A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Hi Fleib,

Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.

True......but there were observable phenomena which could only be explained by the existence of 'something'?
This lead to a 'thesis' to explain this phenomena and then a search or test to prove the 'thesis'.
Most of Einstein's theories were unprovable at the time he postulated them and 100 years later......there still remain some to be proven?
As far as I know.......none of his theories was subsequently disproven?

In this case......there is no phenomenon proposed, which requires a 'thesis'?
Yet 'evidence' is fabricated to try to explain this 'phantom' phenomenon.

Not scientific in the slightest in my book?

Regards

Lewm,

As you know, Henry, a shelf will be put into oscillation, by energy put into it.

I know no such thing.
And your common flaw of argument is precisely these types statement of false 'universal facts' without the provision of any scientific evidence.

What I do know from a study of acoustics.....is that for any given material (and dependent on its thickness)......the majority of air-borne sound waves will be reflected or pass directly through.
Certain frequencies (depending on the material in question) will be absorbed as heat....and/or transmitted in all directions within that material until they are all absorbed as heat.
But I repeat....the majority of air-borne sound waves will be reflected or pass through the majority of materials.

Every material (including liquids and gases) has a resonant frequency....and these can easily be measured via accelerometers and other more complex devices.
The excitations of these resonant frequencies (and their harmonics) can be measured and heard (if within the audible sound spectrum).

You have provided no scientific proof that the resonant frequency of my particular shelf (or anyone else's) has been excited by the air-borne sound pressure produced by the speakers?

Of far more telling damnation IMO.....is the fact that you still....repeatedly and consistently.....refuse to address the effects of these 'resonant frequencies' on:-
1. The Platter
2. The Spindle
3. The Motor
4. The Pulley/s
5. The Belt
6. The Tonearm
7. The Headshell
8. The Cartridge
9. The Cartridge Screws
10. The Cantilever
11. The Stylus
12. The Record

You hyperventilate over a 'resonating plinth' or shelf....which presumably you believe will 'transmit' its obscenities into any or all of the above mentioned turntable parts and thus contaminate the reproduction chain......yet you appear to have no concerns for the 'resonating vibrations' transmitted directly into all these above mentioned parts?

Doesn't this in any way appear comedic to you?
Or is it just me?

Dear halcro: Seems to me that now you are discussing only to discuss with no real target.

You can hera the gravity force what you are hearing is the cartridge. Never mind.

The average tracking error in a Löfgren A alignment on a 10.5" tonearm is 0.359% and the in a 12" tonearm is 0.3097% and the difference in between is: 0.049%.

Other than a bat can hear the distotion difference on playing records. Well, we can't hear it but exist.

I think is useless to follow posting here with your last days attitude.

Maybe all need a little fresh air.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear halcro: Seems to me that now you are discussing only to discuss with no real target.

You can hera the gravity force what you are hearing is the cartridge. Never mind.

The average tracking error in a Löfgren A alignment on a 10.5" tonearm is 0.359% and the in a 12" tonearm is 0.3097% and the difference in between is: 0.049%.

Other than a bat can hear the distotion difference on playing records. Well, we can't hear it but exist.

I think is useless to follow posting here with your last days attitude.

Maybe all need a little fresh air.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul, The most frequent quote about Spinoza is: 'Omnis determinatio est negatio'. In this 'spirit' Popper arques : 'we should not defend our theories but try to refute them.' Henry is negating the existance of 'some phenomena' which are postulated by Lew. Considering the fact that our forum is about the knowledge how our gear
works I would think that Henry's contribution is very important. This means that your 'scientific inclination' is very questionable. As I mentioned before your,uh, ' phylosphical statements' are also very questionable.This is an indication of your lack of 'phylosophical' education.

Regards,