• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

HiFi news vs Elipson test record comparison for measuring use

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
In another thread I said I was waiting for the Elipson test record and would post some comparisons with the HFN record when I received it. I have now got it, so here we go!

I am measuring my 10 year old VPI scout (acrylic platter) and a Dynavector DV20X low, into a Project DS2 preamp and recorded using a RME ADI-2 PRO ADC/DAC.

The cartridge frequency response should be something like the below. A gentle 3dB drop from bass to treble and then a 2dB lift at the very top. (50dB scale).

cart (2).jpg

Using the HFN pink noise tracks you get something like the below, with rolloff at the bass and high channel deviations in the upper treble. This has been reported on other forums.

HFN FR.jpg

Using the Elipson pink noise mono track I get something which is a lot closer to the paper plot but with more slope and added arm resonance, indicating this pink noise goes lower than 20 Hz so good to use for picking the arm resonance too!

elip FR.jpg

Lets take a look at the Elipson 1kHz tones and use for distortion and rumble. The cart measures <-40dBc 2nd harmonic so not bad. (repeating using the 100 Hz and 10kHz tones gives -52dBc and -25dBc). Power supply worse into right channel. Rumble spectrum can be seen.

L dist.jpgR dist.jpg

What about that silent groove on the HFN record for rumble? Elipson doesn't have that but lets compare with the 1kHz tone. HFN is not very silent at all!

comparison.jpg

I also used the 3150 Hz track for wow and flutter and used that WFGUI program that you can find. Not very good with ~0.1% rms so work to do there. There is a lot of observed movement in the belt under use. Below is the difference spectrum using Audacity of the flutter measurement. If anyone knows how to interpret these well to identify specific problem sources please impart some knowledge!

flutter.JPG

Finally, I used the PEQ in the RME and turned on the subsonic filter in the preamp to flatten the frequency response somewhat. Still not perfect but OK.

elip EQ.jpg

In conclusion, stay away from the HFN pink noise tracks but the Elipson seems better, but maybe still not perfect. Note that my xtalk, using HFN PN and Elipson 1kHz was the same (21dB one way and 18dB the other so the HFN PN is OK for that. I have not managed to improve cross talk at all despite a lot of azimuth fiddling.

Next I will try the frequency sweeps but this is more difficult to record as I am using REW and that does not have a maximum peak hold in the real time analyser. I will have to use the biqad 30 band analyser that is in the software that comes with the RME.
 
OP
dougi

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
For completeness the swept tone responses (no eq, no sub filter), using the slow 120s sweep. Similar to the PN results but perhaps the right channel a tad hotter?

sweep slow L bq.JPG sweep slow r bq.JPG
 
OP
dougi

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
I have investigated the wow and flutter more and determined that the Elipson record is not centred well at all.

wandf.JPG

Above is an audio offset examination from WFGUI for the Elipson record and an old TCS103 test record with a 3000 Hz tone. The Elipson shows high wow with an obvious rotational component (period of 1.8 seconds). The TCS103 is running slow but there is no 1.8 second component. Flutter seems higher as it is more ragged than the Elipson. Flutter for the Elipson was 003% rms, not too bad. Both show the same 0.4s periodic various which I am guessing is the motor cogging or out of round of the pulley. The spectrum of the TCS103 3000 Hz tone is below, which shows a strong 100 Hz component.

flutterTCS103.JPG

My conclusions are the measurements with these test records for W&F are indicative only and best kept for observing changes in setup and condition.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
I would like to remind LP enthusiasts that a cartridge, due to the way it works, produces inaccurate in amplitude and phase resonance related effects at low frequencies.
The output starts to be an accurate transcription of the groove at about 2x the natural frequency of the effective mass of the transducer system on its compliance.
Using the Elipson pink noise mono track I get something which is a lot closer to the paper plot but with more slope and added arm resonance, indicating this pink noise goes lower than 20 Hz so good to use for picking the arm resonance too!

The broad peak centred on 9Hz is not on the record, it is an artefact of the arm/cartridge being excited by something, it could well be deliberate signal but could also be ripples in the disc. I am not sure "picking up arm resonance" is necessarily a good feature, since with such a lot of resonant activity going on during the measurement it is not likely the rest of the FR is being as accurately measured as it could be.
Transducer resonance is an inevitable guarantee of the transduction method so having a measurement system to pick it up is not really needed, or probably desireable, it will be there and needs removing for accurate playback.
I also shows that the subsonic filter in the example is not set high enough to remove all the dross in this particular installation, far too much remaining for accurate bass.
The sub-sonic dross due to the system resonance shows up on the HFN track too, just not at such a high amplitude. Edit: it looks like the HFN disc rolls off below 30Hz or so.

In terms of noise that rather depends on how often the disc has been used, and with the profile and age of stylus.
 
Last edited:

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,687
Likes
4,068
Using the HFN pink noise tracks you get something like the below, with rolloff at the bass and high channel deviations in the upper treble. This has been reported on other forums
I have the same channel imbalance profile in the treble with the HFN LP. Technics MKII Ortofon cartridge.

Could record any test you want when I come back home in ten days.
 
Last edited:
OP
dougi

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
I would like to remind LP enthusiasts that a cartridge, due to the way it works, produces inaccurate in amplitude and phase resonance related effects at low frequencies.
The output starts to be an accurate transcription of the groove at about 2x the natural frequency of the effective mass of the transducer system on its compliance.


The broad peak centred on 9Hz is not on the record, it is an artefact of the arm/cartridge being excited by something, it could well be deliberate signal but could also be ripples in the disc. I am not sure "picking up arm resonance" is necessarily a good feature, since with such a lot of resonant activity going on during the measurement it is not likely the rest of the FR is being as accurately measured as it could be.
Transducer resonance is an inevitable guarantee of the transduction method so having a measurement system to pick it up is not really needed, or probably desireable, it will be there and needs removing for accurate playback.
I also shows that the subsonic filter in the example is not set high enough to remove all the dross in this particular installation, far too much remaining for accurate bass.
The sub-sonic dross due to the system resonance shows up on the HFN track too, just not at such a high amplitude.

In terms of noise that rather depends on how often the disc has been used, and with the profile and age of stylus.
Thanks for the comments Frank. Yes with the Elipson record and the system I also thought that the subsonic filter was still allowing the bass to be affected too much. Also noted your comments about system resonance. Luckily with the RME in-line in the playback system I may be able to add additional filtering. (The system preamplifier has some additional (-3dB at 18 Hz as well due to RoomPerfect which may help).
 

Jas0_0

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
285
Likes
513
This is really interesting. A couple of months ago I wrote to the guy behind the HFN test record asking to buy digital downloads of the pink noise tracks so I could compare how my turntable/cart reproduced them, and then EQ for a flatter response.

He refused on IP grounds. I thought this was odd, since pink noise tracks are available all over the place. I suggested I could sign an NDA, and never heard back from him. Now maybe I understand why...
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,687
Likes
4,068
Even when I adjust gain inputs on my Scarlett 2i4 using the HFN LP, I have to finely adjust channel balance in the post-processing software for each LP.
 
OP
dougi

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
This is really interesting. A couple of months ago I wrote to the guy behind the HFN test record asking to buy digital downloads of the pink noise tracks so I could compare how my turntable/cart reproduced them, and then EQ for a flatter response.

He refused on IP grounds. I thought this was odd, since pink noise tracks are available all over the place. I suggested I could sign an NDA, and never heard back from him. Now maybe I understand why...
I will hopefully post some more plots this weekend. After discovering the likely reason for the poor crosstalk measurements is a bent cantilever, I am awaiting a new cartridge which has been measured (the bargain A/T VM540ML). This should be a good indicator as to which test record is more accurate for the PN test. I have straightened the cantilever on the old cart as well so I will see if that helps the crosstalk.
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,155
Likes
1,666
Location
James Island, SC
Just a heartfelt THANK YOU! I am using a refurbished DUAL 1229 (with an AMERICAN WALNUT plinth, stock arm & various SHURE V15 V series cartridges. And a TECHNICS SL-M3 with various TECHNICS and SHURE (V15 V 300 ULTRA) bodies, NOS styli and JICO SAS styli.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,423
Likes
2,408
Location
Sweden
In another thread I said I was waiting for the Elipson test record and would post some comparisons with the HFN record when I received it. I have now got it, so here we go!

I am measuring my 10 year old VPI scout (acrylic platter) and a Dynavector DV20X low, into a Project DS2 preamp and recorded using a RME ADI-2 PRO ADC/DAC.

The cartridge frequency response should be something like the below. A gentle 3dB drop from bass to treble and then a 2dB lift at the very top. (50dB scale).

View attachment 76373

Using the HFN pink noise tracks you get something like the below, with rolloff at the bass and high channel deviations in the upper treble. This has been reported on other forums.

View attachment 76374

Using the Elipson pink noise mono track I get something which is a lot closer to the paper plot but with more slope and added arm resonance, indicating this pink noise goes lower than 20 Hz so good to use for picking the arm resonance too!

View attachment 76375

Lets take a look at the Elipson 1kHz tones and use for distortion and rumble. The cart measures <-40dBc 2nd harmonic so not bad. (repeating using the 100 Hz and 10kHz tones gives -52dBc and -25dBc). Power supply worse into right channel. Rumble spectrum can be seen.

View attachment 76376View attachment 76377

What about that silent groove on the HFN record for rumble? Elipson doesn't have that but lets compare with the 1kHz tone. HFN is not very silent at all!

View attachment 76378

I also used the 3150 Hz track for wow and flutter and used that WFGUI program that you can find. Not very good with ~0.1% rms so work to do there. There is a lot of observed movement in the belt under use. Below is the difference spectrum using Audacity of the flutter measurement. If anyone knows how to interpret these well to identify specific problem sources please impart some knowledge!

View attachment 76379

Finally, I used the PEQ in the RME and turned on the subsonic filter in the preamp to flatten the frequency response somewhat. Still not perfect but OK.

View attachment 76381

In conclusion, stay away from the HFN pink noise tracks but the Elipson seems better, but maybe still not perfect. Note that my xtalk, using HFN PN and Elipson 1kHz was the same (21dB one way and 18dB the other so the HFN PN is OK for that. I have not managed to improve cross talk at all despite a lot of azimuth fiddling.

Next I will try the frequency sweeps but this is more difficult to record as I am using REW and that does not have a maximum peak hold in the real time analyser. I will have to use the biqad 30 band analyser that is in the software that comes with the RME.

Is that the corrected response from the pink noise spectrum?

A raw response looks like this from my system using the Elipson test LP:

Elipson%20sweep.jpg


The sweep 1-20 kHz looks something like this.

elipsonsweep.png
 
Last edited:
OP
dougi

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
Is that the corrected response from the pink noise spectrum?

A raw response looks like this from my system using the Elipson test LP:

Elipson%20sweep.jpg


The sweep 1-20 kHz looks something like this.

elipsonsweep.png
I can't see your plots Thomas_A! Yes the corrected response (76381) was from the pink noise as well.
At some point I might measure max hold on sine sweeps to see how they compare with pink noise.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,423
Likes
2,408
Location
Sweden
Strange you can't see them. First pink noise; ca 3 dB slope per octave EDIT. I see that this is named as sweep. Let me check again!

Elipson sweep.jpg

Sine sweep from 1 kHz.
elipsonsweep.png
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,423
Likes
2,408
Location
Sweden
Here is a pink noise I derived just now:

pink noise.png


And white noise from the same Elipson record.

white noise.png
 
OP
dougi

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
Here is a pink noise I derived just now:

View attachment 92430

And white noise from the same Elipson record.

View attachment 92431
You need to set the "pink noise mode" in the RTA settings (or whatever it is called) to correct for the slope in pink noise test. I did the same thing the first time I did it! Re your sine sweep, did you record it then analyse it? Some promising correlation between the sine and white noise. I will have to compare all three myself.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
Here is a pink noise I derived just now:

View attachment 92430

And white noise from the same Elipson record.

View attachment 92431
The arm/cartridge resonance is too high.
Basically by the way a seismic type transducer works all the output lower than 2x the natural frequency are inaccurate. Your peak is at 15Hz meaning not only the accurate transduction starts at 30Hz, as can be seen, but the spurious peak will be heard.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,423
Likes
2,408
Location
Sweden
The arm/cartridge resonance is too high.
Basically by the way a seismic type transducer works all the output lower than 2x the natural frequency are inaccurate. Your peak is at 15Hz meaning not only the accurate transduction starts at 30Hz, as can be seen, but the spurious peak will be heard.

Nope. The arm/cartridge resonance is measured to 10,5 Hz using a test record. I also use damping oil on my Moerch UP-4 and a damping brush (Shure V15Vx). The LF noise is at least 6 dB lower than with my previous arm (Linn Akito).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c47wosw9ux38nij/Tonearm mass and noise LP playback.pdf?dl=0
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
Nope. The arm/cartridge resonance is measured to 10,5 Hz using a test record. I also use damping oil on my Moerch UP-4 and a damping brush (Shure V15Vx). The LF noise is at least 6 dB lower than with my previous arm (Linn Akito).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c47wosw9ux38nij/Tonearm mass and noise LP playback.pdf?dl=0
Your plot shows this is not true unless the labelling of the axes are wrong.
According to the scales on the plot the peak (which will be the resonant frequency) is above 15Hz and the response doesn't level off until 30 to 40 Hz.
Adding damping reduces amplitude at resonance but widens the peak.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,423
Likes
2,408
Location
Sweden
Your plot shows this is not true unless the labelling of the axes are wrong.
According to the scales on the plot the peak (which will be the resonant frequency) is above 15Hz and the response doesn't level off until 30 to 40 Hz.
Adding damping reduces amplitude at resonance but widens the peak.

You can't rely on that one. To measure it you need to do the proper test. This is vertical and horisontal resonance with the same cartridge and a 10g mass arm. The vertical resonance is 8,5 Hz. Calculation gives 8,2 Hz and fits well the the measured response (vertical). Lateral resonance is lower with the Akito arm since the moving mass in that direction is higher.

Resonance_lateral_V15_JICO.jpg

Resonance_vert_V15_JICO.jpg


With the Moerch 4 g arm I get 10,2 Hz both directions. A rapid test with a pure signal gives peaking in the same ballpark.

Skärmavbild 2016-09-04 kl. 19.04.02.png
 
Top Bottom