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


In the latest TAS April 2025, page 34, Fremer reviews some Technics TT, and repeats his claim that "listeners in blind tests could hear arc second speed shifts". where one revolution ~1.3 million arc seconds. Anybody have any idea where this is coming from?

Basic math will make you wonder whether any listener can hear a difference between chamber a' = 440.00000 Hz and 440.00004 Hz, rounding the 1.3M to an even 1M. When tuning my violins, I can hear 2–3 cent difference, where 800 cents = 1 octave = doubling of frequency. At 2 cents, that is over 1 full Herz difference. Even playing a cord with tones at 1 Hz difference will result in an oscillation at 1 Hz, i.e. peak to peak 1 second. For easy math, assume even a 0.00005 difference, which would lead to an oscillation with frequency of 20,000 seconds = 33 minutes. Good luck hearing that. 

"Golden Ears" being able to hear ten times better than a normal human, why not. But 20K better? We are off by several orders of magnitude. Maybe I don't understand that he is talking about, but I consider it complete BS.

Maybe it has to do with consistency (accuracy vs. precision), but then the a different unit needs to be used that includes time in the denominator. But even then the math/physics don't add up.

If anybody can provide any insights, LMK. Thanks!

The alternative is rather unflattering for Mr. Fremer.

oberoniaomnia

Gentlepeople

Michael's arc second comment probably came from a conversation I had with him about the speed sensing architecture in the OMA K3 turntable. The design sends a little over 1.3 million pulses, counts, to the motor controller every revolution. Slightly more than one count per arc second. This equates to a little more than 728,000 pulses per second at 33.33 RPM. The speed sensor assembly, like everything that exists, is not perfect. This means that  the time spaces between the pulses are not absolutely equal, even if the motor is running at a perfectly constant speed. The controller will sense these differences and signal the motor to correct a speed error that does not exist. The motor may or may not be able to accelerate or decellerate the platter in time to correct this non existent error but it will receive a current change none the less. 

The people who make the motor controller designed it to control systems that require much more speed precision than used in a TT. They also are well aware of speed sensor count errors. To mitigate this problem, the controller has a selectable function that activates a rolling average of the counts. With a few key strokes this can be set to 1, no averaging and 2 up to 8 count averaging. The controller also adds math to this function by giving more weight to the first count and little less for the second and so on. This function acts to smooth over the sense errors, resulting in more stable (smooth) and accurate rotation. It also acts to soften, smooth, the reaction, correction, of actual speed errors. When programming the controller, our listening panel trailed this function and found that it did indeed make an audible difference. The person making the program change did not tell the panel what change had been made, he only asked....better, worse, same?  Since it was software driven we could easily toggle it on/of or change the averaging number. In this way we could confirm in near real time what we were hearing. We also had a policy of revisiting the programming some weeks later to ensure that we hadn't make mistakes.

We settled on a rolling average count of 4.

When calibrating the speed to 33.33, 45 and 78 we simply adjusted the count command per second. Once close to the required speed we set about  incrementing or decrementing by 1 count per second. This meant that when targeting the required speed, we were changing the speed up or down by arc seconds per time. For a laugh, we listened to these changes, no one could detect a difference and no one was surprised. 

@lewm 

I happened to be in a whimsical mood as I read this thread, which I found interesting.  I've spoke with MF in the past, in fact he lives very close to me. 

I don't think he's a MF'er either.

Regards,

barts

@antinn, thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood your comment "OMA of which MF owns".

I also consider MF to be a boon to the vinyl revival, not a bad dude.

@richardkrebs, you talk about "we" in regards to the OMA K3 turntable. So are you a consultant to OMA? For those not aware, Richard has developed upgrades for some of the Technics SP-10 series of tables.

Or did I misunderstand that too?  ;^)

@pryso 

I designed the OMA K3 and K5 turntables. Jonathan then used an industrial designer for the aesthetics. 

My company provides the machined rotating parts and the K5 chassis. The cast iron chassis is made in the States. Both TTs are assembled by OMA. 

The "We" refers to a brilliant mechatronic engineer who helped to get the drive up and running and then a panel of enthusiastic friends who helped finesse the program.

Cheers 

@pryso

I also consider MF to be a boon to the vinyl revival, not a bad dude.

Please do not misunderstand my criticism.  MF has been steadfast proponent of the vinyl playback and deserves the recognition and compliments he gets for that.  But, on one more than occasion, he gets shall we say way ahead of himself regarding science & technology that he's not skilled in.  That's all.

Peace.