Video

Indeed ... it must be a real gut-punch to realize that all the time and money got you exactly nothing in return.

A change in tilt potentially may adversely alter distortion characteristics but it will not vary the test tone's pitch and I demonstrate just such pitch wavering, using instrumentation, here: 19:51 [The wavering is clearly audible, at least to me, although the test frequency I used is not where the ear is most sensitive to such wavering.] In the two AR Music Rooms (technology showrooms playing AR gear where no sales were transacted and engagement with AR personnel was entirely up to the discretion of the attendees), one of which was located on the Main Concourse of Grand Central Terminal ("Station") of New York City, they gave live demonstrations of the benefits of the AR arm's unusually low pivot height in its ability to greatly reduce warp wow, on ACTUAL warped records, not simulated warp records like I used in the video. [Only because I don't currently own any warped records.] This principle is still currently employed by at least some top name tonearms such as SME costing £7,550 (around $9,687 USD), for the EXACT same stated reason: "Axes at record mean level to minimise warp-wow." My translation: "Our pivots are placed right at the record's average play surface height in order to minimize audible wow (pitch fluctuation) when encountering record warps." Quote and price source: www.vickershifi.com/products/smeav12/sme-v-12-series-5-12-precision-turntable-pick-up-tone-arm

Yes. With a costly (~$1K) ABX box a computer inside it randomizes the inputs automatically so one person can test themselves. With my DIY "manual" ABX box you need two people: One person pre-wires the box's inputs, by random coin toss assignment, out of sight of the listener, and then hides the rear connections they've made with a black cloth/tape. They then leave the room and then the listener enters and tries to figure out if X is actually the same as A or B, but MY box costs only $20 (plus wiring)!

Oh, I left out that the listener is in control of the playback machine feeding the two DACs being compared, so they select whatever song they want and whatever master volume they want on the preamp/integrated amp/receiver receiving the signal from this little switch box's output, as well as when the song starts, and to pause playback for a snack or to take a break for any reason. The only rule is they must not sneak a peek under the black cloth/tape to see what truly is wired to X (A or B), plus the incoming music of A and B must (of course) be synchronized and at the same matching volumes. Otherwise a difference in volume would betray the secret identities. For example, if B was sonically louder and the listener notices X is also louder then obviously it would be a dead giveaway (also called a "tell") that X must actually be B.

@@m.zillch3841 Presumably the operator could decide how many different songs to listen to when doing the testing ? For example if he or she was using a sample size of 16, they could listen to the same song several times or listen to 16 different songs ?

@@Chris-nd5se The listener is free to hear any materiel they want (including from their own private collection), pre-train with that material before the test in any manner they wish, however much they want, listening to it in the actual test as many times as they want, (even conducting the test over days/weeks/months/years if they want), in any order they want.

@@m.zillch3841 Ok thanks for the clarification.

Thanks. Well, it may happen to provide signals for the surround speakers with its "off stage" L/R sounds, but officially it is just for 2ch stereo so I'm not sure you should trust it for setting the signal levels properly for the surround L and R.

Ostensibly the 60 people who participated in the vote and downloaded the two, Hi-res (96kHz), direct electrical recordings made by wire (meaning not acoustically through the air via microphones) of the two turntable systems being compared did indeed listen to them on their own, singular home stereo systems, in one room, from one seated position, with one set of speakers (and/or headphones if they preferred). It is important to understand we aren't comparing the sound of complete audio systems in a room in this test at all, by the way, just two turntable systems playing two LPs (one a $125 "audiophile grade" pressing used on the expensive turntable and a regular $26 version on the inexpensive turntable) played using two different cartridges, tonearms, interconnect wires, and phono preamps, always with the pricier version of each being used with the expensive turntable. Neither test signal passed through any loudspeakers, amplifiers to power those speakers, room acoustics, nor microphones. [All of those things being bypassed would have objectionably added high levels of distortion/noise/alteration had they been in the chain, compared to the direct wires coming straight out of the two turntable systems which were used.] More details can be found at that link I included, which I'll repeat here for convenience: www.avsforum.com/threads/500-000-vs-78-turntable-blind-test.3237117/?post_id=61442108#post-61442108

@@m.zillch3841 Thanks for the clarification. It is a pity that the digital files made by Michael Fremer and you on the 2 turntable systems were not from an identical vinyl pressing but the results of the test is quite surprising nonetheless.

@@Chris-nd5se I totally agree that ideally the exact same physical record should be used (not just the same pressing), however be advised the early claim in the AVS forum thread that his MoFi record was purely analog and never had undergone any stages of digitization was later determined to be incorrect. Like most of their discs (made post 2015) MoFi finally admitted they used DSD (256 in this case), which can be verified for this disc in question here: web.archive.org/web/20230924145057/mofi.com/products/paul-simon-still-crazy-after-all-these-years-ultradisc-one-step. His disc was a limited edition (now sold out), audiophile grade, "One-Step process" record made on two discs (rather than cramming all the songs tightly onto one disc), at 45 RPM (so more vinyl surface is used per second), both said to improve sound quality. While it was still available it cost $125. My LP was $99 less, $26, not a limited edition pressing, made by Columbia. Mine's made on one disc at the standard 33⅓ RPM speed.

@@m.zillch3841 I think the fact that when people hear the files back, this obviously initially involves the digital to analog conversion process, ie. a dac of some kind and then equipment further down the chain, ie amplifiers, speakers, headphones which could be of significantly different quality, to reproduce the analogue sound, you are introducing lots of variables which could be responsible for the result obtained. However I applaud you for enabling the test.

​@@Chris-nd5se Keep in mind my invitation to participate was not to a general audience of average folks off the street, but instead to an audio hobbyists forum in a subsection dedicated to 2ch music reproduction. Should I have further demanded that only people using speakers that cost 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars be allowed to vote? Regarding these numerous stages of distortion you just outlined above, I'm confused as to why they'd apply DIFFERENTLY for listeners of Fremer's uploaded content vs my uploaded content. Sure, not everyone has speakers that cost $100K but that sound limitation applies equally to both recordings, his and mine, so the impairment was the same in my mind. Please explain why/if you disagree, thanks.

One word reply .... Bullshit.

@@Douglas_Blake_579 you should continue listening to your bluetooth speaker

@@Synthematix And you need to study some REAL electronics. What you are talking is typical audiophile mumbo-jumbo taken directly from the websites of predatory companies that exist for no better reason than parting you from your money. I've posted a ton of explanation about how this stuff really works, here.... educate yourself.

@@Douglas_Blake_579 Ok i take it you didnt realize i repair these things for a living lol

@@Synthematix And you don't seem to understand that I am a diplomate Technician, working in electronics for 40+ years with a fair bit of design experience. But that's okay ... you can be as incompetent as you like, it's no real skin off my back unless you are trying to spread disinformation.

Sorry about the glitch. I recorded this as a live TV braodcast and that's how my recording came out. Re-uploading it to CZcams would have the same glitch.

This event was a live TV broadcast I recorded right as it happened with no possibility to "rewind and restart" if an error occurred and I don't know what caused the brief glitch, sorry. It also can't be edited out and fixed in post because there was no alternate feed to cut to when the brief glitch occurs. Maybe a rain cloud passing by disrupted the transmission beam? Who knows. . . . Speaking of glitches, have you ever seen these exact same Boston news crews film the runners up close and personal during the Boston Marathons? Also, FILLED with stuttering, frozen images, and glitches. Oh well.

@@m.zillch3841 The wonders of modern technology! Thanks for putting up that marvellous recording though.

Like most units of its kind the MOTU M4 lacks a necessary RIAA EQ curve correction stage (a phono stage) so normally an intermediate phono preamp is necessary to apply the corrective EQ, first converting the cartridge's output to standard line level with a flat response before then being digitized by the M4.

Also as for distortion, this song is known to have some embedded in the original master tape itself. As to whether it is intentional or not is debatable, but check out the right channel from 5m47s to around 5m50s on this DIGITAL version of it (so we know it has nothing to do with vinyl/cartridges): czcams.com/video/CPSkNFODVRE/video.htmlfeature=shared&t=344 Additionally, keep in mind this is the very last song on this side of the disc so it has the highest level of inner groove distortion, the shortest vinyl path length per rotation (the smallest circumference), and a relatively high tracking angle error compared to the opening cuts.

​​​​​​​​@@m.zillch3841for clarification, I'm mainly referring to "if there's a buSSSTle in your heDGerow..." this sibilance is not present on the digital version you linked. the stereo image also shifts when this happens, which to me indicates a cartridge mistracking problem. is r1-535340 a1 the matrix number on this disc? if so, I apparently have this exact issue and can record a demonstration. with respect to the motu, the assumption would be that if you used it as a preamp you'd just apply the riaa de-emph digitally. the notion that this is "better" stems from my guess that the motu preamplfiers likely are quieter/have more headroom/reject common-mode noise/etc. you'd have to strap a 47k resistor in parallel or compensate digitally for the change in input impedance (an advantage of the latter approach would be reduced current noise from the cartridge).

@@technology4617 When recording vinyl, even expensive audiophile grade discs in great/perfect condition (and this disc isn't exactly either of those two things), the limitations in your overall recording's signal to noise ratio and distortion has little to do with the performance of an ADC like the MOTU M4 (www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/motu-m4-audio-interface-review.15757/ ), nor which input on it you use; the main bottleneck in SINAD is almost always the format, vinyl, itself.

​@@m.zillch3841a similarly-glib response from me would be something like: "if this recording is neither audiophile-grade nor the disc in great condition, what exactly is the point of this video? if the mastering engineer in his expert judgment didn't think the peak limiting applied to the streaming release didn't make it sound better..." etc etc

Purposefully using inadequate gauge wire so as to prove the added clutter and complexity of using two parallel runs "makes a difference" is ridiculous stupidity. Any sane person would use a single wire run with an adequate gauge from the get-go.

As I say at 3:09 it is an unmodified turntable however "I've replaced the mat (and the belt) which wear out over time, true of any organic material" (paraphrased). Both original AR mats and belts were special in ways that improved performance but they are unfortunately no longer available, so I had to use substitutions.

@@m.zillch3841 right on. Just looked so much like the original, I had to ask.

They used to show off this feat in their showrooms, at trade shows, and in this ad: www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/turntable-history/ar_turntablehammer.jpg The AR turntable must be placed on a dead solid, immovable surface with absolutely no sway for it to work so most affordable stereo racks won't do. I used my kitchen's rock solid countertop. And the rubber grommets at the bases of the three internal suspension springs should be new, soft, and supple, not the undoubtedly-now-dried-out, stiff, half-century old stock ones they installed back in the 60/70's when the turntable was originally built. I was lucky and found new ones in the nuts and bolts department of my local hardware store but there are online sources too. Have fun!

2 ads at different times. Interrupted twice.

Their business model seems to have changed unfortunately. Unless you buy their premium service it's inescapable to the best of my knowledge. My channel is 100% non-monetized BY ME, just so you know, and every single question they pose to me about setting up my channel regardingcommercials I respond "none".

I sometimes use distilled water (so when it dries there's no residue) but in this video the brushes were dry.

Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes?.

Yes, indeed!

This song always brings me to tears, I’m glad I’m not the only one

They are a decades-long, ongoing rip off. Optimal performance is attainable at very low prices although this is not to say any old wire will do fine. You need to use an adequate gauge of copper wire for the speaker impedance and run (length) which can be determined by consulting a reputable wire table such as this one: www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm#wiretable Differences heard with expensive exotic wires are a combination of the placebo effect, every single person on earth without exception is potentially susceptible to (so double blind test conditions are always necessary for wire listening tests), marketing lies, or an odd inductance/capacitance of the wire which makes the amp misbehave or exhibit a skewed frequency response the listener may errantly identify as an "improvement".

My favorite musical instrument!

Given the short distance and the width of the metal straps, you are talking about tiny fractions of an ohm of reisistance... any metal strap will do just fine.

9:10

You seem to be thinking of bi-amping, not bi-wiring (which is the actual topic of this video).

@@m.zillch3841 true, sorry about that ;-) anyway thx for clearing the bi-wire myth

You might better understand that the two complete circuits actually use the same number of wires and are exactly the same other than the distance from the amp where the y-split occurs (which is common to both scenarios) by watching part 2, here: czcams.com/video/NJhFxuymlCI/video.html Keep in mind just because the short wire from the internal amplifier circuit to the amp's external binding posts is invisible to you because it is inside a box doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't count as a wire. Similarly the y-split invisible to you that's inside a speaker cabinet using the jumper straps in place, "single wiring" rather than "bi-wiring", also exists and the two wires out of it both count. There's no change in the number of wires used in the two COMPLETE circuits, just their lengths, visibility to the user, and who has to buy them and connect them.

Bells 10:01

Nothing special. I bought the first thing that popped up on Amazon. It was $27.68 a few years ago when I got it but they currently have it for $39.39 I believe.

Keep in mind the AR-XA is not just any turntable though. Miles Davis owned one as did Herbert van Karajan and they were both filthy rich multi-millionaires and tops in the music industry so they could've afforded whatever they possibly wanted. They certainly didn't pick the AR-XA for its convenience features-it has none, not even an arm lift lever-so they obviously picked it for one reason: sound quality.

And who is this German dealer?

@@liammusgrove6334 He has a CZcams channel: PhonoPhono. There you will find the information you need.