This is just exacerbating issues ...
Printable View
This is just exacerbating issues ...
Marco, I don't know what's transpired between Dave & yourself &, actually, I honestly don't care to know, but some of what you say here is, I think a little unfair.
There's obviously something still rubbing at Dave, or I'm sure he would have responded, but surely it is for him to choose whether or not to respond to comments addressed to him and also to time those to be whenever he sees fit?
I'm sure many of us often hold back from commenting on a thread until we feel we are best placed to do so. I can think of a couple occasions in the last week when I've done just that.
Regarding this bit:
Well, that's just not correct, surely? The members list is stuffed full of trade members who have hardly, or never, posted here, yet they still enjoy the opportunity to have their details & web-links listed here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
This is something I'm sure those concerned will be fully aware of, so I'd think there is good reason for Dave's silence.Quote:
At the moment I don't see too many new platters being sold until we get the answers to our concerns we're looking for, so it'll be his (and Mike's) loss.............
............just my thoughts. Sorry to butt in.
Cheers
Hi Chris,
Indeed, and I intend to find out what it is so I can (hopefully) resolve the issue.Quote:
There's obviously something still rubbing at Dave, or I'm sure he would have responded...
Normally yes, but Dave's been given plenty of time to return to his normal self since he was un-banned nearly SIX WEEKS ago, and apart from his solitary post in the Dartmouth thread in the off-topic area, he's been 'AWOL' in the main part of the forum.Quote:
...but surely it is for him to choose whether or not to respond to comments addressed to him and also to time those to be whenever he sees fit?
He told me that everything was ok when we had (apparently) settled our differences last time and that he'd be posting again on the forum soon. That was about 4 weeks ago. Patently something is still wrong and I don't like being misled. He needs to be honest and upfront with me or he has no future here. It's as simple as that.
Given that the subject of this thread is directly related to a key part of his product portfolio (namely the Technics SL-1200, and modification thereof), he really should be contributing to the discussion where required.
It wouldn't hurt Dave to be as eager to oblige and as forthcoming about discussing his products and services as, say, Stan, Tony Sallis, Hi-fi Dave, Mark Grant and Anthony TD are, amongst others - and indeed this level of contribution is what we'll be asking from all our new and existing trade members in future.
That's absolutely fine for normal members, but trade members here have a responsibility to their customers, so different rules apply in that respect.Quote:
I'm sure many of us often hold back from commenting on a thread until we feel we are best placed to do so. I can think of a couple occasions in the last week when I've done just that.
True, but some of those will be weeded out soon, as they're simply not an asset to our community. Changes will be made in that area in due course.Quote:
Well, that's just not correct, surely? The members list is stuffed full of trade members who have hardly, or never, posted here, yet they still enjoy the opportunity to have their details & web-links listed here.
Yes, and I will get to the bottom of it soon!Quote:
This is something I'm sure those concerned will be fully aware of, so I'd think there is good reason for Dave's silence.
No problem. Your thoughts are always welcome :)Quote:
............just my thoughts. Sorry to butt in.
Marco.
Thanks for your reply Marco.
My thought is that maybe the very thing that makes Dave uncomfortable about returning as he was before is discussion such as this, so with that, I'm off the subject.Quote:
Normally yes, but Dave's been given plenty of time to return to his normal self since he was un-banned nearly SIX WEEKS ago, and apart from his one post in the Dartmouth thread in the off-topic area, he's been 'AWOL' in the main part of the forum.
He told me that everything was ok and that he'd be posting again on the forum soon, and that was about 4 weeks ago. Patently something is wrong and I don't like being misled. He needs to be honest and upfront with me or he has no future here. It's as simple as that.
If you read this Dave, I apologise to you also for butting in.
No worries, Chris. The fact of course is that there would be no need for a discussion such as this if he'd just been honest and told me what the problem was in the first place.
What I don't like is being told one thing (everything is ok), when quite clearly it isn't. That really pisses me off!
Marco.
Good grief Marco....
Are you really having a rant because someone is NOT posting?
Marco, I think you need to leave Dave be for a while. I am sure he is reading this and continually goading him is not going to make him contribute. We know he has a lot to offer and can only hope that, in time, he will come back to us again.
Marco.
If you truly want AOS to be a completely open and honest forum, then people need to feel they have the right to express (or indeed not express in Dave's case) their views and thoughts (within reasonable limits) without the fear that they are going to always get 'the gospel according to Marco' if they say the wrong thing.
I like and respect Dave a great deal and like Martin, I think that if you do want him to keep being part of AOS (as I very much do), then you need to stop making comments which come across as provocative.
Guys,
I just don't like being told one thing when something else is patently the case. It's a pet hate of mine. That's the root of the problem here - not me ranting because someone's not posting.
Anyway, I'll sort things out with Dave in due course, so let's move on and get back to the original thread topic please.... Anthony has asked Mike this (fundamentally important) question regarding the platter, which I think deserves an answer:
Marco.Quote:
i would like to ask mike first of all what it is he thinks was fundamentaly wrong with the original platter that warranted the design of this new heavier model, also, how in his opinion he thinks it may affect the speed stability ie; the motor's ability to make the very subtle but essential changes to speed that are needed for maintaining platter speed accuracy.
Tony,
It is not necessarily a case of what I think, is fundamentally wrong with the existing platter. I have already posted an image of the standard SL platter cross-section showing very clearly what a flimsy shaped thing it is, there being more rubber than metal!
Indeed when I first mentioned that I was working on the design of a new platter, people posted comments stating that they wanted it to be as heavy as possible and that the new platter was going to be the best thing since sliced bread!!. Also that anything would be an advantage over the existing one, which rings like a bell and is indeed shaped like one! This is not to say that it does not play records. Obviously it does, there are a few hundred thousand in existence. I was of the opinion that most of you were, like myself of the opinion that the platter could be greatly improved on, given that you now have a decently designed bearing to use it with.
If I need to spell out to anyone at this point in time, what is fundamentally wrong with the platter then maybe those people have not been reading any of the previous posts or threads in this site or others; that have occurred over the past six months or so. There has after all, been countless threads and posts concerning the various designs of mats, all of which purport to overcome the limitations of the existing platter.
I have stated in previous posts that I do not believe the heavier platter will affect in any way the motor control system’s ability to maintain correct speed at all times.
‘Subtle and essential changes to speed’ are merely those changes required to maintain the speed as closely as possible to 331/3 and 45 rpm There is sufficient power available to the motor to maintain correct speed with the additional weight of platter under discussion. The additional power required is only that occasioned by the minutely increased friction on the bearing caused by the vertical downwards pressure. I have covered this aspect of bearing friction in an earlier post, which I suspect some have not read or adequately understood. The only area where a variation may be notice is in the run-up time, which is already very short! (not 12 seconds)
Dave has done considerable testing since he received the first platter from me about three weeks ago. I am privy to the results of these tests which I would consider are all positive, but I am not at liberty to discus them at this time as they are confidential to Dave.
I do hope that the forgoing serves to ally the concerns of those of you who are not in the least technically endowed, but appreciate quality sound when they hear it. I am not claiming that the new platter is all things to all people, after all we do not have any in the field yet.