Ain't that the truth. Funny how so many end users find the net result to be simpatico. I am an agnostic, haven't heard it. But I do love my own Lenco L75 with PTP in slate plinth. I am sure you have made an uninformed negative judgement of that as well. |
What Syntax wrote is the Truth.
"Hi Jfrech, good as the AC-3 may be, there must be room for improvement, otherwise TW wouldnt have come up with the Black Knight..." Not necessarily.
More expensive does not equal better. But if you are really unhappy in the ways you state, the tonearm, cartridge, and maybe even the phono stage must also be called into question. Meantime, for a different take on turntables, you should sample an idler drive or a direct-drive tt. There is no better idler in the world than the Saskia, and it costs less than $50K. For direct-drive, you can consider the Grand Prix Monaco or any of the vintage Japanese greats, like the Technics SP10 Mk3, Kenwood L07D, Pioneer Exclusive P3, Onkyo PM100, Denon DM100, etc. None of those latter will cost you anywhere near as much as a full-up Raven AC3, let alone $50K. For even less money, consider a Lenco L75 or Garrard 301/401 in a state of the art plinth. Really, it's a different world. You owe it to yourself to at least stick your toe in the water. |
Peter, "Well-healed" indeed. Maybe after dropping that lead platter on your big toe. I have been impressed by the Walker too, every time I have heard one. |
Alectiong, Since there seems to be a consensus that Vibraplane or Minus K is a sine qua non for mounting a suspension-less turntable, why not buy one of those two and try it with your AC3, before making up your mind. Either platform will be compatible with most of the other options (since most of them also are suspension-less).
I totally agree with Dertonearm's philosophy, which is why I could take issue with some of the alternative choices he lists (all belt-drive types), although I don't have anywhere near the breadth of his experience. I nevertheless find that rather amusing. If you want a fundamental paradigm shift, you really do need to try a top-notch idler drive turntable (Saskia) or direct-drive (candidates listed previously be me and others). Win Tinnon, who makes the Saskia, is one of the best guys you would ever want to meet in audio or anywhere else. (Careful, though, the Saskia weighs 200 lbs.) |
We all agree. We just may or may not agree on what is a cow and what is a racehorse.
Syntax, I am blown away by the description of your speakers. They must be remarkable. |
Dertonearm,
In the spirit of this discourse, you wrote "all great turntables able to provide those lowest 2 registers (and by doing so donating to the listener all the upper registers with increased ease and transparency as well...) will feature a platter weight of at least 30 lbs and way up. Regardless of bearing type or drive mechanism. It is a game of amplitude of energy implied versus mass."
Can you cite the math and/or physics that support this statement? I don't find it intuitively obvious that your generalization holds true for all turntable types. (But I will say that those who have heard both say that the SP10 Mk2 [8-lb platter] differs from the Mk3 [22-lb platter] mainly in the superior low bass response of the latter table, which is consistent with what you wrote.) Anyway, the Saskia would still qualify for your list on the basis of platter mass. |
Dertonearm, The billiard experiment you cite is an interesting analogy. It seems to me that when the billiard ball encounters the billiard table, it is first of all sitting on the felt cover. The outcome of the experiment would seem to depend on how much of the kinetic energy of the ball is absorbed by the felt/stone entity vs how much is reflected back into the ball. That has a lot to do with what happens right at the interface of the ball and the felt/stone. Different kinds of felt might affect the outcome, for example. Billiard table stone is usually slate. Slate from different locales around the world has very different hardness. Hardness or density would affect what portion of the energy is absorbed vs reflected. In other words, it's not only about mass. High turntable platter mass would be good though to sink the absorbed stylus energy as heat rather than to reflect it back into the cartridge, if the platter material were of a nature to absorb enerby from vinyl rather than to reflect it. So platter composition would have something to do with this phenomenon as well.
There is also the question of whether ideally one wants to absorb the energy imparted by the cartridge or to reflect it back to the cartridge. In this aspect, the billiard ball analogy may fail. I cannot argue with your listening experiments, as you cite them to Mosin, but I am guessing you were using a belt-driven tt at the time. So there is another question of whether the drive system makes a difference. I have no basis to form my opinion on that except to say that I hear more solid base lines from upper mid-level direct-drive tables than from similar quality belt-drive tables, when the latter have platters of much higher mass. |
Dertonearm, I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, and I do thank you for your patience with my recalcitrance. I feel like this is a Socratic search for truth, not an argument. So.... you wrote, "The larger the difference in mass between two singular bodies - one (the smaller) moving on the other - the less energy is absorbed/withdrawn from the smaller moving mass by the larger mass underneath." I think this statement is incorrect for a ball rolling on a flat inert surface, provided it is a given that the surface does not deform due to the pure weight of the ball. (We could agree that a ball won't roll very far in mud.)
I know your conclusion re what type of tt is best is based on extensive listening and even more extensive trial and error experiments that I cannot come near to replicating. So I would not dare say you are wrong in that regard. I am just commenting on the why of it. |
Thuchan, you are so right. In the end all of us, except for Dertonearm who was in the business of turntable R&D, have opinions based on very narrow experience. That's possibly why it is of interest to consider the physical principles involved in the playing of an LP. Maybe science would take us closer to the highest form of the art. Anyway, it's fun.
DT, Yes, the energy must be conserved according to Newtonian Mechanics, but I believe it is dissipated as or converted to heat, as the cue ball rolls across the felt surface. The two masses (ball and table) are passive actors in this process; the bigger mass of the heavier slate would if anything more readily dissipate the energy in the ball than would a smaller mass of slate, or so it seems to me. I don't mean to preach; this is just me thinking out loud. I am waiting for my physics professor to correct me. |
Dear Dertonearm, Sorry to see you go. We could discuss it privately. I allowed all along that my reasoning could be faulty, but I have yet to hear the science-based counter-argument from you for your thesis that higher mass of the slate would result in a longer run of the billiard ball (which of course leads to the more relevant argument that higher mass platter per se gives better sonics). To say that your proposition is a well known given fact for billiard tables is not convincing to me in the slightest. It seems too obvious to say it but it was once a well known given fact that blood-letting is the best treatment for infections.
Dover, if you did not have your concept of how the servo mechanism works in a direct-drive turntable, would you still say the sound of an SP10 Mk3 is "chopped up"? What do you think is the frequency of servo action once the 22-lb platter of the Mk3 is up to stable speed? I would guess it is not sufficiently frequent to give the phychoacoustic effect of "digititis". I think your impression may be biased by your preconceptions. It happens to all of us. I am running an SP10 Mk2 right next to a Lenco w/idler drive. Comparing the sounds of the two, I hear nothing like what you describe. Since the Mk3 platter is 3 times heavier than that of the Mk2, I expect the Mk3 would be even less likely to exhibit the artifact you describe. |
Dear Dertonearm, I hate to harp on this issue, but I have a "thing" about bad science, such as your contention that the mass of the slate is a major determinant of the distance that a billiard ball will travel (and your bogus reason for saying so). I have done some reading on the physics of billiards, as a result of my consternation. Two things emerge from my research: (1) Once the ball is struck, the major contribution of the table to the distance and direction in which it travels is the static and rolling friction between the ball and the felt, as I surmised in the first place, and (2) slate is used for billiard tables not for its high mass per unit volume but because it can be worked to achieve a very flat surface, and once made flat, the surface of slate is very stable as regards humidity and temperature, i.e., it does not warp. Here I offer a reference to a pretty nice article I found on the internet that reviews the Newtonian mechanics of billiards:
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Classes/MATH198/townsend/math.html
Now if you can concede that your metaphor is ill chosen, perhaps we can also open our minds to re-examine the idea that platter mass is the sine qua non of the highest end turntables. If I could find an article that addressed your other bald statements, that a certain platter mass is needed, regardless of the drive system, and that the dynamic mass of the Saskia platter does not count as "mass", I would post those too. I don't have the requisite experience to disagree; I just don't think you have the "data", even of the subjective kind, to back up those two notions. The only defendable fact here is that YOUR turntable, which is a belt drive of a certain type and construction, sounded best with a platter of a certain minimum (high) mass when auditioned by you and your colleagues. (I don't know whether you made measurements of frequency response or speed stability that could be adduced to strengthen your case as regards your turntable, but if you did, I would be interested to see same. I am assuming your conclusions are based on subjective listening tests.) Now I can go bang my head against the wall, because my favorite football team just once again pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. |
Sorry, here is complete URL:
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Classes/MATH198/townsend/math.html |
Alectiong, I agree with your present course of trying to perfect or improve upon what you already own. Along those lines you might want to consider the heretical idea of going backward to only one motor driving the Raven AC. If you go that route, you might also consider the introduction of a passive roller to wrap the drive belt more closely to the circumference of the platter. (For example, take a look at what is done with the new Artemis Labs turntable.) One of the other forum members has made a similar device for use with his VPI turntable, and he is very pleased with the improvement. This strategy reduces belt creep, a bugaboo of belt-drive. A machinist could make the needed part for you. Alternatively, you might consider driving the platter with an outboard idler wheel, a la Teres rim drive. (Dertonearm is sure to jump/dump on that idea, and even I have my reservations about the particular way in which the Teres rim drive was designed, but reports from end users are in general favorable.) These ideas would be in addition to suggestions submitted by others, such as use of Minus K, etc. In any case, I encourage you to "think outside the box". |
DT, you wrote,"Now - if you jump from firm solid rock ground it will be different as if you'd jump from a suspended wooden floor and the landing will be different too - right? Do I need to say more ?" You might say more about the relevance of this metaphorical and rhetorical question to turntables. But don't bother on my account.
Aoliviero, There is no free lunch. Each of the common mechanisms for spinning a platter has its particular set of compromises, including high mass platter/loose belt types. If you really want to learn more about it, go to Vinyl Asylum and search for the posts of Mark Kelly on this topic. He has done real experiments, and he can back up his conclusions with physics. Don't get nervous, DT, he likes much about belt drive turntables, but not the whole enchilada. |
Stiltskin, Be prepared for a lecture.
Mosin, I was thinking along the same lines. In fact, Alectiong may have already made his choice while we've been carping. I am very curious to know what he bought, or maybe he wants to sell his Raven/Grandeeza first. |
Dear Alectiong, Has your system ever previously given you those qualities which you now say are missing with the Raven AC? If so, was it an analog or digital source that gave you greater satisfaction? I will say that what you are seeking (or what you say is lacking from the Raven presentation) is in the very essence of what distinguishes a great idler-drive or direct-drive implementation from an otherwise great belt-drive one, in my limited experience. However, you might be able to get what you want from the Raven, if you were willing to modify its drive system (one motor with a pinch roller or rim drive; the added noise of the Teres rim drive motor is a trade-off you might find easy to live with). Personally, I never was convinced of the 3-motor approach. I think it is "sand in the public eye". |
Aoliviero, Difference between your Raven AC and Alectiong's Raven AC = 2 extra motors on his. That's why I suggest he should try driving the platter with only one motor. And you are correct, platter mat can make just the kind of subtle difference that Alectiong is looking for, but I thought the Raven AC platter was meant to be used with no mat at all, or a supplied special mat. And who could argue about the necessity to set VTA, VTF, alignment, etc carefully? |
That's another whole can of worms. But if the top surface of the platter is already copper, all that you would be doing by adding a copper mat is to increase the effective total mass of the platter. Sonic qualities should not change much. (Famous last words.) |
