Source of Fremer's "1 arc second" claim?
In the latest TAS April 2025, page 34, Fremer reviews some Technics TT, and repeats his claim that "listeners in blind tests could hear arc second speed shifts". where one revolution ~1.3 million arc seconds. Anybody have any idea where this is coming from?
Basic math will make you wonder whether any listener can hear a difference between chamber a' = 440.00000 Hz and 440.00004 Hz, rounding the 1.3M to an even 1M. When tuning my violins, I can hear 2–3 cent difference, where 800 cents = 1 octave = doubling of frequency. At 2 cents, that is over 1 full Herz difference. Even playing a cord with tones at 1 Hz difference will result in an oscillation at 1 Hz, i.e. peak to peak 1 second. For easy math, assume even a 0.00005 difference, which would lead to an oscillation with frequency of 20,000 seconds = 33 minutes. Good luck hearing that.
"Golden Ears" being able to hear ten times better than a normal human, why not. But 20K better? We are off by several orders of magnitude. Maybe I don't understand that he is talking about, but I consider it complete BS.
Maybe it has to do with consistency (accuracy vs. precision), but then the a different unit needs to be used that includes time in the denominator. But even then the math/physics don't add up.
If anybody can provide any insights, LMK. Thanks!
The alternative is rather unflattering for Mr. Fremer.
@antinn, and peace to you. My mention of MF was not a disagreement with your comments, only an acknowledgment of his tireless vinyl promotion. I began listening to 45s, then LPs, long before digital, and I never gave up on them. But I don't have the credentials to question his technical statements.
|
@richardkrebs thanks for that explanation. So MF confuses the adjustment period unit with threshold of audibility. Would be funny if it weren't so sad. Thanks for the clarification re that source kernel. Interesting engineering issue going again at the accuracy vs. precision question and error correction. Using binning for data-noise reduction is certainly a tried and true approach. I run into it with microscope cameras. Would be interesting to know what speed variation was considered audible by the panel. Though it may have more to do with sensor noise being reduced by binning. That begs the question of whether the company became victim of its own over-engineering. Making the measurement periods so short that the measurement error goes through the roof. Fascinating trade-offs! Run into that with electron microscopy reducing probe current for better resolution, but that decreases signal and increases noise. @antinn @pryso Re trustworthiness of MF, when I notice some of his BS, I wonder how much other BS he is spouting that I don't spot. So I actively ignore him. To make things worse, I pointed out to the editor of TAS last year that this is nonsense. I am surprised that the editor is not reining in his authors. That is the function of an editor, have had a few of those appointments with some journals myself. That lack of editorial fortitude is a significant reason why I cancelled my TAS subscription again. So there is real harm done by spouting/publishing BS. I know, it is just a hobby, for fun and all that. But that sort of thing turns fun & entertainment into annoyance. Don't need that. |
@oberoniaomnia Yes, it is an interesting trade off. We did not need to go to the max averaging available, so I'm happy with the hardware design choices I made. . The change from no averaging to averaging of 2 counts was astonishing, we all heard the effect. But we could hear no difference going higher than 4. This implies that data noise is low. To be clear, as you point out, this tuning is not a speed change of the equivalent of one arc second/ rev. However it was a change to the granularity of the feedback/controller/motor loop in the order of one arc second. Cheers. |
