The "brain" thing does what it does and often it is leading in a wrong direction. 🙂
There is a whole body of information available on the stylus tip/vinyl contact during replay, but IMO some even basic questions are still unresolved. The theoretical considerations and measured numbers seem to indicate that there is something unexpected happening at the contact area.
There exist so many contributing variables that it is quite difficult to assess by normal experiments; although the Hirsch/Loescher articles include pictures of tips and grooves (and of course at least Loescher had something to sell too, but that alone doesn't invalidates the findings) one still does not know if the cartridges used were classified for the tip hardness, afair the range among tips was quite large, as selecting for hardness at the beginning would have been to costly.
Usually record wear is seen as a result of the interaction of stylus tip wear -when flattened radii occur - but also if particles in the grooves are moved by the tip (especially when these are harder than the vinyl) .
If the explanation given by Last is correct or not, might be a question, but if the fluid works is a totally other one; it wouldn't be the first time that something works as hoped/expected although the underlying assumptions are completely wrong.
That sound waves travel much faster in a material is known, so interference is possible; it is beyond my imagination that the energy level could be so high that the described effect results, but ....
Btw, the melting due to high tip temperatures; as diamond is usually the best thermo conductor available, it makes one wonder, but if the pressure is already high and the resulting contact area much bigger, and the heat transfer from the tip faces the glue barrier ....
In between I forgot about it, but there was an article in the "Audio" mag in Germany (end of the 70s) where the author wrote about infrared measurements during replay and reported about quite high levels (afair above the 160 degrees van den Hul allegedly observed). Up to now I couldn't get a copy, but apparently the guy who did the measurements wrote his PhD thesis in the area of infrared thermoscopy so should know what to do.
Last edited:
Sure. Being a good scientist and being a good lawyer are two different things. Most of us have some natural ability towards the latter. The first is much harder for humans in general, more so for some than others by natural disposition.
That is aside from individual natural tendency towards civility or conflict. In an atmosphere where attacks and fights can come on suddenly, it tends to make it harder to get into and stay in scientific-thinking mode.
Last edited:
That was said about non-ionizing radiation as a possible contributor to cancer, too.
If Mark provides some I might change my mind if it's compelling enough in my judgement. Or is blah blah blah enough? 😉
From my point of view, you've to rework your classification criteria; but basically it is quite simple, if you are interested in such things, try it out, if not just don't do it.
By your own rules, posts like yours cited above should be considered as trolling.
But if that isn't your intention, what is the purpose of such posts?
I know some new studies have tried (again) to find a correlation, but I haven't seen any evidence to say it makes a strong case. Nor are we seeing epigenetic signatures for non-ionizing radiation like we do so many other environmental insults. Certainly not saying it's impossible but it seems buried in the epidemiological noise floor, which is admittedly rather high. I can very much see it coupling to other factors and amplifying them by providing a modicum of activation energy, depending on the form of non-ionizing radiation.
Apropos your other post, it's definitely human nature: go to an academic talk where one person's research contradicts someone else's and it makes this thread look tame. It's one thing when the data we have is poor, but there should at least be some pause to reexamine perspective when data is brought to the table.
To come back to the more interesting issue raised by Scott, being the “below Gibbs frequencies” in the before/after signal-envelope difference that seems quite odd, where do we stand now.
I have some ideas, but I would need the original signal to play with.
Hans
I have some ideas, but I would need the original signal to play with.
Hans
Luckydog did the sums which are on here somewhere I think and its orders of magnitude out even if the diamond was isolated from the cantilever.
But do you think those who post with the business interest will ever try or acknowledge it?
Polite like the following quotes?
"He guys, do-you realize we all are arguing deaf, without reading what the others wrote ?"
Which poll is this based on?
Who needs evidence when there are studies done.
Plus, you can't overlook the chances of false negative. In the end, what matters is what I experienced because I may be in that 5% population of hearing ability. 
Who needs evidence when there are studies done.
Was I advised to adjust my criteria downwards? I don't understand 😉
“God bless digital.”
Very happy with my Topping D10 for streamed music from my laptop and my Oppo 103.
Very happy with my Topping D10 for streamed music from my laptop and my Oppo 103.
I still have a very old, tiny bottle of "Stylast" stylus treatment. It's supposed to lubricate the stylus tip for lower friction. I clean the stylus quite regularly so I don't worry about gunk building up. I have no idea whether it does anything useful, but it's one more little step in the "ritual" when I play a disk. It doesn't seem to hurt, anyway.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.