|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 27, 2014 21:23:08 GMT -5
Not nearly ...  A CD player is digital; it is playing back ones and zeros. Even if a CD gets worn or damaged, as long as all the ones and zeros remain intact, or there are few enough errors that the built-in error correction can correct them perfectly, it will always play back exactly the same. A CD player is totally immune to things like rumble and surface noise (within limits) because digital data doesn't care. (If a certain "1" happens to read as 1.032, or 0.963, digitally it's still "a perfect 1".) Also, since the data is buffered and re-clocked in basically ALL CD players, wow, flutter, and other speed variations are also completely eliminated. (The audio will be clocked at the correct rate, even if the data being read isn't.) my understanding of Binary code is it's '1's and '0's, on or off. Yes in deed!!! On or off!!, vinyl = Great sound is On Bad sound is Off he,,,,,he,,,,,,,he,,,,,, |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 27, 2014 21:32:58 GMT -5
I've never heard one but that is a sweet looking table. |
|
|
|
Post by daveburt on Jun 28, 2014 0:53:00 GMT -5
To the OP, I know you were asking folks to talk you out of buying a TT, but I've been ripping alot of my old vinyl lately... For that reason it's gonna be hard for me to do that...  If you have a collection of LP's you loved years ago (in good shape), it's a great way to get HD Audio of that stuff. I've been recording @ 24bit/96k (FLAC), and honestly, I can't tell a difference between the vinyl and the rip! Ripping can be tedious, and maybe I'm being a little nostalgic, but during recording I'm remembering how GREAT alot of that music was, and it's so much easier to listen to once it's in a digital format...  I was a Jr. audiophile back in the 80's, and (IMHO) made some good/lucky choices in vinyl gear. I've always taken good care of my music/gear, so it's all been well maintained and in pristine condition... I'm a fan of pics, so here's some of the gear I'm using. Turntable "Phillips F7213":  Stylus force & Tracking controls:  The Stylus is a Stanton 999SH (sterohedron, whatever that means  ). I still have the original and cleaning kit that can with it!   Long story short (too late...  ), if you have the itch, scratch it!!! |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Jun 28, 2014 12:57:10 GMT -5
Not nearly ... A CD player is digital; it is playing back ones and zeros. Even if a CD gets worn or damaged, as long as all the ones and zeros remain intact, or there are few enough errors that the built-in error correction can correct them perfectly, it will always play back exactly the same. A CD player is totally immune to things like rumble and surface noise (within limits) because digital data doesn't care. (If a certain "1" happens to read as 1.032, or 0.963, digitally it's still "a perfect 1".) Also, since the data is buffered and re-clocked in basically ALL CD players, wow, flutter, and other speed variations are also completely eliminated. (The audio will be clocked at the correct rate, even if the data being read isn't.) my understanding of Binary code is it's '1's and '0's, on or off. To KeithL and thepcguy : Yes, but with digital music, we're not dealing with binary code. We're dealing with a "stream" of 16-bit "words" that represent voltages that were generated by a microphone, guitar pick-up, etc. (Or is that 20-bit? I forget the exact number of bits in a PCM "word".) In the PCM digital music format, I there's error checking but there is no data recovery - instead, there's "fault tolerance". If one digital "word" fails the error check, then the previous "word" is passed into the D/A converter again. So you can have "ABCD" recorded on the CD. This might be processed by the CD player's reading mechanism as "AB<error>D" because of a scratch, dust, glitch in the circuitry or the inherent limits to handling data. The data gets fed into the D/A converter as "ABBD". The CD player cannot go back and try to read the data between "B" and "D". That's the difference between a digital "stream" and how a PC reads a Word doc from a hard disk. A PC will go back and try to read the data and if it fails after a certain number of tries, the PC will alert the user that the file was corrupted. An LP system doesn't have a fault tolerance mechanism so you will hear errors as snaps, crackles, pops, various types of distortion, etc. So you have to get all your ducks in a row and set things up carefully. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 28, 2014 14:37:01 GMT -5
I imagine the laser is a continous laser for the turntable. But what about whatever equipment is sensing the laser information. Isn't that ultimately limited to a certain amount senses per second? Wouldn't that make it not "analog"?
|
|
emovac
Emo VIPs 
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jun 28, 2014 19:42:32 GMT -5
Pop tick scratch.....limited convenience, limited titles, degrades with use. Digital works better for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Jun 28, 2014 20:40:28 GMT -5
I've never heard one but that is a sweet looking table. The advantage of a used Thorens or AR table is that they are rebuild-able/upgradable by the user. Parts and instruction are available at the vinylnirvana website and other places. They were designed to allow installation of high quality 3rd party tonearms. I rebuilt my AR turntable with a restored SME-3 tonearm, belt, suspension springs, etc and am very pleased with it.
Sincerely /b
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 28, 2014 20:50:50 GMT -5
I've never heard one but that is a sweet looking table. The advantage of a used Thorens or AR table is that they are rebuild-able/upgradable by the user. Parts and instruction are available at the vinylnirvana website and other places. They were designed to allow installation of high quality 3rd party tonearms. I rebuilt my AR turntable with a restored SME-3 tonearm, belt, suspension springs, etc and am very pleased with it.
Sincerely /b
Are they anything like a German made Duel? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 28, 2014 20:55:28 GMT -5
Pop tick scratch.....limited convenience, limited titles, degrades with use. Digital works better for me. Tomato,,, Tamoto,,,,, that's exactly why they make chocolate AND vanilla |
|
emovac
Emo VIPs
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jun 28, 2014 21:56:06 GMT -5
Pop tick scratch.....limited convenience, limited titles, degrades with use. Digital works better for me. Tomato,,, Tamoto,,,,, that's exactly why they make chocolate AND vanilla That's true. Exactly why I said digital works better for ME. I had quite a record collection (500+ titles) when I decided to dive in fully digital ten years ago; also had around 50 audiophile quality records (MOFI, Natilus, Columbia Half speed mastered). Not sorry I made the transition. Unfortunately, even the high end vinyl degrades from use. Here and now, most of my titles are on hard drive flac files and played through a Bryston media player (ipad contolled). It's nice to pull up what you want to hear in the library without have to swap around media. Only the MOFI Cds, SACDs and DVDs are in the cabinet. Several hundred redbooks went into storage. It would be hard for me to go back to turntable listening from strictly a convenience standpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 28, 2014 22:10:25 GMT -5
I do understand. For me, it's the unwinding & settling down
|
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on Jun 30, 2014 13:50:18 GMT -5
my understanding of Binary code is it's '1's and '0's, on or off. To KeithL and thepcguy : Yes, but with digital music, we're not dealing with binary code. We're dealing with a "stream" of 16-bit "words" that represent voltages that were generated by a microphone, guitar pick-up, etc. (Or is that 20-bit? I forget the exact number of bits in a PCM "word".) In the PCM digital music format, I there's error checking but there is no data recovery - instead, there's "fault tolerance". If one digital "word" fails the error check, then the previous "word" is passed into the D/A converter again. So you can have "ABCD" recorded on the CD. This might be processed by the CD player's reading mechanism as "AB<error>D" because of a scratch, dust, glitch in the circuitry or the inherent limits to handling data. The data gets fed into the D/A converter as "ABBD". The CD player cannot go back and try to read the data between "B" and "D". That's the difference between a digital "stream" and how a PC reads a Word doc from a hard disk. A PC will go back and try to read the data and if it fails after a certain number of tries, the PC will alert the user that the file was corrupted. An LP system doesn't have a fault tolerance mechanism so you will hear errors as snaps, crackles, pops, various types of distortion, etc. So you have to get all your ducks in a row and set things up carefully. You may Google it....... -How error correction works, Reed–Solomon error correction... -How Compact Disc works...   The shiny, reflective layer inside a CD is covered with little depressions (pits) and flat areas (lands) arranged in a tight spiral. As the CD spins, a laser and a photocell (light detector) scan across the surface reading the pits and lands and converting them into strings of binary zeros and ones, which an electronic circuit then turns back into music or data (computer information). Virtually all mass-produced discs work this way, including the CDs you buy in record stores, the DVDs you borrow from video libraries, and the CD-ROMs containing free software you find taped to the fronts of computer magazines. They're manufactured in their millions in factories using dozens of pressing machines. Each machine is mounted with a reverse-version of the disc (with the pits turned into bumps) and is pressed against blank plastic discs to produce zillions of exact copies. Once a disc is pressed, it's coated with a thin aluminum layer (so it will reflect laser light), covered with protective polycarbonate and lacquer, and the label is printed on top. Decimal counting goes: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and so on. Binary counting goes: 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, 1111, 10000, 10001, and so on. Numeral systems conversion table Decimal(Base-10) Binary (Base-2) Octal (Base-8) Hexadecimal (Base-16) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 2 - 10 - 2 - 2 3 - 11 - 3 - 3 4 - 100 - 4 - 4 5 - 101 - 5 - 5 6 - 110 - 6 - 6 7 - 111 - 7 - 7 8 - 1000 - 10 - 8 9 - 1001 - 11 - 9 10 - 1010 - 12 - A |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 30, 2014 14:35:38 GMT -5
The details would depend on precisely what sort of mechanism they use to "read" the position of the LASER and the groove. If they use something that renders a digital "number" for the distance from the LASER to the surface, then it would be digital; if the output is an analog voltage, then it would be analog. If they use a servo to hold the LASER at a fixed distance from the surface, then use the position of the servo as their "signal", then it could be analog or digital - because servos can be either, or a combination of both. Either way, I seem to recall that they did state a specified bandwidth (I think 30 kHz, but I could be wrong.) Honestly, the whole "digital vs analog" thing gets to be a bit old after a while. At some level, virtually all "analog" systems end up being digital "in the redux".... Analog film isn't analog... the size of an individual film grain limits the resolution just like a digital pixel does. It just gets smooth and fuzzy instead of blocky when you hit that limit because film grains are rough, sort of rounded instead of square, and not all precisely the same size and shape. Likewise, at some point, the surface hiss you hear from a record is the size of some minimum particle in the vinyl (I'm not sure if it's individual molecules, or how fine they grind the plastic, but it is a mechanical limit on the resolution.) Ditto for "analog" tape, where that "hiss" you hear as the limit of the quietest thing you can record is just the pixels (the size of the individual magnetic particles). I imagine the laser is a continous laser for the turntable. But what about whatever equipment is sensing the laser information. Isn't that ultimately limited to a certain amount senses per second? Wouldn't that make it not "analog"? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 30, 2014 15:21:29 GMT -5
You are mostly correct about digital PCM data (it doesn't have error correction) - except that the data actually stored on a CD is indeed "binary code". The transport reads the data from the surface of the CD, applies two levels of error correction to perfectly correct any data errors up to a certain size, uses interpolation to "cover up" any errors major enough that they can't be corrected, THEN converts the result to PCM and sends it out as a PCM digital audio stream. (You are correct in that, if errors occur after the conversion to PCM, they cannot be perfectly corrected.) It is very rare to find a CD that has errors so extreme that they cannot be fixed by the error correction. I've ripped about 500 CDs (and verified their checksums). Out of those 500, one had a single uncorrectable error (presumably due to a serious scratch), and one other had a flaw in the master (confirmed because a second copy I bought had the same flaw in the same place). Both were detected and reported by the ripping software I use. Part of the reason many people misunderstand this is that CD transports don't generally "inform" you about whether error correction was done, or whether interpolation was done, so it used to be difficult to know for sure whether a given play or RIP was bit-perfect or not. There was always the possibility that major errors had occurred, and were then covered up by interpolation rather than fully repaired, and no way to know for sure that it hadn't happened. (Many transports actually do have internal signals that indicate such things, but they tend not to be "brought to the front panel".) In modern times, most better CD ripping programs actually do a checksum of the digital data, compare it to a public database of checksums, and tell you whether your RIP is a perfect match or not. This proves that the digital audio file that was the result of your ripping the disc is indeed a perfect copy of the data on the disc (technically it proves that you have exactly the same bytes as everyone else who ripped that same CD - which is pretty compelling). At the current point in the technology, any suggestions you may see that "data from CDs is prone to errors" and that some special magic surface treatment, potion, "special" transport, or other device, "is needed to eliminate the huge number of errors that occur when playing CDs" is just what is commonly referred to as FUD ("fear, uncertainty, and doubt") being used to get you to buy a (probably) nonexistent solution to a (definitely) nonexistent problem. (If you have CDs that are that bad, then a bottle of that goop that removes scratches from sunglasses is probably your best bet - unless you spring for one of those mechanical surface polisher gizmos.) (Obviously, once you have your digital music as files on a computer, there are all sorts of solutions for verifying that they haven't been corrupted or changed, and for correcting them if they have. There are also various programs - usually specific to a certain DAC - that can be used to confirm that your file is reaching the DAC itself from the computer unaltered - although their value is really to confirm that you haven't accidentally configured something wrong that will result in unintended resampling of your audio.)  my understanding of Binary code is it's '1's and '0's, on or off. To KeithL and thepcguy : Yes, but with digital music, we're not dealing with binary code. We're dealing with a "stream" of 16-bit "words" that represent voltages that were generated by a microphone, guitar pick-up, etc. (Or is that 20-bit? I forget the exact number of bits in a PCM "word".) In the PCM digital music format, I there's error checking but there is no data recovery - instead, there's "fault tolerance". If one digital "word" fails the error check, then the previous "word" is passed into the D/A converter again. So you can have "ABCD" recorded on the CD. This might be processed by the CD player's reading mechanism as "AB<error>D" because of a scratch, dust, glitch in the circuitry or the inherent limits to handling data. The data gets fed into the D/A converter as "ABBD". The CD player cannot go back and try to read the data between "B" and "D". That's the difference between a digital "stream" and how a PC reads a Word doc from a hard disk. A PC will go back and try to read the data and if it fails after a certain number of tries, the PC will alert the user that the file was corrupted. An LP system doesn't have a fault tolerance mechanism so you will hear errors as snaps, crackles, pops, various types of distortion, etc. So you have to get all your ducks in a row and set things up carefully. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 30, 2014 15:26:39 GMT -5
I wasn't quite sure... my bad  My sincerest apologies. You took me seriously. (I used the winky emoticon) |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 30, 2014 15:36:46 GMT -5
Bummer..... Without knowing exactly how they did everything, I can see two reasons why that could happen.... 1) Maybe there's some frequency-dependent factor in how they actually track the groove (for example, maybe a servo that doesn't track identically at all frequencies - which would not be at all surprising). 2) Maybe they just got the EQ wrong. Honestly, if that's the only flaw, then I'd probably be willing to forgive it. (Since I would probably be using it to digitize valuable recordings without putting wear on them, I would simply correct the EQ after digitizing the output, which minor inconvenience would be well justified by the other benefits.) Considering how carefully thought out the whole thing is, though, it does seem rather odd. Incidentally, did they measure this or was it a subjective interpretation of how it sounds? (I as because I can imagine this thing having lower distortion than any "normal turntable", and I can imagine that causing it to sound different... and so take some getting used to.) As for repeat playings... I've heard claims that records (especially older ones) should be allowed to "rest" between playings to avoid excessive wear (it was suggested that one hour was plenty of rest, but that repeated playings of a single track should be avoided). I don't recall seeing proof, but the suggestion - that the vinyl needs several minutes to "recover" to it's original position after the stress of being played - seemed like it might be reasonable to expect... since vinyl is basically a soft material that flexes and "oozes" under high stress One other thing - since you brought up the subject. I've heard claims that some of the various "record preservatives" popular in bygone days have been found to actually ruin records - either by causing them to attract dust or by actually attacking the plastic - with the damage only becoming obvious after their being stored for long periods of time... which could make some of them far more dangerous than just "useless". I don't recall which ones were included in the accusations... but I'm sure you could Google it... That LASER turntable (which I've heard of many times before - but never seen in person) sounds like an excellent idea. From their literature, it looks like it is very well thought out; they seem to have addressed all of the "issues" I can think of that might come up with doing things that way. It has the ability to track different levels of the groove to avoid damaged ones, is totally wear free from wear (it should also NOT cause permanent damage if you play a dusty record on it, since it won't push the dust into the surface), and a servo-tracking system should obviate rumble (the wow and flutter will be dependent on the physical accuracy of the rotating mechanism - which is probably very good - especially since, because there is no contact with the record while it's playing, there are no drag or other forces on the record). The only specific weakness I can see to how they do things is that they track the shoulder of the groove to position the read mechanism. This is unavoidable (you have to track something to establish position); however, this means that, if the groove is damaged up around the shoulder area, that damage will translate as noise on playback. (But all this means is that a small percentage of damaged records may play a tiny bit worse on it than on a normal turntable - but I suspect the percentage would be small.) There is only one possible real down-side that I can think of (besides price); a normal physical stylus is physical, so it has the ability to push small/light bits of dust and debris out of the way - like an itty bitty bulldozer. The LASER, being non-contact, will absolutely "play" any speck of fluff sitting on the record as if it were physically attached. I would expect that to make the LASER pickup much fussier about your record being absolutely clean. I think I can honestly say that, IF I was planning to buy a turntable, and IF I was willing to spend that much for one, then I would seriously consider that one. Assuming it lives up to claims, it appears to be about as close to perfect as you can get - in terms of reading a record as it should be read. Alas, it does not live up to its claims. The Absolute Sound ran a review of it - and found that it rolled off the highs. And you're right about dust - it can be catastrophic to an amp stage, and needs heavy filtering/limiting circuitry. As far as wear is concerned, as long as you don't play an LP over and over again, non-stop, you're fine. Once upon a time, people tried to sell LP treatment liquids, like LAST. But they didn't catch on because they weren't really required - LP's age very well. By the way, there are some purists who would say that you should only play an LP (or CD) once - it's a musical event, like a live performance, never to be repeated. :-) |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 30, 2014 15:52:51 GMT -5
Yes, that's exactly correct... but, as many people seem to love pointing out, the actual signal is analog (as are all time-varying signals). With an analog signal, if the signal voltages vary, those variations become part of the signal - also known as distortion. In contrast, with a digital signal, variations in the signal itself are separate from the data. Here's the great virtue of digital data storage...... Let's start out with a digital signal that reads: 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1 But it got damaged or noisy, and now reads: .998, .997, 1.003, 0.023, 1.005, -0.02, 1.01 If it was an analog signal, those changes would now be permanently part of the signal - as distortion. However, as a digital signal, when we read it, we read everything below 0.5 as "0" and everything between 0.5 and 1.5 as "1". When we do that, we get back our original digital signal: 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1. We have entirely "ignored" the error that crept in, and have our perfect original back again. Even though the analog "version" of our number has changed, the number itself has remained perfect Unfortunately, there are some situations where this doesn't help us (like if the timing was critical as well as the numbers themselves). Analog noise altering a digital signal can cause the numbers to be read at slightly incorrect times - and this introduces jitter. However, since we still have our perfect numbers, we can also fix that - in that case by discarding the damaged timing and replacing it with our own clean clock. Not nearly ... A CD player is digital; it is playing back ones and zeros. Even if a CD gets worn or damaged, as long as all the ones and zeros remain intact, or there are few enough errors that the built-in error correction can correct them perfectly, it will always play back exactly the same. A CD player is totally immune to things like rumble and surface noise (within limits) because digital data doesn't care. (If a certain "1" happens to read as 1.032, or 0.963, digitally it's still "a perfect 1".) Also, since the data is buffered and re-clocked in basically ALL CD players, wow, flutter, and other speed variations are also completely eliminated. (The audio will be clocked at the correct rate, even if the data being read isn't.) my understanding of Binary code is it's '1's and '0's, on or off. |
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on Jun 30, 2014 17:44:54 GMT -5
Yes, that's exactly correct... but, as many people seem to love pointing out, the actual signal is analog (as are all time-varying signals). With an analog signal, if the signal voltages vary, those variations become part of the signal - also known as distortion. In contrast, with a digital signal, variations in the signal itself are separate from the data. Here's the great virtue of digital data storage...... Let's start out with a digital signal that reads: 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1 But it got damaged or noisy, and now reads: .998, .997, 1.003, 0.023, 1.005, -0.02, 1.01 If it was an analog signal, those changes would now be permanently part of the signal - as distortion. However, as a digital signal, when we read it, we read everything below 0.5 as "0" and everything between 0.5 and 1.5 as "1". When we do that, we get back our original digital signal: 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1. We have entirely "ignored" the error that crept in, and have our perfect original back again. Even though the analog "version" of our number has changed, the number itself has remained perfect Unfortunately, there are some situations where this doesn't help us (like if the timing was critical as well as the numbers themselves). Analog noise altering a digital signal can cause the numbers to be read at slightly incorrect times - and this introduces jitter. However, since we still have our perfect numbers, we can also fix that - in that case by discarding the damaged timing and replacing it with our own clean clock. my understanding of Binary code is it's '1's and '0's, on or off. My understanding is '1's and '0's are absulute. No fractions. It's either on or off, with signal no signal, with current, no current. Pits or lands. Laser light reflected, laser light not reflected. |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Jun 30, 2014 23:13:45 GMT -5
Bummer..... Without knowing exactly how they did everything, I can see two reasons why that could happen.... 1) Maybe there's some frequency-dependent factor in how they actually track the groove (for example, maybe a servo that doesn't track identically at all frequencies - which would not be at all surprising). 2) Maybe they just got the EQ wrong. Honestly, if that's the only flaw, then I'd probably be willing to forgive it. (Since I would probably be using it to digitize valuable recordings without putting wear on them, I would simply correct the EQ after digitizing the output, which minor inconvenience would be well justified by the other benefits.) Considering how carefully thought out the whole thing is, though, it does seem rather odd. Incidentally, did they measure this or was it a subjective interpretation of how it sounds? (I as because I can imagine this thing having lower distortion than any "normal turntable", and I can imagine that causing it to sound different... and so take some getting used to.) As for repeat playings... I've heard claims that records (especially older ones) should be allowed to "rest" between playings to avoid excessive wear (it was suggested that one hour was plenty of rest, but that repeated playings of a single track should be avoided). I don't recall seeing proof, but the suggestion - that the vinyl needs several minutes to "recover" to it's original position after the stress of being played - seemed like it might be reasonable to expect... since vinyl is basically a soft material that flexes and "oozes" under high stress One other thing - since you brought up the subject. I've heard claims that some of the various "record preservatives" popular in bygone days have been found to actually ruin records - either by causing them to attract dust or by actually attacking the plastic - with the damage only becoming obvious after their being stored for long periods of time... which could make some of them far more dangerous than just "useless". I don't recall which ones were included in the accusations... but I'm sure you could Google it... Alas, it does not live up to its claims. The Absolute Sound ran a review of it - and found that it rolled off the highs. And you're right about dust - it can be catastrophic to an amp stage, and needs heavy filtering/limiting circuitry. As far as wear is concerned, as long as you don't play an LP over and over again, non-stop, you're fine. Once upon a time, people tried to sell LP treatment liquids, like LAST. But they didn't catch on because they weren't really required - LP's age very well. By the way, there are some purists who would say that you should only play an LP (or CD) once - it's a musical event, like a live performance, never to be repeated. :-) I don't think they measured the turntable - I believe the high roll-off was based on hearing tests. It's true that playing an LP over and over again may cause wear. I don't know of any figures - I tend to avoid playing the same LP on the same day. The "rest" time may depend on many factors - cartridge, arm, the track itself, and the vinyl material. However, it's not that big a deal when it comes to critical listening. If one just needs background music - then pay Pandora, or a CD. :-) I've heard the same thing about record preservative liquids supposedly doing more harm than good. But that was just rumors and I'm not aware of any authoritative tests or articles. I stay clear of them, just to be safe. I did detect a slight roll-off in highs and less details when I used a liquid. I think there have been some electron microscope pictures of grooves - as a way to see what type of wear occurs. I think the key is to make sure that you don't have mistracking - and you can hear that. I remember my friend using a Koetsu Rosewood Signature and an Alphason HRS 100 MCS arm. The Koetsu is a terrible tracker, and the Alphason didn't do it any favors. His LP's were indeed harmed - by normal playing, not repeated playing without resting the LP. However, he then moved to the AirTangent air-bearing linear tracking arm - and that worked great with the Koetsu. You couldn't hear any mistracking. (Mistracking is something you can most easily hear in the very highest frequencies - like triangles and bells. It also gets worse in the inner grooves. You manage this by matching the arm to the cartridge (or vice versa), by proper alignment and proper setting of anti-skate.) |
|
|
|
Post by milsap195 on Jul 1, 2014 12:39:53 GMT -5
Just want to let every body know that you all didn't piss poor job talking me out of a record player, will be picking one up tonight. More audio stuff I don't need.... |
|
). I still have the original and cleaning kit that can with it!
), if you have the itch, scratch it!!!
