If that had been made clear, I would have had no problem with it. I re-checked the thread and it never was, unless I missed it. IMO it is the right and only way. My only interest in rights was to exercise permission in the event that the venture was ever operated for profit, as was my assumption/understanding. It still isn't clear, FWIW.
IMO it would be a real miss not to include all the tests we've discussed at length and I've put forward, so i would like to see them included, if they will fit, and you guys agree. So long as the project is agreed to be not for profit, for the benefit of members, the GNU license applies and documentation is clear as to intended use. Can this be agreed?
Have a great 2018 in any event chaps. And appols for my part in the misunderstanding.
LD
For MK3 and SP-02 motors, yes. Appears not many people know how to do the trickier parts of the calibration though.
Some error won't be avoidable. Perhaps an alternate, since there'll be 200+ of the same (as close as can be done) test records out there, is some way to collect and correlate polar plots. Should become rather apparent which errors are in the test record.
In that vain, should also track as much of the supply chain as we can. Which records came off which stampers, presses, etc. Another reason I'm interested in financing this is to do a larger run so we've less variables over time. I'd have to weigh that with the distinct possibility of being stuck with all that cost though.
Some error won't be avoidable. Perhaps an alternate, since there'll be 200+ of the same (as close as can be done) test records out there, is some way to collect and correlate polar plots. Should become rather apparent which errors are in the test record.
In that vain, should also track as much of the supply chain as we can. Which records came off which stampers, presses, etc. Another reason I'm interested in financing this is to do a larger run so we've less variables over time. I'd have to weigh that with the distinct possibility of being stuck with all that cost though.
I was thinking today about a big issue (except for JP and his TX-1000!) which is the center hole. Doing all this work and then receiving a boatload of LPs with off center holes would be a big let down... also it seems like plants have been really cagey about making any kind of guarantee.
Checking out which plants did the various test LPs out there... most of which unfortunately have reviews of poor center holes!
Anyone seen a test LP which had consistently excellent center hole punches?
Seems the higher quality plants are limited to QRP (USA), GZ (CZ) and RTI (USA) unless I'm missing one? Has anyone been able to get a firm answer from a plant regarding center hole?
Does anyone live near one of these plants?
Ultimate Analogue Test LP - QRP
Hi-Fi News Producer's Cut - ???
Cardas Frequency Sweep LP - ???
Clearaudio LPs - ???
Ortofon - Probably GZ?
Checking out which plants did the various test LPs out there... most of which unfortunately have reviews of poor center holes!
Anyone seen a test LP which had consistently excellent center hole punches?
Seems the higher quality plants are limited to QRP (USA), GZ (CZ) and RTI (USA) unless I'm missing one? Has anyone been able to get a firm answer from a plant regarding center hole?
Does anyone live near one of these plants?
Ultimate Analogue Test LP - QRP
Hi-Fi News Producer's Cut - ???
Cardas Frequency Sweep LP - ???
Clearaudio LPs - ???
Ortofon - Probably GZ?
Hi LD,
Like other who have come before you who did the same thing, if you do not intend to disclose something, don't even mention it in future. It is a pointless exercise to hold out a carrot and refuse to give it.
My opinion is fairly simple. If we have orders for 1,000 of these records, then make 1,000 of them. An arbitrary cut-off number is pretty silly. By the same token, if there are 95 orders, then pressing 100 might be the thing to do.
Also, why include tracks that involve things that can't be changed? Trackability tests seem to be pretty pointless, as are the friction tests. Once the arm / cartridge is properly set up, these things can't be changed. The only thing I can see for their inclusion are some "feel good" tests for some members.
Level and frequency response tests are so common in the tape world, I don't know about test discs. However I feel they should be included as they are required for the most basic testing. I'm not sure about frequency sweeps. How would you lock anything to them to make a display to start with? Discrete frequency steps would seem to be more useful as you would then know what each frequency is, and the level would be stabilized for a good readings.
Wear tests? Why? Can you change that? No, I didn't think so. The information provided by wear and trackability tests doesn't seem to help anyone. Maybe you can explain how these tests would be helpful. As I see it, wear testing is only valid under the same circumstances with the same formulation for the album. Too specific to be of help.
What does a "click" track buy us that a scratched record doesn't?
There is probably a good reason why these tracks aren't found on common test LPs.
-Chris
Like other who have come before you who did the same thing, if you do not intend to disclose something, don't even mention it in future. It is a pointless exercise to hold out a carrot and refuse to give it.
My opinion is fairly simple. If we have orders for 1,000 of these records, then make 1,000 of them. An arbitrary cut-off number is pretty silly. By the same token, if there are 95 orders, then pressing 100 might be the thing to do.
Also, why include tracks that involve things that can't be changed? Trackability tests seem to be pretty pointless, as are the friction tests. Once the arm / cartridge is properly set up, these things can't be changed. The only thing I can see for their inclusion are some "feel good" tests for some members.
Level and frequency response tests are so common in the tape world, I don't know about test discs. However I feel they should be included as they are required for the most basic testing. I'm not sure about frequency sweeps. How would you lock anything to them to make a display to start with? Discrete frequency steps would seem to be more useful as you would then know what each frequency is, and the level would be stabilized for a good readings.
Wear tests? Why? Can you change that? No, I didn't think so. The information provided by wear and trackability tests doesn't seem to help anyone. Maybe you can explain how these tests would be helpful. As I see it, wear testing is only valid under the same circumstances with the same formulation for the album. Too specific to be of help.
What does a "click" track buy us that a scratched record doesn't?
There is probably a good reason why these tracks aren't found on common test LPs.
-Chris
Correct, but can be minimized.
Your supply chain suggestion I feel is right on the money and is an area I don’t think we’ve explored closely enough.
Like new production tubes, after the first run it seems the initial target tolerances for many start to get wildly off the mark.
Can someone suggest a center hole tolerance we should shoot for as a requirement for whichever pressing plant we decide upon?
Seems none of these test LPs currently on the market have high accuracy and precision. I notice lots of buyers bringing up technical issues in the pressings on review sites etc.
Ultimate QRP - one of the furthest off-center I have.
Hi Fi News - IIRC, off-center. 6L6 has my copy I think.
Clear Audio - one of the most warped I've seen, and off-center.
To add to that, my CBS CTC 310, all my CBS STR, Denon, and my DIN 45-545 are off-center.
My spidey sense says probably best to not count on getting anything within a tolerance we'll find acceptable.
I can't speak for LD, but from my personal view being able to settle questions that cannot be solved with current records IS of interest. So for trackability there are no current test records that allow testing high frequency capabilities, so if you want to compare different cartridges or even stylii on the same cartridge these would be handy*
For friction I probably could use my cardas sweep record, but a locked modulated groove would be nice and I think it has other uses.
As long as calibrated above 20kHz I'll take steps if that's what's agreed.
This is possibly breaking new ground, which I think this record should try and do. If there are other ways of finding out when a cartridge is actually worn out rather than early replacement then we need to document that.
A zero degree reference so you can work out WHERE the issue is in rotational space. For impulses I am happy to scratch a record if no one else wants it.
We are trying to go one step beyond what is common though
*I realise that I am in a very very small group in actually getting quotes for one off custom MM configurations. As such things I might want to help in my investigations may have a very limited appeal
. But having to make one offs so that no one can easily replicate results is a shame.
Money talks. Paying extra for a close specified tolerance would be worthwhile. Having a badly centered record would certainly harm some of the utility of the LP.
I’m not one to just hope and pray.
If we are selling at cost, the price uptick should be largely offset by not having to worry about accuracy in this regard.
If we are trying to do some new and more precise on the wax itself, why not push the production envelope?
I can't speak for LD, but from my personal view being able to settle questions that cannot be solved with current records IS of interest. So for trackability there are no current test records that allow testing high frequency capabilities, so if you want to compare different cartridges or even stylii on the same cartridge these would be handy*
For friction I probably could use my cardas sweep record, but a locked modulated groove would be nice and I think it has other uses.
As long as calibrated above 20kHz I'll take steps if that's what's agreed.
This is possibly breaking new ground, which I think this record should try and do. If there are other ways of finding out when a cartridge is actually worn out rather than early replacement then we need to document that.
A zero degree reference so you can work out WHERE the issue is in rotational space. For impulses I am happy to scratch a record if no one else wants it.
We are trying to go one step beyond what is common though
*I realise that I am in a very very small group in actually getting quotes for one off custom MM configurations. As such things I might want to help in my investigations may have a very limited appeal
+1 for Ray K.
Maybe, assuming the capability to accurately place the spindle hold event exists. I'm just saying it may not be possible. I imagine we'll know for sure soon enough.
Same to you, frankly I'm doubtful a second run of 250 copies would fly out the door. Where the idea that we would create something that thousands of vinyl lovers would have to have came from I don't know.
I agree with Chris don't share on a forum anything you feel you need ownership of. I have had disagreements with folks from the UK but US law is very clear what you post is yours but no described idea, system, method, etc. has any protection at all. I have had circuits lifted verbatim and used for profit, and all I wanted was credit for the idea knowing full well I had no actual recourse.
If signals actually have a utility that is useful, then fine. Be certain that the insert covers the signal and how to use it, plus what it actually practically does.
Just because a signal has not appeared on other test records yet doesn't mean it should appear on this one. What we need are useful signals. By the same token, if some test tracks are popular, include them anyway. There is a reason why they are popular and I don't want to have to buy another test record or two just to round out a proper suite of test tracks. If it turns into a two album set - GREAT. That is both less expensive and better use of space when it comes to test media and how much we spend.
-Chris
Just because a signal has not appeared on other test records yet doesn't mean it should appear on this one. What we need are useful signals. By the same token, if some test tracks are popular, include them anyway. There is a reason why they are popular and I don't want to have to buy another test record or two just to round out a proper suite of test tracks. If it turns into a two album set - GREAT. That is both less expensive and better use of space when it comes to test media and how much we spend.
-Chris