A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Noticed this thread when it started but didn't give it a read till today. Currently been condsidering a new plinth for a Garroard 301 so it was a great read although a plinthless 301 would not be a great idea but would be easy enough to try with a arm pod.

This thread and the debate within have change my direction some. A removable armboard or arm pod and the decision between the two has been the holdup for me. Over the past few days even before reading this thread I have decided to build multiple plinths for both while the table will be down.

May I recommend you guys take a look at

http://www.emachineshop.com/

Came across this service when noticed it mentioned in the DIY Schroeder thread, another great read BTW.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/13372-diy-schroeder-tonearm-11.html#post2242523

I have been using there software for awhile now although haven't had a chance to order anything from them yet. They have forum support and also video tutorials to help get started.

There is allots of benefits in using there software even if you have a local machinest already.

You could build a basic armpod in minutes then view it in 3D. Once comfortably with your design you click proceed/analyze and get any instant quote including shipping and weight!!! This alone make this software great. The site says this will work internationaly too.

Multple of the same design reduce the cost dramitcally, may be a great way to do a group buy. If you only want one item but think there may be interest of someone else that may want to purchase the same design you would order more than one to get the price for your one down then they will stock the remaining for a year. If they don't sell you would be obligated to pay for the remaining but if they do you would receive a percentage of the sale, how cool is that.

Another great feature of the sofware is you can import and export files. You can easily import a .dwg file to get you started if you have some cad designs. For you guys that use a local machinest I would think if you design the part then export it to a cad file it would save you some bucks since your machinest wouldn't have to create the design to enter into his CNC.

Brad

Halcro,
For clarification for those who may not know the history/linkages, Victor and JVC are/were the same company (though a few years ago they merged with Kenwood). In Japan the brand was usually called Victor whereas abroad it was JVC (Japan Victor Company, called that, rather than Victor, because of trademark issues I think). Later, JVC (the company) also moved to use the JVC brandmark in Japan for local market products. FWIW, Panasonic had a similar issue where Panasonic was the brand name used for items sold abroad and Matsushita Electric Industrial (the listed company) used 'National' as their brand in Japan. Only recently did Matsushita retire the National brand and convert those items to Panasonic. At the same time they changed the company name. Many Japanese companies used 'brand names' for their audio component lines which were different than their company names. Matsushita was responsible for Technics. Toshiba was responsible for Aurex. Mitsubishi was Diatone. Sanyo was Otto. Sharp was Optonica. Kenwood was Trio. Pioneer was Exclusive. Hitachi was Lo-D. Teac is Esoteric (and TASCAM). NEC was Authentic. Kensonic was Accuphase. Nagaoka was Jeweltone. Dynavector was On-Life Research. Akai was A&D. Aiwa was Excelia. And Sony was briefly Esprit (and more recently, Qualia).

Thanks for that T_bone.
Perhaps you can explain how Victor was able to use the same logo of the dog listening to the gramophone that we also associate with RCA?

The real story here – and I say this from my direct experience the last 6 months, and from the emails I have received is about the ARMPOD.

People in this “very small” specialized hobby that are into the mid and higher end categories want to add arms and experience other cartridges with their Existing turntable. They have TT’s of all types. That is the story.

Manufacturers are you listening. This is the next level for this hobby. And until manufacturers wake up and stop charging ridiculous $$ for a machined piece of metal people will continue to make their own – those with more money will have them made. It costs me $150 to make a 16.5 lb brass armpod. Come out with one that costs twice that and I will buy it to save the time and trouble.

Ecir38 – over half the emails I have received for the pdf on making a basic pod were from people with idlers. My next project heading into the winter was to be an idler that I was going to put the “platter/motor only” in a plinth to use with a couple of armpods. That was the plan. As it goes a very special Lenco 75 fell into my hands, so now I am looking forward to listening and comparing heading into the fall.
Cheers Chris

Dear Banquo, Your remark directed to Halcro speaks honestly to one point I have been trying to make with the plinth-less crowd. The torque of an SP10 motor (Mk2 OR Mk3) is sufficient to move the chassis, if the chassis is unfettered by a plinth. Thus I would fear in theory what you may be observing in fact, that your turntable may be able to "walk" away from correct alignment. I think this is fixable by maybe using double-sided tape between the bottom of your chassis and the top surface of the AT616 footers. Of course, I personally would fix it by building a plinth or some sort of substantial anchor for the chassis. I recently read that the servo mechanisms in these turntables apply full torque instantly, each time they are triggered by a speed variation. Heretofore, I thought the motor controller via the servo system could call up "just enough" torque to return the platter to correct speed, when needed. If that were true, the effect of torque to move the chassis would be minimal during actual play. But now that I have learned that the servo simply gives a full on or full off signal to the motor, I am even more convinced re the value of a good plinth. By the way, I did not mean to imply that you (personally) were dogmatic re AT616 feet, but there seems to be a general trend in that direction among other disciples of the Copernican approach.

As regards the tendency of an LP to slide on the surface of a Boston Audio mat, I have observed the same thing. I use a Mat1 on my Lenco. The Mat1 had a tendency to slip against both the surface of the platter underneath it AND against the surface of any LP on top of it. I finally cured the former issue by inserting a few slivers of double-sided carpet tape between platter and mat. Just small pieces were sufficient. As regards the tendency for LPs to slip, I too notice that when using a carbon fiber brush to remove dust from the surface of an LP prior to play, but it does not seem to be an issue during play at all. You might want to try an SAEC mat; they are often for sale on eBay and Audiogon for around $300. No slipping issues with SAEC. But based on what I hear from my Lenco, I think the Boston Audio mats may be (even) more neutral sounding than the SAEC. After hearing either one of these mats, I could never go back to the OEM rubber mats. And I am sure there are other candidate mats that would best the OEM ones. This was very true for my Denon DP80 as well. The OEM Denon mat might be even worse than the Technics one. (Alas, the Denon sits, loved but unused, on a shelf in my basement.)

Dear Ecir, Idler-drive turntables need to be mounted in well built plinths for best performance, IMO. I think that is much less controversial than the use of a plinth with a direct-drive. I don't think you will ever get the best out of your Garrard without some sort of plinth.