Nude Turntable Project

Happy New Year to you too Lew.......and all turntable lovers.
Nude or fully dressed?
Cheers Henry

Sure looks like a plinth to me?

Yes Banquo....it does indeed look my idea and I'm pleased someone did it.
I need to get around to doing something myself....but my friendly metal-shop man has retired and I'm a bit loathe to 'tender' out the fabrication to some unknown operators?

By the looks of things.....there appears to be a growing 'band' of 'nuded' Victor TT owners out there?
It must sound good for this scale of 'adoption' :-)

When you have time.....I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the differences between the TT-101 and the Technics SP10/II?
Of course.....if the music is great.....you may not want to waste your time writing instead of listening?
Enjoy.

Hi Aigenga,
Thanks for posting those pictures which were illuminating.
As your set-up is now nearly identical to mine......it would be interesting to compare some differences?
Firstly.....is the base for the turntable/armboard mounted on a floor stand or off a wall shelf?
Secondly....I can understand why you elected to use the Micro Seiki armboard and then had to attach it to your 'pod'......but to me, there a few compromises in that set-up which you may be able to change to see if you can detect any differences?
The cantilever affect of the Micro armboard will inevitably increase any vibrations /movements over a 'directly' located arm to armpod by a factor of eight or even more depending on the length of cantilever.
Secondly.....my armpods are mounted on 'spikes' whilst yours are 'attached' with double-sided tape?
I know that Chris......who has also 'nuded' his SP10MkII.......initially had his on sorbothane feet until cleverly achieving stainless steel spiked legs.
As you similarly have done......perhaps there might be a difference with spiked armpods over 'attached' armpods?
What do you think?

but is that an old Canadian penny shimming the left armpod ? :^)

Sorry Chris.....it's an Aussie 5 cent piece :-)
I agree with your dedicated shelf recommendation.
Just can't do it old boy.....don't have a basement listening room (or three)....like you have? :-)
Don't agree with your compliant footers however.
Turntables must not move in my Copernican Universe........

Banquo,
You do realise that if you get the Victor pigskin mat.......your turntable won't be fully kosher?
Continuing to amaze me with all things audio......how do you suppose it is, that removing a heavy rubber mat from the aluminium platter of the TT-101 and replacing it with a paper-thin pigskin mat......can create a sound virtually identical to that of the 1.8Kg Cu180 copper mat from Micro Seiki?
This I can ruminate on as I watch the sunset from my terrace at Positano.
What are the peasants doing?

Thanks Banquo,
Will report in due course.
It takes many records, arms and cartridges.....not to mention different listening sessions......to be convinced of what one is hearing?

Regards
Henry

Hey Banquo,
With your Victor supported on Chris' 3 stainless tube spikes sitting under the top surround of the turntable.......you could quite easily remove the outer steel perforated cover and hear the difference?
Trust me on this one...........

Hi Mab,
Welcome to the TT-101 Club.
It's certainly growing?
You're fortunate indeed to have found one in good working order as the complexity of the innards looks quite daunting?

With all these nude Victors now in use.......someone suggested a 'package deal' on my cast bronze armpods?
I would like to oblige but there are many impracticalities involved in making these:-
1. I designed the height to suit the cones under the nude turntable and the selected spikes screwed into the bases of the pods.
2. The spikes for the base of the pod need to be selected so that the right diameter holes can be drilled and tapped.
3. The casting of the bronze is just the first process.
4. The rough casting then needs to be taken to an automotive shop for a 2 pack polyurethane paint finish to be applied.
5. The painted casting then needs to be taken to a machine shop for the drilling and tapping of the top fixing holes and the bottom spike holes.
6. The machine shop then needs to fabricate the thick linished aluminium top plates to be screwed to the base and which needs purpose made fitting and fixing holes depending on the arm to be used?
7. The finished assembly then needs to be protected and packed in a sturdy box which will take the weight (13Kg....approx 29lb)
8, This 30lb box then needs to be shipped overseas.

The costs of doing all this would be prohibitive IMHO?
However.....I have all the design drawings which I am quite happy to Email to anyone who might be interested in having it done at their locality.
Just let me know?

Have you had a chance to set up the turntable and listen to it in some sort of fashion?

Hi Lew,
I have just returned home.....although your description of the 'stranger on the train' is tempting me to return to Positano forthwith to conduct a house to house search?
And yes......whilst there maybe a Sorrento in Victoria just as there is a Naples in Florida.......there ain't no Positano in Australia?

Hi Gary,
Very interesting improvements and co-incidentally.......I have been testing and analysing the 'weakness' with the nude Victor as well.
As you have discovered.....the thin perforated metal circular surround is, I fear, the Achilles heel to supporting the Victors on spikes?
With the Technics SP10 models (as Chris has shown)..... it is possible (and preferable) to fit custom long tube spikes to the underside of the platter surround itself whereas it is exceedingly difficult to do with the Victors?
The problem is structure-borne feedback as is mostly the case with turntables?
Every supporting shelf is under 'stress' to some degree depending on its material, thickness and load, but most importantly.......on the 'span' and 'type' of span.
In my case with the wall-mounted shelf.........the cantilevered nature plus the heavy load and wood core structure sets up a particularly 'nasty' stress pattern.
What I have recently discovered is that 'stress' in any material....... creates a subsonic 'sound-field' within that material which is directly related to the 'level' of stress.
I previously thought.....wrongly I must admit.....that lower frequencies could not 'bridge' the pointy end of a spike support?
It is now known that they can and that spikes in fact 'couple' rather than 'de-couple'.
The 'stress-induced' sound waves in my cantilevered shelf are being transferred to the thin metal surround of the Victor which in turn passes them on the platter surround, motor and spindle support which the stylus then 'reads'?
This can be verified by placing the stylus on a record without turning on the motor......and then turning up the volume of the preamp until one can induce a loud low-frequency feedback loop through the speakers.
You, Gary.....have tackled the problem at the resultant culprit.....the metal surround which can work well.
I am going to attempt to tackle the problem at the 'source' by trying to prevent the transfer of this 'sound field' between shelf and turntable by isolation devices.
I'll keep you posted......:^)

Gary,
I'm sure you're right about damping the 'cage' and I intend to do so if....and after....I have eliminated the 'source' of the feedback?
Incidentally....I tried the 'bungee cord' treatment to no effect :-(
My thoughts are....that even if I dampen the 'cage' successfully WITHOUT treating the cause.....there is still transference of energy which is manifesting itself in some ways?
Banquo,
I agree with Gary. I don't want a suspended (bouncy) table.
With the Victors supported on the outer cage......it is very easy to induce 'movement' if the supports are not executed correctly? And that 'movement' is magnified enormously because of the lever-arm of the metal cover in relation to its connection with the platter.
I've experimented with rubber and insulating materials and whilst the bass may seem to improve.....the highs are badly affected?

Sorry Banquo,
I didn't get what you were suggesting?
A Minus K stand is the obvious solution to my concerns and I am investigating that possibility?
The problem with that for me however.....is that the increased load of the Minus K plus a top plate of slate that I may need.....will simply increase the stresses in the cantilevered shelf which are the cause of the problems in the first place?

it might be a good idea to have a disc cut out of plate

Not a bad idea Ecir......not necessarily of the same material though?
A dissimilar material such as 'wood' may be even better?
I think I'll try a few experiments based on this?
Thanks.

Hey Gary,
I am most impressed with your methods for damping the 'cage' of the Victor and I did say that I would try this technique if and when....I had solved the problem of the mysterious 'feedback' I can sometimes induce?
Unfortunately......in testing Ecir's suggestion for a 'disc' under the Victor....I used the 1.8Kg Micro Seiki Cu180 platter mat as the 'disc'.....and accidentally 'blew' the phono section of my Halcro DM10 with the 'feedback'!!??
So I discovered that this does not solve my particular problem and.......I will not be able to conduct any further experiments....let alone listen to vinyl.....for some time to come?! :-(

A curse on your collective heads I say!

Hi Brian,
Congratulations on your TT-101.
The drawings have been sent.
Good luck.
Henry

Thanks Ecir38,
It's not your fault.....it's my stupidity.
I suspect that Stanwal and others are correct in the placement theory of my Victor in relation to the speaker/subwoofer/corner but I need my preamp back to test it out?
A spare phono wouldn't work as the whole preamp with inbuilt phono-stage needs to be sent to the technician.
I do have a spare preamp but......whilst in storage....the left channel stopped working so it has also gone to the technician!
Additionally.....things have changed in my set-up.
I now use fully balanced connections between pre and amps as well as balanced phono cables from all but 2 of my arms.
The back-up preamp does not have any balanced inputs or outputs.
You win some.......you lose some :-(

Hi Lew,
I agree.....speakers are normally the first thing to 'blow' with a sudden violent volume? I've had it happen to me and lost not only the tweeters....but also the midrange drivers!
Because of the shock factor.....I'm a little confused about the exact sequence of events but because I was testing this 'feedback' loop with various different turntable supports (including rubber sponge etc)....I will describe the methods I followed:-
1. Turntable motor is not switched on
2. Preamp volume control is turned down
3. Mute button is 'on'
4. Acutex 420STR cartridge is placed on the record
5. Mute button is switched 'off'
6. Volume control is gently turned up until low volume of 'feedback' just begins
7. Without touching the volume again....the feedback increases itself until I hastily turn it down and engage 'mute'

Now I had the MM gain input selected....not MC....and had the volume turned down as I described. Then I supported the copper Cu180 'plate' on spikes on the shelf and placed the Victor directly on the Cu180.
I placed the 420STR on the record and hit the 'mute' and that's when an almighty noise erupted.
It was a couple of seconds before I could hit the 'mute' to stop the noise.

Now here's where my memory seems confused?
I thought I repeated the testing of this feedback with the Victor on the Cu180 and the feedback loop at a lower volume whereupon I then returned the Victor to its original spiked support and then switched phono inputs to the Raven AC.
It was then that I had no sound from the phono stage. I reconnected a tonearm from the Victor and confirmed no sound and tried it with my headphones as well. All other preamp inputs (tuner, CD, tape, AUX) were fine.

Perhaps the fact that the 420STR is like a giant antenna (according to Chris and the Professor Timeltel).......the hunk of copper under the Victor, induced the feedback at a much lower volume level than otherwise?

Hi Lawrence,
Try this Link

Thanks Lawrence,
I appreciate your feedback.
I certainly agree with you....especially in the case of analogue.......that the great turntables, tonearms and cartridges of the Golden Age of Vinyl (60s, 70s and 80s)....more than hold their own against the 'cost-no-object' modern versions.
Imagine what might have been had R&D funds not dried up after the introduction of the CD?

Re-reading what I wrote 2 years ago....I think an addendum is in order:-
I upgraded the TT-81 to the TT-101 which was an audible improvement IMHO.
I also purchased the Sutherland Timeline and by using the Victor TT-101 as a 'Benchmark'........I managed, by trialling different platter mats and different motor arrangements on the Raven AC.....to maximise the speed accuracy and neutrality of this belt-drive turntable so that it really is difficult for me to reliably 'pick' which deck I am listening to?
This resulted in the removal of one of the three motors on the AC-3.....and the removal of any platter mat at all. The vinyl record is placed directly on the copper platter top-plate with a heavy brass record weight on top.

The ability to directly compare two turntables and multiple tonearms is invaluable to improving the performance of one's system IMHO.

Regards
Henry

Hi Chris,
As always....I appreciate your response.
I'm happy indeed if I helped in some small way for you to enjoy your wonderful system even more?

I think your 19 lb arm-pod is both heavy and stable enough?
What most people will surprised to learn is that the deflection (and movement) of the cantilevered outboard arm-boards of the big Micro turntables and the Raven AC.....is a magnitude greater than any differential movement in a reasonably thick common shelf on which a separate deck and arm-pods may be mounted.
This can easily be demonstrated mathematically via structural analysis.
Seeing that many audiophiles staunchly advocate the superiority of the big Micros over many SOTA new decks........I don't believe your concerns about a 'floating' armpod are warranted? :-)

Regards
Henry

Hi Banquo,
My TT-101 appears to be original and untampered with?
HEREis a photo of the rubber sheet (part 45) glued to the underside of the platter. It appears to be approx. 1mm thick?

Regards

Dear Thuchan,
You can see 3 rubber grommets on the photo with just the metal frame?
The TT-101 sits only on these so there is no metal to metal contact.

Yes.....I'm thinking of possible dust on the electronics......but the original metal casing had many slots in the sides and bottom which could also allow dust to be drawn in......yet the electronics appear remarkably clean after 30+ years?
I have a soft feather duster that I can use and also a hair dryer (on cold) to blow any dust away?
We shall see if it is a problem?
Anything like Japanese paper or glass or plastic would not allow the ventilation required.......

Regards
Henry

Oh Thuchan,
I was inspired a bit by your EMT 927 aesthetics.....whereby the table sits on an exposed tubular metal frame and all the guts are visible hanging below?

Do you get dust in the working parts?

Naked.....not 'nude'!
5 months after mentioning my idea to Banquo.....about designing a 'cradle' out of stainless steel flats to 'drop' the TT-101 into......I finally got off my bum and did it.
Designing is one thing......but drawing it and then finding people to quote and then waiting for the thing to be built....is quite another :-(
The cradle is made from 4mm engineering Grade 316 stainless steel all laser cut and welded.
I had thought to simply drop the whole TT in together with its flimsy black steel bottom perforated cover......but then I thought......why not go fully naked and avoid any possible resonances related to the cover panel?
The result will not be to everyone's taste.....but to me it's more in line with my thoughts on the Copernican view of turntables whereby the tonearm pods are now correctly visually dominant surrounding the skeletal structure of the turntable.
I suspect that someone like Lewm will find some way to interpret this 'cradle' as some kind of 'plinth'.......but what can I do? :-)

How does it sound?
A bit too early to file a report......but it is audibly changed.
For the better of worse?.........stay tuned.....

Thanks Ecir,
The spikes were bought first from England and were given to the fabrication shop to custom drill and tap the legs to fit with no free play at all .
They are made of the same 316 stainless steel as the cradle and come with washers and lock-nuts.....but as the rear spikes are screwed into the legs almost entirely....there is no threaded spike protruding to attach any nuts.
But as I have to slide my hand under and between the arm-pods to reach the spikes to level them....any nuts would be a hellish complication :-)

Lewm,
Yes....a valid point about RFI shielding?
I'm lucky my Victor is far from most of my electronics.....and I hear no hum or noise of any sort.
In fact it seems perhaps slightly quieter than with the 'cage'?

Dear Thuchan,

What about a silver metal surrounding with nice looking slits for the ventilation, like in a helmet (many small slits)?

This is not the look that I'm after.
A silver metal surround would hide the elegant stainless steel cradle which I have had built at some cost.
It would also dominate the turntable 'bulk' which is quite the opposite of what I now have?
If I really wanted to have a silver 'screen'.....I could just have had the black cage sprayed silver? :-)

Dear Nikola,
Big spikes are necessary to counter the large deflection of my cantilevered shelf :-)

I didn’t think I would be writing this review…….
Correction…..I didn’t think I would be writing this review with the following results and conclusions?
In fact it’s hard to tear myself away from the music to devote the time to write this review…..

When I designed the stainless steel cradle for the TT-101 DD turntable…..I never imagined that I would remove the surrounding slotted screen?
Nor did I imagine I would be hearing much difference from the set-up I had been playing over the last 2-3 years? After all….I was simply changing the turntable supporting feet from under the screen, to directly under the top plate which is effectively how all these models of DD turntables were designed to be supported in solid plinths.
I expected to be rather reserved (if not disappointed) in the changes (if any) I would hear?

And perhaps that’s the way it would have played out had I not been forced to remove the outer slotted screen because I had miscalculated by 2 mm the size of the circular cut-out I had designed.

Listening to the new set-up……there was instantly an audible change which confused me somewhat as I couldn’t quite ascertain exactly what it was?
The more I listened….changing back and forth between 3 different arms and cartridges……the more excited I became.
Firstly the silence!
Now the TT-101 was always quiet….at least as quiet as the Raven AC-2……but this new ‘background’ silence was quite unnerving.
There was a ‘depth’ to this silence (if that makes any sense?)….and through the ‘depth’, the ‘newly heard’ projected voices and instruments had body and tangibility.
Secondly the purity!
At every stage of my audio ‘upgrade’ path…….from the Halcro electronics to the Dueland speaker capacitors to the fully differentially balanced amplification operation…..there resulted a greater degree of ‘purity’…….probably best described as a lowering of distortions?
This new set-up lifted the purity to another level.

But the combination of these two improvements rendered a musical presentation so engrossing, so addictive, so transformative….that I broke open the Blue Label and danced a jig.

But how did this happen?
What really changed?
The sonic results I could not reconcile with simply a support change?
And then it struck me!
I grabbed the slotted metal surround screen and held a magnet against it………..
This screen was magnetic steel!
Now I’m not au fait with electro-magnetic theory and practice……but I do know that electrical current, transformers, power supplies and coils can produce magnetism and here was a steel enclosure surrounding this potential magnetism?
If there is indeed a magnetic field being created amongst which are placed hundreds of transistors, resistors, capacitors and copper wiring…..it seems a potential for harm? Almarg…..where are you?

Since I have had my TT-101…..on start-up, very often….the speed readout goes to 33.32 rpm before stabilising at 33.33 rpm after a few seconds. I thought this was normal operation?
Sometimes whilst listening to records…..the sound would ‘wow’ and I would jump up to see the speed read-out at 33.29 rpm or 33.32 rpm before once again stabilising.
Now on start-up…..33.33 rpm is hit straight off and there hasn’t been any speed fluctuations so far.

So my advice to all those with a DD turntable possessing a steel surround…..is please remove it and listen for the differences.
You may well be surprised and delighted?

Dover,
Mine comes from Israel.....

Lewm,
Did you not remember my 'incident' when I had the ground cable connected to one of the Halcro amps (as it wasn't long enough to reach the preamp?
After placing the Victor on the copper Fidelity Research Cu-180 platter mat to test 'isolation'.......when I turned on the power....I blew up the Halcro phono stage and also the Dyna XV-1s cartridge which was connected at the time.
A very expensive exercise.....

Since then I have not had the ground wire connected (my previous TT-81 did not even have one)......and all three arms use fully balanced XLR interconnects.

Nice work Ecir,
You're close to being a fully-fledged member of the 'Copernican Club'?
What material is that surrounding your Victor (is it a TT-71 or 81?)?.
It's really neat....but how do you manage with ventilation?
And those arm-pods are impressive.
Are they bronze?
How long till you're able to 'play'?

The magnetic field being produced by the transformer and power supply (even with power switch of the platter not activated).....is so great that it has managed to induce a magnetic attraction in the 316 stainless steel flat bars of the cradle.
316 stainless steel is NON magnetic!!

With the original mild steel perforated cover surrounding this magnetic field completely......I cannot imagine it being a GOOD thing?
Why did the Victor engineers not think so?

Chris,
Pneumatic or 'compliant' footers are designed solely to try to prevent the passage of Structure-Borne feedback into the turntable plinth/bearing/platter/tonearm/cartridge system.
Suspended turntables are an attempt to achieve the same result and can be somewhat successful compared to the alternative?
Suspended floor systems....whether timber-framed, steel-framed or reinforced concrete.....are all subject to Structure-Borne feedback which can suffer frequency transmission between 4-10 Hz and depending on amplitude.....can cause physical movement in the flooring system.
The more a compliant footer is compressed....the less successful it is in attenuating these low frequencies yet the less the footer is compressed....the more movement (in all planes) is possible.
That's why a Minus K stand is 'tuned' to specific weights and is able to move alarmingly when pushed?

Because of the problems in effectively designing an integral 'compliant' or 'sprung' footer system for turntables.....most new racks and shelving systems utilise a Stillpoints type of ball and cup isolation as well as constrained layer damping.
This Stillpoints type of footer is used for turntables, speakers and even amplifiers these days.

As you know that my turntable is placed on a masonry wall-mounted shelf and avoids any form of Structure-Borne feedback......I'm puzzled by your suggestion to 'improve' my set-up by using compliant footers?
In my situation....all this will do is introduce possible movement of the footers due to weight shifting of the tonearm and cartridge as well as temperature and humidity variations?
There is no possible 'up-side' to compliant footers if there is no Structure-Borne feedback.

Now if your system is sitting on a suspended floor-mounted rack or shelving system........there may be advantages to your method of support? :-)

Now here's a Belt-Drive from the famous Melco brand.
The legendary Melco was a High-End Japanese turntable manufacturer equal to Micro Seiki with cost-no-object products in the 1970s.
This model I particularly like because of the strong skeletal steel backbone 'plinth' which should satisfy Lewm and Dover completely :-)

Hi Chris,

You will also hear more difference if you put a shelf just big enough to hold the TT and armpods on your existing shelf and decouple it further.

“Differences” can be dangerous?
There are many things in this strange hobby of ours which can make our systems sound “different”?
This is really not what I am after….nor you I think?
I am after a closer approximation of ‘fidelity’….a truth to source and a decrease in the many distortions which so easily manifest themselves?

35 years ago….I read that someone found putting solid rubber balls (cut in half) under each corner of the speaker……decouples the speaker and resulted in better sound.
I bought 4 rubber balls the size of tennis balls and cut them in half and placed each half under the corners of my speakers.
I must admit I didn’t hear a vast difference….but I listened like this for over a year until I read the theory of rigid speaker de-coupling via spikes?

Ralph Karsten of Atmasphere states quite eloquently….that with an outboard phono-stage, if the sound changes depending on interconnects used…..then one or both sets of interconnects is wrong and is adding (or subtracting) its own colourations.

You may be right that placing my whole turntable system upon another shelf which sits on isolators will change the sound?
If I then proceed to change those isolators….most likely the sound will change again?
Why is that ‘better’?….and who determines that it is?
I bought a complete set of Stillpoint Ultra Minis and placed them under my TT-101 instead of the spikes.
The sound changed not one iota! That was a good sign :-)
This is a test that you should do Chris……and also Dgob?
Anyone wanna buy a set of Stillpoint Ultra Minis? :-)

If your system is indeed improved by the added shelf and footers……I suspect that placing a Minus K stand under your turntable will make a bigger ‘difference’? One that may be …”hard to let go.”
Something to consider Chris?
At some stage….we all need to be comfortable with the choices and compromises we have made based on experience, learning and intellect.
The never-ending quest for ‘fidelity’ goes on :-)

You may be right Ecir?
But I think the sound changes are more complex than the simple support?
And the fact that the speed read-out hits 33.33 rpm straight off every time instead of hitting 33.32 rpm for 3 seconds before moving up to 33.33 rpm.....indicates an electro-magnetic improvement to me?

What we really need......is for Banquo to remove the outer sheet and report what he hears as his leg supports are under the turntable rim like mine now are.......and his has always been like that.

Richardkrebs,
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly?........
Are you proposing using spikes with only one of them contacting the shelf material directly....whilst the other two have plastic discs placed under them?
And could you please explain what you mean by an "earth loop" in this situation?

And here is the equally famous Takai Lab Final VTT-1 belt-drive turntable similar to Dover's.....although he has the Parthenon model I seem to recall which is quite different to this one?
I particularly love the 'Copernican' ideal of the separation of platter and arm-pods.....and this execution appears to be particularly elegant.
Again Dover and Lewm should be well pleased with the 'plinth' arrangement selected here? :-)

A tripod is inherently more stable than 4 legs.

Not true........try sitting on a 3 legged stool?
Four legs is generally accepted for stability in chairs.......but in office chairs on castors.......even 4 castors is not sufficient for stability with 5 castors being mandated for safety in the workplace.

The reason 3 supports is often used for turntables......is that the 3 supports will ALWAYS make contact on the supporting structure.
With 4 supports......depending on the load of the turntable.....only 3 may be making full contact.
With 4 legged chairs......a person's weight will 'spread' the bottom of the legs so that all 4 legs are weight-bearing whilst without the load of an occupant......only 3 legs may be fully in contact with the ground?

Thanks Aigenga..........I knew the looks would not be to everyone's taste....and initially scared me somewhat :-0
But now I think the covered 'guts' look stodgy in comparison.
As Ecir said above.......I think it looks "wicked" :-)

I really admire the way you have supported your TT-101 on the wall-hung shelf....and its interesting to read about your use of the central 4th spike?
I remembered well your 'damping' of the outer metal casing and following your advice, I bought 2 bungy straps on Ebay and wrapped them around the outer casing....without however hearing any differences?
It was your reported improvements in damping the outer casing which encouraged me to remove it completely :-)
And the improvements have indeed been audible....but how much is due to the removal of the casing or the better supporting steel cradle or the decoupling of the deck from the cradle support....I don't really know?

I was thinking last night……because Aigenga’s TT-101 is nude and mounted on a wall-hung shelf like mine……I know exactly what it sounds like?
Same with Banquo’s ‘nuded’ Victor.
But I also know what most Raven AC turntables sound like (assuming they are not plagued by uncontrolled Structure-Borne feedback) and Rega Planar 3 turntables and Linns and Caliburns.
And if I was familiar with the big Micro Seiki 5000 and 8000 models…..I would probably know their ‘sound’ as well?

But I have no clue how a ‘re-plinthed’ SP-10 Mk2 or Mk3 sounds or how a re-plinthed Lenco, Garrard, Thorens et al would sound and I can’t imagine how anyone else can?
If every plinth can sound differently depending on material, sizing, construction, damping, resonance-draining and footers….how does any example sound like another?
And if they all sound slightly differently…..who decides which is more accurate and how is this decided?

From a purely objective and somewhat logical viewpoint…..if a ‘self-contained’ turntable like a direct-drive model (and to some extent Idlers) can perform their function without being encapsulated by a plinth…..why is it not reasonable to conclude that any changes to the sound resulting from the addition of a plinth is a ‘colouration’…an ‘addition’ or a ‘deduction’ or a ‘corruption’?

How do the ‘plinth’ advocates reconcile the fact that no two examples can possibly sound exactly the same?

Richardkrebs,
I imagine it’s possible to ‘define’ an object into existence to suit one’s argument….but I’m not sure where it gets you?
To define a ‘plinth’ as a ‘shelf’ allows for a ‘rack’, a ‘platform’ and of course the ‘floor’ to also comply with that definition.
It gives us the situation where audio items like power conditioners and DACs and SUTs and preamps and amps are all on ‘plinths’?
And for those with a REAL turntable ‘plinth’ on a Minus K stand on a shelf on a rack on a floor……..we have a plinth on a plinth on a plinth on a plinth……..?

It would also seem logical that different shelf materials, size, shape, support method, spikes, et el would make a difference.

This would only be “logical” if one could conclusively prove that there was ‘stored energy’ within the shelf or within the object ON the shelf which REACTED to the “materials, size, shape, support method, spikes, et al” in a way that affected the motor, bearing, platter, record, stylus, cartridge and arm in a turntable system for example?
Despite the availability of accelerometers and other devices designed to measure and quantify vibrational energy and its transfer within materials…..I have seen no scientific evidence to support the many statements made by audiophiles on the nature of ‘vibration draining’ in regards to turntables….and any quantification of such?

The vast majority of audio systems are supported on the floor of the listening room albeit on racks or stands of some sort.
The vast majority of those floors are suspended timber frame or suspended concrete slab…..very few are concrete slab-on-ground.
All suspended floors (be they timber, steel or concrete) are under bending stresses of various magnitudes which create low frequency acoustic energy within the structure.
This low frequency energy (often resulting in movement) is transferred to the rack/stand/shelf supporting the equipment and results in higher frequency energy transmission and movement which is passed through to the equipment supported thereon.
With all this low frequency energy swamping the stands, racks and shelves……it is no wonder that differing methods of support and differing materials all have an effect on the transmission and damping characteristics?
But you are mistaken to assume that those who have absolutely no structure-borne feedback will also experience the same phenomena.
My floor is a reinforced concrete slab-on-ground topped with polished granite and is totally bereft of any structure-borne sound.
My turntables sit on a stressed-skin MDF shelf cantilevered from a masonry structural wall supported on that reinforced concrete slab.
The turntables sound identical whether they are sitting directly on the polished granite floor or up on the cantilevered shelf.
I have tested many methods of support for the turntables including an additional independent shelf on top of the cantilevered one….sorbothane feet, Delcrin footers, Stillpoint Ceramic feet, Stillpoint Ultra Minis, ceramic cones, aluminium cones, steel cones, plastic cones, brass spikes, steel spikes and stainless steel spikes. I have placed various materials between cones/spikes and the supporting shelf including metal coins, plastic, cardboard etc……and with all and every variation…..there has been zero change to the sound.
When there are no Structure-Borne feedback problems……there is nothing to affect the turntable adversely (other than Air-Borne feedback…..but that is another can of worms).
In fact a sure way to determine whether your room suffers from Structure-Borne Feedback is to see if changing the spikes, rack, footers etc results in an audible change?

But back to the plinth……I’m sure you have much to contribute to a discussion on a ‘real’ plinth into which a turntable like a DD or Idler may be mounted? :-)

I am delighted to hear Banquo confirm my listening impressions.
I am well aware of the audiophile’s ‘need’ to hear improvements with any change. Especially a change invested with a personal ‘attachment’? :-)

One other difference to note is that everything seems quieter. I don't mean the noise floor has dropped, but rather that I seem to want to turn the volume up nowadays.

This is what I meant by the term “purer”……and “turn the volume up” is exactly what I do also……
Incidentally….I spoke too early about the ‘fix’ to the speed read-out.
Yesterday it went to 33.32 rpm on ‘start-up’ before hitting 33.33 rpm…

I’m intrigued Banquo about your bass problems?
Are these a function of your speakers, room or amplification?
Surely not a source issue?

Your TT may have to be confiscated siting indecent enclosure

Heh heh....
OK you twisted my arm....
An even more indecent shot......and another

Dover,
Thanks for the info. I tried Googling but there is sparse detail available.
That Final motor looks serious........

Well…I read the interesting article on RFI/EMI linked by Banquo. Whilst it deals specifically with the Kenwood L-07D turntable….I don’t doubt that its observations would also apply to most unshielded DD turntables?
Whilst the writer begins criticising the L-07D …

The tonal range is also reduced. The sound stage is compressed. Stereo separation is reduced….and there is a roll-off of the upper registers

……I hear none of these artifacts with the TT-101 compared to the Raven AC-2 and the Continuum Caliburn.
In fact……these are some of the areas in which the TT-101 playback excels……compared to other turntables?
I also hear no “wum wum wum” sounds through the speakers when the ‘brake’ function is activated.
My experiences with RFI/EMI problems are that if they are present…..they are audible. Simply place the stylus on the vinyl and turn up the volume way past that at which you normally listen. A hum or drone emanates from the speakers which increases as the volume increases. With my TT-101….I can turn up the volume to maximum without any extraneous noise whatsoever.
I am more concerned at the possible ‘unknown’ effects of the wayward magnetism inherent in those DD turntables? So I decided to do some tests on the actual ‘strength’ of this magnetism.
Using my trusty vertical magnet tester……I placed it on the bare aluminium Victor platter and felt its ‘pull’. Was it enough to hold the magnet whilst the platter spun?
Yes it was!
I then decided to try it with the Micro Seiki Cu-180 solid copper platter mat in place.
I was surprised to find the magnetic field was not deterred one iota by the copper platter and the little magnet stayed upright. Methinks the Cu-180 is a ‘fake’ gunmetal copy painted gold? :-(
Could this magnetic field extend through the copper/gunmetal AND a vinyl record?…..is the Pope catholic?
Next I tried to emulate these tests with the original Victor rubber platter mat and then the Victor 1mm pigskin mat directly on the aluminium platter and could not get the little yellow magnet to even stay on the surface….let alone stand at attention :-)

Does a tt need a massive heavy platter to reproduce extreme low bass?

This seems to be an interim conclusion by respected reviewers like Michael Fremer and Jonathan Valin but they obviously haven’t heard the TT-101?
The Victor can go deeper than the Raven AC-2 (depending on cartridge in use)……but more importantly…the bass can sound more natural, better controlled with less overhang and more definition.
Perhaps the physics is different with belt-drive decks….but the short answer to Lewm’s question is…….not in my experience. :-)