A new TT from Steve Dobbins,"The Beat." ???

Yes, some isolation could be achieved by air bearing as in the Rockport or by magnetics, as in the Clearaudio monstrosity. I don't think Steve used either of those methods. So it's a fun thought experiment to figure out how it might be done otherwise. The simplest thing would be to isolate the bearing from the motor coils as well as possible. Then the magnet/stator could still be attached to the platter, as in the Mk3. No part of the motor physically touches the platter/ bearing in this scheme, so unless there is induced vibration in the platter via the magnet/coil interaction, the goal is brought nearer. With a Mk3, you would have to deconstruct the bearing/coil assembly to get there, which is not easy to contemplate in such an expensive and rare piece of gear. But my goodness, the Mk3 is freakin quiet already.

From what I read, I believe what Mike is trying to say is that the stator in the motor is decoupled from the bearing which is physically possible. And I was just thinking about such thing couple weeks ago while having the mental experiment of decoupling the DD motor from the platter and bearing but Dobbins beat me to it, pun intended.

After all a DD motor is nothing but a series of coils lay out in a circle that we call a stator and right above is a circular magnet that we call a rotor that's attached to the bearing shaft. In a conventional DD motors, typically, the stator is mounted to the same surface that houses the bearing. It is totally possible that the stator can be mounted separately or decoupled from the bearing. This can address the problem the common complaint about DD table that back torque force vibrating the bearing and plinth and therefore tonearm. So yes, I believe to be quieter than the Mk3 can be achieved. Just happy to see people are putting new ideas into the direct-drive genre. I applaud that!

I agree with Lewm that the Clearaudio Statement is a rather inelegant design.

.

another related issue when looking at the Mk3 is that the platter is part of the motor assembly. so there is no choice if a better platter is desired. the Mk3 does not have a 'problematic platter'; but just like the bearing issue there is room for improvement.

i can sure hear what Steve's new platter has done for the Garrard, and there is related design in the platter of The Beat.

No doubt the platter and mat have a huge effect on the sound of any tt. This is a universal issue, not just restricted to dd tts. Problem for me is that I don't know what is "the best". In general, high mass seems like a good thing, but after that there is a lot of room for speculation. I believe that high mass is less critical for dd tts than for belt-drive types. I guess if one had the cojones to try it, one could unbolt the magnet from the Mk3 platter and attach it to a platter of one's own design and thereby fit the new platter to the Mk3. A company like TT Weights could make such a platter (and of course Steve Dobbins can make a fab one).

Hi Lewm,

I thank you for your reply and those that, not only spoke to the original thread, but digressed. To strictly stay on the line of the original thread would mean the thread would die out with a dozen or so answers.

My reason for the thread was not only to see how many others resorted to, for any reason, to move the TT to an adjoining space. Topics such as; cable length, walking to another room to drop the stylus, proper stands that abate vibration are all viable reasons to keep the table in the listening room. Last but not least was the design of the TT itself.

I viewed the systems of those of you that responded, no slouches here! The views echoed your replies.

If I may, I'd like to ask a few questions that will pertain to the original thread, but will also expand the answers from the Audiogon "Brain Trust," if I may call it that.

If it's heavy enough it won't vibrate, but different frequencies will excite the mass in different ways as everything has a resonant point or two or?

Some resonances are floor borne and need to be dealt with in a different way than those that are airborne.

Assuming that all floor borne vibrations are nulled out, it leaves only airborne vibrations and the drive motor and bearing to contribute noise.

Lets assume all drive systems contribute some, but very little, noise to the stylus: some are better than others. The platter then needs to address airborne vibrations. If you have a big system and love bass or a smaller system or a room not properly suited to your musical tastes, the platter design may be the deciding factor.

High mass, via Walker with a center clamp , constrained layer damping via VPI with a peripheral ring, TTWeights with a peripheral ring and copper matt and others, vacuum via SOTA and others, and the list goes on-- all attempt to address the problem.

If you choose to repost to this thread I know it will probably be because you have more personal knowledge of the vibrational problems you've dealt with rather than opinions only and that a three thumbs up!!! Yes three.

I for one, after reading Mike's posting, realize that I'm lucky in the fact that the table on my Denon 308 is not a part of the rotor. Is bolted to a tapered shaft and collar. I guess it means that I'd have options to modify the platter. Yippee!!. Nothing is worth having without options for a tweak.

Happy Easter, Ken