Alone the fact that he has mistracking makes any speculations about risetime invalid.
That means that the setup is not working at all in a gross style, and not that is
has any nice features.
There are few systems/tone arms that can track that 1812 disc.
I recently have published a macro picture of it.
Lesser needles are kicked right from the platter, and the cannons are mostly infra sound.
Now you can speculate if there is any precision left when everything happens
a 1000 or 5000 times faster. Of course, you can just ignore it and stick with
your favorite audio porn. But it has nothing to do with real life.
Gerhard
Lest I forget: these brick wall filters, mentioned daily, do not exist. Oversampling
has removed that need if it ever existed.
Last edited:
Maybe a better question would be what is the rise time of real sounds in nature which we might want to record? From there, we can better design or evaluate a design.
What is the Tr of the 1812 cannons? Or a pistol or pop'ing balloon?
Do we assume 1/20,000 is the rise time limit? JC uses 10 usec for design parameter.
THx-RNMarsh
Or are simply dispensed with as a matter of routine.
Enclosed is a cumulative and momentary spectrum at 3:43 into the 1st Movt. of the Tschaikovsky's 6th Symphony produced by a well known audiophile label.
Regards,
Braca
Attachments
wading through this thread from about 2009 there is a discussion on the rise time requirements John uses, which IIRC is due to the transients that mistracking produces. The phono stage should not be troubled by these. Which is entirely fair and different from what is the actual transient fidelity that you can get from vinyl. Unless I am confused as usual 🙂
@Gerhard: I know, but she is getting wise to me.
@Gerhard: I know, but she is getting wise to me.
Except that the CD sounds thin with shorter decays of overtones.
Since the XRCD24 version is way better, from your answer I suspect their digitizer for the early CD production is compromised. Thanks.
hmmm 'thin' can just mean it's missing the lovely modulation artifacts that make up the 'warm' and therefore inaccurate vinyl 'sound'. Only those with access to the master tapes would know...
On topic.
A sound field is a level and time varying three dimensional field. Is it surprising that a partial representation of this is more pleasing to the measurement system that developed it than a similar system developed using a mechanical perception system?
A sound field is a level and time varying three dimensional field. Is it surprising that a partial representation of this is more pleasing to the measurement system that developed it than a similar system developed using a mechanical perception system?
I would have written: do not exist any more. Don't you remember the beginning of digital recording ?
Last edited:
Phonograph records sound intrinsically different according to the material/compound used.
Run a sound source of your choosing and place a physical record under the source to preamp/amp interconnection cable.
Different vinyls just sound different, eg those K-Tel "Hits Of The Eighties" etc can cause 'nasty' sound compared to 'good' releases from the established manufacturers.
Turn the clock way back and very early records (78's) using 'bakelite' type material cause an intrinsically different sound and with significant variation according to label (manufacturer) and year.
Just sayin'.
Dan.
Run a sound source of your choosing and place a physical record under the source to preamp/amp interconnection cable.
Different vinyls just sound different, eg those K-Tel "Hits Of The Eighties" etc can cause 'nasty' sound compared to 'good' releases from the established manufacturers.
Turn the clock way back and very early records (78's) using 'bakelite' type material cause an intrinsically different sound and with significant variation according to label (manufacturer) and year.
Just sayin'.
Dan.
Last edited:
OK folks, let's go back 40 years and see the difference I measured with regards to effective bandwidth between MM and MC phono cartridges. For the record, I was deliberately looking for mis-tracking in order to see what happens, and its effect on following phono circuitry, and mis-tracking isn't continuous, but it does happen with some records on occasion. Please note the difference between the Shure M91 MM cartridge and all the others. Also note the transient output of the Ortofon MC cartridge.
The Ortofon that I tested was certainly not limited in bandwidth, in fact it was the widest bandwidth of all the cartridges that I measured. There was no output resonance at 20KHz on the Ortofon that I tested.
The Ortofon that I tested was certainly not limited in bandwidth, in fact it was the widest bandwidth of all the cartridges that I measured. There was no output resonance at 20KHz on the Ortofon that I tested.
And as I said, the problem is the 47k loading. As Bob Cordell did with the vinyltrack, load so you get an RL pole at 8kHz, put a zero in the RIAA correction at that point and you should get MC levels of wideband and inaudible noise 🙂. Not necessarily commercially viable but for the DIY builder totally possible. And we are talking DIY here.
We can improve MM performance. Whether this is ultimately worthwhile remains to be discovered, but it should at least be pursued to a logical conclusion. Otherwise it's prejudice surely?
We can improve MM performance. Whether this is ultimately worthwhile remains to be discovered, but it should at least be pursued to a logical conclusion. Otherwise it's prejudice surely?
Bill, 47K load is the RIAA STANDARD. All the phono cartridge manufacturers are supposed to make their MM cartridges measure best with this load. Of course, if you raise the loading resistance, the Q of the electrical resonance will go up, but the frequency response will be even more irregular. The key to MM designs is the vinyl-tip mass resonance frequency that is relatively low compared to MC cartridges. You NEED a low Q electrical filter to flatten the response to create a 'best fit' 4 pole low pass filter. Shure, in its technical articles over the years, especially in 'Audio' magazine, years ago, gave significant insight to the MM tradeoffs. AND who needs more than 20KHz anyway? '-)
yes, and is why I decided to make my own master recording.
But still, there is recorded, played back Tr .... but what is the fastest Tr in nature to record/reproduce which we can hear.
What is the Tr of the 1812 overture? A pistol shot? etc.
Do speakers also need to have response equal to these natural transient sounds to 'sound' closer to real?
I have a generator (HP 8013B) which I can continuously vary the Tr at a fixed rep rate. I should see what I can detect in the way of Tr from gen vs BW of different speakers.
-RNM
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.