A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Jonathan,
thanks for providing us with these details and the images. I will send you an e-mail.
see you
eckart

Can a big Turkey fly!!!MAYBE.

Thuchan,

Holy smoke was your question answered in a big way !, does this mean a trip to Japan soon?

In_shore,

maybe!

best @ fun only

I have been asked by Thuchan to load some images of the TechDAS Airforce1 taken by J. Carr.
Although this turntable appears to be diametrically opposite to the Copernican view of the turntable system......I attach these images here for interested comments
TECHDAS
More to follow :-)

Henry – here is one that goes with the theme of the thread.

I only recently got permission from Geoch on the Turntable Accuracy thread to post this.

It fits better here I think ? :^)

The Greeks believe if you have lived without passion you have not lived.


Vinyl Passion

Owner
Mr. Chris Skaloumbakas
President of the Greek Audiophile Club.

Mr Skaloumbakas – if you happen to see this post sir. Let me say that your passion is quite evident to me as I see it in Geoch as well.

Cheers

Ct0517,
this one looks as the first Gabriel version before it was taken over by DaVinci AudioLabs.

best @ fun only

More photos of the DAS taken by J. Carr
DAS 1
DAS 2
DAS 3
DAS 4
DAS 5

many thanks Jonathan for providing the fotos and also to Henry for posting.
From the Hirez images it looks that the build quality of the Air Force One is exceptional. I would like to look closer at the bearing, the motor and the tonearm bases taking up 12" tonearms?
I also need to check the haptics of the buttons. these might be sensors. are they fixed in a stable way like with the MS or do they provide a feeling of plastique. In any way I would add a flywheel on the right side. Maybe Nakazawa sama is coming up with such an addition.

best @ fun only

Thuchan, would you need to make room if the Techdas lives up to your expectations?
I ask because I just completed a new panzerholz wall mount shelf with extreme bracing and damping built inside the wall.30 inches wide by 26 inches deep.

Henry, notice the arm on the Techdas? It really is a fabulous tone arm, have you tried it with your Victor yet?

Hi In_shore,
I am one of the few listeners who could never really understand the hype and general acclimation surrounding the Phantom II?
I had it mounted on the big Raven for more than a year and found that its performance was exceeded on LOMCs by my Grandezza 12" Ref and Copperhead. The XV-1s was the only cartridge where it had a slight edge.
The FR-64s and FR-66s also sound more coherent IMHO, with LOMCs as well as MMs.
The killer for the Phantom II (at least for me)......was that with high compliance MM cartridges (which account for the bulk of my collection).....it was an embarrassing performer?
I sold it without regrets.

Henry
The first few months I also wondered about the Phantom set up on my Raven AC.
I also had various cartridges including a Dyna XV1S mounted on that arm.
However I could not understand why it did not perform as expected.
Previously before the Raven I had the Graham 2.2 and liked it very much.

I acquired my first direct drive in around this time and installed the raven arm board with the Phantom on it to that dd and really was surprised at the performance.

Conclusively I say the Graham Phantom is not a good mate with a Raven table, and further I really don't understand the fan club of this combination???

You sold it, OK.

In_shore,

I still have one board available behind one of the Bavarian Voices speakers possibly taking up the Air Force One. But I gave myself a promise not exceeding the number of five turntables. In that case I need to sell one of the turntables, which one do you like to have?

I have heard about the advantages of wall mounted shelves - Halcro inspired me a lot -. In my configuration I need to implement different measurements which I did.

I share Halcro`s assessment of the Phantom II. It is a good arm and you may put it on a SME table to better it up - I mean the SME. But there are much superior designs out in the market and also the vintage design of FR and SAEC I believe beat the Phantom by far.

best @ fun only

Dear Thuchan,
I'm excited to hear about your ideas for a wall-mounted shelf for one or more of your turntables.
I can almost guarantee that you will be happy with the results :^)
You also inspired me about trying a Minus K stand under the Raven......and Mark Doehmann is making one up for me to try?
We are both in for some interesting listening in the future it seems?

In_ shore,
I don't quite understand how an arm can be a bad match for a turntable......unless it is a heavy arm or unipivot on a suspended deck?
But then.....suspended decks have never been my cups of tea?
Can you possibly explain why you think an arm can be a mismatch for a particular turntable?

Dear Halcro,
you will like the "Minus-K Raven combination" with "the two motors" and the Bavarian string, I am pretty sure.
Good move!

I will get the AlnicSpeedNic at this weekend and test it (also against the Timeline). Will report about the results.

best @ fun only

Thuchan I have a little Micro Seiki table and thought of a bigger one from time to time, but reality, that's as far as it would go.
It is a very rare thing to see any component in this hobby actually shoot up in value as opposed going the other direction. That retro mechanical look of some of the models I find quite attractive even with the model 1500 that I have.

Halcro

I can only specilate why this would be, maybe some sort of interaction the arm did not like at all, however sure enough with switching back and forth the Phantom and Dyna cartridge jumped to life on a dd table in a panzerholz deck.
No question what I was hearing between the two tables, it really did disturb me and that prompted me to sell the Raven asap.
If this fluke of an experiment wasn;t done most likely I would of looked at evrything but the table for this dark , border line listless music being played.

Not a very nice thing to say is it?, but I did spend a fare amount of money on it and my wife's reaction to selling it only after less then a year is another story.

Anyway I was quick to make that decision and thinking about it now as I type I wonder of a defect of sorts that was missed at the factory possibly? Well that was three years ago and I never did hear back from the buyer.

I need to throw my 2 cents in here, as I have very high regards for Bob Graham's design.
And saying that I must add, that I am absolutely no fan of the uni-pivot principle in pivot tonearm design for certain reasons (which I won't discuss ...;-) ... for obvious reasons ...).
The new Phantom Supreme is VERY good.
As were it's predecessors.
The design of the Graham tonearms does ask for very good mechanical coupling and speedy energy transfer in the armboard and plinth however.
This has to be taken into account when mating the Graham tonearms.
That's why In_shore mentioned the possibility of mis-match with certain turntables.

... but is not the most practical and finest tonearm you can buy today.... as the advertisement on the Graham web-site explains. Deartonearm it depends what kind of choice you have (also in today's market). Nevertheless The Graham was and is a a consistently developed and in many steps refined design with a good build quality as well. But the basic principle parameters did not change very much. Very good means in my understanding Top of the cream for all turntable conditions. I am pretty sure that the new Davinci arm and yours maybe too will speak a word in the Top-Class.

I admire Bob Graham for having established an iconic brand and product. Also his service is excellent. I sometimes compare it with the Porsche 911, built since many decades with some changes.

There might be a new Phantom Super Supreme III in a few years and the community will love it too. Why not?

best @ fun only

hi.,lkoi

It's been a while since this thread was active and whilst browsing through my Home Page I noticed that there had been 266,812 views here!!?
Wow....that's a fair bit of interest?

I've been doing some thought recently on the arguments some (particularly Lewm and Dover) have put forward against the separation of platter/plinth and armboards....and the perceived benefits of having all these items inextricably 'linked' by a rigid structure?
The argument (as I understand it) is that there is a known geometrical relationship between the spindle and the arm-pivot...and the 'plinth' reliably maintains this correct geometry?

I propose that there is no guarantee that a plinth in fact performs this feat......and even if it does......it rarely maintains the correct 'levels' of the platter and the tonearm/s bases?

I have checked (with multiple bubble levels) the absolute level of the platter and the plinth and the tonearm bases of my Raven AC-2 as well as my Rega 3 and I was quite surprised.
When I levelled the platter.....the plinth was not level and the degree it was 'out-of-level' varied over the surface of the plinth.
On the Raven.......only one of the three armboards loaded with their individual arms.....was in fact level?!
This actually makes sense if you understand the tolerances involved in making and mounting the plinths and spindle thrust bearings.
If there is only 1° tilt in the support of the thrust bearing.......and there is likely to be more....this translates directly to a 'tilt' in the platter relative to plinth.
And depending on the construction, thickness, span and quality control of the plinth fabrication.......there could be deflection, bumps or troughs?
And if you have cantilevered armboards like the big Micros and Ravens......the deflection at the end of these can be significant depending on the method of fixation to the plinth, the length of cantilever and the material and thickness of the board.
A simple challenge for all of you:-
Check the individual levels of plinth, platter and tonearm support?

With individual armpods....their levels are adjusted precisely and thus the tonearms are mounted vertically.
The unattached platter can be levelled without worrying about plinth irregularities and the geometric spindle-to-pivot distances can be accurately set using something like the Feickert metal device.
Another test worth doing for everyone with a plinth.....is to actually check the spindle to pivot dimension using the Feickert device.
My experience shows that if you get an accuracy of 1-2mm......you're doing well.
With the isolated armpods.....I can achieve accuracy of 0.1-0.2mm.

This degree of accuracy may not be an important factor as adjusting the tonearm geometry to account for this error may mitigate against adversity?

I do however maintain, that absolute level of platter and tonearms is pretty important......although those happy advocates of the big Micro turntables may prove me wrong? :-)

Hi Henry,
I've mentioned the issue of incongruity between platter and armboard a number of times, but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. Your experience matches mine when I had the shop. Since most folk level their platter and assume everyone else is level, I suspect a significant portion of tonearms do not have their vertical bearings in line with the platter - probably losing about 40% fidelity in real terms. Imagine owning a Linn with a wooden armboard moving around as the temperature varies.
This is one big advantage of unipivots with self centering bearings..
The other incongruity I see a lot is the motor pulley out of level relative to the platter. When running a rubber belt I've heard big improvements from ensuring the motor pulley is dead level and aligned to the platter.

I do however maintain, that absolute level of platter and tonearms is pretty important.

Analog reproduction (or better, superior analog reproduction) is based on precision. And knowledge what-is-responsible-for-what. Our times are modern, "something" is offered and when there is a good review about it, that's the absolution, no matter how mediocre it is in reality.
Marketing replaced brain and Analog is unfortunately THE example par excellence for it.
The real problem today - imo - is, that a customer has to rethink the design, to control some parameters... it isn't his task. He pays some money and relies that he gets something serious. Level Armboards, round platters... do not need NASA science, but it is the profit that counts today. Not for every manufacturer, some try to do a real good job (and they do) but would you accept a car which drifts always a little bit to the left side, and the manufacturer/dealer will tell you "Hey. come one, thousands of happy customers and you are the only one who is so picky...lower tire pressure on the right side"

I do however maintain, that absolute level of platter and tonearms is pretty important.

Done right ?

You see, right side ----> Timeline Strobe.... :-)

Syntax, I presume that digital level also reads 0.0, 0.0 while it rests on the platter.

I would like to know a way to measure how truly vertical the arm shaft is. Any variation in this would be pretty bad for the stylus as it moves along an LP. A uni pivot bearing would not be as problematic as a gimbal arm.

Thanks for that photo of the Micro armboard Syntax.
For many years I have been sceptical of the Micro Seiki method of attaching their cantilevered armboards like this as it relies purely on a friction fixing which structurally is not the best method for a cantilever.
Now however I understand that by doing it this way.......one is able to adjust the absolute 'level' of each armboard which is not possible with a fixing method like that used for the Ravens

This once again reinforces how much expertise and knowledge has been lost since the golden days of dedicated analogue companies?

Halcro -
The easy way for you to fix the issue is to get 3 holes cut and threaded for machine screws ( grub style ) around the outside of the centre bolt in the arm board as wide as possible ( maybe just inside the edge of the tower.
Get some machine grub screws and get your engineer to put a fine radius tip on each.
That way you can level the armboard with the 3 tiptoes and just use the centre bolt to lock it down. You could go to a nylon centre bolt to get a 3 point mechanical diode if you like.
You can also check if the vertical bearings are parallel to the platter and adjust if necessary for errors in the arm with this system.

That's a clever idea Dover.
Thanks :-)

Dear Halcrop: Not big deal. A design mistake in the Raven means only that but I think that's not the rule. I just checked ( because your post ) my two AS that use three arm boards each one cantilevered type atached at the down plate of the plinth: all six arm boards are leveled with the platter and plinth and the motor too.

The Lewm statement about in theory is absolute right, things are is that our ears can't perceive any " error/distortions " with our stand alone arm board/towers. Such is life.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul,
You're lucky...........But as Syntax says........intelligent design and precision should eliminate the need for 'luck' in our systems?....don't you think?
Regards
Henry

03-06-13: Peterayer
Syntax, I presume that digital level also reads 0.0, 0.0 while it rests on the platter.

click me softly

Like Halcro wisely wrote, we do not need luck, we need someone who does something right.....btw. did you ever check the Pulleys from the super-duper VPI TNT motor .... but I think, the unlevel Armboards from the Raven are the compensation for the unstable motor management.....it is a design feature

Dear Halcro: Agree. Btw, the problem with the MS 5000/8000 is that the cantilevered arm boards came with a screw to fix it and there there is a " play/loose " between the arm board hold hole and the tube where the arm board be fix it and if the owner don't check how the arm board was fix it chances are that is out of platter level. Micro Seiki is IMHO a bad TT design, I don't use it any more but other people " die for it ". Such is life.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Henry, I just stumbled upon this revival of your interesting thread. I think in your post of March 6 you have accomplished a well known rhetorical ploy; you've raised a "red herring". My argument (and Dover's) was never primarily about plane parallel mounting of tonearm with respect to the platter surface, although I would never argue that this is not important. My argument for a fixed relationship and a physical connection between the tonearm base and the turntable bearing assembly had mostly to do with preventing motion of one relative to the other in response to external or internal sources of vibrational energy. One wants the combined structure to dissipate mechanical energy as a unit. My metaphor about trying to cut a diamond resting in a rowboat whilst sitting in a second rowboat vs performing the same task while having the whole operation in one boat (easier, obviously) was meant to illustrate the point. That's the "bad thing" that I fear could come into play when a tonearm is mounted on an entirely separate support system and dissociated from the platter/bearing. Disparate vibrations of the platter vs the tonearm generate spurious signals from the cartridge.

I would also posit that the problem of "parallelism" (for want of a better single phrase) exists for both types of systems. A less than astute user of an outboard arm pod could screw up the parallel relationship between tonearm bearings and LP surface even moreso than could a poorly executed turntable design. As someone else with a lot of experience in tonearm design once remarked regarding azimuth adjustable tonearms, having the capacity to adjust azimuth endows one with the capacity to really mess up azimuth adjustment, as well as to get it right.

Dear Lew,
For a ‘man of science’…..I am surprised by you?
You posit a phantom condition……and then proceed to create an argument and case around it.
Nikola would be less than impressed with your logic?

My argument for a fixed relationship and a physical connection between the tonearm base and the turntable bearing assembly had mostly to do with preventing motion of one relative to the other in response to external or internal sources of vibrational energy.

Preventing “motion” of one relative to the other”??
What “motion” is this exactly?
Other than a fully suspended deck (which is outside the Copernican view of this thread)…..can you please explain this “motion” and present some evidence of its existence?

You appear to equate “vibrational energy” with “relative motion”?
The most fundamental aspect of supporting a turntable system IMO…..is to create a base for it as free from “vibration” and structure-borne feedback as is possible?
If “relative motion” exists…..all bets are off….unless you are playing one on a moving vessel such as a ship, yacht, train or plane….in which case……gulp!?

If one is successful in creating a ‘mounting shelf’ free of structure-borne feedback……there should be no “vibrational energy” transmitted to the turntable system.
Air-borne feedback is rarely an issue in an audio system unless one’s cartridge is ‘microphonic’. Cartridges work by translating ‘motion’ into electrical energy whereas microphones work by translating ‘airwaves’ into electrical energy.
Many listeners assume that when they detect ‘feedback’ in their systems…..it is the result of air-borne feedback whereas it is usually existing structure-borne feedback which is amplified when the volume is turned up.
If air-borne feedback was a problem in audio……the plinth would be the least of the problem areas?
The platter would be directly affected as well as the tonearm and particularly the cartridge and stylus.
Oh….and did I mention the vinyl disc itself??
If air-borne feedback were a problem……the sound of everyone’s system would….by definition….deteriorate as the volume increased?
My system’s quality IMPROVES as the volume increases.
As I listen comfortably in my home at 90-95dB SPLs and Raul claims he can approach 100-110dB!!!….air-borne feedback is a myth propagated by sheep following sheep.
The primary source of “vibrational energy” sadly……is created by the turntable itself….or rather…the motor, belts, pulleys, bearings, coils and transformers.
A ‘happy carrier’ of all these demons….is in fact the plinth which you unselfishly wish to connect with the tonearm. The tonearm! The very heart of the Copernican view of the turntable system?!

So now your ‘a priori’ proposition (devoid of any facts or evidence) has been questioned….you are left with the claim that the advantage of a plinth is that a separate tonearm base is likely to be adjusted ‘out-of-level’?
I can’t believe that you wrote this with a straight face? :-)
So let me get this straight……you are quite happy for people to get their platters AND tonearms ‘out-of-level’ by being connected on a plinth……but you draw the line at a tonearm pod being messed up?

Disparate vibrations of the platter vs the tonearm generate spurious signals from the cartridge.

So you prefer the platter and tonearm to ‘vibrate’ homogeneously?
In my system….I prefer them not to vibrate at all?

No Lew….the plinth is not a necessity.
It is a hangover from the early days of marketing a complete ‘turntable system’ as a package and few have questioned the premise of the turntable platter as the centre of this universe?
The ‘plinth’ is about as useful as tits on a bull and is the cause of many more problems than it solves.
The turntable/platter is the ‘slave’ of the cartridge/tonearm…..and the anchor of the ‘king’ tonearm must be as heavy, solid rigid and level as a rock.

OK. I read the first paragraph or two and then ran out of energy (vibrational and otherwise). Why can't you imagine that two wholly independent structures could react differently from one another to, lets say, a heavy footfall on one hand or the 1812 Overture blasting into your listening space, on the other? (I see that you don't believe that the energy put out by a loudspeaker can cause damaging mechanical feedback. This is your right, just as it would be your right to believe the earth is flat.) If you can't imagine that two structures mounted on your shelf might respond to energy coming into them by any of these and several other various routes in different ways (different resonance frequencies, longer or shorter time to dissipate the energy, etc, etc.), and if you cannot imagine that there is some advantage to having a single combined structure that responds in unison to extraneous disturbances, so as to minimize relative spurious motions of the cartridge vis the LP groove, then I cannot help you, but it is not I who is ignoring or not understanding the science. By the way also, you CANNOT stop all energy from entering into your turntable/tonearm. No one can. Unless you want to send your system into gravity- and friction-free outer space and cut rocket power thereafter. (Good luck setting VTF out there.) So, it's nice that you prefer a totally isolated system, we all would, but it ain't gonna happen on earth.

By the way, the PLINTH has nothing to do with this discussion. That is a different obsession of yours and the subject of a different thread.

You also wrote, "So now your ‘a priori’ proposition (devoid of any facts or evidence) has been questioned….you are left with the claim that the advantage of a plinth is that a separate tonearm base is likely to be adjusted ‘out-of-level’?" Did you really read my preceding post? That is exactly what I said I did NOT say. We've never discussed that issue before, so far as I can remember. It's pretty obvious that any design that gets the tonearm bearings and the platter surface plane parallel is OK, regardless of how it's done. This has nothing to do with our subject.

I think you want this thread to be read and contributed to only by those who swallow your line of thinking hook, line, and sinker, and who come here to kiss your butt.

Dear Halcro: ++++ " So you prefer the platter and tonearm to ‘vibrate’ homogeneously?
In my system….I prefer them not to vibrate at all? " +++++

of course that we prefer not to vibrate at all but this is only in a perfect world.

The TT always vibrate/resonates and the stand alone tonearm board too bacause tehre is no way to isolate 100% of where is seated or for what is surrounded. As a fact the tonearm/cartridge are in continuous vibration way.

You said that air borne feedback does not exist on stand alone tonearm towers but you don't have any test that could prove it. I don't have on hand but exist studies that proves that every single system and especially the analog source is affected by air borne feedback.

Maybe at very high SPL we can't detect it because that high SPL but exist no doubt about. Yes, the cartridge is more sensitive to that air borne feedback.

In the other side you have to take in count that the cartridge is extremely sensitive to tiny very tiny microscopic motions that for us are non-detectable but this IMHO does not means does not exist because exist.

The ships/water example by Lewm is very good and self explained to be against stand alone tonearms towers.
The problem is that what " happen " in theory unfortunatelly in this regards can't be duplicated in our systems so we are unaware of it and unaware of any single sound degradation coming from that subject.

I know you are a wise person and there is useless to ignore something that exist and ignore it because we can't here it.

I promoted the stand alone tonearm towers years ago and still think is the best way to go till exist a better way to isolate from the TT the tonearm/cartridge unit.

In this same thread I speak very clear about what that UNIT means and why is the cartridge the King and all other links the slaves. The UNIT is not the King as it's not IMHO the tonearm.
A tonearm design goes around from the begin to satisfy the cartridge needs not the other way around. That the tonearms designs don't take that statement at 100% does not means those designs are right.

Example, today and in the past people/designers/reviewers suddenly vote for the 12" tonearms against 9"-10". IMHO the 12" makes more harm than help to the cartridge works.

A cartridge between other things moves in the grooves at random for the tonearm with suddenly direction changes where the tonearm has to be and has to has a fast response on what the cartridge is asking for, a longer tonearm respond slower than a shorter one ( everything the same. ) so the longer tonearm goes against the cartridge needs and can't fulfil those needs where a shorter one makes it in better way.

There are many other disadvantages and the " only " in theory advantage that a longer tonearm has is that the tracking error is lower but is only in theory.

In other threads we already discuss about and the real subject is that no one can hear the difference for the better because a tonearm is longer.

But as this " stupid " myth there are many in audio.

The tonearm and cartridhe form a UNIT but the tonearm is a slave of the cartridge and the real King. Just an opinion.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Halcro/Lewm/Raul

You are all arguing the same points but at cross purposes.

We are measuring the groove and to measure it accurately there must be no movement between the tonearm mounting point and the platter/bearing.

Lewm's argument is simply that a rigid plinth connecting the arm and platter will minimise the risk of any differential movement.

The requirements for a nude TT approach are no different really - there must be no movement between the tonearm coupling and the platter/bearing. Placing the platter bearing on a shelf and placing the tonearm on a pod on a shelf simply means that the shelf becomes the plinth.

There are crappy plinths and there are crappy nude turntables.

Examples of crappy plinths are the Tin Sondek and the SME hollow plinth of the 60's built for the Garrard 301/401 ( they built and sold a shaker table ).
Examples of crappy nude TT's are the plethora of Garrard 301/401's running separate arm pods mounted on spongy feet that provide no rigid coupling between arm/platter.

An example of a good plinth is the Final Audio. The Final Audio has the inverted bearing/platter and gunmetal arm pod both bolted to a 40kg slab of superplastic zinc alloy that is inert - at room temperature this slab cannot be excited below 100hz, energy in this material is dissipated at a molecular level through grain sliding, it will be better than any shelf that is not of the same material.

Halcro - what category do you place the AC Raven - plinth or no plinth ? Are you going to fully nude the Raven ?

I would argue that the Record is King. That is the centre of our particular inverse.

I see that you don't believe that the energy put out by a loudspeaker can cause damaging mechanical feedback.

This is not what I said.
Air-borne feedback can be absorbed into the structure and transformed into Structure-borne feedback which is most damaging to the analogue chain.
What I am saying....is that a turntable system......properly isolated from Structure-borne feedback will not have its performance affected by Air-borne feedback.

If you claim that Air-borne feedback adversely affects the sound of the turntable.....then it MUST increase this affect with increased volume.
There are no ifs or buts or maybes.
This is a logical as well as scientific corollary.
If this corollary can not be heard......you simply have no evidence on which to substantiate your claim.
If there were any doubts left?........listening through headphones would provide untainted and fully complete information unavailable through loudspeakers at any volume?
This has not been proven to be true in my system on any occasion.

If air-borne sound transmission were an issue......a high-res direct digital transfer from a record would sound better than the actual record itself when played back through loudspeakers?
Michael Fremer has conducted many demonstrations of this with actual audiences....and the results are in fact the reverse.

....is useless to ignore something that exist and ignore it because we can't here it.

This is surprising to hear from you Raul who always insists on 'evidence' and 'science' in other audio arguments?
Can you please explain to me the difference between something NOT existing and something EXISTING.....but undetectable....as it applies to audio?

Dover,

Are you going to fully nude the Raven ?

I am fortunate to have the Raven side by side with the 'nude' Victor in order to crystallise my thoughts on this matter.

And you are correct........the 'shelf' or 'platform' upon which the turntable and armpods rest, are in fact 'a plinth' or 'base'.
And I agree......the 'base' is of utmost importance.....or rather.....the 'isolation' of the base is of fundamental importance.

Dear Dover: ++++ " the Record is King " +++++

agree, here or in other trhread I posted that but because we can't almost do nothing to modify or improve what is recorded I don't take it in count as part of the analog rig hardware , so next in line the cartridge.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear halcro: Can you hear the gravity?. Now, today many audiophiles ignore/don't use antiskating but we know is necessary even that some of us " think " the quality performance is better with out AS.

There are several distortions ( different kind 9 that surround the audio system and that are generated by the audio system but at so low level or so higher frequencies that we can't detected or at least we are unaware of it.

Take two IC cables or speaker ones or power cords, normally the better shielded likes us more and we could think because are bettter cooper or silver build material or whatever but it is more normal that are better to reject noise polulation: emi, rf and the like that exist even if we can heard it and I can say we can but we can't identify it.

Of course I'm with science.

Btw, do you already buy the Dyna 13D?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul,
Your examples are ones that are 'detectable' but perhaps not explainable?
If you cannot detect something......how is that different to its non-existence?

And just saying something exists but is 'undetectable'....is no proof of its existence?
It is just mumbo jumbo :-)
There is enough 'pseudo science' and 'voodoo science' in this hobby as it is?

Regards

Dear Raul,
I hear 'gravity' every time I release the tonearm lifter and every time I adjust the VTF.
Bad example.......

Regards

Dear Henry, Some support from the philosopohy of science.
The truth and existance are not adjectives or properties of
statements. They are implicit in any indicative statement.
But we have the language part and the so called 'reality
part'. The correspondence theory is problematic because
we can't equal lingvustic part with the rality part. The
semantics threat about the relatioship between the two. By
Frege there is the distiction between 'sense'(meaning) and
'reference'. Say the particle physicist all know what
Higgs particle means. Ie its contribution to the meaning of
the theory (the standard model). But till recently nobody
was sure if Higgs particle 'exist' or, to put it otherwise
if the 'name' Higgs particle has a reference. We in Europe
spend a huge amount of money to answer this question. But
if the Higgs particle was not 'discovered' the whole theory
would be refuted. The existance is considered to be an
'ontological' question. In 'On what there is' Quine
invented the so called 'ontology detector': to know what
kind of ontology one presuposes one need to know what
values one will put in the place of the variables he uses.
Ie: 'to be is to be a value of an variable'.
Frege called statements without a referent as not belonging
to science. Those are not truth-functional statements. Ie
it make no sense to ascribe whatever properties to not
existing entities.

Regards,

Dear Nikola,
Philosophy,science and mathematics share many admirable qualities.
Lewm asks me if I can't 'imagine' two structures on a shelf reacting differently to each other?
Yes......I can imagine such a thing.
But I can also 'imagine' a man flying?
I ask Lewm to give me an example of how the base for my turntable and armpods is 'moving' as he claims,and also some proof of such movement?
Yet all I get is a parable that equates a 'solid' shelf affected only by gravity to a 'liquid' ocean affected by winds, currents, depth, thermal movents and tides.
And Raul thinks that's a highly attractive analogy?!
Lewm accuses me of claiming that "the world is flat"......yet that analogy seems odd as it was the general population claiming that the world was flat whilst initially one man claimed otherwise?

As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'.
Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics?

And we wonder why audiophiles......to the rest of the population.....are a laughing stock?

Hello Halcro, **As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'.
Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics?**

Since you used a question mark, I assume you're asking a question, otherwise you're making a statement, but you're unsure?

Your statement presupposes that everything and all phenomena, can be proven scientifically. Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.

Regards,

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.

Raul, With the big Micro Seiki's, and since we are all about building new or modifying original products to suit our beliefs and desires, isn't is possible to get around their perceived problems with the armboard mount by using (i) an outboard armpod, or (ii) a modification of the original cantilevered design? Since those tables reportedly have many virtues (never heard one myself), wouldn't this be worth the effort?

Here is another bone for contention: It's fine to say that the "shelf" is the plinth when one is using an outboard armpod (regardless of whether the turntable itself is plinth-less), but so far as I can tell, no one is mechanically fastening the two entities to the shelf. Thus, there is nothing to prevent disparate energetic interactions between the turntable proper and the shelf, on one hand, and the armpod and shelf, on the other hand. As you know, Henry, a shelf will be put into oscillation, by energy put into it. Objects that just happen to be sitting on a node (an area of the shelf that is not moving) will be relatively immune to the problem of the shelf vibrating under it. (The location and number of such nodes will be related to the material of which the shelf is made, its density, its thickness, and thus its resonant frequency.) Other objects that happen to be at a point of maximum movement of the shelf as the wave of energy is absorbed, expended as heat, and dissipates, will move most. Therefore, it is quite likely that the arm pod and turntable will be differentially effected by resonance of the shelf. This will cause relative movement of the one vs the other. This will happen more or less regardless of the mass of the armpod and turntable, etc. This is the crux of my argument.

There are some very expensive turntables being made these days with separate arm pods. The Simon Yorke, da Vinci, TOTL Kuzma, and one or two others come to mind. It seems that those designs at least provide very similar mounts for the two separate structures, very high mass, identical materials, etc. Some or all of these also include the mounting shelf, which I think speaks to my point. Such construction could mitigate the problem. I am not arguing that it can't "work"; I am just pointing out the issue that needs to be considered.

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 Fleib, Your interpretation of what Henry stated is wrong. His first statement which is without question mark is about 'claiming the existance of phenomena without
scientific proof...', etc. This is not the same as 'believing that Higgs particles exist'. What one believes is not relevant in science otherwise we in Europe could save a huge amount of money with CMS in Cern. From his statement one can't deduce the assumption 'that everything and all phenomena can be proven scietificaly'. What he stated is that one should not CLAIM existance of whatever phenomena without scientific proof.
His second statement can be interpeted as a question because of the question mark but those are not the 'things' which can be true or fals but,say, interesting, boring, significant, senseless, etc. Ie questions are not truth functional.

Regards,

Hi Fleib,

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?

In this case......there is no phenomenon proposed, which requires a 'thesis'?
Yet 'evidence' is fabricated to try to explain this 'phantom' phenomenon.

Not scientific in the slightest in my book?

Regards