$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

Letch, the unsuspended turntables will generally do best with a rigid, solidly coupled stand. Any rubber or soft absorbers between the TT and the stand will be counterproductive, compared to one without any rubber or soft absorbers in it.

This is why you rarely see any Teres tables or other high mass unsuspended turntables on stands with soft rubbery absorbers anywhere on them. Dynamics of the table are negatively affected, when soft absorbers are used. This is one of the reasons why there is no suspension on an unsuspended turntable. Adding a "suspension" by using a stand with a "suspension" negates part of the design of the table.

I have verified this on my own Teres turntable, and many other Teres users(ask Chris Brady of Teres) agree from their own experiences also.

If you are looking for a high-performance rack which has the proper construction for this, try a Sistrum platform. It is most definitely in the league of the GPA for performance, and is better suited to unsuspended TT use.

Disclaimer: I work for Starsound Technologies, manufacturer of Sistrum platforms and other audio products.

Twl,

Thanks for the info, I wondered about this. For a GPA rack, Would putting a Vibraplane or granite or something underneath a non-suspended table make this workable?

If I got this rack would having a suspended table be fine? My current table is an Oracle and it sits on a Bright Star Big Rock on a rigid rack. I was curious how it was going to work on the GPA.....

As I said in an earlier post, the engineering dynamics of suspended vs non-suspended tables can be confusing and there are a lot of people who swear up and down on both sides of the equation of which should go where when discussing bouncy wood floors, so I really appreciate the head up on this particular instance.

Letch, granite slabs are a common platform for the Teres tables, and other high-mass unsuspended tables. I have heard mostly good reports about using granite as a base with these tables. I personally do not use granite under mine, but it would be much preferred to using anything rubbery. I once experimented with some soft materials under the cone feet of my Teres. I used only very thin sheet materials, which compressed quite a bit when loaded by the weight of the TT. Even with this thin layer of springy material, the dynamics and leading edges of the music were severely blunted. When I tried thicker stuff, it got even worse. In my opinion, the results of the damping layers caused much worse results than any vibration problems that may have been there. When I returned to just the Audiopoints, then the sound returned as it was. I have only rigid materials between my TT and the floor. Interestingly, I had alot more trouble with footfalls and floorborne vibrations when I had my suspended Linn, than I do with my Teres. The Linn used to "dance around" on it's suspension all the time, even when I would tip-toe around the house. My unsuspended Teres just sits there, rock solid, and there seems to be no effect on it from walking around the house. That was a big plus for me, and I have no desire for another suspended TT again.

Regarding your Oracle situation, I was a high end dealer's analog setup guy during the 1980's. We were a Linn dealer, and also had a number of other TT lines, as well as having alot of trade-in tables around. I got alot of experience with alot of different tables, arms, and cartridges during these years. My experience was that the suspended turntables such as Linn, Oracle, and such, favored the use of a lightweight(lower mass) rigid stand with no flex. The higher mass unsuspended tables preferred heavier mass rigid stands. This apparently related to the resonant frequencies of the different types of stands, and the effects on the turntable's suspension(or lack of it). But, both preferred rigid type stands, just different mass. I also recommend using a low stand that is as low as is comfortable for you to use. A low stand has less flex or ability to move around, and also has a shorter vibration path.

Regarding the Bright Star, I've never used one, but I'd recommend getting a suitable lightweight rigid stand, and trying the TT with the Bright Star, and without it, to see which you prefer. My guess is that it would be better without it, but you should test it and see which you like.

Also, as they say "YMMV" because systems vary for resolution capability, and listener's tastes vary. Some people will prefer an "overdamped" quiet sound, over a highly dynamic sound. Generally, when you start "pushing the envelope" in dynamics and resolution, then the "warts" of the system start to show themselves more negatively. This can be irritating to some people, and they prefer to damp down the system to cover up the warts from showing. That is pretty common these days.

Ultimately, it is what you prefer that is best. I try to push the envelope as far as I can, and then attempt to correct the flaws that show up(at their sources). My budget limits me in how well I can do this, but I do what I can with the budget I have. Also, I accept certain sonic flaws in order to gain some other sonic benefits that are important to me and my sensitivities as a listener.

If you want my guess about what will happen with the GPA, I'd say that it will be a quiet presentation with very little floorborne vibration problems(they do that very well). It will also very likely sound overdamped and will have little affect on any airborne vibrations entering the system. The GPA is great for making the system quiet and "polite".

If you are looking to extend the performance envelope of the musical dynamics, resolution, PRAT, and "lifelike sound", then there are other ways which would likely yield better results in these areas.

Another insightful post Twl. Listen to him folks, he knows of what he speaks. For maximum performance from an unsuspended table...

That squishy bit is best which squishes least, which finally amounts to this, that squishy bit is best which squishes not at all. (Apologies to Jefferson and Thoreau!)

If your goal is maximum performance...

Generally, when you start "pushing the envelope" in dynamics and resolution, then the "warts" of the system start to show themselves more negatively. This can be irritating to some people, and they prefer to damp down the system to cover up the warts from showing. That is pretty common these days.

Very true, though rather sad. I think alot of people are so traumatized by the problems they hear with RBCD that they can't bear the thought of more resolution. To them, that just means more sonic pain. This is a pity, since vinyl is capable of breathtaking micro-dynamics and resolution without such pain. It's just very hard to do, and unfortunately very expensive too.

We still enjoy pushing that envelope, but it gets harder as a system advances. You do learn more this way of course. If you can do this while still enjoying the music it's extremely rewarding. If you're just chasing detail for its own sake, "Wow! Did you hear that?", it may not be.

Guys,

Thanks for the info. I was thinking that perhaps a vibraplane or a slab of granite on top of the GPA would help but I will look into the idea of a shorter stand for the turntable and another stand for the other equipment. So I guess the general consensus is rigid stands all the time for all turntables.
I'm wanting to replace the Oracle and I've already stated my plans. My experience with tables mirrors yours Twl, with my brother's situation where his Ariston skips from footfalls and his rock hard Kenwood does not.

In the defense of the GPA amp stand I will say that while it has provided a quieter background I have not felt any loss of dynamics or a more "polite" sound. As someone who listens to noisy rock and roll, I am very sensitive to the overly "polite" presentation. I have auditioned some equipment that sounded extremely good until it had to handle something with complex rythmic drive and then it fell apart by sucking the life out of it. Overly refined.

This is great info and will help me make a better evaluation when I demo the rack this upcoming weekend. You guys have pointed out very important issues for me to be listening for and that will make this a more useful demo as a result. While I am seeking to lose mechanical noise from vibrations I am not looking to overdamp the sound.

Detail is very important to me and I wish to capture a larger sense of dynamics and the subtlety of dynamic shifts as they occur. But overall musicality is the issue. I recently heard a Levinson system driving Wilson Watt Puppies and was struck by the massive control of the speaker, the huge amount of detail and giant staging, but overall it struck me as hard and unmusical. I heard Wilson's in a Musical Fidelity context and it was the opposite though, it sounded too soft but more musical. Much like Goldilocks, I'm looking for "just right".

Believe, me, I am looking for more resolution and will continue to push the envelope as much as possible as my system advances. I appreciate the info I get here to help me see the underlying issues and to be a better listener. And as Doug put so well, it's all in the service of the overall musicality.

Thanks guys,
Chris