Dear Lew, Our respected member Mackris stated in some thread :'When thinking about a turntable design, you need
to consider the physical energy paths in much the same way
you consider the current paths in an amp. design.' I know
that you are not much impressed by P. Lurne but he deed exactly this in his new Belladonna TT. I am sure you will find some very interesting ideas in his new design (www.tnt-audio.com; the Belladonna ,part II).
Regards, |
Dear Nandric, I have met Thom Mackris a few times, and we exchange emails occasionally. I hold him in very high regard. His turntables are works of art that employ very heavy plinths that do not have a "deck" surface surrounding the platter. I have long thought that this is the best way to go for belt drive. His tonearm support structure is very firmly linked to the subchassis. He does not use separate arm pods at all. So his approach to design would agree more with my ideal than with Halcro's et al. I do not know anything about Mr. Lurne or his current products. I had some experience with one of his early turntable efforts many years ago, and frankly I was not impressed at all in any way with it, except its cost. I am sure his work is much improved if you like it. Anyway, one cannot "prove" that one design approach is superior to another by simply naming names. In the commercial market, there are all kinds of turntables, and they sound good and bad. Your own Mr. Kuzma makes great products that fit either description, Copernican or the other. |
Dear Ct0517,
still looking for my long screws, will come up with an assessment. I was a little engaged on other topics in the meantime. If you are interested in tubes - I fell in love with the sound they produce - there is a wonderful book available by i-tunes, for the first time in English: The hifi tunes Book of Audio Tubes. You will love it, also the images.
best & fun only - Thuchan |
thuchan
you should find the screws here:
http://www.spaenaur.com/
don |
Dear Thuchan – thnx so much for the tube book reference. I had such a wonderful time a few years ago swapping tubes when I had an SP8 and changing its sound. I miss that THICK sounding preamp.
I have a large drawer full of tubes from the experience and I have told my fraternal 16 year old twins that drawer may not look like much – but in 10 years what it contains will be worth – well at least 2 – 3 times if not more than what they are worth today. What’s in their dad? Old TV tubes I tell them. And they laugh. “Yeah they are from Holland, Germany former Jugoslavia and other places like that and some from the US. But don’t be in a rush to get them – they may break”.
Prepping for the Juniors
I set up an alternate rig to practice with the Juniors next weekend to see how they work and to see how good they isolate.
See here
http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/i/f/1302538853.jpg
I purposely placed the setup in the middle of the upstairs room containing hardwood floors. What a terrible location but perfect for this experiment - if they work here they will work anywhere. Based on what Geoch said about parallel tracker users using them, I chose to set up my 12” pivot arm on my first armpod (the steel one). I figured this would be of more interest to people here. Again based on some fears about learning how to use the Jrs. (from Geoch’s posts) I mounted a cheap Grado Black on the arm and aligned it with the table and started to get used to it. I have to say with the armpod it took no time at all to align the pivot arm. I set it high so that the Jrs. would fit under the armpod and the arm could be lowered.
BTW for this experiment - I pulled an old SL1200 out of a closet to use as the drive system while I play . I have to say as well how good that SL1200 keeps time. Hmmm - with a little damping and new feet – who knows ?
I will practice with the Juniors here on weekend before trying them under the brass armpod.
Cheers Chris |
Dear Chris,
I was finishing the last meters on my loudspeaker project, now having exactley calibrated the attenuators and all fixed in a special box. This was the time to close the rear front cover. All done now!
Next I went into the Technics SP 10 MK II experiment in a nice but not Panzerholz or slate based wooden plinth. It is a good sounding machine, nevertheless not exactely reaching my demands. Maybe I am a bit spoiled too and it is different with a MK III in a plinth of Albert or Dobbins. But the prices for a good combo are getting insane regarding how much this Pro-series went in earlier times.
I am glad that you like tubes, there are also nice ones from the US :-)
Dear Corb, -thanks for the hint.
Best & Fun Only - Thuchan |
Dear Thuchan
For me personally it did not meet my needs either in the plinth that I used. 7 layers of birch version. Not an exotic one like you mention.
My current nude set up with isolated arm pod gets me much closer to my personal audio nirvana.
You have a great many tables. All I can say is there are a number of us here that would love your opinion of it in a nude set up with an isolated arm pod. It is a different animal set up this way.
But I am sure you have many higher priority projects so I understand it if this is not possible. Time is so short for these activities I find.
Thank you for your impressions. Chris |
Symposium Jr Initial Impressions under Armpod
Okay – I agreed to be the guinea pig for this and now am glad I did.
I say this because I have never tried symposium rollerblocks in the past. We all have various products we use for tweaking - this was not one of them for me. This experiment with the Jrs has to be the most odd and extreme one for me as it goes against conventional thinking – I admit that. But then I am going through a period of experimentation since the nude TT and armpod – we are on a roll. And the costs for the real improvements I can actually hear have been negligible.
What is the easiest way for me to describe for you what using these Jrs. is like under an armpod ? If you have ever used a VPI JMW pivot tonearm (I know there are a great many of these tonearms out there) then you are very familiar with the way the tonearm “shakes and squirms” in its pivot as you lift it and set it over the lp until the needle hits the groove. The Symposium Jrs. under the arm pod “extend” this type of movement down into the armpod so that the armpod and tonearm have the same action and feel. This best describes what its like to use them. It moves around but it does not and will not fall over. It finds its original place again very easily.
They are very easy to set up. But –BOTH surfaces must be level and straight (1) the platform on the bottom, that the Jr. rests on and (2) the bottom of the armpod that the top Jr is up against. If you are using a brass cylinder as an arm pod you need to make sure the bottom of it is smooth.
From my last post the test setup was on purpose, in a bad location suspended hardwood floors. The Jrs. reduced skipping when walking by greatly compared to the regular setup on spikes. The sound difference was noticeable to me even with the cheap old cartridge I was testing with, so I decided to go the next step and set the armpod up next to my sp10 in my sound room.
I believe if you take a cheap but functioning cartridge and put it in a good system, that you will make it sound much better than you think it has a right to sound. Likewise take a good cartridge – put it in a below average system and it will sound like a cheap cartridge.
The cheap grado black cartridge was bearable in my system with the Jrs. It was not bearable without them. Re-read what I just said in last 2 sentences because I am saying a lot here.
Am I ready to try the Jrs. with a $500 - $1000 + cartridge – not yet . Will it make a $500 cartridge sound better – if I was betting on this I would put my money down on it. But I need more time to practice.
On the whole tonearm/armpod/Jrs setup -
You either have the touch or you donÂ’t. I canÂ’t speak for you and I will not be responsible for cartridge failure due to clumsiness or accidents. If you are able to line up a cartridge on your own with the micro movements that are required, than this should be very easy for you.
I found it was easier to put the needle down than it was to raise it at the end of the record. But then I had it setup in the back as a second arm. It is going to take practice. A light touch to keep the armpod from moving. Very definitely give this a try with a cheap cartridge. You need to try it out to see if this is for you. As our friend Geoch said – not for the faint hearted? But the results are definitely rewarding to those that are able to do it.
Cheers Chris |
|
Well Chris......what can I say?
This sounds almost contradictory to the 'Copernican' precept whilst at the same time supporting it?......if you follow me?
I'm trying to find the right theoretical position for this revelation?
Give me time?
Henry |
I believe Henry your first post is still very relevant – I added 6 words at the end based on this experiment so far.
“The tonearm is now the centre of this ‘Turntable System’ and is the most important element. It must be rigidly held on a base which is perfectly flat, non-magnetic and relatively immune to structure-borne and air-borne feedback. This base must ideally have no contact with mechanical or electrical interference and must under no circumstances, move or deflect in any manner” (once the stylus hits the groove).
Juniors
Everything is still very hard and rigid between the platform and the armpod with the Jrs.
http://cgim.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/vs.pl?vopin&zz1301604425&viewitem&o3&1303046315#item
The fact the armpod moves “prior to” the stylus touching the groove is irrelevant. The fact it moves no more once set down is VERY relevant. I say this because if it is moving that big 12 inch arm would have distortion, would skip and the stylus would be toast.
My VPI arm does this exact same movement prior to touching the stylus. Who here has a VPI that can share their thoughts on it?
Obviously weight on the Jr. bearing is critical. My first steel armpod block of steel which I am testing with is 18.9 lbs.
What I tried was very early preliminary testing ONLY with a cheap old cartridge. It proved TO ME per Geoch's earlier post that this concept functions - no more - YET. I picked up an MM based on Rauls suggestion and listened to it last night on my ET with the brass armpod to get a feel for it. It’s a decent cartridge – I will mount it on the VPI and continue testing using the Jrs. with it and report back.
You have to have the light touch with this when interacting with arm 1) lowering the stylus 2) lifting at the end. DONT try this out when you have had a few glasses of your favourite beverage :)
Can someone else come on here and describe in their own words "the action" (shaking and squirming) of the VPI JMW arm prior to setting the stylus down in the groove ? I say this again because it is the same action the armpod does prior to the stylus touching the groove. It would help others to visualize what is happening.
Cheers Chris |
I wish I had Dertonarm's Uni-Protractor - setting up a pivot arm is so much more work than a linear tracking arm !
|
Henry I just emailed you and some of the others here a short 59 sec video of the Symposium Jr. setup that i did with the video camera on my phone. I hope u get it - it is 16 meg. I will need to do a shorter one. If anyone would like more than a picture just email me. I am not putting it on youtube - yet.
I got the new cartridge running on the VPI arm with the Jrs.
Some more impressions.
Unless your cue lever is remote controlled :) you need to have a smooth and very fast one to lower and raise the stylus. As little interaction touching the arm pod is preferred. As Geoch mentioned in an earlier post lubrication of the lever - definitely - ensure it is working properly.
Initial setup sounds really nice probably set up about 80% - room for improvement - regarding the sound - in my system the VPI 12" arm is not as fast as the ET arm but still nice in its own way.
Cheers Chris
|
Dear Chris, Thanks for the video in the first place. I was
very confused with what I have seen. That is, I assume, how
our brain works. One does not expect to see the opposite of
what one believes to be the case or 'the truth'. But there
was some unexpected by-product. I got a (more) vivid picture of those galleons which Lew 'invented' for the sake
of argument. I want my arm pod as firm and weighty as possible and in correspondence with my ,uh, belief. However 'mechanics' is not my trade so no quess from my side about mechanical matters. I may get a reprimand from both : Halcro and Lew and this would be to much to bear for a single post.
Regards, |
Dear Nandric - Hard to believe isn't it. Your right it does move like a ship floating in a harbor when you push on it. But with 18.9 lbs of "very well trained" seamen on board all of them pushing down it doesnt move at all when the stylus touches the groove. They obviously know how important their role is here :) . Totally rigid and in support of this Copernican thread. At least that is what my ears tell me. What else matters more than your ears?
It goes against everything traditional vinyl folks believe in - when it comes to principles and foundations.
Those that try this (with a cheap cartridge) are what we call in my line of work "able to think outside of the plin... sorry I mean box" ! :^)
Cheers Chris |
Chris, IMO, as long as the Jr's come to rest at the same exact spot every time, you should be OK with that novel set-up (by my standards). And the high mass helps that to happen. High precision of the manufacture of the Jr's is also imperative. |
Dear Chris,
thanks for the impressive images and the short movie. It really looks a bit shaky in the beginning but I do believe it will work properly. I guess your tonearm handling is influenced by the camera's position not using the headshell's guidance.
I received similar results when putting the Continuum table on a similar support structure like the Symposiums do
Regarding a tonearm's support I am using a 16 pounds heavy TOHO TH-80 arm base. In this design the tonearm itself is completely separated from the vibration source. It is an arm base which is made of cast iron cut-processed and heavy enough.
It adopts a function to adjust the height within the range from 0 to 35mm and provide a built-in level for balance adjustment. I mounted a FR-66fx on the TOHO TH-80. The results show that a stable and heavy tonearm bases IMHO is crucial for a setup.
What is the weight of your tonearm base?
best & fun only -Thuchan |
Dear Lew - I have confirmed what Geoch said in an earlier post - as long as the platform is level - gravity and the extra weight on top allow the bearings to find their spot every time. The more weight the quicker its found. The bottom of the armpod and your platform needs to be smooth -flush with the top and bottom Junior.
Dear Thuchan - thank you so much for the info on the
Toho TH-80. They share Henry's Copernican philosophy and the basis of our discussions here with isolated arm pods and platter/motors.
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/toho/th-80.shtml
That small block of steel that is in my video is almost 19 lbs.
My brass cylinder is 4" diameter and 4.2" tall and over 16 lbs.
Sorry for the quality of the video using my phone. It is very difficult to make my 16 year son (camera man) stand still for 60 seconds. He doesnt share the passion (yet). maybe that is a good thing :(
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSZSzxnN1mg
|
After around 7 months of annoyance and concern, I finally managed to assemble my nuded sp10 a month back. It took 6 months to fix my TT (note to anyone with a bum sp10: send to Bill Thalmann as *first* and only option) The TT sits atop 3 AT 616 footers and I had custom machined 2 tonearm pods, one for my Denon DA 305 arm and one for my Technics epa 100 mk2 arm. Both are stainless steel. One can view the pods in my systems page.
The Denon pod was made first nearly 5 months ago, before I had a handle on its conception. It is 3.5" wide and 3" tall. It weighs around 8lbs and has a collar mount made specifically for my Denon arm. Pin screws in the collar allow for VTA adjustment. This collar 'system' allows me the flexibility to swap different tonearms into the same pod. In fact, I had another collar made for a Syntec 220 tonearm I have (but don't use--because that arm is a PITA to adjust). There's a slot cut into the rear of the pod to accommodate the tonearm wire. The pod sits on 3 footers that are modeled after the footers that the Micro Seiki 5000 sits on. Smaller of course. They screw in/out to allow for leveling of the pod. The pod was very well machined and finished and looks spectacular. The guy who did it, Mirko, is an awesome machinist. I was worried about the light weight of the pod, but it hasn't turned out to be an issue as far as I can detect. The denon 103 that is mounted on it has never sounded better in my system.
The pod for my Technics arm weighs 16lbs and was machined from a 20lb block of stainless. It is 4.5" wide and 4" tall. For those familiar with the EPA 100 mk2, the arm's mount is quite large in diameter and so a large chunk of steel had to be cut away to accommodate it. Mirko asked me if I wanted another swappable system with this pod, but I decided against it since I had/have no intention on parting with this tonearm. The pod sits on 3 spikes that screw in/out for leveling and the spikes sit on 'pads' (or whatever you call them). There's also a rather largish hole in the back to accommodate the tonearm and ground wires. Given its weight, this pod is very stable and I have no concern about unwanted movement.
I have been acclimating to the sound of the new system. A couple of things to remark. First and foremost, the sound is relaxed, and what I had been judging as the 'exciting' and 'dynamic' sound of my previous set up , I now think of as distortions. Secondly, I can now better hear the fine distinctions between the various MM carts I have. I take that to be a positive sign. On that note, I can say with confidence that the AT 20ss is a killer cart and supplants my previous favorite, the Azden ym p50vl.
Of course, I cannot attribute these benefits to the pod alone. There's the not insignificant addition of the epa arm, which I had never heard before. Nevertheless, I can conclude that the copernican system does not do detriment to the sound; on that contrary, it is able to produce a very fine and very refined sound. At any rate, I'm satisfied. |
Nice work Banquo,
An Audio Copernican's best friend is a good machinist :^)
Hopefully you will report back with further observations when you have listened to more of your favourite records?
Cheers
Halcro |
Banquo363& Halcro, I noticed that cover on the underside
of the SP 10 is not removed so the AT footers are below
this cover. Is this solution optimal? Ie should this cover
not be removed?
Regards, |
Banquo
I found those AT 616 footers give you a lot of flexibility for high your pod can be and they also make fine leveling of the sp10 very easy.
How do you like the freedom you have now to not only use any arm you want but you can pretty much place it anywhere you want on the platform. :^)
Am curious as to what the approximate cost was for the EPA Pod. It is really nice.
Should have my 2nd sp10 up and running within the next couple weeks in the city.
Nikola did you find the room to set up your SP10.
Their footprint is very small with a pod which makes them ideal regarding space.
Cheers Chris |
Nandric,
These 'footers' are of course different to my solution with the spikes.
Both Chris and Banquo are using them so they must be fine.
My concern would be if you could lean on the edges of the turntable and induce movement (ie 'rocking')........that would not be a good thing from the Copernican point of view? |
Banquo, Good to know that you finally found peace with Bill Thalmann. I don't know how you (and others) are managing to use more than one outboard pod with the SP10. The square escutcheon that surrounds the platter really interdicts the use of more than one tonearm, which must be placed alongside the right-hand edge of the square, which allows a short enough distance to the spindle to permit alignment of a 9- or 10-inch arm. From all other sides, perhaps only a 12-inch arm can be aligned. But obviously you are making it work, somehow. The Denon tt's present no problem in this regard.
Nandric, Removing the bottom of the SP10 chassis would be a big mistake, IMO. It would reduce structural integrity of the whole, leave the on-board electronics open to the elements, and eliminate any way to provide a solid mount for the tt. |
Hi Henry - all I do with the sp10 is put a record on it - use my choice of clamp depending on the record and hit start. I never lean on it. Raul suggested the 616's originally I think?
Those 616's are very hard to find were not a North American product. I got mine from a fluke - someone from Holland responded to a wanted ad I had placed.
My second sp10 will be using spikes. IMO as long as the platform you are using is level and isolated well, then any good manufacturer footers would work depending on your application.
Once you have reached this level - what became more important to me was how high the footers needed to be - if they were fixed or adjustable - this all helped to determine how high tall the pod would end up being and how much adjustability needed to be put into the threaded spikes.
Nikola - I agree with what Lew said about the sp10 and its guts kinda of just hanging there with cover removed. I also know when not to mess with a good thing when I hear it. The same "abstract thinking" would apply to Henry's JVC ?
Lew - My site has pictures of multiple arms being used as well as I believe Banquo's and Dgob's sites.
Cheers Chris |
Dear Chris, This hobby is not only irrational but it also
make you greedy. I at last got a perfect SP 10 mk2 with all capacitors renewed but have no idea what to do with it.
Like those MM carts: buy now ,fast and as many as possible
and think or test later.Then this ebay 'syndrome' is realy
addictive. I am not able at the moment to resist but reduced my search to 'only' German ebay and ebay.com. The English have actualy nothing to offer(qua MM carts). BTW
I am very reluctant to remove my Kuzma and put the SP-10 instead.
Dear Lew, Thanks for the worning . I somehow thought that Raul recommended removal of the cover in casu.
Dear Halcro, I 'inspected' your system and have seen that
your DDTT is an Denon(?). Are we tolking about different animals? There is no place, so to speak, for the spikes on the underside of the SP-10. Or so I thought.
Regards, |
Nandric: what Lewm said.
Lewm: As you can see from my system pics, my second arm is behind the tt and in from the left edge by about 4 inches. The pod was designed so that it could go partially underneath the tt's square top (that is crucial). The pivot to spindle distance is 230mm and that's no problem.
Halcro: I'm not sure what you are imagining with the rocking, but I should say that I'm beginning to become suspicious of the ridigity of my system. I received my Mint protractor a few weeks back and it makes me appreciate the very fine adjustments required to maintain proper alignment. The 616 footers are great for isolation and leveling, but the contact between their smooth tops and the bottom of the tt's chassis is probably less secure than the ideal. To test this, I'm going to recheck alignment in another week. If it's off, I'll blame the footers. It may be an easy fix, just a matter of adding some blu-tac between footer and tt, but we'll see. The contact between bottoms of footers and platform is definitely secure as those suckers are not easy to move once settled.
Chris: indeed the footers' ability to be adjusted is key, otherwise leveling would be haphazard. Is the contact between the top of your footers and tt secure? I'll pm you regarding price; it's complicated. |
To all of you plinth-less persons, it is possible and permissible to do something different from what Raul does and still get satisfactory results. Think outside Raul's box. The AT616 feet may be good, but they cannot possibly be the only "good" option for feet. Also, I wonder what you are all using for platter mats. I found the stock rubber mat supplied with my SP10 Mk2A was easily bested by an SAEC SS300 metal mat (purchased from Raul, by the way), and I am sure other mats would also be superior to the rubber. One that I aim to try on my Mk3 is a Boston Audio Mat2. The Mat2 has about the same weight as the stock rubber mat and so should have no deleterious effect on function of the servo mechanism. (I don't recommend a super heavy mat for that reason.) My experience tells me that the stock rubber mat may be responsible for the the closed-in, grayish, dull tonal quality that some have ascribed to direct-drive turntables. (I have seen each of these adjectives used; take your pick.) I even think that the stock mat may have more to do with the tone than does the plinth or lack of same. |
Lewm: I haven't done any extensive comparative tests between the stock mat and my current one, the Boston Audio Mat 2, but the latter definitely lowers the noise floor. It's a deep dark black background--as it should be. One issue I've noted however is that the Mat 2 doesn't 'grip' onto records like the stock rubber mat. On certain records (warped ones), as I've applied a dust cloth to the record prior to play, the record will not rotate at the same speed as the platter, i.e. the downward pressure of the cloth is slowing the record's rotation. I infer that the record then is not properly coupled with the mat. This never happened with the rubber mat. Although not evident with flat records, it may be the case that this lack of coupling is having some effect with them as well. I ordered a ttweights record clamp and will see whether it makes a difference.
Regarding footers, obviously the AT 616 are not the only option. Who ever said they were? Chris was using brass footers before and as he said will use for his second set up. I was using the more readily available 605 footers before. But as he noted and I concur, there are practical advantages to using the 616's. In addition to what Chris noted, the 616's are 4" wide and that provides more stability than the 605's. Although I believe there are sonic advantages as well, no one thinking of going plithless should be deterred by the unavailability of the 616's. In fact, I considered using Eden Sound's terrastone footers but they probably require drilling holes into the chassis--something that I wanted to avoid. |
Dear Nandric,
My DD/TT is a Victor TT-81 made for JVC ( and soon to be replaced by its scarce and finer brother.....the TT-101).
They have their bottom metal 'cage' attached (just as the SP10s have) so that spikes or 'footers' can be positioned under this 'cage'.
I find that placing the spikes under the vertical cage perimeter, results in the greater stability with no movement whatsoever in my particular case. |
Noticed this thread when it started but didn't give it a read till today. Currently been condsidering a new plinth for a Garroard 301 so it was a great read although a plinthless 301 would not be a great idea but would be easy enough to try with a arm pod.
This thread and the debate within have change my direction some. A removable armboard or arm pod and the decision between the two has been the holdup for me. Over the past few days even before reading this thread I have decided to build multiple plinths for both while the table will be down.
May I recommend you guys take a look at
http://www.emachineshop.com/
Came across this service when noticed it mentioned in the DIY Schroeder thread, another great read BTW.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/13372-diy-schroeder-tonearm-11.html#post2242523
I have been using there software for awhile now although haven't had a chance to order anything from them yet. They have forum support and also video tutorials to help get started.
There is allots of benefits in using there software even if you have a local machinest already.
You could build a basic armpod in minutes then view it in 3D. Once comfortably with your design you click proceed/analyze and get any instant quote including shipping and weight!!! This alone make this software great. The site says this will work internationaly too.
Multple of the same design reduce the cost dramitcally, may be a great way to do a group buy. If you only want one item but think there may be interest of someone else that may want to purchase the same design you would order more than one to get the price for your one down then they will stock the remaining for a year. If they don't sell you would be obligated to pay for the remaining but if they do you would receive a percentage of the sale, how cool is that.
Another great feature of the sofware is you can import and export files. You can easily import a .dwg file to get you started if you have some cad designs. For you guys that use a local machinest I would think if you design the part then export it to a cad file it would save you some bucks since your machinest wouldn't have to create the design to enter into his CNC.
Brad |
Halcro,
For clarification for those who may not know the history/linkages, Victor and JVC are/were the same company (though a few years ago they merged with Kenwood). In Japan the brand was usually called Victor whereas abroad it was JVC (Japan Victor Company, called that, rather than Victor, because of trademark issues I think). Later, JVC (the company) also moved to use the JVC brandmark in Japan for local market products. FWIW, Panasonic had a similar issue where Panasonic was the brand name used for items sold abroad and Matsushita Electric Industrial (the listed company) used 'National' as their brand in Japan. Only recently did Matsushita retire the National brand and convert those items to Panasonic. At the same time they changed the company name. Many Japanese companies used 'brand names' for their audio component lines which were different than their company names. Matsushita was responsible for Technics. Toshiba was responsible for Aurex. Mitsubishi was Diatone. Sanyo was Otto. Sharp was Optonica. Kenwood was Trio. Pioneer was Exclusive. Hitachi was Lo-D. Teac is Esoteric (and TASCAM). NEC was Authentic. Kensonic was Accuphase. Nagaoka was Jeweltone. Dynavector was On-Life Research. Akai was A&D. Aiwa was Excelia. And Sony was briefly Esprit (and more recently, Qualia). |
Thanks for that T_bone.
Perhaps you can explain how Victor was able to use the same logo of the dog listening to the gramophone that we also associate with RCA? |
The real story here – and I say this from my direct experience the last 6 months, and from the emails I have received is about the ARMPOD.
People in this “very small” specialized hobby that are into the mid and higher end categories want to add arms and experience other cartridges with their Existing turntable. They have TT’s of all types. That is the story.
Manufacturers are you listening. This is the next level for this hobby. And until manufacturers wake up and stop charging ridiculous $$ for a machined piece of metal people will continue to make their own – those with more money will have them made. It costs me $150 to make a 16.5 lb brass armpod. Come out with one that costs twice that and I will buy it to save the time and trouble.
Ecir38 – over half the emails I have received for the pdf on making a basic pod were from people with idlers. My next project heading into the winter was to be an idler that I was going to put the “platter/motor only” in a plinth to use with a couple of armpods. That was the plan. As it goes a very special Lenco 75 fell into my hands, so now I am looking forward to listening and comparing heading into the fall.
Cheers Chris |
Dear Banquo, Your remark directed to Halcro speaks honestly to one point I have been trying to make with the plinth-less crowd. The torque of an SP10 motor (Mk2 OR Mk3) is sufficient to move the chassis, if the chassis is unfettered by a plinth. Thus I would fear in theory what you may be observing in fact, that your turntable may be able to "walk" away from correct alignment. I think this is fixable by maybe using double-sided tape between the bottom of your chassis and the top surface of the AT616 footers. Of course, I personally would fix it by building a plinth or some sort of substantial anchor for the chassis. I recently read that the servo mechanisms in these turntables apply full torque instantly, each time they are triggered by a speed variation. Heretofore, I thought the motor controller via the servo system could call up "just enough" torque to return the platter to correct speed, when needed. If that were true, the effect of torque to move the chassis would be minimal during actual play. But now that I have learned that the servo simply gives a full on or full off signal to the motor, I am even more convinced re the value of a good plinth. By the way, I did not mean to imply that you (personally) were dogmatic re AT616 feet, but there seems to be a general trend in that direction among other disciples of the Copernican approach.
As regards the tendency of an LP to slide on the surface of a Boston Audio mat, I have observed the same thing. I use a Mat1 on my Lenco. The Mat1 had a tendency to slip against both the surface of the platter underneath it AND against the surface of any LP on top of it. I finally cured the former issue by inserting a few slivers of double-sided carpet tape between platter and mat. Just small pieces were sufficient. As regards the tendency for LPs to slip, I too notice that when using a carbon fiber brush to remove dust from the surface of an LP prior to play, but it does not seem to be an issue during play at all. You might want to try an SAEC mat; they are often for sale on eBay and Audiogon for around $300. No slipping issues with SAEC. But based on what I hear from my Lenco, I think the Boston Audio mats may be (even) more neutral sounding than the SAEC. After hearing either one of these mats, I could never go back to the OEM rubber mats. And I am sure there are other candidate mats that would best the OEM ones. This was very true for my Denon DP80 as well. The OEM Denon mat might be even worse than the Technics one. (Alas, the Denon sits, loved but unused, on a shelf in my basement.)
Dear Ecir, Idler-drive turntables need to be mounted in well built plinths for best performance, IMO. I think that is much less controversial than the use of a plinth with a direct-drive. I don't think you will ever get the best out of your Garrard without some sort of plinth. |
Dear Chris, This is exactly what my thoughts and intentions
were. My Kuzma Stabi Reference, as many other TT's, was meant for just one tonearm. I wantend an second tonearm also because my Basis Exclusive has two independant phono pres.I was not able to solve the problem myself but was searching on internet for the solution. This way I discovered the Reed company and thy were willing to accept
my order. They just started producing TT's and tonearms.
But Lew is right considering the problems involved by an
armpod. First the dimensions needed for the armpod in relationship to a given TT, then the tonearmlenght, then the problem where to put the armpod next to the TT, etc.
Not an easy task for an amateur. I needed to describe all
dimensions of my Kuzma and my rack very exact before they
started this project. My armpod was btw the first they constructed. But despite the fact that I owned 7 different tonearms non of them was adequate. The point Lew made . I needed an 12" tonearm for my Kuzma. So I ordered both the armpod as well as the 12'' tonearm.I got not only the armpod and the tonearms but also some friends in Lithuania
but I am aware that my whole project could go wrong. One can't count in advance reg. the capability and integrity of people one ask help from. I was lucky I am sure.
Regards, |
Nikola - if I was in your position with a tuned up virgin Sp10mkii in my house and that Reed armpod and tonearm already in place I would not be able sleep until I put them on a small temporary stand with appropriate height footers under the sp10 just to hear what it was like. |
Lew, I agree with you that idlers need a plinth thats why I said it wouldn't be a great idea. Now a idler with a plinth and arm pod that is the question.
Chris, were those email request of guys wanting an arm pod for idlers that were nude or with a plinth?
I'm surprised nobody but Halcro has asked more about the ingenious arm pod Corby made. Think you can get him to elaborate a little more of the breakdow with the micrometer, maybe pics. For most arms, having precision VTA would be a plus.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1294870073&openfrom&370&4#370
Like you said manufactured tonearm prices are expensive especially if you would need more than one.
Couple of fine example of the cheaper ones out there.
http://www.ttweights.com/catalog/item/7725503/8678734.htm
http://www.ttweights.com/new_power_arm_pod.html
Notice the second one with the dissimilar materials stainless, lead and derlin. I'm sure this was tried and tested so something to note that there is probably some canceling going on there.
Other than cancelation going on lead would add mass while the derlin should be easy to machine.
Brad |
Hi Brad - yes the idlers need the plinth to damp the rumble and the inquiries were for armpods going around existing TT's with plinths. A few talked about slate plinths that could be cut smaller to allow for multiple arms. I was planning on doing a plinth for an L75 platter/motor/top plate only with armpods.
Don may see this but I will reach out to him to see if he can provide more info.
Cheers Chris |
Chris, Nandric and Brad are quite correct in this thread being primarily about isolated arm-pods, their cost and availability.
The 'Nude Turntable Project' thread combines the support of the nude table together with the design and fabrication of bespoke arm-pods.
Corby's solution to an adjustable-height arm-pod attracted my attention as perhaps a pointer to a 'universal' isolated arm-pod?
It is not realistic IMO, to expect the individual turntable manufacturers to design and sell 'universal' arm-pods? Depending on the design of the various turntables available, such a design could be more complex and expensive than a pod designed for a known individual turntable design.
That's why this exchange of differing solutions is valuable.
I designed my arm-pods to accept every arm I was aware of yet the pods were designed height-wise, to be specific to the Victor nude DD/TT although height variations up to +/- 10mm is possible via the height of spikes selected and the thickness of the aluminium top-plate to the arm-pods themselves.
In this case the cost of each pod worked out to approx $500 and would now be $300 for each additional one (since I have the casting mould).
It is hard to imagine a 'universal', height-adjustable, any-arm-you-like commercial arm-pod being available for a retail price anywhere near that? |
Dear Nicola and Chris,
I have found that a tin of asparagus can form the ideal height for the temporary mounting of an arm :^) |
Dear Chris, As I wrote I was not sure about the 'under cover' of the SP-10 and consequently the footers. This also imply of course the hight of my Reed armpod. I also
asked help and advice from Lew and he recommended the Boston platter mat or the SAEC one but also worned reg.their weight. My armpod is 10cm high with +/- 1cm adjustable spikes. I sleep well btw but my conscience started asking some tedious questions about the sense of such 'abundance' of carts and TT's. I hate the greedy characters so this kind of reflection is unavoidable.
Halcro, never heard the expression 'asparagus' and was not
able to find in my dictionary. Never thought that your eloquence will become a problem. Do you mean the vegetables?
Regards, |
Halcro,
Just because you asked... ...there is a back story...
JVC/Victor of Japan was originally owned by Victor (US).
Victor was formed when Emile Berliner (inventor of the gramophone and then first owner of The Gramophone Company) lost a suit brought by Columbia and Zonophone early on, and wasn't allowed to make records anymore. The guy (Mr. Johnson) who was making gramophones (I think on an OEM basis) for Gramophone Company filed suit to allow him to sell the gramophones he had made, he was victorious in court, and he named his company Victor Talking Machine Company. That company partnered up with the original British Gramophone Company to sell gramophones, and the British company found the painting, got it changed slightly (from wax cylinders to discs). EB asked the original artist to grant the US picture rights to VTMC. That was 1901. As a result, they also got some other jurisdiction rights by default it appears. A few years later, VTMC started exporting equipment to Japan. In the 20s, after the great Kanto Earthquake destroyed most of Tokyo (1923), Japan raised import taxes dramatically, causing VTMC to decide to set up a local manufacturing and sales company, called 日本ビクター (Japan Victor). Then RCA took over Victor TMC in 1929 and RCA's corporate philosophy was to run overseas businesses on a RCA-local JV basis, so they JVed with Tokyo Electric (at the time a company in the Mitsui keiretsu, but better known now under a different name, created when it merged with Shibaura Electric Mfg - Toshiba). When relations between Japan and the USA got worse in the late 30s (as Japan was embarking on its Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere efforts), RCA no longer wanted to be involved with a Japanese JV so sold the rest of Japan Victor to its JV partners. After the war, during which Toshiba and Victor had both suffered greatly (in the bombing of Tokyo and 'burbs), but had significant debt remaining, and GHQ decided that banks couldn't own big parts of companies anymore, both Victor and Toshiba needed new partners. RCA raised its hand, but so did a long-time fan of talking machines, records, and the "HMV logo", the president of Matsushita. He decided he wanted to be in the record-making business and put up a boatload of money to buy out the debts of Victor from banks. Later Matsushita Konosuke would actually be chairman of Victor. In any case.... in Japan, most people referred to the company as "Victor" rather than "Japan Victor" and the brand used in Japan was, in the 60s-80s, "Victor". When Victor started selling VHS machines globally in the early 80s, they used the "JVC" brand outside of Japan. Later, "JVC" as a brand was re-imported and all the Victor-brand A/V products made by the Japanese company were branded JVC. And that's all she wrote... Back to armpods! |
Dear T_bone,
Because there already is a 'Professor' in our midsts (Timeltel of Kentucky).......the only post left open for you is 'Honorary Dean of the Faculty' :^) |
Yes Nicola.......asparagus....the vegetables. As in ASPARAGUS |
Henry - I agree a universal one will be tough to do with all the dimensions. Larry at TT weights is making a good effort at it as Brad said. Others will follow. Henry your armpods look more expensive than the price you mentioned.
Nikola - you have two adjustables factors being the armpod itself and your arm. A third could be the sp10 footers. Your armpod is roughtly the same height as mine which is 4.2 inches tall. That means you will require taller footers based on an sp10. I cant recall how high the 616's are - maybe if Banquo sees this he can comment on their height. I think about 2.5 - 3 inches. I would not let that stop you.
I would get some small blocks of wood or other material and with some blue tac put two just inside the front corners and one in the middle of the contour toward the back - see my system page. Find any decent table to put it all on temporarily - you will still hear the magic. The sp10 mkII has no detectable rumble and requires little to work well. They used to plunk these things down on radio station tables everywhere. They are self contained as you can see and bullet proof.
I am still up north in Gods Country going after the elusive record small mouth bass will be returning in a couple of days and can provide more info.
Cheers |
hi guys, it's been a few months. lot's has changed. i have installed a new rack for my system and, the reason for the post, i have made a new armpod.
i am having another stainless pod being made, but my machinist buddy is very busy. so, i decided to make on using panzerholtz. you can see a pic on my virtual system, on the micro seiki rx1500.
sonically, the armpod is doing what is expected. i have great isolation of course, which improves greatly on the image, detail, focus and bass response. the only issue that i have with it is the weight. it is on the light side, compared to stainless or brass. it can move relatively easily. so when i adjust the tracking force, for instance, i have to be carefull not to re-locate the pod when i'm adjusting the counterweight on the arm.
otherwise, i'd recommend using panzerholtz. it can be turned on a wood lathe without special tooling. i do have a small metal lathe that i used, but for the average guy, it id workable. |
Dear Halcro, I desagree. Our T_bone is entitled to the status of an 'regular Professor' in HI-FI history. I noticed some underrate of humaniora in our forum. But
can we do without any reflection about our (hi-fi) past?
What about ( any) perspective?
Regards, |
Dear Nandric, just to set the record straight, the Boston Audio mats and the SAEC mat are very near in weight to that of the OEM Denon and Technics rubber mats. What I was saying in my last post is (among other things) that these two types are perfectly acceptable. I am not "worning" against their use. However, some folks use other mats that weigh as much as 4 lbs (2kg) and more on the Technics. IMO, that is too heavy. Others disagree.
Dear Ecir, Sorry I misunderstood you.
Sorry neither topic refers directly to outboard armpod use. My standing comment on that is if you are going to do it, I think both the tt and the arm pod need to be on mounts that are similar, if not in fact identical, in their tendency to transmit or dissipate mechanical energy of all types. You do not want the the tt to be jiggling (even on a micro level) whilst the arm pod is static, or vice-versa. Since this issue is created by using a separate arm pod, it also forms the basis by which I reject the outboard pod notion entirely. I know I am boring on this topic. |
