Stylus-Drag..Fact or Fiction?

Thanx for the description lewm. I would really like to hear the Monaco table. I could do it if I sold one of my tables.
jtimothya, yes we are very sensitive to timing but not in that way. We are sensitive to the time and volume differential between our ears. We are much more insensitive to pitch and tempo. Many musicians use various devices to tune their instruments and metronomes to set tempo. 
Flutter is more audible than Wow. It is generally accepted that most of us can not here tempo and pitch variations less than 0.25%. Modern high performance turntables when new have wow and flutter levels less than 0.05% well inaudible by any of us. Relating values below this to some alteration in sound quality is difficult if not impossible. Then end result is that any body can say whatever they want. Which unfortunately means whatever anybody says is worthless without some form of scientific proof. 

yes we are very sensitive to timing but not in that way. We are sensitive to the time and volume differential between our ears. We are much more insensitive to pitch and tempo. Many musicians use various devices to tune their instruments and metronomes to set tempo.

Didn't think it needed saying, my account presumes listeners with two ears.

More insensitive (less sensitive) to pitch and tempo ... than what?  Time and volume differentials?  You mean frequency and amplitude differentials?  Pitch is simply ordering sounds on a scale - that scale is frequency. Tempo is pace or speed, impossible without time.  At the stylus groove interface, the cartridge provides amplitude, the table provides frequency.

The conductor is the orchestra's clock.

"ignore the technology and measurements.

i did......or i do every day."

I never understood this position.  While the sound produced by a component might be the only thing that matters to some people, perception is highly subjective and dependent on many external factors (mood, daily hearing condition, type of music, room acoustics, blood alcohol content, etc.).  It is also personal to the individual and not easily or accurately reproducible or even communicated to others.

To ignore science and technology when designing audio components is wrought with peril, and makes you a hobbyist, not a designer.  Design decisions should be informed by established theory and practice, and the actual sonic results (and measurements) should confirm those choices and correlate with the design theories.  The more connections between the two realms (rules of correspondence), the more certain you can be that the sonic results are accurate and not due to some subjective factor, bias or confusion of the senses.

Measurements are used by manufacturers in their specifications and marketing materials to promote their products as "better" than the competition.  Verification of these measurements prevents mfrs from making outlandish or misleading statements about their products and serves to protect consumers.

I never understood this position.

especially if you take it out of context. and then twist it around.

this is a forum for listeners. my whole point, not the 5-10 percent you lifted, was that we have to listen to what these turntables do without preconceived notions about what we might expect. what does this tt actually do? and then i went on the relate what i heard from each turntable.

obviously i invested significant dollars to enjoy these turntables (supporting guys like you) partly because of my view of their technology and execution. i’m not blind to it. but there is a point where you listen objectively and let the music speak. i’m never going to be someone who has to first agree with and understand the technology and whether it fits what my engineering prof told me. others need this and i say knock yourself out with it.

but for me the technology only interests me only up to a point.

measurements are important. and i do agree there is a relationship with turntable performance between measurements and performance. but no matter the measurements the final arbiter is our ears. i want to know what people heard from their turntable. that is where the proof is.

i was one of the first ones to order the AS-2000 from David Karmeli that you were involved with, but i later changed my mind. i heard his AS-1000 at his home. sure, i appreciated the technical merits of it, but then cleared my mind to hear it on it’s own merits. it was awesome sounding for sure. what was significant to me was the other four turntables David had sitting there that i also heard and how the AS-1000 compared. not the tech.

i have read your posts here with genuine interest; of course at a particular point it goes completely over my head. i appreciate your participation on this thread. and i do care about the technology and especially observe the degrees of apparent execution of various turntables. but mostly i listen and follow my ears.

if you limit your customers to the ones who truly understand and can converse in the technology you work with that would seem to be a bit self destructing. but good luck with it. you might consider being more understanding of those who don't need to know everything.

A couple of corrections:  I no longer sell audio components or make any money from designing them.  This is purely a hobby for me as I'm interested in the technology (for now).

The 5 or 10% of your post I responded to was the only relevant part of your rather declaratory statement;  the rest of your post had little or nothing to do with addressing your bold claim.  I did a direct copy and paste quote, so I'm not sure how I twisted it? 


Your last post does a much better job of explaining your position regarding the proper role of measurements vs listening.  Thanks for clarifying.

It's certainly not my intention to be inconsiderate towards others who may not fully understand the technology, quite to the contrary, my intention is to help educate.  If someone has questions, I'd invite them to ask or to do a google search (it's how I find a great deal of the information I seek).