Source of Fremer's "1 arc second" claim?

@yoyoyaya @lewm As a fellow EMer, it is important to put things into perspective. That's the same issue as with the 1 arc second claim. For instance the SEM images of vinyl records that we all have seen are taken at very low magnifications for a SEM. More serious vibration isolation is only an issue at very high EM (particularly TEM) mags. I don't know much about audio, but I have been in charge of SEM facilities.

One could also argue that because there is Brownian motion, therefore, record systems should be cooled to as close to absolute zero as possible. I was actually thinking that OMA could reduced sensor error by using a Peltier cooler on their electronics. Zeiss light microscope cameras do that. I have yet to see active sub-ambient cooling in audio.

And last but not least, even if it is measurable, is it audible? I don't think I have seen blind tests on equipment racks (another overhyped topic, IMHO). Or one could argue that a TT should not be in same room as the speakers. Again, I have yet to see that implemented on a broad scale.

Bottom line: it important to keep an overall perspective on things, and put them into relation to one another.

@OP and Lewm - thanks for your responses. My point in relation to SEM's was a more general one in the sense that there is a tendency (not on your part, I hasten to add) that mass negates vibration.

On the specifics, the average concrete floor is not particularly massive or particularly rigid. But I also made the point that components - but turntables particularly - are susceptible to airborne vibrations.

In the specific case I quoted Mr Fremer, by his own admission, could not hear the difference between a major part of the isolating component of the Wilson Benesch design being operational or not.  

Personally, I find that surprising IMHO etc. etc.

Fremer has to be in his eighties.  He has been listening to music all his life, frequently at high volumes.  Undoubtedly he lacks perfect hearing but he still might be able to detect the changes induced by speed instability, although I share the incredulity of the OP

Fremer was born in 1947, so he turns 78 some time this year.

Gentlepeople.

As I said earlier, we assembled a panel to help with the fine tuning of the program.

The procedure was the same every session. When a change was made, those present talked about transients, note decay, dynamics, inner detail, ambient field, image specificity, noise, and just plain old musical enjoyment. I do not remember anyone ever say that it is more speed stable and yet, ironically, it was the dynamic speed stability we were improving. The age of the ears present ranged from late 20's to early 70's and unanimity of opinions was common.  

I don't think that we fully understand the mechanism that led to this confluence of views, but it was there repeatedly night after night. I do think that we can hear more information than is generally accepted, and when you think about it, this ability is at the very epicentre of our fantastic hobby,