Dear Dertonarm: This is not a contest ( like you want to be ) on who have the reason or who knows more about.
I posted that I'm not ( yet ) on the TT design. Right now I don't know if there are better alternatives and which ones are even I can't say that your is the " one ".
Right now I'm a " spectator ". I have several " ideas "/common sense that are the ones that I will follow when we start our TT design.
What have I on hand?, almost nothing. My TT design is on " desk " waiting for like the amplifier one. Each thing at its time.
I'm not saying that your approach is wrong what I'm saying is that it is not " the best and only way ". In the time we already finish our research on the TT and start the design, tests, execution, tests, tests, test, then I will have a more precise arguments that exist other alternatives that can even and can outperform the ones that exist today including yours, not before: I don't have the " cads " yet.
No, you don't do nothing ( steped on... ) in the FR that is a " so so " design even with its own FR cartridges. No, I don't want comeback to this subject, I point out only because you name it again. I posted that when we obtain the patents on our tonearm design I will share with everybody, not before, science is science.
+++++ " Yes, I can tell you what building materials in what part of the TT are most likely the best to contribute to an excellent behaviour regarding vibration damping and energy transfer.
Why should I tell you. To convince you? " +++++
I don't need that you convice me, normaly I take the steps by my self to convince me about any subject that has interest on what I'm trying to achieve.
I don't care and means nothing if you name some materials with out scientific tests that prove/establish that that combination of build materials and its inter-relationship ( platter, plinth, bearing, arm board, footers, etc, etc ) are dead NEUTRAL below any real playback work conditions.
I think you can't do it, I mean that you don't have it, do you? .
Now, if you have it I don't need that you tell me, sooner or latter I will find the answers ( maybe a different ones from yours and maybe some like yours. ) about when we are in deep in our design.
I ask about only because you don't touch this " main " TT deign factors. I wonder why?, perhaps another un-finished/futile TT design?.
IMHO all our un-finished designs ( protoypes. ) have a very important " steps/role " in the final product and that role is that through these prototypes we can achieve our targets to build the real FINISH product.
I have some Phonolinepreamps and tonearm prototypes where I can " read " the different steps that bring me to the final product.
We have many differences in our way of thinking ( between you and me. ) and one of them is that I never think that I'm at the end of the audio item learning curve final design, at least I never experienced that I'm there.
I have my dream phonolinepreamp design like the tonearm, cartridge, TT and amplifier ones. These " dream designs " are perfect ones and wonder what? are commercial ones too but we need time a lot of it to make those " dreams " come alive but my final " prototypes " are a good step on the right road.
I can tell you that if I was Matushita Corporation where I can have any kind and any quantity of resources for audio projects then maybe in two-three years those " dreams " comes true but we are two-three persons that make this job in our free and just because we like it and enjoy what we do about.
Anyway, like I already posted go on: many people here are having fun and that's good. It will be " futile " if I try to go on. In good shape: thank you for your time.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Do you still has in use that TT with you>?, btw: which analog rig/electronics/speakers are you hearing/playing/enjoying?, could you share with us?
Thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: I'm not on the TT design ( tonearm/cartridge is my priority. ) but this discussion could help to everyone in some way or other, at least to understand what is happening.
Some of you " speak " about specs and IMHO this subject could be very controversial for say the least.
Many of the " standard " specs/measures on audio items ( any ) can't explain per-se why we hear/heard what we hear/heard.
My opinion on the subject is try to define what/where/how to measure and its relationship with what we hear/heard or our targets about. IMHO not an easy task: whom will fix/decide those " true/new spec standards "?. Anyway a good " exercise ".
A second subject: stylus drag. During our tonearm/cartridge research/design I made several tests and still doing ( for different reasons that TT design. ), one of them was this:
I choose seven different cartridges ( different stylus/compliance/MM-MC design, VTF, etc. ) and five different LP's.
The test was over the same TT and same tonearm ( at the same time. ) where the " only " variable was the cartridge ( well more than one variable due that each cartridge has different parameters. ).
The test was a " home test " not a strict controled and scientific one but interesting.
What we want to measure was how the stylus drag ( well the tonearm/cartridge. ) could change with different cartridge in different LP in different velocity recorded tracks that I choose.
What we do?: we put " that " cartridge in the tracks ( each one at the same time ) I choose ( running the TT at 33 rpm. ) and suddenly switching-off the TT and measure how many seconds take the platter to stop. I choose three tracks on one side in the LP: one at the outer of the LP one at the middle and one at the inner of the LP.
The tools I used was a cronometer, eyes and very fast " brain reaction ".
Not an easy test, I have to train for several hours ( two days ) till I " show " good " constant " response ".
This test show us that that stylus drag " exist ", that its behavior is cartridge/stylus/VTF/position on the LP dependent, that is different on different tonearms and TTs, that a heavy platter ( 20 kg. ) in rotation has an influence on that stylus drag when you swtich-off, etc, etc .
I know that maybe this almost " hobby-test " does not help on the TT discussion due that the TT was/is switch-off and that was not made it in a scientific/tools way but the test opened my " eyes " for our self tonearm/cartridge design.
It is not to easy the desing/research on " mechanical " devices ( like tonearm/TT and the like . ) specially the tests of those devices because it is not only a subject to have the know-how what/which/where/how but to have the precise scientific tools to do it: we need a laboratory and we need a lot lot of money to have that laboratory.
This issue is/was one of the reasons that bring us ( on the tonearm design ) to find where to do it, finally we meet our friend at the University and even here is not easy because is something " new " where the " scientists " does not have many experiences: it is an easy task for them nothing difficult but " new ".
Like always, I say every single day is a learning one to anyone in different areas/topics on our day by day life. There are more knowledge to discover to experience that our self ( each one ) know-how.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " If the NASA had handled the Apollo - Mission that way, man would have never set his foot on the moon. " +++++
there is no single doubt about, everything must be " perfect " for that " job ", you can't have/make mistakes or " guesswork ".. science is the law.
In the analog audio " stage " science is still the law but the analog " world " is an imperfect one ( everywhere in the analog chain. ) that tolerate some " guesswork " in order to achve desirable targets.
There is not much research on the subject and not because there are not good audio item designers ( there are ) but mainly because there are too many " conformist and non know-how " customers: why a designer has to worry on a " perfect " design when no one is asking for? when almost no one cares about?
Almost all the analog audio item designs are more a commercial subject ( $$$$, in some ways it has to be, between other things. ) that a top quality performance to bring a top satisfaction to the customer, even the very high price items.
Where are the customers? where are we? how can the analog audio market really grow-up if we are " satisfied " with what we have? we are satisfied with the same/similar audio item designs of " 50-100 " years ago ( many times lesser designs. ), where we leave the " emotion " to explore to discover to think in a " new " way?: almost no one cares about and IMHO that's why: ++++ " I have yet to see a turntable design done right. " +++++ ( or almost any other audio item. ) we are " down " here " ( in a deep hole ) and not because there are not good " professional " designers ( there are: several. ) or people with the enough knoledge to do it.
This is not the first time that I point out these subjects and if we continue to pay for " mediocrity " that's will be exactly what we will have: " mediocrity ", IMHO I think that we need a customer " revolution ", we need to shake all those talent people out there for they give us what today we deserve, we are " the one " to make things change for the better we need to be active part of the changes.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Kirkus: I agree with you on the subject.
A TT design are develop on many " factors/characteristics " that have an intimate relationship that makes almost impossible to build the " perfect " TT and like in almost any audio item design we have to choose the best trade-offs and these trade-offs are the ones that make " the difference " but almost every TT designers have its own trade-offs priorities and to be more complex that TT designs comes to a different customers that have its own sound reproduction priorities.
Yes, we can make a TT design near " perfection " according our own technical trade-offs and the ones are not so technical but that have some kind of influence.
About, isolation: how can we aisle the TT from the SPL of speakers in the room?, maybe looking for the lower SPL in that room or taking the TT in a different room where means a different kind of trade-offs. In a TT " perfect " design we have to think about and in many ther obvious factors and other no so obvious ones.
Here we are talking on macro-isolation but there are micro-isolation that are way important too, we have to remember that the cartridge is a very strong " micro ". You point-out the importance of the arm board and I can add ( example ) the importance of a TT mat and we can go on and on. Interesting.
Now, we can put the best technical know-how on the TT design but we have to test on laboratory ( truly expensive ) and in a second step ( critical ) we have to test it in our own laboratory: ears/brain, not an easy task, each one of us has a different " approach/attitude " in the same subject!
Thank's to those human been " differences " exists different/many TT designs out there, good thing.
The subject is how the TT designer can improve ( near perfection ) its own design, it want to do it? are enough TT customers that could pay the price for that " near perfection " TT to make commercial business? can the market/customers understand the advantages on that " near perfection " TT?, I think that exist too many questions and too many different answers to each one question.
As we can try to go " in deep " on the subject as more questions come " alive " and this is almost with any audio item design.
I know ( like Detornarm ) what I'm talking about because in our Phonolinepreamp we already be " face to face " with all those " problems/trade-offs " ( and many others ) and we stay right now in our tonearm design: complex for say the least
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
and that's is " simple " task because there is only one person on the design but what if there are two-three-four persons on the design and everyone with the same " right " to make an opinion valid.
I know the big " trouble " here because some times in the design one or more opinions goes against each other and we have to be very very open mind to make the " final " decision on the subject below discusion. Not easy at all.
We " face " many other issues: exist the technology to build what we " think " on the design ? are there the build materials/parts in a precise way we need it? can we manufacturer if not?, questions/answers like these have its own trade-offs.
The design/build of any audio item is a real and hard challenge for everyone but big corporations like Matushita Harman and the like.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Thank you about your system, very nice. No public comments from me other that : yes, for me is of some help to understand ( between other things ) part of your whole audio " thinking/mind ".
Regards and enjoy te music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: I agree with you on your TT approach. IMHO this is a " road " to follow but IMHO it is not the " only and best " road. There are other examples speially on DD TT designs and certainly there are other " roads " in the brain of TT designers that they are not try it yet.
I agree too with Teres that physics tell us part of the whole " history " but there are several factors that affect and change what we are hearing it does not matters if the physics is on target, of course that everything the same a TT or any audio item that achieve a scientific approach is a better one and has to perform in better way too.
IMHO I think that are many " things " that till today no one already made a in deep research to find in a scientific way the. why's, where's and how's on each single TT design.
I know this because is something that I'm learning through our self tonearm design, where I'm " discovering " things that I never imagine can/could affect to quality performance.
Well, IMHO that happen too with TT's where scientific rules/law can't give us all the answers ( relationship factors ). Of course that if someone makes the research can/could have scientific answers but maybe to find out all those answers he will need not only know-how but a lot of time,money and common sense.
I like you and almost all people that cares about top quality performane/designs hate compromises/trade-offs but unfortunately these ones exist and the best each one of us can do is try to choose the " best " overall ones: such is life!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Yes, aramid fiber: http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp?pn=3034863&bhcd2=1232817787
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: I agree in almost all the " main " subjects about TT's BD design.
Yes, it is a very very simple item ( not a rocket to Andromeda. ) to design, almost everything is physics laws aplication with common sense.
Yes ( like any other link in the audio chain ) it must be dead neutral/accurate ( not confuse with analytical, cool, etc, etc )no doubt about. Its job is simple: to run with accuracy/stability at 33/45/78 rpm adding nothing and degrading nothing, a " perfect target " where there are no compromises.
Sounds easy and beautiful!!!
But ( I hate the " but's , but exist. ) how the " science " can predict for example: which material build ( or a blend of materials ) is the right one for the plynth? for the platter? , for the arm board? for the bearing?; which is the " behavior " ( how are its resonances, time of energy dissipation, distortions/colorations. Its behavior is exactly the same at 33rpm than at 78? and a lot of questions that we have to give a precise answer in scientific way and in subjective one too. ) of those build materials when we run the TT along any tonearm with any cartridge? : what kind of distortion/coloration the cartridge is taking from the TT it self? from where comes those " distortions "? exist the " perfect " material? where? why? and I can go on and on.
In a perfect/ideal design we have to have precise answers to many questions and the way to " solve " the " stones " in the road.
Years after you made your TT still have " questions " that you will try to " answer " this year.
Why the physics laws can't help you given to you the right answers when you made the design? maybe because you are not " perfect "? maybe because there are other " roads " to go? maybe? maybe?......?
Like I say in my first post about: IMHO your approach it is not the " only and the best " it is the approach of how you " see " and how you " answer " to the TT design.
I already " see " which one is/was your " answer " to other audio items in your system ( No this not to start a different debate. So, please stay calm about. ) and IMHO not a " perfect " ones. Maybe for you are perfect ( and this is the important subject because you are the one that must live and enjoy any single day. ) but the WORLD is a little more wide than each one of us.
I like this thread where any one of us ( one way or the other for the good or bad. ) are learning many important things that could make that each one of us make a " revision " of our audio/music targets/priorities and what in reality we are hearing in our each one home system: " perfection " or real mediocity or...or...?
Many of us are satisfied with our home system that is full of distortions/colorations ( it does not matters prices or item names ) and IMHO we must grow-up: if the designers, reviewers and audio dealers don't want it or can't it at least we must ask/cry out for it.
Now Dertonarm, sooner or latter we have to put our foots in earth, we have to thing that we don't leave in an aisle way but surrounded by a very wide/different environments and in many cases we can't take out its " influence " ( any kind. )
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Sorry: think and live at the last sentences instead of " thing " and " leave " .
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: I forgot, this thread " discussion " IMHO is only that a discussion not a contest ( technical or not. ) with a winner (s) and defeat people and IMHO too no one ( including you ) can say that in a subject ( like the TT BD design. ) " he " finaly achieve the end top " position " on the learning cuve of that subject.
You point out somewhere: only the " mother nature " make no mistakes, I'm sure and have no single doubt that you are not the " mother's nature ".
I applaud your attitude in your " believes " ( I think that you don't have be on the defensive. ) but that is: your " believes " ( that I respect and that I agree in some ways and issues. ) not other " believes ", maybe today other people ( including me ) can agree on some of your " believes ". I thank you to share it in this forum.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
|
No, I think that not you but maybe some of us ( I'm in. ) are so stupid.
Sorry to disturb you. You are the man, you know?
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: What do you have in hand? do you already ask you?
You have always a critic against almost any audio item out there ( mainly analog items ) but what you own and design.
You can't prove anything at all with technical or not technical " words "- bla-bla-bla where " even " your TT design is faulty because you detect its compromises years latter.
So where do you think are " seated "?, I know where you are but the mportant issue is if you know it.
You say that in the Verdier design it is a room to improve, well in your whole system design there is too room to improve, but telling this means almost nothing because you can't test/prove it.
There is a " saying ": " of tongue I eat 10kgs. ", facts is the name of the game.
The physics have to applied taking in count its environment, materials, parts, available technology, options, etc, etc where things will happen.
Your position that you already are at the end TT learning curve design goes against your own faulty TT design.
What prevent that when you already make it ( this year ) again " next day " you take in count ( again ) that there are new compromises? that maybe could happen.
You say that the non-technical discussion is futile and maybe some us don't agree with.
I take in count that the common sense and non/technical " debate " is something where you don't have strong arguments, example: like the build materials on a TT design where by physics laws I assume you can predict its precise neutral whole/overall behavior, how? you don't give an explanation yet: is there a precise technical explanation on that subject? or you choose " silence " because you don't have a technical answers?
So, you want to convice that the BD TT " road " is the best and only way to go, better than that: that your design is the best and only way.
There are no valid options even if you don't know it: DD? no, Idler drive? no, other BD designs? no, other options? no: only the one you have in mind and that today you even test it.
IMHO your position leaves all TT designers eating ( with all respect to everyone of them ) in your " hands ".
Well I have a " little " more respect not only for a designer but for the human been they are, just like you.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
|
Dertonarm:I knw that is more easy in this way because you don't have the precise-scientific information/tests on the " neutral " build materials that are very important part on any TT build/design. Yes I know your answer: futile.
Regards and enjoy the music. |
Dear dertonarm: Good to hear it, happy holidays.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: IMHO the subject on speed accuracy/stability in TTs are almost addressed and solve by almost all the TT designers and manufacturers. We can take examples like Technics, Denon, Rockport, Walker, Kenwood, Basis, Pionner, SME, Monaco, Sota, Raven, etc, etc, where we find very good numbers on the subject that goes as low as 0.001% ( speed subject ) and figures on SN of 92db or WF of 0.015%.
So one way or the other ( different TT design approaches ) the spedd accuracy and speed stability are already achieved by commercial TTs.
Where I think there are a non-definitive solutions are ( like other people point out ) in self TT isolation and neutral build materials on each commercial TT design out there.
As Dertonarm poin out, the TT must does not have any " sound "/signature by it self that can add some kind of distortions/colorations that affect the cartridge quality sound reproduction, the TT must be " dead neutral ".
If we read any TT subject thread in this forum or in any other one we are reading things like this: the bass in this TT has a better bass that the other TT, it is warmer that the other ones, it is more alive that the others, the high frequencies sounds better, everything sounds lower in record noise, etc, etc, etc.
There is always a TT sound, so these TT are faraway to be neutral ( that is our target like customers. We are full of distortions/colorations to continue to accepting more. )
IMHO two main factors that contribute to those each commercial design TT " sounds/signature " are due to a poor isolation and what were the choose on build materials ( including the arm board ).
I think that is here where the commercial TT designers/builders have the greatest " room " to improve and achieve " neutrality ": for to have a TT running with speed accuracy and stability with out adding/removing almost nothing.
I think that the challenge is a big one but with a lot of rewards when solve for everyone.
The build material issue is critical, you can take how important is when you try different TT mats in your own TT: you have different sound quality level as different are each one mat and its build material.
This build material challenge is enormous if we take in count that exist hundred/thousands of build materials that can be use in the TT manufacture and million of blend/combination materials that could be use it, so not an easy task to have the " answer " but IMHO if we want to have better TTs ( any kind of TT. ) then we have to ask for to the commercial TT builders. I think that the " ball " is in their hands and I hope we can see in the near future ( and can buy ) that " neutral " TTs in favor of the analog music-sound home reproduction.
I know it can do it because I already experienced and " solve " something similar with our tonearm design.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Other subject that I would like that the commercial TT designers/builders could address and solve is to have a record " perfect center " mechanism.
This out-off center record hole is a " cancer " in the analog quality performance ( due to an extremely poor build quality of the record industry. ), we need a solution. I think on the TT builders because I don't think that the records industry can " hear " our needs.
There are other " desirable " characteristics that will be welcome in a TT design but for now I think these ones are enough.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Yes, I know: the Dragon and TX1000. A friend of mine in San Diego and other one here own these units.
Raul. |
The build material subject could grow-up in complexity if we add that we must take in count that maybe we need different build materials for different TT parts and that each one of those build materials have to have a constant " behavior " under any " normal " TT operation condition forming a " synergy TT system ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: We are in a so imperfect home analog sound reproduction world with so low know-how that instead to use our main each day time to hear and enjoy music we are " loosing " our precious life time trying to correct that imperfect world that is full of imperfect hardware.
That's why exist so many forums everywhere. Take how many are here in Agon: more than ten!!!! and in almost everyone we are talking/asking to a better hardware, to a better up-dates in hardware, to a better tweaks, to a better, to a better....etc, etc and what about the main target: music sound reproduction and the " emotion " to enjoy it.
In a perfect world all those audio forums will change for a one and only: the music forum.
It is so imperfect that for some of us don't pass any single day where we don't " touch " the system hardware trying to improve even for some of us don't pass a single hour where we stay " calm/in-active ", name it like you want: changing VTA, VTF, load impedance, cables, speaker position, room treatment, new mat, rolling tubes, changing caps/resistors/inductors, new record cleaning solutions, DIY items, new clamping system, new belts, new or different something everywhere at each link in the whole audio chain.
A lot of fun but a misery on the time hearing music where we are not thinking how to improve but only enjoying that music sound reproduction.
Well such is world: nothing is perfect.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: I'm thinking in an automatic solution ( like the Nakamichi one, I don't mean the same. ) but I can see that will be not only complex/expensive but with some trade-offs on the whole TT performance so the manual/mechanic one could/can be a good alternative in the mid-time ( maybe the one that works with almost no compromise other that the customer has to do it, but the customer ( through a jig ) has to make too in manual way the tonearm instalation so that will be not " big deal ". ) waiting for an automatic self-design TT ( we have the right to dream about. ): it is an interesting challenge.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: I want to return a little about our analog imperfect world. It is imperfect because the " medium " is an imperfect one but the imperfections growing-up to fast on each link in the whole analog chain starting/begining with the recording sessions: choice of micros, choice of micro recording positions, choice of cables on those micros, choice of tape recording machine and the tape it self, reconding console, enginner whole priorities, choice of vynil material, choose of head-cutters, choice..., choice, choice, etc, etc
We don't have any control on the recording process and as you imagine in each link on that recording process the signal suffer a different kind of degradation, so when we " receive " that heavy degraded signal the best we can do ( in theory ) is to mantain it with no additional degradation ( impossible that this can happen. ).
There are so many places where the signal goes worst and worst due to its native imperfect " world " and it is not only that those different links made/makes a constant signal degradation but you can take the RIAA double process ( first one at the recording and the inverse one in the phono stage ) where the signal manipulation is to heavy.
Why I point out these facts ( and many other that exist. )?
Well, I think that we can do better if the designers/builder of audio items put on the market products that through an analisis of the real analog medium/customers needs can " cope " some of those imperfections, I mean that those audio items could help to the whole reproduction process trying not only add the less and lose the less but " understanding " things like : why we need that " perfect center " mechanism in TT? why we need neutral product quality performnce? why we need flat speaker electrical impedance? why we need extremly lower distortion figures on electronics? why we need lower output impedance on amplifiers?, why..., why... and why's.
We can take an example that almost no one cares about ( the why's ), today the LP industry are growing-up through new realeases and re-issues with several small manufacturers ( that live from the customers. ) where I think they can/could put a little care to the LP process will assured that LP perfect center hole: well no one of them cares about!!!!!
Almost all audio items out there I think were designed with out take in count real several Why's, so that's one reason why we always are on the tweacks: we need FINISHED audio items, not an easy task but we all ( customers an audio industry ) have to try about.
Things are hard for we customers to achieve good quality performance in our home audio systems: it is a " long long road to home ".
One way to make things " easy " and better is through the designers/builders of audio items. Of course that like I post it is not easy and not because they are not good enough to do it ( I honest think that they can do it ) but because we have to be ready to pay for those " great " and useful audio items.
Many of us already made/making audio items with that " philosophy " in mind and I'm sure that we follow making in the future but what we need is that the " full commercial " audio items industry take this kind of " road ".
I always say that we need to grow-up ( real grow-up in the right direction. ) but IMHO this is almost impossible if the whole audio industry ( recording, designers, builders, reviewers, dealers and customers. ) does not grow-up.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
IMHO the fun in our " hobby " must be the MUSIC enjoy and not the endless quest of tweaks.
Raul. |
As I can see there are none that want to share his thoughts on the different subjects, maybe is not important for other than me.
Anyway I will follow " alone ".
Mybe I'm wrong but I think that things ould and can be better if each ( any ) link audio item in the audio chain will be more " friendly " against the other links, I mean that the audio item manufacturers could take in count the environment ( audio chain ) where its product will work and how that product can works in better synergy with that audio chain environment.
This " friendly " attitude help to perform better to each audio item in the audio chain: each audio item will be more " strong" as the other ones are " strong " in that audio chain.
Sometimes seems to me that some audio items were designed and manufactured like if them goes to work in an aisle environment taking no care of what surrounded it. I think that this un-friendly " attitude " goes against the whole quality performance.
Maybe could help if in someway some " institution/audio industry association " could define a minimum audio industry "sandards " in the more critical areas/stages/links to warranty a minimum synergy/friendly between audio components.
Today is almost an anarchy that don't help to anyone in the audio industry, IMHO we need a minimum of " order ".
Which are the " subjects/factors" that can impede that happen? do you think that could help us? am I totally wrong?
Your thoughts ( any ) are appreciated.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
There are some little " things " that can help if we take it like " standards ".
If we take the phono cartridge like an example we could ask for: same horizontal distance between stylus and center cartridge mount holes, this simple " standard " could permit to mount the cartridge and forget about overhang ( with different cartridges ) because the tonearm manufacturers with that distance " standard " their tonearm headshell holes ( no slots. ) will comes at exactly the right position to set up in automatic way the overhang in any cartridge, this seems to me a " friendly " standard.
Other could be that the cartridge connection pins always be at the same position in relation to left/right ,+/- . One more that the stylus angle always be at the same angle, example: 20 degrees, not 17 or 23 degrees.
We can/ould take each audio item and think ( analize its relationship with the others. ) on " simple " things that can/could help in many ways.
It can help for example that the CDP's comes with the same output level.
It could help too if the tonearm arm board shape be the same/similar for all pivot tonearms.
For the people that own more than one TT ( different ones )it could help that the height position of the arm board in relation with the top of the platter will be a " standard " height.
T-bone " touch " the impedance subject that is very important and exist other" technical " areas where is important to fix standards. Btw, I think that all kind on " ideas " are welcome on the " standards " subject.
I think that are many subjects/factors where we can fix/define " standards " that will be help to anyone it does not matters what we customers/manufacturers have on " mind "/attitude: the " standards " serve to help to the whole audio industry, we are part of that audio industry.
The main subject is not only to make things more easy/friendly but to obtain better audio system each link synergy in favor of better quality performance.
With that kind of minimum " standards " the off-center record hole cancer will disappear and all of us will be really " happy " on it and we don't need to think in a mechanism to fix it.
IMHO there is no reasons why everything has to be so complicated when/where this complexity goes almost always against the quality performance of our home system reproduction.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
To fix standards on the audio industry can help to the " new " people in our high-end world while they achieve experience with.
That " standards " does not have to be " extremes " one but only at " minimum ", so the toy-play will be " respected ". The record perfect-center hole can't go against almost no one but persons that can say: " hey I want to fix it ( toy-play ) please leave in that way... ".
The whole idea on the standards subject is for more positive, serious and open mind in favor of our hobby.
Other desirable subject on the high-end industry could be " quality standards " where an audio item/device must pass some test steps where it show that meets ( or not ) those " quality standards " and when achieve it then that audio item will show a official certification about, something like the ISO standards. This could help that we can buy better products with better quality and stop to find out that " three " days from the day we buy and audio item it has some failure: this happen every day even products that goes to a reviewer comes with defects in its operation.
IMHO if we want to be better ( overall ) we have to ask for be better, don't you think?
Oh yes we can enjoy music through a walkman either, but this is not the issue.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
