Raul says:
"Seems to me that many high end audio manufacturers in some audio products works by " feelings " when measurements can help them and can help us to have better quality performance products"
I agree with Raul. I have not seen much of any measurements or even design goals of an Analog system. Only TT design where any 'analysis' has been done was the Continuum table when it came out. They boasted used of Aerospace technology analysis tool - NASTRAN, i believe. Their web site does show some plots/contours.
It is true that measurements don't tell much but at the same time you need to know what to design and measure for. In case of an analog system assuming you do need to know the interaction of constant speed rotating platter and up and down motion of cartridge and tiny forces ( may be not so tiny at needle pressure point) that are generated. Ideally the design should be such that that no external influence comes in to corrupt the signal created by this interaction. External influences like motor vibrations, motor fixed to plinth. tonearm, tone arm mounting structure and or external sound pressure. With all the design parameters solved there is still this material compatibility issue.
The static external influence may be easy to resolve, but dynamic may not be - especially the random vib generated in high resonance freq region. May be having brute force plinth, with right material is an intuitive answer, which may in fact resolve the issue (and in fact that is what Albert is noticing in way of improved performance) but measuring the random vib or lack there of would confirm this issue. As far as motor goes, you could be able to measure the random vib environments it creates- nude and design and measure the plinth to suppress this vibration energy in the know freq range area. ditto for other system vibrations. Sure easy for me to say. We do deal with random vib issue all the time in aircraft structures and adding a mass is the last thing we resort to , obviously, rather to kill or move this vib environments away from 'damaging' region or kill it by providing adequate damping.
Is there any such thing as over damping in an analog system? May be.
I sure would like analog design manufacturers to provide me with scientific back up of the design and fixes they did empirical means and or by ear and why.
Not to say Albert's plinth does not achieve this ultimate goal. I am sure it does. May be a knowledgeable test lab could verify. It may not be economically viable though.
It would be great to know what part of the audio freq range is improved with this added plinth ( v/s it original or nude plinth). In other words pl characterize the improvements for interested audience.
"Seems to me that many high end audio manufacturers in some audio products works by " feelings " when measurements can help them and can help us to have better quality performance products"
I agree with Raul. I have not seen much of any measurements or even design goals of an Analog system. Only TT design where any 'analysis' has been done was the Continuum table when it came out. They boasted used of Aerospace technology analysis tool - NASTRAN, i believe. Their web site does show some plots/contours.
It is true that measurements don't tell much but at the same time you need to know what to design and measure for. In case of an analog system assuming you do need to know the interaction of constant speed rotating platter and up and down motion of cartridge and tiny forces ( may be not so tiny at needle pressure point) that are generated. Ideally the design should be such that that no external influence comes in to corrupt the signal created by this interaction. External influences like motor vibrations, motor fixed to plinth. tonearm, tone arm mounting structure and or external sound pressure. With all the design parameters solved there is still this material compatibility issue.
The static external influence may be easy to resolve, but dynamic may not be - especially the random vib generated in high resonance freq region. May be having brute force plinth, with right material is an intuitive answer, which may in fact resolve the issue (and in fact that is what Albert is noticing in way of improved performance) but measuring the random vib or lack there of would confirm this issue. As far as motor goes, you could be able to measure the random vib environments it creates- nude and design and measure the plinth to suppress this vibration energy in the know freq range area. ditto for other system vibrations. Sure easy for me to say. We do deal with random vib issue all the time in aircraft structures and adding a mass is the last thing we resort to , obviously, rather to kill or move this vib environments away from 'damaging' region or kill it by providing adequate damping.
Is there any such thing as over damping in an analog system? May be.
I sure would like analog design manufacturers to provide me with scientific back up of the design and fixes they did empirical means and or by ear and why.
Not to say Albert's plinth does not achieve this ultimate goal. I am sure it does. May be a knowledgeable test lab could verify. It may not be economically viable though.
It would be great to know what part of the audio freq range is improved with this added plinth ( v/s it original or nude plinth). In other words pl characterize the improvements for interested audience.
