Daily:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Oldpinkman
Printable View
Daily:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Oldpinkman
No, that's a Fanni..... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Cant manage more than weekly on that these days:wheniwasaboy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Paul
I'm not sure we're looking at the same representation, between Martin's and this one. Take a look at the axes. Is this really a like plot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldpinkman
Same thread. Same test. Different tester, but they all were. :)
You need to read the rest of the thread ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldpinkman
all 44 pages?Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG
Shouldn't you be getting ready for Owston! :)
The next few pages mention calibration and resolution. The plots are quite different IE: Another plot of the same Deck&Recording:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ps5e2e0e2f.jpg
That looks more believable, and shows less circularity (although better drive consistency) than my Technics!
I started penning a post over the w/e but got distracted and now Martin has piped in with some of the points. So, with a nod and a wink in his direction, I'll go ahead anyway...Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG
For fidelity of reproduction we want vanishingly little intrusion from each and every single component.
To this end we all know that when rotating a platter at .5 rps, a stock 1200 with its limited number of coils, hunting and pulsing does not come through.
Thus, Techie's engineers did a remarkable job in balancing all the various factors so well for which the curves we have seen tell the story. As an analogy for these curves we can think of a tool that magnifies dots on a tv screen and the brian blends them seamlessly into a picture.
Buried within is, however, a host of detail allowing us to view and compare various drive aspects in one go - motor drive, bearing eccentricity, wow and flutter and drift. There is a down side, namely, presenting so many bits of information seriously impedes taking actual values.
I recall a TT group test in HF for Pleasure (Practical?), which included comparative feedback graphs, w-a-y back when. In said review, one turntable stood out, head and shoulders above all else.
Its graph was all but perfect! Which TT might that have been? Oops. The name slips my mind...Senior moment:lol:
Similarly, the first Premotec curve always was more than a touch suspect - It too appeared too good to be true.
The attraction of a belt drive system: A high inertia system with minimal external intervention by the motor.
But it doesn't stop there.
The idea behind Anniversary, with it's motor uniquely mounted on the sub-chassis, was that it was a belt drive emulation of a direct drive system. For this we needed a supremely quiet yet powerful motor.
With Neal showing the corrected second Premotec curve, this is more like it. When compared to other drives, the Premotec motor's micro high frequency / very low in amplitude pulses simply they can't intrude. Interestingly (for me) the motor information is very similar to ours that we got when selecting the motor for the Anniversary back in the dim and distant past...as it ought, for it's the same motor!:doh:
Time marches on and with each development we get ever closer to our goal - the inclusion of a vectoring drive would close the gap ever more.
Or how about...? Nah. Let's leave that for another day.
That leaves the other aspects of drive to be assessed from design to design when each element will add (or remove!) it's own sonic flavour to the final blend.
Still, it is good that other people are independently validating a "dangerous" choice made oh so long ago.
Arthur