Yes indeed...because Ralph can, with the same conviction that he demonstrates his turntable theories....can postulate that OTL valve amplification is the only true path to audio Nirvana....despite the observable distortions.
For the record, this is not entirely true. I do think OTLs have advantages, else I would not be making them. But all amplification has observable and audible distortions. A topic for another thread.
That’s a direct quote. Now we learn the motor is at the end of a long hose. Does it produce 90-95dB of noise in room? If so, is this noise + mechanical vibrations?
The measurements are based on this story and now it looks inappropriate. This is the same as the music coming off a turntable?
Looks like we have no relevant measurements.
The vacuum system, along with the monitors, produced about that much sound pressure at the time. There is no mechanical vibration from the vacuum system whatsoever- all the sound is airborne. So these measurements are quite relevant. Fleib, if I can offer a bit of advice, try to craft your posts in a way that it is not obvious that you are simply trying to make the other party wrong by ignoring facts. You will have greater success.
But the "correctness" and superiority of a common plinth turntable design does presume the plinth provides an inherently rigid mechanical connection between platter bearing and arm pillar simply by virtue of it being common, too large a presumption as well as an over-simplification, I realize in hindsight. The rigidity of the plinth in different tables varies, and is a major contributor to the sound of every table. Their designers have invested a lot of time, effort, and money into either maximizing the rigidity of the plinth, or at least strengthening the mechanical connection between platter bearing and arm pillar.
As I have maintained since the inception of this thread, the rigidity of the plinth is paramount. If the plinth is not rigid, then it can talk back to the pickup and editorialize. This is no better than an arm mounted on a separate pillar.
I think we can all agree that none of us are interested in what sucks. We want the best for our ears. So can we agree that in this conversation we are talking about the assault on the state of the art? If not, the conversation is moot. Please do not bring up inferior execution as an argument- such would be a logical fallacy known as a Strawman.
the front end of the arm. Free to vibrate (how much and at what frequencies dependent on the stiffness and resonant characteristics of the headshell, arm tube, all the way back to the arm’s bearings and counterweight, and down into the main pillar), it will and does! When the end of the arm, and therefore the cartridge, the measuring device of the LP groove, is free to vibrate and resonate (especially cartridges employing low-compliance stylus’), it is surely adding to or subtracting from the output of the cartridge. That is a major source of lost or added information in the playing of an LP, and only one table in the world addresses the issue. Now do you recognize the table?! ;-)
I don’t recognize the machine, but I recognize the flaw in the thinking of it in that way as you point out. The cartridge must be held in absolute locus- the arm can’t be talking back to it any more than the rest of the machine.
That is the most unlikely scenario. Airborne induced vibrations in the platter/tonearm/cartridge synergy are virtually non-existent as the turntable world would have ceased to exist if this were not so.
This statement is false, although I do agree that structural borne vibration is also a problem and have stated exactly that in prior posts. This comment suggests to me that you have not read them.
If you think air borne vibration is not a problem you are up against the issue of the real world. No matter how dead you think a thing might be, it will always have some motion, some vibration. Its inescapable, unless you subscribe to the idea that perfection is indeed possible in this world. When I went to engineering school and for that matter elementary school, my teachers were at pains to make the point that perfection is impossible - that is why we have the term ’state of the art’. It is this latter bit that underscores how your statement in quotes can’t possibly be true.
So a proper design must take into account that air borne vibration as well as structural borne vibration exist no matter how damped the setup.
