Hi Chris,
The Dynavector DV-505 (and its later 507 version) has alway enticed me because of its distinctly architectonic appearance?
I have never though, read a really thorough review of its performance vis-a-vis other tonearms?
It would be good to hear your impressions?
I think Lewm also has one of these on hand?
Cheers
Henry |
I am lucky in that the tonearms I was using when Henrys thread came about were top mounted ones. This made design of my pod very easy and allowed for all the mass to be in the pod itself no hollowing out required no extra parts - so to speak. It wont win any design awards but its purpose is all functional and it is immovable. If you can tap holes for screws and spikes u can make this totally yourself.
All of the hinges, bolts and screws that I adjust for VTF, Azimuth,
are part of the tonearms themselves. This is just one solution and it has made life for me and this part of the hobby a simple and satisfying one.
My latest tonearm the DV-505 was selected because it looked very interesting yes, but it is also a top mount and looks like it was built by Dynavector for a Pod. Its very portable. Its perfect for it. I have been totally intrigued by its design and its ease of setup on both a pod and a plinthed TT using the Dynavector Jig.
Cheers Chris |
Don,
It seems as if you know well the pitfalls of 'structural gymnastics' and are learning more 'on the job'...so to speak :^)
I'm impressed and looking forward to further evolutions of your ingenious arm-pod.
Cheers
Henry |
brad, you are correct in the 3" dia and 3" height. it's solid stainless and it is heavy. you're also correct in the amount of thought required with the design. i spent lots of time at that stage before the machining started. all of my plans were on scraps of paper and napkins! the emachine drawing is a definite asset.
henry, your observation about the cantilevering is a correct one. the only issue that i have with that is my armboard. the vertical shaft is solid 1" stainless. i can understand the extension within the arm itself making a sonic difference, since it's really only a relatively thin-walled tube supporting the whole arm. mine is set down, bottoming out and i let the 1" shaft provide the height adjustments. the reason that my armboard is so long is that i wasn't sure how much clearance that i would need for the grandezza as it swings past the micrometer. it turns out that i have a good 1" plus clearance, so i will make a new armboard, shorter and thicker at the shaft end for more contact area. i am happy with it now and don't want to break the set-up, but i will in the very near future.
thanks for the comments. it's still a learning experience.
don |
Dear Brad, The machinist in casu is alas not my friend, so
even just one lunch , not to mention the plural, is out of question. My 'luck' is that this guy is also interested in tonearms. However my armpod is made by my
real friend Vidmantas by the Reed company. I am also lucky
I should think that I am able to pay for the 'lunches' in plural. BTW there are 'many' other things involved by the tonearms so to 'have' a machinist is as important as to have an 'beautiful lady' ( not from Italy of course).
Regards, |
Brad,
There are unfortunately no free lunches?
A truly "universal arm-pod" like Corby's, requires many 'connections' and 'cantilevers' all held by grub-screws or something similar.
The vertical micrometer is in itself a cantilever from the fixed base and then the arm 'platform' is cantilevered from this shaft.
In any cantilever, the bending moment increases as the square of the cantilever. The deflections involved in such solutions render the stability of the arm-pod questionable.
I find with my DaVinci Grandezza 12" Ref tonearm, that even extending the shaft to its maximum for VTA adjustment, affects the sound rather badly :^(
Cheers
Henry |
Nandic, the thought behind the design in something like Halcro and Corby's pod is 80-90% of the work. Even if there is no desire to own a CNC and that is outsourced it is still your mental labor that made it come together.
You are lucky to have a machinist as a friend.
Brad
|
Dear Brad, I certainly can comprehend the joy involved in
making something on your own. But because of this division of labour we are not equal.The 'wish' or 'desire' don't imply any capability a priori or in advance. I myself am very glad to know an machinist with the CNC lathe. In my
most optimistic dreams I see my self not working with the
'tool' mentioned. This is also a part of our 'understanding'.
|
Thanks Corby, the final piece to me figuring your puzzle.
I'm going to draw this up in emachineshop.com to get and idea in cost between stainlees and brass with the adjustable outriggers optional.
It looks like your base is 3"h x 3"od?
Halcro this could be truely universal if there were differant length 1" shafts with differant length micrometer shaft extensions.
Brad |
<<I changed it over and over again and checked and double checked against the TT-81 and all the arms I had.
To make it even more difficult.....every arm has a different 'neutral' position from its base mounting as well as different extensions via its VTA adjustment. :^(>>>
Halcro, I feel ya and the end product makes you feel so good, kudos to ya. DIY makes you a appreciate the cost we pay for this stuff to a certain degree, others that don't diy just don't understand.
Brad |
brad
the mic is set into a counter-bored hole in the top of the shaft and held with a small set-screw from the back.
there are many different mic heads available. just check out the starret website to find one that suits your application. they are appx $80.
don |
Hey Corby, I follow you. It also looks like the micrometer body was machined to screw into the top of the 1" shaft.
If you ever tear it down take some pics.
much appreciated
Brad |
brad
the brass sleeve on the stainless shaft is just a spacer. it was easier to machine. i needed 1.18". machining 1.5" stainless would have been more difficult on the small lathe. so i chose to keep the shaft and mating hole at 1" and machine a sleeve using brass to bring the dia up to size.
i do not have any pics of it through the assembly. that would have been a good idea!
the shaft raises with the micrometer as it extends and lowers with gravity, when the micrometer is retracted. there is a light layer of grease between the shaft and it's mating hole in the base.
i could send you closer pics if you would like. |
Corby, you explained this in you prvious post to Halcro:
the vta is adjusted using the micrometer ath the top of the post, there is a thumbscrew on the side that you would loosen first, adjust the height and then retighten the screw to lock everything solid. the micrometer has a long rod attached to it that extends to the bottom of the pod. this enables the 1" shaft to be raised and lowered as required.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1294870073&openfrom&373&4#373
Assembly pics if it isn't a problem would give a better visualation on how it all came or goes together.
Is the brass sleve that the brass AX1 armboard just a spacer for the 1" shaft. Aluminum or stailless?
Thanks,
Brad
Another temp option to a lead ring is maybe some duct sealer that could be formed around the bottom. Duct sealer has been used as a diy dampening on speaker frames. It has a mass to it and can be molded similiar to clay. |
brad
i only have assembled pics. is there anything specific that you need to know?
also, thanks for the idea of weighting the panzerholz pod. for now, i am using it as-is since i do have another stainless pod half made. it will not have the micrometer in it as the first one does. |
Ecir38,
The base height of the arm pod casting is 110mm and 130mm with the bottom spikes.
I can't tell you how many sleepless nights I had questioning the 'correctness' of the height before having it cast?
I changed it over and over again and checked and double checked against the TT-81 and all the arms I had.
To make it even more difficult.....every arm has a different 'neutral' position from its base mounting as well as different extensions via its VTA adjustment. :^(
Prices I obtained from machine shops were between $1600-$2100 per pod!!
The castings worked out IIRC to be $500 per unit for three (including fabrication of the mould). This was not mate's rates but an unknown commercial foundry. With the mould now in my possession, another casting would be $300.
To have each pod spray-painted and a machine shop to supply the linished aluminium 10mm top-plates and drill and tap the top holes and
bottom ones for the spikes, added $200 per pod.
Not included in the costs of course is all my design time (and anguish) as well as all the schlepping around.
But considering that each 2.25 metre Cardas Golden Ref phono cable cost me $1000 (and I needed four!)......I'm not really complaining :^) |
Lew, at the bottom of that link there is a link to his blog with more great stuff.
Brad |
Brad, Beautiful stuff on that website. Thanks for the URL. I am drawing ever closer to a high efficiency, high impedance spkr system, if I could find one that I both like and can afford. |
Lewn, my arm pod path would probably not be for the garrard. My 301 is currently in a slate plinth that won't be easily changed to accept another tonearm, the reason for building others to come soon.
Here is the only example of one I ever seen on the net. Is that for a reason is the question.
http://www.theanalogdept.com/stefano_bertoncello.htm
I respect and agree with your opinion but also respect as stated earlier in the thread that it would be hard for me to comment negatively without having a direct experience.
Any of you guys checked out emachineshop yet? It really is a nice piece of softawre even it is only used for drawing and viewing a prototype of anything. I will soon setup my photobucket with a link to some pics.
Brad |
Corby, maybe a lead ring at the base would help the problem with your panzerholtz pod.
Do you have any breakdown pocs of your adjustable pod?
Brad |
Halcro, the size of your pod (180mm x 360mm cutout the side with 55mm hole for tonearm) is why the cost is so much to machine. What is the height?
Building one similiar to ttweight is more inline of the cost of your casting. |
AT 616 height: 2 inches at lowest setting; 2.25 inches at highest setting. There's a set on eBay right now--but the price is not exactly friendly. If you really want them, Nandric, do like Chris did and post a want ad. Or, as Lewm said, there are surely good alternatives--it's just not clear what those are.
Halcro: you got a bargain with your pods (friend discount?).
Lewm: yes, you are boring on this topic--but it's nice to have antipodes. |
Dear Nikola
Please ignore my last recommendation. I fear if you try it and liked what u hear that you will be in for a bigger dilemma with your space constraints. I already have 3 TT's in one room but the room is dedicated. It is still lunacy to an outsider. I tell myself its keeping me from becoming a loon but probably too late. Too much beer and sun I fear at this point for me.
Anyway - I do not want to be responsible for any problems this may cause in your house.
Cheers Chris |
Dear Nandric, just to set the record straight, the Boston Audio mats and the SAEC mat are very near in weight to that of the OEM Denon and Technics rubber mats. What I was saying in my last post is (among other things) that these two types are perfectly acceptable. I am not "worning" against their use. However, some folks use other mats that weigh as much as 4 lbs (2kg) and more on the Technics. IMO, that is too heavy. Others disagree.
Dear Ecir, Sorry I misunderstood you.
Sorry neither topic refers directly to outboard armpod use. My standing comment on that is if you are going to do it, I think both the tt and the arm pod need to be on mounts that are similar, if not in fact identical, in their tendency to transmit or dissipate mechanical energy of all types. You do not want the the tt to be jiggling (even on a micro level) whilst the arm pod is static, or vice-versa. Since this issue is created by using a separate arm pod, it also forms the basis by which I reject the outboard pod notion entirely. I know I am boring on this topic. |
Dear Halcro, I desagree. Our T_bone is entitled to the status of an 'regular Professor' in HI-FI history. I noticed some underrate of humaniora in our forum. But
can we do without any reflection about our (hi-fi) past?
What about ( any) perspective?
Regards, |
hi guys, it's been a few months. lot's has changed. i have installed a new rack for my system and, the reason for the post, i have made a new armpod.
i am having another stainless pod being made, but my machinist buddy is very busy. so, i decided to make on using panzerholtz. you can see a pic on my virtual system, on the micro seiki rx1500.
sonically, the armpod is doing what is expected. i have great isolation of course, which improves greatly on the image, detail, focus and bass response. the only issue that i have with it is the weight. it is on the light side, compared to stainless or brass. it can move relatively easily. so when i adjust the tracking force, for instance, i have to be carefull not to re-locate the pod when i'm adjusting the counterweight on the arm.
otherwise, i'd recommend using panzerholtz. it can be turned on a wood lathe without special tooling. i do have a small metal lathe that i used, but for the average guy, it id workable. |
Henry - I agree a universal one will be tough to do with all the dimensions. Larry at TT weights is making a good effort at it as Brad said. Others will follow. Henry your armpods look more expensive than the price you mentioned.
Nikola - you have two adjustables factors being the armpod itself and your arm. A third could be the sp10 footers. Your armpod is roughtly the same height as mine which is 4.2 inches tall. That means you will require taller footers based on an sp10. I cant recall how high the 616's are - maybe if Banquo sees this he can comment on their height. I think about 2.5 - 3 inches. I would not let that stop you.
I would get some small blocks of wood or other material and with some blue tac put two just inside the front corners and one in the middle of the contour toward the back - see my system page. Find any decent table to put it all on temporarily - you will still hear the magic. The sp10 mkII has no detectable rumble and requires little to work well. They used to plunk these things down on radio station tables everywhere. They are self contained as you can see and bullet proof.
I am still up north in Gods Country going after the elusive record small mouth bass will be returning in a couple of days and can provide more info.
Cheers |
Yes Nicola.......asparagus....the vegetables. As in ASPARAGUS |
Dear T_bone,
Because there already is a 'Professor' in our midsts (Timeltel of Kentucky).......the only post left open for you is 'Honorary Dean of the Faculty' :^) |
Halcro,
Just because you asked... ...there is a back story...
JVC/Victor of Japan was originally owned by Victor (US).
Victor was formed when Emile Berliner (inventor of the gramophone and then first owner of The Gramophone Company) lost a suit brought by Columbia and Zonophone early on, and wasn't allowed to make records anymore. The guy (Mr. Johnson) who was making gramophones (I think on an OEM basis) for Gramophone Company filed suit to allow him to sell the gramophones he had made, he was victorious in court, and he named his company Victor Talking Machine Company. That company partnered up with the original British Gramophone Company to sell gramophones, and the British company found the painting, got it changed slightly (from wax cylinders to discs). EB asked the original artist to grant the US picture rights to VTMC. That was 1901. As a result, they also got some other jurisdiction rights by default it appears. A few years later, VTMC started exporting equipment to Japan. In the 20s, after the great Kanto Earthquake destroyed most of Tokyo (1923), Japan raised import taxes dramatically, causing VTMC to decide to set up a local manufacturing and sales company, called 日本ビクター (Japan Victor). Then RCA took over Victor TMC in 1929 and RCA's corporate philosophy was to run overseas businesses on a RCA-local JV basis, so they JVed with Tokyo Electric (at the time a company in the Mitsui keiretsu, but better known now under a different name, created when it merged with Shibaura Electric Mfg - Toshiba). When relations between Japan and the USA got worse in the late 30s (as Japan was embarking on its Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere efforts), RCA no longer wanted to be involved with a Japanese JV so sold the rest of Japan Victor to its JV partners. After the war, during which Toshiba and Victor had both suffered greatly (in the bombing of Tokyo and 'burbs), but had significant debt remaining, and GHQ decided that banks couldn't own big parts of companies anymore, both Victor and Toshiba needed new partners. RCA raised its hand, but so did a long-time fan of talking machines, records, and the "HMV logo", the president of Matsushita. He decided he wanted to be in the record-making business and put up a boatload of money to buy out the debts of Victor from banks. Later Matsushita Konosuke would actually be chairman of Victor. In any case.... in Japan, most people referred to the company as "Victor" rather than "Japan Victor" and the brand used in Japan was, in the 60s-80s, "Victor". When Victor started selling VHS machines globally in the early 80s, they used the "JVC" brand outside of Japan. Later, "JVC" as a brand was re-imported and all the Victor-brand A/V products made by the Japanese company were branded JVC. And that's all she wrote... Back to armpods! |
Dear Chris, As I wrote I was not sure about the 'under cover' of the SP-10 and consequently the footers. This also imply of course the hight of my Reed armpod. I also
asked help and advice from Lew and he recommended the Boston platter mat or the SAEC one but also worned reg.their weight. My armpod is 10cm high with +/- 1cm adjustable spikes. I sleep well btw but my conscience started asking some tedious questions about the sense of such 'abundance' of carts and TT's. I hate the greedy characters so this kind of reflection is unavoidable.
Halcro, never heard the expression 'asparagus' and was not
able to find in my dictionary. Never thought that your eloquence will become a problem. Do you mean the vegetables?
Regards, |
Dear Nicola and Chris,
I have found that a tin of asparagus can form the ideal height for the temporary mounting of an arm :^) |
Chris, Nandric and Brad are quite correct in this thread being primarily about isolated arm-pods, their cost and availability.
The 'Nude Turntable Project' thread combines the support of the nude table together with the design and fabrication of bespoke arm-pods.
Corby's solution to an adjustable-height arm-pod attracted my attention as perhaps a pointer to a 'universal' isolated arm-pod?
It is not realistic IMO, to expect the individual turntable manufacturers to design and sell 'universal' arm-pods? Depending on the design of the various turntables available, such a design could be more complex and expensive than a pod designed for a known individual turntable design.
That's why this exchange of differing solutions is valuable.
I designed my arm-pods to accept every arm I was aware of yet the pods were designed height-wise, to be specific to the Victor nude DD/TT although height variations up to +/- 10mm is possible via the height of spikes selected and the thickness of the aluminium top-plate to the arm-pods themselves.
In this case the cost of each pod worked out to approx $500 and would now be $300 for each additional one (since I have the casting mould).
It is hard to imagine a 'universal', height-adjustable, any-arm-you-like commercial arm-pod being available for a retail price anywhere near that? |
Hi Brad - yes the idlers need the plinth to damp the rumble and the inquiries were for armpods going around existing TT's with plinths. A few talked about slate plinths that could be cut smaller to allow for multiple arms. I was planning on doing a plinth for an L75 platter/motor/top plate only with armpods.
Don may see this but I will reach out to him to see if he can provide more info.
Cheers Chris |
Lew, I agree with you that idlers need a plinth thats why I said it wouldn't be a great idea. Now a idler with a plinth and arm pod that is the question.
Chris, were those email request of guys wanting an arm pod for idlers that were nude or with a plinth?
I'm surprised nobody but Halcro has asked more about the ingenious arm pod Corby made. Think you can get him to elaborate a little more of the breakdow with the micrometer, maybe pics. For most arms, having precision VTA would be a plus.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1294870073&openfrom&370&4#370
Like you said manufactured tonearm prices are expensive especially if you would need more than one.
Couple of fine example of the cheaper ones out there.
http://www.ttweights.com/catalog/item/7725503/8678734.htm
http://www.ttweights.com/new_power_arm_pod.html
Notice the second one with the dissimilar materials stainless, lead and derlin. I'm sure this was tried and tested so something to note that there is probably some canceling going on there.
Other than cancelation going on lead would add mass while the derlin should be easy to machine.
Brad |
Nikola - if I was in your position with a tuned up virgin Sp10mkii in my house and that Reed armpod and tonearm already in place I would not be able sleep until I put them on a small temporary stand with appropriate height footers under the sp10 just to hear what it was like. |
Dear Chris, This is exactly what my thoughts and intentions
were. My Kuzma Stabi Reference, as many other TT's, was meant for just one tonearm. I wantend an second tonearm also because my Basis Exclusive has two independant phono pres.I was not able to solve the problem myself but was searching on internet for the solution. This way I discovered the Reed company and thy were willing to accept
my order. They just started producing TT's and tonearms.
But Lew is right considering the problems involved by an
armpod. First the dimensions needed for the armpod in relationship to a given TT, then the tonearmlenght, then the problem where to put the armpod next to the TT, etc.
Not an easy task for an amateur. I needed to describe all
dimensions of my Kuzma and my rack very exact before they
started this project. My armpod was btw the first they constructed. But despite the fact that I owned 7 different tonearms non of them was adequate. The point Lew made . I needed an 12" tonearm for my Kuzma. So I ordered both the armpod as well as the 12'' tonearm.I got not only the armpod and the tonearms but also some friends in Lithuania
but I am aware that my whole project could go wrong. One can't count in advance reg. the capability and integrity of people one ask help from. I was lucky I am sure.
Regards, |
Dear Banquo, Your remark directed to Halcro speaks honestly to one point I have been trying to make with the plinth-less crowd. The torque of an SP10 motor (Mk2 OR Mk3) is sufficient to move the chassis, if the chassis is unfettered by a plinth. Thus I would fear in theory what you may be observing in fact, that your turntable may be able to "walk" away from correct alignment. I think this is fixable by maybe using double-sided tape between the bottom of your chassis and the top surface of the AT616 footers. Of course, I personally would fix it by building a plinth or some sort of substantial anchor for the chassis. I recently read that the servo mechanisms in these turntables apply full torque instantly, each time they are triggered by a speed variation. Heretofore, I thought the motor controller via the servo system could call up "just enough" torque to return the platter to correct speed, when needed. If that were true, the effect of torque to move the chassis would be minimal during actual play. But now that I have learned that the servo simply gives a full on or full off signal to the motor, I am even more convinced re the value of a good plinth. By the way, I did not mean to imply that you (personally) were dogmatic re AT616 feet, but there seems to be a general trend in that direction among other disciples of the Copernican approach.
As regards the tendency of an LP to slide on the surface of a Boston Audio mat, I have observed the same thing. I use a Mat1 on my Lenco. The Mat1 had a tendency to slip against both the surface of the platter underneath it AND against the surface of any LP on top of it. I finally cured the former issue by inserting a few slivers of double-sided carpet tape between platter and mat. Just small pieces were sufficient. As regards the tendency for LPs to slip, I too notice that when using a carbon fiber brush to remove dust from the surface of an LP prior to play, but it does not seem to be an issue during play at all. You might want to try an SAEC mat; they are often for sale on eBay and Audiogon for around $300. No slipping issues with SAEC. But based on what I hear from my Lenco, I think the Boston Audio mats may be (even) more neutral sounding than the SAEC. After hearing either one of these mats, I could never go back to the OEM rubber mats. And I am sure there are other candidate mats that would best the OEM ones. This was very true for my Denon DP80 as well. The OEM Denon mat might be even worse than the Technics one. (Alas, the Denon sits, loved but unused, on a shelf in my basement.)
Dear Ecir, Idler-drive turntables need to be mounted in well built plinths for best performance, IMO. I think that is much less controversial than the use of a plinth with a direct-drive. I don't think you will ever get the best out of your Garrard without some sort of plinth. |
The real story here and I say this from my direct experience the last 6 months, and from the emails I have received is about the ARMPOD.
People in this very small specialized hobby that are into the mid and higher end categories want to add arms and experience other cartridges with their Existing turntable. They have TTs of all types. That is the story.
Manufacturers are you listening. This is the next level for this hobby. And until manufacturers wake up and stop charging ridiculous $$ for a machined piece of metal people will continue to make their own those with more money will have them made. It costs me $150 to make a 16.5 lb brass armpod. Come out with one that costs twice that and I will buy it to save the time and trouble.
Ecir38 over half the emails I have received for the pdf on making a basic pod were from people with idlers. My next project heading into the winter was to be an idler that I was going to put the platter/motor only in a plinth to use with a couple of armpods. That was the plan. As it goes a very special Lenco 75 fell into my hands, so now I am looking forward to listening and comparing heading into the fall.
Cheers Chris |
Thanks for that T_bone.
Perhaps you can explain how Victor was able to use the same logo of the dog listening to the gramophone that we also associate with RCA? |
Halcro,
For clarification for those who may not know the history/linkages, Victor and JVC are/were the same company (though a few years ago they merged with Kenwood). In Japan the brand was usually called Victor whereas abroad it was JVC (Japan Victor Company, called that, rather than Victor, because of trademark issues I think). Later, JVC (the company) also moved to use the JVC brandmark in Japan for local market products. FWIW, Panasonic had a similar issue where Panasonic was the brand name used for items sold abroad and Matsushita Electric Industrial (the listed company) used 'National' as their brand in Japan. Only recently did Matsushita retire the National brand and convert those items to Panasonic. At the same time they changed the company name. Many Japanese companies used 'brand names' for their audio component lines which were different than their company names. Matsushita was responsible for Technics. Toshiba was responsible for Aurex. Mitsubishi was Diatone. Sanyo was Otto. Sharp was Optonica. Kenwood was Trio. Pioneer was Exclusive. Hitachi was Lo-D. Teac is Esoteric (and TASCAM). NEC was Authentic. Kensonic was Accuphase. Nagaoka was Jeweltone. Dynavector was On-Life Research. Akai was A&D. Aiwa was Excelia. And Sony was briefly Esprit (and more recently, Qualia). |
Noticed this thread when it started but didn't give it a read till today. Currently been condsidering a new plinth for a Garroard 301 so it was a great read although a plinthless 301 would not be a great idea but would be easy enough to try with a arm pod.
This thread and the debate within have change my direction some. A removable armboard or arm pod and the decision between the two has been the holdup for me. Over the past few days even before reading this thread I have decided to build multiple plinths for both while the table will be down.
May I recommend you guys take a look at
http://www.emachineshop.com/
Came across this service when noticed it mentioned in the DIY Schroeder thread, another great read BTW.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/13372-diy-schroeder-tonearm-11.html#post2242523
I have been using there software for awhile now although haven't had a chance to order anything from them yet. They have forum support and also video tutorials to help get started.
There is allots of benefits in using there software even if you have a local machinest already.
You could build a basic armpod in minutes then view it in 3D. Once comfortably with your design you click proceed/analyze and get any instant quote including shipping and weight!!! This alone make this software great. The site says this will work internationaly too.
Multple of the same design reduce the cost dramitcally, may be a great way to do a group buy. If you only want one item but think there may be interest of someone else that may want to purchase the same design you would order more than one to get the price for your one down then they will stock the remaining for a year. If they don't sell you would be obligated to pay for the remaining but if they do you would receive a percentage of the sale, how cool is that.
Another great feature of the sofware is you can import and export files. You can easily import a .dwg file to get you started if you have some cad designs. For you guys that use a local machinest I would think if you design the part then export it to a cad file it would save you some bucks since your machinest wouldn't have to create the design to enter into his CNC.
Brad |
Dear Nandric,
My DD/TT is a Victor TT-81 made for JVC ( and soon to be replaced by its scarce and finer brother.....the TT-101).
They have their bottom metal 'cage' attached (just as the SP10s have) so that spikes or 'footers' can be positioned under this 'cage'.
I find that placing the spikes under the vertical cage perimeter, results in the greater stability with no movement whatsoever in my particular case. |
Lewm: I haven't done any extensive comparative tests between the stock mat and my current one, the Boston Audio Mat 2, but the latter definitely lowers the noise floor. It's a deep dark black background--as it should be. One issue I've noted however is that the Mat 2 doesn't 'grip' onto records like the stock rubber mat. On certain records (warped ones), as I've applied a dust cloth to the record prior to play, the record will not rotate at the same speed as the platter, i.e. the downward pressure of the cloth is slowing the record's rotation. I infer that the record then is not properly coupled with the mat. This never happened with the rubber mat. Although not evident with flat records, it may be the case that this lack of coupling is having some effect with them as well. I ordered a ttweights record clamp and will see whether it makes a difference.
Regarding footers, obviously the AT 616 are not the only option. Who ever said they were? Chris was using brass footers before and as he said will use for his second set up. I was using the more readily available 605 footers before. But as he noted and I concur, there are practical advantages to using the 616's. In addition to what Chris noted, the 616's are 4" wide and that provides more stability than the 605's. Although I believe there are sonic advantages as well, no one thinking of going plithless should be deterred by the unavailability of the 616's. In fact, I considered using Eden Sound's terrastone footers but they probably require drilling holes into the chassis--something that I wanted to avoid. |
To all of you plinth-less persons, it is possible and permissible to do something different from what Raul does and still get satisfactory results. Think outside Raul's box. The AT616 feet may be good, but they cannot possibly be the only "good" option for feet. Also, I wonder what you are all using for platter mats. I found the stock rubber mat supplied with my SP10 Mk2A was easily bested by an SAEC SS300 metal mat (purchased from Raul, by the way), and I am sure other mats would also be superior to the rubber. One that I aim to try on my Mk3 is a Boston Audio Mat2. The Mat2 has about the same weight as the stock rubber mat and so should have no deleterious effect on function of the servo mechanism. (I don't recommend a super heavy mat for that reason.) My experience tells me that the stock rubber mat may be responsible for the the closed-in, grayish, dull tonal quality that some have ascribed to direct-drive turntables. (I have seen each of these adjectives used; take your pick.) I even think that the stock mat may have more to do with the tone than does the plinth or lack of same. |
Nandric: what Lewm said.
Lewm: As you can see from my system pics, my second arm is behind the tt and in from the left edge by about 4 inches. The pod was designed so that it could go partially underneath the tt's square top (that is crucial). The pivot to spindle distance is 230mm and that's no problem.
Halcro: I'm not sure what you are imagining with the rocking, but I should say that I'm beginning to become suspicious of the ridigity of my system. I received my Mint protractor a few weeks back and it makes me appreciate the very fine adjustments required to maintain proper alignment. The 616 footers are great for isolation and leveling, but the contact between their smooth tops and the bottom of the tt's chassis is probably less secure than the ideal. To test this, I'm going to recheck alignment in another week. If it's off, I'll blame the footers. It may be an easy fix, just a matter of adding some blu-tac between footer and tt, but we'll see. The contact between bottoms of footers and platform is definitely secure as those suckers are not easy to move once settled.
Chris: indeed the footers' ability to be adjusted is key, otherwise leveling would be haphazard. Is the contact between the top of your footers and tt secure? I'll pm you regarding price; it's complicated. |
Dear Chris, This hobby is not only irrational but it also
make you greedy. I at last got a perfect SP 10 mk2 with all capacitors renewed but have no idea what to do with it.
Like those MM carts: buy now ,fast and as many as possible
and think or test later.Then this ebay 'syndrome' is realy
addictive. I am not able at the moment to resist but reduced my search to 'only' German ebay and ebay.com. The English have actualy nothing to offer(qua MM carts). BTW
I am very reluctant to remove my Kuzma and put the SP-10 instead.
Dear Lew, Thanks for the worning . I somehow thought that Raul recommended removal of the cover in casu.
Dear Halcro, I 'inspected' your system and have seen that
your DDTT is an Denon(?). Are we tolking about different animals? There is no place, so to speak, for the spikes on the underside of the SP-10. Or so I thought.
Regards, |
Hi Henry - all I do with the sp10 is put a record on it - use my choice of clamp depending on the record and hit start. I never lean on it. Raul suggested the 616's originally I think?
Those 616's are very hard to find were not a North American product. I got mine from a fluke - someone from Holland responded to a wanted ad I had placed.
My second sp10 will be using spikes. IMO as long as the platform you are using is level and isolated well, then any good manufacturer footers would work depending on your application.
Once you have reached this level - what became more important to me was how high the footers needed to be - if they were fixed or adjustable - this all helped to determine how high tall the pod would end up being and how much adjustability needed to be put into the threaded spikes.
Nikola - I agree with what Lew said about the sp10 and its guts kinda of just hanging there with cover removed. I also know when not to mess with a good thing when I hear it. The same "abstract thinking" would apply to Henry's JVC ?
Lew - My site has pictures of multiple arms being used as well as I believe Banquo's and Dgob's sites.
Cheers Chris |
Banquo, Good to know that you finally found peace with Bill Thalmann. I don't know how you (and others) are managing to use more than one outboard pod with the SP10. The square escutcheon that surrounds the platter really interdicts the use of more than one tonearm, which must be placed alongside the right-hand edge of the square, which allows a short enough distance to the spindle to permit alignment of a 9- or 10-inch arm. From all other sides, perhaps only a 12-inch arm can be aligned. But obviously you are making it work, somehow. The Denon tt's present no problem in this regard.
Nandric, Removing the bottom of the SP10 chassis would be a big mistake, IMO. It would reduce structural integrity of the whole, leave the on-board electronics open to the elements, and eliminate any way to provide a solid mount for the tt. |
Nandric,
These 'footers' are of course different to my solution with the spikes.
Both Chris and Banquo are using them so they must be fine.
My concern would be if you could lean on the edges of the turntable and induce movement (ie 'rocking')........that would not be a good thing from the Copernican point of view? |
