No offense at all, 4yanx. I understood what you meant and what the point of your question was. Macrojack is correct that the word humiliated can have a malicious connotation, but it also means humbled, which is the meaning I had in mind. I do accept that it may have sounded a bit sensational of me to use that word so that's why I suggested humbled. Enough with the semantics. :)
I went in expecting to hear a difference very much along the same lines as what 4yanx's describes. That is, I expected to hear a small difference but more on the lines of a cartridge swap. But the difference was much more profound. Perhaps this is because we don't often hear this level of change in the tempo of music reproduction. There is also, I believe, much more brass used in the platter so it is not the same as just taking a 320 and installing a direct drive motor. Again, this could help explain the obvious increase in dynamics along with the Reference arm and Universe. I was having too much fun just listening to enguage Chris in a detailed discussion.
I agree that CB's accomplishments don't prove that DD is the only true path to perfection and I can't say how the sound of the 380 might compare with a Walker or Rockport, etc. Perhaps the difference between a 360 and 380 is less profound but I suspect that the increase in snap alone will easily seperate the 380 from the other Teres models. |
Dan, do you have any sense of whether the differences you heard in the 380 match up with the kinds of differences people seem to hear between BD and DD generally? Put another way, was it the "DD sound" that you heard (admittedly at a very high level and admittedly with a whole lot more going on)? |
Drubin, I was expecting this question and I have thought about it some. My take that on it is rather than just being belt or direct drive that makes the difference it is more the proper application of torque. But to more directly answer your question I would assume that this is true. I wouldn't stretch this out and say that all DD's are going to be superior to belt drives in tempo and speed stability and the same would apply to idler wheels, IMHO. |
Thanks. I knew it was a tough question. |
Dan,
Do you remember the color of the belt on the 320 and 280? That isn't as silly a question as it sounds.
While I don't believe a BD Teres will ever match a well implemented DD Teres (especially when the DD costs twice the price) it is true that torque delivery on a 320 is significantly affected by the choice of belts. I've probably tried more belts on a 320 than even CB has had time to play with. I'm curious which one he was using.
Doug
P.S. Two or three years ago I posted a thread describing belt experiments on our original Teres 265. I commented that the increased torque coupling from 1/2 mylar vs. silk thread had no real downside because the Teres motor was so quiet that motor vibration was a non-issue.
Eldartford made a wise observation: if the motor's so quiet why not make a direct drive? It looks like we're just about there, and that he was right.
|
I'm pretty sure it was a clear belt that was used on both the 280 and 320. |
I also remember him using a clear belt. |
That's the 2 mil mylar belt, which is a close second best of all the ones I've tried.
Dan may remember seeing a holographic silver belt on our table. It out-torques the 2 mil clear one by a small but audible margin, not because of the color (presumably) but because it's about 10% thicker. This seems to be the optimum material for this application. When I went up to 3 mil mylar the sound started going fat and soft again. That belt was too stiff to make the sharp turn around the motor capstan without slipping.
At any rate, that clear belt is quite good. This makes your report on the superiority of the DD table even more convincing.
|
My son, who was with me at the Teres show, said the 380 had more pluck. I guess that more or less sums what Dan_Ed was saying about the difference.
Dan, where you wrote IMHO above, Does that mean "in my humiliated opinion"?
I find myself wondering where something like a Technics SP-10 would fit into that hierarchy. It has the torque but not the platter mass of 380. Would it outperform a 320? If not, why not? |
Good one, Tom! :) A good question as well. I suspect that the SP-10 would have better tempo but perhaps not quite the dynamics. That's just my humiliated guess. (Really wish I hadn't missed the Druids!) |
Dan, I don't want to steer this thread toward Zu so I'll email you privately about that.
That comparison is intriguing to consider given that in the day of the SP-10 there really wasn't an arm or cartridge like Chris used and isolation and cabling hadn't really even gotten started. Just how close can you get to a 380 using an older DD and modern ancillaries? I bet the performance difference is a fraction of the price difference. |
Interesting stuff, I hope Teres comments on it. My own question at this point would be, what proportional contribution can we ascribe to the control system implemented on the DD, beyond the mere fact of the drive method itself? My own hunch is that this is where the greatest theoretical advantage of DD may lie, in affording the possibility of precision-designed platter control... BTW, in response to two points raised above: I suspect resonance is probably still somewhat more sonically determinative than speed distortions in modern high end designs; and when Twl writes: "I think it is because turntable designers all have varying degrees of understanding of the entire turntable system, and place varying amounts of emphasis on "perfecting" the various aspects, within a certain price range, and possibly with different technologies and approaches.
It is definitely not a foregone conclusion that just because a company makes turntables, that they are "expert" in the field. And even "experts" have holes in their knowledge base. And even if they do know everything(impossible), they cannot implement perfection, or even close to it at any affordable price range.
So, what you buy is inherently a compromise.
What types of compromising, and how well the compromises work as a whole, will determine the results" that about says it all, and if anything may be understating the case. With the proliferation of TT's these days, and especially moderate-to-mid-cost ones, my guess is that plenty are not really comprehensively "designed" at all, just aesthetically pleasing combinations of common elements, made and marketed to price points with full knowledge that they will never be technically scrutinized by the audio media, only subjectively compared to similar offerings. |
Dear Teres: First congratulations for be on that DD design and for trying to give to the analog audio community a diferent option about, not an easy task where almost all the audio community thinks that the BD design is the best way to go.
I know that your DD design is almost at the final stage and I know that because I don't have the opportunity to hear it I don't have the " feeling " of the quality sound reproduction, but I know very well other DD TT performance and I can imagine ( a little ) your DD TT design performance.
I always support the all metal TT designs against the non/full-metal designs and I already posted that the all metal Galibier or AS or other metal ones beats the Teres wood/acrylics ones. For what I read through this thread your DD design is npot an all metal one: is there any reserve about that preclude your DD design to be an all metal one? do you think that in this moment your non-metal DD design is a better one? or do you make it in that way because looks better than an all metal one?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I feel the need to correct here something I have said in my post above concerning the Lenco speed stability, and at the same time give some useful information to Lenco modifiers. In my post I complained about the wow and flutter of the Lenco turntable but I have lately learned the problem was elsewhere. When I modified my Lenco I built for it a very massive plinth (about 30 kg) and mounted the tonearm on this plinth. What I heard was very noticeable wow and flutter. I tried every remedy possible, cleaned and oiled the turntable everywhere, tried to install heavier tonearms (SME 3012), different cartridges, different Lenco motors, spindle, new idler wheel, nothing helped. Then out of despair, before dumping the thing on the street, I decided to mount the tonearm in the original hole of the turntable: this is supposed to have two drawbacks: wrong distance from arm center to spindle and incorrect vertical angle. However, the wow and flutter problem has simply disappeared and the turntable now sings! I know this might sound puzzling but it indeed shows, I believe, that tonearm mounting is very important to overall turntable accuracy. As for the sound, this modified Lenco does have a very full and neutral sound (I use now a moded Rega rb-250 with a Grace cartridge) and I certainly can live with it for many years. By the way, to check for the wow and flutter problem, I suggest using a piano piece like a Chopin waltz. If you have a wow and flutter problem you will hear the pianos sound sour-like. For people who listen mainly to Jazz this might not be much of a problem, but I can assure you that once the problem is gone, your setup will sound completely different. So my apologies for the Lenco aficionados out there, although I still stand by my remark that most audiophiles cannot hear pitch problems even when it hits them in their face. Cheers. |
"I still stand by my remark that most audiophiles cannot hear pitch problems even when it hits them in their face" Then I guess it wouldn't shock you how many times there've been when I've gone to a seller's house to audition something or other for sale, and wind up informing the poor guy about which driver(s) ain't making any sound in which channel ;^) |
Zaikesman, what post does this respond to? I kind of agree with both of you. I sit in performance cringing to singers or violins being off key while most sit unmoved by this, including my wife. Having perfect pitch is a two edged sword. I imagine that three way speakers with an out of phase midrange bothers you also.
I now use a highly modified rim drive and it causes me few problems when listening. |
Was that you, Alex? I felt so stupid, and it wasn't even the first time. |
Tbg: Which post was I repsonding to? The last sentence of the last post prior to mine. (Read before I respond is always my motto!) I don't have perfect pitch; like most people I'm sensitive to relative pitch, but elasticity of pitch is one of the qualities which can give music a lot of its emotional power. Either way, speakers that rotate phase don't affect pitch, but yeah, it so happens my speakers don't rotate phase.
Dan: Was that you? Each time? Hey, I wouldn't have told anybody... |
+++ do you think that in this moment your non-metal DD design is a better one? or do you make it in that way because looks better than an all metal one? +++
Good question Raul. The short answer is that we use hardwoods primarily because of the sound, looks are secondary.
The first turntable to come out of the Teres project was my design that used a well damped all aluminum base (http://www.teresaudio.com/fame/1.html). The very first base that Teres offered was 3" thick acrylic. It looked good and was both inexpensive and simple. The sound was OK but was not nearly as good as aluminum version. On a hunch we decided to try making a base out of rosewood loaded with lead shot. To our great surprise the sonic result not only exceeded the acrylic base but also far exceeded my all aluminum base.
I have experimented with many materials and have yet to find anything that delivers subtle midrange detail and texture like dense hardwoods. Carbon fiber comes close but lacks some of the warmth. I find that aluminum is detailed and pristine sounding. However, compared to hardwoods it sounds whitewashed in the midrange and there is a lack of "life". I think that there are a couple reasons for this. The first is rigidity. Most people are surprised to learn that hardwoods like cocobolo are much more rigid than aluminum. A 1/8 inch thick ½ inch wide strip of cocobolo cannot be bent with bare hands. However strip of aluminum of the same size is easily folded in half. Also hardwoods have a chaotic grain structure that varies greatly in density. This varied density is good at both dissipating and breaking up resonance.
I have also experimented with other metals and prefer both mild steel and stainless steel to aluminum. The steels offer a more clarity and detail but also sound a bit too harsh and analytical. Of the metals I find that brass is far superior to steel or aluminum. It is detailed and rich without ever sounding harsh like steel or smeared like aluminum. We found that replacing all of the aluminum parts on the Teres 340 with brass was a major upgrade. Brass is very expensive so it is not often found in turntables. However, I believe it's properties easily justify the cost. The new direct drive Teres will continue to use hardwoods but more brass will be used. |
Teres: Although my TT is made entirely of cast aluminum, I can relate to what you say, since I have guitars with bridges made of all these options: rosewood or ebony; brass; or cast aluminum; and in this application the first two definitely work better than the latter, which thins out tonality and reduces sustain. My only question would be, is what we're looking for in a guitar bridge necessarily the same thing we want in a turntable base (or platter)? Your listening tests would seem to answer that, although the number of well-regarded TT's using acrylic or aluminum would seem to reach a different conclusion (can you imagine a guitar bridge made of acrylic?). And it intrigues me that Nottingham uses cast iron and VPI uses stainless steel, both of which unlike brass seem vibrationally more inert. Then of course there's Rega's ceramic platter... |
Dear Teres: It is a fact that in your subjective TT evaluations you really like the wood " colorations " against metal ones, that´s fine.
My question about TT material was because you are in a new TT design and I only try to tell you: look for other material options.
Btw, some of the big names in TT, both DD and BD, are all metal designs: Rockport, Walker, Verdier, Acoustic Signature, Simon Yorke, Micro Seiki, Denon, Technics, American Sound, Final, etc, etc.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
A `feature' yet unmentioned(unless I missed it?) A DD TT unit that provides good enough torque to sustain resistance to stylus drag, unfortunately exhibits magnetic noise induced into the cartridge as it tracks the inner part of a record. I came against this on Micro Seiki TT's in the early seventies while working at Howland West Audio (Eden Grove Holloway, remember it?) and even after several visits from Micro's design engineers it was not completely cured, unless you reverted to using a Decca Deram ceramic crystal pickup!!! This was otherwise a very fine turntable and if you only listened to highly modulated recordings, wasn't a problem, very quiet classical recordings however......! So, I never bought one, However in '74 I bought a GL75 which I still use and enjoy. Yes the arm is a pig to set up*, yes the `v' blocks wear out, but that takes forty years, yes it IS a jocky wheel drive (completely out of fasion when I purchased it) so what? There is NO rumble (not even today on the original wheel!)Heavy percusive bass (remember early Reggae?) doesn't faze it and there isn't the faintest wobble in a drawn out violine note. The decoupled counter weight on a decoupled arm (rubber `V' blocks) really does give the music a chance to be heard.
* For those that want to try to set up a L75 arm, I've found that for best results the deck must be level, the arms height shoud be so that with the stylus on a record, the arm tube should be horizontal to the deck, there should be equal `clearance' bellow and each side of the arm tube and its shroud (undamaged `V' blocks). |
In my last post I had the Shindo Labs turntable, arm, and cartridge. This, of course, was the remodeled Garrard 301 and a rim drive. I now have a Bergman SIndre turntable and arm with the Ortofon A-90 cartridge. It is a belt drive. They sound different.
I must say that I have had enough experience with isolation devices, most recently with the StillPoints Ultra Stainless Steel feet, to realize we are mainly just moving around the vibrations that are coloring our music reproduction. With the StillPoints, I finally know what real isolation means. I have them under my Bergman.
I once heard a good experiment with the same turntable with identical platters except that one was mpingo or ebony and the other acrylic. When the acrylic was put on, everyone said go back to the wood. I would love to hear a similar comparison or other materials for the platter and of rim versus belt and direct drives. Until that time, I love my Bergman. |
Very interesting thread. Perhaps the best analogy with regards to using a high torque motor with a relatively light platter was espoused by the EMT manufacturers - namely that it's like driving up a hill on a windy road - if you have a heavy truck it would go up still using torque etc, but a light sports car will be better able to cope with those speed shifts than the truck.
I currently use a belt drive, but have an EMT 950 restoration brewing, and have a lenco to collect. I am fascinated at the forthcoming shootout that I will carry out at the end of the year.
Personally there appears to be elements of 'emporers new clothes' on this thread. I've done some DIY in my time and my ethusiasm for my diy often blights my listening skills - ie I often think that what I have cobbled together in my workshop is better than the combined might/research/manpower of the R&D team at Proac/Yamaha/Quad combined.
Whilst I think that Mr Salvatore has some strong opinions, it does not mean they are always right - if that at all. His perception that Zyx are the best cartridges in the business is dubious IMHO, likewise the Shelter 501 is nothing like a transfiguration temper. I have read his Lenco reference review, and I will carry out some listening tests of my own.
I will say something that was quite interesting though. I once spoke to Martin Colloms, and he said that people are sensitive to different things - having heard what I have in my sytem, he said that I am probably particularly sensitive to timing. Some people retain their high frequency sensitivity for far longer than other people.
Balancing this against what Ken Kessler once said at a show - he's listened to hi-fi for 30 years, yet no system can ever reproduce kettle drums hit by a muscular man - they either get the speed of the impact and strike, or they get the weight, but never in the full and equal measure of the real thing.
Applying some biological detrioration - peoples hearing deteriorates over the years - especially 30 years.
What does this rambling mean? Well it's a bit like the angels dancing on the head of a pin - we will all ultimately look for different things in our systems. I am certain that there will be pros and cons of each design ultimately. |
Martinhall wrote, "A `feature' yet unmentioned(unless I missed it?) A DD TT unit that provides good enough torque to sustain resistance to stylus drag, unfortunately exhibits magnetic noise induced into the cartridge as it tracks the inner part of a record."
If Martin is still alive and still cares, let me say that the fact that he observed this phenomenon with one DD turntable (Micro Seiki) and presumably one unnamed cartridge does not mean that this is a general issue with all DD turntables. And if it were an issue with a particular combo of tt and cartridge, it is a relatively simple matter to devise a shield that prevents motor EMI from affecting the cartridge. Also, the M-S DD turntables (DDX and DQX) are not highly regarded in relation to the large number of high quality belt drive tt's made by M-S or indeed in relation to other vintage Japanese DD turntables, so it is a bit unfair and misleading to form an opinion of all DD turntables based on the M-S ones. |
