ELP laser turntable - any comments?

Thanks so much for your response - it answers my questions perfectly.

I keep wondering about the fact that one person (somewhere, I can't recall where) said it measured flat to about 16k, and the original patent states essentially the same thing and then says "-4db at 20k"...which might account for the percieved lack of sparkle and dynamics some seem to experience. Could this be related to loading on a standard preamp since this is roughly in the range where the peak occurs? Why would the LT need to be loaded in the first place? I realize they say 47k but I keep wondering if that dip in the response is due to this...just curious!

Cjsmithmd, thanks for a cogent review. Your findings go along with the several auditions I have had with the ELP. I still remember vividly the Peggy Lee old recording that SMART played at the CES several years ago, which had been purchased in Vegas and cleaned with the Loricraft. It had the immediacy of a master tape and where we focused the laser in the groove greatly affected the sound. Were it not for having the Shindo Labs/Garrard 301 system and having heard the criticism and faint praise of the reviews, I would no doubt have one today.

Perhaps tomorrow I will.

I posted this mini review on the Audio Asylum Vinyl forum.
This cross-post adds some revisions and updates.

I own an ELP (about 18 months). I like it. Sounds quite different from a conventional table. I also have a conventional table: Basis 2800/Graham 2.2/Helikon.

Cavets: as noted a RCM is essential not optional. But this is really true for all good vinyl playback IMHO, just more so for the laser. The laser will not play all vinyl. Yes it wants black discs but occassionally I will come across a black vinyl disc that the laser simply won't read. I don't know why. This is rare. In general I prefer the sound I get from the laser to my Basis rig. Mike Fremer's review I find is generally on point although I don't think he spent enough time with the unit to really assess its' strengths. Bottom line: if you can only afford one table don't buy the laser. But if you can afford a second table, and you really like your vinyl, I would encourage you to listen for yourself in your own system. BTW I have been using a VPI 16.5 but just ordered a Loricraft.

Assuming you find the sonics of the laser to be of high quality you will be very happy with the convienence of the unit. I put a record in the system (after cleaning!) and can listen to any track in any order. No worry about when the record will end. I can pause and resume: nice when watching TV - I listen to vinyl during the commerical breaks :) And no danger of damage to the record. I like that. No '24 hour rule' for those concerned about this - play any track over and over again as often as you wish. New vinyl stays new - see below for more on this.

The the build quality of the unit is at the upper end consumer level- think Sony/Denon/Pioneer . It is not audiophile jewelry by any means. However in over a year of operation I have not had any problems. It is expensive only in the sense that it is priced at the same level as a really good table/arm/cartridge but is not at the build level audiophiles generally lust for.

A side rant:

Ok I admit: I am an unrepentant audiophile.... 40 years since my dad took me to my first audio store. For me it's not just the music! I enjoy my audio jewelry with the warm glow of tubes, sensuous controls, gracious ergonomics and sexy metal work etc. I know I'm not alone. We know who we are! It's a great hobby made even more wonderful by an never ending supply and infinite variety of sound and music.

Got it off my chest, back to earth:

To address the worn record question posed by vanmeterannie: it's kind of a mix. Most of the time worn records do very well with the ELP. For example - I've got a really old copy of Abby Lincoln's 'Abby is Blue' (given to me by my mother!) which was really beat up and badly treated. Did not sound good at all on my standard rig but just outstanding on the ELP. On the other hand some records that are really badly worn can be 'played' on my Basis (sound awful) but just can't be played on the laser. I'm an avid collector of old vinyl and I would say overall that the ELP is a godsend for beaten up vinyl (with a good cleaning) but as MF noted in his review of the ELP "not always and not predictably so."

With new vinyl the ELP can be glorious; in particular on single sided 45rpm recordings (some of my best stuff) the ELP sonics are just fantastic. (Cleaning is still necessary) To my ears you lose some very low frequency 'grung' (vibrational artifacts?) which at first makes it seem like something is missing. However after going back and forth between the ELP and Basis I find the ELP makes for a more realistic (accurate?) but perhaps not always a more pleasing presentation. Low level detail is better elucidated, soundstage and imaging are more acurate (less 'bloating'), presence is enhanced. However there is a sense of decreased dynamic range which I note particularly when listening to rock or orchestral pieces. In the words of one stereophile reviewer the ELP works best for a 'they are here' and not a 'you are there' sonic experience. (This however is the bias of my system built around doublestacked Quad 63s with Halcro electronics).

One thing I haven't heard mentioned but I find strange is that if I have my speakers muted and I listen with my ear close to the unit I can hear the record being played; this is similar to the vibrational sonics I get from my cartridge. I would not have thought that this would be so.

Given this observation I plan to experiment with vibrational isolation to improve the sound of the ELP. I have found such efforts to pay off modestly with digital reproduction and so had expected some improvement with the ELP. Now I am excited that I might have some dramatic improvements in performance with attention to this detail. I'll report back when I've made some meaningful observations about this.

I think the best way to look at the ELP is not as an alternative to a standard TT, but as an alternative way of listening to your vinyl. If it suceeds commercially I would hope/expect that more luxury oriented units, perhaps with the newer 'blueray' (smaller) type lasers, as well as less expensive units will be in the offing.

Well you've heard my opinion. YMMV.

I've got a question about worn records...I've both heard that actual groove wear (like distortion on an old disc played with a bad stylus) can be virtually eliminated sometimes, and yet both owners here say wear is worse on the ELP. I'm just curious, since there seem to be very different opinions out there about how it handles wear. I've heard that scratches can reproduce worse on the ELP, but not groove wear, so I'm just wondering what your experience is a little more specifically (if you don't mind sharing!)

Thanks!

Have they ever resolved the 200 gram record issue?

What can we say? There are many positive and negative comments about the laser turntable in the industry. Most negative ones are from those that have not heard it or refuse to "hear" it when they are listening to it. As a dealer we have compared it to many conventional turntables and many other formats including master tape . There is no comparison out there unless you are spending upwards of $20-$60,000.00. You must hear the laser turntable for yourself and make your own judgement. If you can afford it we welcome anyone to send us a deposit . We will then ship them one to demo for 2 weeks and let them decide what is and what should never be. Once you hear it in your system you will never want to let it go. Believe it!
don't believe all the other crap you read on the internet. I use my LT daily and am enthralled at every record I feed it even after 2 years! amazing!

Theloveman - we're still all here and reading. you've been so throrough there's not much left to say. thanks for the review and all the info. there's a ton of good stuff in this thread. it's a great archive.

Norm, I can appreciate the space problem, but don't put too much energy into the need for isolation support for the ELP. One of the principal advantages of the Laser table over a standard table is that it is virtually immune to feedback. I purchased my laser table because I moved to a new home where I ended up with an upstairs listening room. The floor is sort of a flexi-flyer, so my VPI would go into contortions when I would walk across the room, and bass frequencies were problematic as well. Rather than go to all the trouble to do a wall or ceiling mount, I tried the LT. It has proven immune to footfall, and as near as I can tell, to acoustic feedback as well.

BTW, I had forgotten that Joe Grado held the patent on the moving coil, and I am quite certain that your assertion as to why he never endorsed them or manufactured them is right on. Thanks for reminding me.

Theloveman, what you suggest is what I would hope to do. This would cause me several problems, however, mainly space and isolation support for the ELP.

Having know Joe Grado and having asked him why he held the patient on the moving coil but did not make them, I can assure you that the ringing on the leading edge is exactly why he did not do moving coils.

Thanks again for your informative posts.

Norm

TBG, As old as this thread is, it's nice to know that someone saw my post. It's also nice to know that someone has experienced a good demonstration of the ELP. All too often, the ELP has not been demonstrated to its best advantage.

If a person can afford it, the absolute best of both worlds is achieved when you have a high quality turntable like the
Shindo Labs and an ELP. So many of my older LPs that exhibit some degree of record wear actually do sound better on a standard turntable. I attribute this to some slight degree of forgiveness by a standard arm/cartridge combo, though other factors that I am about to mention are likely to be involved as well. I've not found any rhyme or reason as to why some LPs that I used to think were great don't sound so great on the LT, and yet others that I never thought much of on my standard turntable are astonishingly good on the LT. A new record of a well recorded performance will sound great on either playback format, but the ELP, with its greater channel separation and typically more linear response really shines on a top notch piece of program material on a reasonably neutral system.

I've speculated that the reason the ELP doesn't sound quite as dynamic or as alive as most moving coil cartridge/arm combinations relates to what I remember seeing years ago in test reports showing the performance of moving coil cartridges (mcc). In looking at the oscilloscope output of a good mcc reproducing square waves, I consistently observed a rapid rise time on the leading edge of the square wave accompanied by a rather significant overshoot before settling back to the amplitude of the top of the square wave. The reproduction of the top of the wave would exhibit constant ringing. The return to the baseline was also marked by an negative overshoot. Compare that to the square wave reproduction of a Grado Signature. The Grado not only exhibits no overshoot, but actually slightly rounds the corner from the vertical rise to the horizontal top. Further, it exhibits virtually no ringing at the top of the wave and very little if any overshoot as it falls back to the base line.

Now, anyone who has been around this game for a long time can readily describe the differences in the sonic character between most any moving coil and a Grado moving iron. The "coils" always sounded more dynamic, more lively, more defined, and airier on top (in no small measure due to the rising high frequency characteristic that many exhibited). OTOH, the Grados sounded somewhat rounded, full bodied, smoother, and very musical. It's been a number of years since anyone has published any test result of square wave reproduction from a moving coil cartridge, so I can't say to what extent these anomalies have been ameliorated, but I can say that the sound of mcc's today relative to the sound of the ELP is reminiscent of that old comparison between the Grados and various mccs. The biggest difference is that the ELP, sonically, doesn't exhibit the weakness of rounding or dulling the leading edge of the square wave as the Grado did.

If you can afford both, by all means get an ELP. Truly, the longer you listen to one, the more you will grow to appreciate its virtues, both sonically and operationally. Short of being financially capable of buying the very best in conventional turntable/arm/cartridge systems, I don't believe that I would ever go back.

Theloveman, thanks for your comments. I have not lived with the ELP but rather have twice heard good demonstrations of it versus other tables and once master tapes. I have a very excellent Shindo Labs 301 vinyl system that outperforms everything I have ever heard save that it is quite different in sound than the ELP. Once at a June CES , Harry Weisfeld demonstrated his excellent turntable and then took a few of us to another room where he played master tapes and dryly noted that he was no where near the master tapes. I guess that is also my impression of tables other than the ELP.

I probably would not sell my Shindo, but I might buy a ELP because critic's views of it are so at odds with what I hear. I well know the dirt problem having some 20 years ago heard the first prototype of the ELP which nearly tore everyone's head off when it encountered a speck of dust. Even then, however, it was exceptional until it hit that dust.

I'm late as hell coming to this party, so whatever I say may not be seen by anyone who might care. I am motivated to write as an actual owner and user of an ELP who feels that this product has received far more negativity than it deserves. In my 1 1/2 years of experience with the ELP, I'd have to say that Useridchallenged has done a very fine job of defining the ELPs strengths and weaknesses, so any differences between his overall assessment and my own would have to be attributed more to personal taste and values rather than actual performance.

One gentleman wrote that he had two friends who sent their LTs back after a few weeks of ownership. I can relate, as when I first got mine I thought it sounded like it was missing something. It just wasn't as lively, and the sense of instrumental resonance and hall ambience seemed subdued. As time passed, two things happened: The LT improved with age, and I gradually began to realize that the missing information was not actual recorded information, but rather mechanical and resonant colorations that are inherent in all but the the finest of LP playback systems. I had become so used to these "distortions" in 30 years of LP playback that I had accepted them as musical qualities. That said, as a frequent attendee of live orchestral works, I do concur that the preceived dynamics of the LT are somewhat less than that perceived with conventional playback and, most assuredly, live music. For whatever reasons, I have observed that room temperature as well as time turned on have a noticeable effect on the perception of dynamics (a cold room seems to lessen dynamics). Nonetheless, I find the performance of the ELP to be compelling.

VOCALS

As Useridchallenged noted, there is a "rightness" to the sound of the LT, and recordings of the human voice reveal this attribute is spades. Vocals are rendered with greater ease and naturalness than I have ever heard from mechanical stylus playback. If you don't like the sound of vocals on the LT, its because you either have a record compromised from prior stylus wear or a bad recording/pressing. In fact, that could be said regarding most other aspects of reproduction as well. In my collection, worn records sound worse when played on the LT than when played on a standard turntable, but well-pressed new records are rendered with great realism (provided the recording possessed realism). This brings up another most important point.

NOISE

The LT has been bashed by everyone for noise. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch with the LT. The laser tracks everything, thus the superb detail retreival and resolution noted by Useridchallenged. Consequently, even the tiniest dust particle is "read" as information. A large particle might have the impact of a cannon shot. A stylus, by virtue of its size, will likely glide by the finest of particles never to be deflected by their presence. Thus stylus playback tends to be quieter, but at the expense of detail retrieval and resolution. I have found the Loricraft record cleaning machine to be an absolutely essential accessory. Some records are stubborn about coming clean, but repeated cleanings continues to lower the noise floor on even the worst offenders.

LINEARITY

One of the greatest joys is hearing instruments sound, both harmonically and in timbre, more like live instruments. If there are frequency response abberations with the LT, they have escaped me. In my many years of standard turntable/arm/cartridge playback, I could never say that about any arm/cartridge combination I ever owned. For this reason, I am completely perplexed by JV's comments in TAS as I find almost every record to sound quite different from the next. Admittedly, however, I don't have a Rockport or a Walker to make the comparison with.

I find it interesting that so many want to compare the ELP to State-of-the-Art turntable/arm/cartridge combinations that sell for 2 to 4 times the cost of the ELP, and then declare that the ELP is not ready for prime time. This is the turntable that audiophiles love to hate, and I'm afraid the reasons are diverse.

A real turntable has sex appeal, with bright chrome pieces, a massive, thick platter, exotic suspension and an exposed isolated motor--the LT looks like some old Laser Disc player out of the 70's or 80's. A real turntable has a sleek highly engineered tonearm that the user can tweak and adjust to his/her personal satisfaction of knowing that every aspect of alignment and playback has been personally optimized--an LT requres a weekly calibration with a calibration record that adjusts and optimizes playback parameters in 30 to 45 seconds. A real turntable can be made to sound however the owner wants it to sound by changing the cartridge or the arm/cartridge combination--an LT will sound the same everytime you play it unless you change the record. A real turntable both allows and requires a personal investment of the owner's time and reflects the owner's expertise in setup and pride of ownership, not to mention the owner's bias in sound--an LT doesn't allow the owner to introduce his own bias or taste into the reproduced sonic landscape. The damned thing can't possibly sound good because it sounds different from that sound which the audiophile has spent many personal hours and dollars to achieve. Lest you think I know not of what I speak, I've had many years of experience in dealing with the psychology of an audiophile--namely, myself, and I can assure you that all I have mentioned plays a role in what we hear.

IMHO, the ELP represents a tremendous value for vinyl playback. It isn't perfect, but I enjoy LP playback more today than ever before. I no longer avoid playing my favorite LPs out of fear of record wear, and it makes my near state-of-the-art digital playback sound artificial, mechanical and contrived by comparison. I no longer worry about wearing a stylus or bending a cantilever and I don't have the worry of having to spend $2K to $5K every year or two to either replace my worn cartridge or to purchase the latest and greatest whiz-bang cartridge whose cantilever is coated in non-resonant fairy dust and whose stylus is lower in mass than a flea's fart. And, for what it's worth, I have had no operational problems that have required repair or a return to the manufacturer.

I cannot explain JV's impressions of the LT other than perhaps his own bias towards the sound of his existing playback setup. As Useridchallenged expressed, the sound of the LT is different from conventional playback, but I don't consider either one to be overall superior to the other. That my personal biases place greater value on those areas of reproduction where the LT shines makes me a happy camper. Your mileage may vary.

Tbg...That's what I would expect based on my experience with the Halcyonics. Enjoy!

Eldartford, I got a Halcyonics base to experiment with. If you can take one home, I highly recommend that you do so. I have tried it under my Exemplar 5910 as well as the Shindo Labs turntable. In both instance I was able to realize the best sound I have ever heard. I have the Acapella isolation bases which have been the best I had experienced. They are toys compared with the Halcyonics.

The clarity of the image, the sharp leading edge, the dynamics, and the incredible bass are among its strong points.

Willster, sorry for the absence of information on Nabs' site about Halcyonics. We are working on another site dedicated to audio which will be released soon. In the meantime, product information is available at www.halcyonics.com or you may feel free to call me at 212-219-6580 with any technical or pricing questions.

With regards,

Sam Laufer
President
Nabs, Inc.

The ELP is reviewed in the latest issue of Soundstage. The reviewer is fair but critical, and all of his criticisms are valid, IMO. I had two friends who used to own the top-of-the-line versions of the ELP, and both returned them within weeks of buying them. My one friend, who's absolutely fanatical about cleaning his LPs, said that he couldn't get ONE record to play without at least some noise through the ELP. And it wouldn't play thick vinyl like Classic's 200g reissues. IMO, the technology hasn't evolved to a point where it can seriously challenge a SOTA conventional table. It's clearly a not-ready-for-prime-time player.

Where on the nabs website are they hiding the info on the halcyonics platform?

I have the demo cd. I prefer the sound of my mid fi Yamaha PX-3 to the ELP if it truely sounds as it does on the demo CD.

Steve

Three problems for most people with the ELP:
1. Cost
2. Getting it fixed when it goes down, which it will
eventually
3. Sound. So far, reviews have not been favorable and
their sample CD of its sound is less than good.
Were the ELP below $3000, which is where it should be,
it might be fun to play with. At its present price,
if you can afford it, a good plaything.
If it works as well as the advertising lit, it is
a steal at any price below $10,000.
CEM Columbus, Ohio

Since the ELP dates back probably 20 years, it is most dated technology.

Maybe on the profits from the Intelligent Chip, Golden Sound might be a prospect.

It occurs to me that a conventional phono pickup is basically a cam follower...a mechanical device to trace the shape of a template (the recorded groove). We think of it as a very small mechanical device but it is actually very large in context of the technology of "nanomechanical" machines, a field that has seen amazing progress in recent years. If someone (with a lot of money) wanted to make a giant leap forward in vinyl playback I think that a nanomechanical phono pickup would make more sense than this optical approach.

Nanomechanical machines are fabricated like electronic integrated circuits, and usually include, on the same chip, the associated electronic circuits. Tracking force would be so low that you might need an optical servo arm to track the groove.

A project to develop such a pickup would be attractive only to a multimillionare audiophile with technical leanings and not enough to do. Anyone out there?

TAS reviews the ELP in the new issue. Valin finds all records sound the same on it and sound dull. This is totally at odds with what I heard at CES2004. I would characterize it as sounding quite different from other vinyl systems. I thought records sounded less romantic and more master tape like, but not digital like. Had it not been for the difficulties SMART had had, I might have bought one.

Valin compares the ELP with the Walker Prosideum which I once owned and which is excellent. I did not have this comparison at hand, of course.

The Loricraft record cleaner seems up to the task of cleaning even old dirty records for use with the ELP. At CES2004, SMART bought old records in Vegas. They were terrible initially, but after a cleaning they worked great, especially the Peggy Lee. The ability to raise or lower the lasar allowed getting to a clean portion of the track.

About the ELP laser turntable: Stereophile "kinda" likes it;
but Absolute Sound's review is pretty much a "thumbs down." I
think it is probably something that all of us would like to
"play" with, if we could find a dealer who would let us to
that without exchanging big gobs of money. But, as for owning
one, only some time with the unit would tell. If you have a
lot of old vinyl, as I do, the clicks and pops might be too
much to bear. Just think of a CD in which you could hear all
the dust that has collected. CEM

Thanks NABS. I think the Minus K low profile (4-inch) platforms run about $2800. Payload capacity is a little over one hundred pounds for the low profile models, but goes up to 700 pounds with standard models like the BM-1 (which I think has a list price of $3650 or so). I'm excited to see the use of industrial vibration isolation equipment in high-end audio - I think Minus K and Halcyonics are the "real deal" when it comes to getting the absolute best mechanical isolation possible.

Sorry, meant to post that with my NABS moniker.

NABS welcomes comments and inquiries regarding Halcyonics’ products and encourage the audio community to conduct objective A/B testing. We will do our best to facilitate and support any inquiries and or attempts at testing Halcyonics platforms. We are convinced that audiophiles will be pleased with the results of the Halcyonics platforms much in the same way as the hundreds of research laboratories around the world who have been using Halcyonics’ products for almost a decade. What makes the audio hobby so unique is the way in which different manufacturers approach similar problems in different though successful ways. Minus K and Halcyonics are examples of two completely different solutions for the same problem. No doubt, the Minus K and Halcyonics solutions go well beyond the standard vibration tweaks and platforms offered here on Audiogon.

In our opinion, the Halcyonics platforms offer some unique characteristics not found in any other platform marketed to the Audio community: (1) their unique combination of low profile, flexibility and performance; (2) their ability to provide ongoing feedback on vibration to users not only from monitors on the stands themselves but also through software that comes with each unit that provides a virtual oscilloscope to measure vibrations and assess the least resonant location for placing a stand; (3) their use of active vibration control which isolates vibration caused when the user touches the equipment; (4) their ease of setup – it takes literally seconds to setup the stands initially and no tuning or adjustments thereafter; and (5) their vast adaptive range of weight capability – the Micro 40 handles weight from 0 to 220 pounds, vitiating the need for different platforms should your equipment change, are just some examples of how our products differ from others on the market. Each user should examine their own priorities and needs in considering the value of Halcyonics or any other vibration isolation products. We look forward to participating in an ongoing dialog on this and other advances in audio technology.

Eldartford, just think if the unit could keep the record playing in an earthquake!

What seems to be an interesting difference between the unit is that with the Halcyonic there might not be a resonant frequency. This may make no difference. At any rate I hope to get to try one in August on returning from Alaska.

Tbg...If your TT moves 1/2 inch vertically, and 3/4 inch horizontally, I submit that you have best evacuate the house, especially if you live in California! As to specs...40 dB and 50dB are not significantly different in terms of real world effectiveness, and may be dependent on exactly how the number is measured. Same goes for 0.5 Hz vs 0.6 Hz. A side-by-side evaluation would be interesting, although I bet that either one would take care of the typical home floor vibration. In my experience acoustic feedback to the vinyl is the predominant problem after even minimal attention to floor vibration.

User, the 17.6" x 16" Micro 40 is $7890. I cannot imagine that anything like a .5 inch vertical or .75 horizontal travel could ever happen with the Halcyonics. The correction would have done whatever it could with even a fraction of this.

I am not in the least surprised that the Minus K outperforms air, such presumably as the Vibraplane and the Townsend Sink.

From a spec point of view, the Minus K passive isolator should be able to go head-to-head with the Halcyonics. The Minus K achieves 50 dB isolation at 10 Hz compared to the 40 dB of the Halcyonics. Also, the Minus K has a 0.5 Hz resonance, and the Halcyonics starts isolating at 0.6 Hz. For building isolation, the Minus K can handle fairly large horizontal and vertical displacements - 0.5 inch vertical and 0.75 inch horizontal travel. I'm curious what travel the Halcyonics has. Is NABS open to doing an AB comparison of the Halcyonics versus the Minus K isolators? I use the BM-1, and in my own testing have found that it outperforms air. It would be interesting to see how it stacks up against active isolation. How much does a Halcyonics isolator cost?

OK Sam! A good posting.

I guess it's time for me to "disclaim" any connection with Halcyonics. I have mentioned this product only because I had such good experience with it in a non-audio job-related situation.

I am pleased to announce that my company, NABS, recently became the exclusive global distributor of the Halcyonics line of active vibration elimination products. Halcyonics products range from isolation platforms such as the Micro 40 and 60 units that actively eliminate vibrations from .6 hz to infinity to complete acoustic solutions that include active platforms with accoustically inert chambers that eliminate airborne vibration. Halcyonics has a broad range of products and sizes, with weight bearing capabilities ranging from 220lbs to several thousand pounds. Halcyonics has historically sold its products to the scientific community for use under scanning probe microscopes such as Atomic Force Microscopes (AFMs). With the use of Halyonics' active vibration isolation unit, scientists achieve atomic resolution with their AFM even at difficult locations.

The Mod-1M platform metioned above has recently been replaced with the Micro 40 and Micro 60 units which offer more information to users and alternative platform sizes. Both units can be used stand-alone or with with provided Windows-based software which provides further analytical information. In either case, setup typically takes less than one minute and essentially requires the user to push two buttons. The Halcyonics web page nicely describes the Micro 40 and 60 units:

"Micro 40 systems feature an automated transport locking mode and fully automatic load adjustment; they take only a few seconds to start up. There is no further adjusting or tuning required. Thus, the Micro 40 and 60 systems feature ideal portability for field measurements and presentations.

The inherent stiffness of Halcyonics systems is typically 20 - 30 times higher than that of a 1 Hz passive isolator. For this reason, the Halcyonics active isolation technology provides much better position stability than with any other passive system; which is a great advantage at many applications. Thanks to automatic load adjustment Micro 40 and Micro 60 units allow a wide load range of 0 - 220 lbs with just one version - this offers good flexibility also for future applications.

In addition to their high isolation from floor vibration through AVI (active vibration isolation), Micro 40 and 60 systems also dampen application-generated vibration by AVC (active vibration control), e.g., this technology isolates vibration caused when the user touches the equipment. Thanks to Micro 40 and 60, active vibration isolation takes effect right at 0.6 Hz and considerably increases from this frequency upward. Above 10 Hz, Halcyonics Micro 40 and 60 systems achieve an isolation of 40 dB - that means that 99.0% of the vibration is effectively isolated. A major advantage of active Halcyonics systems is that they do not have any natural low-frequency resonance, which is responsible for problems encountered with passive vibration isolation systems in low-frequency ranges below 5 Hz. Micro 40 and 60 systems isolate vertical and horizontal vibration as well as vibration generated around the vertical axis of rotation as well as both horizontal axes of inclination. The degree of freedom of the active isolation system is thus six.

Connected to a Microsoft Windows-based PC through the USB 1.1 port available as a standard feature on the Halcyonics Micro 40 and 60, these benchtop systems enable computer-aided selection of the technically optimal place for setting up equipment to minimize exposure to vibration. During this process, the application software uses the acceleration sensors built into the Micro 40 and 60 and performs a relative, comparative vibration measurement on various places of installation selected by the user. An evaluation of the measurement and graphic display of the vibration levels of the various places of installation then provide a recommendation for the optimal place to set up equipment in a lab. Moreover, the software permits graphic display of the sensor signals and PC-controlled activation or de-activation of active vibration isolation."

We are proud to note that the Mod-1m (now replaced by the Micro 40) was recently given an award by Stereotimes as a "Most Wanted Component." We are confident that for the audiophile looking for the ultimate in vibration elimination - cost no object - that Halcyonics products are the best solution of its kind. In this regard, we welcome the audiophile community conducting any tests against competitive products.

Although NABS' audio-web page is still being assembled, you are more than welcome to read about our global supply chain solutions at www.nabs.com. My personal moniker on Audiogon is Slaufer. You can be assured that NABS will work hard to respond to any of your questions. We maintain a team of over 15 degreed mechanical engineers around the world including 3 with advanced degrees in our New York office who can field any of your technical questions. Feel free to call me during normal business hours from 9-5pm EST should you have any inquiries.

With regards,

Sam Laufer
President
NABS, Inc.

212-219-6580

The Halcyonics page has changed. I can no longer find the nice looking low box that could support 220 pounds. All I can find now is the 40 and the 60 which differ only in the size of the platform. I do not know why the new model is no longer mentioned.

Useridchallenged...I think that Halcyonics has various models, some of which will support more weight. The 220 pound model should be sufficient for 99.9 percent of turntables.

Thanks for the info on the patent. I will look it over.

Eldartford, see patent 4,870,631 on www.uspto.gov - that might answer your question about whether the ELP laser turntable senses rate of change or if the output is proportional to displacement. If I understand the Abstract correctly, it appears to be proportional to displacement. But one probably has to read more of the patent claims to verify that.

The Minus K vs Halcyonics would be a great test! Interestingly, they are based in Menlo Park, only a stone's throw from me (in San Jose). I'm wondering if Halcyonics would be open to providing a loaner for the test.

What's the Halcyonics cost? I need to dredge up what I paid for my Minus K BM-1 as part of the comparison.

Does anyone in A'gonville have one?

I noticed that the Halcyonics has a max payload of 220 lbs. On the other hand, the Halcyonics has a torsional stiffener, and the Minus K does not. Not sure how critical the torsional stiffener is, but when I talked to Minus K about this before I purchased the BM-1, they said it would be possible to add torsional stiffness/isolation to the BM-1 if I found it to be necessary. So far I've been fine without it.

Eldartford, Yep!

Tbg...I never used it for audio, but the task of eliminating ripples in a dish of Mercury is a real vibration isolation challenge, and the Halcyonics table came through with flying colors. At the time I thought that it would make a great base for a turntable. Now I understand that someone is marketing it to audiophiles.

Are you suggesting an A/B test against the Minus K ? ! ! :-)

Userchallenged and Albert, initially the Walker used Valid Points. I imagine that you could go back to them.

Eldartford, how good is the Halcyonic? Ideally, it would be nice to try both.

Userchallenged,

The Walker isolators contribute the least amount of weight in this set up, just a few pounds for sausage sized PVC tank, some hoses and three pods. Holding them in my hands last year, I would guess the whole thing at 20 pounds.

The Walker base is probably 200 pounds and the platter is 75 pounds. Then there's the air bearing, tonearm, motor, motor controller and the platform.

I tried to get Lloyd on the phone for an accurate answer, but since he just returned from vacation (7K miles on a motorcycle !)he's been swamped.

Useridchallenged...The Halcyonics table is completely self-contained and easy to use. Just adjust (knob) for the load weight (as indicated by a LED). At work it performed flawlessly in a critical optical task. (Eliminated ripples in a pool of Mercury).

Albertporter - does the weight of the Walker include the air isolator? Or is the 400 lbs just the platter/bearings/plinth/tonearm/motor? If you replace the air isolator with the Minus K isolator, you will probably strip out a lot of weight (and wires, and pneumatics) and probably save some space, too. I would imagine that the Walker platter/bearings/plinth/tonearm/motor would be well under 200 lbs. I know that my Yorke is about 75 lbs, which includes a 25 lb platter - all the rest is bearings/motor/plinth.

The Minus K products are based on their patented Negative Stiffness Technology. From a physics point of view, the spring equation is F = k * x, where k is the "spring constant" or "stiffness". Minus K gets their name because they have found a way to implement "negative stiffness" or "minus k" if you will. So, yes, the Minus K system is based on a sophisticated mechanism that includes springs.

I know little about Halcyonics except that it is an active isolator (hence it requires feedback). I just went to the Halcyonics website, and checked their specs, and Minus K still outperforms.

The Minus K set-up is pretty easy, you just dial in the payload (literally, there is a knob and a payload balance indicator), and you're done. It looks like the Halcyonics requires software and other tweaking to make it work.

Useridchallenged, I think this is the sophisticated controlled spring isolation base. Versus the acoustic feedback unit as the Stereophile show. It was from Halcyonics. Do you know if this is correct?

The Minus K BM-1 has 0.5 Hz Horizontal and Vertical resonance, whereas the BM-6 has higher resonance frequencies. The BM-6 is like an air table (but without the air). The BM-1 is unlike anything else when it comes to isolation, outperforming pretty much everything.

Rumor has it that Minus K has a low profile model with 0.5 Hz Horiz/Vert in the works. But I imagine the payloads will be insufficient for the Walker.

I would have to guess, I have never weighed it. Probably between 400 and 450 pounds.

I did not see the model that supports 700 pounds. Guess I should have another look at the site.

The BM-1 comes in a version that supports up to 700 lbs. I have the 150BM-1 (up to 160 lbs) which is enough to hold my 75 lb Yorke + 75 lb granite surface plate.

But, yes, the BM-6 is only rated up to 105 lbs.

I'm wondering if Minus K can customize a BM-6 for heavier payloads? How much does your Walker weigh?

I just took a look at MinusK web site. Unfortunately the upper weight limit is 100 pounds. Great for most turntables but not for a Walker.

Thank you for the info though, it's a fascinating concept.

http://www.minusk.com

I use the BM-1.

The Minus K vibration isolation platform outperforms air isolation by a factor of 10-100x. Air is fairly "stiff" (which is why it works well as a bearing, like in linear tracking tonearms and some of the high-end turntables). However, stiff is what you don't want your vibration isolator to be.

The Minus K vibration isolation platforms have resonant frequencies as low as 0.5 Hz horizontal AND vertical. Air systems at best will achieve 2-3 Hz resonance, and the big buck active isolation systems are still greater than 1 Hz resonance. This means that the Minus K isolators provide 90% attenuation of vibrations at 2 Hz, and 99% at 5 Hz, and 99.7% at 10 Hz.

Minus K isolators are passive - no air pumps, no electricity required. And they are light. The only way the air-based isolators achieve their 2-3 Hz resonance is by using high mass. So air tables are heavy, no question.

With the Minus K isolator, I can actually put it on my equipment rack and not worry about crushing it or having to reinforce the floor.

The 0.5 Hz resonance frequency has some other benefits. The isolation frequency is so low that it can isolate against low frequency building motions. Minus K is the only isolator I am aware of that will allow you to operate a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) or AFM (Atomic Force Microscope) on an upper floor of a building.

I've talked to David Platus, the president of Minus K, and he understands vibration isolation better than anyone I'v met. The Stanford nanotechnology lab has replaced all of their air isolators with Minus K isolators to increase the resolution of their STMs (Scanning Tunnelin Microscopes). I had the good fortune of being invited to see the isolators in action - very impressive.

How does it sound?

Imaging is very focused, and there is a bit more space between instruments. The noise floor seems to have dropped a little (I didn't actually measure this). However, the bass seemed to be a bit softer. A quick call to Minus K, and they suggested I ballast the system. So I added a 75-pound granite surface plate between the isolator and the TT. This indeed did firm up the bass.

The WAF is a bit low. But I understand that Minus K is coming out with some new models with the same performance as my BM-1, but in a lower profile - which should have higher WAF.

Here's the best part - this is an industrial solution which can only be purchased directly from Minus K. What that means to us audiophiles is that we are not paying the 50% mark-up that high-end audio dealers hit us with (mind you, I don't mind paying the mark-up when my dealer earns it through good advice and loaners). So for less money than a Vibraplane, and without the grief of the noise and power, and with more performance, the Minus K solution cannot be beat.

Also, if you have problems with walking across floors and having to tip-toe up to your TT - this is not the case with Minus K. I read in a Minus K customer testimonial that a half-dozen scientists - as their final acid test - decided to jump as hard as they could on the floor around their atomic force microscope to see if the vibrations would be transmitted to the microscope. Jump as they did, the AFM never saw any of the vibrations.

I have visited the Minus K booth at various tradeshows (most recently Semicon, for the semiconductor industry). They have a really nice demonstration where they place the isolator on a shaker table, and on the isolator they place a free-standing quarter on its edge. The table is shaking pretty violently with 0.5" displacements. The quarter does not move, it just sits their balancing on its edge. They have also done this with a glass of water - you don't see any ripple in the water. Minus K products are very popular in physics labs as well, where they need superior vibration isolation for experiments.

Once again, I apologize for a long and perhaps overzealous post. But I am truly convinced that if you want real vibration isolation - just bypass all the audiophile "hobbyist" solutions that can cost as much as $10k, and go straight for the real deal - Minus K.