I do however maintain, that absolute level of platter and tonearms is pretty important.
Done right ?
You see, right side ----> Timeline Strobe.... :-)
A Copernican View of the Turntable System
Once again this site rejects my long posting so I need to post it via this link to my 'Systems' page
HERE
HERE
1,023 responses Add your response
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" |
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. |
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? :-) |
... 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 |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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 |
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 |
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 :-) |
Although the TechDAS design breaks all of the prerequisites for this thread, who cares when the turntable design is so interesting and focused on performance. Driven via a woven aramid belt, but with a quartz-referenced, optically sensed servo system. The numerical display on the front of the pinth is a tachometer, and the user can adjust the speed with a dial. Rather than having separate armpods, there appears to be a solid beam (machined from metal billet) which is dedicated to locking the armboard to the platter bearing and thereby preventing any relative motion between the two. Some of the later Micro-Seiki turntables were made like this. The plinth is massive and seems to be largely machined from solid aluminum. A pneumatic suspension system has been built directly into the legs of the plinth. The suspension is self-levelling, I believe. Platter is of two-piece construction, and by changing the top section, the user can choose from a conventional clamp, or a vacuum clamp. The lower part of the platter has a cavity machined out of it, which serves as an accumulation chamber when vacuum clamp is activated. The vacuum seals appear to be made of silicon rubber, but their shape is much like what you would find on the Micro SX or SZ series turntables. The platter is nominally stainless (in the finest Micro-Seiki tradition), but the top part could be of chrome-copper, brass, aluminum or other materials. http://www.phileweb.com/news/audio/201111/03/11428.html http://www.phileweb.com/news/audio/image.php?id=11428&row=1 I have taken more and better photos, but don't have them hosted anywhere. Feel free to email me if you want copies of the photos that I took. From talking to Nishikawa (the designer and Stellavox Japan CEO), my guess is that the Japanese retail price will land in the vicinity of 5,000,000 JPY. Pity that the price (which I don't consider to be expensive, given the engineering content of the design) puts it completely out of my reach, and makes me wish that being an audio designer weren't such a poorly-paying profession. kind regards, jonathan carr |
Yes, from the former VP of Micro-Seiki (now CEO of Stellavox Japan). He showed up at the Tokyo International Audio Show with a turntable that looked like it completed what the SX's and SZ's started. I believe that only one prototype (very nicely finished!) exists as of now; pricing has yet to be set. kind regards, jonathan carr |
I like Raul's suggestion to start another thread about the goal of turntable design, ie, what the role of the turntable actually is. Then the subject of neutrality, and a platform for the cartridge can be discussed as well as if certain characteristics as "vibrant", "flat", and "lively" are useful terms to discuss the success of a turntable design, or do these more accurately describe the role of the arm/cartridge pairing. Perhaps this thread could use as an example to start the discussion, the SME Model 30. Raul, do you want to start such a thread? |
Dear Raul, don't shorten the content of my sentence - this style is a different kind of journalism... not what we are used to here. I said: If the result is a flat and not vibrant impression I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. I just assess the turntable misses something or adds something which I do not prefer |
Dear Thuchan: You posted...........+++++ " I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. " +++++ so, as always: end of discussion with no arguments. I was waiting something more from you and I think Peterayer too. I think that maybe is time to start a new thread to analize the whole subject. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Geoch, Agree Absolutely. But does a friendly group sharing experiences not explicitely ask for sharing assessments we are making or are we a playmobil of the marketing efforts of manufacturers? Or let me put it into other words: what is wrong with showing that we have different assessments and everyone among us can make up his mind? I think sometimes a clear word is maybe better than elaborating too complicated in clouds of overall agreement. I for myself regard our group as a platform of experienced and very competent audio afficiniados which enables us to learn a lot too - which I like very much. Being in a corner is not a bad thing, we all have our likes and dislikes. No one is better because of his gear, maybe one has reached a fine level of experience on carts or tables or tonearms or tapes, whatever. What I regard as most important is not attacking the person behind a unit or a philosophy coming with, exchanging ideas or judgements is just another way of enjoying our hobby. In this respect our group seems to be very grown up. Whenever you find a clear statment of mine it is meant to express my assessment of a unit not targeting the person behind it. In the case of Raul & me it is a lot of fun exchanging different and sharing opinions. And sometimes challenging a position helps to clarify standpoints - nothing else. best & fun only |
If I understand Raul's position here then I fully agree with him. The role of the turntable and tonearm is to be as neutral and accurate (adding or subtracting no colorations of their own). Then each person can pick the cartridge that presents the characteristics that suits their experiences and tastes the best. When the turntable and/or tonearm introduce strong colorations of their own, the cartridge matching question becomes far more complex. As similar condition might extend to the choice of amp and speakers. If so, the amp should be as neutral (perhaps within it's power range) as possible so the speaker choice can be made to suit the preferences of the owner. But in this example I believe the listening room acoustics must be considered equally and along with the speaker choice. |
Dear Thuchan, I can't imagine anyone could not be satisfied after a listening session in Raul's living room. A great system is allways a good treat for everyone's ears. It is just that every individual music lover has his own perception in fine tuning the emotional trigger in a personal manner. Me, as a MC/Idler Drive/Passive Line/SET/Full range Horn, I'm certainly on my own marginal music corner with strong feelings but trying to have a tolerate attitude also, in order to learn and enrich my experience. We are a friendly group shearing our experiences in our hobby. Right? |
Dear Raul, when I am assessing a turntable's sonic footprint I need to have comparable preconditions, meaning same tonearm, same cartridge and same phono pre ideally. Sometimes you have to compromise on one or two units differing which is not the ideal way. Nevertheless when I am listening to a record I do expect that the audio chain and especially the phono parts (turntable is one, maybe the most important part of it, or not?) are able to reproduce the signal like it was recorded and create a warm, open, detailed and as Syntax is mentioning a 'toe whipping vibration'. If the music is not dynamic ( not meaning overdynamic which e.g. some not well adjusted idlers may produce ) or wishi-washy etc. somehing was wrong during the recording process or is not well transported by the audio chain. When I have listened to the same record with the same tonearm, the same cart and the same phono-pre (the preamps and amps both excellent comparable tube solutions) only the turntable is different (! SME 30/2) I am not the only one, at least in the specific session, who thinks he is able to assess the sonic footprint of a turntable. If the result is a flat and not vibrant impression I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. I just assess the turntable misses something or adds something which I do not prefer (Peterayer - of course subjective). Now you (or some others) may put me in the corner of a certain music philosophy you are not liking sharing with me. But this is how the world is and we may allow many audio listeners to enjoy their SME 30 with good feelings. I now know in which corner I must put you :-) best @ fun only |
Dear Thuchan: As you said different drive TT systems works depending on implementation and even more important than that: depending on the designer targets. Yes,, there are options other than the commercial ones for TT designs and the hybrid always is an alternative. IMHO the main subject is not that designers does not looks to other solutions but that almost all are luking the TT as an stand alone item. Today almost all the main/normal TT targets are accomplish one way or the other. speed accuracy, speed stability where we have specs/figures here ( from many years and today TT samples. ) as low 0.001% ( Walker Rocport, Technics, Denon, etc. ), with wow&fluter as low 0.007% ( Audio Turntable ) or signal to noise ratio/rumble at 90db to over 100+db almost undetectable ( Technics, Rockport Avid, Clearaudio, Walker, etc, etc. ). So IMHO these subjects are already ( I posted several times. ) well covered from the point view of measurements. As always there is land to improve but whom of you can detect for example a TT with a speed stability accuracy of 0.001% against the same TT that measure 0.0003%? IMHO a TT designer after fulfil the " normal " targets the main target is to fulfil the cartridge needs and I mean it. This IMHO is where I think exist a " long land " to explore and I think and hope that in the future the TT advance that we could " see " will address the " fulfil cartridge needs " and what this really means. Now, +++++ " The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. " +++++ even that I talked on the SME 30/2 I will take your 20/2 statement and the first question is: is it not what we are looking for in a TT? a DEAD SILENCE TT design that does not add nothing to the cartridge performance and that does not take out nothing to the cartridge/groove tracking performance. Why need we a TT with " dynamic, power, vibrant and the like " performance characteristics?, I don't want it, my target is only that the cartridge take the 100% of the information in the grooves with out no single " factors " that could disturb its job in anyway. Same for the tonearm. IMHO several differences between this and that and the other TT came mainly ( I'm speaking on good/decent designs, any drive system. ) the way each TT DISTURB the cartridge work. Same for tonearm. Is here where differences on performance begin and appear and not because example: 150db SN against " only " 98db. That you like it how the TT DISTURB the cartridge job that does not means is right but only that you like those type of colorations against more accurate/neutral designs and there is nothing wrong with that: it is your previlege and your audio way of living. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Thuchan, Now you have me even more confused. I had been asking you about the SME 30 which you stated that you heard in two good system and did not like it. Now you write about the SME 20 and compare it to a Ford Mondeo. Did you hear the Model 30 or just the Model 20? Could you please be more specific about why you don't think the SME 30 is a good turntable? Do you also think it is "flat and not vibrant" like the Model 20? And if so, why do you think it sounds like that? Please understand that I am only asking for your opinion based on your experience with your system in your room. In other words, a subjective opinion. |
