[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


The TD160 Super was quite different sonically from an
ordinary 160, which I agree was "ordinary".

Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable,
unbiased means.

Please provide evidence that Harry is biased toward the TD160 Super.



And the
Glassmat was not just glass, but glass damped by felt and
specifically designed to dampen the ringing of Thorens
turntables.

Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable,
unbiased means.

Huh? Are you saying that the mat is not glass damped by felt or that it
was not designed to dampen the ringing of the Thornes?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 30, 2:07 am, bob wrote:


That a clown like Michael Fremer is regarded as an authority pretty
much sums up the situation.


It does?


It's not that subjective evaluation
doesn't have its place—indeed, is unavoidable for analog devices, as
for speakers. It's that the subjective evaluation that's available—and
therefore the conventional wisdom based on that evaluation—is so
flawed as to be useless. And measurements of any sort are largely
unavailable.


Either it has value or it doesn't. It looks to me that you
contradicted yourself there. What is the place of "subjective
evaluation" (you are claiming it has a place) if it is, as you say,
"so flawed as to be useless?" Do you understand that Sean Olive's
paper pretty much asserts that your personal evaluations of your
speakers and your system as just as "useless" as any subjective
opinion that Fremer has ever published? How do you live with that?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 30, 6:37*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

One problem *is that needle drops from high end turntables seem to be hard
to find.


Actually they are quite easy to find. You have to know where to look.
Google won't help you there.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


The TD160 Super was quite different sonically from an
ordinary 160, which I agree was "ordinary".

Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained
by reliable, unbiased means.

Please provide evidence that Harry is biased toward the
TD160 Super.

Harry was already kind enough to do that for me, in writing! ;-)

And the
Glassmat was not just glass, but glass damped by felt
and specifically designed to dampen the ringing of
Thorens turntables.

Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained
by reliable, unbiased means.

Huh? Are you saying that the mat is not glass damped by
felt or that it was not designed to dampen the ringing of
the Thornes?

It's all stupid/simple/obvious, Jenn. Knowing absolutely nothing about the
Glassmat, a day or two after I received my Rega I cut out a mat for its
glass turntable from some thick sheets of felt. That was based on what had I
learned about sound and vibration in school and while working in the auto
industry. Obvious by inspection, but some would raise it to

But here's the real point - the resonant frequencies of a turntable platter
are easy enough to hear and measure but not under actual operating
conditions. When you play a test record, any sympathetic resonance that
could be heard is easily measured. Doesn't happen.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message

On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There does happen to be an archive of objective and
material for blind subjective tests of some very
inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive
turntables on the web.

Could we get a link?

Cheap turntable tests:

http://www.knowzy.com/usb-turntable-samples.htm

The link won't open/doesn't exist on my computer.

You apparently need some onsite service for your computer. I just
double-checked the link and it opens as expected.

..and why would a test of USB turntables be relevant to a
high-end newsgroup anyway?

Help educate people to understand what new technology has wrought?

Expensive turntable tests:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/compo...7.html?start=1


This is a test of cd vs lp distortion....it has nothing
to say of the differences between turntables.

The intent might be that you compare the USB turntable performance with
that
of a high end turntable.

One problem is that needle drops from high end turntables seem to be hard
to find. Apparently, it requires expertise that some people don't have.


You are simply wrong about the effects of turntable resonanaces, and they
were amply documented back in the early eighties by among others (IIRC)
Peter Moncrieff, via published test data. Morover it didn't require golden
ears or a blind test to HEAR the difference.

And in the two links abouve, which you offered as "evidence" that "no
difference" had been documented, you offered nothing like that, as both I
and Sonnova have pointed out. Your integrity here is degenerating as it has
on other newsgroups to the point that you are rapidly losing credibility.

[Norman Schwartz]

On Jun 30, 8:33*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:12:01 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):





On Jun 28, 4:15 pm, Sonnova wrote:
That's better. At least the 3009 had decent bearings.

Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Mine had little bass until I installed one
of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a
rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. I had to re-adjust the
turntable's
suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched
the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply
astounding! Before the mat the TD125 rendered the bass drum whacks on the
Frederick Fennell Telarc recording of the Holst 'Suites for Military Band'
as an anemic thwack. After the mat, they were rendered as a startling, loud,
deep BANG just the way they sounded in the Soundstream demonstration room at
the NYC AES Convention at the Waldorf Astoria several years earlier! There
is a reason why the better 'tables these days have platters made out of
more
sonically "inert" materials (such as machined acrylics, MDF, etc) rather
than
cast, machined aluminum.- Hide quoted text -

I find this interesting and/or questionable. Perhaps it's the
difference in listening environments or memory which contributed to
the effects you describe. Today this very day I use the TD-125 with
the original SME arm with detachable headshell. My cartridge is a
Sumiko Andante FGV with the Fritz Gyger I stylus configuration. It
resembles the Sumiko Pearls of today in output and shape. At 1.8 grams
it tracks anything and everything including the Telarc 1812 cannons
(first recording). I own both the LP and CD releases of the Holst
Military Suites. Using a hybrid Magneplanar system comprised of
Tympani IVa panels on the bottom end (powered by a Bryston 4B-SST) + a
3.6R on the top (powered by two Bryston 7B-STs) I hear no discernible
difference in the bass drum between the LP and CD versions. Age and
listening to loud music has taken its toll on my ability to hear upper
frequencies, but I'm thinking that the bass drum comes across as it
should.

First of all, my memory is working better today than it did yesterday,

I was/am referrring to your observations of what you heard and then
compared to that heard several years earlier at the NYC AES
Convention. If you intend adhering to such a comparison based upon
listenings years apart and moreover in different venues, then we have
nothing more to say.

and
the company which made the mat was Nagaoka, not Naoka. I performed
measurements using a test record and a Hewlett-Packard model 400 audio
voltmeter. Starting at a 30 Hz and ascending to 100 Hz, I plotted the output
of my preamp at each frequency band *up to 100 Hz both with the Thorens mat
fitted and then with the Nagaoka mat fitted. Without the Nagaoka mat the,
response fell off below 100Hz and was down about 6dB at 30 Hz. With the
Nagaoka mat fitted, the response below 100 Hz was practically flat with just
shy of a 1dB lift at 30 Hz. It's been many years but I recall that the test
record was an Emory Cook test record originally from the early '60's, which,
at the time (mid '80's), was being sold by Radio Shack undr their "Realistic"
trade name. IIRC, the Shure test record did not have a banded frequency
response "sweep" and neither did the then popular Orion test record (which I
still have). The arm I used at the time was an Infinity "Black Widow" and the
cartridge was a Signet *TK7E.

BTW, today, I use a JA Michelle Gyro SE turntable (with no mat of any kind
-just a record clamp) fitted with an AudioQuest PT-9 tone arm and, at the
moment, a Grado Reference Master cartridge. I still have the Frederick Fennel
recording of the Holst "Military Suites" album. Also, I have the CD of the
same performance. The record has mighty bass drum whacks that one can
actually feel, but *on the CD, they are quite attenuated, anemic, actually. I
originally heard these two pieces played back from a Soundstream recorder
into a pair of large Westlake monitor speakers in a special listening room
set up at the AES convention at the Waldorf Astoria in NYC either in 1979 or
1980 ( I forget which).

So you do forget some things after all. :-)
I must have dozens of digital LPs and their coounterpart CDs on the
Telarc, Delos, and CBS labels. I have performed listening comparisons
when these items were first issued and today. Using my HHb Burnit
stand-alone recorder I have burned CD-Rs from from these LPs When I
time-sync such CD-Rs with and their CD issue counterparts I hear zero
difference in an instaneous switching comparison- no more so than be
characteristic of the two different CD players employed. I always
switch CD-R/CD between the two CDPs employed in my time synced
comparisons to rule out any differences introduced by the CDPs.
Detecting no differences, I never found justification to upgrade my LP
playing rig nor buy any green felt tipped pens.


- Show quoted text -

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 30, 6:39*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Jun 30, 2:07 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message



On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There does happen to be an archive of objective and
material for blind subjective tests of some very
inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive
turntables on the web.

Could we get a link?

Cheap turntable tests:

http://www.knowzy.com/usb-turntable-samples.htm

There are no tests there that I can see. There are
samples, Samples that have virtually no relevance to your
assertions about vinyl playback sound quality much less
any corolation with sound quality to objective
measurements. IOW it is a link to nothing relevant much
less supportive of you many assertions.

I guess you didn't notice the reference samples taken from CDs.

Irrelevant. There are no tests just samples. Samples that have no
relevance to the sonic merits of the Shure vs. cartridges with four
figured price tags. They have no relevance to the audible effects of
platter resonances. IOW no relevance to any of your assertions on this
thread.



Expensive turntable tests:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/compo...e/427.html?sta...
Once again this completely lacks the very things you
demand from others, that being time synced, level matched
bias controlled listening tests.

Right, they are technical tests, which support my claims about the fact that
no way can an expensive turntable provide vinyl playback that is even within
an order of magnitude as clean as digital can.

Again that claim is irrelevant to the subjects being discussed in this
thread. That being the merits of the Shure cartridge vs. The high end
cartridges with four figure price tags and the audible effects of
resonances in a platter. Nor does it support your assertions about the
relative subjective merits of LP v. CD playback.



It's not my fault that high end turntable owners lack the wherewithall that
it takes to post relevant samples. It is surely not up to me to waste my
money like they did.


Now you are just making things up about the economic status of unnamed
audiophiles. It is an utterly absurd assertion.



The objective technical
measurements do not address resonant frequenies of the
platters of the tables being tested.

You don't need expensive turntables to make that point.


That is again, utterly irrelevant to the fact that the technical
measurements did not address the resonant frequencies of the platters.
IOW you cited irrelevant data. You may not need expensive TTs to make
the point but you do need the relevant measurements and controlled
listening tests to corolate with the technical measurements. Something
you claimed to have done but have not shown you have done.



You have made many
assertions about the reletive sonic merits of high end
cartridges and the Shure.

Prove me wrong.

Lack of technical data and controlled listening tests to support your
assertions noted. what comes around goes around. you demand from
others what you can not provide for yourself.



You have made many assertions
about high end turntable design being based in figments
of audiophile imagination.

That's apparent to anybody with a little bit of knowlege about mechanical
engineering.


Unsupported argument by appeal to some vague authority noted.


You claimed that you did
propper bias controlled listening tests and objective
technical measurements to substantiate all these
assertions.

Yes I did, but much of that information has never been placed on the web.


Thus your assertions remain utterly and completely unsupported by the
same sort of support you demand from others when they make their
assertions.




All you offer is other peoples' irrelevant data.

Wrong again.


No. That is a factual statement. Your links were in fact links to
other peoples' data.


I'm not responsible for *other people's inability to interpret
relevant technical data,


Nor are we responsible for your misinterpretation of the irrelevant
data you have linked.


or do their homework for them.


You made assertions about the sound of the Shure vs. the sound of
other cartridges with four figure price tags. You made assertions
about the audibility of resonances of turntable platters. You claimed
that you did technical measurements and controlled listening tests to
support those specific assertions. Either you have the goods or you
don't. based on your continued attempts to dodge these basic facts I
suspect that you don't have the goods.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Huh? Are you saying that the mat is not glass damped by
felt or that it was not designed to dampen the ringing of
the Thornes?

It's all stupid/simple/obvious, Jenn. Knowing absolutely nothing about the
Glassmat, a day or two after I received my Rega I cut out a mat for its
glass turntable from some thick sheets of felt. That was based on what had I
learned about sound and vibration in school and while working in the auto
industry. Obvious by inspection, but some would raise it to

But here's the real point - the resonant frequencies of a turntable platter
are easy enough to hear and measure but not under actual operating
conditions. When you play a test record, any sympathetic resonance that
could be heard is easily measured. Doesn't happen.

I'm afraid that your point is less than clear. Harry wrote:
"And the Glassmat was not just glass, but glass damped by felt and
specifically designed to dampen the ringing of Thorens turntables."

You responded with:
"Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable,
unbiased means."

Harry's statement is objectively true; the Marcoff Glassmat was indeed
glass damped by felt, and it was indeed designed to dampen Thorens
platters. What "reliable, unbiased" evidence is required?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


The TD160 Super was quite different sonically from an
ordinary 160, which I agree was "ordinary".

Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained
by reliable, unbiased means.

Please provide evidence that Harry is biased toward the
TD160 Super.

Harry was already kind enough to do that for me, in writing! ;-)

Yes, I was "biased"...."biased" in favor of a transormation from a somewhat
bloated and opague sound (the basic 160) into something with a more
tightly-controlled bass, better speed stability, and more detail retrieval.
And when the glassmat was added, that last vestiges of "bloat" were removed
and detail removeal enhanced still further.

That is not bias, Arny, it is preference and a value-judgement based on
critical listening.

And the
Glassmat was not just glass, but glass damped by felt
and specifically designed to dampen the ringing of
Thorens turntables.

Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained
by reliable, unbiased means.

Huh? Are you saying that the mat is not glass damped by
felt or that it was not designed to dampen the ringing of
the Thornes?

It's all stupid/simple/obvious, Jenn. Knowing absolutely nothing about the
Glassmat, a day or two after I received my Rega I cut out a mat for its
glass turntable from some thick sheets of felt. That was based on what had
I
learned about sound and vibration in school and while working in the auto
industry. Obvious by inspection, but some would raise it to

But here's the real point - the resonant frequencies of a turntable
platter
are easy enough to hear and measure but not under actual operating
conditions. When you play a test record, any sympathetic resonance that
could be heard is easily measured. Doesn't happen.

But it did, and was measured and published...by J Peter Moncrieff among
others, if I recall correctly. There wee two or three journals back in the
day that tested turntable resonances in a controlled fashion.

[g]

On Jun 28, 9:39*am, Robert Peirce
wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used?

TD 125 comes to mind.

The VPI Synchronous Drive System is also highly adjustable.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA *724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

I had a TD125. I used a thick sorbothane mat. I wonder how many use a
record clamp. I found it mandatory to get the most out of the system.
My quick test. Put the needle (stylus) on the record, and tap the
record with a small object away from the arm. You will hear the sound
of the record. Put the clamp on and see how it takes away most of the
record resonance.

Venetia ? I used to go fishing in Venetia.

Greg

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:07:07 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 30, 8:33*pm, Sonnova wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

First of all, my memory is working better today than it did yesterday,

I was/am referrring to your observations of what you heard and then
compared to that heard several years earlier at the NYC AES
Convention. If you intend adhering to such a comparison based upon
listenings years apart and moreover in different venues, then we have
nothing more to say.

and
the company which made the mat was Nagaoka, not Naoka. I performed
measurements using a test record and a Hewlett-Packard model 400 audio
voltmeter. Starting at a 30 Hz and ascending to 100 Hz, I plotted the output
of my preamp at each frequency band *up to 100 Hz both with the Thorens mat
fitted and then with the Nagaoka mat fitted. Without the Nagaoka mat the,
response fell off below 100Hz and was down about 6dB at 30 Hz. With the
Nagaoka mat fitted, the response below 100 Hz was practically flat with just
shy of a 1dB lift at 30 Hz. It's been many years but I recall that the test
record was an Emory Cook test record originally from the early '60's, which,
at the time (mid '80's), was being sold by Radio Shack undr their
"Realistic"
trade name. IIRC, the Shure test record did not have a banded frequency
response "sweep" and neither did the then popular Orion test record (which I
still have). The arm I used at the time was an Infinity "Black Widow" and
the
cartridge was a Signet *TK7E.

BTW, today, I use a JA Michelle Gyro SE turntable (with no mat of any kind
-just a record clamp) fitted with an AudioQuest PT-9 tone arm and, at the
moment, a Grado Reference Master cartridge. I still have the Frederick
Fennel
recording of the Holst "Military Suites" album. Also, I have the CD of the
same performance. The record has mighty bass drum whacks that one can
actually feel, but *on the CD, they are quite attenuated, anemic, actually.
I
originally heard these two pieces played back from a Soundstream recorder
into a pair of large Westlake monitor speakers in a special listening room
set up at the AES convention at the Waldorf Astoria in NYC either in 1979 or
1980 ( I forget which).

So you do forget some things after all. :-)

I forgot the name of the mat, that's for sure. Let's call it a "senior
moment". :-)

Also, I used to attend the AES conventions every year; either in L.A. or NYC.
It's hard to keep straight what happened in which year - especially that long
ago. They all tend to run together.

I must have dozens of digital LPs and their coounterpart CDs on the
Telarc, Delos, and CBS labels. I have performed listening comparisons
when these items were first issued and today. Using my HHb Burnit
stand-alone recorder I have burned CD-Rs from from these LPs When I
time-sync such CD-Rs with and their CD issue counterparts I hear zero
difference in an instaneous switching comparison- no more so than be
characteristic of the two different CD players employed. I always
switch CD-R/CD between the two CDPs employed in my time synced
comparisons to rule out any differences introduced by the CDPs.
Detecting no differences, I never found justification to upgrade my LP
playing rig nor buy any green felt tipped pens.

Good for you. My experience is that sound between the LP and the CD or SACD
CAN be quite different. Sometimes they have the same general sound, and
sometimes they don't. In many cases, the CD sounds much better than the LP
(the Skrowaczewsk/Minnesota Orchestra recording of Ravel produced by Mark
Aubrot and Joanna Nikernz on Mobile Fidelity, for instance, sounds MUCH
better than the original LPs on VOX/Turnabout) and sometimes, the LP sounds
better than the CD/SACD (examples already provided). It's the luck of the
draw, really.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


You responded with:
"Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained
by reliable, unbiased means."

Harry's statement is objectively true; the Marcoff
Glassmat was indeed glass damped by felt, and it was
indeed designed to dampen Thorens platters. What
"reliable, unbiased" evidence is required?

Just because someone pretends that they have cured a non-existent problem
doesn't prove that it ever existed.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 2, 12:34*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 1, 6:25*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Jenn" wrote in message



But here's the real point - the resonant frequencies of a turntable platter
are easy enough to hear and measure but not under actual operating
conditions. When you play a test record, any sympathetic resonance that
could be heard is easily measured. *Doesn't happen.

Even if it did, it would vary wildly as one traversed the record from
outer edge of the platter to inner core passing through peaks and
nulls of vibration causing significant variance in sound over the area
of play.

That may be true of the platter itself but not neccessarily true of
the vinyl disc sitting on the platter and being subjected to this
extra energy.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 5, 3:35*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:38*pm, Scott wrote:





On Jul 2, 12:34*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 1, 6:25*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

But here's the real point - the resonant frequencies of a turntable platter
are easy enough to hear and measure but not under actual operating
conditions. When you play a test record, any sympathetic resonance that
could be heard is easily measured. *Doesn't happen.

Even if it did, it would vary wildly as one traversed the record from
outer edge of the platter to inner core passing through peaks and
nulls of vibration causing significant variance in sound over the area
of play.

*That may be true of the platter itself but not neccessarily true of
the vinyl disc sitting on the platter and being subjected to this
extra energy.

* Are you implying that standing of the platter can cause a uniform
response across the entire disc?

Closer to unifom than not.

* That would require that the vinyl
is either decoupled from the platter at the frequencies of interest
(likely) in which case it doesn't respond at all or that it is much
stiffer than the platter
with much higher resonant frequencies so it is responding as a solid
object.

Well it is a solid object and it does transfer a great deal of
vibrational energy applied at any given point to the near by area. LPs
are not *that* compliant that they would vary widely from point to
point when vibrational energy is added to them. Most LPs are actually
not very well coupled to the platter on most rigs. When it is well
coupled it can act as a damper but it still lacks the compliance to
directly mimic the peaks and nodes of the platter. There will still be
substantial transfer through out the disc.


Obviously, vinyl is softer than both acrylic and aluminum, two common
platter materials.
Here's in interesting experiment showing the wave pattern of what
appears to be or at least very similar to a record platter.


It isn't enough that it is softer. It would have to have infinite
compliance to directly mimic the platter. It is still stiff enough to
substantially distribute vibrational energy internally. The degree of
coupling will be a major factor. In most cases that would be next to
nothing. I am quite sure this is why the better rigs do a better job
of coupling the disc to the platter. The mutual damping alone....



http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/...ges/plates.htm


Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link. But of course loose sand is a
great deal more "compliant" than an LP. We are also ignoring other
elements of platter vibration which is the transfer of nonresonant
frequencies. Some platters are simply better damped across the entire
frequency spectrum than others. I think this is probably a bigger
issue than resonant frequencies of a platter. the big point being that
platters do have signature sounds, Clearly that signature would depend
on the level of coupling and the amount of energy entering the platter
via internal vibrations and feedback not to mention the energy
entering the system via the sylus vinyl contact. perhaps a few rigs
like the Rockport Sirius III have been engineered to the point that
there is no audible transfer of energy from the platter to the disc or
loss of information due to compliance. Perhaps. But these rigs would
be the exception not the rule as someone has asserted. Then we have
the question if such a beast really is the ideal. but that is a topic
for another thread. Unfortunately there seems to be virtually zero
data on platter vibration and any corolation to it's sonic impact via
controlled listening tests.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 7, 2:43 am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:43 am, Scott wrote:



We are also ignoring other
elements of platter vibration which is the transfer of nonresonant
frequencies.

Which will always be lower in magnitude. If the resonant response is
of questionable audibility, the nonresonant response will only be
less.

How can you say that with such certainty? We are talking about the
potential of feedback from below 20 hz to to 20K hz.


Some platters are simply better damped across the entire
frequency spectrum than others. I think this is probably a bigger
issue than resonant frequencies of a platter. the big point being that
platters do have signature sounds,

On this point, I disagree. I have not shared peoples experience with
changes in sound due to platter matt changes or even elimination of
the matt.
Clearly if the platter was imparting a signauture sound to the vinyl,
changes
in frequency dependent transmission coefficient would have an effect.
I simply don't hear it.
I've even tried using specifically engineered vibration isolation
materials
from EAR Specialties.
I've tried this on some rather low-end tables with platters of
relatively
low mass and high resonance amplitude (platters that do ring like a
bell) to no audible effect.

I've concluded audibility of platter resonance is a high-end canard.

ScottW-

I have participated in a few extensive blind comparisons between
various high end rigs that were fitted with the same brand and model
cartridge. They all sounded unmistakably different. Something is
causing those differences. Granted, I could never just point to one
aspect like the platter design and build or another and say that is
causing a specific audible difference. But something is making them
sound different. One example comes to mind where it seemed like it had
to be as much a difference in the platters as anything else was a
comparison between a Basis Debute Gold and a VPI TNT III. they are
both four point suspension tables with precision oil bearings, belt
driven with decoupled motors. Acrylic plinths. One of the most notable
differences in design was the platters. Now they did not sound
*radically* different but they certainly did sound different. Was it
just the silicone oil damping in the suspension of the Basis? Was it a
difference in the bearing? The motor? some or all of the above?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


I have participated in a few extensive blind

Note, *not* double blind?

comparisons
between various high end rigs that were fitted with the
same brand and model cartridge. They all sounded
unmistakably different. Something is causing those
differences.

Absence of level matching?

Absence of time-synching?

Absence of comparisons that were within a few seconds of each other?

Absence of double blind?

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:38:51 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 7, 2:43 am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:43 am, Scott wrote:



We are also ignoring other
elements of platter vibration which is the transfer of nonresonant
frequencies.

Which will always be lower in magnitude. If the resonant response is
of questionable audibility, the nonresonant response will only be
less.

How can you say that with such certainty? We are talking about the
potential of feedback from below 20 hz to to 20K hz.


Some platters are simply better damped across the entire
frequency spectrum than others. I think this is probably a bigger
issue than resonant frequencies of a platter. the big point being that
platters do have signature sounds,

On this point, I disagree. I have not shared peoples experience with
changes in sound due to platter matt changes or even elimination of
the matt.
Clearly if the platter was imparting a signauture sound to the vinyl,
changes
in frequency dependent transmission coefficient would have an effect.
I simply don't hear it.
I've even tried using specifically engineered vibration isolation
materials
from EAR Specialties.
I've tried this on some rather low-end tables with platters of
relatively
low mass and high resonance amplitude (platters that do ring like a
bell) to no audible effect.

I've concluded audibility of platter resonance is a high-end canard.

ScottW-

I have participated in a few extensive blind comparisons between
various high end rigs that were fitted with the same brand and model
cartridge. They all sounded unmistakably different. Something is
causing those differences. Granted, I could never just point to one
aspect like the platter design and build or another and say that is
causing a specific audible difference. But something is making them
sound different. One example comes to mind where it seemed like it had
to be as much a difference in the platters as anything else was a
comparison between a Basis Debute Gold and a VPI TNT III. they are
both four point suspension tables with precision oil bearings, belt
driven with decoupled motors. Acrylic plinths. One of the most notable
differences in design was the platters. Now they did not sound
*radically* different but they certainly did sound different. Was it
just the silicone oil damping in the suspension of the Basis? Was it a
difference in the bearing? The motor? some or all of the above?

All of the above and more. It has been my experience (as I said in an earlier
post) that EVERYTHING affects the sound of a record deck. The platter, the
platter's bearing, the plinth, the suspension, the motor, how well that motor
is decoupled from the platter, the arm material, the arm bearings, the arm's
mass, how the headshell is attached, the cartridge, the way it's mounted, the
resonance of the cartridge and the arm together, etc., etc., etc.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 8, 10:20*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I have participated in a few extensive blind

Note, *not* double blind?

Yes. which is an unlikely cause of unwanted bias effects. Not
impossible but unlikely.



comparisons
between various high end rigs that were fitted with the
same brand and model cartridge. They all sounded
unmistakably different. Something is causing those
differences.

Absence of level matching?

Level matching between the same cartridge? How is that an issue?



Absence of time-synching?


Yes, which could cause the test to be less sensitive to actual
differences. since the results clearly indicated that there were
audible differences this lack of sensitivity was not an issue. Lack of
time synching is not something that would cause a false preference.



Absence of comparisons that were within a few seconds of each other?

Yes. whuch as stated before would only act to desensitize the tests.
but given the results were quite conclusive in every single comparison
this clearly was not an issue.



Absence of double blind?

Yes. They were single blind.

[Norman Schwartz]

On Jul 7, 9:38*pm, Scott wrote:
On Jul 7, 2:43 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 6, 3:43 am, Scott wrote:

*We are also ignoring other
elements of platter vibration which is the transfer of nonresonant
frequencies.

* Which will always be lower in magnitude. If the resonant response is
of questionable audibility, the nonresonant response will only be
less.

How can you say that with such certainty? We are talking about the
potential of feedback from below 20 hz to to 20K hz.


Some type of feedback must occur when I play LPs. When using a stand-
alone CD recorder to burn CD-Rs from 'phono' and if there is a loud
noise, e.g., someone rings the doorbell causing my Rottie to bark, his
'voice' becomes part of the recording. Verly like if I were to shout
loud enough closeby to the turntable, "his master's voice" would
likely be included as well. I suppose for best results my speakers
should either be playing at low levels or be turned off.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 8, 2:46*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 7, 7:38*pm, Scott wrote:

On Jul 7, 2:43 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 6, 3:43 am, Scott wrote:

*We are also ignoring other
elements of platter vibration which is the transfer of nonresonant
frequencies.

* Which will always be lower in magnitude. If the resonant response is
of questionable audibility, the nonresonant response will only be
less.

How can you say that with such certainty?

Because that is the very definition of resonance

*a vibration of large amplitude in a mechanical or electrical system
caused by a relatively small periodic stimulus of the same or nearly
the same period as the natural vibration period of the system.

But one can't draw any conclusions about the total energy being
transfered. Again we are talking about more than eight octaves here.
Not to mention that when in the form of feedback is not anything like
pink noise. Not all frequencies are equally energized.





We are talking about the
potential of feedback from below 20 hz to to 20K hz.

*The nonresonant response of a mechanical system is always less than
the
response at resonant frequencies.


In relative amplitude yes. That does not mean in total energy. We are
talking a few particular frequencies v. a full sweep of over 8
octaves.











*Some platters are simply better damped across the entire
frequency spectrum than others. I think this is probably a bigger
issue than resonant frequencies of a platter. the big point being that
platters do have signature sounds,

*On this point, I disagree. I have not shared peoples experience with
changes in sound due to platter matt changes or even elimination of
the matt.
Clearly if the platter was imparting a signauture sound to the vinyl,
changes
in frequency dependent transmission coefficient would have an effect.
I simply don't hear it.
I've even tried using specifically engineered vibration isolation
materials
from EAR Specialties.
I've tried this on some rather low-end tables with platters of
relatively
low mass and high resonance amplitude (platters that do ring like a
bell) to no audible effect.

I've concluded audibility of platter resonance is a high-end canard.

ScottW-

I have participated in a few extensive blind comparisons between
various high end rigs that were fitted with the same brand and model
cartridge. They all sounded unmistakably different.

*Tone arm response differences where the energy sourced by record into
the arm is absorbed/reflected differently impacting cart response is a
much more probable explanation IMO.

I can see that being an issue were the tables fitted with different
tonearms. They both had Wheaton Triplanar arms and Audioquest 7000
cartridges.



Your experience has too simultaneously changing variables to count.
My example has 1 variable. *The matt which should have dramatic impact
on the sound changes due to platter vibration conducted into the vinyl
and stylus.
It didn't.


Only difference in my example was the turntables.



*Something is
causing those differences. Granted, I could never just point to one
aspect like the platter design and build or another and say that is
causing a specific audible difference. But something is making them
sound different. One example comes to mind where it seemed like it had
to be as much a difference in the platters as anything else was a
comparison between a Basis Debute Gold and a VPI TNT III. they are
both four point suspension tables with precision oil bearings, belt
driven with decoupled motors. Acrylic plinths. One of the most notable
differences in design was the platters. Now they did not sound
*radically* different but they certainly did sound different. Was it
just the silicone oil damping in the suspension of the Basis? Was it a
difference in the bearing? The motor? some or all of the above?

*Cart wiring is also a potential variable often not addressed.
Relative small changes in capacitance loading can make a difference.
See the test results of some carts with different capacitance loads
in this thread.http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6674

So you are saying that there could be an audible difference in the
capacitance between two samples of the same Audioquest 7000 model? Do
we have any access to any statistically significant data showing that
this happens, how often and to what makes and models more often than
others?

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:28:52 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 7, 9:38*pm, Scott wrote:
On Jul 7, 2:43 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 6, 3:43 am, Scott wrote:

*We are also ignoring other
elements of platter vibration which is the transfer of nonresonant
frequencies.

* Which will always be lower in magnitude. If the resonant response is
of questionable audibility, the nonresonant response will only be
less.

How can you say that with such certainty? We are talking about the
potential of feedback from below 20 hz to to 20K hz.


Some type of feedback must occur when I play LPs. When using a stand-
alone CD recorder to burn CD-Rs from 'phono' and if there is a loud
noise, e.g., someone rings the doorbell causing my Rottie to bark, his
'voice' becomes part of the recording. Verly like if I were to shout
loud enough closeby to the turntable, "his master's voice" would
likely be included as well. I suppose for best results my speakers
should either be playing at low levels or be turned off.

You may be joking but the latter is not just possible, I have proof that it
happens. I have some tapes that I friend and I made over 20 years ago at his
house of a number of out of print LPs he owned. While we transferred the LPs
to tape, we conversed amiably as people are want to do. Whenever I play back
these tapes (which I have long since transferred to CD) I can hear, in quiet
passages, both of our voices, easily recognizable, and in very quiet passages
and between cuts, I can make out what each of us is saying. So yes, sounds
occurring in the room can definitely be picked-up by the stylus probably,
mostly, via the record itself as the "microphone" diaphragm but it could be
the arm as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message


Some type of feedback must occur when I play LPs.

Playing LPs with speakers connected and operating generally has some
feedback associated with it. This is especially true of audio systems that
have good dynamic range and broad frequency response.

When using a stand- alone CD recorder to burn CD-Rs from
'phono' and if there is a loud noise, e.g., someone rings
the doorbell causing my Rottie to bark, his 'voice'
becomes part of the recording.

Most likely paths are direct acoustic coupling to the surface of the vinyl
and the tone arm.

Verly like if I were to
shout loud enough closeby to the turntable, "his master's
voice" would likely be included as well. I suppose for
best results my speakers should either be playing at low
levels or be turned off.

Very definately so. Using headphones is a good idea when you are
transcribing LPs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jul 8, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I have participated in a few extensive blind

Note, *not* double blind?

Yes. which is an unlikely cause of unwanted bias effects.
Not impossible but unlikely.

Note abandonment of generally accepted science.

comparisons
between various high end rigs that were fitted with the
same brand and model cartridge. They all sounded
unmistakably different. Something is causing those
differences.

Absence of level matching?

Level matching between the same cartridge? How is that an
issue?

Do you seriously think that different cartridges of the same brand and model
match each other that well?

Absence of time-synching?

Yes, which could cause the test to be less sensitive to
actual differences.

Well that and the fact that it introduces audible differences because people
aren't listening to the identical same music. They are listening to
different parts of recordings which are well-known to sound different from
each other.

If you don't time synch the music, I can reliably ABX and identify two
components that otherwise match each other exactly.

since the results clearly indicated
that there were audible differences this lack of
sensitivity was not an issue. Lack of time synching is
not something that would cause a false preference.

ABX testing is not preference testing. There seems to be a great deal of
confusion here.

Absence of comparisons that were within a few seconds of
each other?

Yes. which as stated before would only act to desensitize
the tests. but given the results were quite conclusive in
every single comparison this clearly was not an issue.

Since the test was not a DBT, it is reasonable to expect that the absence of
good testing procedures was the explanation for the observed results.

Absence of double blind?

Yes. They were single blind.

A single blind test is a highly defective double blind test. Ever hear of
Clever Hans the Talking Horse? Now, a two-hundred year old story that
proves the failings of single blind evaluations.

[Norman Schwartz]

On Jul 9, 12:35*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:28:52 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote


Some type of feedback must occur when I play LPs. When using a stand-
alone CD recorder to burn CD-Rs from 'phono' and if there is a loud
noise, e.g., someone rings the doorbell causing my Rottie to bark, his
'voice' becomes part of the recording. Verly like if I were to shout
loud enough closeby to the turntable, "his master's voice" would
likely be included as well. I suppose for best results my speakers
should either be playing at low levels or be turned off.

You may be joking but the latter is not just possible, I have proof that it
happens. I have some tapes that I friend and I made over 20 years ago at his
house of a number of out of print LPs he owned.

I was being quite serious, and not joking in any way. I have several
CD-Rs as evidence. I'm confident in saying that it doesn't help having
my loudspeakers playing "full-blast" while recording (to tape or CD-R)
from my LP source.

While we transferred the LPs
to tape, we conversed amiably as people are want to do. Whenever I play back
these tapes (which I have long since transferred to CD) I can hear, in quiet
passages, both of our voices, easily recognizable, and in very quiet passages

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 9, 8:38*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Jul 8, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I have participated in a few extensive blind

Note, *not* double blind?

Yes. which is an unlikely cause of unwanted bias effects.
Not impossible but unlikely.

Note abandonment of generally accepted science.

I never claimed to be doing scientific research. OTOH if you are
implying that your opinions on TT and cartridge sound are somehow
scientifically valid as opposed to mine then please cite the peer
reviewed papers that support your specific claims about all such
matters. You can't pick and choose your "scientific protocols" and
then cal it science. Either your assertions have real scientific
support or they don't.



comparisons
between various high end rigs that were fitted with the
same brand and model cartridge. They all sounded
unmistakably different. Something is causing those
differences.

Absence of level matching?
Level matching between the same cartridge? How is that an
issue?

Do you seriously think that different cartridges of the same brand and model
match each other that well?

Yes I do. If I am wrong then show me some evidence that any of the
cartridges used in any of my comparisons were likely to have accounted
for the substantial differences heard under blind conditions. The ones
I can recall off the top of my head would be the already mentioned
Audioquest 7000 along with the Koestu Onyx platinum and the Clearaudio
Gold. If you wish to assert that these cartridges have such gross
differences from one unit to another that they would account for all
the differences I heard then prove it.



Absence of time-synching?
Yes, which could cause the test to be less sensitive to
actual differences.

Well that and the fact that it introduces audible differences because people
aren't listening to the identical same music. They are listening to
different parts of recordings which are well-known to sound different from
each other.

Not with my comparisons. We would take the same LP and repeat the same
segment of music.



If you don't time synch the music, I can reliably ABX and identify two
components that otherwise match each other exactly.


Not with the methodologies I used. There was no quick switching in
which one could determine which source was which by time diffferences.





since the results clearly indicated
that there were audible differences this lack of
sensitivity was not an issue. Lack of time synching is
not something that would cause a false preference.

ABX testing is not preference testing. There seems to be a great deal of
confusion here.

Yes you seem to be confusing my blind comparsiosn with ABX tests. You
were discussing my blind comparisons. I was not doing ABX so yes you
do seem a bit confused at this point. hope this clears things up for
you.



Absence of comparisons that were within a few seconds of
each other?
Yes. which as stated before would only act to desensitize
the tests. but given the results were quite conclusive in
every single comparison this clearly was not an issue.

Since the test was not a DBT, it is reasonable to expect that the absence of
good testing procedures was the explanation for the observed results.

No it is not reasonable. It is purely prejudicial. given the apparent
state of your prejudices I would not consider you a good judge of my
protocols. If you wish we can always put the question to JJ. He is
obviously more than qualified to offer an expert opinion on the
relative merits of my blind comparisons.



Absence of double blind?
Yes. They were single blind.

A single blind test is a highly defective double blind test. Ever hear of
Clever Hans the Talking Horse? *Now, a two-hundred year old story that
proves the failings of single blind evaluations.

Do tell me where there was any "single blind" test done there. This
just shows your misunderstanding of the subject IMO. Better yet. Show
me one research scientist involved in audio that would draw such a
line in the sand on protocols of blindness on hobbyists doing home
brewed comparisons. show me one actual research scientist in audio
that would confirm your assertion that my tests were "highly
defective" simply because they were single blind as opposed to double
blind.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 9, 11:48*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 9, 11:27*am, Scott wrote:





On Jul 9, 8:38*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message



On Jul 8, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I have participated in a few extensive blind

Note, *not* double blind?

Yes. which is an unlikely cause of unwanted bias effects.
Not impossible but unlikely.

Note abandonment of generally accepted science.

I never claimed to be doing scientific research. OTOH if you are
implying that your opinions on TT and cartridge sound are somehow
scientifically valid as opposed to mine then please cite the peer
reviewed papers that support your specific claims about all such
matters. You can't pick and choose your "scientific protocols" and
then cal it science. Either your assertions have real scientific
support or they don't.

comparisons
between various high end rigs that were fitted with the
same brand and model cartridge. They all sounded
unmistakably different. Something is causing those
differences.

Absence of level matching?
Level matching between the same cartridge? How is that an
issue?

Do you seriously think that different cartridges of the same brand and model
match each other that well?

Yes I do. If I am wrong then show me some evidence that any of the
cartridges used in any of my comparisons were likely to have accounted
for the substantial differences heard under blind conditions. The ones
I can recall off the top of my head would be the already mentioned
Audioquest 7000 along with the Koestu Onyx platinum and the Clearaudio
Gold. If you wish to assert that these cartridges have such gross
differences from one unit to another that they would account for all
the differences I heard then prove it.

*One parameter I've found to vary IME is channel balance.
For example the Koetsu Onyx is only spec'd to 0.5 db at 1Khz but I
don't recall any carts with a better spec.
I've experienced fairly dramatic shifts in sound stage due to
channel balance shifts with cart changes. *If the L was 0.5 db below
the right
on one cart and then 0.5 db above the right on the other, the sound
stage shift
may be quite apparent.
Also, if particular instruments are left or right, that allowed db
swing (assume one channel in both carts was the same) can easily be
noticed in that instrument.

ScottW


But in the absence of any actual measurments of two or more units it
is hardly fair to draw any meaningful conclusions.
By the way this can be addressed in the setup if one has an azmuth
adjustment. But I can assure you the differences I heard could not be
explained by a channel imbalance.

[Andrew Barss]

Scott wrote:
: On Jul 9, 8:38=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

: I never claimed to be doing scientific research.

Well, you're making claims about which equipment is better (to you),
and stating that your tests back up your opinions. All science is is a=20
systematic means of asking questions and answering them, so what you desc=
ribe
yourself as having done is, in fact, science. Just flawed science, unfor=
tunately.

: Since the test was not a DBT, it is reasonable to expect that the abse=
nce of
: good testing procedures was the explanation for the observed results.

: No it is not reasonable. It is purely prejudicial. given the apparent
: state of your prejudices I would not consider you a good judge of my
: protocols.

See below.

: Absence of double blind?
: Yes. They were single blind.
:
: A single blind test is a highly defective double blind test. Ever hear=
of
: Clever Hans the Talking Horse? =A0Now, a two-hundred year old story th=
at
: proves the failings of single blind evaluations.

: Do tell me where there was any "single blind" test done there.

Clever Hans is a classic example of a single blind test, and
the flaws inherent in them. Hans could produce, quite reliably,
the answers to simple arithmetic. This was taken to support the
hypothesis that he could understand speech, and do simple
calculations. The problem was, he was really just picking up on=20
unconscious cues from his trainer. The big lesson to science was, and
remains: don't trust results from single-blind trials. Ever.

It's just like someone thinking that
cartridge X, or cable Y, sounds "objectively" clearer, better,=20
more transparent, danceable, musical to the max, etc.,=20
when all the person may well be doing is bringing -- perhaps=20
quite unconsciously -- their own expectation bias.=20

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you, or anyone, sticking
with a piece of equipment bcause you like it. You may like it because of
its audio qualities; or because it was handmade by an 80-year-old =20
guy in Japan; or because it glows and cost you a fair chunk of change. Or
because your aunt Mildred gave it to you. The problem arises when people=
mistake=20
the *source* of the preferences (X is an audio device, I like X a lot, th=
erefore X
is acoustically an outstanding piece of gear), especially when they go on=
to give
advice to other people making buying decisions. (And in the intense worl=
d of
high end audio, pretty much everyone is giving and getting advice on buyi=
ng
equipment).

:... show me one actual research scientist in audio
: that would confirm your assertion that my tests were "highly
: defective" simply because they were single blind as opposed to double
: blind.

I'm not an audio scientist, but I am a scientist. And I can tell you wit=
h
absolute certainty that single-blind tests, whether of audio perception,
component evaluation, cola preferences, medication efficacy, or=20
anything else involving a conscious subject are basically worthless.
They are inherently and irredeemably flawed. The results MAY be due to
what the tester thinks is being tested, but they may ALSO be due to
other factors. And eliminating those other factors is the whole idea
inherent in double- (and sometimes triple-) blind tests.=20

-- Andy Barss

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jul 9, 8:38 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Jul 8, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I have participated in a few extensive blind

Note, *not* double blind?

Yes. which is an unlikely cause of unwanted bias
effects. Not impossible but unlikely.

Note abandonment of generally accepted science.

I never claimed to be doing scientific research. OTOH if
you are implying that your opinions on TT and cartridge
sound are somehow scientifically valid as opposed to mine
then please cite the peer reviewed papers that support
your specific claims about all such matters.

Been there, done that only to be assaulted with a chorus of complaints about
the high price of reprints of scientific papers.

comparisons
between various high end rigs that were fitted with
the same brand and model cartridge. They all sounded
unmistakably different. Something is causing those
differences.

Absence of level matching?
Level matching between the same cartridge? How is that
an issue?

Do you seriously think that different cartridges of the
same brand and model match each other that well?

Yes I do.

That idea would be a big mistake. Please do some testing of your own, since
you seem to have the resources.

If I am wrong then show me some evidence that
any of the cartridges used in any of my comparisons were
likely to have accounted for the substantial differences
heard under blind conditions.

Since the listening evaluation was perforce defective (i.e., not a DBT when
DBTs are completely feasible) I need not step up to a challenge based on
defective evaluations.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


But in the absence of any actual measurements of two or
more units it is hardly fair to draw any meaningful
conclusions.

That speaks to the information that is available to you, due to your
inability to gather your own information.

By the way this can be addressed in the setup if one has
an azimuth adjustment. But I can assure you the
differences I heard could not be explained by a channel
imbalance.

The idea that someone can say what a subtle sound is, or is not, has been
repeatedly disproved.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 10, 8:14*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



But in the absence of any actual measurements of two or
more units it is hardly fair to draw any meaningful
conclusions.

That speaks to the information that is available to you, due to your
inability to gather your own information.

How about supporting this assertion by providing us with meaningful
varifiable measurements. so far you have been a consistant no show
when asked for such things. Which again shows evidence of your
willingness to move the goal posts to suit your prejudices. This is a
classic fallacy in any argument.


By the way this can be addressed in the setup if one has
an azimuth adjustment. But I can assure you the
differences I heard could not be explained by a channel
imbalance.

The idea that someone can say what a subtle sound is, or is not, has been
repeatedly disproved.

Who said anything about subtle?