Dear Peterayer, neither in concept nor in technical execution have we seen any progress in turntable design in the last 3 decades.
Microprocessor controlling is really cheap today and that is about all that has changed.
The top-notch turntables of 1982 ( Micro Seiki RX/SX-3/5/8000 all w/dampened platter, Melco, Epic, original Platine Verdier with full magnetic bearing, Cotter (dd !! I prefer the Denon here ...) et al) do easily stand their ground against anything that came in the interim and was available through audio dealers.
Turntable design was about understanding the pretty simple task of spinning a record undisturbed and the guts and money to manufacture the resulting product following the requests.
The task was the same in 1980 as it is today.
We had some pretty serious companies going into turntable design with a squad of able engineers and serious budget in research and development.
Then we had some intelligent and gifted persons ( Jean-Constant Verdier, Mitchell Cotter et al ) who came up with superb and smart designs which stood the test of time for 30 years + to come.
The advance in turntable design was and is always possible.
It is a matter of seriousness, insight, consequence and the will to build a turntable without looking for market acceptance or economic reason.
We will see .... this winter.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Halcro, this statement of yours in principle, I am against any turntable which sits on 'springs' as this almost certainly invites the turntable to 'move'.....possibly laterally as well as vertically?
All belt drives which have a solid foundation at least have a chance of extracting some reasonable information from the grooves. is a very dangerous one. It is neither backed up by physic laws nor by technical knowledge. Engineers involved in electron-microscoping or vibration-isolating would rather tell you that it is vice versa .... The "solid foundation" of an "unsuspended" turntable is a plain illusion. An - well applied !! - isolation from building resonance by means of a suitable spring (rarely done in analog tts) is the only way to achieve undisturbed extraction of the encoded groove. Problem here is, that most spring-systems in turntables are so unsuited to the task. Put your AC3 on a Minus-K which upper payload meets the mass of your full mounted AC3 and your jaw will drop to your very knees. You will immediately hear, that so far you heard only 80% of your AC3s potential. Promised. I will buy the MInus-K + shipping from you if you do not hear what I promised. Cheers, D. |
Dear Peterayer, as for the Wave Kinetics NVS - yes, I have seen the pictures and have read the description given by the manufacturer.
Being one of the very few serious DD turntables in recent years, it will no doubt get some following in the audiophile community.
We can expect to see many owners of Technics SP-10 mk2/3 kind of "move up" to the NVS if budget permits.
Will it live up to it's "promises".
We'll see whether we will still talk about it in 2-5 years.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, all those features you've listed are fine and involve a few materials or applications seldom seen in tt design, but there is nothing that is actually new in the sense that it was never done before.
There were even - if not in finished products widely available - variations of magnetic de-coupled arm boards.
The technical specs of the Continuum read down quite impressive and there certainly are a lot of consequent applied technical features.
Nevertheless it is another very good turntable - but nothing that outperforms the great tts of 1982 when set-up on an vibration isolation platform and equipped with dampened platters.
But do get me right here: the Continuum had a hell of a lot more of guts, money, prime material and insight put into it's design then most any of the other designers of the day had put into their babies.
In any case the two Continuum tts are my first bet of becoming a classic in the future.
Style, execution, technical features, prime materials - a great package.
Sad story, but prime materials and great effort in execution rarely ever pay off in today's analog market.
Better go for great cosmetic and high WAF.
CHeers,
D. |
Dear all, I must admit that - for the very first time in any thread on Audiogon I have participated in - it is much more fun just standing by and watching ....
from a distance,
D. |
Hi Henry,
won't disappoint you.... ;-) .. it's not high mass or not ..... it is applied physics or not.
This shouldn't be about what we like or not, but what is necessary to achieve a certain result.
We may not always like the path of physic ( can be cruel, expensive, heavy, ugly - extend at wish ..), but physic doesn't care whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
D. |
Well - as posted earlier - IMHO both BD as well as DD have way too many restrictions/problems to be the right choice for a turntable trying to approach the state of the art.
Which doesn't mean that idler drive (ID...) is the way to go.
There still are other options - way more suitable to ensure the absence of any wow/flutter and bring the dedicated platter to the purpose the principle asks for.
It is simply that most designers so far haven't looked to - or didn't want to use/consider for financial reasons - the most promising solutions.
The table I will present this later winter will show ( and proof with measurements ...;-) ... ) what is possible aside from the usual tracks.
As Steve Jobs ( requiescat in pace - we'll miss you ...) once claimed upon his return to the bitten fruit: "think different".
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Dgob, sorry, but IMHPOV (" in my honest point of view" ...) the chain of links between tonearm, headshell and cartridge can't be found be "try-and-see-approach".
At least not, if you out for anything of absolute (not quantified nor qualified view here) - i.e. : for a result that can stand for it's own.
As the rest of the chain is needed (amps, cables, speakers et al) to evaluate the quality, you have two options:
a) you assume that the rest of the chain is perfect in an absolute sense (unlikely..) or
b) you say to yourself: "this is only now for this given set-up including all components AND my personal taste of sound in this given room".
Trying to design components of best possible quality (sound-wise) means making them as neutral and as strict as possible in following the physical parameters given in their purpose.
Then a given component won't please all nor in all set-ups.
But then a Porsche GT3 ( just random choice her ...;-) ...) isn't that great a car during down-town rush hour either.
By sticking to the mere physical requests and issues of a given link in the chain ( and believe me - it is just as big an issue to recognize and address ALL these requests and issues .. ) you are on the only path which "may" eventually lead to the best possible.
All others are leading into the woods.
You may by dump luck or happy coincidence find a "good" or "happy" temporarily solution along the way.
But it will be only temporarily, as it will be rather a lucky fit within a given matrix of the moment.
I won't go into theoretical length here.
I will rather do what I have done with the UNI-Protractor - I will give my words solid foundation by act.
Within this winter I will introduce a pivot tonearm and a turntable here on Audiogon.
Both components will show what I mean by consequently addressing physical issues.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, sure - combinations of two drive principles are possible (yet not necessary...and hardly ever useful).
But we can go for as well for other drive principles which - IMHO and soon to be put under the spell of quod erat demonstrandum - can offer a level of performance hardly obtainable by the 3 standard drive principles in tt design.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Syntax, not really simple in graduations - rather more or less convenient and simple to construct, but not ideal.
Each of these drives in turntable design do imply that there will be errors induced by the drive which have to be fought back by motor speed/torque control and a kind of "feedback-loop".
That - control by feedback-loop - already was an error when introduced in speaker designs in the 1970s.
The royal device is obvious - no error from the start.
Then one don't have to correct.
Somehow simple and logic.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, I guess you now have got the message I've gotten a few month before.
I suppose our conclusion will be very similar.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nikola, " a few months" is everything starting with 3 ........ this is such an utterly unimportant part of history that I dared not to file it in specific ...;-) ...
The important thing was the conclusion drawn - not the specific date on which it occurred.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, have fun .... sometimes even old and strange windmills have a charm of their own.
Best and fun all the way,
D. |
I need to throw my 2 cents in here, as I have very high regards for Bob Graham's design.
And saying that I must add, that I am absolutely no fan of the uni-pivot principle in pivot tonearm design for certain reasons (which I won't discuss ...;-) ... for obvious reasons ...).
The new Phantom Supreme is VERY good.
As were it's predecessors.
The design of the Graham tonearms does ask for very good mechanical coupling and speedy energy transfer in the armboard and plinth however.
This has to be taken into account when mating the Graham tonearms.
That's why In_shore mentioned the possibility of mis-match with certain turntables. |
