Kindhornman, I don't think I've met more than 3% of LP collections who didn't also own a tape machine of some kind, and who made their own mixes and recordings for everyday use at home. That's how they kept their precious LPs in prstine state, by listening to the same distorted vinyl sound further distorted by the process of taping. Given the price of tapes, and buying new LPs some of which were unreplaceable, it was a fair deal compromise. I wore out, literally, three tape head blocks on my Uher tape deck, as I never lent out LPs, but I'd atpe them for anyone wanting me to.
Locally, the serious LP collectors by default owned reVox A abd B series machines, the ytruly reigned supreme, the second place taken by Tandberg, who opened a representative sales office in 1975, and of course a machine here and there from Akai, TEAC, Uher, Philips and the rest of the gang. Also, many of them, if not most, at some point had Acoustic Research speakers (they had a repurtation that everybody who was anybody in classical music had them - see their 1973 brochure), while JBL was not locally represented, like most others, all of that came much later on, in JBL's case as late as 1996.
Locally, the serious LP collectors by default owned reVox A abd B series machines, the ytruly reigned supreme, the second place taken by Tandberg, who opened a representative sales office in 1975, and of course a machine here and there from Akai, TEAC, Uher, Philips and the rest of the gang. Also, many of them, if not most, at some point had Acoustic Research speakers (they had a repurtation that everybody who was anybody in classical music had them - see their 1973 brochure), while JBL was not locally represented, like most others, all of that came much later on, in JBL's case as late as 1996.
Last edited:
dvv.
I'm laughing just because I happen to still have a reel to reel ReVox sitting on a shelf. I to use to make tape copies of my albums when they were new. Now I would have to hunt down some tape to even use the machine, It just looks nice. I was just joking though, never going to do that again.
I'm laughing just because I happen to still have a reel to reel ReVox sitting on a shelf. I to use to make tape copies of my albums when they were new. Now I would have to hunt down some tape to even use the machine, It just looks nice. I was just joking though, never going to do that again.
This argument is circular (pun more or less intended): if the sensor (typically a multipole magnet combined with a "Greek pattern" [don't know the exact english translation for that]) is imperfect, but the servo system is perfect, this will result in W&F at the mechanical end, with no discernable flaw in the tacho signal.
I am sure the tacho system has been made with great care and accuracy, but it cannot be perfect.
The only way to properly assess deviations is to use a completely independent measuring system (but then, the specs will be dulled to some extent)
I see Groove-T replied already.
That is a logical question. The answer is as follows:
The number obtained by taping the PLL refers to turntable assy alone, excluding effects of record, cartridge or tonearm but including platter.
You may freak out but Wow & Flutter measurement per JIS, IEC, DIN is affected by arm/cartridge resonance (for a good reason), record eccentricity, wrapping and of course by actual rotational speed variations, the later –ironically- weights only a little to the total number. The reason is that the weighting curve is centered around 4Hz and slopes down quickly on both sides. Read the whole story on pages 6 to 9 in this classic paper
http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/TT_Design/MechanicalResonances.pdf
H. Saki reported in 1970 that below 0.06%, W&F goes undetected by our senses when the freq is modulated around 4Hz (*)
As with the later models 938, 948 (see attachment)
Steven and Dejan
In my youth I was recording all my records on cassettes. Now after 30-40 years the cassettes range from these that music has lost all the ‘attack’, to these that music sounds fairly well (all in all, TDKs stand better than Maxell and Denon) The vinyl records even the well played, sound better than the best cassettes.
I didn’t record on R2R but I visit a friend who did, and he faces the same scenario (and even worse, many of his old tapes leave a lot of metal oxide on the heads, rollers ect while playing)
George
(*) See the relation btn range of modulation frequency and perception effect (from music theory)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/loun...ch-preamplifier-part-ii-4538.html#post3726409
>Edit
A meander or meandros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meander_%28art%29
Attachments
Last edited:
I hear you, most people feel the same ever since audio open reel tape became scarce, and consequently darn expensive.
I took another approach. I promised myself I'd swap my open reel for a cassette deck when I hear a casette deck capable of being truly comparable to an open reel deck. That happened in December 1994, I had a few top of the line models (meaning the upper tier, not necessarily THE best), from Denon, Technics Dual, Nakamichi, TEAC and Sony. Two months of careful listening, and I returned them all and kept a Sony TC-K 808 ES deck, which I still have. Not exactly like an oper reel, but near enough if I use metal tapes. I also kept my 60W (!!!) Sony Head Demagnetizer I had from 1974 and my head cleaning and maintenance sets. Outstanding build quality, it was their second best model at the time, dual capstan, 3 head, 4 motors (the 4th was not for the pinch rollers, but for opening and closing the cassette compartment door -???).
It still makes me smile for joy, although these days it doesn't have to work hard for its living. And I have no problems with purchasing of cassettes.
Low mass turntables are a waste of time, as far as I am concerned.
I faced this servo tradeoff when I designed the Ampex audio department's first phase locked capstan servo in 1968. It was the only project that was successful that year! I ADDED as much flywheel mass as possible, because fast start-stop was not required. Usually the capstan is kept running and the tape is engaged by the pinch roller. It was confirmed by the research department that this was a good way to go, because NO servo is perfect, and this smooths the inherent problems with the tach. In my experience, I have seen all kinds of servos, many which were not too good, and a good ac motor might be actually better, but later many manufacturers of turntables caught on that phase-locked servos were better.
I don't know today whether direct drive turntables are really the best. I still use a belt driven one with great success.
As far as measurements are concerned. I did MY RESEARCH on phono systems many decades ago. I just don't care to repeat my efforts today, or even try to confirm what some of you here are trying to measure, but I encourage you to post it here. I do not ignore other peoples' measurements. Personally, I am looking for something more useful to measure, but I have not found it yet. Too bad, since I recently invested in the Stanford Research analyzer, hoping for a breakthrough, but I get tired of just measuring the distortions normally available to measure. IF I could easily measure FM distortion with my equipment, there is where I would go.
I faced this servo tradeoff when I designed the Ampex audio department's first phase locked capstan servo in 1968. It was the only project that was successful that year! I ADDED as much flywheel mass as possible, because fast start-stop was not required. Usually the capstan is kept running and the tape is engaged by the pinch roller. It was confirmed by the research department that this was a good way to go, because NO servo is perfect, and this smooths the inherent problems with the tach. In my experience, I have seen all kinds of servos, many which were not too good, and a good ac motor might be actually better, but later many manufacturers of turntables caught on that phase-locked servos were better.
I don't know today whether direct drive turntables are really the best. I still use a belt driven one with great success.
As far as measurements are concerned. I did MY RESEARCH on phono systems many decades ago. I just don't care to repeat my efforts today, or even try to confirm what some of you here are trying to measure, but I encourage you to post it here. I do not ignore other peoples' measurements. Personally, I am looking for something more useful to measure, but I have not found it yet. Too bad, since I recently invested in the Stanford Research analyzer, hoping for a breakthrough, but I get tired of just measuring the distortions normally available to measure. IF I could easily measure FM distortion with my equipment, there is where I would go.
Last edited:
Ah, I breathe again! My litle old Dual is rated at 0.04% W&F (DIN 45507 weighted).
I can well believe that if he used BASF tapes, which were really bad in that respect even within their normal service life. I never ever used BASF, for open reel, my choices were Agfa and Maxell, especially the XLII version. Damn good tapes, they last forever, but I have to add that as a son of a mechanical engineer, my decks were serviced regularly and kept in tip top mechanical and electrical condition. All adjustements checked and made, reference DIN tape (by BASF) used for all adjustments in conjunction with supplied service manuals. OK, so I'm a freak.
But otherwise, George, you can't really expect 40+ years old tape to last this long without being properly stored under prescribed conditions.
Casettes were even worse. Everything is just thinner. Last but not least, it all depends much on the type of tape used and the machine the recordings were made on, especially in terms of mechanical precision and deck maintenance. My 21 year old tapes still sound really good, but they were made over 20 years later than you started making them, and were of better quality, and were mostly metal tapes, only some were ordinary classic TDK, Maxell and Agfa tapes.
Ultimtely, they were never intended for long term storage of music material, but for instant use, quick wear out and fast replacement.
Last edited:
Hi,
I have never had a damaged CD from mold or fungi before. but I did have damaged LP from needles which ground away at the vinyl groove walls each time I played them.
I just recalled that I also had owned a Maplenol TT with a Rabco tangent arm mounted to it and a vacuum hold down system. That one is at my friends house now (out of sight- out of mind). STILL the LP and needle wore out and created an increase from high to permanently higher noise and distortion.
I wonder if Test LP's wore any better..... how many plays with various needle shapes and pressures before they were (or should have been ) thrown away for a new Test source LP.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
FM at least from motor effects is quite easy
Summary here Actual Proof: SOME Direct Drive turntables do have cogging - Vinyl Engine
Full thread with hard sums here Turntable speed analysis - pink fish media
Summary here Actual Proof: SOME Direct Drive turntables do have cogging - Vinyl Engine
Full thread with hard sums here Turntable speed analysis - pink fish media
Is this (copied from the cutting machines) strong enough to remove the main problems of LPs: the veil (is this correct for the vertical deformation when placed on the plate ?) ?
Is 7Kg a low mass turntable ?
Last edited:
Oh, do you really think that the servo can actually completely simulate a high inertia (mass) platter all by electronics? I don't think so.
You ALWAYS get errors with changes in needle drag. You HAVE to have an error to fix the torque. If the turntable has enough inertia, much of the 'change of speed' is not possible with dynamic needle drag.
You ALWAYS get errors with changes in needle drag. You HAVE to have an error to fix the torque. If the turntable has enough inertia, much of the 'change of speed' is not possible with dynamic needle drag.
That British AR-knockoff that is so popular (when I last visited John, that's what he was using) would seem to be low mass, but it's a vague term.
Did you compare the mass of the platter? I seriously doubt it, SY. I did, so in the 1960's I bought a Thorens TD150 turntable, rather than the AR that I had recommended to my (now) business partner 5 years before. When I graduated to the Linn 7 years later, I found the solution to my playing records. It was even a heavier platter than the Thorens.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
is the nearest brits ever got to building a high mass turntable. I so lusted after one as a student.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.