A Copernican View of the Turntable System

I agree with Dertonarm's comment about putting Halcro's AC-3 on a Minus-K isolation platform. My SME 10 is not an AC-3, but I recently bought a Townshend Seismic Sink and placed it under my TT. My jaw did not drop to the floor, but the improvement was astonishing.

Pryso,

Jim Smith went around my listening room with a mic measuring bass energy and concluded that my rack was in a good location on a side wall behind the first reflection point and not near a corner. I believe his recommendation that the rack not be placed between the speakers has more to do with the mass of the equipment and rack effecting the imaging and soundstaging of the system. Soundstage depth and center-image density and clarity are improved when there is open space between and behind the speakers. At least this is the case in my system and I would think in most others.

I agree with Nick. The turntable may be the center of the system with which everything in the front end has a specific relationship, but the ROOM is the universe and the most important element in achieving good sound.

Even if one hears the ONEDOF at RMAF, how will he/she be able to isolate the sound of the table from the rest of the system? Pardon the pun. And what will the rest of the equipment in the system actually be?

I went to RMAF last year for the first time and spent most of the weekend listening to different tables, arms and cartridges. Some combinations sounded great, but I certainly did not gain any real understanding of what any individual component actually sounded like.

Halcro,

In your opinion, are the SME 30 or 30/12 poorly understood sprung belt-drives". Are the rediscovered great DD's that much better than the SME 30? What about the TW Acustics AC3? It has no suspension, but it is a belt drive.

I'm just curious if anyone thinks progress has been made since the 70s and 80s or are we only now at a point where we can make advances in turntable designs?

Dertonarm,
Have you seen photos of and read about the Wave Kenetics NVS Direct Drive table? It is a new, expensive DD table which promises some performance gains.

Thuchan,

Like Raul, I, too, am interested in reading why you don't think the SME 30/2 is a good turntable. Could you please explain what aspects of its performance you don't like and why?

Have you heard the SME 30/12 also?

Thuchan,
Now you have me even more confused. I had been asking you about the SME 30 which you stated that you heard in two good system and did not like it. Now you write about the SME 20 and compare it to a Ford Mondeo. Did you hear the Model 30 or just the Model 20?

Could you please be more specific about why you don't think the SME 30 is a good turntable? Do you also think it is "flat and not vibrant" like the Model 20? And if so, why do you think it sounds like that? Please understand that I am only asking for your opinion based on your experience with your system in your room. In other words, a subjective opinion.

I like Raul's suggestion to start another thread about the goal of turntable design, ie, what the role of the turntable actually is. Then the subject of neutrality, and a platform for the cartridge can be discussed as well as if certain characteristics as "vibrant", "flat", and "lively" are useful terms to discuss the success of a turntable design, or do these more accurately describe the role of the arm/cartridge pairing. Perhaps this thread could use as an example to start the discussion, the SME Model 30.

Raul, do you want to start such a thread?

Syntax, I presume that digital level also reads 0.0, 0.0 while it rests on the platter.

I would like to know a way to measure how truly vertical the arm shaft is. Any variation in this would be pretty bad for the stylus as it moves along an LP. A uni pivot bearing would not be as problematic as a gimbal arm.