Dear Halcro: When I " arrived " to this forum ( 6-7 years ago ) I posted several times the main and critical importance that the tonearm/cartridge had in an analog playback system and several times too from everyone I received the same answer: wrong the more important link is the TT.
Over the years and through my ( and other ones. ) " insistence " on the subject today almost all agree on the main importance of the tonearm /cartridge in that analog system.
You can see/read that I'm not speaking on tonearm alone but in tonearm/cartridge as a UNIT.
Then for me the centre of an analog system is not the tonearm but the cartridge/tonearm UNIT that between other things represent the source that IMHO is the more important ( the source ) audio link in any audio system: the centre of an audio system.
The source is IMHO the " King " in an audio system chain where all the other audio links ( including our each one skills for right system overall set up. ) are " only " subjects/slaves at King's service.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: I see.
+++++ " I am claiming that without the precondition of the immovable and isolated tonearm BASE, any tonearm/cartridge combination will be compromised to some degree. " ++++++
well over the time at least five times I claimed the importance and influence of the arm board in a cartridge quality performance. I did not claim exactly what you are doing.
Now, there are some different subjects on your statement and I will try to comment by separate:
++++ will be compromised to some degree. +++++
IMHO from the very first moment that we mount a cartridge in a tonearm headshell exist a compromise between ( at least ) the cartridge body resonance point against the headshell kind of build material that has its own resonances.
From this very first stage all what happen between the cartridge, tonearm and TT is full of compromises including our each one skills to overall cartridge/tonearm set up even room temperature is a " compromise " on cartridge quality performance level.
Certainly the arm board link is an additional compromise with its own trade-offs.
Isolated BASE: well this IMHO is a TT manufacturer responsability where the tonearm manufacturers has to deal with.
In this regard I'm a proposal of stand alone arb board towers for at least all the TT resonances can't transmit through the arm board or if the TT manufacturer prefer the arm board integrated then that will be isolated from the TT it self.
In either way the TT manufacturer has to take care that the arm board be self isolated someway for the UNIT can't be disturbed by this audio link.
As other subjects/factors in audio this arm board base isolation always is desired but till today never achieved.
In the mean time IMHO the best a tonearm manufacturer can do is try to isolate the tonearm it self from the arm board.
Problem with this thread subject is that normally the TT manufacturer is different from the tonearm one and IMHO even if both were the same each manufacturar/designer thinks and fix his priorities in a different way with different targets.
Other aspect on all these is that the cartridge quality performance level on playback is surrounded by a lot of different an important factors where the arm board is only one more. Where can we put on importance level the arm board base subject? , this could be very subjective because we have to rank all the factors that have any influence in the cartridge performance and determine the precise " weight " each factor contribute against cartridge quality performance playback level.
I don't know for sure where you want to arrive with this subject and the only thing I can tell you is that some one has to take care about with more care that the one used too.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: To your first question IMHO not only a budget analog rig can't beats a digital source ( DVD-A ) but even top analog rig can't do it so " easily ".
Digital source IMHO is approaching the begin of " maturity " time where even this technology can tell you if your system is " right or wrong " somewhere.
On your other question I think that a top analog rig can't approach the sound coming from a master tape. Both mediums are way different and IMHO I think that we can enjoy both.
I heard several times RTR tapes and till today " I'm not crazy about ", maybe because I'm equalized to the LPs performance kind of sound or maybe because I was not " exposed " to much time to that medium or maybe because I don't care seriously about.
Now, the digital source and the RTR " technology " is way way beter mediums to reproduce music than our beloved analog one ( LPs. ) that is so imperfect that I can't understand, today, why we like it so much ( other that we own thousands of LPs. ) when the " medium " has so many inaccuracies/distortions/noise.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: I'm just waiting for the flight ticket!
You know that that will be a pleasure, thank's for your invitation even if I return with out any of your items!
Oh! that famous " warmth " on RTR and LPs. I always wonder why normally I can't heard it in a live events ( near field. ).
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: ++++++ " I disagree with you emphatically about the inaccuracies/distortions/noise inherent in the vinyl playback process. " ++++++
come on Halcro, in your other thread you posted we ( you and me ) agree on the same and there between other things we talk about so many " compromises " that the analog rig/Lps has.
Please you can't tell me that the RIAA equalization is an accurate process where the LP recording pass through not only one time but twice!, you can't deny the high noise that produce a phono stage trying to amplify the signal of a LOMC cartridge and the distortions due to a mistmatch loading impedance on that cartridge or loading capacitance and impedance in a MM/MI cartridge, you can't deny all the additional distortions that contribute each one of us cartridge/tonearm tiny " deviations " from a perfect cartridge/tonearm overall set up, you can't deny the " errors " that comes with cartridges like: non centered cantilevers and not centered stylus in the cantilever or the different output level in cartridge channels and of course all the mistakes on the LP production/matering process or even the un-centered LP.
You know I can go on and on on all those inacuracies/distortions/noise that unfortunately are part of the LP music enjoyment.
As I posted: I can't understand why we love so much!
The digital source or RTR have a lot less inacuracies/distortions and noise level. Halcro, this IMHO is a fact and are facts where I can't see how you can argue against it.
On RTR subject I never posted I was hearing Master Tapes but anyway I'm not against Master Tapes.
+++++ " why in fact are you wasting so much time and energy in testing cartridges and headshells? " ++++
easy, as you I love to hear/listen my LPs.
+++++ " Why are you not contributing many more posts in the Digital Forums? " +++++
maybe it's time to do it and learn about.
Now, what you are hearing on analog or digital is different from what I'm hearing today, I mean at resolution level. Please read this and especially the end part of the thread where I posted some thoughts/experiences on the digital source:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1286160563&openmine&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas
I was not different from you of what I thinked about digital source till those system changes. For some reasons that I can't explain for sure system distortions affect more the digital medium than the LPs ones maybe because the higher distortions in the Lp medium it self I don't know. What I know is that today I really enjoy the digital source and not only the Hres DVDA/SACD but redbook too.
I'm not saying and not posted that the digital medium is superior to LPs or that is a perfect medium but IMHO is very good and well recorded digital software is something any one can enjoy as much as the Lps ones with the right set up.
For me the time to diminish the digital source already pass on and in my case I'm happy with because it is a " new " alternative to enjoy music.
+++++ " my faith in your ears has been significantly diminished .. " ++++++
well, sorry to hear that but I still trust in my audio/music skills where my ears are part of it as are all my first hand experiences.
In the other side I still trust in your ears.
Regards and enjoiy the music,
raul. |
Dear Thuchan and Halcro: I'm still an analog/LP music lover and I think I will be for years to come but now that I " discovery " the digital source I'm trying to learn at least two subjects:
why analog people " hate " or diminished the digital source and second to understand what " happen " under digital domain: what we can hear on the digital domain/what's wrong or good.
I think I know all the LP/analog experience advantages and disadvantages and I for now am a happy analog/LP person.
Try to cofront in serious way the digital " experience " is something where for we analog guys the LP has a big handicap against the digital today status ( on our home audio systems. ) because analog/LP is what we like, it is how our " ears " are accustom to enjoy music at home and even our audio system set up was made for analog/LP playback including what we choosed for electronic audio items and speakers: everything that surrounded goes in favor of analog not digital.
Even that IMHO the digital ( 24/176.8 and in less way the redbook ) has some main advantages: widest frequency response and dynamic range than analog, lower distortions, lower noise level, better accuracy level, easy to set up, etc. etc.
Disadvantages?, I really can't see or I'm really unaware of any important disadvantages other that the ones I name it and that are not a digital technology disadvantage but an unfriendly scenario where the digital source has to " work ".
IMHO a well recorded digital source has nothing to ask against LP ( everything the same. ). Yes there are CDs and DVDAs that are bad ones but this fact is true on the analog side where we have bad recordings too.
Yes, it is true that on CDs the high frequency extreme is really limited and is an important drawback but well recorded CDs ( with upsampling ) performs acceptable and at good level.
Even that at the other frequency extreme where belongs the bass the CDs are a lot better that our beloved LP.
When we take a DVDA ( 24/176.8 0r 192khz. ) the CDs main drawback just disappear and instead of that " appear " what for us LP lovers was and is losted in the CD experience.
In theory a digital recording add less " non recorded information " than the LP recordings and this IMHO could tell us that a digital source is truer to the recording than a LP.
Something important that I learned about digital experience is not heard it thinking to find out/looking for a " similar " LP quality performance.
This is a big error/mistake, we have to understand the digital playback: what is inside and what is not, , we need a different reference say: live music.
All the overall ( non in the recording ) additional LP " artefacts/contrivance " do not comes in the digital source and with its lower distortions/noise level the digital music experience is " different " from analog/LP, so why are we waiting for a similar experience?: no way.
A big disadvantage that well recorded digital medium has is that with digital playback " errors/mistakes or lessen designs " in our electronics or room/speakers and audio system set up comes out and many times these is what we are hearing and we think that the culprit of all these is the digital medium/recording when in reality the problem belongs inside anywere on the audio system.
It is difficult to think in a source with lower noise/distortion levels that digital and this characteristic IMHO expose everything in any audio system especially the dedicated analog set ups.
Am I in love with digital?, not really but now that I'm starting to undestand it and learning on the whole subject I accepted and enjoyed as a " new " good music source alternative. Unfortunately I don't have enough software but I'm trying to buy and find out what I like on music different genre.
Thuchan, our tonearm project is running in " solid " way and almost finished.
To accept in wide way the digital alternative only means that: accept it, my love for analog/LP does not change.
Gentlemans, the digital alternative is IMHO a serious alternative that could be worth for some of you to give it an opportuniy.
It is like the SS alternative or the DD-TT alternative or the MM/MI cartridge alternative or the linear tracking alternative: it is a good alternative that IMHO is better that what we are accustomed to think.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Certainly not I'm involve deep with analog/LP odyssey. My target is to take full domain ot that technology to find out/looking for the " pinnacle " that this technology can show us and that till today perhaps we know only the 80%-90% of the 100% the technology can/could achieve.
That's why I ( years ago ) decided to design a Phonolinepreamp, a tonearm, a cartridge an a TT that could help me to attain that main/top target.
I know for sure that the analog/LP " experience " is not only alive but waiting for each one of us new discoveries.
Lewm, I think that for we can appreciate what the digital technology can help us to enjoy music first that all we need IMHO the right attitude, we need to change a little about the whole digital subject.
Certainly you don't have that attitude yet but you and other persons like Halcro had not the " right " attitude about the MM/MI alternative either however both of you already have great experiences with the MM/MI alternative.
I think that the " time " will comes sooner or latter for each one of us.
Lewm, I'm not promoting the digital alternative. I'm and still follow the analog/LP alternative, no single doubt about.
Dear Thuchan, yes you are interpreting not only so deeply but in the wrong direction.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: ++++ " I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound. " +++++
well not infected yet but maybe starting to...?????
the whole subject is that through SACD/DVDA the digital source is really good and as I posted better than what we are accustomed to think.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Pryso: Today if I have to design a TT I will think very seriously and in deep about the TT plinth whole subject ( what we normally understand for plinth. Yes even in a naked version there is a body where the TT seats but IMHO this is not the plinth we all are refering to. Of course we can hang-up but even here we need some " body ". ).
The first think that comes to my mind after several experiences with naked TTs is that the best plinth ( any ) is no plinth.
All plinths as you point out has its own resonances/distortions. That we can't " hear it/aware of it " does not means that the phono cartridge that is a very sensible " microphone " can't do it. That's where the differences we heard comes.
Yes different build material plinths has different behavior but why any one ( other than commercial business$$$ ) one of us have to worry about that " unknow " plinth behavior if we just can eliminate.
What I really be more " conscious " is on what surround the TT: body of the TT it self where the TT will be seated.
Instead to worry on this " TT's body " and plinth ( two subjects ) I have to " worry " only on one subject and try to have/design that perfect TT's body that can makes the less degradation to the cartridge audio signal. This make sense to me.
I'm not saying that this is the only way to think: no, the people that thing plinths are the way to go are welcome.
Now, we have to take in count if what we are designing is a DD or BD TT because each one has its own needs.
In the other side the plinth/no-plint subject is only a " small " part/factor that has influence in the cartridge quality performance level as several other " factors " as the one Halcro pointed out: arm board.
Obviously that the proof of any TT plinth design approach is when we hear it in our audio system and can confirm how good or not is that approach. Every other " thing/though " IMHO is only theory/speculations
that can't be prove it or mere assumptions.
We IMHO need facts and IMHO too right now we have not all the facts that can prove for sure the value of each approach that conlcude with out any doubt wich and why is the UNIVERSAL and best design approach.
All the experiences and opinions of the people that already try/tested the naked alternative proof something: that we like better the naked approach and second that all the ones already tested agree: we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.
I like un-biased opinions on the subject ( un-biased $$$$$$ opinions. ) like these one:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&78&4#78
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&84&4#84
and obviously the Halcro one.
Anyway, an interesting and learning discussion. Keep on.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: And not only that even with that force vector we can't be sure how it will perform on true playback. So this is faint statement too: theory with out any test that prove that " all " is solve through that plinth.
We have to take in count that we are " playing " with induced resonances/distortions at " microscopic " level not in the " macro " domain.
We need to know which kind of resonance/vibrations, at which intensity, at which frequency range are pick-up by the cartridge and how we perceive it through playback in our system.
Not an easy task and certainly can't be solve because of that " force vector diagram ". Complex because we need to separate ( totally ) those resonances/vibrations coming from the TT body and if we are using a plinth we have to separate the plinth ( stand alone ) either as the ones coming between the TT body and the plinth.
We need to separate from the other focus of TT/tonearm/cartridge system own resonances/vibrations, we need to identified and determine each one specific influence in the cartridge overall quality performance level and then decide how to " cure " if need it.
Is this faint?, certainly is and with out a serious scientific " process " the best we have is to try the non-plinth ( naked. ) alternative and judge about against the plinthed one: easy!, other " theories " as Lewm posted somewhere are only useless speculations, facts is what we need and the naked project is a non-scientific fact that at least put some light on the subject where each one " theories " can't do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " A FV-diagram will clarify the topic. " +++++
imho THE TOPIC IS IF A NAKED tt SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A PLINTHED ONE. Till today the ones that already tested the naked option reported a better quality performance level against the plinthed one.
Please let us know how that FV-diagram can tell us the same: IF A PLINTHED TT SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A NAKED ONE.
Please don't put " clouds " on your answer or take other topics be precise and specific, no more retoric.
A second question: THAT " fv-DIAGRAM " has ears? how good are ?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear all: +++++ " The only thing I WILL say, and I am rather tired of repeating it, is that obviously there are such things as "bad" plinths. I have heard two such. I can readily believe that no plinth may sound better than a bad plinth. " +++++
yes and a bad plinth sounds worst than just a " plinth ". What are you trying to say?, that the Raven has a bad plinth?
how is that? why is a bad plinth? or your statement is only because Halcro prefer the naked one to the Raven? who is the right person that could tell us on the current TTs which ones comes with a bad plinth, why and where are the tests that prove it? not only this but where is the plinth reference/standard against other plinths will be tested?
your words are only words with out facts that can prove it in anyway.
Btw, you can make an " easy " test on your DP-80 ( I did it in my system before. ): find out three delrin tiptoes-like ( the small ones ) or the small metal tiptoes and over/top these three tiptoes put the DP-80 ( the DP-80 will rest on the tiptoes with its outer metal ring/chasis, got it? ).
Those three tiptoes will rest a-top on the slate plinth that now will works like a big tonearm board more than a TT plinth. Btw, take out the metal DP-80 item that cover the TT motor, you just unscrew it.
If you decide to do it then listen to it and then come back to share your experiences. Yes I know this is not a " full naked " project but near to it and you don't need to build a stand alone tonearm base.
+++++ " Better to say that with no plinth, some resonances are or might be left undamped that might more often than not be pleasing, to a given listener. " +++++
words and more words. How can you prove it?
why not think on more positive way: eliminate those " left undamped " resonances by design with out a necessity of a plinth. Could be?, Lewm IMHO all belongs to the TT design and execution of that design where the build materials choosed are critical.
Theory will be fine but you have to test and prove if what theory " say " is true and real and give you the right answer on the quality sound level you will percieve.
+++++" 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". " ++++++
yes it is only that and can prove nothing on why the people that tested a naked TT like more than with plinth.
+++++ " It was just a proposal to illustrate the physic behind sonic discussion of a component ... " ++++++
DT that could illustrate only a minimum part of what overall is happening there. Even you don't know for sure what's happening. Like with Lewm, only words with no facts.
+++++ " It is just that I want to know why a system or a component does what it does the way it does. " ++++++
lovely statement and very similar of what I like but IMHO your f-vector diagram can't do it.
DT IMHO if you want to really know what is happening and what is not happening and why you need at least ( between other things. ) what I posted before:
******** We need to know which kind of resonance/vibrations, at which intensity, at which frequency range are pick-up by the cartridge and how we perceive it through playback in our system.
Not an easy task and certainly can't be solve because of that " force vector diagram ". Complex because we need to separate ( totally ) those resonances/vibrations coming from the TT body and if we are using a plinth we have to separate the plinth ( stand alone ) either as the ones coming between the TT body and the plinth.
We need to separate from the other focus of TT/tonearm/cartridge system own resonances/vibrations, we need to identified and determine each one specific influence in the cartridge overall quality performance level and then decide how to " cure " if need it. *********
don't you think?
+++++ " 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!
+++++ " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer. " +++++
Ralph, maybe I don't follow you, let me go with Lewm whom more than once posted on the subject the example of a boat in the sea where the ones inside the boat moves according with against an external person to the boat that can follow the boat movements. If this is what you mean I agree.
Now and this is only a thought that I can't prove in this precise moment:
any tiny/microscopic resonance in the LP could be take it by the cartridge like a " coloration ": inside the boat or out of the boat.
Please let me know if I'M missing something.
In the other side, nothing is perfect and always exist trade-offs. Till today the stand alone arm boards works just great ( even if goes against theory. Please remember that we audiophiles care more on what we are hearing than in theories that can't prove the other way around, at least we don't have that experience where the theory is corroborated on this whole subject. Please if you have share with us. ) and this fact IMHO is what it counts at the end of the day.
A top a desk theories are just fabolous and " sounds " great but we have to test it and prove what those theories " say ".
Every time I can I like to argue and work with facts that are IMHO what it counts.
Of cource I'M with Halcro, Chris an the other " tested " persons.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Ralph/Lewm/all, it has to read: can't follow the boat movements.
R. |
Dear Ralph: +++++ " " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer... " +++++
Maybe I'm wrong or I don't understand some issues on your statement but let me add some thoughts about that I think need further explanation by you or any one that want to do it with the precise answers:
according your statement that " microscopic distortion " has enough " intensity " for the cartridge can pick-up through the TT mat and LP.
This means that independent of what happen with the tonearm ( please forget for a moment on the tonearm subject. ) that platter distortion will be " taked " by the cartridge through the mat+LP: right?
Now, if the tonearm is atached on the same TT estructure/plinth then that distortion will be pick-up by the tonearm it self and " communicated " to the cartridge in addition to.
What all these means is that the cartridge pick-up not only those TT platter distortions but additional from tonearm too on the same generated platter distortions.
What happen if the tonearm is on a stand alone base?, well that those microscopic platter distortions will not contaminate through the tonearm too.
can this be an advantage of a stand alone tonearm arm board due that exist only one distortion focus ( TT platter ) instead of TT platter and tonearm?
+++++ " Absolute rigidity between the LP surface and the cartridge body is paramount! That requires no slop in the arm or platter bearings, and that the platter, plinth and arm tube are both rigid and acoustically dead. " ++++++
agree but this is true for either approach and the stand alone tonearm board IMHO not preclude that your statement be achieved.
Ralph and dear gentlemans I'm not promoting $$$$ nothing on purpose and certainly I'm not entilted or go " till I die " for the naked TT project and stand alone tonearm board.
I just want to learn and try to confirm or not the virtues on our approach that till today is ( for the ones that tested. ) workink just great an better than the other " normal/orthodox " alternative.
All of you know my attitude that not think always on orthodox/inside the box way and yes the naked project ( like Halcro name it. ) is part of that way of thinking.
We are not " deaf " in the same way any of you are not and I'm sure that if we heard differences, not tiny ones I can say, any one of you could hear it when decided to test our approach that could be yours.
I respect all opinions but seems to me thay opinions like the one from my good friend Lewm where he is against stand alone tonearm board because " theory " say is a " wrong/bad thing/approach " ( because that boat explanation. ) with out tested by it self only could create " confussion/mix up " in other persons where is not necessity to do it.
My take here is to test by one him self to understand what is down there instead to speculate about.
Ralph, do you already tested?, if not try to do it and make the comparison and tell us if you heard/hear drawbacks in quality performance level with the stand alone tonearm board.
As anything in audio not all is totally black or white but in between.
+++++ " acoustically dead... " +++++
like you many of us use those words in audio but what those words need really " means " for have validity in our subject.
Acoustically dead on what we are discussing means for me a " stage/scenario " where the cartridge can't reproduce or can't take it a " distortion " coming from tonearm/TT or elsewhere or maybe that could be picked-up by the cartridge with no audio reproduction influence.
Till today I don't know any scientific studies on that subject with different phono cartridges in different scenarios and with different in duced kind of distortions.
So, for me these " acoustically dead " words has no real significance other than a desirable audio factor.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Lewm: I still think that the best way to improve quality sound performance in an audio system is reducing/lowering " distortions " ( any kind and everywhere. Even against " theories ". ).
The whole naked TT project seems to " align " with that target.
Btw, do you already find out/bought those three tiptoes for test that DP-80 " approach?: you don't need to make or buy anything else ( only change VTA. ) and obviously you don't need more " floor/space " in your system and obviously too you already have a great and way big and weighty stand alone slate tonearm board ( acostically dead? )!!!!
Have fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: Nice to see that you too take that " flag " and that like it.
The critical point here IMHO is that you decided to test it and the good thing to you is that the rewards you received on change was way worth to made it with almost no $$$/effort.
Well these kind of facts is IMHO a good forward step to improve quality permormance level on those TT and many others.
One more time where " less is more ".
Btw, all of you owners with the plinthed alternative could try ( with out almost no effort or serious modifications in your analog rig other than a change in VTA/SRA/Azymuth. ) my advise to Lewm for use three small tiptoes ( metal or delrin. ) atop the TT plinth and the TT ( it self through the outer metal chassis/frame. ) over those three tiptoes where now that plinth mainly will function as an arm board.
Please try it, you don't lose nothing!! and the experience could give you more than only " fun ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Banquo363: Yes, 15kg a piece. These AT footers are way different to the 605, the 616 are pneumatic design that take away vibrations/resonances from the audio item and impede too that come in any vibrations/resonances coming from where the AT616 are seated.
Something that the 605 could do it but at lesser quality performance level and yes there will be a huge improvement when you test it.
The 616 is out of production and not easy to find out and I can tell you that one 616 footer is more expensive than the 605 set.
If you can find is worth the effort, I own three sets and like Dgob I'm satisfied with.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Banquo363: The AT616 operate from audio items in the 10kgs to 60 kgs weight range.
These insulator are beautiful made with a very high quality and where the 605 looks like a " poor toy " but the more important subject is that its three way insulators works really fine.
I used not only with my TTs and TT motors but with my subwoofers too and works very good on both items.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: So, that's means that all you own in your system were a placebo like where things are you were ready/prepare to like it? or it is only the " humor " you wake up today?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Atmasphere: Yes, that could be a " plinth " but that is not the subject here but the TT naked it self .
In this same thread I posted that we always can hang on the TT from the ceiling and now what : the ceiling is the " plinth ".?
The subject is way different.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: You are IMHO spot-on in your last two posts.
On the first " plinths "+ subject we need to think " too " that not only the floor works as a plinth but the Earth's nucleus too!!!!
In the other side a debate exist only because the ones that are argue and argue and argue does not try yet the whole " naked project ".
At least we advocates to the naked project have targets like: improve the quality performance and through that project we taked a step forward in that direction and we all are enjoying the music better than ever through that project when the people that are argue are enjoying almost nothing because IMHO no one can enjoy that kind of " words/bla bla ".
So what they have on hand?, almost nothing to argue but theory that can't prove through real experiences.
In the other side day by day are growing up the people number that are testing the naked project and till today everyone of them are satisfied with this alternative against the other one.
Welcome Banquo363!.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Chris /all: The " naked TT project " is similar as what happen with the MM/MI alternative: many people are trying/testing with no posts in the threads.
Both alternatives are so un-expensive and so easy to achieve that IMHO it is an audio " waste/lose " not to try it, at least just to " cover up a hole in our audio culture ".
Btw, Banquo363: from the AT operation manual the AT616 works between 10-60kgs. It works for me and for Dgob too.
Now, each 616 footer is a set of three internal and independent insulators design where the third one works when the item weight is over 30kg.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Ct0517: With TTs I always used/use it three 616 footers . Normaly you don't need four exception with the heaviest ones.
Remember that each footer has a weight range from 2.5kg to 15kg.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob/all: Theory/theorethical is only that: theory/theorethical and IMHO means almost nothing till you can prove exactly what that theory states.
All the persons's experiments/facts posted in this thread means that for each one of them what all they are hearing it is a great quality performance improvement that permited to all of them enjoy MUSIC as never before.
Good for all, congratulations!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: There are no pictures that I can show yet. When the unit be ready all of you will know and see it through Agon.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: No doubt the naked TT and stand alone arm board is working, good.
Only as a " precaution ": check with a level/spirit that the tonearm be leveled exactly as the TT platter, I mean in the horizontal plane.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: I'm not expert on levels/vials but maybe a digital one could help and with high accuracy and easy to use for that purpose.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: Which tonearms do you already try/test on the naked TT?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: I assume that in both tonearm quality performance is first rate as you posted, thank's.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Ct0517: I think that you could be right about that " isolated " subject. As you I can't be sure.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: Yes those AT616 are really good supporting the TT but IMHO not so " firm " for a tonearm, I use it too with my AS TT motors.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Do you know where I can get that lasser vial?, thank you in advance.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear pryso: Where can I find it?, thank you in advance.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm/Pryso: Thank you, appreciate that.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: I can see why you ask for other opinions on the MF-100.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dgob: I will do it, I share your same interest on the subject.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Dgob: What we hear at home through our each one audio system is what microphones " heard " and that are way near the " stage/venues " that our seat position in the music hall.
In the other side the " micros " are not only sensitive but with wider frequency range that ours ears. As a fact there are many reasons why we heard what we heard at home against in live concerts and its differences.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " And then too, since you posted here on this thread, there is the no-plinth option. " ++++++
yes, do you already thinked about?, one alternative does not preclude try the other.
regards and enjoy the msuic,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: ++++ " You guys would hate it .... " ++++
well not really, because we don't need it we even don't have to think on it ( half true half joke. ).
Btw, nice to see you own the MK3. Now I understand why I see your add saling the MK2. Congratulations for that, obviously your feedback on the MK3 will be appreciate.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Audpulse: I know that Berning a perhaps one of the two-three tube amps I could live for a while if I need it.
You are right that the Majestic's could sound " dry " with some SS amplifiers, I heard that symptom with that speakers driving by Halcro amps but the JC1's are way different with these speakers.
The whole picture is not only about damping factor but wider than that.
Anyway, Lewm think he has the right answer and that's is the important subject and what's matters.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Congratulations on your birthday and by those Majestic's.
I know very well the Majestic's ( my friend and tonearm co-designer Guillermo own it. ) and are first rate speakers and as I posted two-three times the Sondlabs are almost the only elostrostatics I can live with.
I agree with Nandric about tube amps and especially OTL's. I heard the Majestic's with several amp options and the manufacturer recommended JC-1's are perhaps the better IMHO and obviously you don't have to " touch " the speakers to match tube units.
You know very well my take on that critical match between output impedance amplifier with the electrical impedance curve in the speakers where low very low output impedance is IMHO a must to have if you want neutral/accurate response.
Anyway, very good move/play.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear friends: Several yeras ago when I bring to Agon my first naked TT fashion subject and latter the isolated armpod for that naked TT I remember that almost all the people that argue against were persons that argue against it with out having any single experience on that naket/TT-tonearm isolated fashion.
Almost all the more fierce persons were the ones that not only never had any experiences but that never will try that " experience " even that they can did/do it.
I almost don't like to post or give my opinion only based on speculations and theory.
In this thread is happening the same that happened when I start on the whole subject, more than half of the posts were posted for people questioning the subject that have no single idea on what is its real quality performance and even that people like Chris posted that through the time his armpod stay in place other people continue argueing about.
The TT naked/tonearm isolated overall " fashion " certainly is not perfect as the plinthed one is not either. The main sunbject here IMHO is where the trade-offs of either/each " solution " arrive in favor of better music sound reproduction at home.
Almost all the persons that like the naked/isolated " road " likes because our ears and audio/music experiences over a lot of years tell us that this " fashionable " version in our systems gives us a better quality performance level than the stock plinthable version and this is the main subject: we already made comparisons with and with out and there is no single opinion where to a person prefered the plinth version: means all these something to you people that are questioning our version with out have/live any experience in your own system about?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Way before we go into the tonearm isolated/stand alone arm boards some TT manufacturers already had in their designs like: Red Point, Kuzma, Galibier, etc, etc.
My point here is that I can't remember any single post against/questioning these commercial turntables with stand alone/isolated arm boards.
It was till we " amateurs " bring the subject at this forum when all the " enemies " arrive: well the audio world is something " weird " for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: I understand what " detractors " speaks and asks.
I think that you sooner or latter will be HERE. This excercise is worth to try it even if at the end you don't like what you hear, a learning one.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: If it is true that each one home audio system listening experience is " particular/unique " to no one but the owner IMHO it is true too that there are and exist some not writed " rules " that not only serve to criticize some body else but that could help us to improve our " veneu ".
I would like to talk ( in no order. ) on what JC/Dover/Chris and you posted on your overall system quality performance subject ( please with out other attitude than the ones involved here , including me, could understand the whole subject in better way: or not ? ):
I agree that everyone of us must " build " our audio system inside the environment we have and obviously inside the limitations that home environment impose us. Like you and several other persons we must live with our audio system in the parlor instead a dedicated room as JC. Nothing wrong with that, it is part of the audio trade-offs we are accustom to live with.
Yes, for some persons maybe to have the audio equipment betqeen the speakers is not the best place but some times there is no alternative.
In my case I experienced in the past ( and lived with for some time. ) with my equpment 8-10 m. from the speakers but the amplifier till I decided to try the today set up " in between " and good that I took this road because I had and have a substantial improvement in quality performance.
It does not matters what theory say about running the signal from line stage to amp fro 10m-20m when your line stage has very low output impedance/drive that permits not signal degradation: for me this is a myth ( at least is my experiences. ). For one moment any one of you think in what several audio designers choosed as one of their targets: " the shorten signal path " " minimum signal pass travel " ( on preamps or amps. ), why is that?: because as longer the signal pass through as signal is more " expose " to degradations of every and different kind. So a good trade-off for me was shortened the signal path to the speakers.
As JC pointed out: each home audio system has its own trade-offs. Btw, my audio equipment is at lower level than the tweeter/mid-range drivers and a little behind speakers: these helps but does not means I have no " troubles " but I prefer this way that 10 m. away. Even if I went/had a dedicated room my " impulse " will be to stay with the shorten signal path that in may ways is between speakers, of course that in a dedicated room with that set up maybe I can avoid some of the troubles I have today.
JC said that equipment betqeen speakers goes against not only performance but very specific on soundstage: in my system that was not my experience, even I think ( maybe I'm wrong. ) that the equipment in between works as diffusors that helps in some way.
Dover posted about that big glass table between the speakers and seat position, he is right but ( exist a but ) depends in specific where the tweeters ( and in second place: midranges drivers. ) first reflections comes: I use to have a big round glass ( bigger than yours Halcro. ) in that position till I detected the problem and fixed changing to another small one in different position where those speakers first reflection are " free " fron the table: huge improvement I have to say.
Now, even that I and other posted that we don't experienced any single/tiny change of position in our stand alone tonearm pod JC insist about one and again:
++++ " If you have a tonearm mount that allows relative movement between the LP and tonearm pivot, you are also creating distortions. " +++++
why he did that is out of my mind. Chris posted again that even at 100 db SPL he experienced " nothing ".
on other subject he posted:
+++++ " My experience is that MM vs. LOMC is largely a phono stage and tonearm issue. LOMCs need a good phono stage, they need as few electrical contacts between themselves and the phono stage as possible, and the low-compliance types need a suitable tonearm that can sink a lot of mechanical energy without becoming perturbed. " +++++
well the MM has its own needs that we have to fulfil to aprreciate its great quality performance. Same as any LOMC cartridge asks but here IMHO exist a main big difference between MM/MI and LOMC cartridges and that difference is vital and critical it does not matters that you can fulfil the LOMC needs: 40 dbs of additional amplification!!!! for the LOMC cartridges. This means several compromises ( between others. ) as more cartridge signal stages where it must pass , a cartridge signal with so low output ( against MM/MI ) that is very sensitive to be contaminated in several ways and all these means : added distortions no matters which tonearm or phono stage we are using it.
++++ " It would be more accurate to say that I hear other distortions from MMs or MIs that annoy me even more. " ++++
which ones? with which cartridges, tonearms and phono stage?
+++++ " If you use a DD motor and you don't have much moment-inertia in the plinth, you will be creating a form of noise which is somewhat similar to the background noise of an LP " +++++
this is interesting and I like many of you want to learn so JC please tell us how is this? how can we aware of it? and if it is something like the background LP's noise then how can we detect it when on playback to not be mix up with the LP noise it self?
Halcro posted:
+++++ " When I listen through the Audeze LCD2 headphones through the Schiit Lyr headphone amp I hear no reduction in distortions compared to my speaker/room/equipment interface. " +++++
so, IMHO you have a PERFECT speaker/room/equipment. I need to learn here too because I know very well all your Halcro electronics, subwoofers, cartridges, some tonearms and TTs you own and IMHO are not PERFECT: what did you to been " there "? to been and live in that perfection? and I'm talking of perfection due that those headphones are really good with very good distortions.
+++++ " I don't doubt the experiences of others.......I expect the same respect for mine. " ++++
well, I respect you but your statements makes no clear/precise sense.
JC:
+++++ " There are reasons why I said that some of the posts suggested that the poster wasn't hearing distortions that were almost certainly present " +++++
I agree for several reasons ( latter. )
Halcro:
+++++ " It is thus a little puzzling to think that you actually believe we are perhaps listening to distortions without somehow knowing it? " ++++
and followed:
++++ " I believe that I can detect 'distortions' as well as you or anyone else. " ++++++
main reason I agree with JC is that not only Halcro, JC, me or any one else can detect " distortions " : if and only if we are aware how that or those " distortions " performs/sounds.
I can't detect what I don't know how it sounds and due to this fact those hidden ( for me. ) distortions are took as part of the performance and not as distortions.
Gentlemans, I can detect some audio systems distortions that you can't and the only reason is that you don't know those several times subtle distortions. In the same way I can't detect other distortions because I'm unaware of them when you are.
In the other side even if we are aware of it there exist different audio system resolution levels that makes things more complicated. As JC said: because you can't detect it does not means does not exist because are there.
In the other side too there are distortions that we love it as there are distortions we hate it or are more sensible to. At the end on this distortion whole subject could help is we ask: which or what is more accurate/neutral against music reference/standards?, with out a " reference " accuracy or neutrality or distortions does not exist.
So, in this subject: which are our each one references?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: IMHO: wrong answer: ++++ " and I am always thinking of ways to improve my pre-amp. " +++++
so you want to improve your pre-amp but you are reluctant to improve your TT/tonearm.
With all respect that makes no sense: especially that every single non-plint and stand alone tonearm pod advocate here and in other threads already shared their experiences and in no single one of those experiences exist any single word against but only full quality performance level improvements !!!!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " Finally, I can't help but feel that all this talk of 'distortions'.....by you Raul and also by Jonathan.....without a single example .... " ++++++
Henry, you can read my answers on that subject in several threads ( in the MM/MI one you and me disagree and discussed on this distortion subject about the Signet's ( the average ones. ) and FR cartridges/tonearm. ), please don't push me to go in deep again ( I always made my job with questions/answers so please make yours: investigating. )in your thread in reference with your system and what you are hearing and why. Henry I knew extremely well your system or at least better that what you think I know. I know ( first hand. )very well your amps, phonolinepreamp, speaker caps, subwoofers, your cartridges, TTs and tonearms, Scanspeak drivers, cables and even your tape-deck.
IMHO and due to my experiences with those audio items I can say that I have a good idea of what you are hearing, why and what kind of distortions you like.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro the Onedof makes that the DD Wave Kinectics see it as a " toy ".
Thuchan, I think that at least ( no matter price. ) the designer solve some " problems " that no other TT I know addressed, congratulations for that because this is a clear advance on TT design.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: IMHO you don'ty need to made that kind of comments on the Onedof and its designer.
I don't remember to read any single similar comment on your protractor design or with you even that you have a very long " tail " for comments about.
I think that every single audio item design deserve our respect even if we don't like it or we think is wrong.
Btw, Nandric I agree: at least four belts.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: I don't think is a " trap of marketing " and I think you either.
I'm not speaking about performance but I'm speaking about the designer contribution to improve the TT design. Remember that on the Onedof design exist registered trade marks/patents and I think that with out have in our hands a precise and clear proofs of that " trap of marketing " we could give him the benefit of dude, don't you think?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
