• 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!

Test and Measurement request for Turntables and Cartridges.

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
With a week off I foolishly decided to start measuring things with my new RME ADI-2 pro ADC/DAC. This included the turntable setup. I used a HFNRR test record (plus an old mono test record). I got consistent results in that L channel response drooped a bit at high frequencies and crosstalk was very difficult to optimise despite fiddling with azimuth. This was using two different carts (mm and mc) and two different preamps.

I used the HFNRR pink noise tracks for response as well as the mono disc for some distortion measurements. Distortion -40dBc at best, -25dBc at high frequencies or levels above 0dBr.

Not sure how to explain the differences. It is a unipivot tonearm, so that could be a problem.

An example shows the channel differences. I have eq'ed the rig flat using the RME so assuming the test record is OK I am happy.
turntable.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: P_M

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
With a week off I foolishly decided to start measuring things with my new RME ADI-2 pro ADC/DAC. This included the turntable setup. I used a HFNRR test record (plus an old mono test record). I got consistent results in that L channel response drooped a bit at high frequencies and crosstalk was very difficult to optimise despite fiddling with azimuth. This was using two different carts (mm and mc) and two different preamps.

I used the HFNRR pink noise tracks for response as well as the mono disc for some distortion measurements. Distortion -40dBc at best, -25dBc at high frequencies or levels above 0dBr.

Not sure how to explain the differences. It is a unipivot tonearm, so that could be a problem.

An example shows the channel differences. I have eq'ed the rig flat using the RME so assuming the test record is OK I am happy.
View attachment 72638

The HFNRR record is not very accurate. Few test records are. Of the modern ones available today, I found the Elipson test record the best one between 30 Hz and 20 kHz. Peaking below around 14 kHz is due to resonance (MM cartridge).

elipsonsweep.png
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
And for 1 kHz crosstalk/azimuth check, the 1 kHz tracks from the Ortofon test LP is best IMO. The rest of the record is garbage however.

Crosstalk and azimuth
 

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
Thanks for the comments on the test records. I can get the analog productions one locally. Any opinions on that one for freq response and cross talk measurements?
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
Thanks for the comments on the test records. I can get the analog productions one locally. Any opinions on that one for freq response and cross talk measurements?

It is a reasonably good record with some flaws, the low frequency sweep has a built in resonance. The rest is ok but not up among the best and the record lacks both sweeps and fixed frequencies at difference frequencies (e.g. 25 Hz->20 kHz).
 

eliash

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2019
Messages
407
Likes
209
Location
Bavaria, near lake Ammersee
The HFNRR record is not very accurate. Few test records are. Of the modern ones available today, I found the Elipson test record the best one between 30 Hz and 20 kHz. Peaking below around 14 kHz is due to resonance (MM cartridge).

View attachment 72644

Comparing the HFN Analogue Test LP with my 60´ dhfi-2 test record I came to the same conclusion, even the HFN sweep and the pink noise results don´t fit well together.
Actually I trust better in the dhfi-2 results, especially after having installed a Benz (ACE-H, boron cantilever w micro ridge tip) high output MC cart on a Thorens TP50 arm.
That gets rid of the coil inductance/cable capacitance influence almost completely. What is left are probably some mechanical HF resonances >17KHz. Otherwise I see a significant azimuth tilt to achieve similar crosstalk from both channels. At least that fits togehter with the highest tracking abilitiy...Distortion is as well above 1%D2 @1KHz, but also depending on the test record, the dhfi-2 is worn out in that regard (~2.5%D2).
Anyway no reason to worry, considering some LPs being less compressed (and still sounding natural) than the so called "HiRes" digital garbage mastered stuff, we have to suffer from today (sorry for being explicit)...which even doesn´t sound good any more in a noisy convertible...
 
Last edited:

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
It is a reasonably good record with some flaws, the low frequency sweep has a built in resonance. The rest is ok but not up among the best and the record lacks both sweeps and fixed frequencies at difference frequencies (e.g. 25 Hz->20 kHz).

My mistake here, the Ultimate test record has fixed frequencies...
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,658
Likes
5,276
All this shows that vinyl is a deeply flawed medium that does not deserve too much scientific attention. I occasionally still use my LP12/SME II impr combination, now with the Shure M97xe since the styli for the V15iii have been discontinued. In the old days Quad had special input boards for a range of cartridges for a perfect electrical match. But anyway, streaming with a CCA into an REME ADI-2 sounds a lot better.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
All this shows that vinyl is a deeply flawed medium that does not deserve too much scientific attention. I occasionally still use my LP12/SME II impr combination, now with the Shure M97xe since the styli for the V15iii have been discontinued. In the old days Quad had special input boards for a range of cartridges for a perfect electrical match. But anyway, streaming with a CCA into an REME ADI-2 sounds a lot better.

Agreed, I use it rarely as well. When I do it is a Linn Axis/Shure V15V and JICO boron stylus -> real-time click-repair.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
All this shows that vinyl is a deeply flawed medium that does not deserve too much scientific attention.
a) modern stereo records have been around for over 60 years. Anything 'scientific' that is important towards understanding this analog source has already been discovered. That is the reason it does not 'deserve' too much (or any) continued investigation. No need to reinvent the wheel.

b) digital (as a home music source) is essentially flawless from a listener standpoint. Using your criteria one could well argue that it doesn't really deserve too much 'scientific attention', either. And they would be right.

Truth is, no one is really doing any 'scientific' research into records. Maybe a few hobbyists are doing something in order to pass the time. And with the trend in music availability (on line and streaming) there's not much interest in digital hardware from a consumer point of view. Outside of the tweako magazines, the few dealers who are left, and the neurotic hi-fi hobbyist, no one cares about the latest and greatest CD player. ASR does it to find out who's doing it right, not in order to discover anything 'scientific' about digital recording theory.

Other formats? Variations on the basic theme, such as Hi Res and SACD, are confined to the basement. Might as well discuss FM tuner alternate channel selectivity, capture ratio and sensitivity. LOL

In essence, 'digital convergence' has arrived. It arrived years ago, actually. That said, if someone want to measure their phono cartridge, more power to them.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
a) modern stereo records have been around for over 60 years. Anything 'scientific' that is important towards understanding this analog source has already been discovered. That is the reason it does not 'deserve' too much (or any) continued investigation. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Scientifically you are correct. However, like many speakers produced today, there are better and poorer cartridges/arms/tables. So for those who still want the best out there, testing may be of interest. The market for LP playback is however very limited, it should not, IMO, be priority. Noise- and click-repair may be another interest, and personally, once I tried it, I cannot live without a real-time clickrepair.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
Scientifically you are correct. However, like many speakers produced today, there are better and poorer cartridges/arms/tables. So for those who still want the best out there, testing may be of interest. The market for LP playback is however very limited, it should not, IMO, be priority. Noise- and click-repair may be another interest, and personally, once I tried it, I cannot live without a real-time clickrepair.
I play LPs, especially Quadraphonic LPs, so am interested in what real-time click repairer you use. Is it hardware or does it involve having a computer in the listening room?

S
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
I play LPs, especially Quadraphonic LPs, so am interested in what real-time click repairer you use. Is it hardware or does it involve having a computer in the listening room?

S

It is the discontinued version of Click-Repair RT. It can be found somewhere, but I don't have the link at the moment. It goes through my Mac Mini where I also have stored my CDs.

Skärmavbild 2020-07-10 kl. 14.43.14.png
 

Attachments

  • Skärmavbild 2020-07-10 kl. 14.39.55.png
    Skärmavbild 2020-07-10 kl. 14.39.55.png
    297.1 KB · Views: 109

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
It is the discontinued version of Click-Repair RT. It can be found somewhere, but I don't have the link at the moment. It goes through my Mac Mini where I also have stored my CDs.

View attachment 72656
Thanks, but then not for me as all my CDs are stored on a server (LMS) in another room.

Does anyone know of a hardware-based declicker? There used to be the Garrard Music Recover Module which was an entirely analogue device that worked on an analogue delay line, but nothing since as far as I'm aware.

S.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
Thanks, but then not for me as all my CDs are stored on a server (LMS) in another room.

Does anyone know of a hardware-based declicker? There used to be the Garrard Music Recover Module which was an entirely analogue device that worked on an analogue delay line, but nothing since as far as I'm aware.

S.
The expensive ones:

https://sweetvinyl.com
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,211
Likes
7,589
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Thanks, but then not for me as all my CDs are stored on a server (LMS) in another room.

Does anyone know of a hardware-based declicker? There used to be the Garrard Music Recover Module which was an entirely analogue device that worked on an analogue delay line, but nothing since as far as I'm aware.

S.
Suspect that's the same as the Burwen filter, which was also re-badged as a KLH de-clicker. Both sucked. Click repair works better. Better still: avoiding LPs altogether. If you're doing needledrops of otherwise unobtainable recordings, click-repair and other digital de-clickers are useful. But if you're playing bog-standard LPs, the irritation factor is just too damned high.
 

audiopile

Active Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
161
Likes
125
I own and use two of the original Sweet Vinyl boxes-one is the recorder -the other is the playback only version. In the last couple of years the company has come out with units that incorporate a phono preamp as part of their products as well. Nice folks to deal with and their products work without the cure being worse than the disease. I am quite certain my GF wishes she had cut her tongue out before she told me "hey honey -did you know GW has records?". Thrift store finds at 99 cents per LP now make up the majority of my too large LP collection/hoard/midden heap pile. A VPI record cleaning machine , a couple of Transcriptors sweep arm squirrel tail sweeps and the Sweet vinyl boxes make this only a only middlin impractical hobby-untreated obsession. The Sweet Vinyl boxes (and I suspect other computer based systems for declicking with a outboard computer?) do not pump like the earlier efforts did- this was a really strange effect -sorta like being hung from a opera house balaacony in a trapeze and swinging back and forth towards the stage/pit - noise was preferable.
 

JP

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
2,276
Likes
2,449
Location
Brookfield, CT
The HFNRR record is not very accurate. Few test records are. Of the modern ones available today, I found the Elipson test record the best one between 30 Hz and 20 kHz. Peaking below around 14 kHz is due to resonance (MM cartridge).

View attachment 72644

I'd like to find one of the Epsilon records. There are some good JVC and Denon test records, though not consistent. I haven't found a modern record yet that is decent, other than anecdotal evidence I've see on the Epsilon.

1005_P100CMK4200pF.png


1005_150MLX0.png


1005_DL-S1.png
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
Just by chance, earlier today whilst looking for the dhfi-2 LP, I found a Decca Frequency response LP on eBay for a sensible price BIN, and hopefully will receive it in a few days. In my young days, that's the record we used in the studios to measure frequency response of our disc transcription units so looking forward to getting reacquainted with it. The only caveat is that Decca only guaranteed the accuracy above 10kHz for 5 plays, and of course I have no way of knowing how many plays it's had, but hope it's not too many. Anyway, hopefully still more accurate than the pink noise or sweeps on other test LPs.

S.
 
Top Bottom