[bigshot]

The schematic on the site I linked to before shows that the noise reduction circuitry is totally bypassed unless the gate is engaged. It shouldn't sound audibly different if it isn't firing. The gate fires faster than 1/100th of a second and replaces the gap with sound sampled from adjacent waveforms. There's absolutely no way it could have any sort of affect on the overall sound other than a tiny pop if the calibration isn't right. If you are hearing something continuous or longer than a hundredth of a second, it's probably because some component in the unit is failing.

The Burwen unit isn't terribly effective, but it is totally clean.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's absolutely no way it could have any sort of affect on the overall sound other than a tiny pop if the calibration isn't right. If you are hearing something continuous or longer than a hundredth of a second, it's probably because some component in the unit is failing.

It's an electronic filter connected in series accross the signal path so of course it's going to influence the signal just by being connected.

In the context of studio effects it's sound quality is perfectly fine and as good as any other device I have of that vintage as I have said. The phasing I mentioned is a result of pushing it to the limit on very scratchy material to see what happens that's all.

However looking at it in the context of a Hi-Fi system is a different matter and I personally am of the opinion that the best sound quality is to be obtained by keeping signal paths as simple as possible.

I remember reading in other posts that you advocate using a graphic equaliser and coat hangers for speaker wire so I don't think we're going to agree here...

 

[bigshot]

The filter isn't in line unless the gate if fired. When the gate is shut, it's in bypass. You can't hear that. Operating properly, the TNE only fires for a tiny fraction of a second. Therefore, the only time you can "hear" it is going to be in those tiny bursts. It's not a broadband filter. It's an impulse filter.

A graphic equalizer is one of the most important tools a person can use in balancing the response of his speaker system. No system can be even close to balanced without one.

Signal processing isn't inherently bad or good. It's a tool like any other tool. Stacking up lots of signal processing units for no reason isn't a good idea. Using a high quality signal processing unit that directly addresses a problem in your system is a great idea and will improve the performance of your system tremendously for an inaudible amount of signal degradation. That's smart.

I've never had any experience using coat hangers for speaker wire, so I have no comment on that. But I do have experience with speaker cables, and I've found that regular old cables from Radio Shack sound just as good as expensive ones. Theory backs my observation up.

Observation is great and theory is great. But when theory becomes dogma, it's easy to claim that inaudible and totally irrelevant things are important when they really aren't. Likewise, depending on anecdotal experience can be misleading. You might be experiencing the exception to the rule or you may be misinterpreting the cause of what you are hearing. It's not good to be either dogmatic or totally anecdotal. The best approach is experience informed by theory- understanding why you hear what you actually hear.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Well I can hear it in bypass and Todd R questions it's inaubility above so I would say that's some empirical evidence to the contrary.

The fact is you are feeding the signal through the tape loop of an amp or send loop of a mixer and then through this device and back again. Compare this to "source direct" if you like of just going straight into a phono input and depending on how good your components are there is the possibility of it sounding different and being measurably different.

Not different enough to be a factor in a professional environment where real time processing is desirable because you are charging by the hour perhaps but different enough for me personally to think it's not worth using in a domestic setting where I just want to relax and listen to music.

Similarly aside from my home cinema multi channel set up I don't use signal processing in my hi-fi at home. It's a useful tool alright in a PA system for instance to fix problems in a particular space but unecessary in a domestic context in my experiance in my space anyway.

 

[mikeg]

I'll be receiving the Esoteric Sound Surface Noise Reducer device (see post 1, above) in a few days, and I may perhaps also get a Burwen TNE 7000A Transient Noise Eliminator. I'll compare the two units by using a high quality vinyl source, and high quality nearfield studio monitor speakers (listed in my profile), and report the results. My goal is to see whether cleaning LPs with a "basic" cleaning machine (e.g., a VPI 16.5), followed by signal processing through these "filter devices", eliminates the need for buying multi-thousand dollar cleaning machines (e.g., high-end Loricraft units), or fastidiously cleaning each LPs before each playing, as recommended by some.

 

[bigshot]

Cleaning is cleaning. A more expensive machine won't clean better than a less expensive one, and neither will remove groove damage. That's the source of most good sized clicks and pops. The only way to deal with those is with a declicker. The people who are recommending expensive cleaning machines as a solution for surface noise just want your money.

I would bet that the Esoteric digital declicker is a LOT more effective than the analogue one. The Burwen is optimized to work on tiny low level clicks, while digital declickers can shape their filter envelopes on the fly to suit either big or little clicks. If the Esoteric does the job, you won't need the Burwen at all.

See ya
Steve

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cleaning is cleaning. A more expensive machine won't clean better than a less expensive one, and neither will remove groove damage.

QFT.

Steve's right on the money here. I think Cleaning is essential, but the only difference between lower end and higher end cleaning machines is ease of use. Think of a clean record as a destination, and a cleaning machine as the car you drive to get there.

As soon as you enter the realm of vacuum cleaning, any competent machine will get the record utterly clean. Past that point removing surface noise is only possible through filters.

 

[memepool]

I see no logical reason why the Loricraft machine can't be better than my Nitty Gritty as the two are a completely different design. The VPI / Nitty Gritty / Moth / Okki Nokki machines all work in pretty much the same way although there are minor design differences in the lips for instance, the actual part of the machine that is in contact with the record. But I'd guess the results with these are broadly similar.

The Loricraft / Keith Monks is a different beast altogether and people on here have reported fairly large differences in the past. Whether thats worth the extra money is another issue.

In my experience most clicks and pops come from foreign matter on the records themselves and cleaning reduces the noise floor as well as removing most of these. It needn't be expensive either as KABUSA sell a barebones version of the Nitty Gritty for 160USD (although they've jacked it up from 100 recently...)

I only started using one in the last 5 years having been collecting records for 30+ years and the differences over manual cleaning or letting the stylus clear debris as Linn used to suggest, are massive.

Real time de-clickers I've heard on the whole including the CEDAR ones are useful in a professional environment but they are appropriately expensive and given the choice of this or a cleaning machine I think the cleaning machine should be first priority.

Certainly on a personal basis If I had to choose between my Nitty Gritty and Burwen as to which is the most effective aid to enjoying vinyl then the Nitty Gritty is easily the winner.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif I see no logical reason why the Loricraft machine can't be better than my Nitty Gritty as the two are a completely different design.

Washing a record isn't rocket science. The only advantage of one machine over another, or over washing by hand is convenience. The effect of cleaning on surface noise is often grossly overstated. Once a record is clean, if it's sleeved and bagged, it should never need to be cleaned again. The only reason to buy a cleaning machine is if you are going to be buying lots of used vinyl.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only advantage of one machine over another, or over washing by hand is convenience.

That's simply untrue and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a record scientist to understand why. It's common sense.

Washing by hand never gets records as clean as washing with a machine mainly because in effect drip drying them leaves a lot of the gunk in the grooves. Yes you may remove some of the dirt but all you are doing with the rest is rearranging it.

With a vacumm based machine you wiping the surface with solvents as you do when hand washing but then you are sucking the gunk out of the grooves with a vacuum cleaner which leaves them much cleaner.

Where the Keith Monks / Lorricraft design goes beyond this is by actually wiping the insides of the groove before vacuuming with a piece of cotton wool on a bobbin which is constantly refreshed as it revolves to prevent cross contamination. This is self evidently more effective than the static felt pad on the more standard machines which require cleaning after every cycle and frequent replacement.

 

[bigshot]

I don't drip dry when I wash by hand. I towel dry. Wiping down with a soft terrycloth towel in the direction of the grooves wicks the moisture right out. Same same.

The only downside is that when I wash too many records with distilled vinegar, my fingers smell like pickles.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I towel dry. Wiping down with a soft terrycloth towel in the direction of the grooves wicks the moisture right out.

But the fibres of a towel are way bigger than a record groove so although you get rid of visible moisture you don't get into the bottom of the grooves. I have tried this in the past and found a nice layer of damp brown gunk onthe end of my stylus. Ok I suppose if you are using inexpensive moving magnets and changing them frequently but not ideal with Geiger tip on a moving coil...

Enjoy your pickles

 

[bigshot]

Use white vinegar and there won't be any gunk in the grooves. Then all the towel is wicking out is distilled water, which leaves no residue. Best to let the record dry before playing. Water in the grooves will act like oil on a whetstone.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

Most of my vinyl collection consists of approx. 1000 recently purchased and mostly classical stereo LPs. I bought them for 25 cents each at a music archive that's in our local library, and most of them are in fine shape. Each of these records has clear, undistorted sound, although many have slight to significant surface noise. Some of these records actually have almost completely silent surfaces, even without further cleaning. What I've discovered from my brief experience with cleaning records that have slight to moderate surface noise, using the VPI 16.5 machine, is that even repeated cleaning does not eliminate, or often even significantly reduce surface noise. What does seem to improve is sound quality. There seems to be a noticeable improvement in the clarity, depth, and holographic image (i.e., the soundstage) produced after cleaning. Consequently, I clean each record only once, and return every record that retains too much surface noise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cleaning is cleaning. A more expensive machine won't clean better than a less expensive one, and neither will remove groove damage. That's the source of most good sized clicks and pops. The only way to deal with those is with a declicker. The people who are recommending expensive cleaning machines as a solution for surface noise just want your money. I would bet that the Esoteric digital declicker is a LOT more effective than the analogue one. The Burwen is optimized to work on tiny low level clicks, while digital declickers can shape their filter envelopes on the fly to suit either big or little clicks. If the Esoteric does the job, you won't need the Burwen at all. See ya Steve

 

[bigshot]

You might not want to play a record until you've had a chance to clean it. If you play a dirty record, there's a chance that the dirt will get embedded into the grooves and never come out, even with repeated cleaning.

See ya
Steve