Raul makes a reasonable point.
Whilst it is in our 'audiophile' nature to be skeptical and delve into philosophical discussions regarding our understanding of the playback system, there has not been one report from those who have actually tried the isolated armpod, which casts doubt on it's benefits?
In the interests of proper discussion it would be worthwhile if anyone has had contrary experience, for them to hopefully contribute their findings in this Forum?
In the absence of any dissenting personal experience, it is hard to accept seriously, the views of the naysayers?
And I know Lew.........too many question marks? :^) |
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. |
Raul,
If you look at the original marketing materials for the Kenwood L-07D from almost 30 years ago, you will find a clear 'explanation' against having the arm base be dis-connected from the bearing mount of the turntable. A similar explanation is in some of the original marketing materials in Japanese for the Exclusive P3. In fact, the P3's construction is not terribly different than some of the 'armpod' implementations. What some of the philosophical 'naysayers' bring up as an objection is not necessarily the lack of bulk-cladding (plinth) around the motor OR a heavy armpod. The philosophical issue some of us have is that of putting an isolation layer between the motor bearing and the arm bearing.
In the design of your arm, I imagine you are not going to put an isolation buffer between the armwand and the bearing - that would strike you as less than optimal, and not even worth testing. Some of us feel, perhaps to our detriment, that an isolation layer between motor bearing and arm bearing is not much different. |
I meant to say in the previous comment that the P3's construction is not terribly different than some of the 'armpod' implementations of some of the people who have presented on this thread. The difference would be in how the armpod is connected to the surface beneath it. |
Dear T_bone,
Go on........try it. You know you want to :^)
You have the TTs ( a plethora)...I provided a recipe for a cheap armpod.....you have the arms.....and you really want to prove it doesn't work. You're the perfect candidate.......well, you AND Lewm....to be converted?
Imagine the mental exercise to be enjoyed IF.........your ears tell you something your brain cannot yet compute? :^) |
Halcro,
I'll get there. I think the concrete idea is really kind of cool. One could even do a low cost DIY "TT pod" out of concrete. :^) |
There is no question in my mind that our hobby has some religious aspects ( aka it is about what one believes). But we are used to use 'scientific' arguments in our discussion. Who would expect that, say, the Catholic churh will ever reach any agreement with, say, Greek ortodox church despite the fact that both were once 'the same' church? To admit that the 'other' may be right is like loosing a game. So Lew refers to Newton and T_bon to some 'original marketing material' to prove their case. But we all can enjoy leterature while we know that this 'art' has nothing to do with the (real) truth. I myself always enjoy the post of , for example, Lew and Herr Professor in this sense. I wish btw that I could afford the 'big one' from Kuzma with 3 of those 'golden' arm pods. One should I think
refer to those as 'pedestals' because a 'pod' looks so miserable in literary sense.
Regards, |
From Nikola's last post I have to admit that having a lawyer with an armpo... sorry I meant to say pedestal :^) -has advantages.
T-Bone - you said.
"The philosophical issue some of us have is that of putting an isolation layer between the motor bearing and the arm bearing."
Why is this ? Can you provide more info on this.
I thought about it. I have limited knowledge of bearings other than actually changing the one in a turntable, as well as the wheel bearings on my trailer and my automobile wheels. I would have assumed that a TT motor bearing is different than an arm bearing both in the way it is designed and works. In fact who here actually uses a table and arm from the same manufacturer even ?
Fleib gave a really good description of how bearings are selected at REGA on the MM thread.
So I am thinking with these two disjointed designs being joined somewhere on a plinth or by appendage - attached somewhere. That this would lend itself to more rumble/chatter, etc...
Remember I have heard an armpod so I have a comparison to make here.
I would tell the design team to separate the two or prove me wrong with test results.
Now lets make it more complicated a Unipivot arm does not have any bearings but point/s ?
Lets go another level still - an air bearing arm ?
Wonder how those things sound on an armpod ?
At least you are coming up with reasons T Bone. I agree with Henry with your gear you are the perfect candidate. I am actually selfishly hoping you could provide me with tips to improve my setup based on your experience.
Cheers |
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. |
Ct0517,
A pedestal is nothing more than a 'plinth' :^)
The issue of having isolation between the arm bearing and table bearing can be illustrated, in extremis, by imagining a jack-in-the-box with an immovable armpod next to it. After jack has popped out of the box and does not bounce anymore, he is perfectly stable and unmoving at the end of spring. As long as he is perfectly still with absolutely zero resonance, the relationship between your tonearm pivot and jack's nose is always the same, whether Jack is encased in concrete (a plinth) or perched on the end of his spring (on top of a 'platform' which moves in relationship to the world around it. As soon as there is any resonance in the system however, jack will move with regard to the tonearm pivot (and therefore the stylus), and may do so in slightly unpredictable ways. In any case, the slightest movement will cause a kind of intermodulation.
If you fix Jack to the platform your armpod is resting on in order to keep the relationship between his nose and the armpod-mounted arm pivot perfectly constant, you have effectively plinthed him.
If Jack has some kind of internal resonance, the method of fixing him to the board may have more or less resonance. This is the difference between a bad plinth and a good one, but the inherent goal of a plinth is to keep the relationship between the arm's pivot/bearing and the motor bearing as stable as possible. If one removes the plinth which surrounds the motor, and mounts it naked on the same table as the armpod, one has removed an intermediate coupling material (the one which connected the frame of the motor to the bottom of the footers, but one has not changed the concept/goal, one has simply changed the method of execution.
If, however, you stick your TT motor on an isolation base which is not the same base that your arm bearing is resting on, you are effectively changing the distortion relationship. You may find that a substandard plinth will resonate unpleasantly because of a resonant frequency of the material which is in the audible range. If you change this frequency to a 3-5Hz frequency (the goal of most isolation systems), you have exchanged the plinth resonance-induced distortion for one which is like an off-center 45 record. |
Oops. Writing on an iphone is a sure-fire way to make lots of typos. So please ignore those.
One can add to the last point that it is not necessarily a BAD thing to exchange one set of undesirable resonances for another set of undesirable resonances. It could be that one likes the flavor of the second better. But for people who are trying to get rid of ALL distortion, introducing an isolation layer (distortion transformer) between two points which are supposed to be absolutely fixed together with zero distortion between them is in some way 'giving up.' And while it may be better than it was 'before', it makes one wonder about the state of the 'before' and almost certainly can be improved upon.
That said, it is not a difficult thing to do, and I will try at some point. I can think that it might even be an improvement on some of my stock plinths (because some of them were not top-notch). I can probably figure out an armpod of some sort relatively easily (it could be an arm attached to an current plinth and the motor outside it, either spiked (rigidly coupled) or isolated (on magnetic levitation footers) with regard to the surface below. |
T_bone -
I think you are wasting your time on this. This thread goes round in circles.
If I look at Halcro's system it astonishes me that for all the discussion on turntable set up I see the following issues in his system -
Turntables located on a large resonant shelf behind the speakers where there is massive feedback. There is effectively a bass trap where his turntables sit.
Gear stacked on top of each other rattling away ( yes electrical components resonate when on ).
He has a TV spewing out RF inches away from turntables and sensitive phono stages.
He has a massive glass coffee table bouncing off hi frequencies in front of the listening seat.
I also note that the speakers have huge lips around the edges which will cause a tunneling effect and restrict soundstage.
He may like a horribly discoloured sound who knows, but for me strapping a cartridge on with a rubber band might well sound better in this suboptimal set up. |
Dear Raul: I feel that your posted of 9-11-11 was a direct response to my posts. I would like to make two points in this regard.
First: Being critical of a given approach or "road" as you put it, does not mean that one is against it. I doubt that the purpose of this thread or Audiogon in general is to host forums where people spend there time complementing each other's system. (BTW you have a very impressive system). Being critical challenges these approaches and helps them evolve. While receiving complements is pleasent (I enjoy receiving them as much as anyone) they will only lead to status quo or possibly shinnier and more expensive systems.
Second: you suggest that unless we try a given approach we cannot comment on it. Once again, then why participate on A'gon. I thought the point was to gain from the other participants' experiences and mutually advance. Moreover, I do not have the means to try all that I would like to.
With this said, Raul and the others, please explain the following. With the TT mounted on a suspension system above a mounting surface and the armpod rigidly seated on this same surface how is the distance that must remain fixed between the pivot point of the TT and the tonearm fixed?
The trade off, is between the variations in this distance, most likely in scale of 1/10 to 1 mm vs the variations caused by the micro vibrations from a bearing of a shaft turning at 33 or 45 rpm with a scale in likely 1/1000 to 1/100 of mm. My instinct would lead me to believe that the first problem is far more problematic then the second. |
Dear T_bone, For someone who is refering to the 'original marketing material' as a 'argument' for his church you should understand how important the right words are. To me
the pedestal also sounds much nicer than a'pod'.I am alas not familiar with the church furnishing but for our church we (should) prefer 'pedestal' above a 'pod'. Ie you and other members of your church are free to pray before a plinth we have, I think, a much more sacral object in our church: the pedestal. Besides our religion is the true and the right one.
Regards, |
In general, I try to avoid commenting on things that I have no hands-on experience with, or at the very least, have never discussed with another designer who has had hands-on experiences with the topic in question.
This thread is no exception to my policies. I have tried and listened to independent arm-pods on multiple occasions, spanning from the early 1980s to earlier this year.
Any dissent that I may have voiced for independent armpods or other design particulars espoused in this thread, is based on a combination of personal experience (including listening), engineering training, and study and analyses of other turntable manufacturer's design efforts.
Everything that I have learned and experienced about turntable design (particularly regarding DD) suggests that the plinth should have very high moment of inertia but with as few structural or cavity resonances as possible, and as small diaphragmatic area as possible, while the tonearm mount should be non-resonant and completely rigid in relation to the platter so that there is no possibility for relative movement between the LP and tonearm pivot. The reason is that if any relative movement occurs between the LP and tonearm pivot, the cartridge has no way of distinguishing whether the relative motion comes from noise or vibration in the environment, or is part of the LP groove.
This should be accompanied by full isolation from structure-borne noise and vibrations from the environment, and preferably full isolation from air-borne noise and disturbances from the environment.
Some of the posts in this thread very clearly suggest that the poster isn't hearing distortions that should be quite measurable and audible, or that the sound of their system is deemed to be preferable with those distortions present.
cheers, jonathan carr (hugging a pneumatic isolation platform - grin)
BTW, if you place equipment between the speakers, you create an acoustic problem for the speakers, not only a vibration problem for the turntable, CD transport or electronics. IME, if you must place equipment between your speakers, it should present as small of an acoustic profile to the speakers as possible, and should be placed as far away from the speaker's radiating pattern as possible. |
Pedestals, plinths, and pods oh my! LOL Nandric! You are right. 'Marketing material' perhaps does not have the 'gravity' that one might wish for, though the research behind the concept seemed to be well done. |
T-Bone, Nikola,
Pods, Plinths, Pedestals.......? No, I don't think so.
I recommend using a Podium, as the winner always ends up there....
John
.
|
Dear Jonathan,
We all, I believe, value your contributions to these forums.......I know I certainly do.
And I recognise that you must have vast experience in listening to audio systems of all types.
You should appreciate that most of to us here, also have many years of experience in listening to various systems belonging to other audiophiles as well as those in dealer's listening rooms and also hi-Fi shows so that our 'hearing' is conditioned by all those experiences and also more importantly, live music performances.
It is thus a little puzzling to think that you actually believe we are perhaps listening to distortions without somehow knowing it?
I have listened during a period of 2 years to a Rockport Sirius III turntable with your own quite good Olympos cartridge :^) and over the last 4 years, have regularly listened to a Continuum Caliburn with Cobra and again.....your modest Olympos.
I have heard hundreds of systems in rooms far far better than mine and have continually monitored my sound against all of these.
My room is not ideally designed with regard to equipment placement as you quite rightly point out but some of us have no other choices without a dedicated listening room.
One thing my room does have......is a wonderful acoustic volume with a ceiling raking up to a height of 18 feet. If you've ever heard what room 'volume' can do for your sound, you'd select that over most other parameters I believe.
My point is that the sound emanating from my system is compared to that of the finest sources, amplification and speakers commercially available and I believe that I can detect 'distortions' as well as you or anyone else.
The greatest changes I've heard to my sound over the last 2 years is in fact in the reduction of distortions from the turntable.
Some of this results from the isolated armpods (I do still play the Raven AC-3 for comparison) but the major reduction in analogue distortions to my ears, has been the switch to MM cartridges over LOMCs.
I can hear high frequency distortion in most of the LOMCs regardless of the arm, turntable or set-up.
Now you obviously do not hear these distortions so I'm not sure that a meaningful discussion between us on that topic is achievable :^(
Having said all that......there are those who prefer DD to Belt Drive and others who prefer Idlers. As I've said before.......I find far greater differences in cartridges than in drive type and I admire those who claim to hear those differences.
I can't stand the distortions I hear in digital reproduction yet most here, can happily live with them?
We all are different and all our experiences are valid.
I've also learnt that 'blanket' statements regarding audio are commonly wrong?
This is a 'discussion' Forum and the more we have.....the more we can possibly learn. |
Dear John, You are obviously an atheist. Never seen a church from the inside? There is always a Podium in any that I know of and all of them claim to be the winner. However if the other members of my church prefer 'Podiúm' above 'Pedestal' who am I to disagree? As long as I don't need to kneel before some plinth...that is.
Regards, |
Dear Halcro, The Germans are not considered as having any sense for humour. By the Dutch in any case.But they produced this saying:'if theory and practice coincide then
they are probable both false'. They were also the first to
mentinon this 'unity between theory and practice' ( Marx if
I am correct). Now I consider Jonathan as a genius designer
(think also about his pres), a nice guy and as honest as
'Gold' as one says ( aka indisputable integrity). But his
aims and intentions are impossible to fulfil without his own preferences or testes. His work imply both: the technical knowledge and application of this knowledge to
reach some ends. For him this 'unity' of theory and practice must be self-evident.
But we want a separation of 'objective' and 'subjective'
aspects of the valuation process and can always attribute
some of his propositions to his 'subjective valuation'.
The same apply to Raul btw. Now this 'subjective valuation'
is connected with our upbringing,culture, education, family infuences , experience etc, etc. Ie our whole brain is involved. To refer to all this as 'subjective' is
of course very slim. But somehow in our discussions we are
predisposed to talk about 'subjective' as something that is
suspicious. Why are we so skeptical about those with whom
we disagree?
Regards, |
Dear Halcro:
Regarding what I think is the overall point of your post, I agree that everyone has and should have the freedom to listen to the sound that they like.
Regarding the Olympos, I should point out that the Titan-i is the more neutral, better-performing cartridge, but it is more demanding of setup, and it is more demanding of partnering equipment.
>If you've ever heard what room 'volume' can do for your sound, you'd select that over most other parameters I believe.
I have friends and business associates that I visit frequently, with big listening rooms that are acoustically shielded, structurally solid, and receive electricity from dedicated, 3-phase power lines. I agree that room volume is good, but past a certain point, I prefer proper mechanical, acoustic and electrical setup, and I prefer close listening proximity to the speakers (and a speaker that allows this). The air between your ears and the speakers is a great sound absorbent (filter), and you can tell a lot more about the faults of your system and components if you can listen from within, say, 1.5 meters from the speakers (although I try to stay closer).
>The greatest changes I've heard to my sound over the last 2 years is in fact in the reduction of distortions from the turntable.
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 (but is a separate, distinct phenomena). FWIW, Sansui designed a couple of contra-rotating turntables specifically to combat this distortion without requiring so much moment-inertia in the plinth.
If you have a tonearm mount that allows relative movement between the LP and tonearm pivot, you are also creating distortions.
And if the turntable shares the same acoustic space as the speakers, without structural and air-borne isolation, you will again be creating measurable, audible distortions (although the magnitude of the problem depends on how much acoustic or structure-born energy the turntable receives).
You can quantify the difference by making a high-bit recording of your turntable without the speakers playing, and with speakers playing at your customary listening levels, and compare the two files. If you put the two files through a program such as DiffMaker by LIberty Instruments, it is possible to extract the difference component and listen to it as a distinct "distortion" track.
There are reasons why I said that some of the posts suggested that the poster wasn't hearing distortions that were almost certainly present, and should be quite measurable and audible.
>major reduction in analogue distortions to my ears, has been the switch to MM cartridges over LOMCs.
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.
I have heard (or own) some MMs that I rate fairly highly, but they still leave me somewhat wanting. OTOH, I do believe that MMs or MIs have more performance potential than most previous efforts have been able to demonstrate, and in the future, I hope to be able to design an MM or MI cartridge that shows this to be true.
>Now you obviously do not hear these distortions so I'm not sure that a meaningful discussion between us on that topic is achievable :^(
It would be more accurate to say that I hear other distortions from MMs or MIs that annoy me even more (^o^).
>I find far greater differences in cartridges than in drive type and I admire those who claim to hear those differences.
Interesting, because I've designed and built various turntable power supplies, control systems and drive amps, and I assure you that the difference between topologies and components (semiconductors, capacitors, rectifiers etc.) is quite audible. And that is without changing the particular motor or drive system under test, let alone the drive type.
>I can't stand the distortions I hear in digital reproduction yet most here, can happily live with them?
I hear a different set of distortions from digital than I do analog, but both have audible distortions. Open-reel tape has audible distortions, and recording microphones do, too (smile). FWIW, my experience is that the transport, DAC and line preamp all have a significant effect on the reproduced sound quality from digital audio.
My present digital system is capable of playing back 384kHz 32-bit studio master-grade recordings, and the transport is a dedicated solid-state device that runs in synchronous clock mode with the DAC (effectively eliminating or at least drastically reducing jitter). At this level, digital doesn't sound so bad (^o^).
>We all are different and all our experiences are valid.
When it comes to subjective preferences, everyone is free to choose whatever they like (and for whatever reason). But let us also keep in mind that not everyone who dissents is an armchair critic, Sunday designer, or lacking in the experiences that make others go ga-ga.
>This is a 'discussion' Forum and the more we have.....the more we can possibly learn.
If the discussion presents dissent as well as assent, yes. Assent only, not so useful.
kind regards, jonathan |
Dear Nicola,
A very insightful thought.
I also wonder the same thing?
On another topic......why are you selling your SAEC tonearm? |
If the discussion presents dissent as well as assent, yes. Assent only, not so useful. Agree entirely Jonathan. Keep it coming :^) Regards Henry |
Hi Halcro,
I suspect that the statement "I like..." would be subjective ("Je pense, donc je suis") but when one says "I like because..." one enters into dialogue and proofs (objective) are often sought in order to challenge or support that preference. The difficulty concerning our topic seems to be to agree or locate those 'objective' (generally meaning, demonstrable within the - disputed - laws of science) proofs to satisfy all.
As always... |
Oh Jonathan,
I forgot......I took your advice and found an FR-5 MM cartridge and about 6 months later with Nandric's help, I found a 5e stylus and.....after supergluing the top-piece of the cartridge to the bottom ( there was significant swivelling there:^()......it sounds wonderful fixed to a Yamamoto HS-1AS headshell riding on an SAEC-308N tonearm parked beside the TT-81.
I believe it IS better than the FR-6SE as you said.
Thanks for the tip:^)
Cheers
Henry |
I agree Henry. The FR-5 IS better than the FR-6 and sounds quite decent. I haven't tried it in that particular headshell but I imagine it would sound better than I have heard it yet. And because it is not 'audiophile-approved' in the other thread, it can be gotten 'cheaply'... :^) |
Dear Halcro, I have something with the tonearms. Lucky me
in the time of Freud there were no such 'objects of disire'
so I will never know what's wrong with me. But I am a peculiar tonearm collector. I like to see, inspect and admire them for a while.Alas because of restricted means I need to sell some in order to buy some other. This the only
way for me to 'inspect' as many as possible.
Kind regards, |
Hi Halcro,
Before Nandric jumps in with his view, I'd just like to say that I have not meant to detract from the main subject of this post with my last comment and am sorry if I have.
I am not familiar enough with Frege (the 'extent' or impact of the supposed limitations of his mathematic on his luiguistic rationalism; the 'extent' and differences between his concept of 'logic', etc) to criticise his approach and thinking. For me, such difference in thinking still stands as a key and inevitable aspect of philosophy. Nor am I, as has been suggested elsewhere, a Kantian or Hegelian.
For those interested, I would never advocate standing under the banner of any one thinker and I realise that things are rarely as simple or clear cut as might be wished: 'http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/'.
Apologies for this final abstraction and I continue to follow (and, hopefully, contribute to) the developments on this thread with real interest.
As always... |
I view placing my rack between my speakers a lesser evil. I have very small room (16x10x8ft or 5x3x2m LxWxH). I simply do not have anywhere else where it can be placed other than in a corner, which is worse.
There is one place where the rack could be placed but I would then require long interconnects (20ft RCA's). As result I would trade off mechanical problems for electrical ones.
This sport is all about trade-offs, at all levels from the tone-arm to the room. |
Hi Nick_sr,
I face a similar dilemma and tried both for some time. I went for the extra length on preamp to amp interconnects (power amp between speakers - feeling that the speaker cable length is more telling). Analysis Plus [Silver Oval, as originally recommended to me by Raul] pride themselves on control/accuracy over long lengths. Their conducted square wave tests appear to support that view and - as I said - my hearing seems to agree. Although not ideal, this might therefore be worth giving a listen.
As always... |
Hi Nick sr, This is the difference between the 'actual world' and the 'possible world'. I used to have on my wall not a TT rack but many Playboy beauties while I married the
girl next door.
Regards, |
Hi Nick:
20 feet (from preamp to poweramp?) should be OK for preamps that have good output drive capability and low output impedance. With preamps of higher output impedance, you may encounter some high-frequency roll-off. This effect can be minimized by making sure that you use as low-capacitance interconnects as you can find. I think that Blue Jean Cables offers some interconnects which prioritize low capacitance.
IME, the acoustic problem from having big, acoustically reflective objects between the speakers is a bigger problem than needing to use long interconnects. Having big objects between the speakers really does mess up the soundstage and imaging big-time, with lesser (but still significant) damage inflicted on instrumental timbres and dynamics. If you absolutely must have your equipment rack between the speakers, I would try to get the rack and equipment as far behind the speaker baffles as possible, and get the equipment or rack's highest edge lower than the speakers' tweeters, preferably the midrange also.
If you can't disassemble your rack and reassemble it to get it lower, perhaps you could keep a thick blanket handy to throw over the rack and gear when the speakers are playing. This won't be as effective as opening up the space between the speakers, but it will give better results than doing nothing.
One more simple setup technique that I habitually use is to experiment with the rake angle of the speakers front baffle. Changing the rake angle of the front baffle will modify the time-alignment between midrange and treble (unless you use full-ranges), and can be used to alter the perceived height of the soundstage center, and the tonal balance. I find that most people seem to find the sound most comfortable if I adjust the speaker rake angle to bring the vertical center of the soundstage to approximately ear level.
Note that if the angle of the left and right speakers is different, you will introduce a height skew to the left and right sides of the soundstage. Making sure that the left and right speakers have identical vertical rake will give better imaging focus and soundstage depth.
hth, jonathan carr |
You can quantify the difference by making a high-bit recording of your turntable without the speakers playing, and with speakers playing at your customary listening levels, and compare the two files. If you put the two files through a program such as DiffMaker by LIberty Instruments, it is possible to extract the difference component and listen to it as a distinct "distortion" track. Not sure why you would want to do this? Listening through a fine set of headphones with a great amp will remove all the room effects, the equipment positioning effects, the 'supposed' air-borne feedback effects as well as all conjectural problems regarding speakers. 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.Rather, through my speakers/room/equipment interface I hear exactly the same spectrum of sound quality as through the headphones with an added air, transparency, depth, bass impact, instrument positioning and emotional content. There are no theoretical arguments which can turn 'black' into 'white'. I don't doubt the experiences of others.......I expect the same respect for mine. :^) |
Dgob, re: your comment from 9/14. Excellent point. This a never-ending problem in human communication. I have a BA in English, attained after the large scale introduction of postmodern theory in the late 60s and into the 70s. While meaning is ultimately fluid (Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida) beyond the realm of the natural sciences (which themselves are subject to the need for definition of terms), it is still incumbent upon humanity to try and find common ground--acceptance of shared meaning--because our survival depends on it. The process of critical thinking, linked as it is to language and argumentation, is the only possible method we can use. Everything else falls into the category of faith, religion, ideology, etc. and we see the destructive ramifications of that on a daily basis. A far greater degree of universal consciousness (involving language, meaning, critical thinking) is needed, and I suspect it won't evolve into the human species in time. Not a pleasant thought but... |
Dear Halcro, There is no such a thing as identity between two brains. I am astonished about those people who are searching for their identity. Every single one has already
his own. But the game in which you are involved is about
'who is right'? The premise of this game is however questionable. But than , logicaly, if the premise is not true than all the deductions from the premise can't be true also.
A Serbian suporter of an Slavic brother. |
The only thing I am envious of in this hobby is the room and specifically in this priority order.
1) Dedicated room
2) Size of Room.
No matter what your room size if you are an audiophile and you have a room to do with the gear and room what you desire, you will find appropriate gear and place them optimally in your room for you. I have seen and heard many great size rooms but the gear is placed to deal with the fact that it is a shared room. Even if your room is square and small, if you were free to place gear and speakers in it as you like you will find your nirvana. I am not a fan of headphones personally. Have always enjoyed listening to groups, bands, performances. I want my ears to hear the effects of the surroundings. I am a music lover first, not someone involved with testing of a product that needs a certain type of testing environment. The differences between the two are black and white.
My room is not the best size room but it is a dedicated sound room (12 ft x 24 ft) built 12 years ago. Partial Basement Section, insulated for sound (walls and ceilings). Two separate power feeds into the room. I place gear wherever I want and trust me I have over 12 years. In fact I have placed my gear everywhere in that room just to hear the effects. This hobby to me is ONLY about what I hear.
It is clean for a picture if I am lucky once a year. I am frankly too embarrassed with the wires and accessories on the floor, the mess to post an overall pic.
My speakers are in nearfield. 9 ft from the front wall. 6 feet between centre of woofers. I sit close enough to touch them if I reach over about 6 feet (1.5 1.8 metres). Except for the gear near the side wall there is 15 feet of open space behind my listening chair. Controls on my vintage Audio Research Sp11 MK II Pre Amp are never changed. It is run in Direct Bypass mode. No filters in use. Circuitry for Preamp controls are bypassed.
This setup I have found allows for good comparisons. I can hear subtle nuances very well this setup IMO is better for this than a setup that allows for reflections to reach you. I have no problems posting impressions of what I actually hear. My ears dont lie to me. I will not post based on theory only.
Also after over 2 months of listening, including a 115 + db level test with direct sound pressure and the resulting structure feedback, I went through the motions of trying to line up an ET 2.5 on the brass arm pod and the ET 2.0 on a 100 lb plinth as if being done for the first time. No alignment was required on either of them.
So as this being the Copernican thread - I will ask again for those that believe there is relative movement happening between the arm and spindle. Educate me. Teach me.
JCarr, Dover, Lew, Tbone, others ? I ask you to stop talking theory and prove this to me. Dont use the word distortion. This is a kindergarten word for audiophiles. You can do better.
Prove to me what you are hearing or have heard with an armpod provide me with the lp, track and the part in the song that demonstrates this theory. Otherwise its words out of your mouth and I listen with my ears.
BTW Dover did Halcro not pay your bar bill? Holy Cripes
I am currently listening to different drive systems. I am able to hear clear differences between all three of them. I will be posting the lp, track and part of the song that demonstrates this on my system page.
Also at a minimum if possible for those with an opinion - at least show us the speakers, phonostage, cables you are using so we can compare and improve our setup. Lay it out there.
It is more convincing and will keep this thread from going in circles. I agree with Dover in that regard.
I also have more respect if Manufacturers, dealers, distributors show a disclaimer. I will look to them first when buying as well. |
Dear Halcro:
I have a pair of HD800s, and a pair of K1000s. And a hand-selected pair of Stax Lambda Signature Pros. However, I don't particularly enjoy the physical sensation of listening to headphones in general. I agree with you that headphones remove room and speaker artifacts, however they introduce other artifacts and sensations of their own.
>There are no theoretical arguments which can turn 'black' into 'white'.
At least my arguments haven't been merely theoretical. I have had a variety of experiences, and performed a variety of experiments with armpods, over a timespan of perhaps 30 years. But I will concur that when it comes to subjective preferences, there is no "right" nor "wrong". You are free to choose anything that you want to.
>I don't doubt the experiences of others.......I expect the same respect for mine. :^)
I may wonder aloud at how you conducted your experiments, or your controls, or your conclusions, but in no way does that mean that I don't give you a lot of credit for having performed hands-on experimentation. For that you have my full respect.
Ct0517: there is an aggressive, threatening undertone to your post that certainly doesn't encourage constructive replies. All that I can say is that, do feel free to listen to anything that you think sounds best. You don't need anyone's approval nor permission to listen to what you like best.
FWIW, I don't manufacture turntables. Nor do I distribute them (although in previous years I have been involved in distribution and setup for turntable manufacturers that included both integrated armboard and separate arm-pod models in their lineup).
I normally try and have tried in this thread to not hide the fact that I am an audio manufacturer - am I supposed to add "Manufacturer disclaimer" to each and every one of my posts?
My impression so far has been that most manufacturers are quite enthusiastic about audio on a personal level - we collect gear from other manufacturers and historical periods, experiment a lot with setup, have lots of albums, go to concerts frequently, and generally enjoy listening to music. And in my own case, when I hear a piece of gear or a type of design that I think is worthy (including sounding good), if presented the chance to give it credit in public, I will happily do so.
Over and out, jonathan |
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 Halcro, I gotta love ya, but you wrote, "through my speakers/room/equipment interface I hear exactly the same spectrum of sound quality as through the headphones with an added air, transparency, depth, bass impact, instrument positioning and emotional content."
I submit that this is impossible. Both can be superb, but the two systems can never sound exactly alike.
I have been away for a while and I intend to stay quiet in future, but after reading the last few weeks of posts, it seems to me that the Copernicans not only want their view to be "acceptable' but also for the non-Copernicans to say "uncle". I have written many times that I am quite certain your respective systems can sound excellent, but please don't think that makes you "right" and the rest of us "wrong". In turn, I will continue to say that I don't think any of you are wrong, either. (Ct, if your tonearm did not move, it did not move. OK?)
If I were going to implement an outboard arm pod there would be certain ways that I would do it. As an illustration, I like the DaVinci approach, sans the gaudiness of that turntable. Note that the Da Vinci armpod, motor pod, and platter pod are all made exactly the same way, of the same materials, and use identical footers. Plus Da Vinci recommends that they all should sit on a specific surface atop a specific stand (available for a mere $40,000 extra).
Dear JC, You are being too generous to say that Henry or any of the rest of us have conducted an "experiment" in the true meaning of the word. |
Dear Nandric,
Thank you 'brother' :-)
However I'm a little perturbed about playing a game about "...who is right.."?
I believe that most of us here, have many and varied experiences which combine to create a 'direction' and a 'solution' to their audio aspirations.
The fact that I choose a belt-drive turntable (and subsequently a DD one) does not, for an instant, presume to me that those who choose an idler are 'wrong'.
I don't believe (in my theory) that 'sprung' turntables are the right way to correctly retrieve information from a vinyl record yet I acknowledge that in some circumstances, such devices overcome their theoretical limitations and provide immense enjoyment for their adherents.
In other words, I prefer an 'inclusive' theory rather than an 'exclusive' theory regarding system choices.
Dear Lewm,
If you read some of my posts, you will see that far from wishing you to cry 'uncle'.....I sincerely hope that you or others may try this theory and cry....'nay'.
But in doing so.......tell us specifically why and how it is failing.
As Raul so often begs.....give us examples of this 'movement' or 'distortion' so that we, who have invested in this methodology, may avoid those pitfalls.
So far, no one who has actually tried the isolated armpods, has highlighted a real, and repeatable deficiency?.....one we can all test or improve upon?
Dear Raul,
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I certainly don't claim my system is 'Perfect'.....far from it. I have not heard one that is.
But like you, I am astounded that what I hear through the Audeze LCD2 is as near to 'perfectly corresponding' tonally and in detail to my speakers in my poorly laid-out listening environment.
There is not a single 'revelation' I hear through the headphones that I cannot also hear through the speakers.
No tremulous triangle shimmering behind the orchestra....no slurred or muffled words that suddenly through the headset become descipherable.
There is NOTHING that the headphones produce that I can't hear as well......or better......through my speakers.
Finally, I can't help but feel that all this talk of 'distortions'.....by you Raul and also by Jonathan.....without a single example which any of us can test.....is, as Nandric and Dgob would tell you (I hope).....a smokescreen that smacks of superiority?
"There are distortions (trust me)....and if you can't hear them, your ears or systems are inadequate, but I can hear them and I can tell you what they are and where they are!"
As you often say to others Raul (and I'm with you on this :-)........tell me, show me, describe to me, what these distortions are and provide examples on specific tracks on specific records so that we....the cloth-eared ones....may hear and understand what you are describing.
Otherwise, as others have already said, these are just words....words.....words. |
Hi Fripp1,
Ah, Ferdinand de Saussure, Barthes, Derrida (and by extension, Bataille, Lacan and Levinas). It is more complex than some would wish. I hope y/our despondency proves wrong.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
I do not believe (as I might have mentioned once or twice) that this is the correct place to debate these matters - at least not at the expense of the accepted topics. Yet, I am curious about your (quasi-Wolffian) view that:
"logicaly, if the premise is not true than all the deductions from the premise can't be true also. (09-16-11)"
I find this fascinating because of its apparent pre-Kantian recant of the law of contradiction (which Kojeve made so much of in his assessments in "Kant" and, of course, engaging the linguistic nuances of 'contra-diction' in French)- albeit, an inverted postulation. Of course, a lot here will depend on what sense you have of the terms logic, true, from and cant.
With me admittedly not having the understanding of a Fregean here, I would appreciate it if you could email me off line to discuss without any further and undue intrusion on this thread. This is obviously not intended as a confrontation but a genuine hope that you can help clarify my innocence in understanding this.
As always... |
Dear Halcro, I thought you started this thread and are 'involved in' as such. Ie the thread seems to be about the question 'who is right': the plinth church or the arm
pod church. There are always 'atheist' among us and you are
probable one of them. I questioned the premise only with
an hypothetical 'if' from the 'first rule' of logic: the deduced statements can only be true if the premise is also true. Well I am glad to see that J. Carr stated clearly that the premise is at least 'wrong'. BTW my arguments are not about 'words...words' but about connections between sentences or statements.
With Slavic greeting, |
Hi Henry
I think Jasper being polite as he always is, is telling you to get a new wall shelf :-) One that does not sag.
You can spend those pennies then :-)
cheers
Shane |
Dear Henry, Sometimes a thing is "good enough". My LP hardware is in that category. My spare time is limited, and I would rather be listening to some good jazz than fiddling with an armpod. As it is, my amplifier project seems endless, and I am always thinking of ways to improve my pre-amp. Making those slate plinths took a lot out of me, I guess. In short, I will not be making any armpods or modifying any turntables to accept an armpod in the foreseeable future. |
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. |
Hi Shane, I think Jasper being polite as he always is, is telling you to get a new wall shelf :-) One that does not sag. Unfortunately, physics and gravity are phenomena we just have to live with :^) I had toyed with the idea of a Micro Seiki SX5000 or 8000........but could imagine the sounds of steel screws popping from their masonry wall plugs :^( Fortunately.....sagging does not have an audible effect. And the coins have been replaced by hard resin footers. How is your P3 sounding? You know that the veneered plinth is just 'decoration'? It can easily be removed. I've also wondered how it would sound with the removal of those 'feedback-prone' springs? I suspect it would rival the best :^) Cheers Henry |
Dear Raul, I have read not one word that persuades me that I am missing something important by denuding a turntable or using an armpod. Not one person has my equipment or anything like it, or my turnables tonearms cartridges or has done a real "experiment" that proves anything at all. Mostly I read that the guys that have tried these constructs have found it to be pleasant and to make them happy, sometimes after much fiddling and some expense. My turntables/tonearms are also pleasant and make me happy. Please leave me be on this subject. This is what I was saying above; there is room in the universe for both approaches, so I at least wish to move on. You and a few others cannot be happy it seems unless the rest of us acknowledge that the plinthless/armpodist way of doing things is genius. It's not; it's just another way of doing things that inevitably comes with its own set of compromises. (Of course, this is my fault for posting here again. Sorry about that.) I guess I'd rather sling solder than machine metals. |
Hello Jcarr, I'm coming into this discussion rather late, but please explain a statement:
**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.**
The set-ups I've seen with separate arm pods look like massive affairs where both the spindle housing and pods are planted so there can be no relative movement between them. Of course these are non-suspended tables. So, what are you talking about? Why is it preferable to use a plinth to maintain spindle/arm distance, rather than the base? I would think that using the plinth has greater potential to muddy up the sound.
Regards, |
