Lewm,
I have posted a couple of photo's of the arm tower arrangement under the headings 'Arm Tower AS' on my System page. |
Raul,
I would dearly love to give it another whirl and so any feedback might enduce me to do so.
Thanks |
Raul,
Thanks and I look forward to reading it. I have also posted a comment on my System page about which I have questions. It would be interesting to hear other views on my uncertainty. Anyway, a paraphrase of what I posted there is:
"Following my above appraisal of the detached and nude set up, I should just add that I feel slightly sensitive to (or curious about) the psychoacoustic elements in hifi. For example, I am not certain if the issues of soundstage and of imaging are genuine/completley authentic.
It seems that in a live performance one is very rarely (if ever) as acoustically aware of space between musicians or their three dimensionality. My suspicion is that hifi compensates for the visual stimuli that is provided in a live performance with the over emphasis of these audible features. Small ensemble acoustic or vocal performances might be the occasional exceptions to this.
Just food for thought and a reflection on the hifi norms to which I refered in my above appraisal.
Thoughts welcomed" |
Pryso,
Thanks for your valued reflections. I think they develop another dimension of Raul's reference to the distinction between the close mic'ed recording (as relayed to the home stationed audiophile) and the sitting position of the live spectator. I slightly drifted from the point in my initial reply to Raul. However, I find it fascinating.
I'm not sure who came first, HP or Martin Colloms, but the issue about soundstage as a criteria for judging ones hifi has been a fairly standard one since them. I do think your reflections on the importance of sitting position are critical for the general issue of perceptions of staging.
Beyond that, I think that your reflections on the impact of new recording techniques (some popular experiences of which I am still recovering from) provide much food for thought.
Might oak trees for small acorns (rants) grow.
Thanks |
Atmasphere,
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter and - I think - I agree. My early morning comments were confused at best. Acoustic space/venue; the method of delivery (location and quality of microphones, amps and/or speakers); proximity to performers and the quality of the relevant recording are the most important things concerning imaging and staging. My distraction was with psychoacoustics and what we listen for when playing hifi.
Ironically, I suspect it was the question of un-natural recordings that initiated my outpourings here: I have recently been treated to a diet of some overly produced (what I am reliably informed is) popular music with my children - Madonna most memorably. I think we can put aside 'system limitations concerning low level and ambient detail' here: not withstanding your interesting experiences and views.
More awake and a little less short
Thanks |
Raul,
I totally agree and, I suppose, have tried to suggest some of that in my comments. I suppose I did not really note the importance of differences between the individual listening room and concert hall on scale/volume and acoustic behaviour and how this alone impacts on attempts to exactly reproduce the live experience of a large number of recordings. I have tried to reflect on this on other threads but not so well in my above outburst, which was fueled largely by tiredness and irritability I think.
Nevertheless, my views that there are clear distinctions and that there are inevitable psychacoustic factors when reproducing performances through hifi are getting form and clarification through some of the interesting responses that it is raising and yours is a well considered and much appreciated one.
Many thanks again |
Raul,
Just to add that I am aware that I have drifted somewhat from your response in my reply but would note that my comment is based on my slight preoccupation with acoustic spaces and psychoacoustic factors.
I think the issues of distinct venues and quality of performances on distinct occasions still undermine my moments of certainty that I have captured "a" live event. This rears its head in my concern over distinction between listening rooms and performance venues in my reply. Of course, as your response points out, that is only one aspect to consider when addressing the authenticity of our hifi experience. |
Pryso,
Apologies, it should have read: "Mighty oak trees from small acorns (rants) grow".
I tend to be posting before 7am local time and I think this is affecting things. Apologies and thanks again. |
Geoch,
I see your reservations and hope you ultimately resolve them to your satisfaction. However, in line with Ct0517's comment, I would stress that your ssuggestion that "our limited knowlege about interactive materials & mechanics & thats the reason we accept the isolation as 'the only way' (but is not the right one)" is off the mark.
No one is suggesting that this is the "only" way. Those of us who have tried it do, however, suggest that it is "THE BEST WAY WE HAVE EVER TRIED AND/OR HEARD." |
Lewm,
Thanks and its machinability and aesthetics are key reasons why I am considering using brass for my arm towers. This will be important as I intend to do all the work myself. The other reasons are its relative price to bronze and its decent mass.
Now I just need the time and opportunity to try this out |
Geoch/Chris,
I'd be careful about using Rollerblocks beneath an arm tower. The ball bearings are not secure enough and movement when lifting and placing the arm would almost certainly create ongoing alignment problems. In fact, the only place that I find the rollerblocks ideal is beneath my CDP, where mechanical movement is minute enough to never create a problem and yet the benefits can be easily heard. |
Chris,
I failed to notice that the original suggestion was to try the rollerblock "juniors". These should indeed be far more stable under mechanical interactions than the normal rollerblocks (which I use). Nandric is correct that you'll have to suck it and see and I thjink you are right to give them a go. Maybe you could even talk to the people at Symposium first. Anyway, there is a set of juniors for sale on eBay now ($90).
Good luck with your experimentation and do let us know how it goes. |
Chris,
Sorry, just one other brief thought.
If you look at the details and approach of the Equarack people, you'll see there is a major concern about mass loading/weight of component to get the best out of viscoelastic supports. As I mentioned above, I had major problems when trying noted components on one of my Symposium platforms and so you might want to look into this weight compliance factor in making your decision. Athough, at only $90 you might just think it as well to just get them and experiment!?
Either way, I look forward to hearing how it performs in your rig. |
Nandric,
If you go down the route of Halcro (which I am more or less planning to do) with the arm tower design, you can offset your mounting hole to be nearer to any desired edge. This removes all concerns about tonearm length. This will also apply for arms with collars. Remember that I have experimented very successfully with a Morch DP6 and an Audio Craft AC3300 - both of which have collars and are 9" or less in length.
Apart from the unspecified and potential costs in needing professional help in drilling the holes, there really appears to be no limits to the arm tower approach and its applications. |
Nandric,
If you buy some aluminium plate (eBay often has various thickness of these at very reasonable prices!) you can make a variety of interchangeable arm plates for the top of your tower(s). The carftsman is therefore only challenged with drilling a hole down the length of the cylinder (55mm in Halcro's and my intended case) and a 30-40mm hole running lower across the cylinder and into the vertical 55mm hole (for the phono cable to run through). That's two holes in total and the weight will be the same as Halcro's.
I already have M6 and M8 taps, drills and footers so no cost there. If not already in possession then, anyone can find these (as I think Chris has suggested) for a very reasonable price from their local hardware store. Three holes tapped for the base spikes; three holes tapped for the attaching armplate. I don't think this is too large a challenge for most on this site. Worth considering I think. |
Lewm,
Thanks and its machinability and aesthetics are key reasons why I am considering using brass for my arm towers. This will be important as I intend to do all the work myself. The other reasons are its price relative to bronze, its decent mass and of course its not being magnetic.
Now I just need the time and opportunity to try this out |
Has anyone tried making their arm tower with brass? Do you see any advantages/disadvantages with this material?
Cheers |
Jcarr,
As I was posing the questions you were already answering. Synchronicity,
Thanks |
Ct0517,
It would seem that our experiences defy the theory. As a certain phiilosopher once said, in that case, the theory needs revision/refinement.
An old Chinese saying: black cat or white cat, the right cat catches the mouse! |
T_bone,
Meow,
"Some pod implementations have different isolation systems under the pod and the table, which makes for a different arm-bearing-to-table-bearing interaction, and this is something I would suggest against. In the end, it all comes down to implementation (Dgob's Chinese cats and your arm pods)."
Anyone using an arm tower and pneumatic/magnetic footers beneath their TT is decoupling these at the plinth. I assure you the logic around this being erroneous does not hold, IME. At least you seem to keep an open mind and that is all that anyone could ask for, whether or not we ever find agreement. |
Tutntables, armpods/towers,
Speakers, amplilfiers? |
Hi Ct0517,
I tried to send this before but it seemed to fail. If I therefore repeat my self here I can only apologize.
My experience with the AT616's beneath a nude Technics SP10 Mk2 found improved performance, particularly in the areas of timbre and detail retrieval. This means that you will more clearly be able to distinguish instruments (such as a viola and violin and a wider range of percussive instruments). It also means that the retrieval of inner detail with instruments such as various guitars, double bass and piano are much improved.
My earlier experience with the nude Technics included using Syposium couplers on a Symposium Ultra platform and using a wide variety of footers and cones on distinct platforms. These were all fairly pleasing. However, using the AT616's was a marked improvement on these options.
I hope this helps and good luck |
Hi Lewm,
Yes, I'm referring to the same tt on the Symposium and other products. For me it was a clear improvement: despite my initial (and over enthusiastically voiced!) suspicions concerning air-borne interference with a pneumatic approach. |
Stands, cables, cartridge clips, headshells, acoustic treatment/sound proofing, fuses...
Regards? |
Hi Halcro/Pryso/In_shore,
I have for a long time thought that new equipment needs time for the room to settle into it. This is most obvious with changes in speaker systems but seems applicable to equipment more generally. However, this is all dependent on my challengable tools of assessment: my untrained/self-trained ears!
What you've all said does provide food for thought. |
Hi Nick sr,
I have little interest/knowledge of scientific possibility (trying Hif Tuning fuses gives one example of why this is more fraught with options than seems scientifically likely!). However, wouldn't the answer to your ultimate question be: 'that depends on the stability and inertness of the plynth - on which the armpod rests and from which the tt is decoupled?' |
Nick_sr,
Btw, I don't think what I have tried to say necessarily disagrees with your points, particularly about residue vibrations and the like. As I said, I have simply sought to understand what I am hearing in a (possibly) completely 'unscientific' way. Uncertainty therefore remains about the why's. What is not in doubt is the what's: i.e, very, very high quality and believable play back. |
Nick sr,
I imagined that the turntable produces vibrations when it rotates. These mechanical rotations are not the same as the indentations on the record and would be transmitted to a coupled tonearm (no matter how small the transmission). To isolate the tt is to isolate it from external vibrations but not its own self produced ones: here you can consider the difference that we get from isolating CDp's say with rollerblocks or the like!
To decouple the tonearm from the tt would therefore be to remove these additional vibrations. The issue about mating with the vibrations on the record would then (once the decoupled tonearm and armpod are equally isolated) become a question of the quality of bearings and trackng force accuracy and of the ability of that tonearm to match the movement of the indentations that are on the record's surface.
This is just me trying to understand what I hear in a (possibly) completely 'unscientific' way. |
Hi Halcro,
I suspect that the statement "I like..." would be subjective ("Je pense, donc je suis") but when one says "I like because..." one enters into dialogue and proofs (objective) are often sought in order to challenge or support that preference. The difficulty concerning our topic seems to be to agree or locate those 'objective' (generally meaning, demonstrable within the - disputed - laws of science) proofs to satisfy all.
As always... |
Hi Halcro,
Before Nandric jumps in with his view, I'd just like to say that I have not meant to detract from the main subject of this post with my last comment and am sorry if I have.
I am not familiar enough with Frege (the 'extent' or impact of the supposed limitations of his mathematic on his luiguistic rationalism; the 'extent' and differences between his concept of 'logic', etc) to criticise his approach and thinking. For me, such difference in thinking still stands as a key and inevitable aspect of philosophy. Nor am I, as has been suggested elsewhere, a Kantian or Hegelian.
For those interested, I would never advocate standing under the banner of any one thinker and I realise that things are rarely as simple or clear cut as might be wished: 'http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/'.
Apologies for this final abstraction and I continue to follow (and, hopefully, contribute to) the developments on this thread with real interest.
As always... |
Hi Nick_sr,
I face a similar dilemma and tried both for some time. I went for the extra length on preamp to amp interconnects (power amp between speakers - feeling that the speaker cable length is more telling). Analysis Plus [Silver Oval, as originally recommended to me by Raul] pride themselves on control/accuracy over long lengths. Their conducted square wave tests appear to support that view and - as I said - my hearing seems to agree. Although not ideal, this might therefore be worth giving a listen.
As always... |
Hi Fripp1,
Ah, Ferdinand de Saussure, Barthes, Derrida (and by extension, Bataille, Lacan and Levinas). It is more complex than some would wish. I hope y/our despondency proves wrong.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
I do not believe (as I might have mentioned once or twice) that this is the correct place to debate these matters - at least not at the expense of the accepted topics. Yet, I am curious about your (quasi-Wolffian) view that:
"logicaly, if the premise is not true than all the deductions from the premise can't be true also. (09-16-11)"
I find this fascinating because of its apparent pre-Kantian recant of the law of contradiction (which Kojeve made so much of in his assessments in "Kant" and, of course, engaging the linguistic nuances of 'contra-diction' in French)- albeit, an inverted postulation. Of course, a lot here will depend on what sense you have of the terms ‘logic’, ‘true’, ‘from’ and ‘can’t’.
With me admittedly not having the understanding of a Fregean here, I would appreciate it if you could email me off line to discuss without any further and undue intrusion on this thread. This is obviously not intended as a confrontation but a genuine hope that you can help clarify my innocence in understanding this.
As always... |
Banquo363,
I think your invitation to the designer is a great move and could both resolve people's scepticism about the pricing and (more importantly) add valuable data to the main concern of Halcro's thread: the added performance value of nude tt's and decoupled arm towers.
As always... |
Dertonarm,
"No Audiogoner with any experiences in his/her home set-up?"
To have tried it, I would have had to sell my home and live in the tt.
The wife's not likely to accept that option!
As always |
Halcro,
I'm not sure if his argument about the sole role of the tt (by which he champions the Sirius III) does actually move it into the 'software' domain. Anyway, not to claim that Moncrief had any axe to grind but respected former Rockport owners self-confessed having sold their Sirius III tt's to get a Technics DD.
Spectacular speed consistency and wow and flutter control are all demonstrable on other tt's than the Rockport: not to mention an unarguable ability to avoid sounding 'grundgy and veiled'. My personal experience also denies me the ability to accept many of his a+b=c conclusions, as pursuasive as these often appear.
Just my two pence worth
As always |
Ecir38,
Thanks for those photo's. I tried something very similar with my Mambo but ended up trying a slightly different solution with the full arm tower attachment to gain weight. I'm not really certain why he didn't simply stick with the Acoustic Signature aluminium top-plate in his application though!
Interestingly, the main problem I found with the AS tt was the motor having to sit on the same platform as the deck. I believe that Raul overcomes this problem by decoupling his AS from the platform with pneumatic footers. The improvement this affords seems both obvious and interesting in our current wider context. |
Ecir38 (10-12-11),
You could try Equarack or the AT616 that many of us (well, at least 'some' of us) are using.
Good luck
As always |
Dertonarm,
I sometimes wonder if physics isn't a little like a guess who always arrives late to the party! For example, different materials and weights of headshells on different tonearms create very noticeable differences in performance of different cartridges. The link between tonearm, headshell and specific cartridges therefore seems to be a relationship whose success can only be found by a 'try-it-and-see' approach. That physics can then be applied to infer why a certain relationship works is interesting but (as was once famously misapplied) it seems a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition in determining such selections.
As always... |
Dertonarm,
That should have read: "guest". |
Raul,
As though to prove the point, following your review, I've recently tried the Technics 100Mk4 on my Audiocraft AC3300 with a 13g aluminium headshell and finally found an alternative set up (other than my Morch DP6) on which that particular cartridge shines. This is after being largely disatisfied with trying numerous other headshells of distinct weights and/or build materials.
As I have discussed with Daniel off line, I do look forward to seeing what he comes up with on the tonearm and tt front but am not certain if this will really address the questions originally posed around perfect arm/headshell/cartridge selection. I genuinely stand in hope.
As always |
Hi Halcro,
I don't know if this is on point, but I am currently experimenting with a type of plinth. My reasoning is simple.
I noticed that using the Precision Pneumatic Footers directly beneath the naked SP10 greatly improves its performance (here, I use the term 'improve' to denote an increased ability to deliver more detail from vinyl) and I have reasoned that this occurs because this approach removes returning vibration that affects all grounded components. This use of footers seems to me to be the greatest aspect of the TT set up that was originally suggested to me by Raul.
Well, my thinking is that the improvement in grounding (or the limitations of its impact through pneumatic intervention) might be able to do a similar job on the tonearm. Hence, I decided to build a floating plinth that will couple tonearm and TT in a potentially optimised way. For me, if it improves the subsequent analogue performance, the case for a plinth (albeit, a floating one) is proven. If it performs at a lower level, the case for a totally decoupled tonearm and TT is proven: at least to my satisfaction.
I should reiterate that I am wholly in the camp of decoupled set ups and that I am currently enjoying a level of analogue that I have simply never experienced before. Still, an open mind leads me to want to settle this matter to my own satisfaction and I recall that that was all that was being asked of the plinth-free and decoupling sceptics. Surely, at the end of the day, music lovers are the real winners if either solution is found to be the better option under equivalent conditions.
As always... |
Thanks Halcro,
And I will of course feedback on my findings. I think the grounding issue really is a major one, despite my use of wall shelf mounting and experimentation with a number of platforms and methods of isolation. Walls rarely seem as neutral to vibration as I would wish and even wall mounting carries detectable vibrations - listening through my system within a fairly solid 19th Century English home. Along with decoupling tonearm and TT (arm-tower/pod), the use of pneumatic footers was (as I suggested) the most marked improvement to the quality of analogue reproduction in my experience: quality of system, hearing sensitivity and expectations not withstanding. That this is the case is simply beyond doubt for me and so my only questions are:
1. Does the decoupled arm/TT really offer the ultimate feasible set up? and
2. Will pneumatic decoupling of a coupled (or, 'plinth based') arm/TT from the grounding/platform really offer the ultimate feasible set up?
That's what I'll be looking into in a suitably empirical way and that's really all that I'll be able to report back on. What others choose to make of that or 'believe' will obviously remain beyond my compass.
As always... |
I should just add that not all pneumatic supports offer the same degree of isolation and that my most positive experiences relate using to the Audio Technica AT616 Precision Pneumatic Footers in particular. |
Hi All,
One of the useful sources that I have found for designing my own (experimental) floating plinth is: http://qualia.webs.com/plinthbuilding.htm.
Although obviously not the last word on the subject it has some useful suggestions that might help other explorers.
As always... |
Hi Halcro,
I don't understand why it wont load. However, if you google Audio Qualia you can find the relevant plinth related sections. I've also found some use in 'The Practising Scientist's Handbook', written and compiled by Alfred J. Moses (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1978) as cited at http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/sp10plinth.html.
Some explorers tend to emphasise that plinths were seen as a 'necessity' in order to keep the motor and innards of old TT's in place: as well as offering aesthetic advantages. With many of our models and concerns, this is obviously not a requirement and this (along with my own extending listening to a decoupled, plinth-less set up) leads me to suspect that the pneumatic footers and stand-alone arm tower for the Technics SP10 might be the optimum option - from a performance point of view. Anyway, I will give the plinth option my best efforts in order to adequately clarify the/any performance differences.
As always... |
Sorry,
Just to note that the use of pneumatic footers has its antecedence in the Mitch Cotter approach that found such acclaim decades ago. However, we're adding the potential benefits of the decoupled tonearm - in our current plinth-less and decoupled set ups.
Very little seems new regarding mechanical management (the use of pneumatic footers and magnetic footers aside) but new developments regarding materials (Panzerholz, aluminium/acrylic sandwiches, viscoelastic materials and the like) do offer interesting possibilities to such old discoveries. But I begin to ramble.
As always... |
Banquo363,
Many thanks
As always... |
Dover,
Yes, and thanks for helping with my ongoing considerations, research and experimentations. Of course, Cotter's floating (aluminium/polymer laminate) baseplate and attached platter was decoupled from the main chassis. My point was that the polymer fillers and springs that sat against the baseplate served a similar function (albeit in a far less efficient way) to the pneumatic footers against the bottom of the SP10 regarding resonance control.
I didn't discuss the dismantled motor that many have already considered regarding Kenata's design etc. I do feel that the potential gains of that aspect of Cotter's approach are accommodated in a simpler way by the already noted plinth-less and pneumatic support approach, however.
Much more reflection and experimentation to be had but progress seems promising.
As always... |
Lewm,
All too confusing an analogy for me. The SP10's peritoneum would surely be the motor case rather than the additional plinth!
Designs seem to vary but operational excellence needs to be assessed in the light of the object and function under consideration: 'just as' arthropods function well with an exoskeleton but I function best 'keeping mine' internal.
I'll just press on with my efforts to discover how the SP10 and its associates function best. Who knows, when all is said and done, I could end up sharing your anatomically grounded perspective. Time will tell.
As always... |
