|
Hiho, I stand corrected. I am not sure the four screws you highlighted are the ones that do the trick. They may just secure the circumferential part of the brake system. However, the other photos clearly prove it can be done. Where the heck did you get these nice photos? I treated my Mk3 like it was inviolate, because it was NOS. I did not give much thought to explanting the motor. It would be very very easy to make a sturdy plinth for the motor alone, based on your photos. IMO, the major gain would be to facilitate the use of more than one tonearm, because the remainder of the chassis is very solid, not likely to be a source of resonance or noise. In stock form, if one wishes to use two tonearms, the secondary one will have to be at least a 10-incher, if not a 12". |
|
"I do not see where the chassis can be separated from the stators of the motor."
Hi Lewm
In those photos it looks to me that there are 4 allen bolts accessible from the top(on the black ring)..... they are also visible from the bottom.
If you look closely from the bottom there appears to be a fine gap where the vertical wall of the motor meets the horizontal part of the plinth.
The motor should pull out from the top. |
I take it that the two URLs you cite above show the top and bottom of the denuded Mk3 chassis. (Well actually I KNOW that the top photo shows the top view of a Mk3 motor cum chassis.) When I look at the two photos, I do not see where the chassis can be separated from the stators of the motor. Probably there is some way to do it and also to remove the bearing housing. Then you must re-seat those two in some sort of structure so that there is a PERFECT concentric relationship retained. (Otherwise, you will have wow problems like none of us could ever imagine.) Also, you must create that structure, which holds everything in this exact proper orientation, so the platter can fit over it. Not a job for Joe Amateur (or Lew Amateur). Steve Dobbins is an experienced machinist, which is how he can get away with explanting those items successfully. Alternative is to get out a saw and just cut away the decorative escutcheon. The Mk2 is a piece of cake by comparison. |
Lewm: "I looked at a few of the URLs you provided and don't yet see how the Mk3 motor can be parted from the company of its chassis, but perhaps the info is there somewhere." Here are couple pictures showing the SP10Mk3 motor wires can be detached from the connector next to the motor, whereas in SP10Mk2 the wires exit out of the motor and routed to the PCB. http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/technics/jpeg/10mk3-2g.jpghttp://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/technics/jpeg/10mk3-21.jpgLewm: "Doing it for the DP80 promises greater rewards, because there we do have the issue of a hollow space under and around the motor housing. But re-establishing the tape head reading system is a ticklish business, I would think." I agree. The DP80 holds great promise and you might like it even more after "replinthing" it. Yes, re-establishing the tapehead position will be tricky but not impossible. I have few Sony PS-8975 tables that I am tempted to try a new plinth but the tapehead issue is discouraging me so I moved on to other DD turntables for experiment... Lewm: "Do you read Japanese?" I can read Chinese but not Japanese. There are some Chinese characters, Kanji, that I can decipher but it's hard to understand in proper context. I just use Google Translate. Amp8.com via Google Translate______ |
Hiho, I have been inside my own Mk3, so I have seen those sights. I looked at a few of the URLs you provided and don't yet see how the Mk3 motor can be parted from the company of its chassis, but perhaps the info is there somewhere. I guarantee I will never do it. Doing it for the DP80 promises greater rewards, because there we do have the issue of a hollow space under and around the motor housing. But re-establishing the tape head reading system is a ticklish business, I would think. I did add damping to the underside of my DP80 chassis, in the form of beeswax melted out from an old KLH9 ESL power supply. There was a definite audible improvement.
I have also seen those websites and deeply regretted that I cannot read Japanese. My son could easily translate, but he hates for me to ask such favors and would therefore take forever to do it. Do you read Japanese? |
Lewm: " I don't quite know how Steve managed to separate motor from chassis; it's not obvious from external inspection how that could be achieved without some cutting." Here are many innards pictures of the Technics SP-10MK3 from Amp8.com. Just click on any one of the links to see repair and gut pictures of each unit. http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/technics/technics.htm _______ |
|
Lewm: "Where are the electronics? Show us what is at the other end of those wires coming off the bottom of the motor. Thx." Here's a picture of the DP80 from bottom view of the gut. As shown, the motor has only three wires with a three-pin connector to connection "CN3" on one of the circuit boards. Here are more pictures from the invaluable Japanese website Amp8.com http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/denon/dp-80-3.htmhttp://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/denon/dp-80.htm This approach of removing the raw motor from stock chassis to custom plinth has been done before, especially on the Technics SP-10Mk2 by Kaneta: http://homepage2.nifty.com/~mhitaste/audiotop/audio_apparatus_page/sp-10mk2.html P.S. One more thing about Denon or Sony direct drive turntables is that there's a tapehead to read the magnetic print on the platter inner-rim for the speed servo system so besides the motor wires needs to be rerouted and extended back to the stock chassis, the wire for the tapehead need that as well. I believe in the western world, the Mitch Cotter turntable uses the same concept using either a Technics or Denon DD table as the basis for the mod. _______ |
Hiho, Now take THAT and mount it in a piece of slate or hardwood, and you've got something, IMO. Where are the electronics? Show us what is at the other end of those wires coming off the bottom of the motor. Thx.
You've given me further reason to hang on to my DP80. FWIW, the Technics Mk3 and the L07D are already in this configuration; all electronics are off-board. Steve Dobbins took the Mk3 one more step by eliminating the decorative "chassis" that houses the Mk3 motor and brake system. I don't think that would add much, because the Mk3 chassis is pretty much solid metal. There are no hollow spaces that could ever resonate. What it does do is to get that square escutcheon out of the way which would facilitate mounting of multiple tonearms on board the plinth or use of outboard armpods. I don't quite know how Steve managed to separate motor from chassis; it's not obvious from external inspection how that could be achieved without some cutting. |
Dear Hiho: Now I understand and yes that's an option.
Now, I named from the first time Naked/nude because for me that was: naked/nude. I can't remember in no where something similar.
The subject is ( mainly ) that in what we name naked/nude fashion the quality performance is way better against other top TT ( BD or DD ) that came with plinth or what we are accustomed to named plinths.
Anyway, I take your point: thank's.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
R. |
|
Rauliruegas: "What do you mean with "take the motor out" when the motor is integral part of the bearing/platter?" I meant to take the bare motor out and route/extend the wires back to the electronics. It's a deconstructive or purist way of doing it. This way the motor truly has to "mount" to something without interacting the stock chassis. As I said, what you and Halcro have been doing is not really "nude" setup because the stock chassis is acting as a plinth. So there is a plinth in there, except people don't recognize it. I hope this makes it clear to understand. Happy holidays! _______ |
Interesting solution Aigenga and nice photos.
I think you have successfully removed your TT-101 from it's plinth and can claim to be running officially 'nude' :^)
It would be good to hear your impressions in more detail when you become more accustomed to the sounds?
Cheers
Henry |
Dear Hiho: Maybe I'm a to " slow " here to understand your post. What do you mean with " take the motor out " when the motor is integral part of the bearing/platter?, maybe I can take out all the TT inside electronics but I can't understand the other way around: could you explain me?: thnak's.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Aigenga: What a coincidence. That's exactly the way I made my very first attempt to " nude " my both Denons in its marble and onyx weighty plints and the way I tested last weeks where the motors were seated onsmall tiptoes in the stone plinths.
Lewm that's the way I give you an advise several months ago for you can chech your Denon and Technics with your customs plinths, where the plints in reality function as a whole arm boards.
Thank's for the pictures.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Aigenga, I think that's a better idea than the typical "nude" approach by putting footers underneath the bottom cover. Glad you got good result from that. I always maintain there's really no true "nude" turntable in a direct drive system because the turntable itself is a plinth in holding the motor. So the motor is the real nudist. What I really want to see is to take the motor out and put it in a plinth can compare that to a nude style a la Halcro and Raul.
Thanks for the nude pictures! :-D
_______
|
A thought just occurred. Has anyone tried a DD TT with a plinth but with the arms mounted on external pods? Comparing that configuration to the same TT nude might shed light on the effect that a plinth has on the TT versus the effect on the tonearm. |
I added a second arm to my JVC QL10 (TT101 and JVC QA7045 arm and solid particle board/wood plinth) using a bracket of my design screwed solidly into the plinth, and a Micro-Seiki AX-6G arm-board. As you may know the arm-board attaches to a post on the plinth and is swung into place and tightened down.
The new board sits almost an inch above the level of the plinth - it had to swing in over the plinth to achieve proper overhang. This left me with the arm too high. So to maintain VTA I had to raise the platter. That requirement brought this thread to mind.
I raised the platter by unbolting the TT from the plinth and supporting the nude TT on three Audio-Technica feet but left it in place in the hole in the plinth. The plinth is on aurios/tip-toes, and both tonearms (epa-100, QA-7045) are solidly mounted to the plinth.
So now I have a nude TT101 surrounded by two arms on a heavy wooden plinth. Initial listening tests are very favorable. I was quite skeptical of the nude idea, but I must admit a veil has lifted as have my doubts. I can only surmise that the motor was introducing vibrations to the plinth that were picked up by the tonearm. I was very happy before, I am happier now.
I hope the pics make all this a bit clearer:
http://s1106.photobucket.com/albums/h373/Garya1/Dual%20Tone-Arms%20Dec%202011/
Thanks to Halcro and Raul. |
Dear Inshore and Halcro, I dearly love my L07D, and I totally agree with you on the engineering. Those guys were way ahead of their time in designing and building that plinth. And what strikes me about the L07D in action is its inherent dead silence and neutrality and the (for want of a better word) smooth, unintrusive operation of that coreless motor. I even think highly of the tonearm. The only problem with the tonearm is the wiring. I plan to bypass all the internal wiring and the plug at the base of the tonearm, to make a "straight shot" from the cartridge all the way to the phono input. Yet, even with the stock wiring, the Stanton 980LZS on the L07D is a marriage made in audio heaven. |
Nice post In_shore.
I've never heard a Kenwood LO7D......but apart from all reports on its superb sound.......it gets my vote as one of the most beautiful decks ever designed. |
Raul
When you find the time you will have to copy Halcros arm pod design or dream up something similar.
Either way, running nude or set in a plinth ,whatever anyone chooses they think works best for them, carry on.
Lewm
I think Chris Thornton of Artisan Fidelity should win a prize of sorts for artistic craftsmanship and be recognized for resonate control with his plinths now that he switched to Panzerholz material.
Lastly one table that currently stands out in my collection with all the tables that were mentioned above by Raul is Kenwoods LO7D.
High lighted in a Kenwood ad copy for this statement table outlines an intense engineering focus of select material used in conjunction with a theory of a rigid continuous loop of the Lp, cartridge, arm, platter, motor and bearing,...I think should be interesting read for anyone not familiar with the LO7D.
Finally with the little experience that I have had with other DDs its no longer surprising some are hyper sensitive to what their coupled to.
No wonder for some of you, your DD got a new lease on life performing nude.
|
Dear In_shore: For years I used only DD TTs, one of the first I owned was the Pioneer PL-630 and then the Denons.
Someday I discovered Stereophile and through reading there I " learned " that the way to go was: BD TT, so I bought my first BD that was a Micro Seiki 1500 and just when I had on hand I was " impressed " by its build quality and weight I mounted and heard it and I liked.
In those old times my ignorance level was really high and obviously my system had poor performance even I was unaware what distortions really meaned. Were the times where specs on japanese electronics were " impressive " low.
After time I accustomed to the BD signature heavy weight TTs and changed to AS and Micro Seiki 5000.
All these years ( Denons and SP-10s in the closett. ) I learned and I mean really learned and my ignorance level goes lower. I think that 2-3 years ago I thought: hey why not to take a listening to one of SP10s? and that's what I did, at the same time I thought too: why not naked/plinthless? yes why not? and I did it.
The differences for the better ( IMHO ) through sevral tests and time listening the Technics convinced that I was wrong about BD TT and wrong about DD ones.
Today I still own BD TTs because between them permited me to mount 10 tonearms/cartridges at the same time and help Guillermo and I in our tonearm self design.
Weeks ago I decided to test the Denons and now I'm here happy and enjoying music as never before: yes: plinthless fashion.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
"What are in common between these TTs other that are TTs: Denon DP-80/75, Garrads, Kenwood Lo70, Technics SP10s, Sota ones, SME 20s, Michel, Roksans, VPIs, Project, Oracle, Exclusive, Linn, etc, etc, ?"
Some sound good. Some sound REALLY good. And some of them are not so good, IMO. But your point is well taken. Drive technology per se is not the sole determinant of what is going to give one pleasure.
Dear Dover, I would not go so far as to say that "wood" (any kind of wood) cannot make for a good plinth. Just that the laminate used by Denon was not so great, although the way they constructed the DK300 plinth was ahead of its time, I think. These days there are some excellent wood plinths being made and sold, by all accounts. I did not mean to start another "plinth war". |
Raul,
May I ask why you put your Denon DP80 and 75 in the storage closet in the first place? |
Dear friends: What are in common between these TTs other that are TTs: Denon DP-80/75, Garrads, Kenwood Lo70, Technics SP10s, Sota ones, SME 20s, Michel, Roksans, VPIs, Project, Oracle, Exclusive, Linn, etc, etc, ?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover: No, I can't re-review not 200 but even 20 cartridges again. IMHO the ones I top rated could be stay in that way because the Denon TT contributes the less to performance degradation in the same way for the top and lesser one cartridges, of course that could be one or two " surprises " with the lesser cartridge but I don't thing so in that way.
What is clear to me is that every time distorion system goes lower each one audio item system link quality performance goes higher and shows additional " things " that were hiden through those now lower distortions.
As I said it several times: differences on system quality performance level depends mainly on distortion levels on each system. IMHO the name of the game in our beloved high end audio world are: distortions distortion levels and distortion level means accuracy levels.
I always look for neutrality that for me means: accuracy and low low distortions ( every kind. ).
Many of us are in love with our each system distortions till step by step and time to time we are aware of those distortions and when we improve/lower those distortions then we fall/take in count that what we was hearing ( higher distortions ) was way wrong even that we liked.
Normally we are aware of distortions when those distortions goes lower. If nothing change in our systems we can't or is almost imposible to be aware of those distortions other than comparing it to other systems.
I discussed several times with other Agoners about distortions and some of these persons give me answers like this : " if those are distortions so be it because that's the way I liked ".
My system as all other audio systems has its own distortions but I can say that today the distortions in my system are really low and this fact makes a difference for the better not easy to imagine and understand it only when you heard/hear it.
Unfortunately the AHEE accustomed to almost all of us to hear high distortions through our systems and those distortions high levels are part inherent on our each one audio system but IMHO we need to improve about asking: hey is there something wrong in my system? where? why? how can I improve over? and all these is a hard exercise that needs certain knowledge level to achieve new system quality performance targets. I continue on this very well rewarded system improves quest.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: TT mats are critical on any analog rig. Our blend propietary build material makes very good job and perhaps in the future could be available to the public, what stops us to do it is that the material is to expensive but obviously that that " expensive " level depends on the " rewards " when using it: we will see.
Yes, you are right about the SP10 2 and 3, things was that I did not compare it bis a bis and the last time I heard the 3 was on Steve Doobins system and even that was a good experience I can't say that the 3 performance was excellent but only a good one.
What I'm hearing through my Denon DP-75 is just outstanding, I don't have on hand a SP10MK3 but what I remember is way out of the DP-75 naken performance level.
Yes, agree with you about marble and I don't know how easy is to " excite " 40kg of marble through a Denon TT.
Btw, when I bought my Denons I remember I bought each one as stand alone TT/motor units where I can choosed between different plinths and tonearms.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Raul,
Since you have discovered a turntable that reduces distortions considerably over what you have been using, then surely that renders your views on the best cartridges moribund. You may well have written off many cartridges that you thought were not neutral, but in fact were highlighting turntable distortions.
Are you now going to re-review the 200 odd cartridges that you thought were no good?
Agree with Lew from personal experience marble ( sharp upper midrange resonances ) and wood ( dull, turgid ) are very poor plinth materials.
Also agree with Lew re the SP10mk3, I have 3 friends who have owned these for many years, and the improvement over the SP10mk2 is huge. I would rate the L07D as superior to the SP10mk2. |
Raul,
Yes, i did notice your absence from these fora, and I was hoping that you had not left us and that you were not ill or something bad like that.
Also, I did not think you were not cognizant of the importance of the turntable mat, and it interests me to know that you guys have developed your own. Is it available "to the public"?
I always felt, and said so, that the DP80 gives away nothing to the SP10 Mk2, but to say that it is superior to the SP10 Mk3 means to me only that you need to re-acquire a Mk3 that is in bona fide good electrical condition and listen to it again using your acquired knowledge. Contrary to what you once told me, I hear a big difference between Mk2 and Mk3.
Since you are not shy about stating your negative opinions, please I ask you not to be insulted when I say that marble is not good material for a plinth (don't know about onyx) and that the stock Denon plinth, even the best one that came with my DP80, pales in comparison to slate. The Denon wood plinth imparts a dead/dull sound. (Yes, plinths can do harm,and I am not surprised that naked beats Denon wood plinth.) And I now know that slate can be made better by CLD'ing it with a hardwood base, as I have done for my SP10 Mk3. I am going to do the same for the DP80 plinth. These sentiments are all "IMHO", of course.
The differences between the spec sheets for the DP75 vs DP80 don't mean "spit" (American idiom for "nothing"). I even think the two tt's were measured by Denon back around 1979-1980 when the standards for measurement changed, and all tt's suddenly became 2-3 db quieter, just due to the new method of weighting. Example of that is the Exclusive P3 vs P3a, which looks quieter on paper but was subject to a different method of measurement vs P3. If you hear a diff between those two motors, it is not due to stuff you can find on the spec sheets. |
Dear Lewm: First I don't took the TT and decided to go naked as first option. I check both with three different plints before naked: my custom made and beautiful 40kg green marble one alond the 40kg beige onyx one and the own Denon hard wood.
Both custom made plynts were over four of my AT pneumatic footers and both " sounds " the same and outperform the Denon one.
After that I tested in naked fashion and decided that nake/nude is the way to go, differences are important it were not tiny ones.
In all cases I use it my LOMC reference cartridge and ADC Astrion, Sonus Dimension 5 and AT ML180 OCC.
I used two identical tonearms ( our prototype design. ) and two identical arm pods ( more on this latter. ) and same cartridge to phono stage wiring. I tested too with my AT 1503-3.
Obviously that I tested through my own test procedure ( that continue the same with the same recording tracks. ) as always.
No, both TT Denons are in perfect condition and as similar as they are are not the same. The measure rumble figure in the DP-75 was measured by a friend that own a DP-75 and he found out was/is: -88db at the same standards that Denon took it. Even on brochure the DP-75 has better specs than the DP-80. Other difference is that the DP-80 has higher motor's torque that means in some ways higher energy to dissipate or latent.
I use our self TT mat design that I'm using for last 2-3 years and that through my experiences with other mats is unbeatable.
Arm pod: I'm still using an Acoustic Signature one. If you take a look to my virtual system you will see where the tonearms are " seated ", well I took the whole AS arm board that is screwed at the TT plinth at the bottom. Well this was to compare against the AS ones and with the stone's plinths the tonearm were surface mount ( mine not the AT. ).
As you can see I took things seriously about or: could you think for a moment that I come here to make such statement with out real facts and real foundation?, a mistake from your part if thinked that way.
You can take a look to the MM thread and you will find that in the last times there are almost no posts from me. I took almost three weeks only in this comparison.
Maybe in the nears future I will make a better arm pods but right now is fine with me and I have no time to change.
Yes, both Denons are great and IMHO better than the SP-10s, at least in my system.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Agree with you and IMHO the naked fashion in many ways has lower distortions. The footers here play an important role and the AT pneumatic ones works splendid. No, I'm not saying that's a must to have, I understand there are other alternatives and like almost all things in audio we have to test and compare.
I never tryed with tip toes like footers like you, maybe in the future.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R |
Apologies to Raul, I think I am guilty of asking Raul to prove a negative, which cannot be done. Anyway, more data would be nice. Particularly I would like to know what mat was in use on each turntable (75 vs 80).
So far as I know there is very little if any difference between the DP80 and DP75; I think the DP75 was essentially a DP80 motor supplied with a plinth and tonearm, usually the Denon DA307. T_bone would be the authority on this. If you hear a difference between the two tables, I would first suspect that the inferior sounding one might have a problem. Carry on, Raul. |
Dear Raul,
What mat? What tonearm? How was the tonearm mounted? What cartridge? What music?
Let's see: you pulled two turntables out of storage, set them up without a plinth and they sound "great". (I'll take your word for that.) And this proves something about whether or not a plinth can be used to good advantage with a direct-drive turntable? You are too smart to believe that this is good science.
Anyway, very glad to hear from you. As you know, I am very fond of my DP80, as well. On its excellence, we can agree. |
Dear Raul,
I'm truly happy for you :^)
As you say......it's quite hard to imagine the differences until one actually hears the purity and absence of previously 'unrecognised' distortions?
It was your encouragement which first made me test a 'nude' DD turntable.
I believe that a plinth would certainly 'change' the sound.
How can that be a good thing?
As far as I can see.......any 'change' in sound from the 'nude' TT....must be an 'addition' to that sound?
Is that not a colouration/distortion?
What are you using as an armpod with these two turntables Raul?
Cheers
Henry |
Dear Halcro and friends: WOW ! WOW ! and WOW !
I can't believe it. My Denon's ( DP-80 and 75. ) were on the " closet " for a lot of years that I can't remember how many, well two weeks ago I thinked: why not tested today? and that's what I made.
First I test and mounted the DP-80 and of course plinthless ( with different footers than your Victor but looks very similar. ) using the same AT pneumatic footers ( 3 ) that with my SP-10s.
First take: outperform easily the Technics one and obviously the BD TTs AS. Well I was really happy and enjoying the " new " fabolous toy when I decided to test the DP-75 ( tha's almost a DP-80. ).
Second take: please don't ask me why ( both units in perfect operation condition. ) but outperform the already great DP-80 quality performance level.
Well, that one unit outperform the other or that one audio item beats other one has nothing of extraordinary.
The main subject is what means that " outperform " and in the case of both Denon's means in one word: a totally different performance on what I experienced in my system and with any other system out there I heard it. The word accuracy it its wider meaning seems to me adequate. Both Denon's gives a new dimension to the music listening experience and I mean a NEW DIMENSION that only when you experience it could understand what I'm trying to say.
Halcro, now I understand better your excitement when you test for the first time your Victor 101.
I compart with you that excitement that i don't share before because I wnat to be absolute sure about and now I'm; absolutely amazing for say the least. DISTORTIONS ALMOST DISAPPEAR. GONE FOR EVER, at least the ones coming for a TT.
This you can see what Denon design means and where you can see that the only difference on specs between the DP-80 and DP-75 is mainly on the rumble number that in the DP-75 is a better one:
http://www.thevintageknob.org/denon-DP-80.html
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/denon/dp-75.shtml ( the brochure is a need to read. ). Both TTs have bi-directional servo with double-platter design.
Is there any single justification/reason to use these Denon babies with a plinth?, IMHO none: plinthless is the name of the game.
Halcro and friends: we are in the road!!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
A 'plinth' is actualy not a name with refering function
but rather a 'concept' with as many senses as the users
of the term think of. But we can determine an more precise
meaning by our discussion. I myself however
will never acknowledge whatever number of footers as a plinth.
Regards, |
Henry: It may not resemble a conventional plinth, but function is not necessarily restricted to specific forms.
To me it looks like the NVS structure will function as what is commonly called a "plinth", and this particular implementation possesses a substantial amount of moment-inertia so as to better resist motor ripple torque.
It appears that the designer is aware of the basic technical aspects that are desirable for such a structure.
cheers, jonathan |
Uh-oh. Albert's got one? Is that in fact a photo of Albert's? (Looks like a 12-inch SME mounted in Panzerholz arm board, both favorites of AP, so I guess the answer is "yes".) Nuts! Now I have to ditch my SP10 Mk3.
Janis Joplin, where are you now?
(Channeling her lyric: "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz. My friends all got Porsches, I must make a-mends.")
Just kidding. No way I can afford an NVS. But that NVS structure qualifies as a plinth in my little turntable book. |
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. |
Is this a plinth? PLINTHThe NVS direct drive turntable which Albert Porter and Mike Levigne have bought after ditching their SP10 Mk3s mounted in expensive plinths. Discuss? |
I bet when someone was trying to fix the earlier problem, they accidentally hit delete. I think you're right Banquo? I thought maybe they didn't like Aussies taking their snakes for a walk? Anyway, they tell me it's back? |
Why has my thread 'A Copernican View of the Turntable System' been completely erased? First they erase your threads, then your identity. You're next, Halcro. ;) I bet when someone was trying to fix the earlier problem, they accidentally hit delete. |
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. |
Why has my thread 'A Copernican View of the Turntable System' been completely erased?
No one at Audiogon will respond to me? |
Dear Chris, I agree with your perceptions and also am convinced that your isolated tonearm base goes a long way to explaining some of the improvement. An explanation for that reasoning is contained in a new thread i have posted "A Copernican view of the Turntable System" HERECheers Henry |
Dear Halcro/Raul
Some impressions - Having had this setup going for a few weeks now this is what I believe has happened in laymans terms. Bear with me.
We all know the needle in the groove moves back and forth, causes good vibrations to happen, which are then picked up by the stylus and sent down the phono cables along the tonearm to the rest of our gear to make beautiful music.
Any other vibrations that get introduced into play are bad, a problem, and we hear that as distortion in the music itself. Other vibrations come in from at least two directions. 1) Up from the platter into the cartridge, down the arm as well as 2) up from the plinth, up the arm pod where they meet with the other vibrations and cause the havoc we hear as distortion.
I believe I have reduced vibrations going up the platter with this setup - but MORE SO going up the arm - by isolating it more.
Further - A plinth is by definition any structure. I still have a plinth that my sp10 and arm are coupled to. Its the 4 inches of solid maple. It can be seen in this link.
http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/view_userimages.php?user_id=5181
Both sp10 and arm board are coupled by spikes they are not on separate audio stands and the sp10 itself being plinthless.
The above is why I believe I had improvement in sound. A fantastic plinth that the DD and arm sit directly in or on will also reduce both direction vibrations but this is a much more complicated solution and costs a lot more $$ to implement to get to this level. I believe it also introduces colorations to the music itself as it has been said by you before based on the material used. This setup is much more simpler to actually implement and for the average guy or gal me that has a good DD TT the isolating of the arm got me to a place that would have cost me much more $$ to implement the other way.
Does this reasoning make sense. It has been said before I realize but I wanted to put in simple words for others implementing this setup.
I wanted to also mention that having this setup reminds me of computers Desktop versus laptops. Heavy plinths are like desktops and rarely moved if at all due to weight and their structure. This set up is portable and can be moved very easily. This is a big + as I have 3 systems in two physical locations. This has allowed me to enjoy my vinyl in multiple locations.
Final thought is that I have been experimenting with different feet for the sp10. Currently using mapleshade spikes. I find it very easy when setting up to first - put the arm where I want it to be and then 2) just move the sp10 into alignment rather than messing with the arm. It takes about 3-4 minutes to line up the ET arm once I have changed feet.
Thank you for bearing with me appreciate the feedback.
Cheers - Chris |
Hi Lew,
I'm surprised this 'Nude Turntable Project' has escaped your eagle eye for so long?
As I've said during the postings, I don't presume to extend any of my findings to idler or rim- drive decks as the mechanics of those are quite different to direct drive.
I also defer to your observations on the SP-10 Mk3 due to it's initial high torque although once correct speed has been attained I can't see how its stability is very much different to the SP-10 Mk2 or the TT-81?
If you have the time to read through all the posts and photo links, you should be able to see the TT-81 sitting on 3 aluminium tip-toes directly on the 33mm thick laminated paricle board shelf.
This shelf is sitting on patented aluminium cantilevered brackets called T-Brax (from England) which slot into adjustable aluminium support rails screw to the masonry wall.
There is no question that this 33mm shelf is 'mass-loaded' by the weight of all the equipment thereupon, however both the Raven and the TT-81 are effectively decoupled from this shelf by the Tiptoes.
The closest I've managed to hear 2 same arms on both decks is with the FR-64s on the TT-81 and the FR-66s on the Raven. The same cartridges have been swapped in for both these arms.
These comparisons have led me to conclude at this stage that the cartridge/arm combinations are more important than the drive systems employed assuming competency in those drive systems is equivalent? |
Great post, Henry, and I was not aware of this thread until this moment. As you know, I was one of the many who was and is in disagreement with Raul regarding the necessity for or value of a heavy, dense plinth to go with a DD turntable. But as Pryso says, you have not addressed this issue here. What I would like to know, however, is what IS your Victor tt sitting on or in? Raul makes a point that he uses the rare, and no longer available new, Audio Technica feet under the chassis of his SP10 Mk2. (As an aside, altho Raul evidently did own a Mk3 in olden days, he does not now own one and has not owned one since before he began his and our MM/MI saga. I really defy anyone to use a Mk3 with no plinth at all, because the torque of that motor will rotate the unfettered chassis at every start-up, thanks to Newton's Third Law, and screw up the alignment of all those tonearms you have stuck on outboard arm pods.) I would also like to know what is the make-up of that white shelving upon which you place your gear. Is it possible there is some fortuitously beneficial coupling between the shelf and the un-plinthed Victor? And finally, were you ever at any point able to compare the same tonearm/cartridge combinations on any two of the turntables you tested? By the way, I would rank the Victor as high up among the best of the mid- to upper level Japanese DD's, but like the Denon DP80 and some of the Kenwoods and Sonys, it has not gotten much attention compared to the SP10s. It is not obvious to me that the TT81 would be inferior in any way to an SP10 Mk2. (I would rank the SP10 Mk3 on the highest plain, along with the P3, the L07D, etc. These tables DO kick ass.)
So far, we have you and Albert Porter who have each compared a "good" vintage dd turntable to a current top line belt-drive turntable, with surprising results. I would guess there are others who have done a similar comparison and reached the opposite conclusion, but since they heard what they expected to hear, they have not bothered to comment. As you know, I am firmly in the idler- and direct-drive camp based on my own experiments in my own system, but since I never owned a $10,000 belt-drive in the first place, there is always some residual curiosity. |
