A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Full moon

Oh c'mon D,
You know you're dying to chime in?
High-mass platters anyone?
Cheers
Henry

Hi Henry,
won't disappoint you.... ;-) .. it's not high mass or not ..... it is applied physics or not.
This shouldn't be about what we like or not, but what is necessary to achieve a certain result.
We may not always like the path of physic ( can be cruel, expensive, heavy, ugly - extend at wish ..), but physic doesn't care whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
D.

Inshore referred to this information on the MM thread which I thought was very interesting.


Actual Stylus/Cartridge Vibrations Study - Findings By Reed.


Is this a valid study ?

Would the motor/platter/belt resonances not represent a second set of lines on the top diagram clashing with the stylus resonances ?

Opinions ?

Ecir38 (10-12-11),

You could try Equarack or the AT616 that many of us (well, at least 'some' of us) are using.

Good luck

As always

Dertonarm,

I sometimes wonder if physics isn't a little like a guess who always arrives late to the party! For example, different materials and weights of headshells on different tonearms create very noticeable differences in performance of different cartridges. The link between tonearm, headshell and specific cartridges therefore seems to be a relationship whose success can only be found by a 'try-it-and-see' approach. That physics can then be applied to infer why a certain relationship works is interesting but (as was once famously misapplied) it seems a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition in determining such selections.

As always...

Dertonarm,

That should have read: "guest".

Dear Dgob, sorry, but IMHPOV (" in my honest point of view" ...) the chain of links between tonearm, headshell and cartridge can't be found be "try-and-see-approach".
At least not, if you out for anything of absolute (not quantified nor qualified view here) - i.e. : for a result that can stand for it's own.
As the rest of the chain is needed (amps, cables, speakers et al) to evaluate the quality, you have two options:
a) you assume that the rest of the chain is perfect in an absolute sense (unlikely..) or
b) you say to yourself: "this is only now for this given set-up including all components AND my personal taste of sound in this given room".

Trying to design components of best possible quality (sound-wise) means making them as neutral and as strict as possible in following the physical parameters given in their purpose.
Then a given component won't please all nor in all set-ups.
But then a Porsche GT3 ( just random choice her ...;-) ...) isn't that great a car during down-town rush hour either.

By sticking to the mere physical requests and issues of a given link in the chain ( and believe me - it is just as big an issue to recognize and address ALL these requests and issues .. ) you are on the only path which "may" eventually lead to the best possible.
All others are leading into the woods.
You may by dump luck or happy coincidence find a "good" or "happy" temporarily solution along the way.
But it will be only temporarily, as it will be rather a lucky fit within a given matrix of the moment.

I won't go into theoretical length here.
I will rather do what I have done with the UNI-Protractor - I will give my words solid foundation by act.
Within this winter I will introduce a pivot tonearm and a turntable here on Audiogon.
Both components will show what I mean by consequently addressing physical issues.
Cheers,
D.

Here is a review with some interesting explanations. Probably it can answer some questions. A few years ago Basis had more technical papers about his thinking at his site, but this here is helpful, too.

click me

... one of the better product placements

Syntax A.J. Conti's technical papers on his over all design are very forward thinking.
However what stopped me from pursuing his Signature model a few years ago was the acyclic material he used in its construction, a material which is relatively inexpensive and easy as pie to mill.
Sure there are differant types of acrylic material but it turn me off anyway for the price of this table and my thoughts were is it a material choice just to keep cost's down?

Conti's innovative designs through out the 2800 could be entirely focused on the neutral side of things and perhaps were not effected so much by his choice of using acrylics, but i'm only guessing.

Reading Conti's papers and the reviews his tables should be crowned as a benchmark for most other tables out there including frequent mention everywhere of A.J.Conti's innovative thinking behind his designs, however this is not the case.

Dertonarm with his up and coming arm and table may find himself in the same boat with his own innovative thinking behind his products, appreciated by a few and misunderstood by many.

Dear In_shore, I never thought about acrylic but am not sure about the other way round. Yes I know that we are talking about inanimate matter. But I first got Lurnes
Audiomeca J1 which was all of acrylic. Then the ASR Emitter II and Basis Exclusive which are 6 boxes all of acrylic and when I changed Audiomeca for the Kuzma Stabi Reference I again got a huge amount of acrylic. However I
was never interested in acrylic. So 'obviously' acrylic must be somehow interested in me?

Regards,

Dear Dgob: There is no doubt that exist a scientific ( physic/mathematic and the like. ) answer for many audio phenomenons but the issue is that till today does not exist and no one already attempt to " build " an audio model that not only has all the audio factors/parameters involved when we are talking to predict for sure audio system or audio item quality performance level but that has all the interactions/relationship between those factors/parameters that have influence in that " live " performance. DT " won't go on theoretical here " because IMHO he has nothing on hand that could give you a prediction about performance sound between cartridge/headshell/tonearm and its several alternatives on weight, compliance, stylus shape, cantilever material, headshell build material, tonearm whole design, internal cable, cartridge pin connectors, cable, phono stage and the like.

The best IMHO that we can do is try different alternatives and over hundred maybe thousands of " observation " method achieve some partial conclusions.

Yes, I agree with you: that scientific " stage " almost always arrive late to the audio party, especially when we are talking of quality performance level on analog because when we are talking of electronic designs the scientific " stage/path " is the first guest to arrive. So depend of waht we are talking about and what we want to know and with what level of consistence and accuracy. I'm with the scientific " road " always that can be use it and always when is " practical/workable ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: Another stand alone tonearm arm board in another " children luxury " that like the Onedof came with tree BD. If you ask for the price then this is not for you: can't afford it.

This is the " beauty " of the BD ( commercial succe$$. ): good looking, heavy and pricey because the customer can " see " where his money goes against a DD alternative that has less drawbacks but looks " normal ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul,

As though to prove the point, following your review, I've recently tried the Technics 100Mk4 on my Audiocraft AC3300 with a 13g aluminium headshell and finally found an alternative set up (other than my Morch DP6) on which that particular cartridge shines. This is after being largely disatisfied with trying numerous other headshells of distinct weights and/or build materials.

As I have discussed with Daniel off line, I do look forward to seeing what he comes up with on the tonearm and tt front but am not certain if this will really address the questions originally posed around perfect arm/headshell/cartridge selection. I genuinely stand in hope.

As always

Well - as posted earlier - IMHO both BD as well as DD have way too many restrictions/problems to be the right choice for a turntable trying to approach the state of the art.
Which doesn't mean that idler drive (ID...) is the way to go.
There still are other options - way more suitable to ensure the absence of any wow/flutter and bring the dedicated platter to the purpose the principle asks for.
It is simply that most designers so far haven't looked to - or didn't want to use/consider for financial reasons - the most promising solutions.
The table I will present this later winter will show ( and proof with measurements ...;-) ... ) what is possible aside from the usual tracks.
As Steve Jobs ( requiescat in pace - we'll miss you ...) once claimed upon his return to the bitten fruit: "think different".
Cheers,
D.

Oh yes, who ever has experienced a well adjusted idler drive like in the EMT 927 or R 80 knows which kind of dynamics & musicality you may reach by ID. Nevertheless I also enjoy my BDs and the DD - so in principle you will reach good results with all drives but it depends how it is implemented. So far I have not seen combinations of two drives. Is it possible?

best @ fun only

well well, I received so many writings asking me to give some information about my assessment of the SME 20/2 that I am no more reluctant giving a brief review always having in mind that many of our community will face some problems "with my philosophy", having not the chance listening to my TTs in my environment which I regard as crucial for comparisons and also for better understanding of my position. So far only Dertonearm and my English friend are able to compare and understand, not necessarily share my position.

I for myself don't regard the perfect reproduction machines as the ones I
do favour. A really Top Performer needs to have a personality, a character which makes it really outstanding or brings it into a benchmark position. That doesn't mean coloured or distorted ( i hear the guns firing...). One of the last modern turntables I listened to and would put into this class is The Beat.

The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. In terms of cars (pls. forgive me I am livng in this world) it is a Ford Mondeo. You like the brochure and when you sit in the car you are just sitting in a car...

Dear Thuchan, sure - combinations of two drive principles are possible (yet not necessary...and hardly ever useful).
But we can go for as well for other drive principles which - IMHO and soon to be put under the spell of quod erat demonstrandum - can offer a level of performance hardly obtainable by the 3 standard drive principles in tt design.
Cheers,
D.

the 3 standard drive principles in tt design

Cheap? Cheaper? Cheapest?

Dear Syntax, not really simple in graduations - rather more or less convenient and simple to construct, but not ideal.
Each of these drives in turntable design do imply that there will be errors induced by the drive which have to be fought back by motor speed/torque control and a kind of "feedback-loop".
That - control by feedback-loop - already was an error when introduced in speaker designs in the 1970s.
The royal device is obvious - no error from the start.
Then one don't have to correct.
Somehow simple and logic.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Thuchan: As you said different drive TT systems works depending on implementation and even more important than that: depending on the designer targets. Yes,, there are options other than the commercial ones for TT designs and the hybrid always is an alternative.

IMHO the main subject is not that designers does not looks to other solutions but that almost all are luking the TT as an stand alone item.

Today almost all the main/normal TT targets are accomplish one way or the other. speed accuracy, speed stability where we have specs/figures here ( from many years and today TT samples. ) as low 0.001% ( Walker Rocport, Technics, Denon, etc. ), with wow&fluter as low 0.007% ( Audio Turntable ) or signal to noise ratio/rumble at 90db to over 100+db almost undetectable ( Technics, Rockport Avid, Clearaudio, Walker, etc, etc. ).

So IMHO these subjects are already ( I posted several times. ) well covered from the point view of measurements. As always there is land to improve but whom of you can detect for example a TT with a speed stability accuracy of 0.001% against the same TT that measure 0.0003%?

IMHO a TT designer after fulfil the " normal " targets the main target is to fulfil the cartridge needs and I mean it.

This IMHO is where I think exist a " long land " to explore and I think and hope that in the future the TT advance that we could " see " will address the " fulfil cartridge needs " and what this really means.

Now, +++++ " The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. " +++++

even that I talked on the SME 30/2 I will take your 20/2 statement and the first question is: is it not what we are looking for in a TT? a DEAD SILENCE TT design that does not add nothing to the cartridge performance and that does not take out nothing to the cartridge/groove tracking performance.

Why need we a TT with " dynamic, power, vibrant and the like " performance characteristics?, I don't want it, my target is only that the cartridge take the 100% of the information in the grooves with out no single " factors " that could disturb its job in anyway. Same for the tonearm.

IMHO several differences between this and that and the other TT came mainly ( I'm speaking on good/decent designs, any drive system. ) the way each TT DISTURB the cartridge work. Same for tonearm. Is here where differences on performance begin and appear and not because example: 150db SN against " only " 98db.

That you like it how the TT DISTURB the cartridge job that does not means is right but only that you like those type of colorations against more accurate/neutral designs and there is nothing wrong with that: it is your previlege and your audio way of living.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Thuchan: I would like to add what I posted several times:
the TT is only a cartridge's slave and some designers did not took in count yet and its designs were and will be TT designs where the TT is the star.
IMHO this is part main part why we have and will have what we have about. I'm sure that when TT designers be in focus that what they are designing is important only if that design helps to fulfil the cartridge job. Same for the tonearm: other slave.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: This is the link that I forgot to posted in my 10-14-11 ( " another stand alone tonearm. ):

http://www.ttweights.com/momentus_duo_drive.html

R.

Dear Dgob: Good, the 100CMK4 is very good performer.

In the other subject certainly was not addressed by him. Please re-read my post about and if you want to discuss off line then we can do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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

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

Dear Thuchan: As you said different drive TT systems works depending on implementation and even more important than that: depending on the designer targets. Yes,, there are options other than the commercial ones for TT designs and the hybrid always is an alternative.

IMHO the main subject is not that designers does not looks to other solutions but that almost all are luking the TT as an stand alone item.

Today almost all the main/normal TT targets are accomplish one way or the other. speed accuracy, speed stability where we have specs/figures here ( from many years and today TT samples. ) as low 0.001% ( Walker Rocport, Technics, Denon, etc. ), with wow&fluter as low 0.007% ( Audio Turntable ) or signal to noise ratio/rumble at 90db to over 100+db almost undetectable ( Technics, Rockport Avid, Clearaudio, Walker, etc, etc. ).

So IMHO these subjects are already ( I posted several times. ) well covered from the point view of measurements. As always there is land to improve but whom of you can detect for example a TT with a speed stability accuracy of 0.001% against the same TT that measure 0.0003%?

IMHO a TT designer after fulfil the " normal " targets the main target is to fulfil the cartridge needs and I mean it.

This IMHO is where I think exist a " long land " to explore and I think and hope that in the future the TT advance that we could " see " will address the " fulfil cartridge needs " and what this really means.

Now, +++++ " The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. " +++++

even that I talked on the SME 30/2 I will take your 20/2 statement and the first question is: is it not what we are looking for in a TT? a DEAD SILENCE TT design that does not add nothing to the cartridge performance and that does not take out nothing to the cartridge/groove tracking performance.

Why need we a TT with " dynamic, power, vibrant and the like " performance characteristics?, I don't want it, my target is only that the cartridge take the 100% of the information in the grooves with out no single " factors " that could disturb its job in anyway. Same for the tonearm.

IMHO several differences between this and that and the other TT came mainly ( I'm speaking on good/decent designs, any drive system. ) the way each TT DISTURB the cartridge work. Same for tonearm. Is here where differences on performance begin and appear and not because example: 150db SN against " only " 98db.

That you like it how the TT DISTURB the cartridge job that does not means is right but only that you like those type of colorations against more accurate/neutral designs and there is nothing wrong with that: it is your previlege and your audio way of living.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Peterayer,
sorry this was a wrong transfer when I wrote the last comment. I listened to and I always mean the SME 30.

best @ fun only

Dear Raul,
when I am assessing a turntable's sonic footprint I need to have comparable preconditions, meaning same tonearm, same cartridge and same phono pre ideally. Sometimes you have to compromise on one or two units differing which is not the ideal way.

Nevertheless when I am listening to a record I do expect that the audio chain and especially the phono parts (turntable is one, maybe the most important part of it, or not?) are able to reproduce the signal like it was recorded and create a warm, open, detailed and as Syntax is mentioning a 'toe whipping vibration'. If the music is not dynamic ( not meaning overdynamic which e.g. some not well adjusted idlers may produce ) or wishi-washy etc. somehing was wrong during the recording process or is not well transported by the audio chain.

When I have listened to the same record with the same tonearm, the same cart and the same phono-pre (the preamps and amps both excellent comparable tube solutions) only the turntable is different (! SME 30/2) I am not the only one, at least in the specific session, who thinks he is able to assess the sonic footprint of a turntable.

If the result is a flat and not vibrant impression I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. I just assess the turntable misses something or adds something which I do not prefer (Peterayer - of course subjective).
Now you (or some others) may put me in the corner of a certain music philosophy you are not liking sharing with me. But this is how the world is and we may allow many audio listeners to enjoy their SME 30 with good feelings. I now know in which corner I must put you :-)

best @ fun only

Dear Thuchan,
I can't imagine anyone could not be satisfied after a listening session in Raul's living room. A great system is allways a good treat for everyone's ears. It is just that every individual music lover has his own perception in fine tuning the emotional trigger in a personal manner. Me, as a MC/Idler Drive/Passive Line/SET/Full range Horn, I'm certainly on my own marginal music corner with strong feelings but trying to have a tolerate attitude also, in order to learn and enrich my experience. We are a friendly group shearing our experiences in our hobby. Right?

If I understand Raul's position here then I fully agree with him. The role of the turntable and tonearm is to be as neutral and accurate (adding or subtracting no colorations of their own). Then each person can pick the cartridge that presents the characteristics that suits their experiences and tastes the best. When the turntable and/or tonearm introduce strong colorations of their own, the cartridge matching question becomes far more complex.

As similar condition might extend to the choice of amp and speakers. If so, the amp should be as neutral (perhaps within it's power range) as possible so the speaker choice can be made to suit the preferences of the owner. But in this example I believe the listening room acoustics must be considered equally and along with the speaker choice.

Dear Geoch,

Agree Absolutely.
But does a friendly group sharing experiences not explicitely ask for sharing assessments we are making or are we a playmobil of the marketing efforts of manufacturers? Or let me put it into other words: what is wrong with showing that we have different assessments and everyone among us can make up his mind?

I think sometimes a clear word is maybe better than elaborating too complicated in clouds of overall agreement. I for myself regard our group as a platform of experienced and very competent audio afficiniados which enables us to learn a lot too - which I like very much.

Being in a corner is not a bad thing, we all have our likes and dislikes. No one is better because of his gear, maybe one has  reached a fine level of experience on carts or tables or tonearms or tapes, whatever. 

What I regard as most important is not attacking the person behind a unit or a philosophy coming with, exchanging ideas or judgements is just another way of enjoying our hobby. In this respect our group seems to be very grown up.

Whenever you find a clear statment of mine it is meant to express my assessment of a unit not targeting the person behind it. In the case of Raul & me it is a lot of fun exchanging different and sharing opinions. And sometimes challenging a position helps to clarify standpoints - nothing else.

best & fun only

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be instructive.

No No Geoch, you were not!

Dear Thuchan: You posted...........+++++ " I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. " +++++

so, as always: end of discussion with no arguments. I was waiting something more from you and I think Peterayer too.

I think that maybe is time to start a new thread to analize the whole subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear pryso: Yes, you understand what I posted about and yes the same " condition " could be extensive to other audio links as you pointed out.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul,

don't shorten the content of my sentence - this style is a different kind of journalism... not what we are used to here.

I said:

If the result is a flat and not vibrant impression I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. I just assess the turntable misses something or adds something which I do not prefer 

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

Raul, do you want to start such a thread?

Dear Thuchan: Things states as is: because was in that way you " don't care " and " you do not prefer ".
Nothing change: end of discussion, that's all .

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Thuchan, I guess you now have got the message I've gotten a few month before.
I suppose our conclusion will be very similar.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Daniel, 'a few month before'? I thought that someone
who is very interested in hystory should have a very good
memory. Otherwise his hystory would be, uh, the hystory.

Regards,

Dear Peter: That's what I will try in an overall way and not on SME specific.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Deartonearm,

yes very funny communication style: "end of discussion, finish etc."
and on the other hand questions & questions and always trying to push someone

hmm- sometimes the world is colourful...

but I might get a new chance in the SME 30 thread...

best @ fun only

Dear Thuchan: When some one say: " I like it " " I don't like it ", any opportunity to go on is out: subjective answers almost always dtermine the end of the subject discussion and that's what you did and that's what you do almost all the time. Nothing wrong with that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Nikola, " a few months" is everything starting with 3 ........ this is such an utterly unimportant part of history that I dared not to file it in specific ...;-) ...
The important thing was the conclusion drawn - not the specific date on which it occurred.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Thuchan, have fun .... sometimes even old and strange windmills have a charm of their own.
Best and fun all the way,
D.

BTW RMAF is over. Did anyone listen to the Onedof player? what are your impressions?

best @ fun only

seems the Onedof was not a mayor focus point at RMAF 2011.

Did anyone see big inventions on the turntable design recently?

best @ fun only

Yes, from the former VP of Micro-Seiki (now CEO of Stellavox Japan). He showed up at the Tokyo International Audio Show with a turntable that looked like it completed what the SX's and SZ's started.

I believe that only one prototype (very nicely finished!) exists as of now; pricing has yet to be set.

kind regards, jonathan carr

this sounds very very interesting for me. Boku wa Micro Seiko ga dai suki desu. Dakara kyomiga arun desu kedo sono TT no imagu mitte kudasai.

Ja mada

Although the TechDAS design breaks all of the prerequisites for this thread, who cares when the turntable design is so interesting and focused on performance.

Driven via a woven aramid belt, but with a quartz-referenced, optically sensed servo system. The numerical display on the front of the pinth is a tachometer, and the user can adjust the speed with a dial.

Rather than having separate armpods, there appears to be a solid beam (machined from metal billet) which is dedicated to locking the armboard to the platter bearing and thereby preventing any relative motion between the two. Some of the later Micro-Seiki turntables were made like this.

The plinth is massive and seems to be largely machined from solid aluminum. A pneumatic suspension system has been built directly into the legs of the plinth. The suspension is self-levelling, I believe.

Platter is of two-piece construction, and by changing the top section, the user can choose from a conventional clamp, or a vacuum clamp. The lower part of the platter has a cavity machined out of it, which serves as an accumulation chamber when vacuum clamp is activated. The vacuum seals appear to be made of silicon rubber, but their shape is much like what you would find on the Micro SX or SZ series turntables.

The platter is nominally stainless (in the finest Micro-Seiki tradition), but the top part could be of chrome-copper, brass, aluminum or other materials.

http://www.phileweb.com/news/audio/201111/03/11428.html

http://www.phileweb.com/news/audio/image.php?id=11428&row=1

I have taken more and better photos, but don't have them hosted anywhere. Feel free to email me if you want copies of the photos that I took.

From talking to Nishikawa (the designer and Stellavox Japan CEO), my guess is that the Japanese retail price will land in the vicinity of 5,000,000 JPY.

Pity that the price (which I don't consider to be expensive, given the engineering content of the design) puts it completely out of my reach, and makes me wish that being an audio designer weren't such a poorly-paying profession.

kind regards, jonathan carr