A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Come on Lewm, Copernicus certainly was no twit. If still bounded in certain ways of thinking - and as such deeply routed in its time and spirit - he was nevertheless a mind able to think past the frontiers of his day.
I will rather give my comment regarding turntable concept in physical form this summer.

Dear Halcro, it didn't worked out really good for Galileo giving his thoughts and comments to the world .....

Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, the turntable, arm and cartridge do form ONE mechanical system. Tonearm and cartridge do form another mechanic-dynamic system of their own. There are wanted and ( more common ...;-) ...) some unwanted side-effects and synergies when putting the two "systems" together to get a record player.
The "plinth" and the "platter" do contribute (or detract ...) much more to the "sound" then most designers and audiophiles believe.
A full force vector diagram of the complete tt w/tonearm and cartridge and spinning platter (and building resonance ...) will nicely illustrate the interactions.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, getting "rid" of the turntables plinth will be very similar (sonic-wise..) to "castrate" the turntable.
It is one system.
Energy storage, transmission and vibration isolation are much more important issues than commonly believed.
The plinth is not the problem, but if clever done more likely the cure.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, yes, but that is not in any way an empirical test or proof. The Raven is relatively bass-shy and in any case, a relative comparison between the "nude" DD and the Raven is no more than that: - a relative comparison between two TTs.
See - no matter whether you have a TT with a plinth or a "nude"/skeleton TT - you always have a "plinth". With the "nude" TT the surface/corpus underneath the motor and the armbase IS in fact the plinth and does act as one.
Please do seriously consider giving a thought to a complete force vector diagram of the turntable system and you will immediately see the point.
And BTW - the spinning platter is of course part of the force vector system. But nevertheless, the tonearm/cartridge do form a mechanic-dynamic system and the two together with the plinth/underground do form a mechanic system.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, don't just think of "plinth" as a wooden "cage" around the bearing and armboard. Take plinth rather as the "common ground" of both - bearing and armboard - and you have the answer.
Again - if you are looking for real arguments, do seek shelter in the arms of our good old mother physic (at least as long as we are standing on this good earth...).
It may still not really sound tempting to all or most, but the already cited force vector diagram will shine more than just a faint light here. It will fully illustrate the position of raw physics and the depending of the individual parts of the system to the whole and to each other.

Cheers,
D.

Dear Lewm, it is just a plain force vector diagram - nothing that would require anything specific.
And no, the fact that for specific examples of different TTs ( moving mass, static mass etc.) some individual factors will show different values, does not alter the value nor validity of the complete vector model for TTs.
In any case, grown up men in general and audiophiles in specific don't want to be lectured in public.
So - those really interested in the background on the physics of TTs will do the vector diagram themselves.
The others...... well .... business as usual.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.
There are much more complex machines then turntables out there which likewise are explained and researched (designed ... ;-) ...) on the firm ground of force vector models.

Cheers,
D.

Dear Raul,
a force vector diagram can tell how the different forces act and where they go (which I think is a very interesting question in itself .... ) and as such will explain the contribution of a "plinth" and will explain that there is always a "plinth" - even in "naked" TTs.
The only truly "naked" (i.e. NO plinth at all ) turntable is a moving platter and tonearm in fixed and orientated distance to each other floating in outer space away from earth's gravity and atmosphere. So all forces and energy displayed in that machine will remain within the machine.
I know that you don't like physics and empirical theories, but sometimes they help .....
I am not sure, whether the FV-diagram has actually ears, but if it does, those ears will be very objective and free from prepositions, decline by advanced age, taste and egomania.
So it might very well add one more statement, opinion and position to the topic.
As good ... or bad ... as any other.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, I don't want to spoil the picture of the "magnetically elevated above a shelf DD tt" with the "rigidly held, isolated armpod fixed to the shelf, so that the geometrical relationships with the elevated turntable/platter remain correct and immovable." - so let's give that model a short thought.
A few points, a) energy of the tracking process will still find its way through the magnetic field. b) due to the omnipresent curse of building resonance alone, there will a relative movement of the fixed-to-shelf armpod in relation to the magnetic elevated DD (due to the kind of "spring"-effect of the magnetic field).

Honestly, - the fv-diagram was just a simple proposal to illustrate that the energy inside a working record playback system will travel and where and how it travels. That energy, its amplitude and reflections are responsible to a large extend for the turntable's share of what we call "sound".

It was just a proposal to illustrate the physic behind sonic discussion of a component (here a machine).
I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound".
Cheers,
D.

Dear Ct0517, in my 30+ years of high-end audiomania, most of the real great "sonic improvements" came out of giving things a deep and throughout thought. Plain field experiment and try-and-error is anyway as good as my approach.
It is just that I want to know why a system or a component does what it does the way it does.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Lewm, as a direct response to your post 01-18-11, I think that the most important energy in the turntable system is in fact emitted by the tracking process itself. The rotating platter is not the problem (in fact, it is a rather self-stabilizing force increasingly resting with increased inertia).
The tracking process (the more so with low compliance and direct-coupling cartridges - Ikeda, SPU, DECCA) does create a source of energy (vibration) traveling into the record, into the platter, into the tonearm and creating resonances, reflections and ( all mass and material depending...) standing waves in the material.
Those are the demons I want to illustrate.
That energy is traveling and should find a way to leave the system fast as possible with leaving as little resonances and reflections as possible along the way.
A poor plinth will react to that energy with resonances and reflections and such cloud, alter and spoil the sonic performance.
VTF is part of the problem ( but only in relation to the corresponding compliance ). Skating is not.
High-compliance MMs will be much less of a problem.
A reason why cartridges like FR-7, SPU, IKeda, DECCA/London do perform to their very best on high mass platter tt's with massive frames, very rigid tonearms and platter weight above 30 lbs. To me it's a game of energy and masses - and the material mix.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, Lewm, Raul, et al - I assume that on a whole we all do in fact agree on the topic of "bad plinth" tt vs "naked" tt ( in the sense of the absence of a poor designed and resonate plinth which doesn't add any good to the performance, but is just a source of sonic distraction ).
If we include tt-designs like Micro Seiki 5000/8000, Raven AC/BN, PV and the like into the "naked" camp, then I absolutely agree, that a "naked" tt has considerable advantages vs "classic plinth" - types with wooden frame around a spring-"isolated" sub-chassis.
Then we have main-frame types like Thuchan's Continuum Criterion, which falls somewhere in between ......
But here it is done with huge input (money- and manpower...) and some smart ideas.
Ultimately I think it always come down to this.
IMHO ( ... ;-) ...) the solution might be found in an extremely rigid and dead silent "mainframe" holding the armpod/base and the bearing. That frame should be pretty massive, compound and compact so to display minimal tendency to resonate.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Raul,

+++++ " I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound". " ++++

agree, you can't argue with only words against people that tested both approaches and that have facts and not only words like you. So permit me add to your last statement:

I and a few others that " tested " prefer that sound!

Sorry, but ... my remark was meant utterly sarcastic....;-) ...

And finally - it is always words vs words (as "personal experience" vs "personal experience"). The personal preference - that thing you named "fact" ... - of one person is worth as much or as little as one other's.
There are no empirical tests available here.
There are no "facts" here drawn from personal "tests".
Sorry.
Wished there were.
So everyone's "tests" are bitterly limited, since drawn from listening with different and most likely not perfect periphery and based on a bag full of individual circumstances and likes/dislikes.
So totally worthless for the next person - unless he/she is a blind "follower" of the former.
"Falling back" on plain and simple or complex physical models might not be tempting to some, but it is at least an universal objective attempt.

Picking up on Halcro's initial words:
For thousands of years people believed that the sun is moving around the earth. They had "proof" every day and it was an undisputed "fact" drawn from "personal test and experience".
After all they all saw the sun wandering through the horizon, setting and rising again the next morning.
Galileo (and long before him less well known arabic, greek and egyptian men of thought and clear view looked behind the plain "obvious" view and found a different approach and physical fact.
An approach free from individual experience......
Now just exchange "geocentric conception of the world" with "personal tests and facts in audio" and you see the point.
We ( well, .... most of us ...) have moved on to the heliocentric conception of the world ( and right now are on our way to another even more universal conception ... .... at least some of us ...;-) ....) and we ( ... some ...) will move on in audio too.

And as such it is the more scientific and Copernican point of view and attempt ( Halcro .... ;-) ...).

Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, I in "IMHO" think that "the best" or "fact" in correlation with high-end audio is in most cases a classic self-deception. This however is no problem at all, if it is a personal preference and taste. But since in audio we all ( in the sense of "we, the people" ... ;-) ... ) do strive for absolutes ( "best" and "facts" are absolutes ), it is a problematic issue to draw absolutes from highly subjective experiences and limited and ever-changing periphery.
Yes, JV, HP and all the other reviewers and likewise the customers (we, the people..) do have their personal preferences regarding "best".
But trying to break out of this and going for objective and neutral positions (physic, geometry, mechanics) isn't all that much fun ( to most - which I do understand ).
So we will continue with our "manoeuver in the dark" which at least gives each and everyone the opportunity to find his/her own portion of light and insight.
IMHO physic gives us pretty clear paths for the conception of a turntable.
If one leaves aspects as market-acceptance, Pareto-principle, MiniMax, WAF, production-costs and size/weight (all utterly unimportant ...;-) ...) aside, then the path is - well - straight.
But that TT would be very expensive and labor-intensive to produce and would find no buyer but a few east-asian thyccons.
The wide range of different designs in tts is a direct result of a wide range of taste, money to spend, approach and visions by their designers and customers alike.
We have highly individual rooms, set-ups and components - and consequently tts.
The next upgrade is the next fix for the "audiophile junkie" - needed to carry on, even if one is aware that it won't last for long.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Thuchan, I agree with you. There is absolutely no objection from my side against personal taste or preferences.
I have mine too ...;-) ...
That is as long as they stay what they are - personal tastes and preferences.
But if "leaders" or "gurus" do take (and sometimes postulate) their personal preferences as "facts" or "proof", then this is a different story.
None of us is or even can be objective - far from that.
Our tastes and consequently our way to listen to music is highly individual and thus subjective a priori et ad decretum.
A simple reason why I prefer abstract, scientific, non-individual ( colored ...) ways to encircle electrical and mechanical aspects in audio components.
It's kind of "Kritik der Vernunft". No worries, I won't go for another excursus in philosophy.
Science and abstraction is always in conflict with "wishful thinking", "personal experience" and "faith". Even I sometimes wished it weren't.
Not only in audio.
Cheers,
D.

I agree totally with Atmasphere - there is always a "plinth" ( in the sense of a common ground for bearing and armpod/armbase/armboard ), even if it is not always apparent as such ...;-) .... so, - sorry to burst some bubbles here - it is never really "nude" .....
After all it is still audio....
Cheers,
D.

T_bone is absolutely right - any damping (pneumatic, oil-based, elastomer - whatever) will only reach its optimum read: lowest possible) resonance frequency and spec behavior at its maximum load.
So here for once any over-compensation regarding parts is not just futile but entirely contra-productive.
That's why even most high-priced isolation platforms do need additional load in addition to audio components resting on them to really "work" the way the are designed for.
Same regarding the other points in T_bone's post. They are correct and describe the correct way to handle the topic if going for a TT without "classical plinth".
Cheers,
D.
post scriptum: I wonder why this thread has to be searched for and isn't available anymore through the Analog Forum's front page ... any idea anybody ?

Dear Halcro, yes - it is on your front page, but not on the "Audiogon forum analog"-page.
Means that one indeed has to search for your thread - it can't be find among the current other threads in analog.
Very strange indeed.

Dear Halcro, T_bone and Atmasphere only seem to postulate opposite positions. Whether you actually mount with screws or with spikes and high weight can result in the very same.
So your spikes are actually VERY tight a coupling to the platform (even if you can move the armpods if you wish...). The coupling force is the weight of the armpod (hopefully pretty high) divided by the touching area of your spike (very small ... ) - so the resulting coupling force is pretty high.
However with the kind of weight we are talking generally in audio components, spikes are less tightly an mounting option than a good solid screw. After all it is about coupling two masses together without possible movement of one in relation towards the other.
Armpod(s) and bearing/turntable can hardly be DECOUPLED from each other in the sense that would allow relative movement of one towards the other (which would be the very sense of "decoupling"). One can incorporate kinds of resonance-barriers between them, but they will always (or better: should...) be coupled towards each other.
This can be via a shelf, plinth, skeleton - whatever.
I think T_bone, Atmasphere, (me too ...) are talking about the very same thing in slightly different word.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Henry, yes, Korton's sculptures are sharing - although separate .. - a plinth in the platform they are standing on.
BTW - there were turntable designers contributing to this thread.
It is just that their statements weren't really to the liking of the "nude tt"-camp.... ;-) .....
Cheers,
D.

Dear Henry, sorry to say, but the new version will rather be the "big brother"..... in all respects ;-( .....
Cheers,
D.

Dear Henry, if you want this thread to soon get out of hand, the best way is to encourage the idler-, belt- and direct-drive "camps" to start a discussion about what is the "best" drive system for turntables .....
This is a minefield full of personal preferences and highly explosive "sensibilities".
Especially so, as each and every of the popular drive principles does have special requirements to the tt-design as a whole.
Better leave this alone .... it won't do any good to the Copernican view of the turntable.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Thuchan, the Apolyt will be spinning its 88 lbs platter started by idler wheel drive and kept on speed by tangential thread - force free bearing - this summer in Hamburg, Oberstdorf and near the shore of Lake Ammersee. At least we will all see a few pictures here on Audiogon.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Banquo363, thank you very much for the hint. God - being a fan of the Beatles and Paul since my early teens still haven't recognized the song in the video.
Is that really Paul singing on the Onedof-vid?

Dear Lewm, too bad we won't be able to even test that prospective added benefit regarding water skiing - there is no water-skiing allowed on Lake Ammersee due to wildlife-reserve status (many rare birds here ..;-) ... ) and protected shore-side.
So we have to be content with the huge inertia most likely eliminating all prospective derivations from the desired 33 1/3, 45 and 78 rpm.
Good news are - no one has to row for it.
Bad news are - it won't fit on or into any high-end rack out there.
But then it will come with it's own rack air-suspended with 1.5 Hz resonance frequency.
More in summer 2011.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Nandric,
the "trumpet" attached to Thuchan's TAD-2002 driver was designed by me and I prepared the technical drawings to have it fine milled from one solid piece in a 3D-CNC-precision milling facility here in Bavaria.
It was not easy.
It is however kind of Thuchan's property now.
Furthermore it only works with the bandpass of his X-over, the TAD-2002 and within and in conjunction with the whole Bavarian Voice-system.
Nothing that can really be copy-paced and transferred to another speaker.
Cheers,
D.
post scriptum: Halcro is right - it shouldn't be all that problem to find tooling-facilities around any major city in europe or the US who can handle milling work on solid metal (or wooden ) pieces to create nice armpods.

Dear Halcro, I certainly agree regarding the proportional unbalance of the whole ensemble. I for one would always try to use a bearing with zero horizontal force (- well, not on the Well Tempered TT of course....;-) .....

Dear Nandric, dear Lewm, the japanese tonearm engineers of the 1970ies and 1980ies did not at all sign up to the Baerwald tangential curve.
At least not the majority of them.
And for some good reason.
They realized pretty early, that the situation for a stereo stylus is different and that the decreasing groove radius towards the inner label becomes more and more difficult.
Thus we see a lot of classic japanese tonearms with geometries pointing more toward Stevenson and in general more toward DIN-standard then IEC.
I won't say it is "better", but I would say that there are good reasons for not following the way of the "average lowest distortion".
Having an eye of where the maxima and minima of the derivation from tangential zero error are in fact located can bring interesting results.
In the western audio hemisphere it was/is - in general - all Baerwald/Loefgren A (with very little Loefgren B ..).
The fact that Loefgren A/Baerwald was calculated when no one dreamed yet about a stereo stylus is seldom mentioned today.
There are calculations which can indeed give lower average distortion as Baerwald - especially when tracking a stereo groove.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Lewm, youe assumption is correct - the Dynavector tonearms are designed following Stevenson IEC calculation. Stevenson IEC was pretty popular among japanese tonearm designers in the 1970ies and after.
While I am not really a fan of the Stevenson-curve (very high derivations in the last 3rd of the groove - then steep nose-diving to zero on the IEC/DIN standard point of inner groove limit ) - it has some merits.
But substituting Baerwald with Stevenson is jumping out of the frying pan and straight into the fire. Before going for Stevenson IEC, I would rather try Baerwald DIN or UNI-DIN instead - even with a Dynavector.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Nandric, dear Lewm, I am happy to talk in length about tangential curve and tonearm(s) "on their own", but we should do this in a separate thread.
Because - IMHO - this will soon leave Copernican view and separate arm pods ....
So much for now - no, you can't choose your zero points freely (at least not on a 12" record ...) - not if you want any decent positive results from tracking the signal in the groove.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Nikola, I died many times for the absolute truth and will most probably continue to do so.
My problem with gravity is that I never managed to overcome it in the sense of Douglas Adam's "Hitchhiker's Guide"-Circle...... ;^) .....
The "cruel mistress" on the other hand never becomes boring nor loosing it's grip on my senses and interest ( remember Winston C.'s famous quote ? - "I've never been bored...").
Kant was a human being ....... so in his sense of conjunction of human kind...;-) ...
Cheers,
D.

Dear Lewm, while tonearm alignment in general is the most critical mechanic-related topic in the whole audio periphery, it is even more critical in the "outboard arm pod".
We like to think that if we do not "touch" the arm pod nor the tt by accident, the distance between the pivot and the spindle will stay constant if the arm pod has any decent mass.
Unfortunately this is not the case.
The "eigen"/resonance frequency of the two different masses in relation to each other will inevitably cause a movement between the tt and the "free" arm pod.
Or mechanical world isn't as quite and stable as it seems to the mere eye.
It is a bit like the nice example with old church windows.
Glass is a liquid not a solid. It just appears to be solid, because it is moving so slowly, that we can't see it.
The movements of arm pod (separate and not fixed to the solid ground) in relation to the turntable is ever so subtle ( at least in our awareness ..), but there is almost constant movement in microscopic dimensions.
Now the polished area of the stylus itself, as well as the most subtle modulations in the groove are already in the scale of 1/1000 of a millimeter.

You stepping on the ground while walking, a car passing by your house, the slamming of a door, a truck passing 3 blocks away from you - all this and much more is causing movement of your "free" arm pod relative to the turntable and as such a movement of the pivot in relation to the spindle.

Nothing apparent to ou eyes at first glance of course.

In addition, there is the chain of mechanical "detonations" by the tracking process of your stylus in the groove. It puts energy into tonearm, arm pod and turntable - all causing movement.
The energy of the tracking process is causing resonance and stimulating movement.
All this is subtle and you most likely won't notice anything.
With an electron microscope you would even see and could measure the movement. Not linear nor in a particular direction.
A "free" arm pod is what it is: - free ..... to move.
Forced by nature.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Nandric, - yes, science is a cruel misstress and the physic laws which apply to the circumstances on this particular planet aren't always to my liking too.
I really hate gravity for instance ...;^) ....
Cheers,
D.

Dear Henry, dear Chris, dear Nikola, "such passion" - really?
I rather perceive this tread and discussion about the pro and cons of "free" arm pods as being moderate and kind of "in cool ( if not cold ...) blood".
In any case - I certainly do not want to discredit the whole topic and the " free arm pod" pro-camp .
Everything is fine, as long as a separate arm pod is used for a limited period of time and/or to test a given tonearm quick and without drilling mounting holes in a precious plinth.
Aside from the "relative movement", there are other issues going with - any - separate arm pod ( energy transmission and reflections et al ).
Given equal care and smart design, a separate arm pod will ( .. sorry about that, Texas! ...) be 2nd choice - quality-wise ( if - of course - more convenient ).
It nevertheless has it's merits and does ease tonearm testing.
The armboards originally invented by Micro Seiki and copied by many others since can be seen as "cantilevers" - but at least they keep strict distance.

The molecular point of view is not applicable here - the derivations in atomic structure and surface are there in any case.
We have to cope and deal with them anyway.
This however does not affect the relative movement of two fairly lightweight bodies (everything is lightweight here - everything under a ton ) relative to each other caused by building resonance and energy transfer - sorry, but these are different "animals".
Furthermore these movements aren't in Microns nor Angstroems - they can approach 1/100 mm and more quite fast.
If we might not "detect" it by worsening sound nor derivation on a tangential template which line is already 1 mm thick does not alter nor deny the physical phenomenon.
A free arm pod will wander - so why do not use a adhesive tape to secure it in place ?
Easy to detach again and eliminating - or at least lessening - the "relative wandering".
Best,
D.

Dear Henry,
it is not disputed at all - at least not by me - that a "nude" turntable paired with an "isolated/free" armpod(s) can sound very good.
For a limited period of time.
With certain arm/cartridge combination (the higher the compliance - the better).
Even I have tried separate arm pods as long back as 1986 (if I remember right they were pretty hefty - approx 30 lbs each) in conjunction with a Le Tallec and a Micro Seiki skeleton TT.
Neither Lewm nor I do offer opinions based on theories here.
What we did was acting as advocati physici.
Technically - and ultimately sonically - there is no single advantage of isolated arm pod versus firmly attached armbase.
If isolated arm pods can and do - undisputed by me - sound so good in comparison with so many plinth-based tt, then the explanation is easy, logic and showing that there still is a lot of work to do in many integrated turntable concepts.
In any case - where is the problem, why not simply prevent an isolated arm pod (but by all means do at least place arm pod and tt on the same ground/shelf, whatever ) from moving by means of adhesive tape or similar.
Easy to remove, easy to alter.
But it is not just "movement" - it is too energy transfer and reflections.
That's why it works comparatively well with high compliance MMs - they but very little energy into the tonearm.
Peace on earth .....
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, Jcarr's "table of material's sonic quality" is correct. The key is the decreasing ability/speed to transmit energy in the different processed materials. Cheers,
D.

Dear Lewis (Lewm), IMHO the "conductivity of energy" is a key feature/issue in tonearms and turntables (and associated arm pods, plinth, platters). It is at least if one tries to get the most dynamic, live-like and uncolored sonic results.
It is a key issue - not the only one, but very important and most often overlooked.
Cheers,
D.

Thuchan,T_bone is referring to the "cantilever effect". A separate armboard/armpod should be linked to the plinth by means which are as rigid and as stiff as the material of the plinth itself.
Otherwise you would create an "elastic joint" similar to a cantilever.
In the very same sense a separate/free standing arm pod in it's relation to the plinth/turntable is "connected" to the plinth. With inevitable effects on energy transfer and resonance behavior of the "closed circuit" mechanical system (here: stylus/cantilever - tonearm - arm pod - common ground - plinth - bearing - platter - record - stylus/cantilever).
That's what Jcarr meant when he was referring to the "grounding principles in amplifiers".
Cheers,
D.

Aside from the fact that the name ONEDOF is rather funny in german, the claim that it is "a first in the history of the audio turntable .... eliminates the source of acoustic distortions associated with microscopic movements of all existing cylindrical shafts".
Nice try.
So we will hail once again a new hero - because it is part of the game.
I for one can see a hell of a lot more ideas in the Continuum (R.I.P.).
But as NASA is downsizing on manpower now a fast pace, a lot of now unemployed engineers will seek new ventures.
Audio may well benefit from a legion of former aerospace engineers now bringing their ideas to the more simple field of audio.

Dear In_shore, my comment was indeed meant rather sarcastic.
In the sense that many hear the call, but very few are in fact appointed ( this phrase is much more phonetic balanced in german .... ).
While audio physics no doubt are much less critical and demanding than aerospace, the criteria are much less obvious and defined.
Deserves every product respect per se?
Just because it is there and just because it bears a serious price tag?
Let a new product - with so far only one sample made - proof it's claimed performance.
Why giving away laurels ahead.
But then I may be too critical and have a habit to regard something "new" always somewhat sceptically.

Dear Nandric, today in audio the big buck is no longer made by trickling down. Unless you have very large production facilities, huge output and the subsequent large quantity discounts with materials procurement, you have little chance to really make good profit that way.
At least not in high-end analog audio any longer.
Too small total numbers.
As a good portion of our passion deals with proud ownership and image, high priced gear sells better today than most modest price components.
Especially as this type of consumption is nothing one exhibit in public.
Setting up serial production for a US$2000 turntable is just as hard and time consuming as doing the same for a US$12000 turntable.
And it is the planning and setting-up of production which is really the challenge.

Does anyone knows someone who actually has bought an Onedof turntable.
Would be interesting to learn which tt it superseded and whether the owner has any thoughts/comments about it performance.

Dear Lewm, yes, no chrome - but look at that shiny golden finish. Given the sky-rocketing gold price of recent months, that should give enough cosmetic proof of quality in the mere audiophile sense we're accustomed to these days.
BTW - what song/singer is that in the video?
Me being music-wise rooted in the 1950s and 60s with very little of modern origin, I would honestly like to know.
I kind of like the tune.

Being introduced 12 months ago the Onedof must (should...) have reached by now 65-70% of it's prospective buyers (marketing rule/product circle).
There must be a few samples out there.
No Audiogoner with any experiences in his/her home set-up?

Dgob, wouldn't go that far,... certainly not.
But seriously - anybody having an idea what song they are playing in the Onedof-video on youtube ?
Would honestly like to know.

Gentlemen, please calm down .... the blonde in the video is just a marketing "tool" ..... sorry to burst the bubble with cruel facts however.
I noticed her too - looks like a sister of my wife.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Ct0517, sorry - I was serious ! Life can be kind .... sometimes. But it took me a long time to find that particular girl.
Kind of copernican journey in itself....;-) .... much harder than audio - at least as rewarding.
Cheers.
D.

Dear Halcro, what is missed - almost entirely - in the whole discussion about turntable drive mechanism, is the one paramount conditio qua non that the movement of the record shall be absolute.
This does - a priori - eliminate ANY drive, which features speed control. Furthermore it disqualifies ANY drive where the transmission features ANY elongation.
It however still leaves the turntable in the "hardware" category....;-) ...
Cheers,
D.

Dear Henry, you are right .... that's what I am saying.
And - no matter what I will say, I won't convince and I do not want so either.
The three principles of drive we encounter in analog phono playback are all three with merits and flaws.
None is perfect - none provides what physic asks for in stable speed.
As none can provide controlled stable speed without acceleration.
Unless we minimize the platter's mass - which we don't really want .... for obvious reasons.
It is about getting the platter to speed and preventing it from slowing down again.
The job of the drive is in the first only ... only ... to get the platter to the required speed.
Once that speed is obtained, it is about preventing the platter from slowing down.
It can't be about "controlling" the platter.
Every acceleration of the platter will degrade sonic performance due to very tiny flutter.
After starting the spin, once the platter is on the correct speed, the job of the motor/drive is only - IMHO (and very well backed by Newton and the laws of physic in the Einstein-continuum in which we still are (but don't really know for how much longer - given the latest discoveries in astrophysic science ..)) - to prevent the platter from slowing down.
Not to control it.
This leads to the principle of controlled slippage in conjunction with huge inertia which so far has not been applied to analog audio in any correct way ever.
Mostly because it is very expensive to do it right as it requires huge masses, very precise tooling and - if one want's any convenience in terms of getting to speed within a minute - very expensive motors.
I am neither in the BD nor in the DD camp and not in the ID (idler drive) camp either.
These all have their merits - no question about that.
And we will always see one or the other principle being en vogue due to fashion and style.
These 3 will always be what is available to the public.
But non of these is able by nature to provide the last 1% in performance.
By using one of the 3 common principles in tt-design, we always accept that the last "degree of freedom (here: sound w/o flutter)" is not with us.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Peterayer, yes, I have read the technical description - as far as available - about the WK NVS. It will certainly get some following in the audiophile community. Especially so as it is one of the very few new "serious" direct drive turntables out there.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Nandric, there is indeed a very good reason why so many designers do use those small (inexpensive) motors.
They do fit oh so well into the production budget.
Cheers,
D.