Wave Kinetics NVS Reference Turntable Review on Positive Feedback

[spiritofmusic]

I see this is how we get off on politics on a forum that prohibits us getting off on politics.
Clever!

 

[adyc]

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.

 

[XV-1]

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.

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.

 

[Lagonda]

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.

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.

 

[adyc]

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.

 

[XV-1]

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.

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.

KAB Electro Acoustics http://www.kabusa.com

I am sure Peter can lend Mike his timeline if needed.

 

[Lagonda]

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.

KAB Electro Acoustics http://www.kabusa.com

I am sure Peter can lend Mike his timeline if needed.

Yes i think Mike has a Phoenix Engineering RoadRunner in a drawer somewhere !

 

[dminches]

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.

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.

 

[PeterA]

You guys are just silly these days !

Some people are haunted and obsessed with former members. It’s so weird.

 

[tima]

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.

Imo, that is definitely not a parallel example. Phoenix commented on measurement and parts of a specific product based on analytic testing. Turntable speed measurement and evaluation are his specialty. -- which is why he was brought in to test the NVS. Objective measurement seems quite different than getting someone's opinion about an apartment.

Be that as it may, I understand you're asking: how would you like to be a victim? No one wants to be a victim. But we can ask how it came about.

We don't know whether Phoenix's contract or conditions under which he consulted explicitly prevented him from publishing the results of his testing. If he was not prevented he obliged someone's request to remove those results. If he was enjoined from publishing then he violated those conditions (wrong), and became a whistleblower.

Thus far the contents of what he published have not been disputed -- probably no one here is qualified to do that though a 'Stanford PhD' from Wave Kinetics might able to point to problems with his methodology or technique if there were any, but that has not happened yet. Wave Kinetics could offer a statement for posting here and you or Mike or someone would post it for them.

So one question to ask: is whistleblowing wrong? Where does the failure of trust between whistleblower and the owners of the test results stand in relation to the value of the disclosed information to outsiders? There are costs on both sides. As I said there is an impact on the high end broadly. No one wants to see this.

I have always been a strong supporter of manufacturers and it is painful to discover one who inadvertently or intentionally misleads their customers and potential customers. I'm not saying that is what happened here because we may not have all sides of this story yet, but it is a possible scenario. There's lots of sympathy to spread around.

 

[tima]

Some people are haunted and obsessed with former members. It’s so weird.

Yeah it is wierd, but I know David doesn't give a sh*t.

 

[PeterA]

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.

KAB Electro Acoustics http://www.kabusa.com

I am sure Peter can lend Mike his timeline if needed.

Oddly, no one has wanted to borrow my Timeline. Mike actually might even have one of those. The length of the dash fluctuating should indicate cogging. It was able to pick up belt creep and slight speed changes during dynamics on my SME.

 

[PeterA]

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.

In the turntable case, the testing did not go well and a specific reason was given: a motor with an iron core that causes cogging. The plot shows it. The unfair part might be the circumstances by which Phoenix Engineering was able to test the turntable. We don’t know those details so that is speculation. It doesn’t change the results of the test.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

+1

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

Don't you think it matters if the sample tested is defective or malfunctioning or atypical)

 

[dminches]

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.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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."

Yes, testing is typically meant to be representative of the whole production run.

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.

I would think any professional doing testing would have a goal achieving results that can be applied to the whole.

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.

 

[dminches]

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.

It should be, but it seems (and I don't know all the specific details) that this sample was not a new production sample and its actual condition was unknown. Isn't this why reviewers generally go to the manufacturer to ask for a sample to make sure it is on known provenance?

If a sample is obtained in a more traditional way then there is no reason why the results shouldn't be representative of the whole.

 

[adyc]

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.

 

[dminches]

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.

I am not well-versed enough in the design of motors to understand the issues he reported on. If cogging has only to do with design and not execution then the comments should be taken as such.