Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Sander deWaal <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:46:43 +0200
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Yeah... like if had to break down a TT into 3 parts..
Cartridge, arm, platter.
How would you rank their impact to sound quality?
I placed 'em in my order.
In my opinion, arm and cartridge are unseperable.
You're probably old enough to remember the ADC-XLM (first version),
and how very few arms were capable of pulling the full advantage of
its unusually high compliance at that time?
IIRC, only the wooden ADC managed to let it track correctly.
The VLM would have been a far better choice for the majority of
audiophiles at that time.
Arm resonance is a major factor in coloring of the sound.
One needs not only to dampen the resonances, but also to keep it in a
certain frequency range.
It shouldn't interfere with the platter/subchassis resonance, while at
the same time it shouldn't interfere with the lowest audio frequencies
that are on the LP.
This means that the platter/subchassis resonance frequency should be
somewhere in the 4....8 Hz region, and the arm/cart resonance between
8...15 Hz.
That's hard enough to accomplish, even for turntable manufacturers.
In fact, the 3 parts are a holy trinity, each one has influence on the
other.
And I've always wondered how people think the platter impacts
the sound quality of vinyl reproduction.
It does.
Imagine the scale of the stylus movements, and then the unwanted
energy that is "stored" in the record material.
Getting rid of unwanted resonances and vibrations is key in designing
and tweaking turntables.
For Linnies: the difference between bloated bass and mid-bass lies in
the mat.
Replace the standard felt mat with a rubber (or better: a cork) one
and listen for yourself.
--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Harry Lavo
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: MINe 109
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: ScottW
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- References:
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Harry Lavo
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: jeffc
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Jenn
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: ScottW
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Jenn
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: ScottW
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Jenn
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: ScottW
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Prev by Date: Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Next by Date: Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Previous by thread: Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Next by thread: Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|