Dear Geoch,
the felt mat I am using on top of a Micro Seiki Cu 180g mat weighs 5,9 g. It is very thin. On the back it is covered with a black laquer bringing it into good contact with the Cu 180g mat, also keeping everything absolutely flat (!).
I recall that I payed 100 Euros for the felt mat.
It is always a matter of try and error - but this combination really convinced me and believe me I tried some...
I think Halcro's experiment with the pig mat might have been successful because it is flat. Nevertheless I know some guys swearing on a wave like mat...
all the best for your experiments.
Fun Only
all the best with experimenting |
Dear Halcro, Prompted by Geoch's posts above, I read up the thread from there and came to your post about the unusual behavior of your motor/platter with the 1.8kg M-S copper mat on it. What is the weight of your platter alone? If the weight of the Cu mat is a significant fraction of the total weight of the platter, what you are observing means to me that the brake mechanism of the TT101 simply cannot stop the platter "dead', because of the increased momentum of the platter/mat combo. This alone would not trouble me, but it could also mean that the servo system might be "confused" by the increased rotating mass during LP play, so at the micro level, the speed control with the copper mat might be subpar. It is a fact that these systems were designed as a whole; the servo is calibrated to the mass of the stock platter/mat. I have repeatedly mentioned this; super heavy mats on a direct drive might not be such a good idea for that reason. (And then if one adds one of those 4 or 5 kg record weights, one is making the situation worse and also inviting rapid bearing wear.) What I like about the SAEC SS300 metal mat is that it weighs about the same as the stock Technics rubber mat on the SP10 Mk2A and Mk3 (they use the exact same rubber mat), so screwing up the servo is not an issue. |
Go with the pigskin - it's football season. |
Dear Halcro, I really appreciate your exploring mood and I admire your efforts but sometimes we must keep a second thought for what we've done even if the resulting effect is to our liking, we have to put in doubt those cheaters that may cover up the real problem. Imagine someone who has an agressive HF and covers the tweeter with a blanket instead of looking at the source of this anomaly. In every idea that I spread, my motivation is to give you some reluctancy in order to secure the right path in your experimental nature. Please do not accept my reservations as disrespect for your adventures. The lack of confidence is a must when the knowlege is restricted. Our ears can only acknowledge the problem and suggest the perceived outcome but the solution is detected by our relentless search while we maintain discipline over restricted regulations. ie : if my armboard is ringing, I have to choose another material and stop trying to damp it by wraping the hell out of it. There are rules for us to follow if we want to progress with integrity. |
Dear Halcro, are you imply that your system set-up is neutral to the bone? and therefore it is impossible to hide inaccuracies which can drives you to mask because you can not understand their origin?
ie : arm wiring, IC, speaker and power cables and even their connectors, rack, shelfs and even the surface of contact that reacting as an interface with your items and lets not forget the selection of components inside your items and how they interact as a company and of course the cartridge/arm & phono stage interface.
It is funny how easy we can perceive a cure only with the hope that it can manage to hide the problem. I know people with 104db horns who are in search for the most slow & fat sounding capacitors (among others) in order to escape from reality. |
Hi Lew, The pigskin mat I purchased from Tommy at Topclass SUEDEIt is paper-thin and IMHO.....a perfect partner for the Micro Cu180 platter mat. Dear Geoch, Are you saying that because we don't fully understand the principles governing that which we hear through our systems, we should not believe our ears? |
No one can assail Thuchan's stated preference based on his listening, but I tend to agree with Geoch; using the felt mat will certainly change the sound from that of the bare copper mat. However, if one does not like the bare copper mat, I believe the better cure would be to get rid of it in favor of a mat made of some other material. I am not sure that the impedance mismatch between a vinyl LP and copper is any worse than the impedance mismatch between felt and a vinyl LP. But that's the key, as Geoch says, IMO. Now Halcro mentions a pigskin mat on top of copper. That may be a completely different story vs felt. (Where the heck did you get a pigskin mat, Halcro?) I like the idea that the LP will probably not slip on pigskin, nor should the pigskin move against the surface of the platter. Also, the impedance of pigskin is likely quite different from that of felt, when matched with a metal like copper. I use the SAEC SS300 mat on my SP10. I have no idea what metal(s) its made of; I read once that it is an "alloy" of something. I tend to like it but I am open-minded about other materials that in principle may have merit, like graphite (or pigskin?).
I once owned a SOTA with a felt mat. Every turntable I have owned since then has sounded better to me in terms of ability to separate notes and musical lines and in bass definition particularly, so I am biased against felt, even though I think the main problem with the SOTA was a stretch-y belt. |
Dear Halcro, whether Thuchan is correct it is debetable as I've gave you my reservations in my previous post and your idea for a nice heavy record clamp can trigger more than just a field for a second and even more heavy objection. It is one thing to just filling your needs and a completely different one if you decide to do it with the right way.
"Of course it sounds great, the best we've heard till now, e.t.c. But still, it is just a way of giving a fight with what we have, and the results are quick and the success is great... And we are in danger to follow the wrong direction because of this."
and :
"...due to our limited knowlege about interactive materials & mechanics & thats the reason we accept the isolation as the only way (but is not the right one)".
An excerpt of my reply in your thread about the Copernican view on TT and I repeat now. This is my own personal assessment to these matters when one is point the isolation as a weapon. |
Thuchan is correct.
With the Cu180 platter mat and the Victor thin suede (pigskin) mat on top, it improves the sound over the bare copper mat.
It is even better than thin felt and it doesn't need to be stuck down.
A nice heavy record clamp will help it form a delicious 'coupled' and 'decoupled' bond to the main turntable platter :^) |
Dear Thuchan, yes you have right and I absolutely agree but ... the point of my reluctance about using anything soft, realised by my worries of a possible removal of the LP by elasticity when the stylus drag makes it's demands, but also because the very thin felt mat needs to glued upon the copper in order to stick there and not on the LP's downside everytime that we have to change the record. Another thought would be that by using a soft surface in contact between LP and platter, we break the continuity of flow for the resonanses which created by the needle upon the LP and we just damp instead of drain them. This method poses the danger of returning the resonances to the needle but as vibrations this time. Any way I've tried your suggestion and I like the sound. It is only that (like the isolated armboard) it does not conform with my general outlook regarding the resonance treatment. I still have some reservations about the possibility of making a second wrong decision in order to fix a problem that arise by a first wrong decision ie: to balance a mistake that we can't comprehend all of it's parameters, by throwing to the game a second mistake. |
Dear Geoch,
if you are using a Cu 180 g mat you may balance the directness by putting a very thin felt mat on top of it. The combination of both mats enables an absolutely harmonic sound. You will not trust your ears anymore, believe me...
best @ fun only |
I have my TT101 in its original plinth up on Aurios (similar to roller blocks) which are attached via a blob of clay to tip-toes which sit on brass cups. I don't have room for a second tonearm in the back but if I did, I would go for that free standing armpod on isolation.
Halcro, My TT101 will do the stop and reverse trick but not with the mat and record and center weight. Then it just slows down to a crawl but still moving forward. It doesn't worry me as I can't see how anything is being hurt. Could be wrong of course.
Gary |
Ha Ha Ha – Love your sense of humor HiHo ! Thx for making my long work week seem shorter now. Better to comment on the whole "NUDE" thing here.
NUDE |
Hi Chris, Hi Chris, Hi Chris, Hi Chris, Hi Chris, Hi Chris,Hi Chris, Hi Chris, Hi Chris, Hi Chris! (Now, that was easy.)
I really like your spiked SP10. I think that makes a lot more sense to me than just letting the bottom cover sitting on footers. Some may called it plinthless but I consider the SP10 chassis as a metal plinth (the real RAW turntable is the DD motor and platter) and having it rigidly spiked to the platform makes a lot of sense to me. Hey, at least it sounds good to you. I am familiar with the bottom cover of the kind used on the TT81 or TT101 as all my TT71 from QL-7 and QL-A7 (which are all sold) use the same kind of bottom cover so I am really curious about the sound when the TT101 is rigidly spiked to the platform. I think Halcro needs an adaptor ring to do that experiment. I look forward to sonic report in the future.
Let me comment on your Youtube video here: Cool!
_______
|
Hi Hiho – try to say that 10 times really fast. There's even a YouTube video that he says "showing Symposium Rollerblock Jrs supporting an Isolated Turntable Armpod (Steel) that weighs 18.9 lbs. The idea using the Jrs. is from an audiophile friend in Europe."
My audiophile friend in Europe
Well 1000 + views now and not one comment. I guess people don’t know what to make of it? It is a small hobby? I thought I would see maybe a few comments like. Cool ! (or) What the hell is that supposed to be ! (or) Tonearms belong on plinths you big dummy ! But no comments at all - go figure. Well read my review – it works “really well” but you need to be "really" brave too. Warning - Alcohol makes u brave but u lose dexterity. Requires a smooth light touch. Sorry - its been a long week – is it Friday yet ? Henry someone took me up on the offer. Cheers |
Yup.......that's Chris' turntable and arm combo :^) |
Halcro, I was just browsing around in the Canuck Audio Mart member gallery and found these pictures that reminded me of your system. There's even a YouTube video that he says "showing Symposium Rollerblock Jrs supporting an Isolated Turntable Armpod (Steel) that weighs 18.9 lbs. The idea using the Jrs. is from an audiophile friend in Europe." _____ |
Hiho,
Those spikes look suspiciously like Chris'?
Did you take up his generous offer?
I think they are a fine solution.
Wouldn't work on the Victors though, as the aluminium circular extrusion is multi-faceted. It does not have a flat surface or space to enable the legs to sit in a stable manner. |
|
FWIW, my "other" LO7D (the one I still own), came with the Kenwood record weight. I do not like what it does at all. In fact, my experience with this weight parallels all my other experiences with record weights; they seem to take some "life" out of the sound. I realize that that sense of liveliness could also be called "distortion" due to LP resonance, etc, but it is a kind of distortion that brings me closer to the experience of real music played by live musicians.
I think I already wrote this, but I agree with others that the SAEC mat is excellent (now using it on my SP10 Mk3). I would not be inclined to mess with the stock mat on the LO7D, because I think it was carefully engineered for the turntable, but I do not like the typical rubber mats that came with Technics, Denon, etc. (I used the SAEC on my Denon DP80, also with good results.) Which is to say to Halcro that there are lighter weight metallic or graphite or other types of mats that I believe would outperform the stock rubber Victor mat, which in photos looks like the Denon rubber mat. You might try Boston Audio Mat 2, if you don't fancy the SAEC SS300. I have the deja vu feeling I have said this all before, more than once. Mats make a crazy big difference, IMO. |
Hi Dover,
I'm not so worried about the extra weight on the bearing although I hear what Aigenga says.
The TT-101 has a 'brake' action when you press the stop button but it is not a dead stop that apparently the SP10s have......rather, it 'brakes' and then provides an instantaneous reverse thrust of the motor to bring the platter to a halt and then the motor 'disconnects' from the platter.
With a heavier platter than was designed....the 'brake' and 'reverse thrust' action of the motor is simply not strong enough to stop the platter and I fear that the continual fight against the inertia of the heavy platter will eventually do damage to the motor?
I don't want to risk that :^( |
Hi Halcro -
I suddenly realised from In_shores post that my 4.5kg copper mat is used with the recommended 1.8kg gunmetal weight. The key to successfully using a copper mat is probably the use of a weight in combination with it.
Some of my friends have used Goldmund Mats with their SP10 MkIII's with some success.
Have you thought about trying the original thicker Acromat or Graphite - these would be worth trying in my view, perhaps along with a lighter record weight.
On the Goldmund Studio's a couple of mates had ruby thrustpads made - maybe its worth thinking about whether you can improve the existing bearing. ?? |
The Cu180 on its own does have a slight brittleness in the highest frequencies but if one places a very thin leather, suede or felt mat on top, this vanishes and the bottom end solidifies even further.
I've reached a compromise by eliminating the Victor rubber mat and placing the very thin Victor suede (pigskin) mat directly on the aluminium platter.
This gives me almost the same advantages of the Cu180 yet the platter stops dead and reverses slightly exactly as the manual dictates. |
I must admit that Copper mat is not my fav, as I've found it somewhat coarse with a rough and overwhelming projection but also overall thin body of sound. Maybe this reflects the system matching & fine tuning in my set-up? I don't know but I would love if it could manage to sounds like it looks. Not Delrin, neither Copper but also never anything soft with even the slightest elasticity no matter if it is cork or leather or felt or especially rubber. |
I would recommend the Goldmund or the Boston MAT 2
If you have access try the Lexan for spaciousness or Metacrylate.
Delrin is not bad also if is in between cork (lower level)& copper (upper level). The sound of Delrin is dull/cloudy 'cause of it's damping ability. |
Radicalsteve congratulations on acquiring the Kenwood LO7D, I think a spectacular direct drive and by far the best performing dd that I have owned so far.
Just a friendly suggestion, the top portion of the platter on the LO7D is stainless steel and you may find using just a good centre weight, like a TTM oil damping weight, could be more to your liking then the MS cu180.
Besides thats a lot of extra weight I think not really intended for the table design.
|
I can't sleep well at nights worrying about this extra drag on the Victor motor :^(
Have returned the stock rubber mat plus suede leather Victor mat on top.
In this case......improved sound takes a back seat. |
Halcro, having opened up the bearing on the tt101 I would say that it was engineered for the load it supports. I would not say it is particularly stout or overly robust if you get my meaning. So, yes you are living dangerously with a very heavy mat.
Gary |
Radicalsteve,
You can get custom delrin mats here:
www.appliedfidelity.com/
Regards, |
the ebay link did not translate, search for acryteller as the seller. An outfit in Germany that sells a whole bunch of platters, mats, weights etc. |
Audpulse, thanks for the rey to Audio Fidelity - they could be just the right guys to rewire the arm on the L07D I just acquired from Lewm!
Couldn't find much info on the delrin mat on their website, I will have to look around for similar mats. On my Micro I use a similar product which I got from Germany here: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Plattentellerauflage-aus-PLEXIGLAS-5mm-stark-D-293mm-/370183497535?pt=Plattenspieler&hash=item5630a7e73f#ht_3509wt_905
This an acrylic based compound that works best on the SX8000, noting that this stainless steel platter, does not require damping, unlike the Micro RX5000 which rings like a bell. I suspect I get better results from my SAEC and Cu-180 metal mats on my other tables because they are acting as damping controls. I have experimented with a cork / rice paper /cork sandwich and that works quite well too. All of these seem to give a more lively outcome than rubber. I have not experimented with leather mats, but am intrigued on that front.
One thing is clear, on all my DD tables, the SAEC SS-300 or Cu-180 are the winners. The worst ever mat I tried BTW was the Kenwood/Trio ceramic mat - it completely destroyed the timing of anything played on it - ughh!
This whole topic of record mats can be a different thread, I have never cracked it ....... |
There are possibly several things going on with a copper mat. My Final Audio has a 4.5kg copper mat - the copper mat in conjunction with the 15kg aluminium platter provides bi-metallic damping, tapping the platter with and without the mat demonstrates the effectiveness, and is also a calculated energy path for the stylus/record by the designer to provide a mechanical ground. All other mats I have tried are significantly inferior on this particular tt. |
I don't know what it is Aigenga.......but the Cu180 improves both frequency extremes in a consistently audible manner :^) |
What is the theory of a heavy copper mat? I can see adding to the flywheel effect, but that isn't how most dd turntables including the 101 work. I can see it as a EMI shield, but the TI material is probably better as it was designed for that purpose and it weighs relatively little. There has tone better mats for draining record vibrations (I like the achromat) and sorbothane is probably better at damping a ringing platter. So, what is it? |
Halcro, Radicalsteve, in place of these heavy platter mats, why not consider trying a delrin mat. I believe Applied Fidelity has it for sale. If not satisfied with the sonics of the mat, send me a pm then I will discuss a diy one that you will be happy with. |
Halcro,it is a great question -I also wonder about this. I used a heavy 5Kg Audiolife platter on my SP-10 for 6 months and guess what, it started to go wobbly and not hold a constant speed - it is now at my tech being repaired. I suspect the bearing will survive, but I am also interested to hear from others on the motor concern. I have used my SAEC mat on my 101 for well over a year with no issues, although like you observed the stop is not quite as crisp as with the stock rubber mat. BTW,the SAEC mat is superior to the CU-180 on my 101 and Lenco, whereas the CU-180 is better on my Micro SX8000 and L0-7D. |
I just purchased a Micro Seiki Cu180 platter mat for my TT-101 which sounds wonderful. Cu180As it weighs 1.8Kg however.....and the Victor 101 motor is not as high torque as the SP10/II or III.....I'm a little worried as to possible damage to the motor and/or bearing? The motor of the 101 has a 'brake' stop function which stops the platter beautifully and almost instantly when it has its standard rubber mat plus record. However it is not a 'dead-stop' as I believe the SP10 has and now with the added weight of the Cu180.....the platter continues to spin after the stop button is pressed. Could this potentially harm the motor? |
"As I already stated my hope was based on Lew because he seems to like to mess with all kinds of TT's in his garage(?)." He sounds like my kind of guy! :) The inquisitive mind is a wonderful thing. _______ |
Dear Hiho, Thanks again for your explanation as well for
your patience with the ignorant. As I already stated my hope was based on Lew because he seems to like to mess with all kinds of TT's in his garage(?). I also stated to have no idea what to with the Dual motor on my own. So it is not easy for me to 'elaborate' on this sade state of affair. However I am 100% sure that Lew is very inquisitive
so who knows?
Kind regards, |
There appears to be some confusions regarding Dual motors. Maybe I am the one who is confused... Let's answer each question one at a time. Nandric: "As I or 'we' (Lew included) thought there are at least two
Dual motors: 701 and 721....... Lew suggested to use the Dual motor for his Lenco. I have no idea what to do with my specimen." Yes, there are two Dual direct-drive motors. EDS-1000 from 701 and EDS-1000-2 from 721. 701 uses a heavier platter and 721 uses a lighter platter. From what I read and if I understand Lew correctly, he wants to use the EDS-5000 motor from the CS-5000 belt-drive turntable and apply that to his Lenco, which is doable, and it has nothing to do with the 701/721 motors. I don't see how you can use the EDS-1000 and EDS-1000-2 motors for the Lenco since the Lenco is an idler drive design and the 701 & 721 are direct drive. I don't know what "specimen" you have or what exactly you are trying to do. Please elaborate. "Your contribution was primarily directed to the Goldmund Studio problem." The earlier question(s) was directed at the Goldmund issue so I answered accordingly. I must add that I would only repair the Goldmund using the Dual motor if the Goldmund platter would fit over the Dual motor with no or very minor machining. Otherwise, your Goldmund is not a Goldmund anymore and you're better off just transplanting the Dual motor onto a custom plinth and make it a stand alone arm-less direct drive turntable. "We thought that if this motor is something very special some other applications would be interesting." The EDS-1000 and EDS-1000-2 motors are, indeed, very special and is great for making your own direct drive turntable. Here is a gallery of pictures of a 701 and its innards. Have fun! _______ |
Dear Hiho, Thanks for your contribution and explanation.
As I or 'we' (Lew included) thought there are at least two
Dual motors: 701 and 721. Lew suggested to use the Dual motor for his
Lenco. I have no idea what to do with my specimen.
Your contribution was primarily directed to the Goldmund
Studio problem. We thought that if this motor is something
very special some other applications would be interesting.
Dreaming and speculating are to my mind very similar.
However I am not sure that this 'ammunition' will convince
Lew to participate in 'some' international collaboration.
Kind regards, |
From my understanding of the Goldmund Studio situation is that... 1) If you have nonworking motor, you need to replace it with... ____A) Stock Papst motor, if you can find one. ____B) Stock JVC motor, if you can find one. ____C) EDS-1000 motor salvaged from Dual CS-701 turntable. ____D) EDS-1000-2 motor salvaged from Dual CD-721 turntable. 2) Read quote from below: "Dual 701/721, EDS 1000/EDS 1000-II- These motors are 5.5" in diameter, while the original Goldmund Papst is 4 3/8", so machining is required....... Further, both motors are fed via their own electronics, and MUST be used with it. It is not bulky, will fit inside. All in all, I would only recommend these if all other options are exhausted" Personally I would prefer the 701 motor for this purpose because it was designed for a heavier platter (2.9kg) as the 721 uses a lighter platter (1.5 kg) and has less torque. Go for the 701, I say. All the electronics are underneath the motor and the power supply is in its own enclosure so that can be outboard from the table. There is an umbilical cord for the 33/45 speed switch and two pots for speed adjustment. You can eliminate the strobe light if you want. Again, the person who did the conversion emphasize that he would "only recommend these if all other options are exhausted." You have been warned. :) P.S. Or you can simply buy a beater 701 and take out the motor and electronics and make a simple plinth for it and have a listen like this guy. _______ |
Hi Hiho, Lew and I nearly started the Dual motor adventure
but were both confused by reading more about 'it' of 'them'(?). The 'lirical report' from some 'spaceman' was nowhere else affirmed. My interest was 'awakened' some time
ago in the context of the Goldmund Studio and the problems with
the Pabst motors. The Dual motor(s?) were the hope for those how owned the 'wrong Sudio'. This story about possible 'right Dual motor' was even more confusing. I give
up my intention to buy the Studio and bought Lurnes Audiomeca J1 instead. At present I own Kuzma Stabi Reference which has many similarities with the J1.
However I am not aware that this 'effort' to replace Pabst motor was succesful. I need some 'ammunition' or arguments to convince Lew that our 'adventure' with the Dual motor
is worthwhile. Our 'division of labour' was meant that he will do the 'technical issue' while I would buy the right Duals on the German ebay. Ie one can see on the German ebay at least 6 of them each day.
Will you care to provide some 'ammunition'?
Regards, |
Wahwah: "However, no mention so far that Goldmund and Micro-Seiki
used JVC core motors. Anyone care to elaborate on this?" From the few pictures I saw of the Goldmund and Micro-Seiki motors, they are not coreless motors. The motors are definitely made by JVC but they are not the later coreless version. They are similar to motors in turntables like JVC QL-5 and QL-7, DC core motors. I have used those JVC turntable models with core motors before and I prefer the later models with coreless motor. That's why I am not surprised someone prefers the Dual coreless motor in the Goldmund after replacing the stock Papst or JVC motor in a repair. _______ |
I don't dare buy a stethoscope for fear of feeding the neurosis. What if I heard some noise from underneath the platter? I wouldn't be able to sleep until I eradicated it. |
Aren't cliche's just peachy. |
A little stethoscope is a dangerous thing, because it imparts a little knowledge. |
Wahwah, I recently found out that the Luxman PD-444 (made by Micro-Seiki) used a slotless/coreless motor. So MS apparently used both?
Lewm, I thought some more about it and tried a new test: I lowered the stylus directly on the Achromat platter mat, at zero rpm of course, then I raised the volume to twice my listening level and I couldn't hear the transformer humming in my speakers. So, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' seems to hold here. I am leaving well enough alone.
Gary |
Wow, what a great thread. However, no mention so far that Goldmund and Micro-Seiki
used JVC core motors.
Anyone care to elaborate on this? |
My profound apologies.
That blather about thimerosal was in response to a post on another thread. As the late great Gilda Radnor might have said in the guise of her TV character, Emily LaTella, "Never mind." |
