A Copernican View of the Turntable System
Thanks for that link Brad, I saw it last week but could not remember where? You're right......very fine machining work although I'd be hesitant about doing a platter? This requires dynamic balancing to very fine tolerances.... you don't want a heavy 'rocking' platter eccentrically loading the spindle and motor?!.....not to mention rocking the vinyl :-( |
What are your thought's on a pod utilizing a cantilevered pivoting arm board ? Contimplating this myself the arm board would be robust using select material which easily configured to facilitate tone arms with multi point mounting base or single hole mount with free space under the board for a heavy fasening nut found with some tone arms. Further thoughts using a heavy pod, hitting the target for pivot to spindle set up must be frustrating nudging that heavy pod fractions of a mm. Just my thoughts of the virtues of a pivoting arm board. |
The Reed tonearm was an incredible bargain, even on this side of the pond, when it was first introduced. Then they evidently realized that based on performance it was under-priced. That, and also foreign distributors and their need for a separate profit margin entered the picture. Just looking at the Da Vinci turntable cum armpods, I can understand why J Valin and M Fremer are big fans. Neither of them ever met a gilded lily he did not love. The more pompous, the better it must sound. |
Dear Halcro, I looked more cereful to my arm pod and am very impressed with the looks of the granite parts. As architect you should know if this material is suitabale for an arm pod. It looks unvelievable beatuful. Banquo 363, I am not sure but it may be the case that the tonearm (12'') was 1500 Euro and the arm pod 500 Euro. Anyway not more than 2000 Euro for both. Regards, |
Henry's stellar example shows that, with the help of a good machinist and some clever ideas, one can fabricate something equally beautiful (in my opinion, more so--the Davinci strikes me as ostentatious) to the ones he linked to. And given those eye-popping prices, one has a strong incentive to DIY. Nandric: you got a Reed tonearm AND a custom pod for 1500 Euro?! It's good to be first. |
T-Bone – looking forward to hearing of your results with the armpod experiment and how your ideas can help to improve my setup. Guys - Its nice to bring this channel back to its regular programming. :^) Hi Dgob - In follow up to my material inquiries earlier. It is my intent to build two more pods but I am not sure yet of the material hence my question earlier. My direct experience in talking to the people that work at Metal Supermarkets. Most of their metals are in solid billet form and sent to them after they have been melted down and pulled through the device that forms their shape. The attached link is a picture of the actual solid billet that my brass piece was cut from. I apologize for the quality -it was moving when the pic was taken. Solid Brass Billet My piece came from 4.2 inches that was cut from the right side of this long bar. I ordered 4 inches – they were generous to me, but this almost spelled disaster with my calculations on the adjustability of my TT footers and tonearm adjustments that were possible. I rate my DIY skill level with metals as very low. I can thread holes for spikes or screws in metals but that’s it for me. Everything else would go to a machine shop $$. Henry regarding your links to those armpod manufacturers. I had a very interesting phone discussion with Larry from TT Weights the other day. I hadn’t been to his shop in quite some time. Now remembering his bias as a manufacturer, there are apparently quite a few “for this hobby” of his armpods out there in use today. If any of Larry’s Armpod users see this thread I would really like to have your impressions on them regardless of whether you have bought just the POD or the TT /Pod package. I had called Larry to schedule a visit with him to see for myself how big the gap still is between my making my next POD or buying one. He is unfortunately sold out and will not have some ready to go again till mid-to late Sept. So will schedule a visit then to check them out and let u guys know. He is looking forward to reviews coming out soon. FWIW – this is probably one of the longer stretches I have gone without changing up arms or cartridges. 2 ½ months with some vacation time too now for the ET 2.5 and the Empire. I checked it well last night. If I was lining it all up for the first time today I would try to align the sylus exactly as I see it now in my setup still. Cheers |
I have to admit that I am impressed with what I have seen in all these photos. Obviously this is a serious exercise. The Da Vinci!!! OMG! Wretched excess, thy name is Leonardo. Since TT Weights stuff is almost always available at a discount, and since they are incredible machinists, I would go that route absent the availability of a fine machinist to custom-make one for me. |
Just a clarification in my last post - I dont see it posted yet. I say something like nothing has moved. In respect of the previous posts I am taking the liberty of re-wording it. After 2.5 months - In looking at where the stylus is on the alignment gauge: Edited "If I was lining it all up for the first time today I would try to align the sylus exactly as I see it now" |
Dear Halcro, I was the first customer by the Reed company and ordered both: the tonearm and the arm pod . But specific for my Kuzma Stabi Reference. My arm pod was the first they have produced and of course meant for my Kuzma. So, I am sure, they will produce whatever a customer want. If I remember well I got both for 1500 Euro. But meanwhile they have importeurs and dealers evrywhere so this means at least twice the price. One can ask Vidmantas about all the details. BTW your comment: 'pretty small' is not appreciated. So to get my revenge I don't consider you arm pod as beautiful any more. Regards, |
Here is the link for REED Do you know the pricing Nicola? Also.....100mm diamX100mm high is pretty small? |
I can add the Reed arm pod among the commercially available kind (www.reed.lt ; accessories). But what about a 'sturdy' one for cheap? I 'assist' ( by looking) my machinist while he was busy to cut from a billet of bronze a collar for my Pioneer P-70 tonearm. Not exactly Heureka but some kind of Aha Erlebnis : this stuff must be very suitable for an arm pod . Bronze is an alloy so depending on the 'amalgam' heavier or lighter. To add (more) weight one can choose larger diameter,etc. Lew already mentioned where one can get bronze (e.a.) in all kinds of dimensions. For the tonearms with surface fastening one need just 3 holes with thread on each side . By polishing the thing it will look like made from gold. I assume nobody else got this idea? Regards, |
I thought it might be useful to look at some commercially sold arm-pods and the design thought between them? 3 current manufacturers come to mind:- DaVinci Redpoint TTWeights DAVINCI DaVinci apparently make their armpods from wood. Different materials inside for damping purposes? REDPOINT I think I contacted them before making my armpods as the similarity is too obvious. Their pods are made of any non-ferrous metal you want and chambers within the pods are filled with silicone oil for damping purposes. I believe prices started at approx $2000 depending on height and other requirements....but could escalate from there? TTWEIGHTS Closest to a universal tonearm with adjustable heights etc. uses combinations of materials for damping purposes. My own thoughts are that the prices of these commercially available products are too high.....obviously because of the mark-up factor involved. The use of dissimilar materials for damping purposes cannot be bad...even if of debatable usefulness....but must contribute to the costs of production. I believe that weight is the single most important attribute of a good armpod and I would do without some glamorous extras if loss of weight were the penalty? What do others think? |
T_bone, Meow, "Some pod implementations have different isolation systems under the pod and the table, which makes for a different arm-bearing-to-table-bearing interaction, and this is something I would suggest against. In the end, it all comes down to implementation (Dgob's Chinese cats and your arm pods)." Anyone using an arm tower and pneumatic/magnetic footers beneath their TT is decoupling these at the plinth. I assure you the logic around this being erroneous does not hold, IME. At least you seem to keep an open mind and that is all that anyone could ask for, whether or not we ever find agreement. |
FWIW... my apartment building is wide and flat and is only 3 floors high. It is certainly not designed with the same features as my office building, which is 15 times taller, and has seismic dampening foundations. Not sure what to say... My SX-8000 sounds better with an air-bearing isolation stand beneath it than without it, as does my SP-10Mk3 in a SAEC-like metal plinth. Both weigh a short ton. I am currently listening mostly to a very heavy direct drive turntable with stillpoints for feet. The sound is excellent. But I have yet to put an air table beneath it and I am wondering... |
The result of the structural design for seismic loading creates a building (particularly a high-rise steel or concrete structure) which is continually 'moving' even when there are no quakes. We are not talking resonant frequency here......we are talking constantly moving structures which are setting up wave patterns of frequencies from the subsonic possibly even into the low twenties. It's not a good look.....but there are solutions which however would require specialist knowledge. If I were you....I'd try my Micro SX 8000 or any other heavy unsuspended deck and see if there is an improvement? I'm betting there is:^) |
I am happy to have the seismic protection for when earthquakes come along. But the resonant frequency of those is quite low :^) However, I notice the difference between having an isolation platform and not having one. And I notice the difference in loading one differently. And I also notice acoustic feedback from time to time. Wish it weren't so, but I do... But that's just me and if noone else has a problem with sound waves in their listening space, I guess I'm just unlucky... :^( |
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. |
Suspended. I don't worry about whether my floor will flex though. I know it will. Earthquakes affect the sound because the building shakes (for those not used to them, earthquakes can be 'noisy'). Having had a setup on the ground floor (concrete slab) before, I know it will move too. That's life in the big city... |
T_bone, Is your concrete floor 'suspended' or cast on the ground? A suspended slab can often pose problems due to dynamic movement and deflections. It's true that seismic movement is hard to protect against but most other external influences (even in big cities) can be minimized especially by wall-mounting. The de-coupling effect of metal brackets combined with wood-based shelving cantilevered off masonry walls works in all but the most complex of situations. SOUND |
Halcro, I don't have suspended wood floors. They are poured concrete with a thin fake wooden flooring cover. The rack in the system page is old. I haven't added pics in a couple of years. The P3's springs are actually surrounded in an oil solution inside the rubber casing. The resonant frequency of the isolation system is set to be 3-4Hz. The effect is quite different to that of a normal suspended table like a Linn or Thorens. Other P3 owners might attest as to the isolation system's effectiveness. I don't doubt that if one tried hard enough one might be able to create a 'capture system' as you propose. But the happy effect of mine is that closing the lid while playing often has a salutary effect, and never deleterious. In Japan, TTs rigidly coupled to wall mounted shelves would be just as affected as rigid floors, like mine, with earthquakes. However, earthquakes/tremors are not the only thing causing building structural resonance, especially in cities. And not just in Japan. |
The fact that results differ slightly with the top down suggests air-borne effects,Not necessarily. If the structure-borne feedback is resonating through the metal base of the P3 (and those 'isolating' springs can often be a happy conductor of resonating frequencies) and into the motor and/or platter, closing the lid can often form a 'capture chamber' being filled with the release of the feedback into air-borne frequencies. Sprung decks like the Linn Sondek can surprisingly be the most prone to structure-borne feedback. Looking at your 'System' page, I suspect your floor-mounted rack is the limiting factor. Mark Doehmann of Continuum stated that it took $30,000 of engineering to provide a floor-mounted stand like his Castellon with the same isolation as a wall-mounted shelf. Suspended wood floors such as yours, are extremely difficult to isolate from structure-borne feedback.....and in Japan, with the seismic activity constantly providing Dertonearm's micro movements.....it should be avoided at all costs. Any chance of you trying for a wall mount........just to experiment :^) |
Halcro, I know my statement and Jonathan's are not the same - no 'quite' about it. My 'if I implement pods' comment involves a pod, his doesn't. I agree with Jcarr's recent comments and am on record moons ago on these fora having said something similar. But if a pod is to be used, having everything extremely well-coupled (de-coupling I assume is isolation, which should be avoided) and rigid will approach JC's suggested goal. Some pod implementations have different isolation systems under the pod and the table, which makes for a different arm-bearing-to-table-bearing interaction, and this is something I would suggest against. In the end, it all comes down to implementation (Dgob's Chinese cats and your arm pods). 'Well away' is perhaps different than what you would call 'well away' given the concept of 'distance' in a Japanese living space is probably different, but it is still out of the direct radiation pattern of my speakers. My P3 is on a large wood rack, but it does not matter much. The P3 has construction, shown here much like Jonathan's suggested method, with an isolation platform built-in. The fact that results differ slightly with the top down suggests air-borne effects, but I have no doubts my room could be improved. Downunder, The lid of the P3 is specifically designed to combat airborne vibration which might affect playback. |
Dear Travis, Once you couple a high mass arm pod to the plinth you likely have a very good set-up. That's what I would do if I ever build an outboard pod. I never would argue that basing a tonearm firmly in a stabilizing high mass is not a good thing. Look at those optional weights made by M-S and SAEC to stabilize the vertical shaft of their tonearms where it passes through the mounting board. That seems like sound engineering to me. I have made some brass pieces like that (to go under a mounting platform) for my DV505 and I plan to do it for the Reed and/or Triplanar. |
T_bone, Re-reading your post above....... That said, if I implement pods, I will seek to couple the pod and the motor to a single rigid surface, and then isolate that rigid substructure.I believe that I have done just that by coupling (or de-coupling) the motor and pods to the very same 32mm laminated (stressed-skin) rigid shelf structure which is isolated from the floor and walls by cantilevered metal brackets. Your statement and that of Jonathan's are not quite the same? |
Hi T_bone, I realise that you, and many others are perhaps trying to rationalize what we 'arm-pod' folk report, against what your instincts and learnings tell you and all I can really say is that until one actually tries a well developed 'pod'.......it's all just 'words'. But I'm looking forward to your own experiments :^) Regarding your problems with 'feedback' and my lack of any discernible angst in that region.......I must say that I have always had my turntables mounted on a shelf cantilevered from a solid masonry wall. The fact that you state that..."even when my P3 is well away from my speakers"....... leads me to suspect that it is structure-borne feedback you are experiencing rather than air-borne? Could you perhaps describe how your P3 is supported? |
T_bone. How could anyone of impecable taste listen to their turntable with the lid down :-) Even with my lp12 music sounds much better with the lid up, or better still off. Never even thought of playing the exclusive P3 with the lid down. But seriously, a great thread that makes cd /digital even more boring |
Halcro, A couple of thoughts... I think we will all agree that just because the 'theory' is not borne out in 'results" does not mean the theory is wrong. In many cases, the 'not-as-good-in-theory' concept is far better implemented than the theoretically-correct. My Micro Seiki belt drive sounds far better than my Technics SL1200 but my Exclusive P3 sounds better than a Rega P3. I too am not 'religious' about audio. Personally, I think several of the arm pods developed here are probably capable of permitting excellent sound (arm/cart/implementation permitting). Reading this thread has given me some ideas. And it makes me want to have a crack at something similar too. A 10-20kg arm pod is a prodigious weight, and in practice, that kind of weight will couple the pod and therefore the arm bearing to the surface below the arm pod. Pods are not necessarily like galleons on a stormy sea in practice. That said, if I implement pods, I will seek to couple the pod and the motor to a single rigid surface, and then isolate that rigid substructure. Doing so will get me somewhat close to Jonathan's concept. Many of us, myself included, are firmly in the camp of improving our systems any way we can. That necessarily requires experimentation. And in many cases experimentation is assisted by forming a hypothesis, which for practical purposes, until proven, is really all a theory is. In many cases, there are practical obstacles to going down the road of perfect theory. Your point about MCs vs MMs is an easy case in point. The theory that MCs are intrinsically better than MMs requires that the pre-pre stage (head amp or step up transformer) be capable of not limiting the effective performance of the MC. I think in practice that aspect limits the performance many get from their LOMCs. As to your points on air-borne sound transmission and its effect on turntables... All I can say is that if you have never noticed it, you have been extremely lucky, or extremely good, in your room set-up. I have not been either and have heard the effects. Even when my P3 is well away from my speakers, listening with top up or top down is different. If you have an ADC, testing the effects of sound transmission on analog playback, and of the effect of greater volume, is relatively easy. In any case, I applaud your efforts at experimentation thus far. It really is all about living with and enjoying the result. |
Mounting the tonearm on a separate pod allows relative movement to occur between the tonearm pivot and the platter / spindle, and this will interfere with the accuracy of measurements.It is hard to argue with this statement and, like Lew’s ‘Galleons on a stormy sea’ analogy, it would seem to preclude further development of the ‘isolated armpod’? But ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, when it comes to audio, are often uncommon bed partners? For instance, there are good theories for the superiority of belt-drive over direct drive turntables…..and vice-versa….yet both can deliver fine practical results. There were (supposedly) good theories behind the superiority of digital over analogue as the ‘source’ material in audio reproduction yet in practice (according to vinyl advocates), those theories have still not been realized? There are good theories for the superiority of Moving Coil cartridges over Moving Magnet cartridges yet in practice, (according to some advocates), those theories do not always apply? The ‘theory’ regarding air-borne sound transmission affecting the analogue playing system is also ‘undeniable’? All the frequencies of the audio spectrum from 20Hz to 20KHz (as well as sub-sonic and ultra-sonic frequencies), bombarding the delicate parts of the turntable/arm/cartridge system must induce vibrations within those parts which will be amplified and projected through the speakers? If this theory is correct, then scientifically it must follow that the higher the volume, the greater the induced vibrations. In practice this must mean, that as we turn up the volume, the sound quality decreases? I have heard the reverse to be true. Up to the limits of amplifier distortion, speaker ability, room configuration and turntable quality, generally the higher the volume level, the better the sound quality. I have even heard turntables which are located in separate rooms to the speakers and to my ears, the sound quality is not improved? So ‘theories’ are great if one needs a starting point from which to commence a design, however in audio, there seem to be many other overriding factors which render many known theories of physics to play, if not negligible, then very minor roles? Audio is not a religion and I attempt to convert no-one here. If one hears a benefit, let on-one corrupt the reality with ‘unproven’ theory. |
Dear Jonathan, I guess I am in good company. When you wrote, "...a more elegant, and technically correct solution is to mount the tonearm pivot and platter / spindle onto a single rigid structure that allows everything to move together at the same rate and same distance (and phase), then isolate the complete system from the environment by means of an isolation platform (not footers)", you pretty much echoed my position on the subject. Thanks very much for taking your valuable time to respond. One thing though.... chocolate IS better than tomato, except at this time of year when our tomato plants are producing great tomatoes faster than we can eat them, thanks to my wife. |
Hello Jonathan Carr – I want to say that I find your posts on this public forum always very informative and helpful no matter what the thread topic. As a manufacturer you are quick to point out any biases and I appreciate that you usually recommend to us to use our own ears for the final call. THEORY PART Jonathan Carr stated. A) Mounting the tonearm on a separate pod allows relative movement to occur between the tonearm pivot and the platter / spindle, and this will interfere with the "accuracy of measurements". This sounds very technical and something that would come out of a white paper. It is a statement that would give designers/manufacturers a direction to take in the manufacture of TT’s. It also sounds very logical to me at the macro level. I have no problem with it. ----------------------------------------------------------- Now here is another broad statement that I have read about Armpods on the internet. Original Author unknown. B) Isolated Armpods break the rumble feedback “loop” as it happens through the plinth as it contacts the arm at both ends - through the arm pillar and cartridge via the platter. This also sounds very technical to me again and "also" something that I think could come out of a white paper. It is also a statement that would give designers / manufacturers a direction to take with the manufacture of their TT’s and also their Armpods as a package together or separately. It also sounds very logical to me at the macro level. I have no problem with it. FACTUAL This vinyl hobby is a very “crude hobby” no matter how “pretty” we make the components look and how technical we make our language about it. Such expensive mechanical or structural components whose job together is to send “vibrations” along picked up from a crude piece of vinyl plastic, of which NO TWO ARE ALIKE. I have watched how these lps are made. All of vinyl’s inaccuracies 1) warps, 2) not centered spindles, 3) varying thicknesses, 4) varying grooves 5) fill in others … This has led to a plethora of devices out there to help mitigate these inaccuracies. Look at all the devices trying to get the best alignment out of just two specific points on this piece of vinyl. The remaining points on the lp become even less accurate. All of this makes words such as "accuracy of measurements" start sounding to me on this public chat forum, like square pegs being tried to fit into round holes? No matter how accurate the process is in building the actual TT player itself and its components. You are still dealing with that piece of vinyl as your source. SETTING THE RECORD (no pun intended) I am in no Pro camp here – never have been. I am only Pro sound for me in my room/s. I am a user here – I am not a manufacturer, designer, dealer, distributor or anyone that benefits in any way from having someone’s equipment in my room like some others here. My latest TT has a 100 pound plinth. I have multiple TT’s that I own and of the three in my modest sound room, one uses Armpods. For the last 30 years my occupation has been in the field of RISK Management Planning and Mitigation. I get dropped into companies and my team needs to come up with solutions to their specific problems. This work involves macro and micro analysis, design and solutions. Now if I was being asked my professional work opinion here based on all this theory and my real listening tests, my professional response back would be that both of the above statements (A) and (B), make logical sense at the macro level and the ultimate micro TT detailed solution must take in and incorporate the advantages of both. PHILOSOPHY I am a big believer in the BIG ROCK theory. Not just for this hobby, but for my family, and my occupation. I consider myself a music lover first then an average audiophile. I have only myself to please. I have been told I am a very stubborn person. SUBJECTIVE PART My opinion as a user and after real testing and real experimenting in my own room are that even though A and B are I believe, both logical statements. For what I am actually hearing (B) represents a bigger rock than (A). I believe I am hearing the advantages of (B) and they overcome or cover up any problems with (A) - or if not - someone here should stop with the theory and tell me what I should be listening for to indicate (A) problems. In the meantime I have not completed all my planned testing, but so far I feel the isolation this Pod provides helps to move me closer to my nirvana. I am content and having a lot of fun listening to music, not worried if my 16.6 lb Brass Pod or Platter and Motor are moving on me. Cheers Chris |
Dear T-Bone, Dear Dertonearm. Oh yes theory is a wonderful thing but are there any experiment documentations available which support the "cantilever-theory" as well as the "isolation theory (of different platforms)". Funnily I made the experience when I put the motor drive and the three legs (feet) of the Continuum on extra platforms the sound is quiter and dynamically better. I would never return to a non isolation concept. Nandric is right he knows how to handle the issue seriously ... :-) best & fun only |
Thuchan, This is, as Dgob points out, only theory. However, following that theory, one would say that having armpod and turntable on different isolation platforms would be sub-optimal. One could see this by having the table be absolutely, perfectly stable and putting the arm pod on top of a sponge-y material - the arm-mount/arm bearing is isolated/coupled to a different extent than the table bearing. Any movement anywhere (the ones your isolation platform is supposed to counteract) will lead to distortion because of the mismatch in response of the bearing surfaces. Putting both on separate isolation platforms does not necessarily improve things as trying to match the resonant frequencies of the two isolation platforms in both frequency AND phase is almost impossible (primarily due to differences in platform loading leading to both different frequency and different reaction time to a given impulse). Or so the theory goes... |
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. |
T-bone, thanks for your helpful comments. if the plastic piece does not link the arm pod with the TT what kind of material will do it? I always use isolation platforms: the TOHO stand is placed on one, the motor on a separate one, the turntable on three isolated feet with platforms and the whole system again on a special Copulare isolation table (platform structure as well as feet).Following JC's suggestion to shield the TT i should build a surrounding shield for allover wave protection around the Continuum. This I can do. What is the best material and how much of the turntable needs to be covered, 100 mm above the highest point (tonearm)? best & fun only |
Thanks Jonathan - I was searching for that word "phase" in my head, when noting the possibility of similar resonances having an "offset" through different coupling or whatnot. I think it got lost rattling around in there - probably a "just-ate-a-Ku'a-Aina-burger-on-a-Friday-afternoon-after-a-long-week-so-brain-is-not-all-there" kind of thing... decent burger though... I agree the right way to do it is to make the armpod/mount as rigidly associated with the spindle as possible, and then isolate (preferably a magnetic floating platform loaded on the heavy end (grin)) the whole. |
Lewm, Thanks and its machinability and aesthetics are key reasons why I am considering using brass for my arm towers. This will be important as I intend to do all the work myself. The other reasons are its price relative to bronze, its decent mass and of course its not being magnetic. Now I just need the time and opportunity to try this out |
Lewm, Thanks and its machinability and aesthetics are key reasons why I am considering using brass for my arm towers. This will be important as I intend to do all the work myself. The other reasons are its relative price to bronze and its decent mass. Now I just need the time and opportunity to try this out |
Jcarr, I appreciate your comments as usual and recognise the logic (indeed a Japanese technician who used to produce tonearms in the 80s has pressed the same logic on me for some time) but can only say that my experience of isolated tonearm and turntable does not accord with the theory. Whatever the reason, the results really do speak for themselves. |
Lew, when it comes to choice of material rather than choice of processing, it is harder to say what is better, and what is less so. While audio design is predominately about engineering (or should be, IMHO), there is also an element which is similar to cooking, or matching clothes. You pick a design direction which you think is technically correct, decide on a building method (including materials) which you think is likely to bring you the benefits in a cost-effective manner, listen to the results, then assess what needs to be added, subtracted, or changed. If you make a wrong decision at any stage, chances are that the resulting product won't do particularly well in the market. Build it, and they will laugh (grin). What the above also means is that, the design direction affects the choice of materials, and vice versa. My preferred material choices are affected by my design direcions, and undoubtedly the same is true for other designers. There are some materials which, when used as structural materials, don't particularly sound good for my ears and my designs or operating environments. But these same materials seem to work fine for other designers and how they operate these materials. When it comes to subjective choices, there is no "right" or "wrong", in the same way that chocolate isn't "better" than tomato, nor the reverse. You may listen to a material or component and like it, I may disagree. But if it produces the sound that you are aspiring to, that is what should matter the most to you. FWIW, I also agree fully with Daniel and Travis regarding outboard arm pods. When you play a record, what you are actually doing is measuring it against the platter and spindle. Mounting the tonearm on a separate pod allows relative movement to occur between the tonearm pivot and the platter / spindle, and this will interfere with the accuracy of measurements. I acknowledge that in some situations the tonearm may be picking up environment vibration, which will affect the sound, and some listeners may be reacting to that. However, what this strongly suggests is that the plinth design offers inadequate environmental isolation. I suggest that a more elegant, and technically correct solution is to mount the tonearm pivot and platter / spindle onto a single rigid structure that allows everything to move together at the same rate and same distance (and phase), then isolate the complete system from the environment by means of an isolation platform (not footers). Even better would be to add an acoustic shield around the turntable so that it doesn't get affected by the sound pressure from the speakers. Lastly, you may find it interesting to study grounding theory in amplifier designing. There are strong parallels to what is being discussed here. hth, jonathan carr |
Thuchan, The Toho base is an excellent, heavy base. The issue is not so much one of moving by hundredths of a millimeter as the fact that it may flex or resonate at a different frequency or 'offset' (the timing of the when the wave crosses the zero point) than the table does. Thebase (and its footers) may react differently to flexion or resonance of the platform that it shares with the Continuum than the Continuum does. The plastic thing - whatever it is - between them will not link them so that they share whatever internal resonance they have. At least that would be the theory of the downside to separates which were nonetheless supremely stable in their own right - the problem which Micro Seikis and the Kenwood L-07D, to some extent the Exclusive P3, and other tables sought to address. |
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. |
Dgob, One advantage of brass: it is pretty soft and therefore very easy to machine. It also looks nice. Can someone point out to me where (in what post) JCarr listed his preferred materials in order of goodness? I only see where he listed first the preferred methods for creating objects out of solid metals and in a second post the metals that he personally has auditioned. Or Jonathan? Thx. Daniel (DT): Do you equate speed of the propagation of energy in a material with goodness of the material for use in arm pods, plinths, arm boards, platters, or what? |
May I ask all of you if a very heavy outboard armpod as I am using it for the FR-66fx on my Continuum is moving despite the fact that I connected it with a plastic part between the TOHO armpod and the heavy Continuum body - in this way creating a sandwich constellation. I for myself don't believe the TOHO stand will move but I am eager to learn if this is possible anyway. best & fun only |
