The updates,the platter.' but' the bearing.
In my updates I stated the presupposition that the
platter of Linn is well designed and made so no updates
by this 'part'.But if Lurne is right about the inclusion
of the bearing in the 'disign concept' then the bearing
of Linn can't be optimal (i.e. not inverted ).
There is a firm legitimacy in our forum for both:
'subjective' and 'objective' approach to our hobby.
But I think that 'mechanical matter' can't be 'subjective'.
So I expressed my hope that physicist in our forum will
explain this issue.
Cheers
In my updates I stated the presupposition that the
platter of Linn is well designed and made so no updates
by this 'part'.But if Lurne is right about the inclusion
of the bearing in the 'disign concept' then the bearing
of Linn can't be optimal (i.e. not inverted ).
There is a firm legitimacy in our forum for both:
'subjective' and 'objective' approach to our hobby.
But I think that 'mechanical matter' can't be 'subjective'.
So I expressed my hope that physicist in our forum will
explain this issue.
Cheers