does anyone else think the analogue watch display would have more realism if the secondhand rotated with a tick motion instead of a smooth movement? or at least the ability to choose between the two.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tick or no tick movement.
- Thread starter thealiendad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
agreed, when battery powered, so that's why I feel that a choice would be appropriate.
I like the watch face to 'mimic' realism, so an analogue windup watch would not have a smooth secondhand movement.
I like it how it is but it might be nice to have the choice. That said, after my recent first experience with an android device - a media player that ended up going back - I think I appreciate that an option for everything can be a real pain.
I think smooth second hand movement is a trademark of a high end mechanical watch. The hard 1-second tick is associated with cheaper mechanical watches.
My $25K gold Rolex Yachtmaster ticked as it went around and it was a certified chronometer and kept excellent time. Still does.
I think it would be nice to have the choice. Also, what about the ability to turn on sound for the mechanical movement? That way, when you raise your wrist to check the time, you'd hear a faint, "tick, tick, tick" sound. Anyone? 
I think the choice will come when Apple allows third party watchfaces.
For example, some of the third party Android Wear faces have sweep second hands, some don't, and some let you choose which way it works.
For example, some of the third party Android Wear faces have sweep second hands, some don't, and some let you choose which way it works.
As I remember it, mechanical wind-up spring-driven watches had sweep second hands (if they had any second hand at all). When quartz watches came along, the only way to show that you had a new-fangled "digital" watch was to point out to admirers that the second hand jumped from second to second.
sound would probably have an affect on the watch response, so personally i can live without the sound (unless it was switchable)I think it would be nice to have the choice. Also, what about the ability to turn on sound for the mechanical movement? That way, when you raise your wrist to check the time, you'd hear a faint, "tick, tick, tick" sound. Anyone?
Over in regular watches, you've got these types that you can buy today:
Standard quartz, which ticks in one-second increments. This actually saves battery power, as each tick takes energy. When quartz was new, this was touted as a feature -- you could "see the true measure of time," or something like that.
High-frequency quartz, mainly Bulova's Precisionist movements. These are still regulated with a quartz crystal but have a very high-beat seconds hand. I forget the beat frequency, but it's higher than most mechanical watches, and it appears to move perfectly smoothly. The drawback is, since each tick still uses energy, the battery life is a lot shorter -- it uses long-life batteries that would normally last five or ten years, but sucks them down in one or two.
Seiko Spring Drive. This is interesting: a mechanical mainspring, wound automatically with a weighted rotor, driving a gear train that is regulated by magnetic brakes, and the speed is governed by a quartz timekeeping circuit. The spring's energy is actually captured as electricity to power the quartz circuit, so it has no battery. The seconds hand runs truly, perfectly smoothly, with no discernible ticks that you could see even with high-speed slo-mo video. Like a mechanical watch, though, the power reserve of the spring is only around 40 hours, so you'd need to wear it daily or at least keep it on a watch winder.
Mechanical watches, both manual-wind and automatic (or "self-winding", as my dad says). These have a spring that unwinds to spin the hands, and the speed is held in check by the escapement, a genius little mechanism made of a balance wheel, pallet fork, and a uniquely-toothed gear. This little group of parts is what makes the ticking sound, and the balance wheel (and its hairspring) is the primary piece to adjust for accuracy. These can run at frequencies between 18,000 beats per hour (I think that's the lowest) to a rapid 36,000 bph, with most in the 21,600 to 28,800 range. These all do away with batteries, too, but have limited power reserves, often around 36-40 hours, with a few outliers of 80-90 hours, and some fancy pieces that can manage a week on a full wind by using multiple mainspring barrels.
I kind of like the smooth seconds hand on the AW. Think back to the watch-sized iPod Nano -- it also ran with a smooth seconds hand. It could be fun to add the choice to have a one-second tick, maybe with some gear lash, too.
Standard quartz, which ticks in one-second increments. This actually saves battery power, as each tick takes energy. When quartz was new, this was touted as a feature -- you could "see the true measure of time," or something like that.
High-frequency quartz, mainly Bulova's Precisionist movements. These are still regulated with a quartz crystal but have a very high-beat seconds hand. I forget the beat frequency, but it's higher than most mechanical watches, and it appears to move perfectly smoothly. The drawback is, since each tick still uses energy, the battery life is a lot shorter -- it uses long-life batteries that would normally last five or ten years, but sucks them down in one or two.
Seiko Spring Drive. This is interesting: a mechanical mainspring, wound automatically with a weighted rotor, driving a gear train that is regulated by magnetic brakes, and the speed is governed by a quartz timekeeping circuit. The spring's energy is actually captured as electricity to power the quartz circuit, so it has no battery. The seconds hand runs truly, perfectly smoothly, with no discernible ticks that you could see even with high-speed slo-mo video. Like a mechanical watch, though, the power reserve of the spring is only around 40 hours, so you'd need to wear it daily or at least keep it on a watch winder.
Mechanical watches, both manual-wind and automatic (or "self-winding", as my dad says). These have a spring that unwinds to spin the hands, and the speed is held in check by the escapement, a genius little mechanism made of a balance wheel, pallet fork, and a uniquely-toothed gear. This little group of parts is what makes the ticking sound, and the balance wheel (and its hairspring) is the primary piece to adjust for accuracy. These can run at frequencies between 18,000 beats per hour (I think that's the lowest) to a rapid 36,000 bph, with most in the 21,600 to 28,800 range. These all do away with batteries, too, but have limited power reserves, often around 36-40 hours, with a few outliers of 80-90 hours, and some fancy pieces that can manage a week on a full wind by using multiple mainspring barrels.
I kind of like the smooth seconds hand on the AW. Think back to the watch-sized iPod Nano -- it also ran with a smooth seconds hand. It could be fun to add the choice to have a one-second tick, maybe with some gear lash, too.
There's a mechanical watch out there that has the second hand making a full rotation in only 59-seconds. Then it stops for 1-second while the minute hand advances one minute, and then it starts again. I love that movement. It sounds simple but the gearing is pretty advanced.
I'd vote for that one.
I'd vote for that one.
Your Rolex probably beats 6 or 8 times per second, which is considered very smooth compared to quartz movements that tick only once per second.
You mean this watch? http://www.mondaine.com/watches/official-swiss-railways-watch/stop2go/a512-30358-16sbb.html
Isn't it awesome/beautiful? I'd love to have it.
Those are quite cool. I don't remember if they ever did a version with a mechanical movement (the one in the link is quartz), but it's still a neat trick, borrowing from the Swiss railway clocks.You mean this watch? http://www.mondaine.com/watches/official-swiss-railways-watch/stop2go/a512-30358-16sbb.html
Isn't it awesome/beautiful? I'd love to have it.
Incidentally, this was the design that Apple used for the old iPad clock...
Ah, you know, I didn't even notice.Those are quite cool. I don't remember if they ever did a version with a mechanical movement (the one in the link is quartz), but it's still a neat trick, borrowing from the Swiss railway clocks.
Incidentally, this was the design that Apple used for the old iPad clock...
Way back in the late 60's or so there was a watch that came out that was called an "Actutron". It was, I believe, the first watch that ran on a quartz crystal, at least its commercials led you to believe that. It was for the time a very expensive watch, and they ran commercials for it on TV. The main thing they pointed out in the ads was the fact that the second hand went smoothly around the watch face. They would have one of their watches and and a regular watch next to each other in a close up so you could appreciate the difference.
I had an acquaintance in the Navy who bought one and that was the first thing he would point out when he was showing it to you. I admit that it was one of the first things I looked at when I went for my try on at the Apple store, did they go with the smooth second hand or not.
Apparently, as someone has already pointed out, the Scott Forstall era is over. I for one am glad.
I had an acquaintance in the Navy who bought one and that was the first thing he would point out when he was showing it to you. I admit that it was one of the first things I looked at when I went for my try on at the Apple store, did they go with the smooth second hand or not.
Apparently, as someone has already pointed out, the Scott Forstall era is over. I for one am glad.
Incidentally, this was the design that Apple stole for the old iPad clock...
Fixed it for you.
It was almost like Vanilla Ice stealing from Queen. The Apple clock design had one minor difference, but it was like Vanilla defending himself with, "Their line goes, 'Dee dee dee da-da-dee dee,' but mine goes, "DAH-dee-dee-dee da-da-dee dee', so it's totally different!"Fixed it for you.
I've been asking for a tick-tocking second hand since day one! Time looks as if it's dragging to me with the "sweeping" hand.
I know it's not a huge deal, but it would be nice to have the option. It would make my watch that much more personal to me.
I know it's not a huge deal, but it would be nice to have the option. It would make my watch that much more personal to me.