Home Vinyl Asylum

Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

RE: Null points for 7" discs?

"The argument in favor of your universal alignment is not applicable here."

Hey John, the 60s just called....they want their BONG back!
Either you are TUI (Typing Under The Influence) or you really seem to not read carefully these days - I've never mentioned a Universal Alignment in this thread so I have no idea what you are on about. LOL!


"Damian asked for an alignment optimized for 7" records and that's what I gave him. "

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are no prizes for coming in second.. 8-D

Do you own any 7"s? I suspect not, because if you measure them, you'd find most start around ~83mm to 83.5mm to give an increased margin for handling and cueing.

The "correct" optimisation is therefore the one that matches to the records you want to play not what the standard defines (which of course is a reasonable starting point in the absence of any specific parameters)
The OP has said he has many headshells so he can set up a cartridge for each set and tell us what he finds! I suspect he won't hit either solution accurately enough to be able to tell the difference in a blind test.

Let's be clear here - the Standards are a guideline but are not mandatory. Cutting engineers can and obviously do routinely deviate since the envelope is a balance between playing time and "loudness". Since the 80s, loudness is the first priority for radio play.

45 rpm singles are cut much louder than EPs and using my collection as an example, it is evident that Rmin is typically ignored in order to satisfy the requirement for a reasonable playing time given the loudness constraint. A significant proportion of my 7" 45s are cut in to 53mm and the majority at start around 83(ish)mm. The OP is likely to have similar starting points and end points.

If you want to optimise for a 7" then you should be optimising for the statistically most likely envelope which puts it at around 53 to about 83.5. I added in a further optimisation to accommodate the rapid increase in tip related distortion (which you obviously haven't considered) and set Rmin at 51 to because outliers also exist, giving a Linear Offset of 65.1 compared to 67.3 and this gives a superior optimisation for R<55.5mm when compared to yours. Even if he DID have a record starting at 84.1mm, the OP won't hear the miniscule penalty in distortion which is already going to be dwarfed by the transducer and tracking related distortions. He will in theory, get a better result at the end of a side.

As usual you are splitting hairs within hairs in order to try and prove a point. Sorry to be blunt, but you just blindly quoted the standard and ran to your favourite calculator to impress everyone (else) with 6 decimal places and generate null points to 3 dp giving completely unobtainable solutions (in terms of accuracy) and claiming it to be the correct solution.

The Best solution is the one that works best for the end user. I don't care if he uses my suggestion or not. However, I know that it WILL give him superior results in his application with the experience and knowledge to back it up.

Oh, and just for the record (pun intended)....My house is Smoke Free! ;)







Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.