Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

I agree with Albert.

We have a perfect, stock SP10 MK3 with EPA 100 arm and EPC 305MKII cartridge here at Oswaldsmill, as a reference unit. This has proved very useful in designing our own slate plinths. Anyone who would like to know how a SP10 MK3 in the original Obsidian base sounds (and I would imagine that Technics Panasonic spent a significant amount on testing and R&D of the Obsidian base) should come by for a listen.

Needless to say, I don't think there is any comparison even using an SP10 MK3 with a properly done high mass plinth (with a mere MK2.)

Jonathan Weiss
OMA

Dear Weisselk: +++++ " Given this thread, with people like Raul saying they know what the best sound is, I really doubt that there would be a lot of agreement on that score. " +++++

it is obvious that listening is a kind of " measurement " and in some ways a scientific measurements. I know too that listening has its own limitations and more than all that we don't have a standard on the subject.

Measurements IMHO always help, sometimes to understand ( more or less ) what is happening " somewhere " and sometimes only as a " sign/sight " .

There is no doubt that TT plinths can be measured to have information that can give the designer at least an idea where the design goes.

The real subject on measurements in an audio item ( including TT plinths. ) is that the designer has to know what to measures that can " predict " its quality performance or at least that that set of measurements can confirm ( be near. ) what he is listening.

In the case of TT plinths I think is important for a designer to have some measurements where he can compare the " differences " between different plinths.
That no one do it does not means it can't do it or that it is useless.

Seems to me that many high end audio manufacturers in some audio products works by " feelings " when measurements can help them and can help us to have better quality performance products.

Anyway only my thoughts about.

+++++ " with people like Raul saying they know what the best sound is.... " +++++

well, IMHO everyone , including you, " knows " what the best sound is and more than take your statement like an obstacle on the subject I would like that you and other designers take it like a challenge a good challenge to attain better performance targets.

I know that " ears " are very important but the critical subject here is that does not exist a: STANDARD to take it as true/real reference for design. Every designer has its own standards that could or could not match yours, mine or any other persons.

Not an easy whole subject. Sooner or latter I hope/my hope is that some designer/manufaturer take the challenge to create a model that can take in count all those parameters that has influence in audio items quality performance and that make a precise relationship between them through the model for we can have: real ANSWERS about.

Today measurements say only a very small part of what is happening, why is happening and how to improve it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Hello Raul,

You wrote-

"There is no doubt that TT plinths can be measured to have information that can give the designer at least an idea where the design goes.

The real subject on measurements in an audio item ( including TT plinths. ) is that the designer has to know what to measures that can " predict " its quality performance or at least that that set of measurements can confirm ( be near. ) what he is listening."

So why did you not tell Albert, Steve and myself what we should be measuring? With all your audio knowledge, I would imagine you would know the scientific parameters of significance?

Please let us all know, so we can follow up on this.

Jonathan Weiss
OMA

Raul says:
"Seems to me that many high end audio manufacturers in some audio products works by " feelings " when measurements can help them and can help us to have better quality performance products"

I agree with Raul. I have not seen much of any measurements or even design goals of an Analog system. Only TT design where any 'analysis' has been done was the Continuum table when it came out. They boasted used of Aerospace technology analysis tool - NASTRAN, i believe. Their web site does show some plots/contours.

It is true that measurements don't tell much but at the same time you need to know what to design and measure for. In case of an analog system assuming you do need to know the interaction of constant speed rotating platter and up and down motion of cartridge and tiny forces ( may be not so tiny at needle pressure point) that are generated. Ideally the design should be such that that no external influence comes in to corrupt the signal created by this interaction. External influences like motor vibrations, motor fixed to plinth. tonearm, tone arm mounting structure and or external sound pressure. With all the design parameters solved there is still this material compatibility issue.

The static external influence may be easy to resolve, but dynamic may not be - especially the random vib generated in high resonance freq region. May be having brute force plinth, with right material is an intuitive answer, which may in fact resolve the issue (and in fact that is what Albert is noticing in way of improved performance) but measuring the random vib or lack there of would confirm this issue. As far as motor goes, you could be able to measure the random vib environments it creates- nude and design and measure the plinth to suppress this vibration energy in the know freq range area. ditto for other system vibrations. Sure easy for me to say. We do deal with random vib issue all the time in aircraft structures and adding a mass is the last thing we resort to , obviously, rather to kill or move this vib environments away from 'damaging' region or kill it by providing adequate damping.
Is there any such thing as over damping in an analog system? May be.
I sure would like analog design manufacturers to provide me with scientific back up of the design and fixes they did empirical means and or by ear and why.

Not to say Albert's plinth does not achieve this ultimate goal. I am sure it does. May be a knowledgeable test lab could verify. It may not be economically viable though.

It would be great to know what part of the audio freq range is improved with this added plinth ( v/s it original or nude plinth). In other words pl characterize the improvements for interested audience.

Regards, all. I've been following this thread with interest and am reminded of this site:

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/sp10plinth.html

As there are some familiar names mentioned, I'm sure several of the knowledgable posters here are aware of this site but it seems to offer good information, such as data relative to the propagation of sound through various materials taken from "The Practising Scientist's Handbook", written and compiled by Alfred J. Moses (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1978). Also a comparison by the host of various plinth materials and the effect on tt performance.

Please do continue this discussion as there is much insight into the considerations of plinth (or absence of) construction from all of the remarkably experienced audiophiles who have shared their thoughts on this matter.