Wouldn't that have a different meaning? Besides DPH said they weren't scare quotes, still not sure what their meaning was but it doesn't matter that much, nothing matters that much........
It's only controversial if you claim some magic property for a one bit signal. There is no additional information in DSD vs higher rate PCM that i can see so it comes down to filtering. i'm sceptical its anything other than filter differences.
Not to mention that SEM requires metallization of the sample, end of the precious vinyl. An AFM would be much better
.
Don't you love ripped CDs, upsampled to 192k (or whatever) PCM then streamed and claimed to reproduce so much better the cymbals 😀.
The pictures Hiten showed were TEM. A graphite mould was take of the groove. As far as I can tell only one person managed to get this to work.
As for the whole sampling rate thing. I've still got first order effects to deal with in my system. Maybe by the time I retire I'll worry about it.
As for the whole sampling rate thing. I've still got first order effects to deal with in my system. Maybe by the time I retire I'll worry about it.
Not to mention that SEM requires metallization of the sample, end of the precious vinyl. An AFM would be much better
Often by sputtering but only a molecule thick is needed. Shouldnt destroy the plastic LP if such a thin layer is all that you need.
I did it myself with a one-off SEM used by the HE Chemists to put a ultra thin coating of various metals on RCA connectors as an experiment for my own curiosity. The plastic of the RCA insulators was not affected. So go right ahead and do an SEM on a piece of LP.
-RNM
Last edited:
Metals don't do molecules, I was expecting a project managers at LLNL would know that much.
I know, molecules, schmolecules, who cares what they are, you talking concepts. "I did it myself", I can visualize you in front of a sputtering machine inspecting the target, checking the vacuum, setting the RF power and DC bias.
Not to mention that SEM requires metallization of the sample, end of the precious vinyl. An AFM would be much better
Gives one pause wondering how the before and after photos were done, do you know of a SEM back then that took 12" samples? As of 2017 40cm was about max. so chop chop the first time around, i.e. any claim of before and after SEM photos are lies.
For SEM, we've generally aimed for about 4-8 nm to get good continuity, but depends on the sputter conditions (adatom mobility and granule growth, I suppose you could go to ebeam and possibly get a thinner film), but that is also for non-conductive samples and trying to see morphology under the gold (getting down into <10 nm resolution). To a first order a slab of vinyl would fit the non-conductive sample definition, not sure you need HR-SEM capability though.
A 12" disc takes a pretty specialized SEM, even our big ones are limited to about a 3x3x3" sample volume. So, it's going to be destructive.
A 12" disc takes a pretty specialized SEM, even our big ones are limited to about a 3x3x3" sample volume. So, it's going to be destructive.
Last edited:
Do (or did) you ever clean your stylus with Mr Clean Magic Eraser? Some sort of melamine foam, seems to do a good job. I have never noticed crystals on my stylus, but I can barely see it anyway, I have enough trouble getting the little brush to touch the stylus. What sort of solvent did you use?
I had access to a $25,000 Leitz microscope with all possible bells and whistles. I used acetone, the crystals were nice little tetrahedrons like from chemistry class.
Sweet, I wonder what they were. Likely not NaCl, one hopes. 🙂 I would be a bit nervous about acetone ("but you're not nervous about the unknown solvent in Stylast?" I hear you asking) around the fiddly bits of my Denon MC. Then again when I worked in a hifi service shop a million years ago we cleaned rubber bits with a breathtaking blend of toluene and trichloroethylene. You don't want to leave the cap off that bottle too long. 🙂
I believe it is easy to make good macro photography of a vinyl groove, with an optical microscope and focus stacking.
Not a chance in hell, our JEOL at the time (late ‘70s early 80’s, yep, “40 years ago”) was taking thumbnail sized samples. The first potential contrast images in a logic CMOS IC were breath taking 😀.
Optical imaging will barely beat Rayleigh criteria, so assume proportional to wavelength. So 450-700 nm, nowhere near even an old SEM. And I'm talking 1.4NA oil immersion lenses, not the .95NA air 50x's around. We're not in DSLR +macro territory of resolution when we're discussing groove-tip interaction.
Attachments
Probably two copies of the same records were scanned ? or different part of the same record by running stylus on same portion ? I am just guessing.
-----
With hesitation I am repeating what I had said before. No doubt digital is better but Vinyl with its shortcoming does a fairly good job and a better medium like Audio CDs can be improved.
Regards.
I have one of those $20 USB microscopes from eBay.
Great for styluses and even better for looking at bugs.
I also use it to check SMD solder joints - I use a 28 pin microcontroller with c. 1.3 mm pin spacing centre to centre.
Edit: just checked the data sheet - the pin spacing centre to centre is 0.65 mm
Last edited:
Complete loss of HF detail. It would have had to be a pretty bad stylus to do that much damage ( are the pics even from the same place in the groove?)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.