Dear Thuchan: Well, maybe not. Yes, I understand that the very high price makes a lot of noise in audio customers but: what if that high cost/price is worth of it?. I'm not saying that the Onedof is worth that price who knows but price is something relative and depends on many factors around.
Banquo363, good move: I hope he can join us here, welcome!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm/Thuchan: The 150K on this TT is no different from amplifiers on that price range and those amplifiers looks more deceptive than this Onedof.
Could an audio item justify 150K+ price tag?, certainly it can. Could any one of us justify those 150K+ in an audio item?, again certainly yes.
On one side there are a lot of hidden work on an honest audio item design during the research on that design and during its different kind of tests ( scientific or subjective. ), I'm speaking in general and not taking in count each step on that audio design, as a result all these kind of main work depend on the designer's skills and how " unique " and ambitious are his targets. Many times these main work takes not months but in some cases years of hard work because it is not only that the designer already has the design " finished " but the whoile project has several " stages " and each one represent research and tests, example: Aleks choosed aluminum 6061T6, do you think this was at random or just comparing through internet? , certainly not as Aleks posted he made analysis and I assume against other materials.
This is only an example but like this design/build audio item stage there are a lot more that ask for the same quality of researcg and tests proccess.
Now, it is not only that the design can fulfil designer targets ( mechanical, electrical or the like. ) but that the design can fulfil customer expectatives for the price tag.
In the past corporation like Mathusita-Panasonic took 9-10 engineers and given to design/build the Technics SP-10 or the EPC-100CMK4 and this corporation not only gives the task but gives them all and any kind of resources to acomplish the product.
Please ask Aleks or almost any today audio item designer where are all those human, tools and $$$$ to fulfil his design: there is almost no one resource other than the designer positive " emotion " and stand alone skills. In many ways the today audio items designers works as artesans more than as a corporate " figure ".
Yes, some way or the other money has to fluence to these kind of manufacturers.
Hopw can we think that this or that high price tag audio item is worth that price?, only when we hear/heard in our system against other similar audio products or in any other controled environment audio system.
Till this moment I give Aleks the dude benefit. We all are not rookies and I don't think Aleks target through that Onedof was to deceit us, I think is very difficult to deceit people with audio/music deep experiences like all of you: so the Onedof could have " something " to say on playback.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Banquo363: Thank you again, very enlightly.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " agree that the perfect turntable has not yet appeared.....or at least I have not heard it? " +++++
perfect TT?, it does not exist and never will. What could appear time to time are TTs that already shorten the " perfect long road " like the Onedof or the Wave Kinetics or the Continnum: you can choose.
Many of you speak about speed stability and speed accuracy along TT isolation as main factors to improve in TTs design but IMHO someway or the other ( even with after market solutions for the isolation subject. ) all those subject are already " done " and today normally are truly solved and IMHO none of these subjects preclude to have and hear top quality performance from the LPs, at least these subjects has almost no influence to bad performances.
Of course that always exist the possibilities to improve about but IMHO what the overall TT design needs are designs that can change " dramatic " the today top level quality performance: the needs not only to perform at the top with what is in the market but " something " that outperforms by a wide margin/dramatically the today TT performance status.
There are alternatives to do that because there are some TT design areas that needs a lot more effort.
Two of these areas to improve are: power supply and TT build materials that are on designers's hands to decide about.
Power supply design ccould " sounds " something plain and simple for any designer but it is not you need very specific skills to design the " perfect " power supply for your TT.
I can't remember if was with the Brickman or Raven TT designs where I read that changing the stock TT ac power suply design for a battery powered unit the TT performance " enhanced ": this could be if you have a " wrong " power suply design because when the ps design is right on target a battery powered one can't beat it.
This example is the same for electronics audio devices designs. We know this because during our Phonolinepreamp design the first prototypes were battery powered till our ac design beat it.
The other area about TT build material is no more simple and in some ways very complex due to many factors involve and its relationship when we talk about build materials. Till today there are " designs " but no one I know already addressed succesfuly the build material subject and for what I " see " around there is no single road or a trend with that subject.
I'm not on TT design ( yet ) but one thing is for sure I have the main solution to that TT build materials that could change " dramatically " the word TT and I found out almost by " accident " through our tonearm design project. As a fact we already tested and is way promising.
If I was a TT designer I will put my main " research " and tests mainly on these two TT design main " characteristics " ( ps and build materials. ) that if the designer has success will can to begin to write a " new " TT design history.
Till then IMHO what we will see in the near future are more new TT designs that could be better in this or that performance area but with out change in " dramatic " way that TT quality performance.
I hope I'm wrong and tomorrow appear the " perfect " one because this is what our beloved analog hobby needs for " wake up " of its long long lethargy.
I'm not diminish in any way any single TT designer, all of them deserve my respect.
Btw, Henry you need to listen the SME 30/2 that IMHO is a top performer and till today I never read of any customer with any single compliant about speed stability or isolation or almost any other kind of compliant. Here you can read a review of the original 30 model and you can read there how SME handle the Dover concern about this type of TT designs:
http://www.sme.ltd.uk/content/Model-302-The-Absolute-Sound-1457.shtml
and always can read from SME directly:
http://www.sme.ltd.uk/content/Model-302-1314.shtml
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: I can tell you why the SME 30 is a top performer. Please let us know why it is not, if you are complaining about then you have specific reasons to did that. Thank's in advance for your answer.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dgob: Yes that makes a rewarded difference. The TTs and the motor are atop those pneumatic footers.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: This is what we appreciate you answer because you are making serious statement against the SME 30/2 and it obvious for us that that statement coming from you must have strong and specific reasons on its quality performance level against other like the ones you own:
++++ " Please let us know why it is not, if you are complaining about then you have specific reasons to did that. Thank's in advance for your answer. " +++++
as you can read I'm not the only person that are waiting for your answer, Peterayer and certainly other SME owners are waiting for.
Again, thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: Please don't put words/statements in my " mouth " that I never said. I never stated that is my " benchmark " for TT or that is my " King of TT in my opinion ".
This is what I posted:
++++ " Henry you need to listen the SME 30/2 that IMHO is a top performer and till today I never read of any customer with any single compliant about speed stability or isolation or almost any other kind of compliant. " +++++
so instead to posting that kind of false statements give us the specifics reasons why the SME30 is not a top performer ( along other TTs. ).
I know for sure that you have no specific answers because today you are a different Thuchan that the one that you was motnhs/years ago when you stated: " hey I'm not part of that german group ".
Obviously today you are full and deep contaminated and as you say: if that works for you fine.
+++++ " if you are thinking the SME 30/2 is a top performer I am wondering why you are not going for it. " +++++
the main reason is because when I bought my two AS and the RX5000 I need it to mount 10 tonearms to test my cartridges and try to match it with the better tonearm where the cartridge performs the better. The SME 20/30 can't give the " facilities " to achieve that target.
For your last post it is obvious that you don't know almost nothing on the SME design characteristics and operation.
Where your RX8000/SX8000 and mine RX5000 needs a damping/antivibration plattform to " seat it " the SME needs nothing at all, the SME self TT isolation works as you or any of your TT can even " dream ". You can dance ( and I mean it ) a top the rack where the SME 30 is seated with out no single disturbance to the LP playback that you can detect over the speakers.
The MSs are one of the worst TTs on this main TT target design characteristics.
This great isolation job that SME attain remember me one old Denon DP-100 TT demostration/show where the Denon dealer " put " one of his employees a top the metal top TT plinth during playback with no disturb about. This kind of isolation is what a cartridge ask for and that those MS just can't do it it does not matters what you do or did about.
The SME 30 has one of the best power supply designs ( if not the best. ) out there nothing like that so poor MS PS design. I know very well the MS PS design that I have to re-design ( not change parts that does not help when you have a wrong design. ) in my unit and the 1500 and 8000 are the same, maybe the SZ could be better but I don't know.
The SME30 speed stability and speed accuracy is well beyond on what your MS can shows, these ones are far away from there.
The best for the last:
the SME 20/30 designs certainly does not belongs to the heavy weight/mass TT approach that IMHO is a wrong approach just from start, I mean here that TT ( vintage/today ) designers from this school already trespass the limits where heavy weight/mass works in favor of the design ( mainly to help with speed stability. ) where after those limits that additional mass/weight not only does/can not help but goes in detriment/degradation of the whole quality performance level.
The more disturbing on this heavy weight/mass school is that you can ask to any designer why he decided that the platter or plinth be of 100 kg and he does not have a specific and scientific answer and if you ask him why 100 kg and not 60kg. or 120kg: he does not know!, just choosed with almost no " engeneering " there.
I ask in this thread about to that TT that will have a 110lbs in the platter and no answer at all.
That BD TT on the heavy mass/weight school are very good looking " boys " for audio childrens/rockies that say: " hey, it weights 200 kgs. and cost 70K dollars, this has to be a great top TT performer. " with out to think that does 200 kgs. generate energy rotational energy that generate vibrations tiny ones that the cartridge take it. As more heavy as worst the problem and as worst the distorions that degrade the cartridge signal.
All these guys that " die for " this kind of TT not only does not ask their self about but where goes all that rotational energy generated by the TT? could be damped in effective way? how comes? how much? and before could be dampened/dissipated where goes, because on playback there are cycles to go and perform?
Obviously the SME people as several other TT designers ( Sota, Project, rega, Linn, etc, etc. ) know very well this " heavy " problem that : voila! has no solution because is out of the mass/weight limits on TT designs ( Alek on the Onedof pointed about: he knows. ).
A TT is a cartridge slave and must be designed to fulfil the cartridge needs and between this needs is what the cartridge can " hear/sense " that you or me can't.
Thuchan, do you think that the Victor, Denon, Technics, Exclusive, Kenwood, Monaco, TTs sounds so good only because are DD ones?, certainly not: a common denominator to all of them is that are " anemic " designs where is more easy to disippate/damp the TT energies/self vibrations.
Do you know what stress level " suffer " a heavy weight TT bearing against an " anemic " design? and do you know what this means?
The " sad " thing here is to see the Wave Kinetics DD that is taking that high mass/weight road, I hope that design be inside the mass/weight limits.
Yes, these " anemic " designs are IMHO more neutral and with lower distortions than the heavy ones. That you like it the heavy ones does not means are better because are not: it only fit your distortion level targets, that maybe you even don't know for sure.
I agree with Syntax statement:
++++ " most are confused when they hear a Turntable which does nothing, only spinning the record with the right speed and adds nothing into the reproduction process. A good Turntable has no sound " +++++
well, IMHO the SME 30 belongs to that " school " where those MS and other heavy ones did/do not.
I'm totally sure that we will see additional TT designs for audio childrens/roockies in the future till those designers: LEARN what a cartridge needs over their own pocket$$$$
Anyway, this is part a bad part of the AHEE.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: Useles to continue arguing with you on a subject that you just don't understand or you don't want it.
Last: where goes all that MS rotational energy with its generated vibrations/distortions? where to hide? under platform underneath? where and how?
When you have the precise answers to those questions then you not only could understand where are you seated right now but you will have the opportunity to look how to attain a real improvement on what you have today.
Enough.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover: I agree with you and about your Final TT I posted somewhere how the designer was so advanced on the PS design that even today many TT can't approach it.
What you said about that Sota TT mods that does not likes to some audiophiles is one of the main PROBLEMS in audio: almost no one likes accuracy/neutrality, what we like because some way or the other we are accustom to are distortions different kind of distortions and when we heard audio items with a good neutrality level we just don't like it: like Thuchan with the SME 30.
I'm supporting neutrality in this forum for the last 3-4 years and other than Syntax almost no one want to speaks about: they prefer to " go on " when IMHO the CANCER on our hobby are: DISTORTIONS/COLORATIONS and the like that came in different kind and ways and for different reasons but IMHO this Cancer has a cure a solution and this cure/solution is to look for accuracy/neutrality avoiding all kind of distortions in any single link in the audio system chain.
We have to learn how we can achieve that level of accuracy and neutrality with out lose the MUSIC emotion/feelings.
I'm in the road and still far away to achieve the target but day by day learning I'm nearest to that target.
That's why I take the job to build my phonolinepream, my tonearm and in the near future a cartridge and a TT. Why took I this kind of job?: because almost no audio device manufacturer took/take it.
I don't have any commercial targets my only one target and compromise is to honor MUSIC at home and we can't do it adding distortions and unaccuracies elsewhere the audio systems.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: Layering different materials does not means disappear and does not means even that goes lower but only different kind of vibrations/energy or frequency resonances. Yes you understand very well my point.
The Thuchan dialogue came in that tone because he is posting things I did not said and maybe because or I can't explain very clear my opinion or he understand nothing about.In his last post IMHO he shows that he are not understanding or are not reading the main subjects.
I think that when two people have different knowledge level on a subject these kind of discussion/misunderstood happen always. I can't remember when was the last time that I discuss with you in a " hot " manner.
Anyway, all these is part of the " fun/floklore ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dgob: There is no doubt that exist a scientific ( physic/mathematic and the like. ) answer for many audio phenomenons but the issue is that till today does not exist and no one already attempt to " build " an audio model that not only has all the audio factors/parameters involved when we are talking to predict for sure audio system or audio item quality performance level but that has all the interactions/relationship between those factors/parameters that have influence in that " live " performance. DT " won't go on theoretical here " because IMHO he has nothing on hand that could give you a prediction about performance sound between cartridge/headshell/tonearm and its several alternatives on weight, compliance, stylus shape, cantilever material, headshell build material, tonearm whole design, internal cable, cartridge pin connectors, cable, phono stage and the like.
The best IMHO that we can do is try different alternatives and over hundred maybe thousands of " observation " method achieve some partial conclusions.
Yes, I agree with you: that scientific " stage " almost always arrive late to the audio party, especially when we are talking of quality performance level on analog because when we are talking of electronic designs the scientific " stage/path " is the first guest to arrive. So depend of waht we are talking about and what we want to know and with what level of consistence and accuracy. I'm with the scientific " road " always that can be use it and always when is " practical/workable ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear friends: Another stand alone tonearm arm board in another " children luxury " that like the Onedof came with tree BD. If you ask for the price then this is not for you: can't afford it.
This is the " beauty " of the BD ( commercial succe$$. ): good looking, heavy and pricey because the customer can " see " where his money goes against a DD alternative that has less drawbacks but looks " normal ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: You posted...........+++++ " I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. " +++++
so, as always: end of discussion with no arguments. I was waiting something more from you and I think Peterayer too.
I think that maybe is time to start a new thread to analize the whole subject.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: As you said different drive TT systems works depending on implementation and even more important than that: depending on the designer targets. Yes,, there are options other than the commercial ones for TT designs and the hybrid always is an alternative.
IMHO the main subject is not that designers does not looks to other solutions but that almost all are luking the TT as an stand alone item.
Today almost all the main/normal TT targets are accomplish one way or the other. speed accuracy, speed stability where we have specs/figures here ( from many years and today TT samples. ) as low 0.001% ( Walker Rocport, Technics, Denon, etc. ), with wow&fluter as low 0.007% ( Audio Turntable ) or signal to noise ratio/rumble at 90db to over 100+db almost undetectable ( Technics, Rockport Avid, Clearaudio, Walker, etc, etc. ).
So IMHO these subjects are already ( I posted several times. ) well covered from the point view of measurements. As always there is land to improve but whom of you can detect for example a TT with a speed stability accuracy of 0.001% against the same TT that measure 0.0003%?
IMHO a TT designer after fulfil the " normal " targets the main target is to fulfil the cartridge needs and I mean it.
This IMHO is where I think exist a " long land " to explore and I think and hope that in the future the TT advance that we could " see " will address the " fulfil cartridge needs " and what this really means.
Now, +++++ " The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. " +++++
even that I talked on the SME 30/2 I will take your 20/2 statement and the first question is: is it not what we are looking for in a TT? a DEAD SILENCE TT design that does not add nothing to the cartridge performance and that does not take out nothing to the cartridge/groove tracking performance.
Why need we a TT with " dynamic, power, vibrant and the like " performance characteristics?, I don't want it, my target is only that the cartridge take the 100% of the information in the grooves with out no single " factors " that could disturb its job in anyway. Same for the tonearm.
IMHO several differences between this and that and the other TT came mainly ( I'm speaking on good/decent designs, any drive system. ) the way each TT DISTURB the cartridge work. Same for tonearm. Is here where differences on performance begin and appear and not because example: 150db SN against " only " 98db.
That you like it how the TT DISTURB the cartridge job that does not means is right but only that you like those type of colorations against more accurate/neutral designs and there is nothing wrong with that: it is your previlege and your audio way of living.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: I would like to add what I posted several times:
the TT is only a cartridge's slave and some designers did not took in count yet and its designs were and will be TT designs where the TT is the star.
IMHO this is part main part why we have and will have what we have about. I'm sure that when TT designers be in focus that what they are designing is important only if that design helps to fulfil the cartridge job. Same for the tonearm: other slave.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear friends: This is the link that I forgot to posted in my 10-14-11 ( " another stand alone tonearm. ):
http://www.ttweights.com/momentus_duo_drive.html
R. |
Dear Dgob: Good, the 100CMK4 is very good performer.
In the other subject certainly was not addressed by him. Please re-read my post about and if you want to discuss off line then we can do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear pryso: Yes, you understand what I posted about and yes the same " condition " could be extensive to other audio links as you pointed out.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: As you said different drive TT systems works depending on implementation and even more important than that: depending on the designer targets. Yes,, there are options other than the commercial ones for TT designs and the hybrid always is an alternative.
IMHO the main subject is not that designers does not looks to other solutions but that almost all are luking the TT as an stand alone item.
Today almost all the main/normal TT targets are accomplish one way or the other. speed accuracy, speed stability where we have specs/figures here ( from many years and today TT samples. ) as low 0.001% ( Walker Rocport, Technics, Denon, etc. ), with wow&fluter as low 0.007% ( Audio Turntable ) or signal to noise ratio/rumble at 90db to over 100+db almost undetectable ( Technics, Rockport Avid, Clearaudio, Walker, etc, etc. ).
So IMHO these subjects are already ( I posted several times. ) well covered from the point view of measurements. As always there is land to improve but whom of you can detect for example a TT with a speed stability accuracy of 0.001% against the same TT that measure 0.0003%?
IMHO a TT designer after fulfil the " normal " targets the main target is to fulfil the cartridge needs and I mean it.
This IMHO is where I think exist a " long land " to explore and I think and hope that in the future the TT advance that we could " see " will address the " fulfil cartridge needs " and what this really means.
Now, +++++ " The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. " +++++
even that I talked on the SME 30/2 I will take your 20/2 statement and the first question is: is it not what we are looking for in a TT? a DEAD SILENCE TT design that does not add nothing to the cartridge performance and that does not take out nothing to the cartridge/groove tracking performance.
Why need we a TT with " dynamic, power, vibrant and the like " performance characteristics?, I don't want it, my target is only that the cartridge take the 100% of the information in the grooves with out no single " factors " that could disturb its job in anyway. Same for the tonearm.
IMHO several differences between this and that and the other TT came mainly ( I'm speaking on good/decent designs, any drive system. ) the way each TT DISTURB the cartridge work. Same for tonearm. Is here where differences on performance begin and appear and not because example: 150db SN against " only " 98db.
That you like it how the TT DISTURB the cartridge job that does not means is right but only that you like those type of colorations against more accurate/neutral designs and there is nothing wrong with that: it is your previlege and your audio way of living.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: Things states as is: because was in that way you " don't care " and " you do not prefer ".
Nothing change: end of discussion, that's all .
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Peter: That's what I will try in an overall way and not on SME specific.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: When some one say: " I like it " " I don't like it ", any opportunity to go on is out: subjective answers almost always dtermine the end of the subject discussion and that's what you did and that's what you do almost all the time. Nothing wrong with that.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
|
Dear Halcrop: Not big deal. A design mistake in the Raven means only that but I think that's not the rule. I just checked ( because your post ) my two AS that use three arm boards each one cantilevered type atached at the down plate of the plinth: all six arm boards are leveled with the platter and plinth and the motor too.
The Lewm statement about in theory is absolute right, things are is that our ears can't perceive any " error/distortions " with our stand alone arm board/towers. Such is life.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Agree. Btw, the problem with the MS 5000/8000 is that the cantilevered arm boards came with a screw to fix it and there there is a " play/loose " between the arm board hold hole and the tube where the arm board be fix it and if the owner don't check how the arm board was fix it chances are that is out of platter level. Micro Seiki is IMHO a bad TT design, I don't use it any more but other people " die for it ". Such is life.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " So you prefer the platter and tonearm to vibrate homogeneously?
In my system
.I prefer them not to vibrate at all? " +++++
of course that we prefer not to vibrate at all but this is only in a perfect world.
The TT always vibrate/resonates and the stand alone tonearm board too bacause tehre is no way to isolate 100% of where is seated or for what is surrounded. As a fact the tonearm/cartridge are in continuous vibration way.
You said that air borne feedback does not exist on stand alone tonearm towers but you don't have any test that could prove it. I don't have on hand but exist studies that proves that every single system and especially the analog source is affected by air borne feedback.
Maybe at very high SPL we can't detect it because that high SPL but exist no doubt about. Yes, the cartridge is more sensitive to that air borne feedback.
In the other side you have to take in count that the cartridge is extremely sensitive to tiny very tiny microscopic motions that for us are non-detectable but this IMHO does not means does not exist because exist.
The ships/water example by Lewm is very good and self explained to be against stand alone tonearms towers.
The problem is that what " happen " in theory unfortunatelly in this regards can't be duplicated in our systems so we are unaware of it and unaware of any single sound degradation coming from that subject.
I know you are a wise person and there is useless to ignore something that exist and ignore it because we can't here it.
I promoted the stand alone tonearm towers years ago and still think is the best way to go till exist a better way to isolate from the TT the tonearm/cartridge unit.
In this same thread I speak very clear about what that UNIT means and why is the cartridge the King and all other links the slaves. The UNIT is not the King as it's not IMHO the tonearm.
A tonearm design goes around from the begin to satisfy the cartridge needs not the other way around. That the tonearms designs don't take that statement at 100% does not means those designs are right.
Example, today and in the past people/designers/reviewers suddenly vote for the 12" tonearms against 9"-10". IMHO the 12" makes more harm than help to the cartridge works.
A cartridge between other things moves in the grooves at random for the tonearm with suddenly direction changes where the tonearm has to be and has to has a fast response on what the cartridge is asking for, a longer tonearm respond slower than a shorter one ( everything the same. ) so the longer tonearm goes against the cartridge needs and can't fulfil those needs where a shorter one makes it in better way.
There are many other disadvantages and the " only " in theory advantage that a longer tonearm has is that the tracking error is lower but is only in theory.
In other threads we already discuss about and the real subject is that no one can hear the difference for the better because a tonearm is longer.
But as this " stupid " myth there are many in audio.
The tonearm and cartridhe form a UNIT but the tonearm is a slave of the cartridge and the real King. Just an opinion.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover: ++++ " the Record is King " +++++
agree, here or in other trhread I posted that but because we can't almost do nothing to modify or improve what is recorded I don't take it in count as part of the analog rig hardware , so next in line the cartridge.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear halcro: Can you hear the gravity?. Now, today many audiophiles ignore/don't use antiskating but we know is necessary even that some of us " think " the quality performance is better with out AS.
There are several distortions ( different kind 9 that surround the audio system and that are generated by the audio system but at so low level or so higher frequencies that we can't detected or at least we are unaware of it.
Take two IC cables or speaker ones or power cords, normally the better shielded likes us more and we could think because are bettter cooper or silver build material or whatever but it is more normal that are better to reject noise polulation: emi, rf and the like that exist even if we can heard it and I can say we can but we can't identify it.
Of course I'm with science.
Btw, do you already buy the Dyna 13D?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear halcro: Seems to me that now you are discussing only to discuss with no real target.
You can hera the gravity force what you are hearing is the cartridge. Never mind.
The average tracking error in a Löfgren A alignment on a 10.5" tonearm is 0.359% and the in a 12" tonearm is 0.3097% and the difference in between is: 0.049%.
Other than a bat can hear the distotion difference on playing records. Well, we can't hear it but exist.
I think is useless to follow posting here with your last days attitude.
Maybe all need a little fresh air.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear halcro: Seems to me that now you are discussing only to discuss with no real target.
You can hera the gravity force what you are hearing is the cartridge. Never mind.
The average tracking error in a Löfgren A alignment on a 10.5" tonearm is 0.359% and the in a 12" tonearm is 0.3097% and the difference in between is: 0.049%.
Other than a bat can hear the distotion difference on playing records. Well, we can't hear it but exist.
I think is useless to follow posting here with your last days attitude.
Maybe all need a little fresh air.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " With the big Micro Seiki's, and since we are all about building new or modifying original products to suit our beliefs and desires, isn't is possible to get around their perceived problems with the armboard mount by using (i) an outboard armpod, or (ii) a modification of the original cantilevered design? Since those tables reportedly have many virtues (never heard one myself), wouldn't this be worth the effort? " +++++
I don't think is worth the effort because the MS RX-5000/8000 has more defects than virtues on design, IMHO is a faulty TT design and other that good lokking because the shiny weigthy golden platters there is nothing to admire but its marketing.
The design comes with out any TT isolation for external internal resonances/vibrations, anything goes and stay inside degrading the audio signal. The heavy platters ring like a bell, MS choosed to seat the cantilevered arm boards exactly at the plinth footers where these footers has no isolation and everything is transmited to those arm boards, the motor came from Matushita but the control circuit not only has poor parts but not a good design.
I bought mine because I was a newbie/roockie with the MS TTs that have behind an unjustified fame but we audiophiles are " believers ".
Today I really don't use it any more, I learned on those MS TTs.
Other persons " die for it ", well they like the MS distortions: not me any more.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @downunder : The JC reference always was the SZ-1, he is in love with Micro Seiki. This TT more than a piece of enginnering " art " is a piece of machined " art ". Micro Seiki is not my " cup of tea ", to many design problems with.
Taking in count the JC prefrence for the MS designs is not " weird " that he is testing the mediocrity of the TT1000 that’s a MS design and builded by MS not Marantz. There are nothing that can tell us TT1000 is a must to have especially that Marantz choosed to use glass on the platter and even in the plinth, glass is way way resonant material and " forbidden " to use it in a TT.
In the other side and even that’s a DD its measures are really poor but you can pull the trigger for it.
Is out of my mind JC choose ( ? ) in the Marantz and if he modified other than use the carbon fiber mat that a little less resonant than the glass but resonant at the end. Yes, JC priorities/targets are different from the ones of some of us.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
