New TT ideas please

Dan, my understanding of plinth is the non suspended 'chassis'. My apologies if I used the term incorrectly.

I do not slate non suspended tables. Suspension plays a very small part in my choice of table. It is all down to implementation. My posts were in response to Doug slating suspended tables and then motivating with one liners.

There seems to be this commonly accepted 'truism' that suspended tables are soft on bass and transients because their suspension allows the platter to 'give' way. That is simply ridiculous considering the effective mass of the platter assembly vs. that of the tonearm cart combination. Any movement caused by a rise or depression in the record groove will be manifested in the tonearm moving up or down. As such, both suspended and non suspended tables suffer this phenomena equally.

+++ If there is sufficient drag on the platter during dynamic passages there actually could be a rotational twisting reaction on the platter/bearing/plinth as well as the drive. +++

Dan, the drag required to cause that would probably cause the stylus to be ripped out of my Koetsu. I can report my Koetsu is still fine.

+++ Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion unless. . . yada, yada +++

Actually they do not. If they could, we would have perpetual movement machines that actually work. I can assure you, my TT is dead still ... always. It doesn't budge. The times I have (accidently) bumped it, it returned to equilibrium in second, with no stylus sliding across the LP.

BTW, I adjust my VTA on the fly every time a play an LP. In fact, I adjust a couple of times per LP and would consider buying an arm w/o this ability. Cannot fathom why you consider it an issue on suspended tables as I most certainly do not have the steadiest hands (or best eyesight) by a long shot.

Regards
Paul

I've tried both sprung and unsprung suspensions on the same TT (VPI TNT III.) The best result was achieved after converting the TT to a hard-mount suspension & coupling the plinth to a large dump for internally generated vibration(sandbox). The vibration dump was then decoupled from earth vibrations using heavy springs. This combination of coupling & decoupling made a larger difference than any other upgrade I've thrown into my analog front end. This includes comparing SME to Graham, Oracle to VPI, and BAT to Atma-Sphere.

Doubtless the sprung vs. unsprung debate will continue. A sprung TT is probably a manufacturer's best bet to accommodate the widest range of rack & room variables. An unsprung TT that is freed from rack & room variables is probably more difficult to design and more expensive to manufacture due to exotic laminate construction & massive structure. Fully integrated rack/TT system like Rockport are very expensive.

But in the end any TT is probably only as good as its platform.

Doug
Please could you explain to me who Michael Moore is?
Here in the UK this man is not a household name like he may be in the US?
I appologise however if my wording/sense of dialogue offends you.
My point was not so much about the blue pearl but about the Oracle versus Scheu in my own system.
I concluded that in my own system I obtained better results via the Oracle than i did with the scheu.
I was not however saying that it is a conclusively better deck,just that with what i use my preference was with the Oracle.
conversely i do agree with much that you say.
I choose to drive my Rock with an external motor using a non rubber belt?
This i feel gives greater security and solidity to the sound.
the result is quite subtle though.
There are instances that come into play which i feel we may have nearly all ignored!
Without reading this whole post again, has Hitari told us anything about how he intends to site the turntable?
this could have as much influence as the deck itself!
Thom
Where in the UK can i get to listen to one of your designs?
I'd love to hear one.

Terry,

No offense taken. My request to leave Michael Moore out of this should not have been included in a response to you. Sorry if that confused things.

I haven't heard a Scheu, just its larger and more capable derivatives (Teres/Galibier/Redpoint). Those tables began life as a DIY Scheu knock-off project, but they've spent years refining and upgrading every component. There's little about any of them that's comparable to a Scheu any longer. They're now in another league in virtually every respect, including price of course.

Glad to hear you've tried an external motor and non-elastic belt and agree on the differences, more or less. ;-) My partner and I happen to be acutely sensitive to transient skewing, so for us it's one of those big deals. YMMV of course.

100% agree with your question about how Hitari plans to site his table. Could make a huge difference. I once tried some very thin rubber discs beneath the feet of my 80 lb. table, just to protect the wood rack surface. They softened transients in a way we found intolerable. Everything matters...

Thom,

You mentioned that your listening group found that "too much" torque in the motor-platter coupling made the sound harsh. Chris's group has reported similar findings.

In our torque experiments (8 or 10 different drive belts, of which the familiar holographic mylar provided the maximum) we heard the same thing. The torque-ier the belt, the more the sound had a tendency to go "harsh".

However, our crazed habit of adjusting and recording SRA/VTA settings for each LP quickly led us to an important discovery. The problem is not "too much" torque. The problem is that different amounts of torque require different arm height settings. Get SRA/VTA right and there's no such thing as too much torque, at least up to the limits of our experiments to date. We'll test this further when Chris's rim drive motor arrives.

We have produced this result consistently and repeatably across many hundreds of LP's, with multiple drive belts. If you checked the notes on our oldest, most-played records, you'd observe a series of arm height settings. They're coded for the different belts we've advanced through. IN EVERY CASE, a change from one belt to any other belt required an identical change in arm height. If I pull out a record today that hasn't been played in a year or two, and so was last played with a less torquey belt, I can reliably calculate and dial in a new arm height based the old one, because there's a constant differential between each belt and the next.

The torque-ier the belt, the lower the arm must go, and by the same amount. We all know that lowering the arm reduces "harshness". This has worked consistently, with every belt, on every record.

We haven't yet heard too much torque and I'm not sure such a thing is possible. The exception would be if higher torque came with higher cogging, as Chris mentioned, but that wouldn't create sonic harshness. It would create waveform slewing and rebound, quite another thing to our ears.

Any thoughts?
Doug