Nude Turntable Project

Halcro,
Cool. How would those pods be finished? An aluminum top plate would take care of the topside, but how about the sides? Also, how do you deal with arms which have a much smaller diameter mount?

Henry,
Thanks. Kind of wondered how the side would be finished. I figured that was a possibility for the top plates but I thought I saw a singular so was wondering. I understand now and love the idea.

I like the Micro and think it 'punches above its weight' so to speak but even I would fade it against the modern "high-tech" arms you mention. That said, against its modern day price competition, it is great-sounding and great-looking to boot (assuming you don't mind the industrial aesthetic...).

Cool. Those armpods turned out nice.

While I use and love several of the arms mentioned here, and several other vintage arms not mentioned, I think suggesting that they are 'no worse than today's great design' is not facing reality. There are some fantastic designs out there right now. I think the Triplanar is a beautiful design (not physically beautiful, but in craft-engineering accomplishment). I wouldn't mind a Talea either. That said, the sum total spent by Halcro on his three arms is, I expect, a fair bit less than one used Triplanar.

I, for one, have not completely moved over to the camp of MMs. I think lots of different carts get it right, not just MMs. But there are some nice old ones.

Halcro,
I have been using the Technics EPC-100CMk1-4 and the EPC-101C for years as well as one of the well-mentioned Empires and a couple of the Graces. I have tried some of the AT MMs, other Empires, and the Garrott P77 (and probably one or two others) as a result of this thread. I have also been prompted to try out some of the Graces not mentioned here) and have enjoyed them immensely.

I have mounted those carts on a variety of vintage (i.e. contemporary to the carts) arms of the period, where possible specifically matching the armwand or arm to the specific cartridge where specified in the tonearm manufacturer's literature (several tonearm manufacturers specifically refer to specific cartridges (by manufacturer and model) in their manuals). I don't THINK I have done these carts an injustice. I have in the past couple of years compared some of these carts to some of the great MCs of the day as well - the top-level Audio Technicas (I like the low impedance models), Supex, Audiocraft, Accuphase, Fidelity Research, Sony, old Koetsu, etc. carts. Since discovering one of the best MC headamps of the time, I now understand that it is eminently possible MC detractors are not getting enough out of their MC cart.

Personally, my desert island top three of vintage carts (i.e. from the time of those tonearms, and assuming all were equally repairable) to match with those vintage arms would p-r-o-b-a-b-l-y include three MC carts. I have yet to get my AKG P100E fixed.

I just got the bearings on one of my EPA-100Mk2 tonearm changed to grade 3 silicon nitride (rather than grade 5 ruby) and the tonearm rewired with a silver litz run to silver eichmann plugs (i.e. straight to phono input). I am looking forward to trying some of the MM carts on this arm, as it may become the lowest-friction highest-rigidity tonearm available to me for medium-high-compliance carts.

Halcro,
No problem. I use vintage tonearms and carts almost every day that I listen. I have a dozen (or more) old arms. I have two "new" ones (Phantom and Triplanar VII) but I am very happy with the Exclusive arm on my P3, the excellent Sony PUA-9 (creative name, eh?) arm on my Sony deck, SAEC/EPA/FR/Micro/Victor/Audiocraft/Ikeda arms on my Micros, and others. FWIW, I think the Triplanar is a truly fantastic arm for LOMCs. Is it better than the Micro MA-505? I think all told it probably is. But is it better value for money bought new vs buying an MA-505? Not a chance. I think the Micro is one of the best values going.

Henry,
I just noticed that too. That is really frustrating. I see no reason why that should have gotten pulled. I didn't see any advertisers getting dissed, or any flames. There was plenty of good archive material in there.

Halcro, I'll bite.
The answer is that YES the NVS is a ring holding the table, with that ring mounted on legs. It serves the purpose that what is commonly thought to be a 'plinth' also serves. In principal, if you think of your TT-81 and what the original Victor plinth was like, it was a rigid frame into which the motor was screwed. That plinth had legs/footers which stood on the ground. The motor hung out over the empty air - quite similar to the NVS.

I would suggest that the idea of a 'plinth' could be boiled down to whether it serves the purpose intended. As an architect, you would know the purpose of the original meaning. It should be a rigid mount for the thing above it.

The question is whether the plinth for TTs is sufficiently different in that it is at the same time a "base" (and in Japanese, the word is a Japanese version of the English word 'base', not 'plinth'), and a weight which loads the TT to absorb resonance, or to conduct it to the next level below.

In that sense, a 'plinthless TT' might mean something different for different people.