Thank you Atmasphere for posting that Link to a paper presented 43 years ago.
I presume you infer that nothing has changed in the intervening period?
As I do with most Reports and Papers......I go firstly to the Conclusions 🙃
But this Link is not primarily concerned with the Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency (despite Atmasphere's attempt to suggest it is).
It is....as its Title suggests....a Paper on
Now to the nitty but not so gritty.....
This Paper....although prepared by respected engineers and scientists in good faith in 1957....is NOT a Peer-Reviewed White Paper accepted as SCIENCE.
For that to occur......the Testing Procedures and Results need to be independently replicated and consistently duplicated.
None of these Tests and Results has been replicated.....nor can they be for the results are entirely dependent on the turntable used, the isolation employed, the tonearms used and the cartridges and headshells selected.
This Paper is NOT SCIENCE and I would have expected a qualified Electrical Engineer to recognise this 🤔
Hmmm.....sounds like a real scientific argument to me 🤣
So now we have Atmasphere introducing 'Wow and Flutter', 'Rumble' and 'IMD' all of which are mentioned in the Paper he introduced on TURNTABLES.....and none of which has been mentioned before by REAL scientists (like Kirkus and Tonywin) in relation to Tonearm Resonant Frequency.
Why don't you point out the audible effects of all these artefacts in my YouTube Videos so that people actually have some 'baseline' for the horrors that you continue to warn us about.....?
Don't listen for yourselves (which will cost you nothing).....
Believe me and what I say because I know what you should listen to 🤥
I presume you infer that nothing has changed in the intervening period?
As I do with most Reports and Papers......I go firstly to the Conclusions 🙃
In this paper we have pointed out that traditional specifications like rumble, wow and flutter and required tracking force are both unreliable and inadequate. Furthermore, they are strongly influenced by the actual combination of motor, arm, cartridge and record, all of which are often left to random decisions by the Hi-Fi consumer. By the use of modern test equipment we have tried to throw a little light on the causes and influence of the interface problems between the elements in a turntable. Assisted by listening tests one can conclude that the fundamental problem creating parameter is the frequency response of the turntable below 20 Hz. Most modern turntables ieave much to be desired, typically they have resonance peaks of 5 — 10dB at 5 — 7 Hz. The first thing to do is to raise the frequency to 1 5 — 1 8 Hz and then ideally damp the system to a Q of 0,5, letting response roli off at preferably 1 2 dB/oct. In pursuit of this goal one should not make trade offs with respect to rigidity of the tonearm tube and fixture. Flexing in the arm and other spurious resonances could then be the result and destroy the stability of the stereo image. Finally in Part 2 we have focused on a type of distortion that is most clearly seen in the time domain: Early reflections. Our investigation tells us that here is an area which, at present, has rather poor correlation between the measurement methods available and the impact on the sound quality.POOR CORRELATION BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENT METHODS AVAILABLE AND THE IMPACT ON SOUND QUALITY
This Resonant Frequency has ZERO affect on the sound quality of a particular tonearm/cartridge combinationThat's what I said in my opening to this Thread 🧐
But this Link is not primarily concerned with the Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency (despite Atmasphere's attempt to suggest it is).
It is....as its Title suggests....a Paper on
Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in TurntablesTurntables.....turntables.....TURNTABLES.....?? 🤣
Now to the nitty but not so gritty.....
This Paper....although prepared by respected engineers and scientists in good faith in 1957....is NOT a Peer-Reviewed White Paper accepted as SCIENCE.
For that to occur......the Testing Procedures and Results need to be independently replicated and consistently duplicated.
None of these Tests and Results has been replicated.....nor can they be for the results are entirely dependent on the turntable used, the isolation employed, the tonearms used and the cartridges and headshells selected.
This Paper is NOT SCIENCE and I would have expected a qualified Electrical Engineer to recognise this 🤔
The perception of wow and flutter, as well as rumble all affect the 'SOUND'. Rumble goobles up amplifier power and you can bet that increases IMD, which affects the 'SOUND'"and you can BET that increases IMD which affects the SOUND"
Hmmm.....sounds like a real scientific argument to me 🤣
So now we have Atmasphere introducing 'Wow and Flutter', 'Rumble' and 'IMD' all of which are mentioned in the Paper he introduced on TURNTABLES.....and none of which has been mentioned before by REAL scientists (like Kirkus and Tonywin) in relation to Tonearm Resonant Frequency.
Why don't you point out the audible effects of all these artefacts in my YouTube Videos so that people actually have some 'baseline' for the horrors that you continue to warn us about.....?
The whole premise of this thread is patently ridiculous! knock it off.Nothing to see here Atmasphere says....
Don't listen for yourselves (which will cost you nothing).....
Believe me and what I say because I know what you should listen to 🤥
