A Copernican View of the Turntable System

For thousands of years it was believed that the earth was the centre of the solar system and that the sun revolved around it.
Before telescopes existed, Copernicus proposed that it was the earth in fact, that revolved around the sun.

For longer than I can remember, it was generally accepted that the turntable (plinth/platter) was the centre of the analogue playback system with the arm and cartridge attendant to it?

I propose that it is the arm…..or rather the cartridge that is in fact the centre of the turntable system with the platter required simply to drive the record onto the stylus.

Together with the belief that the platter is the centre of the ‘Turntable System’ is the belief that the stylus ‘tracks’ the groove in the vinyl in a passive subservient manner?
I propose that it is the platter which drives the vinyl groove onto the stylus which is being held rigidly by the tonearm.

Imagine if you will in a perfect world, a cartridge held in a vice-like grip and a mile-long, perfectly straight vinyl groove being fed at precisely the right speed past the stylus?
All that would be required for the cartridge to transmit perfect information, is the ability to move up and down frictionlessly to allow for warpage as the groove modulates?
Now this ‘straight’ vinyl groove is in fact a ‘spiral’ so that the cartridge must have the ability to adjust its position laterally also in a frictionless manner.
That is the purpose of the tonearm……to hold the cartridge rigidly yet allow it to move up and down and sideways as the vinyl groove is rammed onto the stylus at a perfectly maintained constant speed.

The tonearm is now the centre of this ‘Turntable System’ and is the most important element. It must be rigidly held on a base which is perfectly flat, non-magnetic and relatively immune to structure-borne and air-borne feedback. This base must ideally have no contact with mechanical or electrical interference and must under no circumstances, move or deflect in any manner.
This base should ideally have no contact with the drive mechanism of the platter or the plinth, sub-platter, belt, gears, idler-wheels etc.
This base should be an island.

The ‘turntable’ or platter is simply a revolving mechanism positioned at a certain geometrical distance from the centre of the tonearm, whose method of drive has absolutely no impact on the sound of the ‘system’ so long as it maintains perfect speed control and perfect isolation to the record from air-borne and structure-borne feedback.

The idea therefore of a plinth around the platter in the above scenario, would only serve to add or subtract information in a worst-case scenario, or be totally transparent in a best-case situation.

There……I’ve said it.
Is there a 'Galileo' out there to support me before I die unrecognised? :-(

Interesting thoughts. First, though, a question: How did you end up getting the long post accepted after first having had it rejected?

Ummm.... First you posit a "new" way of looking at the interaction of cartridge, tonearm, and turntable which I think is leading to a defense of outboard tonearm pods. But at the last second, you swerve away from that issue and seem to posit that your Copernican view of the LP playback system somehow leads to the conclusion that a plinth is superfluous. As Archimedes might have said to his plumber, "It does not hold water".

As I have said before, the plinth issue and the arm pod issue are two entirely separate ones, except whereas the lack of a plinth makes it easy for you to get a bunch of tonearm pods nearer to the platter, so they can all be aligned properly. I don't think there is any argument that can lead to the universal conclusion that a plinth is never a good idea or never leads to a perceived improvement in LP reproduction. It is even conceivable that a good plinth can be more than just transparent; it can make the turntable (idler or direct drive) sound "better" than it does with no plinth. (Before I abandoned the belt-drive notion, I had come to the conclusion that for belt-drive, a big heavy plinth was superfluous and usually not a good thing. Most of the top end modern belt-drive tts seem to be built in accordance with that idea.)

I do think there are good arguments as regards independent tonearm pods, pro and con. I have stated my argument against them elsewhere, more than once. Here you have an interesting argument for.

Dear Halcro: When I " arrived " to this forum ( 6-7 years ago ) I posted several times the main and critical importance that the tonearm/cartridge had in an analog playback system and several times too from everyone I received the same answer: wrong the more important link is the TT.

Over the years and through my ( and other ones. ) " insistence " on the subject today almost all agree on the main importance of the tonearm /cartridge in that analog system.

You can see/read that I'm not speaking on tonearm alone but in tonearm/cartridge as a UNIT.

Then for me the centre of an analog system is not the tonearm but the cartridge/tonearm UNIT that between other things represent the source that IMHO is the more important ( the source ) audio link in any audio system: the centre of an audio system.

The source is IMHO the " King " in an audio system chain where all the other audio links ( including our each one skills for right system overall set up. ) are " only " subjects/slaves at King's service.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Thanks Hodu,
After the initial thread was started (with the link to my system's page), I was then able to post the long statement on this thread.
I wrote to Audiogon but have received no answer as to why this might be?

Dear Lew,
My thesis is that once the immovable and isolated base has been established for the tonearm, the method of drive for the turntable will make no difference to the sound retrieved by the cartridge as long as perfectly correct and stable speed is achieved without any resonances transmitted via the platter.

If this is the case and I am correct (two big 'ifs'), any 'plinth' is superfluous?
If an added plinth around the turntable alters the sound in any way, then it cannot be correct.
It may be preferred by certain listeners but must by definition, be a tone control either adding or subtracting information.
As Atmasphere correctly said about outboard phono stages.......if a change of interconnects changes the sound, the phono stage is flawed.

Dear Raul,
You are certainly correct that you have constantly been claiming that the tonearm/cartridge UNIT is the 'King' and most important part of the record-playing system.
But that is NOT what I am claiming.
My belief is that it is the BASE for the tonearm/cartridge unit which is the 'sine qua non' of the turntable system.

Once you have an immovable and isolated base, you may put whatever tonearm/cartridge combination you wish upon it?
MANY tonearms will sound well with a multitude of cartridges and I don't believe there is a single 'BEST' tonearm nor cartridge for all occasions?

I am claiming that without the precondition of the immovable and isolated tonearm BASE, any tonearm/cartridge combination will be compromised to some degree.
Of course there are many examples of non-isolated tonearm bases which work perfectly well but do so, I think, because they approach very closely, the characteristics of the isolated immovable base?

Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated.
Regards
Henry

"The tonearm is now the centre of this ‘Turntable System’ and is the most important element. It must be rigidly held on a base which is perfectly flat, non-magnetic and relatively immune to structure-borne and air-borne feedback. This base must ideally have no contact with mechanical or electrical interference and must under no circumstances, move or deflect in any manner.
This base should ideally have no contact with the drive mechanism of the platter or the plinth, sub-platter, belt, gears, idler-wheels etc.
This base should be an island."

What a vacuous discussion. Suggest if you believe this, then sell your turntable, motor and records and just listen to your arm.

Your statements above contradict themselves - for ultimate speed speed stability there must be no movement between the drive and the platter. For ultimate generation of music from the interaction of the stylus on the record, then there must be no movement between the arm mounting and platter.

Ergo the motor drive, platter, arm and cartridge must be coupled together in a closed loop system that is absolutely rigid and yet has no transfer of unwanted energy between them that smears the speed sound or whatever.

In fact there should be no cantilever suspension to ensure as much transfer of the signal as possible - much like a rally car where they remove all the rubber mounts in for the engine, gearbox, drive etc to maximise power to the ground.

Interesting views.
Most think, that a Turntable, no matter which one, is a perfect unit and every manufacturer has enough knowledge to make it in a way, that it can't be improved. That is a master mistake.
The combination cartridge/Tonearm is hugely overrated, more or less the calculation (resonance) is a waste of time today, different Arm Tube materials, also because there are features, which are much more important for reproduction (Bearing quality, Geometry, energy transfer, ability to guide a cartridge, absence of ringing....)
The Armboard is a really interesting kind of view, Never discussed before. And very important. The best Arm can't show its abilities when the resonances from the Turntable are reflected in it. Same the other way from cartridge.
Or both sides are added and the search of the right cartridge will never end :-).

Turntable chassis, motor drive (idler, direct, belt), bearing, platter, armboard, tonearm, headshell and cartridge make an analogue playback system - they are a unity and do influence each other. Looking on separated or single parts or combinations of parts will not help in the end to improve the overall capability of the system.

Maybe the importance of different plinth designs was a little overrated in recent developments using idlers or DDs and putting them into plinths of slate, special wood or other material. Many TT-designers did a good living by doing so. I do understand that audiophiles are getting a little tired of the plinth approach and switch to the other extreme. Focusing mainly on
tonearms and cartridges might be another misleading direction. Indeed we should concentrate on geometry, isolation where needed, careful installation and the quality and flexibility of armboards used.

Micro Seiki uses armboards made of brass which are very rigid and do enable the user to match all requirements in terms of geometry. Other brands of today have copied this philosophy - this is fine! But how many audiophiles are stuck in geometry problems when it comes to mounting a new tonearm. Sometimes one has has to build or order extra armboards
which are insufficiant.

A system should stay stable, free floating armboards bear risks of instable condition, especially when they are not real heavy weights or not placed on a special position on a special platform.

Dear Halcro: I see.

+++++ " I am claiming that without the precondition of the immovable and isolated tonearm BASE, any tonearm/cartridge combination will be compromised to some degree. " ++++++

well over the time at least five times I claimed the importance and influence of the arm board in a cartridge quality performance. I did not claim exactly what you are doing.

Now, there are some different subjects on your statement and I will try to comment by separate:

++++ will be compromised to some degree. +++++

IMHO from the very first moment that we mount a cartridge in a tonearm headshell exist a compromise between ( at least ) the cartridge body resonance point against the headshell kind of build material that has its own resonances.
From this very first stage all what happen between the cartridge, tonearm and TT is full of compromises including our each one skills to overall cartridge/tonearm set up even room temperature is a " compromise " on cartridge quality performance level.
Certainly the arm board link is an additional compromise with its own trade-offs.

Isolated BASE: well this IMHO is a TT manufacturer responsability where the tonearm manufacturers has to deal with.
In this regard I'm a proposal of stand alone arb board towers for at least all the TT resonances can't transmit through the arm board or if the TT manufacturer prefer the arm board integrated then that will be isolated from the TT it self.
In either way the TT manufacturer has to take care that the arm board be self isolated someway for the UNIT can't be disturbed by this audio link.
As other subjects/factors in audio this arm board base isolation always is desired but till today never achieved.

In the mean time IMHO the best a tonearm manufacturer can do is try to isolate the tonearm it self from the arm board.

Problem with this thread subject is that normally the TT manufacturer is different from the tonearm one and IMHO even if both were the same each manufacturar/designer thinks and fix his priorities in a different way with different targets.

Other aspect on all these is that the cartridge quality performance level on playback is surrounded by a lot of different an important factors where the arm board is only one more. Where can we put on importance level the arm board base subject? , this could be very subjective because we have to rank all the factors that have any influence in the cartridge performance and determine the precise " weight " each factor contribute against cartridge quality performance playback level.

I don't know for sure where you want to arrive with this subject and the only thing I can tell you is that some one has to take care about with more care that the one used too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Copernicus was a twit anyway.

Come on Lewm, Copernicus certainly was no twit. If still bounded in certain ways of thinking - and as such deeply routed in its time and spirit - he was nevertheless a mind able to think past the frontiers of his day.
I will rather give my comment regarding turntable concept in physical form this summer.

Dear Halcro, it didn't worked out really good for Galileo giving his thoughts and comments to the world .....

Cheers,
D.

Thanks for your thoughts Syntax.
Cheers
Henry

Dear Thuchan,
Yes, Micro Seiki knew a thing or two about analogue.
Your SX 8000 had it's motor separated from the plinth/platter and, as you say, the very solid arm boards attached rigidly to the plinth.
This is an example of an understandable use of a plinth........not designed to change the sound of the information extracted from the grooves, but to support the platter bearing and tonearms.
Sort of copied by TW Raven among others? :-)

Dear Raul,
I think you and I are in agreement on these things.
In terms of the compromises inherent at every step of the analogue system, it is still possible for even a budget turntable/arm/cartridge combination to easily outdo digital reproduction and with the best analogue reproduction, it is possible to approach the sound of master tapes?
So those compromises must be very small and easily overcome for this to be?
Regards
Henry

Dear Dertonarm,
No......Galileo didn't have a happy life with the Pope in Rome, but his book gave him immortality.
I saw you as the perfect candidate as Galileo in this case with your new turntable almost perfected?
And then with Raul's new tonearm, we will all only have to worry about which cartridges to play with? :-)
Cheers
Henry

DT, I was joking of course. This discourse was getting entirely too serious. For any one of us to elevate it to the level of the concepts brought forth by Copernicus or Galileo is ludicrous. Socrates, maybe....

Dear Henry, your remark above to Thuchan re the SX8000 is in contradistinction to your original theory in all its specifics, as is the SX8000 itself. The SX8000 and the lesser M-S tts in its family, all use massively heavy plinths and an iron grip (literally) between the tonearm mount/tonearm and the chassis. I agree with it. But "motor separated from plinth/platter" leaves us only with belt-drive turntables. I thought you were enjoying your Victor.

DT, I was joking of course. This discourse was getting entirely too serious. For any one of us to elevate it to the level of the concepts brought forth by Copernicus or Galileo is ludicrous. Socrates, maybe....

Dear Halcro, the turntable, arm and cartridge do form ONE mechanical system. Tonearm and cartridge do form another mechanic-dynamic system of their own. There are wanted and ( more common ...;-) ...) some unwanted side-effects and synergies when putting the two "systems" together to get a record player.
The "plinth" and the "platter" do contribute (or detract ...) much more to the "sound" then most designers and audiophiles believe.
A full force vector diagram of the complete tt w/tonearm and cartridge and spinning platter (and building resonance ...) will nicely illustrate the interactions.
Cheers,
D.

Regards, Dover: You wrote: "There should be no cantilever suspension".

Please reconsider, a Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG) would violate the first law of thermodynamics. One able to overcome this small obstacle will recieve Princes as supplicants.

Henry, please excuse this diversion from your OP.

Peace,

Dear Halcro: To your first question IMHO not only a budget analog rig can't beats a digital source ( DVD-A ) but even top analog rig can't do it so " easily ".
Digital source IMHO is approaching the begin of " maturity " time where even this technology can tell you if your system is " right or wrong " somewhere.

On your other question I think that a top analog rig can't approach the sound coming from a master tape. Both mediums are way different and IMHO I think that we can enjoy both.
I heard several times RTR tapes and till today " I'm not crazy about ", maybe because I'm equalized to the LPs performance kind of sound or maybe because I was not " exposed " to much time to that medium or maybe because I don't care seriously about.

Now, the digital source and the RTR " technology " is way way beter mediums to reproduce music than our beloved analog one ( LPs. ) that is so imperfect that I can't understand, today, why we like it so much ( other that we own thousands of LPs. ) when the " medium " has so many inaccuracies/distortions/noise.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Halcro sez ""The tone arm is the heart of a turntable system""

Syntax responds ""The best arm can't show their best abilitys when resonance's from the turntable are reflected into it""

Halcro this is easily demonstrable to one's self and there will be no debate here.

Raul,
Your last post is spot on IMO!!! I agree about there being much better sources for music reproduction. As dearly as we love our LP's, there are many imperfections in this medium regardless of the value of the source. For me, the big draw, other than the sound of vinyl, is the involment that I have with trying to perfect the sound to my liking. The endless fine tuning and experimenting trying to squeeze out the extra performance is very rewarding to me. For some reason, plopping the CD in the Ayon CD07 and listening isn't near as involving. Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with my digital source, just a little more disconnected than my LP's. I do have many CD's and LP's that are the same and I do compare them at times as a referance.

I always enjoy your post's Raul, you're a wealth of info and I always appreciate your oppinions. This time you're confiming what my ears have always heard.

Dear Lew,
My proposition is that ideally the base for the tonearm should be an isolated, level and immovable object resistant to all forms of mechanical and electrical interference.
If that is not possible, a reasonable facsimile of such a base is perfectly workable as demonstrated by the existence of 'reasonable' turntables with integral tonearm bases.

What my theory implies is that those tables with tonearm bases subject to mechanical or electrical interference or those with flimsy suspended bases subject to movement and/or deflection will never be able to extract the correct information from the groove modulation?

And yes......this theory has been crystallised by my 'Nude Turntable Project' with the isolated remote armpods around the Victor TT-81.
With belt drive and Idlers, a 'plinth' is required to support the platter thrust bearing and/or various mechanical linkages whereas with direct drive, the sub-platter and motor are an integral unit......I think? :-)

Dear Raul, may I invite you to Munich. If you listen to a real Master Tape (very well recorded) played back by a Studer C37 and you do not change your opinion on TAPES you can select any item from my collection and take it home. Is this a word?

all the nice HiRez Digital recordings presented at CES 2011 sounded excellent but they are missing the warmth and the deep musicality of a Master Tape.

Dear Dertonarm,

the turntable, arm and cartridge do form ONE mechanical system.

I agree.... but only once the stylus is in the groove.
Before that event I don't understand why there needs to be any physical connection between the platter and arm?

I also agree that the 'plinth' and 'platter' commonly produce unwanted side effects. That is why I wish to be rid of one of these (the plinth) and preface my theory by stating that the platter must provide "perfect isolation" from any resonances into the record? :-)

Cheers
Henry

Dear Timeltel,
Consider yourself excused.
I always welcome your idiosyncratic and knowledgeable interjections.

I hopefully expect more of them :-)
Regards
Henry

Well Raul,
You've finally managed to shock me.
Digital better than analogue....coming from the very person on this Forum who could rightly be called the 'Analogue King'?.......or so I thought?

I think there may be some people on this planet who are genetically or congenitally afflicted with a sub-conscious 'trigger' to digital sound.
I know that for me and my good friend Richard, we are physically unable to critically listen to digital for longer than about half an hour without our bodies internally tightening and our brains dreaming of another pursuit.
This was the case 30 years ago and is still applicable today.
Others of course suffer from no such handicap and I envy them.
Were I similarly blessed, I wonder if indeed I would suffer through the traumas associated with analogue?

Be that as it may, I disagree with you emphatically about the inaccuracies/distortions/noise inherent in the vinyl playback process.
For 25 years my humble $375 Rega Planar 3/Hadcock GH228 easily outclassed any CD player I heard in comparison.

As for your confession on Master Tapes?.............I'm sure you had one too many Tequilas before writing this?
It makes no sense on so many levels that I don't know where to begin unless you simply meant Master Tape 'Copies' played on domestic tape decks?

If what you say is true?............why in fact are you wasting so much time and energy in testing cartridges and headshells?
Why are you not contributing many more posts in the Digital Forums?

Dear Raul, my faith in your ears has been significantly diminished :-(

Dear Thuchan: I'm just waiting for the flight ticket!

You know that that will be a pleasure, thank's for your invitation even if I return with out any of your items!

Oh! that famous " warmth " on RTR and LPs. I always wonder why normally I can't heard it in a live events ( near field. ).

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Halcro: ++++++ " I disagree with you emphatically about the inaccuracies/distortions/noise inherent in the vinyl playback process. " ++++++

come on Halcro, in your other thread you posted we ( you and me ) agree on the same and there between other things we talk about so many " compromises " that the analog rig/Lps has.
Please you can't tell me that the RIAA equalization is an accurate process where the LP recording pass through not only one time but twice!, you can't deny the high noise that produce a phono stage trying to amplify the signal of a LOMC cartridge and the distortions due to a mistmatch loading impedance on that cartridge or loading capacitance and impedance in a MM/MI cartridge, you can't deny all the additional distortions that contribute each one of us cartridge/tonearm tiny " deviations " from a perfect cartridge/tonearm overall set up, you can't deny the " errors " that comes with cartridges like: non centered cantilevers and not centered stylus in the cantilever or the different output level in cartridge channels and of course all the mistakes on the LP production/matering process or even the un-centered LP.
You know I can go on and on on all those inacuracies/distortions/noise that unfortunately are part of the LP music enjoyment.
As I posted: I can't understand why we love so much!

The digital source or RTR have a lot less inacuracies/distortions and noise level. Halcro, this IMHO is a fact and are facts where I can't see how you can argue against it.

On RTR subject I never posted I was hearing Master Tapes but anyway I'm not against Master Tapes.

+++++ " why in fact are you wasting so much time and energy in testing cartridges and headshells? " ++++

easy, as you I love to hear/listen my LPs.

+++++ " Why are you not contributing many more posts in the Digital Forums? " +++++

maybe it's time to do it and learn about.

Now, what you are hearing on analog or digital is different from what I'm hearing today, I mean at resolution level. Please read this and especially the end part of the thread where I posted some thoughts/experiences on the digital source:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1286160563&openmine&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas

I was not different from you of what I thinked about digital source till those system changes. For some reasons that I can't explain for sure system distortions affect more the digital medium than the LPs ones maybe because the higher distortions in the Lp medium it self I don't know. What I know is that today I really enjoy the digital source and not only the Hres DVDA/SACD but redbook too.

I'm not saying and not posted that the digital medium is superior to LPs or that is a perfect medium but IMHO is very good and well recorded digital software is something any one can enjoy as much as the Lps ones with the right set up.

For me the time to diminish the digital source already pass on and in my case I'm happy with because it is a " new " alternative to enjoy music.

+++++ " my faith in your ears has been significantly diminished .. " ++++++

well, sorry to hear that but I still trust in my audio/music skills where my ears are part of it as are all my first hand experiences.
In the other side I still trust in your ears.

Regards and enjoiy the music,
raul.

Dear Halcro, getting "rid" of the turntables plinth will be very similar (sonic-wise..) to "castrate" the turntable.
It is one system.
Energy storage, transmission and vibration isolation are much more important issues than commonly believed.
The plinth is not the problem, but if clever done more likely the cure.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Raul,

I will wait for you at the airport from Monday on.

Is it true that you are selling your analogue gears investing in computer hardware?? :-)

When I was attending RMAF last October I was wondering why we could see and listen to lots of analogue systems while the guys from the magazines and some hardware manufacturers were talking about the HiRez opportunities. I understood that at least in the US there are different teams in the playfield, the "old fashioned guys" like us and the "market and studio oriented people" in the business.

Maybe we see two trends, the streaming and HiRez efforts as well as the source oriented analogue activities. I have never seen so many tape recorders being bought than in the last six months - thanks to Tape Project only?

Raul, why not buying two tape recorders, a digital one and an analogue machine. You will be able to do everything you like on a good quality level. But what happens to your tonearm project in this case?

Should we say farewell to you cause your posting now under DIGITAL? Hopefully not! We need you, even the guys who like to debate emphatically with you.

Halcro, I agree with you - something must have been happened with Raul, tequilas? some other shocks, maybe a life event? or are we interpreting too deeply? Or are we just living behind the horizon and do not understand what is approching us. When Raul was infected who could be the next?

Halcro, You seem to be satisfied with how your JVC project turned out though you should move forward to verify any remaining specultive theories that maybe lingering in your mind.
May I suggest expanding your nude turntable project into having a panzarholz plinth made for your DD JVC. Preferably a design that would accommodate a pivoting arm board/ boards similar to your TW Raven a'la Micro Seiki.

Interesting that both these tables are similar in design though sound vastly differant even with the same quality arm and cartridge installed, isit the plinth material?, bearing design? the motor? belt? or all the above?

Thuchan if your going to hang around the air port for Raul to show up , may I suggest you wearing a large sombrero, aways good to stand out among a crowd.

Dear Thuchan and Halcro: I'm still an analog/LP music lover and I think I will be for years to come but now that I " discovery " the digital source I'm trying to learn at least two subjects:
why analog people " hate " or diminished the digital source and second to understand what " happen " under digital domain: what we can hear on the digital domain/what's wrong or good.

I think I know all the LP/analog experience advantages and disadvantages and I for now am a happy analog/LP person.

Try to cofront in serious way the digital " experience " is something where for we analog guys the LP has a big handicap against the digital today status ( on our home audio systems. ) because analog/LP is what we like, it is how our " ears " are accustom to enjoy music at home and even our audio system set up was made for analog/LP playback including what we choosed for electronic audio items and speakers: everything that surrounded goes in favor of analog not digital.

Even that IMHO the digital ( 24/176.8 and in less way the redbook ) has some main advantages: widest frequency response and dynamic range than analog, lower distortions, lower noise level, better accuracy level, easy to set up, etc. etc.

Disadvantages?, I really can't see or I'm really unaware of any important disadvantages other that the ones I name it and that are not a digital technology disadvantage but an unfriendly scenario where the digital source has to " work ".

IMHO a well recorded digital source has nothing to ask against LP ( everything the same. ). Yes there are CDs and DVDAs that are bad ones but this fact is true on the analog side where we have bad recordings too.

Yes, it is true that on CDs the high frequency extreme is really limited and is an important drawback but well recorded CDs ( with upsampling ) performs acceptable and at good level.
Even that at the other frequency extreme where belongs the bass the CDs are a lot better that our beloved LP.

When we take a DVDA ( 24/176.8 0r 192khz. ) the CDs main drawback just disappear and instead of that " appear " what for us LP lovers was and is losted in the CD experience.

In theory a digital recording add less " non recorded information " than the LP recordings and this IMHO could tell us that a digital source is truer to the recording than a LP.

Something important that I learned about digital experience is not heard it thinking to find out/looking for a " similar " LP quality performance.

This is a big error/mistake, we have to understand the digital playback: what is inside and what is not, , we need a different reference say: live music.

All the overall ( non in the recording ) additional LP " artefacts/contrivance " do not comes in the digital source and with its lower distortions/noise level the digital music experience is " different " from analog/LP, so why are we waiting for a similar experience?: no way.

A big disadvantage that well recorded digital medium has is that with digital playback " errors/mistakes or lessen designs " in our electronics or room/speakers and audio system set up comes out and many times these is what we are hearing and we think that the culprit of all these is the digital medium/recording when in reality the problem belongs inside anywere on the audio system.

It is difficult to think in a source with lower noise/distortion levels that digital and this characteristic IMHO expose everything in any audio system especially the dedicated analog set ups.

Am I in love with digital?, not really but now that I'm starting to undestand it and learning on the whole subject I accepted and enjoyed as a " new " good music source alternative. Unfortunately I don't have enough software but I'm trying to buy and find out what I like on music different genre.

Thuchan, our tonearm project is running in " solid " way and almost finished.
To accept in wide way the digital alternative only means that: accept it, my love for analog/LP does not change.

Gentlemans, the digital alternative is IMHO a serious alternative that could be worth for some of you to give it an opportuniy.
It is like the SS alternative or the DD-TT alternative or the MM/MI cartridge alternative or the linear tracking alternative: it is a good alternative that IMHO is better that what we are accustomed to think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Raul, For me digital is an alternative reserved for when I want to read a book or when we are having a party, and I want background music. However I freely admit that, though my cdp is quite tweaked, it is hardly state of the art. Besides that, surely you don't mean to imply that we have "solved" the mysteries of LP reproduction, except to discover that a bunch of well meaning perfectionists living all over the earth have very different opinions on every aspect of the subject. Have you abandoned the LP odyssey? Your absence would be a loss to this discourse.

Dear Lewm: Certainly not I'm involve deep with analog/LP odyssey. My target is to take full domain ot that technology to find out/looking for the " pinnacle " that this technology can show us and that till today perhaps we know only the 80%-90% of the 100% the technology can/could achieve.

That's why I ( years ago ) decided to design a Phonolinepreamp, a tonearm, a cartridge an a TT that could help me to attain that main/top target.

I know for sure that the analog/LP " experience " is not only alive but waiting for each one of us new discoveries.

Lewm, I think that for we can appreciate what the digital technology can help us to enjoy music first that all we need IMHO the right attitude, we need to change a little about the whole digital subject.
Certainly you don't have that attitude yet but you and other persons like Halcro had not the " right " attitude about the MM/MI alternative either however both of you already have great experiences with the MM/MI alternative.
I think that the " time " will comes sooner or latter for each one of us.

Lewm, I'm not promoting the digital alternative. I'm and still follow the analog/LP alternative, no single doubt about.

Dear Thuchan, yes you are interpreting not only so deeply but in the wrong direction.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Yeah, and what would Freud have to say about the need to have a dozen tonearms?

What would Freud say about all and each of us?
Who cares? He is dead.

Dear Bjesien, Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And a tonearm is just a tonearm.

Halcro,

Talking about solid and level base, is your wall shelf sagging a bit on the left side from all the weight with some gold coins under the TW Raven AC footers?

Don't be so sure about cigars and tonearms; they may never be only that. Things are a little more complicated.

Lewn, Everything is as it is. I get that. Just being foolish. Hey, I'm still trying to fine tune a learn about azimuth.

Yes Jaspert,
The shelf being cantilevered on aluminium brackets from the wall and carrying the weights of both turntables, preamp,tuner,tape deck,DVD, VCR and Plasma TV slopes in all directions?

That's why there are solid spacers under the adjustable Stillpoints of the Raven as well as under all 9 feet of the motors. And that's also why each arm-pod surrounding the TT-81 has 3 adjustable levelling spikes.
Life as an audiophile wasn't meant to be easy?

Blackburn,
Interesting question?
I've never actually heard the big Micros that Thuchan and Syntax have but I assume you are correct that they sound differently to each other?
I'm sure that they and Dertonarm would be able to offer some explanations but I don't think any Raven owners would like to hear them? :-)

Dear Dertonarm,

getting "rid" of the turntables plinth will be very similar (sonic-wise..) to "castrate" the turntable.

I would have thought the same before I tried Raul's 'Nude Turntable Project'?
The bass I get out of this 'plinthless' DD is even better than the Raven with plinth?
Cheers
Henry

Dear Thuchan,

When Raul was infected who could be the next?

I hope it's not I??!!
Cheers
Henry