A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear halcro: Seems to me that now you are discussing only to discuss with no real target.

You can hera the gravity force what you are hearing is the cartridge. Never mind.

The average tracking error in a Löfgren A alignment on a 10.5" tonearm is 0.359% and the in a 12" tonearm is 0.3097% and the difference in between is: 0.049%.

Other than a bat can hear the distotion difference on playing records. Well, we can't hear it but exist.

I think is useless to follow posting here with your last days attitude.

Maybe all need a little fresh air.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul, The most frequent quote about Spinoza is: 'Omnis determinatio est negatio'. In this 'spirit' Popper arques : 'we should not defend our theories but try to refute them.' Henry is negating the existance of 'some phenomena' which are postulated by Lew. Considering the fact that our forum is about the knowledge how our gear
works I would think that Henry's contribution is very important. This means that your 'scientific inclination' is very questionable. As I mentioned before your,uh, ' phylosphical statements' are also very questionable.This is an indication of your lack of 'phylosophical' education.

Regards,

Halcro,
*Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.*

**True......but there were observable phenomena which could only be explained by the existence of 'something'?
This lead to a 'thesis' to explain this phenomena and then a search or test to prove the 'thesis'.
Most of Einstein's theories were unprovable at the time he postulated them and 100 years later......there still remain some to be proven?
As far as I know.......none of his theories was subsequently disproven?**

If an audiophile, not a scientist, has repeatable subjective evidence that a phenomena exists, should he postulate a thesis and look for scientific proof before experimenting with this phenomena, discussing it, and assuming it exists?

I think not. It's not his job. His goal is to manipulate the sound of his system and he has subjective evidence to support results. If someone else questions the existence of said phenomena and says it doesn't exist, perhaps this will lead to understanding what is really going on, or not, but requiring an audiophile to postulate a theory and offer proof of a phenomena is absurd.

Regards,

Henry, You misunderstand me. I really don't give a shit. I am not hyperventilating, and yes, your angry tirades (and one response of mine which was written in anger), in lieu of what could be an interesting back and forth discussion, and your total lack of introspection and self-doubt are indeed "comedic".

I do think there could be some merit in minimizing the plinth (but not eliminating it entirely) for direct-drive, and I do think that a separate arm pod might be a way to go once one has done that, but I would advocate some definitive linkage between arm pod and mini-plinth.

If you don't believe that your shelf can vibrate differentially according to location, take a stethoscope and move it around the surface of your shelf while you wiggle it or tap on it. You will find not only that you can hear the tapping through the stethoscope (not surprisingly) but also that the intensity of the sound will vary from one point to another on the shelf. Where the intensity is minimal, that is a node or close to a node.

Considering the greater scheme of things, I will quote Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca", this issue does not amount to a "hill of beans".

Hi Halcro,

I don't know if this is on point, but I am currently experimenting with a type of plinth. My reasoning is simple.

I noticed that using the Precision Pneumatic Footers directly beneath the naked SP10 greatly improves its performance (here, I use the term 'improve' to denote an increased ability to deliver more detail from vinyl) and I have reasoned that this occurs because this approach removes returning vibration that affects all grounded components. This use of footers seems to me to be the greatest aspect of the TT set up that was originally suggested to me by Raul.

Well, my thinking is that the improvement in grounding (or the limitations of its impact through pneumatic intervention) might be able to do a similar job on the tonearm. Hence, I decided to build a floating plinth that will couple tonearm and TT in a potentially optimised way. For me, if it improves the subsequent analogue performance, the case for a plinth (albeit, a floating one) is proven. If it performs at a lower level, the case for a totally decoupled tonearm and TT is proven: at least to my satisfaction.

I should reiterate that I am wholly in the camp of decoupled set ups and that I am currently enjoying a level of analogue that I have simply never experienced before. Still, an open mind leads me to want to settle this matter to my own satisfaction and I recall that that was all that was being asked of the plinth-free and decoupling sceptics. Surely, at the end of the day, music lovers are the real winners if either solution is found to be the better option under equivalent conditions.

As always...