Looking at rips fo DVD-A, SACDs, BluRay relases of old analog recordings, where the tapes were transferred to digital at >16/44, I quite often see a straight line (or rarely, two) in ultrasonic regions of spectral views, representing inaudible hum/buzz from video monitors in the recording/mixing/mastering studio. That's 'original' but it's noise rather than signal...original noise, I guess we can call it.
I've found this line present in a 24/96 copy I've made of the 2009 release of Nirvana's Nevermind (it shows all across the record, both sides). The record was mastered by Bernie Grundman from the original analog master tapes ... do you think this is one of those cases or maybe the "line" may also be present in the master tapes?
I've found this line present in a 24/96 copy I've made of the 2009 release of Nirvana's Nevermind (it shows all across the record, both sides). The record was mastered by Bernie Grundman from the original analog master tapes ... do you think this is one of those cases or maybe the "line" may also be present in the master tapes?
When you say "across the record, both sides", I take it that you're referring to a vinyl LP that you've transferred?
In which case, have you considered the possibility that it is not on the LP but was introduced by something during the digital transfer?
Looking at rips fo DVD-A, SACDs, BluRay relases of old analog recordings, where the tapes were transferred to digital at >16/44, I quite often see a straight line (or rarely, two) in ultrasonic regions of spectral views, representing inaudible hum/buzz from video monitors in the recording/mixing/mastering studio. That's 'original' but it's noise rather than signal...original noise, I guess we can call it.
I've found this line present in a 24/96 copy I've made of the 2009 release of Nirvana's Nevermind (it shows all across the record, both sides). The record was mastered by Bernie Grundman from the original analog master tapes ... do you think this is one of those cases or maybe the "line" may also be present in the master tapes?
Please provide details about what this is and how it was made.
:D :D I guess we have a good reason NOT to record at 96kHz... We don't need 30kHz noise going through our amps to our tweeters!
...Somewhere I read, "The wider you open the window, the more dust comes in."
Distortion. Just calculate the 3rd harmonic or greater of 8-15khz. Vinyl is pretty nasty for THD up there.
I'd say this is good evidence of high frequency content in vinyl. That's the 30Khz carier (i forget the real name, but it's added to tape recording in order to make the requency response more linear). It's certainly not distortion.
That could be your equipment doing a 'Jedi audio trick.' Your equipment could be up exampling the audio.
That's something you have think about.
It's certainly not distortion.
Where was it in the original soundfield?
I'd say this is good evidence of high frequency content in vinyl. That's the 30Khz carier (i forget the real name, but it's added to tape recording in order to make the requency response more linear). It's certainly not distortion.
The solid line could be bias but 28kHz is kind of low for that, and we need more info about the recording to be sure. Everything around it, the fuzzy stuff, is probably distortion. Regardless, none of it is supposed to be there, it wasn't in the original soundfield, and so any of it, bias or not, is a type of distortion.
I'd say this is good evidence of high frequency content in vinyl.
There is insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion, not that there should be any debate as to whether vinyl can contain content at that frequency.
Without information pertinent to the original master, the way in which the record was digitized or independent, third-party verification, thread closure is looming.
thread closure is looming.
Seems like this was split off the original thread ( https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113365.0.html ). Possibly over discussing > 20 kHz found in (digitized versions mastered from) analogue master tapes, maybe that was considered off-topic.
De-railing this thread back to vinyl is maybe not necessary, as long as we have the original thread (and maybe even less necessary if, people read before posting).
I'd say this is good evidence of high frequency content in vinyl. That's the 30Khz carier (i forget the real name, but it's added to tape recording in order to make the requency response more linear). It's certainly not distortion.
The solid line could be bias but 28kHz is kind of low for that, and we need more info about the recording to be sure. Everything around it, the fuzzy stuff, is probably distortion. Regardless, none of it is supposed to be there, it wasn't in the original soundfield, and so any of it, bias or not, is a type of distortion.
Bias, that’s the word I was looking for! Also I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz. It’s a plastic disc, rubbing a needle that moves a magnet. Theres not hard limit really. You can argue that it’s mostly distortion but there’s certainly no reason not to encode high frequencies in vinyl.
I realise now I can test this. I have that record from Jack White, and there is HD digital recordings of it too. Comparison would be interesting
Ah, no I can't - it's a 44.1 master. Although you can clearly se the cut off, which I think shows that anything above 20KHz is not necessarily distortion.
I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz.
Nor do I when there is plenty of
verifiable evidence that demonstrates that it can.
I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz.
We??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
Like I said, thread closure is looming.
It looks like the frequency content is mirrored above the ~28-29kHz tone.
Bias, that’s the word I was looking for! Also I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz. It’s a plastic disc, rubbing a needle that moves a magnet. Theres not hard limit really.
Not a hard limit, as in an anti-aliasing filter is a hard limit, but there is a maximum stylus velocity curve dictated by the dimensions of the groove and length of the cutter stylus. Causing excessive stylus velocity rams the back facet of the stylus into the groove wall it just cut. That is a "hard limit", but it's a function of both frequency and modulation. It happens at lower levels of higher frequencies, and higher levels of lower frequencies, but it happens, and must be accounted for. The RIAA curve actually makes it a bit worse of a problem at very high frequencies, hence the application of high frequency limiting in disc cutting.
I don't think there's anyone arguing that vinyl cannot record higher than 20kHz information, it's just a question of how much and how well. Remember that CD4 records employed a pair of 30kHz carriers with a type of modified FM on them, but the result still contained sidebands. The carriers were very low in level, though, and required a special stylus for proper recovery. So there's no absolutely yes or no to the above 20kHz question, it's more of an "it depends" answer.
You can argue that it’s mostly distortion but there’s certainly no reason not to encode high frequencies in vinyl.
Sure there is, I just outlined it.
I realise now I can test this. I have that record from Jack White, and there is HD digital recordings of it too. Comparison would be interesting
Probably won't show much difference, though, because analog tape contains high levels of high frequency distortion of several types, and you said this was from an analog master. The content, other than the bias signal, could still be distortion products that are generated by tape's nonlinearities. Remember that distortion in analog tape is a function of fluxivity (level) and that changes with an EQ curve making high frequencies distort and saturate before lower ones.
So my post was binned due to the ambiguous TOS2 so let me express my opinion in an unambiguous way. As stated at the earlier part (before the split) of this thread, I think the only reliable way to test this thing is to find some vinyl cutting service providers and cut some known test signals on vinyls and re-digitize them.
I don't trust any spectrograms and even videos showing animated FFT analysis for vinyl rips of unverifiable sources.
Maybe something like... Ultimate Analog Test LP - Analogue Productions Test Vinyl LP
https://www.musicdirect.com/vinyl/ultimate-analog-test-lp-analogue-productinos-test-vinyl-lp
Maybe something like... Ultimate Analog Test LP - Analogue Productions Test Vinyl LP
https://www.musicdirect.com/vinyl/ultimate-analog-test-lp-analogue-productinos-test-vinyl-lp
The sweep on that LP stops at 20 kHz, why?
Could it be because > 20 kHz content is nothing to care about?[edit: note]
(Wouldn't it be a better business idea to cut a sweep up to, say, 30 kHz? If the self-proclaimed golden ears cannot hear it, they
surely need to upgrade their gear into something which can reproduce it. And then if the placebo still cannot convince them that they hear, then apparently their previous stylus wore down the old test LP - so buy another! And argh, you have to to re-purchase all the LPs you have actually played with the old stylus?)
[note] or maybe the master is a CD rip? :-o
It doesn't seem normal to me if for example a 96kHz sweep suddenly drops at somewhere around 20kHz after being cut on a vinyl unless the lathe has some circuitry to do that. I am more interested to know if recording such a high frequency signal on a vinyl will significantly increase the distortion at the lower end (below 20kHz) of the spectrum. The twin tone IMD swept from RMAA for example makes a great test signal for this purpose.
Normal music has a lot of content below 20kHz, it is impossible to differentiate real content from distortion by using them as test signal.
It doesn't seem normal to me if for example a 96kHz sweep suddenly drops at somewhere around 20kHz after being cut on a vinyl unless the lathe has some circuitry to do that. I am more interested to know if recording such a high frequency signal on a vinyl will significantly increase the distortion at the lower end (below 20kHz) of the spectrum. The twin tone IMD swept from RMAA for example makes a great test signal for this purpose.
Normal music has a lot of content below 20kHz, it is impossible to differentiate real content from distortion by using them as test signal.
The attachment is an interesting relevant example.
The lower trace is of a quiet passage on the LP.
Due to the low recorded level there is evidence of negligible amounts of nonlinear distortion. Interesting enough, there is clear evidence of a brick wall filter @ 22-24 Khz cutting a hole in the noise floor. There is also a 24 KHz "birdie" spiking up out of the noise floor. I believe this is due to the use of an Ampex AD-1 digital delay line or equivalent in the groove pitch automation system for the cutting lathe which was not uncommon when this disk was first mastered.
The upper trace shows same LP and playback system playing a loud passage. Since we know that there was a brick wall filter @ 22-24 KHz, everything above that must be due to nonlinear distortion in the record and playback system downstream of the AD-1.
You can find a more detailed technical description of the Ampex AD-1 in dB magazine November 1979 located here around page 50: http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-DB-Magazine/70s/DB-1979-11.pdf
Also I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz.
Nobody thinks that. Why do you think someone does?
That a vinyl record can be pressed with frequencies >20khz has been known for many decades. However there is no evidence that the human ear can hear them or that they are musically meaningful.
You seem to be beating a strawman.
Also I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz.
Nobody thinks that. Why do you think someone does?
Because it is an article of faith among vinyl advocates that all criticism of vinyl is unreasonable and fomented by people who judge it unfairly?
That a vinyl record can be pressed with frequencies >20khz has been known for many decades. However, there is no evidence that the human ear can hear them or that they are musically meaningful.
Case in point would be the post I just made about brick wall filtering that is "baked into" many legacy LPs. For this post to make sense I had to confirm that it is possible to record signals at low levels at frequencies > 24 KHz. The fact that the stop band around 24 kHz shows up clearly and accurately is a testimonial to vinyl's ability to handle low-level signals > 24 kHz.
However, the example shows that the relatively high nonlinear distortion (THD, IM) that is inherent in the LP format adds substantial amounts (> 3%) of spurious responses. The nonlinear distortion comes from several sourced, but the problem of tracing the groove accurately with a finite sized stylus dominated. For example:
http://www.richardbrice.net/LP%20distortion%20compensation.htm
"
Tracing distortion
Tracing distortions are quite separate from tracking distortions. The origin of all tracing distortion is that a groove cut by a flat-faced chisel is being read by a rounded (conical or elliptical) stylus. Tracing distortion is responsible for the majority of distortion (and not just harmonic distortion) when reproducing gramophone records. There are three components to tracing distortions: pinch-effect; vertical tracing distortion; and tracing-loss.
Pinch effect
Constrained as it is to follow a path along the disc radius, the cutter chisel cuts a groove which is only the width of the cutter at the peaks of the wave and which shrinks to a minimum as the wave passes through the zero position. This has the effect of squeezing the stylus up and down in the groove even when the modulation is entirely lateral. This phenomenon is termed, appropriately enough, pinch effect.
This effect of pinching the stylus in the narrowing groove may be seen to be at a frequency double that of the lateral modulation; because the stylus rises and falls twice over in one cycle of the modulation wave (see the illustration left).
The pinch-effect upon the stylus is greater as the wavelength of the modulation falls. Besides being frequency dependent, wavelength is also a function of the angular velocity of the recording chisel in the groove. In a conventional gramophone record, this velocity falls as the cutter (or stylus) moves towards the centre of the record because the record turns at a constant number of revolutions per minute, but the radius of the groove falls throughout the playing of one side of the disc.
Additionally, the degree of the pinch-effect depends upon the radius of the stylus. Special stylus shapes have been developed to reduce the pinch-effect. Elliptical styli are shaped so that the major axis of the ellipse has the dimensions of a conical stylus and is perpendicular to the groove. This ensures the stylus rides in the groove at the same level as a conical stylus and doesn't wallow about in the bottom of the groove where no information resides. However, the minor axis of the ellipse is arranged to be considerably smaller than the major axis and this is parallel with the groove. By these means, the stylus is less squeezed as the groove narrows in the direction of the stylus travel.
"
Dynagroove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynagroove
Dynagroove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynagroove
Said to be abandoned in 1970.
Dynagroove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynagroove
Said to be abandoned in 1970.
I proved that information >20 khz could be recorded on to 33 rpm vinyl. If memory serves me it also unfortunately proved that such information would be destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles ...
I proved that information >20 khz could be recorded on to 33 rpm vinyl.
...and countless others.
If memory serves me it also unfortunately proved that such information would be destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles ...
Highly doubtful that "destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles" is necessarily the case.
If memory serves me it also unfortunately proved that such information would be destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles ...
Highly doubtful that "destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles" is necessarily the case.
I've heard anecdotes of extreme record wear - signal literally wiped off a disk for very short wavelength signals such as QS-4 carriers in the 30+ kHz range.
The possibility of damage to test LPs has to be taken into account, but actual removal of signals bewlo 20 kHz seems to be very severe, if it happens.
20k-30k!?!
...or are we still busy shooting arrows at the man stuffed with straw???
>20 khz [...] would be destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles
20k-30k!?!
...or are we still busy shooting arrows at the man stuffed with straw???
>20 khz [...] would be destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles
The physics of the situation suggests that vinyl's durability for really small stylus contact areas seems marginal at best. I have to admit that back in the days when this mattered to me, we just didn't have the sophisticated tools for analysis that we do now.
One of my long term projects involves assembling enough vinyl stuff to look at things again from a real-world perspective. To that end I've so far assembled a collection of about 100 LPs including more than a dozen or more est records, 5-8 turntables, a dozen or more cartridges and maybe a half dozen or more preamps. Maybe sometime this summer some results will perculate up to this level.
I've heard anecdotes of extreme record wear - signal literally wiped off a disk for very short wavelength signals such as QS-4 carriers in the 30+ kHz range.
I dug up some stuff in the old thread:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113365.msg940580.html#msg940580
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm
(Keeping a spinoff thread alive is a great thing - one can discuss the same hearsay all over and rebuild the straw man and ...
... edit: and the quarrel at the last half of that thread can be repeated! Yay!)
I proved that information >20 khz could be recorded on to 33 rpm vinyl. If memory serves me it also unfortunately proved that such information would be destroyed by the first few plays using actual needles ...
It seems that some of the Quadraphonic vinyl formats were based on playing back frequencies far beyond 20kHz to operate properly.
I have never experienced such a system, but unless they were a technical sham, this does suggest that playback >20kHz is indeed possible in at least some cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Discrete_4
I dug up some stuff in the old thread:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113365.msg940580.html#msg940580
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm
(Keeping a spinoff thread alive is a great thing - one can discuss the same hearsay all over and rebuild the straw man and ...
... edit: and the quarrel at the last half of that thread can be repeated! Yay!)
Looking back at some of those old threads, I see two people who claimed to routinely cut high rez audio onto vinyl offer files of the original digital recording and needle drop files of the results for us to compare.
Did I miss something or are these offers proven to be just more hot air given that months have gone by since they were offered?
That doesn't come from your record player.
That's aliasing coming from poor resampling (Windows-Resampler?). The noise may come from that too, because it is in the center where the mirroring starts. It has been resampled poorly two times (it mirrors again at 24kHz) until it reached your recording software.
Avoid the build-in resampler from Windows at all, because it scraps any recording:
- Always set record sample rate at the highest available sample rate that is natively supported by sound card (in most consumer sound cards, this is 48 or 96 kHz. Professional sound cards may go higher)
- Set Windows driver settings for recording to that sample rate
- Record a sine wave and look to the spectogram of the recording to ensure, that no distorition is happening.
- Do the recording
- Resample it to something else after recording using a good resampler, if necessary
How to fix:
The easy way: Chop the frequency crap off by using a steep lowpass filter at 20kHz
The better way: Re-record with better hardware and properly set sample rates
That doesn't come from your record player.
That's aliasing coming from poor resampling (Windows-Resampler?). The noise may come from that too, because it is in the center where the mirroring starts. It has been resampled poorly two times (it mirrors again at 24kHz) until it reached your recording software.
Avoid the build-in resampler from Windows at all, because it scraps any recording:
- Always set record sample rate at the highest available sample rate that is natively supported by sound card (in most consumer sound cards, this is 48 or 96 kHz. Professional sound cards may go higher)
- Set Windows driver settings for recording to that sample rate
- Record a sine wave and look to the spectogram of the recording to ensure, that no distorition is happening.
- Do the recording
- Resample it to something else after recording using a good resampler, if necessary
How to fix:
The easy way: Chop the frequency crap off by using a steep lowpass filter at 20kHz
The better way: Re-record with better hardware and properly set sample rates
Who or what is this post addressed to?
It's certainly not distortion.
Where was it in the original soundfield?
We mastered an LP for a punk band; they were really proud of the fact that the recording was made entirely on a mono Ampex 300. I hated to tell them that it looked like they had either a ground loop or a microphonic tube somewhere; right at 23KHz was a steady tone (easy to see under the microscope in the grooves) on the master tape. Its a pretty good bet it wasn't in the original sound field, but I would not call it a distortion either, although it clearly was an artifact.
We mastered an LP for a punk band; they were really proud of the fact that the recording was made entirely on a mono Ampex 300. I hated to tell them that it looked like they had either a ground loop or a microphonic tube somewhere; right at 23KHz was a steady tone (easy to see under the microscope in the grooves) on the master tape. Its a pretty good bet it wasn't in the original sound field, but I would not call it a distortion either, although it clearly was an artifact.
You discovered it after the pressing?
But "hated to tell them" ... does that extra lo-finess really matter?
It's certainly not distortion.
Where was it in the original soundfield?
We mastered an LP for a punk band; they were really proud of the fact that the recording was made entirely on a mono Ampex 300. I hated to tell them that it looked like they had either a ground loop or a microphonic tube somewhere; right at 23KHz was a steady tone (easy to see under the microscope in the grooves) on the master tape. Its a pretty good bet it wasn't in the original sound field, but I would not call it a distortion either, although it clearly was an artifact.
Probable cause is either a switchmode power supply in some gear, perhaps a CRT PC monitor.
You're beating a dead horse - the presence of information > 20 KHz on LPs has been generally agreed to around here. And it has also been shown that a lot of that is observed at playback, is due to the relatively high nonlinear distortion that is inherent in the LP.
Here's a reliable technical source pointing out the details: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/musings-measurement-thoughts-on-vinyl.html
Here is a graphic from that source, since I don't seriously expect you to follow up logically on this post based on past experience with you: (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qQl0QXFAgoQ/WS5GSMBHUiI/AAAAAAAAMNc/iKxgK5wV5DcyN3cetvLVbB1muxnIGerAACLcB/s640/5_seconds_LP_vs_16-44_Average_%252B_J-Test.png)
The green line shows harmonics of a pure tone that was added by a fairly typical LP high quality playback setup, and one of them is beyond 20 KHz.
Probable cause is either a switchmode power supply in some gear, perhaps a CRT PC monitor.
You're beating a dead horse - the presence of information > 20 KHz on LPs has been generally agreed to around here. And it has also been shown that a lot of that is observed at playback, is due to the relatively high nonlinear distortion that is inherent in the LP.
Sure, the imagined footprints of Schrödinger's long dead horse is distortion inherent in the LP, simultaneously as the horse is neighing through a power supply or perhaps a CRT monitor.
Maybe inside that box, if one bothers to opens it, there will be some finite and nonzero s/n ratio?
We mastered an LP for a punk band; they were really proud of the fact that the recording was made entirely on a mono Ampex 300. I hated to tell them that it looked like they had either a ground loop or a microphonic tube somewhere; right at 23KHz was a steady tone (easy to see under the microscope in the grooves) on the master tape. Its a pretty good bet it wasn't in the original sound field, but I would not call it a distortion either, although it clearly was an artifact.
You discovered it after the pressing?
But "hated to tell them" ... does that extra lo-finess really matter?
Nah- we found it as soon as we started doing test tracks. Their tape didn't really sound that bad, but it did have a lo-fi quality. We put a filter on the system to kill the noise, whatever was causing it; no need to heat up the cutter head unnecessarily.
I would not call it a distortion either, although it clearly was an artifact.
::)
Here's a classic paper on the topic. It shows the effects of wear on a test record which is great because not only does it show what wear does to a LP, it shows how the wear changes with frequency.
The little drawing in the upper left-hand corner of the attachment shows the reference - what happened when they played the record various numbers of times using a high-quality stylus (for the day) tracking at what seems to be a very high tracking force - about 3 times what most people would use with that particular cartridge. Wear was minimal.
As you go right, the tests are repeated with crappier cartridges. The second column used a production cartridge that was good for the day, but obviously was shortly to be improved on.
The third column shows what happens with a ceramic cartridge, which is what we see today in bottom buck LP playback systems, such as those sold by Crosley and the like. Basically, groove busters, and here you see where that reputation comes from - reality!
As you go down the rows, you see the effects of using less and less stylus pressure with each kind of cartridge. The bottom left hand drawing seems to show that even with the really good developmental stylus, it was not that hard to lighten up the tracking force to the point where there were signficant losses, and they were worse with increased numbers of playings. T
his is the caliber of work that one obtains from professionals developing what was in the day, the mainstream means for playing back recordings. It could be done today, but truth just isn't that important to the powers that be, it seems.
But the lesson remains true - even with modern cartridges, track too light and pay the price!
Published in 1961.... back when the M3D was king...
Arnold, just so you know, there have been serious improvements in the LP technology since then. Just a FWIW sort of thing :)
I do agree that tracking is everything. In fact I'm of the opinion that the ability of the arm to properly track the cartridge without breakup is far more important than what cartridge you actually have.
Published in 1961.... back when the M3D was king...
Arnold, just so you know, there have been serious improvements in the LP technology since then. Just a FWIW sort of thing :)
Your belaboring of a point that I made with the phrase "...of the day..."is noted. I sold M3Ds and N21d stylus upgrades in an aduio store in the day when I was a teenager. I suffered with vinyl for about another 15 years after that until the advent of vastly superior digital technology. During that time I also earned a degree in Engineering and learned a lot about what changed, and what did not. First off, there were significant refinements, but there were no major changes.
To this day records are made from vinyl and the best stylii are tipped with diamonds. Looking at an old Shure 1966 catalog, the N21 was specified for tracking forces from 1 to 2 1/2 grams, and today about a half a century later, minimum tracking force specifications have not changed dramatically. There is no reason to think that the record wear sitaution has changed dramatically since the materials and operational conditions are not all that different desipte the passage of over 50 years.
I do agree that tracking is everything. In fact I'm of the opinion that the ability of the arm to properly track the cartridge without breakup is far more important than what cartridge you actually have.
Well, we can agree on that. Frequency response errors can be effectively equalized, but the ugly sound of diamond on vinyl mistracking can only be removed by replacing the diamond and the vinyl. Fortunately, that was accomplished after 1982, some 36 years ago.
There is no reason to think that the record wear sitaution has changed dramatically since the materials and operational conditions are not all that different desipte the passage of over 50 years.
Fast forward half of those fifty years, and then you have that experiment where they played a groove ten thousands of times with the same stylus trying to provoke forth wear. (While some other styli would wear the groove significantly in a couple of minutes - you did not need any "50 years", you could buy them in the same market at the same time.)
There is no reason to think that the record wear sitaution has changed dramatically since the materials and operational conditions are not all that different desipte the passage of over 50 years.
Fast forward half of those fifty years, and then you have that experiment where they played a groove ten thousands of times with the same stylus trying to provoke forth wear. (While some other styli would wear the groove significantly in a couple of minutes - you did not need any "50 years", you could buy them in the same market at the same time.)
Is there a comparable paper to the one I posted from for this wonderful "50 years later" performance. The one thing that is missing from the 50 year old paper is eliptical stylii. What else that is truely significant has changed? Or, are we playing dueling anecdotes?
Or, are we playing dueling anecdotes?
Yeah, and I chose the "did you bother to click any link in a post you quoted (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114536.msg952037.html#msg952037)?" weapon.
I do not pretend that the periodical of AES Sweden is a scientific journal, and as they do not have their archives online, you could (if you want to) just accuse their then-president (and present treasurer) (http://www.aes.org/aes/ingemarohlsson) of both making up the experiment and making up the story that they put it on print back in 1992.
Nobody disputes that certain styli tax the vinyl heavily, so pointing at styli that
do cause wear isn't bringing much new to the table. That a certain make could play the groove like fifty thousand times (locking groove, no cooling) without annoying artifacts show that you cannot just select [random pick-up], measure the wear
and claim it generalizes, can you?
To this day records are made from vinyl and the best stylii are tipped with diamonds. Looking at an old Shure 1966 catalog, the N21 was specified for tracking forces from 1 to 2 1/2 grams, and today about a half a century later, minimum tracking force specifications have not changed dramatically. There is no reason to think that the record wear sitaution has changed dramatically since the materials and operational conditions are not all that different desipte the passage of over 50 years.
Well, actually there is. Tone arms have improved dramatically! I think the only vintage arm that gets any traction at all these days is the Fidelity Research FR66. Goes for a lot of cash, but as far as I can tell, really only to collectors.
There was not an arm made in the 60s that could track any cartridge correctly. Unfortunately we still see a lot of modern arms that have traditional engineering defects (one example is the bearings not being in the same plane as the LP surface) so apparently YMMV depending on how well (or not) the tone arm is up to its job. So this is that part where the ability of the arm to track the cartridge becomes paramount- mistrack, it can damage the groove almost immediately, if it doesn't, groove life is extended to the point of decades.
That, and the continuing difficulties in really getting the cartridge set up properly, are really some of the bigger reasons digital is an actual improvement as often with digital its plug and play, unless you have a music server.
There was not an arm made in the 60s that could track any cartridge correctly.
SME would like to disagree.
There was not an arm made in the 60s that could track any cartridge correctly.
What are the details and authority for this claim?
I know that vinyl advocates like to pretend that there have been dramatic improvements in LP technology since the 1960s but when politely asked to provide details and authority for those exceptional claims, they seem to go silent.
Unfortunately we still see a lot of modern arms that have traditional engineering defects (one example is the bearings not being in the same plane as the LP surface)
Please provide a technical report describing the adverse effects of building ton arms in different ways than the ones you seem to advocate without providing evidence or logic.
Furthermore there are literally 100's of tone arms on the market today, both new production, legacy and NOS so it seems like there are a lot of relevant choices.
It is no secret that most audiophiles who are LP advocates seem to be unaware and uninformed about the kinematics of tone arm design and operation.
Unlike more modern playback formats, LP tone arms and other playback gear seem to require frequent adjustments which few seem to understand how to perform correctly. In the end we can only judge a format based on how it is used by those who prefer it, and if they habitually do so improperly, that is not the fault of those who prefer more modern technology.
What are the details and authority for this claim?
I know that vinyl advocates like to pretend that there have been dramatic improvements in LP technology since the 1960s but when politely asked to provide details and authority for those exceptional claims, they seem to go silent.
That could well be because you are invoking stares of incredulity. Going through the immensity of data to try to convince a person who won't be regardless is likely seen as a Sisyphean task. Are you really trying to suggest that there have been no improvements since the 1960s?? Materials science, machining technique, computer optimization, design improvements.... Beyond this I will allow the rock to roll back to its resting place, as have others.
Please provide a technical report describing the adverse effects of building ton arms in different ways than the ones you seem to advocate without providing evidence or logic.
Its actually simpler than that.
OK imagine carrying a couch; two people required. On level ground, both carry the same weight, going up stairs, the one on the bottom bears more. Pretty simple. If the bearing is in the same plane as the LP, tracking pressure is more constant with warp and bass modulation than if one side is elevated. I'm sure you can work this out (geometry involved), if not try volunteering to help someone move.
Furthermore there are literally 100's of tone arms on the market today, both new production, legacy and NOS so it seems like there are a lot of relevant choices.
It is no secret that most audiophiles who are LP advocates seem to be unaware and uninformed about the kinematics of tone arm design and operation.
Unlike more modern playback formats, LP tone arms and other playback gear seem to require frequent adjustments which few seem to understand how to perform correctly. In the end we can only judge a format based on how it is used by those who prefer it, and if they habitually do so improperly, that is not the fault of those who prefer more modern technology.
Agreed!
Yes, it does appear that there are a lot of poorly engineered arms out there. But if they are built correctly, frequent adjustment is not needed.
Herb Papier, the developer of the Triplanar arm, noted that many arms do seem to need readjustment- what he found was that after a while in the field, quite often the bearings in the arm were damaged, requiring readjustment. The better arms use a cup and point bearing; the points were being blunted. He solved this by brute force; using a bearing so hard that it is not commercially available. His company got a security clearance to use it. It is hard enough apparently to not fail; I've had my arm for over 10 years and it only needs adjustment if I change out the cartridge. The arm comes with a protractor so setting it up is easy, and it is arguably the most adjustable arm made.
Are you really trying to suggest that there have been no improvements since the 1960s?? Materials science, machining technique, computer optimization, design improvements....
TOTALLY TRUE! We no longer use vinyl or electro-mechanical recording/playback! :D :D :D
electro-mechanical recording
No microphones! No guitar pick-ups! :D
Even see Jurassic Park where they bring back dinosaurs?
... OK imagine carrying a couch; two people required. On level ground, both carry the same weight, going up stairs, the one on the bottom bears more. Pretty simple. If the bearing is in the same plane as the LP, tracking pressure is more constant with warp and bass modulation than if one side is elevated. I'm sure you can work this out (geometry involved), if not try volunteering to help someone move. ...
This is a second order effect. For all sane geometries and amounts of "warp and bass", the tracking force change due to geometry is a very small fraction of the static tracking force. Tracking force change causes cantilever deflection, which causes signal output. The magnitude of this is swamped by the inertia of the arm movement excited by the aforementioned warps and bass modulation.
Another second order effect of not being in the same plane is the velocity change of the stylus relative to the record as the geometry changes. Again, for all sane geometries this is a small effect.
As for gimbal bearings, Triplanar weren't unique. Many manufacturers used very hard materials such as tungsten carbide and zircon to reduce wear. Personally, I developed a preference for unipivots. I found the the dynamic damping produced the best results when faced with the warped and rippled discs common in the 80s.
What are the details and authority for this claim?
I know that vinyl advocates like to pretend that there have been dramatic improvements in LP technology since the 1960s but when politely asked to provide details and authority for those exceptional claims, they seem to go silent.
That could well be because you are invoking stares of incredulity. Going through the immensity of data to try to convince a person who won't be regardless is likely seen as a Sisyphean task.
Actually, finding evidence of technological progress is very easy if one has any concept of academic research, a field that was commonly introduced to middle school, high school, and university students when I was a pup. Research is greatly facilitated in these days of easy searching via search engines and online databases of periodicals, patents and research papers. I guess you never got the memo!
The fact Mr. Atmasphere (or is it Stratosphere or even the vacuum of outer space?) that you are so obviously ignorant of modern tools for technical research or incompetent in their use suggests that you have some kind of learning or reading impediment or intellectual deficit. Or, you may be cursed with the Dunning Kruger Syndrome where you simply think that you have no need for research because you already know it all.
Attached is reliable evidence of a stagnant technololgy as evidenced by relvant patents: We see that in the early days of phonographs (starting in 1860) the rate of patents granted is low because it is new technology. From about 1950 to 1985 we see a farily consistent and significant growth of patent activity, followed by a sudden leveling off sarting in 1985. Thus it is safe to say that the rate of innovation of new phonograph technology has stagnated since 1985.
Are you really trying to suggest that there have been no improvements since the 1960s?? Materials science, machining technique, computer optimization, design improvements.... Beyond this I will allow the rock to roll back to its resting place, as have others.
Things like materials improvements and aesthetic changes are not actual direct technological improvements to phono playback technology. Their application to phono technology is tangential. Secondly, I question whether there have been anything but aesthetic improvements, because I see no significant changes in phono playback performance since say, 1985 which is 33 years or over 3 decades ago. And when pressed on the matter, you offer nothing but posturing, talking down, and insults.
Please provide a technical report describing the adverse effects of building ton arms in different ways than the ones you seem to advocate without providing evidence or logic.
Its actually simpler than that.
OK imagine carrying a couch; two people required. On level ground, both carry the same weight, going up stairs, the one on the bottom bears more. Pretty simple. If the bearing is in the same plane as the LP, tracking pressure is more constant with warp and bass modulation than if one side is elevated. I'm sure you can work this out (geometry involved), if not try volunteering to help someone move.
This is a false example as anybody who knows what its like to carry a couch upstairs looks like, as compared to a tone arm. Couches are carried upstairs at an sharp angle due to space restrictions around the stairs, and tone arms are generally operated in as close to a horizontal plane as people informed in the art of setting up tone arms can make them. This is signfificant because actual field experiments by yours truely has discovered that perchance one is able to keep the couch horizontal while lifting it up the stairs, the load is far better balanced among the two persons doing the lifting. Perhaps you've never thought of this?
Lifting couches are largely irrelevant to the adjustment and operation of tone arms because tone arms are counterbalanced and intentionally set up so that the vast majority of their weight is on the pivot end and not on the stylus end.
Furthermore, looking back at your false claims about your hobby horse Tripivot tone arm, I see that the published claims for it are "The Wheaton arm is called the Tri-Planar because its azimuth, vertical tracking angle (VTA), and vertical bearing height can be independently adjusted." Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/tri-planar-tonearm-steven-stone-tri-planar-iv-ultimate-february-1995#O5Pcj8rG3CpKGT7h.99 . As others have observed these are, contrary to your previous false claims not unique features and similar adjustments are available on many tone arms, both contemporary and legacy, including the SME 3009 (various versions). Notably, the Stereophile writer seems to avoid making that mistake.
To summarize Mr. Atmasphere you have exposed your mental biases and disabilities by trying to talk down to me and others on this forum. You have made many false claims. You have not answered the simple questions I politely posed to you, and responded to them with ignorance, arrogance and insults. I would hope that you are able to correct these problems and actually accurately, sincerily and honestly respond to the members of this forum.
::)
Even see Jurassic Park where they bring back dinosaurs?
That would then eat your records? Any of the species
Duodēoctōgintā (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duodeoctoginta) stylus?
Vinyl has been around awhile. Just enjoy it for the antiquated technology it is and cease the idiotic claims.
(https://billtaylorcsp.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/record_player.jpg)
Vinyl has been around awhile. Just enjoy it for the antiquated technology it is and cease the idiotic claims.
BTW, the summary of LP-related patents that I made my graph from is here: http://www.resfreq.com/phonomusings/phonopatents.html
... OK imagine carrying a couch; two people required. On level ground, both carry the same weight, going up stairs, the one on the bottom bears more. Pretty simple. If the bearing is in the same plane as the LP, tracking pressure is more constant with warp and bass modulation than if one side is elevated. I'm sure you can work this out (geometry involved), if not try volunteering to help someone move. ...
This is a second order effect. For all sane geometries and amounts of "warp and bass", the tracking force change due to geometry is a very small fraction of the static tracking force. Tracking force change causes cantilever deflection, which causes signal output. The magnitude of this is swamped by the inertia of the arm movement excited by the aforementioned warps and bass modulation.
Another second order effect of not being in the same plane is the velocity change of the stylus relative to the record as the geometry changes. Again, for all sane geometries this is a small effect.
Excellent points. Tone arm mass, inertia, and damping are far stronger effects. Complicated collections of massy hardware may impress visiting firemen, but do nothing for the important business of maintaining consistent tracking force and avoiding geometric changes that show up in the audio as jitter. Furthermore, the tri-planar did nothing of technical significance that was novel, as evidenced by a total absence of patents traceable to Mr. Papier. He did register a trademark, and by most accounts he was a fine watchmaker.
As for gimbal bearings, Triplanar weren't unique. Many manufacturers used very hard materials such as tungsten carbide and zircon to reduce wear. Personally, I developed a preference for unipivots. I found the the dynamic damping produced the best results when faced with the warped and rippled discs common in the 80s.
There are reliable objective measures of bearing performance, and those are friction and stiction. Easy enough to measure and manage, but yet another significant parameter in the present technical desert of audio jewelry that modern tone arms are. These things obviously sell based on glowing reviews, jazzy appearance and audiophile legends. The reason why LP hardware is rarely put through reliable testing is that in their market, bragging rights overshadow performance, which is bound to be dismal by modern standards.
BTW, the summary of LP-related patents that I made my graph from is here: http://www.resfreq.com/phonomusings/phonopatents.html
I kinda like this one: https://www.google.com/patents/US6185179
"Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee". Oh, what a fortune down the drain.
Furthermore, the tri-planar did nothing of technical significance that was novel, as evidenced by a total absence of patents traceable to Mr. Papier.
Triplanar developed the first on-the-fly adjustable VTA mechanism but simply didn't patent it. It has since been copied by a number of other tone arm manufacturers such as VPI.
As I mentioned earlier, Herb sorted out that bearing failure is a common problem in many arms including unipivots and solved the problem effectively. He also did considerable work damping the arm tube so it would not resonate while playing.
Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was. The arm has no bearing slop whatsoever, and sticktion is negligible compared to other designs. They test the bearings by mounting the arm on a wall, moving the arm to its limit and letting go of it; it should still be moving hours later.
Because of its low mass and low sticktion, it seems that it often has less tracking angle error than most straight tracking arms.
There are also a number of radial tracking arms that have zero tracking angle error, not unlike the old Garrard zero 100, but at a much more refined level.
So while there was not much innovation seen in patents. there is indeed considerable refinement since the 1960s.
Furthermore, the tri-planar did nothing of technical significance that was novel, as evidenced by a total absence of patents traceable to Mr. Papier.
Triplanar developed the first on-the-fly adjustable VTA mechanism but simply didn't patent it. It has since been copied by a number of other tone arm manufacturers such as VPI.
Here is what seems to be a well-thought out critique of the Tri-Planar VTA adjusting system:
https://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/vta_e.html
(https://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/triplanarsmall.jpg)
"
(Tri Planar's) VTA adjuster clicks equate to 0.35 thousandths of an inch according to Mr Gregory. As there are 26mm in an inch that translates to 0.00035x26 = 0.0091mm, i.e less than one hundredth of a mm... He says that changes of +/-2 clicks produce a "vital" change in sound quality. So once you've found that sweet-spot a change of 0.018 mm (2x0.0091) will lose that perfect reproduction. Now just to drive that point home that 0.018 mm equates to a 0.00342 (0.19x0.018) degree change in SRA. Just over THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE!
"
In short, the Tri Planar is based on false technology and any claims for improved sound quality are inherently fraudulent.
Reference: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3213
Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.
Some claims are so incredulous that they have to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
The suggestion that a small scale manufacturer of a niche audiophile product consumes more of a part than the world's largest aerospace manufacturer is just plain bonkers. If it is true that Triplanar use more of these than Boeing, it can only be because Boeing don't use them at all.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/0f/0f53301598c1ca7494068299757c71d1304515b962ef5a9a599677b64cfaf71e.jpg)
It's just amazing that I ever heard any recorded music for the first twenty or thirty years of my life. Turns out that what we were all doing was so difficult it must have been impossible!
Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.
Some claims are so incredulous that they have to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
The suggestion that a small scale manufacturer of a niche audiophile product consumes more of a part than the world's largest aerospace manufacturer is just plain bonkers. If it is true that Triplanar use more of these than Boeing, it can only be because Boeing don't use them at all.
The implication is that substantial numbers of the tone arm was sold, which is of course highly unlikely, especially given how fragmented the market is.
Furthermore, one of the ironies of life is that so many traditional tone arms are still being sold, for such high prices when their inherent technical problems have been solved for decades at competitive prices.
Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.
Some claims are so incredulous that they have to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
The suggestion that a small scale manufacturer of a niche audiophile product consumes more of a part than the world's largest aerospace manufacturer is just plain bonkers. If it is true that Triplanar use more of these than Boeing, it can only be because Boeing don't use them at all.
Turns out they like Pink Floyd. They had all the shipping manifests going back years; they knew where every arm went. Not sure what Boeing uses them for, apparently Homeland Security wasn't saying; imagine that. You have to have a security clearance to get the bearings in the first place; Triplanar has been using them so long they were grandfathered in.
(Tri Planar's) VTA adjuster clicks equate to 0.35 thousandths of an inch according to Mr Gregory. As there are 26mm in an inch that translates to 0.00035x26 = 0.0091mm, i.e less than one hundredth of a mm... He says that changes of +/-2 clicks produce a "vital" change in sound quality. So once you've found that sweet-spot a change of 0.018 mm (2x0.0091) will lose that perfect reproduction. Now just to drive that point home that 0.018 mm equates to a 0.00342 (0.19x0.018) degree change in SRA. Just over THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE!
Sounds like whomever wrote this was not familiar with the arm. And apparently neither was Mr. Gregory. There aren't any 'clicks' and the claims are not those of Triplanar. But It is well-known that the arm height has to be set right and the VTA tower allows you to do that easily. Its continuously variable and has two scales, one for coarse and one for fine. I know some audiophiles like to experiment with VTA to see what sounds better- some go so far as to mark their LPs with what they think is the correct setting, which is repeatable and easy to do. My main concern is being able to set the arm so that the cartridge does not break up regardless of the track being played and in that regard, the Triplanar excels. A more practical use of the VTA tower is that the arm has no removable headshell so as to reduce resonance and increase rigidity; so if you want to use various cartridges its easy to switch between them and simply dial in the VTA if you know it in advance.
There are audiophiles that obsess about SRA (stylus rake angle) which on average is 92 degrees. I like to point out to them that this is an average, and might not be the best possible setting on an particular LP, simply on account of the fact that the mastering engineer has to replace the cutter stylus about once every 10 hours (or less) of use, and when setting up the new stylus is not looking for 92 degrees but instead is looking for the cut with the lowest noise (which is a combination of rake angle and stylus temperature).
Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.
Reference?
A googling shows zero evidence of this other than a handful of niche audio cultists (
and more saliently here, those selling said cultists overpriced bullshit with zero objective evidence to justify their extraordinary claims) repeating the same bullshit on several message boards.
I'm fairly certain that the great Philo of Byzantium (http://www.brighthubengineering.com/machine-design/114701-about-gimbals-and-gimbal-bearings/) was using a hell of a lot more gimbal constructs,
for inkwells, than Boeing ever has, but that's comparably meaningless, although almost certainly better founded in physical reality.
Triplanar was recently investigated by the department of Homeland Security, on account of the fact that they were using more of their bearings than Boeing Aerospace was.
Some claims are so incredulous that they have to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
The suggestion that a small scale manufacturer of a niche audiophile product consumes more of a part than the world's largest aerospace manufacturer is just plain bonkers. If it is true that Triplanar use more of these than Boeing, it can only be because Boeing don't use them at all.
Turns out they like Pink Floyd. They had all the shipping manifests going back years; they knew where every arm went. Not sure what Boeing uses them for, apparently Homeland Security wasn't saying; imagine that. You have to have a security clearance to get the bearings in the first place; Triplanar has been using them so long they were grandfathered in.
(Tri Planar's) VTA adjuster clicks equate to 0.35 thousandths of an inch according to Mr Gregory. As there are 26mm in an inch that translates to 0.00035x26 = 0.0091mm, i.e less than one hundredth of a mm... He says that changes of +/-2 clicks produce a "vital" change in sound quality. So once you've found that sweet-spot a change of 0.018 mm (2x0.0091) will lose that perfect reproduction. Now just to drive that point home that 0.018 mm equates to a 0.00342 (0.19x0.018) degree change in SRA. Just over THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE!
Sounds like whomever wrote this was not familiar with the arm. And apparently neither was Mr. Gregory. There aren't any 'clicks' and the claims are not those of Triplanar. But It is well-known that the arm height has to be set right and the VTA tower allows you to do that easily. Its continuously variable and has two scales, one for coarse and one for fine. I know some audiophiles like to experiment with VTA to see what sounds better- some go so far as to mark their LPs with what they think is the correct setting, which is repeatable and easy to do. My main concern is being able to set the arm so that the cartridge does not break up regardless of the track being played and in that regard, the Triplanar excels. A more practical use of the VTA tower is that the arm has no removable headshell so as to reduce resonance and increase rigidity; so if you want to use various cartridges its easy to switch between them and simply dial in the VTA if you know it in advance.
There are audiophiles that obsess about SRA (stylus rake angle) which on average is 92 degrees. I like to point out to them that this is an average, and might not be the best possible setting on an particular LP, simply on account of the fact that the mastering engineer has to replace the cutter stylus about once every 10 hours (or less) of use, and when setting up the new stylus is not looking for 92 degrees but instead is looking for the cut with the lowest noise (which is a combination of rake angle and stylus temperature).
The important lesson is that due to the length of the arm, setting VTA by adjusting the height of the tonearm pivot by reasonable amounts is ineffective. For each degree of change in VTA, the pivot of a typical 9 inch arm has to be moved vertically by approximately 0.16" or about 1/6 of an inch. It is thus far more effective to modify VTA by a means of an adjustment that is in close vicinity to the cartridge.
The important lesson is that due to the length of the arm, setting VTA by adjusting the height of the tonearm pivot by reasonable amounts is ineffective. For each degree of change in VTA, the pivot of a typical 9 inch arm has to be moved vertically by approximately 0.16" or about 1/6 of an inch. It is thus far more effective to modify VTA by a means of an adjustment that is in close vicinity to the cartridge.
If your initial setup is even in the ballpark, often a degree or two is all you need. The Triplanar VTA tower has a range of about an inch so ideally it can do several degrees in either direction. There is a standard of sorts for the plinth to platter height so this bit is usually pretty easy. Any VTA adjustment closer to the cartridge would introduce mass issues and might also cause a lack of rigidity in the locus of the cartridge (both which seem to be bad things), plus you would not be able to do it on the fly.
Furthermore, the tri-planar did nothing of technical significance that was novel, as evidenced by a total absence of patents traceable to Mr. Papier.
Triplanar developed the first on-the-fly adjustable VTA mechanism but simply didn't patent it. It has since been copied by a number of other tone arm manufacturers such as VPI.
Here is what seems to be a well-thought out critique of the Tri-Planar VTA adjusting system:
https://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/vta_e.html
(https://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/triplanarsmall.jpg)
"
(Tri Planar's) VTA adjuster clicks equate to 0.35 thousandths of an inch according to Mr Gregory. As there are 26mm in an inch that translates to 0.00035x26 = 0.0091mm, i.e less than one hundredth of a mm... He says that changes of +/-2 clicks produce a "vital" change in sound quality. So once you've found that sweet-spot a change of 0.018 mm (2x0.0091) will lose that perfect reproduction. Now just to drive that point home that 0.018 mm equates to a 0.00342 (0.19x0.018) degree change in SRA. Just over THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE DEGREE!
"
In short, the Tri Planar is based on false technology and any claims for improved sound quality are inherently fraudulent.
Reference: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3213
Although you swapped VPI for Triplanar in that quote, I must say that the website was quite a fun read. I hadn't expected this level of honesty ("I simply can't hear any difference") from an audiophile website :-).
For extra points, calculate how many dB down the frequency response will be at 20 kHz if the VTA is adjusted 1 degree off optimum, with a "9 inch" arm and typical elliptical stylus.