Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aac51d2.31855500@localhost...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:15:09 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


OK, I have recorded identical samples with and without Tic Tacs and
there's
not an iota of difference that I can hear.

And here's another pair of traces of difference, this time microphony.
The turntable is not spinning - the stylus is simply sitting on a
stationary record, responding to reasonably loud room noises.

The blue trace shows the flat platter, the green is the six-point
suspension.


How did you get 6 points of contact? I use 3 Tic Tacs for obvious reasons!


So much for the record not acting as a diaphragm in this
condition.


I have no doubt that a record deck (needle down) makes a good 'transducer'
but the word is still *discernable*...???

???



There is a little hum spike there that I really ought to deal with.


http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphony.gif


That ain't hum - this is **hummmm**:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Hum.jpg


(At the end of the side, before and after 'auto-return'... :-)

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:13:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa94700.29085171@localhost...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:15:09 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
All sounds typically very scary, but my suspicion is that no normal
person would be able to tell the difference between a record played
directly on the mat/platter/whatever and the same record lifted up on,
say, only three bearing points.

You certainly will if you wind up the wick. It will feed back. Unless
in
a
well sealed enclosure. It acts beautifully as a diaphragm.


Well aware (after nearly half a century as a user) that a record deck
can
act as a transducer but the question is still the is any FB
discernable
in normal use or even wicked up?

I might give it a go later but I notice the mint imperials haven't been
opened and I don't like them anyway, so it'll have to be with Tic
Tacs...



OK, I have recorded identical samples with and without Tic Tacs and
there's
not an iota of difference that I can hear.

Pic of the *unopened* Mint Imperials and the Tic Tacs in situ on my Show N
Tell page, along with the samples which, unfortunately, all have a ton of
hum that I didn't know I was getting! (Hasty wiring to this computer - I
was
cutting grass at the time!!)

But hum or no, the samples are of an identical recording setup and are
good
enough for a quick comparison!



I've done the same thing here, but I've measured what happens.

Two recordings, both of the same piece of silence between tracks 1 and
2 of a typical record. Then invert one channel and sum to mono. That
gives the vertical movement of the stylus - which is what this is all
about.


It is? I thought it was all about what you might or might not be able to
*hear*, not measure...??


I've been through that - and the mechanism. I'm doing the
measurements. This is all about how much of the systems performance is
used up in just dealing with the inaudible nonsense provided by this
ridiculous turntable.



Now downsample to 200Hz to see low frequencies nicely, and take an FFT
of both recordings. Here is the result:

http://81.174.169.10/odds/six.gif

First, at the expected 3.3Hz, we have a level about 22dB higher on the
point-suspended disc (that is nearly ten times the voltage for the
preamp to contend with), but a similar difference continues all the
way down in the general subsonic rumble area. I have to say I wasn't
actually expecting it to be quite that much worse. I now think I
wouldn't take one of these turntables as a gift.


I'm not sure ****ing about with the 'silence' is really where it counts -
that's for geeks; I rely on the music to soak up all sorts of **** when I'm
listening to it on LP...!! :-)


Of course.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:18:20 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aac51d2.31855500@localhost...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:15:09 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


OK, I have recorded identical samples with and without Tic Tacs and
there's
not an iota of difference that I can hear.

And here's another pair of traces of difference, this time microphony.
The turntable is not spinning - the stylus is simply sitting on a
stationary record, responding to reasonably loud room noises.

The blue trace shows the flat platter, the green is the six-point
suspension.


How did you get 6 points of contact? I use 3 Tic Tacs for obvious reasons!


I used six small cork discs that were once under chair legs until they
lost their sticky.


So much for the record not acting as a diaphragm in this
condition.


I have no doubt that a record deck (needle down) makes a good 'transducer'
but the word is still *discernable*...???

???

Oh yes. Especially if you wind up the volume a bit. I tried and with
the pointy suspension it did not to be terribly loud before feedback
howl started.




There is a little hum spike there that I really ought to deal with.


http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphony.gif


That ain't hum - this is **hummmm**:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Hum.jpg


(At the end of the side, before and after 'auto-return'... :-)


Oh, that really isn't pretty.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


I have yet to
hear any *audible* consequence therefrom, but what were
the records? I'm always curious!!


Given all the other bad things that happen naturally while vinyl is being
played...

But, here's a better test.

(1) Support the LP around the edges, not in the middle of the grooves as
shown by the picture on your web site.

(2) With the lid open and the room quiet, record a quiet groove being
played.

(3) With the lid open and the room filled with the sound of say, pink
noise, record the same quiet groove being played.


Forget all that, all I'm interested in is whether or not one can actually
*hear* the difference between point support and flat on the platter when
listening (without a lid). You obviously managed to find your way to my
picture and sound samples - it's this simple: which of the 3 clips are with
the record flat on the mat and which are on the Tic Tacs? Can you *in any
way shape* tell?

For the rest, here are the samples:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample1.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample2.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample3.mp3

As per:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...tImperials.jpg

(Note the Mint Imperials are *unopened*! ;-)

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:32:43 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
"Keith G" wrote in message


I have yet to
hear any *audible* consequence therefrom, but what were
the records? I'm always curious!!


Given all the other bad things that happen naturally while vinyl is being
played...

But, here's a better test.

(1) Support the LP around the edges, not in the middle of the grooves as
shown by the picture on your web site.

(2) With the lid open and the room quiet, record a quiet groove being
played.

(3) With the lid open and the room filled with the sound of say, pink
noise, record the same quiet groove being played.


Forget all that, all I'm interested in is whether or not one can actually
*hear* the difference between point support and flat on the platter when
listening (without a lid). You obviously managed to find your way to my
picture and sound samples - it's this simple: which of the 3 clips are with
the record flat on the mat and which are on the Tic Tacs? Can you *in any
way shape* tell?

For the rest, here are the samples:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample1.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample2.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample3.mp3

As per:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...tImperials.jpg

(Note the Mint Imperials are *unopened*! ;-)


I'm going for No 2 being the Mint Imperial recording. The problem is
that with only 3 supports, the rumble peak is at half the frequency,
which makes it harder to see.

d

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:18:20 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


That ain't hum - this is **hummmm**:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Hum.jpg


(At the end of the side, before and after 'auto-return'... :-)


Oh, that really isn't pretty.


My own fault: that is a 'secondary' deck and is amplified in my room on the
AV and radio setup. I yanked the phono leads and ran a 10m phono lead
through to the amplifer on the computer in this room - basically, the earth
was going one way; the signal was going the other!

Like I said, I was cutting the grass - popping in to start each recording
without checking anything and only found the hum when it was too late! No
big deal, all the recordings are identical other than the Tic Tacs/rubber
mat thing.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aad73cb.40552140@localhost...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:32:43 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Forget all that, all I'm interested in is whether or not one can actually
*hear* the difference between point support and flat on the platter when
listening (without a lid). You obviously managed to find your way to my
picture and sound samples - it's this simple: which of the 3 clips are
with
the record flat on the mat and which are on the Tic Tacs? Can you *in any
way shape* tell?

For the rest, here are the samples:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample1.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample2.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample3.mp3

As per:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...tImperials.jpg

(Note the Mint Imperials are *unopened*! ;-)


I'm going for No 2 being the Mint Imperial recording. The problem is
that with only 3 supports, the rumble peak is at half the frequency,
which makes it harder to see.


Whaaa...??

OK. I'm not going to drag this out - Recording No. 1 was on the 3 Tic Tacs.
(Not Mint Imperials - I bloody said they were *not* opened!!) The other two
clips (nos 2 and 3) were both with the record flat on the mat. (I did 3
separate recordings to throw you clever 'analysis' buggers off! ;-)

The thing is, forgetting the measurements and pretty pictures for a moment,
who TF can tell any difference simply by listening?

The really stupid thing is the 'Tic Tac' recording ***almost*** sounds a
leetle bit better than the other two, to me...!!!???

(Which is why I don't knock people who like to buy snake oil products, when
they are absolutely certain they hear improvements! ;-)

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:59:18 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aad73cb.40552140@localhost...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:32:43 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Forget all that, all I'm interested in is whether or not one can actually
*hear* the difference between point support and flat on the platter when
listening (without a lid). You obviously managed to find your way to my
picture and sound samples - it's this simple: which of the 3 clips are
with
the record flat on the mat and which are on the Tic Tacs? Can you *in any
way shape* tell?

For the rest, here are the samples:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample1.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample2.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...onsSample3.mp3

As per:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...tImperials.jpg

(Note the Mint Imperials are *unopened*! ;-)


I'm going for No 2 being the Mint Imperial recording. The problem is
that with only 3 supports, the rumble peak is at half the frequency,
which makes it harder to see.


Whaaa...??

OK. I'm not going to drag this out - Recording No. 1 was on the 3 Tic Tacs.
(Not Mint Imperials - I bloody said they were *not* opened!!) The other two
clips (nos 2 and 3) were both with the record flat on the mat. (I did 3
separate recordings to throw you clever 'analysis' buggers off! ;-)

The thing is, forgetting the measurements and pretty pictures for a moment,
who TF can tell any difference simply by listening?

The really stupid thing is the 'Tic Tac' recording ***almost*** sounds a
leetle bit better than the other two, to me...!!!???

(Which is why I don't knock people who like to buy snake oil products, when
they are absolutely certain they hear improvements! ;-)




I already said the effect was in itself inaudible. It is the large
signal handling that is compromised. Hefty bass will tend to overload
prematurely.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


I have yet to
hear any *audible* consequence therefrom, but what were
the records? I'm always curious!!


Given all the other bad things that happen naturally
while vinyl is being played...

But, here's a better test.

(1) Support the LP around the edges, not in the middle
of the grooves as shown by the picture on your web site.

(2) With the lid open and the room quiet, record a quiet
groove being played.

(3) With the lid open and the room filled with the sound
of say, pink noise, record the same quiet groove being
played.


Forget all that, all I'm interested in is whether or not
one can actually *hear* the difference between point
support and flat on the platter when listening (without a
lid).

Well, if you want people to compare audio samples, they should be as alike
as possible aside from the difference being investigated.

These obviously aren't all that similar.

Looks like the needle was dropped on the record at different points.

You obviously managed to find your way to my
picture and sound samples - it's this simple: which of
the 3 clips are with the record flat on the mat and which
are on the Tic Tacs? Can you *in any way shape* tell?

Sample 2 seems to be the most different from the rest.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
...
Keith G said...

Which are on really *whippy* vinyl but which are beautifully recorded
and
sound fine! (I might use that one for the Tic Tac Test later!)


I did - see other posts.



I have the first
Now That's What I Call Music
Virgin Now 1
which is a double album from 1983 and quite floppy, but sounds very good
indeed, it has been very carefully equalised/mastered to fit 8 x 3/4
minute tracks on each side. Comparison with these versions and the
originals on 12" 45 or cd reveals a huge reduction in the bass but the
Now versions sound faster and not so cumbersome and in many ways
preferable.


OK, good.




And some will hang like an uncooked pizza - I have yet to hear any
*audible*
consequence therefrom,

Can't say that I've ever noticed anything either. Though I suspect that
the later thinner lp's don't seem to be so susceptible to damage,
different formulation of springier vinyl perhaps?


Yes, the thinner discs do seem to be less 'sooty/carbony' than some of the
earlier, more rigid pressings and they do certainly feel more pliable and
robust. Try this - bend one of the 'thinnies' in half 'til the edges touch,
then let it spring back and put it on and play it!! :-)

(The only music medium of today that will still work a thousand years from
now!! ;-)



I'm currently using a record mat made from a nylon? mesh covered with
foamed plastic, this seems to make a noticeable reduction in surface
noise, though it may be due to the change in tracking angle caused by
the extra height or both, whatever?


Could be - you'd have to play with the VTA and SRA (rake) to see what works
best. I've used all sorts of platters and mats - all the way from a massive
acrylic platter with a clamp (as Don rightly says) to the inverted tin lid
I've got on my current setup and I really can't say there's been the sort of
difference that a lost of people and most magazines get into a piff about.

One thing I do know is for seriously fast bass you need a massive plinth and
no suspension at all!



I'm pretty pleased with the sound
I'm getting from my humble Pioneer PL-112D and Audio Technica AT110E


I'm not surprised, you've got good, honest kit there - I'm a *big* fan of
the AT110E myself!




but what were the records? I'm always curious!!

The 1965 was bought because it is a 10" 33rpm and in superb condition.
Good string sound and a very nice mono recording had me tangoing around
with walking stick.
Mantovani and His Orchestra
Selection from album of Favourite Tango's
Decca LF.1175


Mantovani is always a delight, I have a superb 'round the world' boxed set
as well as a few 'loose' discs.


The 1966 was acquired because I love Judith Durham's soaring voice.
Also very good condition, not a tick or pop to be heard.

The Seekers
Come the Day
Columbia SCX 6093


OK, if you like 'soaring', try Nana Moussaka:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...eature=related

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article ,
Patrick James wrote:
You can't be serious? Unless only using headphones. Mounting the disc
like that turns it into a near perfect diaphragm. Causing feedback at
very modest levels. Then there's the likelyhood of smashing the pickup
to bits if being slightly careless when playing a 7". Then there's the
care needed when closing the lid to avoid the pickup jumping - those
soft springs cause the whole unit to tilt alarmingly.

It always amuses me how on Usenet people will present themselves as
experts on things that they have so little knowledge about.

Yes indeed. And you're about to demonstrate this...

The LP does not behave like a diaphram on the platter for the very
simple reason that for an LP to behave like a diaphram it would need to
be *secured* at the edge, like a drum skin for example.

Really? Is a loudspeaker cone 'secured' at the edge? Hint. It's not - if
anything it's secured by the spider in the middle. But works very
effectively as a microphone. In just the same sort of way as a pickup does
on a poorly supported disc.

Your imagination is running away with you.

Not imagination, pet. I'd demonstrate it here on a Transcriptors - if I
could be bothered. But I heard it often enough to know I'm right.

The Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference does not have soft springs at all.
The later Michell versions did have leaf springs which were soft, but
the Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference sits on three fairly hard feet
which have rubber at the bottom.

So they fixed one problem. Which it should never have been released with.


As an aside and a credit to Michell Engineering the soft leaf springs
they introduced were very good. However if you popped into a shop or
something and just played around with a Michell Hydraulic Reference
then you might have thought that it was as Dave has imagined.

Playing singles places the stylus at no risk any differently than with
a rubber platter that was common at the time. Remember that when the
Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference was intruduced all turntables
supported the platter on ridges or points. This is true of the Garrard
401, the Thorens turntables etc.

But didn't have sodding great weights which could smash the pickup to
pieces. The worst that could happen was a damaged stylus.

Oddly enough dropping the cartidge on the platter of the THR was less
likely to damage the stylus because the weights just bob the arm out of
the way. Dropping the stylus on a rubber ridged platter would see the
being battered to death. It is true that dropping styli on any platter
without a record is not a good idea :)

You're mad.

So here in Daves post are the usual tedious things people say about
Transcriptor turntables when they have no experience of them or perhaps
just saw one in a shop once.

Err, haven't you read my posts? I have one.

I am going to address a couple of other points I saw in the thread.

The turntable was not designed to be a prop for a set used in Clockwork
Orange. Kubrik loved this turntable and used it a set.

Or perhaps just the production designer liked it? They're known for
preferring looks over engineering...

Another in the thread has pointed out that when the turntable was
introduced and sold records were much thicker than those sold, say, in
the eighties or nineties. This is very true indeed, and the very thin
records of the eighties were a major reason why turntable
manufactureres stopped using point suspension or ridged suspension.

Err, what other maker used it? The vast majority have conventional
turntables. For good reasons. Oh - I've been buying records from *well*
before the 'eighties and nineties' and there wasn't a universal reduction
in thickness.

As a return to that issue it is worth remembering that in the seventies
(and indeed early eighties) point or ribbed suspension was considered a
good thing because it meant that the record was not sitting right on
top of a potential dusty platter. Build up of dust on records was a
great concern in the seventies because people were not as precious with
them as they are today.

Worth remembering something you've just invented? Mats on turntables come
in all varieties. Some using just plain felt. But a ribbed design supports
the LP over most of its area - not in six points.

Now I hope to give a brief idea of just how great an advance in
turntable design the THR represented. It was in fact the brain child of
a brilliant engineer called David Gammon, who very sadly passed away a
few months ago. It was David Gammon's intention to make a turntable
which provided better speed stability and minimised rumble to an extent
far greater than that of any other available turntable. He achieved
this by applying plain engineering science to the device with an
uprecedented thoroughness. In fact the unconventionl appearance of the
THR is because it is the first turntable in which form follows
function. Previously turntables had been designed firstly with a view
to how they look, then the mechanism fitted into that design.

That would be fine if the results supported the claims. But they don't.

David Gammon knew that attaching the mechanism to a wooden box for a
chassis was crazy. The wooden box simply amplifies the sounds of the
mechanism. So with the THR the plinth is plywood laminated with an
acrylic layer creating a highly damped non resonant base. Remember that
this is in the sixties, no other turntable manufacturer was exploring
these ideas.

What noise does a mechanism make?

First lets look at platter design which has caused such consternation
for some. The common way to make a platter in the sixties was just to
cast one, fairly thin in a drum shape, aka Garrard and others. However
those designs were very resonant, indeed flicking the edge would cause
them to ring sometimes. David Gammon did not want a resonating platter.
He knew that any, even partial, air enclosure within the platter was a
potential cause of resonance, so in fact he designed a platter which
did not enclose air and which was acoustically inherently "dead".

More ********.

The platter is very heavy (12 kg) and most of the weight is at the
periphery. It has a huge moment of inertia compared with other
turntables of the time. In fact the moment of inertia is very great
even by today's standards. This, of course, was to facilitate
exceptional speed stability. Wow and flutter is extroadinarily low with
the THR even compared with many quality turntables in manufacture today.

To give you an idea of the attention to detail on these issues. The
pinion for the belt on the motor is attached using a screw aligned with
the axis. Other belt drive turntables would attach the pinion with a
grub screw at 90 degrees to the axis. That was easier, but if you
attach a pinion the second way the tightening of the screw moves the
pinion off-axis such that it become eccentric, albeit to a tiny degree.
However David Gammon would not have even the possibility of that kind
of speed instability even that small.

The THR was and is probably the single most influential turntable
design.

You really must stop believing adverts. And quoting them wholesale here.

The other is the Thorens upon which the Linn Sondek was
famously based. However the Linn is the only turntable inspired by the
Thorens whereas very many turntables available today are facsimiles in
one form or another of the THR.

If you do get hold of a THR in good condition (not necessarily mine)
and you set it up correctly then you will be simply amazed at how good
it sounds. You will be immediately in love with it.

Seems you're pretty well on your own here. Have you read any of the other
comments?

The record won't magically become a diaphram, it won't wobble around in
some mysterious way, the stylus won't mysteriously dive bomb the
platter...

I can only assume you never used the thing. Otherwise you'd have found out
its many flaws in seconds. So it must mean you're trying to hype up the
bids.

The biggest laugh is calling it a transcriptor - when no professional ever
used it for this purpose.

Anyway I won't be posting again in this thread so please do enjoy music
no matter what the medium!
--
Patrick

--
*My dog can lick anyone

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Well aware (after nearly half a century as a user) that a record deck
can act as a transducer but the question is still the is any FB
discernable in normal use or even wicked up?

Yes - because it's not supported properly it can vibrate in tune with
the speakers more easily. Thought you'd have realised that. Of course
you can improve matters by using something underneath the LP to give
more support. After you've adjusted the pickup to suit, obviously.


The word *discernable* (ie by ear in normal use) is where it hangs; not
whether or not the LP is the only thing in a soundfield that might *not*
be vibrating sympathetically!

Trouble is if the LP 'vibrates sympathetically' this is amplified by the
pickup.

But all you have to do is lower the pickup onto a stationary disc,
increase the gain and note the point feedback occurs. Then do the same
with a good conventional turntable. The difference is so great even you
will note it. With a decent turntable this will likely be at a higher gain
setting that you'd ever use for listening. With the Transcriptor, not.

My pal who had one used to record to tape so he could listen at a
reasonable level...

--
*On the seventh day He brewed beer *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote


Well, if you want people to compare audio samples, they should be as alike
as possible aside from the difference being investigated.

These obviously aren't all that similar.


Don't see how I could have made them more similar - play the same side of
the record three times on the trot without checking or changing a single
thing!!??



Looks like the needle was dropped on the record at different points.


It was: some way ahead of the section I used; three times in a row without
changing anything or even listening to it - is how I got the hum all the way
through it. I was outside cutting the grass!



You obviously managed to find your way to my
picture and sound samples - it's this simple: which of
the 3 clips are with the record flat on the mat and which
are on the Tic Tacs? Can you *in any way shape* tell?

Sample 2 seems to be the most different from the rest.


Nope, 2 and 3 were separate 'on the mat' recordings; No. 1 was the Tic Tac
recording.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


Sample 2 seems to be the most different from the rest.

Nope, 2 and 3 were separate 'on the mat' recordings; No.
1 was the Tic Tac recording.

I've already taken exception to how the tic tacs were deployed.

It appears that aside from all that, there's quite a bit of random variation
in what you get when you play a LP over and over again.

Other uncontrolled variables?

The sound of the lawn mower???

Your idea of playing from well before the area being tested is a good one.

When you get results like these, after you check out the possiblity of
uncontrolled variables, you just make a large number of trials both ways and
hope the difference due to the dependent variable averages out.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

Malcolm Lee wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Eiron wrote:
UnsteadyKen wrote:
Don Pearce said...

Hold an LP up balanced on two fingers at opposite edges - you will see
how much it sags quite easily. Obviously it doesn't sag as much as
that with six suspension points, but it sags much more than enough to
generate a huge signal.
The Hydraulic was designed for the thick'n sturdy pre 73 oil crisis
discs which are a totally different animal to the later floppies.

I got a couple of lp's last week, a Decca ffrr from 1965 and a bog
standard EMI Columbia from 1966 and neither droops on your finger tip
test, on the contrary significant pressure has to be applied to deform
them.
I just rested an LP on two points. The centre drooped by 4mm.
Of course UnsteadyKen didn't measure anything....


I've just rested my LP ("With The Beatles" Mono PMC 1206 pressed
in 1964) on two points. The centre drooped by maybe 0.2mm.

Of course Eiron generalises from his limited personal experience
to the universal...

No, I just picked the nearest LP, 'The Piper at The Gates of Dawn',
from the double reissue 'A Nice Pair', bought in about 1975.
I have a couple of copies of 'With The Beatles'. I'll measure their droop tomorrow.

--
Eiron.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


Sample 2 seems to be the most different from the rest.

Nope, 2 and 3 were separate 'on the mat' recordings; No.
1 was the Tic Tac recording.

I've already taken exception to how the tic tacs were deployed.


I guess it was more Rega Planet than Transcriptors...??



It appears that aside from all that, there's quite a bit of random
variation in what you get when you play a LP over and over again.


Yes, clips 2 and 3 should overlay identically but they don't.

It is arguable that, for one reason or another, we will never hear the same
bit of music sound *exactly* the same on subsequent playings in our entire
lifetimes, but we will think it does every time we hear it....

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Well aware (after nearly half a century as a user) that a record deck
can act as a transducer but the question is still the is any FB
discernable in normal use or even wicked up?

Yes - because it's not supported properly it can vibrate in tune with
the speakers more easily. Thought you'd have realised that. Of course
you can improve matters by using something underneath the LP to give
more support. After you've adjusted the pickup to suit, obviously.


The word *discernable* (ie by ear in normal use) is where it hangs; not
whether or not the LP is the only thing in a soundfield that might *not*
be vibrating sympathetically!

Trouble is if the LP 'vibrates sympathetically' this is amplified by the
pickup.

But all you have to do is lower the pickup onto a stationary disc,
increase the gain and note the point feedback occurs. Then do the same
with a good conventional turntable. The difference is so great even you
will note it. With a decent turntable this will likely be at a higher gain
setting that you'd ever use for listening. With the Transcriptor, not.

My pal who had one used to record to tape so he could listen at a
reasonable level...


My experience is that 'airborne FB' only occurs at volumes *way beyond* even
loud listening levels, so I've just checked with and without Tic Tacs and
find there's not a great deal in it 'volumewise' and it is way up there past
any setting I'm likely to use, but I'm quite surprised to discover that a
lid appears to do nothing to prevent FB and really only alters the pitch -
on my little Technics deck!

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

Eiron said...

Of course UnsteadyKen didn't measure anything....

No, I supported the record on 3 matchsticks at the outer rim and found
that a wine glass placed on the label had to be half filled before the
lp bent enought for the label to touch the surface.

As it was in reply to a post in which is was postulated that the record
would "sag" between the support points enough for this to be detectable
by the stylus, I didn't bother hunting in the cutlery drawer for the
miniature inside calipers.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

UnsteadyKen said...

lp bent enought for the label to touch the surface.

A correction.

As per Jim's suggestion:
I've just checked that lp with a straight edge and
the label is lower than the rim by about 1or 2 mm i.e. the straight edge
cleared the label by that amount, so it must have been bending a teeny
bit more than I first thought.

I pulled another one out, (The Strawbs - Deep Cuts, Keith) a much
thinner 1976 pressing and found that on that one the straight edge just
rested on label and cleared the groove guards by about 1 mm.

So, based on a sample of two I think we can conclude that LP records are
vaguely circular, have a hole near the middle and some appear to made
from recycled bin liners.

And most are not flat.

http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=104


--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article , UnsteadyKen
wrote:
UnsteadyKen said...

lp bent enought for the label to touch the surface.

A correction.

As per Jim's suggestion: I've just checked that lp with a straight edge
and the label is lower than the rim by about 1or 2 mm i.e. the straight
edge cleared the label by that amount, so it must have been bending a
teeny bit more than I first thought.

I pulled another one out, (The Strawbs - Deep Cuts, Keith) a much
thinner 1976 pressing and found that on that one the straight edge just
rested on label and cleared the groove guards by about 1 mm.

I've not measured this for any of the LPs I have, but the above seems
consistent with my own impressions. No doubt some LPs will be stiffer and
droop less, others more.

Similarly, I wasn't surprised that you may not havbe noticed this simply by
eyeball. It can be quite hard to see a smooth and uniform deformation of
the shape of something like an LP.

So, based on a sample of two I think we can conclude that LP records are
vaguely circular, have a hole near the middle and some appear to made
from recycled bin liners.

And most are not flat.

I reached the above conclusions some decades ago. :-) In fact, I went on
to decide that many of the LPs I bought had to be returned for a
replacement due to problems like audibly off-center holes, warps, and
assorted swishes, clicks, etc. One had a label so far off center that it
was pressed into the grooves.

http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=104

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On 2009-09-10, Eiron wrote:
Malcolm Lee wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Eiron wrote:
UnsteadyKen wrote:
Don Pearce said...

Hold an LP up balanced on two fingers at opposite edges - you will see
how much it sags quite easily. Obviously it doesn't sag as much as
that with six suspension points, but it sags much more than enough to
generate a huge signal.
The Hydraulic was designed for the thick'n sturdy pre 73 oil crisis
discs which are a totally different animal to the later floppies.

I got a couple of lp's last week, a Decca ffrr from 1965 and a bog
standard EMI Columbia from 1966 and neither droops on your finger tip
test, on the contrary significant pressure has to be applied to deform
them.
I just rested an LP on two points. The centre drooped by 4mm.
Of course UnsteadyKen didn't measure anything....


I've just rested my LP ("With The Beatles" Mono PMC 1206 pressed
in 1964) on two points. The centre drooped by maybe 0.2mm.

Of course Eiron generalises from his limited personal experience
to the universal...

No, I just picked the nearest LP, 'The Piper at The Gates of Dawn',
from the double reissue 'A Nice Pair', bought in about 1975.
I have a couple of copies of 'With The Beatles'. I'll measure their droop tomorrow.


Ken was specifically talking about pre 73 LPs which is why I chose
the album I did. I also checked another 20 or so 60's/early 70's
LPs and the max droop at the centre was about 1mm. The LPs I
measured from the mid 70s drooped about 4mm. The thickness of the
mid 70s LPs was about 0.75mm and of the 60s LPs about 1.5mm.

Your "With the Beatles" need to be original 60's pressings - the
later re-pressings seem to be just as thin and droopy as other
post 73 albums.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Patrick James
wrote:


The LP does not behave like a diaphram on the platter for the very
simple reason that for an LP to behave like a diaphram it would need
to be *secured* at the edge, like a drum skin for example.

Really? Is a loudspeaker cone 'secured' at the edge? Hint. It's not - if
anything it's secured by the spider in the middle. But works very
effectively as a microphone. In just the same sort of way as a pickup
does on a poorly supported disc.

The problem does seem to be that Patrick has simply defined the word
'diaphragm' simply so he can say that an LP isn't one. Thus evading the
more significant point that the LP mounted a la the Transcriptor can indeed
vibrate in response to acoustic energy.


Another in the thread has pointed out that when the turntable was
introduced and sold records were much thicker than those sold, say, in
the eighties or nineties. This is very true indeed, and the very thin
records of the eighties were a major reason why turntable
manufactureres stopped using point suspension or ridged suspension.

Actually he said "pre 73" not "mid eighties" IIRC.

Err, what other maker used it? The vast majority have conventional
turntables. For good reasons. Oh - I've been buying records from *well*
before the 'eighties and nineties' and there wasn't a universal
reduction in thickness.

I have a feeling that the highly regarded audio maker, Amstrad, also made a
look-alike with multiple point support for the LP. They came up with a
hilarious technogabble description of it IIRC. I'll see if I can find a
copy of the advert I have in mind as it was very funny. This was about the
time Alan Sugar was apparently telling his 'engineers' that if other makers
had four knobs on their amp, he had to have five or six. Didn't matter what
they did, just more knobs. :-)

As a return to that issue it is worth remembering that in the
seventies (and indeed early eighties) point or ribbed suspension was
considered a good thing because it meant that the record was not
sitting right on top of a potential dusty platter. Build up of dust
on records was a great concern in the seventies because people were
not as precious with them as they are today.

Worth remembering something you've just invented? Mats on turntables
come in all varieties. Some using just plain felt. But a ribbed design
supports the LP over most of its area - not in six points.

Actually my impression is that suspending the LP in open are might make the
dust problems *worse*. Reason being attraction to open surfaces by static.
A good mat may be slightly conductive so tend to remove charge as well as
cover the surface.


David Gammon knew that attaching the mechanism to a wooden box for a
chassis was crazy. The wooden box simply amplifies the sounds of the
mechanism. So with the THR the plinth is plywood laminated with an
acrylic layer creating a highly damped non resonant base. Remember
that this is in the sixties, no other turntable manufacturer was
exploring these ideas.

What noise does a mechanism make?

I'm curious about the common confusion of physics here that a wooden box
will 'amplify' the sounds. No doubt this is due to an inapporiate analogy
with things like acoustic instruments.

First lets look at platter design which has caused such consternation
for some. The common way to make a platter in the sixties was just to
cast one, fairly thin in a drum shape, aka Garrard and others. However
those designs were very resonant, indeed flicking the edge would
cause them to ring sometimes. David Gammon did not want a resonating
platter. He knew that any, even partial, air enclosure within the
platter was a potential cause of resonance, so in fact he designed a
platter which did not enclose air and which was acoustically
inherently "dead".

More ********.

Not necessarily. Maybe he just wanted to focus on allowing the LP to
vibrate. However maybe his idea would have worked if only used by people
living in anechoic chambers. ;- ...oh hang on, bugger, the stylus will
also generate vibrations. So no stylus contact either, I'm afraid, for his
(alledged) idea to work.

The platter is very heavy (12 kg) and most of the weight is at the
periphery. It has a huge moment of inertia compared with other
turntables of the time. In fact the moment of inertia is very great
even by today's standards. This, of course, was to facilitate
exceptional speed stability. Wow and flutter is extroadinarily low
with the THR even compared with many quality turntables in
manufacture today.

I still have a Goldring-Lenco GL75 somewhere. That also had a very high
intertia. Worked quite well in its day. But lacked the eye-appeal of the
Transcriptor I guess. :-)


The THR was and is probably the single most influential turntable
design.

You really must stop believing adverts. And quoting them wholesale here.

Well, Alan Sugar may have been impressed... or at least decided his punters
would be. :-)

The other is the Thorens upon which the Linn Sondek was famously
based. However the Linn is the only turntable inspired by the Thorens
whereas very many turntables available today are facsimiles in one
form or another of the THR.

Erm. I have the feeling that the Linn was also based on another deck whose
name is now largely forgotten. I seem to recall some patent arguments about
this which only stopped when the (probable) real inventor died. There were
some interesting reports on this some years later by Barry Fox IIRC.

Anyway I won't be posting again in this thread so please do enjoy
music no matter what the medium! -- Patrick

Good luck, I'm sure you will find a buyer.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , UnsteadyKen
wrote:
Don Pearce said...

Hold an LP up balanced on two fingers at opposite edges - you will
see how much it sags quite easily. Obviously it doesn't sag as much
as that with six suspension points, but it sags much more than
enough to generate a huge signal.

The Hydraulic was designed for the thick'n sturdy pre 73 oil crisis
discs which are a totally different animal to the later floppies.

My unreliable recollection is that many 'pre 73' LPs were far from
flat, or even very thick.


I obviously don't know what records you bought in that era but I bought
(and still own and play) roughly 500 or so records made pre 73. I've
just rechecked a ramdom sample (20 or so) and all without exception are
very flat and quite thick.

I don't know how many I have pre 73. Probably only 100 or less as I
coudln't afford many in those days, and was deterred by how often I had to
return them (repeatedly) to try and get one without audible flaws. Nor do I
know what definitions you are using for 'flat' or 'thick'. But my own
impression is that records up to the mid 60s could be fairly 'thick' but
then got thinner and lighter.

Most are UK pop/rock but I also have a fair few classical and some US
rock imports. Even the very cheap classical (eg Fontana and Marble Arch)
are flat and are thick enough not to droop.

In my case it is probably about 50:50 classical:pop. Again my recollection
is that some of the thicker and flatter ones were actually cheap lables
like the 'Wing' label (Philips?) My impression was that this depended more
on the factory than the label as such.


I got a couple of lp's last week, a Decca ffrr from 1965 and a bog
standard EMI Columbia from 1966 and neither droops on your finger tip
test,

Weird. Most of the pre 73 LPs I have are ones I bought when they first
came on sale! :-)


It would be interesting to know which labels made the "floppy" pre 73
LPs you have - if I have any of the same I'll dig them out and check
mine.

Again, I'm not sure of your definition of 'floppy' here.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Eiron wrote:


I just rested an LP on two points. The centre drooped by 4mm. Of
course UnsteadyKen didn't measure anything....


I've just rested my LP ("With The Beatles" Mono PMC 1206 pressed in
1964) on two points. The centre drooped by maybe 0.2mm.

Of course Eiron generalises from his limited personal experience to the
universal...

I agree. One measurement isn't a good basis for generalisation. So here we
have two. Yours and his. The implication is that the droop varies over a
range convering from 0.2 to 4 mm.

At this point I have no measurements at all so can only go on my
impressions and the measurements people have kindly provided in this
thread.

BTW How flat was your LP when unsupported? Did you turn it over and repeat
the measurement? That seems like an obvious check for the effects of the LP
being inherently 'dished' by a small amount.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Eiron wrote:


I just rested an LP on two points. The centre drooped by 4mm. Of
course UnsteadyKen didn't measure anything....


I've just rested my LP ("With The Beatles" Mono PMC 1206 pressed in
1964) on two points. The centre drooped by maybe 0.2mm.

Of course Eiron generalises from his limited personal experience to the
universal...

I agree. One measurement isn't a good basis for generalisation. So here we
have two. Yours and his. The implication is that the droop varies over a
range convering from 0.2 to 4 mm.

At this point I have no measurements at all so can only go on my
impressions and the measurements people have kindly provided in this
thread.

BTW How flat was your LP when unsupported? Did you turn it over and repeat
the measurement? That seems like an obvious check for the effects of the LP
being inherently 'dished' by a small amount.

Slainte,

Jim


Yes, I measured both sides and averaged the droop. In fact some 60s
albums had a negative "droop" one way up - ie. they were slightly dished
so that when supported at two points on the edge, the centre was proud of
the edges.
The LP I mentioned above was one of these - about 1mm droop one way
and circa 0.6mm proud the other.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:58:20 +0100, Malcolm Lee
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Eiron wrote:


I just rested an LP on two points. The centre drooped by 4mm. Of
course UnsteadyKen didn't measure anything....


I've just rested my LP ("With The Beatles" Mono PMC 1206 pressed in
1964) on two points. The centre drooped by maybe 0.2mm.

Of course Eiron generalises from his limited personal experience to the
universal...

I agree. One measurement isn't a good basis for generalisation. So here we
have two. Yours and his. The implication is that the droop varies over a
range convering from 0.2 to 4 mm.

At this point I have no measurements at all so can only go on my
impressions and the measurements people have kindly provided in this
thread.

BTW How flat was your LP when unsupported? Did you turn it over and repeat
the measurement? That seems like an obvious check for the effects of the LP
being inherently 'dished' by a small amount.

Slainte,

Jim


Yes, I measured both sides and averaged the droop. In fact some 60s
albums had a negative "droop" one way up - ie. they were slightly dished
so that when supported at two points on the edge, the centre was proud of
the edges.
The LP I mentioned above was one of these - about 1mm droop one way
and circa 0.6mm proud the other.


Do bear in mind when measuring that the droop continues to increase
for quite some time. If you measure straight away, it will be an
under-measurement.

d

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
But all you have to do is lower the pickup onto a stationary disc,
increase the gain and note the point feedback occurs. Then do the same
with a good conventional turntable. The difference is so great even
you will note it. With a decent turntable this will likely be at a
higher gain setting that you'd ever use for listening. With the
Transcriptor, not.

My pal who had one used to record to tape so he could listen at a
reasonable level...


My experience is that 'airborne FB' only occurs at volumes *way beyond*
even loud listening levels, so I've just checked with and without Tic
Tacs and find there's not a great deal in it 'volumewise' and it is way
up there past any setting I'm likely to use, but I'm quite surprised to
discover that a lid appears to do nothing to prevent FB and really only
alters the pitch - on my little Technics deck!

Not sure using small spacers on an ordinary turntable reproduces the
Transcriptor 'experience'. The distance between record and the reflecting
surface of the turntable will make a difference to the resonant frequency
- as can any covering on the turntable.

All I can say is being utterly amazed some 30 odd years ago that this
incredibly expensive device could be so useless at doing its job. As if
the designer had never used it to play an actual record.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article 4aaa1236.6036468@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:58:20 +0100, Malcolm Lee
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:


BTW How flat was your LP when unsupported? Did you turn it over and
repeat the measurement? That seems like an obvious check for the
effects of the LP being inherently 'dished' by a small amount.

Yes, I measured both sides and averaged the droop.


Do bear in mind when measuring that the droop continues to increase for
quite some time. If you measure straight away, it will be an
under-measurement.

It occurs to me that, statistically, a simpler test might be useful. This
is simply to weigh each LP and note if the values change with year of
manufacture, etc. It won't allow for deliberately shaped discs, nor changes
in density or stiffness. But it would avoid the difficulty of trying to
allow for creep, departures from inherent flatness, etc, that can affect
measurements like the above.

That said, I'm not personally rushing to do any of this. :-) I rarely
bother with LPs these days. But I am interested in results people get.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:55:58 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article 4aaa1236.6036468@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:58:20 +0100, Malcolm Lee
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:


BTW How flat was your LP when unsupported? Did you turn it over and
repeat the measurement? That seems like an obvious check for the
effects of the LP being inherently 'dished' by a small amount.

Yes, I measured both sides and averaged the droop.


Do bear in mind when measuring that the droop continues to increase for
quite some time. If you measure straight away, it will be an
under-measurement.

It occurs to me that, statistically, a simpler test might be useful. This
is simply to weigh each LP and note if the values change with year of
manufacture, etc. It won't allow for deliberately shaped discs, nor changes
in density or stiffness. But it would avoid the difficulty of trying to
allow for creep, departures from inherent flatness, etc, that can affect
measurements like the above.

That said, I'm not personally rushing to do any of this. :-) I rarely
bother with LPs these days. But I am interested in results people get.


Oh, this is all pretty well academic only. Vinyl is not for quality
any more - it is for nostalgia and dinner party bragging rights. It
doesn't actually matter how saggy it is. In fact the way this all
works, somebody will soon be claiming that it actually enhances the
sound.

d

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

Not necessarily. Maybe he just wanted to focus on allowing the LP to
vibrate. However maybe his idea would have worked if only used by people
living in anechoic chambers. ;- ...oh hang on, bugger, the stylus will
also generate vibrations. So no stylus contact either, I'm afraid, for his
(alledged) idea to work.


Wasn't there a turntable in the seventies which dispensed with the stylus
altogether, using instead some sort of optical pickup? Called the Finial,
or something like that. Got reinvented and asked for more funding every six
months or so.
IIRC only one escaped and was reviewed in HFN - worked reasonably well, but
was completely defeated by surface pops which came out at ear-shattering
levels.

Geoff Mack

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article , Geoff Mackenzie
wrote:


Wasn't there a turntable in the seventies which dispensed with the
stylus altogether, using instead some sort of optical pickup? Called
the Finial, or something like that. Got reinvented and asked for more
funding every six months or so. IIRC only one escaped and was reviewed
in HFN - worked reasonably well, but was completely defeated by surface
pops which came out at ear-shattering levels.

IIRC a version was finally brought to market and sold (at a high price) to
libraries and archives where they wanted to transcribe historic relics with
zero risk of mechanical damage. I think it did require a combination of
ultra-clean surfaces and for the output to be edited to remove the
remaining clicks, etc.

Along the same lines I do have a book that recounts how some of the early
Baird experimental *video* recordings onto '78s' were recovered by optical
scanning and then reprocessing of the data to recover images. The results
showed that they system did work - provided original users were prepared to
wait decades until methods like the above had been developed for replay.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Patrick James
wrote:


The LP does not behave like a diaphram on the platter for the very
simple reason that for an LP to behave like a diaphram it would need
to be *secured* at the edge, like a drum skin for example.

Really? Is a loudspeaker cone 'secured' at the edge? Hint. It's not - if
anything it's secured by the spider in the middle. But works very
effectively as a microphone. In just the same sort of way as a pickup
does on a poorly supported disc.

The problem does seem to be that Patrick has simply defined the word
'diaphragm' simply so he can say that an LP isn't one. Thus evading the
more significant point that the LP mounted a la the Transcriptor can
indeed
vibrate in response to acoustic energy.


It has yet to be proved to me (at least) that this has any audible effect at
'normal' (even 'normal' to 'quite loud') listening levels, irrespective of
any wriggly lines on any graphs that anyone might want to wave about.


I have a feeling that the highly regarded audio maker, Amstrad, also made
a
look-alike with multiple point support for the LP. They came up with a
hilarious technogabble description of it IIRC. I'll see if I can find a
copy of the advert I have in mind as it was very funny. This was about the
time Alan Sugar was apparently telling his 'engineers' that if other
makers
had four knobs on their amp, he had to have five or six. Didn't matter
what
they did, just more knobs. :-)


'S'rallan' is the most consistent manufacturer in the history of consumer
electronics, AFAIC - he has yet to make anything that a) would interest me;
b) I would buy....

(Odious little barrow boy....)


big snip


Erm. I have the feeling that the Linn was also based on another deck whose
name is now largely forgotten. I seem to recall some patent arguments
about
this which only stopped when the (probable) real inventor died. There were
some interesting reports on this some years later by Barry Fox IIRC.


I think this is the one:

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...turntable.html



Anyway I won't be posting again in this thread so please do enjoy
music no matter what the medium! -- Patrick

Good luck, I'm sure you will find a buyer.


While the credit card statements with the holiday spending on are still
rolling in? Hmm, he might not or at least not to the level he was probably
hoping and 'collect only' from the outskirts of Timbuktu is a *sure way* of
decimating your potential customer base!! :-)

Good luck anyway, Patrick - I'm watching the auction!

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Geoff Mackenzie" wrote in message
...

Not necessarily. Maybe he just wanted to focus on allowing the LP to
vibrate. However maybe his idea would have worked if only used by people
living in anechoic chambers. ;- ...oh hang on, bugger, the stylus
will
also generate vibrations. So no stylus contact either, I'm afraid, for
his
(alledged) idea to work.


Wasn't there a turntable in the seventies which dispensed with the stylus
altogether, using instead some sort of optical pickup? Called the Finial,
or something like that. Got reinvented and asked for more funding every
six months or so.
IIRC only one escaped and was reviewed in HFN - worked reasonably well,
but was completely defeated by surface pops which came out at
ear-shattering levels.



All of that would be curable, but what's the point when a transcription can
be cleaned up sufficiently well after recording from a normal setup?

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

My experience is that 'airborne FB' only occurs at volumes *way beyond*
even loud listening levels, so I've just checked with and without Tic
Tacs and find there's not a great deal in it 'volumewise' and it is way
up there past any setting I'm likely to use, but I'm quite surprised to
discover that a lid appears to do nothing to prevent FB and really only
alters the pitch - on my little Technics deck!

Not sure using small spacers on an ordinary turntable reproduces the
Transcriptor 'experience'. The distance between record and the reflecting
surface of the turntable will make a difference to the resonant frequency
- as can any covering on the turntable.


No, you would have to use a Transcriptor to get a genuine 'Transcriptor
experience'! My larking about with mints was a curiosity thing - never
intended as anything like a 'scientific experiment'!!



All I can say is being utterly amazed some 30 odd years ago that this
incredibly expensive device could be so useless at doing its job. As if
the designer had never used it to play an actual record.


I've heard a couple of quick snatches at various times from my pal's
Transcriptor (a Frank Sinatra clip, one of the times) and there was
absolutely nothing outstanding about the sound produced, but I can't recall
the other components in the system....

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , UnsteadyKen
wrote:


I pulled another one out, (The Strawbs - Deep Cuts, Keith)


:-)

So, based on a sample of two I think we can conclude that LP records are
vaguely circular, have a hole near the middle and some appear to made
from recycled bin liners.

And most are not flat.


Sums it all up quite well, I'd say....



I reached the above conclusions some decades ago. :-) In fact, I went on
to decide that many of the LPs I bought had to be returned for a
replacement due to problems like audibly off-center holes, warps, and
assorted swishes, clicks, etc. One had a label so far off center that it
was pressed into the grooves.


This country had it sodding tough after the war and mass production of
anything had it moments of variability - the trick was to push through the
difficulties, make the best of what was often a less than perfect job and
forge ahead....

....'til that stupid bitch Maggie Thatcher came along and conned morons/chavs
into thinking they were too special to get their hands dirty, while
enslaving them to a lifetime of debt at the same time....

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Wasn't there a turntable in the seventies which dispensed with the
stylus altogether, using instead some sort of optical pickup? Called
the Finial, or something like that. Got reinvented and asked for
more funding every six months or so. IIRC only one escaped and was
reviewed in HFN - worked reasonably well, but was completely defeated
by surface pops which came out at ear-shattering levels.



All of that would be curable, but what's the point when a transcription
can be cleaned up sufficiently well after recording from a normal setup?

What's the point when a CD from the master does it all so much better?

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article 4aaa1236.6036468@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:58:20 +0100, Malcolm Lee
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:


BTW How flat was your LP when unsupported? Did you turn it over and
repeat the measurement? That seems like an obvious check for the
effects of the LP being inherently 'dished' by a small amount.

Yes, I measured both sides and averaged the droop.


Do bear in mind when measuring that the droop continues to increase for
quite some time. If you measure straight away, it will be an
under-measurement.

It occurs to me that, statistically, a simpler test might be useful. This
is simply to weigh each LP and note if the values change with year of
manufacture, etc. It won't allow for deliberately shaped discs, nor changes
in density or stiffness. But it would avoid the difficulty of trying to
allow for creep, departures from inherent flatness, etc, that can affect
measurements like the above.

That said, I'm not personally rushing to do any of this. :-) I rarely
bother with LPs these days. But I am interested in results people get.

Slainte,

Jim


I haven't got an accurate weighing machine but I do have a
micrometer. Given that an LPs thickness should correlate pretty well
with the square root of its weight it should amount to roughly the same
thing.

If you are really interested I can dig out a few "random" albums from
each decade from the 60's to the present and do the measurements. I'll
list album title, thickness (*), date of pressing, label and country of
origin (where known). Let me know.

Malcolm

* (measured about 1cm in from the edge avoiding the edge "lip")

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:38:03 +0100, Malcolm Lee
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article 4aaa1236.6036468@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:58:20 +0100, Malcolm Lee
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Malcolm Lee
wrote:


BTW How flat was your LP when unsupported? Did you turn it over and
repeat the measurement? That seems like an obvious check for the
effects of the LP being inherently 'dished' by a small amount.

Yes, I measured both sides and averaged the droop.


Do bear in mind when measuring that the droop continues to increase for
quite some time. If you measure straight away, it will be an
under-measurement.

It occurs to me that, statistically, a simpler test might be useful. This
is simply to weigh each LP and note if the values change with year of
manufacture, etc. It won't allow for deliberately shaped discs, nor changes
in density or stiffness. But it would avoid the difficulty of trying to
allow for creep, departures from inherent flatness, etc, that can affect
measurements like the above.

That said, I'm not personally rushing to do any of this. :-) I rarely
bother with LPs these days. But I am interested in results people get.

Slainte,

Jim


I haven't got an accurate weighing machine but I do have a
micrometer. Given that an LPs thickness should correlate pretty well
with the square root of its weight it should amount to roughly the same
thing.

If you are really interested I can dig out a few "random" albums from
each decade from the 60's to the present and do the measurements. I'll
list album title, thickness (*), date of pressing, label and country of
origin (where known). Let me know.

Malcolm

* (measured about 1cm in from the edge avoiding the edge "lip")

No, not the square root - the relationship is linear.

d

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I've heard a couple of quick snatches at various times from my pal's
Transcriptor (a Frank Sinatra clip, one of the times) and there was
absolutely nothing outstanding about the sound produced, but I can't
recall the other components in the system....

I've never been one to believe the 'magic' of any turntable started by
that ****** Tiefenbrun. Simply ask that it goes round at the correct
steady speed and doesn't introduce or allow any additional movement to the
disc. All of which just requires good basic engineering.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Wasn't there a turntable in the seventies which dispensed with the
stylus altogether, using instead some sort of optical pickup? Called
the Finial, or something like that. Got reinvented and asked for
more funding every six months or so. IIRC only one escaped and was
reviewed in HFN - worked reasonably well, but was completely defeated
by surface pops which came out at ear-shattering levels.



All of that would be curable, but what's the point when a transcription
can be cleaned up sufficiently well after recording from a normal setup?

What's the point when a CD from the master does it all so much better?



Those laser machines were (are?) pitched at people like large, important
libraries who are in the business of archiving rare and precious discs for
posterity which presumably have no surviving master tape and no CD version
exists thereof, other than one taken directly from playing the vinyl (or
even 78s) which I understand happens from time to time; Mahalia Jackson's
early stuff being a good example.

Interestingly, the 'no contact' laser is supposed to be the important
feature and major appeal of these machines to the very same people (Library
of Congress?) who are supposed to have grabbed up all the remaining supplies
of the recently-disappeared Shure V15/5...??

(See: http://www.loc.gov/rr/record/matrices2.html for an idea of the size of
the operation - 3,500,000 recordings so far??)