A FV-diagram will clarify the topic. Which question/topic do you believe it will clarify? 1. Is a plinthless TT better or worse than a plinthed TT? 2. Is a self-standing tonearm better than a directly coupled tonearm? (1) or (2) or both? Do they amount to the same question for you? By better or worse I mean that from the perspective of the end user and not from a design perspective (even if its true that the design takes the end user's perspective into account). How specifically does it clarify? Which concepts? And if one makes a distinction between clarifying a question and answering it, I take your claim above to imply that drawing the FV diagram doesnt by itself answer the questions at hand. That is, the FV diagram doesnt settle the dispute between Lewm and Halcro/Raul/Chris. Also, do you believe that the specific sound quality (phenomenological experience) of a TT set up can be deduced a priori from knowledge of its constituent parts + arrangement? I ask this in all seriousness since, in the monumentally amusing TW Acustic Arm thread you seemed to suggest that one could infer the sound of that arm merely by knowing how it was designed (+knowledge of the physics pertaining to arms); that is, know it without actually listening to it. I suspect that if you do believe this, then the conversation is over since Rauls empiricism, if I understand his above post, isnt having any of it. Im a grown man and I also like to go to public lectures, although you are right that I dont like to be lectured. If you tell me something useful that I dont know about something Im interested in (which wont be all that difficult in this context), then far from receiving scorn, youll have my gratitude. |
I use the AT 605 feet (the smallest ones amongst the 3 in dgob's pic) on my sp10. I didn't even know there were larger ones. The small feet work fine and the large ones are probably better suited for using under heavy plinths. Someone posted that the 616 (the largest ones) are rated to hold 15kg EACH.
I going to get some of those larger ones nevertheless, just to see if there's an improvement. |
Thanks, Raul.
Ok, I get first dibs on the next set of 616 that go up for sale.
Seriously though: what is the function of the weight guidelines for footers? The sp10 mkii weighs around 20 lbs, so one of the 616 would be sufficient, weight-wise. That would make me infer that 3 or 4 of them would be overkill and, more to the point, counterproductive. But if Raul's' right, then that inference is bad.
Perhaps the weight guidelines set an upper limit but not a lower one? No matter, I'm getting a set as soon as some become available. |
Of course there will be an "improvement" when you go to the bigger feet. This stuff has become so subjective and so uncontrolled (in the scientific sense) that there is a huge placebo effect. If you are prepared to like it, and if your turntable does not actually fall to the ground, then you will like it. This is in no way meant as an insult to you personally. It's just a part of this crazy hobby. I see your larger point, Lewm, but really I'm not prepared or fixin' to like any particular kind of configuration. True, I expect the larger feet to make some difference--why shouldn't I since I'll probably end up paying a chunk of change for them?--but whether I prefer that change or not is up for grabs. After all, they'll be easy to sell. Placebo probably would play a larger role if one couldn't sell after trying. I take a very practical approach to this plinth(less) issue. My table didn't come with an attached plinth, and since I found it to sound pretty darn good without it, I'm sticking with it for the time being and trying out closely related configurations. I can honestly say that if I had some plinth ready to hand, I would immediately try it out to see what difference it makes. I take it that Chris's and Raul's point is to suggest the converse: if you have a plinth, take it off and see what happens--you may be surprised. In my opinion, that minimal kind of experimentation won't settle the larger debate, but it might transform one's picture of the debate. However, I agree with Dertonarm that even if we had many hands going up saying that their experiment led them to believe plinthless is better, it would still leave a rather large hole in our understanding of why that is (if it is at all). There should be some 'reflective equilibrium', as the philosophers say, between observed findings and theoretical explanation. Pure theory and a rhetorical reference to 'physics' and what it allegedly tells us is pointless when it flies in the face of repeated observation; conversely, 'mere' observation is empty because it just gives us data points without a theory to tie them together. At any rate, Yahoo Japan is not easy to navigate. Are there any other options to find these feet? I've been perusing Hi-Fi Do Japan. Very cool site--but alas no feet as of yesterday. |
Dear Chris, I should be picking my sp10 up tomorrow. It took awhile because I kept adding stuff for Mirko to do. I'll have a tonearm pod a la Halcro which will sit on these cool feet he originally designed to replace those on the Microseiki Rx-8000 motor unit. And evidently the speed was fast at 78rpm so I told him to replace all the capacitors--I hope that fixes it, even though I don't have any 78's. The noise I was hearing was the thrust bearing, whatever that is, and he replaced it. If everything goes well, I should have a pretty good set up.
Dear T_bone and Dertonarm: thanks for your notes regarding the footers. That's what I would have thought, even though I didn't know the theory behind it. But Raul asserts the AT 616 sound great beneath his 'light' sp10. Here again we have a tension between theory and observation. No matter to me: I'm still buying them just to see, that is, if they ever come up for sale. In the meanwhile, I was looking at Edensound's terrastone footers. Has anyone tried them? One can go broke trying out all these different footers; might as well buy a plinth--ha!
This thread doesn't show up on my front analog forums page either. Annoying. |
FYI: a set of AT 616 footers just showed up on eBay. I would get them but my turntable repairs suggest to me I may not have a functioning sp10 to put on top of these beautiful footers. Sigh. |
Sorry. Premature. A little bird (and my bottomless desire to buy new audio stuff) suggested that I grab the AT 616 footers, so I did. Now hopefully my technics will stop acting up and work properly so I can try these out. |
@Ct0517: the guy I bought my AT 616 from is selling the smaller AT 636 right now. May be worth getting if you don't want to wait for the others to show up. |
The arm pod I'm having made is roughly the diameter of the AT 616. When I get my TT back, 3 616's will go beneath the TT and 1 beneath the pod. Hopefully it works out. Before, I had the TT and arm board sitting on different isolation systems: TT on 3 AT-605 footers and arm on Herbie's tenderfoots. Sounded good to me--but maybe I'm hard of hearing.
Incidentally, while my TT is in the shop, I've been borrowing a Sony 2251. It sounded woeful at first. I almost gave up and on a lark put the tenderfoots beneath it. Much, much better. Pretty good table overall, in my amateur opinion.
@Chris: how did you put spikes beneath your sp10? I'm assuming there's a board in between? That is, the TT sits on the board and the board is on spikes? Or did you thread spikes directly beneath the chassis? |
By the way, in the real world there is no such thing as "complete (mechanical) isolation", which is why I take the position that I take. So when someone claims to have built an 'acoustically dead' plinth, claims of death are exaggerated? Or what does that phrase mean? Really, I don't know. Is it something separate from isolation? If one can create an acoustically dead plinth for one's turntable (as a whole), then mutatis mutandis why couldn't one create separate acoustically dead plinths for TT chassis and tonearm? Does that mitigate the concerns regarding coupling? Or is that a method for coupling? Too many concepts; too little knowledge (on my part). |
That's cool, Dgob. So many new things to try. I hadn't even thought of a wall mount shelf, but sounds like it's worth a try. Cool arm pod. How'd you make it 6kg?
T_bone: from his system pics it does look like he has the sp-10 on AT 616's and tonearm pod on spikes. |
Bravo Dgob: the most articulate and detailed account of the 'nude' sound that I've seen.
Do you have your power supply on spikes as well? The pic makes it look a bit elevated.
Do you prefer the 1982 GV to the 1955? |
A 9" arm can work but some acrobatics need to take place. IIRC, part of my pod needs to be directly below the sp10's skirt in order for it to work.
Dgob: I was the one who wanted to try an AT 616 underneath my pod. It was just a thought since I have an extra footer and wanted to make use of it. I haven't tried it yet since my TT (and I) is in purgatory.
Chris: don't tease me. Since I took my TT in for repairs, I have bought the AT 616's, another tonearm, 3 carts, 2 tonearm wires, 4 headshells, and had 2 pods designed and fabricated all geared towards a sp10 that may or may not ever be repaired. Deadline is the end of this month. Either I get it back or I go shopping for another one (hope that one works!). |
An alternative to DIY or a mass manufacturer is locating a local machinist who can do the work. That's what I did. The machinist marks the middle ground between the other two options. My guy didn't charge me much more than the DIY option and mine required much more elaborate machining--it's all in one piece with no separate arm board. Having said that, if I had thought of Ct0517's 'simple' method, I would have probably opted for it. Of course, the simple method requires one to have an arm board, which I didn't have. |
As the guide says - the key is getting your tonearm base on the plate. What do your tonearms arms sit on now? Are they attached directly to the plinth or on a separate plate that attaches to the plinth. Assuming that this is directed at me, the actual answer is that I don't have my turntable right now. I've never had a plinth for my sp10 though. The first go around I just bought some 10" rectangular oak boards at HD, drilled some holes and mounted the tonearm that way. It sat next to the TT. Sounded great but looked like crap. After seeing Halcro's design, I decided to have similar pods fabricated. One pod has been made and another ordered, and neither has a separate tonearm plate in the design. The arms will sit directly on the pod with holes appropriately drilled on top and bottom. Note: cutting a slot on the bottom so that one can connect the tonearm cable was evidently a huge pain--and probably not recommended. My second pod will have the tonearm sit directly on the pod as well, but the top hole will be cut wide enough to accommodate various tonearms (didn't think of that the first go around, Nandric). For each tonearm, he will fabricate a new 'collar' so that the base of the tonearm will fit snugly into the pod's hole. So, I guess that collar will act like your plate. For the second pod, I proposed that he fabricate separate plates that would be mounted on an adjustable rod connected to the pod, but he said that that would be more difficult. I didn't argue. Dear Nandric: do you believe making the pod out of brass makes a significant difference? If so, perhaps I'll tell him to do that if he hasn't already made it. I see though that brass is pretty expensive compared to SS. |
Henry's stellar example shows that, with the help of a good machinist and some clever ideas, one can fabricate something equally beautiful (in my opinion, more so--the Davinci strikes me as ostentatious) to the ones he linked to. And given those eye-popping prices, one has a strong incentive to DIY.
Nandric: you got a Reed tonearm AND a custom pod for 1500 Euro?! It's good to be first. |
As I understood the manual, any armboard will do. Part of it will be drilled onto the pod and the part with the larger hole where the tonearm mounts into would protrude beyond the dimensions of the pod itself. So, this would be different than Ct0517's set up but would still work for pivoted arms. In fact, that's what I did the first go around, but instead of using a metal foundation, I used red oak.
My current pods are similar to Halcro's; but, sadly, far less cool looking. |
After around 7 months of annoyance and concern, I finally managed to assemble my nuded sp10 a month back. It took 6 months to fix my TT (note to anyone with a bum sp10: send to Bill Thalmann as *first* and only option) The TT sits atop 3 AT 616 footers and I had custom machined 2 tonearm pods, one for my Denon DA 305 arm and one for my Technics epa 100 mk2 arm. Both are stainless steel. One can view the pods in my systems page.
The Denon pod was made first nearly 5 months ago, before I had a handle on its conception. It is 3.5" wide and 3" tall. It weighs around 8lbs and has a collar mount made specifically for my Denon arm. Pin screws in the collar allow for VTA adjustment. This collar 'system' allows me the flexibility to swap different tonearms into the same pod. In fact, I had another collar made for a Syntec 220 tonearm I have (but don't use--because that arm is a PITA to adjust). There's a slot cut into the rear of the pod to accommodate the tonearm wire. The pod sits on 3 footers that are modeled after the footers that the Micro Seiki 5000 sits on. Smaller of course. They screw in/out to allow for leveling of the pod. The pod was very well machined and finished and looks spectacular. The guy who did it, Mirko, is an awesome machinist. I was worried about the light weight of the pod, but it hasn't turned out to be an issue as far as I can detect. The denon 103 that is mounted on it has never sounded better in my system.
The pod for my Technics arm weighs 16lbs and was machined from a 20lb block of stainless. It is 4.5" wide and 4" tall. For those familiar with the EPA 100 mk2, the arm's mount is quite large in diameter and so a large chunk of steel had to be cut away to accommodate it. Mirko asked me if I wanted another swappable system with this pod, but I decided against it since I had/have no intention on parting with this tonearm. The pod sits on 3 spikes that screw in/out for leveling and the spikes sit on 'pads' (or whatever you call them). There's also a rather largish hole in the back to accommodate the tonearm and ground wires. Given its weight, this pod is very stable and I have no concern about unwanted movement.
I have been acclimating to the sound of the new system. A couple of things to remark. First and foremost, the sound is relaxed, and what I had been judging as the 'exciting' and 'dynamic' sound of my previous set up , I now think of as distortions. Secondly, I can now better hear the fine distinctions between the various MM carts I have. I take that to be a positive sign. On that note, I can say with confidence that the AT 20ss is a killer cart and supplants my previous favorite, the Azden ym p50vl.
Of course, I cannot attribute these benefits to the pod alone. There's the not insignificant addition of the epa arm, which I had never heard before. Nevertheless, I can conclude that the copernican system does not do detriment to the sound; on that contrary, it is able to produce a very fine and very refined sound. At any rate, I'm satisfied. |
Nandric: what Lewm said.
Lewm: As you can see from my system pics, my second arm is behind the tt and in from the left edge by about 4 inches. The pod was designed so that it could go partially underneath the tt's square top (that is crucial). The pivot to spindle distance is 230mm and that's no problem.
Halcro: I'm not sure what you are imagining with the rocking, but I should say that I'm beginning to become suspicious of the ridigity of my system. I received my Mint protractor a few weeks back and it makes me appreciate the very fine adjustments required to maintain proper alignment. The 616 footers are great for isolation and leveling, but the contact between their smooth tops and the bottom of the tt's chassis is probably less secure than the ideal. To test this, I'm going to recheck alignment in another week. If it's off, I'll blame the footers. It may be an easy fix, just a matter of adding some blu-tac between footer and tt, but we'll see. The contact between bottoms of footers and platform is definitely secure as those suckers are not easy to move once settled.
Chris: indeed the footers' ability to be adjusted is key, otherwise leveling would be haphazard. Is the contact between the top of your footers and tt secure? I'll pm you regarding price; it's complicated. |
Lewm: I haven't done any extensive comparative tests between the stock mat and my current one, the Boston Audio Mat 2, but the latter definitely lowers the noise floor. It's a deep dark black background--as it should be. One issue I've noted however is that the Mat 2 doesn't 'grip' onto records like the stock rubber mat. On certain records (warped ones), as I've applied a dust cloth to the record prior to play, the record will not rotate at the same speed as the platter, i.e. the downward pressure of the cloth is slowing the record's rotation. I infer that the record then is not properly coupled with the mat. This never happened with the rubber mat. Although not evident with flat records, it may be the case that this lack of coupling is having some effect with them as well. I ordered a ttweights record clamp and will see whether it makes a difference.
Regarding footers, obviously the AT 616 are not the only option. Who ever said they were? Chris was using brass footers before and as he said will use for his second set up. I was using the more readily available 605 footers before. But as he noted and I concur, there are practical advantages to using the 616's. In addition to what Chris noted, the 616's are 4" wide and that provides more stability than the 605's. Although I believe there are sonic advantages as well, no one thinking of going plithless should be deterred by the unavailability of the 616's. In fact, I considered using Eden Sound's terrastone footers but they probably require drilling holes into the chassis--something that I wanted to avoid. |
AT 616 height: 2 inches at lowest setting; 2.25 inches at highest setting. There's a set on eBay right now--but the price is not exactly friendly. If you really want them, Nandric, do like Chris did and post a want ad. Or, as Lewm said, there are surely good alternatives--it's just not clear what those are.
Halcro: you got a bargain with your pods (friend discount?).
Lewm: yes, you are boring on this topic--but it's nice to have antipodes. |
Lewm: I hope that armor plating doesn't shield you from the truth, because here's some coming at you.
I aligned my cart with a Mint protractor around a week ago. Your post and my previous concerns prompted me to check alignment just now. It's dead on. I used a 10x loupe. I must say I'm slightly surprised by this, but in my mind this is pretty conclusive as to the stability of the Copernican system. |
Lewm: scroll down this page, http://www.onedof.com/pictures and you'll see what they call the 'tonearm tower'. |
Just look around that website. It has all the answers. Yes, $150k.
"A first in the history of the audio turntables self-centering One Degree of Freedom or Onedof bearing eliminates the source of acoustic distortions associated with microscopic movements of all existing cylindrical shafts. With its unique precision Onedof bearing is holding massive spinning platter steadily. The bearing only permits the platter steady rotation about the vertical axis, passing through the center of the planet Earth. It is the only degree of freedom that the bearing leaves to the platter." |
Just look around that website. It has all the answers. Yes, $150k.
"A first in the history of the audio turntables self-centering One Degree of Freedom or Onedof bearing eliminates the source of acoustic distortions associated with microscopic movements of all existing cylindrical shafts. With its unique precision Onedof bearing is holding massive spinning platter steadily. The bearing only permits the platter steady rotation about the vertical axis, passing through the center of the planet Earth. It is the only degree of freedom that the bearing leaves to the platter." |
I've asked via email the designer to come onto the thread and discuss his tt and especially his choice to do a stand alone arm pod. |
The designer's name is Aleks Bakman and I asked him a few questions via email. He declined to come to the forum but gave me permission to post his responses.
First my questions, followed by his responses, followed by more questions followed by Aleks's final set of answers.
----------
"2 issues were raised. One pertains to this claim of yours: "A first in the history of the audio turntables self-centering One Degree of Freedom or Onedof bearing eliminates the source of acoustic distortions associated with microscopic movements of all existing cylindrical shafts."
It was said (not by me), that "There are other TTs which provide same stableness and bearing technology. Look at the EMT 927 bearing - and this is proofed in professional business since 50 years. Look at the Continuum`s bearing and do experience it in real life. "
I was wondering about your comment on this.
Secondly, it is said on that thread that standalone arm towers suffer deficiencies due to 1. the tt and tonearm being subject to different resonances, which differences cause distortion at playback and 2. relative motion between tonearm and spindle due their not being rigidly coupled which motion causes geometry errors.
I was wondering if and how you took these considerations into account in your design.
regards,
Minh"
-------
"Thank you, dear Minh, wonderful questions!
1. All cylindrical bearings have inherent problem of whirl described here: http://www.onedof.com/sites/onedof.com/files/images/Slide1.JPG
Onedof bearing eliminates this problem. Onedof bearing centers itself in all directions: up-down and in all horizontal directions. Onedof bearing restricts all translational movements of the platter: upward downward and to all sides. It only leaves one rotational movement of the platter. http://www.onedof.com/about-turntable
EMT927 has cylindrical shaft and ball bearing at the bottom, providing stiff load path to the supporting stand and associated high frequency resonances. This design does not eliminate whirl.
http://www.stefanopasini.it/EMT927F-main%20shaft.htm
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80621
Continuum has replaced ball bearing at the bottom of the shaft with the hydrodynamic thrust pad, but the shaft itself remains cylindrical and therefore it is whirling, i.e. wobbles and shifts side-to-side at the same time. It also is not restricted at the top, only at the bottom. These are microscopic movements, which are damaging to the sound.
Rotation shaft/platter assembly of the Onedof TT does not resonate at all, because the design of the bearing/suspension assumes non-linear stiffness, i.e. stiffness that constantly changes with any microscopic movement. Condition for the resonance, permanent stiffness of the suspension is eliminated by design of the Onedof bearing.
Tonearm needs very massive support, to prevent high frequency resonances. If I added this weight (~15 lb) to the suspended mass of 50 lb, the symmetry of suspension loading would be impossible. In any case tonearm and platter would never be resonating coherently because they are so different in shape and acoustic response. Besides, suspension works only when the platter spins. I cannot add tonearm support to the rotating mass. The task of the designer is to prevent all vibrations as much as possible. If it is not possible, one has to damp suspicion. Onedof does both: does not resonate and damps external vibes coming from environment.
However, this is all theory. I like the sound of Onedof, but I had never heard Continuum or EMT927.
Ask more questions, Minh.
If your co-bloggers need answers let them read my web site, using links, that I have given above. ...
I am sorry, Minh, I made a mistake. Tonearm tower weights only 8 LB"
-----------
"Dear Aleks,
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions.
Regarding the tonearm tower, several of us on that forum have taken to having our own towers fabricated by machinists we know. Two of our main concerns were weight and materials. Regarding weight, some of us were of the view that the heavier the better. Thus, many of our towers are 16-21lbs. The idea is that mass loading the tonearm would dissipate errant vibrations and also that increasing weight would prevent accidental movement of the entire tower (thus messing up tonearm geometry). Evidently, with your 8lb tower, you seem unconcerned with what troubled us. Are we just being neurotic? On another note, how do you ensure that external vibrations coming up from whatever platform the tower sits on doesn't make it into the tower and then into the tonearm? Is there a design feature that takes this into account. [You might have answered this already in your response below, but admittedly I couldn't follow all of it (I'm no scientist, that's for sure).]
Secondly, regarding materials. We have made towers ranging from brass to stainless steel to various combinations. What is your tower made from? And what main considerations went into choosing the material(s).
Do I have your permission to post our exchange on the forum site? I believe many others would find your answers useful.
FYI: links to your site have already been posted.
I should say, lastly, that I find your turntable extremely tasteful and beautiful. Congratulations and best wishes!
Regards,
Minh"
---------
"Dear Minh,
thank you for the compliment. Yes, what I wrote to you is in public domain.
I do have a scientific background, but I am practicing engineering for 35 years. I am always trying to make myself clear to anybody. I avoid acronyms and abbreviations, I avoid professional vernacular. Still, if you do not feel comfortable with my language, ask again.
I think, the heavier the tonearm support - the better, but after some point extra weight does not make any difference. What does make difference is the stiffness of the load path from the stand to the tonearm. That does not change with mass only, but also change with material stiffness. Aluminum is three times less stiff than steel and 2/3 as stiff as aluminum bronze. Combination of mass and stiffness of the load path creates acoustic response of the system, which is the set of characteristic frequencies at which the system generates resonances. One should be talking about particular frequencies and how to deal with resonant response, rather than in general terms. My tower is made out of aluminum 6061 T6. I did analyze its acoustic response using finite element model of the tower housing and optimized its design to avoid some modes of vibration ("mode" is a change of shape that structure takes, when it vibrates). Some modes of vibration propel distortion upward and therefore are more damaging.
I will take your questions, Minh very seriously, and I will post answers on my web site with some illustrations. It will happen after the show in Denver.
Thank you for your questions and for your compliments, Minh.
By the way, tell the guys, NASA does not build any flight hardware, corporations do. NASA is a government agency, like US Post Service. NASA delivers staff from down here to over there." |
The interesting parts for me and this thread are his remarks about the self-standing tonearm towers. At least with his design, he seems unconcerned about the arguments against them. Furthermore, when he writes, "In any case tonearm and platter would never be resonating coherently because they are so different in shape and acoustic response" I take that to imply that rigid coupling of tt and tonearm via a plinth does not offer the advantages that some on this thread claim for it--or at least that what Aleks believes.
I wish someone would comment on the other technical assertions he made in his emails and on his website. They strike me as substantive enough to merit a conversation (as opposed to useless sarcastic remarks). They are not ad copy, that's for sure. He made a claim about the bearing design being novel and some quickly dismissed it--what now?
Of course, all this technical stuff is distinct from the quality of the sound, as he himself says in his email.
Thucan: what are you talking about? If by 'messenger' you mean me, then I should say that I never heard of Onedof until I saw Halcro's link above. I certainly have no financial relationship with them. I should disclose however that if he were to offer me that turntable for free I wouldn't turn him down :). |
I agree, Halcro, that the proof's in the pudding. But what does Thucan's and other's rejection or, at any rate, lukewarm reception of this tt prove?
We lack an explanation. It might be, gasp!, the sound of the separate tonearm pod that explains their displeasure. It might be that the bearing design isn't what it's cracked up to be. It might be...etc., etc..
Yay or nay judgments, even if true, take us only so far. That's why, loathe as I am to engaging in technical discussions, it interests me in this case because it might alter deliberations I actually have. For instance, knowing more about that 'q' value could influence future pod material and dimension choices.
Ecir38: cool pics, thanks. Do you know/did you note how the height of the arm tower is adjusted? |
Dertonarm:
McCartney: Wanderlust
from sing363.com:
By Paul McCartney
LIGHT OUT WANDERLUST,
HEAD US OUT TO SEA.
CAPTAIN SAYS THERE'LL BE A BUST,
THIS ONE'S NOT FOR ME.
TAKE US FROM THE DARK,
OUT WHERE WE CAN SEE.
CAPTAIN'S OUT TO MAKE HIS MARK,
THIS ONE'S NOT TO BE.
LIGHT OUT WANDERLUST,
HELP US TO BE FREE.
LIGHT OUT WANDERLUST,
DO IT JUST FOR ME, WANDERLUST.
OH, WHERE DID I GO WRONG, MY LOVE?
WHAT PETTY CRIME WAS I FOUND GUILTY OF?
WHAT BETTER TIME TO FIND A BRAND NEW DAY?
OH, WANDERLUST AWAY.
LIGHT OUT WANDERLUST,
HELP US TO BE FREE.
LIGHT OUT WANDERLUST,
DO IT JUST FOR ME, WANDERLUST.
CAPTAIN'S OUT TO MAKE HIS MARK,
THIS ONE'S NOT TO BE.
LIGHT OUT WANDERLUST
(Oh, where did I go wrong, my love?)
HEAD US OUT TO SEA
(What petty crime was I found guilty of?)
CAPTAIN SAYS THERE'LL BE A BUST
(What better time to find a brand new day?)
THIS ONE'S NOT FOR ME
(Oh, Wanderlust away)
DROPPING A LINE,
MAYBE THIS TIME
IT'S WANDERLUST FOR ME. |
Dear Dertonarm: Doesn't sound like him much, right?--but it is: Wanderlust |
Dgob: your link has an errant period at the end of the url; delete it and the page loads. |
