• 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

Well, for that paper. Haven't read a lot of what's out there, but it seems the latest changes were around 1971, but those are based on existing DIN and IEC.
 
I recorded my Denon 51F with peak wow below 0.03 or so , and compared listening to A digital 3150 tone, ( Edited both samples to a loop file)the warble/ dizziness was quite noticable,but without the reference it was little to complain about .Music sounds just fine
 
Better or just different? Is there some more info as to what 2-sigma correlates to vs the other methods? Technical performance or audibility?
I read somdwhere that 2Sigma is the new standard, DIN and JIS WRMS hide all the problems behind a smaller number. So 2S correlate much better with the actual speed variation/quality , se myposted plots..
 
I read somdwhere that 2Sigma is the new standard, DIN and JIS WRMS hide all the problems behind a smaller number. So 2S correlate much better with the actual speed variation/quality , se myposted plots..
Yes WRMS always give the smallest number, but then there is quasi-peak and unweighted RMS and unweighted peak (the two last give higher numbers than 2sigma, not sure about quasi-peak). The confusion is out there still since you often do not know what the manufacturer refers to. Are all the numbers of current turntables given as 2sigma? Or to old standards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JP
Better or just different? Is there some more info as to what 2-sigma correlates to vs the other methods? Technical performance or audibility?
2-sigma aes, from personal experience, remains discriminating at 0.0x% when the others are less so except to consider at 0.00x%...(which I would not agree with for my part)... but would be delighted to read the feedback on this subject...
(me just for use in settings and optimization etc)
 
Last edited:
Yes WRMS always give the smallest number, but then there is quasi-peak and unweighted RMS and unweighted peak (the two last give higher numbers than 2sigma, not sure about quasi-peak). The confusion is out there still since you often do not know what the manufacturer refers to. Are all the numbers of current turntables given as 2sigma? Or to old standards?
Few use 2S since the value is larger…
 
there are the flattering numbers... and what are useful ..... ;-)
And none of these numbers are seen in dynamic conditions.

 
I don't have this disc and streaming or CD will be enough for me in this case... ;-)

(These standard wf mesureaments were very useful to me... allowed me to audibly improve a suspended belt... coming from a large dd, otherwise I would have had to put it in the attic... ;-) it turned out, the 2-sigma in particular, is significant for my use... the wf was-is really a priority for me... not you? )
 
Last edited:
I don't have this disc and streaming or CD will be enough for me in this case... ;-)

(These standard wf mesureaments were very useful to me... allowed me to audibly improve a suspended belt... coming from a large dd, otherwise I would have had to put it in the attic... ;-) )
Well this particular record just shows the effect more clearly, but all records and conventional tonearms have it, more or less. If it has a resonance, it has scrubbing and FM modulation in the resonance region that varies dynamically (independent of drive stability). The servo-controlled damping arms would be interesting.

 
Well this particular record just shows the effect more clearly, but all records and conventional tonearms have it, more or less. If it has a resonance, it has scrubbing and FM modulation in the resonance region that varies dynamically (independent of drive stability). The servo-controlled damping arms would be interesting.

I accept the relative aspect of the "vinyl" measurements on principle .... and if I have already come across vinyls that pose problems, pressing etc. and that excite harmonic modes on the arm side, perhaps creating too many reading problems, I have put them aside ... overall over the years it has not bothered me so much as the evidence of problems with good old bad w&f ... after that I have certainly had over the years rather coherent turntables-arms-cartdrige that do not attract too much lightning ;-)
ps we must always not forget the orders of magnitude in our "concerns" ;-)

as a reminder with the wf... the other real subject, because it concerns the same relationship to the musical signal and not an extreme or particular case (a sweep at 12db is a particular case etc), it is the subject of the anti-skating adjustment... fundamentally insoluble on the pivot tonearms and this in significant proportions... ... always this story of the orders of magnitude in the problems
 
Last edited:
When you think you have leveled your Gyro. you have not. When the motor runs the belt drag increases and shifts the leveling
Sadly slow-motion does not work when file is uploaded


1722749102603-png.1044691



Making it perfect level accodring to this bubble level makes is worse, I think what I have now is good enough...it is at DD level...:)
1722752343690.png


1722750107964-png.1044700
 
Last edited:
When you think you have leveled your Gyro. you have not. When the motor runs the belt drag increases and shifts the leveling
Sadly slow-motion does not work when file is uploaded


1722749102603-png.1044691



Making it perfect level accodring to this bubble level makes is worse, I think what I have now is good enough...it is at DD level...:)
View attachment 384578

1722750107964-png.1044700
interesting, especially since the gyro, in my memory, has a rather flexible suspension .... ;-)
perhaps a fine adjustment of the suspension taking into account this effort in use is possible?
("dysemetric" when not in use) ...
ps I forgot.. what engine is this version of gyro?
in any case the efforts and precautions etc are effective (2-sigma?)
(it also shows the limit of measurements via telephone etc and degraded results, on flexible suspensions or low tolerance manufacturing machines...and the total dysemetry due to the mass of the telephone and its distribution etc...)
 
Last edited:
that's what we all know here...this type of at justifies a really low cumulative capacitance ;-)
 
that's what we all know here...this type of at justifies a really low cumulative capacitance ;-)
That's a pretty standard rule of thumb for all the higher end AT MM's !
 
That's a pretty standard rule of thumb for all the higher end AT MM's !
indeed...;-)

the AT being particularly demanding on this point (see empirically to place itself at the top of the recommended VTF range, it is tried in any case subjectively,(the end result))
The common place for many about AT (more than ellipic) is to find if not to provide care, the at certainly alive but possibly a little thin and """pointy"""
;-)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom