It seems to me that the issues occur with the stylus and cantalever. Rather
than adjust the rest of the body parts to accomodate the weak one, the place
to start is at that point and deal later with what can't be accomplished
there. Good audio medicine.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V SONNOX
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> One thing that is needed is a cartridge 6-8x the size of the current
> design
> that will swing the stylus end of the cantalever in a short arc equivilent
> to the excursion a stereo stylus in a stereo groove.
>
That would be true, by one analysis. But these mechanical things can be
complicated. What if (for instance) the arm could take up the work? The
cantilever isn't the only moving part.
clark
>
> Fat chance.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen"
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:59 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V SONNOX
>
>
> Wow! Confirmation from an unexpected and independent quarter. Thanks for
> reaching out, George.
> Minutes ago I wrote about the vibration environment. Now you've introduced
> the really thorny topic of groove energy and how it's relayed to the
> equipment. Let me say, that in my experience no cartridge, arm, bearing or
> whatever beyond, designed for mild-mannered LP grooves, can well handle
> the
> 78s groove experience. The lengthy analysis you offer serves as a fine
> basis
> for future engineering approaches.
>
> Half a century of research has been devoted to how to play the LP better.
> Little of this has drifted back to the 78, not to mention the almost total
> lack of original research.
>
> clark
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:02 AM, George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
>
> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>>
>>
>> Hello Paul, Mike, Tom, and obviously Clark,
>>
>> I am with Clark on this one; the state of the art at the end of the LP
>> era
>> is
>> simply not good enough (hence unprofessional) for the 78 rpm record, nor
>> for
>> any record that uses a material with a particulate surface. I am blessed
>> with
>> a couple of 78 rpm records that have only noise (unmodulated grooves) for
>> 3
>> minutes. Just for the fun of it and making no measurements, I started the
>> record at 78 rpm and let it freewheel while listening to the noise
>> character.
>> Only when I got below 10 rpm could I discern any difference. And we must
>> not
>> forget that Cecil Watts in his microscopic observations of the
>> reproduction
>> process in the late 1940s discovered that even with a stylus that fitted
>> the
>> groove, there was light all around it when looking lengthwise: the many
>> kicks
>> of the grit simply let the stylus float.
>>
>> We must not forget that all development of 78 rpm equipment: tonearms,
>> cartridges, and turntables stopped virtually overnight when the LP came
>> along
>> ca. 1950. The modulation on a 78 rpm record may certainly overload most
>> pickups: the worst case I can remember off-hand was Patti's La Calasera,
>> in
>> which I measured 50 cm/second maximum recorded velocity. That is a
>> handful,
>> not only for the cantilever bearing, but also for the tonearm and tonearm
>> bearing. And let us not forget to check whether you are still moving in
>> the
>> linear regime of the pickup if you have such high modulations at low
>> frequencies. And this is only the recorded signal; the noise, which as I
>> said
>> is particulate, is detected by a velocity pickup, which means that the
>> output
>> is a sharp pulse in one direction joined to an equally sharp pulse in the
>> other direction, with a risetime most first stages in preamplifiers
>> cannot
>> absorb, and so go into saturation - briefly. That is why tube (valve to
>> you?)
>> circuits are so much better; they do not saturate as easily, mainly
>> because
>> they have such high anode voltages (you will only find 100 V of collector
>> voltage in very few MOSFET circuits (if they still exist??)).
>>
>> Now, with such energetic excitation of the tip of the stylus, what
>> problems
>> are there? Well, there is the off-set arm, which straightens the
>> stylus-to-
>> tonearm-bearing link from an angle to a larger angle, making the stylus
>> move
>> slightly forward (and back again when the excitation falls) in the
>> process.
>> This creates a level-dependent delay modulation along the groove.
>> Muttering,
>> you make a long and straight tonearm. What is now wrong? Well, the
>> cantilever
>> still makes a 10-15 degree angle with the horizontal. So, the horizontal
>> pull
>> will make your cartridge dip briefly, making the stylus move slightly
>> forward
>> (and back again when the excitation falls) in the process. Gritting your
>> teeth you then elevate your tonearm bearing so that a force through the
>> cantilever goes in a straight line back to the tonearm bearing. Peace at
>> last! Or so you think, because your line-contact stylus is probably not
>> parallel to the original cutting edge of the cutting stylus. And if you
>> are
>> working with a lacquer record (where the friction is different, by the
>> way),
>> you will also need a stylus that is rotated about an axis in the plane of
>> the
>> original cutting edge of the cutting stylus, because in the 1930s a
>> rotation
>> of up to 10 degrees from the radial direction was recommended in order
>> that
>> the swarf (chips) were directed away from the groove and onto a part of
>> the
>> record that already been cut. So, you have tracing distortion, even
>> though
>> you may have spent a lot on your stylii; they are simply not custom
>> enough.
>> When the 1930s people used their trailing needles they also had tracing
>> distortion and a very low high frequency cut-off, but there is no need
>> not
>> to
>> approach the problems at its fundamentals.
>>
>> Peter Craven and Peter G. Adamson demonstrated some results of
>> reproduction
>> of 78 rpm records from fundamental principles at a CHARM Symposium (i.e.
>> going far beyond "my turntable does reduce vibration. Coupled with that,
>> it
>> has separate rubber cushions it sits on. Then it sits on Steve Winwood's
>> monitor mixer trolley which I nicked from his shed, with his
>> blessing".):
>>
>> CHARM Symposium 3
>> "Transfer and the recording as historical document", Royal Holloway,
>> University of London, Egham - 20-22 April 2006, in a two-part paper
>> entitled
>> "Crackling good stuff, changing expectations". Peter has worked on these
>> principles for a very long time. The vibrations he dampens are not
>> external
>> but from the complex excitation due to the groove.
>>
>> I would recommend that you read The Wood Effect. Why should Clark have to
>> rehash it in a post? And possibly even before you have done that, I shall
>> make reference to further interesting psychoacoustical findings in
>> another
>> post.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hello Clark,
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry Clark I haven't met you but I must agree with Mike Biel here, and
>> some
>> > sarcasm is called for.
>> > I have no idea what sort of equipment you presume we all have, but my
>> > turntable does reduce vibration.
>> > Coupled with that, it has separate rubber cushions it sits on. Then it
>> sits
>> > on Steve Winwood's monitor mixer trolley which I nicked from his shed,
>> with
>> > his blessing.
>> >
>> > The interconnects are as good as you can get - all mastering grade from
>> the
>> > Technics SP 10 Mk 3 turntable to the Millennia LPE-2.
>> > The Technics has a custom-made varispeed knob so I can tune the
>> performance
>> > in to the correct key if I need to.
>> >
>> > I've had the LPE-2 modified to get rid of the hum, also the preamps
>> > have
>> > been re-designed and upgraded. £800 later I might add.
>> >
>> > Presently I only use a CEDAR DC1 which is why Sonnox interested me, I'm
>> > running Pyramix latest version whatever the numbers are.
>> > I have skills derived from years in the professional mastering field
>> > concentrating on archives followed by many years as an external
>> contractor
>> > to the British Library Sound Archive and I have to say I don't believe
>> there
>> > will be a better way in the future to extract the audio from the
>> > surface
>> of
>> > discs because I am really only concerned with what we do now. Your
>> > suggestion taken to it's full conclusion would suggest we simply stop >
>> all
>> > operations now and wait.
>> > I don't need to blow my trumpet to this community, because I respect >
>> this
>> > community.
>> >
>> > Paul Turney
>> >
>> > Paul Turney Recording Limited
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ted Kendall [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 06:39 AM
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V SONNOX
>> >
>> > Exactly. If Clark has the Holy Grail, let's all have a look...-----
>> Original
>> > Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" To: Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 >
>> 1:03
>> > AMSubject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V SONNOX> Hi Clark:>> Can you be more
>> > specific than:> "Speaking for myself, as a longtime practitioner of
>> > high-end> audio I have been able to apply such techniques to coax out
>> sound
>> > from 78s> that I daresay few knew was there. I am speaking beyond >
>> stylus,
>> > beyond EQ,> beyond proper cleaning. These remain important of course, >
>> but
>> > what> I practice is not "future technology" but rather very much of the
>> > >
>> > present.">> What exactly are you speaking of "beyond stylus, beyond EQ,
>> > beyond proper > cleaning"?>> Thanks!>> -- Tom Fine>> ----- Original
>> Message
>> > ----- > From: "Clark Johnsen" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 24,
>> > 2010
>> > 7:17 PM> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V SONNOX>>>> On Wed, Feb 24,
>> > 2010
>> at
>> > 6:05 PM, Tom Fine >> wrote:>>>>> Hi Clark:>>>>>> What do you mean by >
>> this
>> > statement:>>>>>> "Not only that, but it's my informed opinion that no >
>> one
>> > yet has gotten >>> all>>> the sound off any 78, or for that matter any
>> > >
>> 45
>> or
>> > LP, and for that>>> reason they must be preserved.">>>>>> What is
>> "hidden"
>> > or "unrecoverable" and what future technology do you>>> believe will >
>> make
>> > this information "recoverable"?>>>>> Thanks for asking. First, those
>> words
>> > are not mine, nor would I ever use>> them. I was referring to the fact
>> that
>> > playback quality in general has>> been on the upswing. Anyone well-read
>> in
>> > the art of the LP knows of the>> strides that have been made in the
>> > last
>> > three decades; the 78s case >> remains>> more obscure. Speaking for
>> myself,
>> > as a longtime practitioner of high-end>> audio I have been able to
>> > apply
>> > such techniques to coax out sound from >> 78s>> that I daresay few knew
>> was
>> > there. I am speaking beyond stylus, beyond >> EQ,>> beyond proper
>> cleaning.
>> > These remain important of course, but what>> I practice is not "future
>> > technology" but rather very much of the >> present.>>>> So far as I
>> > have
>> > found, 78s transfers available on LP and CD bear little>> resemblance
>> > to
>> the
>> > quality that can be achieved... much of that due >> however>> to the
>> sorry
>> > devices under discussion in this thread.>>>> Finally, I agree with
>> > everything Mr. Hamilton wrote; and Mr. Salerno has>> the perfect term:
>> > "digital capture".>>>> clark>>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine>>>>>> -----
>> > Original
>> > Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen" >>> >>>>>>>>> To: >>> Sent:
>> Wednesday,
>> > February 24, 2010 5:02 PM>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V
>> > SONNOX>>>>>>>>> Hugely interesting discussion. It beats me though how a
>> > digital>>>> transfer,>>>> even if the uncorrupted first one, can be
>> called
>> > an original -- unless >>>> I>>>> misunderstand the intent of the
>> following:
>> > "We store the original,>>>> unprocessed digital transfers and document
>> the
>> > tools (if you wish) of >>>> how>>>> the originals were reproduced and
>> > digitized. There will always be some>>>> variations even in this >
>> process.
>> > These files are inviolate and are the>>>> basic>>>> archive that is
>> > retained.">>>>>>>> I would have assumed that the originals are the
>> > originals, not the >>>> files,>>>> however inviolate.>>>>>>>> Not only
>> that,
>> > but it's my informed opinion that no one yet has gotten >>>> all>>>>
>> > the
>> > sound off any 78, or for that matter any 45 or LP, and for that>>>>
>> reason
>> > they must be preserved.>>>>>>>> clark>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at
>> 12:05
>> > PM, Don Cox >>>> wrote:>>>>>>>> On 23/02/2010, George Brock-Nannestad
>> > wrote:>>>>>>>>>> > The providers of restoration suites have no interest
>> in
>> > comparisons,>>>>> > and obviously they couldn't care less how you apply
>> the
>> > tools (like>>>>> > arms manufacturers). The atrocities that have been
>> > performed and >>>>> > sold>>>>> > proudly flagging the name of CEDAR
>> since
>> > the late 1980s are only>>>>> > matched by those using the contemporary
>> > system NoNoise.>>>>> >>>>>> Likewise, you can wreck a photograph with
>> > Photoshop.>>>>>>>>>> Regards>>>>> -->>>>> Don Cox>>>>>
>> > [log in to unmask]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
|