Very interesting post, thank you Andrei.
I can't understand the meaning of the graphics but I'd like to try a different bearing (I have the original one).
Printable View
Very interesting post, thank you Andrei.
I can't understand the meaning of the graphics but I'd like to try a different bearing (I have the original one).
I'm no engineer , however from memory i did see some images of the Mike New bearing out of the housing and the spindle is bigger ( tried to find the photos )
If the mass of the bearing spindle is bigger in a bigger housing surly it will have a larger contact area , spindle to housing contact , this will add friction and will result in shorter run down time , Is run down time relevant ? as its only running time accuracy that counts , The 1210 has a fine direct drive motor that copes with the bigger bearing and different types of platters and can maintaining speed accuracy ( just my opinion as a numpty ) :)
I don't know what oil it is but it is the oil that was supplied by Mike with the MNB.
The Funk Bearing is extremely interesting and a polar opposite of Ian's approach. Peek is very hard but relative to Sapphire it is soft. One method is to obtain the benefit of a hard substance, and the other is to obtain the benefit of a slippery substance. Different approaches. I would certainly like to give Arthur's bearing a go but I suspect the use of Sapphire makes it expensive.
This is all tricky stuff for amateurs like you and me. I think the larger area would therefore spread the weight and produce less friction, or at least less friction per given area, just say sq mm for example. As against this there would be, as you say a larger area. I don't know if they are equally relevant. It is interesting to compare the readings for the IanMac bearing with and without added oil. The oil seems to make for some drag and that is why the readings are for a shorter run-down time. That is ok by me if the rumble is actually less. The motor of the SL1200 copes with this bit of drag without issue. The most significant comparison is between the IanMac (without oil) and the stock bearing. What is shows to me is that there is less friction - it is as simple as that. In fact my subjective listening is that it is quieter.
This leads to the Audacity readings. I was hoping to get some objective idea of the noise floor of the rumble with the IanMac bearing compared with other options. Really I am just looking to find the quietest bearing.
I should say that is not necessarily the be-all and end-all. The MNB does seem to be good for extra weight of heavy platters, mats and and record pucks. There is an obvious disadvantage of extra weight, but likely outweighed (sorry) by the benefit of more inertia.
The trouble with Audacity and recording noise from a silent groove is that the actual bearing noise is swamped by shit laptop and phonostage noise.
Better to perform a wavelet analysis of the recording to see the power distribution around the speed of Rotation. Unless you're more interested in how each bearing transmits other sources of noise from within the rest of the deck.
Re spin down speed. My deck is dead stop in less than five seconds and I'd put it's speed stability up against any deck at any price. And that's with a bearing that does better than -73db.
These noises are kept to a minimum due in part to the PC being specifically designed for music playback, and in the case of the phonostage I have fed the MC output into the MM input to reduce its impact. But the more significant point is that all the bearings are measured with the same noise.
No idea what a "wavelet analysis" is. There will be other noises within the deck but that is part and parcel of how noisy each bearing is.
You have the best deck I am sure with the best speed stability. Can that information be extrapolated to the technics?
Comparing the spin down times of the Ianmac bearing and Stock bearing*: Is there anything other than friction that could explain that?
* not the MNB or IanMac in an oil bath.
Does it sound better than MNB playing music. That is all I want to know...
Sorry, Andrei, for me, all this pish with graphs is largely meaningless. I hate it when audio gets too bogged down by bloody measurements, especially in this case when those taken don't really have much relevance... :rolleyes:
At the end of the day, all that matters is if you've upgraded the bearing on your turntable, whether or not you can hear a significant sonic improvement, and if that improvement has resulted in a greater enjoyment of your favourite music, which I'm sure is the case with those who've fitted one of Ian's modded Technics bearings.
On a subjectivist-orientated forum such as this, that's all most folks are interested in reading :)
The above is certainly the case with those (including me) who've fitted a Mike New bearing, who are absolutely delighted with it as a result, and have no intention of changing it.
Marco.
Ah, I see that Chris has beaten me to it!
Yup, as they say, ditch the 'bull' and just cut to the chase.... :exactly:
Marco.
Who knows - The Funk bearing may sound better.
To be honest, I think it will be difficult to tell the difference between all of the bearings unless each is measured.