Vibration Question

This is not a Plug for a product, but as their are plenty of measurements shown as part of the R&D for this design, and I am familiar with such type of recording being shown, through spending time with individuals who show to me their own recorded data for their own designs and works undertaken. I though it might be off interest for some to see the Vibration being present and the impact it can have.

The OP has certainly met suggestions for improvements to be put in place for  Vibration management being utilised for their TT's mounting.

 

@mijostyn The OP is very content with their method for interfacing the TT>TA and the Geometry being created. I am experiencing regularly a similar method and not able to detect detriment as a result of the method in use.

My own position on the subject of mounting additional TA's has been re-evaluated and my most recent design passed on to a TA designer/builder, has been one that is much much more in keeping with your leaning for the rigid coupling of the Platter Spindle and TA Pillar. 

The bearing modification on the chosen TT and New Design TA will both ensure the axis will be very very true. The selected Plinth material will ensure there is minimal loss to the critical geometries created, the machining on this Plinth design I am informed is to .01mm. If my design for a additional Armboard is put to use, I'm sure it will have been scrutinised for being fit for purpose before machining of any type commences.

I can't see any reason not to be supportive to an individual who is happy in their usage of a TT set Up, especially where I am offering up an input to a general inquiry.    

As stated previously on this forum, I have produced a TA Standalone Pod design. The intention of the Pod was to aid with an inquisitive mindset, and enable other TA's to be tried out in advance of swapping out the regularly used TA, at a time when I was suspecting a improvement could be found from an alternate TA. Theories never realised, I discovered my new TA through a different course.

I totally am on board with the use of a Standalone Pod to enable reasonably easy to achieve extended experiences, a lot worse has been done to achieve this. 

As stated, I am regularly experiencing a Standalone Tonearm Pod in use with a Glanz MH12 and SP10 R. I can't detect any sonic that is seemingly unattractive as  result of the Pod being used.   

As stated previously on this forum, for a TT > TA Interface, I lean heavily towards the philosophy of using the rigidly coupled design. In the earliest days of developing and interest in using TT's and the importance of the mechanical interfaces, I become a little obsessed  with the trueness of rotation of a Platter Spindle and this evolved into my interest in the stability of inherent properties for a  Plinth material.

I will assume the Plinth material interest was stimulated by the big name Manufacturers usage of resin composites as a Plinth, and how some smaller artisan entities with an interest in TT's moved on to resin composites and Natural Stone. I recollect on occasions being in discussions with the artisans about the use of Natural Stone over the usage of Stone Composite.

In the early 90's I moved on from the usual type Plinths and commenced using materials that I had come to understand (rightly or wrongly) as a very stable in its properties material for the use as a Plinth.

From the early 90's I have used Granite, this evolved and I moved on to Corian, and also purchased a quantity of Slate, a Metal Material never really got my interest. Stone Type material has been in use as the main material of interest until approx' 2015.

In 2015, I commenced meeting (face to face) with, Plinth Builders known for their work undertaken with the Polybentonite Resin. I was looking at this as an upgrade material, to become adopted and used in the place of Corian.

Whilst learning about the properties of Poly' Resin, especially the Damping / Dissipation properties having a desirable measurement, when adopted for use as a massy Plinth, with the intention of being used in place of Stone or Stone Composites. It was at this same time I was also made aware of material such as Panzerholz and Permali.

I was soon to  learn both P'holz and P'mali were becoming sought after materials to be used for a Plinth. I set out to become very familiar with these products manufacture methods ( Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood).

Additionally through other parties, I learnt how certain tested densified wood material has properties that are very stable and in relation of the Intrinsic Damping / Dissipation are very well suited for usage in audio.

One don't have to look to far today to see how Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Woods are in use in audio. As made known recently, Linn has also now adopted the use densified wood in their TOTR £60K TT, it is most likely from the Brand Panzerholz? It is not uncommon to see this Brand in use, where the Company using it for audio purposes has given it a 'in house' name. 

I am keen on / an advocate of rigid coupling the TT Spindle > TA Pillar when the material used to anchor the Chassis/ Platter Spindle and Tonearm are with intrinsic properties that prove them as being very stable. To have a material option that also has intrinsic properties that are attractive for Damping/Dissipation of energies being transferred is also a big bonus, when considering rigid coupling.

Over the years I have seen soak tests for high quality Board Materials, the types that one would want to see used in a wood used for a good quality Plinth. I have also looked into substantially increased in compression boards where the Kg per m3 close to a 1000Kg per m3, not the typical 650-750Kg per m3. If I have read the data correct these board types have substantial increase in dimensions when compared to a board type such a Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood.

Typical Boards are designed for a particular function and meet the parameters of the design requirements and will last for a particular period of function if used correctly.

Resin Impregnated Densified Wood is certainly not designed as a Plinth material, but does have intrinsic properties that lean towards it being a attractive option.

I am not suggesting in any way that materials such as P'holz or P'mali are the ideal material for all to use, the influence on the sonic produced may not be attractive to many who encounter the material in use. I am yet to meet somebody who has been demo'd a P'holz Plinth as a comparison to a alternative board material using the same model TT > Tonearm > Cart', that has not resulted in the individual rejecting the P'holz, I only know of individuals adopting the usage of the Resin Impregnated Densified Wood.         

I am trying to get across is Typical Boards or Woods selected for Plinth designs that are based on rigid coupling are not ideally stable. The Boards or Wood are reactive to the environment. The designs  in place allow moisture to penetrate, which will be a cause of expansion and shrinkage. 

There are other board materials used for Plinth design that getting data on is quite difficult, but through knowing the materials and seeing it in use as a daily used material regularly, will show that after periods of exposure to moisture, it can be sponge like, expanding to the point of destruction, where particulate has become detached from the solid.

A rigid coupling philosophy over looks in general the importance of the material selected to anchor the parts to.

I would be quite confident using a TA mounted directly over a Standalone Pod in conjunction with a TT, when each has the TA and Spindle anchored to a materials that has very stable properties. I also would be even more confident in using thios method if both Standalone Pod and TT were mounted on a single Sub- Plinth that was produced form a material that has very stable properties, as this would ensure the best of set up methods are in place to attempt to ensure critical geometries and dimensions are maintained. 

The anti-thesis is to mount both TT Spindle (Bearing Housing) or TT Chassis and Spindle with the TA onto a material that expands and contracts. This method strongly suggests critical geometries and dimensions are in constant fluctuation.

Individuals expressing an interest in the rigid coupling philosophy if in ownership of a TT that has this used as the method, will be in a very good position to see if theirs is a design that utilised materials to be anchored to that have very stable properties.

As somebody with long history of expressing a keen interest in mechanical interfaces and the maintenance of the dimensions used for the geometries being used, the rigid coupling method has been discovered to have many sides to it that are worthy of raising concerns.

Some of the designs known of, would easily be replaced as a betterment using the suggestion for mounting a Standalone Pod referred to earlier. 

Not to be overlooked, for the record, listening and enjoying the entertainment is the goal. All methods employed to interface a TT and Tonearm are quite capable of replaying recorded music to a level that is able to be  thoroughly enjoyed by multiples of listeners, I am one of these myself.               

  

    

My own experience of Standalone Pod being used and as design put on paper has been for the Tonearm to be directly anchored to the Pod.

Cantilever Arm Boards have for a long time caused myself to ponder if the support method is prone to flexion. The fact that numerous TT Producers are now adopting this method, suggests it is a satisfactory application, or might be a very cost effective solution to engineering requirement. 

Most recently I produced a design given to a friend for a Cantilever Tonearm Board to be produced from Panzerholz and added to a P'holz Plinth. The Cantilever Board will enable TA's up to 14" to be added and be used to carry out comparisons between a selection of TA,s.

In your own design as shown on paper, the typical method that a pod is used has changed to the Structure now being Two Piers and a Lintel/Bridge. With this design, my query about flexion will remain. The unknown energies are now being transferred through two anchors/piers and there may be a cross talk between transferred energies that add a new energy that could be transferred to the styli.

As an alternative proposal and if the Bridging Arm Board is to be tried out, it might be worth expanding thought on the concept and see if a Longer Bridge could be used, one that over sails each Pod. The design will allow for additional positions to connect the TA, and if looked into a design may be achievable that would enable up to Two TA's to be set up on the one structure? 

The Thread has moved on from the initial intoduction of :

' Warning to the sensitive: involves tonearm pods.'

An Update

Warning to the sensitive: involves tonearm 'Bipods.' 😎

The idea of checking for Kinetic Energies Influence is one I am familiar with through my own long term interest in using structural materials configured in varying assemblies and adding new permutations to the Structure, through new material type. Albeit, a new thickness of a liked material, a added layer of a liked material or a whole new material. Separator types used between tiers and Source are another area that has been given equally long term consideration and trials of options chosen.

This has evolved to the place where the considerations are to be seen being utilised under the Racking, on the Racking Shelving, and upon the top tiers of the racking.

I feel very confident the methodology used for Audio Equipment support has evolved to the place where little more benefits are to be discovered, especially now Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood is the latest material being introduced to take over the role of certain materials.

For many many years, I have tried to trip the support system up, through applying Kinetic Energy into the Vibration Sensitive components belonging to the system, i.e a Cartridge and a Valve.

Attempts to create a concerning sound from a Speaker through investigating the effects of natural ambient Kinetic Energy or a Artificial Applied Kinetic Energy has been for a long time, a condition that is present or able to be made present, that has not caused any concerns in relation to how it impacts on the system.

Across all forums the exact same topic can be seen discussed on occasion.

Not all contributors are making it known if audible concerns are present, but most contributors are keen to share methods adopted that are considered a improved methodology to support.

In this thread Two Individuals have made it Known they are not able to create an audible sound as a result of artificially creating Kinetic Energy to be transferred to the most sensitive receptors of such energy.

In my case as one individual reporting on artificially creating Kinetic Energy not being a concern and having spent many many hours learning about controls to contain the effects of Kinetic Energy presence. It seems quite strange that another who has seemingly adopted much lesser methods, has been able to report almost identical non concern.

In no way is this questioning the report of the outcome of investigating the TT with a Bipod TA support structure. I totally accept the findings being reported back to the individual who encouraged the investigation. 

The inquisitive side of myself asks. When having first discovered audible sound was not present when resulting from artificially applied Kinetic Energy, this area of Isolation Control was no longer a concern, this type of produced energy is semingly one that most can produce that is near equivalent.

Natural Present Kinetic Energy is not typical, it will vary Geographically and as a result of the local environments activity.   

How much of a influence has been the constant naturally present Kinetic Energy. Has the progressive and different methodologies selected to support audio equipment, over time proven to have been influential in bettering the end sound produced, through betterment to the Isolation method.

I am now and as have been on many occasions left to ponder, what has evolved,  to create the impression. Not much more benefits are to discovered, if the investigations and trials are continued, for discovering methodologies for equipment/component Isolation.

Which other influences from natural present Kinetic Energy on the end sound has been tidied up, as a result of the Support Structures I have been working with for a long period of their evolvement.

Which are the constant frequencies born from naturally present Kinetic Energy  that are through their transferral to the Styli / Valves, a detriment to the end sound, as a result of the impact being applied prior to the end sounds production.

Which frequencies (all that are present or a proportion ? ) through creating a purpose produced support structure, are the frequencies that have been tidied up in relation to their influence being evaluated on the audio systems end sound.   

Then there is the question I have made on occasions and not received an answer that satisfies. Is a dedicated Platform such as a MinusK capable of being the correct method to Isolate all unwanted frequencies in all environments. I ask this as I have worked in Laboratories at the time of their construction, and have seen the pre screed works carried out as a means to be a measure to improve Vibration control.  This seems excessive measures when the critical instrument already has its own Independent Vibration Control Plinth on the bench.        

As stated, the applying a artificially applied ( a strike from a implement or Knuckle) is one that can be reasonably easy to replicate to a very similar outcome by all who do it.

As there are many who do do this, where reports on a outcome are usually ones that are satisfactory, i.e, no noise detected that is of a concern. It does seem it is not too difficult to put measures in place to create an Isolation that is deemed valuable to be in use.

The point of interest, I extended into, was that there are individuals including myself, that have got the desired result from one test type, but have been further investigative with methods to create Isolation.

Furthering investigation and using the usual test method, in my case has confirmed, methods adopted have not been noticeable for their capability to improve the outcome of applying a artificial Kinetic Energy to be transferred.

No sound being produced at he time of a test, is simply that, "No sound being produced at he time of a test. "

There are individuals including myself, that having gone to extended measures to create methodologies to add attempt to improve on the Isolation available. There are follow up reports that are made, that in my assessment share similarities to my own. Where it is stated, that increased attraction is present in relation to the end sound being produced. 

In my case, this is not a fantastical appraisal, the effects are real and notable for the impression that is able to be made. I see no reason why any others report should be considered differently, I see no reason to question their findings, but do understand the influences on individual systems in their own environments, are most likely to be varied on the impact being made.

When seeing a contribution from myself on the subject of Isolation, it will be seen that I am keen to encourage an individual to not 'get of the Bus ' , in their Journey of learning about the effects of Isolation, because one change to a Structure has been noticeable for creating a change they have classed as improved or attractive and wanted to be maintained. 

My experiences are quite simple and Bass notes are a great indicator to where the end sound is being affected.

Bass notes can be Very Loose, Bloated, Muddy, Overbearing, where the condition when not really have a defined cut off, is starving the upper frequencies of their place in the overall range.

Bass notes can be Taut, Sharp, Clean, Adventurous and Complimentary to the Upper frequencies, where their presence are with equally shared influence on the frequency range.

I can't encourage any individual to decide on how the coherence across the frequencies is most attractive to themselves, but as for my own unique preference for listening to the bulk of my recorded music. The more I can experience of the latter description for Bass notes is being resolved, for myself, the tidier the presentation becomes and the musical encounter I most enjoy is being presented.

Then their is the antithesis to the above preference, when I set aside the time to put Chicago Blues on as a replay, I can quickly feel sold quite short, if it does not come with a dosage of colouration from the former description for a Bass note.  Hence, a ESL Speaker Array and its transparency, is speedily swapped out for a Cabinet Speaker Type, the colouration caused by the Cabinet Influences works just fine for myself.       

@dogberry Everything about the replay of Vinyl is with fault, but the very worst of the wrongs for the replaying of  music using Vinyl, is quite capable of a replay to a level that can be enjoyed.

Then there are those that work that much harder to eek the incremental changes towards what is referred to as a improvement, which is certainly not an improvement in the enjoyment.

My most enjoyable times remembered around, Music, Photography, Fishing, Driving and some other interests, were when I new the least and had the worst tools or experience to get the job done.

There is not an explanation to be offered to convince that music will be more enjoyed as the outcome.

There is an explanation that can be offered to assist with understanding what is a optimum parameter to be aimed for, in relation to the setting up of each interface that is a necessity.