Dear Livemusic, I have been involved in lateral/vertical air bearing for 5 years and given an air bearing with a large number of individual "openings" - a sintered material for instance - there is no problem with "safe landing" in case the air supply breaks down. Water, dust and micro particles, fluctuation and pump frequence are problems all solved long ago in todays high-end air-supply applications with the approbiate technical applications (3-way filters, surge tanks, air dryer etc. etc.). The vertial magnet bearing is applicated in the Verdier for several reasons.
That it still do feature a conventional lateral bearing - well, why not?
Today I see the most potential of improvement for high-end turntable bearings in oil-pressure conical bearings. |
Dertonarm, magnet and air bearings also have their own drawbacks. Magnet bearing a'la Verdier bears the platter weight with no friction but features conventinal journal bearing, which is more loaded, and most importantly less evenly loaded due to inherent instability of magnetic repulsion system: magnets are trying to slip sideways with the side force increasing as the deviation from perfect concentricity of the two toroidal magnetic fields increases. I'm not familiar with any other magnets arrangement addressing lateral instability, do you?
High pressure double air bearing (vertical and lateral) is near close to perfection, providing compressor noise, water condensation, air contaminations and pressure fluctuations problems solved. In addition, it shall provide possibility to safely "land" the platter in case of sudden pressure loss, otherwise axial bearing may be easily ruined. This is the first rate engineering problem by itself, bearing in mind very small air gap.
What do you think about hybrid bearing: magnet axial bearing combined with air journal bearing for lateral stability? Sounds crazy complicated, but who cares? |
Dear Frank_sm, if you look real close, you will find that almost ALL bearings in turntables ( not just the old Well Tempered Turntable ...) AND gimbal bearing tonearms as well as ALL pivot tonearms do indeed consist of two surfaces contacting each other. Most of these do feature oil to lubricate the bearing and to decrease wear and noise - but in the end (aside from magnet bearings, pure air pressure and oil pressure bearings ( and all of these have to be horizontal AND vertical )) almost all (NOT all.....) bearings in use in audio components do indeed feature surfaces ( 2 or more..) contacting each other. |
I think the correct term is "bearing drag", not bearing "friction". Friction would implicate 2 surfaces contacting each other and if that was the case there would be no place for oil, and as such, you would have a very noisy bearing.
Furthermore, a well made bearing would have a hardened shaft, be cylinderically ground, and the bearing housing would be honed to accept the rotating shaft with perhaps 0.0001"-0.0002" clearance at most. |
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. |
Dear Ebm, it depends - bearing friction doesn't necessarily means increased noise. In some of the smarter designs bearing friction is introduced by oil bath, eddy current and the like to increase speed stability and damping of platter. But some of the other semi-pro's here on Audiogon will (and have already during this thread) tell you more about this. If bearing friction goes with increased noise (= low quality bearing) however I do agree with you - thats a bad design. |
This is the sign of a BAD design Bearing Friction a good table should have very very little. |
It is a nicer challenge to build a wonderful sounding system with a minimal budjet than buying the most expensive items. I learned alot with the Lenco threads, the MM/ MC thread , Quad 57 thread to apreciate the "downgrading" pathway , maybe I find my "kid" pleasure again ! |
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. |
Dear T_bone, I totally agree with Syntax and you. For the love of music - we do not need high end gear at all to appreciate music.
Beethoven string quartet op 132 will have its impact via an MP3 player or the car stereo as well as via a million dollar high-end set-up.
High-end is a nice playground to satisfy the longing of man for something absolute and gives us a microcosmos where each and everyone can produce his/(seldom...) her own dogma of something "best" in every subjective way possible. Today high-end is sold not only via sound - it is sold much more via the price tag (ask any high-end dealer in HongKong or some of the manufacturers of rather elusive components that they do not sell less when the lift up the price, but more) and the image related to it.
This is a very strange part of the luxury market.
Its not about quality - its about image, "face" and "show off".
All we need to simplify high-end is adapting some of the standards from the professional audio segment or PA. Matching impedance (600 Ohms for instance..) would make most super high-end cables and their effect null and void. But honestly - none of you would like to listen to a speaker with flat frequency response curve ..........
Flat impedance curve and easy load would eliminate in one moment 85% of all high-end speakers. Expect low power consumption and the next 10% will be gone for good.
We should accept High-end audio the way it is - a childrens playground.
The difference between the boys and the men??
The price tag on the toys.
Nothing else. |
Syntax, I think the electronic standard is probably best simplified, at a minimum, to mean making input and output impedances fall within a certain range for every component downstream of the amp's inputs, and making source component output voltages within a certain range. Trying to get speaker mfrs to all provide a flat frequency response curve and impedance curve, and to all jump on the 'power paradigm' is kind of a lost cause.
As to your other point that customers want more than just 'good sound' (they want a certain look, cachet, convenience, hype, or exclusivity), I am convinced it is true, which is why having a designer create a "definitive" component is effectively a lost cause too.
OTOH, I have some really great pieces of wood on a string (limited edition (exlusivity), coming in their own signed paulownia box (cachet - looks), which I am certain will be popular (hyped) after the first few people buy them, which I can sell for even less than $6k, shipping included (convenience). Inquire within :^) |
the fun in our " hobby " must be the MUSIC enjoy and not the endless quest of tweaks. Of course. But you can enjoy music via MP3, too The normal Audiophile wants to have a "better" reproduction and is willing to pay for it. Unfortunately, money alone is not enough today. Marketing and"I can hear better than you" or the "...he has money, but no idea about music ..." influences every decision...not easy. Would a electronic Standard help? Don't know, when I listen to Denon or Kenwood or Accuphase, I can say, all got the Standards but I am not in the reproduction.... 25 years ago, there was an audiophile community which was able to afford anything (was not part of it, I was too young) and they really knew what was good or not. They created a High End Magazine, knew all Manufacturers and wanted to give a Demo in the High End show to show the customers how they listen to Music and how they rate the "reproduction". Long Story short, they were ready to give a demo with their own components... Before this was done they made a Pre-Demo and invited some top Manufacturers to listen... the result was depressing....they have been asked not to do that, when customers will "hear" that, they can't sell their units.... It was cancelled. The customer wants not "only good sound", he wants more, a good "test", a "Hype", something "exclusive", something"expensive, no more expensive" etc. etc. etc. And then we should not forget those, who are not among the Genius in this world, but they want to survive too. And to make a little money (or a bit more :)) Sometimes I am a bit sad, because I think, the Know How is existing, but this is not enough today. Having success is not based on this, it is based on Marketing mechanism (Profit, Sales, Ads, Promotion....) On the other side, what would happen, when a Designer would be able to create a definitive unit for 8K consumer price? For a few this would be too cheap to be good....or a piece of wood on a string for 6k, yes, this would work.... |
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. |
IMHO the fun in our " hobby " must be the MUSIC enjoy and not the endless quest of tweaks.
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. |
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. |
Out-of-center record hole. An important point. Still on holiday, but just a short note:
I solved that problem in my earlier design in 1992. Not with a complex motorized approach as Nakamichi did, but with a total mechanic approach - very simple and very effective. Everybody will find the solution himself following one simple hint:
- do decrease the diameter of the center spindle from approx. 7 mm to say 3-4 mm.
Now you have the option to adapt, with a small set of very simple - you can most likely even make it yourself at home - devices, to any excentricity of any given LP.
I will leave it to our "professional" TT designers to pick up the idea. Maybe the "german fraction" will find the solution in older reports about my old design. It was featured there. |
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.
Rauliruegas (System | Threads | Answers) Well said, now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to some music for a few hours. Thanks for the inspiration 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. |
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. |
Yes, I know: the Dragon and TX1000. A friend of mine in San Diego and other one here own these units.
Raul. |
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. This was made 25 years ago from a Nakamichi Turntable. It centered the record automatically. Too expensive for our days I guess.:) |
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. |
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. |
I believe some models of Jeep/Chrysler used hydraulic cooling fan motors powered by the P/S pump due to the fact they are quieter. I would speculate that the main reason for using a hydraulic motor is more to do with the high-temperature environment in which the fan motor must operate, especially if used on the back side of the radiator. At these temperatures, copper conductors get pretty lossy, and when running a 12V motor (drawing 20-30 amps), they start to really add up . . . in windings, commutators, brush leads, wiring, relay contacts, etc. And then you've got make up for those losses in power generation . . . and when a cooling fan is most important is when the vehicle isn't moving, hence engine speeds are low, and the alternator suffers from poor effeciency. In this application . . . hydraulic makes lots of sense. But for a turntable, both air-vane and fluid-vane motors are far from vibration-free and cogless (go to an auto-body shop and listen to their air-vane-powered tools) . . . so there will be similar challanges as electric magnetic motors. Maybe an expanding-chamber screw-type armature fed by high-pressure hydraulic fluid? Then the problem is that you've got NO speed feedback, not even the fixed-frequency rotating magnetic field in an electric motor, and there's been disapproval voiced for a feedback speed control system. Believe me, I'm not completely poo-poo'ing the idea, but rather will be extremely impressed if these challanges (and all of the others that I've not thought of) are able to be solved. And of course I'll want to read all about it, so do keep us posted. |
Dear dertonarm: Good to hear it, happy holidays.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hello Dertonarm,
>The "air-pulse" drive (no pulse would exclude a problem) has some considerable problems while looking close to a theoretical ideal first. It not only will require considerably (really serious...) periphery, but indeed a "assist"-motor to bring the (high mass) platter to requested speed first and than de-coupling.<
Weren't you asking about "all out",no compromise, no commercial consideration approaches? Did I not explain some of the caveats? Yes, the periphery would be expensive, but maybe not as expensive as it appears(remember, this is not about a commercially viable project).
The Onkyo PX-100M eddy current drive turntable does feature an idler drive just to bring it up to speed within half a revolution, then the eddy current drive takes over(and it has a break too). It can be done...
Platter speed needs to be monitored, which in turn can govern the force of the air(or any other driving) "pulse". It will have a VERY slow recovery time, but(that is where my chronometer analogy comes in) the disturbing influence of the drive system could be minimized.
To assess which principle is superior, we'd have to build two(or more) otherwise identical turntables that can be driven by more than one means. I have done this several times many years ago, Chris Brady has done this more recently, so his assesment holds merit, even if some may not agree with all of his peripheral design choices.
I suggest opening another thread to discuss that there is VASTLY more to building an excellent turntable then the drive principle, even though nothing else matters if the record doesn't spin at (as close to)constant speed to begin with.
Dertonarm, I didn't ask you any questions, I just showed that your approach is just as far from or as close to being perfect as some other approaches, at least from a conceptual/theoretical point of view. But that part of the discussion was doomed from the start... and yes, it's not neccessary to repeat yourself yet again.
Nevertheless, have an enjoyable and relaxing Easter weekend!
Frank |
Dear Rhljazz, a fascinating idea. This is something really worth discussing. You happen to have any links to technical exploration and the required periphery? |
Air would be a poor choice for a drive mechanism since it is compressable. Hydraulic fluid on the other hand is not compressable. Driving the platter with hydraulics would be an alternative choice. A pressurized bearing could also be utilized.
I'm not a turntable expert, just a bmw tech. I believe some models of Jeep/Chrysler used hydraulic cooling fan motors powered by the P/S pump due to the fact they are quieter. Perhaps a similar system could be made for a turntable? Just throwing out ideas. |
I do have a file - 3" thick and 8 lbs heavy - of extensive test and data sheets to about 5 dozens different materials which at one moment or another were part of the turntable design pre-thoughts (some finally made it). However I remember that one particular poster stated yesterday:
"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 respect that position. |
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. |
Indeed Berlinta, you did not get a direct response.
You did not ask for it either.
I layed out all the points the days before. I could again answer to all the points in your last 4 posts. But I do not see any attractivity to repeat myself over and over again. All the answers were already posted in this thread before the questions came up.
It will not be to the benefit of this thread - especially not right now as it is finally back to technical discussion again - if I post direct response. Rereading some of my earlier posts will show that the answers are already there. They just got "buried" in the interim when the discussion left the original intend. |
Lewm, regarding my belief in Dertonarm's contentions... if you look at the first paragraph of my second of two consecutive posts above, I state... I, for one, am not at all convinced Mr. D is right (though I would love to listen to the table he created) about high mass BD (even though my preferred TT at home is a HM BD with slipping thread drive). I expect DD is probably 'better' because I expect it is easier to control the electromagnetic slippages than the mechanical ones. Regarding Chris Brady's DD TT... in paragraph two of the first of those two consecutive posts, I state... It is obvious through Chris' assertions here that he believes his new DD system, and perhaps others', improve(s) upon those highly-praised BD TTs). I am sure they do. I, for one, would love to have the chance to listen to that TT. I am sure it is fabulous. All the anecdotal evidence points to a conclusion that he has made one of the top commercially available TTs out there. But your next point: Rather, these are good data that have to be explained. is the crux of what I was trying to get at. I believe that Mr D's point is that anecdotal evidence of one or two commercially available TTs sounding better than another couple of TTs is fine, wonderful, and nice, but beside the point. He has asked for technical arguments WHY DD should be less of a compromise when attempting to create the perfect TT and so far noone has come up with the technical arguments, the physics, or experimental results detailing why that should or could be so. I think he would welcome the philosophical debate. I know I would. And yes, I think the escape clause for most of us will be to say that we haven't heard the best BD TTs or DD TTs out there. But again, for Mr D, that is beside the point. I may not agree with his assertion that high-mass thread-slippage BD TTs are the best method to approach perfection, but I have no science or experimentation to back up my disagreement, so instead I hope to learn. Cheers, |
The "air-pulse" drive (no pulse would exclude a problem) has some considerable problems while looking close to a theoretical ideal first. It not only will require considerably (really serious...) periphery, but indeed a "assist"-motor to bring the (high mass) platter to requested speed first and than de-coupling. The question is whether it really will provide a "better" drive mechanism - as fascinating as the idea itself is. |
Hello Lewm,
No, I don't agree with Dertonarm's contention. If you reread my posts, you'll find that I'm trying to point out that there are several ways of approaching the challenges to run a platter at constant speed, ALL of which are flawed in one or several ways, as soon as we are dealing with reality.
I am very much familiar with Chris's table, in fact I suggested the use of an eddy current brake acting on the platter as soon as he started making platters with brass or aluminum bottom layers and I heard both a prototype and the first production model in comparison to his then top of the line tape driven tt. His direct drive turntable offers exceptional speed stability(significantly better than his tape driven decks) and is proof that it can be done(and, again, look at one of the last generation cutting lathes).
I'd prefer to discuss real world experiences, but Dertonarm made such a big deal out of the supposed mediocrity of most, if not all contemporary turntables that there simply was no point in "getting real".
Strangely, I have not gotten a response from him...
Best wishes,
Frank |
Please take into consideration in all discussion about what drive and platter weight that is is not alone about constant speed.
There is the "2nd system" (mentioned before ) and its energy transfer into the platter: - the act of extracting information from the groove by the stylus. There is more to the platter than (high) torque, inertia and constant speed.
It has to handle complex energy transfer (and/or damping) provided by the stylus demodulating the groove.
Bringing this into consideration will clarify some points which came up in the last posts by Berlinta and T_bone. The high mass platter plus the low tension thread made of aramide or similar will too give some answers, why there is no problem with vibration or resonance being transmitted or initiated by the thread.
As for the hypothesis of the high inertia (which is fully backed and put into "half-commercial" product by Jean Constant Verdier in his Magnum ) providing close to ideal constant speed, it would be helpful if Kirkus - who is respected by us all - could clarify or illustrate the point.
If I try it might soon become too dogmatic again.
I am on holiday now and will - randomly and infrequently - follow this thread, but I will make no personal remark to anyone anymore and will not answer to any directed to me either |
Berlinta, T_bone, Raul, Dave, et al: Do you all except Dertonarm's contention that belt drive is the inherently superior way to motivate a platter, compared to all forms of idler- or direct-drive and notwithstanding theoretical air propulsion? It seems as though you all do. I don't, yet. T_bone, I think it's very significant that Chris Brady reports that his belt drive tt, and his rim drive motor when applied to his heretofore belt-drive tts, outshine any of his belt-drive creations, which are themselves held in very high esteem among end-users. I don't think his real-world experience should be dismissed BECAUSE it is anecdotal, if I understood you correctly. Rather, these are good data that have to be explained. The escape clause for anyone who wants to hang onto his or her own bias, is that perhaps none of us has heard the "ultimate" belt-drive tt. |
Hi again,
Mark Kelly is correct about the tension differential, provided the thread/belt does stretch and that there are frictional losses in the platter/bearing system. I don't think he said that slippage was neccessary, but rather that it was unavoidable in real life(maybe I got that wrong...)
Slippage can be avoided, idler, belt or tape creep can't.
My comment on the counterpulley symmetry relates to Dertonarm asking for a debate in the theoretical domain. I made it the sake of debating idealized concepts rather than compromised implementations(called reality), please take that into account.
A single constant airstream working against "wings" will cause cogging. Two(or more), 180°(x°) perfectly out of phase air vents with proper orientation of the wings will cancel the cogging(don't want to be responsible for the maschining of that one...). But this isn't all that different from a conventional multipole motor.
A single leaf and a one impulse(or 0,5, ...) per revolution is different. One could achieve the same without the complexity of an air supply, the turbulence issues, etc. by using a very heavy platter, direct driven with the motor being switched on only infrequently , be it for a very short duration or ramped up, then down again, but only when the speed drops below a set deviation threshold. Oops, I see the word feedback on the horizon, mmh...
The inertia of the platter will be an intergrator again, the constant motor noise/mechanical jitter will be exchanged for an occasional pulse and the bearing losses ought to be zero ideally.
Low frequency pitch stability will once again be less than perfect :-(
There again, it contains compromises... I'm still tempted to build such a device(and sell it for --- ONE GAZILLION DOLLARS, buahahaha...!).
A pulsed air supply with transfer function matched "wings" won't cause cogging IF you solve the problem of syncronisation(and if there was no such thing as turbulence, a.k.a. CHAOS).
Now back to "real" work :-)
Frank
P.S.: Related to the original post: There are at least 6 different currently manufactered turntables that partially rely on creating additional drag on the platter for maximum speed stability. |
I would think that an "air drive" platter would not opnly be difficult to get started, but if it got spinning too fast would also be hard to slow down to the proper speed. The platter would have to have a wee bit of friction I would think.
A push with the hand is really not an option to start off unless there was some minor friction. You would want to have the speed build up and stabilize, so low to proper speed is the goal rather than high to proper + friction.
It is a rather intruiging proposition though, although the "friction" of the air on some form of wing under the platter could cause a rumble of sorts and a cogging effect I would assume. Not without its flaws, but probably the next $100,000 turntable idea. Anyone want to come up with a business plan?
Bob |
Frank, thanks. My understanding, from Mark Kelly's interesting writings on the subject, is that no matter the tension, some kind of slippage is, by definition, necessary; and that slippage induces differing tensions on either side of the platter, by definition - or perhaps I misunderstood his various writings - I would not put it past me :^)
I am intrigued by your pulsed air and finned/winged/etc underside of platter concept. Personally, I would expect substantial cogging potential from the airpump power supply, and other sources, so would (not being burdened by any practical experience in the area) avoid intentional pulsing. I would expect that running the pulsed supply through a series of buffer tanks would get you to your constant air stream with more accuracy, and if you ran that through the same 'toothed' underside which had a very tight tolerance for the space between the downward-facing 'top' of the tooth and the upward-facing air inlet area, it would serve to pulse the air as well, but as long as the air-pressure post buffer tanks were constant, and applied at several (or more than several) places under the platter in regular syncopation, it would go a long way towards lessening the impact of variations in the air pressure coming out of the tank, and if it was a high-inertia floating platter, the 'teeth' could be oriented to receive air pressure which would self-center the platter. The amount of air pressure necessary for the drive system would actually be quite low. One could set it up so that the platter got to speed through some other system, which was then clutched 'off' when the air pump took over. I guess the question is how one would 'brake' the platter using that system, other than using its own inertia, if one needed to...
As to your non-rhetorical question, my gut is that the qualitative differences between DD-PLLs with light platters and the best of the other types with heavy platters may have to do with the audibility of the speed of speed correction, which is where the inertia comes into play...
In any case, have fun in virtual reality |
Dear T bone,
>Would not the drive (pull) side have a different tension than the 'lag' side - thereby making same resonance on 4 strings impossible?<
You are correct if the thread has stretch and is under tension. Dertonarm suggests the use of a thread with no stretch and advocates low enough a tension to allow for slippage(if I misunderstood, I apologize). Both longitudinal and transversal waves contribute to the vibration of a connecting medium(be it a rubber belt or a thread), modulating the load "seen" by the motor. The ratio between the two differs though. Since Dertonarm was approaching the discussion from a theoretical point of view and has emphazised individual aspects, I thought it would be fair to point to conceptual flaws as he has asked everyone to do.
But he has built a turntable following his dogma, appearently without running into a problem in this area as he said that achieving and maintaining correct(or what he considers correct) thread tension was not difficult. Complextity and resulting chaotic behaviour of elements working together can come to rescue here, rendering a theoretical problem nonexistant in praxis. Dertonarm was asking for input on how to improve upon existing solutions and my suggestion was merely aimed at that.
As a designer my aim has always been to avoid a source for problems rather than quantitatively minimizing the problem. I've built turntables with thread drive and counterpulley in the early eighties and later commercial implementations of the mirror image positioning of the counterpulley all fixed some major issues - side thrust on the platter bearing, uneven operation of the subchassis(Audiomeca Roma) - and introduced others - noise, belt "flutter", slippage(where none was intended to occur).
BTW, a platter driven by a constant stream of air will be harder to build and not necessarily better than one with a pulsed supply. If the pulsed supply works against, lets call it "teeth" or "wings" of appropriate shape, a very even drive force in agreement with Dertonarm's dogma can be achieved.
If the system losses are small enough and the inertia very high, such a pulse can occur only once per revolution or even less frequently.
One could see an analogy between tts and high precision timekeeping devices. The astronomical regulator with a "free" escapement and heavy(high inertia pedulum) driven with minimal force(keeping the drive system's influence small) stands for Dertonarm's thinking, the low mass high frequency oscillation of a quarz or even Cäsium atomic clock for the quarz-"locked"(it's not locked) instantaneous(it's not instantaneous)correction direct drive with light platter.
The atomic clock produces ultimately less deviation from perfect accuracy. Now why then do the best DD-PLL turntables with light platters(i.e. EMT 948) sound inferior to the best DDs with heavy platter or the best belt, tape, thread or rim driven turntables? Lack of proper execution or fundamentally flawed? This seems like a rethorical question, but it isn't.
If your motor has infinite inertia(god brought it up to speed initially...) and your drive is lossless, then your platter can be infinitely light, will be infinitely inert and therefore rigid as well. No more energy storage or mechanical impedance matching problems(topics for another thread), Yeah! :-)
I'm gonna run, create an avatar to build this theoretically perfect turntable in cyberspace. Not shure I'll be digging the music over there though...
Cheerio,
Frank |
Dear Dgarretson, before I get off for holiday, - first of all: very nice set-up you have done with your modificated TNT. There is much more insight and mechanic knowledge displayed in your set-up, than in many comments posted on that topic here in the last days.
As for the denier of the aramide thread.
It depends on your intention regarding the amount of grip you wish to have on your platter. With your set-up the thread does entangle the platter for 5/6 of its circumfence. I would start with a thread about the "thickness" of a sewing-linen. This will run smoothly through the pulley groove of the VPI motor and will give "fairly" good grip without becoming too massive. Aramide thread have become so inexpensive and widely available ( it was a very different situation 18 years back.....) - just get a selection of 3-4 different strenghts. For best comparism - why don't start with a aramide thread excatly the strength/thickness of the string you are using right now. That way you get a direct "result" as for any sonic benefit/or possible drawback of the aramide in your given set-up.
I really am interested to learn about your findings.
Please let me know. |
Dear Raul, if this were a contest (a contest about what ? Knowledge ?) - it would be fairly boring.
Aside from this there is nothing in your last post which requires any response as there are again (as so often..) no facts and nothing which has to do with the topic of this thread but only with personal animosities.
Boring. |
Frank, I for one hope you do not regret chipping in. I always enjoy reading your informative posts. As to your last point, I completely agree that in coming up with a commercial product, there are always compromises - it cannot be otherwise as there is always the cost factor (and while I agree with your comment about not everyone designing to a price point or saying 'that'll do', unfortunately, that is inherent in some way in every compromise). As to your point about belittling people, I did not see it that way so much as I see people having two conversations which don't mesh. Most people in the real world and Mr. D in the theoretical. I, for one, am not at all convinced Mr. D is right (though I would love to listen to the table he created) about high mass BD (even though my preferred TT at home is a HM BD with slipping thread drive). I expect DD is probably 'better' because I expect it is easier to control the electromagnetic slippages than the mechanical ones. However, this is based on a total lack of experience doing it myself so I for one, encourage real, technical discourse.
A last technical question to you, Frank:
If you put in opposing pulley/threads, why would all 4 resonate at the same frequency? Would not the drive (pull) side have a different tension than the 'lag' side - thereby making same resonance on 4 strings impossible? |
I thank all the participants on this thread for sharing their knowledge and experience. Sitting on the perch of not being willing to build my own TT, and not being willing to spend ultra-bucks to buy someone else's summum, and being quite happy with what I have, I am very happy to hear a variety of opinions and experience because I am learning a lot from the discourse. I think if EVERYONE took a step back, they might learn something. Because people are coming at this from different perspectives, they seem to be getting their noses bent out of shape. Almost everyone here except Dertonarm is coming at this from the side of what is commercially viable (either because they need to make something commercially viable, or because they need to buy one which is made by someone else). Dertonarm is coming at it from a different angle.
Years ago, I read the Teres Project archives. They were extraordinarily enlightening to me at the time. I found dissenting opinions, and well-meaning hypotheses which turned out to not work, but in the end a lot of openness to challenging the existing ideas in order to create something better. In the end, those better ways were created (and I would suggest Chris Brady and recent Teres model purchasers believe the Teres Project results are still being improved upon) through hypothesis and trial. The results were that through astute selection of materials and drive system, an excellent TT could be built which was less expensive than the otherwise self-declared state-of-the-art. I would assume that subsequent models higher up, which garnered much praise by people with great systems improved upon the first renditions. It is obvious through Chris' assertions here that he believes his new DD system, and perhaps others', improve(s) upon those highly-praised BD TTs). I am sure they do. The fact that they are still being improved upon means that everyone is finding better and better ways to skin the cat. Dertonarm's main point is that the cat is still the cat (unless, of course, it is Schrodinger's cat, in which case, it may not be), and that there must be a 'best way' at some point (assuming that everyone's measure of 'best' is the same).
I think that Dertonarm will not deny, disavow, disagree, or demean anyone's opinion that a given DD motor driving a high-mass platter can sound better than a given belt-drive high-mass platter system. I am pretty sure that what he is saying is that he has not found it to beat his belt-drive high-mass platter and he has found the compromises in the DD method to be greater than the compromises in HIS BD HM system. Dertonarm has, in every thread, refused to comment on what he thinks sounds better (partly because it is beside the point I expect), but consistently appears to be looking for someone to provide technical input or results rather than an opinion or the result of System A having been better than System B (which is not so much a demonstration of physics as a demonstration of implementation). Trying to critique his results as invalid because he still finds compromises in it is also beside the point.
So far, the fault I find in Dertonarm's discourse is the assertion that DD or idler drive would not work with "highest possible platter weight" and using "high inertia for self-stabilized speed." It may be right, it may be wrong. It is, however, not defined nor supported. If there is a mechanical slippage system (slipping belt drive) there is, by definition, a compromise. In my opinion, the PERFECT implementation of a TT would not use mechanical slippage. It would also not depend on electromagnetic slippage. In a perfect system, it would be pure 100% speed-stable drive. I am assuming his assertion is based on his experience that mechanical slippage may be a smaller compromise than building a system of electromagnetic slippage with no mechanical slippage. In any case, let's see the technical reason why such is the case. I, for one, would expect that one could build a very very good DD HM system given enough time and enough resources - though in the end it comes down to motor speed/torque stability and whether that stability is greater than the speed stability offered by a 'clutch' system of thread slippage.
While Dertonarm's conclusions appear to be 'dogmatic' to some, they appear to be the result of trial and experience. His tone may be dry, and that seems to antagonize some people, with somebody now suggesting he has an 'agenda' (similar to the way some people 'have an agenda' with tubes and OTLs, and others with single driver loudspeakers?). I personally do not see 'constant demeaning of dissenting opinions' so much as I see challenges to demonstrate that opinions are backed with technical results. I am sure that if someone could prove that a DD with high mass platter had better speed stability than a thread drive, many would be interested (including Dertonarm). It just happens to be that while some people profess that such a thing is possible and they have heard it with their own ears, someone else thinks it is still a method with less accuracy than is available than through what he has done himself.
I would encourage everyone to look at these discussions the way they might if they had participated in the Teres Project Archives email exchanges. There is nothing wrong with dissenting opinion (and I for one do not see Dertonarm's commentary to demean dissenting opinion), but Dertonarm's whole point is that he is striving to improve upon what exists, not prove that one existing thing is better than another. His question to all is whether anyone can demonstrate that one method is, in a technically definitive way, superior to another. |
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. |
Hi everyone,
I know I will regret posting in response to some of the above, but before I comment on some of what Dertonarm has postulated above repeatedly, allow me to address the original question:
For any given motor/powersupply combination there is a specific load against which it will work producing the least vibration/smoothest rotation. This is, strictly speaking, only true for a motor which has perfect spindle bearings. They are another source of irregular behaviour, particularly since the load on a belt drive motor pulley when used with a thread is rather high(compared to the tension required if a rubber, neoprene, silicone... belt is used). It is possible to address this problem, at the price of complexity and noise(i.e. counter-pulley for the motor spindle...other options exist).
Off course stylus drag isn't capable of slowing down a platter AND at the same time modulating the deceleration(or the acceleration!) at the exact frequencies that are being played back at that moment. The platter acts as a low pass. Nevertheless, stylus drag is NOT constant and therefore requires lost energy to be fed back into the system at an ever changing rate to maintain absolute speed, requiring constant acceleration/deceleration. If the platter is loosing energy due to additional "drag", be it generated by an eddy current brake(no noise added), a felt brake, a paddle running through a silicone bath or a particularly lossy bearing(i.e. the DPS turntable), the influence/impact of the losses generated by the stylus drag become smaller.
Increase the drag tremendeously and you will get the influence of stylus drag below the threshold of audibility(let's just say for a moment that there is such a thing...)*.
You need to increase motor torque(meaning, all other things being equal, increase motor noise) once the losses become too high, both to be able to maintain target speed and to bring the platter up to speed within a reasonable amount of time.
*The same can be achieved by increasing platter mass/inertia, BUT the remaining speed variations will be lower in frequency and higher in amplitude if no means of damping(same as aditional drag, sorry)is employed. Low pitch variations are more obvious/bothersome to some than they are to others.
Since amplitude and frequency of the platter speed variations can't be reduced to Zero, any turntable will be compromised, unless it's platter would feature infinite inertia, in which case all other factors(motor, idler, belt etc.) become obsolete, since nothing can move an infinitely inert structure.
The insistence on the superiority of Dertonarm's super heavy platter driven by a lossy drive/"slipping" thread is hard to understand, particularly if we apply the laws of physics, as continously demand by the master(couldn't resist that one ;-) himself.
If the thread is allowed to slip while it is driving the circumference of the platter, slippage will (likely)occur at the pulley too. Even if the slippage was constant, and it is NOT(according to physics, keyword:"stiction") , slippage on both the driven and the driving surface will result in chaotic behaviour, COMPROMISING the evenness of energy transfer.
If, as some turntable manufacturers have done, the platter speed is monitored and used to control the motor, hunting and pecking is inescapable and only the chosen feedback time constant, the platter mass, the motor torque and the little bit of stretch left even in Aramid or Dyneema threads will govern the speed variation amplitude and frequency around the nominal target speed. And if there is belt/thread slippage or an out of round platter, the "error correction" will have to work very hard.
Dertonarm stated that neither direct drive nor idler drive was usable to build a turntable with high mass/inertia platter. Oh boy... we are mostly listening to shitty records cut on Neumann lathes, some of which use a Technics SP10 MkIII motor(albeit driving a 40kg, large diameter platter)
The Onkyo PX-100M, an eddy current direct drive tt features a 24lbs platter(without the mat) and is an excellent deck.
Other examples in conflict to the above statement were mentioned by Chris Brady.
What does a super heavy platter buy the designer other than inherent higher frequency speed stability? Problems!
You'd be surprised how much wobble/tumble can be detected on platters even if the bearing tolerances are super tight(the Continuum Audio site once had some indepth analysis graphs and animations)
Dertonarm will likely reply that an airbearing is the solution, but it isn't(it's a compromise too). It minimises bearing noise and friction(a major problem with super heavy platters) but can't restrain platter tumble as well as a pressurised oil or grease bearing. For what it's worth, essentially all industrial axial airbearings for heavy loads are made for much higher rpms.
Dertonarm suggests/requests the side load on the platter to be zero. Very good(unless a spindle bearing à la Bill Firebaugh is used)! But if you do this by putting a counterpulley opposite of your driving pulley and maintain not only the distance but also the diameter of the counterpulley, there is a strong risk of all 4 "free" thread sections acting as strings, resonating at the same frequency. Any such behaviour will wreak havoc on the smooth operation of the motor as it changes the load it sees rapidly. Put a break on the counterpulley or change the pulley diameter and the distance accordingly and the problem is solved.
Off course, once the platter is made heavy enough, that becomes neglectable too... depending upon your neglectability threshold.
My conclusion: Dertonarm's way is one way, but not the only way. It is, like all ways, compromised(I wouldn't dare calling it flawed).
A few last words on how "commercial" designers/engineers are often described here and in other forums.
Yes, there are some(too many) that do not have a deep understanding of physics or electronics(not to mention the growing number of copycats). But just as many do and they are into it because they happen to share other people's(be it customers or colleagues) enthusiasm for music and all the gadgets that allow us to enjoy it in it's preserved form. It is simply not true, that all of us think with a target price tag in front of our eyes first. It is simply not true, that all of us think: "yeah, I guess that'll do..." And that is a FACT.
Finally, it is downright ARROGANT to belittle designers who are capable of coming up with a component that delivers 95% of what is currently possible at 10% of the price. Yes, it is all about compromises and ESPECIALLY an all out assault on the state of the art will eventually run into facing this as well.
Happy Easter,
Frank Schröder
|
Dertonarm, thanks for the general suggestion regarding thick & thin, but there are about as many derniers of these synthetic threads as fish in the sea. It would be helpful for this experiment if you could offer a few specific recommendations. |
Dear Raul, well we get from you what we got before - loads of technical facts, loads of IMHOs.....
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? Futile attempt from the start.
I guess I have posted enough technical background on the subject in this thread.
A hell of a lot more than you, Teres or Dan_ed together.
But I have learned a lot from you.
Especially one thing: technical facts and physics are sometimes futile in audiophile discussion.
Raul, come on teach us something, come up with some technical explanations why I am wrong and in what aspects.
Show me the way.
And please, technical explanations - not "IMHO"s and not that I shall have respect for others. That I do not bow in awe because of the turntables on the market right now does not mean I disrespect people.
I know that I have stepped on your toes in the tonearm thread and here again.
Sorry.
You are so knowledgeable about these things - why don't you teach us something.
The other TT designers shall just do their homework before telling us that they have found the magic stone.
I did not. All I did is to lay out technical relations and mechnical interactions and that the "complex" turntable does indeed consists of two energy systems.
My other "crime" was that I did insist and still do, that a turntable close to perfection and maybe without compromise can be build.
Somehow this did enerve some people.
As if compromise were a holy cow.
Don't you think that the tonearm you are about to build and to bring to market will be close to perfection ?
Of course in my system is room to improve - maybe as much as in your system. |
|
