I'm sceptical about all this 'isolation' of the armpod that is being discussed?
Sound is transferred in only two ways:-
Structure-borne transmission
Air-borne transmission
In both these cases, we are interested in transmission in two directions......from armpod to tonearm and from tonearm to armpod.
With the tonearm mounting to the arm pod in the first instance, if there is any 'transmission' from the tonearm base, this indicates 'movement' in the tonearm base which is 'information lost' from the cartridge.
The aim of the tonearm is to have zero friction at the pivot point which means no transfer of any movement to the arm base. The arm itself must
be rigid enough to allow the cartridge to transfer all the stylus movement
to the tonearm wiring only.
In the other direction, the base upon which the armpod sits needs to be stable and immovable. The armpod needs to be 'decoupled' from this base (unless the base itself is acoustically decoupled and levelled) via spikes and the armpod must be absolutely level. With the mass of the armpod (at least in my situation) so large, any structure-borne transmission which somehow transmits across the spikes, is so small and high in frequency, that it is easily absorbed as 'heat' by the armpod.
With the air-borne transmission, please remember that the tonearm and the cartridge assembly themselves, are both directly affected by these same sound waves and are far more susceptible to vibrations (because of their more delicate masses) than the tonearm bases and armpods.
Again if one employs mass-loaded armpods, the amount of sound at varying frequencies which can be reflected and/or absorbed as heat is far more than that of any tonearm or cartridge.
If one wishes to employ a combination of dissimilar materials to counter the transmission of certain frequencies, I see no harm in that as long as visco-elastic ones which allow movement to occur, are avoided?
The above is simply my opinions based on the physics, acoustics and materials science with which I am familiar as well the 'in-field' experience of my Project. As usual YMMV? :-) |
Dear Chris,
The stainless steel pricing looks better than the brass. The only down side is it is harder to mill yourself so you might need a professional machine shop?
I'd go for 316 grade rather 304 as it does not tarnish and is definitely non-magnetic.
I can't quite follow the 'air' reference to the top-plate? I personally would want the top-plate connected to the mass of the armpod as securely as possible. In fact the only reason for a top-plate IMO is to allow clamping of the tonearm and connection of the Din cable, otherwise I'd happily screw or clamp the tonearm directly to the armpod.
Cheers
Henry |
Nice solution Corby.
Can you explain how the VTA adjustment and arm height works via the vertical rod? |
Dear Nicola and Chris,
I have found that a tin of asparagus can form the ideal height for the temporary mounting of an arm :^) |
Well Chris......what can I say?
This sounds almost contradictory to the 'Copernican' precept whilst at the same time supporting it?......if you follow me?
I'm trying to find the right theoretical position for this revelation?
Give me time?
Henry |
Nice work Banquo,
An Audio Copernican's best friend is a good machinist :^)
Hopefully you will report back with further observations when you have listened to more of your favourite records?
Cheers
Halcro |
Nandric,
These 'footers' are of course different to my solution with the spikes.
Both Chris and Banquo are using them so they must be fine.
My concern would be if you could lean on the edges of the turntable and induce movement (ie 'rocking')........that would not be a good thing from the Copernican point of view? |
Dear Nandric,
My DD/TT is a Victor TT-81 made for JVC ( and soon to be replaced by its scarce and finer brother.....the TT-101).
They have their bottom metal 'cage' attached (just as the SP10s have) so that spikes or 'footers' can be positioned under this 'cage'.
I find that placing the spikes under the vertical cage perimeter, results in the greater stability with no movement whatsoever in my particular case. |
Thanks for that T_bone.
Perhaps you can explain how Victor was able to use the same logo of the dog listening to the gramophone that we also associate with RCA? |
Chris, Nandric and Brad are quite correct in this thread being primarily about isolated arm-pods, their cost and availability.
The 'Nude Turntable Project' thread combines the support of the nude table together with the design and fabrication of bespoke arm-pods.
Corby's solution to an adjustable-height arm-pod attracted my attention as perhaps a pointer to a 'universal' isolated arm-pod?
It is not realistic IMO, to expect the individual turntable manufacturers to design and sell 'universal' arm-pods? Depending on the design of the various turntables available, such a design could be more complex and expensive than a pod designed for a known individual turntable design.
That's why this exchange of differing solutions is valuable.
I designed my arm-pods to accept every arm I was aware of yet the pods were designed height-wise, to be specific to the Victor nude DD/TT although height variations up to +/- 10mm is possible via the height of spikes selected and the thickness of the aluminium top-plate to the arm-pods themselves.
In this case the cost of each pod worked out to approx $500 and would now be $300 for each additional one (since I have the casting mould).
It is hard to imagine a 'universal', height-adjustable, any-arm-you-like commercial arm-pod being available for a retail price anywhere near that? |
Ecir38,
The base height of the arm pod casting is 110mm and 130mm with the bottom spikes.
I can't tell you how many sleepless nights I had questioning the 'correctness' of the height before having it cast?
I changed it over and over again and checked and double checked against the TT-81 and all the arms I had.
To make it even more difficult.....every arm has a different 'neutral' position from its base mounting as well as different extensions via its VTA adjustment. :^(
Prices I obtained from machine shops were between $1600-$2100 per pod!!
The castings worked out IIRC to be $500 per unit for three (including fabrication of the mould). This was not mate's rates but an unknown commercial foundry. With the mould now in my possession, another casting would be $300.
To have each pod spray-painted and a machine shop to supply the linished aluminium 10mm top-plates and drill and tap the top holes and
bottom ones for the spikes, added $200 per pod.
Not included in the costs of course is all my design time (and anguish) as well as all the schlepping around.
But considering that each 2.25 metre Cardas Golden Ref phono cable cost me $1000 (and I needed four!)......I'm not really complaining :^) |
Brad,
There are unfortunately no free lunches?
A truly "universal arm-pod" like Corby's, requires many 'connections' and 'cantilevers' all held by grub-screws or something similar.
The vertical micrometer is in itself a cantilever from the fixed base and then the arm 'platform' is cantilevered from this shaft.
In any cantilever, the bending moment increases as the square of the cantilever. The deflections involved in such solutions render the stability of the arm-pod questionable.
I find with my DaVinci Grandezza 12" Ref tonearm, that even extending the shaft to its maximum for VTA adjustment, affects the sound rather badly :^(
Cheers
Henry |
Don,
It seems as if you know well the pitfalls of 'structural gymnastics' and are learning more 'on the job'...so to speak :^)
I'm impressed and looking forward to further evolutions of your ingenious arm-pod.
Cheers
Henry |
Hi Chris,
The Dynavector DV-505 (and its later 507 version) has alway enticed me because of its distinctly architectonic appearance?
I have never though, read a really thorough review of its performance vis-a-vis other tonearms?
It would be good to hear your impressions?
I think Lewm also has one of these on hand?
Cheers
Henry |
Brad,
Corby's response to my concerns shows that he has an understanding of structural rigidity and its limitations.
His centre cantilevered vertical 'pole' being solid rather than a walled tube, and extending well down into the bottom solid pod imbues the structure with vastly stronger rigidity than I otherwise imagined?
Of course, the cantilevered arm-fixing plate is still a weakness which Corby realises.
Bear in mind that many turntables employ the same cantilevered metal armboards incl. Raven and Micro Seiki.
They can be rigid enough........as long as we don't get into sub-atomic movement? :^) |
Hi Chris,
Glad to see that you have mastered the A'gon 'Link' bracketing system :^)
Not very easy at first?
Cheers
Henry |
Of course Dertonarm is right that there are
. almost constant movement in microscopic dimensions of which we are not consciously aware.
How does that affect the ouboard tonearm pod in the Copernican turntable system?
Firstly lets look at the manufacturing tolerances achievable in the real world:
Some of the tightest tolerances available are +/-75 microns (a micron being 1/1000 of 1mm).
On the microscopic level, a molecule is measured in Angstroms (1/10,000,000mm), whilst an atom is approx. 1/1,000,000,000mm.
Now imagine the platter of your turntable, machined to the tightest tolerances of flatness and roundness with the tightest tolerances of spindle centring available?
In terms of molecular and atomic accuracy, the platter will deviate from perfect flatness and roundness by millions and hundreds of millions of molecules and atoms, whilst the centre of the spindle will be millions of atoms off-centre.
The record of course, not having its centre hole or overall diameter even remotely close to +/-75 microns in accuracy, will be wobbling its way around the spindle with gaps between its centre edge and the spindle itself, measuring hundreds of millions of molecules wide.
This manufacturing INaccuracy is repeated throughout the tonearm and its bearings which are slopping and rattling with gaps millions of molecules wide whilst the deflections and movements in the tonearm on the molecular level, resemble slow-motion images of earth-quake affected suspension bridges.
So worry if you must, about the microscopic movements being inflicted upon your turntable system
.but fear not for your proudly sitting outboard tonearm. It stands solid and immovable (the more mass the better) and the accuracy of your tonearm set-up will remain unchanged month after month as evidenced by we, who actually have them, can testify. |
Dear Lewm & Daniel,
We are all thick-skinned enough to take the occasional barb :^)
I started this thread because of my surprise at the results of both the 'nude' DD turntable approach and the isolated 'armpods'.
They far exceeded my expectations and the implementation of both approaches is relatively easy for others to try.
So far, we have seen no negative responses from anyone who has actually sampled the approach but we have several 'naysayers' who haven't?
It seems rather odd to be offering opinions based on 'theories' when the 'proof of the pudding' is so easily abled to be sampled?
Rather like commenting on a cartridge without having heard it?:^) |
Dear Daniel,
I understand your point about 'fixing' the base via tape or blu-tak and that is easy to do.
There is however another philosophy to the 'support' of the armpods.....and indeed the nude TT itself......and that is, to de-couple both elements from structure-borne feedback via the supporting shelf.
I know some folks insist that spikes actually 'couple' rather than 'de-couple' and that 'isolating' feet made of rubber or visco-elastic material are better and there may be some truth in that. Nevertheless, I believe that bolting or fixing the armpods to the substrate without 'decoupling', may cause problems from structure-borne feedback?
It may not be a big deal in the overall scheme of things....so let's keep our minds open :^)
Cheers
Henry |
That's what my armpods are made of.....phosphor bronze.
Sounds good to me :^) |
Thanks for the input Jonathan.
If I may ask.......how have you managed to determine this grading and for how many materials? |
Hi Jonathan,
I imagine though, that the 'processing' of the material and the 'significant effect on sound' due to that, would vary depending on 'where' in the signal-processing chain that material was applied?
For instance, I can imagine a tonearm headshell or arm-tube having a more 'significant' effect on the signal than say......an isolating spike or cone, or an arm-pod or a shelf bracket?
Cheers
Henry |
Mounting the tonearm on a separate pod allows relative movement to occur between the tonearm pivot and the platter / spindle, and this will interfere with the accuracy of measurements. It is hard to argue with this statement and, like Lews Galleons on a stormy sea analogy, it would seem to preclude further development of the isolated armpod? But theory and practice, when it comes to audio, are often uncommon bed partners? For instance, there are good theories for the superiority of belt-drive over direct drive turntables
..and vice-versa
.yet both can deliver fine practical results. There were (supposedly) good theories behind the superiority of digital over analogue as the source material in audio reproduction yet in practice (according to vinyl advocates), those theories have still not been realized? There are good theories for the superiority of Moving Coil cartridges over Moving Magnet cartridges yet in practice, (according to some advocates), those theories do not always apply? The theory regarding air-borne sound transmission affecting the analogue playing system is also undeniable? All the frequencies of the audio spectrum from 20Hz to 20KHz (as well as sub-sonic and ultra-sonic frequencies), bombarding the delicate parts of the turntable/arm/cartridge system must induce vibrations within those parts which will be amplified and projected through the speakers? If this theory is correct, then scientifically it must follow that the higher the volume, the greater the induced vibrations. In practice this must mean, that as we turn up the volume, the sound quality decreases? I have heard the reverse to be true. Up to the limits of amplifier distortion, speaker ability, room configuration and turntable quality, generally the higher the volume level, the better the sound quality. I have even heard turntables which are located in separate rooms to the speakers and to my ears, the sound quality is not improved? So theories are great if one needs a starting point from which to commence a design, however in audio, there seem to be many other overriding factors which render many known theories of physics to play, if not negligible, then very minor roles? Audio is not a religion and I attempt to convert no-one here. If one hears a benefit, let on-one corrupt the reality with unproven theory. |
Hi T_bone,
I realise that you, and many others are perhaps trying to rationalize what we 'arm-pod' folk report, against what your instincts and learnings tell you and all I can really say is that until one actually tries a well developed 'pod'.......it's all just 'words'.
But I'm looking forward to your own experiments :^)
Regarding your problems with 'feedback' and my lack of any discernible angst in that region.......I must say that I have always had my turntables mounted on a shelf cantilevered from a solid masonry wall.
The fact that you state that..."even when my P3 is well away from my speakers"....... leads me to suspect that it is structure-borne feedback you are experiencing rather than air-borne?
Could you perhaps describe how your P3 is supported? |
T_bone, Re-reading your post above....... That said, if I implement pods, I will seek to couple the pod and the motor to a single rigid surface, and then isolate that rigid substructure. I believe that I have done just that by coupling (or de-coupling) the motor and pods to the very same 32mm laminated (stressed-skin) rigid shelf structure which is isolated from the floor and walls by cantilevered metal brackets. Your statement and that of Jonathan's are not quite the same? |
The fact that results differ slightly with the top down suggests air-borne effects, Not necessarily. If the structure-borne feedback is resonating through the metal base of the P3 (and those 'isolating' springs can often be a happy conductor of resonating frequencies) and into the motor and/or platter, closing the lid can often form a 'capture chamber' being filled with the release of the feedback into air-borne frequencies. Sprung decks like the Linn Sondek can surprisingly be the most prone to structure-borne feedback. Looking at your 'System' page, I suspect your floor-mounted rack is the limiting factor. Mark Doehmann of Continuum stated that it took $30,000 of engineering to provide a floor-mounted stand like his Castellon with the same isolation as a wall-mounted shelf. Suspended wood floors such as yours, are extremely difficult to isolate from structure-borne feedback.....and in Japan, with the seismic activity constantly providing Dertonearm's micro movements.....it should be avoided at all costs. Any chance of you trying for a wall mount........just to experiment :^) |
T_bone, Is your concrete floor 'suspended' or cast on the ground? A suspended slab can often pose problems due to dynamic movement and deflections. It's true that seismic movement is hard to protect against but most other external influences (even in big cities) can be minimized especially by wall-mounting. The de-coupling effect of metal brackets combined with wood-based shelving cantilevered off masonry walls works in all but the most complex of situations. SOUND |
The result of the structural design for seismic loading creates a building (particularly a high-rise steel or concrete structure) which is continually 'moving' even when there are no quakes.
We are not talking resonant frequency here......we are talking constantly moving structures which are setting up wave patterns of frequencies from the subsonic possibly even into the low twenties.
It's not a good look.....but there are solutions which however would require specialist knowledge.
If I were you....I'd try my Micro SX 8000 or any other heavy unsuspended deck and see if there is an improvement?
I'm betting there is:^) |
I thought it might be useful to look at some commercially sold arm-pods and the design thought between them? 3 current manufacturers come to mind:- DaVinci Redpoint TTWeights DAVINCIDaVinci apparently make their armpods from wood. Different materials inside for damping purposes? REDPOINTI think I contacted them before making my armpods as the similarity is too obvious. Their pods are made of any non-ferrous metal you want and chambers within the pods are filled with silicone oil for damping purposes. I believe prices started at approx $2000 depending on height and other requirements....but could escalate from there? TTWEIGHTSClosest to a universal tonearm with adjustable heights etc. uses combinations of materials for damping purposes. My own thoughts are that the prices of these commercially available products are too high.....obviously because of the mark-up factor involved. The use of dissimilar materials for damping purposes cannot be bad...even if of debatable usefulness....but must contribute to the costs of production. I believe that weight is the single most important attribute of a good armpod and I would do without some glamorous extras if loss of weight were the penalty? What do others think? |
Err Nicola, Did you mean like this? BRONZE |
Here is the link for REEDDo you know the pricing Nicola? Also.....100mm diamX100mm high is pretty small? |
Thanks for that link Brad,
I saw it last week but could not remember where?
You're right......very fine machining work although I'd be hesitant about doing a platter? This requires dynamic balancing to very fine tolerances.... you don't want a heavy 'rocking' platter eccentrically loading the spindle and motor?!.....not to mention rocking the vinyl :-( |
Yes Lew......some of the armpods are exotic indeed!
I suppose when they're attached to turntables that are priced in the mega-dollar region, the manufacturers can afford to splurge?
What we are looking for here......are alternatives to the 'expensive' armpod?
Are there any? |
In_shore,
There were some previous discussions here regarding cantilevered pivoted armboards attached to the armpods as per Corby's excellent example illustrated some pages back.
To me, there are three obstacles to this in relation to this thread:-
1) It requires even more expert machining and metalworking skills which puts it beyond the average DIY audiophile here.
2) It makes it more expensive
3) A cantilevered swiveling and/or height-adjustable mounting board attached to the armpod, has many risks regarding stability, movement and rigidity.
The prime requisite in my thesis on the armpod is that of utter solidity and stability.
Strangely enough.....moving the heavy armpods on spikes is not that difficult.
Without the spikes however......the pods can 'glide' across the shelf with alarming alacrity. Co-efficient of friction of the two smooth surfaces must be low? |
Dear Nandric,
I like your humour :-)
Unfortunately, sending one of my pods to Europe (including some specialised packing to protect the valuable object).....would cost heaps.....not to mention the Project Manager's time and effort to organise the building and sending of such a thing ;-)
But I might have something better for you?
Lying awake in bed last night......insomnia being a common symptom of painkilling tablets after surgery.....I had a Eureka moment like yours!
A method of producing heavy armpods for the cost of $20-$40?
And no machining skills required and the end result could be as beautiful as you could wish?
Is anyone interested?
Stay tuned and I will reveal my epiphany tomorrow ;-) |
In_shore,
Any photos of your pod? |
Concrete armpod indeed!
Why not Audpulse?
Heres the design:-
A sand and cement mix (3:1 or 4:1 is fine) is available in any hardware store in small plastic bags.
Now for the mould
..select any hollow metal tube section from 100mm diam. (4) to 150mm diam. (6) cut to the height required at the sellers yard.
This metal tube will become the finished external surface of the Pod (permanent formwork) so select the material and finish you wish to achieve.
Stainless steel may be linished or polished, copper or brass can have a clear sealer applied, aluminium can be anodised natural or black or can also be powder-coated any colour or painted in an automotive workshop with 2 pack polyurethane to any colour.
A PVC tube from plumbing suppliers is really cheap, but as the concrete cures, it emits quite a lot of heat and the danger becomes one of buckling the softening plastic mould?
Thats why wall thickness of the hollow tube should be reasonable. Not less than 1mm I should think?
Place the tube on a flat surface lined with heavy weight plastic building sheet (we dont want the bottom face concrete to stick) and add water to a quantity of the sand and cement mix.
We do not want the mixture to be wet and runny as the higher the water content, the greater the shrinkage and we dont want the concrete separating from the metal mould?
A nice, dry mix will be perfect to pour into the mould.
Screed off the top of the mix level with the top of the mould, with a metal or wood ruler edge and then place a weight on top of the mould till initial cure has occurred
..we dont want the concrete to slip out from the bottom edge of the mould?
After 24 hours, initial cure has occurred and the mould can be lifted off the plastic sheet and placed anywhere for the final cure to take place
.30 days is ideal but 21 days may be OK if you are in a hurry.
Now for those who have a tonearm that is all surface fixed, place the tonearm base on the top surface of the finished pod close to one edge (this is for 9 arms which possibly wont get close enough to the turntable edge if the arm were located in the centre of the 6 diam. Pod) and mark the location of the holding screws. Drill these positions to accept standard plastic plugs and hammer these into the concrete.
Do the same in the base of the pod for the 3 screw-in spikes which you can source from various suppliers.
Voila
..your armpod is ready!
Now heres the good bit
.for those with vintage tonearms or modern arms which have VTA towers or DIN connectors underneath the arm
..you need to position block-outs in the permanent mould BEFORE pouring the concrete mix.
The phono-cable block-out can be another metal (or plastic) tube (12mm or 1/2 diam.) which will extend from top to bottom of the mould (the cable will exit under the armpod) and be permanent.
The VTA block-out will be made of Styrofoam (cut to the correct size and depth) and taped to the inside face of the metal mould (the cutting of the Styrofoam need not be super accurate or beautiful but needs to be OVERSIZE.
The Styrofoam will be burnt out of the mould after curing of the concrete and we dont want to be hacking concrete out of the mould because the VTA tower misses by 2mm?
Most vintage arms rely of nuts to clamp the arm between a turntable baseboard.
In this situation, you can either
..finish the concrete lower in the mould to accommodate a 1/4 metal plate cut to size or
even easier
..add the 1/4 metal plate to the top of the finished armpod and fix IT to the concrete via screws into drilled plastic plugs.
This metal top-plate needs to be drilled for the VTA tower and fixing nuts as well as the holding-down screws
..but this should be a piece of cake for any metalwork shop or indeed any DIY hobbyist at home.
Now for the comments and barbs
..
What do you think? |
T-bone,
Not sure I follow you on the tip-up and down bit?
If you want a glass smooth finish on the concrete?.......that is normally achieved by steel trowelling which is why I suggested screeding of the top surface with a metal flat edge as in a steel rule.
This will be equivalent to a steel trowel.
Otherwise, a machined metal top-plate to fit on top of the concrete, ensures a "really really good" finish. |
Hmmm Jonathan,
Sounds like a typical listening room to me? :^)
Lewm,
The shrinkage of concrete is greatly determined by the water content.....the greater the water content, the more the shrinkage. (George knows what I'm talking about).
I doubt that concrete designed to set under water has much shrinkage.
My experience has been that concrete, as it cures, tends to stick to its edge formwork tenaciously, with most shrinkage occurring within its main body via shrinkage cracks.
That's why great care is usually taken to coat the formwork with 'releasing' agents so that it can be stripped away fairly easily.
If one were worried, or had experiences of the concrete shrinking from it's mould.......one could ensure the internal face of the cylindrical mould was coated with a rough epoxy film to which the concrete would cling.
You actually pre-empted another design I had which was for exposed concrete armpods.
In this case, the metal cylinders would not be permanent formwork, but would be coated with form-release agents so that after initial cure took place, the concrete could be released from its mould by a hammer tap to its top or bottom. This would allow many pods to be cast from the same mould and even pods of different heights to be cast.
The bare exposed surface of the concrete pod cylinder could then be left 'as-is'......or painted as one wished. |
Hi Chris,
I believe you may have found the cheapest machine shop in the world?
$48 for four solid stainless steel legs including machining them to their points?
Simply amazing......cheaper than concrete perhaps?
The only thing that bothers me about them is their stability?
If you hold the turntable firmly with two hands......are you able to twist it back and forwards?
If so...... I suspect there could easily be movement of the deck when the motor is operational?
It will be interesting to hear your thoughts on the differences to the AT footers? |
|
Hi Chris,
I get more feedback when I yell at the dog than I do from the cartridge :^) |
On a serious level.......it is often difficult to isolate 'structure-borne' feedback form 'air-borne' as the 'air-borne' feedback can be absorbed into the equipment rack or floorboards and thus mutate into 'structure-borne' feedback affecting your system.
If the feedback increases as your volume increases.....this can identify the problem. |
I believe that Pryso and In_shore are correct in the fact that the air-borne sound pressure levels, affect the room's fabric to different degrees depending on their materials and structural means of support.
This transforms into 'structure-borne' feedback affecting the turntable depending on it's construction and isolation.
'Sprung' decks, because of this, are more susceptible to this feedback than 'mass-loaded' ones. |
Nick_sr,
The approach you describe is a common one and has been in use by different manufacturers for decades.
This thread is simply proposing a differing approach albeit one which still maintains the geometrical relationship between tonearm and turntable.
No-one here believes movement in that relationship, should be tolerated? |
Hi Nick_sr,
The Copernican view of the armpod and tonearm as the centre of the turntable system, is predicated on the fact that the armpod is an 'immovable' object.
How that is achieved is open to debate.
I prefer to see mass (and plenty of it) concentrated on 3 spikes which would be equivalent to tons per sq in 'digging' into the supporting shelf.
You would be surprised how difficult this is to move without lifting the pod off one or more spikes. And that is how the correct Spindle to Pivot distance is accomplished......by tiny lifts and nudges of the armpod.
Until you try it you won't believe how easy it is and how accurately it can be achieved.
As you correctly say........isolating the tonearm from any motor noise or platter vibration is a huge benefit and can only be achieved in this way for Direct Drive and Idler design TT. Belt-drives can have (and often do) their motors isolated from the platter and plinth via a separate module.
The degree of stability and ease of set-up is something that differs with each solution and is something you quite rightly point out. |
Dear Jonathan,
We all, I believe, value your contributions to these forums.......I know I certainly do.
And I recognise that you must have vast experience in listening to audio systems of all types.
You should appreciate that most of to us here, also have many years of experience in listening to various systems belonging to other audiophiles as well as those in dealer's listening rooms and also hi-Fi shows so that our 'hearing' is conditioned by all those experiences and also more importantly, live music performances.
It is thus a little puzzling to think that you actually believe we are perhaps listening to distortions without somehow knowing it?
I have listened during a period of 2 years to a Rockport Sirius III turntable with your own quite good Olympos cartridge :^) and over the last 4 years, have regularly listened to a Continuum Caliburn with Cobra and again.....your modest Olympos.
I have heard hundreds of systems in rooms far far better than mine and have continually monitored my sound against all of these.
My room is not ideally designed with regard to equipment placement as you quite rightly point out but some of us have no other choices without a dedicated listening room.
One thing my room does have......is a wonderful acoustic volume with a ceiling raking up to a height of 18 feet. If you've ever heard what room 'volume' can do for your sound, you'd select that over most other parameters I believe.
My point is that the sound emanating from my system is compared to that of the finest sources, amplification and speakers commercially available and I believe that I can detect 'distortions' as well as you or anyone else.
The greatest changes I've heard to my sound over the last 2 years is in fact in the reduction of distortions from the turntable.
Some of this results from the isolated armpods (I do still play the Raven AC-3 for comparison) but the major reduction in analogue distortions to my ears, has been the switch to MM cartridges over LOMCs.
I can hear high frequency distortion in most of the LOMCs regardless of the arm, turntable or set-up.
Now you obviously do not hear these distortions so I'm not sure that a meaningful discussion between us on that topic is achievable :^(
Having said all that......there are those who prefer DD to Belt Drive and others who prefer Idlers. As I've said before.......I find far greater differences in cartridges than in drive type and I admire those who claim to hear those differences.
I can't stand the distortions I hear in digital reproduction yet most here, can happily live with them?
We all are different and all our experiences are valid.
I've also learnt that 'blanket' statements regarding audio are commonly wrong?
This is a 'discussion' Forum and the more we have.....the more we can possibly learn. |
Raul makes a reasonable point.
Whilst it is in our 'audiophile' nature to be skeptical and delve into philosophical discussions regarding our understanding of the playback system, there has not been one report from those who have actually tried the isolated armpod, which casts doubt on it's benefits?
In the interests of proper discussion it would be worthwhile if anyone has had contrary experience, for them to hopefully contribute their findings in this Forum?
In the absence of any dissenting personal experience, it is hard to accept seriously, the views of the naysayers?
And I know Lew.........too many question marks? :^) |
Dear T_bone,
Go on........try it. You know you want to :^)
You have the TTs ( a plethora)...I provided a recipe for a cheap armpod.....you have the arms.....and you really want to prove it doesn't work. You're the perfect candidate.......well, you AND Lewm....to be converted?
Imagine the mental exercise to be enjoyed IF.........your ears tell you something your brain cannot yet compute? :^) |
Dear Nicola,
A very insightful thought.
I also wonder the same thing?
On another topic......why are you selling your SAEC tonearm? |
