A Copernican View of the Turntable System

If the discussion presents dissent as well as assent, yes. Assent only, not so useful.

Agree entirely Jonathan. Keep it coming :^)
Regards
Henry

Oh Jonathan,
I forgot......I took your advice and found an FR-5 MM cartridge and about 6 months later with Nandric's help, I found a 5e stylus and.....after supergluing the top-piece of the cartridge to the bottom ( there was significant swivelling there:^()......it sounds wonderful fixed to a Yamamoto HS-1AS headshell riding on an SAEC-308N tonearm parked beside the TT-81.
I believe it IS better than the FR-6SE as you said.
Thanks for the tip:^)
Cheers
Henry

You can quantify the difference by making a high-bit recording of your turntable without the speakers playing, and with speakers playing at your customary listening levels, and compare the two files. If you put the two files through a program such as DiffMaker by LIberty Instruments, it is possible to extract the difference component and listen to it as a distinct "distortion" track.

Not sure why you would want to do this?
Listening through a fine set of headphones with a great amp will remove all the room effects, the equipment positioning effects, the 'supposed' air-borne feedback effects as well as all conjectural problems regarding speakers.
When I listen through the Audeze LCD2 headphones through the Schiit Lyr headphone amp I hear no reduction in distortions compared to my speaker/room/equipment interface.Rather, through my speakers/room/equipment interface I hear exactly the same spectrum of sound quality as through the headphones with an added air, transparency, depth, bass impact, instrument positioning and emotional content.
There are no theoretical arguments which can turn 'black' into 'white'.
I don't doubt the experiences of others.......I expect the same respect for mine. :^)

Dear Nandric,
Thank you 'brother' :-)
However I'm a little perturbed about playing a game about "...who is right.."?
I believe that most of us here, have many and varied experiences which combine to create a 'direction' and a 'solution' to their audio aspirations.
The fact that I choose a belt-drive turntable (and subsequently a DD one) does not, for an instant, presume to me that those who choose an idler are 'wrong'.
I don't believe (in my theory) that 'sprung' turntables are the right way to correctly retrieve information from a vinyl record yet I acknowledge that in some circumstances, such devices overcome their theoretical limitations and provide immense enjoyment for their adherents.
In other words, I prefer an 'inclusive' theory rather than an 'exclusive' theory regarding system choices.

Dear Lewm,
If you read some of my posts, you will see that far from wishing you to cry 'uncle'.....I sincerely hope that you or others may try this theory and cry....'nay'.
But in doing so.......tell us specifically why and how it is failing.
As Raul so often begs.....give us examples of this 'movement' or 'distortion' so that we, who have invested in this methodology, may avoid those pitfalls.
So far, no one who has actually tried the isolated armpods, has highlighted a real, and repeatable deficiency?.....one we can all test or improve upon?

Dear Raul,
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I certainly don't claim my system is 'Perfect'.....far from it. I have not heard one that is.
But like you, I am astounded that what I hear through the Audeze LCD2 is as near to 'perfectly corresponding' tonally and in detail to my speakers in my poorly laid-out listening environment.
There is not a single 'revelation' I hear through the headphones that I cannot also hear through the speakers.
No tremulous triangle shimmering behind the orchestra....no slurred or muffled words that suddenly through the headset become descipherable.
There is NOTHING that the headphones produce that I can't hear as well......or better......through my speakers.

Finally, I can't help but feel that all this talk of 'distortions'.....by you Raul and also by Jonathan.....without a single example which any of us can test.....is, as Nandric and Dgob would tell you (I hope).....a smokescreen that smacks of superiority?
"There are distortions (trust me)....and if you can't hear them, your ears or systems are inadequate, but I can hear them and I can tell you what they are and where they are!"
As you often say to others Raul (and I'm with you on this :-)........tell me, show me, describe to me, what these distortions are and provide examples on specific tracks on specific records so that we....the cloth-eared ones....may hear and understand what you are describing.
Otherwise, as others have already said, these are just words....words.....words.

Hi Shane,

I think Jasper being polite as he always is, is telling you to get a new wall shelf :-) One that does not sag.

Unfortunately, physics and gravity are phenomena we just have to live with :^)
I had toyed with the idea of a Micro Seiki SX5000 or 8000........but could imagine the sounds of steel screws popping from their masonry wall plugs :^(
Fortunately.....sagging does not have an audible effect. And the coins have been replaced by hard resin footers.
How is your P3 sounding? You know that the veneered plinth is just 'decoration'? It can easily be removed. I've also wondered how it would sound with the removal of those 'feedback-prone' springs?
I suspect it would rival the best :^)
Cheers
Henry

Here is an economical way to own a nice armpod.
Buy the complete turntable for $150,000 :^)
CHEAP

Lew,
If you go to the onedof site that Banquo sent and then 'click' on 'Designer'.....you will see the price.

Thanks Banquo for all this information direct from the designer.
I'm also puzzled about some things he says....like the armpod?
The heavier the better he says and then mentions that steel is eight times heavier than aluminium and lo and behold.......he makes the armpod out of aluminium?
I also think that we have to listen to Thuchan who is the only one here who has actually heard the table?
Looking at the designer and his website and his philosophy is all well and good but in the end......the proof is in the pudding.
And Thuchan has had the desert and is not impressed :^)

Is it just me or does anyone else feel the proportions of the platter and its supporting tube look relatively unstable?
Particularly with the 3 belts tugging from one direction?

Whilst researching the Rockport Sirius III I came across this treatise written by Peter Moncreif of the International Audio Review which for me, is the best description of the 'job' (and difficulties thereof) of the turntable I have ever read.
BELT VS DD
The most stunning point he made......one which never occurred to me......was that the record itself provided only 50% of the information required to produce the music's waveform......Amplitude. The other 50% required.....the Time Domain....is provided by the turntable.
This is an unarguable fact and thus puts, I believe, the turntable firmly into the 'software' category of the analogue chain rather than in the 'Hardware' category where resides the arm-base (or pod), the arm, headshell, cables and cartridge?

Hi Dgob,
I think you re-read the bit about 'speed consistency' and wow and flutter figures.
Peter Moncreif agrees with you that these 'specifications' are easily attained but generally useless as they are 'averaged'?
It is very easy to obtain 'average' speed consistency but it is the 'instantaneous' deviations to speed caused by complex musical passages and their affect on the stylus which he states is extremely difficult to deal with?
I believe that Mike Lavigne kept his Sirius III alongside his SP10MkIII for quite a while before selling it?
Whilst the Rockport was staggering in its high-frequency performance.....my experience with it showed a lack of bottom end consistency perhaps attributed to its linear-tracking tonearm?
My current experience with the speed control on the Victor TT-101 is changing my perception of the benefits therein and so far.......without concrete refutation of Moncreif's analysis.....much of what he says rings true?
Cheers
Henry

Dear Daniel,
I think he covered that aspect of speed control pretty thoroughly?
You are simply saying.........'he's wrong, I'm right'?
You offer no evidence nor counter any of his arguments whatsoever.
This is surely not a way to convince :^)
Cheers
Henry

Dear Daniel,
At least we agree that the perfect turntable has not yet appeared.....or at least I have not heard it?
That gives some optimism for the future........your turntable? :^)
Yet it depresses me to think that for 30 years the world of analogue was diverted by the Linn LP12 and others like the SOTA which effectively rendered useless the wonderful state of the art that had been reached in the 70s and 80s with the big Micros and EMTs and the now re-discovered great DDs of the Japanese giants?
If audiophiles are happy with the failings of poorly understood sprung belt-
drives......is there really hope for the future?

Peterayer,
I have never heard an SME table of any kind in a known/controlled environment so cannot answer your specific question.
In principle, I am against any turntable which sits on 'springs' as this almost certainly invites the turntable to 'move'.....possibly laterally as well as vertically?
All belt drives which have a solid foundation at least have a chance of extracting some reasonable information from the grooves. This includes the Raven AC-3.

Hi Thuchan,
I agree with you about Mark Doehmann and Continuum.
A serious turntable indeed...........and not a spring in sight :^)
Cheers
Henry

Dear Nandric,

Dear Halcro, Your opininon re 'springs' imply that those
expensive AT footers under DDTT make no sense?

I think that even the worst turntables seem to magically produce 'music' from the grooves.......even those on springs when there is no structure-borne feedback to upset them into vertical and lateral movement.
A really good turntable is revealed when it is under 'stress'........full orchestral climaxes at maximum volume with top cartridges and arms.
Just like a family saloon will impress while leisurely pottering around the city but comes undone negotiating tight bends at speed?
I have voiced my reservations about 'squashy' supports under the 'nude' turntables and Chris is currently experimenting with different ones so we shall see?
Cheers

Dear Daniel,
I believe that the Minus K stands are designed to prevent any movement whatsoever?
From what I can understand...they are 'tuned' to the weight of the equipment placed upon them and when loaded.......I don't believe that you can make the turntable wobble or move? Is this correct?
Regards
Henry

Dover,
I agree wholeheartedly with you about wall hung shelves for mounting turntables.
They eliminate most of the structure-borne feedback problems which can damage the performance of even the best designed turntables.
I believe even Dertonarm agrees with us on this?
If you read the last page of the latest TAS in an interview with Peter Ledermann of Soundsmith.......he was asked for his most important tips for good audio.
A sturdy wall shelf.... was his answer.
And yes.......a concrete slab on the ground (not suspended).....is far better than a suspended wood floor in resisting structure-borne sound transmission.

Dear Raul,
Thank you for those Links......interesting.
OK.....in the face of some good arguments and experienced listeners I have opened my mind to the possibility of good turntables of the suspended variety?
I really need to hear the top line SME 30/2 sometime?

Hi Brad,
Thanks for the link.
Whilst it looks quite simple........it requires some quite refined DIY skills for the home handyman?
The many connections of metal to wood provide severe hinderances to rigidity however.
Solidity, mass and rigidity are the three requirements 'sine qua non' for a remote armpod IMHO.
Cheers

Brad,
It is almost impossible to achieve a 'moment' connection between wood and metal (especially the way shown in that armpod).
Without this 'moment' connection.....movement between the wood and metal is a given....ergo....no rigidity here.
If one were to grab the top of this pod with one hand and the bottom with the other and twist back and forwards.......you would appreciate the movement induced.

Brad,

Halcro, your a tough cookie when an idea is presented that is not yours.

Sorry you feel that way. I thought this Forum was an exchange of ideas and information?
I studied structural engineering for 5 years as part of the Architecture course and for 40 years worked on a daily basis with some of the best structural engineers in the country including Arup Assoc who did the Sydney Opera House.
Structural design involves physics, mechanics, material proerties, geometry, maths, trigonometry and even algebra.
Advanced structural design is not often 'intuitive' and can rarely be interpreted by lay people.
When you present a design which I see has obvious structural flaws.....I am attempting to prevent those who might see this solution as viable....from making a mistake? Nothing more....nothing less.
And the added lead ballast to the lower section of the pod actually does little to increase the mass of the pod at the arm connection point. But I won't rain on your parade by explaining the reasons :-)
And c'mon......the asparagus tin jibe?
But just for interest's sake.....there is more structural integrity in an unopened asparagus tin than in that armpod.

Lew, rigidity (aka-stability) does not assure transmission of vibrations from the shelf into the pod. A constrained layer pod can be rigid and stable yet repel vibrations.
However I think it best to decouple vibration from the shelf via the footers or spikes under the pod.

Oh c'mon D,
You know you're dying to chime in?
High-mass platters anyone?
Cheers
Henry

I have been asked by Thuchan to load some images of the TechDAS Airforce1 taken by J. Carr.
Although this turntable appears to be diametrically opposite to the Copernican view of the turntable system......I attach these images here for interested comments
TECHDAS
More to follow :-)

More photos of the DAS taken by J. Carr
DAS 1
DAS 2
DAS 3
DAS 4
DAS 5

Hi In_shore,
I am one of the few listeners who could never really understand the hype and general acclimation surrounding the Phantom II?
I had it mounted on the big Raven for more than a year and found that its performance was exceeded on LOMCs by my Grandezza 12" Ref and Copperhead. The XV-1s was the only cartridge where it had a slight edge.
The FR-64s and FR-66s also sound more coherent IMHO, with LOMCs as well as MMs.
The killer for the Phantom II (at least for me)......was that with high compliance MM cartridges (which account for the bulk of my collection).....it was an embarrassing performer?
I sold it without regrets.

Dear Thuchan,
I'm excited to hear about your ideas for a wall-mounted shelf for one or more of your turntables.
I can almost guarantee that you will be happy with the results :^)
You also inspired me about trying a Minus K stand under the Raven......and Mark Doehmann is making one up for me to try?
We are both in for some interesting listening in the future it seems?

In_ shore,
I don't quite understand how an arm can be a bad match for a turntable......unless it is a heavy arm or unipivot on a suspended deck?
But then.....suspended decks have never been my cups of tea?
Can you possibly explain why you think an arm can be a mismatch for a particular turntable?

That's a clever idea Dover.
Thanks :-)

It's been a while since this thread was active and whilst browsing through my Home Page I noticed that there had been 266,812 views here!!?
Wow....that's a fair bit of interest?

I've been doing some thought recently on the arguments some (particularly Lewm and Dover) have put forward against the separation of platter/plinth and armboards....and the perceived benefits of having all these items inextricably 'linked' by a rigid structure?
The argument (as I understand it) is that there is a known geometrical relationship between the spindle and the arm-pivot...and the 'plinth' reliably maintains this correct geometry?

I propose that there is no guarantee that a plinth in fact performs this feat......and even if it does......it rarely maintains the correct 'levels' of the platter and the tonearm/s bases?

I have checked (with multiple bubble levels) the absolute level of the platter and the plinth and the tonearm bases of my Raven AC-2 as well as my Rega 3 and I was quite surprised.
When I levelled the platter.....the plinth was not level and the degree it was 'out-of-level' varied over the surface of the plinth.
On the Raven.......only one of the three armboards loaded with their individual arms.....was in fact level?!
This actually makes sense if you understand the tolerances involved in making and mounting the plinths and spindle thrust bearings.
If there is only 1° tilt in the support of the thrust bearing.......and there is likely to be more....this translates directly to a 'tilt' in the platter relative to plinth.
And depending on the construction, thickness, span and quality control of the plinth fabrication.......there could be deflection, bumps or troughs?
And if you have cantilevered armboards like the big Micros and Ravens......the deflection at the end of these can be significant depending on the method of fixation to the plinth, the length of cantilever and the material and thickness of the board.
A simple challenge for all of you:-
Check the individual levels of plinth, platter and tonearm support?

With individual armpods....their levels are adjusted precisely and thus the tonearms are mounted vertically.
The unattached platter can be levelled without worrying about plinth irregularities and the geometric spindle-to-pivot distances can be accurately set using something like the Feickert metal device.
Another test worth doing for everyone with a plinth.....is to actually check the spindle to pivot dimension using the Feickert device.
My experience shows that if you get an accuracy of 1-2mm......you're doing well.
With the isolated armpods.....I can achieve accuracy of 0.1-0.2mm.

This degree of accuracy may not be an important factor as adjusting the tonearm geometry to account for this error may mitigate against adversity?

I do however maintain, that absolute level of platter and tonearms is pretty important......although those happy advocates of the big Micro turntables may prove me wrong? :-)

Thanks for that photo of the Micro armboard Syntax.
For many years I have been sceptical of the Micro Seiki method of attaching their cantilevered armboards like this as it relies purely on a friction fixing which structurally is not the best method for a cantilever.
Now however I understand that by doing it this way.......one is able to adjust the absolute 'level' of each armboard which is not possible with a fixing method like that used for the Ravens

This once again reinforces how much expertise and knowledge has been lost since the golden days of dedicated analogue companies?

Dear Raul,
You're lucky...........But as Syntax says........intelligent design and precision should eliminate the need for 'luck' in our systems?....don't you think?
Regards
Henry

Dear Lew,
For a ‘man of science’…..I am surprised by you?
You posit a phantom condition……and then proceed to create an argument and case around it.
Nikola would be less than impressed with your logic?

My argument for a fixed relationship and a physical connection between the tonearm base and the turntable bearing assembly had mostly to do with preventing motion of one relative to the other in response to external or internal sources of vibrational energy.

Preventing “motion” of one relative to the other”??
What “motion” is this exactly?
Other than a fully suspended deck (which is outside the Copernican view of this thread)…..can you please explain this “motion” and present some evidence of its existence?

You appear to equate “vibrational energy” with “relative motion”?
The most fundamental aspect of supporting a turntable system IMO…..is to create a base for it as free from “vibration” and structure-borne feedback as is possible?
If “relative motion” exists…..all bets are off….unless you are playing one on a moving vessel such as a ship, yacht, train or plane….in which case……gulp!?

If one is successful in creating a ‘mounting shelf’ free of structure-borne feedback……there should be no “vibrational energy” transmitted to the turntable system.
Air-borne feedback is rarely an issue in an audio system unless one’s cartridge is ‘microphonic’. Cartridges work by translating ‘motion’ into electrical energy whereas microphones work by translating ‘airwaves’ into electrical energy.
Many listeners assume that when they detect ‘feedback’ in their systems…..it is the result of air-borne feedback whereas it is usually existing structure-borne feedback which is amplified when the volume is turned up.
If air-borne feedback was a problem in audio……the plinth would be the least of the problem areas?
The platter would be directly affected as well as the tonearm and particularly the cartridge and stylus.
Oh….and did I mention the vinyl disc itself??
If air-borne feedback were a problem……the sound of everyone’s system would….by definition….deteriorate as the volume increased?
My system’s quality IMPROVES as the volume increases.
As I listen comfortably in my home at 90-95dB SPLs and Raul claims he can approach 100-110dB!!!….air-borne feedback is a myth propagated by sheep following sheep.
The primary source of “vibrational energy” sadly……is created by the turntable itself….or rather…the motor, belts, pulleys, bearings, coils and transformers.
A ‘happy carrier’ of all these demons….is in fact the plinth which you unselfishly wish to connect with the tonearm. The tonearm! The very heart of the Copernican view of the turntable system?!

So now your ‘a priori’ proposition (devoid of any facts or evidence) has been questioned….you are left with the claim that the advantage of a plinth is that a separate tonearm base is likely to be adjusted ‘out-of-level’?
I can’t believe that you wrote this with a straight face? :-)
So let me get this straight……you are quite happy for people to get their platters AND tonearms ‘out-of-level’ by being connected on a plinth……but you draw the line at a tonearm pod being messed up?

Disparate vibrations of the platter vs the tonearm generate spurious signals from the cartridge.

So you prefer the platter and tonearm to ‘vibrate’ homogeneously?
In my system….I prefer them not to vibrate at all?

No Lew….the plinth is not a necessity.
It is a hangover from the early days of marketing a complete ‘turntable system’ as a package and few have questioned the premise of the turntable platter as the centre of this universe?
The ‘plinth’ is about as useful as tits on a bull and is the cause of many more problems than it solves.
The turntable/platter is the ‘slave’ of the cartridge/tonearm…..and the anchor of the ‘king’ tonearm must be as heavy, solid rigid and level as a rock.

I see that you don't believe that the energy put out by a loudspeaker can cause damaging mechanical feedback.

This is not what I said.
Air-borne feedback can be absorbed into the structure and transformed into Structure-borne feedback which is most damaging to the analogue chain.
What I am saying....is that a turntable system......properly isolated from Structure-borne feedback will not have its performance affected by Air-borne feedback.

If you claim that Air-borne feedback adversely affects the sound of the turntable.....then it MUST increase this affect with increased volume.
There are no ifs or buts or maybes.
This is a logical as well as scientific corollary.
If this corollary can not be heard......you simply have no evidence on which to substantiate your claim.
If there were any doubts left?........listening through headphones would provide untainted and fully complete information unavailable through loudspeakers at any volume?
This has not been proven to be true in my system on any occasion.

If air-borne sound transmission were an issue......a high-res direct digital transfer from a record would sound better than the actual record itself when played back through loudspeakers?
Michael Fremer has conducted many demonstrations of this with actual audiences....and the results are in fact the reverse.

....is useless to ignore something that exist and ignore it because we can't here it.

This is surprising to hear from you Raul who always insists on 'evidence' and 'science' in other audio arguments?
Can you please explain to me the difference between something NOT existing and something EXISTING.....but undetectable....as it applies to audio?

Dover,

Are you going to fully nude the Raven ?

I am fortunate to have the Raven side by side with the 'nude' Victor in order to crystallise my thoughts on this matter.

And you are correct........the 'shelf' or 'platform' upon which the turntable and armpods rest, are in fact 'a plinth' or 'base'.
And I agree......the 'base' is of utmost importance.....or rather.....the 'isolation' of the base is of fundamental importance.

Dear Raul,
Your examples are ones that are 'detectable' but perhaps not explainable?
If you cannot detect something......how is that different to its non-existence?

And just saying something exists but is 'undetectable'....is no proof of its existence?
It is just mumbo jumbo :-)
There is enough 'pseudo science' and 'voodoo science' in this hobby as it is?

Regards

Dear Raul,
I hear 'gravity' every time I release the tonearm lifter and every time I adjust the VTF.
Bad example.......

Regards

Dear Nikola,
Philosophy,science and mathematics share many admirable qualities.
Lewm asks me if I can't 'imagine' two structures on a shelf reacting differently to each other?
Yes......I can imagine such a thing.
But I can also 'imagine' a man flying?
I ask Lewm to give me an example of how the base for my turntable and armpods is 'moving' as he claims,and also some proof of such movement?
Yet all I get is a parable that equates a 'solid' shelf affected only by gravity to a 'liquid' ocean affected by winds, currents, depth, thermal movents and tides.
And Raul thinks that's a highly attractive analogy?!
Lewm accuses me of claiming that "the world is flat"......yet that analogy seems odd as it was the general population claiming that the world was flat whilst initially one man claimed otherwise?

As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'.
Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics?

And we wonder why audiophiles......to the rest of the population.....are a laughing stock?

Hi Fleib,

Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.

True......but there were observable phenomena which could only be explained by the existence of 'something'?
This lead to a 'thesis' to explain this phenomena and then a search or test to prove the 'thesis'.
Most of Einstein's theories were unprovable at the time he postulated them and 100 years later......there still remain some to be proven?
As far as I know.......none of his theories was subsequently disproven?

In this case......there is no phenomenon proposed, which requires a 'thesis'?
Yet 'evidence' is fabricated to try to explain this 'phantom' phenomenon.

Not scientific in the slightest in my book?

Regards

Lewm,

As you know, Henry, a shelf will be put into oscillation, by energy put into it.

I know no such thing.
And your common flaw of argument is precisely these types statement of false 'universal facts' without the provision of any scientific evidence.

What I do know from a study of acoustics.....is that for any given material (and dependent on its thickness)......the majority of air-borne sound waves will be reflected or pass directly through.
Certain frequencies (depending on the material in question) will be absorbed as heat....and/or transmitted in all directions within that material until they are all absorbed as heat.
But I repeat....the majority of air-borne sound waves will be reflected or pass through the majority of materials.

Every material (including liquids and gases) has a resonant frequency....and these can easily be measured via accelerometers and other more complex devices.
The excitations of these resonant frequencies (and their harmonics) can be measured and heard (if within the audible sound spectrum).

You have provided no scientific proof that the resonant frequency of my particular shelf (or anyone else's) has been excited by the air-borne sound pressure produced by the speakers?

Of far more telling damnation IMO.....is the fact that you still....repeatedly and consistently.....refuse to address the effects of these 'resonant frequencies' on:-
1. The Platter
2. The Spindle
3. The Motor
4. The Pulley/s
5. The Belt
6. The Tonearm
7. The Headshell
8. The Cartridge
9. The Cartridge Screws
10. The Cantilever
11. The Stylus
12. The Record

You hyperventilate over a 'resonating plinth' or shelf....which presumably you believe will 'transmit' its obscenities into any or all of the above mentioned turntable parts and thus contaminate the reproduction chain......yet you appear to have no concerns for the 'resonating vibrations' transmitted directly into all these above mentioned parts?

Doesn't this in any way appear comedic to you?
Or is it just me?

Hi Dgob,
Unless you have the turntable and armpods located on a solid wall-hung shelf.....structure-borne feedback is likely to be a problem.
Every suspended floor (even concrete ones) will suffer from this to some extent.
If I had to locate my TT on a floor-mounted rack....I would ensure that it was on an isolating platform like a Vibraplane of Minus K. Not sure about Dover's Jello however :-)
Your 'floating' plinth idea sounds like an attempt at similar isolation.
It should work to some degree depending on the severity of your structure-borne feedback problem?
Please let us know how you go with it?

Regards

Dover,

This is one of the best bang for the buck upgrades for TT's of all persuasions in my view and well worth the time and effort.

Amen.
The audiophiles I really feel sorry for are those who live in modern high-rise apartment buildings like those in Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Australia.
Many of these are built using thin prestressed concrete slabs as the floors.
Being thin and 'stressed'.....these floors are similar to trampolines and are continually in a state of motion. If you put electronic instruments at various locations on these floors.....you can actually hear them 'singing' although most of the 'singing' is sub-sonic.
To make matters even worse........the dividing walls of these apartments are of often lightweight soundproof construction supported not on the wall below......but on the flexing thin prestressed slab.
This means that a wall-mounted shelf will be afflicted with the same structure-borne feedback issues as the floor itself?

Lew,
What you are hearing when you 'tap' on the shelf.....is the effect of the structural stresses within the shelf.
These stresses differ throughout any material depending on methods of support, locations of maximum and minimum bending moments, locations of maximum and minimum shear stresses and locations of all the various deflection points.
These stresses will also differ (in the same location) throughout the DEPTH of the material....normally compressive stresses at the surface, changing to tensile stresses on the bottom (reverse these for a cantilever).

These stresses will normally not affect the material's reaction to air-borne sound transmission.....most waves reflected or passing through.
Tapping a shelf to test for air-borne acoustic performance is similar to the infamous 'tap-test' employed on turntable plinths by some incompetent reviewers.
I liken it to the analogy of tapping on one's head to test for hearing ability? :-)

Regards...and peace

Did I really call you a "little man from a little country" Nikola?
Haha............
I must have had a sense of humour in those days?! :-)

Love you too......
Lew?......not so much.....:-)

Hi Dgob,
Unfortunately your Link does not lead to the page you suggest?
Are you able to re-load?

'Hank' is purely an American epithet for 'Henry'.
Whilst I would have preferred it whilst growing up.......in Australia, it simply doesn't exist.
Although we do have a certain eccentricity in knowing the famous actor Tom Henrys who appeared in Sleepless in Seattle?

2 1/2 years since the last contribution and yet nearly 1.3 million views...😎
In the time since my first enthusiastic proclamation, I realise I may have been a little cavalier in my concentration on the arm-pods at the expense of the platter/motor itself.
As most of us have realised after decades in audio......EVERYTHING matters....
I initially designed and had made, the solid bronze arm-pods and merely placed the platter/motor on tiptoes
 http://i.imgur.com/Xp97BF8.jpg
Whilst the sound produced by this arrangement seemed to prove my thesis....others looked to improve on my platter support
http://i.imgur.com/sPdkMWn.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8BTXLIL.jpg
Realising that the flimsy metal shroud protecting the motor unit was able to 'flex' as the platter spun....I designed a stainless steel cradle to more rigidly hold the turntable
http://i.imgur.com/UuEyECm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Ui6trXd.jpg
This was an immediate improvement and I discovered that the Victor DD decks actually sounded better 'nude', without their protective metal shroud.
In the intervening years I became a little frustrated at the tendency for this lightweight 'cradle' to be moved whenever I re-aligned a new cartridge (which was rather often 👅). The arm-pods at around 11Kg each, would NEVER shift on their spiked feet.
I needed a 'cradle' with more mass, and thus was born the polished granite cylinder
http://i.imgur.com/S97uGns.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qUyVNA2.jpg
This change was as much a revelation as the bronze arm-pods....
It seems that even the SS cradle was able to 'twist' under the constant centrifugal forces of the spinning platter and this resulted in a loss of ultimate transparency and lower register control.
No wonder the latest 'rave' turntable (Kronos) utilises counter rotating platters to neutralise this twisting force.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/62/64/dd/6264dd2057a9132a141c8cfda552102d.jpg
I feel a little foolish to have overlooked what must have appeared obvious to many for all these years....but the lessons have been learned.
Not only must the arm-pods be massive and immovable....the platter/motor must also be held in a vice-like grip. Mass is one method of achieving this but there are obviously others.......

A few problems were discovered during this last design exercise and they may be peculiar only to the Victor decks...❓
Whilst the 'nude' motor unit sounded better in my system....when I mounted it in the first granite cylinder
http://i.imgur.com/xIGWxmM.jpg
electrical feedback of the 50/60Hz became apparent with the two tone-arms which were not in the 'normal' platter/arm universal relationship.
http://i.imgur.com/ieD1q6s.jpg
Here you can see the DV507/II tonearm/cartridge passing directly over the motor transformer. This was the most affected tonearm.
The solution was to screw on the metal shroud which apart from protecting the delicate electronics and circuitry....acts as a Faraday Cage to block the RFI/EMI for the cartridge
http://i.imgur.com/UAEMFj7.jpg
Another important cure for this feedback problem is to connect the ground wire from the chassis to the preamp.

With all systems go.....time to sit back with a good Scotch and enjoy the fruits of my journey...🍹🎼

Are you referring to the ground added to the pcb board or the external cage connection point? 

The ground wire attached to the PCB did nothing to mitigate the RFI/EMI interference.
With the Faraday Shield (metal shroud) in place and the ground wire attached.....the problem appears to have vanished.
I'm not electronically/electrically savvy so can only report the effects.....it appears that the Faraday Shield 'absorbs' the electrical energy emanating from all the electronics (particularly the power supply) and the ground wire dissipates it from the screen.
I used to keep the motor 'powered on' (but not operating) when mounted in the SS cradle as it tended to sound better than fully 'cold'.
Within the constricted enclosure of the granite cylinder.....I found that the build-up of electrical energy if the motor was left on (without the Faraday Cage) totally destroyed the sound of the turntable rendering it unlistenable.
As a precaution to the bouncing around of this electrical energy off the reflective granite enclosure.....I lined it with cork sheeting in the latest version to try some absorption.....🤔

It's seven years since I began the Nude Turntable Project and thus also formulated "The Copernican View of the Turntable System".

In that time I have learned a great deal through practical experimentation and listening.
The lessons are many but the most significant one I believe, is this:-

• Isolated armpods around a 'nude' turntable is one of the most difficult (and problem-frought) solutions to the turntable design imaginable...

There are only two advantages I believe, for this solution:-

1. Ability to easily adjust geometry for every (and any) tonearm
2. Potentially better sound

The pitfalls are numerous:-

• Stability of the turntable
• Isolation of the turntable
• Levelling of the turntable
• Stability of each armpod
• Isolation of each armpod
• Levelling of each armpod
• Maintenance of the geometric relationships
• Elimination of ground-loop hums
• Elimination of EMI/RFI interference
• Cost

The fact that it has taken me seven years to fully resolve all these issues (and the multitude levelling processes are still not perfect) should be enough to discourage all but the foolhardy from following....

HERE is the final resolution of my Copernican Nude Turntable...
You will notice that the whole assemblage now sits on a Herzan TS140 Active Isolation Platform which weighs 28.5Kg(62.8lbs).
This platform in turn sits on a propped and cantilevered 33mm wall shelf made of laminated stressed-skin MDF.
The circular blue plastic discs under the spiked footers are poker chips which were needed to prevent a ground-loop hum caused by all the armpod and turntable metalwork, conducting through the Herzan aluminium top-plate to the electronics below.
These poker chips are Superglued to the Herzan aluminium top-plate to prevent movement and 'lock' the overall geometry in place.

The Herzan provides sub-hertz active vibration isolation in all six degrees of freedom.
Performance Details:

• Active vibration isolation from 0.7 – 1,000 Hz
• Passive vibration isolation from 1,000 Hz and beyond
• 90% vibration isolation at 3.5 Hz
• 99% vibration isolation at 10 Hz
• 99.9% vibration isolation at 20 Hz and beyond
• Up to 55 dB of vibration reduction beyond 20 Hz

This Active Isolation Platform has  highlighted a major weakness in the Copernican philosophy....
Because the armpods are separated from the turntable motor, they are all subjected to the maximum Structure-Borne Acoustic feedback experienced by the supporting floor/shelf/rack system.
With a 'normally' designed turntable.....the tonearm mounting points are attached to the turntable's plinth and are thus 'shielded' from structure-borne feedback by the turntable's own isolation footers and mass/material of the plinth design. The levelling of the arm supports is also integrated with that of the plinth.

Here is a readout of the vibrations experienced by the Herzan with the Isolation 'OFF' and the turntable/arm at REST. 
The top line is vibration in the vertical plane and there are two directions of horizontal vibrations below.
These vibrations are purely Structure-Borne Sound Transmission caused by the flexural stresses in the supporting shelving material and are entirely ultra low-frequency (2-10Hz). They are there ALL THE TIME....
These ultra-low frequencies can pass through and affect ALL materials regardless of their mass or densities, and they are not successfully absorbed or reflected by normal isolation stands, footers or springs.
Only specialised stands designed for applications such as electron microscopes (able to provide isolation down to 2Hz or below) can prevent these damaging frequencies affecting the turntable/platter/arm/cartridge interface.
Here is a readout with the Isolation 'ON' and the turntable at REST. 
You can see how the Herzan has 'actively' absorbed and nullified these ultra low-frequency vibrations and prevented them entering the turntable system.

All the following readouts contain vibrations of higher frequencies (mostly above 1000Hz) which are able to be absorbed, reflected or dissipated (to a degree) within the normal provinces of footers, stands, isolation devices and depending on design....within the plinth, platter, feet and mass of the particular turntable.
Here is a readout with the Isolation 'OFF' and the turntable REVOLVING. 
Here is a readout with the Isolation 'ON' and the turntable REVOLVING.
Here is a readout with the Isolation 'OFF' and MUSIC PLAYING.
Here is a readout with the Isolation 'ON' and MUSIC PLAYING.

The Herzan has been integrated in my system for 6 months now, and not only is it the final 'piece' of the jigsaw for the 'Copernican' puzzle.....but it singularly is the most significant contributor to the elimination of 'distortions' and the elevation of sound quality that I have experienced in 40 years of audio.
It must also have been a revelation to Frank Kuzma (who shares the remote armpod design philosophy for his TOTL turntable) as in May 2017 at the Munich High End Show he demonstrated a Herzan (Table Stable) as a recommended part of his system.

But as I mentioned....the Herzan is the last piece of the 'Copernican' jigsaw.

Some of the initial 'pieces' have proven to be naive....for instance, originally I had the Victor motor unit (with its metal shroud) supported directly on Tiptoes. Whilst the sound was still good....I was disturbed that there might be movement of the turntable with this primitive supporting method.

I thus designed a skeletal stainless steel cradle which I thought would prevent any possible movement. It didn't....and in the process I had removed the motor's original perforated metal shroud. This shroud (it turns out) was acting as a Faraday Shield (with ground wire attached) in protecting the platter from the motor-induced RFI/EMI which now beset the installation.

It wasn't until I designed a new 8.1Kg (18lb) polished granite plinth, that I was able to reinstate the metal shroud (complete with ground wire) onto the motor unit and eliminate 

• Movement
• Ground-loop hum
• EMI/RFI problems

Now all of you are shaking your heads at my stupidity in not having a solid, heavy plinth as the 'de facto' starting position, knowing how many Threads there are extolling the virtues of heavier and heavier Panzerholz, slate, granite and lead-lined plinths.....

I'm not sure if heavier and heavier is necessarily better and better.....but I may be wrong 🤔. In the current design, 8.1Kg of granite is the best I can do and I think it's adequate.....🤗 It's only necessary IMO, for the cradle/plinth to be heavy enough to prevent the constant centrifugal forces of the revolving platter being able to induce 'movement'.

For Belt-Drive or Idler designs...I can imagine these forces (and thus mass of plinth necessary) to be greater.

One thing I DID get right at the beginning, is the size and weight of the 11Kg (24lb) solid cast bronze armpods which surround the motor unit. These are immovable monoliths and are successful in keeping each arm motionless and rigidly clasped whilst providing total immunity from motor/plinth/platter noise and vibrations. This isolation of the arm-mount is a known phenomenon which Continuum tackled in their Caliburn turntable, by suspending and isolating with magnets, the tonearm mounting plate from the plinth proper.

There are other isolated armpod designs which use lighter, taller and flimsier pods which, apart from defeating the purpose of the 'Copernican' concept....may be susceptible to accidental and/or vibrational movement. Those designs I don't accept, as conforming to the principle 😱.

There are detractors of the isolated armpod solution (and some of them have been prominent in their opposition here, on this Thread).

The theory behind their opposition is valid.....rigid connectivity between the platter spindle and the tonearm pivot is a 'sine qua non'.

I agree with them.....

These theorists usually share two traits:-

• They have never had a functioning isolated pod in their home system
  
• They refuse to accept that the shelf/rack/stand/base on which the turntable and armpods sit, together with 'gravity' are sufficient to maintain a 'rigid' enough connection

They are entitled to their views and I am not about changing these...

I however DO have a functioning isolated pod system in my home (alongside a normal 'all-in-one' turntable) and believe that they are wrong.  

If the turntable 'base' and isolated armpods are sufficiently heavy, gravity is indeed enough (as it is with all the buildings in the world) to RIGIDLY maintain the required geometry without the detrimental effects of transmitted vibrations from the motor/belt, bearing and plinth to the tonearm.

There are some notable advocates and adoptees of the 'Copernican' theory:-

• Gabriel/Da Vinci Reference MkII 
• The Onedof 
• Triangle Art Signature 
• Kuzma Stabi XL4 
• Basis Conti Signature 

I don't believe that anyone could call these designers and manufacturers (especially Frank Kuzma and A.J.Conti) fools......

So here I am......seven years later with a turntable system I can honestly attest, is the best I have heard. And I have heard most of the acknowledged 'greatest' of all time.......

Now I don't positively know whether it's because of the isolated armpods, the superb Victor DD motor unit or the Sub-Hz Active Herzan Isolation Stand that the results are so good....?

It's most likely a combination of all three 🤗

Would I recommend others go down this same path....?

In hindsight....only if an Active Isolation Stand was a 'sine qua non'.....and this elevates the cost greatly. But consider this....even WITHOUT the Active Isolation Stand....the sound quality is capable of exceeding that of 'Digital' by a large margin 👅

My turntable system (complete with admittedly expensive tonearms) is in the realm of US$30,000 (with the Herzan close to half the total).

Expensive compared with the average turntable...yet not outrageous when compared to 'Uber Decks' like the Caliburn, VPI Direct, Kronos, Walker Proscenium, SME 30/2 or any of the 'Copernican' decks mentioned above. 

I think I'm finally done and am happy to offer help/advice to anyone brave or crazy enough to venture down the same path.....😎🎶

Happy listening.....

 

This would appear to show that the Herzan is effectively modifying the music signal playback due to the vibrations of the stylus by imparting a corrective response that has taken into account stylus vibration generated into the platter/TT.

Not so....
The added vibrations with music playing is purely Airborne Sound Transmission.
HERE is a readout with the Isolation ’OFF’ a record playing but the sound MUTE.
And HERE is a readout with the Isolation ’ON’ a record playing and the sound MUTE.

Interesting thoughts Dover....
Watch this VIDEO on the Doehmann Helix 1 turntable when Mark Doehmann (who was head designer at Continuum for the Caliburn and Criterion turntables and also the Cobra and Copperhead tonearms) comes in to explain it (past the halfway mark).
Apart from the other interesting design attributes.....the aluminium that you think is the platter.....is actually a 'shield' against Air-Borne Sound Transmission and the platter sits behind it....🤗
Mark knows his 'onions'......