A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Well said Chris.
Couldn't agree more.

Regards
Henry

One of the senior members in the other forum I am part of said something about isolated arm pods in a way that I think “nailed it” as far as what I am hearing.

"These are said to break the rumble feedback loop through the plinth as it contacts the arm at both ends - through the arm pillar and cartridge via the platter".

That’s it for the theory part.

Dear Lewn:

I thought in the other thread that you were going to attempt this with your Denon. I was really looking forward to your impressions based on your vast experience.

Your comment:
“Apparently the no-plinthers have observed that Newton's Third Law is not much of a problem in this regard”.

Btw - Thinking of having T-shirts made up that say NO-PLINTHER – just kidding. Just remember I still have another TT with a plinth that I enjoy.

Anyway to answer the question - When I start my sp10 there is a slight split second vibration that can be felt in the motor casing. After that it might as well be dead – can’t hear or feel anything and it hasn’t moved at all since it was last set up.

All

I have to admit I am a little dumbfounded at some of this. Vector diagrams?

If trying a separate arm pod and no plinth “around -holding ” the TT meant lots of investment in time and $$ - I would understand the reluctance– but its been discussed many times by Raul and Halcro - all you have to do is take the motor/platter unit out of its plinth, put it on some type of legs and construct some type of temporary arm out of some cheap material to hear the difference.

My first attempt was an arm pod made from glued MDF layers! I believe Halcro used a can of some vegetable!

What I am trying to say is from my experience you will know right away whether you like what you hear or not - It is that evident. Then you will know whether you want to pursue this further. Having a hard time understanding the reluctance to try it ? Are you concerned you might like the sound?

Not sure if everyone feels this way - but - To me in this hobby nothing is more satisfying than when you come upon something - a component, a process, some setup change - whatever - that makes such a big difference to your system – that it is almost like a revelation to your listening. I have spent days moving speakers around. My floor looks like a police scene with the tape markings. This experiment took the weight of that plinth off my shoulders. It now sits in another room and my wife is asking me what is going on since I disappeared for weeks when I was involved with it. I am wondering too.

I find it ironic that most of these moments for me did not equate to a lot of money having to be spent.
How many have re-positioned speakers after having them in the same place for years. It was enlightning. This might be like that.

I don’t see the need for a debate or dispute here at all – if you are passionate enough to discuss it you should try it.

Cheers Chris

Dear DT, All I'm saying is can you direct us to such a diagram or help us understand how you would go about constructing it? One major force, for sure, is the torque of the motor, which is angular by the definition of "torque". And we all know that the torque of the motor trying to compel the platter to revolve in a clockwise direction will in equal measure compel the chassis to revolve in the counter-clockwise direction (which is one reason, IMO, why there MUST be at least a certain minimum mass to the chassis of a direct-drive turntable, where the motor is firmly a part of the chassis, lets say it needs to be much higher than the mass of the platter). Apparently the no-plinthers have observed that Newton's Third Law is not much of a problem in this regard. What next, I mean what other major forces are in play? VTF, skating, gravity.....?

Dear Raul,
a force vector diagram can tell how the different forces act and where they go (which I think is a very interesting question in itself .... ) and as such will explain the contribution of a "plinth" and will explain that there is always a "plinth" - even in "naked" TTs.
The only truly "naked" (i.e. NO plinth at all ) turntable is a moving platter and tonearm in fixed and orientated distance to each other floating in outer space away from earth's gravity and atmosphere. So all forces and energy displayed in that machine will remain within the machine.
I know that you don't like physics and empirical theories, but sometimes they help .....
I am not sure, whether the FV-diagram has actually ears, but if it does, those ears will be very objective and free from prepositions, decline by advanced age, taste and egomania.
So it might very well add one more statement, opinion and position to the topic.
As good ... or bad ... as any other.
Cheers,
D.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.

Which question/topic do you believe it will clarify?

1. Is a plinthless TT better or worse than a plinthed TT?
2. Is a self-standing tonearm better than a directly coupled tonearm?

(1) or (2) or both? Do they amount to the same question for you? By ‘better or worse’ I mean that from the perspective of the end user and not from a design perspective (even if it’s true that the design takes the end user's perspective into account).

How specifically does it clarify? Which concepts? And if one makes a distinction between clarifying a question and answering it, I take your claim above to imply that drawing the FV diagram doesn’t by itself answer the questions at hand. That is, the FV diagram doesn’t settle the dispute between Lewm and Halcro/Raul/Chris.

Also, do you believe that the specific sound quality (phenomenological experience) of a TT set up can be deduced a priori from knowledge of its constituent parts + arrangement? I ask this in all seriousness since, in the monumentally amusing ‘TW Acustic Arm’ thread you seemed to suggest that one could infer the sound of that arm merely by knowing how it was designed (+knowledge of the physics pertaining to arms); that is, know it without actually listening to it. I suspect that if you do believe this, then the conversation is over since Raul’s empiricism, if I understand his above post, isn’t having any of it.

I’m a grown man and I also like to go to public lectures, although you are right that I don’t like to be lectured. If you tell me something useful that I don’t know about something I’m interested in (which won’t be all that difficult in this context), then far from receiving scorn, you’ll have my gratitude.

Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " A FV-diagram will clarify the topic. " +++++

imho THE TOPIC IS IF A NAKED tt SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A PLINTHED ONE. Till today the ones that already tested the naked option reported a better quality performance level against the plinthed one.

Please let us know how that FV-diagram can tell us the same: IF A PLINTHED TT SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A NAKED ONE.

Please don't put " clouds " on your answer or take other topics be precise and specific, no more retoric.

A second question: THAT " fv-DIAGRAM " has ears? how good are ?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Lewm, it is just a plain force vector diagram - nothing that would require anything specific.
And no, the fact that for specific examples of different TTs ( moving mass, static mass etc.) some individual factors will show different values, does not alter the value nor validity of the complete vector model for TTs.
In any case, grown up men in general and audiophiles in specific don't want to be lectured in public.
So - those really interested in the background on the physics of TTs will do the vector diagram themselves.
The others...... well .... business as usual.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.
There are much more complex machines then turntables out there which likewise are explained and researched (designed ... ;-) ...) on the firm ground of force vector models.

Cheers,
D.

A What?

Dear Lewm: And not only that even with that force vector we can't be sure how it will perform on true playback. So this is faint statement too: theory with out any test that prove that " all " is solve through that plinth.

We have to take in count that we are " playing " with induced resonances/distortions at " microscopic " level not in the " macro " domain.

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.

Is this faint?, certainly is and with out a serious scientific " process " the best we have is to try the non-plinth ( naked. ) alternative and judge about against the plinthed one: easy!, other " theories " as Lewm posted somewhere are only useless speculations, facts is what we need and the naked project is a non-scientific fact that at least put some light on the subject where each one " theories " can't do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

DT, Sometimes, I don't get it. Show us how to derive a force vector diagram for a turntable. Then we will believe. I think the crux of the matter is that there are subtle forces, apart from the obvious ones, that make a critical difference. And for any specific example, those small forces will be different.

Dear Halcro, don't just think of "plinth" as a wooden "cage" around the bearing and armboard. Take plinth rather as the "common ground" of both - bearing and armboard - and you have the answer.
Again - if you are looking for real arguments, do seek shelter in the arms of our good old mother physic (at least as long as we are standing on this good earth...).
It may still not really sound tempting to all or most, but the already cited force vector diagram will shine more than just a faint light here. It will fully illustrate the position of raw physics and the depending of the individual parts of the system to the whole and to each other.

Cheers,
D.

"But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever. "
Michael Corleone

Puh-leeze. There is NO ad hoc argument that wins this debate. The Clearaudio Statement looks like an over-sized, over-priced turdball to me. But in any case, magnetically levitated platters in belt drive turntables are irrelevant to this discussion. I will agree any time that in my experience, plinthless is the way to go for belt drive. But that is beside the point. "Every time I think I'm out [of this discussion], they pull me back in." (M Corleone, Godfather III)

that there really is no such thing as "no plinth"

Well....depends how you define 'plinth'?
Of course, if even a wire cage can be called a 'plinth', then perhaps you're right?

I like Raul's proposition ( we're back on track Raul :-))...the 'best' plinth is 'no plinth'.
And I also agree with him that we still haven't heard from anyone who has listened to a 'plinthless' TT and found it wanting? As Raul says

we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

Only hypothetical theories about why a plinth must exist?

In any case, I was lying awake last night thinking of this and I wondered......if we can take the 'plinth' totally out of the equation, then there can be no argument?
There are now many turntables utilising magnetic drive of the sub-platter and/or magnetic separation of the main platter from the sub-platter.
As Clearaudio claims about their Statement turntable

Magnetic driven sub-platter, with absolutely no contact to the main platter.

The DaVinci AAS Gabriel MK2 has similar magnetic separation of the main platter.
Unless I'm missing some obvious physical law here, I'd be tempted to claim that the 'plinth' in these situations can have no effect on the sound produced?

Dear Pryso: Today if I have to design a TT I will think very seriously and in deep about the TT plinth whole subject ( what we normally understand for plinth. Yes even in a naked version there is a body where the TT seats but IMHO this is not the plinth we all are refering to. Of course we can hang-up but even here we need some " body ". ).

The first think that comes to my mind after several experiences with naked TTs is that the best plinth ( any ) is no plinth.

All plinths as you point out has its own resonances/distortions. That we can't " hear it/aware of it " does not means that the phono cartridge that is a very sensible " microphone " can't do it. That's where the differences we heard comes.

Yes different build material plinths has different behavior but why any one ( other than commercial business$$$ ) one of us have to worry about that " unknow " plinth behavior if we just can eliminate.

What I really be more " conscious " is on what surround the TT: body of the TT it self where the TT will be seated.

Instead to worry on this " TT's body " and plinth ( two subjects ) I have to " worry " only on one subject and try to have/design that perfect TT's body that can makes the less degradation to the cartridge audio signal. This make sense to me.

I'm not saying that this is the only way to think: no, the people that thing plinths are the way to go are welcome.

Now, we have to take in count if what we are designing is a DD or BD TT because each one has its own needs.

In the other side the plinth/no-plint subject is only a " small " part/factor that has influence in the cartridge quality performance level as several other " factors " as the one Halcro pointed out: arm board.

Obviously that the proof of any TT plinth design approach is when we hear it in our audio system and can confirm how good or not is that approach. Every other " thing/though " IMHO is only theory/speculations
that can't be prove it or mere assumptions.

We IMHO need facts and IMHO too right now we have not all the facts that can prove for sure the value of each approach that conlcude with out any doubt wich and why is the UNIVERSAL and best design approach.

All the experiences and opinions of the people that already try/tested the naked alternative proof something: that we like better the naked approach and second that all the ones already tested agree: we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

I like un-biased opinions on the subject ( un-biased $$$$$$ opinions. ) like these one:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&78&4#78

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&84&4#84

and obviously the Halcro one.

Anyway, an interesting and learning discussion. Keep on.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Thuchan: ++++ " I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound. " +++++

well not infected yet but maybe starting to...?????

the whole subject is that through SACD/DVDA the digital source is really good and as I posted better than what we are accustomed to think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

and Steve Dobbins, whom I wish would comment more often.
Tim, You are saying what I have said a couple of times over the past week or two. There is little doubt in my mind that a "bad" plinth can make things worse. This does not prove that a good plinth (by anyone's definition) is necessarily inferior to what its aficionados refer to as "no plinth". Also, the optimal solution is likely different for different direct-drive turnables. (I don't think anyone challenges the notion that one needs a good plinth for an idler or that no plinth is quite a good solution for a belt-drive tt.)

We plinthophiles can always take refuge in saying that the plinth which was found wanting in comparison to no plinth was of an inferior design or construction. No-plinthers can in turn say that poor performance is due to failure to use the correct footers or to dampen the shelving, etc. So, we can all rest assured that each of us has the right idea.

Pryso, you are inviting the plinth makers, except of Raul. What do you expect being delivered. Nevertheless good move!

Plinths? Much of this discussion has me wondering.

Plinths are constructed in so many different ways that I believe it is impossible to generalize about their sonic contribution. Many earlier designs were a simple box (open inside). More recently most seem to be made with solid materials. And the variety of materials is almost endless -- particle board, MDF, ply, Birch ply, solid hardwoods, glued strips of hardwood (like cutting boards), Corian, Obsidian, slate, marble, granite, composite (like some Kenwoods), glass, acrylic, aluminum, stainless steel, lead, etc. Then there are composites or combinations of these materials, as with constrained layer damping. Setting aside dimensions, each material has its own resonant frequency. So how can the "sound" of plinths be lumped into a single category?

Even a "plinth-less" table must have some means of support for the motor, bearing, spindle, platter, and arm (be it separate or attached). And those support materials also have their own resonant frequencies.

So what I really wonder about is if those who now find favor with plinth-less designs have simply eliminated the sound of unmusical resonances in whatever plinth material they experienced with a plinthed table? If so, does that mean ALL plinth designs are inferior? Or simply that the plinth they did hear was not the best material choice? And further, would a better material choice result in favoring that over their plinth-less example?

I certainly respect comments by Raul, Halcro, etc. but I also respect those of Albert Porter, mikel, J. Weiss, etc. I remain confused! ;^(

Bjesien, I think it would be more revealing to look to see who has a 16-inch tonearm.

The remark about cigars is credited to Freud himself, who was a devotee'.

Dertonearm, I like what you said, that there really is no such thing as "no plinth". That's a good way to put the same argument I was trying to make with Halcro et al.

Dear Raul,
glad to hear everything is on track with you and you are not deserting the analogue playfied at all.
regarding tapes I did clarify py position. Concerning the digital format I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound.

Dear Halcro, am I infected already?

Dear Blackburn, good hint. I checked my travel goods and found a sombrero from last visit in Mexico. Will take it with me.

Dear Bjesien, Freud would have answered: twelve tonearms are not enough, or relating to your position maybe: You are entangled in a jealousy complex.

Dear Halcro, yes, but that is not in any way an empirical test or proof. The Raven is relatively bass-shy and in any case, a relative comparison between the "nude" DD and the Raven is no more than that: - a relative comparison between two TTs.
See - no matter whether you have a TT with a plinth or a "nude"/skeleton TT - you always have a "plinth". With the "nude" TT the surface/corpus underneath the motor and the armbase IS in fact the plinth and does act as one.
Please do seriously consider giving a thought to a complete force vector diagram of the turntable system and you will immediately see the point.
And BTW - the spinning platter is of course part of the force vector system. But nevertheless, the tonearm/cartridge do form a mechanic-dynamic system and the two together with the plinth/underground do form a mechanic system.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Thuchan,

When Raul was infected who could be the next?

I hope it's not I??!!
Cheers
Henry

Dear Dertonarm,

getting "rid" of the turntables plinth will be very similar (sonic-wise..) to "castrate" the turntable.

I would have thought the same before I tried Raul's 'Nude Turntable Project'?
The bass I get out of this 'plinthless' DD is even better than the Raven with plinth?
Cheers
Henry

Blackburn,
Interesting question?
I've never actually heard the big Micros that Thuchan and Syntax have but I assume you are correct that they sound differently to each other?
I'm sure that they and Dertonarm would be able to offer some explanations but I don't think any Raven owners would like to hear them? :-)

Yes Jaspert,
The shelf being cantilevered on aluminium brackets from the wall and carrying the weights of both turntables, preamp,tuner,tape deck,DVD, VCR and Plasma TV slopes in all directions?

That's why there are solid spacers under the adjustable Stillpoints of the Raven as well as under all 9 feet of the motors. And that's also why each arm-pod surrounding the TT-81 has 3 adjustable levelling spikes.
Life as an audiophile wasn't meant to be easy?

Lewn, Everything is as it is. I get that. Just being foolish. Hey, I'm still trying to fine tune a learn about azimuth.

Don't be so sure about cigars and tonearms; they may never be only that. Things are a little more complicated.

Halcro,

Talking about solid and level base, is your wall shelf sagging a bit on the left side from all the weight with some gold coins under the TW Raven AC footers?

Dear Bjesien, Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And a tonearm is just a tonearm.

What would Freud say about all and each of us?
Who cares? He is dead.

Yeah, and what would Freud have to say about the need to have a dozen tonearms?

Dear Lewm: Certainly not I'm involve deep with analog/LP odyssey. My target is to take full domain ot that technology to find out/looking for the " pinnacle " that this technology can show us and that till today perhaps we know only the 80%-90% of the 100% the technology can/could achieve.

That's why I ( years ago ) decided to design a Phonolinepreamp, a tonearm, a cartridge an a TT that could help me to attain that main/top target.

I know for sure that the analog/LP " experience " is not only alive but waiting for each one of us new discoveries.

Lewm, I think that for we can appreciate what the digital technology can help us to enjoy music first that all we need IMHO the right attitude, we need to change a little about the whole digital subject.
Certainly you don't have that attitude yet but you and other persons like Halcro had not the " right " attitude about the MM/MI alternative either however both of you already have great experiences with the MM/MI alternative.
I think that the " time " will comes sooner or latter for each one of us.

Lewm, I'm not promoting the digital alternative. I'm and still follow the analog/LP alternative, no single doubt about.

Dear Thuchan, yes you are interpreting not only so deeply but in the wrong direction.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Raul, For me digital is an alternative reserved for when I want to read a book or when we are having a party, and I want background music. However I freely admit that, though my cdp is quite tweaked, it is hardly state of the art. Besides that, surely you don't mean to imply that we have "solved" the mysteries of LP reproduction, except to discover that a bunch of well meaning perfectionists living all over the earth have very different opinions on every aspect of the subject. Have you abandoned the LP odyssey? Your absence would be a loss to this discourse.

Dear Thuchan and Halcro: I'm still an analog/LP music lover and I think I will be for years to come but now that I " discovery " the digital source I'm trying to learn at least two subjects:
why analog people " hate " or diminished the digital source and second to understand what " happen " under digital domain: what we can hear on the digital domain/what's wrong or good.

I think I know all the LP/analog experience advantages and disadvantages and I for now am a happy analog/LP person.

Try to cofront in serious way the digital " experience " is something where for we analog guys the LP has a big handicap against the digital today status ( on our home audio systems. ) because analog/LP is what we like, it is how our " ears " are accustom to enjoy music at home and even our audio system set up was made for analog/LP playback including what we choosed for electronic audio items and speakers: everything that surrounded goes in favor of analog not digital.

Even that IMHO the digital ( 24/176.8 and in less way the redbook ) has some main advantages: widest frequency response and dynamic range than analog, lower distortions, lower noise level, better accuracy level, easy to set up, etc. etc.

Disadvantages?, I really can't see or I'm really unaware of any important disadvantages other that the ones I name it and that are not a digital technology disadvantage but an unfriendly scenario where the digital source has to " work ".

IMHO a well recorded digital source has nothing to ask against LP ( everything the same. ). Yes there are CDs and DVDAs that are bad ones but this fact is true on the analog side where we have bad recordings too.

Yes, it is true that on CDs the high frequency extreme is really limited and is an important drawback but well recorded CDs ( with upsampling ) performs acceptable and at good level.
Even that at the other frequency extreme where belongs the bass the CDs are a lot better that our beloved LP.

When we take a DVDA ( 24/176.8 0r 192khz. ) the CDs main drawback just disappear and instead of that " appear " what for us LP lovers was and is losted in the CD experience.

In theory a digital recording add less " non recorded information " than the LP recordings and this IMHO could tell us that a digital source is truer to the recording than a LP.

Something important that I learned about digital experience is not heard it thinking to find out/looking for a " similar " LP quality performance.

This is a big error/mistake, we have to understand the digital playback: what is inside and what is not, , we need a different reference say: live music.

All the overall ( non in the recording ) additional LP " artefacts/contrivance " do not comes in the digital source and with its lower distortions/noise level the digital music experience is " different " from analog/LP, so why are we waiting for a similar experience?: no way.

A big disadvantage that well recorded digital medium has is that with digital playback " errors/mistakes or lessen designs " in our electronics or room/speakers and audio system set up comes out and many times these is what we are hearing and we think that the culprit of all these is the digital medium/recording when in reality the problem belongs inside anywere on the audio system.

It is difficult to think in a source with lower noise/distortion levels that digital and this characteristic IMHO expose everything in any audio system especially the dedicated analog set ups.

Am I in love with digital?, not really but now that I'm starting to undestand it and learning on the whole subject I accepted and enjoyed as a " new " good music source alternative. Unfortunately I don't have enough software but I'm trying to buy and find out what I like on music different genre.

Thuchan, our tonearm project is running in " solid " way and almost finished.
To accept in wide way the digital alternative only means that: accept it, my love for analog/LP does not change.

Gentlemans, the digital alternative is IMHO a serious alternative that could be worth for some of you to give it an opportuniy.
It is like the SS alternative or the DD-TT alternative or the MM/MI cartridge alternative or the linear tracking alternative: it is a good alternative that IMHO is better that what we are accustomed to think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Thuchan if your going to hang around the air port for Raul to show up , may I suggest you wearing a large sombrero, aways good to stand out among a crowd.

Halcro, You seem to be satisfied with how your JVC project turned out though you should move forward to verify any remaining specultive theories that maybe lingering in your mind.
May I suggest expanding your nude turntable project into having a panzarholz plinth made for your DD JVC. Preferably a design that would accommodate a pivoting arm board/ boards similar to your TW Raven a'la Micro Seiki.

Interesting that both these tables are similar in design though sound vastly differant even with the same quality arm and cartridge installed, isit the plinth material?, bearing design? the motor? belt? or all the above?

Halcro, I agree with you - something must have been happened with Raul, tequilas? some other shocks, maybe a life event? or are we interpreting too deeply? Or are we just living behind the horizon and do not understand what is approching us. When Raul was infected who could be the next?

Dear Raul,

I will wait for you at the airport from Monday on.

Is it true that you are selling your analogue gears investing in computer hardware?? :-)

When I was attending RMAF last October I was wondering why we could see and listen to lots of analogue systems while the guys from the magazines and some hardware manufacturers were talking about the HiRez opportunities. I understood that at least in the US there are different teams in the playfield, the "old fashioned guys" like us and the "market and studio oriented people" in the business.

Maybe we see two trends, the streaming and HiRez efforts as well as the source oriented analogue activities. I have never seen so many tape recorders being bought than in the last six months - thanks to Tape Project only?

Raul, why not buying two tape recorders, a digital one and an analogue machine. You will be able to do everything you like on a good quality level. But what happens to your tonearm project in this case?

Should we say farewell to you cause your posting now under DIGITAL? Hopefully not! We need you, even the guys who like to debate emphatically with you.

Dear Halcro, getting "rid" of the turntables plinth will be very similar (sonic-wise..) to "castrate" the turntable.
It is one system.
Energy storage, transmission and vibration isolation are much more important issues than commonly believed.
The plinth is not the problem, but if clever done more likely the cure.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro: ++++++ " I disagree with you emphatically about the inaccuracies/distortions/noise inherent in the vinyl playback process. " ++++++

come on Halcro, in your other thread you posted we ( you and me ) agree on the same and there between other things we talk about so many " compromises " that the analog rig/Lps has.
Please you can't tell me that the RIAA equalization is an accurate process where the LP recording pass through not only one time but twice!, you can't deny the high noise that produce a phono stage trying to amplify the signal of a LOMC cartridge and the distortions due to a mistmatch loading impedance on that cartridge or loading capacitance and impedance in a MM/MI cartridge, you can't deny all the additional distortions that contribute each one of us cartridge/tonearm tiny " deviations " from a perfect cartridge/tonearm overall set up, you can't deny the " errors " that comes with cartridges like: non centered cantilevers and not centered stylus in the cantilever or the different output level in cartridge channels and of course all the mistakes on the LP production/matering process or even the un-centered LP.
You know I can go on and on on all those inacuracies/distortions/noise that unfortunately are part of the LP music enjoyment.
As I posted: I can't understand why we love so much!

The digital source or RTR have a lot less inacuracies/distortions and noise level. Halcro, this IMHO is a fact and are facts where I can't see how you can argue against it.

On RTR subject I never posted I was hearing Master Tapes but anyway I'm not against Master Tapes.

+++++ " why in fact are you wasting so much time and energy in testing cartridges and headshells? " ++++

easy, as you I love to hear/listen my LPs.

+++++ " Why are you not contributing many more posts in the Digital Forums? " +++++

maybe it's time to do it and learn about.

Now, what you are hearing on analog or digital is different from what I'm hearing today, I mean at resolution level. Please read this and especially the end part of the thread where I posted some thoughts/experiences on the digital source:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1286160563&openmine&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas

I was not different from you of what I thinked about digital source till those system changes. For some reasons that I can't explain for sure system distortions affect more the digital medium than the LPs ones maybe because the higher distortions in the Lp medium it self I don't know. What I know is that today I really enjoy the digital source and not only the Hres DVDA/SACD but redbook too.

I'm not saying and not posted that the digital medium is superior to LPs or that is a perfect medium but IMHO is very good and well recorded digital software is something any one can enjoy as much as the Lps ones with the right set up.

For me the time to diminish the digital source already pass on and in my case I'm happy with because it is a " new " alternative to enjoy music.

+++++ " my faith in your ears has been significantly diminished .. " ++++++

well, sorry to hear that but I still trust in my audio/music skills where my ears are part of it as are all my first hand experiences.
In the other side I still trust in your ears.

Regards and enjoiy the music,
raul.

Dear Thuchan: I'm just waiting for the flight ticket!

You know that that will be a pleasure, thank's for your invitation even if I return with out any of your items!

Oh! that famous " warmth " on RTR and LPs. I always wonder why normally I can't heard it in a live events ( near field. ).

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Well Raul,
You've finally managed to shock me.
Digital better than analogue....coming from the very person on this Forum who could rightly be called the 'Analogue King'?.......or so I thought?

I think there may be some people on this planet who are genetically or congenitally afflicted with a sub-conscious 'trigger' to digital sound.
I know that for me and my good friend Richard, we are physically unable to critically listen to digital for longer than about half an hour without our bodies internally tightening and our brains dreaming of another pursuit.
This was the case 30 years ago and is still applicable today.
Others of course suffer from no such handicap and I envy them.
Were I similarly blessed, I wonder if indeed I would suffer through the traumas associated with analogue?

Be that as it may, I disagree with you emphatically about the inaccuracies/distortions/noise inherent in the vinyl playback process.
For 25 years my humble $375 Rega Planar 3/Hadcock GH228 easily outclassed any CD player I heard in comparison.

As for your confession on Master Tapes?.............I'm sure you had one too many Tequilas before writing this?
It makes no sense on so many levels that I don't know where to begin unless you simply meant Master Tape 'Copies' played on domestic tape decks?

If what you say is true?............why in fact are you wasting so much time and energy in testing cartridges and headshells?
Why are you not contributing many more posts in the Digital Forums?

Dear Raul, my faith in your ears has been significantly diminished :-(

Dear Timeltel,
Consider yourself excused.
I always welcome your idiosyncratic and knowledgeable interjections.

I hopefully expect more of them :-)
Regards
Henry

Dear Dertonarm,

the turntable, arm and cartridge do form ONE mechanical system.

I agree.... but only once the stylus is in the groove.
Before that event I don't understand why there needs to be any physical connection between the platter and arm?

I also agree that the 'plinth' and 'platter' commonly produce unwanted side effects. That is why I wish to be rid of one of these (the plinth) and preface my theory by stating that the platter must provide "perfect isolation" from any resonances into the record? :-)

Cheers
Henry

Dear Raul, may I invite you to Munich. If you listen to a real Master Tape (very well recorded) played back by a Studer C37 and you do not change your opinion on TAPES you can select any item from my collection and take it home. Is this a word?

all the nice HiRez Digital recordings presented at CES 2011 sounded excellent but they are missing the warmth and the deep musicality of a Master Tape.

Dear Lew,
My proposition is that ideally the base for the tonearm should be an isolated, level and immovable object resistant to all forms of mechanical and electrical interference.
If that is not possible, a reasonable facsimile of such a base is perfectly workable as demonstrated by the existence of 'reasonable' turntables with integral tonearm bases.

What my theory implies is that those tables with tonearm bases subject to mechanical or electrical interference or those with flimsy suspended bases subject to movement and/or deflection will never be able to extract the correct information from the groove modulation?

And yes......this theory has been crystallised by my 'Nude Turntable Project' with the isolated remote armpods around the Victor TT-81.
With belt drive and Idlers, a 'plinth' is required to support the platter thrust bearing and/or various mechanical linkages whereas with direct drive, the sub-platter and motor are an integral unit......I think? :-)

Raul,
Your last post is spot on IMO!!! I agree about there being much better sources for music reproduction. As dearly as we love our LP's, there are many imperfections in this medium regardless of the value of the source. For me, the big draw, other than the sound of vinyl, is the involment that I have with trying to perfect the sound to my liking. The endless fine tuning and experimenting trying to squeeze out the extra performance is very rewarding to me. For some reason, plopping the CD in the Ayon CD07 and listening isn't near as involving. Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with my digital source, just a little more disconnected than my LP's. I do have many CD's and LP's that are the same and I do compare them at times as a referance.

I always enjoy your post's Raul, you're a wealth of info and I always appreciate your oppinions. This time you're confiming what my ears have always heard.

Halcro sez ""The tone arm is the heart of a turntable system""

Syntax responds ""The best arm can't show their best abilitys when resonance's from the turntable are reflected into it""

Halcro this is easily demonstrable to one's self and there will be no debate here.