Dear Lewm: So, that's means that all you own in your system were a placebo like where things are you were ready/prepare to like it? or it is only the " humor " you wake up today?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
I agree totally with Atmasphere - there is always a "plinth" ( in the sense of a common ground for bearing and armpod/armbase/armboard ), even if it is not always apparent as such ...;-) .... so, - sorry to burst some bubbles here - it is never really "nude" .....
After all it is still audio....
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Banquo et al, Of course there will be an "improvement" when you go to the bigger feet. This stuff has become so subjective and so uncontrolled (in the scientific sense) that there is a huge placebo effect. If you are prepared to like it, and if your turntable does not actually fall to the ground, then you will like it. This is in no way meant as an insult to you personally. It's just a part of this crazy hobby.
Conversely, by the very fact that I am not prepared to like it, I probably would not like it. It cuts both ways. Now I will retreat to my bomb-proof shelter. |
Y'all realize that by going 'nude', that the platform has become your plinth, right? The same rules apply.
Now if the original plinth has problems, is not acoustically 'dead', IOW has a resonant signature, it may well sound better to switch things up.
I think you will find that the mounting for the platter and the tower for the arm will sound their best when coupled as tightly to the non-resonant platform upon which the resulting turntable is being constructed. |
Raul,
Thanks for the tip, again. |
Halcro,
Glad to be aboard. I'm now trying the stand alone armboard. Well, actually I've just removed the armboard and fixing column from my Acoustic Signature Mambo and ficed that in place. Looking forward to trying that out.
Cheers |
Hi Lewm,
Raul and Jose sorted my set up with the crossover filter for the Talons built into the Levinson amp (Raul could give you more information on this) and the subs using their own filters. They all run from the pre outputs on the Essential 3160. I use the subs like mono's: left output driving the left sub and right output driving the right sub. |
Lewm,
Yes, the largest set are the AT616 footers. The others work well also, I think.
Worth a try if you see any going (Yahoo Japan often has variations). |
Dear Banquo363: The AT616 operate from audio items in the 10kgs to 60 kgs weight range.
These insulator are beautiful made with a very high quality and where the 605 looks like a " poor toy " but the more important subject is that its three way insulators works really fine.
I used not only with my TTs and TT motors but with my subwoofers too and works very good on both items.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Thanks, Raul.
Ok, I get first dibs on the next set of 616 that go up for sale.
Seriously though: what is the function of the weight guidelines for footers? The sp10 mkii weighs around 20 lbs, so one of the 616 would be sufficient, weight-wise. That would make me infer that 3 or 4 of them would be overkill and, more to the point, counterproductive. But if Raul's' right, then that inference is bad.
Perhaps the weight guidelines set an upper limit but not a lower one? No matter, I'm getting a set as soon as some become available. |
Dear Banquo363: Yes, 15kg a piece. These AT footers are way different to the 605, the 616 are pneumatic design that take away vibrations/resonances from the audio item and impede too that come in any vibrations/resonances coming from where the AT616 are seated.
Something that the 605 could do it but at lesser quality performance level and yes there will be a huge improvement when you test it.
The 616 is out of production and not easy to find out and I can tell you that one 616 footer is more expensive than the 605 set.
If you can find is worth the effort, I own three sets and like Dgob I'm satisfied with.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
I use the AT 605 feet (the smallest ones amongst the 3 in dgob's pic) on my sp10. I didn't even know there were larger ones. The small feet work fine and the large ones are probably better suited for using under heavy plinths. Someone posted that the 616 (the largest ones) are rated to hold 15kg EACH.
I going to get some of those larger ones nevertheless, just to see if there's an improvement. |
Dgob,
Welcome to the 'Nude' club.
You at least did the comparison.
It would be helpful for others here if you could perhaps describe the plinth that you 'abandoned'?
Cheers
Henry |
Dgob, I went to your "system" to take a look at the photo of the AT feet. I see you have 3 different kinds of AT feet. Which are you using under your SP10? I am guessing it is the largest set, at the rear of the photo. Those smallest AT feet in the foreground - I used to have a set myself. I have no idea where those disappeared to, or when they disappeared.
Off-topic: How do you wire up your DD12s with respect to the Talon Hawks? Do you use a hi-pass filter on the amp that drives the Hawks? Thx. |
Dear Dgob: Nice to see that you too take that " flag " and that like it.
The critical point here IMHO is that you decided to test it and the good thing to you is that the rewards you received on change was way worth to made it with almost no $$$/effort.
Well these kind of facts is IMHO a good forward step to improve quality permormance level on those TT and many others.
One more time where " less is more ".
Btw, all of you owners with the plinthed alternative could try ( with out almost no effort or serious modifications in your analog rig other than a change in VTA/SRA/Azymuth. ) my advise to Lewm for use three small tiptoes ( metal or delrin. ) atop the TT plinth and the TT ( it self through the outer metal chassis/frame. ) over those three tiptoes where now that plinth mainly will function as an arm board.
Please try it, you don't lose nothing!! and the experience could give you more than only " fun ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Halcro,
Sorry, I was responding to your relevant posting on your Systems page and now see that you are already trying this and that we agree. I suppose the removal of any potential vibration and the minimalist approach to analogue might seem obvious.
Congrats |
Halcro,
I just came across this thread and thought I'd chip in my penny's worth. I've recently been testing my Technics SP10 Mk2 with and without plinth. I would definitely say that "without" plinth is the way to go. The music almost seems to be released with the loss of the plinth and staging and timbre are enhanced in a way that just sounds more natural/real (almost like, 'free your TT/ free the music'). Better still, you improve the sound while saving money: that can't be bad.
I simply sat it on some Audio Technica AT616 precision pneumatic footers and attached an ash armboard. I would strongly recommend you give it a try. I was a sceptic but hearing is believing.
. |
Well it would be most interesting to hear from Mr. Panzer plinth. I assume its made of hard wood, not from a 20-ton armored tank.
Did I actually write "bronze"? I meant "brass". I have already bought some brass pieces from that company, in order to make subweights to go below the bases of tonearms, and to make an energy sink to go in the plinth for my SP10 Mk3, with a threaded brass bolt pushing up gently on the bearing housing, a la Albert Porter. They also sold me the treaded brass rod from which I and my friend made the needed bolt. |
Dear Lewn - you wrote
"I have involuntarily been dreaming up a way to make a really heavy one using a cylinder made of bronze that can be purchased direct from a metals company here in the US, in a wide range of diameters and almost any reasonable height. The mind cannot rest".
www.metalsupermarkets.com
And reasonable cost too. They make it real easy for you by cutting on the spot.
I have a picture of one of their shelves in my gallery link that I posted earlier. Here it is again.
http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/view_userimages.php?user_id=5181&image_id=39023
Lewn - I bet you will continue to be tormented by these visions until you try it out - :).
As an update I have been contacted privately by two individuals who are trying this out. Plinthless and separate armpod. I have encouraged them to post but they choose not to - at least not here. One of them uses a panzer plinth with his SP10 and also has a Raven.
Looking forward to hearing from them during the winter and I hope they decide to post their impressions here if they read this.
Cheers Chris
|
Pity we did not know enough to find each other at RMAF. Next year all of us need to do a better job of making plans in advance of the event. I went to the Mexican restaurant for the vinylphile meeting on Friday but could not identify anyone to talk to except Win Tinnon, with whom I had made prior arrangements.
Funny that altho I have strongly rejected the idea of an outboard tonearm pod, I have involuntarily been dreaming up a way to make a really heavy one using a cylinder made of bronze that can be purchased direct from a metals company here in the US, in a wide range of diameters and almost any reasonable height. The mind cannot rest. |
Dear Lewm - maybe got it wrong!
thanks for your explanations. Agree that slate is a wonderful material. I heard the Beat at RMAF too and I do share your assessment - this was one of the highlights, really good sounding |
Talea, too, I think would work on my plinths. |
Dear Thuchan, Not sure I understand just what it is that I might disagree about. I don't feel very contrary about anything except maybe outboard tonearms.
As far as mounting two (or more) arms, it's just a matter of allocating enough space surrounding the actual chassis on the surface of the (slate, in this case) plinth. I designed mine with a lot of flat surface area and no traditional "hole" over which to place a tonearm mounting board, so I am restricted to using surface mount tonearms. (Tonearms that do not have a vertical shaft that needs to reside below the level of an armboard, e.g., Triplanar, Reed, Grandezza[?], Dynavector DV505, RS Labs RS-A1.) So the tonearms are mated firmly to the entire mass of the slate with bolts that go all the way thru the thickness of the slate, which I think is a very good thing for sound quality. If I were to start over, and I may in fact do so, I would re-design my slate plinths along the lines of Steve Dobbins' plinths and also the Saskia. If you look at those, the discrete tonearm board is held firmly to the main plinth by a single large bolt, so it is well anchored but can rotate in space outside the confines of the plinth surface entirely and therefore has a wide range of adjustment to accommodate various sizes and lengths of tonearm. The Dobbins plinth for his new direct-drive turntable, The Beat, is very well thought out for two tonearms. Beautiful and beautiful sounding, in fact. (Heard it at RMAF.) |
Rauliruegas, in your prior post I am afraid that you lost me. I can't really make out what it is that you are trying to say. |
... into the West.
Do I hear Annie Lenox warming up ?
|
Oh Lewm - you diagree I assume. I will ask Dertonarm if he can send you a Vector, maybe one for Raul too. It helps a lot...I did not find out yet how many are necessary :-)
I aquired a very nice Technics MK II and I am considering building a plinth around it. Does anybody know which one might be suitable for two arms (9" and 12") and has tested against other approaches? |
Dear Thuchan, I agree with you. There is absolutely no objection from my side against personal taste or preferences.
I have mine too ...;-) ...
That is as long as they stay what they are - personal tastes and preferences.
But if "leaders" or "gurus" do take (and sometimes postulate) their personal preferences as "facts" or "proof", then this is a different story.
None of us is or even can be objective - far from that.
Our tastes and consequently our way to listen to music is highly individual and thus subjective a priori et ad decretum.
A simple reason why I prefer abstract, scientific, non-individual ( colored ...) ways to encircle electrical and mechanical aspects in audio components.
It's kind of "Kritik der Vernunft". No worries, I won't go for another excursus in philosophy.
Science and abstraction is always in conflict with "wishful thinking", "personal experience" and "faith". Even I sometimes wished it weren't.
Not only in audio.
Cheers,
D. |
At this point, I think this thread needs to sink slowly down the list of threads in the Analog section, like the sun slowly setting in the West. |
Dertonarm, I have to admit in this respect you are completely right. We have different tastes and also different capabilites in perceiving the world as well as the audio sound. This is why we ended up in different religions and different churches - in audio too. Why not?
The problem arises when everyone claimes for himself objectivity and tells his followers you will become as good as me if you follow my roots. This is a problem we had and have with some leaders and we should be sensitive to what the leaders or the churches are aiming at.
It is fine when I discover a certain way of audio listening with some special gear to be the best matching approach. It is even better if I can share my opinions on music and gear with some others and also do receive some critical remarks on what I do and what I use. I always have to respect that there are other people living in a "completely different world", enjoying maybe in the same way or even better...music |
Dear Halcro, I in "IMHO" think that "the best" or "fact" in correlation with high-end audio is in most cases a classic self-deception. This however is no problem at all, if it is a personal preference and taste. But since in audio we all ( in the sense of "we, the people" ... ;-) ... ) do strive for absolutes ( "best" and "facts" are absolutes ), it is a problematic issue to draw absolutes from highly subjective experiences and limited and ever-changing periphery.
Yes, JV, HP and all the other reviewers and likewise the customers (we, the people..) do have their personal preferences regarding "best".
But trying to break out of this and going for objective and neutral positions (physic, geometry, mechanics) isn't all that much fun ( to most - which I do understand ).
So we will continue with our "manoeuver in the dark" which at least gives each and everyone the opportunity to find his/her own portion of light and insight.
IMHO physic gives us pretty clear paths for the conception of a turntable.
If one leaves aspects as market-acceptance, Pareto-principle, MiniMax, WAF, production-costs and size/weight (all utterly unimportant ...;-) ...) aside, then the path is - well - straight.
But that TT would be very expensive and labor-intensive to produce and would find no buyer but a few east-asian thyccons.
The wide range of different designs in tts is a direct result of a wide range of taste, money to spend, approach and visions by their designers and customers alike.
We have highly individual rooms, set-ups and components - and consequently tts.
The next upgrade is the next fix for the "audiophile junkie" - needed to carry on, even if one is aware that it won't last for long.
Cheers,
D. |
Perhaps we're chasing phantoms here?
Are turntables just like cartridges and speakers?
Different flavours for different folk yet doing the same job in different ways?
After all, who amongst us here is brave enough to name the best turntable he's ever heard for fear of being shot down in flames?
Yet there are the reviewers who aren't afraid to do exactly that.
Jonothan Valin names the Walker Proscenium as the best with the DaVinci Gabriel second best.
Michael Fremer names his Continuum Caliburn/Cobra the best while Harry Pearson has the Clearaudio Statement up there.
Yet they're all very different design models?
I don't think many of us on this Forum have the same table or tonearms yet we all seem to derive much pleasure from playing vinyl (except for Raul:-))?
If we have an imperfect medium within an imperfect chain mixed with personal preferences and unlimited combinations and permutations of equipment, is it any wonder that no one item can be universally called 'the best'?
Perhaps that's also why we continue to seek that elusive indefinable 'upgrade' which will suddenly make sense of our miserable and meaningless lives? |
Dear Raul, +++++ " I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound". " ++++
agree, you can't argue with only words against people that tested both approaches and that have facts and not only words like you. So permit me add to your last statement:
I and a few others that " tested " prefer that sound! Sorry, but ... my remark was meant utterly sarcastic....;-) ... And finally - it is always words vs words (as "personal experience" vs "personal experience"). The personal preference - that thing you named "fact" ... - of one person is worth as much or as little as one other's. There are no empirical tests available here. There are no "facts" here drawn from personal "tests". Sorry. Wished there were. So everyone's "tests" are bitterly limited, since drawn from listening with different and most likely not perfect periphery and based on a bag full of individual circumstances and likes/dislikes. So totally worthless for the next person - unless he/she is a blind "follower" of the former. "Falling back" on plain and simple or complex physical models might not be tempting to some, but it is at least an universal objective attempt. Picking up on Halcro's initial words: For thousands of years people believed that the sun is moving around the earth. They had "proof" every day and it was an undisputed "fact" drawn from "personal test and experience". After all they all saw the sun wandering through the horizon, setting and rising again the next morning. Galileo (and long before him less well known arabic, greek and egyptian men of thought and clear view looked behind the plain "obvious" view and found a different approach and physical fact. An approach free from individual experience...... Now just exchange "geocentric conception of the world" with "personal tests and facts in audio" and you see the point. We ( well, .... most of us ...) have moved on to the heliocentric conception of the world ( and right now are on our way to another even more universal conception ... .... at least some of us ...;-) ....) and we ( ... some ...) will move on in audio too. And as such it is the more scientific and Copernican point of view and attempt ( Halcro .... ;-) ...). Cheers, D. |
Dear Lewm: I still think that the best way to improve quality sound performance in an audio system is reducing/lowering " distortions " ( any kind and everywhere. Even against " theories ". ).
The whole naked TT project seems to " align " with that target.
Btw, do you already find out/bought those three tiptoes for test that DP-80 " approach?: you don't need to make or buy anything else ( only change VTA. ) and obviously you don't need more " floor/space " in your system and obviously too you already have a great and way big and weighty stand alone slate tonearm board ( acostically dead? )!!!!
Have fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro, In reference to your remark above, last month I finally bit the bullet and bought a Parasound amplifier (after much research and hand-wringing) just to have music while I play with my "real" OTL tube amplifiers. The Parasound does an OK job in the meantime on my Sound Labs. |
Dear Raul, I am saying NOTHING, nada, about the Raven in any way, shape or form. The Raven is a belt-drive turntable with no formal "plinth" but does have a massive metal base to which tonearms and bearing are rigidly attached, and a massive platter. That would seem to me to be a good design; I have never ever heard one. I have repeatedly maintained that large formal wooden plinths as we used to know them are probably passe' for belt-drive.
Also, I think you can't have it both ways. In other instances you have frequently maintained that those who disagree with you are hearing euphonic distortions, but distortions nevertheless, and that the goal should be to reduce all distortions of any kind. Once you take that view, can you really say that if an outboard arm pod induces pleasing distortions, that is OK?
Sorry also, Halcro and Chris are great guys. I am pleased to feel like I know them. But neither of them did a "test", if a test is to be taken as a synonym for a valid experiment, and they both admit that. |
Dear Ralph: +++++ " " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer... " +++++
Maybe I'm wrong or I don't understand some issues on your statement but let me add some thoughts about that I think need further explanation by you or any one that want to do it with the precise answers:
according your statement that " microscopic distortion " has enough " intensity " for the cartridge can pick-up through the TT mat and LP.
This means that independent of what happen with the tonearm ( please forget for a moment on the tonearm subject. ) that platter distortion will be " taked " by the cartridge through the mat+LP: right?
Now, if the tonearm is atached on the same TT estructure/plinth then that distortion will be pick-up by the tonearm it self and " communicated " to the cartridge in addition to.
What all these means is that the cartridge pick-up not only those TT platter distortions but additional from tonearm too on the same generated platter distortions.
What happen if the tonearm is on a stand alone base?, well that those microscopic platter distortions will not contaminate through the tonearm too.
can this be an advantage of a stand alone tonearm arm board due that exist only one distortion focus ( TT platter ) instead of TT platter and tonearm?
+++++ " Absolute rigidity between the LP surface and the cartridge body is paramount! That requires no slop in the arm or platter bearings, and that the platter, plinth and arm tube are both rigid and acoustically dead. " ++++++
agree but this is true for either approach and the stand alone tonearm board IMHO not preclude that your statement be achieved.
Ralph and dear gentlemans I'm not promoting $$$$ nothing on purpose and certainly I'm not entilted or go " till I die " for the naked TT project and stand alone tonearm board.
I just want to learn and try to confirm or not the virtues on our approach that till today is ( for the ones that tested. ) workink just great an better than the other " normal/orthodox " alternative.
All of you know my attitude that not think always on orthodox/inside the box way and yes the naked project ( like Halcro name it. ) is part of that way of thinking.
We are not " deaf " in the same way any of you are not and I'm sure that if we heard differences, not tiny ones I can say, any one of you could hear it when decided to test our approach that could be yours.
I respect all opinions but seems to me thay opinions like the one from my good friend Lewm where he is against stand alone tonearm board because " theory " say is a " wrong/bad thing/approach " ( because that boat explanation. ) with out tested by it self only could create " confussion/mix up " in other persons where is not necessity to do it.
My take here is to test by one him self to understand what is down there instead to speculate about.
Ralph, do you already tested?, if not try to do it and make the comparison and tell us if you heard/hear drawbacks in quality performance level with the stand alone tonearm board.
As anything in audio not all is totally black or white but in between.
+++++ " acoustically dead... " +++++
like you many of us use those words in audio but what those words need really " means " for have validity in our subject.
Acoustically dead on what we are discussing means for me a " stage/scenario " where the cartridge can't reproduce or can't take it a " distortion " coming from tonearm/TT or elsewhere or maybe that could be picked-up by the cartridge with no audio reproduction influence.
Till today I don't know any scientific studies on that subject with different phono cartridges in different scenarios and with different in duced kind of distortions.
So, for me these " acoustically dead " words has no real significance other than a desirable audio factor.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Raul, yes, obviously if one boat is the LP and the other boat is the base of the arm, the motion between will be heard.
Absolute rigidity between the LP surface and the cartridge body is paramount! That requires no slop in the arm or platter bearings, and that the platter, plinth and arm tube are both rigid and acoustically dead. |
Ralph/Lewm/all, it has to read: can't follow the boat movements.
R. |
Dear all: +++++ " The only thing I WILL say, and I am rather tired of repeating it, is that obviously there are such things as "bad" plinths. I have heard two such. I can readily believe that no plinth may sound better than a bad plinth. " +++++
yes and a bad plinth sounds worst than just a " plinth ". What are you trying to say?, that the Raven has a bad plinth?
how is that? why is a bad plinth? or your statement is only because Halcro prefer the naked one to the Raven? who is the right person that could tell us on the current TTs which ones comes with a bad plinth, why and where are the tests that prove it? not only this but where is the plinth reference/standard against other plinths will be tested?
your words are only words with out facts that can prove it in anyway.
Btw, you can make an " easy " test on your DP-80 ( I did it in my system before. ): find out three delrin tiptoes-like ( the small ones ) or the small metal tiptoes and over/top these three tiptoes put the DP-80 ( the DP-80 will rest on the tiptoes with its outer metal ring/chasis, got it? ).
Those three tiptoes will rest a-top on the slate plinth that now will works like a big tonearm board more than a TT plinth. Btw, take out the metal DP-80 item that cover the TT motor, you just unscrew it.
If you decide to do it then listen to it and then come back to share your experiences. Yes I know this is not a " full naked " project but near to it and you don't need to build a stand alone tonearm base.
+++++ " Better to say that with no plinth, some resonances are or might be left undamped that might more often than not be pleasing, to a given listener. " +++++
words and more words. How can you prove it?
why not think on more positive way: eliminate those " left undamped " resonances by design with out a necessity of a plinth. Could be?, Lewm IMHO all belongs to the TT design and execution of that design where the build materials choosed are critical.
Theory will be fine but you have to test and prove if what theory " say " is true and real and give you the right answer on the quality sound level you will percieve.
+++++" the fv-diagram was just a simple proposal to illustrate that the energy inside a working record playback system will travel and where and how it travels. That energy, its amplitude and reflections are responsible to a large extend for the turntable's share of what we call "sound". " ++++++
yes it is only that and can prove nothing on why the people that tested a naked TT like more than with plinth.
+++++ " It was just a proposal to illustrate the physic behind sonic discussion of a component ... " ++++++
DT that could illustrate only a minimum part of what overall is happening there. Even you don't know for sure what's happening. Like with Lewm, only words with no facts.
+++++ " It is just that I want to know why a system or a component does what it does the way it does. " ++++++
lovely statement and very similar of what I like but IMHO your f-vector diagram can't do it.
DT IMHO if you want to really know what is happening and what is not happening and why you need at least ( between other things. ) what I posted before:
******** We need to know which kind of resonance/vibrations, at which intensity, at which frequency range are pick-up by the cartridge and how we perceive it through playback in our system.
Not an easy task and certainly can't be solve because of that " force vector diagram ". Complex because we need to separate ( totally ) those resonances/vibrations coming from the TT body and if we are using a plinth we have to separate the plinth ( stand alone ) either as the ones coming between the TT body and the plinth.
We need to separate from the other focus of TT/tonearm/cartridge system own resonances/vibrations, we need to identified and determine each one specific influence in the cartridge overall quality performance level and then decide how to " cure " if need it. *********
don't you think?
+++++ " I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound". " ++++
agree, you can't argue with only words against people that tested both approaches and that have facts and not only words like you. So permit me add to your last statement:
I and a few others that " tested " prefer that sound!
+++++ " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer. " +++++
Ralph, maybe I don't follow you, let me go with Lewm whom more than once posted on the subject the example of a boat in the sea where the ones inside the boat moves according with against an external person to the boat that can follow the boat movements. If this is what you mean I agree.
Now and this is only a thought that I can't prove in this precise moment:
any tiny/microscopic resonance in the LP could be take it by the cartridge like a " coloration ": inside the boat or out of the boat.
Please let me know if I'M missing something.
In the other side, nothing is perfect and always exist trade-offs. Till today the stand alone arm boards works just great ( even if goes against theory. Please remember that we audiophiles care more on what we are hearing than in theories that can't prove the other way around, at least we don't have that experience where the theory is corroborated on this whole subject. Please if you have share with us. ) and this fact IMHO is what it counts at the end of the day.
A top a desk theories are just fabolous and " sounds " great but we have to test it and prove what those theories " say ".
Every time I can I like to argue and work with facts that are IMHO what it counts.
Of cource I'M with Halcro, Chris an the other " tested " persons.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
|
Pardon my arriving late in this discussion.
If I can weigh in on something for a moment? I think Dertonarm and I are in agreement here: the coupling between the base of the arm and the platter of the 'table must be exact and profound. To that end, there can be no play anywhere, with the plinth being both rigid and non-resonant.
If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer.
The system of platter surface, bearing, plinth coupling to the arm, the arm and finally the cartridge can be likened to the steering and suspension of a fine motorbike or automobile. Any slop or flex in such results in handling problems!
So quite obviously a plinth that has resonance and/or is not perfectly rigid, an arm with slop in the bearings, an arm without a rigid, resonance-free arm tube, a platter with resonance and a platter bearing with slop will all contribute to coloration in the playback. |
Dear Halcro, In response to your consternation about my statement, I guess I should not have used the word "introduced". Better to say that with no plinth, some resonances are or might be left undamped that might more often than not be pleasing, to a given listener. In other words, an error of omission, not commission. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a thought.
Dertonearm, As I told you privately, I take your point(s). I cannot think of that massive piece of metal that comprises the base of each of the big M-S turntables as an example of "no plinth". To me, that's a bloody good plinth. And those are belt-drives. Their more feeble efforts at direct-drive, the DDX- and DQX1000, which do have essentially no plinth are not so highly regarded. (Never heard either.) |
Dear Lewm, as a direct response to your post 01-18-11, I think that the most important energy in the turntable system is in fact emitted by the tracking process itself. The rotating platter is not the problem (in fact, it is a rather self-stabilizing force increasingly resting with increased inertia).
The tracking process (the more so with low compliance and direct-coupling cartridges - Ikeda, SPU, DECCA) does create a source of energy (vibration) traveling into the record, into the platter, into the tonearm and creating resonances, reflections and ( all mass and material depending...) standing waves in the material.
Those are the demons I want to illustrate.
That energy is traveling and should find a way to leave the system fast as possible with leaving as little resonances and reflections as possible along the way.
A poor plinth will react to that energy with resonances and reflections and such cloud, alter and spoil the sonic performance.
VTF is part of the problem ( but only in relation to the corresponding compliance ). Skating is not.
High-compliance MMs will be much less of a problem.
A reason why cartridges like FR-7, SPU, IKeda, DECCA/London do perform to their very best on high mass platter tt's with massive frames, very rigid tonearms and platter weight above 30 lbs. To me it's a game of energy and masses - and the material mix.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Halcro, Lewm, Raul, et al - I assume that on a whole we all do in fact agree on the topic of "bad plinth" tt vs "naked" tt ( in the sense of the absence of a poor designed and resonate plinth which doesn't add any good to the performance, but is just a source of sonic distraction ).
If we include tt-designs like Micro Seiki 5000/8000, Raven AC/BN, PV and the like into the "naked" camp, then I absolutely agree, that a "naked" tt has considerable advantages vs "classic plinth" - types with wooden frame around a spring-"isolated" sub-chassis.
Then we have main-frame types like Thuchan's Continuum Criterion, which falls somewhere in between ......
But here it is done with huge input (money- and manpower...) and some smart ideas.
Ultimately I think it always come down to this.
IMHO ( ... ;-) ...) the solution might be found in an extremely rigid and dead silent "mainframe" holding the armpod/base and the bearing. That frame should be pretty massive, compound and compact so to display minimal tendency to resonate.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Ct0517, in my 30+ years of high-end audiomania, most of the real great "sonic improvements" came out of giving things a deep and throughout thought. Plain field experiment and try-and-error is anyway as good as my approach.
It is just that I want to know why a system or a component does what it does the way it does.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Halcro, I don't want to spoil the picture of the "magnetically elevated above a shelf DD tt" with the "rigidly held, isolated armpod fixed to the shelf, so that the geometrical relationships with the elevated turntable/platter remain correct and immovable." - so let's give that model a short thought.
A few points, a) energy of the tracking process will still find its way through the magnetic field. b) due to the omnipresent curse of building resonance alone, there will a relative movement of the fixed-to-shelf armpod in relation to the magnetic elevated DD (due to the kind of "spring"-effect of the magnetic field).
Honestly, - the fv-diagram was just a simple proposal to illustrate that the energy inside a working record playback system will travel and where and how it travels. That energy, its amplitude and reflections are responsible to a large extend for the turntable's share of what we call "sound".
It was just a proposal to illustrate the physic behind sonic discussion of a component (here a machine).
I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound".
Cheers,
D. |
But I think possibly the attraction of no plinth is primarily that it may introduce euphonic colorations that are ablated with a really good plinth that can render the turntable "neutral". Hard to follow the logic here? |
Dear Lew,
If you'd get off these damn audio sites you might get something finished?
:-) |
Dear Ct0157,
Maybe some day I will find time to test the Denon without its plinth. Right now there are at least 3 major home audio projects that come first. I am a DIYer, and I have been extensively revising the circuits in my huge Atma-sphere monoblocks. This has already taken months, since I am very anal about making the necessary decisions. It will take at least 2 months more. Then I intend to install a new attenuator in my MP1 preamp. Then I may build an LCR phono stage dedicated to MM cartridges that we have been discussing. In the spaces of time between these projects, I have all those MM and MI cartridges to evaluate in all those tonearms I now own. Once I have a handle on that, THEN I might even think about trying the no-plinth idea, but I have no clue how I would mount the Denon in space, and to make an arm pod....sheesh! I am just as smug as you no-plinthers; I like what I have, and while I enjoy this discussion, I really don't buy any of the arguments thus far put forward in favor of no plinth and especially in favor of independently mounted outboard arm pods. (And as either Syntax or DT wrote, no one is really talking about no plinth, because absence of a surround still leaves you with a casing or something around the motor and drive assembly.) The only thing I WILL say, and I am rather tired of repeating it, is that obviously there are such things as "bad" plinths. I have heard two such. I can readily believe that no plinth may sound better than a bad plinth. But I think possibly the attraction of no plinth is primarily that it may introduce euphonic colorations that are ablated with a really good plinth that can render the turntable "neutral". (Of course, one man's neutral is another man's "lifeless".) And the beat goes on.
By the way, I certainly don't think I have "vast experience". Thanks for the compliment (assuming it was not facetious), but for most of my 35-year audiophile career, I owned only one tt, one tonearm, one cartridge at any one time. I am into this multi-everything craziness for only 2-3 years. Audiogon has been my undoing. |
Dear Dertonearm, I, like many others here, am not quite sure what you mean by the force vector diagram? I assume that you mean a diagram of all the forces inherent in the turntable but split into parts.....plinth/platter/cartridge/tonearm/armpod/plinth? If so, I assume you want a complete circuit whereby all the forces 'balance out' diagrammatically resulting in 'Nil'? I have a problem with this model (apart from Raul's point that it won't tell us anything about the sound) in that it takes the accepted paradigm with a 'plinth' being part of the equation and the 'armpod' being related to this 'plinth'? When you state that With the "nude" TT the surface/corpus underneath the motor and the armbase IS in fact the plinth and does act as one. I also assume that you mean either the shelf or stand or even the floor acts as the defacto plinth? The 'Copernican' view in my Posting does not accept this standard paradigm. It does not accept that the force vector diagram be a circuit in the terms that you are proposing. I believe that in the case of magnetically elevated platters, the diagram is forced into a disconnect although you may argue that the guiding ceramic spindle completes the vector diagram despite the fact that it transmits no load? To avoid this argument, imagine if you will, an entire DD turntable (with plinth if you like), magnetically elevated above a shelf. I can imagine it so it's logically possible? Now imagine my rigidly held, isolated armpod fixed to the shelf so that the geometrical relationships with the elevated turntable/platter remain correct and immovable. I believe that we then approach your "platter floating in outer space" analogy and I'm not sure that your Force Vector diagram completes itself unless through the magnetic field itself.....which I suppose is possible? At any rate, as you say on many occasions, I'm happy for you to believe what you like and I'm sure my thought is reciprocated :-) Cheers Henry |
