Thanks for the correction. I wonder what is an NSM. If you push on a Minus K, it does not behave as if primarily spring loaded, which is to say that a spring will exert a force directly proportional to its degree of compression or extension from rest, among other factors of course. So, if you push on a spring loaded shelf, the shelf will get more and more difficult to compress, and the reverse happens when you release the shelf allowing it to restore its steady state position. The Minus K seems to exert a constant force restoring it to its steady state location, up or down. For this reason, I intuitively think or thought of it as using something other than springs, at least primarily.
|
I would never recommend mounting motor and TT on two separate platforms especially if either one of the two is sprung or otherwise designed to move in response to external stimuli. In that case both devices must be on the same platform of course. (Minus K doesn’t use springs.)
|
ledoux, To answer your question posed 9 months ago, in June, my switch to one idler (a highly modified Lenco) and four DD turntables (Kenwood L07D, Technics SP10 Mk3, Denon DP80, and Victor TT101) was motivated more by curiosity than by dissatisfaction with belt drive, although in retrospect I am not sorry I made the changes, and in retrospect (remembering what belt-drives came before in my system), I can hear the reasons why. In fact, I am so attached to what I own that I could not bring myself to part with any of them. When I bought the TT101 I made myself a promise to sell the DP80, but it’s too good for the amount of money it would bring, and I use it for MM cartridges in my Sound Labs system, very happily. But I refuse to be dogmatic about turntable drive; the belt-drives I owned previously were not at the top level, whereas the Kenwood L07D and the SP10 Mk3 can at least compete with high end DD turntables. Among modern BD turntables, I really like the Dohmann Helix.
I have a fairly good grasp on the Verdier. What I would question is: (1) it seems too top heavy with the massive platter causing a high center of gravity. That combined with the spongy feet seems undesirable, because the belt exerts a side force, and the tippy chassis might tend to lean toward the motor on its spongy feet. Defeating the suspension and then placing BOTH the TT and motor on something like a Minus K platform, close together, would seem better. And (2) in both of 2 installations I have seen and heard locally, the motor is set far apart from the platter. Theoretically that is bad for belt creep and possibly for slippage. I think I brought this up much earlier in this thread and was rebutted by someone who said the motor is not necessarily to be set far away from the platter. If so, mea culpa, but it is in two cases I know about where the Verdier is the choice of two very fastidious and very knowledgeable audiophiles with ample funding.
|
Compared to the inertia of the platter (57kg!!!), I would think the inertia of the drive motor is trivial, regardless of its type or construction. Anyway, wouldn’t the inertia of the motor ADD to the speed constancy rather than subtract as the text implies? Maybe someone is conflating inertia with friction. |
I suspect you all are correct about the fact that the suspension of a vintage cartridge will have aged, inevitably. But does that really matter, when one is getting pleasure from the sound emanating from that cartridge? Why waste time perseverating over what the actual compliance might be, when you can have fun listening? If you choose a Tone arm and head shell with effective mass that work well with whatever the compliance is, then you may not ever need to know the difference. Speaking specifically of the Ortofon MC 2000, it is my opinion after a few years of using one that this cartridge is capable of magical results, but it is highly dependent on the nature and character of the amplifying device, because its voltage output is so low. So it is rather like a Chameleon.
for that matter, even brand new cartridges come to us with a stated compliance from the manufacturer. What do you think is the margin of variability of that number from the actual compliance of any single given sample of that cartridge? I would bet that it is a wide tolerance. I would also bet that most if not all manufacturers do not test individual samples for compliance.
|
Ming is a friend of mine. He lives in Northern Virginia. I've heard his physically enormous system many times. I have his contact info, but maybe I should not divulge it publicly. If you can figure out how to contact me privately via Audiogon, I will share his email address.
|
Hi Ledoux, I am now using three different phono stages all of which are full function preamplifiers. These include atma-sphere MP1, Manley Steelhead, and Raul‘s phonolinepreamp. The first is all tubes. The second is a hybrid of transistors and tubes. And of course Raul‘s phonolinepreamp is all solid state. Truth be told I prefer all 3 of these vs the Lumi. I sold the luminescence way back when I first purchased the MP1. The reason I regret selling the luminescence is purely related to my high regard for it as a classic piece of audio design. But you can’t keep everything.
if you really want to insert a passive line stage in place of the line level output stage of the luminescence, you need to make sure in advance that you will have enough gain and that the impedance matching between your luminescence and the passive line stage and between the passive line stage and your amplifier are acceptable. I would guess that the line stage of the luminescence adds 15 to 20 DB of gain to the signal it receives from the phono section. Can you live without that?
|
I too have owned two Luminescence’s. Never had a problem.However it is a complex circuit, and it would be impossible to guess from a distance wgat might be going wrong with yours. If Scott Franklin is still alive and well, he is the obvious choice for you to get a permanent fix. That should not be happening. I regret that I sold my last luminescence several years ago. |
I must admit, today is the first time I carefully read the letter from Verdier in which he explains about the braking effect at the spindle. That is an accepted method to smooth out or drown the braking effect due to stylus drag and probably does go a ways toward stabilizing speed. Other and more "vintage" turntables did the same, including grease-bearing versions of the Garrard 301. Verdier mentions the TD124; I was not aware that it too incorporates a brake. Setting the brake just right is important to get the most out of it, I would imagine. Not having owned a Verdier, I have no idea what the steel ball does; it sounds like it adds to or is integral to the mechanism of the brake.
|
Ct, Your remark, to follow, makes no sense. "If Chakster provides the answer to us, he will have also explained to Lewm why his post based on theory, does not work. "
If you want to say that despite its flaws you dearly love your Verdier, that's great. Every turntable has flaws in its design, sometimes great, sometimes small. I have heard the Verdier many times, and I cannot say I hear any major problem that I could attribute to the turntable. But "belt creep" is a fact of life. When I prefaced my remark by "in theory", I meant that according to the facts of belt creep, I would expect the Verdier to exhibit some measurable manifestation of it, based on the custom of placing the motor very far away from the platter. Because I have never made any measurements of the speed constancy of a Verdier, my thoughts on it in relation to belt creep are "theoretical". I think we went around on this issue once before; you, or whoever was the protagonist, were indignant that I assumed the motor to platter distance is great. (I assume it because every home or show demonstration of the Verdier I have ever attended over a period of 30 years was set up that way.) What would mitigate belt creep is that most strings used for turntable drive are relatively noncompliant. That does help. To further minimize belt creep, you would want the motor closer to the platter. As to the top heaviness of the design, that is just another fact, along with the spongy feet. Do you agree it would be better to use noncompliant feet? And why do you think I don't love music just as much as you do?
|
In one version of theory, the motor pulley should be as close as possible to the platter so as to minimize (but not eliminate) belt creep. Belt creep occurs because the tension on the belt (string or other) is always greater on the "pulling" side and lesser on the opposite length of free belt space between motor and platter. This causes the belt to "creep". A noncompliant string belt does help to eliminate the problem, I would agree, but not entirely. It seems to me that the very small improvement in transmission of noise to the platter from the motor that is achieved by placing the motor at a greater distance from the platter is not worth the increase in belt creep. You want the belt to contact the platter diameter as much as possible, which means get the pulley close up to it. The other aspect of the Verdier that does not appeal to me is its top heaviness with spongy feet. The motor would tend to pull the whole shebang off perpendicular to the deck. Besides other problems with that, that construction would also tend to be a cause of speed irregularity, as stylus drag waxes and wanes over the course of an LP..I would put solid inflexible footers on a Verdier, if later models don't already feature such.
|
