of the stylus – at both sides of the record – at the finishing groove was 0,2 mm (for example the Argo label). Remember: these are high quality classical music records and not popular music records. Nevertheless, there are popular music records that meet the IEC98-1987 specifications too.
Back to the imaginary tangential tonearm. The eccentricity of the record is equal for this type of tonearm so the cartridge is moving to and fro for 0,2 mm and more. The observed vibrations of the cartridge are not reserved for fixed pivot tonearms: the cartridge in the tangential tonearm will resonance in the same way and these vibrations (!) are not restricted to very low frequencies. Conclusion: what looks – from a distance – like a smooth train is – from close up – a fan that’s bumping over an unpaved road. And these were all high quality records...
So, what is the profit of a tangential tonearm when the stylus have to move the mass en friction of the tonearm at right angles? There is no tracking error and there is no offset angle, that is right. So this tangential tonearm is not bad in comparison to a fixed pivot tonearm. But this type of tangential tonearm cannot estimate the quality of a cd.
Suppose I want to centre all my eccentric records by myself. What will be the maximum precision I can met? Well, I can use a small laser that projects a red dot on the wall at a distance of 2 or 3 meter. So I can measure differences of nearly 0,01 mm. Nevertheless, this is only possible when the tonearm and cartridge is very rigid. A little tolerance will ruin the accuracy. Because of this magnification of the wiggling of the stylus I can come far. But when I am ready adjusting the centre of the record I have to drill those 2 holes into the vinyl for this side of the record (pawls).
I have to use a tool for this job and this tool is not available so I have to make it by myself. With other words: the precision of this tool – plus/minus the tolerance of my adjustment – will set the new (ec)centricity for this side of the record. Therefore, my question is: who can make this tool with a tolerance less than +/- 0,1 mm? Personally, I know a lot of tricks to get very close. But a tolerance less than 0,1 mm? That will only happen by accident. (Don’t worry about the vibrations of small DC motors; of course they will pulsate.)
When we will reach a higher level of the quality of the reproduced music of a vinyl record, we have to:
Back to reality. Because I have a lot of really lightweight tubes, I attached a carbon tube of 0,7 mm x 500 mm to my fixed pivot tone arm. When I looked up the specifications of 30 cm vinyl records (IEC98-1987) I read the tolerance of the diameter of the spindle hole in relation to the spiral of the groove: 0,2 mm.
I have measured the (ec)centricity of a lot of the best quality records, but none of them showed a steady movement of the tonearm when I observed the moving point of the carbon tube all along the groove. However, is this all eccentricity or is it partly the vibration of the cartridge, caused by the stylus and cantilever?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I have checked this (finishing groove) and the “score” is about 40% vibrations by the cartridge and 60% eccentricity. The smallest eccentricity at the tip of the stylus – at both sides of the record – at the finishing groove was 0,2 mm (for example the Argo label). Remember: these are high quality classical music records and not popular music records. Nevertheless, there are popular music records that meet the IEC98-1987 specifications too.
Back to the imaginary tangential tonearm. The eccentricity of the record is equal for this type of tonearm so the cartridge is moving to and fro for 0,2 mm and more. The observed vibrations of the cartridge are not reserved for fixed pivot tonearms: the cartridge in the tangential tonearm will resonance in the same way and these vibrations (!) are not restricted to very low frequencies. Conclusion: what looks – from a distance – like a smooth train is – from close up – a fan that’s bumping over an unpaved road. And these were all high quality records...
So, what is the profit of a tangential tonearm when the stylus have to move the mass en friction of the tonearm at right angles? There is no tracking error and there is no offset angle, that is right. So this tangential tonearm is not bad in comparison to a fixed pivot tonearm. But this type of tangential tonearm cannot estimate the quality of a cd.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Suppose I want to centre all my eccentric records by myself. What will be the maximum precision I can met? Well, I can use a small laser that projects a red dot on the wall at a distance of 2 or 3 meter. So I can measure differences of nearly 0,01 mm. Nevertheless, this is only possible when the tonearm and cartridge is very rigid. A little tolerance will ruin the accuracy. Because of this magnification of the wiggling of the stylus I can come far. But when I am ready adjusting the centre of the record I have to drill those 2 holes into the vinyl for this side of the record (pawls).
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I have to use a tool for this job and this tool is not available so I have to make it by myself. With other words: the precision of this tool – plus/minus the tolerance of my adjustment – will set the new (ec)centricity for this side of the record. Therefore, my question is: who can make this tool with a tolerance less than +/- 0,1 mm? Personally, I know a lot of tricks to get very close. But a tolerance less than 0,1 mm? That will only happen by accident. (Don’t worry about the vibrations of small DC motors; of course they will pulsate.)
When we will reach a higher level of the quality of the reproduced music of a vinyl record, we have to:
- centre the records as good as we can;
- forget all those fixed-pivot dogma’s;
- damp a lot of the natural resonances of the cartridge, caused by the vibrations of the stylus and cantilever;
- transfer the tonearm from the outer side to the inner side of the record by only one force (tracking force).
Last edited:
Hi Tom,
All modern records are cut with "variable pitch", so the rate at which the cartridge moves towards the center is never constant. Even perfect centering can't get rid of this flaw, which, on the other hands yields longer max. playing time and less "bleed through" from groove to groove. Can't eat your cake and have it, too...
Cheers,
Frank
All modern records are cut with "variable pitch", so the rate at which the cartridge moves towards the center is never constant. Even perfect centering can't get rid of this flaw, which, on the other hands yields longer max. playing time and less "bleed through" from groove to groove. Can't eat your cake and have it, too...
Cheers,
Frank
@Berlinta,
I am aware of the variable pitch, but the groove will never cross itself. Therefore, the lack of a straight movement (with variable speed) from the outer side to the inner side of any (!) record have to worry me (and others). Nevertheless, this was not the most accurate experiment. So I have ordered a nice laser to do a 100% non-disturbing experiment. We will see.
I am aware of the variable pitch, but the groove will never cross itself. Therefore, the lack of a straight movement (with variable speed) from the outer side to the inner side of any (!) record have to worry me (and others). Nevertheless, this was not the most accurate experiment. So I have ordered a nice laser to do a 100% non-disturbing experiment. We will see.
@Tom Bloem
Your ideas as to centering holes look good. However, even with my humble collection of 1000 records, it is rather time and work consuming. That is why I personally would prefer something like Nakamichi automatic center search (if it ever be moderately priced ). Unfortunately, manufacturers are very busy with solving imaginary problems, as well as unsubstantial ones.
Let me explain my point. Due to special literature, eccentricity of central hole of 0,15 mm gives speed deviations (wow) of 0,1 t-0,25%. Together with recorded track eccentricity, in may give up to 0,27mm deviation, which brings wow up to 0,19-0,45%... Thinking logically, what is the point of making highly sophisticated TT with 30kg platter, magnet bearing, superb motors, etc, if as a result we still have up to 0, 25-0,5% of speed deviation with each record turn? Doesn't it look as an engineering absurd?
As for me, I see several other problems with LP gear, those rather substantial, ignored by manufacturers and audiophiles. Linear tracking seems to have least influence on sound reproduction quality, of all of them.
Or, maybe I'm wrong as to linear tracking? Actually I'm unable to hear sonic differences of 1,5 degree error with my Micro Seiki arm. However, I hear the difference with different cables, including power cables...
P.S. Still prefer LP sound to CD.
Your ideas as to centering holes look good. However, even with my humble collection of 1000 records, it is rather time and work consuming. That is why I personally would prefer something like Nakamichi automatic center search (if it ever be moderately priced ). Unfortunately, manufacturers are very busy with solving imaginary problems, as well as unsubstantial ones.
Let me explain my point. Due to special literature, eccentricity of central hole of 0,15 mm gives speed deviations (wow) of 0,1 t-0,25%. Together with recorded track eccentricity, in may give up to 0,27mm deviation, which brings wow up to 0,19-0,45%... Thinking logically, what is the point of making highly sophisticated TT with 30kg platter, magnet bearing, superb motors, etc, if as a result we still have up to 0, 25-0,5% of speed deviation with each record turn? Doesn't it look as an engineering absurd?
As for me, I see several other problems with LP gear, those rather substantial, ignored by manufacturers and audiophiles. Linear tracking seems to have least influence on sound reproduction quality, of all of them.
Or, maybe I'm wrong as to linear tracking? Actually I'm unable to hear sonic differences of 1,5 degree error with my Micro Seiki arm. However, I hear the difference with different cables, including power cables...
P.S. Still prefer LP sound to CD.
Last edited:
@Walterwalter,
Sorry, that I was a bit vague in earlier posts; I have nearly the same opinion about phono equipment as you have. Moreover, I am quite upset when I see video’s showing “magic” turntables and tonearms that cost 5.000 euro and more. Because a 1000 euro CD-player offers the buyer more quality.
I like vinyl records because I have to handle them with a lot of care. Just like precious things and that’s correct because beautiful music is precious for me. Nevertheless, it is very interesting to see how far we can come with this old technique. At the moment I can hardly hear the difference between a piece of music on a vinyl record and the same music on a CD. I know the quality of the CD is better, but I cannot hear that very well (and others who are listening agree with this). Therefore, I am afraid at the end the progress will be limited (just like you argued).
Audiophile magazines and high end audio shops do not agree with this. They advise me to spend a lot of money and they promise me a phenomenal audible sensation when I take home “one of those bargains”. Many people believe those tales. Recently, someone offered his Van den Hull phono cartridge (Colibri) because he wanted to buy a new Colibri with platinum wiring (pfffff).
[When I install my equipment in a room as big as the listening room of a high end audio shop, I will hear everything with far more detail than in my own living room. Just because of the possibility to increase the output of the amplifier in relation to the volume of the listening room (and less deformation caused by resonances from the walls, etc., etc.).]
Because I still buy new vinyl records, it is quite disappointing to clearly see the cartridge wiggling all along the trajectory; the eccentricity exceeds far the specifications of the RIAA/IEC. Moreover, the same music on CD is half the price... So I have to centre these new records just to show myself I am not a fool. That’s why I give it a try. But when the results are unsatisfactory, I immediately stop buying any new vinyl record.
Oh, by the way; some month ago I ordered a test LP in the UK for about 30 pounds (the only test LP I could find at the internet). It is the analogue test LP of Hi-Fi News, produced by Len Gregory, ‘The cartridge man’. Well, a test LP have be the most accurate LP that meets the RIAA standard, isn’t it? When I put the record on the turntable I can shuffle the record to and fro for 0,4 mm... The Needledoctor will sell you exactly the same test LP for only $49.99 (a bargain for this high quality record, so the costumers rated it with 5 stars! ;-))
Sorry, that I was a bit vague in earlier posts; I have nearly the same opinion about phono equipment as you have. Moreover, I am quite upset when I see video’s showing “magic” turntables and tonearms that cost 5.000 euro and more. Because a 1000 euro CD-player offers the buyer more quality.
I like vinyl records because I have to handle them with a lot of care. Just like precious things and that’s correct because beautiful music is precious for me. Nevertheless, it is very interesting to see how far we can come with this old technique. At the moment I can hardly hear the difference between a piece of music on a vinyl record and the same music on a CD. I know the quality of the CD is better, but I cannot hear that very well (and others who are listening agree with this). Therefore, I am afraid at the end the progress will be limited (just like you argued).
Audiophile magazines and high end audio shops do not agree with this. They advise me to spend a lot of money and they promise me a phenomenal audible sensation when I take home “one of those bargains”. Many people believe those tales. Recently, someone offered his Van den Hull phono cartridge (Colibri) because he wanted to buy a new Colibri with platinum wiring (pfffff).
[When I install my equipment in a room as big as the listening room of a high end audio shop, I will hear everything with far more detail than in my own living room. Just because of the possibility to increase the output of the amplifier in relation to the volume of the listening room (and less deformation caused by resonances from the walls, etc., etc.).]
Because I still buy new vinyl records, it is quite disappointing to clearly see the cartridge wiggling all along the trajectory; the eccentricity exceeds far the specifications of the RIAA/IEC. Moreover, the same music on CD is half the price... So I have to centre these new records just to show myself I am not a fool. That’s why I give it a try. But when the results are unsatisfactory, I immediately stop buying any new vinyl record.
Oh, by the way; some month ago I ordered a test LP in the UK for about 30 pounds (the only test LP I could find at the internet). It is the analogue test LP of Hi-Fi News, produced by Len Gregory, ‘The cartridge man’. Well, a test LP have be the most accurate LP that meets the RIAA standard, isn’t it? When I put the record on the turntable I can shuffle the record to and fro for 0,4 mm... The Needledoctor will sell you exactly the same test LP for only $49.99 (a bargain for this high quality record, so the costumers rated it with 5 stars! ;-))
Hi Tom,
Somewhat off topic, but:
The Hi-fi News test record isn't worth the admission price for a number of reasons...
Listen with your own ears, take what reviewers (or other experts) say with more than just a grain of salt.
If you can't make out much of a difference between an LP and the equivalent CD, that's fine. But how can you then say: "I know the quality of the CD is better."?
If you were to come by my place and do a double blind listening comparison between LP and CD, you may revise your position. I've done it with musicians, men and women alike, students, "audiophiles", recording engineers and recently with the head of the music department of a local public broadcast station.
His words after listening to the LP versions: "You can't get quality like that from CD..."
His wife was completely flabbergasted as well. She too thought that CD was supposed to be superior...
Don't get me wrong. CD is a great format, measures well in many departments, but overall, still trails when we're looking at the state of the art products. To your consolation, one of the better 1000$ CD players will outperform a poorly put-together and sluggishly adjusted record deck with ease.
Then there is the question which type of recording/mixing/mastering method was used for the CD/LP. Some LPs are produced like mere afterthoughts with the CD actually sounding superior even when played back via a super turntable.
Here in Berlin, an LP cost about 10-20% more than the CD(sometimes the same!), but you get a CD copy and or a (hi-rez)download code with each LP. No question what I choose...
Keep us posted on your arm design and sonic impressions, the medium itself is what it is....
Cheers,
Frank
Somewhat off topic, but:
The Hi-fi News test record isn't worth the admission price for a number of reasons...
Listen with your own ears, take what reviewers (or other experts) say with more than just a grain of salt.
If you can't make out much of a difference between an LP and the equivalent CD, that's fine. But how can you then say: "I know the quality of the CD is better."?
If you were to come by my place and do a double blind listening comparison between LP and CD, you may revise your position. I've done it with musicians, men and women alike, students, "audiophiles", recording engineers and recently with the head of the music department of a local public broadcast station.
His words after listening to the LP versions: "You can't get quality like that from CD..."
His wife was completely flabbergasted as well. She too thought that CD was supposed to be superior...
Don't get me wrong. CD is a great format, measures well in many departments, but overall, still trails when we're looking at the state of the art products. To your consolation, one of the better 1000$ CD players will outperform a poorly put-together and sluggishly adjusted record deck with ease.
Then there is the question which type of recording/mixing/mastering method was used for the CD/LP. Some LPs are produced like mere afterthoughts with the CD actually sounding superior even when played back via a super turntable.
Here in Berlin, an LP cost about 10-20% more than the CD(sometimes the same!), but you get a CD copy and or a (hi-rez)download code with each LP. No question what I choose...
Keep us posted on your arm design and sonic impressions, the medium itself is what it is....
Cheers,
Frank
Sorry I didn't come across this thread earlier. If this is the drawing:
I created the drawing with a cad program and uploaded it to the VE website. It is to scale, but it was traced from the patent drawing, and the dimensions were guestimated from several photos of the arm that had a ruler included in the photos. The drawing was intended to demonstrate the articulation and how the arm maintains tangency. If you build from the drawing, it should work in principle, but the accuracy is not guaranteed. The patent number is 582660, which I believe is a Canadian patent. The patent text includes some dimensional information, and 6 equations defining motion. Beware, the patent text includes the phrase "substantially tangential", which would imply that at some point(s) it does lose tangency.
@Berlinta,
The question is: “What is difference in quality?” (CD versus vinyl record) Because I don’t like it to cause misunderstandings, I will describe it a bit “extensively”.
Nowadays the music labels are convinced the sampling and digital encoding of analogue music with 44,1 kHz by 16 bit is above the sensible of hearing of the average adult. Of course, there are people with an extremely good sense of hearing, but that’s not for ~95% of the listeners. Moreover, the average adult even can’t hear the difference between the music of a CD and the same music - sourced from a CD - in compressed MP3 format (double blind experiments).
Therefore, a comparison between the quality of an analogue master recording and a digital master recording – as a direct source for the amplifier of a hi-fi equipment – is “senseless”. Our sense of hearing simply cannot detect all the present details in relation to the output by using the same audio equipment.
Nowadays, every recording is a digital recording, so every new vinyl record has a digital source. Of course, the sampling rate of the digital master recording is much higher (the best is 192 kHz) and the encoding of the frequencies have more detail (24 bit depth).
This digital master recording is the source for both CD and vinyl record. The CD is coded with 44,1 kHz/16 bit and the vinyl record with converted 192 kHz/24 bit into analogue. Therefore, the music on the vinyl record has a much higher quality – if not manipulated to fit the record – than the same music on CD. But that’s not the whole story because the average adult cannot hear the difference: the quality of the CD is for most people “the limit”.
The CD-player separates the reading of the digital code and the output of the analogue translation. The code is sent to a buffer and the contents of the buffer is clocked one by one via a D/A converter to the amplifier. This separation greatly enhanced the quality of the reproduced sound. There is no influence of the eccentricity of the centre hole itself, no eccentricity of the grooves, no lack of channel separation, no wow, no flutter, no error angle, no skating, no limiting of the gain, no dust in the groove, etc., etc. A CD-player with a prize of around the 1000 euro has a very accurate clock, a high quality D/A converter and a nice laser reader.
As I mentioned before, most new records do not meet the RIAA specifications in relation to the centring of the record/grooves. Logically, because the record factories of the old labels don’t exist anymore. In Holland there is only one small factory in the town of Harlem and they can “press” records nearly “day and night” because of all the orders (in 2012 the sales of vinyl records had risen nearly 30%). Most small vinyl factories press 180 grams records so everyone says the quality is better than in the old days... (This is partly true because they sometimes divide the master recording over two vinyl records.)
Is it logical to think these small companies will develop new ways of pressing vinyl records with far better physical specifications? No, because they don’t have the knowledge and they don’t have the money to outplace the research.
Therefore, buying new vinyl records nowadays is partly a “trend”. You have to spend too much money for a high end turntable, tonearm and phono cartridge to get the quality of sound, produced by a “1000 euro CD-player”. Not because the music on a vinyl record is inferior to the music on a CD – quite the contrary – but the making of the physical carrier itself is partly inferior and the equipment to reproduce the sound is far, far too expensive in relation to the quality of the reproduced sound.
Maybe it is possible to reduce some flaws. At the moment this can only be done by DIY. Nevertheless, not everyone have the intention to design/develop enhancements for the benefit of everyone.
The question is: “What is difference in quality?” (CD versus vinyl record) Because I don’t like it to cause misunderstandings, I will describe it a bit “extensively”.
Nowadays the music labels are convinced the sampling and digital encoding of analogue music with 44,1 kHz by 16 bit is above the sensible of hearing of the average adult. Of course, there are people with an extremely good sense of hearing, but that’s not for ~95% of the listeners. Moreover, the average adult even can’t hear the difference between the music of a CD and the same music - sourced from a CD - in compressed MP3 format (double blind experiments).
Therefore, a comparison between the quality of an analogue master recording and a digital master recording – as a direct source for the amplifier of a hi-fi equipment – is “senseless”. Our sense of hearing simply cannot detect all the present details in relation to the output by using the same audio equipment.
Nowadays, every recording is a digital recording, so every new vinyl record has a digital source. Of course, the sampling rate of the digital master recording is much higher (the best is 192 kHz) and the encoding of the frequencies have more detail (24 bit depth).
This digital master recording is the source for both CD and vinyl record. The CD is coded with 44,1 kHz/16 bit and the vinyl record with converted 192 kHz/24 bit into analogue. Therefore, the music on the vinyl record has a much higher quality – if not manipulated to fit the record – than the same music on CD. But that’s not the whole story because the average adult cannot hear the difference: the quality of the CD is for most people “the limit”.
The CD-player separates the reading of the digital code and the output of the analogue translation. The code is sent to a buffer and the contents of the buffer is clocked one by one via a D/A converter to the amplifier. This separation greatly enhanced the quality of the reproduced sound. There is no influence of the eccentricity of the centre hole itself, no eccentricity of the grooves, no lack of channel separation, no wow, no flutter, no error angle, no skating, no limiting of the gain, no dust in the groove, etc., etc. A CD-player with a prize of around the 1000 euro has a very accurate clock, a high quality D/A converter and a nice laser reader.
As I mentioned before, most new records do not meet the RIAA specifications in relation to the centring of the record/grooves. Logically, because the record factories of the old labels don’t exist anymore. In Holland there is only one small factory in the town of Harlem and they can “press” records nearly “day and night” because of all the orders (in 2012 the sales of vinyl records had risen nearly 30%). Most small vinyl factories press 180 grams records so everyone says the quality is better than in the old days... (This is partly true because they sometimes divide the master recording over two vinyl records.)
Is it logical to think these small companies will develop new ways of pressing vinyl records with far better physical specifications? No, because they don’t have the knowledge and they don’t have the money to outplace the research.
Therefore, buying new vinyl records nowadays is partly a “trend”. You have to spend too much money for a high end turntable, tonearm and phono cartridge to get the quality of sound, produced by a “1000 euro CD-player”. Not because the music on a vinyl record is inferior to the music on a CD – quite the contrary – but the making of the physical carrier itself is partly inferior and the equipment to reproduce the sound is far, far too expensive in relation to the quality of the reproduced sound.
Maybe it is possible to reduce some flaws. At the moment this can only be done by DIY. Nevertheless, not everyone have the intention to design/develop enhancements for the benefit of everyone.
Hi Tom,
Since we're still off topic, I will reply one last time, then suggest to open another thread if you think there is enough interest in this partly "philosophical" issue.
Let me first mention that I am an industry member of many years and I do know this industry very well.
You wrote:
"Nowadays the music labels are convinced the sampling and digital encoding of analogue music with 44,1 kHz by 16 bit is above the sensible of hearing of the average adult. Of course, there are people with an extremely good sense of hearing, but that’s not for ~95% of the listeners. Moreover, the average adult even can’t hear the difference between the music of a CD and the same music - sourced from a CD - in compressed MP3 format (double blind experiments)."
This quote contains several generalisations or statements that I would like to see backed up by hard data.
There are quite a few recording studios and labels that are not convinced of CD standard being sufficient to serve the public.
Example: BerlinerMeisterSchallplatten
Where did you get the 95% figure from?
Cd vs. MP3 has been the topic of many a test. The real situation is complex and clearly contradicts what you stated.
Example: w.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html
"Therefore, a comparison between... - Our sense of hearing simply cannot detect all the present details in relation.... "
Famous mastering engineers like Stan Ricker disagree....
"Nowadays, every recording is a digital recording..."
No, not all recordings are done digitally. Just here in Berlin, I know three studios that master/cut from analog and digital masters.
"The CD is coded with 44,1 kHz/16 bit and the vinyl record with converted 192 kHz/24 bit into analogue. Therefore, the music on the vinyl record has a much higher quality – if not manipulated to fit the record – than the same music on CD."
If "the music on vinyl has a much higher quality" but we can't hear the difference, how did you actually get to that conclusion? You seem to mistake frequency response for quality.
"As I mentioned before, most new records do not meet the RIAA specifications in relation to the centring of the record/grooves. Logically, because the record factories of the old labels don’t exist anymore."
Sorry, it's not a matter of logic, but quality control, as ALL of the current record presses are old and came from pressing plants that once put out decently centered records.
A 180gr. pressing isn't per se superior to a 150gr pressing or inferior to a 200gr pressing. What really matters is the quality of the pellets/raw vinyl(noise) and the time each record gets to cool down before removal from the press(warps).
"...far better physical specifications."
What would you consider "far better"?
"the equipment to reproduce the sound is far, far too expensive in relation to the quality of the reproduced sound."
Who is to decide where that threshold of acceptable sound quality for the money spent is to be placed? The used market is full of turntables that, with a little TLC, will give the owner excellent sound for less than a grand, be it $ or €
"Maybe it is possible to reduce some flaws. At the moment this can only be done by DIY."
There are quite a few professionals within the DIY audio community(mostly because they love what they are doing and like the exchange with others) . Claiming that improvments can only stem from DIYers is a simplification of the actual situation of the field of state of the art audio(which most of the DIY audio threads aren't about). Check the publications of the A.E.S. and you'll find the Pro Audio companies in particular spending a lot of time and money in R&D.
I'd still love to see your arm finished and working and read about it's performance!
Cheers,
Frank
Since we're still off topic, I will reply one last time, then suggest to open another thread if you think there is enough interest in this partly "philosophical" issue.
Let me first mention that I am an industry member of many years and I do know this industry very well.
You wrote:
"Nowadays the music labels are convinced the sampling and digital encoding of analogue music with 44,1 kHz by 16 bit is above the sensible of hearing of the average adult. Of course, there are people with an extremely good sense of hearing, but that’s not for ~95% of the listeners. Moreover, the average adult even can’t hear the difference between the music of a CD and the same music - sourced from a CD - in compressed MP3 format (double blind experiments)."
This quote contains several generalisations or statements that I would like to see backed up by hard data.
There are quite a few recording studios and labels that are not convinced of CD standard being sufficient to serve the public.
Example: BerlinerMeisterSchallplatten
Where did you get the 95% figure from?
Cd vs. MP3 has been the topic of many a test. The real situation is complex and clearly contradicts what you stated.
Example: w.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html
"Therefore, a comparison between... - Our sense of hearing simply cannot detect all the present details in relation.... "
Famous mastering engineers like Stan Ricker disagree....
"Nowadays, every recording is a digital recording..."
No, not all recordings are done digitally. Just here in Berlin, I know three studios that master/cut from analog and digital masters.
"The CD is coded with 44,1 kHz/16 bit and the vinyl record with converted 192 kHz/24 bit into analogue. Therefore, the music on the vinyl record has a much higher quality – if not manipulated to fit the record – than the same music on CD."
If "the music on vinyl has a much higher quality" but we can't hear the difference, how did you actually get to that conclusion? You seem to mistake frequency response for quality.
"As I mentioned before, most new records do not meet the RIAA specifications in relation to the centring of the record/grooves. Logically, because the record factories of the old labels don’t exist anymore."
Sorry, it's not a matter of logic, but quality control, as ALL of the current record presses are old and came from pressing plants that once put out decently centered records.
A 180gr. pressing isn't per se superior to a 150gr pressing or inferior to a 200gr pressing. What really matters is the quality of the pellets/raw vinyl(noise) and the time each record gets to cool down before removal from the press(warps).
"...far better physical specifications."
What would you consider "far better"?
"the equipment to reproduce the sound is far, far too expensive in relation to the quality of the reproduced sound."
Who is to decide where that threshold of acceptable sound quality for the money spent is to be placed? The used market is full of turntables that, with a little TLC, will give the owner excellent sound for less than a grand, be it $ or €
"Maybe it is possible to reduce some flaws. At the moment this can only be done by DIY."
There are quite a few professionals within the DIY audio community(mostly because they love what they are doing and like the exchange with others) . Claiming that improvments can only stem from DIYers is a simplification of the actual situation of the field of state of the art audio(which most of the DIY audio threads aren't about). Check the publications of the A.E.S. and you'll find the Pro Audio companies in particular spending a lot of time and money in R&D.
I'd still love to see your arm finished and working and read about it's performance!
Cheers,
Frank
While I welcome all posts about audio but the debate about CD vs Vinyl is best posted on another opened thread or to create a new thread. These kinds of philosophical arguments can be provocative (what the consumers can or cannot hear the difference should be decided by themselves) and even fun but let's focus on the genre at hand, that is, tonearm of unique design.
Hi walter, the opposite is true, see my posts from 505 to 516. A good LT is the best tonearm. This thread is about fun and clever simulations. cheers
Hi tnargs,
Please be so kind to pm me with examples of outrageous and non-sensical claims from 650/653. I just re-read those and I'm somewhat baffled by your statement. In case this wasn't clear: it wasn't my intention to go off topic or hi-jack this thread(not even to open a new one, - just a suggestion). I believe some of what Tom posted were sweeping statements that reflect his opinion, their content not necessarily undisputed truths(which is what his wording implied).
But if disagreement(expressed in civilized form) is uncalled for here, the moderator shouldn't hesitate and cancel the posts in question(no sarcasm intended!).
Happy New Year!
Frank
Please be so kind to pm me with examples of outrageous and non-sensical claims from 650/653. I just re-read those and I'm somewhat baffled by your statement. In case this wasn't clear: it wasn't my intention to go off topic or hi-jack this thread(not even to open a new one, - just a suggestion). I believe some of what Tom posted were sweeping statements that reflect his opinion, their content not necessarily undisputed truths(which is what his wording implied).
But if disagreement(expressed in civilized form) is uncalled for here, the moderator shouldn't hesitate and cancel the posts in question(no sarcasm intended!).
Happy New Year!
Frank
In my estimation, Frank's credibility has not been tarnished by anything that he nor you have written here.