Riaa curve

Funny, as I follow this % back and forth, I think of cartridge specs. - quoted cartridge specs - also in 0.2dB region say of channel balance.
Then we test this baby - ha, ~1,8dB........ and all say wow, sounded marvellous. Brinkmanship?

Who I ask, of any end-user will be the judge that these specs are actually the case?

Sorry, to say that testing of some of these claimed specs, made me highly critical or non-believing.

As the saying goes: "Paper is patient..."
Greetings,

Maybe I aught to mention, I'm well acquainted with:

- MIL spec requirements
- Hi-Rel component testing and selection
- Hot handling (testers)
- Burn-in of components (re.: child-mortality)

i.e. Component assembly and Testfield procedures, and MIL spec QA requirements.

It could well be the reason I have a healthy respect of what is required to achieve superiour - long term - stabilty, never mind 1ppm failure rates, 0.01% tolerances.

All of this hi-spec stuff has to come at a PRICE!
I am hearing it loud and clear, when Eldartford is weary of over-engineering, just because 'we can' and not because it is a clear requirement in the first place.
Greetings,

I should have mentioned that I am/was the Aerospace type of engineer and worked on military missile guidance systems since 1961. Back in the day we overdesigned everything. What the hell...we were saving the world from the USSR. Cost was not an issue. It was technically interesting work. (I guess for high end audio cost is not an issue either). But when you think about it putting an H-Bomb 100 feet from the target is not really better than 200 feet.

Eldartford, its my opinion that in high end audio you build the equipment to do the job, then figure out how much it costs when you are done. It is a bit different from targeting a bomb :)

If tighter tolerances make a difference...why not design 100% accurate phono?