I don't find lack of personal details insulting, I find ignorance resulting in attempted ridicule insulting, like yours regarding telephone engineers, and Mark's plain ignorance. You accuse others of stirring the pot when you do it all the time
Thank you, I knew we would agree. The way you performed your listening test with Mark leaves lots of room for conjecture, guessing and assumptions. The results are worth less than the paper this is written on.
My question is directed at EH.I don't find lack of personal details insulting, I find ignorance resulting in attempted ridicule insulting, like yours regarding telephone engineers, and Mark's plain ignorance. You accuse others of stirring the pot when you do it all the time
You mentioned 'telephone engineer'.....do you mean EE specialising in telephony or do you mean 'subscriber maintenance engineer' visiting homes and offices and swapping out sockets and handset cords, or what ?.
Please clarify where Mark is 'plain ignorant' so that I know it when I see it in future.
Dan.
Well, that is just too bad for you then.
For myself and Mark, and maybe some other, it is helpful data point to know if doing such Hf absorption and additional shielding.... can it make any detectable difference and we will continue to improve our designs and modifications and evaluate new ideas. As well as T&M and listening.
Enjoy.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
SJ, bullying is the exact opposite of who I am.
Please define 'telephone engineer' as it applies to your career.
Dan.
Yes, they are totally different in construction. Look at the underside of the Empire.
Beograms are unique. Their later suspension systems are a delicate more complex leaf & conical spring combination construction. It is low travel (restrained) and I would say with calculated stiffness. (I had a technical paper from them re their suspension but I don’t find it anymore).
Another simple and good implementation of sprung TT I’ve noticed is the CJ Walker CJ58.
All non metal (except the three under-compression springs and the platter bearing).
George
Attachments
Each to their own but given how complex the curves are that George posted a while back and given you are digital only would seem a no brainer do use DSP for the crossover? Mind you the Linkwitz LX-Mini analog crossover NP designed has been very popular.
There does seem a lot of pro analog crossover bias (Even Linkwitz it has to be said) which is intriguing.
When comparing amplifiers and loudspeakers, any single frequency test point protocol will likely lead to false conclusions if the interaction of the amplifier’s output impedance vs frequency and loudspeaker’s impedance vs frequency is not studied and taken into account.
George
Attachments
Why did you part with it Bill?
I had installed a DL-103 on this and had long listening hours at a friend’s house. I thought for a while to assassinate the owner and steal the TT.
George
Attachments
The Beogram leaf springs are an improvement over the suspending coils of the Mitch Cotter designed AR and all of its chillins playin its licks, like the Thorens TD150, Linns and such, in a really bad situation because they self center faster than vertical spring rate. But no universal optimum can be stated without defining the problem.
Much like tonearm mass x cartridge donut compliance, and their products' resonance' optimum placement between warp frequencies and signal frequencies, subchassis suspension has an optimum resonant frequency and Q to fit between structure-borne excitations (cue The Beach Boys, Good Vibrations) and the subchassis' need to couple away everything not intended to be geometrically between the record and the stylus.
Any general solutions will require that we first define our structure-borne (and even air-borne) impingements more. I say humbug - brute force works even if we don't know the details.
All good fortune,
Chris
Much like tonearm mass x cartridge donut compliance, and their products' resonance' optimum placement between warp frequencies and signal frequencies, subchassis suspension has an optimum resonant frequency and Q to fit between structure-borne excitations (cue The Beach Boys, Good Vibrations) and the subchassis' need to couple away everything not intended to be geometrically between the record and the stylus.
Any general solutions will require that we first define our structure-borne (and even air-borne) impingements more. I say humbug - brute force works even if we don't know the details.
All good fortune,
Chris
In preparation of that, a mandatory course using something like Chalmer's "What is this thing called Science" and further readings would already help .
AR XA (~ 1961) was/is an exemplary engineered minimalist TT.
Good innards and well damped arm (bronze counterweight and that plastic headshell)
I think the designer was Edgar Villchur
George
Attachments
Typical sales and marketing blurb, it makes the customer feel warm and fuzzy.
I would imagine that engineering specifications would be the priority rather than some non-descript subjective feedback. You can colour the audio independently of the digital and analogue conversion stages. It's the purpose of the DAC/ADC to reproduce the audio as closely as possible to the original source material with low distortion and noise.
@ vacuphile,
How could you know that?
It could be that they are correct in their agreement on the sound quality and the differences between the DUTS......
@ mountainman Bob,
That would be too much to ask.
A nice start would be to have an universally accepted set of descriptors for sound events (reproduction of sound events).
As we are using systems to evaluate recorded content or (additional/changeable) devices it would be required to have a sufficiently thoroughfull set of measurements of the specific combination.
Without standardized reproduction environements it is difficult to conclude from lab measurements to real world activity.
But if in a subjective description the meaning is widely known/accepted (and reference material available for calibration) that would be already a major step forward. (imo of course)
I've quite frequently mentioned the PEQS approach (along with links to the material, available free of charge), but aside from complaining about dither that was used or not used, the interest was quite limited so far.
Although it's intended use is for the quality assessment of recorded content, a lot could be adopted for more general purposes.
How could you know that?
It could be that they are correct in their agreement on the sound quality and the differences between the DUTS......
@ mountainman Bob,
That would be too much to ask.
A nice start would be to have an universally accepted set of descriptors for sound events (reproduction of sound events).
As we are using systems to evaluate recorded content or (additional/changeable) devices it would be required to have a sufficiently thoroughfull set of measurements of the specific combination.
Without standardized reproduction environements it is difficult to conclude from lab measurements to real world activity.
But if in a subjective description the meaning is widely known/accepted (and reference material available for calibration) that would be already a major step forward. (imo of course)
I've quite frequently mentioned the PEQS approach (along with links to the material, available free of charge), but aside from complaining about dither that was used or not used, the interest was quite limited so far.
Although it's intended use is for the quality assessment of recorded content, a lot could be adopted for more general purposes.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.