A Copernican View of the Turntable System
Dear Lew, Our 'teasing relationship' started with your beloved Mark Twain , the 'rumour' about his death and my slip of the tongue with guy versus gay . I then just started to write English. With Henry the case was different. I referred to his beloved Australia as 'a developing country' which caused him to refer to me as a 'little man' from a 'little country'. You was then more sportsmanlike then he was. But at present I love you both equally. Regards, |
ah, I see all the great champions in this analog world are coming together. welcome back gentlemen. yes it is worth talking about armpods and the possibility of exchanging arms quickly. I would miss my universal original Micro Seiki armboards so much that I even mounted one on my EMT. I now learned that Raul is not using his MS turnable anymore. No wonder - No system change on TTs in 10 years, you might feel like in a storage room of old unused audio equipment. Don't laugh, I have seen this sometimes. People keep their units but only use one TT all the time. They have many arms but use only one. Why not? If this might enable the owner to have a profound knowledge on comparing TTs and arms and also assess the quality of armboards in certain environments I doubt. |
Well,dear Lew, I am of course not serieus. I was however in my youht when I thought that the philosphers are the guys with ideas and even ideas about ideas. One need to start somewhere so the ideas of my first philosopher were such that I thought that every single sentence was, without any question, true. This wonder happened in the same way with my second philosopher and also the third but by this one there was a problem. According to him the two 'earlier' philosopher were in total disagreement with eacht other and even contradictory regarding nearly every subject matter. Not sure if because of Freud or the mother nature who provided us (hopefully) with some defense mechanism I decided that 'all' philosopher are a kind of magician with words with the difference that they do not perform their act before some audience but write books instead. This way I was able to keep my own selfestime intact and also decided to become a lawyer. There are some of them which are called 'the best attorney' whom only few can afford. No philosopher ,even Popper, were able to earn this kind of money. But as is so often the case I also neither become 'aviator' nor attorney. BTW with your imagination can you not reconsile the two: the mocking and the compliments? I admire you really but also like to tease you. Is this 'not done' according to some of Kantian imperatives? Regards, |
Dear Henry, Re your last post. First, can we be clear that I am NOT talking about air-borne vibrations? You keep going back to that in order to debunk something or other that I've written, and I keep reiterating that I am not so concerned with that phenomenon, because any audiophile with sense will have arranged his or her equipment so as to avoid or mitigate this potential problem. Second, I completely share your doubts about the efficacy of tapping on a shelf to assess its goodness as a shelf. But in order to assess how a shelf does react to mechanical energy, entering from the support structure, from the floor, from the whole house shaking because a heavy truck is passing by outside, etc, or even downward into the shelf from turntable motor vibrations, any of which phenomena can set it into vibrating, tapping is as good as any other way to do it. The only purpose for the tapping is to be able to locate the nodes, and to prove they do exist, where the shelf essentially does not move. (As noted, you need a stethoscope for this.) My whole point was about the fact that the shelf will vibrate or resonate at a certain frequency, depending upon materials, mass, etc, and that at that frequency, the shelf does not physically move in the same way everywhere on its surface. There will be minima and maxima of movement. This was my argument regarding the pitfalls of using an outboard arm pod. And for the reason just described, a shelf makes a rather poor plinth. (You COULD use a 1000-lb block of stone, as is done for electron microscopes and other very motion sensitive instruments; I admit that very high mass and using non-resonant materials are ways to approach this problem.) I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss, but it seemed to anger you instead. Encoding music into wiggles in a piece of vinyl and then converting mechanical energy of motion induced by the grooves into high quality audio is really a primitive notion; there are no perfect ways to do it. By the way, I re-read your original post. Wouldn't you say that declaring the cartridge to be the center of the vinyl universe is more akin to the Ptolemaic view of the actual universe than to the Copernican one? And did you know that Copernicus merely revived an idea of the ancient Greeks about a heliocentric universe? (I did not know that; did some further reading.) Dear Nicola, As is sometimes the case, I cannot tell whether you are mocking me or paying me a compliment. But can you please give me a specific example to prove your point, if you are serious? This thread is really about ideas, so I am offering ideas. I usually try to admit it,when something I write is based on hypothesis or a thought experiment, rather than direct experience. |
Dear Lew, There are huge differences among people regarding the 'force'of their imagination. From your writings one can deduce that you can imagine every single component without any experience with the 'thing in casu'. Why then do you need so many TT's, arms ,carts, speakers, amps., etc.,etc.? Regards, |
Dear Raul, What you write makes perfect sense. I note that most of the MS users have modified their tables to get to where they are happy with it. Along those lines, I would have thought that an outboard arm pod would at least defeat that very real issue you cite about mounting of the OEM arm boards. On top of that, I noticed that some guys use thick mats of various kinds, and other devices, to reduce platter ringing. Further, many use more modern motors, as even the real diehards agree that the MS motors are not so great. By the time one is finished, not much is as original. But I cannot criticize the result, because I never heard one. One might say that we Lenco users do the same thing; many factory parts are typically discarded and replaced in a well tweaked Lenco L75, but we start with a $300-turntable that is fundamentally sound, not a $5000 (and up) one. |
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " With the big Micro Seiki's, and since we are all about building new or modifying original products to suit our beliefs and desires, isn't is possible to get around their perceived problems with the armboard mount by using (i) an outboard armpod, or (ii) a modification of the original cantilevered design? Since those tables reportedly have many virtues (never heard one myself), wouldn't this be worth the effort? " +++++ I don't think is worth the effort because the MS RX-5000/8000 has more defects than virtues on design, IMHO is a faulty TT design and other that good lokking because the shiny weigthy golden platters there is nothing to admire but its marketing. The design comes with out any TT isolation for external internal resonances/vibrations, anything goes and stay inside degrading the audio signal. The heavy platters ring like a bell, MS choosed to seat the cantilevered arm boards exactly at the plinth footers where these footers has no isolation and everything is transmited to those arm boards, the motor came from Matushita but the control circuit not only has poor parts but not a good design. I bought mine because I was a newbie/roockie with the MS TTs that have behind an unjustified fame but we audiophiles are " believers ". Today I really don't use it any more, I learned on those MS TTs. Other persons " die for it ", well they like the MS distortions: not me any more. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Thanks Halcro, And I will of course feedback on my findings. I think the grounding issue really is a major one, despite my use of wall shelf mounting and experimentation with a number of platforms and methods of isolation. Walls rarely seem as neutral to vibration as I would wish and even wall mounting carries detectable vibrations - listening through my system within a fairly solid 19th Century English home. Along with decoupling tonearm and TT (arm-tower/pod), the use of pneumatic footers was (as I suggested) the most marked improvement to the quality of analogue reproduction in my experience: quality of system, hearing sensitivity and expectations not withstanding. That this is the case is simply beyond doubt for me and so my only questions are: 1. Does the decoupled arm/TT really offer the ultimate feasible set up? and 2. Will pneumatic decoupling of a coupled (or, 'plinth based') arm/TT from the grounding/platform really offer the ultimate feasible set up? That's what I'll be looking into in a suitably empirical way and that's really all that I'll be able to report back on. What others choose to make of that or 'believe' will obviously remain beyond my compass. As always... |
Lew, What you are hearing when you 'tap' on the shelf.....is the effect of the structural stresses within the shelf. These stresses differ throughout any material depending on methods of support, locations of maximum and minimum bending moments, locations of maximum and minimum shear stresses and locations of all the various deflection points. These stresses will also differ (in the same location) throughout the DEPTH of the material....normally compressive stresses at the surface, changing to tensile stresses on the bottom (reverse these for a cantilever). These stresses will normally not affect the material's reaction to air-borne sound transmission.....most waves reflected or passing through. Tapping a shelf to test for air-borne acoustic performance is similar to the infamous 'tap-test' employed on turntable plinths by some incompetent reviewers. I liken it to the analogy of tapping on one's head to test for hearing ability? :-) Regards...and peace |
Dover, This is one of the best bang for the buck upgrades for TT's of all persuasions in my view and well worth the time and effort.Amen. The audiophiles I really feel sorry for are those who live in modern high-rise apartment buildings like those in Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Australia. Many of these are built using thin prestressed concrete slabs as the floors. Being thin and 'stressed'.....these floors are similar to trampolines and are continually in a state of motion. If you put electronic instruments at various locations on these floors.....you can actually hear them 'singing' although most of the 'singing' is sub-sonic. To make matters even worse........the dividing walls of these apartments are of often lightweight soundproof construction supported not on the wall below......but on the flexing thin prestressed slab. This means that a wall-mounted shelf will be afflicted with the same structure-borne feedback issues as the floor itself? |
Hi Dgob, Unless you have the turntable and armpods located on a solid wall-hung shelf.....structure-borne feedback is likely to be a problem. Every suspended floor (even concrete ones) will suffer from this to some extent. If I had to locate my TT on a floor-mounted rack....I would ensure that it was on an isolating platform like a Vibraplane of Minus K. Not sure about Dover's Jello however :-) Your 'floating' plinth idea sounds like an attempt at similar isolation. It should work to some degree depending on the severity of your structure-borne feedback problem? Please let us know how you go with it? Regards |
I can recommend floating the motor/platter in Jello. Dont knock it until you have tried it. I found raspberry rather nice under the platter, but preferred melon fusion under the arm ( its a unipivot so it has eccentric taste ). My only concern is that I felt wild cherry opened up the bottom end on hard rock, but have settled for the more rounded and harmonically complete raspberry. For my vintage Tannoys I found feather and down pillows fluffed up the sound just right. The trick is to place them asymmetrically to break up unwanted resonances. For the amps, hydrogel works a treat. I used breast implants for a full and ripe sound. If you want the best the Tibreeze brand are excellent. These have a titanium coating but were discontinued in 2004 and are hard to find. I'm still working on the cable solution at the moment. |
Hi Halcro, I don't know if this is on point, but I am currently experimenting with a type of plinth. My reasoning is simple. I noticed that using the Precision Pneumatic Footers directly beneath the naked SP10 greatly improves its performance (here, I use the term 'improve' to denote an increased ability to deliver more detail from vinyl) and I have reasoned that this occurs because this approach removes returning vibration that affects all grounded components. This use of footers seems to me to be the greatest aspect of the TT set up that was originally suggested to me by Raul. Well, my thinking is that the improvement in grounding (or the limitations of its impact through pneumatic intervention) might be able to do a similar job on the tonearm. Hence, I decided to build a floating plinth that will couple tonearm and TT in a potentially optimised way. For me, if it improves the subsequent analogue performance, the case for a plinth (albeit, a floating one) is proven. If it performs at a lower level, the case for a totally decoupled tonearm and TT is proven: at least to my satisfaction. I should reiterate that I am wholly in the camp of decoupled set ups and that I am currently enjoying a level of analogue that I have simply never experienced before. Still, an open mind leads me to want to settle this matter to my own satisfaction and I recall that that was all that was being asked of the plinth-free and decoupling sceptics. Surely, at the end of the day, music lovers are the real winners if either solution is found to be the better option under equivalent conditions. As always... |
Henry, You misunderstand me. I really don't give a shit. I am not hyperventilating, and yes, your angry tirades (and one response of mine which was written in anger), in lieu of what could be an interesting back and forth discussion, and your total lack of introspection and self-doubt are indeed "comedic". I do think there could be some merit in minimizing the plinth (but not eliminating it entirely) for direct-drive, and I do think that a separate arm pod might be a way to go once one has done that, but I would advocate some definitive linkage between arm pod and mini-plinth. If you don't believe that your shelf can vibrate differentially according to location, take a stethoscope and move it around the surface of your shelf while you wiggle it or tap on it. You will find not only that you can hear the tapping through the stethoscope (not surprisingly) but also that the intensity of the sound will vary from one point to another on the shelf. Where the intensity is minimal, that is a node or close to a node. Considering the greater scheme of things, I will quote Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca", this issue does not amount to a "hill of beans". |
Halcro, *Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.* **True......but there were observable phenomena which could only be explained by the existence of 'something'? This lead to a 'thesis' to explain this phenomena and then a search or test to prove the 'thesis'. Most of Einstein's theories were unprovable at the time he postulated them and 100 years later......there still remain some to be proven? As far as I know.......none of his theories was subsequently disproven?** If an audiophile, not a scientist, has repeatable subjective evidence that a phenomena exists, should he postulate a thesis and look for scientific proof before experimenting with this phenomena, discussing it, and assuming it exists? I think not. It's not his job. His goal is to manipulate the sound of his system and he has subjective evidence to support results. If someone else questions the existence of said phenomena and says it doesn't exist, perhaps this will lead to understanding what is really going on, or not, but requiring an audiophile to postulate a theory and offer proof of a phenomena is absurd. Regards, |
Dear Raul, The most frequent quote about Spinoza is: 'Omnis determinatio est negatio'. In this 'spirit' Popper arques : 'we should not defend our theories but try to refute them.' Henry is negating the existance of 'some phenomena' which are postulated by Lew. Considering the fact that our forum is about the knowledge how our gear works I would think that Henry's contribution is very important. This means that your 'scientific inclination' is very questionable. As I mentioned before your,uh, ' phylosphical statements' are also very questionable.This is an indication of your lack of 'phylosophical' education. Regards, |
Lewm, As you know, Henry, a shelf will be put into oscillation, by energy put into it.I know no such thing. And your common flaw of argument is precisely these types statement of false 'universal facts' without the provision of any scientific evidence. What I do know from a study of acoustics.....is that for any given material (and dependent on its thickness)......the majority of air-borne sound waves will be reflected or pass directly through. Certain frequencies (depending on the material in question) will be absorbed as heat....and/or transmitted in all directions within that material until they are all absorbed as heat. But I repeat....the majority of air-borne sound waves will be reflected or pass through the majority of materials. Every material (including liquids and gases) has a resonant frequency....and these can easily be measured via accelerometers and other more complex devices. The excitations of these resonant frequencies (and their harmonics) can be measured and heard (if within the audible sound spectrum). You have provided no scientific proof that the resonant frequency of my particular shelf (or anyone else's) has been excited by the air-borne sound pressure produced by the speakers? Of far more telling damnation IMO.....is the fact that you still....repeatedly and consistently.....refuse to address the effects of these 'resonant frequencies' on:- 1. The Platter 2. The Spindle 3. The Motor 4. The Pulley/s 5. The Belt 6. The Tonearm 7. The Headshell 8. The Cartridge 9. The Cartridge Screws 10. The Cantilever 11. The Stylus 12. The Record You hyperventilate over a 'resonating plinth' or shelf....which presumably you believe will 'transmit' its obscenities into any or all of the above mentioned turntable parts and thus contaminate the reproduction chain......yet you appear to have no concerns for the 'resonating vibrations' transmitted directly into all these above mentioned parts? Doesn't this in any way appear comedic to you? Or is it just me? |
Hi Fleib, Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.True......but there were observable phenomena which could only be explained by the existence of 'something'? This lead to a 'thesis' to explain this phenomena and then a search or test to prove the 'thesis'. Most of Einstein's theories were unprovable at the time he postulated them and 100 years later......there still remain some to be proven? As far as I know.......none of his theories was subsequently disproven? In this case......there is no phenomenon proposed, which requires a 'thesis'? Yet 'evidence' is fabricated to try to explain this 'phantom' phenomenon. Not scientific in the slightest in my book? Regards |
Dear Fleib, Your interpretation of what Henry stated is wrong. His first statement which is without question mark is about 'claiming the existance of phenomena without scientific proof...', etc. This is not the same as 'believing that Higgs particles exist'. What one believes is not relevant in science otherwise we in Europe could save a huge amount of money with CMS in Cern. From his statement one can't deduce the assumption 'that everything and all phenomena can be proven scietificaly'. What he stated is that one should not CLAIM existance of whatever phenomena without scientific proof. His second statement can be interpeted as a question because of the question mark but those are not the 'things' which can be true or fals but,say, interesting, boring, significant, senseless, etc. Ie questions are not truth functional. Regards, |
Dear halcro: Seems to me that now you are discussing only to discuss with no real target. You can hera the gravity force what you are hearing is the cartridge. Never mind. The average tracking error in a Löfgren A alignment on a 10.5" tonearm is 0.359% and the in a 12" tonearm is 0.3097% and the difference in between is: 0.049%. Other than a bat can hear the distotion difference on playing records. Well, we can't hear it but exist. I think is useless to follow posting here with your last days attitude. Maybe all need a little fresh air. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul, With the big Micro Seiki's, and since we are all about building new or modifying original products to suit our beliefs and desires, isn't is possible to get around their perceived problems with the armboard mount by using (i) an outboard armpod, or (ii) a modification of the original cantilevered design? Since those tables reportedly have many virtues (never heard one myself), wouldn't this be worth the effort? Here is another bone for contention: It's fine to say that the "shelf" is the plinth when one is using an outboard armpod (regardless of whether the turntable itself is plinth-less), but so far as I can tell, no one is mechanically fastening the two entities to the shelf. Thus, there is nothing to prevent disparate energetic interactions between the turntable proper and the shelf, on one hand, and the armpod and shelf, on the other hand. As you know, Henry, a shelf will be put into oscillation, by energy put into it. Objects that just happen to be sitting on a node (an area of the shelf that is not moving) will be relatively immune to the problem of the shelf vibrating under it. (The location and number of such nodes will be related to the material of which the shelf is made, its density, its thickness, and thus its resonant frequency.) Other objects that happen to be at a point of maximum movement of the shelf as the wave of energy is absorbed, expended as heat, and dissipates, will move most. Therefore, it is quite likely that the arm pod and turntable will be differentially effected by resonance of the shelf. This will cause relative movement of the one vs the other. This will happen more or less regardless of the mass of the armpod and turntable, etc. This is the crux of my argument. There are some very expensive turntables being made these days with separate arm pods. The Simon Yorke, da Vinci, TOTL Kuzma, and one or two others come to mind. It seems that those designs at least provide very similar mounts for the two separate structures, very high mass, identical materials, etc. Some or all of these also include the mounting shelf, which I think speaks to my point. Such construction could mitigate the problem. I am not arguing that it can't "work"; I am just pointing out the issue that needs to be considered. |
Dear halcro: Seems to me that now you are discussing only to discuss with no real target. You can hera the gravity force what you are hearing is the cartridge. Never mind. The average tracking error in a Löfgren A alignment on a 10.5" tonearm is 0.359% and the in a 12" tonearm is 0.3097% and the difference in between is: 0.049%. Other than a bat can hear the distotion difference on playing records. Well, we can't hear it but exist. I think is useless to follow posting here with your last days attitude. Maybe all need a little fresh air. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hello Halcro, **As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'. Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics?** Since you used a question mark, I assume you're asking a question, otherwise you're making a statement, but you're unsure? Your statement presupposes that everything and all phenomena, can be proven scientifically. Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that. Regards, |
Dear Nikola, Philosophy,science and mathematics share many admirable qualities. Lewm asks me if I can't 'imagine' two structures on a shelf reacting differently to each other? Yes......I can imagine such a thing. But I can also 'imagine' a man flying? I ask Lewm to give me an example of how the base for my turntable and armpods is 'moving' as he claims,and also some proof of such movement? Yet all I get is a parable that equates a 'solid' shelf affected only by gravity to a 'liquid' ocean affected by winds, currents, depth, thermal movents and tides. And Raul thinks that's a highly attractive analogy?! Lewm accuses me of claiming that "the world is flat"......yet that analogy seems odd as it was the general population claiming that the world was flat whilst initially one man claimed otherwise? As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'. Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics? And we wonder why audiophiles......to the rest of the population.....are a laughing stock? |
Dear Henry, Some support from the philosopohy of science. The truth and existance are not adjectives or properties of statements. They are implicit in any indicative statement. But we have the language part and the so called 'reality part'. The correspondence theory is problematic because we can't equal lingvustic part with the rality part. The semantics threat about the relatioship between the two. By Frege there is the distiction between 'sense'(meaning) and 'reference'. Say the particle physicist all know what Higgs particle means. Ie its contribution to the meaning of the theory (the standard model). But till recently nobody was sure if Higgs particle 'exist' or, to put it otherwise if the 'name' Higgs particle has a reference. We in Europe spend a huge amount of money to answer this question. But if the Higgs particle was not 'discovered' the whole theory would be refuted. The existance is considered to be an 'ontological' question. In 'On what there is' Quine invented the so called 'ontology detector': to know what kind of ontology one presuposes one need to know what values one will put in the place of the variables he uses. Ie: 'to be is to be a value of an variable'. Frege called statements without a referent as not belonging to science. Those are not truth-functional statements. Ie it make no sense to ascribe whatever properties to not existing entities. Regards, |
Dear Raul, Your examples are ones that are 'detectable' but perhaps not explainable? If you cannot detect something......how is that different to its non-existence? And just saying something exists but is 'undetectable'....is no proof of its existence? It is just mumbo jumbo :-) There is enough 'pseudo science' and 'voodoo science' in this hobby as it is? Regards |
Dear halcro: Can you hear the gravity?. Now, today many audiophiles ignore/don't use antiskating but we know is necessary even that some of us " think " the quality performance is better with out AS. There are several distortions ( different kind 9 that surround the audio system and that are generated by the audio system but at so low level or so higher frequencies that we can't detected or at least we are unaware of it. Take two IC cables or speaker ones or power cords, normally the better shielded likes us more and we could think because are bettter cooper or silver build material or whatever but it is more normal that are better to reject noise polulation: emi, rf and the like that exist even if we can heard it and I can say we can but we can't identify it. Of course I'm with science. Btw, do you already buy the Dyna 13D? Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dover, Are you going to fully nude the Raven ?I am fortunate to have the Raven side by side with the 'nude' Victor in order to crystallise my thoughts on this matter. And you are correct........the 'shelf' or 'platform' upon which the turntable and armpods rest, are in fact 'a plinth' or 'base'. And I agree......the 'base' is of utmost importance.....or rather.....the 'isolation' of the base is of fundamental importance. |
I see that you don't believe that the energy put out by a loudspeaker can cause damaging mechanical feedback.This is not what I said. Air-borne feedback can be absorbed into the structure and transformed into Structure-borne feedback which is most damaging to the analogue chain. What I am saying....is that a turntable system......properly isolated from Structure-borne feedback will not have its performance affected by Air-borne feedback. If you claim that Air-borne feedback adversely affects the sound of the turntable.....then it MUST increase this affect with increased volume. There are no ifs or buts or maybes. This is a logical as well as scientific corollary. If this corollary can not be heard......you simply have no evidence on which to substantiate your claim. If there were any doubts left?........listening through headphones would provide untainted and fully complete information unavailable through loudspeakers at any volume? This has not been proven to be true in my system on any occasion. If air-borne sound transmission were an issue......a high-res direct digital transfer from a record would sound better than the actual record itself when played back through loudspeakers? Michael Fremer has conducted many demonstrations of this with actual audiences....and the results are in fact the reverse. ....is useless to ignore something that exist and ignore it because we can't here it.This is surprising to hear from you Raul who always insists on 'evidence' and 'science' in other audio arguments? Can you please explain to me the difference between something NOT existing and something EXISTING.....but undetectable....as it applies to audio? |
Halcro/Lewm/Raul You are all arguing the same points but at cross purposes. We are measuring the groove and to measure it accurately there must be no movement between the tonearm mounting point and the platter/bearing. Lewm's argument is simply that a rigid plinth connecting the arm and platter will minimise the risk of any differential movement. The requirements for a nude TT approach are no different really - there must be no movement between the tonearm coupling and the platter/bearing. Placing the platter bearing on a shelf and placing the tonearm on a pod on a shelf simply means that the shelf becomes the plinth. There are crappy plinths and there are crappy nude turntables. Examples of crappy plinths are the Tin Sondek and the SME hollow plinth of the 60's built for the Garrard 301/401 ( they built and sold a shaker table ). Examples of crappy nude TT's are the plethora of Garrard 301/401's running separate arm pods mounted on spongy feet that provide no rigid coupling between arm/platter. An example of a good plinth is the Final Audio. The Final Audio has the inverted bearing/platter and gunmetal arm pod both bolted to a 40kg slab of superplastic zinc alloy that is inert - at room temperature this slab cannot be excited below 100hz, energy in this material is dissipated at a molecular level through grain sliding, it will be better than any shelf that is not of the same material. Halcro - what category do you place the AC Raven - plinth or no plinth ? Are you going to fully nude the Raven ? I would argue that the Record is King. That is the centre of our particular inverse. |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " So you prefer the platter and tonearm to vibrate homogeneously? In my system .I prefer them not to vibrate at all? " +++++ of course that we prefer not to vibrate at all but this is only in a perfect world. The TT always vibrate/resonates and the stand alone tonearm board too bacause tehre is no way to isolate 100% of where is seated or for what is surrounded. As a fact the tonearm/cartridge are in continuous vibration way. You said that air borne feedback does not exist on stand alone tonearm towers but you don't have any test that could prove it. I don't have on hand but exist studies that proves that every single system and especially the analog source is affected by air borne feedback. Maybe at very high SPL we can't detect it because that high SPL but exist no doubt about. Yes, the cartridge is more sensitive to that air borne feedback. In the other side you have to take in count that the cartridge is extremely sensitive to tiny very tiny microscopic motions that for us are non-detectable but this IMHO does not means does not exist because exist. The ships/water example by Lewm is very good and self explained to be against stand alone tonearms towers. The problem is that what " happen " in theory unfortunatelly in this regards can't be duplicated in our systems so we are unaware of it and unaware of any single sound degradation coming from that subject. I know you are a wise person and there is useless to ignore something that exist and ignore it because we can't here it. I promoted the stand alone tonearm towers years ago and still think is the best way to go till exist a better way to isolate from the TT the tonearm/cartridge unit. In this same thread I speak very clear about what that UNIT means and why is the cartridge the King and all other links the slaves. The UNIT is not the King as it's not IMHO the tonearm. A tonearm design goes around from the begin to satisfy the cartridge needs not the other way around. That the tonearms designs don't take that statement at 100% does not means those designs are right. Example, today and in the past people/designers/reviewers suddenly vote for the 12" tonearms against 9"-10". IMHO the 12" makes more harm than help to the cartridge works. A cartridge between other things moves in the grooves at random for the tonearm with suddenly direction changes where the tonearm has to be and has to has a fast response on what the cartridge is asking for, a longer tonearm respond slower than a shorter one ( everything the same. ) so the longer tonearm goes against the cartridge needs and can't fulfil those needs where a shorter one makes it in better way. There are many other disadvantages and the " only " in theory advantage that a longer tonearm has is that the tracking error is lower but is only in theory. In other threads we already discuss about and the real subject is that no one can hear the difference for the better because a tonearm is longer. But as this " stupid " myth there are many in audio. The tonearm and cartridhe form a UNIT but the tonearm is a slave of the cartridge and the real King. Just an opinion. regards and enjoy the music, R. |
OK. I read the first paragraph or two and then ran out of energy (vibrational and otherwise). Why can't you imagine that two wholly independent structures could react differently from one another to, lets say, a heavy footfall on one hand or the 1812 Overture blasting into your listening space, on the other? (I see that you don't believe that the energy put out by a loudspeaker can cause damaging mechanical feedback. This is your right, just as it would be your right to believe the earth is flat.) If you can't imagine that two structures mounted on your shelf might respond to energy coming into them by any of these and several other various routes in different ways (different resonance frequencies, longer or shorter time to dissipate the energy, etc, etc.), and if you cannot imagine that there is some advantage to having a single combined structure that responds in unison to extraneous disturbances, so as to minimize relative spurious motions of the cartridge vis the LP groove, then I cannot help you, but it is not I who is ignoring or not understanding the science. By the way also, you CANNOT stop all energy from entering into your turntable/tonearm. No one can. Unless you want to send your system into gravity- and friction-free outer space and cut rocket power thereafter. (Good luck setting VTF out there.) So, it's nice that you prefer a totally isolated system, we all would, but it ain't gonna happen on earth. By the way, the PLINTH has nothing to do with this discussion. That is a different obsession of yours and the subject of a different thread. You also wrote, "So now your a priori proposition (devoid of any facts or evidence) has been questioned .you are left with the claim that the advantage of a plinth is that a separate tonearm base is likely to be adjusted out-of-level?" Did you really read my preceding post? That is exactly what I said I did NOT say. We've never discussed that issue before, so far as I can remember. It's pretty obvious that any design that gets the tonearm bearings and the platter surface plane parallel is OK, regardless of how it's done. This has nothing to do with our subject. I think you want this thread to be read and contributed to only by those who swallow your line of thinking hook, line, and sinker, and who come here to kiss your butt. |
Dear Lew, For a man of science ..I am surprised by you? You posit a phantom condition and then proceed to create an argument and case around it. Nikola would be less than impressed with your logic? My argument for a fixed relationship and a physical connection between the tonearm base and the turntable bearing assembly had mostly to do with preventing motion of one relative to the other in response to external or internal sources of vibrational energy.Preventing motion of one relative to the other?? What motion is this exactly? Other than a fully suspended deck (which is outside the Copernican view of this thread) ..can you please explain this motion and present some evidence of its existence? You appear to equate vibrational energy with relative motion? The most fundamental aspect of supporting a turntable system IMO ..is to create a base for it as free from vibration and structure-borne feedback as is possible? If relative motion exists ..all bets are off .unless you are playing one on a moving vessel such as a ship, yacht, train or plane .in which case gulp!? If one is successful in creating a mounting shelf free of structure-borne feedback there should be no vibrational energy transmitted to the turntable system. Air-borne feedback is rarely an issue in an audio system unless ones cartridge is microphonic. Cartridges work by translating motion into electrical energy whereas microphones work by translating airwaves into electrical energy. Many listeners assume that when they detect feedback in their systems ..it is the result of air-borne feedback whereas it is usually existing structure-borne feedback which is amplified when the volume is turned up. If air-borne feedback was a problem in audio the plinth would be the least of the problem areas? The platter would be directly affected as well as the tonearm and particularly the cartridge and stylus. Oh .and did I mention the vinyl disc itself?? If air-borne feedback were a problem the sound of everyones system would .by definition .deteriorate as the volume increased? My systems quality IMPROVES as the volume increases. As I listen comfortably in my home at 90-95dB SPLs and Raul claims he can approach 100-110dB!!! .air-borne feedback is a myth propagated by sheep following sheep. The primary source of vibrational energy sadly is created by the turntable itself .or rather the motor, belts, pulleys, bearings, coils and transformers. A happy carrier of all these demons .is in fact the plinth which you unselfishly wish to connect with the tonearm. The tonearm! The very heart of the Copernican view of the turntable system?! So now your a priori proposition (devoid of any facts or evidence) has been questioned .you are left with the claim that the advantage of a plinth is that a separate tonearm base is likely to be adjusted out-of-level? I cant believe that you wrote this with a straight face? :-) So let me get this straight you are quite happy for people to get their platters AND tonearms out-of-level by being connected on a plinth but you draw the line at a tonearm pod being messed up? Disparate vibrations of the platter vs the tonearm generate spurious signals from the cartridge.So you prefer the platter and tonearm to vibrate homogeneously? In my system .I prefer them not to vibrate at all? No Lew .the plinth is not a necessity. It is a hangover from the early days of marketing a complete turntable system as a package and few have questioned the premise of the turntable platter as the centre of this universe? The plinth is about as useful as tits on a bull and is the cause of many more problems than it solves. The turntable/platter is the slave of the cartridge/tonearm ..and the anchor of the king tonearm must be as heavy, solid rigid and level as a rock. |
Dear Henry, I just stumbled upon this revival of your interesting thread. I think in your post of March 6 you have accomplished a well known rhetorical ploy; you've raised a "red herring". My argument (and Dover's) was never primarily about plane parallel mounting of tonearm with respect to the platter surface, although I would never argue that this is not important. My argument for a fixed relationship and a physical connection between the tonearm base and the turntable bearing assembly had mostly to do with preventing motion of one relative to the other in response to external or internal sources of vibrational energy. One wants the combined structure to dissipate mechanical energy as a unit. My metaphor about trying to cut a diamond resting in a rowboat whilst sitting in a second rowboat vs performing the same task while having the whole operation in one boat (easier, obviously) was meant to illustrate the point. That's the "bad thing" that I fear could come into play when a tonearm is mounted on an entirely separate support system and dissociated from the platter/bearing. Disparate vibrations of the platter vs the tonearm generate spurious signals from the cartridge. I would also posit that the problem of "parallelism" (for want of a better single phrase) exists for both types of systems. A less than astute user of an outboard arm pod could screw up the parallel relationship between tonearm bearings and LP surface even moreso than could a poorly executed turntable design. As someone else with a lot of experience in tonearm design once remarked regarding azimuth adjustable tonearms, having the capacity to adjust azimuth endows one with the capacity to really mess up azimuth adjustment, as well as to get it right. |
Dear Halcro: Agree. Btw, the problem with the MS 5000/8000 is that the cantilevered arm boards came with a screw to fix it and there there is a " play/loose " between the arm board hold hole and the tube where the arm board be fix it and if the owner don't check how the arm board was fix it chances are that is out of platter level. Micro Seiki is IMHO a bad TT design, I don't use it any more but other people " die for it ". Such is life. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
03-06-13: Peterayer click me softly Like Halcro wisely wrote, we do not need luck, we need someone who does something right.....btw. did you ever check the Pulleys from the super-duper VPI TNT motor .... but I think, the unlevel Armboards from the Raven are the compensation for the unstable motor management.....it is a design feature |
Dear Halcrop: Not big deal. A design mistake in the Raven means only that but I think that's not the rule. I just checked ( because your post ) my two AS that use three arm boards each one cantilevered type atached at the down plate of the plinth: all six arm boards are leveled with the platter and plinth and the motor too. The Lewm statement about in theory is absolute right, things are is that our ears can't perceive any " error/distortions " with our stand alone arm board/towers. Such is life. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Halcro - The easy way for you to fix the issue is to get 3 holes cut and threaded for machine screws ( grub style ) around the outside of the centre bolt in the arm board as wide as possible ( maybe just inside the edge of the tower. Get some machine grub screws and get your engineer to put a fine radius tip on each. That way you can level the armboard with the 3 tiptoes and just use the centre bolt to lock it down. You could go to a nylon centre bolt to get a 3 point mechanical diode if you like. You can also check if the vertical bearings are parallel to the platter and adjust if necessary for errors in the arm with this system. |
Thanks for that photo of the Micro armboard Syntax. For many years I have been sceptical of the Micro Seiki method of attaching their cantilevered armboards like this as it relies purely on a friction fixing which structurally is not the best method for a cantilever. Now however I understand that by doing it this way.......one is able to adjust the absolute 'level' of each armboard which is not possible with a fixing method like that used for the Ravens This once again reinforces how much expertise and knowledge has been lost since the golden days of dedicated analogue companies? |
Syntax, I presume that digital level also reads 0.0, 0.0 while it rests on the platter. I would like to know a way to measure how truly vertical the arm shaft is. Any variation in this would be pretty bad for the stylus as it moves along an LP. A uni pivot bearing would not be as problematic as a gimbal arm. |
