• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Fun with vinyl measurements

this is is not too far away @Thomas_A range 0 sec is 126mm radius and 68mm at 900 sec ,,,

The phase method you proposedseems to work in the last script

1762879229956.png

1762879139914.png


But difference in distortion in both channels. Have to make recording of system as it is today

1762879402457.png
 
My antiskating is good, and tracking good, but I will do more checks. It sure how the azimuth was at these runs
 
My antiskating is good, and tracking good, but I will do more checks. It sure how the azimuth was at these runs
There are no good or bad antiskating settings... my question is simply to find out if modifying it here impacts the distortion offset along the entire path between the two channels... which might explain the noticeable offset...
 
@JP , you are right. Temperature effect on cartridge frequency response. AT 95E headshell temperature. I think It is safe to conclude that the variation I saw in 95E response was due to the older recordings I compared with was at a higher temperature. 3C does actually make a difference
View attachment 482338


here with measured room temerature..
View attachment 482339


Found on Josh pages..
View attachment 482340
You’ve since changed your mind? https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/another-series-of-mat-clamp-comparisons.41518/post-1089068
 
I noticed that when I tid the swap to Sorbothane the temperature was significantly different from the earlier test with original mat. Regretfully I did not retest the original mat the same cold morning as I put on The Sorbothane.. Then I suspected a temperature change could explain things and heated the room to 29c …

Still learning by trial and error here
 
There are no good or bad antiskating settings... my question is simply to find out if modifying it here impacts the distortion offset along the entire path between the two channels... which might explain the noticeable offset...
I have a test with max and minimum AS setting ,, will dig it out , but from memory It did not change much
 

Attachments

  • 1762879402457.png
    1762879402457.png
    41.7 KB · Views: 20
I noticed that when I tid the swap to Sorbothane the temperature was significantly different from the earlier test with original mat. Regretfully I did not retest the original mat the same cold morning as I put on The Sorbothane.. Then I suspected a temperature change could explain things and heated the room to 29c …

Still learning by trial and error here
I’m not able to follow that. The plot still looks nothing like what I’d expect for a mat. You haven’t repeated the experiment with better environmental controls?
 
What I have to do is to rip off the sorbothane mat and revert to the original mat at 22C. Not prepared to do that yet, the sorbothane stick to the platter as glue and takes the paint with it too.

The effect you see partly a temperature effect I think, platter effects I am no longer so sure about. . I have to go back to my documentation and see what was done when. What is clear is that temperature effect the resonance
 
Last edited:
What I have to do is to rip off the sorbothane mat and revert to the original mat at 22C. Not prepared to do that yet, the sorbothane stick to the platter as glue and takes the paint with it too.

The effect you see partly a temperature effect I think
I guess I’m just confused as the post on the other forum read as a statement a fact that the totality of the change was due to the mat. As previously mentioned it’s extremely doubtful any of that change is due to the mat.
 
I learned more, based on your comment, that triggered my temperature experiment showing the increased temperature increase the resonance . Need more experiments to quantify platter effects at constant temperature
 
I’m just more confused by that post now.

BTW, I don’t think it’s changing the resonance at all - the Q is too wide.
 
I am confuses too, need to starte form scratch. The plot I am sure of is the temperature post up to 29C
 
And by modifying your antiskating?

1762964738263.png



1762964775814.png



Antiskate on or off makes no difference in distortion this case CA Trackability record 15 minutes 3150Hz track from 126-68 mm radius

But channel phase difference lower without antiskate
 

Attachments

  • 1762960981296.png
    1762960981296.png
    46.2 KB · Views: 31
  • 1762961000401.png
    1762961000401.png
    45 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
View attachment 489906


View attachment 489907


Antiskate on or off makes no difference in distortion this case CA Trackability record 15 minutes 3150Hz track from 126-68 mm radius

But channel phase difference lower without antiskate
Perhaps it's simply not explained clearly that a 3k150 range is dedicated solely to w&f...., and perhaps it's just not properly prepared, unsuitable for distortion measurements... This needs to be verified on other setups...
;-)
 
Cannot see why a 3150 mono should be un suitable . Korf blog did the same as me this week on a full side 1khz track and could not see any Løfgren shaped distortion either. Maybe the effekt of shorter wavelength at smaller radius dominates?
 
Cannot see why a 3150 mono should be un suitable . Korf blog did the same as me this week on a full side 1khz track and could not see any Løfgren shaped distortion either. Maybe the effekt of shorter wavelength at smaller radius dominates?
I have e-mailed Alexey Korf before - on the RMS for that Sperling Test record, and asked again this week - unfortunately he has not come back with an answer. I do follow his Blog, and he does respond if you send him an e-mail - very nice fellow and he is on the Galibier website now - with the arms. Which is pretty awesome.
Worth mentioning, I thought.

 
Cannot see why a 3150 mono should be un suitable . Korf blog did the same as me this week on a full side 1khz track and could not see any Løfgren shaped distortion either. Maybe the effekt of shorter wavelength at smaller radius dominates?

I'm not talking about the method...
I meant that since it wasn't designed for this type of testing but for W&F...maybe this track has a "defect" " no precautions" in terms of distortion during pressing .
That's a question...
(such as observation on tracks "not intended" for demanding parameters like the use of sweep for FR to observe distortions (It is clear that with some disks the results are irrelevant). etc. ;-) )


So we need to check if this discrepancy is coming from the range of this disk...
This language barrier is a real pain...sorry
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom