[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing.

Interesting claim, given that you essentially repeat the same pack of
errors
that caused Dick's initial response.

A fast rise time,
coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum
or
near-optimum transient response in your terms.

Not really. A critically damped system has a certain well-defined amount
of
overshoot. The phrase "single overshoot" allows a wide range of
overshooting, so it is vague and therefore meaningless.

Again, debating points.


That in itself is an attempt to conceal a common audiophile mistake.

In reality, most cartridges that have a single
overshoot have behave similarly.

Not in this universe.

If the overshoot is very large it almost
always is followed by secondary ringing, and if it is small or
non-existant
the cartridge will be slow in settling and sound dull.

Ignores the fact that there are an infinite number of variations in
overshoot from more than one cycle to no apparent overshoot at all.

This is practical
experience speaking, from back in the day when these cartridge
measurements
were made and widely available, and I had the money and interest to listen
to a wide range of cartridges.

Harry, I can and have measured modern cartridges, So I don't have to rely on
hearsay from the days when people took vinyl seriously.

Yes, there a technical caveats, but it is
nit-picking.

No, it is how things work. Harry you can spend all the time you want to
trying to deduce what matters (frequency response) from things that don't
matter but are all conflated and wrapped up in the audiophile myth called
square wave response.



And obviously it depends on
the input signal from the test record.

However, this disagrees with your previous claim that this test is easy
to
do and meaningful.


But it wasn't difficult to get
useful square wave input off test records back in the day.

Again, "useful" = vague. The square wave responses were useful as fluff
for
advertising and not much else. Flat, smooth frequency response is of the
essence.

And you don't think test records that also included frequency response
tests
from 20hz to 20khz had flat, smooth response?

Its the flat response from 50-15KHz that matters the most. Below 50-100 Hz
vinyl response is not solely dependent on the cartridge.

..and they were designed specifically for this purpose.

This time the antecedent is vague - was it the test records or the
cartridges that were designed to give good square wave response for
publication?

See my above comment. You and Dick want to score points...

No, we want to spike common audiophile myths about vinyl.

I want to tell
people something about how to translate the most common cartridge
measurement technique into anticipated sound.

Well, that's frequency response, so why are you going on about square wave
response?

In either case, the answer should be no. Square wave response is one of
the
more meaningless tests around because it confounds flat frequency
response
and phase response. Flat frequency response is of the essence, while
phase
response above 1 KHz applied equally to both channels has no audible
significance unless very, very extreme.

It also tells you alot about damping and mechanical reaction of the
cartridge/stylus, which is critical to pickups.

Please see frequency response.