Dover
Yes we are measuring an error and correcting it before it gets worse.
This is the old argument about feedback correcting an error that has already passed. The nature of this feedback and the torque/ platter moment are critical here. The motor must totally dominate the platters rotation. We are only asking the motor to correct a tiny change in speed. With sufficient torque and the correct feedback curve this is not an impossible ask.
I agree it has to go some way wrong for it to sense and thus correct. What we are preventing here is it getting any worse. Further, as I said the motor self corrects as well. This action being independent of the servo.
You said in one of your posts that you needed to correct for stylus drag when you tested with the timeline. Obviously the drag is not constant so we are ( in an open loop system) relying on inertia to save the day. The question is. Is this high inertia enough? (I wonder how quickly you observed the speed change after lowering the stylus)
Lets say in an extreme example we had a sustained high amplitude low frequency organ note lasting say 20 seconds followed by a flute playing very softly.
The platters inertia even a massive one would not be sufficient to maintain the correct speed during the organ note. Thus the motor would slip back in phase slightly to compensate for the higher torque demand. When the flute comes along the torque requirement would reduce. If the motor has high torque capability there is a risk of temporary over speed.
So the question of always needing a high inertia platter is better answered that the motor torque, platter inertia need to be matched to optimize speed stability. A platter of say 20kg has 8 times the moment of a 2.5 kg platter as fitted to the Goldmund I tested, assuming they have the same radius of gyration. The correction current I observed would indicate that a 8 fold increase in moment would not be sufficient to push through the drag modulation. Note high frequency correction was evident
BTW I was not arguing the superiority of DD over other drives. I was stating that stylus drag is real and significant and to improve the resultant speed errors, closed loop speed control is indicated irrespective of the drive employed or for that matter the platters inertia. It just happened to be a DD where I observed stylus drag in action. It is everyone's personal choice coupled with their biases when choosing a drive method and if open or closed loop. As I said earlier there are many paths to enlightenment and this should be celebrated. My opinion is simply that. My opinion no more valid than anyone else.
Clogging of course this is present in all drives employed
It is up to the listener to decide which is less intrusive
Clogging at approximately 11 hertz with the DD example you gave or clogging at approximately 120 hertz with the BD example,while acknowledging the lower amplitude of the BD.
As to the perceived superiority of the MK3 over the MK2
I can only assume that the engineers learnt something in the intervening period between the two designs. So probably all of the above. Further the general engineering in the 3 is superior. This has to have some bearing on the performance.
Yes we are measuring an error and correcting it before it gets worse.
This is the old argument about feedback correcting an error that has already passed. The nature of this feedback and the torque/ platter moment are critical here. The motor must totally dominate the platters rotation. We are only asking the motor to correct a tiny change in speed. With sufficient torque and the correct feedback curve this is not an impossible ask.
I agree it has to go some way wrong for it to sense and thus correct. What we are preventing here is it getting any worse. Further, as I said the motor self corrects as well. This action being independent of the servo.
You said in one of your posts that you needed to correct for stylus drag when you tested with the timeline. Obviously the drag is not constant so we are ( in an open loop system) relying on inertia to save the day. The question is. Is this high inertia enough? (I wonder how quickly you observed the speed change after lowering the stylus)
Lets say in an extreme example we had a sustained high amplitude low frequency organ note lasting say 20 seconds followed by a flute playing very softly.
The platters inertia even a massive one would not be sufficient to maintain the correct speed during the organ note. Thus the motor would slip back in phase slightly to compensate for the higher torque demand. When the flute comes along the torque requirement would reduce. If the motor has high torque capability there is a risk of temporary over speed.
So the question of always needing a high inertia platter is better answered that the motor torque, platter inertia need to be matched to optimize speed stability. A platter of say 20kg has 8 times the moment of a 2.5 kg platter as fitted to the Goldmund I tested, assuming they have the same radius of gyration. The correction current I observed would indicate that a 8 fold increase in moment would not be sufficient to push through the drag modulation. Note high frequency correction was evident
BTW I was not arguing the superiority of DD over other drives. I was stating that stylus drag is real and significant and to improve the resultant speed errors, closed loop speed control is indicated irrespective of the drive employed or for that matter the platters inertia. It just happened to be a DD where I observed stylus drag in action. It is everyone's personal choice coupled with their biases when choosing a drive method and if open or closed loop. As I said earlier there are many paths to enlightenment and this should be celebrated. My opinion is simply that. My opinion no more valid than anyone else.
Clogging of course this is present in all drives employed
It is up to the listener to decide which is less intrusive
Clogging at approximately 11 hertz with the DD example you gave or clogging at approximately 120 hertz with the BD example,while acknowledging the lower amplitude of the BD.
As to the perceived superiority of the MK3 over the MK2
I can only assume that the engineers learnt something in the intervening period between the two designs. So probably all of the above. Further the general engineering in the 3 is superior. This has to have some bearing on the performance.