progress?

" I think it is all about set-up, cartridge/tonearm matching and proper isolation."

Having not tested out or compared the modern tables to the older in a test like this, I also suspect the overall setup is the key to success in many cases. This and similar records were the ultimate test for table tracking back then. I was in retail audio sales back then and had the opportunity to set up and use many tables and carts back then and the setup made all the difference as I recall. Only a small % of setups/combos seemed up to the task even back then as I recall. Also I seem to recall high mass carts in lower mass tonearms popular with many Japanese and European tables at the time having the least success due largely to extreme inertial effects. Those records served too purposes: 1 ) demonstrate the dynamics possible with digital recording technology of the day and 2) demonstrate the shortcomings of most record players/turntables of the day with such recordings as they failed to track the records adequately in most cases. Digital had its own technical issues and challenges to conquer over the years, but the laws of physics relating to mass and inertia was not one of them luckily.

Stealing from Pauln, AK Member who wrote the following which nicely allows one to envision the factors at play in getting a cartridge/stylus to track a record properly:


"Compliance is a measure of how hard the groove wall has to press on the stylus tip to get it to move.

Since the pressure and movement are changing through time, the usual attributes that come into play with accelerations apply.

In an automobile suspension, all the moving parts are classified as belonging to one of parts of the system - the sprung weight, and the un-sprung weight. In the case of a car, the un-sprung weight is the car itself, the suspension mounting, and the parts of the suspension that "don't move". The sprung weight included the wheel and hub, maybe part of the axle, etc. (the parts that do move).

It get a little tricky when considering the shocks, springs, and sometimes the axle. These things "move", but they are typically held fast at the un-sprung end. What happens is that the wheel itself is considered fully sprung, but the shock or spring is considered partially sprung (math is used to figure the equivalent sprung mass of the partially sprung components).

Anyway, on the turntable, the stylus, cantilever, and a portion of the suspension mounting, (and the coil if MC, or the magnet if MM, or the iron if MI) is the sprung weight; and the tonearm, balance weight, and cartridge mounting is the un-sprung weight.

(And if your turntable uses a suspension subsystem, there is a similar relationship between the tonearm/platter system (sprung) and the chassis (un-sprung).

Because of the geometry of the sprung weight (a tip at the end of a rod with the rod mounted at the other end with something connected to it - a coil, magnet, or iron), the usual way this is all described is effective tip mass. Which is to say, all the linkages and differential momentum and inertia and damping of the cantilever mounting is all rolled into one figure that describes how the groove wall would receive and respond to an equivalent isolated little mass in contact with the walls. The calculation reveals how much the groove wall "thinks" the tip weighs by how hard or easy it is to push and accelerate the tip.

But since the tip in the real world is connected to the rest of the system, the compliance needs to match the physical characteristics of the arm, the mounting, etc. because of the accelerations and inertia.

Sometimes it helps to visualize the extreme cases using a thought experiment.

Case 1 - Low compliance and light arm
Here the tip may be heavy and the cantilever very heavy and the mounting very tight and stiff. Let the arm be very light (like a soda straw). When the groove presses the tip, the tip resists deflecting in relation to the arm strongly and the whole arm moves. Now the whole geometry is wrong because instead of just wiggling the cantilever the whole arm is trying to wiggle and the effects of its geometry and mounting to the table come into effect.

Case 2 - High compliance and heavy arm
Let's say the arm is made of granite and weighs about ten pounds, but it is balanced just right and is floating on air bearings. What happens when the groove wall presses the tip sideways? The tip moves, but the arm does not. What happens when the groove presses the tip up? It moved up, but the arm does not. What happens after a few seconds of tracking? The tip gets bent to the side as the groove moves inward to the center of the record. The arm does not move. The tip finally mistracks and hops over the groove into the next groove and repeats this indefinitely. The compliance is too great for the deflected tip to move the arm. If the tip had a few minutes to apply its deflection continuously to the arm, you might see the arm begin to move, but that's too late, and it would take the same amount of time deflecting the other way just to get it to stop."

The laws of physics relating to acceleration and inertia essentially make playing records always an exercise in compromise. The highest quality and most dynamic recordings are inherently also the hardest to get to playback accurately! A true dilemma! That is why so many (including myself)were so excited when digital came along.....a different set of problems in the digital and electronic (not physical) domain to solve that seemed more solvable and in fact has been pretty well shaken out by now over the years.

Those early Telarc records were the first indicators for many (including myself) that vinyl playback technology had progressed about as far as it could/would and a new and better way was needed to move things forward.

Modern tables and cartridges may be more technologically advanced than those from years ago, but they still have to deal with the same laws and limitations dictated by physics to work well. Proper setup/matching of components in a vinyl rig is pretty much what its all about to get best results. A lot of the rest may be nice but do not matter nearly as much. The same rules and limitations hold today as back then, which might explain why the progress made in fact may not be so great as one might expect given some of the modern price tags in many cases.

I wish I still had my old $200 Philips 312 table from back then. One of my all time favorites. That low mass tonearm with the right high compliance mm cart tracked pretty well and sounded way better than it should have. I recall it doing way better than most Japanese table setups of the day with the Telarcs. I still have some old cassette recordings I made back in the 70's that still sound half decent and give a decent hint of its charms. A gorgeous and utilitarian design as well.

So when does the new and improved 45 rpm re-issue version of the classic Telarc 1812 recording come out? That might be the new King Kong of record tracking challenges. BEst sound ever if anything could play it without the stylus getting launched all the way to some prehistoric island in the process. :^)