Raul: I don't want to beat, strangle, shoot, drown, and blow up a dead horse, BUT... > I don't excpect you to be familiar with my collected works on Audiogon, but anyone who's read me around here over the years could tell you that I am hardly a pure subjectivist. I often raise questions concerning what it is audiophiles think they hear, what they prefer, how they arrive at those subjective determintations, and the influence of technical ignorance and psychology. I'm all for whatever degree of objectivity is obtainable or practical.
> I do think measurements are important, for audiophiles both as a check on quality and as information to help us understand what we hear, and of course for product designers they are essential tools of the trade Having said that, I also think numbers can be misleading under several circumstances, such as... > If there is little or no correlelation established between what is being measured and what we can hear
> If there is no test devised capable of measuring some aspect of what we can hear
> If the tests performed omit covering some measureable aspects which probably do correlate with what we can hear
> If a test measures something that bears little useful resemblence to playing music
> If the measurements we are comparing are those claimed by manufacturers under unknown or unverifiable test conditions, not independently obtained using a uniform test procedure
> When tests that measure the wrong thing, or fail to measure the right thing, are misrepresented as the authoritative determinants of performance When it comes to the turntable specs you've listed, there are several pitfalls evident: > These are manufacturer numbers, unverifiable and taken under unknown test conditions which it is reasonable to assume were not always uniform
> Even if all the numbers were valid, they may not be representive of all samples of these products that we might audition or pertain under all real-world conditions
> We do not know whether or to what degree the small differences between the numbers correlate with audible performance
> Numbers for wow, flutter, and rumble do not define the universe of possible quantifiers of turntable performance, they only relate to certain aspects of it
> And in any case, wow & flutter and rumble numbers tell us only about aggregate quantity -- nothing about the actual spectral or temporal qualities of the distortions. So, identical numbers for two different turntables can in fact represent different behavior and therefore possibly sound. You wrote: "From a pure objective approach, the 'numbers' are what define which audio device is better, not if we can hear those 'numbers'." This is a fallacy, for some of the reasons I've listed above, and even if you discount the importance of being able to hear everything that is measureable. If you believe that measurements always objectively define what is better, then you simply don't know enough about the numbers, what they mean or might mean, and what they don't mean or might not mean. As the movie said, "A man's got to know his limitations", and that goes for a man's numbers too. |
Dear Sean: +++++ " I truly believe in measurements and a scientific approach to audio, but often the most difficult thing is knowing exactly what to measure. " +++++
I agree with you.
Btw, in the TT subject and from the objective approach it is a fact that we can only " work " with the " numbers " that are on hand: there are no others!!!!...
Now, there is no single approach that is right: objective or subjective, we have to take from both and bring the best for each one to our priorities.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
As I mentioned before, I think that the quality of implementation of the design can have as much, or more, effect as the design itself. Especially in these very high end tables which will all exhibit very good performance.
If a manufacturer does well at overcoming the basic flaws of any design, it may well outperform a one of another equally good(or better) design that is less well-implemented.
Also, I reject "wow and flutter" statistics, unless the separate "wow" and "flutter" components are individually stated, because they are very different types of speed variations, and should not be lumped together in a single specification.
Regarding my earlier posting statement about "tunnel vision", I still say that one cannot make a meaningful conclusion about a turntable's performance by one factor alone, including drive system. I could say that a Saturn V rocket can go faster than a Ferrari, but you can't drive a Saturn V rocket on the road. All aspects of the design must be considered.
If you want my answer, I can say that all forms of drive systems have the capability of being "the best", depending upon how well they are designed, and how well they are implemented. However, they may require very different approaches that are required to deal with the very different problems associated with each type of drive system.
In the end, it is the one that provides the most pleasurable musical experience for the listener that owns it, that will be "the best". And that also includes the price range, because if a listener cannot afford it, it is of little consequence to him how great it may be. |
"...in the TT subject and from the objective approach it is a fact that we can only 'work' with the 'numbers' that are on hand: there are no others!" There could be others, they're just not taken or not published. But I presume there's no technical reason, beyond a lack of will or resources, why turntable reviews couldn't include detailed measurements of speed distortions, noise, and resonant behavior that take into account spectra and duration, not just simple amplitude, as well as frequency and transient response/distortion at the output. The status quo however is that turntable reviews (and cartridge and tonearm reviews) include no measured test results whatsoever. This is unfortunate, because I believe there can be a salutory effect on the product marketplace stemming from public accountability for technical performance claims and the availability of comparison data. It might be interesting if Teres would be willing to share with us some idea of what kinds of measurements are taken as part of a manufacturer's design and testing process that aren't normally published for consumer consumption. |
Having been brought to my mathematical senses, I concede the point (obvious to all but me) that harmonic relationships do not change with an absolute speed change, provided the speed is stable of course.
Makes me wonder what we're hearing though. We're doing a few experiments and (gasp!) measurements. Stay tuned.
|
