LAST is Amazing, Wonderful, A Miracle!!

[js1138]

It's enough to suggest that actual research would be worth doing, but it's not actual research. It's actually a bit sad to see the word "control" used to denote something that is the opposite of an experimental control.

 

[markd51]

Probably the best term that could be given to some of the LAST products, is, "Tweak".

As all know, there are countless audio tweaks being made today. Balls, cones, stands, demagnetizers, cords, cables, cleaners, cleaning machines, drop counterweights, record treatments, etc etc, the list is virtually endless.

Can one do without such? Sure.

And if one feels any tweak is worth its cost, then no harm, no foul. No Doubt, many products can aid, and enhance performance. But, along comes what is known as "the point of diminishing returns".

It would be like using a set of German made Zeiss Abbe Orthoscopic Eyepieces on a fine, world class Apochromatic Refractor Telescope, as the Zeiss Eyepieces have been commonly known for years to be some of, if not the very finest in Optics-Eyepieces

But to use such expensive eyepieces, while they would no doubt squeeze the very best performance from even a substandard chinese made $100 Walmart Tasco Telescope, the expenditure for such Eyepieces would be extremely foolish, and a total waste of money. Sort of like dropping a $25,000 Dodge Hemi Engine in a Yugo.
Mark

 

[js1138]

I might add that when SoundGuard came out, it was accompanied by images of records played many times after using the product, and images of records played without. That wasn't particularly good science either.

 

[Karma16]

Your home tests, as you are aware, are flawed, and as such do not provide evidence either way.

You need at least two, preferably three turntables which are the same brand, have the same arm, and use the same cartridge configured in exactly the same way and using exactly the same anti-skate and tracking weight. The turntables should preferably be new, but if not, should have exactly the same prior usage. You never swap cartridges between the turntables.

You also need the same pressings from the same run which you use exclusively on one turntable only and you play for precisely the same time and at the same time.

One turntable is the control and plays only the pressings without any treatment. The other two play the treated records. The aim is to remove any variables from the experiment where possible.

After a given number of hours you measure the sound from each, but, since you're not in a lab, you examine both the stylus and grooves of the records you use. You repeat until one turntable or pressing shows noticeable signs of wear. Ideally you should use an electron microscope, but realistically that's not going to be easy to do at home.

You also need to examine the claims of the manufacturer as regards molecular binding and the levels of penetration at the molecular level, but again this is unrealistic in the home environment.

The manufacturer could do this easily, and use more sophisticated tests and equipment. The fact they do not do so, or, if they do, do not reveal the results, is a major concern and renders their claims dubious.

As the Romans put it, caveat emptor.

HI,
Well, you may have a better idea but it's impossible to do. And actually, using identical pressings is no advantage for stylus testing. Using any record actually randomizes the wear factor. Using multiple turntables would not hurt anything but, in fact, I can't do that. Most folks can't. I and you are forced to come up with a test that is actually practical. I have done this. You have not.

You are asking the impossible and does not prove that my much simpler technique is unreliable. Remember, I'm only testing the stylus, not the groove. My assumption is the stylus claims are much more radical than those for the groove. So, I'm willing to prove the more difficult proposition understanding that if one claim is proven good, then there is a very good chance the other will follow suit. In truth, the only way I have to test the groove is with my ears. My ears tell me the claims are good.

Also, if you want to get the details, I suggest that you call Last. They are more than willing to talk to you as long as you maintain an open mind. They are used to skeptics.

Sparky

 

[js1138]

It's not impossible. Just get an old changer and trick it into playing forever. 168 hours per week is six weeks per 1000 hours. You don't need to have a system hooked up, and you don't need to use an expensive stylus, but you do need to get good images of before and after.

 

[Karma16]

It's not impossible. Just get an old changer and trick it into playing forever. 168 hours per week is six weeks per 1000 hours. You don't need to have a system hooked up, and you don't need to use an expensive stylus, but you do need to get good images of before and after.

HI,
Good. YOU do it.

Sparky

 

[JonL]

It's not impossible. Just get an old changer and trick it into playing forever. 168 hours per week is six weeks per 1000 hours. You don't need to have a system hooked up, and you don't need to use an expensive stylus, but you do need to get good images of before and after.

You'd also need to come up with an automatic way to clean the stylus and apply the STYLAST before every side.

Do images tell you anything? Better to weigh the record, though the loss in material on even a highly worn record is probably infinitesimal.

Perhaps use a test record, and measure the waveforms before and after, look for changes in amplitude and changes in distortion.

Frankly, I think Sparky's method was good enough to convince me to give the stuff a try. After wearing out my first contact line stylus in about 18 months, I'll see how long my next one lasts using the LAST products. The stuff isn't cheap, but it isn't so expensive that I NEED to have an extremely rigorous test to give it a try.

 

[js1138]

I would say the makers of the stuff should do it. It takes time, but my setup isn't expensive, and it could be done with several TT's running at the same time.

 

[Pio1980]

Everyone here should know that under regular conditions a stylus "may" endure playable for as long as a thousand hours (my experience is much less) but more than that is asking a lot. Someone that can claim with authority 2000 hours and more without audible deterioration or visible tip attrition has MY attention based on MY experience.

 

[Karma16]

HI,
This is the great advantage of using a stylus microscope. NO guess work. The wear is obvious and if large, quite audible.

Sparky

 

[jfine]

Karma16's methods ARE good enough, even if the results were half of what he claims.

And I think besides myself, and maybe markd51, have actually called Walter Davies at Last. I even called him before I bought ANY of his stuff. Same with KAB. I called Kevin and really smoked out some questions I have before I bought anything he sells. Call me weird.

Calling or visiting these guys may not help prove anything. But I prefer to get answers directly from the source first, then I'll peruse second hand info.

It's either that or Karma16 & Mr. Davies are making SO MUCH cash deceiving everyone, wittingly or no. Sheesh.

 

[Karma16]

Karma16's methods ARE good enough, even if the results were half of what he claims.

And I think besides myself, and maybe markd51, have actually called Walter Davies at Last. I even called him before I bought ANY of his stuff. Same with KAB. I called Kevin and really smoked out some questions I have before I bought anything he sells. Call me weird.

Calling or visiting these guys may not help prove anything. But I prefer to get answers directly from the source first, then I'll peruse second hand info.

It's either that or Karma16 & Mr. Davies are making SO MUCH cash deceiving everyone, wittingly or no. Sheesh.

HI jfine,
I want to clear up some points of possible misunderstanding in your post so there is no doubt in others minds.

First, and most important, I have exactly zero financial interest in Last. None, zilch, nada.

Second, I have not exagerated any of my findings. There is no need to do so. The stuff flat works. The product speaks for itself. It needs no exageration from me.

Oh, and I have spoken to Mr. Davies several times, during the last (no pun!) of which I discussed my test methodology. He was in full agreement with my test methods. He also told me of long term tests that the Last Factory are running that makes my claims seem very conservative. I did not use that information in this thread because their results are so outlandish that I thought that the skeptics would laugh. Also, they were told to me in semi-confidence due to the fact that their tests are ongoing and I did not want to violate that confidence just to make my point. Just so you understand, none of my findings are a surprise to the Last factory.

jfine, I don't think you were accusing me of any of these things but your wording could be misinterpreted by others, especially by the skeptics.

Sparky

 

[orthophonic]

karma, I quite agree. I have been using last since 1979 and it works!

 

[avole]

HI jfine,
I want to clear up some points of possible misunderstanding in your post so there is no doubt in others minds.

First, and most important, I have exactly zero financial interest in Last. None, nada.

Second, I have not exagerated any of my findings. There is no need to do so. The stuff flat works. The product speaks for itself. It needs no exageration from me.

jfine, I don't think you were accusing me of any of these things but your wording could be misinterpreted by others, especially the skeptics.

Sparky

Can I just clear up another possible misunderstanding? It is not just sceptics who might misunderstand what jhfine said but any reader. The term 'sceptic' does not imply a genetic inability to comprehend simple sarcasm. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Enough of the pedantry, I'll get out of your hair now.