|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
05-30-2013
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Yes for sure it is very nice and “polite” link with pleasant information, not completed information however. There is another aspect. The wonderful benefits and advantages of belt drive (and particularly with heavy platters) are well understood but so far no one ever was able to prove, or at least demonstrate more or less sensibly that belt drive is advantageous for turntables. In contrary if you see people who tend to use idle wheels then they bring a lot of reason way idle wheel is “better”, the direct drive people do the same. Even in the clan of belt drive people there are those who claim that multi-motor is the key, the sliding belt is the key, the super light or super heavy motor is the key, the servo-motor is the key, an external gyroscope is the key and many other believes. All of them are valid believe but I did not see any attempts to generalize and prioritize those ether believes of misconceptions.
I personally do not feel that any drive methodology is fundamentally better. I think within any topology there is good implantation of given topology and bad one. What makes a TT to sound good is mystery to me. I am ignorant person who not suppose to know why a TT sounds good. The problem that I see is that even those who suppose to know why a TT sounds good and bad in my view are also clueless.
So, as illustrated page depicting a few keystone belt turntables the link about is fine … but it truly does not say anything more.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Stitch on
05-30-2013
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Audio Internet has the advantage to show a lot of information. But nearly no knowledge. Knowledge and opinion is something totally different.
It is simply real life: When there is a group of 20 idiots and one intelligent one, most "think", the bigger group knows something because there are 20 opinions, more or less identical. But real life shows, the intelligent is the right one and Audio groups are loaded with idiots.
|
|
|
|
Posted by N-set on
05-30-2013
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d I do not know the guy who has written it, maybe he is an idiot, but anyway I'd defend his page.
As far as I understand he is a DIY-er (?) who attempted his own TT, inspired by high mass belts.
Well, that's life--we all have to make some choices at some point. And there is nothing
wrong with that until one starts to claim that his/her choice is the only/truly right one, etc etc.
I have not read all of his page, but I haven't found any claims like that: he has explored a particular
take on the TT design without any pretensions to be the only one, no?
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
05-30-2013
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  N-set wrote: | I do not know the guy who has written it, maybe he is an idiot, but anyway I'd defend his page.
As far as I understand he is a DIY-er (?) who attempted his own TT, inspired by high mass belts.
Well, that's life--we all have to make some choices at some point. And there is nothing
wrong with that until one starts to claim that his/her choice is the only/truly right one, etc etc.
I have not read all of his page, but I haven't found any claims like that: he has explored a particular take on the TT design without any pretensions to be the only one, no? |
|
N-set, I think you are bit off the mark. No one intended to call guy who write the page above an idiot and no one accuse him in make any claims. I made a general comment about adherence to one or another TT topology without any reasoning and the replay was about the stupid fan groups. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you read in this.
|
|
|
|
Posted by N-set on
05-31-2013
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d There was probably some misunderstanding of intentions and perhaps my English is too agressively sounding, but nevermind, this is not important.
More to the subject:
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | What makes a TT to sound good is mystery to me. |
|
I tend to speculate that we do not know it in some part because when there was a vital interest in TT (i.e. when vinyl
was the mass medium of music sell) and still some sound-oriented engineering thinking,
there were no good enough tools to seriously study TT. Neither mechanical to reliable
analyze micrometer movements nor electronical like real-time spectrum-analyzers. Now when we perfectly have tools
that reliably work in the, in principle, much more demanding optical regime
(nanometers mechanically and GHz electronically), there is no interest to seriously use them to study TT's.
|
|