I think cutting at an angle would compromise the result further.
I had two Zero-100s, the first idler and the second a belt driven. I loved them, more so the latter because the former had rumble problems due to a poor central bearing design.
I used Molyslip gearbox additive in the arm bearings to provide a little damping.
I got more pleasure form that deck than I have from my Linn.
I had two Zero-100s, the first idler and the second a belt driven. I loved them, more so the latter because the former had rumble problems due to a poor central bearing design.
I used Molyslip gearbox additive in the arm bearings to provide a little damping.
I got more pleasure form that deck than I have from my Linn.
If I recall correctly, the art and ability of someone called a cutting engineer came into play. Here this human had to predetermine how much the tracks were to be spaced from one another. Remember this was all done manually not automatic spacing because regardless of the length of actual play, it was his job to fit in in the alotted space.
Now if you go back and start thinking how do you gain the most control of the cutting head, it means that you needed to control it right at the head. The easiest way is to do this at the linearly across the disc. If you use a pivot the amount of angular precision at the pivot would be immense. The Amplifiers required to control cutting edge were also very important.
Again, also remember the spacing has to be determined by the engineer to anticipate the UPCOMING dynamics. It took real talent to cut a good record where one retained the maximum dynamics and did not pickup interference from upcoming tracks, "pre echo?". I can't recall the term but you need to space out the tracks so you don't hear the upcoming sound. On not so well cut records you will hear the upcoming tracks before it is played. When there was a master available, the engineer would audition the work to be done first, I then suspect they viewed the VU meters with a sharp eye and then when cutting was to be done, the adjustments done on the fly.
What took even more talent were the Direct To Disc recordings which were recorded , mixed and recorded LIVE. All the while trying to keep the sound within a dynamic range envelope.
So the reason why was for control from the production side. From the playback side, one needs to recall the "state of electronics" for the period. The pivoted tonearm was the compromise from cost, simplicity etc. A good radial tonearm would have been very expensive. Of course the Garrard Zero was a clever invention but it also required extremely low friction joints at several points. Naturally a much better linear is possible today for much lower costs. One thing though how does one adjust the position and speed across the record which would vary as I had pointed out. One could place optical sensors. However on some records with large dynamic range would have the groove modulation distance greater than some records intertrack spacing. This would give any presensor arrangement fits. So a passive tracking system would likely be the only method.
That the LP works as well as it does is really very surprising. If one were to consider making a recording of something and had to choose Digital vs. LP, ( not having any experience with both technologies) from the engineering standpoint, the LP would be trashed very soon because of the complexities as opposed to digital.
Last edited:
Why do lathes use a linear cut? Perhaps in homage to Thomas Edison and his cylinders? 🙂
Cutting heads are heavy and certainly need a rigid, precise support. That would be harder to do with a radial arm than a solid linear track right over the blank LP. I have seen old home record cutting machines from the 78 RPM era that used a radial arm, a big heavy one. I doubt the quality was great. Making a cutter head pivot a little while still on a linear arm over the LP blank shouldn't be too hard, right? Just a cam or something similar. Anyway, that's my guess. Certainly someone more familiar with the craft will provide a better answer.
Cutting heads are heavy and certainly need a rigid, precise support. That would be harder to do with a radial arm than a solid linear track right over the blank LP. I have seen old home record cutting machines from the 78 RPM era that used a radial arm, a big heavy one. I doubt the quality was great. Making a cutter head pivot a little while still on a linear arm over the LP blank shouldn't be too hard, right? Just a cam or something similar. Anyway, that's my guess. Certainly someone more familiar with the craft will provide a better answer.
Both active and passive linears are still having lots of fun over on the relevant threads, come over and build an LC or one of the others. Its certainly possible to build something good without high cost or complex machines, i build mine (and am limited by) without a lathe or anything like that.
The linear cutting process is key in keeping with a standard that all turntables could then benefit from, particularly stereo records, and in certain cases, even those "quad" recordings with 35Khz modulations.
Because the high frequency modulations must be "in step" with each other in a stereo signal.
The use of elliptical and other fancy stylus further benefited during playback by being able to extract more from the groove. - increasing the ability and resolution of high frequency material.
For instance, say you have a trumpet dead-centered in the soundstage, like a mono recording.
If the stylus was out of perfect alignment with the groove, such would be the case with a tradional pivoted arm, that stylus would pick up the trumpet somewhat "out of phase" because of the misalignment - elliptical styli are more prone to this than conical styli.
The left vs the right side of the groove would be "played" at a different time. (nanoseconds?)
To most people, this is not an issue, only to those "golden ear" types who insist on ultimate perfection.
Linear tracking arms are thus able to produce the sound in the exact same way it was cut, all across the record, unlike pivoted traditional arms who can only do that at two points on the record.
A well-designed linear arm like my Kenwood only has at most a 0.2 degrees error tracking a record before it silently makes its adjustment to compensate for the spinning groove advancement.
Compare that to a pivoted arm, usually with 2 to 3 degrees error across the majority of a record.
Because the high frequency modulations must be "in step" with each other in a stereo signal.
The use of elliptical and other fancy stylus further benefited during playback by being able to extract more from the groove. - increasing the ability and resolution of high frequency material.
For instance, say you have a trumpet dead-centered in the soundstage, like a mono recording.
If the stylus was out of perfect alignment with the groove, such would be the case with a tradional pivoted arm, that stylus would pick up the trumpet somewhat "out of phase" because of the misalignment - elliptical styli are more prone to this than conical styli.
The left vs the right side of the groove would be "played" at a different time. (nanoseconds?)
To most people, this is not an issue, only to those "golden ear" types who insist on ultimate perfection.
Linear tracking arms are thus able to produce the sound in the exact same way it was cut, all across the record, unlike pivoted traditional arms who can only do that at two points on the record.
A well-designed linear arm like my Kenwood only has at most a 0.2 degrees error tracking a record before it silently makes its adjustment to compensate for the spinning groove advancement.
Compare that to a pivoted arm, usually with 2 to 3 degrees error across the majority of a record.
And he's entitled to his own opinion, naturally.
However, I'm not aware of his credentials and/or certifications as to being an authority on such matters, I'm only certain of my own.
It's safe to assume that anyone "online" if you don't know them personally or have worked with them, you simply can't believe everything people spout out.
By “radial” did you mean to say “linear tracker”? Linear tracking pre-dates any “state of electronics” time period. Here’s a 1910 patent (before the transistor was even invented) for an acoustic passive linear tracker phonograph that plays disks, not screw driven cylinders - same basic principle as passive mechanical linears that are built today:
Even though the Zero (and other PLT's) may track tangentially, the cartridge motion is in an arc, so it is still susceptible to causing stylus scrubbing and FM.
Not sure what the issue is. There are active servo control LT’s that follow the varying groove pitch without any difficulty at all. Please explain why passive is the only solution.
Ray K
Attachments
Last edited:
No You are projecting as you are not interested in a discussion in which any of your dearly held beliefs are challenged. You also seem to think that we should accept what you say as the one truth. Sorry ain't happening. If you are wrong people will point out you are wrong and it's then up to you to either accuse them of being argumentative/trolling or just maybe learn to see another viewpoint.
301s are so popular they sell for silly money and SME bought the rights and are remaking them for megabucks (north of $20k). I have a theory that Lenco L75s have become sought after last 10 years as the supply of Garrards was drying up. I really should have picked up the L75 I was offered for free in 2011.
But rest assured there are a lot of idler lovers on this forum, although the TD124 seems more popular.
But that's just it, I'm not spouting dearly held beliefs.
All you have to do is pick up a book based on facts, such as the Ohms Laws, theory, physics, written by authorities with real certificates in a subject.
A book, a lousy book, then write the author and debate them.
You can't debate something like Ohm's Laws, now can you? 🙄
Although I'm sure there are people that insist on it on some web blogs. 😀
I find your accusatory comment inappropriate. What is it that you find wrong? Bill's method is simpler and should give reasonably better indication.
Yes that must be it. I've never read a book and got my qualifications by osmosis. I also have never read the B&K technical papers where they described how to measure turntables in depth.
There are not many people that read as much on the subject as you do and in combination with your elephants memory you are a sort of Wikiphonia.
😀 😀 😀
Hans
😀 😀 😀
Hans
Sorry, but when comparing TT/arm/cartridge combinations I would rather see polar plots and spectral graphs than vague subjective terms, especially when they are part of a sales pitch from the manufacturer.
Ray K
Hi Gents, i am a learner and enjoy seeing both subjective descriptive comment and objective measurement analysis. i don't have the equipment or knowledge to measure either a TT or TA.
But i am interested to learn and hope for some coaching please! What measurements are appropriate and useful please, what would the measurements be that show up some of the small differences one can hear.
As an example, i just made some small modifications on my LTA which enabled it to track the highest modulation lateral track a touch better (less splatter) and i can also hear a more open top end on records i know well where a couple of brush strokes on a cymbal are evident, which weren't before......
All subjective, what would one measure and what might it show? - or is this just much too big a subject to go into here.......
Nothing is too big for this forum, we even have distance psychology-
By the way, aren't you projecting? With what screen resolution do you do it?
By the way, aren't you projecting? With what screen resolution do you do it?