[analogsurviver]

The way you fix a record pressed off center is to take a rat tailed file and open up the hole on the side you need to shift towards. I've never seen it on LPs, but there are occasionally 78s that need filing.

It is not until one goes to linear tracking arm ( and vacuum hold down turntable ... ) that the eccentricity of PRACTICALLY ALL LP records becomes glaringly visually appearent ... - but, you can hear the deletrious effect of off- center pressed record exactly as well with a more common pivoted tonearm.

Here a video by my acquaintance - made practically to my request. I wanted him to showcase the tracking and tracing abilities of Jico SAS stylus for the vintage Technics EPC-P22 ( or EPC P-202 ; same thing ) P-Mount phono cartridge - at the innermost grooves of a LP, where the performance is at the lowest. The close shots of the short arm ( effective lengrth 115 mm ) clearly showcase eccentricity of the record; and I wanted him to present it as it is, with all the good - and few bad.

DISCLAIMER : The following video(s) from YT are only information regarding the ultimately achievable quality of reproduction from analogue records - up to the best SQ allowed by the YT at the time of the original upload.



You can "scan/sample" the entire contents of his YT channel - with all the limitations of the YT, it is still possible to discern the general type of sound a particular analogue record playback rig produces.

I do not have anything comparable to his video equipment ( and video skills ) - but what I do have is a plethora of MUCH improved Technics linear tracking decks ... - with solutions that all help an even better - audibly better - standard of reproduction from analogue records.

 

[bigshot]

I think we might have a difference of understanding what "glaringly apparent" is! And as for the video, because the label is off center, it doesn't mean the grooves are.

 

[pinnahertz]

1. ) Ahem... I beg to differ. PCM can - and DOES - go south under certain conditions . For an entire rise/fall time !

And we’ve now circled around to the beginning again. Please post even on specific example of a current digital recording system that has any interchannel timing error at all, then if you must, post even one example of a digital recording system in history with interchannel timing error. Just one specific example. Shouldn’t be difficult at all give your claim.

2. ) An entirely unfounded assertion and accusation !!! Why, on earth, do you think I am still doing R&D on analog record playback - in 2018 ? Yes, I know the problem, seen it too many numerous times not to notice, last time some 4 hours ago while recording the performance of another cartridge I hate to throw off the TT in order to have that 67K5+ Hz cartridge mounted and recorded. To add insult to the injury, it requires mounting screws of EXACT length - and one of the last pair in required length fell prey to the Carpet Monster. Grrr !
This problem of the lateral high frequency "propeller" ( as Lissajou's "perfect line at 45 degrees" looks on the scope like one in good cases, turning into the figure-of-eight in really bad ones ) HAS BEEN FIXED - but will not comment upon any questions regarding this. Yep, it DOES make for the audibly better sounding music off analogue records ...

First you claim it’s an unfounded assertion, then you confirm it is founded and hard to fix!

3. ) I have tried MANY possible solutions - and one produces incredible results. And there is STILL room for the improvement(s) !

Because of your messed up method of replying to posts I can’t tell what you’re replying too.

4. ) Uh huh indeed. Currently , there is only one TX-1000 for sale - at a cool 32K Euro. Last known sales was for 29K Euro. Way beyond my reach. But the smaller Dragon CT might be within my PFC ( Peak Financial Capability ) - and it is a bit easier to fix for various issues than the TX-1000.

Is it possible and practical for everyone playing a record to fix an eccentric disc? No, it’s not. That’s a serious flaw in the format.

 

[analogsurviver]

lol. That thing is the perfect audiophool dream. You should absolutely buy it.

Correction - not audiophool dream. Unfortunately, an absolutely indespensable thing in view of the REAL WORLD pressed records.

I do remember how slamming was the editorial in The Audio Amateur ( or was it Speaker Builder ? ) back in the day the Nakamichi centering TT has been first introduced.

Calling it "band aid" ... - and following on about how "just a little more patience on part of the pressing plant should have no trouble in PERFECTLY centered pressed records" . Or something to that effect.

Now... IMAGINE you are in charge of mounting the ONLY stamper from a direct to disk recording session to the press ... Costs of the recording to that stage were say - at least - 400K $ . There is NO POSSIBILITY TO PRODUCE ANOTHER STAMPER !!!! Yep, you have a real 400K $ responsibility in your very hands ...

Willl YOU risk demaging the irreplaceable stamper(s) - by innumerate attempts to perfectly center BOTH stampers, for both A and B side ?. You CAN sneeze, some tiny piece of dandroof invisible to naked eye WILL be falling on the lower stamper, some flie(s) may join the party... - need I to go on ? Or will you try to do it as quickly as possible, reducing the risk of the damage to the minumum ( not to mention keeping the job and not risk getting sued for 400K $ because , despite all the best intentions, you managed to destroy at least one side of the stamper/record = all the efforts up to that point destroyed and wasted to zero ) ?

That editorial that flamed the mere idea of a record centering turntable could not have - in the retrospect - barked up the more wrong tree. We ARE human after all - with all the failings of a man.
Real world is not fictionalized fairy tale - and if analogue records are pressed as they are ( not to mention the turntable spindle diameter / hole diameter tolerances ... ), being off center for BOTH sides ( no single perfectly round hole would accomodate both sides in this, vastly spread case ... ) - then record centering TT is NOT a band aid, but an absolute necessity.

Like the above link with the precise dimension / % of wow introduced by eccentricity is saying, the requirement for pitch stability is highly dependant on music genre. Pop/rock/percussion do not suffer from it - except in the most severe cases of eccentricity. But classical, particularly voice and piano, are entirely different story. I do have a shockingly good sounding live recording of a percussion group - on audio cassette. If I tried to push the audio cassette recording on any choir I usually work with, you would have been - long ago - spared of reading my posts ...

They would have probably hang me ... - they did not spend countless hours rehearsing for their constant tone to be randomly warbled by the cassette (recorder) wow & flutter.

Likewise, I DID "accuse" a very known singer that he uses too much vibrato - only to find, red-faced, that this "vibrato" has been strangely connected with the warp in the record, that coincided precisely with the mass/compliance resonance of the tonearm/cartridge used for listening ...

Be it as it may - I ALWAYS strive for the best possible sound, regardless from which medium it is coming. Analogue record is pleagued perhaps with the greatest number of problems - but as Dr. Ferdinand Porsche used to be saying : " Every problem the Man can present himself with, can be solved " .( free translation from German )

 

[bigshot]

Is anyone actually interested in these rambling irrelevant posts? I know I'm not and I can clearly see that they seem to irritate other folks. I suspect the only person interested in all this malarky is the one who is speaking. But I also suspect he is unaware of it and even if he was, he wouldn't care what we think anyway.

 

[pinnahertz]

Correction - not audiophool dream. Unfortunately, an absolutely indespensable thing in view of the REAL WORLD pressed records.

Everybody got that?

Be it as it may - I ALWAYS strive for the best possible sound, regardless from which medium it is coming.

...and that too? Now, let's put it all together:

Analogue record is pleagued perhaps with the greatest number of problems ...

How do we solve off of these problems? We throw money at them! HUGE bags of money! And some never get solved. Logic and common sense would move anyone to conclude that to achieve the best possible sound in any practical and affordable system we would never consider records at all. Instead, we'd look at other media that doesn't have as many problems to solve, doesn't require an extraordinary investment, and can achieve an exact copy of the final mix has heard by the engineer and/or producer. Now you can pick your poison here, even choose something exotic, but if the music you want isn't available in you ultimate choice of media, that media does no good at all no matter how adept you might think it. Hardly anyone has the resources, ability or interest in making their own recording of the community band playing the Mahler 9th. So what to do...what to do?

Yes, I too have lost interest. If it weren't for the fact that the sub-forum is "Sound Science", and this silly thread is "Testing Audiophile claims and myths", I'd have it all on 100% ignore. As it is, this myth has been "tested" to the extent that the "Analogue record is pleagued perhaps with the greatest number of problems", some of which cannot be solved, even with bags of money. That's the very definition of an inferior form of audio media. The record has been tested, and has failed. There's no point in continuing the debate, analogfanatic has reached part of the same conclusion, but refuses to accept the rest of it, even on the basis of his own statements.

I think we're done! Nothing more to read here. Move along.

 

[KeithEmo]

You are obviously quite right... and the point I was attempting to make was precisely that... that it is fallacious.
The fact that our hearing only extends to 20 kHz doesn't specifically suggest that we can or cannot perceive a 5 uS difference in arrival time between channels.
So, for example, it does not specifically validate or disprove the claims made by the MQA folks.

And, yes, a RBCD, with its 44k sample rate, will in fact allow us to resolve a 5 uS difference in timing - with a continuous waveform.
(However, it will not allow a 5 uS time difference in a single-event that falls between sample periods to be accurately reproduced... but it's also doubtful that such a lack of accuracy would be audible.)

Just for the record, please note that I am not a fan of MQA, and I find their claims to be.... far from compelling.
(I've listened to a few MQA files and found them to sound slightly different, as I would expect if I used a radically unusual oversampling filter; however, I did not find them to be consistently better.)

And, yes, I do know how humans (not just audiophiles) can jump to conclusions....
This often leads to balancing the risk of being technically accurate against the likelihood of confusing people and leading to more egregious misunderstandings.
Unfortunately, the risk runs both ways.
When you provide too much information, or the information is too complex, you risk confusing people (or having the data deliberately used to mislead).
However, when you provide too little information, you run the risk of "being caught out", which then makes people more likely to suspect your conclusions, and other useful data you may provide.

Tell a few smart kids that "we have high tides because the moon's gravity pulls up on the Earth's oceans" and some smart kid will eventually ask why, if that's true, there is also a high tide on the side of the Earth AWAY from the moon at the same time.
It can sometimes be tricky to decide whether the accurate explanation or the simplified one carries the most risk.

you're trying hard to play devil's advocate here.
that specific test and other interaural research(some 50 or 60 years old) did not test ultrasound audibility and do not demonstrate that we have proper receptors for ultrasounds, let alone that our brain cares. your presentation of the time delay as a frequency is fully fallacious in this case. and placing "corresponds" in quotation marks is IMO far from enough to compensate for the arm done by suggesting such a correspondence.
you know how audiophiles can jump on such a tempting and easy rational to draw the worst of conclusions.

as for CD, 16/44 fully possesses the means to register something like a 5µs phase delay between channels. because there too, converting the delay into frequency(MQA's BS marketing FTW) doesn't come close to presenting the facts.




I suggest vinyl, it's legendary for its amazing timing accuracy.

 

[castleofargh]

You are obviously quite right... and the point I was attempting to make was precisely that... that it is fallacious.
The fact that our hearing only extends to 20 kHz doesn't specifically suggest that we can or cannot perceive a 5 uS difference in arrival time between channels.
So, for example, it does not specifically validate or disprove the claims made by the MQA folks.

And, yes, a RBCD, with its 44k sample rate, will in fact allow us to resolve a 5 uS difference in timing - with a continuous waveform.
(However, it will not allow a 5 uS time difference in a single-event that falls between sample periods to be accurately reproduced... but it's also doubtful that such a lack of accuracy would be audible.)

Just for the record, please note that I am not a fan of MQA, and I find their claims to be.... far from compelling.
(I've listened to a few MQA files and found them to sound slightly different, as I would expect if I used a radically unusual oversampling filter; however, I did not find them to be consistently better.)

And, yes, I do know how humans (not just audiophiles) can jump to conclusions....
This often leads to balancing the risk of being technically accurate against the likelihood of confusing people and leading to more egregious misunderstandings.
Unfortunately, the risk runs both ways.
When you provide too much information, or the information is too complex, you risk confusing people (or having the data deliberately used to mislead).
However, when you provide too little information, you run the risk of "being caught out", which then makes people more likely to suspect your conclusions, and other useful data you may provide.

Tell a few smart kids that "we have high tides because the moon's gravity pulls up on the Earth's oceans" and some smart kid will eventually ask why, if that's true, there is also a high tide on the side of the Earth AWAY from the moon at the same time.
It can sometimes be tricky to decide whether the accurate explanation or the simplified one carries the most risk.

we're on the same page with just about everything you wrote this time .

 

[bigshot]

Whew! Who’s going to be the first one to pee in the pool today?

 

[analogsurviver]

And we’ve now circled around to the beginning again. Please post even on specific example of a current digital recording system that has any interchannel timing error at all, then if you must, post even one example of a digital recording system in history with interchannel timing error. Just one specific example. Shouldn’t be difficult at all give your claim.
First you claim it’s an unfounded assertion, then you confirm it is founded and hard to fix!

Because of your messed up method of replying to posts I can’t tell what you’re replying too.


Is it possible and practical for everyone playing a record to fix an eccentric disc? No, it’s not. That’s a serious flaw in the format.

1.) The digital interchannel delay photos with precise signal path, software and hardware used, etc - coming. There are more ways it can go wrong. Compared to learning how to make a cat land on its back ( works every time - with a cat not dangerous enough to kill a human being ), this one was real easy. But, I wish it was NOT possible at all - unfortunately it is.
2.) Well, the HF lateral modulation problem in phono cartridges has been fixed - to my knowledge, sometime in mid seventies (!). Forgotten in today's economic realm . And killed because of greed (literally). I do have a few working samples - "technology demonstrators" - if you prefer to call them this way. However, recently there was a breaktrough which - as of yet unconfirmed - offers a great deal of possibility to achieve the same result using commonly available "ingredients" - without having to resort to rather exotic technologies.
3.) OK, "messed up" reply was to wow & flutter in turntables. It is nowhere near as hard to do as some would think - or, depends on how one looks at things, it is. Definitely doable.
4.) I agree off center pressed analogue record is a serious flaw. But once upon a time ... ( no, not Nakamichi centering TTs ) - perhaps it is time to ressurect something ...

 

[bigshot]

Everybody out of the pool! We all knew who the culprit was anyway.

 

[pinnahertz]

1.) The digital interchannel delay photos with precise signal path, software and hardware used, etc - coming.

I'm sorry if I seem inpatient, but you've be saying this "evidence" is "coming" since 5/17/18 in this post. I think that most people would agree with me when I say if you actually had any evidence, more than a month is long enough to figure out how to post it. Or, as I suspect, it simply doesn't exist at all. Aren't you embarrassed? Man, I would be if I were you.

There are more ways it can go wrong. Compared to learning how to make a cat land on its back ( works every time - with a cat not dangerous enough to kill a human being ), this one was real easy. But, I wish it was NOT possible at all - unfortunately it is.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's ok, I don't think you do either. I don't mistreat animals by dropping them, and neither should you.

2.) Well, the HF lateral modulation problem in phono cartridges has been fixed - to my knowledge, sometime in mid seventies (!). Forgotten in today's economic realm . And killed because of greed (literally). I do have a few working samples - "technology demonstrators" - if you prefer to call them this way. However, recently there was a breaktrough which - as of yet unconfirmed - offers a great deal of possibility to achieve the same result using commonly available "ingredients" - without having to resort to rather exotic technologies.

Wrong. Again. But whatever, not caring as much anymore. Post proof. Post it, before one of us dies. Of boredom.

3.) OK, "messed up" reply was to wow & flutter in turntables. It is nowhere near as hard to do as some would think - or, depends on how one looks at things, it is. Definitely doable.

You're still "messed up", I don't know what you're' trying to say. It's not hard to find a turntable with wow and fluter? Agreed. Typically wow.

4.) I agree off center pressed analogue record is a serious flaw. But once upon a time ... ( no, not Nakamichi centering TTs ) - perhaps it is time to ressurect something ...

You mean, "Once upon a time...." like the beginning of a fairy tale? You go fix ALL of the vinyl flaws and do it without spending more than $1000, and come back. Otherwise, go write that fairy tale.

 

[bigshot]

We just cleaned the pool!

 

[analogsurviver]

Everybody out of the pool! We all knew who the culprit was anyway.[/QUOTE

I'm sorry if I seem inpatient, but you've be saying this "evidence" is "coming" since 5/17/18 in this post. I think that most people would agree with me when I say if you actually had any evidence, more than a month is long enough to figure out how to post it. Or, as I suspect, it simply doesn't exist at all. Aren't you embarrassed? Man, I would be if I were you.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's ok, I don't think you do either. I don't mistreat animals by dropping them, and neither should you.
Wrong. Again. But whatever, not caring as much anymore. Post proof. Post it, before one of us dies. Of boredom.
You're still "messed up", I don't know what you're' trying to say. It's not hard to find a turntable with wow and fluter? Agreed. Typically wow.

You mean, "Once upon a time...." like the beginning of a fairy tale? You go fix ALL of the vinyl flaws and do it without spending more than $1000, and come back. Otherwise, go write that fairy tale.

You have every right to be impatient. However, that evidence has been already posted to the head-fi before - only to be lost in last big change of head fi. And, I definitely DO have adversity to uploading on line - hopefully, in time, this will play out. However, in view of the fact that I did describe the defects of analogue record perhaps in greater detail than anyone else, you could, if you were a betting person, bet your last cent, your entire family including grandparents and the neighbour's hamster that this evidence does exist - and that you would get that last cent multiplied by whatever betting stake ratio at the time was.

I was replying that finding how PCM can and does get to produce channel delay was much easier than learning how to make a cat falling on its back. Don't panic, I am an all animal loving person, and making a cat falling on its back is only possible from a VERY low height - less, usually much less than half a metre. The trick is to make the cat to turn on its back in the air during play so low above the ground that it no longer has the time to turn around in order to land on the feet. And I ALWAYS did that with my cat, on soft, well padded surface - where any injury was most unlikely. Since I like and care for animals, I limit this little prank to fairly young cats - I would never intentionally harm any living being, not even a fly.

Regarding turntable wow & flutter : meant was 0.02 %, for which I said is about two times better as the human sensitivity to detect it. And, BTW - contrary to the popular belief, turntables can have a significant amount of flutter - nor just wow.

"Once upon a time" really does sound as a fairy tale - but, this particular faity tale has been an actual commercially available product back in the day.

No, making a new decent turntable/arm/cartridge with all the desired improvements over its ancestors without spending more than 1000 $ is simply not realistic. Even under the most rosiest of circumstances. I have been known to suggest for budget around a grand for "everything source" to go with digital. Particularly for young people, who have to start their record collection from scratch.

Analogue record makes sense on the other price side; there, pouring any amount into RBCD hits THE wall that can not be torn down - but will be beat by - talking about new MSRP - approx 5K cartridge/arm/turntable/phono preamp combination. And lower price, but not below 1K. If you have not noticed - during the last two-three years. EVERYTHING PHONO went up in price about a double - both new and used gear. The law of supply and demand ...

It takes an extraordinary extensive knowledge and experience about analogue phono gear and large amounts of time to be able to score really great deals>next to steals online for quality>outstanding vintage phono equipment. And one just can not get the experience required any other but the hard way. Reviews do help to a certain extent - but can not replace the first hand experience.

Don't forget - there is always HR digital. It does not cost - not anymore - appreciable above what is needed for RBCD. In some ways, it is inferior to analogue recod - in many ways it is superior. And it does, even in its lower resolutions, support > 20 kHz. It is the best bang for the buck.

 

[skwoodwiva]

”Don't forget - there is always HR digital. It does not cost - not anymore - appreciable above what is needed for RBCD. In some ways, it is inferior to analogue recod - in many ways it is superior. And it does, even in its lower resolutions, support > 20 kHz. It is the best bang for the buck.
”
Where most modern audiophiles in this (non SS) venue are.
Keep it up man you be our advocate