You pose it in a totalitarian way, black or white. We are talking about a subtle difference that not everyone can perceive, only trained ears. Weird that in your case you have not noticed. I'm starting to believe that you don't have a TT, you have Aladdin and when the last record of the LP approaches, you rub the lamp! 😀
Although the decrease in sound quality is not as noticeable as between the different speeds of a reel recorder
(already mentioned here by someone) exists and is easily verifiable.
You only have to find two vinyls with the same theme, from the same record label, to convince yourself.
In compilation discs, the same songs are usually recorded at the beginning of the LP in some cases and at the end in others.
When the nulls are placed correctly in the optimal positions there should be no difference in sound quality on either side from either null, a steady increase and fall off to and from each null. If they are placed less than at 1/3 and 2/3 points, the remainder will have greater misalignment than otherwise possible resulting in noticeably poorer sq than between the nulls. Conversely, the same will result but not as noticeable. You'll just get less overall performance. You can experiment and place them anywhere you choose but best performance is well established and easy to track by listening, the inherent fault of a pivoted tonearm. That is what you're tracking, the fault. If you're not, indianjoe has pointed out the possible reasons.
The only other problem inherent in vinyl is the fact that information is not placed concentrically around the hole so your AS is useful for only 1/2 revolution. It's different on either side also. My solution has been to visually find concentricity by pushing the record against the spindle opposite to the wobble after taking mental note of it's location with the stylus in the groove and spinning, and lifting the tonearm first obviously. It takes a few tries, and then simply draw a light pencil line along that radius on the label.
The only other problem inherent in vinyl is the fact that information is not placed concentrically around the hole so your AS is useful for only 1/2 revolution. It's different on either side also. My solution has been to visually find concentricity by pushing the record against the spindle opposite to the wobble after taking mental note of it's location with the stylus in the groove and spinning, and lifting the tonearm first obviously. It takes a few tries, and then simply draw a light pencil line along that radius on the label.
So, if I understood well you confirmed, on four different TTs, that some of your records are good and some of your records are screwed?
What else you need to know?
The only thing I can say is that my tonearm geometry is perfectly aligned and no problems with degraded sound quality occur.
I designed the plinth myself so this has been done in mind for Ortofon use only. Plinth manufacture did a reknowned plinth maker in GB and he did a wonderfull job with a massive cherry wood plank structure that are vertically stacked together. The Garrard 301 player system has been completely upgraded to another level.
Yes, in many ways my dream TT and it worked fault free for the last decade.😀 Wouldn't be easy to beat such a system.
Last edited:
Davor, I wish to know are you happy listening last tracks with issues on some records.. And how you are fighting (or not) with that? As I know for this disadvantage, I am starting to be nervous looking for such issues there
Inner groove issues are a fact of life for vinyl. High frequency response is down, IM distortion is up and channel separation is decreased. These can be minimized to a degree as mentioned in several replies here, but in the end it's just physics.
Also, you get much more severe limits on HF near the inside, it is just a side effect of the linear velocity being very much lower on the inner grooves.
There are two limiting factors, firstly you cannot cut at a modulation velocity exceeding the linear velocity at any given diameter (A geometric limit of the cutting stylus), but secondly (and more often a problem), to avoid distortion the radius of curvature of the groove wall must be larger then the osculating circle of the playback stylus, it really is just geometry.
It is entirely possible to cut a disk that can only be played by a line contact or shibata stylus, and that defeats even an elliptical stylus (especially once it is worn a bit), and that will be MUCH more obvious on the inner groove with the denser modulation.
Worn stylus, maybe misaligned, maybe something funky with the tracking, but even when everything is perfect the inside is worse in all ways then the outside.
For ***** I cut a disk that played from the inside out, and had the HF limiter settings track the linear velocity, so I really could cut better HF towards the end of the disk, quite interesting, but of course it breaks 'automatic' record players.
There are two limiting factors, firstly you cannot cut at a modulation velocity exceeding the linear velocity at any given diameter (A geometric limit of the cutting stylus), but secondly (and more often a problem), to avoid distortion the radius of curvature of the groove wall must be larger then the osculating circle of the playback stylus, it really is just geometry.
It is entirely possible to cut a disk that can only be played by a line contact or shibata stylus, and that defeats even an elliptical stylus (especially once it is worn a bit), and that will be MUCH more obvious on the inner groove with the denser modulation.
Worn stylus, maybe misaligned, maybe something funky with the tracking, but even when everything is perfect the inside is worse in all ways then the outside.
For ***** I cut a disk that played from the inside out, and had the HF limiter settings track the linear velocity, so I really could cut better HF towards the end of the disk, quite interesting, but of course it breaks 'automatic' record players.
You should check out The Analog Dept. it is mostly concerned with Thorens TTs but has a lot of information on tracking and alignments.
Also Vinylengine.com has an alignment calculator tool which can help you set the cartridge position in the head shell.
Also Vinylengine.com has an alignment calculator tool which can help you set the cartridge position in the head shell.
A description and pictures of the turntable, tonearm and cartridge/stylus would help. I suspect arm geometry is not optimum or the cartridge is damaged or mistracking.
I have had a succession of linear tracking tone arms, like the Souther Tri-Quartz, and several ET air bearing arms. They solved the IGD problem for me, but introduced a lot of new ones including a level of maintenance and complexity I could not live with.
I'm back to a couple of 12" arms - one of them a Jelco TK-850L might be the best arm of all the ones I have owned. I have an RM Kanda Hayabusa on a Jelco HS-30 headshell on this arm and I am no longer hearing IGD on any of my recordings, so it is possible.
I have had a succession of linear tracking tone arms, like the Souther Tri-Quartz, and several ET air bearing arms. They solved the IGD problem for me, but introduced a lot of new ones including a level of maintenance and complexity I could not live with.
I'm back to a couple of 12" arms - one of them a Jelco TK-850L might be the best arm of all the ones I have owned. I have an RM Kanda Hayabusa on a Jelco HS-30 headshell on this arm and I am no longer hearing IGD on any of my recordings, so it is possible.
In the end, this is what measurements show.
But do you hear with a measurement unit or do you hear with your ears?
And if the later is true, can you audition a degradation of sound quality at the end of any LP playing with your stereo?
If so, I would have re- aligned my system as soon as possible.
Because, with a correct and perfectly aligned system, NO such thing is audible by the ears. Maybe by measurements. But who cares anyway?
Last edited:
Having cut thousands of albums, and wrestled with the inner groove limitations, I can assure you they are audible
OK, I apologize for not being able to audition it on my rig. I'm just a prosumer with a round needle MC cart. Maybe not high- definition enough.
But do you know what Neumann used to control their cutting VMS cutting lathe? A round needle MC system.😉 But what did they know.
But do you know what Neumann used to control their cutting VMS cutting lathe? A round needle MC system.😉 But what did they know.
Attachments
Last edited:
You're kidding yourself if you think there are no audible differences the closer you get to center. And I say this although I'm in complete agreement with you. The problem is, (or isn't imo, since this is where the fun is), that every time you tweak the alignment, etc., it sounds different, usually better or worse. When it's worse, it's probably because you had it right on. Or so you think😀
Has anyone ever aligned, set it up perfectly?
How do you know?
Last edited:
My player system is aligned for tracking correct at two points, one is on the inner side of an LP. So a tracking problems doesn't appear.
What you refer to may be the difference in tracking velocity that is slightly higher on the outer diameter. With a higher velocity, theoretical, you get better S/N numbers and more dynamic headroom, wider frequency range. As the result by decreasing both, the inner grooves should be less listenable. But this isn't audible with my system, sorry to say.
And I repeat saying, that the LP could have been only accepted by the audience if that loss in quality is just a theoretical one. Otherwise, we would have sticked with Edison's round cylinder phonograph, which hadn't this problem.
Its system immanent with a round, flat record and nobody as an ordinary consumer is auditing it, except maybe some "specialists" who search for the most subtile details in audio listening spectaculars.
Therefore it is simply irrelevant in the ordinary life of audiophiles. Nothing to worry about.
And if its audible, get your system correctly aligned.
I'm in this vinyl scene since decades, never I have heard discussions on this theme, with no one serious audiophile. Because its that irrelevant, non existent in practice.
Maybe with a cheap player system, which is badly aligned but not with a top notch record player, lets say Platine Verdier. A nonexistent discussion.
What you refer to may be the difference in tracking velocity that is slightly higher on the outer diameter. With a higher velocity, theoretical, you get better S/N numbers and more dynamic headroom, wider frequency range. As the result by decreasing both, the inner grooves should be less listenable. But this isn't audible with my system, sorry to say.
And I repeat saying, that the LP could have been only accepted by the audience if that loss in quality is just a theoretical one. Otherwise, we would have sticked with Edison's round cylinder phonograph, which hadn't this problem.
Its system immanent with a round, flat record and nobody as an ordinary consumer is auditing it, except maybe some "specialists" who search for the most subtile details in audio listening spectaculars.
Therefore it is simply irrelevant in the ordinary life of audiophiles. Nothing to worry about.
And if its audible, get your system correctly aligned.
I'm in this vinyl scene since decades, never I have heard discussions on this theme, with no one serious audiophile. Because its that irrelevant, non existent in practice.
Maybe with a cheap player system, which is badly aligned but not with a top notch record player, lets say Platine Verdier. A nonexistent discussion.
Last edited:
Well great for you you can't hear it. Do you also not hear the improvement when listening to a 10" 45rpm vinyl? What about the difference when a side is 24 minutes long?
Last edited:
The sound of a record is mostly manifestated by the recording and mixing process.
I'm not into this vinyl single or 45 rpm LP thing, but some of my records are 45 rpm LP, too.
Can't say that my 45 rpm records generally sound better, have lots of stuff on 33 rpm that sounds better than those few on 45 rpm.
What goes on in recording/ mixing process is so much more relevant compared to the speed increase from 33 to 45 rpm that even this doesn't make a record sound pristine automatically. Of course, they would sound improved if compared to the same record on 33 with the same recording/ mixing. But there aren't so many LP's out there which share those same technical process. Even the MFSL records aren't comparable to their original LP's they come from, because they were re-mastered, pressed on different machines etc.
The dynamic restrictions done with the mixing are much more relevant than the length of the record I think. I have records that sound bad, because of those dynamic limitations and were literally mixed to death, but the recorded music on one side isn't much longer as in general. The newest Bob Dylan LP is such an example, a two record set which sounds simply lousy.
I can understand why some of the audiphiles are so worried about subtile differences in their audio sources, because most audio systems of quality are high definition systems and people are after the finest details. My system is completely different to that, I'm not after the fine details, this is music in pieces and not listenable to me.
Many systems have such a music presentation, presenting each and every fine detail as fraction and puzzle to the listener so that he can be sure not missing everything.
This is a fundamental difference in listening to music, my system does present music in a different way so I'm never worried that the inner grooves may have less music in it, because the dynamic is decreased or the frequency range is being cut twohundred hertz less compared to the outer grooves. It doesn't matter to the music.
But for that, you need audio equipment which is able to reproduce music as a whole, organic event and not a fractual puzzle of independent sonic spectaculars.
If one takes a bath in the ocean, he doesn't worry if one cup of water is missing. But if one could only bath in a nutshell of music, every drop counts. Thats the situation with the majority of audio systems today. High definition systems, but you can only bath in a nutshell of music, and every drop counts.
I'm not into this vinyl single or 45 rpm LP thing, but some of my records are 45 rpm LP, too.
Can't say that my 45 rpm records generally sound better, have lots of stuff on 33 rpm that sounds better than those few on 45 rpm.
What goes on in recording/ mixing process is so much more relevant compared to the speed increase from 33 to 45 rpm that even this doesn't make a record sound pristine automatically. Of course, they would sound improved if compared to the same record on 33 with the same recording/ mixing. But there aren't so many LP's out there which share those same technical process. Even the MFSL records aren't comparable to their original LP's they come from, because they were re-mastered, pressed on different machines etc.
The dynamic restrictions done with the mixing are much more relevant than the length of the record I think. I have records that sound bad, because of those dynamic limitations and were literally mixed to death, but the recorded music on one side isn't much longer as in general. The newest Bob Dylan LP is such an example, a two record set which sounds simply lousy.
I can understand why some of the audiphiles are so worried about subtile differences in their audio sources, because most audio systems of quality are high definition systems and people are after the finest details. My system is completely different to that, I'm not after the fine details, this is music in pieces and not listenable to me.
Many systems have such a music presentation, presenting each and every fine detail as fraction and puzzle to the listener so that he can be sure not missing everything.
This is a fundamental difference in listening to music, my system does present music in a different way so I'm never worried that the inner grooves may have less music in it, because the dynamic is decreased or the frequency range is being cut twohundred hertz less compared to the outer grooves. It doesn't matter to the music.
But for that, you need audio equipment which is able to reproduce music as a whole, organic event and not a fractual puzzle of independent sonic spectaculars.
If one takes a bath in the ocean, he doesn't worry if one cup of water is missing. But if one could only bath in a nutshell of music, every drop counts. Thats the situation with the majority of audio systems today. High definition systems, but you can only bath in a nutshell of music, and every drop counts.
Last edited:
The topic of the thread is about the last track and it's playback. Recording and mixing process have nothing to do with that. Are you suggesting the audible differences being posted are due to changes in recording and mixing in the last track?
Appertaining to one of your previous posts, I get "Ramble Tamble" on track 1, side 1 of Cosmo's Factory! 😀
Of course, not.
I laid out with some examples, that there aren't audible differences when playing an LP on a proper aligned system.
Do you hear differences in sound quality switching from the first track to the last one?
If you audition them, go and fix your player system.
Those discussions are the type of: My digital gear sounds better than my analog record player. If so and not the opposite way around, improve your player system, because it should sound better than digital. Thats the normal state of audio and thats how it should be. Anything else is some kind of misaligned/ low quality gear reason for the problem.
Btw, just answered a direct question from a forum member here with the post you quoted.
Last edited: