A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Halcro, yes, but that is not in any way an empirical test or proof. The Raven is relatively bass-shy and in any case, a relative comparison between the "nude" DD and the Raven is no more than that: - a relative comparison between two TTs.
See - no matter whether you have a TT with a plinth or a "nude"/skeleton TT - you always have a "plinth". With the "nude" TT the surface/corpus underneath the motor and the armbase IS in fact the plinth and does act as one.
Please do seriously consider giving a thought to a complete force vector diagram of the turntable system and you will immediately see the point.
And BTW - the spinning platter is of course part of the force vector system. But nevertheless, the tonearm/cartridge do form a mechanic-dynamic system and the two together with the plinth/underground do form a mechanic system.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Blackburn, good hint. I checked my travel goods and found a sombrero from last visit in Mexico. Will take it with me.

Dear Bjesien, Freud would have answered: twelve tonearms are not enough, or relating to your position maybe: You are entangled in a jealousy complex.

Dear Raul,
glad to hear everything is on track with you and you are not deserting the analogue playfied at all.
regarding tapes I did clarify py position. Concerning the digital format I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound.

Dear Halcro, am I infected already?

Bjesien, I think it would be more revealing to look to see who has a 16-inch tonearm.

The remark about cigars is credited to Freud himself, who was a devotee'.

Dertonearm, I like what you said, that there really is no such thing as "no plinth". That's a good way to put the same argument I was trying to make with Halcro et al.

Plinths? Much of this discussion has me wondering.

Plinths are constructed in so many different ways that I believe it is impossible to generalize about their sonic contribution. Many earlier designs were a simple box (open inside). More recently most seem to be made with solid materials. And the variety of materials is almost endless -- particle board, MDF, ply, Birch ply, solid hardwoods, glued strips of hardwood (like cutting boards), Corian, Obsidian, slate, marble, granite, composite (like some Kenwoods), glass, acrylic, aluminum, stainless steel, lead, etc. Then there are composites or combinations of these materials, as with constrained layer damping. Setting aside dimensions, each material has its own resonant frequency. So how can the "sound" of plinths be lumped into a single category?

Even a "plinth-less" table must have some means of support for the motor, bearing, spindle, platter, and arm (be it separate or attached). And those support materials also have their own resonant frequencies.

So what I really wonder about is if those who now find favor with plinth-less designs have simply eliminated the sound of unmusical resonances in whatever plinth material they experienced with a plinthed table? If so, does that mean ALL plinth designs are inferior? Or simply that the plinth they did hear was not the best material choice? And further, would a better material choice result in favoring that over their plinth-less example?

I certainly respect comments by Raul, Halcro, etc. but I also respect those of Albert Porter, mikel, J. Weiss, etc. I remain confused! ;^(

Pryso, you are inviting the plinth makers, except of Raul. What do you expect being delivered. Nevertheless good move!

and Steve Dobbins, whom I wish would comment more often.
Tim, You are saying what I have said a couple of times over the past week or two. There is little doubt in my mind that a "bad" plinth can make things worse. This does not prove that a good plinth (by anyone's definition) is necessarily inferior to what its aficionados refer to as "no plinth". Also, the optimal solution is likely different for different direct-drive turnables. (I don't think anyone challenges the notion that one needs a good plinth for an idler or that no plinth is quite a good solution for a belt-drive tt.)

We plinthophiles can always take refuge in saying that the plinth which was found wanting in comparison to no plinth was of an inferior design or construction. No-plinthers can in turn say that poor performance is due to failure to use the correct footers or to dampen the shelving, etc. So, we can all rest assured that each of us has the right idea.

Dear Thuchan: ++++ " I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound. " +++++

well not infected yet but maybe starting to...?????

the whole subject is that through SACD/DVDA the digital source is really good and as I posted better than what we are accustomed to think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Pryso: Today if I have to design a TT I will think very seriously and in deep about the TT plinth whole subject ( what we normally understand for plinth. Yes even in a naked version there is a body where the TT seats but IMHO this is not the plinth we all are refering to. Of course we can hang-up but even here we need some " body ". ).

The first think that comes to my mind after several experiences with naked TTs is that the best plinth ( any ) is no plinth.

All plinths as you point out has its own resonances/distortions. That we can't " hear it/aware of it " does not means that the phono cartridge that is a very sensible " microphone " can't do it. That's where the differences we heard comes.

Yes different build material plinths has different behavior but why any one ( other than commercial business$$$ ) one of us have to worry about that " unknow " plinth behavior if we just can eliminate.

What I really be more " conscious " is on what surround the TT: body of the TT it self where the TT will be seated.

Instead to worry on this " TT's body " and plinth ( two subjects ) I have to " worry " only on one subject and try to have/design that perfect TT's body that can makes the less degradation to the cartridge audio signal. This make sense to me.

I'm not saying that this is the only way to think: no, the people that thing plinths are the way to go are welcome.

Now, we have to take in count if what we are designing is a DD or BD TT because each one has its own needs.

In the other side the plinth/no-plint subject is only a " small " part/factor that has influence in the cartridge quality performance level as several other " factors " as the one Halcro pointed out: arm board.

Obviously that the proof of any TT plinth design approach is when we hear it in our audio system and can confirm how good or not is that approach. Every other " thing/though " IMHO is only theory/speculations
that can't be prove it or mere assumptions.

We IMHO need facts and IMHO too right now we have not all the facts that can prove for sure the value of each approach that conlcude with out any doubt wich and why is the UNIVERSAL and best design approach.

All the experiences and opinions of the people that already try/tested the naked alternative proof something: that we like better the naked approach and second that all the ones already tested agree: we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

I like un-biased opinions on the subject ( un-biased $$$$$$ opinions. ) like these one:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&78&4#78

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&84&4#84

and obviously the Halcro one.

Anyway, an interesting and learning discussion. Keep on.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

that there really is no such thing as "no plinth"

Well....depends how you define 'plinth'?
Of course, if even a wire cage can be called a 'plinth', then perhaps you're right?

I like Raul's proposition ( we're back on track Raul :-))...the 'best' plinth is 'no plinth'.
And I also agree with him that we still haven't heard from anyone who has listened to a 'plinthless' TT and found it wanting? As Raul says

we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

Only hypothetical theories about why a plinth must exist?

In any case, I was lying awake last night thinking of this and I wondered......if we can take the 'plinth' totally out of the equation, then there can be no argument?
There are now many turntables utilising magnetic drive of the sub-platter and/or magnetic separation of the main platter from the sub-platter.
As Clearaudio claims about their Statement turntable

Magnetic driven sub-platter, with absolutely no contact to the main platter.

The DaVinci AAS Gabriel MK2 has similar magnetic separation of the main platter.
Unless I'm missing some obvious physical law here, I'd be tempted to claim that the 'plinth' in these situations can have no effect on the sound produced?

Puh-leeze. There is NO ad hoc argument that wins this debate. The Clearaudio Statement looks like an over-sized, over-priced turdball to me. But in any case, magnetically levitated platters in belt drive turntables are irrelevant to this discussion. I will agree any time that in my experience, plinthless is the way to go for belt drive. But that is beside the point. "Every time I think I'm out [of this discussion], they pull me back in." (M Corleone, Godfather III)

"But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever. "
Michael Corleone

Dear Halcro, don't just think of "plinth" as a wooden "cage" around the bearing and armboard. Take plinth rather as the "common ground" of both - bearing and armboard - and you have the answer.
Again - if you are looking for real arguments, do seek shelter in the arms of our good old mother physic (at least as long as we are standing on this good earth...).
It may still not really sound tempting to all or most, but the already cited force vector diagram will shine more than just a faint light here. It will fully illustrate the position of raw physics and the depending of the individual parts of the system to the whole and to each other.

Cheers,
D.

DT, Sometimes, I don't get it. Show us how to derive a force vector diagram for a turntable. Then we will believe. I think the crux of the matter is that there are subtle forces, apart from the obvious ones, that make a critical difference. And for any specific example, those small forces will be different.

Dear Lewm: And not only that even with that force vector we can't be sure how it will perform on true playback. So this is faint statement too: theory with out any test that prove that " all " is solve through that plinth.

We have to take in count that we are " playing " with induced resonances/distortions at " microscopic " level not in the " macro " domain.

We need to know which kind of resonance/vibrations, at which intensity, at which frequency range are pick-up by the cartridge and how we perceive it through playback in our system.
Not an easy task and certainly can't be solve because of that " force vector diagram ". Complex because we need to separate ( totally ) those resonances/vibrations coming from the TT body and if we are using a plinth we have to separate the plinth ( stand alone ) either as the ones coming between the TT body and the plinth.
We need to separate from the other focus of TT/tonearm/cartridge system own resonances/vibrations, we need to identified and determine each one specific influence in the cartridge overall quality performance level and then decide how to " cure " if need it.

Is this faint?, certainly is and with out a serious scientific " process " the best we have is to try the non-plinth ( naked. ) alternative and judge about against the plinthed one: easy!, other " theories " as Lewm posted somewhere are only useless speculations, facts is what we need and the naked project is a non-scientific fact that at least put some light on the subject where each one " theories " can't do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

A What?

Dear Lewm, it is just a plain force vector diagram - nothing that would require anything specific.
And no, the fact that for specific examples of different TTs ( moving mass, static mass etc.) some individual factors will show different values, does not alter the value nor validity of the complete vector model for TTs.
In any case, grown up men in general and audiophiles in specific don't want to be lectured in public.
So - those really interested in the background on the physics of TTs will do the vector diagram themselves.
The others...... well .... business as usual.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.
There are much more complex machines then turntables out there which likewise are explained and researched (designed ... ;-) ...) on the firm ground of force vector models.

Cheers,
D.

Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " A FV-diagram will clarify the topic. " +++++

imho THE TOPIC IS IF A NAKED tt SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A PLINTHED ONE. Till today the ones that already tested the naked option reported a better quality performance level against the plinthed one.

Please let us know how that FV-diagram can tell us the same: IF A PLINTHED TT SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A NAKED ONE.

Please don't put " clouds " on your answer or take other topics be precise and specific, no more retoric.

A second question: THAT " fv-DIAGRAM " has ears? how good are ?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.

Which question/topic do you believe it will clarify?

1. Is a plinthless TT better or worse than a plinthed TT?
2. Is a self-standing tonearm better than a directly coupled tonearm?

(1) or (2) or both? Do they amount to the same question for you? By ‘better or worse’ I mean that from the perspective of the end user and not from a design perspective (even if it’s true that the design takes the end user's perspective into account).

How specifically does it clarify? Which concepts? And if one makes a distinction between clarifying a question and answering it, I take your claim above to imply that drawing the FV diagram doesn’t by itself answer the questions at hand. That is, the FV diagram doesn’t settle the dispute between Lewm and Halcro/Raul/Chris.

Also, do you believe that the specific sound quality (phenomenological experience) of a TT set up can be deduced a priori from knowledge of its constituent parts + arrangement? I ask this in all seriousness since, in the monumentally amusing ‘TW Acustic Arm’ thread you seemed to suggest that one could infer the sound of that arm merely by knowing how it was designed (+knowledge of the physics pertaining to arms); that is, know it without actually listening to it. I suspect that if you do believe this, then the conversation is over since Raul’s empiricism, if I understand his above post, isn’t having any of it.

I’m a grown man and I also like to go to public lectures, although you are right that I don’t like to be lectured. If you tell me something useful that I don’t know about something I’m interested in (which won’t be all that difficult in this context), then far from receiving scorn, you’ll have my gratitude.

Dear Raul,
a force vector diagram can tell how the different forces act and where they go (which I think is a very interesting question in itself .... ) and as such will explain the contribution of a "plinth" and will explain that there is always a "plinth" - even in "naked" TTs.
The only truly "naked" (i.e. NO plinth at all ) turntable is a moving platter and tonearm in fixed and orientated distance to each other floating in outer space away from earth's gravity and atmosphere. So all forces and energy displayed in that machine will remain within the machine.
I know that you don't like physics and empirical theories, but sometimes they help .....
I am not sure, whether the FV-diagram has actually ears, but if it does, those ears will be very objective and free from prepositions, decline by advanced age, taste and egomania.
So it might very well add one more statement, opinion and position to the topic.
As good ... or bad ... as any other.
Cheers,
D.

Dear DT, All I'm saying is can you direct us to such a diagram or help us understand how you would go about constructing it? One major force, for sure, is the torque of the motor, which is angular by the definition of "torque". And we all know that the torque of the motor trying to compel the platter to revolve in a clockwise direction will in equal measure compel the chassis to revolve in the counter-clockwise direction (which is one reason, IMO, why there MUST be at least a certain minimum mass to the chassis of a direct-drive turntable, where the motor is firmly a part of the chassis, lets say it needs to be much higher than the mass of the platter). Apparently the no-plinthers have observed that Newton's Third Law is not much of a problem in this regard. What next, I mean what other major forces are in play? VTF, skating, gravity.....?

One of the senior members in the other forum I am part of said something about isolated arm pods in a way that I think “nailed it” as far as what I am hearing.

"These are said to break the rumble feedback loop through the plinth as it contacts the arm at both ends - through the arm pillar and cartridge via the platter".

That’s it for the theory part.

Dear Lewn:

I thought in the other thread that you were going to attempt this with your Denon. I was really looking forward to your impressions based on your vast experience.

Your comment:
“Apparently the no-plinthers have observed that Newton's Third Law is not much of a problem in this regard”.

Btw - Thinking of having T-shirts made up that say NO-PLINTHER – just kidding. Just remember I still have another TT with a plinth that I enjoy.

Anyway to answer the question - When I start my sp10 there is a slight split second vibration that can be felt in the motor casing. After that it might as well be dead – can’t hear or feel anything and it hasn’t moved at all since it was last set up.

All

I have to admit I am a little dumbfounded at some of this. Vector diagrams?

If trying a separate arm pod and no plinth “around -holding ” the TT meant lots of investment in time and $$ - I would understand the reluctance– but its been discussed many times by Raul and Halcro - all you have to do is take the motor/platter unit out of its plinth, put it on some type of legs and construct some type of temporary arm out of some cheap material to hear the difference.

My first attempt was an arm pod made from glued MDF layers! I believe Halcro used a can of some vegetable!

What I am trying to say is from my experience you will know right away whether you like what you hear or not - It is that evident. Then you will know whether you want to pursue this further. Having a hard time understanding the reluctance to try it ? Are you concerned you might like the sound?

Not sure if everyone feels this way - but - To me in this hobby nothing is more satisfying than when you come upon something - a component, a process, some setup change - whatever - that makes such a big difference to your system – that it is almost like a revelation to your listening. I have spent days moving speakers around. My floor looks like a police scene with the tape markings. This experiment took the weight of that plinth off my shoulders. It now sits in another room and my wife is asking me what is going on since I disappeared for weeks when I was involved with it. I am wondering too.

I find it ironic that most of these moments for me did not equate to a lot of money having to be spent.
How many have re-positioned speakers after having them in the same place for years. It was enlightning. This might be like that.

I don’t see the need for a debate or dispute here at all – if you are passionate enough to discuss it you should try it.

Cheers Chris

Well said Chris.
Couldn't agree more.

Regards
Henry

Dear Dertonearm,
I, like many others here, am not quite sure what you mean by the force vector diagram?
I assume that you mean a diagram of all the forces inherent in the turntable but split into parts.....plinth/platter/cartridge/tonearm/armpod/plinth?
If so, I assume you want a complete circuit whereby all the forces 'balance out' diagrammatically resulting in 'Nil'?

I have a problem with this model (apart from Raul's point that it won't tell us anything about the sound) in that it takes the accepted paradigm with a 'plinth' being part of the equation and the 'armpod' being related to this 'plinth'?

When you state that

With the "nude" TT the surface/corpus underneath the motor and the armbase IS in fact the plinth and does act as one.

I also assume that you mean either the shelf or stand or even the floor acts as the defacto plinth?

The 'Copernican' view in my Posting does not accept this standard paradigm.
It does not accept that the force vector diagram be a circuit in the terms that you are proposing.

I believe that in the case of magnetically elevated platters, the diagram is forced into a disconnect although you may argue that the guiding ceramic spindle completes the vector diagram despite the fact that it transmits no load?

To avoid this argument, imagine if you will, an entire DD turntable (with plinth if you like), magnetically elevated above a shelf.
I can imagine it so it's logically possible?
Now imagine my rigidly held, isolated armpod fixed to the shelf so that the geometrical relationships with the elevated turntable/platter remain correct and immovable.
I believe that we then approach your "platter floating in outer space" analogy and I'm not sure that your Force Vector diagram completes itself unless through the magnetic field itself.....which I suppose is possible?

At any rate, as you say on many occasions, I'm happy for you to believe what you like and I'm sure my thought is reciprocated :-)

Cheers
Henry

Dear Ct0157,
Maybe some day I will find time to test the Denon without its plinth. Right now there are at least 3 major home audio projects that come first. I am a DIYer, and I have been extensively revising the circuits in my huge Atma-sphere monoblocks. This has already taken months, since I am very anal about making the necessary decisions. It will take at least 2 months more. Then I intend to install a new attenuator in my MP1 preamp. Then I may build an LCR phono stage dedicated to MM cartridges that we have been discussing. In the spaces of time between these projects, I have all those MM and MI cartridges to evaluate in all those tonearms I now own. Once I have a handle on that, THEN I might even think about trying the no-plinth idea, but I have no clue how I would mount the Denon in space, and to make an arm pod....sheesh! I am just as smug as you no-plinthers; I like what I have, and while I enjoy this discussion, I really don't buy any of the arguments thus far put forward in favor of no plinth and especially in favor of independently mounted outboard arm pods. (And as either Syntax or DT wrote, no one is really talking about no plinth, because absence of a surround still leaves you with a casing or something around the motor and drive assembly.) The only thing I WILL say, and I am rather tired of repeating it, is that obviously there are such things as "bad" plinths. I have heard two such. I can readily believe that no plinth may sound better than a bad plinth. But I think possibly the attraction of no plinth is primarily that it may introduce euphonic colorations that are ablated with a really good plinth that can render the turntable "neutral". (Of course, one man's neutral is another man's "lifeless".) And the beat goes on.

By the way, I certainly don't think I have "vast experience". Thanks for the compliment (assuming it was not facetious), but for most of my 35-year audiophile career, I owned only one tt, one tonearm, one cartridge at any one time. I am into this multi-everything craziness for only 2-3 years. Audiogon has been my undoing.

Dear Lew,
If you'd get off these damn audio sites you might get something finished?
:-)

But I think possibly the attraction of no plinth is primarily that it may introduce euphonic colorations that are ablated with a really good plinth that can render the turntable "neutral".

Hard to follow the logic here?

Dear Halcro, I don't want to spoil the picture of the "magnetically elevated above a shelf DD tt" with the "rigidly held, isolated armpod fixed to the shelf, so that the geometrical relationships with the elevated turntable/platter remain correct and immovable." - so let's give that model a short thought.
A few points, a) energy of the tracking process will still find its way through the magnetic field. b) due to the omnipresent curse of building resonance alone, there will a relative movement of the fixed-to-shelf armpod in relation to the magnetic elevated DD (due to the kind of "spring"-effect of the magnetic field).

Honestly, - the fv-diagram was just a simple proposal to illustrate that the energy inside a working record playback system will travel and where and how it travels. That energy, its amplitude and reflections are responsible to a large extend for the turntable's share of what we call "sound".

It was just a proposal to illustrate the physic behind sonic discussion of a component (here a machine).
I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound".
Cheers,
D.

Dear Ct0517, in my 30+ years of high-end audiomania, most of the real great "sonic improvements" came out of giving things a deep and throughout thought. Plain field experiment and try-and-error is anyway as good as my approach.
It is just that I want to know why a system or a component does what it does the way it does.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, Lewm, Raul, et al - I assume that on a whole we all do in fact agree on the topic of "bad plinth" tt vs "naked" tt ( in the sense of the absence of a poor designed and resonate plinth which doesn't add any good to the performance, but is just a source of sonic distraction ).
If we include tt-designs like Micro Seiki 5000/8000, Raven AC/BN, PV and the like into the "naked" camp, then I absolutely agree, that a "naked" tt has considerable advantages vs "classic plinth" - types with wooden frame around a spring-"isolated" sub-chassis.
Then we have main-frame types like Thuchan's Continuum Criterion, which falls somewhere in between ......
But here it is done with huge input (money- and manpower...) and some smart ideas.
Ultimately I think it always come down to this.
IMHO ( ... ;-) ...) the solution might be found in an extremely rigid and dead silent "mainframe" holding the armpod/base and the bearing. That frame should be pretty massive, compound and compact so to display minimal tendency to resonate.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Lewm, as a direct response to your post 01-18-11, I think that the most important energy in the turntable system is in fact emitted by the tracking process itself. The rotating platter is not the problem (in fact, it is a rather self-stabilizing force increasingly resting with increased inertia).
The tracking process (the more so with low compliance and direct-coupling cartridges - Ikeda, SPU, DECCA) does create a source of energy (vibration) traveling into the record, into the platter, into the tonearm and creating resonances, reflections and ( all mass and material depending...) standing waves in the material.
Those are the demons I want to illustrate.
That energy is traveling and should find a way to leave the system fast as possible with leaving as little resonances and reflections as possible along the way.
A poor plinth will react to that energy with resonances and reflections and such cloud, alter and spoil the sonic performance.
VTF is part of the problem ( but only in relation to the corresponding compliance ). Skating is not.
High-compliance MMs will be much less of a problem.
A reason why cartridges like FR-7, SPU, IKeda, DECCA/London do perform to their very best on high mass platter tt's with massive frames, very rigid tonearms and platter weight above 30 lbs. To me it's a game of energy and masses - and the material mix.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Halcro, In response to your consternation about my statement, I guess I should not have used the word "introduced". Better to say that with no plinth, some resonances are or might be left undamped that might more often than not be pleasing, to a given listener. In other words, an error of omission, not commission. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a thought.

Dertonearm, As I told you privately, I take your point(s). I cannot think of that massive piece of metal that comprises the base of each of the big M-S turntables as an example of "no plinth". To me, that's a bloody good plinth. And those are belt-drives. Their more feeble efforts at direct-drive, the DDX- and DQX1000, which do have essentially no plinth are not so highly regarded. (Never heard either.)

Pardon my arriving late in this discussion.

If I can weigh in on something for a moment? I think Dertonarm and I are in agreement here: the coupling between the base of the arm and the platter of the 'table must be exact and profound. To that end, there can be no play anywhere, with the plinth being both rigid and non-resonant.

If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer.

The system of platter surface, bearing, plinth coupling to the arm, the arm and finally the cartridge can be likened to the steering and suspension of a fine motorbike or automobile. Any slop or flex in such results in handling problems!

So quite obviously a plinth that has resonance and/or is not perfectly rigid, an arm with slop in the bearings, an arm without a rigid, resonance-free arm tube, a platter with resonance and a platter bearing with slop will all contribute to coloration in the playback.

Right on, Ralph!

Dear all: +++++ " The only thing I WILL say, and I am rather tired of repeating it, is that obviously there are such things as "bad" plinths. I have heard two such. I can readily believe that no plinth may sound better than a bad plinth. " +++++

yes and a bad plinth sounds worst than just a " plinth ". What are you trying to say?, that the Raven has a bad plinth?

how is that? why is a bad plinth? or your statement is only because Halcro prefer the naked one to the Raven? who is the right person that could tell us on the current TTs which ones comes with a bad plinth, why and where are the tests that prove it? not only this but where is the plinth reference/standard against other plinths will be tested?

your words are only words with out facts that can prove it in anyway.

Btw, you can make an " easy " test on your DP-80 ( I did it in my system before. ): find out three delrin tiptoes-like ( the small ones ) or the small metal tiptoes and over/top these three tiptoes put the DP-80 ( the DP-80 will rest on the tiptoes with its outer metal ring/chasis, got it? ).

Those three tiptoes will rest a-top on the slate plinth that now will works like a big tonearm board more than a TT plinth. Btw, take out the metal DP-80 item that cover the TT motor, you just unscrew it.

If you decide to do it then listen to it and then come back to share your experiences. Yes I know this is not a " full naked " project but near to it and you don't need to build a stand alone tonearm base.

+++++ " Better to say that with no plinth, some resonances are or might be left undamped that might more often than not be pleasing, to a given listener. " +++++

words and more words. How can you prove it?
why not think on more positive way: eliminate those " left undamped " resonances by design with out a necessity of a plinth. Could be?, Lewm IMHO all belongs to the TT design and execution of that design where the build materials choosed are critical.
Theory will be fine but you have to test and prove if what theory " say " is true and real and give you the right answer on the quality sound level you will percieve.

+++++" the fv-diagram was just a simple proposal to illustrate that the energy inside a working record playback system will travel and where and how it travels. That energy, its amplitude and reflections are responsible to a large extend for the turntable's share of what we call "sound". " ++++++

yes it is only that and can prove nothing on why the people that tested a naked TT like more than with plinth.

+++++ " It was just a proposal to illustrate the physic behind sonic discussion of a component ... " ++++++

DT that could illustrate only a minimum part of what overall is happening there. Even you don't know for sure what's happening. Like with Lewm, only words with no facts.

+++++ " It is just that I want to know why a system or a component does what it does the way it does. " ++++++

lovely statement and very similar of what I like but IMHO your f-vector diagram can't do it.
DT IMHO if you want to really know what is happening and what is not happening and why you need at least ( between other things. ) what I posted before:

******** We need to know which kind of resonance/vibrations, at which intensity, at which frequency range are pick-up by the cartridge and how we perceive it through playback in our system.
Not an easy task and certainly can't be solve because of that " force vector diagram ". Complex because we need to separate ( totally ) those resonances/vibrations coming from the TT body and if we are using a plinth we have to separate the plinth ( stand alone ) either as the ones coming between the TT body and the plinth.
We need to separate from the other focus of TT/tonearm/cartridge system own resonances/vibrations, we need to identified and determine each one specific influence in the cartridge overall quality performance level and then decide how to " cure " if need it. *********

don't you think?

+++++ " I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound". " ++++

agree, you can't argue with only words against people that tested both approaches and that have facts and not only words like you. So permit me add to your last statement:

I and a few others that " tested " prefer that sound!

+++++ " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer. " +++++

Ralph, maybe I don't follow you, let me go with Lewm whom more than once posted on the subject the example of a boat in the sea where the ones inside the boat moves according with against an external person to the boat that can follow the boat movements. If this is what you mean I agree.

Now and this is only a thought that I can't prove in this precise moment:
any tiny/microscopic resonance in the LP could be take it by the cartridge like a " coloration ": inside the boat or out of the boat.
Please let me know if I'M missing something.

In the other side, nothing is perfect and always exist trade-offs. Till today the stand alone arm boards works just great ( even if goes against theory. Please remember that we audiophiles care more on what we are hearing than in theories that can't prove the other way around, at least we don't have that experience where the theory is corroborated on this whole subject. Please if you have share with us. ) and this fact IMHO is what it counts at the end of the day.

A top a desk theories are just fabolous and " sounds " great but we have to test it and prove what those theories " say ".

Every time I can I like to argue and work with facts that are IMHO what it counts.

Of cource I'M with Halcro, Chris an the other " tested " persons.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Ralph/Lewm/all, it has to read: can't follow the boat movements.

R.

Raul, yes, obviously if one boat is the LP and the other boat is the base of the arm, the motion between will be heard.

Absolute rigidity between the LP surface and the cartridge body is paramount! That requires no slop in the arm or platter bearings, and that the platter, plinth and arm tube are both rigid and acoustically dead.

Dear Ralph: +++++ " " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer... " +++++

Maybe I'm wrong or I don't understand some issues on your statement but let me add some thoughts about that I think need further explanation by you or any one that want to do it with the precise answers:

according your statement that " microscopic distortion " has enough " intensity " for the cartridge can pick-up through the TT mat and LP.
This means that independent of what happen with the tonearm ( please forget for a moment on the tonearm subject. ) that platter distortion will be " taked " by the cartridge through the mat+LP: right?

Now, if the tonearm is atached on the same TT estructure/plinth then that distortion will be pick-up by the tonearm it self and " communicated " to the cartridge in addition to.

What all these means is that the cartridge pick-up not only those TT platter distortions but additional from tonearm too on the same generated platter distortions.

What happen if the tonearm is on a stand alone base?, well that those microscopic platter distortions will not contaminate through the tonearm too.

can this be an advantage of a stand alone tonearm arm board due that exist only one distortion focus ( TT platter ) instead of TT platter and tonearm?

+++++ " Absolute rigidity between the LP surface and the cartridge body is paramount! That requires no slop in the arm or platter bearings, and that the platter, plinth and arm tube are both rigid and acoustically dead. " ++++++

agree but this is true for either approach and the stand alone tonearm board IMHO not preclude that your statement be achieved.

Ralph and dear gentlemans I'm not promoting $$$$ nothing on purpose and certainly I'm not entilted or go " till I die " for the naked TT project and stand alone tonearm board.

I just want to learn and try to confirm or not the virtues on our approach that till today is ( for the ones that tested. ) workink just great an better than the other " normal/orthodox " alternative.

All of you know my attitude that not think always on orthodox/inside the box way and yes the naked project ( like Halcro name it. ) is part of that way of thinking.

We are not " deaf " in the same way any of you are not and I'm sure that if we heard differences, not tiny ones I can say, any one of you could hear it when decided to test our approach that could be yours.

I respect all opinions but seems to me thay opinions like the one from my good friend Lewm where he is against stand alone tonearm board because " theory " say is a " wrong/bad thing/approach " ( because that boat explanation. ) with out tested by it self only could create " confussion/mix up " in other persons where is not necessity to do it.
My take here is to test by one him self to understand what is down there instead to speculate about.

Ralph, do you already tested?, if not try to do it and make the comparison and tell us if you heard/hear drawbacks in quality performance level with the stand alone tonearm board.

As anything in audio not all is totally black or white but in between.

+++++ " acoustically dead... " +++++

like you many of us use those words in audio but what those words need really " means " for have validity in our subject.

Acoustically dead on what we are discussing means for me a " stage/scenario " where the cartridge can't reproduce or can't take it a " distortion " coming from tonearm/TT or elsewhere or maybe that could be picked-up by the cartridge with no audio reproduction influence.
Till today I don't know any scientific studies on that subject with different phono cartridges in different scenarios and with different in duced kind of distortions.
So, for me these " acoustically dead " words has no real significance other than a desirable audio factor.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Dear Raul, I am saying NOTHING, nada, about the Raven in any way, shape or form. The Raven is a belt-drive turntable with no formal "plinth" but does have a massive metal base to which tonearms and bearing are rigidly attached, and a massive platter. That would seem to me to be a good design; I have never ever heard one. I have repeatedly maintained that large formal wooden plinths as we used to know them are probably passe' for belt-drive.

Also, I think you can't have it both ways. In other instances you have frequently maintained that those who disagree with you are hearing euphonic distortions, but distortions nevertheless, and that the goal should be to reduce all distortions of any kind. Once you take that view, can you really say that if an outboard arm pod induces pleasing distortions, that is OK?

Sorry also, Halcro and Chris are great guys. I am pleased to feel like I know them. But neither of them did a "test", if a test is to be taken as a synonym for a valid experiment, and they both admit that.

Dear Halcro, In reference to your remark above, last month I finally bit the bullet and bought a Parasound amplifier (after much research and hand-wringing) just to have music while I play with my "real" OTL tube amplifiers. The Parasound does an OK job in the meantime on my Sound Labs.

Dear Lewm: I still think that the best way to improve quality sound performance in an audio system is reducing/lowering " distortions " ( any kind and everywhere. Even against " theories ". ).
The whole naked TT project seems to " align " with that target.

Btw, do you already find out/bought those three tiptoes for test that DP-80 " approach?: you don't need to make or buy anything else ( only change VTA. ) and obviously you don't need more " floor/space " in your system and obviously too you already have a great and way big and weighty stand alone slate tonearm board ( acostically dead? )!!!!

Have fun.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Raul,

+++++ " I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound". " ++++

agree, you can't argue with only words against people that tested both approaches and that have facts and not only words like you. So permit me add to your last statement:

I and a few others that " tested " prefer that sound!

Sorry, but ... my remark was meant utterly sarcastic....;-) ...

And finally - it is always words vs words (as "personal experience" vs "personal experience"). The personal preference - that thing you named "fact" ... - of one person is worth as much or as little as one other's.
There are no empirical tests available here.
There are no "facts" here drawn from personal "tests".
Sorry.
Wished there were.
So everyone's "tests" are bitterly limited, since drawn from listening with different and most likely not perfect periphery and based on a bag full of individual circumstances and likes/dislikes.
So totally worthless for the next person - unless he/she is a blind "follower" of the former.
"Falling back" on plain and simple or complex physical models might not be tempting to some, but it is at least an universal objective attempt.

Picking up on Halcro's initial words:
For thousands of years people believed that the sun is moving around the earth. They had "proof" every day and it was an undisputed "fact" drawn from "personal test and experience".
After all they all saw the sun wandering through the horizon, setting and rising again the next morning.
Galileo (and long before him less well known arabic, greek and egyptian men of thought and clear view looked behind the plain "obvious" view and found a different approach and physical fact.
An approach free from individual experience......
Now just exchange "geocentric conception of the world" with "personal tests and facts in audio" and you see the point.
We ( well, .... most of us ...) have moved on to the heliocentric conception of the world ( and right now are on our way to another even more universal conception ... .... at least some of us ...;-) ....) and we ( ... some ...) will move on in audio too.

And as such it is the more scientific and Copernican point of view and attempt ( Halcro .... ;-) ...).

Cheers,
D.

Perhaps we're chasing phantoms here?
Are turntables just like cartridges and speakers?
Different flavours for different folk yet doing the same job in different ways?

After all, who amongst us here is brave enough to name the best turntable he's ever heard for fear of being shot down in flames?
Yet there are the reviewers who aren't afraid to do exactly that.

Jonothan Valin names the Walker Proscenium as the best with the DaVinci Gabriel second best.
Michael Fremer names his Continuum Caliburn/Cobra the best while Harry Pearson has the Clearaudio Statement up there.
Yet they're all very different design models?

I don't think many of us on this Forum have the same table or tonearms yet we all seem to derive much pleasure from playing vinyl (except for Raul:-))?

If we have an imperfect medium within an imperfect chain mixed with personal preferences and unlimited combinations and permutations of equipment, is it any wonder that no one item can be universally called 'the best'?

Perhaps that's also why we continue to seek that elusive indefinable 'upgrade' which will suddenly make sense of our miserable and meaningless lives?

Dear Halcro, I in "IMHO" think that "the best" or "fact" in correlation with high-end audio is in most cases a classic self-deception. This however is no problem at all, if it is a personal preference and taste. But since in audio we all ( in the sense of "we, the people" ... ;-) ... ) do strive for absolutes ( "best" and "facts" are absolutes ), it is a problematic issue to draw absolutes from highly subjective experiences and limited and ever-changing periphery.
Yes, JV, HP and all the other reviewers and likewise the customers (we, the people..) do have their personal preferences regarding "best".
But trying to break out of this and going for objective and neutral positions (physic, geometry, mechanics) isn't all that much fun ( to most - which I do understand ).
So we will continue with our "manoeuver in the dark" which at least gives each and everyone the opportunity to find his/her own portion of light and insight.
IMHO physic gives us pretty clear paths for the conception of a turntable.
If one leaves aspects as market-acceptance, Pareto-principle, MiniMax, WAF, production-costs and size/weight (all utterly unimportant ...;-) ...) aside, then the path is - well - straight.
But that TT would be very expensive and labor-intensive to produce and would find no buyer but a few east-asian thyccons.
The wide range of different designs in tts is a direct result of a wide range of taste, money to spend, approach and visions by their designers and customers alike.
We have highly individual rooms, set-ups and components - and consequently tts.
The next upgrade is the next fix for the "audiophile junkie" - needed to carry on, even if one is aware that it won't last for long.
Cheers,
D.

Dertonarm, I have to admit in this respect you are completely right. We have different tastes and also different capabilites in perceiving the world as well as the audio sound. This is why we ended up in different religions and different churches - in audio too. Why not?

The problem arises when everyone claimes for himself objectivity and tells his followers you will become as good as me if you follow my roots. This is a problem we had and have with some leaders and we should be sensitive to what the leaders or the churches are aiming at.

It is fine when I discover a certain way of audio listening with some special gear to be the best matching approach. It is even better if I can share my opinions on music and gear with some others and also do receive some critical remarks on what I do and what I use. I always have to respect that there are other people living in a "completely different world", enjoying maybe in the same way or even better...music

At this point, I think this thread needs to sink slowly down the list of threads in the Analog section, like the sun slowly setting in the West.

Dear Thuchan, I agree with you. There is absolutely no objection from my side against personal taste or preferences.
I have mine too ...;-) ...
That is as long as they stay what they are - personal tastes and preferences.
But if "leaders" or "gurus" do take (and sometimes postulate) their personal preferences as "facts" or "proof", then this is a different story.
None of us is or even can be objective - far from that.
Our tastes and consequently our way to listen to music is highly individual and thus subjective a priori et ad decretum.
A simple reason why I prefer abstract, scientific, non-individual ( colored ...) ways to encircle electrical and mechanical aspects in audio components.
It's kind of "Kritik der Vernunft". No worries, I won't go for another excursus in philosophy.
Science and abstraction is always in conflict with "wishful thinking", "personal experience" and "faith". Even I sometimes wished it weren't.
Not only in audio.
Cheers,
D.

Oh Lewm - you diagree I assume. I will ask Dertonarm if he can send you a Vector, maybe one for Raul too. It helps a lot...I did not find out yet how many are necessary :-)

I aquired a very nice Technics MK II and I am considering building a plinth around it. Does anybody know which one might be suitable for two arms (9" and 12") and has tested against other approaches?

... into the West.

Do I hear Annie Lenox warming up ?

Rauliruegas, in your prior post I am afraid that you lost me. I can't really make out what it is that you are trying to say.