The Courteous Vinyl Playback Discussion

[dlaloum]

I have read that but I have only seen photos of a Rabco arm. The servo tracking mechanism looks very similar but not the arm itself.
The biggest problem with most linear tracking arm designs is the lateral effective mass is high, meaning excitation by warps and the cartridge working in the non-linear part of its range that leads to inaccurate bass performance from linear trackers. The Goldmund avoids this by using a pivoting arm so effective mass is the same vertically as horizontally. The control system is a bit crude and slow given its age, but still gives less tracking error than other pivoted arms.

The Revox is somewhat similar - the arm itself is a unipivot... but it is very short, and made of delrin, with effective mass of 4g - matched perfectly with some of the ultra ultra high compliance cartridges of the late 70's and early 80's.

With the additional mass of a T4p adapter, it matches quite well with typical p-mounts (and that was the way Revox sold them for quite a few years)

The Revox unipivot also has a dab of grease in it, which provides it with just a touch of damping - and then there is the servo controlled linear tracking mechanism that moves the unipivot arm linearly across the disk.

When it was first released, apparently some of the Neumann engineers who worked on the record lathes, remarked that it moved across the record just like a lathe.... high accolade... as that is the purpose of an ideal tonearm - to replicate the movement of the original cutter head that cut the master from which the record was pressed.

 

[dlaloum]

I like boring! I want it to properly do what it is supposed to do (with maintenance of course [but not a lot].
For the rest of my life.
That way I can concentrate on learning the newer tech that comes out while embracing the old. (the TT, higher end cassette decks & Real FM is, so far, what I like better.
But I still want to learn more & use the new. Perhaps recording (ripping) my vinyl, cassettes & Reel to Reel) & "shellacs" to a NAS next year.
As to streaming, ahm, just from my NAS, I need to discover all of what I have collected on vinyl these last 30 years (a lot) that I have yet to listen to on my system, under my conditions. Things that I have heard live or in a club or music at someone's home or on an FM broadcast. Some of it is not music but historical events & family events.
Some is even 9.5 millimeter family videos from the 1930's-now that I just had converted to digital.

I have a super-8 reel that my mom recorded in 1960 to 1964 that I need to get converted...

 

[DSJR]

I had mixed experience with the deccapod (or whatever it was called). In the end I opted for the original plastic holder (although this one is a 4-wire version - I also have a 3-wire version on a Decca purple). I felt, although never measured it, that the extra compliance of the bendy plastic holder improved tracking a bit.

The Rock + Decca was the closest I ever got to master tape quality (although it's a dim light by comparison). There's no question in my mind that Red Book digital is better in all regards with the possible exception of the mistake of going for 44.1 when 48 would have been more sensible.

The GB clamp, with twin small 'Allen' screws to clamp gently the tin Decca shell, was the first. Mine had the Tom Fletcher made (Notts Analogue) pod, which used the top screws of the Decca internals and a firm fit for the shell, making for a pretty solid arrangement (the front of the cartridge could still be pulled down a little if you were an animal about it. Under normal use it was fine. my Decca suffered a buzzy type of distortion on sustained notes. I thought it was the stabilised unipivot arm (it wasn't) and as funds were tight in th emid 90s, I sold the deck and arm for peanuts (some time back, the buyer still had the deck but with a different tonearm), but kept the Decca. In the late noughties, I sent it off to be serviced and after re-sticking a magnet back and replacing a coil, it 'sounds' as great as it ever did. I used a TD125 (which I should have kept) and a restored Rega R200 arm which wasn't ideal in terms of the alarming lateral 'shimmy' the cartridge could have. the deck has gone, the arm is in storage and the cartridge also stored away (i also have the four terminal connector which had the half inch mount shaved off and simply pushes down into the contact bay on the back of the cartridge.

Dim light? I suppose it depends on the system really. Vinyl at its very best, with a nice clean pressing played with a decent tip profile just 'sounded' to me, a bit smaller than a decent digital transfer of the master recording, but I was okay with that, although I have to admit that if I decided in a vinyl-only session to play a CD, the turntable would usually be turned off and not turned back on... My current DualOrtofon spinner isn't as expansive as the old Mentor/Decca was, so I really need to want the indulgence of a vinyl session to want to use it. I just wish the Koetsu Black was working on both channels (a broken coil wire which will cost hundreds to fix and rebuild I think) as that one, for whatever reason, 'sounded' utterly glorious in the Dual tonearm. (the Koetsu Blacks of old were never as lush or coloured as the Red and Onyx of the period)

 

[rdenney]

The Revox is somewhat similar - the arm itself is a unipivot... but it is very short, and made of delrin, with effective mass of 4g - matched perfectly with some of the ultra ultra high compliance cartridges of the late 70's and early 80's.

With the additional mass of a T4p adapter, it matches quite well with typical p-mounts (and that was the way Revox sold them for quite a few years)

The Revox unipivot also has a dab of grease in it, which provides it with just a touch of damping - and then there is the servo controlled linear tracking mechanism that moves the unipivot arm linearly across the disk.

When it was first released, apparently some of the Neumann engineers who worked on the record lathes, remarked that it moved across the record just like a lathe.... high accolade... as that is the purpose of an ideal tonearm - to replicate the movement of the original cutter head that cut the master from which the record was pressed.

Really? Doesn’t a lathe cutter establish the groove while the tonearm has to follow it? I would think that would make a big difference. Or were you speaking geometrically?

Rick “enjoying the discussion” Denney

 

[MattHooper]

Given the type of discussion here I suspect someone might get a kick out of this old Stereophile review of the “unique” Transcriptors Vestigal Tonearm.

J. Gordon Holt certainly doesn’t hold back with the many criticisms. And there is some spicy back-and-forth with manufacture, examining the technical claims:

Transcriptors Vestigal tonearm

Because this is an unusual and controversial tonearm design, and has had astonishing claims made for its performance by the manufacturer, this in-depth report goes deeper and is longer than is usual for Stereophile. We will return to a reasonable balance of reportage in the next issue. The...

www.stereophile.com

 

[dlaloum]

Really? Doesn’t a lathe cutter establish the groove while the tonearm has to follow it? I would think that would make a big difference. Or were you speaking geometrically?

Rick “enjoying the discussion” Denney

It was a remark made (and then mythically forwarded along the various grapevines) at an audio show in the late 70's... And what I repeated is all I know (!!) - unless we can identify the engineer who made the comment to confirm, your guess is as good as mine.

There were already at the time, a few linear tracking designs - this was the one that generated the comment... apparently the Neumann engineer was impressed with the way it tracked... given that the mechanisms are quite different between the cutter (where I believe it is the disc that is moved, rather than the cutting head!) and the Revox linear tracker ...

 

[goat76]

Hm, I compared the 1 and 2, and my rip as well. Isn't it quite different in the bass? I however heard the clear difference in the highs though. Maybe I am doing it wrong. Edit there is a clear audible difference in the bass between all three. No ABX needed.


View attachment 458512

That big difference in the bass level could already be seen in the first pictures that @MatrixS2000 posted.

The "system 1" sounds pretty bad compared to "system 2".

 

[Bob from Florida]

Follow up to my question about record “pucks”. How to measure any changes that may occur? Initial thought is to record an unmodulated track - without any weights, then with weights. Another variable to introduce to the unmodulated groove would be with or without loud music playing to see if the pucks affect vibrational energy. Stillpoints is closing out their puck - https://www.stillpoints.us/product/lpi-v2/ - I have one on order. This means I will have 3 to test for any changes, Clearaudio Concept, Clearaudio Statement, and the Stillpoints LPI V2.
I can capture the audio via my Waxwing’s digital output. Suggestions are welcome for how to measure any changes to playback.

 

[Soniclife]

Follow up to my question about record “pucks”. How to measure any changes that may occur? Initial thought is to record an unmodulated track - without any weights, then with weights. Another variable to introduce to the unmodulated groove would be with or without loud music playing to see if the pucks affect vibrational energy. Stillpoints is closing out their puck - https://www.stillpoints.us/product/lpi-v2/ - I have one on order. This means I will have 3 to test for any changes, Clearaudio Concept, Clearaudio Statement, and the Stillpoints LPI V2.
I can capture the audio via my Waxwing’s digital output. Suggestions are welcome for how to measure any changes to playback.

After making the recordings try Deltawave for analysis, I'll be intrigued by what's found, my money is on minor measured improvement with puck compared to without.

 

[MatrixS2000]

I can capture the audio via my Waxwing’s digital output. Suggestions are welcome for how to measure any changes to playback.

Post up your captures and I can put them through AB Metric for you.

 

[The_Fall]

Same result here. File with System 2 has more bass than system 1. No contest here. You EQ variant boost bass and some treble for what I can see.

View attachment 458550

I would guess the red and blue curves have an aggressive rumble filter, and the green curve is experiencing 'rumble'? The blue seems to be the 'winner'

 

[Thomas_A]

I would guess the red and blue curves have an aggressive rumble filter, and the green curve is experiencing 'rumble'? The blue seems to be the 'winner'

No this is not rumble. Just different systems and perhaps one record that is not exactly the same. It is a re-issue of Fleetwood Mac which should be very similar (ie not remastered) but not identical. However, the difference is still huge and very suprising so I am not sure what is going on here.

 

[MatrixS2000]

I would guess the red and blue curves have an aggressive rumble filter, and the green curve is experiencing 'rumble'? The blue seems to be the 'winner'

No filters were in place during the rips. I already mentioned why that 3dB difference is there. The Whest phono pre is getting very long in the tooth and instead of repairing it, I am moving to phono gain only and digital RIAA. When I get that built I will redo a rip for what I will call “System 3”.

 

[MatrixS2000]

No this is not rumble. Just different systems and perhaps one record that is not exactly the same.

Exactly, as per the above.

It is a re-issue of Fleetwood Mac which should be very similar (ie not remastered) but not identical. However, the difference is still huge and very suprising so I am not sure what is going on here.

Yes, on your pressing you can see that the bumps in the high end FR of my pressing (regardless of which system the pressing was played back on) is no longer there.

Here they are again (System 1 first)

View attachment 458313
View attachment 458314

And Thomas’:

View attachment 458368

You can see that on my pressing at approximately 15K and 18k there are two humps on both systems that are not there on Thomas’ pressing.

 

[dlaloum]

Follow up to my question about record “pucks”. How to measure any changes that may occur? Initial thought is to record an unmodulated track - without any weights, then with weights. Another variable to introduce to the unmodulated groove would be with or without loud music playing to see if the pucks affect vibrational energy. Stillpoints is closing out their puck - https://www.stillpoints.us/product/lpi-v2/ - I have one on order. This means I will have 3 to test for any changes, Clearaudio Concept, Clearaudio Statement, and the Stillpoints LPI V2.
I can capture the audio via my Waxwing’s digital output. Suggestions are welcome for how to measure any changes to playback.

The pucks or clamps will have differing results depending on your platter surface or matt that the record is sitting on.

So for the results to be meaningful you need to specify the platter matt/surface or do a series of tests with differing matts as one of the variables

 

[rdenney]

Follow up to my question about record “pucks”. How to measure any changes that may occur? Initial thought is to record an unmodulated track - without any weights, then with weights. Another variable to introduce to the unmodulated groove would be with or without loud music playing to see if the pucks affect vibrational energy. Stillpoints is closing out their puck - https://www.stillpoints.us/product/lpi-v2/ - I have one on order. This means I will have 3 to test for any changes, Clearaudio Concept, Clearaudio Statement, and the Stillpoints LPI V2.
I can capture the audio via my Waxwing’s digital output. Suggestions are welcome for how to measure any changes to playback.

First, it seems to me, one would need to develop a theory about what a puck would accomplish. I see two possibilities. The puck adds mass, which changes the resonant frequency of the platter suspension (assuming it doesn’t use it all up) in addition to increasing the inertial stability. And the puck enforces flatness in a slightly warped record, which might reduce some very low frequency energy (and its associated distortion products).

If those are the objectives, then make measurements that verify whether those objectives are attained (or not).

Analyzing a test recording of a steady tone should evaluate stability, for example. It would take a precision test pressing, not the consumer test records which, like as not, are punched off-center. I think B&K (of test microphone fame) made one such, but I’ve never seen one.

A frequency sweep should reveal resonances that ring or distort, though the distortion might be a cartridge problem, too, so it would need controls.

Rick “likes the idea of a clamp but not a weight” Denney

 

[Newman]

There have also been theories of record slippage on the platter. That one is almost too easy to measure!

 

[Frank Dernie]

No this is not rumble. Just different systems and perhaps one record that is not exactly the same. It is a re-issue of Fleetwood Mac which should be very similar (ie not remastered) but not identical. However, the difference is still huge and very suprising so I am not sure what is going on here.

It may well be the inevitable bass inaccuracy inherent in seismic type sensors, ie one of the arm/cartridge assembly is adding more of its resonance tail to the output than the other.
No seismic sensor of this type is accurate below around 2x its natural frequency and it maybe higher, depending on damping level and type.

 

[sergeauckland]

One undesirable effect of a heavy clamp is loading the thrust bearing on the turntable which will increase rumble. It will also increase wear, so I've avoided using those types of clamp. Years ago I had a Gyrodec with a reasonably lightweight screw-down clamp. I tried and failed several times to hear whether it made any difference. I've therefore never bothered with a clamp of any sort since.

S

 

[Thomas_A]

Exactly, as per the above.


Yes, on your pressing you can see that the bumps in the high end FR of my pressing (regardless of which system the pressing was played back on) is no longer there.

Here they are again (System 1 first)

And Thomas’:

You can see that on my pressing at approximately 15K and 18k there are two humps on both systems that are not there on Thomas’ pressing.

With respect to the terms "repressed", reissued" and "remastered", I would guess that the differences are incremental. If there is a definition of the terms I would be glad to hear them, but from the wording I would guess that "repressed" means that the records originate from the same lacquer. "Reissued", I would guess it means that there is a new lacquer made from the original tape/source (which surely will introduce differences). I am however not sure if a reissue means that the original also was remastered or EQued in the process (as opposed to remastered, where it certainly means that the source was changed and may include quite large differences from the original).