|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.69.74.8
In Reply to: "VTA adjustment is actually a neurosis NOT a technical adjustment." posted by xyyyy on September 11, 2006 at 16:56:48:
...lets hear from a manufacturer who's arms *do* include VTA adjustment. :)As Scott says below, SRA is an important factor in cartridge alignment and VTA is merely a means to this end. Mr Gandy claims that any adjustment or change to the arm mounting will affect the sound but seems to be forgetting that many tonearms don't require you to remove them from the base board and put shims under them to change their height.
Many arms have simple to adjust, on the fly VTA adjustment which do not change the structural integrity of the arm one little bit. And yet the results are easy to hear - too high and the sound is too brittle, too low and it is too dull. It is not a myth or a neurosis - and it is a little insulting that he considers it to be so when the effects are so blatantly evident to anyone but the most undiscerning clothears! :D
And please tell me who came up with this ludicrous quote:
"Every problem has a solution. If there is no solution, there is no problem."
Whoever wrote this obviously never used Windows XP :)
Kind Regards,
Matt
Follow Ups:
"Every problem has a solution. If there is no solution, it hasn’t been discovered yet"
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
.
A set can either be a member of itself or not. The set of all mathematical objects is a mathematical object so it's a member of itself. The set of all sets with only three members has an infinite number of members so it's not a member of itself.There must be a set of all sets that are members of themselves and therefore a set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is that set a member of itself?
This is a problem which has no solution. I leads us to Godel's incompleteness theorem (that no mathematical system can be both consistent and complete) which is an even bigger problem.
"There must be a set of all sets that are members of themselves and therefore a set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is that set a member of itself?"A set cannot contain two or more identical elements. So when a set contains all sets, does it become itself (all members of all sets, including itself) and therefore cannot be a set because it contains itself and thus contains an identical element?
Tom
"Nice guy. Really seems to care. About WHAT I have no idea."
-Rodney Dangerfield
The proposition as posed is known as Russell's paradox after Bertrand Russell and it is so serious that set theory had to be changed.One of the resulting set theories is the iterative conception of sets which contains axioms such as yours.
VTA adjustment is of little or no significance because VTA is continually changing and therefore will never be in adjustment. And with all due respect for Mr. Gandy and the Rega name, the paradox might rightfully be known as Gandy's VTA Paradox.
..or a few of the easier words at least.
.
Dave
Later Gator,
Crank up your talking machine, grab a jar of your favorite "kick-back", sit down, relax, and let the good times roll.The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Not being reminded of all the really stiff shots to the head (Dain Bramage) I've taken over the course of my existence, the sad realities of which I'm forced to revisit whenever I encounter anything along these lines, Say What ??????? ;-)
It follows from the truth of Mark's remarks thatIf there is no problem without a solution, then the moon is made of blue vinyl.
*************88
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: