@faustuss There is no question concerning Bill’s credibility. It makes no difference whether you find his information useful or not. It certainly comports well with my experience and with what I have been learning since acquiring AnalogMagic. Take it for what it is worth.
How important is low W & F performance anyway?
I recently completed work on a direct drive motor controller for a turntable mfr with IMHO, rather impressive results (0.004% 2 sigma method, 0.002% RMS). In measuring other tables actual performance (vs published specs) I was shocked at the rave reviews two tables received that have rather lousy measured performance (but impressive specs). It made me wonder whether the goal of ultra low W&F performance was really necessary? I trust the measurements as they were verified by several methods and software tools and they correlated rather closely, yet the reviewers almost universally praise these tables. It made me wonder if the reviewers even know what they are hearing or listening for and not to put to fine a point on it, does it even matter?
- ...
- 77 posts total
https://audiokarma.org/forums/threads/checking-speed-wow-and-flutter-on-a-turntable.1000956/ "At a playback radius of 100 mm (which is roundabout at the middle of the LP playback area), a barely visible eccentricity of just 0.2 mm (which also happens to be the tolerance of most records standards) would already cause a wow of +/- 0.2 % peak or respectively ca. +/- 0.14 % effective/RMS." -wondering how such low W&F can be measured at all! |
@westcoastaudiophile @phoenixengr
You bring up a very good point. Discussions I’ve had with Bruce Thigpen ( Eminent technology, Mapleknoll etc ), are that records are useless for measuring TT performance for the reasons quoted. He uses a rotary function generator to measure the actual platter speed to measure wow and flutter etc. Bruce Thigpen on wow and flutter
|
I used to distribute high end in the heyday of analogue - mid 80’s. Most audiophiles can’t hear much - I was shocked when I started distributing high end. I’m not only talking about speed and timing, but also resolution. Many audiophiles can’t tap their foot in time. The other issue is that with an analogue front end, even if folk can hear differences they cannot scientifically attribute those differences to a particular design feature or flaw because most of the time they are listening in an uncontrolled environment. If you read Bruce Thigpens comments I posted above - a wonky cartridge or poor quality tonearm can generate wow and flutter, more so than the TT itself. In fact the largest contributor to wow and flutter in a live environment is eccentric records ( most are to a degree ).
|
My concern with Bruce Thigpen's approach is that he ignores the obvious fact that what we really need to know is what records on our turntables sound like. So, a measurement that isolates everything except the turntable itself, although, perhaps intellectually interesting is essentially useless if we want to correlate and measure what the arm + cartridge + turntable sounds like on music. It is the combination that we are listening to after all. I do agree from years of observation that a surprising number of self proclaimed audiophiles don't seem to hear very well. It has been my recent experience using AnalogMagik, which for the record measures arm + cartridge + turntable, that just as Raul said very low numbers for wow & flutter, which I will define as approximately less than or equal to 0.2%, are essentially inaudible. At least to me. But when I measure 0.8% or higher, that level of W & F is audible. Again to me. I try to verify these tests listening to sustain on piano notes, which must not waver. It has also been my experience, reflecting what Bill has observed, that the cost of a given TT and measured performance do not always correlate. I have set up a couple that surprised me both better than expected and worse. |
- 77 posts total

