Tom
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear; when I used a VRII, it wasn't an antique. GE had a luxury version with gold coloured metal and I got one of those directly from the factory. My tracking force was around 2.5 to 3 grams. Also, of course, you're right, a conical stylus would have put added wear on the narrower parts of the groove, but I don't remember my LPs of the day showing unusual wear from this effect. I'm talking about ca.1959 - 1962, a time when all mono cartridges had little vertical compliance, elliptical styli had yet to make an appearance and the VRII was still considered a high end cartridge. Something I don't know, was 1 mil the width of the cutting stylus, hence the widest part of the groove, or was it a compromise between the different widths of the groove?
db
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 11, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave:
>
> What are you tracking at? The groove-gougers, including those using the old GE VR cartridges probably did the most damage by tracking too heavy. As far as I know, the VR's can't track any lower than 2 grams, but that should be OK if the alignment is A-OK and the tonearm is in working condition.
>
> For 78's, I think the wider grooves are somewhat heartier, so you can track heavier and use a less compliant cartridge without doing damage. After all, the records were designed to stand up to at least a couple dozen plays with a steel needle tracking at a half-pound or so!
>
> That said, I just don't think a circa 1950 cartridge has the technology to translate into electric signals all of the information in the grooves. I just wouldn't go there, but I'm glad you guys using the antiques are getting good results.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Burnham" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 12:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playing Edison Diamond discs
>
>
>> As I've said previously, I used the VRII successfully for many years with no complaints. Certainly I would never play a stereo LP with this cartridge, not even a mono compatible one, but I never noticed damage to a mono LP or a 78 from using it.
>>
>> db
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On May 11, 2015, at 12:01 AM, Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree totally with Tom -- in his first paragraph.>>
>>> Beyond that, into the second one, he shifts from how well a cartridge (the
>>> VRII) might play a record, into how it might wear a record out. Those are
>>> two separate topics. While I myself have not experienced the wear-out,
>>> owing to my discreet reluctance (not variable) to press ahead with repeated
>>> playing, I can and do attest to its ability however to get great sound out
>>> of 78s on the first playing. And on the second. Which is all one needs to
>>> capture the signal.
>>>
>>> While I've said this before, perhaps it's worth repeating: As a
>>> practitioner of "high-end audio" record playing, I have applied many of
>>> those unusual procedures to my beloved 78s, to success. Nowhere online have
>>> I seen anything about these practices, so what should I do with this
>>> abstruse knowledge? Seriously. I'm asking.
>>>
>>> Please don't say, Make a cassette. Or, Make a CD. (I can't, anyway.) One
>>> big improvement lies in the enhanced linearity of the bass, which requires
>>> a full-range reproduction system to appreciate, which most folks don't
>>> have. (Just sayin'.)
>>>
>>> clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jamie:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with most of what you're saying, but guys like Doug Pomeroy, who
>>>> have a long track record of making excellent-sounding remasters from disks
>>>> can read chapter and verse why doing EQ in the digital domain doesn't work
>>>> as well. See Gary Galo's article in ARSC Journal, too. That said, I'm not
>>>> averse to taking something back out to analog, I've always had good luck
>>>> with it, so I don't see that as taboo (ie do what you suggest -- a flat
>>>> transfer and your 45/45 processing in the digital realm, but then I'd take
>>>> it back out to analog for proper de-emphasis EQ). I also don't think it's
>>>> possible to totally remove surface noise and, in the case of heavily
>>>> damaged grooves, all the ticks and pops without serious, horribly audible
>>>> digital artifacts. So going for "total removal of the disk medium" is a
>>>> fool's errand, there comes a point where what's left is too thin sounding
>>>> or inherently distorted so it's more annoying tham some surface noise
>>>> masking the harsh distortion. The worthy goal that you're espousing, using
>>>> modern digital tools, is to get as much music content out of the grooves
>>>> and cancel out as much noise as possible.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the description you wrote "the stylus is unyielding and gouges
>>>> its way through pinch effect" exactly describes such record-wreckers as the
>>>> GE variable reluctance cartridge. Those kinds of cartridges (including the
>>>> cheapo 3-gram trackers included in the console systems) cored out the
>>>> grooves on many a 1950's and 60's mono record, making them not worth buying
>>>> even in the dollar bins at record stores.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamie Howarth" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 6:27 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playing Edison Diamond discs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think what frustrates the discussion is that digital it is possible to
>>>>> exactly duplicate what you are achieving mechanically plus a whole lot more.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not that the stylus is unyielding and gouges its way through pinch
>>>>> effect (one hopes). It's simply not wired to communicate what it's doing in
>>>>> that axis. There is nothing magical about 45/45 coil placement that makes
>>>>> it suck compared to 90/0... You want to use the GE? Terrific. It still
>>>>> moves vertically it just couples the entire mass of the tone arm and
>>>>> bearing to that motion rather than absorb it locally in the cantilever.
>>>>> Terrific.
>>>>> To each his own.
>>>>> Every iota of geometry in the groove/stylus interface can be deduced from
>>>>> 45/45. All of the mechanical noise cancellation or the facsimile thereof
>>>>> achieved via wiring for 90/0 can be achieved digitally, and then some.
>>>>> I'll bet Ortofon says nothing about doing the declick and cleanup from a
>>>>> non-de-emphasized digitization but it's a good idea before all the bass
>>>>> boost and treble rolloff. Do the RIAA or whatever curve afterward. Slap
>>>>> some on in the monitor so you know what you're listening to. But preserve
>>>>> and restore right off the cartridge. Don't bake in anything that loses
>>>>> information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution
>>>>> I'm on an iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 2015, at 4:56 PM, "Goran Finnberg [log in to unmask]" <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dough Pomeroy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are not the only responder to
>>>>>>> have stated that a mono mix should
>>>>>>> be made before de-clicking and other
>>>>>>> noise removal work is done. I have
>>>>>>> heard this view stated in the past, but
>>>>>>> I can't agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now for the ultimate way to recover the most from any lateral cut
>>>>>> mono disk record:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ortofon.com/hifi/products/cartridges/2m-series/2m-mono-se
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Why should you use a dedicated mono cartridge for playing vinyl mono
>>>>>> records?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a mono record the signal is cut only in the lateral dimension whereas
>>>>>> a stereo record is cut at +/- 45 degrees into the opposing groove-walls,
>>>>>> see figure to the right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A stereo cartridge will be able to replay stereo and mono records,
>>>>>> because mono is a special version of stereo where the right and left
>>>>>> channels are identical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While a stereo cartridge can play mono records it can’t achieve the same
>>>>>> signal precision between the two channels. A mono cartridge produces but
>>>>>> one signal that is directed to both channels in the system. A mono
>>>>>> cartridge playing a mono record produces a more forceful and stable image
>>>>>> with a fuller, more impactful sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another big advantage in using a mono cartridge to play mono records is
>>>>>> the absence of response to vertical movement. This means that a mono
>>>>>> cartridge is basically immune to the pinching effect which comes into
>>>>>> action when the stylus is pushed vertically upward in very narrow grooves.
>>>>>> Also the response to dust, dirt and wear is reduced substantially. The
>>>>>> final result will be a clean and noiseless reproduction of the mono record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The listening experience will be significantly improved when using a
>>>>>> high quality true mono cartridge for the replay of your mono records."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> End Quote Ortofon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1/ Complete removal of the pinch distortion that can reach up to 30 %
>>>>>> second harmonic when played by a stereo cartridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2/ Free removal of dust dirt ticks and scratches and audible distortion
>>>>>> caused by wear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3/ Up to 20 dB less rumble by using an only horisontal sensing replay
>>>>>> device that excludes the vertical component where all the rumble hides..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes the uses of digital click/crackle/hiss removal tools much more
>>>>>> effective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So ditch all your stereo catridges and play the disks as they were meant
>>>>>> to be played !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find the best contemporary digital
>>>>>>> de-clickers are so good that they
>>>>>>> fully remove the distortions caused
>>>>>>> by scratches. Once these and other
>>>>>>> defects are replaced by sound
>>>>>>> synthesized from surrounding audio,
>>>>>>> they effectively vanish and do not
>>>>>>> depend on mixing for removal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By using a true lateral responding device only then the digital noise
>>>>>> removal tools work much faster since there is less to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you have mentioned, the stereo
>>>>>>> transfer of a lateral recording allows
>>>>>>> distorted areas on only one groove
>>>>>>> wall to be manually replaced by a
>>>>>>> less distorted section from the
>>>>>>> corresponding section from the
>>>>>>> opposite wall, and this is indeed a
>>>>>>> powerful tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you have lost 3 dB S/N that is free when using a lateral responding
>>>>>> device only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A mono mix prior to de-clicking just
>>>>>>> combines the non-vertical noise from
>>>>>>> both channels. I find processing the
>>>>>>> stereo before making the mono to
>>>>>>> be a superior approach, but I understand
>>>>>>> there are those who disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus the noise increases 3 dB because it is not correlated ie is not in
>>>>>> phase between L/R.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The audio signal, is identical on the left or right track thus when
>>>>>> combined increases by +6dB thus we always gain +3 dB net by using a lateral
>>>>>> responding device which we get by summing L+R.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It´s free. to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then the very best to get the most out of any lateral recorded disk
>>>>>> is a lateral responding, mono only, cartridge as stated by Ortofon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because then we remove all the imperfections in using a stereo cartridge
>>>>>> trying to extract the audio from lateral cut disks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EMT OFD65 with a truncated elliptical is very good for 78´s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it is a lateral responding only device too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goran Finnberg
>>>>>> The Mastering Room AB
>>>>>> Goteborg
>>>>>> Sweden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
>>>>>> make them all yourself. - John Luther
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (\__/)
>>>>>> (='.'=)
>>>>>> (")_(") Smurfen:RIP
>>
|
