Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Well, if your argument is for pushing measurements, then there's a doozy that no-one has ever done systematically (or even randomly and occasionally for that matter) that is potentially one of the most needed in Audiophilia as it revolves around the highest quality, readily available source. Why no-one does it I don't know (Lord knows I've made enough noises about it on a few sites), but it should be a cinch to knock-off and the test-equipment would scarce cost a-few-100 bucks.
Accelerometer testing of motor-noise on turntables.
I would contend that the vast majority of the 'sound quality' differences between turntables is down to the isolation (or lack of) of the arm and platter (thus the transducer) from the motor. Set a tape-accelerometer on the plinth (or whatever stands-in for the plinth on today's skeletal-foamy cobblers TTs) with the motor running and the arm parked and see how much of the motor noise of the ~ 300 rpm belt-drive or 33.3 rpm direct-drive motor is picked-up.
It would then be relatively straightforward to see if those TTs that are Class A Stereophile-sound-wise are also those that have gone to the trouble of properly isolating the arm/platter from the motor and have the lowest detected noise, whether they be sprung-subchassis or pumped air. We could also see then if all the 'mass', foam', 'lightness-and-rigidity' etc. schools of thought have any objective, measurable basis to their performance claims (or if they just 'sing-along' to themselves, eh Roy?). It would certainly shine a much-need spotlight on all of the non-engineered TTs from the bolt-a-motor-to-a-piece-of-MDF-and-charge-$4K-for-it brigade...
Just an idea, (to the Editor... )