Nude Turntable Project

Dear Raul and Halcro – thank you for the info.

Halcro excellent point on using a non-ferrous metal– I was so obsessed with anchoring the ET arm with weight that I overlooked that. Wish I had asked earlier. I hear no audible noise but my MM virtuoso cartridge would have told me more about any noise and it is being retipped.

Instead of making a second pod for the vpi arm I am now thinking of doing another ET pod in a non-ferrous metal. :)

Can’t tell you how much fun this has been – Like it has been said before there is so much real estate to work with - any arm can go on a pod and be switched in and out. Once you have a reliable drive system the possibilities and options are huge not being limited by plinth space and arms that will fit it.

I like all my cartridges with the ET arm but are there any sleepers I can try ?

Thank you again -Happy New Year to all

Dear Chris,
It's interesting to hear your conclusions on the 'nude' Technice SP10Mk2.
It seems to indicate, as Raul has been urging, that people should at least try things before arriving at conclusions....especially if trying is relatively easy?
I was concerned at using steel for arm-pods because of the possibility of magnetic interference with such a 'lump' of ferrous material?
It may be interesting for you to try a 'non-ferrous' arm-pod next as a comparison? Of course that will not be as cheap as the steel option?
I still enjoy my 'Nude' TT-81 as well as my big Raven AC-3. As I mentioned, my experiences indicate bigger differences in cartridges and arms than perhaps well executed turntables of different drive philosophies?
Happy New Year to one and all.

Dear Ct0517: Good that you are enjoying your TT plinthless set up. Chris IMHO the " merit " comes from your self that decide to tryed.

+++++ " All I can say is less distortion, very neutral sound. A big improvement. " +++++

IMHO this is all about: " less/lower distortions ", I posted several times that our each one " goal/target " ( main one ) to attain excellence level on system quality performance is trying to obtain ( at each audio link in the system ) the lower distortions we can. As distortions goes lower ( elsewhere/anywhere. ) as MUSIC takes its real " overall meaning " like that " very neutral sound " you already experienced.

Any TT plinth has its own " distortions " and unknow behavior for all of us when we go plinthless we are taking out/switch-off a " distortion place/center " where the cartridge signal was and is degrade.

+++++ " I gave the plinthless set up a try since it cost very little to experiment with " +++++

this is exactly what I posted several times in this forum on the plinthless subject: everyone can try it with almost no " money " to invest.

I think that this plinthless subject is more an each one attitude for test it.

To all the people that support DD TT plinths I always ask them: do you already tested a plinthless set up ? why don't you try it?, no one till today give an answer about and follow their " road ", fine with me.

Something that is really nice is that all the persons that already try the TT plinthless set up all reported ( just like you ) that the quality performance beats the normal TT plinth set up.

This plinthless subject is just that other ones like DD TT that a few years ago no one cares about and in those " all times " I posted that the DD alternative could and can beats the BD one or that the MM/MI alternative is more than an alternative but a " superior " analog source against the LOMC alternative or that the way to go with LOMC was and is through active high gain phono stages instead setp-up transformers or that the way to go is to playback cartridge analog source alternatives through phonolinepreamps ( integrated ) instead stand alone phono stages or the latest " electrical power system source direct connection " instead all those " electrical power conditioners " or...or....

Over the time like what you are enjoying " things " takes its right and true " perspective ".
here in my country people say: " things fall by its own " weight " ".

I hope that in the future people gives to it self the opportunity to test and hear what happen with all those " audio subjects " and decide according, in the mean time the ones that already did it will follow enjoy the greatness of those " alternatives/subjects " .

¡ Happy New Year for all of You !

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Hello everyone and especially Halcro and Raul.

Raul for your continuing posts to try out going plinthless (against what is the norm to use a plinth) and Halcro for your excellent experiment and what ultimately convinced me to try it on my Technics Sp10 Mk II.

My sp10 was in a 7 layer birch plinth with two arms - ET2.5 and VPI 12. I have three cartridges - Dynavector XV1, Clearaudio Virtuoso and a Benz Micro MC-3 cartridge.

I was very happy with the sound and was looking at getting another plinth as a next step. I gave the plinthless set up a try since it cost very little to experiment with. I was not expecting what I heard when I went plinthless with the ET 2.5 arm using the the Benz Micro MC-3. I won't go into subjective words reviewers use. All I can say is less distortion, very neutral sound. A big improvement.

I constructed a pod for my ET arm out of a block of steel 4 x 6 that weighs 18 lbs and sits on spikes. It cost me about $100 from Metal Supermarkets including the hole drilling.

The Sp10 is sitting on 3 BDR cones for now.

All of it sits on 4 inches of solid maple.

It is still a work in progress project.

I may be into a plinth again one day again but for now am very happy with this set up and I will have a pod built for the VPI arm.

Halcro are you still enjoying your set up?

To all - I would like recommendations on maybe using another material for the second pod recognizing I need to drill for the arm plate and spikes, and which of the three cartridges I have you feel would work best with either the ET and VPI arm. The Xv1 and Virtuoso cartridges are currently being re-tipped.

Is there a cartridge that would be a perfect match for the ET2.5?

Halcro and Raul - Thanks again and to all for recommendations on which of the cartridges to use.

Chris

Dear Audpulse,
Thanks for the kind words.
I don't know much about idlers and haven't really heard any.
I'm willing to believe all the good things I hear after my direct experiences with vintage TTs.
Good luck with your own 'nude' idler. Any pictures?......I like 'ugly'!

Dear David,
No problem at all.
Good luck with your own project. Please feel free to ask any questions.
All the best to you over the holidays.
Regards
Henry

Dear Halcro,
Came late to this discussion but kudos to the review. Ever since I read Raul's piece about nude turntable, I have tried it on my Rek-O-Kut idler turntable and I am very much amazed at what I am hearing. I have the turntable placed on bricks. It looks ugly but the music is beautiful. Any chance you want to try an idler turntable if you have a spare ?
Thanks for confirming what I have been hearing with my stock idler turntable.

Dear Halcro,

First, an apology: I thought I had seen the whole thread, pictures included. You and Ecir38 were right in sending me back to the listing: I've seen your entire posting again, now with all the pictures, and have much better information than when I asked my questions. Sorry to have been hasty.

Even so, you answered the remaining questions thoroughly and I feel sufficiently equipped to delve into trying a nude setup of my own, thanks to your generosity and Raul's gentle prodding.

Thank you again, so very much, for sharing your hard-won intellectual property. When I try to recreate your success I will certainly credit you and Raul for the work, most gratefully.

with Very Best Wishes, and for Happy Holidays,

David Kellogg

Thanks Halcro,
you are right, I got the Empire thanks to your advice and I will have it mounted like you recommended - Xmas lies ahead of us! Maybe I am a bit reluctant to compare new cartridges after having sold my Grand Slamm. Now I know how good this loudspeaker was.
Nevertheless when I received my latest master tape from The Tape Project ( little hatch - rock with my baby) and I did listen to "Baby please don't go" I realized that the sound is still acceptable...
It is wonderful to have many options, in analogue as well as in life. With my second home bases now in Vietnam I am getting closer to you. :-)

Dear David,
As Ecir38 mentioned, a lot of your answers are to be found in earlier postings where the arm-pods are shown in the 'raw' cast form with all the holes and cable entry points clearly visible but re-cap:-
1) Aluminium is too light and mild steel is magnetic. I needed to make sure that the arm-pods could not be easily moved once the geometry of each arm had been established. I investigated machining stainless steel, brass and bronze but they all need up costing about $2000 each, so I went for casting (either brass or bronze) and bronze is cast here in foundries on four out of five days of the week compared to limited casting of brass.
2) Arm-Pods are solid except for 55mm diam hole in the centre to accommodate all the arms I could think of?
3) See previous photos.
4) I just meant to make sure the table was level by using packers under one or more Tip-Toes.
5) Yes the shelf is 33mm thick laminated particle board.
6) Not practicable. Apart from all my running around to organize, the height of the pods are determined by the height of the turntable you are using.
SME recommends that the mounting height of the arm is 41mm below the level of the platter although most modern arm are mounted 30-35mm below the platter.
I found that with vintage arms, a height of 47-48mm below the platter allows for more flexibility in getting the arms level.
7) Screwed spikes were drilled and tapped into the bottom of each pod. The are chrome plated brass and are leveled by screwing in and out.

Sorry I can't be more helpful but you are really asking me for my 'intellectual property' which took me 3 months to design and have fabricated.
Good luck.

Welcome Thuchan,
It's always good to have you drop by.
I know you've been busy with your own Project (horn speakers I believe?) but you were responsible for me getting the Fidelity Research FR-64s arm and after hearing how great it was, I wasted no time in obtaining it's big brother the FR-66s.
You of course discovered the joys of great 'vintage' analogue gear long ago (how many RX-5000 turntables do you now have?..............five?!!!!!) just as other dedicated audiophiles have like Cuong Pham in Vietnam who has 4 or 5 Thorens Reference turntables in every colour available?
So I'm quite surprised that you have not progressed onto the great vintage MM cartridges especially when you've had the Empire 4000D/III for 3 months now? Just mount it in your FR-66s and you will see what all the fuss is about?
Yes, now that I have the Victor TT-81 with my own arm-pods, I am able to mount any arm I can obtain. Who knows what the future will hold?
Good luck with your own Project.

David, a few answers to yur questions are in this thread already, may want to reread again. I would think bronze was chosen mostly for the weight.

Good Morning, Halcro

I know we're well launched into the Holiday season, so I don't expect an immediate response to my query from Nov 29.

When you have time, I am most interested to learn further about the mechanics of your setup and the [metallurgical] reasons for it, as in the questions from my earlier post.

Trusting that you and your loved ones are well, I send thanks in advance for your assistance, and

Best Wishes,

David

Hi Halcro,
having been engaged in many other topics for a while I am a late runner up to this thread. This seems to be a wonderful project you are doing Halcro, diving into the world of experimenting with old school arms and TTs. I am still focused more on MCs as TBone seems to be too. Nevertheless when you have the chance why not going for an old EMT 997 Banana ( NOS) and using the wonderful EMT cartridges, they are not expensive in comparison to most modern MCs. One of my favourites is the TSD 15 lzi - sorry this modern MC is for SME, not for the EMT connectors. A very good start without investing into a new arm. Maybe we see more fantastic arms on your Victor in the future...

Hello again, Halcro

After looking through your thread, reading your kind forum response and looking at your system photos I have a few more questions, please.

1) is there a "materials" reason to prefer cast bronze over aluminum, steel or brass?

2) are your tonearm towers solid or hollow?

3) where are your tonearm wires? inside the tonearm tower?

4) I didn't understand your term "packed" when applied to leveling the Tip Toes --a linguistic difference 'twixt here and there?

5) judging from your system photos, the shelf you mention is 'melamine', Formica or some kind of laminate over what we call particle board. Is that accurate?

6) How much did it cost to have your machinist fabricate the tonearm tower? Would it be remotely reasonable to have your machinist make two to send to the US (surface mail, no hurry) since he's already done yours?

7) What type of adjustable feet did you use for the bottom of the tonearm tower? made from what metal?

Thank you again, in advance, for any further support you can provide. A couple of close-up photos of a tonearm tower might help a lot.

Best Wishes,

David

Dear Halcro: IMHO I think that the source always is the most important factor/subject and then each one of the links that surround the source, in the cartridge case: tonearm, phono stage, TT, cables, etc, etc

What you are experienced with your D4000III is a confirmation of the importance in the tonearm/cartridge match. Till today IMHO does not exist yet the best tonearm but the best cartridge/tonearm combination.
Of course that is not easy to find out that best combination because we need to own a lot of tonearms to test cartridges there.

Could that Empire cartridge performs better in other tonearm?, certainly yes but you have to find out: hard task.

Anyway, good that you are enjoying your system with that source.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Hi Halcro, I was going to suggest the FR66s to you when you started your NUDE project I saw you already got a 64s so I did not bother recommending the 66s to you. Yes, the 66s is something else. At least you came to a solid conclusion.

I have been using the 66s for a long time and it is definitely something else. Last year, Dertonarm gave me some good tips of setting this beast up and it definitely made a heck of a difference (Thanks Dertonarm!). Please get yourself a Dennesen Soundtractor. You will need it to properly setup this tonearm. There are several versions to this tractor so before you buy one, please check with him to see if it is a genuine one.

Thanks William.
As I intimated in my conclusive post, I really feel that the cartridge is possibly more important than a well executed turntable design of any type? And the arm may be just as important?
At the moment I am listening to the the Empire 4000D/III on the FR-66s on the Raven AC-3 and it is quite literally sublime.
The Fidelity Research 12" arm is definitely the "King" of tonearms as it has been described.
It really beats the Continuum Copperhead which itself beat the Phantom II and DaVinci 12" Ref Grandezza.
So as with all things in audio, there are no absolute "absolutes"?

Halcro
Just recently I was introduced to the play back sound of a direct drive Technics SP-10 MKII mounted in a Panzerholz plinth.
This experience came about from a purchased item from this fellow audio enthuses with pick up only.

To make a long story short we chatted about audio related stuff and listened to music before I went on my way.

I have similar to your investment for a modern turntable and during the couple of hours of listening to his table and system a realization quickly came over me that made me pause...........

What was first apparent was the tonal balance ,rhythm, pace and overall life in the music that my system only hinted at but never breaking through into that new vinyl play back territory, well new to me.
In other words this direct drive table, so to speak, punched through a cloud cover that I was not aware of.

30 plus Gs for my current front end is serious bread for anyone and right now I feel foolish.

Halcro you bring up some good points here 10-31-10 which prompted me to go through old issues of the Absolute Sound, late 1970s and early 1980s issues though some are missing I did come across a mention of a Harry Weisfeld of VPI fame and his modified Technics SP 10. I need more time to go through them.........Maybe it wasn't all about the search for the absolute sound after all.

In any advent, I have shamelessly invited myself back over for more listening of this direct drive wonder.

BTW great work and interesting topic.

Regards William

Thanks again Pryso,
Yes you're right. The shelf is certainly 'mass' loaded but with the actual turntable isolated on spikes, there is theoretically a de-coupling from this 'mass'?
And don't the adherents to massive plinths require direct 'coupling' via bolts or screws? Although I do recall someone making plinths who advocates that the turntable merely 'sits' on the plinth without mechanical connection?

pryso, I was thinking the exact same thing! \

Having substantial weight on the same platform as the TT may actually do some of the same things as mass loading the TT itself

I'm just sayin

Halcro, what is the weight of your TT-81? You may be "plinth-less", but with 25 pounds for each arm pod the total mass loading on your laminated shelf must be around 100 pounds, possibly more.

Again, beautiful design and execution.

Bpoletti and Raul,
Thanks for the kind words.
Dear David,
A lot of your questions can be answered by looking through my 'progress' postings on this site.
You will see photos as I procured arms and cartridges and designed the arm-pods and then had them cast in solid bronze and then had them painted in an automotive shop.
1) the TT-81 sits on Tip-Toes (3) which are important to pack to get level.
Also important is to position the cones so that their centerline is directly under the pressed metal wall of the motor housing. This maintains the utmost rigidity and transfer of loads so that no twisting or movement of the casing is possible.
2) No base. The TT-81 sits on a 33mm laminated shelf cantilevered off the brick wall via aluminum brackets.
3) Towers are free-standing and made of solid cast bronze each one weighing 25 lbs and fitted with screwed adjustable spikes for leveling and isolation. A 10mm solid aluminum top-plate to the pods has a centre hole drilled to suit whatever arm you might have and this plate is screwed to the bronze pod.
4) The proximity of each arm-pod is determine by the individual arm's spindle to pivot distance geometry which comes with each arm.
A Feikert aluminum distance gauge is essential for setting these up. Once set, the weight of the pods sitting on 3 spikes makes them virtually immovable in general arm use.
5) No treatment to underside of metal curved motor shield of the TT-81.

If you still have further questions after looking through the progress "links", please feel free to ask.

Good luck.

Dear Halcro: First I want to congratulate you because of your really " open mind "/unbiased/non-comercial attitude to decide test/try the " naked " DD TT project, second for your detailed follow-up of your project implementation through those pictures in your site and third for your great post about the " naked " quality level performance.

The " naked " project comes to my mind several years ago when I tested with my Denon DP-80 and DP-75 ( similar looks to your Victor. ) and where I had a great success against the Denon wood/MDF plinths and against two heavy ( 40kg eac one. ) and beautiful plinths made one from green marble and the other from beige Onyx ( I still have it. ). Then I try it with my SP-10MK2's and confirm the high quality performance that the approach has against same plinted TT's that I heard it.

The naked road has some " edges " where IMHO the most important is what we are looking for.

Any plinth IMHO has its own " distortions/colorations " that put it away from true neutrality/inert, that we can think there is no such " colorations " because we can't aware easyli of them does not means does not exist, we have to remember that the phono cartridge is a very sensitive ( way more sensitive that our own ears. ) microphone that " sense " and detect tiny very tiny " colorations " that the plinths have.
Your experiences only confirm the fact:

+++++ " The first thing I noticed about the TT-81 DD turntable was the distinct absence of ‘colouration’ or ‘signature sound’. " +++++++

this is what is supposed/should be a TT: a neutral audio device!.

No plinth at all means one less stage ( with a plinth in reallity we have more that one stage. ) to contaminate the audio signal. Seems to me that the best plinth is no plinth at all.

Yes the naked/no-plinth way could be not as beautiful looking as those very fine plinths out there but IMHO if we are looking for Excellence in quality performance then the naked project is very very good " un-expensive " alternative.
The other advantage that like me with the naked/nude approach is how easy is to add two or three tonearms!.

I confirm my congratulations to you ( btw, thank you Nilthepill. ) because you don't thinked: " well that naked alternative that Raul speaks could be interesting but maybe not and forget it. ", instead of this you want to be sure what happen through that naked project and as my friend Jorge you have success too, good!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Halcro, no apology needed. I should have read your prior posts for more background.

I have great respect for Raul's experience in audio but he is definitely swimming against the tide regarding DD plinths. Even Technics introduced three Obsidian plinths during production of the Mk 2 and 3 tables and each one was more massive than the one before. Also, every other post I've read on DD plinths claims sonic improvements when more massive plinths replace original light-weight versions.

I'm way overdue in building a plinth for my SP-10 Mk 2 and have only listened with it mounted on a 3/4" particle board to provide a platform to mount the tonearm. I must admit that sounds very nice so perhaps 40+ pounds of plinth are not necessary after all. I was just hoping you might be doing the more direct comparison. And based on the thoroughness of your review, I'm certain it would have been helpful had you done so. ;-)

Dear Ecir38,
Thank you for your kind words and also the link to the info on the Micro tonearms.
I find it frustrating to find any 'history' on all these vintage arms, turntables, and cartridges as I think Google does not include many Forums in its searches and that where most of this archival information is now to be found.

I simply love the Ma-505s not only for its sound but for its looks, design ideas and superb manufacturing quality. It has all the looks and feel of a pre-war Leica camera but the ingenuity of its VTA (on-the-fly), Antiskate (on-the-fly) and unique VTF (on-the-fly because of its Dynamic weighting), makes adjusting 'by ear' the easiest I have ever found in any arm.

Dear Pryso,

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear but in my Intro to this Project I provided a Link to my System Page where I stipulated that I would NOT be testing the TT-81 with a plinth. To quote.....

.Now this will NOT be a scientific test in the sense that I won’t (at this stage), be testing the TT81 in a plinth.

You see I can't grasp the purpose of a plinth in a Direct Drive Turntable?
For an Idler Wheel or Rim Drive I can see that there are gears and rods and metal moving parts to support as well as the thrust bearing for the platter and similarly with a Belt-Drive there is the support for the thrust bearing and sub-platter assembly as well as support for the motor (usually) and of course there is the mounting required for the arm-board and arm.

With a Direct-Drive where the motor is in-line and supports and turns the sub-platter directly, I see no physical necessity for a plinth other than to perhaps support an arm-board assembly?

In any case, thanks for your comments and I apologise again if i wasn't sufficiently clear in the beginning?

Good Evening, Halcro,

Thank you *very much* for your hard, painstaking work and what appears to me to be scientific detachment in researching plinth --and nude plinth-- options.

I have an SP10 and want to get it spinning discs. On another thread I'm considering plinth options, but to do full diligence --and thanks to Raul for his encouragement-- I need to looking into a Nude configuration, too. When I settle in to listen at home, in my room, I want to know that whatever I spent, it was well considered.

1) Can you tell me how you support your Victor, perhaps with more detailed photographs?

2) Did you have to build a base of any kind for it, or does it rest on your shelf by itself? (I've looked at your photos and can't tell from their viewpoint how the table is supported) Did you have to have a tower made to support your arm? or did you make it yourself?

3) Was the tower free standing? and of what material?

4) How is the proximity of the arm tower determined and maintained in relation to the table?

5) Did you treat the underside of the Victor TT with any resonance coating or treatment? if so, what material, affixed how?

I look forward to your response, and thank you again for taking the time, not only for inquiry, but to share your results on the 'Gon.

with Best Wishes, and Happy Thanksgiving,

David Kellogg

Hi Halcro,

I admire this path you took, few would go this this route.

I like your selections of tonearms and look forward to future input on what headshell cart combinations you like best with the MA505.

I have a MA505 and a MA202L I would like to add to a new plinthe for my 301 in the near future.

Here is a good compilation of Micro Seiki tonearms I recently came across.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/index.php%3Fpage%3DThread%26threadid%3D4711%26boardid%3D2&ei=SgLbTOXhNsqBhQf1lonQAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q7gEwAA&pre

Brad

Halcro, Thanks for that amazing review. It leaves no question in my mind as to and performance detail.

Dear Cabbiendi and Nilthepill,
Thank you so much for your kind words.
Often it's difficult to know if anyone is reading this or is even interested, so your feed-back is very encouraging.

Cheers

Halcro, outstanding review. I agree fully with the other two complements (so far) on your efforts.

However I must express one disappointment. You stated the "germ" for your project was the discussion on different plinth materials for DD tables. So then you found and assembled a DD system that was more satisfying than your reference belt-drive table. Fair enough. But unless I misunderstood your intentions, you ended up comparing a belt-drive system against a DD one. And this says nothing about how your "nude" Victor would compare against a plinthed Victor, aside from your comments speculating that any of the plinths changing sound with different materials would actually be colorations.

Apparently it was not your intent but I was hoping to see a comparison of nude VS plinthed tables.

Halcro,

I am simply speechless. Well written post reflecting stark honesty. No cliche's, no BS.

I have been reading about rogress in building this nude TT project and it certainly seems your uncompromising dedication and $$ cost really paid off.

A lot of credit goes to Raul also, obviously

Bravo!

Hi Halcro,

I rarely post in Audigon, I have done this just once.
This is one of the best posts ever written about TT comparison and I include all the forums. I'm in a search more or less like yours and I'll share my findings in due time along 2011.
Congratulations for the way you managed your project.

Excellent.

Sincerely,

These are the two turntables under review.
TWO TURNTABLES

Is the modern-day Raven with its three state-of-the-art modern arms, eight times better than the 30 year old Victor TT-81 with its three vintage arms?
Not in my opinion.

Is the modern-day big Raven better head-to-head with the ‘nude’ vintage Victor TT-81?
Not in my opinion.

Could the ‘nude’ Victor TT-81 DD turntable actually be better than the modern high-end belt-drive Raven AC-3?
Please read on…………

The ‘germ’ for this Project came from an exchange of Posts on Audiogon about the relative merits of different plinth materials for the ‘infamous’ vintage Technics SP10 MKIII DD turntable.
Different woods were discussed together with slate and Panzerholtz, all of which apparently, changed the sound of the SP10 MKIII.
Raul, a rather ubiquitous poster on this site, provocatively claimed that to his ears the SP10 sounded better without any plinth?

Now for several years I have been following the claims of various groups of audiophiles for the advantages of idler/rim-drive turntables and direct-drive turntables over the generally accepted supremacy (of the High-End Audio Industry), for belt-drive.
Having started in audio with a cheap Technics DD turntable 32 years ago I had progressed rapidly to belt-drive with a Rega Planar 3 and had auditioned Linns and a SOTA Star Sapphire in my system during that time.
I must confess with some embarrassment, that I have never been able to hear dramatic differences between most decently made turntables and that includes the Continuum Caliburn and the Rockport Sirius III.
In fact I’m generally at a loss to understand how others are able to differentiate the ‘sound’ of the turntable from that of the arm/cartridge combination in an unknown system?
So those readers who claim to be able to, can ignore the rest of this report content in the confirmation that I am (and always have been), a cloth-eared dolt?
I have always heard far more dramatic differences in cartridges and to a lesser extent, various arms although as most analogue lovers acknowledge, the arm/cartridge synergy is an inseparable entity?

This comment from Raul about the Technics SP10 sounding fine to him without a plinth germinated in my mind a plan, which might allow me to hear the sound of a vintage DD turntable without the expense of purchasing a respected plinthed Technics, Pioneer or Denon?

I found a 30 year-old Victor TT-81 on Ebay and the story as it developed, is described in this Forum.

I took a long time to evaluate many cartridges on many arms spanning both turntables so as to be quite sure of my impressions and conclusions.

The first thing I noticed about the TT-81 DD turntable was the distinct absence of ‘colouration’ or ‘signature sound’.
I recall in his review of the Raven AC-3 in TAS 2008, Jonathan Valin commented on its rich and beautiful sound but intimated that ‘every’ record was projected with this richness and beauty (no such bad thing?).
In other words, the table itself seemed to ‘overlay’ a euphonic colouration.

It’s not that one is aware of this occurrence unless one is able to directly compare the presentation to another table (in Valin’s case, the Walker Black Diamond).
The downside to this colouration is that differences in cartridges and tonearms are harder to differentiate. Indeed, even changes to arm geometry, VTA, VTF and azimuth are harder to discern.

With the TT-81, suddenly even the slightest change to VTA, VTF or azimuth is instantly noticeable.
Cartridge and arm differences were clearly and repeatedly discernable whilst with the Raven, they seemed subtle and often minor.

The second thing that became apparent with the TT-81 was a slightly more rhythmic presentation to the music.
This is hard to accurately describe but on ‘Easy Skankin’ from the Bob Marley album Kaya, the Raven had a more ‘laid-back’ beat whilst the TT-81 drove it forward on the ‘front foot’ so to speak.
Which one is more correct I’m not sure. Each one is perfectly listenable, but it does, over time, become apparent that rock music in particular, has a ‘punchier’ snap to the beat and off-beat. This does get the feets a’tappin.

The third difference was to me, the most convincing yet I’m at a loss to explain or understand it?
We are all aware that with live music (whether acoustic or amplified), when the volume and/or complexity increases, the “air” seems to expand to accommodate the increased volume without distortion.
With home audio on the other hand, the louder and more complex the music becomes, the more ‘constricted’ the “air” seems to become with an increase in perceived distortion?
I’d always associated this phenomenon with speaker limitations, listening room limitations, amplifier clipping or recording-source overload?
With the TT-81 however (especially with MM cartridges), when the volume/complexity increased, the “air” seemed to increase just as it does in the live event?
It wasn’t totally as unlimited as ‘live’, but it was the damn closest I have yet heard.
Could it be the torque and power of the DD turntable ‘pushing’ the vinyl past the stylus thus overcoming the increased friction of the more heavily modulated grooves of the loudest/complex passages whilst the belt-drive turntable does not have that advantage?

I am not going to describe all the ‘new’ sounds and instruments I discovered on familiar discs. Those clichés are so meaningless I sometimes wonder if the reviewer heard any instruments when he first bought the disc?
Nor am I going to tell you how wonderful all my favourite tracks sounded on the TT-81 compared to the Raven AC-3. Comparing degrees of ‘wonderfulness’ must surely be an exercise in self-abuse and in any case, a wonderfully recorded track will often sound ‘wonderful’ on many systems, even poor ones.
I have a far more revealing test which involves well recorded but demanding source material which can sound unlistenable on any but the very best systems (http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1236947666&openmine&zzHalcro&4&5#Halcro)
Now the tracks….”Alabama” and “Words” on Neil Young’s “Harvest” album are a real favourite of mine to test a ‘system’.
So unlistenable have they sometimes sounded on various systems (including mine), that wives have literally vapourised like banshees down hallways shrieking at the pain.
The very ‘best’ I have managed to extract out of these two tracks on the Raven was with the Empire 4000D/III on the Copperhead arm with cartridge/arm geometry set to the micron.
At that stage, the tracks were listenable but still never ‘enjoyable’.

On the TT-81 with all three arms fitted with MM cartridges, these tracks were finally able to be understood in respect to their recording techniques and became ‘almost’ enjoyable…….no shrieking wives to be seen or heard.
The climax to Respighi “Pines of Rome” (LSC-2436) was suddenly understandable as his attempt at a musical ‘orgasm’ and with the TT-81 there were no distortions.
The Arnold “Overture to Tam O’Shanter” on Witches Brew (LSC-2225) was handled with ease and aplomb whilst the Prokofiev “Love for Three Oranges Suite” on Mercury SR-90006 45RPM was shocking and startling instead of ‘shocking and unbearable’.
Another test in this regard is to play side 3 of the original Apple recording of the Beatles “White Album” without squirming?

In other words it was no contest in this regard which I prize rather highly.
The TT-81 crushed the Raven.

I had read reports that suggested the bass performance of DD turntables was not generally as good as belt-drives?
With the TT-81, the bass went lower than the Raven AC-3, with more control and better definition whilst the highs were simply ethereal. Now the bass of the Raven is renowned as being amongst the best and deepest of modern turntables so another myth bites the dust?
When Michael Fremmer claimed that most turntables’ bass performance seemed to directly reflect their weight (ie the heavier the table, the better the bass performance), he obviously hadn’t encountered the Victor TT-81?

Soundstage?….front to back?…side to side?
I heard no appreciable differences between the two tables and really I find this attribute to be more related to the cartridge than the turntable.

What I really love about the TT-81 and the three vintage arms I have, is the ‘instant’ start-up and ‘stop’ of the platter and the easy switching of headshells with cartridges.
Until you experience this ‘blessing’, you won’t believe that you struggled with changing cartridges on modern arms without a word of complaint?

I really love ‘rave’ reviews….even when they seem to go OTT so here goes………
To test this $300 thirty year old turntable against the $18,000 Raven AC-3 is one thing.
Let’s bring in some real competition!!!
REAL COMPETITION

Here is the Continuum Caliburn with Cobra arm and Lyra Olympos cartridge which costs $120,000 without the Castellon stand and is rated by Michael Fremmer as the greatest turntable/arm combination he has ever heard.
With the TT-81 and the Grace 940G with the Technics EPC100 Mk3 and custom arm-pod, the cost is $2,360 and although it was not possible to listen in the same room through the same system, there was simply ‘daylight’ between the two sounds.
The TT-81/Grace/Technics combination trounced Goliath (much to the chagrin of Goliath’s owner).

When I began this Project, I really hoped to spend a couple of thousand dollars to hear the differences between belt-drive and direct-drive turntables and also to end up with some ‘cheap’ vintage tonearms.
What has eventuated is the creation of an analogue playing system, the likes of which I have never heard equaled anywhere.

I know nothing about the Technics SP10 Mk2 or Mk3 turntables and their similarity or otherwise to the Victor TT-81.
The fact that most users agree that they sound better in some form of plinth is persuasive (although if every plinth material and thickness changes the ‘sound’ why is that not a ‘colouration’?)

The TT-81 sounds simply ‘perfect’ naked. If anyone can explain to me (logically and scientifically) why wrapping a plinth around this turntable will make it better, I’d be interested?

For the here and now I must conclude that Raul has a valid viewpoint about his ‘nude’ DD turntable preference…..at least in relation to the TT-81.

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.

Sorry T_bone,
I didn't intend to denigrate your experience with vintage MM cartridges although re-reading my post I can understand if that was your impression?
Rather I was dubious about your admiration for the design of 'modern' tonearms?

I too a few years ago, approached this subject thinking that the new tonearms must be better than the old due to increased technology and knowledge however my recent experiences are leading me to agree more readily with Dertonarm's view that very little new has been uncovered (as opposed to discovered) about the real principles of tonearm design since the 70s and 80s except for perhaps making them more easily adjustable?.....but even that is dimmed slightly by the MA 505 example.

My apologies again and as always, individual experiences may differ?

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.

T_bone,
Until you hear the very best MM cartridges that Raul is helping us find, on the best-matched low-mass arms designed for such high compliance cartridges, you will not experience the sound that has made Raul embark on this campaign?

And from my experience, the very best 'modern' tonearms are simply not designed to match these high-compliance cartridges?

I have personally conversed with 3 of today's top turntable and arm designers/manufacturers (no names), and do you know what arms they invariably use to compare their designs to?.......the Graham arms and in particular the Phantom. They will also listen to the Triplanar in comparison.
Not one of them mentioned listening to any 'vintage' arms in their design comparisons nor did any of them do any serious listening with MM/MI cartridges?
They all used LOMC cartridges to 'voice' their arms with one of them admitting to 'voicing' his arms using Lyra cartridges particularly the Olympos and Titan.

Now T_bone, if you've ever mounted a high compliance MM cartridge in a Phantom arm, you will know that it is not a match made in Heaven? And yet this is the arm that some of the top modern-day designers are using as their 'Reference'?

If a current arm designer does not listen to his arm in comparison to a perfectly working FR-64s or FR-66s (with silver wiring), then progress in arm design is still a long way off IMHO?

Genesis168, I agree with you and would go even further.
There are turntables and arms made 30 years ago that are demonstrably better than even the very top models of today's designs IMO.

Imagine an arm today that not only has VTA 'on the fly' but also has Anti-Skate 'on the fly' and also VTF 'on the fly'?
That not only has hydraulic arm 'lowering' but also hydraulic arm 'raising' and both static and dynamic balancing AND inter-changeable headshells?
Anybody?......Anybody?....Bueller?
Well the Micro Seiki MA505s from 30 years ago has it all and is built like the pre-war Leica cameras.
Oh....and it sounds very nice as well.

DearRaul,
Thanks for your encouragement. It was you who planted the idea for this whole experiment and I am enjoying it and learning a great deal about TTs, arms and cartridges.
The reason I can't turn the TipToes upside down is because the base of the cones need to be positioned directly under the centreline of the vertical metal wall enclosure of the TT-81 so that no structural 'moment' is induced which allows the turntable to 'flex'.
I tried the Tiptoes positioned inboard slightly so that they were flush with the wall of the enclosure and there was so much 'moment' induced in this off-set, that you could physically twist the turntable by holding the top and rotating.
In the current arrangement, there is no movement possible whatsoever but I am looking at maybe trying StillPoints instead but they are mighty expensive to simply 'try'?
My armpods are on adjustable steel 'spikes' which are necessary to 'level' them but also to transfer the immense load (26 lbs) onto 3 infinitesimal points so that they become immovable when using the arms.
This works a treat as I am able to pull, adjust, and change headshells without the slightest risk of even minute movement of the pods.

Regards and many thanks Raul
Henry

Bpoletti,
I started with the Empire 4000D/III on the Grace 904, the Empire 1000ZE-X on the Micro 505s and the ZYX Universe on the FR-64s. I then switched to the ATT155LC on the FR-64s and the AT-20ss on the 505s.
I've put back the Universe on the FR-64s and plan to attach the Dynavector XV-1s to the FR-64s later today.

Fear not........I am trying to cover all bases here?

Dear Halcro: Looks really gorgeous that whole set up, congratulations!.

I think that even that certainly you already have a good performance set up I think that you even that have " land to explore " not only on the set up fine tunning but with some " little " changes/tests here and there. These are some experiences about with my naked Technics SP-100:

- I try those tiptoes like footers in both positions and I liked a little more in up side down position ( point at the TT bottom cover.

- Than's that I found the AT pneumatic footers I made a comparison against the tiptoes ones and in my place I like the more the AT: footers.

- My arm pod was not so pretty like the ones you own but certainly works. I test here too with some tiny footers for the arm pod. I think could be interesting that you could think about, it makes a difference.

- right now I don't have mounted/on system's place the nake Technics due that I want to make some tests with my Denon's ( DP-80/75 , that are very similar in appeareance to the TT-81. ) and the Technics but with out bottom plate/cover.
This is something that you could try in the future.

A lot of fun and I think worth to try this NUDE project.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Of course there are many great designed tonearms today. I am not disputing that. There are also many great designed vintage tonearms as there are cartridges and tables too. Why are people going back to garrards, technics etc? Micro seikis were almost unheard by "most magazine reading audiophiles" in north america 15 yrs ago compared to now.

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, Raul is correct about many things. A good mm cartridge is actually very good and satisfying sounding and much easier and less fussy than a LOMC to setup. Vintage turntables and tonearms are no worse than today's great design. The Japanese made 12" and on the fly VTA way back some 40 yrs ago and it is not anything new.

Yes, these are also many good designs today as with tonearms, carriages and tables a but it is wrong to slag off the vintage components our beloved magazines did to protect the industry. Now people are starting to wake up. Good luck in your test and let us know.

Pods look great! Excellent multi-arm set-up. Very kewl. Could you post what carts are being used on which arms? Do you have a "modern LOMC" on one of the arms for comparison to the mm/mi carts?

Thanks Genesis168,
I will certainly be comparing the TT-81 to the Raven AC/3 but this comparison may be more than simply that?
Raul has helped me to realize that the great MM cartridges made 30 years ago, are more than just a match for the very latest and expensive LOMC cartridges of today. They are in fact IMHO, more natural,detailed, truthful and distortion-free than the very best MCs.

So who determined 35 or more years ago, that MM cartridges were deficient and that MC cartridges were inherently better?
And why did the audio press push this belief and why did the high end consumer swallow this propaganda?

Similarly with turntables. Who was it who decided that the simple belt-drive method was inherently better than idler-drive and direct-drive? And again.......why did the audio press (especially in England) push this concept?

And who was it who suddenly determined that 'bent' tonearms with detachable headshells were poor sounding devices and straight arms with fixed headshells sounded better?
Did anyone actually listen to the best of the 'bent' arms and compare their new fixed straight arms to them?

With so much actual feedback now available via the Internet, there is evidence that the last 30-40 years of so-called technological development in high-end audio may be nothing more than marketing, PR and promotion by people and companies with self-serving interests?

This Project may shed some light on some of these questions?

Very cool Halcro. Nice collection of the nicest vintage tonearms and cartridges. Pls let us know how it compares to the raven.

Thanks T_bone. I'm pleased with them and initial listening tests are very promising.