Source of Fremer's "1 arc second" claim?

@kijanki The whole "equal temperament" piano tuning is a whole other story, with splitting the comma. There is a nice book "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony", interesting read. For those of us who appreciate natural trumpet and other harmonics driven instruments such as tromba marina.

I completely agree that the complexity of music completely obliterates those tiny frequency differences. Heck, vibrato (if you must use it as an ornament) by far exceeds 1 Hz. 

My question, though, is: Anybody have any idea where Frermer comes up with this? 

@barts I did not catch the alternative for the initials. Too funny! That, however, was not my intention.

@fatdaddy2 totally agree. Frequently a kernel of truth is augmented by acres of BS. Just was wondering what the source kernel might have been for 1 arc second. 

@tablejockey funny anecdote! 

Maybe that's the inaccuracy of my table,the recording...who knows?

Lots of factors, indeed. There is a general trend of pitch creep, with contemporary players going for a' = 444 Hz. 

@lewm 1 rpm = 3% = 4 cents which anything other than a manual gramophone can beat by a wide margin. 

@richardkrebs thanks for that explanation. So MF confuses the adjustment period unit with threshold of audibility. Would be funny if it weren't so sad. Thanks for the clarification re that source kernel.

Interesting engineering issue going again at the accuracy vs. precision question and error correction. Using binning for data-noise reduction is certainly a tried and true approach. I run into it with microscope cameras.

Would be interesting to know what speed variation was considered audible by the panel. Though it may have more to do with sensor noise being reduced by binning. That begs the question of whether the company became victim of its own over-engineering. Making the measurement periods so short that the measurement error goes through the roof. Fascinating trade-offs! Run into that with electron microscopy reducing probe current for better resolution, but that decreases signal and increases noise.

@antinn @pryso Re trustworthiness of MF, when I notice some of his BS, I wonder how much other BS he is spouting that I don't spot. So I actively ignore him. To make things worse, I pointed out to the editor of TAS last year that this is nonsense. I am surprised that the editor is not reining in his authors. That is the function of an editor, have had a few of those appointments with some journals myself. That lack of editorial fortitude is a significant reason why I cancelled my TAS subscription again. So there is real harm done by spouting/publishing BS.

I know, it is just a hobby, for fun and all that. But that sort of thing turns fun & entertainment into annoyance. Don't need that. 

@yoyoyaya @lewm As a fellow EMer, it is important to put things into perspective. That's the same issue as with the 1 arc second claim. For instance the SEM images of vinyl records that we all have seen are taken at very low magnifications for a SEM. More serious vibration isolation is only an issue at very high EM (particularly TEM) mags. I don't know much about audio, but I have been in charge of SEM facilities.

One could also argue that because there is Brownian motion, therefore, record systems should be cooled to as close to absolute zero as possible. I was actually thinking that OMA could reduced sensor error by using a Peltier cooler on their electronics. Zeiss light microscope cameras do that. I have yet to see active sub-ambient cooling in audio.

And last but not least, even if it is measurable, is it audible? I don't think I have seen blind tests on equipment racks (another overhyped topic, IMHO). Or one could argue that a TT should not be in same room as the speakers. Again, I have yet to see that implemented on a broad scale.

Bottom line: it important to keep an overall perspective on things, and put them into relation to one another.