Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
...
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.


There's all sorts of horse**** to do with coupling/supporting records
(vacuums, clamps, felts, rubber mats, glass platters &c. &c.) and plenty of
followers of each and every 'theory' - you just go with what you like, I
find. And I have to say I have never been able to tell the difference
between similarly good recordings on the various thicknesses of vinyl - a
good example that springs to mind is a series of compilations called....

called....

erm...

heaves arse off chair and goes to look

'Reflections'! (CBS10034 to name but a few)

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 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.


And some will hang like an uncooked pizza - I have yet to hear any *audible*
consequence therefrom, but what were the records? I'm always curious!!

:-)

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"CJ" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


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. Might try it later with mint
imperials....



Using the mint imperials will indeed sound dreadful..


The mint imperials are out (see elsewhere) - do try and keep up!

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"Keith G" wrote


There's all sorts of horse**** to do with coupling/supporting records
(vacuums, clamps, felts, rubber mats, glass platters &c. &c.) and plenty
of followers of each and every 'theory' - you just go with what you like,
I find. And I have to say I have never been able to tell the difference
between similarly good recordings on the various thicknesses of vinyl - a
good example that springs to mind is a series of compilations called....

'Reflections'! (CBS10034 to name but a few)


Jeez, I just Googled and there's a fekk'n *pandemic* of them!!!

http://www.musicstack.com/listings.c...USD&aid=wax-fm

Can't speak for them all - I only had a couple of them and gave one of them
away!!

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
It was a triumph of style over function, designed to appeal to those
(who are still with us today, of course) to whom what a HiFi system
looks like is more important than what it sounds like.

In one. The ideal, of course, is something which works well *and* looks
good.


I'll defer to your knowledge of mechanics (etc), but why would he do
this if he (presumably) knew, like you, it's about the worst method
possible of supporting a record? A bit about the designer:

http://www.transcriptors.net/history.htm

I'd assume your answer would be to make as much money as possible? So,
they 'work' in that sense. Mitchell also made his designs it seems,
citing 'reduce electrostatic charge' as the reasoning behind the method.

Also, what's all that about the Design Council award - you can't award a
prize for design if the thing doesn't work?!

Mind you, having just looked at the Design Council's website, I'm not at
all confident in their design skills.

Rob

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

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 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.


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?

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

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

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



The worst sound in the world is someone saying:

"It took us two trips to the tip to dump all those lp's"

Read and weep for lost glories.
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/classlplist.html

The remnants are here...
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/lplist.html

I keep a record of my records in a spreadsheet.

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

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

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....

--
Eiron.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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?

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.

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...

--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

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

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"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!

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

"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.

Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference on sale at UK
 

On 2009-09-10 10:06:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Patrick James wrote:
On 2009-09-10 00:26:48 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

A prime example of design over engineering. Ideal coffee table exhibit.
Just don't try and use it.

I've used it for over twenty years and found it to be quite superb.

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.

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.

Your imagination is running away with you.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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. 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.

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...

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