Reviewing the Furutec Demag

Alright, since some people felt compelled to take some pot shots at MikeL’s adjectives, I will tell you what they mean to me and I’m sure to a few others as well:

--low-level detail – The quiet subtle parts of music that tend to be blurred over or not even heard with cheaper gear.

--decay in notes- The way that you can hear a note decay all the way out after it is played assuming it was recorded that way.

--space, sense of hall- That you can hear the size of the recording venue and get a good grasp on whether it was recorded in a small club, a large club, or an isolation booth in a recording studio. You also get a sense of where the musicians are playing on the stage relative to each other laterally and depth wise.

--tonal texture and transparency in the mid-range-That a violin doesn’t sound like a cello and that you get a sense of all the different tones that are coming from the instrument as it is played. Instruments have lots of nuances to their sound sometimes referred to as tonal colors and the goal is to capture as much of that “organic signature” as possible.

--fullness and substance-That the sound isn’t bright and threadbare. All the sound of the instruments are fleshed out and captured with their harmonics intact.

--organic signature of instruments-See my above description.

--chestiness of vocals-That it sounds like there is a real body attached to the head and you get a sense of their diaphragm and how they are projecting when they sing. In other words, you are not just picturing a head singing at you, but rather you have a sense of the whole person and how they are projecting their voice from their chest when they sing.

--bloom and openness-That notes naturally sound like they are swelling and decaying as they do in a real space when heard live.

--bass energy and flow. That the bass isn’t being rolled off or sound weak and anemic in comparison to the other instruments in the recording and that you can follow the beat of the bass as it is keeping time with the rest of the band. And for those that don’t know it, the principle time keepers in a band are the drummer and the bass player. If those two guys aren't locked into a groove (there's those words again Amir) and keeping perfect time together, the rest of the band doesn’t have a chance.

--focus and precision-that your images don’t wander around or sound blurry or indistinct and your music doesn’t sound like no one playing can keep time together.
 
Last edited:
I'm agreeing and pointing out to those who may not have experience with record players that the 8Hz (or 9Hz) resonance in the arm/cartridge combination is normal.
Orb, for your information that "squiggly line" in my post is the left channel of the first Ella track that Gary posted with everything above 20Hz stripped out. You can use programs like the freeware Audacity to apply powerful digital filters against a recording, to see exactly what is going on. So, for example, I could have run a filter to strip out everything below 20Hz, just like a very, very powerful rumble filter: the result would have looked almost identical to the original waveform unless you zoomed to the right level, to see in fact that the 8Hz wobble had been lost ...

Frank
 
low-level detail – The quiet subtle parts of music that tend to be blurred over or not even heard with cheaper gear. ... etc
This has been a very interesting exchange ...

First of all, I'm with Ethan: I have no trouble accepting that digital will do an excellent job of recording, "capturing" the signal. Dropping bits, sorry to all who disagree, is simply reducing dynamic range, the signal to noise ratio, it doesn't affect anything else. On the Denon test CD, there is a track with a couple of classical snippets, one is piano only, at -60dB. That translates to losing 10 bits of the 16 bits of the redbook resolution; it's only using 6 bits to encode the sound! I can run that at maximum volume, with my ear to the speaker, and can hear that that the tone and ambience of the piano has been fully captured! Yes, it is noisy, there is a hissy, rustling noise happening at the same time, but I have no trouble separating the "musical experience" from that background noise ...

Where I am on everyone else's side is in regard to the playback of that correctly captured digital signal. My experience, and my understanding of the nature of the situation, is that that unless carefully carried out, the actual process of digital playback introduces low level distortion of a particularly disturbing nature, a form of colouration which degrades precisely those elements of the sound that mep has carefully elaborated upon. The subjective tone of this terminology is an attempt to describe the impact of the absence of this type of distortion, which is key to greater enjoyment of the reproduction of sound ...

Frank
 
This has been a very interesting exchange ...

First of all, I'm with Ethan: I have no trouble accepting that digital will do an excellent job of recording, "capturing" the signal. Dropping bits, sorry to all who disagree, is simply reducing dynamic range, the signal to noise ratio, it doesn't affect anything else. On the Denon test CD, there is a track with a couple of classical snippets, one is piano only, at -60dB. That translates to losing 10 bits of the 16 bits of the redbook resolution; it's only using 6 bits to encode the sound! I can run that at maximum volume, with my ear to the speaker, and can hear that that the tone and ambience of the piano has been fully captured! Yes, it is noisy, there is a hissy, rustling noise happening at the same time, but I have no trouble separating the "musical experience" from that background noise ...

Where I am on everyone else's side is in regard to the playback of that correctly captured digital signal. My experience, and my understanding of the nature of the situation, is that that unless carefully carried out, the actual process of digital playback introduces low level distortion of a particularly disturbing nature, a form of colouration which degrades precisely those elements of the sound that mep has carefully elaborated upon. The subjective tone of this terminology is an attempt to describe the impact of the absence of this type of distortion, which is key to greater enjoyment of the reproduction of sound ...

Frank

disclaimer; as a technical dunderhead it is possible that my understanding of the following may be completely wrong. if so, go ahead and crucify me. then clear it up for me please. thanks. i've been wrong before and will likely be wrong again.:D:D:D

to assist the flat-earther's who think reducing bits only changes volume; i refer you to the video side of things. in video, reducing bits lowers the pallette of color gradiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth

it's no different with sound.

fewer bits and fewer samples per second= less resolution.

yes, dynamic range is improved with more resolution but there is also more gradiations of data to represent every aspect of the sound.

turning up the volume of a an MP3 signal does not bring it to the musical value of higher resolution....like a CD.

you guys are confusing how a digital volume control works (which throws away bits at a loss of resolution too) with actual signal resolution.
 
Do we really need another analog digital food fight? I admit they can be fun.

Maybe we can get back to our reaction to the Furuetech?
 
i refer you to the video side of things. in video, reducing bits lowers the pallette of color gradiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth
Sorry, the pallette of color gradation is another of saying "signal to noise" ratio. If you stand back from the screen with that page from Wikipedia up the image using 8 bits will look identical to that using 24 bits, the further back you go the harder it is to see a difference. The moving back is equivalent to reducing volume, and that visual version of doing so demonstrates that signal/noise, S/N, doesn't matter when the volume is low.

Another way of saying that is to insist that 1080p is hopelessly flawed, because when I stand with my nose 2" from the screen it just looks like a noisy mess of coloured dots!

The MP3 point is not relevant because here the signal has been distorted, not dropped in volume ...

Frank
 
Okay imagine Ethan ttrying to convnice Phoebe that digital is better than analog and that everything we hear is measurable. I apologize in advance for those who don't get my sense of humor.
 
Okay imagine Ethan ttrying to convnice Phoebe that digital is better than analog and that everything we hear is measurable. I apologize in advance for those who don't get my sense of humor.
The two messages I took away:

1. Boy, we all age! They sure look younger than they are now!!!

2. Before the clever speech at the end, there were better words of wisdom: "why do you have an obsessive need to get everyone to agree with you?" She may be playing the role of a dumb blonde but no smarter words were expressed relative to the context we have here :).

No more personal remarks please lest you want me to go further than this soft jab :).
 
Point taken.
 
Sorry, the pallette of color gradation is another of saying "signal to noise" ratio. If you stand back from the screen with that page from Wikipedia up the image using 8 bits will look identical to that using 24 bits, the further back you go the harder it is to see a difference. The moving back is equivalent to reducing volume, and that visual version of doing so demonstrates that signal/noise, S/N, doesn't matter when the volume is low.

Another way of saying that is to insist that 1080p is hopelessly flawed, because when I stand with my nose 2" from the screen it just looks like a noisy mess of coloured dots!

The MP3 point is not relevant because here the signal has been distorted, not dropped in volume ...

Frank

signal to noise does change with gains/losses of resolution, but that's different than dynamic range, or resolution per se. all those terms are important. but the question is whether more bits and samples or less bits and samples changes the value of the data.

and more is better.....other than the challenge of storage and delivery of the data.

go ahead, re-read your own post. you are describing differences in resolution. and varying levels of information. which results in more immersion into the event. and more connection/enjoyment....and a more accurate and complete rendition of the original event.

if you want to mimimize the effect of more information sure, you can listen to your system from accross the street. or from the next room. then that additional information won't help. but the concept of that is silly.
 
signal to noise does change with gains/losses of resolution, but that's different than dynamic range, or resolution per se. all those terms are important.
Okay, we seem to have a fundamental divergence on an understanding of these terms: S/N, dynamic range and resolution. Just to put this discussion in a better context could you possibly, using technical language, precisely define and distinguish those terms, or point to somewhere on the net where there are definitions you're happy with?

Thanks,
Frank
 
Okay, we seem to have a fundamental divergence on an understanding of these terms: S/N, dynamic range and resolution. Just to put this discussion in a better context could you possibly, using technical language, precisely define and distinguish those terms, or point to somewhere on the net where there are definitions you're happy with?

Thanks,
Frank

i'm a self described technical dunderhead. but with Google i can do a few things.

signal to noise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio

dynamic range

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

resolution (from Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

a : the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light b : a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch>

************

any way you slice it; more resolution makes the image sharper and more clear.

signal to noise is a measure used in science and engineering to quantify how much a signal has been corrupted by noise.

dynamic range is the ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a changeable quantity.

more bits and samples increases resolution, thereby increasing the definition of the event. increasing signal to noise allows the resolution to be more clear above the noise floor, and the increase in dynamic range allows for more energetic limits for the event.
 
Okay, just to get a tighter handle on the S/N issue, would you say it is possible to discern a signal that is below the noise floor. For example if the noise level was -60dB and you attempted to record an analogue signal which had a MAXIMUM level of, say, -62dB, would you say it would be possible to distinguish that signal to any degree?

Frank
 
Okay, just to get a tighter handle on the S/N issue, would you say it is possible to discern a signal that is below the noise floor. For example if the noise level was -60dB and you attempted to record an analogue signal which had a MAXIMUM level of, say, -62dB, would you say it would be possible to distinguish that signal to any degree?

Frank

as you can tell, i'm not a numbers guy.

my perspective is that analog and digital deal with all three of those parameters differently.

with digital you can only approach the actual numerical limits of S/N, D/R and resolution......you can never actually fully attain them. when you record to digital you cannot go past the limit. with analog you can push stuff into overload and the penalty is much more benign. so limits are not fixed.

if you hear more in an analog signal is that because there is more data density or is that a lower noise floor, or have you just pushed by an arbitrary limit which may have been wrongly figured?

i do not know why i hear 'more' with analog; but i do.
 
Orb, for your information that "squiggly line" in my post is the left channel of the first Ella track that Gary posted with everything above 20Hz stripped out. You can use programs like the freeware Audacity to apply powerful digital filters against a recording, to see exactly what is going on. So, for example, I could have run a filter to strip out everything below 20Hz, just like a very, very powerful rumble filter: the result would have looked almost identical to the original waveform unless you zoomed to the right level, to see in fact that the 8Hz wobble had been lost ...

Frank

Thanks Frank,
any idea why is there no other low level signals from 4hz and 8-15hz specifically for rumbe/motor/etc?
Even with it damped there should still be some signal there, curious how it compares in level to that specific 8hz wobble shown.
BTW just how much energy is in that wobble, is it extremely low?

Thanks again
Orb
 
Orb, there is probably energy at those other frequencies that you mentioned there, it's just that it is overwhelmed by the 8Hz wobble. Unfortunately the software I use, which is designed for audio, stops at 20Hz in terms of filtering, other programs probably could do what you're asking ...

Actually I was very surprised by the high level of the 8Hz resonance, considering the quality of the TT. It's only 30 to 40dB down from the maximum level of the track, that is, roughly 1 to 3%!

Frank
 
Orb, there is probably energy at those other frequencies that you mentioned there, it's just that it is overwhelmed by the 8Hz wobble. Unfortunately the software I use, which is designed for audio, stops at 20Hz in terms of filtering, other programs probably could do what you're asking ...

Actually I was very surprised by the high level of the 8Hz resonance, considering the quality of the TT. It's only 30 to 40dB down from the maximum level of the track, that is, roughly 1 to 3%!

Frank

LOL and I am surprised there is no other low level frequency resonance equal or close to the energy of the 8hz resonance you show and why it is so high, so that makes two of us :)

Its one to ponder but I do not think we will work out why bah :)
Thanks again
Orb
 
I believe tonearm resonance at 8Hz was identified as the culprit a few pages back. It's does seem the most logical explanation to me as well.
 
I believe tonearm resonance at 8Hz was identified as the culprit a few pages back. It's does seem the most logical explanation to me as well.

This then ignores everything we just been discussing and, the idea is to ensure-dampen low frequency resonances and maintain stability (conpliance).
It really should be low amplitude.
But yeah, it is some form of vibration-resonance picked up by the tone arm, possibly linked to something like subsonic groove modulation/LP issue and TT setup?

BTW does anyone have any charts or measurements showing the amplitude for all resonance from 4hz to 20hz?
I ask this because then it is pretty clear to compare the compliance resonance to the other notable ones picked up by the cartridge-tonearm.

Thanks
Orb
 
Last edited:
This then ignores everything we just been discussing and ignores that the idea is to ensure-dampen low frequency resonances and maintain stability.
It really should be low amplitude.

BTW does anyone have any charts or measurements showing the amplitude for all resonance from 4hz to 20hz?
I ask this because then it is pretty clear to compare the compliance resonance to the other notable ones.

Thanks
Orb

Tone arm resonance is determined by the effective mass of the tone arm (incl. cartridge) and the dynamic compliance of the cartridge. Since tone arm resonance can not be eliminated, it must be positioned in a frequency region where it will least likely be excited by vibrations within the mechanical system.

Vibration sources are :
record eccentricities : 0.55 Hz
warp : 0.55 10 Hz
turntable suspension : 3.5 10 Hz
music : 15 Hz (large pipe organ)

Since music signals of 15 Hz are seldom, 20 Hz appears to be a more practical value. The desired resonance frequency of stylus/tone arm should therefore be above 5 but below 20 Hz.

A statistical analysis of record warps gave as result that very few warps occurred above a frequency of 7 8 Hz.

The optimum resonance frequency is in the range between 8 15 Hz, where there is a minimum of groove modulation and warp to excite system resonance.


The resonance frequency of the tone arm is calculated according to the formula

F = 1000 / 2 x Pi x sqrt ( MC)

Pi = 3.14159
sqrt = square root
C = stylus compliance in mm/N
M = effective mass of tone arm + cartridge in gr

This formula can also be used to determine the effective mass of the tone arm :

M = 1/4 x (pi exp2) x (F exp2) x C

A more recent analysis of record warps indicates warps to be less than has been thought in.

The reason why the resonance frequence of the tone arm should be between 8 15 Hz is that otherwise the arm can be excited by warps or low frequent music signals such that mistracking or groove jumping or bottoming of the cartridge on the record surface can occur. Moderate tone
arm movement will be audibly perceived as WOW, the stylus advancing and receding along the groove when the arm vibrates up and down. Thus wow is not induced by lateral vibrations such as coming from off center records.

One has to distinguish between static and dynamic compliance. The compliance per se is determined by shape and material of the cantilever and by the type of damper on the cantilever.

The dynamic compliance can range between 10 and 40 % of the static compliance.
It appears that the static compliance is sufficient for calculating resonance frequency in the region of 0 to 20 Hz.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing