A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear friends: This is the link that I forgot to posted in my 10-14-11 ( " another stand alone tonearm. ):

http://www.ttweights.com/momentus_duo_drive.html

R.

Dear Thuchan: I would like to add what I posted several times:
the TT is only a cartridge's slave and some designers did not took in count yet and its designs were and will be TT designs where the TT is the star.
IMHO this is part main part why we have and will have what we have about. I'm sure that when TT designers be in focus that what they are designing is important only if that design helps to fulfil the cartridge job. Same for the tonearm: other slave.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

Dear Syntax, not really simple in graduations - rather more or less convenient and simple to construct, but not ideal.
Each of these drives in turntable design do imply that there will be errors induced by the drive which have to be fought back by motor speed/torque control and a kind of "feedback-loop".
That - control by feedback-loop - already was an error when introduced in speaker designs in the 1970s.
The royal device is obvious - no error from the start.
Then one don't have to correct.
Somehow simple and logic.
Cheers,
D.

the 3 standard drive principles in tt design

Cheap? Cheaper? Cheapest?

Dear Thuchan, sure - combinations of two drive principles are possible (yet not necessary...and hardly ever useful).
But we can go for as well for other drive principles which - IMHO and soon to be put under the spell of quod erat demonstrandum - can offer a level of performance hardly obtainable by the 3 standard drive principles in tt design.
Cheers,
D.

well well, I received so many writings asking me to give some information about my assessment of the SME 20/2 that I am no more reluctant giving a brief review always having in mind that many of our community will face some problems "with my philosophy", having not the chance listening to my TTs in my environment which I regard as crucial for comparisons and also for better understanding of my position. So far only Dertonearm and my English friend are able to compare and understand, not necessarily share my position.

I for myself don't regard the perfect reproduction machines as the ones I
do favour. A really Top Performer needs to have a personality, a character which makes it really outstanding or brings it into a benchmark position. That doesn't mean coloured or distorted ( i hear the guns firing...). One of the last modern turntables I listened to and would put into this class is The Beat.

The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. In terms of cars (pls. forgive me I am livng in this world) it is a Ford Mondeo. You like the brochure and when you sit in the car you are just sitting in a car...

Oh yes, who ever has experienced a well adjusted idler drive like in the EMT 927 or R 80 knows which kind of dynamics & musicality you may reach by ID. Nevertheless I also enjoy my BDs and the DD - so in principle you will reach good results with all drives but it depends how it is implemented. So far I have not seen combinations of two drives. Is it possible?

best @ fun only

Well - as posted earlier - IMHO both BD as well as DD have way too many restrictions/problems to be the right choice for a turntable trying to approach the state of the art.
Which doesn't mean that idler drive (ID...) is the way to go.
There still are other options - way more suitable to ensure the absence of any wow/flutter and bring the dedicated platter to the purpose the principle asks for.
It is simply that most designers so far haven't looked to - or didn't want to use/consider for financial reasons - the most promising solutions.
The table I will present this later winter will show ( and proof with measurements ...;-) ... ) what is possible aside from the usual tracks.
As Steve Jobs ( requiescat in pace - we'll miss you ...) once claimed upon his return to the bitten fruit: "think different".
Cheers,
D.

Raul,

As though to prove the point, following your review, I've recently tried the Technics 100Mk4 on my Audiocraft AC3300 with a 13g aluminium headshell and finally found an alternative set up (other than my Morch DP6) on which that particular cartridge shines. This is after being largely disatisfied with trying numerous other headshells of distinct weights and/or build materials.

As I have discussed with Daniel off line, I do look forward to seeing what he comes up with on the tonearm and tt front but am not certain if this will really address the questions originally posed around perfect arm/headshell/cartridge selection. I genuinely stand in hope.

As always

Dear friends: Another stand alone tonearm arm board in another " children luxury " that like the Onedof came with tree BD. If you ask for the price then this is not for you: can't afford it.

This is the " beauty " of the BD ( commercial succe$$. ): good looking, heavy and pricey because the customer can " see " where his money goes against a DD alternative that has less drawbacks but looks " normal ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Dgob: There is no doubt that exist a scientific ( physic/mathematic and the like. ) answer for many audio phenomenons but the issue is that till today does not exist and no one already attempt to " build " an audio model that not only has all the audio factors/parameters involved when we are talking to predict for sure audio system or audio item quality performance level but that has all the interactions/relationship between those factors/parameters that have influence in that " live " performance. DT " won't go on theoretical here " because IMHO he has nothing on hand that could give you a prediction about performance sound between cartridge/headshell/tonearm and its several alternatives on weight, compliance, stylus shape, cantilever material, headshell build material, tonearm whole design, internal cable, cartridge pin connectors, cable, phono stage and the like.

The best IMHO that we can do is try different alternatives and over hundred maybe thousands of " observation " method achieve some partial conclusions.

Yes, I agree with you: that scientific " stage " almost always arrive late to the audio party, especially when we are talking of quality performance level on analog because when we are talking of electronic designs the scientific " stage/path " is the first guest to arrive. So depend of waht we are talking about and what we want to know and with what level of consistence and accuracy. I'm with the scientific " road " always that can be use it and always when is " practical/workable ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear In_shore, I never thought about acrylic but am not sure about the other way round. Yes I know that we are talking about inanimate matter. But I first got Lurnes
Audiomeca J1 which was all of acrylic. Then the ASR Emitter II and Basis Exclusive which are 6 boxes all of acrylic and when I changed Audiomeca for the Kuzma Stabi Reference I again got a huge amount of acrylic. However I
was never interested in acrylic. So 'obviously' acrylic must be somehow interested in me?

Regards,

Syntax A.J. Conti's technical papers on his over all design are very forward thinking.
However what stopped me from pursuing his Signature model a few years ago was the acyclic material he used in its construction, a material which is relatively inexpensive and easy as pie to mill.
Sure there are differant types of acrylic material but it turn me off anyway for the price of this table and my thoughts were is it a material choice just to keep cost's down?

Conti's innovative designs through out the 2800 could be entirely focused on the neutral side of things and perhaps were not effected so much by his choice of using acrylics, but i'm only guessing.

Reading Conti's papers and the reviews his tables should be crowned as a benchmark for most other tables out there including frequent mention everywhere of A.J.Conti's innovative thinking behind his designs, however this is not the case.

Dertonarm with his up and coming arm and table may find himself in the same boat with his own innovative thinking behind his products, appreciated by a few and misunderstood by many.

Here is a review with some interesting explanations. Probably it can answer some questions. A few years ago Basis had more technical papers about his thinking at his site, but this here is helpful, too.

click me

... one of the better product placements

Dear Dgob, sorry, but IMHPOV (" in my honest point of view" ...) the chain of links between tonearm, headshell and cartridge can't be found be "try-and-see-approach".
At least not, if you out for anything of absolute (not quantified nor qualified view here) - i.e. : for a result that can stand for it's own.
As the rest of the chain is needed (amps, cables, speakers et al) to evaluate the quality, you have two options:
a) you assume that the rest of the chain is perfect in an absolute sense (unlikely..) or
b) you say to yourself: "this is only now for this given set-up including all components AND my personal taste of sound in this given room".

Trying to design components of best possible quality (sound-wise) means making them as neutral and as strict as possible in following the physical parameters given in their purpose.
Then a given component won't please all nor in all set-ups.
But then a Porsche GT3 ( just random choice her ...;-) ...) isn't that great a car during down-town rush hour either.

By sticking to the mere physical requests and issues of a given link in the chain ( and believe me - it is just as big an issue to recognize and address ALL these requests and issues .. ) you are on the only path which "may" eventually lead to the best possible.
All others are leading into the woods.
You may by dump luck or happy coincidence find a "good" or "happy" temporarily solution along the way.
But it will be only temporarily, as it will be rather a lucky fit within a given matrix of the moment.

I won't go into theoretical length here.
I will rather do what I have done with the UNI-Protractor - I will give my words solid foundation by act.
Within this winter I will introduce a pivot tonearm and a turntable here on Audiogon.
Both components will show what I mean by consequently addressing physical issues.
Cheers,
D.

Dertonarm,

That should have read: "guest".

Dertonarm,

I sometimes wonder if physics isn't a little like a guess who always arrives late to the party! For example, different materials and weights of headshells on different tonearms create very noticeable differences in performance of different cartridges. The link between tonearm, headshell and specific cartridges therefore seems to be a relationship whose success can only be found by a 'try-it-and-see' approach. That physics can then be applied to infer why a certain relationship works is interesting but (as was once famously misapplied) it seems a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition in determining such selections.

As always...

Ecir38 (10-12-11),

You could try Equarack or the AT616 that many of us (well, at least 'some' of us) are using.

Good luck

As always

Inshore referred to this information on the MM thread which I thought was very interesting.


Actual Stylus/Cartridge Vibrations Study - Findings By Reed.


Is this a valid study ?

Would the motor/platter/belt resonances not represent a second set of lines on the top diagram clashing with the stylus resonances ?

Opinions ?

Hi Henry,
won't disappoint you.... ;-) .. it's not high mass or not ..... it is applied physics or not.
This shouldn't be about what we like or not, but what is necessary to achieve a certain result.
We may not always like the path of physic ( can be cruel, expensive, heavy, ugly - extend at wish ..), but physic doesn't care whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
D.

Oh c'mon D,
You know you're dying to chime in?
High-mass platters anyone?
Cheers
Henry

Full moon

Dear all, I must admit that - for the very first time in any thread on Audiogon I have participated in - it is much more fun just standing by and watching ....
from a distance,
D.

Halcro, Geez I pushed a button there and shouldn't have, I apoligize.

All good points. I'll say it again, the idea wasn't presented as a do all end all pod and thought you took it to the extreme for what it was. Other than that I apreciate your input.

Brad

Henry, Agreed. Dissimilar materials. Spikes only work as diodes if one takes care to place them over vibrational nodes in the shelf material. These can be identified by tapping the shelf whilst moving a stethoscope bell across it so as to find places where the tapping sound is least well transmitted, i.e., a node, a point where the shelf is not in motion. I have done this, and it's really quite obvious when you have found the sweet spot. Otherwise, spikes will move energy in both directions albeit with different efficiency depending upon direction.

Brad,

Halcro, your a tough cookie when an idea is presented that is not yours.

Sorry you feel that way. I thought this Forum was an exchange of ideas and information?
I studied structural engineering for 5 years as part of the Architecture course and for 40 years worked on a daily basis with some of the best structural engineers in the country including Arup Assoc who did the Sydney Opera House.
Structural design involves physics, mechanics, material proerties, geometry, maths, trigonometry and even algebra.
Advanced structural design is not often 'intuitive' and can rarely be interpreted by lay people.
When you present a design which I see has obvious structural flaws.....I am attempting to prevent those who might see this solution as viable....from making a mistake? Nothing more....nothing less.
And the added lead ballast to the lower section of the pod actually does little to increase the mass of the pod at the arm connection point. But I won't rain on your parade by explaining the reasons :-)
And c'mon......the asparagus tin jibe?
But just for interest's sake.....there is more structural integrity in an unopened asparagus tin than in that armpod.

Lew, rigidity (aka-stability) does not assure transmission of vibrations from the shelf into the pod. A constrained layer pod can be rigid and stable yet repel vibrations.
However I think it best to decouple vibration from the shelf via the footers or spikes under the pod.

Lew, I'm looking at the the V2D series ball contact, have not purchase them yet. Open the pdf and eBay listing to get a better look. Their description is contradicting in some areas to me so a call to them will be done before purchasing. I like the concept and the price isn't out the box.

Brad

Dear Lewm: Layering different materials does not means disappear and does not means even that goes lower but only different kind of vibrations/energy or frequency resonances. Yes you understand very well my point.

The Thuchan dialogue came in that tone because he is posting things I did not said and maybe because or I can't explain very clear my opinion or he understand nothing about.In his last post IMHO he shows that he are not understanding or are not reading the main subjects.

I think that when two people have different knowledge level on a subject these kind of discussion/misunderstood happen always. I can't remember when was the last time that I discuss with you in a " hot " manner.

Anyway, all these is part of the " fun/floklore ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Ecir (Brad, I think), Thanks for that URL but which feet on that page are you using? There are at least 6 or 7 different products shown. (This kind of troubles me because it makes me wonder whether the manufacturer has a real "philosophy" or does he just want to have something for everyone to buy, no matter what are the buyers preconceived notions.) For my Lenco, I needed rather tall feet, because I have an aftermarket bearing that sticks down well below the underside of the slate plinth, and tall feet are needed for proper clearance. Since I am allergic to spending on megabuck footers, interconnects, spkr cables, AC cords, discs, weights, etc, etc, I seized upon the idea of canned goods as footers.

Dear Raul, I think I understand what you are saying as regards your preference for lighter platters, which is that high mass objects might have trouble letting go of energy that is delivered into them, and heavy platters might therefore continue to accumulate vibrational energy that can leak into the LP and cartridge, rather than to dissipate it internally. This is a reasonable theoretical consideration, but what evidence do we have that it is operative in the world of turntable platters? Moreover, if the platter is made of layers of dissimilar materials, and/or a proper platter mat is employed, I believe the issue could be ameliorated. Please correct me if I have misstated your thesis. I am not a "big-platter" guy myself, as you know.

We can all agree without rancor that power supplies for turntable motors are a critical determinant of the performance, regardless of the drive system. I have demonstrated this for myself in my system many times.

Finally, I don't understand why it is necessary for your and Thuchan's interchange to be so caustic (not to mention the back and forth between you and Dertonearm). You are both good and sincere guys and this is all fun and games, as Thuchan likes to remind us. I've never heard an SME, but I have heard from others that it is either fantastic or dry and analytical sounding.

Dear Dover: I agree with you and about your Final TT I posted somewhere how the designer was so advanced on the PS design that even today many TT can't approach it.

What you said about that Sota TT mods that does not likes to some audiophiles is one of the main PROBLEMS in audio: almost no one likes accuracy/neutrality, what we like because some way or the other we are accustom to are distortions different kind of distortions and when we heard audio items with a good neutrality level we just don't like it: like Thuchan with the SME 30.

I'm supporting neutrality in this forum for the last 3-4 years and other than Syntax almost no one want to speaks about: they prefer to " go on " when IMHO the CANCER on our hobby are: DISTORTIONS/COLORATIONS and the like that came in different kind and ways and for different reasons but IMHO this Cancer has a cure a solution and this cure/solution is to look for accuracy/neutrality avoiding all kind of distortions in any single link in the audio system chain.

We have to learn how we can achieve that level of accuracy and neutrality with out lose the MUSIC emotion/feelings.
I'm in the road and still far away to achieve the target but day by day learning I'm nearest to that target.

That's why I take the job to build my phonolinepream, my tonearm and in the near future a cartridge and a TT. Why took I this kind of job?: because almost no audio device manufacturer took/take it.

I don't have any commercial targets my only one target and compromise is to honor MUSIC at home and we can't do it adding distortions and unaccuracies elsewhere the audio systems.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Thuchan: Useles to continue arguing with you on a subject that you just don't understand or you don't want it.

Last: where goes all that MS rotational energy with its generated vibrations/distortions? where to hide? under platform underneath? where and how?

When you have the precise answers to those questions then you not only could understand where are you seated right now but you will have the opportunity to look how to attain a real improvement on what you have today.

Enough.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Wow - there are a lot of discussion points here - my points :
Sota - used to import these and my Sota Star Vacuum is still one of my favourite decks. It was far more speed stable than the Linn, Roksan etc. We use to rebuild the power supplies for the motors, knocking out the on board regulation of the papst motor and replacing it with better regulators. The improvement was massive, speed accuracy, organic wholeness of sound, but SOME CUSTOMERS DID NOT LIKE THE MODS BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR WOBBLY BOTTOM END.
Raul - speaking from personal experience on my Final Audio ( 40kg platter ) I recently installed a wall hung shelf. Whilst the deck was in pieces, I cannot lift the tt in 1 piece ) I pulled the inverted bearing apart to check, clean and relube. The tt is 30+ years old and believe me I have seen more bearing wear on a 2-3 year old Rega, Linn, Roksan, Pink Triangle etc. There is virtually no wear, the oil is clean as a whistle. I use Motul V300 Power Racing oil which is very unctuous. I have seen it prevent a racing porsche which boiled the oil from seizing. The Final had Sine/Cosine wave generation for the AC motor along with infinitely adjustable speed AND adjustable torque 30 years ago.
I think the sad thing in audio is that the megabuck decks in many cases have been built to look different and the engineering is no better than decks costing a 1/3 their price. I think you nailed the importance of power supplies - I cringe when when I see puny power supplies on megabuck decks. Pure marketing rules these days.
Another great example is the L07D - look at the plinth design - many top end decks go nowhere towards approaching the level of detail in this plinth.
Notwithstanding that we cannot ignore the high frequency purity of a low mass tt - the best example in terms of high frequency extension for me was the Pink Triangle - woeful performance on speed accuracy but high frequency purity and extension to die for.
I prefer non suspended decks for speed stability - but the context is "within a reasonable budget". The Rega P9 is a great example of a low mass non suspended deck at a modest price.
The SME I still recommend to many friends and colleagues on the basis that it is a very good deck, a complete solution - tt/arm - and SME have been around forever. It is a lifetime purchase and an easy solution for a non audiophile who wants excellence.
Arm pods ( ugh ) - Halcro, why not use a decent engineers vice as a temporary solution for experiments. You can then have a nude rigidly mounted arm.

Dear Raul,

understand your fascination of the SME which only gives me an idea what you regard as Top-Performers, nothing else. But your words on my MS is exactely why it does not makes sense to compare. You do not know my Micro Seiki implementaion. You do not know that I use a better PS, that I use an air based Micro Seiki platform underneath, and another vibration control mechanism as well, that I am using a very precise speed variability & control system etc. But nevertheless you blow bubbles in the air.

It makes no sense as others have told you before to look (or even not look) at the images of one`s system and start interpretation like you do again.

best @ fun only

Lew, I have been fighting for a solution with my slate plinth in the footers area to combat floor-borne vibrations. There just aren't any in the market that provide the proper height, decoupling, height adjustment, or a way to mount them. I recently discovered these that meet all of the above and will probably buy some in the near future to give a go.

http://www.simphys.com/Pages/isolation%20products.html

A wall shelf would probalby solve the problem but still would like to try these so the plinth alone could do it's job. One of those minuk-k, vibraplane or similiar would be the ultimate.

Brad

Dear Thuchan: Please don't put words/statements in my " mouth " that I never said. I never stated that is my " benchmark " for TT or that is my " King of TT in my opinion ".

This is what I posted:

++++ " Henry you need to listen the SME 30/2 that IMHO is a top performer and till today I never read of any customer with any single compliant about speed stability or isolation or almost any other kind of compliant. " +++++

so instead to posting that kind of false statements give us the specifics reasons why the SME30 is not a top performer ( along other TTs. ).

I know for sure that you have no specific answers because today you are a different Thuchan that the one that you was motnhs/years ago when you stated: " hey I'm not part of that german group ".
Obviously today you are full and deep contaminated and as you say: if that works for you fine.

+++++ " if you are thinking the SME 30/2 is a top performer I am wondering why you are not going for it. " +++++

the main reason is because when I bought my two AS and the RX5000 I need it to mount 10 tonearms to test my cartridges and try to match it with the better tonearm where the cartridge performs the better. The SME 20/30 can't give the " facilities " to achieve that target.

For your last post it is obvious that you don't know almost nothing on the SME design characteristics and operation.

Where your RX8000/SX8000 and mine RX5000 needs a damping/antivibration plattform to " seat it " the SME needs nothing at all, the SME self TT isolation works as you or any of your TT can even " dream ". You can dance ( and I mean it ) a top the rack where the SME 30 is seated with out no single disturbance to the LP playback that you can detect over the speakers.
The MSs are one of the worst TTs on this main TT target design characteristics.
This great isolation job that SME attain remember me one old Denon DP-100 TT demostration/show where the Denon dealer " put " one of his employees a top the metal top TT plinth during playback with no disturb about. This kind of isolation is what a cartridge ask for and that those MS just can't do it it does not matters what you do or did about.

The SME 30 has one of the best power supply designs ( if not the best. ) out there nothing like that so poor MS PS design. I know very well the MS PS design that I have to re-design ( not change parts that does not help when you have a wrong design. ) in my unit and the 1500 and 8000 are the same, maybe the SZ could be better but I don't know.

The SME30 speed stability and speed accuracy is well beyond on what your MS can shows, these ones are far away from there.

The best for the last:
the SME 20/30 designs certainly does not belongs to the heavy weight/mass TT approach that IMHO is a wrong approach just from start, I mean here that TT ( vintage/today ) designers from this school already trespass the limits where heavy weight/mass works in favor of the design ( mainly to help with speed stability. ) where after those limits that additional mass/weight not only does/can not help but goes in detriment/degradation of the whole quality performance level.
The more disturbing on this heavy weight/mass school is that you can ask to any designer why he decided that the platter or plinth be of 100 kg and he does not have a specific and scientific answer and if you ask him why 100 kg and not 60kg. or 120kg: he does not know!, just choosed with almost no " engeneering " there.
I ask in this thread about to that TT that will have a 110lbs in the platter and no answer at all.

That BD TT on the heavy mass/weight school are very good looking " boys " for audio childrens/rockies that say: " hey, it weights 200 kgs. and cost 70K dollars, this has to be a great top TT performer. " with out to think that does 200 kgs. generate energy rotational energy that generate vibrations tiny ones that the cartridge take it. As more heavy as worst the problem and as worst the distorions that degrade the cartridge signal.
All these guys that " die for " this kind of TT not only does not ask their self about but where goes all that rotational energy generated by the TT? could be damped in effective way? how comes? how much? and before could be dampened/dissipated where goes, because on playback there are cycles to go and perform?

Obviously the SME people as several other TT designers ( Sota, Project, rega, Linn, etc, etc. ) know very well this " heavy " problem that : voila! has no solution because is out of the mass/weight limits on TT designs ( Alek on the Onedof pointed about: he knows. ).

A TT is a cartridge slave and must be designed to fulfil the cartridge needs and between this needs is what the cartridge can " hear/sense " that you or me can't.

Thuchan, do you think that the Victor, Denon, Technics, Exclusive, Kenwood, Monaco, TTs sounds so good only because are DD ones?, certainly not: a common denominator to all of them is that are " anemic " designs where is more easy to disippate/damp the TT energies/self vibrations.

Do you know what stress level " suffer " a heavy weight TT bearing against an " anemic " design? and do you know what this means?

The " sad " thing here is to see the Wave Kinetics DD that is taking that high mass/weight road, I hope that design be inside the mass/weight limits.

Yes, these " anemic " designs are IMHO more neutral and with lower distortions than the heavy ones. That you like it the heavy ones does not means are better because are not: it only fit your distortion level targets, that maybe you even don't know for sure.

I agree with Syntax statement:

++++ " most are confused when they hear a Turntable which does nothing, only spinning the record with the right speed and adds nothing into the reproduction process. A good Turntable has no sound " +++++

well, IMHO the SME 30 belongs to that " school " where those MS and other heavy ones did/do not.

I'm totally sure that we will see additional TT designs for audio childrens/roockies in the future till those designers: LEARN what a cartridge needs over their own pocket$$$$

Anyway, this is part a bad part of the AHEE.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Brad and Henry, I have found that small size cans of mandarin orange slices in water make excellent footers for my Lenco in slate plinth. I use 3 cans, tiptoes on the bottom of each can and a spacer on the top of each can so that the turntable makes contact through the top of the can rather than its rigid elevated lip. In theory, the assymetric distribution of the orange slices in the water help the absorption of energy entering the can from below due to floor-borne vibrations and the dissipation of any tiny amount of energy that might enter via the tt motor, altho the slate takes care of most of that, IMO. Cost = $2 per can or less plus some tiptoes that were lying around.

Henry, "Rigidity" a part of your holy trinity of armpod design, is good but not an unalloyed virtue since rigidity assures transmission of vibrations up from the shelf into the tonearm.

Some time ago I did also listen to SME 20 with Graham Phantom Arm and my Takeda Miyabi Cartridge.
I am also interested in some sentences why this turntable is good or not ... :-)
We all know, Turntable matters. But this "matter" has a lot of views, most rate something, because they like it or not, or the table does "something" or not, listeners who insist on a feet whipping presentation loaded with PRaT have normally a different view to such items than those who are mad about neutral reproduction. We all know, each his own.
Most turntables produce sonic masking and different equalizing colorations. This is based from construction. The better ones do not highlight some frequency areas and change the kind of performance based on that. Based on that (brain, which is rare) most are confused when they hear a Turntable which does nothing, only spinning the record with the right speed and adds nothing into the reproduction process. A good Turntable has no sound. When a Turntable "sounds", then this is based on mediocre knowledge about what-is responsible-for-what.. Sounding is for example, when a turntable accelerates everything, even Schubert Chamber Orchestra will have some "drive", no matter what you do, the sonic fingerprint is always present, no matter what kind of music you listen to. Those who gave up, prefer after a while only one kind of music ('...my System runs best with Blues, Jazz is horrible..')..
So, the question:
How much better should a turntable "sound" when it delivers a perfect 'normal', right performance?
And, why it is this the way it is? And is the sound also good, when the table itself is not in the 30k+ area?
Or, when it has no 3-4 motors ... we should ask Turntable manufacturers why they did this or that...
*Ahem*. Or no. Better not.. :-)

Dear Henry
Re: your thoughts on suspended tables designs is not true. In the 1980s through into the 90s I was quite content with a Sota Star Sapphire more so then anything before and after.
As the new decade approached my perception at this time was that buying new would have to be better. At least this is what the audio press was pushing of course.

This past decade saw a SME 20 including some TNT tweaked variants to a TW Acoustics AC from a couple or three years ago all ending with a dark sound I couldnt get rid of.
For the used going price of a sota sappire i'm thinking of a re-visit.

Pods,....for the sake of comparing your turntable solutions with experimenting with damping, rigidity and stability, put your Victor 101 in a well designed plinth with attached arm boards and attached adjustable feet, keep it all in the loop.

There are some clever ideas from some high profile members here on Audiogon that go beyond just mass loading with whatever seems heavy-ist.

Finally, some of you challenging the likes of Jonathan Carr , Dover and Lewn to name a few, on this subject of going plinth-less with pods as opposed to a solid grounded plinth really makes me wonder what you as a collective group of believers know what they do not.

Peterayer,

I have listened to the SME 30/2 in a very good Kondo chain in the UK together with a good friend and a dealer. We stayed there for one day (!) and compared many many records we all knew quite well, also having played on my own TTs with the same Kondo M7 phono preamp.

My impression was that it is a fine turntable as the Walker is too but it is not one of the Top 5 I ever listened to. And we all three auditioning at that day agreed on this impression. This is why I told Raul when he is telling me the 30/2 is the King of Turntables in his opinion, so it is his benchmark table. I am just saying in my opinion it is not but it will be a fine turntable in many good chains and therefore it may not make sense to elobarate in detail what is missing because you need to compare with TTs Raul and maybe you did not listen to so far (don`t get me wrong I am not blaming you nor Raul for this). I hope you can live with my statement and pls. enjoy your wonderful system.

I have not listened to the SME 30/12

best @ fun only

Dear Dgob: Yes that makes a rewarded difference. The TTs and the motor are atop those pneumatic footers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Thuchan: This is what we appreciate you answer because you are making serious statement against the SME 30/2 and it obvious for us that that statement coming from you must have strong and specific reasons on its quality performance level against other like the ones you own:

++++ " Please let us know why it is not, if you are complaining about then you have specific reasons to did that. Thank's in advance for your answer. " +++++

as you can read I'm not the only person that are waiting for your answer, Peterayer and certainly other SME owners are waiting for.

Again, thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Halcro, your a tough cookie when an idea is presented that is not yours.

That idea wouldn't pass that test for sure but I was looking at a temp approach for others to test your nude project. I'll let them be the judge if it would be rigid enough to mount a tonearm.

"I have found that a tin of asparagus can form the ideal height for the temporary mounting of an arm :^)"

After seeing that I don't understand why you would feel the need to debunk the idea.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1294870073&openfrom&442&4#442

http://picasaweb.google.com/hfeiner/NUDETURNTABLEPROJECT?authkey=Gv1sRgCLeeoJToqbeJOg&pli=1#slideshow/5511069514869967442

Brad

Ecir38,

Thanks for those photo's. I tried something very similar with my Mambo but ended up trying a slightly different solution with the full arm tower attachment to gain weight. I'm not really certain why he didn't simply stick with the Acoustic Signature aluminium top-plate in his application though!

Interestingly, the main problem I found with the AS tt was the motor having to sit on the same platform as the deck. I believe that Raul overcomes this problem by decoupling his AS from the platform with pneumatic footers. The improvement this affords seems both obvious and interesting in our current wider context.

Brad,
It is almost impossible to achieve a 'moment' connection between wood and metal (especially the way shown in that armpod).
Without this 'moment' connection.....movement between the wood and metal is a given....ergo....no rigidity here.
If one were to grab the top of this pod with one hand and the bottom with the other and twist back and forwards.......you would appreciate the movement induced.

Halcro, I was looking at this easy idea for those to try a remote armpod out which has been promoted here as opposed to your concrete idea. I can see having more sucess with this than the concrete.

Beyond Chris and Corby I don't think there has been any other DIY approaches so far.

Maybe you don't see it but I don't think that Gent would have mounted the tonearm if it wasn't solid or rigid and he solved the mass problem with the addition of lead. It's not the perfect armpod but it did allow him to try his additional tonearm with only a couple hours of work probably with basic hand tools. If a router is in your toolbox the job would be easier and could be implemeted a little better.

Brad

Hi Brad,
Thanks for the link.
Whilst it looks quite simple........it requires some quite refined DIY skills for the home handyman?
The many connections of metal to wood provide severe hinderances to rigidity however.
Solidity, mass and rigidity are the three requirements 'sine qua non' for a remote armpod IMHO.
Cheers

Thuchan,

Like Raul, I, too, am interested in reading why you don't think the SME 30/2 is a good turntable. Could you please explain what aspects of its performance you don't like and why?

Have you heard the SME 30/12 also?

Dear Raul,
if you are thinking the SME 30/2 is a top performer I am wondering why you are not going for it. Maybe we see the table in your system soon?

It is not about me. You need to become happy with this table. If you are as many others are this is fine. I respect and understand your benchmark position on TTs now better.

I usually try not repeating myself - especially on listening assessments.

best @ fun only

One of the simplest and cost effective approaches I have seen yet.

http://www.bottlehead.com/smf/index.php?topic=1399.0

Brad