I see this is how we get off on politics on a forum that prohibits us getting off on politics.
Clever!
Clever!
Actually that's not true. You are the one who wants to talk about anything but the test results.
But I understand. You had a close relationship with the Wave Kinetics owner. You have invested a lot of time on this forum writing about the NVS turntable, a lot of time telling us about how great it is. Maybe it is -- no one is attacking it or you, although you may feel that way.
The test results and parts description is a bit embarassing. I understand. This entire incident is sad in the way it took place.. It would be better for the industry if it had not happened, in terms of the Elsburgish revelation, in terms of the test results themselves and in terms of the mismatch between reality and advertising claims. None of that should change your enjoyment in owning the table as you have expressed; no doubt its sound is the same as it was a month ago.
Bill has contributed to WBF many times on many subjects, he is definitely a active WBF member, just not a frequent one. His motivation posting about this TT was most likely the speed accuracy discrepancies he found, and the claims for measuring he could not replicate with any available precision instruments, Bill is very precise with what he does. He has a history of correcting untrue claims when he finds them. There is no love lost between him and VPI, that is for sure.I think Phoenix engineering does not cover himself any glory. Of course, he can publish any result without manufacturer consent. The problem is that he does not own the TT nor the owner of TT asks him to test the table of the intention to publish the results in public. If I understand correctly, he is being asked to help on repairing. If he wants to publish the test results, he should ask the owner’s permission. It is right for him to remove his posts. Furthermore, he is not an active participant in WBF. I will also question his motivations.
How does he check his speed? Using iPhone? I think if one wants to check TT speed accurately, one needs some lab grade tools. If his results do not agree with Phoenix, there are all sorts of endless arguments about the tools and the methods. It is a pointless exercise.That may be true.
If such mediocre speed results are accurate, it will potentially affect future sales and resale value.
What I would like to know, was the dead NVS table fixed and was it an easy fix.
BTW
All Mike has to do is check the speed of his NVS table and tell us if the correlate whatsoever with Phoenix results. After all Mike's table has been working perfectly for years.
How does he check his speed? Using iPhone? I think if one wants to check TT speed accurately, one needs some lab grade tools. If his results do not agree with Phoenix, there are all sorts of endless arguments about the tools and the methods. It is a pointless exercise.
Yes i think Mike has a Phoenix Engineering RoadRunner in a drawer somewhere !I believe Mike already has accurate measurement tools.
The KAB is cheap and accurate. It easily measured my lack of speed control on my TW Acustic AC-3 table.
I am sure Peter can lend Mike his timeline if needed.
Yes I understand that. We do not know the origin of how or why Phoenix engineering got involved in this. It might have been for the repair of the non-functioning turntable. It seems like it was a dealer and owner of the sample who put pressure for the removal of the posts showing testing results, not the manufacturer.
What if a hobbyist has the skills and knowledge and equipment to do such measurements? Are you suggesting he must contact the manufacturer and coordinate with him before he shares the results of his experiments with a group of hobbyist?
I understand the implications of this for the industry and that some might want to control the dissemination of information and advocate going through official channels and require prior approval before publication.
It is a sensitive topic as I found out after sharing results of my Sutherland timeline demonstrations on my former SME turntable, a friends SP 10 Mk 3, and my new AS2000 turntables. I shared those results with the public on YouTube and on forums for anyone interested. I did not seek prior approval. Are you suggesting that is wrong?
I come here for information and to learn. It seems like there are two discussions going on. One is about the events that transpired and motivations. The other is about the test results. I have yet to read anyone is disputing the testing methodology or the accuracy of the results.
You guys are just silly these days !
Peter this is a hypothetical situation and maybe some of it is inaccurate but let's say someone wanted to do a review of your real estate company. So, without asking you they send someone out to look at one of the properties you represent. They meet with one of your people and for whatever reason the showing does not go well. This person then posts a review which implies that this is how your company operates. Would you think this was a fair assessment of your company and a fair way for someone to review it?
This is a parallel example of what Phoenix Engineering did.
Some people are haunted and obsessed with former members. It’s so weird.
I believe Mike already has accurate measurement tools.
The KAB is cheap and accurate. It easily measured my lack of speed control on my TW Acustic AC-3 table.
I am sure Peter can lend Mike his timeline if needed.
Peter this is a hypothetical situation and maybe some of it is inaccurate but let's say someone wanted to do a review of your real estate company. So, without asking you they send someone out to look at one of the properties you represent. They meet with one of your people and for whatever reason the showing does not go well. This person then posts a review which implies that this is how your company operates. Would you think this was a fair assessment of your company and a fair way for someone to review it?
This is a parallel example of what Phoenix Engineering did.
Yes, I actually think that is fair game. What is unfair about it? You say “for whatever reason the showing does not go well.“ It happens and it’s part of business. I don’t worry about such things. It could also be a learning opportunity to improve things. I welcome feedback.
It doesn’t change the results of the test.
It doesn't change the results of the test. But, if, unbeknownst to us, the turntable was sent in for examination or for repair in whole or in part out of concern about incorrect speed or about inconsistent speed, it would change the meaning of the test results.
Ron, that is exactly my point. Often, testing is meant to be representative of the whole, not the sample. When test results are published people usually interpret their meaning to be "this is how the product/business performs", not "this is how the sample performs."
I would think any professional doing testing would have a goal achieving results that can be applied to the whole.
With a product such as a turntable each sample should perform substantially identically. If I buy a thermometer from a reputable company I'm assuming my thermometer reads substantially identically to every other thermometer that company sells. I shouldn't have to test 50 of them.
Why shouldn't a sample be able to be treated as representative of the production run? Consumer Reports is based on precisely this model. Consumer Reports doesn't buy 10 samples of the same dishwasher and test for consistency.
Yes. I think a professional doing testing should be satisfied that the sample under test is a typical production sample performing nominally, and that there is no reason to believe that something is wrong or anomalous with the sample.
And if this condition is satisfied the professional can assume the test result of the sample can be applied to the whole.
There are two parts in his posts: facts and measurement.Ron, that is exactly my point. Often, testing is meant to be representative of the whole, not the sample. When test results are published people usually interpret their meaning to be "this is how the product/business performs", not "this is how the sample performs."
I would think any professional doing testing would have a goal achieving results that can be applied to the whole.
There are two parts in his posts: facts and measurement.
Facts: motor design and chassis. These are independent whether this particularly TT is faulty or not. Phoneix engineering is highly critical of the motor design. it is up to readers whether they accept his opinion.
Measurement: Whether the bad results are due to faulty TT or motor design, I think again it is up to readers to decide. But I notice that he mentioned he can see cogging and it is related to the 24 poles of the motor. You can’t simply blame this because this particular TT is faulty.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |