Tang, Listening to this American Sound turntable in my system right now with the dental floss thread drive is a significant improvement over the Micro Seiki nonstretch flat belt that I was using. I think you would be quite impressed if you experimented with thread drive on your turntable. I know you like to tinker. It will be worth it and I would be curious to read your impressions. It’s another step towards more natural sound, like that Neumann cartridge you have. Optimize your holy trinity turntable tonearm cartridge combination.
American Sound AS-2000 Installations- Far East (Tango)
- Thread starter ddk
- Start date
Axial precession brought Polaris around into our night sky as pole star only for the last few thousand years and this probably made box and cone and solid state particularly popular… 3000 years ago when the fixed star Thuban in the dragon constellation was our pole star early horns and the great god Set were first in command. (Apologies in advance to our early WBF astronomers) but the navigation and the precession of the audiophile has been slowly going backwards for as long as we can remember
In fact accurate turntable evaluation should be made at the Equator plane in order to minimize the effects of the Curiolis force, known to be responsible for the typical vinyl sound. In such conditions no one will be able to separate top vinyl from DXD.
Now I am lost. Are you saying that there are some audiophiles that do not know how real music sounds?
Of course they know how real music sound. Everyone have heard real music playing live. But For sure, there are many who do not realize that the reproduced sound they got from their system is so far away from how real music sound. Appreaciating "reproduced sound" is different from appreciating "reproduced sound that has more resemblance to real live sound." You like to talk about personal preference and preferences are not the same. Why would it be surprising that many just dont care (or ever thought about) if their reproduced sound is resembling real live sound. They just like what they hear from the system they construct. They dont think so much and make it a debate issue like people in this forum.Now I am lost. Are you saying that there are some audiophiles that do not know how real music sounds?
People's objective of this audio hobby are also very diverse.
LOL Peter, what are you talking about?
Trying to be a cute in a back handed way that I haven't heard the AS-1000?. I have heard the MS 8000. Your comments back up my previous thoughts that " natural " sound is implying some sort of exclusively, not inclusive.
Nobody has heard Tang say his system is natural - he doesn't need to. Anyone with some knowledge will already understand how magnificent his system is. Tang is totally inclusive with this hobby. Perhaps you should take note.
This has nothing to do with how your system sounds - I am sure it sounds wonderful and you should be proud, however it does not sound natural.
I will use your type of analogy.
A group of people go out to the forest and see 3 different trees.
They then start to compare the trees. One says the Oak is natural, the white oak was more natural but the red maple is less natural.
Would anyone say that? No because everything in nature is natural. It does not apply to how a hifi system sounds.
Cheers
Last edited:
Hmmmm .... I will give a slightly different spin than Peter, above.
Tang (as do I) says believable --- a verb. (eg. here.) David and Peter (and sometimes Tang, I, and others) say natural -- an adjective. We may not mean exactly the identical thing as each other, yet if we point we point at the same thing. It is just a term, a convenient term, perhaps shorthand for more, but the important thing is that we are communicating. We identify our preference with the term, but we do not (i think i can speak for all here), we do not use it in a political way, we are not talking about a hierarchy or pecking order - we are talking about sound, realistic sound.
Some people nonetheless take it as you say, indicative of a claim to exclusivity or lack of inclusivity. There is nothing that we, or at least I can do about that. It is a reaction had by someone else. This may sound harsh but it is not meant to be harsh: those that use natural are not or should not feel obligated to adjust their communication to cater to another's individual semantic of personal feeling. You can take me or us at our word about what is our intention when using the word natural, accepting that it is not intended to exclude, or you can continue to feel as you do. That is not up to us.
Btw, you analogy is not tied to inclusivity, it about using the word 'natural' exclusively to characterize things belonging to what we call the 'natural world'. I have no problem accepting that is how you see it. Each of us tries to accomodate others.
Cheers
All you do Shane is go around poison every thread with your inclusive/exclusive nonsense, do you have anything to offer in audio terms besides social justice for dummies? Enough! We know already that the word natural is way beyond your grasp. Your lot should start your own anti-natural thread and stroke one another into unnatural ecstasy instead of ruining other people's.
Why do you bother with them Tim, how many times do you need to hear the same crap to realize that they're not accommodating you. This inclusive/exclusive shit is ideology not audio!
david
Yes, sigh ... I understand, yet I continue to reply.
Shane and I go back pretty far so I'm not inclined to be pointed and blow that up. My 'explanation' was meant as much for lurkers. There are others far more
David, I think we know what we're talking about which is what matters - the slings, arrows and whining - which at first I took as misunderstandings - now tend to bounce off. But it's still thread-clogging bs.
Last edited:
Peter, you have referred several times recently to the steel plates you use in your equipment rack. I am sure you discussed this in more detail in the past. Can you point me to another where place where you provided those details? Or just give a short summary here? I am interested in updating the platform I use under my Galibier table.
Peter, sorry if I've missed this, but how does one tie a knot that doesn't become a discontinuity or "bump" per revolution?
And is it possible to create a string or thread with no knot? Is there a proprietary product or method?
And is it possible to create a string or thread with no knot? Is there a proprietary product or method?
One can't Marc, and I know of no such product. One does the best he can and listens to the result. This is discussed at length here in Tang's very thread around page 40-45 or so. You yourself were involved in the discussion and seemed "uber" skeptical as I recall about the effect such an approach would have on a speed stable and consistent table like the AS2000. David responded, and I speculated, on the reasons. It is all about the relationship or impact (touch) of the motor on the platter. Based on the results I am hearing, I encouraged Tang to try it. I plan to experiment with my Micro Seiki after the American Sound leaves the room. I do not think thread drive works on all belt drive type tables. Certain conditions must be met, one being a high enough platter mass and inertia, is a guess.
My DIY thin flat dental floss solution has been a revelation, and I look forward to trying an actual thread.
Hi Peter,
I can back up your hypothesis with my little 50kg platter too. I use thread drive instead of the crappy rubber belt. Measured better and sounded much better.
Ok, we see that audiophiles become members of the "Natural Brigade" (TM) just claiming that they use live music as a reference when they assemble and set up their system. Once a month they must stop when listening for one minute and say loud "My system reminds me of real music".
I know that this is Tang's system thread, but I prefer to keep his cartridges way from this discussion.
The point is that each of us has its own perception of what matters in real music and should be transposed to stereo reproduction. And at some point immersion in the stereo reproduction conditions our view of live sound.
We are not discussing extreme cases, but just the sound of a few that claim the exclusivity of being natural sounding versus the remaining ones.
Are you able, just by listening to a system, to know if its creator appreciates "reproduced sound" or "appreciates reproduced sound that has more resemblance to real live sound."?
You like to talk about personal preference and preferences are not the same. Why would it be surprising that many just dont care (or ever thought about) if their reproduced sound is resembling real live sound. They just like what they hear from the system they construct. They dont think so much and make it a debate issue like people in this forum.
My point is that such division - natural versus non natural as you are exactly defining - is artificial and non existent. Real sound is something that exists around us since we were born. We listen to it every minute.
But it would be interesting to know exactly where each of the WBF members places himself.
I have often said that my system is in part driven by the type of music I listen and surely by previous musical experiences, both live or reproduced.
Well, not really my place to be uber skeptical, truly not knowing much about this area. Being able to tie a knot that doesn't create a "tickle" in the sound was maybe my head scratching moment, but in retrospect not speed issues.
Since your entire hypothesis is based on "Natural Brigade" (TM) you should define it so we know what you're going on about while purposely ruining another thread when you can easily start one for yourselves.
david
Fleas really can itch. However thick your hide is. But certainly, some audiophiles are thicker skinned than others. And thinner.
Similar threads
