Genetic differences in turntable design.


What is the fondamental sound difference inherent to the suspended versus the unsuspended turntable approch.
What is the commun caracteristique that "tend" to remain within one group over the other ?
Will I be wrong to thinck that overall, the unsuspended tt, tend to generate a more compact soundstage with more focused images on it and a thighter bass line overal than its cousin tt, wich itself tend to generate a broader soundscape with broader images on it and a larger bass line overal ?
Comments please ? Thanks
pboutin

Showing 4 responses by twl

I have not noticed the particular things that you have mentioned. However I think there are some things that may be thought of as "genetic". But, there is a great possibility that these "genetic" differences could be obscured by a variety of common tweaks that are used with turntables, thereby making the two types sound very similar.

In my opinion, a well made unsuspended high mass turntable will have better dynamics and impact than a suspended turntable. If the rest of the parts of the TT are equivalent to a suspended TT, generally that is the result. However, if somebody takes that high mass unsuspended TT, and puts in on rubber feet, or an airbag, or any other type of soft flabby isolation base, then you don't have an unsuspended TT anymore. You have a big heavy suspended TT. Then all the good dynamics and impact go away, and you are left with a suspended TT anyway.

Also, in my opinion, the unsuspended high mass TT will have more accurate control of the speed of the platter. This is because of the elimination of the interaction of the suspension and the motor system and the platter. There is an entire IAR article that addresses this issue.

Vibration control is important in a turntable application. There are different ways of doing it. High mass unsuspended turntables do it with mass. They are big and heavy. Suspended turntables do it with springs, or rubber, or air. They are usually lighter and easier to move. Not always. In my opinion, attempting to solve a vibration problem with a system that compromises the basic performance of the TT, is not the best way to do things. But it is easier and cheaper to ship, and for the customer to carry home or move. It's amazing how often this compromise comes up in audio. Performance or convenience? It seems to be related in some way to every audio choice made today.

PS - I know of at least 2 people who converted high dollar suspended TTs to unsuspended by defeating the suspension and using solid high mass stands. They felt it was an improvement.

IMHO. YMMV.
Cmk, all I can really say about that, is that I have actually had more trouble with vibrations of all types with my previous suspended turntables, than I have with my current unsuspended turntable. I can say without reservation, that my current Teres 245 shows no problems with vibrations of any sort, either airborne or floorborne. I have absolutely no type of isolation anywhere in the system, and it is rigidly coupled directly to the floor, via a rigid stand, with NO rubber, foam, springs, felt, air, or any other soft absorbing type of material. In fact, when I tried to use some felt under the cones of the TT, it absolutely truncated the attacks off of the notes, in a fairly severe way, and dynamics were compromised. And this, from a single layer of thin felt under each cone. This TT, and most unsuspended TTs want rigid coupling to the floor, with alot of mass in the stand. They do not want any kind of soft material between them and the floor, including springs or air bags.

My LP12 was a nightmare for vibrations, both airborne and floorborne, and I had to tiptoe around when changing records. And it was set up right, because I worked at a Linn dealer, and was the TT setup guy. Factory trained by Linn. My table was perfect.

I really think that the suspensions introduce more problems than they solve.
Sean, while I feel some agreement with your statements, surely you must know that I have owned and set-up and listened to many, many different suspended turntables, and unsuspended ones. While all are different, and have their own particular good and bad points, I have come to the conclusion that I did, by my own particular experiences. As I said at the end of my first post, IMHO and YMMV.

I certainly am aware that there are good sounding and performing suspended turntables. Some of the very best ones are suspended, and they do a good job with them.

I am speaking of my preferences for a particular design that, if well executed, I believe can be the preferred type of design, as far as total performance is concerned. Of course, listening environments can vary, and certain compromises may be required to accomodate these things. It is my current view that when the listening environment, including floor construction is correct and optimized, that a high mass unsuspended TT of excellent design can yield the best result.

My statements are not intended to be a "knock" on anyone's turntable, and are purely a statement of my opinions on design parameters.
Sean, thanks, I gather that you're not going out to buy a Linn tomorrow? :^)

Actually, I did like the sound of the Linn for a number of years. But it did have some floor vibration issues that were disconcerting.

I used to be less "PC" than I seem to be now, because I have had alot of discussions with folks here, and they truly like their equipment, and I really don't want to make people feel like I'm totally trashing their stuff. After all, I don't have to listen to it, they do. And if they like it, that's fine with me. I'll state my opinions and preferences, but I try not to come down like a ton of bricks on them, like I used to when I first started posting on these pages a couple of years ago.

What I've found over the years, here on Audiogon, is that I've made some friends and acquaintances, and I am trying to be more careful not to hurt their feelings of pride in their system. I don't lie to them about anything, but I am more judicious in the ways that I say things. I try to "prod" them into moving in a better direction, instead of kicking sand in their faces like I used to do. I don't know if this is better or not, but it can get the same point across in a gentler way. However, if I see someone making a really bad, expensive move, then I definitely step in and say no, because I feel a kind of responsibility in that regard. If they disregard my warnings, then it is on their own heads. But, if I don't warn them, and they come to me later and say, "Hey Tom, how come you didn't warn me about that?" Then it's not a good thing.

It's a fine line to walk. I want to be firm about my views, but there is more than one way to listen to analog, and I found that I have to allow some leeway for personal preference. Some people just ask me to spec them out a package, and I know that they will get a good result. Others want to try certain other things, and if it is not a drastic mistake, I'll let them do some learning through experience. One thing I've learned is that not everybody wants the same thing that I want.

So, I'm trying to walk that fine line, of holding true to my convictions, but being less "in your face" about it. Sometimes, the "old me" comes back out and I do a little "slamming", but I try to keep a hold on myself as much as possible. I think if I do it right, I can get the same things accomplished without "going to war".