A Copernican View of the Turntable System
Dear Raul, The SME 30/2 a top performer... aua. You are not joking I guess. Hmm? Ok, I have heard it in a very good Kondo chain in it`s motherland with a mounted SME V. Okay if it is a top performer the Walker is the Giant. Both is not true in my very honest opinion. Hope this is not the benchmark you draw your comparisons on TTs. But I am afraid you do. Hmmm... best @ fun only |
Dover, I agree wholeheartedly with you about wall hung shelves for mounting turntables. They eliminate most of the structure-borne feedback problems which can damage the performance of even the best designed turntables. I believe even Dertonarm agrees with us on this? If you read the last page of the latest TAS in an interview with Peter Ledermann of Soundsmith.......he was asked for his most important tips for good audio. A sturdy wall shelf.... was his answer. And yes.......a concrete slab on the ground (not suspended).....is far better than a suspended wood floor in resisting structure-borne sound transmission. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " agree that the perfect turntable has not yet appeared.....or at least I have not heard it? " +++++ perfect TT?, it does not exist and never will. What could appear time to time are TTs that already shorten the " perfect long road " like the Onedof or the Wave Kinetics or the Continnum: you can choose. Many of you speak about speed stability and speed accuracy along TT isolation as main factors to improve in TTs design but IMHO someway or the other ( even with after market solutions for the isolation subject. ) all those subject are already " done " and today normally are truly solved and IMHO none of these subjects preclude to have and hear top quality performance from the LPs, at least these subjects has almost no influence to bad performances. Of course that always exist the possibilities to improve about but IMHO what the overall TT design needs are designs that can change " dramatic " the today top level quality performance: the needs not only to perform at the top with what is in the market but " something " that outperforms by a wide margin/dramatically the today TT performance status. There are alternatives to do that because there are some TT design areas that needs a lot more effort. Two of these areas to improve are: power supply and TT build materials that are on designers's hands to decide about. Power supply design ccould " sounds " something plain and simple for any designer but it is not you need very specific skills to design the " perfect " power supply for your TT. I can't remember if was with the Brickman or Raven TT designs where I read that changing the stock TT ac power suply design for a battery powered unit the TT performance " enhanced ": this could be if you have a " wrong " power suply design because when the ps design is right on target a battery powered one can't beat it. This example is the same for electronics audio devices designs. We know this because during our Phonolinepreamp design the first prototypes were battery powered till our ac design beat it. The other area about TT build material is no more simple and in some ways very complex due to many factors involve and its relationship when we talk about build materials. Till today there are " designs " but no one I know already addressed succesfuly the build material subject and for what I " see " around there is no single road or a trend with that subject. I'm not on TT design ( yet ) but one thing is for sure I have the main solution to that TT build materials that could change " dramatically " the word TT and I found out almost by " accident " through our tonearm design project. As a fact we already tested and is way promising. If I was a TT designer I will put my main " research " and tests mainly on these two TT design main " characteristics " ( ps and build materials. ) that if the designer has success will can to begin to write a " new " TT design history. Till then IMHO what we will see in the near future are more new TT designs that could be better in this or that performance area but with out change in " dramatic " way that TT quality performance. I hope I'm wrong and tomorrow appear the " perfect " one because this is what our beloved analog hobby needs for " wake up " of its long long lethargy. I'm not diminish in any way any single TT designer, all of them deserve my respect. Btw, 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. Here you can read a review of the original 30 model and you can read there how SME handle the Dover concern about this type of TT designs: http://www.sme.ltd.uk/content/Model-302-The-Absolute-Sound-1457.shtml and always can read from SME directly: http://www.sme.ltd.uk/content/Model-302-1314.shtml Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Halcro, Whilst I do not like sprung turntables I agree with Dertonam you cant write them off. The key mistake most suspended tt's with belt drive have is that they have the motor drive on a different chassis from the suspended plinth on which they mount the platter/bearing/arm. If the motor is mounted on the floating plinth along with the arm/platter then it is possible to get speed stability - ie rigid coupling of the motor/platter/arm/cartridge loop is the key. For isolation my non suspended high mass turntable is mounted on a wall hung shelf which lowered the noise floor and cleaned up the bottom end considerably over floor racks with various isolation devices. My floor is a sprung wooden floor, so you may not get that difference with a concrete floor. |
Hi Thuchan, Yes, my weight requirements for the Minus-K platforms were not as demanding as your needs. I only required 100 lb. and 125 lb. platforms for my tables; however, I do see where they do have a 250 lb. solution now available in their platform mix. Good luck in working out a fix for your isolation requirements, I am sure that you will find what you are looking for... I will post my observations when it all constellates in November. BTW, thank you for your direct and indirect help kicking me off on this new adventure...indirectly when I run into spousal resistance, I always quietly show her the extent of your growing audio virus :-). |
Dear Halcro, maybe the weak side of the Continuums are their isolation issues. Neither the magnetive leverage of the Caliburn nor the feet of the Criterion are benchmark solutions. Therefore I had to implement my own isolation. For all my TTs I have special isolation solutions, not only the stands but also additional special platforms (HRS, Micro-Seiki Air, Copulare Corals) provide a vey stable, balanced and quiet environment. It took quite some efforts to find appropriate measurements. But believe me it is worth a try, also to separate motors, body and tonearm stands. best @ fun only |
Hi Nandric, There is one solution that works pretty well for DD TTs that came out of the wilds of Maine and from the mind of Andy...floating on air. However, it seems to better loved in Texas than it was on the rainy Northwest coast here in the US...something to do about the elimination of cartridge bottlenecks downstream. As for those above-mentioned wonderful 1982 solutions...the minus-Ks will be coming along by mid-November to be here in time for the arrival of the Dietrich-Bavarian fully modified big Micro SX-8000 and RX-3000 turntables; of course, I will be patiently waiting for the new Bavarian tonearm to share time with the FR-66s early next year. |
Designing a good turntable needs a lot of brain, knowledge, understanding and precision. But this is no guarantee for commercial success. Here we meet the territory of the "I like it" Fangroup. Here the starting begins from a total different level, here is the master idea from the first Design... PRAT "Oh groovy baby... yeah..." (Austin Powers) Each his own... |
Deartonearm, I think Continuum was on the right track looking to collaborate with Minus-K. I don't know what person decided to give it up and put the rest of the money in new ventures rather than supporting the Continuum family. it is really a sad story, on their web site they warn potential customers not buying their products except at their dealerships and when you open the dealership page - nothing! The message is: Don't buy somewhere else but at us it is also very difficult... best @ fun only |
Dear Daniel, I believe that the Minus K stands are designed to prevent any movement whatsoever? From what I can understand...they are 'tuned' to the weight of the equipment placed upon them and when loaded.......I don't believe that you can make the turntable wobble or move? Is this correct? Regards Henry |
Dear Nandric, Dear Halcro, Your opininon re 'springs' imply that thoseI think that even the worst turntables seem to magically produce 'music' from the grooves.......even those on springs when there is no structure-borne feedback to upset them into vertical and lateral movement. A really good turntable is revealed when it is under 'stress'........full orchestral climaxes at maximum volume with top cartridges and arms. Just like a family saloon will impress while leisurely pottering around the city but comes undone negotiating tight bends at speed? I have voiced my reservations about 'squashy' supports under the 'nude' turntables and Chris is currently experimenting with different ones so we shall see? Cheers |
Dear Thuchan, all those features you've listed are fine and involve a few materials or applications seldom seen in tt design, but there is nothing that is actually new in the sense that it was never done before. There were even - if not in finished products widely available - variations of magnetic de-coupled arm boards. The technical specs of the Continuum read down quite impressive and there certainly are a lot of consequent applied technical features. Nevertheless it is another very good turntable - but nothing that outperforms the great tts of 1982 when set-up on an vibration isolation platform and equipped with dampened platters. But do get me right here: the Continuum had a hell of a lot more of guts, money, prime material and insight put into it's design then most any of the other designers of the day had put into their babies. In any case the two Continuum tts are my first bet of becoming a classic in the future. Style, execution, technical features, prime materials - a great package. Sad story, but prime materials and great effort in execution rarely ever pay off in today's analog market. Better go for great cosmetic and high WAF. CHeers, D. |
Dear Peterayer, as for the Wave Kinetics NVS - yes, I have seen the pictures and have read the description given by the manufacturer. Being one of the very few serious DD turntables in recent years, it will no doubt get some following in the audiophile community. We can expect to see many owners of Technics SP-10 mk2/3 kind of "move up" to the NVS if budget permits. Will it live up to it's "promises". We'll see whether we will still talk about it in 2-5 years. Cheers, D. |
Are these some inventions in TT design or not? everyone may judge on a personal bases: ➢ Nested Platter Design using  new proprietary formula for Magnesium Alloy. 30kg Mass of platter assembly 330mm Diameter. ➢ New MILSPEC Alloy used for highly damped platter ballast. ➢ New Fully Sealed Self Lubricating Highly Damped Rigid Bearing Design with Inverted 30mm Bearing shaft of special alloy running in ultra hard steel bushings. ➢ Vacuum Rotary Feedthrough for main bearing with low friction polymer seal. ➢ Massive Highly damped Magnesium Alloy Chassis with internal ribbing Shape Optimised for new bearing platter assembly using www.advea.com Reshape(tm) software. ➢ New Motor Technology Linear 3Phase AC - 24Volt DC Brushless design with integral optical encoder for motion control. Proprietary DSP software designed for ultra-low cogging and torque ripple with speed stability of 0.006%. High Torque 600 oz/inch capability continuous. ➢ 33, 45, 78 with wide range adjustment and absolute lock. ➢ Motor is Belt Drive using Pyrathane precision oring. ➢ New Vacuum Pump design with Stealth Mode Operation. Designed for continuous operation but quiet enough to house in room and in rack. ➢ New proprietary design Pulse Removal and Echo Filter System (PREFS) to remove platter to record vibration signature of continuous vacuum pump systems. ➢ New Decoupled Armboard design using Magnetic Stabilisation best @ fun only |
Dear Halcro, this statement of yours in principle, I am against any turntable which sits on 'springs' as this almost certainly invites the turntable to 'move'.....possibly laterally as well as vertically?is a very dangerous one. It is neither backed up by physic laws nor by technical knowledge. Engineers involved in electron-microscoping or vibration-isolating would rather tell you that it is vice versa .... The "solid foundation" of an "unsuspended" turntable is a plain illusion. An - well applied !! - isolation from building resonance by means of a suitable spring (rarely done in analog tts) is the only way to achieve undisturbed extraction of the encoded groove. Problem here is, that most spring-systems in turntables are so unsuited to the task. Put your AC3 on a Minus-K which upper payload meets the mass of your full mounted AC3 and your jaw will drop to your very knees. You will immediately hear, that so far you heard only 80% of your AC3s potential. Promised. I will buy the MInus-K + shipping from you if you do not hear what I promised. Cheers, D. |
Peterayer, I have never heard an SME table of any kind in a known/controlled environment so cannot answer your specific question. In principle, I am against any turntable which sits on 'springs' as this almost certainly invites the turntable to 'move'.....possibly laterally as well as vertically? All belt drives which have a solid foundation at least have a chance of extracting some reasonable information from the grooves. This includes the Raven AC-3. |
Dear Peterayer, neither in concept nor in technical execution have we seen any progress in turntable design in the last 3 decades. Microprocessor controlling is really cheap today and that is about all that has changed. The top-notch turntables of 1982 ( Micro Seiki RX/SX-3/5/8000 all w/dampened platter, Melco, Epic, original Platine Verdier with full magnetic bearing, Cotter (dd !! I prefer the Denon here ...) et al) do easily stand their ground against anything that came in the interim and was available through audio dealers. Turntable design was about understanding the pretty simple task of spinning a record undisturbed and the guts and money to manufacture the resulting product following the requests. The task was the same in 1980 as it is today. We had some pretty serious companies going into turntable design with a squad of able engineers and serious budget in research and development. Then we had some intelligent and gifted persons ( Jean-Constant Verdier, Mitchell Cotter et al ) who came up with superb and smart designs which stood the test of time for 30 years + to come. The advance in turntable design was and is always possible. It is a matter of seriousness, insight, consequence and the will to build a turntable without looking for market acceptance or economic reason. We will see .... this winter. Cheers, D. |
Halcro, In your opinion, are the SME 30 or 30/12 poorly understood sprung belt-drives". Are the rediscovered great DD's that much better than the SME 30? What about the TW Acustics AC3? It has no suspension, but it is a belt drive. I'm just curious if anyone thinks progress has been made since the 70s and 80s or are we only now at a point where we can make advances in turntable designs? |
No. No hope for the future. The amount of money that those JP & Swiss giants had invest in their time, has never find justice. The origin of withdrawn the Hi-Fi's market commercial balance is emerged by the low expectations of the new enthusiasts about the music reproduction. The conspiracy between audio magazines and some groups of splay hacks with the lust to become wealthy without hard work & initial capital, becomes the new order of industry that meet with success the manipulation of the masses. When the giants retired from the field, the "cheap & effective" way becomes the new Bible for TT. The purposeful meaning of which, is to offer just a small fidelity percentage (just like the iPod). It was more than expected the apperance of the bold & shining (but even more poorly designed & lousy executed) to become the new standard of this hustler status quo. Τhe Saskia, The Beat, & Daniel's new project, are more than careful studies on TT subject. The present world economy is ruthless for the investor who wants to explore the limits and takes care of everything in his project, but more so for the consumer who wants to buy a honest product. So, taking the liberty of pricing these projects in order to give some justice is not a hit or miss act anymore. It is the final destructive chapter of a lost cause. To say that these TT's are our last hope, implies the premise that we have the ability to purchase them in this life. |
Dear Nandric, ok - need to write in a more harmless way. Geoch was not intended as a teasing, nor the small motors. I only had a picture of you sitting in front of your Kuzma - forgive me! small motors are cheap, don`t have large dimensions, easy to build in and to exchange. That`s all! Believe me. Today`s TT manufactures don`t go for the high priced & very unique parts. Why should they? - the platter is running and customers do believe if they will place five (small) motors in beautifully designed boxes around their TT it will run 5 times smoother and pretty exact. NO TEASING @ NO FUN |
Dear Daniel, At least we agree that the perfect turntable has not yet appeared.....or at least I have not heard it? That gives some optimism for the future........your turntable? :^) Yet it depresses me to think that for 30 years the world of analogue was diverted by the Linn LP12 and others like the SOTA which effectively rendered useless the wonderful state of the art that had been reached in the 70s and 80s with the big Micros and EMTs and the now re-discovered great DDs of the Japanese giants? If audiophiles are happy with the failings of poorly understood sprung belt- drives......is there really hope for the future? |
Relax. When I'm trying to clean the LP with the Clearaudio carbon brush and the 24kgr platter stops !?!... I'm not complaining. I've accept the fact of this lousy TT long before my appearance here. Regrets ? You see this "old friend" priced for 28000 euro and the laughs by some cold souls of the "each his own" state of mind make my day allways. Now, how about to help others not to do the same mistake? I suppose everyone has the right to buy whatever he feels it's good for his ego. So, "each his own". That's Broadway! BTW Τorque by Inertia? Why not use some air to maintain the platter's speed? The slippage is better controlled. Or should I limit my comments to wrong invest decisions? exorbitance @ degradation NO MORE |
Dear Thuchan, This is threefold teasing by which you surpassed your previous self: with the small motors, with Geoch and with my manual labour on my Kuzma platter. But there must be some reason why so many designers used those small motors. I thought that I have the force of the numbers on my side. However Daniel is always helping me so who knows? Regards, |
No No Nandric, you are on the right track. Geoch would love it too I assume. He understands a lot about cultural implications and you two might have crossed ways with a better outcome I am pretty sure. small or not precise motors will not do a good job for our turntables. I have seen improvements on older Raven motors when exchanged with Pabst drives. In the meantime they have improved. But this is only an example. I hope you are not sitting in front of your table moving the platter during playback every two minutes... or did I understood something wrong... best @ fun only |
Dear Daniel, My I deduce from your arguments that those small AC motors in the LP-12, Thorens, etc., are meant to keep the platter moving as soon as the right spead is reached? I have two of those motors in my Kuzma Stabi Reference but I always push the platter (8 kgr) to help the motors to reach the right spead. Not perfect I assume but to me it make sense. Or should I limit my comments to logic and philosophy? Regards, |
Dear Henry, you are right .... that's what I am saying. And - no matter what I will say, I won't convince and I do not want so either. The three principles of drive we encounter in analog phono playback are all three with merits and flaws. None is perfect - none provides what physic asks for in stable speed. As none can provide controlled stable speed without acceleration. Unless we minimize the platter's mass - which we don't really want .... for obvious reasons. It is about getting the platter to speed and preventing it from slowing down again. The job of the drive is in the first only ... only ... to get the platter to the required speed. Once that speed is obtained, it is about preventing the platter from slowing down. It can't be about "controlling" the platter. Every acceleration of the platter will degrade sonic performance due to very tiny flutter. After starting the spin, once the platter is on the correct speed, the job of the motor/drive is only - IMHO (and very well backed by Newton and the laws of physic in the Einstein-continuum in which we still are (but don't really know for how much longer - given the latest discoveries in astrophysic science ..)) - to prevent the platter from slowing down. Not to control it. This leads to the principle of controlled slippage in conjunction with huge inertia which so far has not been applied to analog audio in any correct way ever. Mostly because it is very expensive to do it right as it requires huge masses, very precise tooling and - if one want's any convenience in terms of getting to speed within a minute - very expensive motors. I am neither in the BD nor in the DD camp and not in the ID (idler drive) camp either. These all have their merits - no question about that. And we will always see one or the other principle being en vogue due to fashion and style. These 3 will always be what is available to the public. But non of these is able by nature to provide the last 1% in performance. By using one of the 3 common principles in tt-design, we always accept that the last "degree of freedom (here: sound w/o flutter)" is not with us. Cheers, D. |
Dear Halcro, I always have regarded speed control, especially for the "belt-drive guys", as absolutely crucial. Drive Force, stability and precision are a must for a very good turntable system.This is why I implemented the VPI SDS drive on my two Micro Seikis in a two way fly wheel configuration. And this is why I am using the Dusch Multiconverter DU 937 for steering my EMT R80 also controlling it very precisely with my Strobo-weights. I do know people listening to records "in a slower mode" than 33, 45 or 78. They enjoy it as a bit smoother sound. I don't know what they enjoy, maybe wow & flutter, instability and a change in sound... so what. best @ fun only |
Hi Dgob, I think you re-read the bit about 'speed consistency' and wow and flutter figures. Peter Moncreif agrees with you that these 'specifications' are easily attained but generally useless as they are 'averaged'? It is very easy to obtain 'average' speed consistency but it is the 'instantaneous' deviations to speed caused by complex musical passages and their affect on the stylus which he states is extremely difficult to deal with? I believe that Mike Lavigne kept his Sirius III alongside his SP10MkIII for quite a while before selling it? Whilst the Rockport was staggering in its high-frequency performance.....my experience with it showed a lack of bottom end consistency perhaps attributed to its linear-tracking tonearm? My current experience with the speed control on the Victor TT-101 is changing my perception of the benefits therein and so far.......without concrete refutation of Moncreif's analysis.....much of what he says rings true? Cheers Henry |
Dear Halcro, what is missed - almost entirely - in the whole discussion about turntable drive mechanism, is the one paramount conditio qua non that the movement of the record shall be absolute. This does - a priori - eliminate ANY drive, which features speed control. Furthermore it disqualifies ANY drive where the transmission features ANY elongation. It however still leaves the turntable in the "hardware" category....;-) ... Cheers, D. |
Halcro, I'm not sure if his argument about the sole role of the tt (by which he champions the Sirius III) does actually move it into the 'software' domain. Anyway, not to claim that Moncrief had any axe to grind but respected former Rockport owners self-confessed having sold their Sirius III tt's to get a Technics DD. Spectacular speed consistency and wow and flutter control are all demonstrable on other tt's than the Rockport: not to mention an unarguable ability to avoid sounding 'grundgy and veiled'. My personal experience also denies me the ability to accept many of his a+b=c conclusions, as pursuasive as these often appear. Just my two pence worth As always |
Whilst researching the Rockport Sirius III I came across this treatise written by Peter Moncreif of the International Audio Review which for me, is the best description of the 'job' (and difficulties thereof) of the turntable I have ever read. BELT VS DD The most stunning point he made......one which never occurred to me......was that the record itself provided only 50% of the information required to produce the music's waveform......Amplitude. The other 50% required.....the Time Domain....is provided by the turntable. This is an unarguable fact and thus puts, I believe, the turntable firmly into the 'software' category of the analogue chain rather than in the 'Hardware' category where resides the arm-base (or pod), the arm, headshell, cables and cartridge? |
Ct0517, Sorry but it is the other way round. But he has huge potential as is obvious from the MC thread: 'Damn it! Me making the same error by nature (aka German) again and again'.The problem is however not the quality but the quantity. To be regarded as humorous you need to make more jokes than just one. The Moldavian plinth is still by the customs. The Dutch are probable learning from the Americans... Regards, |
