Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

Not to split hairs but what is a plinth?

Most of us would agree the solid platforms securing motor unit and arm such as Lew's basic slate or Albert's or Mr. Dobbins' more complex designs are plinths. And the standard hollow box platform sold with most tables is still a plinth.

But then what about those skeletal designs like Oracle, Michell, or David's modified Kenwood? They all include an armature to mount the tonearm with the motor unit. As I understand Raul's design, it is a single wood platform (3/4"?) which bolts to the motor unit and extends to the side to provide for arm mounting. Isn't that a plinth too, albeit a minimal one?

It seems a true plinthless table would be one where the motor unit is self contained and free standing from the tone arm, the latter secured to its own weighted base.

None of this may matter to the OP or other readers unless they interpret Raul's statements to mean he suggests a separate and free-standing arm and base. As I understand his table(s), that is not his approach.

A question about comparisons, based on the Walker-Technics comments posted here.

Many experienced hobbyists agree about the importance of component matching - speaker with room, amp with speaker, arm with cartridge. Raul was pretty specific when he suggested the importance of arm, headshell, and even platter mat for cartridge performance.

Why then would anyone argue that the only fair comparison of the Walker versus Albert's Technics should be made using the same or identical arms and cartridges? Who is to say the optimum arm for Albert's Technics would be the same as that used on the Walker? And even if the same (or identical) cartridge(s) was/were used in the comparison, what is the assurance it/they offer optimal performance when different arms are used.

This may not seem scientific but I believe music is an emotional experience. Therefore applying science-based tests may not always be most appropriate. For me a better test would be to optimize the Walker and it's arm with the best matching cartridge (obviously choices will vary but since the evaluation will be made on an individual basis I consider this OK). Then do the same with Albert's Technics, this time matching arm and cartridge. Then make the sonic comparison with EACH table optimized.

Your choices in optimizing each table may be different than mine and our respective conclusions may or may not agree. But each of us would have based our ratings on the best we felt each table could perform.

I trust this in not beating an old subject to death but in all my years in this hobby I've simply observed too many varying opinions about what is good and what is not so good to believe that rigorous "scientific" testing procedures (eliminate the variables) present any truth.

Mike, I may not have made my point clearly. I too respect Albert's experience and perspective. So based on that I can accept that he believes his custom Technics to be more satisfying (better?) than his (at the time) Walker.

My intended point was to challenge those who discredited his conclusion because of component variations - the arms in that case. Comparing different turntables by utilizing the same platform, arm, wire, and cartridge may not necessarily be a level playing field in my opinion.

My whole point was raised to try to understand the position of those who believe that the only worthwhile (valid?) comparison is when just one component is changed - the turntable in this case. Mapman perhaps presented my perspective best when he focused on the table/arm/cart as a "system". It is comparing differences within systems that becomes tricky.

Raul, I hope you know I respect your experience and observations. Many times in your MM/MI thread you have commented on matching the best arm or headshell to optimize the performance of a given cartridge. You are unusual in owning such a large selection of tables, arms, headshells, etc. that you can really fine tune the set up for any cartridge to evaluate it, and report your impressions based upon the optimized system. I believe your reviews are better than any paper or on-line magazine for this reason.

To draw a parallel, you do not evaluate every cartridge in the same arm/table/headshell so far as I know. And even if you have a "preferred system" where you make your initial evaluations, you obviously do try other combinations to obtain the best performance of the cartridge under review.

So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems, i.e. that it is the best of the two tables. If one size fitted all, this would be a far simpler hobby.

Peace to all and happy listening.

For those looking to quantify the resonance characteristics of various plinth materials, a fellow on Vinyl Engine seems to have done just that.

http://qualia.webs.com/dampingfactorvalues.htm

But wait, from his data it seems that MDF and slate measure the same, 0.017! Now I have no personal experience with comparing these two materials but I have read multiple recommendations against MDF for DD plinths (not sure why it is favored for rim-drives such as the Lenco). And I have read very favorable opinions on slate, both for commercial sources such as OMA and the DIY projects such as Lew's.

So how can it be that two materials can measure the same yet offer such varied sonic results? Were they the same overall size and thickness when measured? Were they layered or constructed in the same fashion? Or is the answer a combination of material characteristic and how the plinth is designed and assembled?

The last question seems to suggest its own answer, which brings us back to Albert's plinths.

It seems after the conflicting "scientific" data in the attachment to my previous post (slate = MDF in resonance test) and the points Mosin offered, we are almost back to the drawing board. Meaning you must pick your material, build it, and see if it pleases you or not. The only "short cut" I see is if you have an opportunity to audition a specific design and like it, be it slate, Birch ply, Panzerholtz,or whatever, then you may proceed to buy or build one like it with some assurance.

So now I'm wondering how much sonic difference the plinth material can make once you select one of the apparent "better" choices, such as any of the three just named? Will not your cartridge choice or maybe even the tonearm have a larger imprint on the final sound?