Just noticed that if the record has a short run-out groove not only can the detection not work or not be accurate, the cartridge can actually hit the ES-001! Not good.
I normally keep the ES-001 on during playback, as recommended, as I think the record can shift when removing the unit and using another weight; but with a short lead-out groove this is not recommended.
I normally keep the ES-001 on during playback, as recommended, as I think the record can shift when removing the unit and using another weight; but with a short lead-out groove this is not recommended.
My experiences …
I do understand some opinions which say for measuring it is a good tool but I would never expand a record’s hole of my old original pressings. From my “little experience” right now I would say that 2/3 of my records only need some kind of moving back to the central point. Most holes are too big for the spindle and do need only a movement into a centralised position. 1/3 should be enlarged in a very subtle way. It is a fine adjustment of the hole when you are using the reamer. In the end you will use the DS ES 001 all the time. If you compare the sound before and after centralisation you will be totally convinced of the DS unit.
www.audiocirc.com
I do understand some opinions which say for measuring it is a good tool but I would never expand a record’s hole of my old original pressings. From my “little experience” right now I would say that 2/3 of my records only need some kind of moving back to the central point. Most holes are too big for the spindle and do need only a movement into a centralised position. 1/3 should be enlarged in a very subtle way. It is a fine adjustment of the hole when you are using the reamer. In the end you will use the DS ES 001 all the time. If you compare the sound before and after centralisation you will be totally convinced of the DS unit.
www.audiocirc.com
It sure does make an audible difference, and it makes conceptual sense that a record should be centered.
Since about 40-50% of my records need adjustment, it’s why I didn’t want a TT with vacuum hold down. Correcting eccentricity is more important than correcting warps on the fly. Warps can be fixed by flattening, then you have the best of both worlds.
Since about 40-50% of my records need adjustment, it’s why I didn’t want a TT with vacuum hold down. Correcting eccentricity is more important than correcting warps on the fly. Warps can be fixed by flattening, then you have the best of both worlds.
Last edited:
I agree with you on this, but the purpose of vacuum hold-down isn’t to correct warps. Yes, it’s also useful for addressing warps, but its main advantage is ensuring good coupling between the record and the mat.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |