Print

Print


NOS = New Old Stock.  Long discontinued merchandise, but new and unused.  I
see it most often used in describing vacuum tubes.

Dave Radlauer

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, James Roth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> A question if you will:
> What does NOS stand for?
>
> Regards,
> Ben Roth
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shai Drori
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playing Edison Diamond discs
>
> I think I have a NOS VRII around here. Is it worth anything?
> Shai
>
> On 11/05/15 4:28 PM, Dave Burnham wrote:
> > 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
>
> --
> Cheers
> Shai Drori
> Timeless Recordings
> [log in to unmask]
> בברכה,
> שי דרורי
> מומחה לשימור והמרה של אודיו וידאו וסרטים 8-35 ממ.
>



-- 
hm# 510-848-8323
cell# 510-717-5240
www.JAZZHOTBigstep.com