State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[Mike Lavigne]

Varies btwn 33.330-33.339 every few revolutions, +/-0.002 w RoadRunner in tow.

i expect that the musical implications of that observation would involve the steadiness of the variance in speed. just how smooth those variances transition. and the accuracy of the measuring device might be a part of the observation too.

 

[caesar]

Ceasar as an addition to my comment ;
i never read magazines/ his reviews , because i m happy with what i currently have ( plus i dont wanna spend like Wadax money on audio for the moment , may be i ll make an exception for Wadax one day though , lol )
My opinion is based on my show experience .

I dont know why everybody is so against magazines , be happy that they re there and if you dont like them don t read them

I getcha... I don't know too many experienced people reading magazines either. An article here or there, when researching what to buy...

But when people are just getting into the hobby, they don't know any better. It takes a long time to get a grasp on what things sound like, sometime requiring listening in multiple rooms, with various combinations of gear...

Unknowingly, people default to honesty, integrity, and trust those despicable mother fuyers that masquerade as "audio journalists" (vast majority are disgusting, but not all), only to be misled. End up wasting a lot of time and money or leave the hobby

 

[thedudeabides]

Does 33,337 sound worse then 33,332 ?



I have seen some of the most monstrous TT designs in munich with mediocre sound

With all due respect, a change of 0.001 in TT speed represents a 0.003% variation. Do you believe that our hearing can differentiate this difference?

Regarding show sound, how can you determine that the TT is the primary source of mediocre sound versus the room, cartridge, alignment, other components, system synergy etc.? Would seem to me there can be many reasons.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Regarding show sound, how can you determine that the TT is the primary source of4 mediocre sound versus the room, cartridge, alignment, other components, system synergy etc.? Would seem to me there can be many reasons.

unless you happen to own the exact show system, it would be hard to discern much. but sometimes certain characteristics can shine through if you really know the pressing. i know one year (now 10 years ago) i took a specific pressing around to a number of rooms at the Newport Show and felt i was able to draw certain conclusions.

THE Show Report

Comments on the REF 75/Wilson S3 combo: http://www.stereophile.com/content/clap-your-hands-wilson150arc150spiral-groove150sunny%E2%80%99s Lots of great pictures from The Show: http://www.iabmed.com/audiopics/THE_Show_2012_Day2.html

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Audiophile Bill]

and i think our brains are sensitive to degrees of continuousness (lack of servo feedback.....no matter how fine the level).

i've posted this before, and i know it tweaks @tima (sorry ), but i do think it speaks to what i am referring to. not claiming it's exactly spot on, but it does express what i mean by continuousness, and why our brains/senses prefer it. i know mine does. whatever the CS Port and Saskia are doing not correcting speed, my body likes it alot. maybe tt's need to be at a particular level of execution to get the full measure of benefit of lack of speed correction? so maybe not any absolute. but possible.



recalling my years with the Rockport Sirius III, maybe it is the only servo speed tt that was also able to achieve this continuousness to my ears. but it's level of execution is maybe still not fully matched by anything else i have heard.

100% agree with your comment on continuousness! The jittery mad correcting DD TTs exemplify this issue.

 

[spiritofmusic]

i expect that the musical implications of that observation would involve the steadiness of the variance in speed. just how smooth those variances transition. and the accuracy of the measuring device might be a part of the observation too.

Sure Mike, it's just that once the RoadRunner is switched off, I have no more data on speed at any one instant.
In the end, I'm detecting sufficient advantage in choosing to only use Roadrunner to settle the speed at the start of a listening session.
It's a small positive in the scheme of things, but preferable.

 

[morricab]

As I keep telling folks, absolute speed accuracy isn’t very relevant because having perfect pitch is extremely rare thus it will make little difference if, and only if, the wow and flutter are very low even if the speed is running at 33.334 or even 33.34. Our brains are much more susceptible to wow and flutter.

Long slow variation is quite tolerable…IMO the reason high mass low torque designs deliver good results. Old DD designs with unsophisticated speed control that were forever “hunting” had dry, uninvolving sound because of rapid over and undershoot…kind of a jitter that was easily audible. The sophisticated later Japanese decks fixed this problem and have rock solid absolute speed accuracy

 

[tima]

and i think our brains are sensitive to degrees of continuousness (lack of servo feedback.....no matter how fine the level).

It's the equivocation in this sentence that is problematic plus the talk of 'our' brains. Otherwise I have no problem with you joying music because of what you do not hear and cannot measure.

 

[PeterA]

Varies btwn 33.330-33.339 every few revolutions, +/-0.002 w RoadRunner in tow.

Marc, i’m not familiar with this device. I only have the tachometer portion Is your reading with just the tachometer or with both the RoadRunner control device and the tach?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, the RoadRunner IS the tach. It's then connected via an umbilical to the SOTA motor. The RoadRunner takes a reading once per LP revolution and speed is adjusted to correct twds 33.333 or 45.000.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, the RoadRunner IS the tach. It's then connected via an umbilical to the SOTA motor. The RoadRunner takes a reading once per LP revolution and speed is adjusted to correct twds 33.333 or 45.000.

OK thank you Mark. I thought there was another device that also regulated the motor speed and that you had both units.

 

[Al M.]

This is an interesting thread. What about that which is not measurable?

In the case of digital; an analogue musical event occurs, what can be measured is and those measurements recorded to a digital storage device. For playback, those measurements recorded onto the digital storage device are converted back to analogue. Those who enjoy digital will defend its' use by comparing the values of what was measured before digitalisation with the values resulting after conversion back to analogue. If the measurements match, "perfect sound reproduction" is claimed. But, does the finished product sound exactly like the analogue event recorded? If not, was it perfect sound reproduction or perfect measurement reproduction?

Neither. It was just the wrong types of measurements, that's all.

It seems that some audio engineers and engineering inclined audiophiles have an absolute certainty as to the conclusiveness of their favored measurements.

I am a scientist (a biochemist), and as such I don't have the blind confidence that some (not all) engineers have who are not trained to have a scientific outlook. As a scientist I know that there is a lot that I don’t know. Therefore, my first instinct as both a scientist and an audiophile is to trust my ears even in the face of "perfect" measurements (to their credit, many of the better audio engineers do the same; while they know the crucial importance of measurements as a guide in their work, they use their ears as final arbiter). I simply assume that in the face of contradiction between audible result and measurements, those measurements are only of limited relevance to that which actually would need to be measured. Often what needs to be measured is not known. It took digital engineers years before they realized the detrimental effect of even miniscule amounts of jitter in the digital chain, as opposed to the much greater tolerance of the human ear towards analog wow and flutter.

Having said all that, I am a digital guy, and while I very much enjoy great analog in friends' systems and acknowledge how incredibly good it can sound, for me digital is the present and future of my own system. I just don't use the "superiority" of some measurements of digital over analog as a decisive argument in favor of digital. I am not naive.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Neither. It was just the wrong types of measurements, that's all.

It seems that some audio engineers and engineering inclined audiophiles have an absolute certainty as to the conclusiveness of their favored measurements.

I am a scientist (a biochemist), and as such I don't have the blind confidence that some (not all) engineers have who are not trained to have a scientific outlook. As a scientist I know that there is a lot that I don’t know. Therefore, my first instinct as both a scientist and an audiophile is to trust my ears even in the face of "perfect" measurements (to their credit, many of the better audio engineers do the same; while they know the crucial importance of measurements as a guide in their work, they use their ears as final arbiter). I simply assume that in the face of contradiction between audible result and measurements, those measurements are only of limited relevance to that which actually would need to be measured. Often what needs to be measured is not known. It took digital engineers years before they realized the detrimental effect of even miniscule amounts of jitter in the digital chain, as opposed to the much greater tolerance of the human ear towards analog wow and flutter.

Having said all that, I am a digital guy, and while I very much enjoy great analog in friends' systems and acknowledge how incredibly good it can sound, for me digital is the present and future of my own system. I just don't use the "superiority" of some measurements of digital over analog as a decisive argument in favor of digital. I am not naive.

Beautifully put Al.

 

[tima]

OK thank you Mark. I thought there was another device that also regulated the motor speed and that you had both units.

Yes, that's my understanding as well.

There are two components that make up Phoenix Engineering's offering. One is the 'Falcon PSU' (I think there is a newer unit named 'Condor'.) which is an AC based motor controler for AC synchronous turntables that plug into the wall. Such tables sync their speed to the 60 cycle AC current, but that is not always stable. Without explaining further how it works, the Falcon plugs into the wall and the turntable into the Falcon which yields a steady 60 Hz at 33-1/3. (It can also handle 45rpm and 50 Hz Euro voltages.) It has a display showing 33.3 or 45 depending according to user selection.

But that doesn't say what the TT is actual doing speed-wise. To know that you need to measure platter speed which is where Phoenix's Roadrunner Tachometer comes in. A small magnet is attached to the platter; this must pass directly over a hall effect reader or sensor. Not all TTs can take this fitment but for those that do, the Roadrunner tells the Falcon what speed it perceives once per revolution which then adjusts the voltage to the table's motor.

The combination is relatively straightforward and from what I've read from end-users, it works well. It's simplicity does have the limitation of one read every revolution or about once every 1.8 seconds.

 

[tima]

I just wanted examples that someone while deigning heard a table at 33.3333, and when it went to 3X.XXXX, they could hear the sound difference on the piano or violin or whatever. Until then it did not matter. I would prefer this done across DD, Belts, and Idlers. Similarly for W&F.

I know you had a positive experience going from the Monaco 1.5 to the 2, but not sure how we can attribute all, or a certain %age, of that to improved performance to the speed front.

The interesting part of your question is at what point do you hear a difference? On a gross level there is wow and flutter, sure - we should be able to detect that. I believe that's where the vast majority look to hear something, but that is, imo, not where a real sonic difference happens.

Wow and flutter were unmeasureable on both Monaco 1.5 and 2.0 yet the 2.0 is easily better and easily truer to 33.3... I can find the measurement numbers for both. They won'tl tell us a specific crossover frequency beyond which a difference is obvious but they will some idea measurement wise.

The question of what percentage of speed control accounts for improvement is a legitimate question - Monaco engineers also asked it. The newer table is also quieter due to its new motor. I will comment on what Monaco said when I dig out the performance numbers.

I didn't get a chance to read through all the notes I had from researching for my review - I'm sure there is more information there. But as far as a difference between the Monaco 1.5 and the 2.0 I can say this:

The 1.5 reports platter speed to it's controller 10,500 reads per second.
The 2.0 reports platter speed to it's controller 166,289 reads per second.

The Monaco 1.5’s peak error (from 33 1/3rpm) is an incredibly low 0.0007% (7ppm).
The Monaco 2.0's peak deviation (from 33-1/3) is better than 0.0001% (1ppm).

The 2.0 can activate over 1000 speed changes per second.

These numbers are for publication. The real numbers are much better but I'm under NDA. Alvin is rightly cautious.

The other improvement I heard with the 2.0 is that it was quieter. Alvin said to me: "The 2.0’s new drive system, including the control circuitry and especially the custom software, is primarily responsible for reduced noise. This includes the motor. How you control the motor defines in large part how noisy it is."

... I spent a fair amount of time in discussion with Alvin Lloyd about just why the two versions were so sonically different. He with his engineering and software staff spent many hours on the same topic - while they expected some improvement they were all pretty astounded at extent of improvement. They debated about speed control versus noise reduction. In the end we all agreed about why. While the controller software was brought in-line with the requirements of the new motor and with some new methods adopted for using the encoder, it was concluded that the change of motor likely had the biggest influence on sonic improvements.

The difference in the specs between 1.5 and 2.0 above is relatively large, so I don't know those tell us much about a 'crossover point' from whence one can hear a difference versus not. Maybe it takes a fairly large jump.

In honesty I do not understand why the 2.0 was such a dramatic improvement over the 1.5 in terms of what happens in my physiology, so I turn to the difference in design and construction of the tables themselves for the explanation. I am confident it is not about wow & flutter which cannot be measured for either table. For me it is not an issue of hearig a difference at 33.33 versus 33.35. In the realm of (what is today) hyper-accuracy there was a change in my perception. I wish I understood it and could explain it, but all I can do is describe the differences I hear.

 

[Rensselaer]

Neither. It was just the wrong types of measurements, that's all.

It seems that some audio engineers and engineering inclined audiophiles have an absolute certainty as to the conclusiveness of their favored measurements.

I am a scientist (a biochemist), and as such I don't have the blind confidence that some (not all) engineers have who are not trained to have a scientific outlook. As a scientist I know that there is a lot that I don’t know. Therefore, my first instinct as both a scientist and an audiophile is to trust my ears even in the face of "perfect" measurements (to their credit, many of the better audio engineers do the same; while they know the crucial importance of measurements as a guide in their work, they use their ears as final arbiter). I simply assume that in the face of contradiction between audible result and measurements, those measurements are only of limited relevance to that which actually would need to be measured. Often what needs to be measured is not known. It took digital engineers years before they realized the detrimental effect of even miniscule amounts of jitter in the digital chain, as opposed to the much greater tolerance of the human ear towards analog wow and flutter.

Having said all that, I am a digital guy, and while I very much enjoy great analog in friends' systems and acknowledge how incredibly good it can sound, for me digital is the present and future of my own system. I just don't use the "superiority" of some measurements of digital over analog as a decisive argument in favor of digital. I am not naive.

Sorry, I see now that my own prejudice towards digital shone through greatly in my comment. My apologies to all who may be offended.

What I was trying to illuminate was that I believe there is something that is perceived as an improvement or superiority in sound reproduction attributed to a change from one piece of equipment to another, “that is not measurable“ (all measurable aspects being equivalent).

I understand and agree with you that digital playback has improved greatly since its inception because of improvements in jitter reduction (for instance), but that is and always has been “measurable” (despite the small values measured being at first thought inapplicable).

What I am suggesting instead is the possibility that there are things in sound reproduction, as in life (like which of two faces is the more beautiful), which can be appreciated by a majority, but which is not measurable (yes, I am saying you can not measure width of eyebrows, nose and mouth, colour of hair and eyes and how white teeth are of all the contestants in a beauty contest and reliably predict who will win). Same as with my example of MC cartridges. If all else is equivalent, how could one sound different from another?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I didn't get a chance to read through all the notes I had from researching for my review - I'm sure there is more information there. But as far as a difference between the Monaco 1.5 and the 2.0 I can say this:

The 1.5 reports platter speed to it's controller 10,500 reads per second.
The 2.0 reports platter speed to it's controller 166,289 reads per second.

The Monaco 1.5’s peak error (from 33 1/3rpm) is an incredibly low 0.0007% (7ppm).
The Monaco 2.0's peak deviation (from 33-1/3) is better than 0.0001% (1ppm).

The 2.0 can activate over 1000 speed changes per second.

These numbers are for publication. The real numbers are much better but I'm under NDA. Alvin is rightly cautious.

The other improvement I heard with the 2.0 is that it was quieter. Alvin said to me: "The 2.0’s new drive system, including the control circuitry and especially the custom software, is primarily responsible for reduced noise. This includes the motor. How you control the motor defines in large part how noisy it is."

... I spent a fair amount of time in discussion with Alvin Lloyd about just why the two versions were so sonically different. He with his engineering and software staff spent many hours on the same topic - while they expected some improvement they were all pretty astounded at extent of improvement. They debated about speed control versus noise reduction. In the end we all agreed about why. While the controller software was brought in-line with the requirements of the new motor and with some new methods adopted for using the encoder, it was concluded that the change of motor likely had the biggest influence on sonic improvements.

The difference in the specs between 1.5 and 2.0 above is relatively large, so I don't know those tell us much about a 'crossover point' from whence one can hear a difference versus not. Maybe it takes a fairly large jump.

In honesty I do not understand why the 2.0 was such a dramatic improvement over the 1.5 in terms of what happens in my physiology, so I turn to the difference in design and construction of the tables themselves for the explanation. I am confident it is not about wow & flutter which cannot be measured for either table. For me it is not an issue of hearig a difference at 33.33 versus 33.35. In the realm of (what is today) hyper-accuracy there was a change in my perception. I wish I understood it and could explain it, but all I can do is describe the differences I hear.

i had the original Monaco in my room for a year back in the day. i did not own it. had a Dynavector arm on it. it was sounding small and tight. at that time i was using the GPA Monaco racks. beautiful elegant design, top notch build quality, refreshingly small footprint. wanted to love it.

and my 2 cents is that the improvement of the Monaco in later versions (i only heard them at shows), is due to Alvin 'unlearning' his rack design philosophy, to allow the turntable to blossom a little. at that time he was damn proud of the speed accuracy. it was supposed to be more accurate in speed than my Rockport. in any case, it missed on the musical part.

 

[spiritofmusic]

OK thank you Mark. I thought there was another device that also regulated the motor speed and that you had both units.

Peter, I have the whole shebang. It's just that there is some small, worthwhile uptick to be had disengaging the revolution to revolution speed adjust.
It may be that when my amps are fixed and I listen again, I'll prefer it the way God (or the designer) intended.

 

[morricab]

I didn't get a chance to read through all the notes I had from researching for my review - I'm sure there is more information there. But as far as a difference between the Monaco 1.5 and the 2.0 I can say this:

The 1.5 reports platter speed to it's controller 10,500 reads per second.
The 2.0 reports platter speed to it's controller 166,289 reads per second.

The Monaco 1.5’s peak error (from 33 1/3rpm) is an incredibly low 0.0007% (7ppm).
The Monaco 2.0's peak deviation (from 33-1/3) is better than 0.0001% (1ppm).

The 2.0 can activate over 1000 speed changes per second.

These numbers are for publication. The real numbers are much better but I'm under NDA. Alvin is rightly cautious.

The other improvement I heard with the 2.0 is that it was quieter. Alvin said to me: "The 2.0’s new drive system, including the control circuitry and especially the custom software, is primarily responsible for reduced noise. This includes the motor. How you control the motor defines in large part how noisy it is."

... I spent a fair amount of time in discussion with Alvin Lloyd about just why the two versions were so sonically different. He with his engineering and software staff spent many hours on the same topic - while they expected some improvement they were all pretty astounded at extent of improvement. They debated about speed control versus noise reduction. In the end we all agreed about why. While the controller software was brought in-line with the requirements of the new motor and with some new methods adopted for using the encoder, it was concluded that the change of motor likely had the biggest influence on sonic improvements.

The difference in the specs between 1.5 and 2.0 above is relatively large, so I don't know those tell us much about a 'crossover point' from whence one can hear a difference versus not. Maybe it takes a fairly large jump.

In honesty I do not understand why the 2.0 was such a dramatic improvement over the 1.5 in terms of what happens in my physiology, so I turn to the difference in design and construction of the tables themselves for the explanation. I am confident it is not about wow & flutter which cannot be measured for either table. For me it is not an issue of hearig a difference at 33.33 versus 33.35. In the realm of (what is today) hyper-accuracy there was a change in my perception. I wish I understood it and could explain it, but all I can do is describe the differences I hear.

I think just as important as how quickly the system can change its just as important WHEN to actually correct. This is what the Japanese figured out with control systems related to audio. Do it too suddenly or frequently and it impacts negatively the sound. This is why Brinkmann’s DD uses high mass and low torque as does Primary Control…slow changes seem to be less audible.

 

[Al M.]

Sorry, I see now that my own prejudice towards digital shone through greatly in my comment. My apologies to all who may be offended.

What I was trying to illuminate was that I believe there is something that is perceived as an improvement or superiority in sound reproduction attributed to a change from one piece of equipment to another, “that is not measurable“ (all measurable aspects being equivalent).

I understand and agree with you that digital playback has improved greatly since its inception because of improvements in jitter reduction (for instance), but that is and always has been “measurable” (despite the small values measured being at first thought inapplicable).

What I am suggesting instead is the possibility that there are things in sound reproduction, as in life (like which of two faces is the more beautiful), which can be appreciated by a majority, but which is not measurable (yes, I am saying you can not measure width of eyebrows, nose and mouth, colour of hair and eyes and how white teeth are of all the contestants in a beauty contest and reliably predict who will win). Same as with my example of MC cartridges. If all else is equivalent, how could one sound different from another?

It's all just electronics or electromechanical devices. Thus, if you would know how to measure all the audible differences, you could. You would have to know *what* to measure and you would have to know *how* to do it and you would have to have the technical capabilities at your disposal to do those exact measurements.

The problem is that we do not have anywhere near sufficient knowledge about all this, combined with a decided scientific lack of understanding of human psychoacoustics (yes, we have some, but not nearly enough).

But *in principle* there is nothing that "cannot be measured" in the physical world. Electronics and electromechanical devices are not magical voodoo. At the same time engineers and the technically informed public should exercise profound humility about the fact that we are a long way from knowing how to properly measure everything and from having the tools required to do it.


PS: I took no offense at your prejudice against digital, as I am already very familiar with it from your posts here.