I put a set of tones at octaves on the list yesterday. Have a look. They would be easier to analyze for distortion than sweeps, at least IME.
Sorry for posting again without knowledge.
No Lathe, Master, Pressing, Turntable will be perfect. So we need to cabilbrate test record and software to nullify inherent variations specially related to offcenter and speed variations.
Don't know if method I posted was worth for detecting offcenter. There was mention of putting a scratch to groove to mark the track. I guess we can use lead out locked in groove at the end of the record. The lead in 'position' where the groove enters the lead out groove one can detect a click in measurement. Also use test track for multiple purpose would be good idea as real estate on vinyl is limited. We can put high level high frequency modulation in lead out groove in quarter of a segment so one can test wear of the record and the remaining silent 3/4 th segment can be used for rumble measurements. (?) just an example.
Speed variations in lathe : Can master be cut at half speed or quarter speed to minimize the speed variations ? If only we could measure variations in lathe speed while it is cutting test tone and that data can be used to calibrate / differentiate measured test record speed test. We can overlap polar plots of lathe variations and test record to distinguish it. I guess some quality tachometer can detect speed without touching anything rotating.
Warp issuse can be solved by using heavier records. Right ? Was that discussed before ? Also position of tracks ? As I don't have knowledge, means and equipments I will not be buying but I suppose everyone will buy atleast two so as one extra copy can come in handy.
Thanks for your tolerance for newbies. happy New year to all 🙂
Regards.
No Lathe, Master, Pressing, Turntable will be perfect. So we need to cabilbrate test record and software to nullify inherent variations specially related to offcenter and speed variations.
Don't know if method I posted was worth for detecting offcenter. There was mention of putting a scratch to groove to mark the track. I guess we can use lead out locked in groove at the end of the record. The lead in 'position' where the groove enters the lead out groove one can detect a click in measurement. Also use test track for multiple purpose would be good idea as real estate on vinyl is limited. We can put high level high frequency modulation in lead out groove in quarter of a segment so one can test wear of the record and the remaining silent 3/4 th segment can be used for rumble measurements. (?) just an example.
Speed variations in lathe : Can master be cut at half speed or quarter speed to minimize the speed variations ? If only we could measure variations in lathe speed while it is cutting test tone and that data can be used to calibrate / differentiate measured test record speed test. We can overlap polar plots of lathe variations and test record to distinguish it. I guess some quality tachometer can detect speed without touching anything rotating.
Warp issuse can be solved by using heavier records. Right ? Was that discussed before ? Also position of tracks ? As I don't have knowledge, means and equipments I will not be buying but I suppose everyone will buy atleast two so as one extra copy can come in handy.
Thanks for your tolerance for newbies. happy New year to all 🙂
Regards.
Technically, the individuals who create the tracks. But the workaround is for those whose files are used to assign their rights to the work in total.
There is also the work in it's entirety which would be subject to a different copyright; things like the track order and liner notes are all copyrighted ... think of the "phone book" analogy again; the facts in it are not subject to copyright (no facts in of themselves are) but the order in the book becomes a copyrighted "set" of data. The same thing would apply to the order of the tracks on such an LP, even if the individual tracks rights were retained by the authors.
They could conceivably retain their individual rights, but that would mean any assignment would require them to jointly and severally agree, which might become cumbersome (people might not be contactable, for whatever reason, their heirs may inherit rights, and then the heirs may balk for one reason or another, or demand a renumeration, etc). If in that case 100% cannot be found or persuaded to agree, the album itself can't be replicated.
So I still feel some entity of manageable size (a few willing people, maybe three, or maybe five with a three member quorum, with provisions and a procedure to replace one should situations change that make it necessary) or even an individual willing to take on the task gets rights assigned to them, and from that point there is someone or some group that can make arrangements.
Copyrights can be assigned in almost unlimited fashion; you could assign rights to copy the album on Tuesdays in months ending in R if you want, and all other rights not assigned are still retained. There are also exclusive rights (nobody else can copy the album) and first rights (the entity that is granted first rights can hold them indefinitely until they act on them, and if they don't nobody else can) and non-exclusive rights. Cut it up and assign them as you see fit.
But it doesn't *have* to be complex. Assigning of rights would probably be a rare event.
So either you give them away without reservation, or some entity holds them. There really isn't any other way, as copyrights are automatic (the creation of the work is the act that generates the rights) so it's a product, so to speak, that has to be dealt with one way or another. Not doing anything isn't really an option.
Last edited:
Also, legally there has to be a name or entity associated with a copyright; if not it's free to everyone (or will be assigned in a court case, if it comes to that). So *somebody* has to own them.
I don't foresee a commercial record deal unless we leave ourselves in such a position that they can just take the content for free. Record companies are ... to put it politely ... crooks. Standard rate is typically 5 cents per track, and they only pay for 90% of what is due, the rest retained to compensate for copies they give away. Plus the first step with any record deal is you assign all the rights to the label.
So, one way or another, it's on members of this thread, or the forum, or the content creators, or somebody.
I don't want to take this thread away from what matters, but the truth is it has to be dealt with whether we like it or not.
I don't foresee a commercial record deal unless we leave ourselves in such a position that they can just take the content for free. Record companies are ... to put it politely ... crooks. Standard rate is typically 5 cents per track, and they only pay for 90% of what is due, the rest retained to compensate for copies they give away. Plus the first step with any record deal is you assign all the rights to the label.
So, one way or another, it's on members of this thread, or the forum, or the content creators, or somebody.
I don't want to take this thread away from what matters, but the truth is it has to be dealt with whether we like it or not.
Last edited:
No it doesn't, the people creating the content quit all claims and place their work into the public domain, end of story.
Well was along those lines I proposed in post #944 and #1009 and as Pano says in #986 = post proc SW to compensate for the fact we never get a perfect center hold anyway (though of course try to get as good or useful as possible)
I have an idea of how I want to process w an ordinary speed test single tone signal. While I prefer signal be exactly cyclic w one revolution, real world mastering may kick in and instead a marker or or help signal might be needed .. BUT closed loop/locked groove what ever you call it, so I can suppress decorrelated 'speed noise' form eccentricity test
I see 3 uses for eccentricity test
1) just over all quality assessment, i.e. what can you sort of trust getting out of using this LP..done once (provided you spindle locks to the hole..if you have an oversize hole or undersize spindle (or they are crocked in some way)..you may get a different result every time . No abs position of eccentricity needed
2) IF both side have eccentricity to same side (as Pyramid mentioned, they may not!) you could attempt to fiddle w the hole to bring it more in centre (slight filing on opposing direction of main axis of eccentricity)..slight epoxy filling in 'loose' direction. Requires abs position of eccentricity
3) calibration/compensation of eccentricity as prior/clean up of signal before making a speed stability spectrum (BIM peakiness). Needs to be same signal for both so you have the deterministic part you can extract. However does not need the physical abs position of eccentricity axis.. just an 'inside job' in proc SW wrt the eccentricity signal model parameters established and a deconvolve operation
yes you say you now one rev = 1.8s but that is relying on perfect pitch knowledge, some TT may run slow or fast = wold like a physically cyclic tuned signal to one revolution ... or some marker or help signal.
Now what I need to see (or try simulate) is to what degree the siganl needs to be cyclic w one rev. or not wrt nosie impact in the SW proc / deconvolution - and what 'off-pitch' freq resolution is required to have meaning full eccentricity estimation (will 3150Hz speed stability signal bring us this .. or maybe need 2-3x higher?)
ok I am 'snow blind' now wrt posts.. where is the list?
extra I came to think of after posting #1048.
a 4th use is IF several tracks have exactly same radially placed markers (on same physical axis towards center holes).. then cross transfer of eccentricity estimation can be used as clean up signal on those tracks as well
eccentricity test on both sides of record as eccentricity may be different on the two sides
And the speed test signal it self..is it normally mono?? (co-phase . horz modulation)..would there be a point in having differential phase L/R signal (= vert modulation).. such that common mode disturbances (to some degree surface noise maybe) could be suppressed.. or is post proc polarity shift doing this just as good?.. hmm maybe both co- and and anti-phase have its merits -> double tone signal (say 3150 and 6300Hz) on co- other anti-phased? -> anything that later can be used to clean up a signal to isolate TT characteristics from the record effects them selves
Anyone who knows me realises that I openly post 1000s of original contributions into the public domain, philanthropically and happily.
Of course some of the content will be used for profit, but mostly not and its a minority interest after all.
Personally, I wouldn't contribute to a project understanding that it is for profit. In fairness, there is still no clear statement and agreement on this thread about the status of the project, BTW. But it's now clear that most of those participating expect it to be run as not-for-profit for the benefit of members. Which, personally, is good enough for me.
I only introduced the issue of rights in a last ditch attempt to avoid the project being run for profit as it wasn't clear to me - my misunderstanding. And only so that contributors could withhold permission if necessary. Absolutely not to collect a fee or make personal gain.
I realise that some of the tests put forward apparently haven't been properly understood. All of them address key aspects of vinyl playback which can be changed and influence decisions about cartridge choice or set-up. The reason they aren't familiar is because they address performance aspects in ways previously not analysed.
They're new.
They both qualitatively affect cart/arm set-up, and are key performance indicators for buying decisions. Friction is yet to have its day in realising profound playback performance improvement, and a means of measuring it is really very useful.
The elephant in the room is that f response for vinyl playback is level sensitive. So a test result depends on the level of the sweep test tone. The most important part of the sweep test set is to characterise how f response varies with level, because this is a playback performance indicator. Cartridge buying decisions.
Cartridge decisions, such as stylus profile and set-up might be influences. Or the tests might indicate that vinyl wear is just not an issue in general.
But the stylus wear test has obvious usefulness..
It has a defined shape and amplitude if it's created from programme content. It's useful for analysing cart/arm damping, influencing cartridge buying decisions and arm setup.
Yes. For whatever reason, these aspects of vinyl playback performance haven't ever been properly considered. Despite decades of application. Really, it's true.
LD
Last edited:
Hi wolf_skate,
Yes, the 3,150 Hz tone does get you that. So would a 1 KHz tone. The 3,150 Hz tone is special in that wow and flutter meters are designed to use that tone. They lock to that signal and give you error, wow variations and flutter variations quantitatively. Since there is already an instrument designed to do this, we should use it. More than anything, the wow & flutter test says a lot about the condition of a turntable.
-Chris
Yes, the 3,150 Hz tone does get you that. So would a 1 KHz tone. The 3,150 Hz tone is special in that wow and flutter meters are designed to use that tone. They lock to that signal and give you error, wow variations and flutter variations quantitatively. Since there is already an instrument designed to do this, we should use it. More than anything, the wow & flutter test says a lot about the condition of a turntable.
-Chris
Inner grooves
Throwing this one out to see if it has has merit which came to me this morning and still not sure if its a silly idea or not, BUT as the inner grooves are going to be lonely I thought there might be real estate. One of the things that gets discussed a lot is inner groove distortion (IGD for short). Now I only have one record where this is a problem*, but sadly it's also a favourite. Now my assumption has always been that it's alignment and a different alignment would work. But mistracking can also be an issue on inner grooves and there is suspicion that people who report IGD 'may' just be mistracking. Having some high level sweeps or steps round here might be useful?
Interested in others thoughts on this.
* Allegri* / Mundy* / Palestrina* — The Tallis Scholars Directed By Peter Phillips (2) - Miserere / Vox Patris Caelestis / Missa Papae Marcelli (Vinyl, LP, Album) at Discogs . It has unfeasibly long run times per side and side A inner radius is 60mm.
Throwing this one out to see if it has has merit which came to me this morning and still not sure if its a silly idea or not, BUT as the inner grooves are going to be lonely I thought there might be real estate. One of the things that gets discussed a lot is inner groove distortion (IGD for short). Now I only have one record where this is a problem*, but sadly it's also a favourite. Now my assumption has always been that it's alignment and a different alignment would work. But mistracking can also be an issue on inner grooves and there is suspicion that people who report IGD 'may' just be mistracking. Having some high level sweeps or steps round here might be useful?
Interested in others thoughts on this.
* Allegri* / Mundy* / Palestrina* — The Tallis Scholars Directed By Peter Phillips (2) - Miserere / Vox Patris Caelestis / Missa Papae Marcelli (Vinyl, LP, Album) at Discogs . It has unfeasibly long run times per side and side A inner radius is 60mm.
Agreed, a track that tempts IGD would be a useful test. As far as your record is concerned, playing it on a properly set up linear tracker would tell you if it is IGD due to misalignment or mistracking.
Ray K
Ray K
Last edited:
Perhaps we should create a 'TO-DO' list on the google drive. To track all the various things to be done, resolved, etc.
A simple format that includes current state, date stamp, etc. could make it a bit easier to ascertain the high level progress. Strikethrough each task and date stamp it when it's complete.
With the edit auditing, versioning, etc. available in the google docs suite, it sure seems to be a great tool for this sort of collaboration.
Food for thought perhaps.
~Gable
End of one story, but not the whole story.
Even if all the test files are in the public domain, that does not deal with the LP itself; it is an original work subject to copyright. Simply putting the files in an order creates a copyright, even if the LP shipped with a white cover and labels.
If it's the intention of this project to just drop the whole copyright issue, then the entire album and any text must also be put in the public domain. The intent must be explicitly stated in a copyright notice on the album itself and the LP label(s) (both sides).
You cannot "waive" copyright by default; it must be assigned. The text on the album cover and labels should reflect that.
Care should be taken to properly form a legal copyright notice; use the exact word "copyright" or the symbol ©. The "web" version " ( c ) is not legal. There must be a date. There must be an owner. There must be the words "Public Domain" or an assignment to the Public Domain.
Eg
copyright 2018 [some name or entity] All Rights Public Domain
© 2018 [some name or entity] All Rights Public Domain
Alternatively (preferred):
copyright 2018 [some name or entity] All Rights Waived
© 2018 [some name or entity] All Rights Waived
[some name or entity] might be "Members of DIYAudio Forum" or an individual who has all rights assigned to him. At the point where the rights are assigned to the Public Domain, his legal obligations and liability would end, unless it could be proven that the work was "stolen", which seems impossible as it is currently composed, provided care is taken to compose the text originally, that is don't copy a phrase from another source. Paraphrase if necessary.
Whomever writes the cover text should assign the rights using the phrase "All Rights" to the [some name or entity]
Whomever creates the order of the files as sent to the press should assign the rights using the phrase "All Rights" to [some name or entity].
It's best if those two steps (the creation of the track order and the liner notes) are undertaken by one individual; if by more than one, each would have to assign the rights to [some name or entity] whom then assigns those rights to the Public Domain with the phrase "All Rights Waived".
Last edited:
I hate to be dragging this issue up repeatedly, but if not done correctly the issue of copyright won't go away; you run the risk of having rights assigned by the courts. Which none of us want, regardless of how unlikely we feel that would be, it's just as easy at this stage to eliminate that risk, so it should be done.