I think we forget the tt is constantly hunting for the right speed.
They were all done at 44.1 Khz. But I just repeated the test at 96 KHz. Everything is the same as far as difference except that both tracks now seem a bit warmer.This is fascinating..... did you do your processing on the 44.1 files or the 96 files? I used the free SoX resampler, so I don't know if that may substantially degrade things.
Not true for belt driven tables with no servo attached.
Without a "control" as Frank mentioned (and I said repeatedly at the beginning) there is no conclusion to draw on that front. We don't know that the act of manipulating the LP or recording multiple times would not naturally generate these variations. I will say that there is a difference though. So either LPs are unreliable from play to play or the device made a difference.Amir-Your graphs were very interesting. Are you now a believer that something is going on with the demag process?
"And one more thing...."
Digital seems to be a perfectly good tool to analyze such things. Having samples frozen in time is a great tool to measure things objectively. And surely if that is the difference normally heard, digital was able to capture it all. Put another way, digital's resolving power seems to match and exceed that of the DeMag!!! Take that Greg.
So we have left demag and returned to the vinyl /cd food fight."And one more thing...."
Digital seems to be a perfectly good tool to analyze such things. Having samples frozen in time is a great tool to measure things objectively. And surely if that is the difference normally heard, digital was able to capture it all. Put another way, digital's resolving power seems to match and exceed that of the DeMag!!! Take that Greg.
Not true for belt driven tables with no servo attached.
The level of sub-sonic signal to me is remarkable high, is that typical for high end TT? It also also varies dramatically between the samples, I guess depending on precisely where the LP is positioned on the platter -- is that the case?
Frank
Back to the point of this thread. Is not this better than name calling?
Let's be careful about that. That part of the segment was amplified 35+ db and then the graph enlarged again. The signals are barely riding over residual noise.So, back to the point, if I were to review a demag device (not the Furutec) I would say that it made a positive difference that we thought we heard sighted and live. It made a difference that could be captured on digital - resulting in waveforms that had deeper valleys and higher hills - which might be translated to greater dynamics?
I thought of another experiment to make this comparison simpler. I took the first four piano notes from the first file and appended the same from the second (after trimming the header I used earlier).Did it make a difference that we could hear in the digital capture? I think that the jury is still out. Could anybody hear a difference in the two tracks? I couldn't..... not in my office background music system, but once I get my system back next week, I'll have another listen.
Unless I am mistaken, I think we have moved on from DeMag to learning about characteristics of LP system. It sure would be fascinating to find audible differences from play to play. Such differences would cast doubt on many tweaks done in analog domain. After all, if you can't reliably repeat the same experiment, then the tweaks may not be at play at all.But seriously, is the horse really already dead?
Unless I am mistaken, I think we have moved on from DeMag to learning about characteristics of LP system. It sure would be fascinating to find audible differences from play to play. Such differences would cast doubt on many tweaks done in analog domain. After all, if you can't reliably repeat the same experiment, then the tweaks may not be at play at all.
So I for one would love to see 5 captures of the same LP. And then may be raising the temps a bit and repeating, etc. We may be breaking new ground here in discovering how this medium works.