Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

Phil Allison wrote:
"Nick Gorham"

** How about a lumpy join in the drive belt ?



If that was the case, I would expect the noise to be when the lump passes
over the pully, which would be less that 33.3 or 45.




** How is that so ????????

No matter what size the belt is, it only traverses the motor pully once per
table revolution.

Think it through .......




....... Phil



I did think it through before posting. I would guess you didn't, and so
you were wrong. Note that I said less than, not a lot less than, just
less than.

--
Nick

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:38:53 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

I did think it through before posting. I would guess you didn't, and so
you were wrong. Note that I said less than, not a lot less than, just
less than.

I wonder what names Phil will call YOU now? He doesn't like being
wrong, does he? :-)

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

"Nick Gorham PITA ******"


** How about a lumpy join in the drive belt ?


If that was the case, I would expect the noise to be when the lump passes
over the pully, which would be less that 33.3 or 45.


** How is that so ????????

No matter what size the belt is, it only traverses the motor pulley once
per table revolution.

Think it through .......


I did think it through before posting.



** But what was your point ????????

You never explained it.

How does it materially affect the suggestion ?

Seems YOU were just being a pedantic PITA.




and so you were wrong.


** I was not " wrong " - at all.



Note that I said less than, not a lot less than, just less than.


** Would it have HURT you that much to say

" a little less than " -

making your tedious, weeny little point clear to all,

instead of ****ING AMBIGUOUS ????





....... Phil

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:27:57 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

You don't have to *humble* yourself, all I needed was your acknowledgement
that you started the direct insults - the difference with you and Plowie
is
that he's *earned* the right to insult me (as I have him) - it's to do
with
who keeps this ng going......


********. This is the last few lines of your post that started it.
........................................
Ah. Look at it in a wave editor. There's HUGE amounts of lf rubbish.

Oh dear, another clown who looks at waveforms to *see* what he's
hearing....
.........................................

Top bit was me,suggesting visual analysis. Bottom bit was you,
calling people who did such "clowns". Apology in order, I think? :-)


Certainly - I just checked back and see I got it wrong, I thought Plowie
made the original rematk (I don't read the posts *thoroughly* enough - I
mostly skim 'em and get 'em wrong sometimes), so sorry Plowie, I didn't
realise you weren't the clown who's looking at music instead of *listening*
to it!! :-)

That do yer?

:-)

(Now consider yourself lucky you're not in my ****ter with that idiot
Allinson - I don't see his posts but I can see from your replies he's
crawled some way up your arse this morning....)

PISS OFF Payne in the AssTroll
 

"Laurence Payne In the ASS TROLL "


Should I feel honoured?



** Only among brainless TROLLS.







........ Phil

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

"Laurence Payne in the Ass SNIPPING ****head "


It's about how much
longer the belt is than the circumference of the platter (or, more
accurately of the pulley attached to the platter).


** Not "how much longer" but the *percentage* increase.

With a small dia drive pulley and a full 300 mm platter pulley, the increase
can be as little as 1%.


And with a bigger drive pulley mounted further from the platter it
would be more.


** WHAT childish, asinine CRAP !!!



Either of which, like it or not, is a lot different
to: "No matter what size the belt is, it only traverses the motor
pulley once per table revolution."


** NO - it is not " a whole lot different -

you SICKENINGLY pedantic ASD ****ed bloody IDIOT !

Congenital ****WITS like Payne are the SCUM of the Planet.



And why are you calling me names?


** Precise technical descriptions combined with a public WARNING about YOU
are what they really are.

Like them or bloody lump them -

Mr Payne in the ****ing Ass MORON !!!




......... Phil

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:27:32 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

(snipped to just leave the abuse)
"Laurence Payne in the Ass OVER-SNIPPING ****head "



** Childish, asinine CRAPOLOGY !!!


you sickeningly pedantic ASD ****ed bloody IDIOT !


** Precise technical descriptions combined with a public WARNING about
YOU
are what they are.
-

Mr Payne in the Ass **** HEAD !!!


What's with this guy?



Just bin him, he's not worth the ink - then you'll be in the same *gang* as
Plowie'n me.... :-)

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

Phil Allison wrote:


** How is that so ????????

No matter what size the belt is, it only traverses the motor pulley once
per table revolution.

Think it through .......


I did think it through before posting.




** But what was your point ????????

You never explained it.

How does it materially affect the suggestion ?

Seems YOU were just being a pedantic PITA.





and so you were wrong.



** I was not " wrong " - at all.




Note that I said less than, not a lot less than, just less than.



** Would it have HURT you that much to say

" a little less than " -

making your tedious, weeny little point clear to all,

instead of ****ING AMBIGUOUS ????


Would it have hurt you to not bother saying

** How is that so ????????

No matter what size the belt is, it only traverses the motor pulley
once
per table revolution.

Think it through .......

You were the one that introduced the idea of "exactly the same", you
were the one that commented at all, you were the one that tried to be
condescending, and you were the one that was wrong.

My point, was that if the noise was repeating on exact 33.3 points as
the poster suggested, then your suggestion, though a valid one was
unlikely. If someone had come back and said, "Ah, its not exactly 33.3,
its a bit less", then this would have been a clear indication that it
could have been the belt as you suggested.

--
Nick

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:
"Nick Gorham"

** How about a lumpy join in the drive belt ?



If that was the case, I would expect the noise to be when the lump passes
over the pully, which would be less that 33.3 or 45.




** How is that so ????????

No matter what size the belt is, it only traverses the motor pully once
per table revolution.

Think it through .......




....... Phil



I did think it through before posting. I would guess you didn't, and so
you were wrong. Note that I said less than, not a lot less than, just less
than.



Stick to your guns Nick.

I guess Phoul Allinson is trying to wriggle out of a blunder by trying to
split hairs? By chance I have my RPM9 on the go with a separate motor where
the spindle centre is distanced from the platter's edge by about 4 inches
and it has a peripheral belt (only way to go for belt drive), the belt is
not less than 5 inches behind the platter after only one revolution of the
platter (I've just checked it physically) - that *is* quite a lot.....

(Less for, say, a 'Little Pink Thing' though, where the spindle is *inside*
the platter and drives a smaller circunference...!! ;-)

Is this too much noise for a budget turntable..
 

"Nick Gorham"


** But what was your point ????????

You never explained it.

How does it materially affect the suggestion ?

Seems YOU were just being a pedantic PITA.


** LACK of reply NOTED !!!!!!!

# 1 to me.




** Would it have HURT you that much to say

" a little less than " -

making your tedious, weeny little point clear to all,

instead of ****ING AMBIGUOUS ????



** LACK of reply NOTED !!

# 2 to me.




** How is that so ????????

No matter what size the belt is, it only traverses the motor pulley
once per table revolution.

Think it through .......


You were the one that introduced the idea of "exactly the same",


** No such words EVER came from me.

That is a BALD FACED DAMN LIE !!!!!


# 3 to me - EMPHATICALLY !!!!




you were the one that commented at all,


** I simply asked YOU to explain.


# 4 to me.



My point, was that if the noise was repeating on exact 33.3 points as the
poster suggested,


** You did not post that assumption until just now.

There is no need to assume the points were exact.

The poster did not claim they were.


# 5 to me.



then your suggestion, though a valid one was unlikely.


** Very likely, if you merely allow the 33/45 timing may be out by only 2
or 3 %.


If someone had come back and said, "Ah, its not exactly 33.3, its a bit
less",


** Just what YOU should have posted, instead of the pedantic load of crap
you did.

Go back to you fat chick porn sites - Gorham.

Time to amuse yourself harmlessly ;-)

YOU are INDEED one, bloody pathetic, ASD ****ed pommy ****** .







......... Phil