A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear T_bone,
Because there already is a 'Professor' in our midsts (Timeltel of Kentucky).......the only post left open for you is 'Honorary Dean of the Faculty' :^)

Dear Dertonarm,
No......Galileo didn't have a happy life with the Pope in Rome, but his book gave him immortality.
I saw you as the perfect candidate as Galileo in this case with your new turntable almost perfected?
And then with Raul's new tonearm, we will all only have to worry about which cartridges to play with? :-)
Cheers
Henry

For thousands of years it was believed that the earth was the centre of the solar system and that the sun revolved around it.
Before telescopes existed, Copernicus proposed that it was the earth in fact, that revolved around the sun.

For longer than I can remember, it was generally accepted that the turntable (plinth/platter) was the centre of the analogue playback system with the arm and cartridge attendant to it?

I propose that it is the arm…..or rather the cartridge that is in fact the centre of the turntable system with the platter required simply to drive the record onto the stylus.

Together with the belief that the platter is the centre of the ‘Turntable System’ is the belief that the stylus ‘tracks’ the groove in the vinyl in a passive subservient manner?
I propose that it is the platter which drives the vinyl groove onto the stylus which is being held rigidly by the tonearm.

Imagine if you will in a perfect world, a cartridge held in a vice-like grip and a mile-long, perfectly straight vinyl groove being fed at precisely the right speed past the stylus?
All that would be required for the cartridge to transmit perfect information, is the ability to move up and down frictionlessly to allow for warpage as the groove modulates?
Now this ‘straight’ vinyl groove is in fact a ‘spiral’ so that the cartridge must have the ability to adjust its position laterally also in a frictionless manner.
That is the purpose of the tonearm……to hold the cartridge rigidly yet allow it to move up and down and sideways as the vinyl groove is rammed onto the stylus at a perfectly maintained constant speed.

The tonearm is now the centre of this ‘Turntable System’ and is the most important element. It must be rigidly held on a base which is perfectly flat, non-magnetic and relatively immune to structure-borne and air-borne feedback. This base must ideally have no contact with mechanical or electrical interference and must under no circumstances, move or deflect in any manner.
This base should ideally have no contact with the drive mechanism of the platter or the plinth, sub-platter, belt, gears, idler-wheels etc.
This base should be an island.

The ‘turntable’ or platter is simply a revolving mechanism positioned at a certain geometrical distance from the centre of the tonearm, whose method of drive has absolutely no impact on the sound of the ‘system’ so long as it maintains perfect speed control and perfect isolation to the record from air-borne and structure-borne feedback.

The idea therefore of a plinth around the platter in the above scenario, would only serve to add or subtract information in a worst-case scenario, or be totally transparent in a best-case situation.

There……I’ve said it.
Is there a 'Galileo' out there to support me before I die unrecognised? :-(

Thanks Hodu,
After the initial thread was started (with the link to my system's page), I was then able to post the long statement on this thread.
I wrote to Audiogon but have received no answer as to why this might be?

Dear Lew,
My thesis is that once the immovable and isolated base has been established for the tonearm, the method of drive for the turntable will make no difference to the sound retrieved by the cartridge as long as perfectly correct and stable speed is achieved without any resonances transmitted via the platter.

If this is the case and I am correct (two big 'ifs'), any 'plinth' is superfluous?
If an added plinth around the turntable alters the sound in any way, then it cannot be correct.
It may be preferred by certain listeners but must by definition, be a tone control either adding or subtracting information.
As Atmasphere correctly said about outboard phono stages.......if a change of interconnects changes the sound, the phono stage is flawed.

Dear Raul,
You are certainly correct that you have constantly been claiming that the tonearm/cartridge UNIT is the 'King' and most important part of the record-playing system.
But that is NOT what I am claiming.
My belief is that it is the BASE for the tonearm/cartridge unit which is the 'sine qua non' of the turntable system.

Once you have an immovable and isolated base, you may put whatever tonearm/cartridge combination you wish upon it?
MANY tonearms will sound well with a multitude of cartridges and I don't believe there is a single 'BEST' tonearm nor cartridge for all occasions?

I am claiming that without the precondition of the immovable and isolated tonearm BASE, any tonearm/cartridge combination will be compromised to some degree.
Of course there are many examples of non-isolated tonearm bases which work perfectly well but do so, I think, because they approach very closely, the characteristics of the isolated immovable base?

Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated.
Regards
Henry

Thanks for your thoughts Syntax.
Cheers
Henry

Dear Thuchan,
Yes, Micro Seiki knew a thing or two about analogue.
Your SX 8000 had it's motor separated from the plinth/platter and, as you say, the very solid arm boards attached rigidly to the plinth.
This is an example of an understandable use of a plinth........not designed to change the sound of the information extracted from the grooves, but to support the platter bearing and tonearms.
Sort of copied by TW Raven among others? :-)

Dear Raul,
I think you and I are in agreement on these things.
In terms of the compromises inherent at every step of the analogue system, it is still possible for even a budget turntable/arm/cartridge combination to easily outdo digital reproduction and with the best analogue reproduction, it is possible to approach the sound of master tapes?
So those compromises must be very small and easily overcome for this to be?
Regards
Henry

Dear Lew,
My proposition is that ideally the base for the tonearm should be an isolated, level and immovable object resistant to all forms of mechanical and electrical interference.
If that is not possible, a reasonable facsimile of such a base is perfectly workable as demonstrated by the existence of 'reasonable' turntables with integral tonearm bases.

What my theory implies is that those tables with tonearm bases subject to mechanical or electrical interference or those with flimsy suspended bases subject to movement and/or deflection will never be able to extract the correct information from the groove modulation?

And yes......this theory has been crystallised by my 'Nude Turntable Project' with the isolated remote armpods around the Victor TT-81.
With belt drive and Idlers, a 'plinth' is required to support the platter thrust bearing and/or various mechanical linkages whereas with direct drive, the sub-platter and motor are an integral unit......I think? :-)

Dear Dertonarm,

the turntable, arm and cartridge do form ONE mechanical system.

I agree.... but only once the stylus is in the groove.
Before that event I don't understand why there needs to be any physical connection between the platter and arm?

I also agree that the 'plinth' and 'platter' commonly produce unwanted side effects. That is why I wish to be rid of one of these (the plinth) and preface my theory by stating that the platter must provide "perfect isolation" from any resonances into the record? :-)

Cheers
Henry

Dear Timeltel,
Consider yourself excused.
I always welcome your idiosyncratic and knowledgeable interjections.

I hopefully expect more of them :-)
Regards
Henry

Well Raul,
You've finally managed to shock me.
Digital better than analogue....coming from the very person on this Forum who could rightly be called the 'Analogue King'?.......or so I thought?

I think there may be some people on this planet who are genetically or congenitally afflicted with a sub-conscious 'trigger' to digital sound.
I know that for me and my good friend Richard, we are physically unable to critically listen to digital for longer than about half an hour without our bodies internally tightening and our brains dreaming of another pursuit.
This was the case 30 years ago and is still applicable today.
Others of course suffer from no such handicap and I envy them.
Were I similarly blessed, I wonder if indeed I would suffer through the traumas associated with analogue?

Be that as it may, I disagree with you emphatically about the inaccuracies/distortions/noise inherent in the vinyl playback process.
For 25 years my humble $375 Rega Planar 3/Hadcock GH228 easily outclassed any CD player I heard in comparison.

As for your confession on Master Tapes?.............I'm sure you had one too many Tequilas before writing this?
It makes no sense on so many levels that I don't know where to begin unless you simply meant Master Tape 'Copies' played on domestic tape decks?

If what you say is true?............why in fact are you wasting so much time and energy in testing cartridges and headshells?
Why are you not contributing many more posts in the Digital Forums?

Dear Raul, my faith in your ears has been significantly diminished :-(

Yes Jaspert,
The shelf being cantilevered on aluminium brackets from the wall and carrying the weights of both turntables, preamp,tuner,tape deck,DVD, VCR and Plasma TV slopes in all directions?

That's why there are solid spacers under the adjustable Stillpoints of the Raven as well as under all 9 feet of the motors. And that's also why each arm-pod surrounding the TT-81 has 3 adjustable levelling spikes.
Life as an audiophile wasn't meant to be easy?

Blackburn,
Interesting question?
I've never actually heard the big Micros that Thuchan and Syntax have but I assume you are correct that they sound differently to each other?
I'm sure that they and Dertonarm would be able to offer some explanations but I don't think any Raven owners would like to hear them? :-)

Dear Dertonarm,

getting "rid" of the turntables plinth will be very similar (sonic-wise..) to "castrate" the turntable.

I would have thought the same before I tried Raul's 'Nude Turntable Project'?
The bass I get out of this 'plinthless' DD is even better than the Raven with plinth?
Cheers
Henry

Dear Thuchan,

When Raul was infected who could be the next?

I hope it's not I??!!
Cheers
Henry

that there really is no such thing as "no plinth"

Well....depends how you define 'plinth'?
Of course, if even a wire cage can be called a 'plinth', then perhaps you're right?

I like Raul's proposition ( we're back on track Raul :-))...the 'best' plinth is 'no plinth'.
And I also agree with him that we still haven't heard from anyone who has listened to a 'plinthless' TT and found it wanting? As Raul says

we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

Only hypothetical theories about why a plinth must exist?

In any case, I was lying awake last night thinking of this and I wondered......if we can take the 'plinth' totally out of the equation, then there can be no argument?
There are now many turntables utilising magnetic drive of the sub-platter and/or magnetic separation of the main platter from the sub-platter.
As Clearaudio claims about their Statement turntable

Magnetic driven sub-platter, with absolutely no contact to the main platter.

The DaVinci AAS Gabriel MK2 has similar magnetic separation of the main platter.
Unless I'm missing some obvious physical law here, I'd be tempted to claim that the 'plinth' in these situations can have no effect on the sound produced?

"But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever. "
Michael Corleone

But I think possibly the attraction of no plinth is primarily that it may introduce euphonic colorations that are ablated with a really good plinth that can render the turntable "neutral".

Hard to follow the logic here?

Well said Chris.
Couldn't agree more.

Regards
Henry

Dear Dertonearm,
I, like many others here, am not quite sure what you mean by the force vector diagram?
I assume that you mean a diagram of all the forces inherent in the turntable but split into parts.....plinth/platter/cartridge/tonearm/armpod/plinth?
If so, I assume you want a complete circuit whereby all the forces 'balance out' diagrammatically resulting in 'Nil'?

I have a problem with this model (apart from Raul's point that it won't tell us anything about the sound) in that it takes the accepted paradigm with a 'plinth' being part of the equation and the 'armpod' being related to this 'plinth'?

When you state that

With the "nude" TT the surface/corpus underneath the motor and the armbase IS in fact the plinth and does act as one.

I also assume that you mean either the shelf or stand or even the floor acts as the defacto plinth?

The 'Copernican' view in my Posting does not accept this standard paradigm.
It does not accept that the force vector diagram be a circuit in the terms that you are proposing.

I believe that in the case of magnetically elevated platters, the diagram is forced into a disconnect although you may argue that the guiding ceramic spindle completes the vector diagram despite the fact that it transmits no load?

To avoid this argument, imagine if you will, an entire DD turntable (with plinth if you like), magnetically elevated above a shelf.
I can imagine it so it's logically possible?
Now imagine my rigidly held, isolated armpod fixed to the shelf so that the geometrical relationships with the elevated turntable/platter remain correct and immovable.
I believe that we then approach your "platter floating in outer space" analogy and I'm not sure that your Force Vector diagram completes itself unless through the magnetic field itself.....which I suppose is possible?

At any rate, as you say on many occasions, I'm happy for you to believe what you like and I'm sure my thought is reciprocated :-)

Cheers
Henry

Dear Lew,
If you'd get off these damn audio sites you might get something finished?
:-)

Perhaps we're chasing phantoms here?
Are turntables just like cartridges and speakers?
Different flavours for different folk yet doing the same job in different ways?

After all, who amongst us here is brave enough to name the best turntable he's ever heard for fear of being shot down in flames?
Yet there are the reviewers who aren't afraid to do exactly that.

Jonothan Valin names the Walker Proscenium as the best with the DaVinci Gabriel second best.
Michael Fremer names his Continuum Caliburn/Cobra the best while Harry Pearson has the Clearaudio Statement up there.
Yet they're all very different design models?

I don't think many of us on this Forum have the same table or tonearms yet we all seem to derive much pleasure from playing vinyl (except for Raul:-))?

If we have an imperfect medium within an imperfect chain mixed with personal preferences and unlimited combinations and permutations of equipment, is it any wonder that no one item can be universally called 'the best'?

Perhaps that's also why we continue to seek that elusive indefinable 'upgrade' which will suddenly make sense of our miserable and meaningless lives?

I still believe the key to the improvement was and this is gut feel only 75% isolated armboard and 25% getting the sp10 out of its plinth. Isolating and mass loading the armboard I feel was key.

I have the same gut feel.
The isolated and heavy arm boards I believe, are a revelation.

Dgob,
Welcome to the 'Nude' club.
You at least did the comparison.
It would be helpful for others here if you could perhaps describe the plinth that you 'abandoned'?

Cheers
Henry

that the platform has become your plinth

Well OK...... then turntables with plinths which sit on bases have two plinths?
:-)
Let us agree that at least we 'Nuders' are eliminating one plinth?

And does that mean our amps on shelves or stands also have 'plinths'?
And our tuners, CD players etc?
How about our 'plinthed' speakers?.....because they sit on the floor or stands?

I think you have to understand the lengths that most of us go to, to de-couple and isolate our speakers and turntables (and many also their amps), from this shelf/stand/floor/plinth.
If you look at the transmission of various frequencies through the tiny contact points of 'spikes' or through various decoupling materials used as isolating bases, it becomes apparent that this differs enormously from that of the contact made by the turntable in its traditional plinth.

I have heard that Ralph's famous amplifiers do in fact sound better when mounted in a Panzerholtz plinth :-)

I think you will find that the mounting for the platter and the tower for the arm will sound their best when coupled as tightly to the non-resonant platform upon which the resulting turntable is being constructed.

Pure supposition and theory with no proof or evidence offered?
This is not worthy of you Ralph.

We 'Nuders' and 'Armboard Isolators' are reporting our practical experiences.
It is slightly galling to be told that 'theoretically', in someone's unproven opinion our experiences are invalid?

Dear Chris,
Thanks for the kind words and yes....kudos to Raul for planting the idea for the 'Nude Turntable' in my head.

You may be right about lots of other people now trying out the same experiment as my Thread is recording an average of 100 hits every day despite the fact that it doesn't appear on this site and they have to go searching for it??!!

Hopefully some of these 'experimenters' will eventually contribute their thoughts in this Forum?

Knowledge is free.

Dear Dertonarm,
Thread is visible on my front page but Raul also couldn't see it?
Don't know what's going on?

T_bone,
What you are saying and what Ralph is saying seem to me diametrically opposed?
You and I are in total agreement, in fact the postulation of this thread is that the armpod is fixed and the geometrical relationship to the platter is correct and stable.
What Ralph says is

mounting for the platter and the tower for the arm will sound their best when coupled as tightly to the non-resonant platform upon which the resulting turntable is being constructed.

Coupled TIGHTLY to the platform!!

Here I am simply going to be obstinate.
I disagree completely. There is nothing TIGHT about the spikes under my armpods and there is nothing TIGHT about the TipToes under my turntable.
The armpods and turntable are DECOUPLED from their base (the shelf) and unless I'm not comprehending properly......you agree with my methods?
Bear in mind that the RELATIONSHIPS must be completely accurate and stable.

So DECOUPLED are all these items from each other, I can physically take each armpod away and if I so desire, I may even tuck my Nude Turntable under my arm as I happily walk my pet snake?

Whilst the thread is not on the front page of the Analogue Forum, if you go to the Recent Discourse Forums and press 12 hour, 24 hour or 48 hour link, you will find it there.

I like going this way as a routine b cause you get to see all the current discourse and in their order of popular activity.

However I have asked Audiogon the reason for this?

We're baaack.....

I re-assured the moderators that I really didn't take my pet snake for a regular walk..........it's just a special treat.

Greetings Ralph,

my turntable has been in development since the early 1990s.

That sound exciting? I was wondering why no turntable designers were contributing to this thread?
Any clues as to which 'drive' model you're pursuing?

I think this is an example of separates on the same plinth?
GULP

Dear Dgob,
Wonderful post and illuminating descriptions.
For newcomers to this thread and the sceptics out there, it would be good perhaps for you re-cap on what plinth you had used with the SP10Mk2 prior to 'nuding' it?

Dear Daniel,

BTW - there were turntable designers contributing to this thread.

Yes....you are a turntable designer and Raul is a tonearm and cartridge designer.

Unfortunately you must prove it with a 'pudding'?
So far we know that Ralph can design amplifiers and Raul preamps.
No 'puddings' yet for turntables, arms or cartridges?
Although I don't doubt that dessert may someday eventuate?
And I certainly look forward to your turntable debut at CES this year? :-)

Cheers
Henry

Dgob,
I'm really excited about your experiment because I am familiar with the Mambo (not too different from Raul's Acoustic Signature model) and knowing the way the armboard is connected to the 'plinth', I believe you should experience a marked improvement if you separate it onto spikes?

The only caveat is whether it is heavy enough to maintain the stability required?

My apologies to Dertonarm as I have just seen images of the Apolyt turntable he designed in 1990 (google it) and it is quite stunning and interestingly, has massive independent arm pods.

To these eyes it would be a disappointment if it didn't sound as beautiful as it looks?

Will the 'new' one be a more affordable version of this Daniel? :-)

Cheers
Henry

I guess this is one way?
BIG
And these are others?
NOT SO BIG
Do they all sound the same?

Atmasphere,
Empire 208?
Hmmmmm...belt drive? I kinda figured you as an idler kind of guy?
Any comments on other drive systems?

Yes Nicola.......asparagus....the vegetables.
As in ASPARAGUS

I use just 3 tiptoes Chris.
Rigid de-coupling like spikes are far easier to ensure levelling with 3. With 4 you'd probably find that only 3 are making solid contact.
With isolators that use rubber or other 'giving' substances, 4 can often make contact if you want utmost stability ie if you don't want it to tip if you lean on it?

Dgob,
As Lew and Ralph intimate, I believe both turntable and arm pods should be 'coupled' in the same way ie all spikes.
I don't believe you should have spikes on the arm pods and pliable footers on the turntable OR vice versa.
Assuming you are conforming to this, I still have some doubts about the weight of the aluminium Acoustic Signature arm pod being 'effective' enough on spikes?
As Dertonarm and Atmasphere stated, the greater weight applied to the spikes the better?
Regardless of all this, it may be that the spikes on the arm pod is giving you a 'better' isolation/coupling and just requires you to become used to the better flow of information.
Perhaps a recalibration of the loadings on those familiar cartridges may help?
Good luck and please keep us informed of the experiments?

Nandric,
Do you know the weight of that particular armpod and what do have it sitting on.....eg spikes or other?

Sorry Nandric,
My bad. Didn't read carefully enough.
Your set-up should sound wonderful I imagine. Pity you have no System pics?
Cheers

Unfortunately for you, seismic design entails making very flexible structures......especially at the joints.....those between column and beam, load-bearing wall and floor.
They are designed to move significantly......virtually like a hinge.
Structure-borne feedback in these conditions is almost a given.
I now understand your problems :^(
Air-borne feedback is very rarely a problem despite what you believe.

Whilst Chris' Guide to making your own armpod is admirable, he appears to have concentrated on his ET parallel-tracking arm which I feel is different to the majority of pivoted arms?
When I designed my armpod, I attempted to make it 'universal' in that it could accommodate all the vintage pivoted arms I could find and all the modern ones as well.
The major differences between the vintage arms and the modern ones are most likely to be the fact that vintage arms have a bottom plug-in din phono cable which needs to enter the armpod.
There is also the 'barrel' of the arm-base to accommodate the rising VTA mechanism and this varies in diameter for all arms.
Some modern arms have this 'barrel' as well although their wiring usually exits the arm on top of the arm-base rather than under it.
The largest diameter 'barrel' I could find was that of the Copperhead arm and a hole of 55mm diameter could accommodate that.
I later found that the VTA barrel of the FR-66s arm was exactly 55mm diam so I'm not sure if this would easily fit?
To accommodate all the different diameters of the arm bases available, an independent top-plate is used to 'attach' the arm to the pod.
HERE

Dear Nandric,
I'm certainly not angry with you :-)
A little disappointed that you didn't understand my sense of humour about your 'Australia' remark which I found very funny :-)........so I thought you took offence?
I hope we're 'cool'?
Regards
Henry

Dear Nandric,
Thank you, that's very flattering but I can only 'design' the armpod.....I can't make it.
For that I need a good foundry to make the mould and cast the bronze after which I need a good machine shop to make the aluminium top plates and to drill and tap all the holes so that a good automotive paint shop can finish the job with 2 pack polyurethane.
Here in Australia we are lucky that there are many places which will readily do small quantities or 'one-off' jobs like this.
I'm sure in Holland you could also find places?.......look how Thuchan was able to have his new speakers made so professionally?
Of course.......price may be a factor and that's why Chris and Lew are looking at commercially available billets of brass and stainless steel which may be available in the States.
Solid billets of the sizes I designed are simply not readily available in Australia.
There are many people who can 'draw' like Picasso...........there are very few who have the IDEA of what to draw?
That's the difference between a 'craftsman' and an 'artist' :-)

Regards my friend