More with the stupid extremes, inna? folkfreak can say such for illustration purposes because he is not limited to a $2k cartridge...
Dave
Dave
Turntable and Rack vibration control
Hi,
I moved from a Nouvelle Platine Verdier to a Loricraft Garrard 301. The big change with this move was that the Verdier comes with a terrific implementation of pneumatic suspension feet which kept the TT almost floating and hence great isolation from vibration. The result was always a noise/grain free playback and super clean backgrounds. With the Garrard, the plinth is typical custom made stacked birch ply with standard steel cones as footers. When placed directly on the rack the background is noisy, the images muddle up and overall music is not well sorted.
I do not expect the Garrard to be as quiet as the Verdier but I know it should not be this noisy either. In fact the Verdier also sounded noisy when I placed it directly on cones bypassing the pneumatic suspension feet.
I use a Hutter Racktime rack which is not like an overbuilt audiophile rack. It is more like an open frame rack with lightweight supports. It is a bit like a Rega TT, not very damped or controlled. The rack has pointy steel feet which rests on brass spike plates (mine is an wooden floor). I guess this implementation is not sophisticated enough to keep away vibrations and let the TT play quietly.
I am looking at two levels of solutions:
1. Replace the existing steel feet and brass plate with a quality vibration control footer below the rack
2. Replace the stock steel cone below the TT plinth with a better footer/platform.
I have tried Sorbothane, Squash balls kind of tweaks, while they reduce noise they slow down the music too.
I have also tried Stillpoints and Finite Elemente footers under the rack. They make the sound thin and metallic IMO. Platforms like Minus-K are too expensive so I have not considered them yet.
I am looking suggestions here, probably footers and vibration control devices that are more musically oriented yet well engineered like Shun Mook, Harmonix, SSC or something like an HRS platform ?
I moved from a Nouvelle Platine Verdier to a Loricraft Garrard 301. The big change with this move was that the Verdier comes with a terrific implementation of pneumatic suspension feet which kept the TT almost floating and hence great isolation from vibration. The result was always a noise/grain free playback and super clean backgrounds. With the Garrard, the plinth is typical custom made stacked birch ply with standard steel cones as footers. When placed directly on the rack the background is noisy, the images muddle up and overall music is not well sorted.
I do not expect the Garrard to be as quiet as the Verdier but I know it should not be this noisy either. In fact the Verdier also sounded noisy when I placed it directly on cones bypassing the pneumatic suspension feet.
I use a Hutter Racktime rack which is not like an overbuilt audiophile rack. It is more like an open frame rack with lightweight supports. It is a bit like a Rega TT, not very damped or controlled. The rack has pointy steel feet which rests on brass spike plates (mine is an wooden floor). I guess this implementation is not sophisticated enough to keep away vibrations and let the TT play quietly.
I am looking at two levels of solutions:
1. Replace the existing steel feet and brass plate with a quality vibration control footer below the rack
2. Replace the stock steel cone below the TT plinth with a better footer/platform.
I have tried Sorbothane, Squash balls kind of tweaks, while they reduce noise they slow down the music too.
I have also tried Stillpoints and Finite Elemente footers under the rack. They make the sound thin and metallic IMO. Platforms like Minus-K are too expensive so I have not considered them yet.
I am looking suggestions here, probably footers and vibration control devices that are more musically oriented yet well engineered like Shun Mook, Harmonix, SSC or something like an HRS platform ?
91 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
If folkfreak said the Herzan is the sh*t, then it likely is. I’m moving along on getting the Symposium Ultra platform setup under my TNT. Ordered a custom size Super Plus platform from Peter today for under the motor/flywheel assembly. All that’s left is to get the aluminum cut for the piers. Thinking end of next week as a target. Dave |
However, with such a dirty and unstable electical power you do need a motor controller. I use PS Audio regenerator for the entire system for now. What I do hear from time to time is that recording and mastering engineers were having kind of fun and as a result recording speed is not quite right - on LP, cd, computer - doesn't matter. Not to mention that they at times positioned microphones too far or too close and used piece of junk cables. And perhaps they also forgot to clean recording heads before recording. In another thread someone suggested Herzan active isolation platform. Anyone tried it ? It's $10k Swiss stuff. Looks serious. Definitely not this Symposium or even Minus-K, I suppose. Hard to speak for every set-up, though, I guess. |
Everything should be isolated. Not only audio components and speakers but all the heavy items in the room, chest of drawers, bookcase, couch, big overstuffed chairs. The most cost effective way to isolate furniture is with Small DH Cones but any cones will suffice. Super DH Cones are probably not (rpt not) cost effective but would be the best sounding. Maybe check the tweak closet for any cones you might have tossed in there. |
I use a 100lb concrete block, then a sheet of felt, then a marble counter top, all mounted on a heavy duty butchers block table with DIY spikes underneath. I have a pier and beam house, but I paid some kids to crawl under the house and install some DIY supports under my speakers and equipment rack. Works for me. |
Coming back 'on thread' so to speak - check out what EMT do with their decks. They have suspension tuned in the horizontal plane - I understand it is very effective, but there is a wholesale approach approach as opposed to a widget here and there. Many claim that 'three point' Linn type suspension blurs image etc - I am very curious as to why this is the case. I am a big fan of the original Townshend Seismic Stand (the air one) which I have - it is very effective with turntables - especially those that do not have suspension. BTW my low torque deck does have a thin polyamide belt and I have done plenty of experiments with tension - the issue remains the same and timing simply can't match my DD's and Idlers - it has other strengths though - like I said earlier. |
I'm simply stating my opinion which I believe represents the least compromised design. Having said that I'm a big fan of all turntables, at any price point wether it be belt, direct or idler drive. Furthermore I have experimented a fair bit with high torque motors and found no advantage regarding dynamics and noted a few disadvantages. In my design I am actually able to run the motor at half it's torque rating which netted on the fly improvements across the board. I'm open minded about it however but after a fair amount of testing this is where I've landed. |
Wet playing LPs probably reduces stylus drag, assuming it’s an issue, but it obviously reduces noise and distortion. The audiophile’s favorite, including mine, wet playing combo was a mixture of distilled wate and ArmorAll and one of those cute little Audio Technica red velvet roller brushes. Lubricant, coolant and just plain surfing fun for the stylus. 🏄🏻 |
Get a different bearing and replace the rubber belt with a thread and those issues will go away. It's not the motor torque it's the compliance of the belt and the relatively high friction bearing in your deck. Idlers and directs have their own challenges. Good examples of each sound more similar than different. Cheers |
Stylus drag is more audible to some than others - I am very timing sensitive. I have a low torque high mass deck, a high torque belt drive, an idler and some DD's. The low torque deck sounds great, but when it comes to busy passages it is audible and you can notice the struggle. A good tester for this I find to be the track 'Steppin Out' at the start where the piano starts wavering on my belt drive. With the greatest of respect Anvil. EMT have produced various great decks, the 927, 930, 950, 948. Have supplied radio stations the world over - made DD's, belt drives, phono amps, and cartridges. Not sure if you have the provenance of knowledge with which to dismiss the EMT analogy as hyperbole so easily... |
Sorry but I can't let this one go. Stylus drag is real but has a negligible effect in a well designed turntable. Generally, turntables suffer from way too much torque rather than not enough. Eliminating bearing friction is a better approach than an oversize motor. A great bearing makes a small motor act as it is HUGE. EMT's analagy is loaded with a bit of hyperbole to say the least . Only a crap design will be hindered by stylus drag. |
I must say that the low torque approach doesn't cut the mustard with my ears - stylus drag is real and it really messes up image and therefore timing. There's a great youtube clip by Halcro with a JVC tt101 having three cartridges playing with absolutely negligible drag. EMT explained the issue brilliantly in their manual for the EMT 950 likening drag to a truck going up a hill vs sports car. |
Received and installed 300 rpm/flywheel assembly today in place of my original 600 rpm motor. Yowza! Immediate improvement in PRAT and ebb-and-low of the music. No need to repeat the usual superlatives, but I will say that the reduction in the noise floor, er, floored me. A layer of foundation noise that I had always blamed on my phono stage is gone. So easy to hear more deeply into the music now. I also noticed improved coupling of the thread drive from the platter to the flywheel’s much larger spool vs directly from platter to motor spindle before. The flywheel and motor pulley continue to turn/wind down with the platter without slippage after shutting off the motor and the combo seems to even pull to speed more easily despite the added mass of the flywheel. The added mass/density of the motor/flywheel combo makes the "tap test" futile. No transfer of pops, thunks or rumbles from finger taps/flicks to the motor/flywheel assembly on to the stylus. Even though the old motor is very solid and very heavy, it couldn’t touch the new one for damping/isolation. A very good improvement. Now on to the Symposium Ultra platform installation...and, yes, Geoff, springs under the Big Rock. ;) Dave |
As I just posted on another thread about vibration the usual damping techniques, especially those employing soft rubbery materials, often fail to accomplish the mission. What is really needed for these stubborn cases is a method that allows the mechanical energy to exit the system rapidly, rather than stick around and reverberate inside the system. So, instead of attempting to muffle the vibration or control it with rubbery materials like Sorbothane it’s usually much more effective to employ either constrained layer damping or relatively simple devices like audio cones especially DH Cones, very hard materials, even crystals can be very effected in this regard. Or even, as suggested by the OP, Shun Mook Mpingo discs. Those devices provide a *path of least resistance," a mechanical diode, for the energy to exit stage right, as it were. 💃 |
Also, I'm not a fan of flywheels. They add unnecessary cost and complexity and add a second often poorly designed bearing. Much better to just add more weight to the platter. Don't get too caught up in the noise issue. Its not that hard to deal with in a GOOD all around design. I would take the 300 rpm motor because I like the larger surface area and grip that a larger pulley provides. Hope this helps |
Completely agree. Multiple motors, multiple belts etc. often compounds noise. Many manufacturers bearings produce so much friction they need either large or multiple motors to operate properly. A single AC motor operated with reduced voltage ( only possible with low friction platter bearing) solves many issues with no loss of dynamics. Alternately motors can be isolated enough to prevent most transfer although the belt is still a conduit. Generally the more rigid the belt the more potential for noise to get to the stylus albeit at a higher frequency which is easier to nullify. Often however sound quality improves enough ( micro dynamics/shading/transient Fidelity)with thread type belts that I would still prefer this method. A good heavy platter and oil well bearing will help swamp any noise as will the platter matt. |
Completely agree with that, Bruce. Do you feel that using a 300 rpm vs 600 rpm motor and/or an independent flywheel between motor and platter are effective as methods to reduce unwanted motor vibrations from reaching the stylus? How about thread drive vs rubber belts? My experience is that replacing rubber belts with a single thread is a big improvement, so I am surprised/confused by the recent trend toward two or three rubber belts between motor and platter from one TT manufacturer's tweakers... Dave |
You’re close, very close. You actually want to target the resonant frequencies of the platter, tonearm and cartridge, which are designed to exhibit resonant frequencies well below the lowest frequency of speakers, around 10 Hz to 15 Hz. So all you have to do is reduce or eliminate any vibration in the range 10 to 15 Hz. Vibration isolation would be a good place to start. |
I get it that throwing mass into a plinth or stand is one way to hifi Nirvana for some. That said, I am convinced that mass alone ain't the answer, neither damping. Of course the balance is important. In pursuance of this are people designing plinths targeting the resonant frequency generated by the motors in question? 300hz for ac motors; 50hz for DD etc? Surely targeting of the resonant frequency in the stand/plinth to match the primary source of vibration will allow the channeling away of the said energy, or am I being stupid - is it gonna be just a case of excacerbating the problem? |
| Post removed |
I've sold my footers and record enhancers to many idler type TT owners with plinths like yours. They will completely resolve your issue ! https://www.anvilturntables.com/ |
I made these. They seem to work well, look good, and are inexpensive. You can get free samples of marble from your local home depot so you have have a wide variety of coloring to choose from to match just about any design. http://www.conradjohnsonowners.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=137 [I hope it's ok to link to another forum site as I can't seem to post pictures here. If not, please remove my post]. |
As I dig deeper into this subject, at least for the Garrard it is all about vibration control or isolation. Mechanical vibration and electrical vibration both needs to be handled to the maximum and that too with our own intelligence. For example, putting a stillpoints footer under of 301 plinth does nothing to reduce noise floor, it just changes the tonality. Adding something like the Townshend seismic sink or even a tight sorbothane cone brings about a lot of silence. Connecting the garrard directly to my power distributor again makes for a rather noisy playback. Connecting it to my Monarchy AC regenerator reduces grain and noise but at the same time the signature of the AC regen and the power cord that connects the AC regen to the main distributor is also audible through the TT so it has to be well chosen. Anything cheap or flimsy just comes through in the sound glaringly. So, an elegant solution to all these isolation issues is a must for this deck and that seems to be non-trivial and expensive too. |
Pani, I the same problem with mine. I also have an EMT 927 and Dual 1229. Since I had an old Dual 1229 parts unit I removed the chassis springs and mounted them to the 301 in the same fashion as Dual has done with the 1229. (At the four corners of the chassis and counter sunk into the plinth. The result? Silence. I have hard wood floors and can jump up and down and not cause the 301 to mistrack. (Same with the Dual) It also reduced the motor noise which all 301's suffer from a little. (Yes my 301 motor has been rebuilt and the rubber grommet mounts are new) You might try it? I'm sure any 3/4 inch spring set should work. N. |
jollygreenaudiophile2 The only problem with using any app. is the fact that no matter how fine the code is written, at the end of the day your still at the mercy of whatever your using collect data. In this case, conduct the vibrations to your device. All vibratometers I know of come with a dedicated "probe" just for vibrations. So what your doing is basically trusting the 23 cent microphone in your phone. Would you trust a frequency analyzer app to do room correction? If you do your probably going to have a dead spot below 40 Hertze. Why? Because your phones mic cannot read at that level. >>>>>Huh? Whoa! A microphone? I’m afraid the microphone does not (rpt not) have anything to do with it. The microphone is for acoustic waves, you know, like voice, not (rpt not) seismic or mechanical vibration. The accelerometer in the phone is the device that detects and measures mechanical and seismic type motion, for example when you turn your phone on its side, the phone’s accelerometer detects the motion and corrects the screen display orientation accordingly. So the accelerometer(s) measures acceleration and by calculation velocity and direction are obtained. There are several reasons why some or most of these vibration apps won’t work for seismic vibrations, including but not (rpt not) limited to the fact that speakers do not (rpt not) produce any mechanical feedback below say 25 or 30 Hz. Two turntables and a microphone....where it’s at? cheerios |
I tend to agree with @jollygreenaudiophile2. I tried the iSeismometer app on my iPhone. It shows very very minor vibrations in the z axis. But the reading looks the same whether I place the iPhone on the TT platter, plinth, rack or on floor. No difference in reading which only goes to show that it is not sensitive enough to measure the differences in vibrations between these surfaces. Something much more sophisticated would be needed. |
The only problem with using any app. is the fact that no matter how fine the code is written, at the end of the day your still at the mercy of whatever your using collect data. In this case, conduct the vibrations to your device. All vibratometers I know of come with a dedicated "probe" just for vibrations. So what your doing is basically trusting the 23 cent microphone in your phone. Would you trust a frequency analyzer app to do room correction? If you do your probably going to have a dead spot below 40 Hertze. Why? Because your phones mic cannot read at that level. And then there's the accuracy. Ha ha, I wont even go there. Do you see my point? And I do trust my math. The last time I looked 2+2 still equals 4. So there IS that! Now, let's say you've spent the $1,500.00 bucks on the dedicated probe. The resolution of given app is about enough to tell you if there is a minor earth tremor or not. Not quite what you'd need to measure the nano-vibrations that are affecting your turntable, amp or Pre. If this was THAT easy everyone would be doing it! And I'd be bored. |
