So far in one year I have managed to get only about four delivered.
At that rate and from my list of waiting customers you should get your sample about 2014. |
Everyone thank you for your comments and for some of you here for sharing your hard work and effort into this hobby on this site
Though at times some of the threads read like a Republican Democrate debate of sorts though there is something for everyone on this site to follow or criticise this is ok
My experience of using direct drive table is coming up soon,first one is the Kenwood 990 in the nude with a swinging arm board off the x frame and a kick ass arm, FR 64s Up next when all checked over will be a Technics SP10MKII tried nude and with heavy vibration obsorbing plinth
Sounds like fun to me. |
I have responded to very few threads in the time I have been reading this forum, mainly because I lack alot of listening experience, but I can't help responding to this thread. Based on Arthur Salvatore's review of the re-plinthed Lenco, I recently changed from an Aries 3 with super platter and jmw 10.5i tonearm to a Lenco drive (motor and idler) in my own diy plinth, a Graham 2.2 tonearm, and the super platter. I used the same cartridge (XV-1s). I was stunned by the difference. The vpi was a fine table, but the improvement in transient response, clarity and bass was so blatantly obvious even to my relatively inexperienced ears. Some might argue it could be the tonearm difference but I believe it was primarily the idler drive vs the belt drive. The original poster asked if re-arming and re-plinthing these older tables advanced analog playback - my answer is a definitive yes. Note that I can't speak directly to the technics DD table, only the Lenco but I suspect results would be similar. I can't see myself ever going back to a belt drive table. |
Aren't the two tables best optimized with different tonearm, and cartridge plus also set up and calibrated differently? Any combo of these could account for a difference. Not to mention dirt accumulated on the stylus, etc. It's not as though we weren't aware of any of those variables. Everything was checked and rechecked with the same result. What I am describing was a the result of the platter being unable to maintain angular velocity which would have been well known to a turntable designer or other expert but not to us at the time. Live and learn. II have a training that permit to know in " hours " what you could take " many months ". I already explained this to you in other thread even you " live " how fast I can detect " errors " or virtues due to that specific training. Well, if I had only known this beforehand. I am now bowing from the knees. John |
Albert, the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 so be careful about accepting too many deposits now. My advice would be to go under the table and look at the pyramids. |
Mapman, You have fallen prey to a common fallacy regarding direct-drive turntables, one that was first foisted on the audiophile public when we were led to believe that belt-drive is inherently superior. That is the idea that a direct-drive turntable would naturally be "noisy", because after all the motor is right there at the spindle/platter interface. But if you will take note of the actual manner in which all of the better direct-drive turntables are built, you will see this is a fallacy. Generally the magnet structure or stator of the motor is part of the platter itself or is firmly affixed to the platter when the platter is in place. Then the rotor part of the motor is a fixed non-mobile structure around the circumference of the magnet/stator. Thus when the platter is in motion there are zero moving parts separate from the platter; it is driven directly by the electromagnetic interaction of the stator and rotor. Only the bearing itself can contribute any noise into the system, just as it can also do in a BD or idler-drive. Moreover, the DD motor only has to rotate at 33.33 rpm, in contrast to the motor of a belt- or idler-drive turntable which has to rotate at many times the speed of the platter. Slower motors tend to be quieter than faster motors. As further evidence of this, all you have to do is look at the fantastic S/N ratios thus achieved by the best DD turntables. So, you are free to prefer whatever you prefer, but don't say that DD turntables are noisy per se. |
I used to sell many belt, idler and direct drive tables back in their heyday and heard many. I could never attribute a clear sonic difference to drive type. Tonearms, carts, and other things but never drives. Nobody told me any type was superior. Strobe light speed indicators indicated that either drive done well could be equally accurate. I steered most customers to the belts in that DD tables cost more for no real benefit I could discern. I never sold any really good idlers, so I was not a fan of those at all.
These were my collective observations having been there and done many different tables. Granted, these were stock units and not the beefed up versions available today.
Either DD motor noise is an issue and the plinth the solution or not. I do not know for certain which but I don't think you can have both both be true. The plinth might still be helpful for external vibes, but as I alluded to above, there are other more effective ways to establish a solid foundation to isolate table from external vibes.
YEs, I am familiar with the fact that DD motors rotate more slowly and that in itself is an advantage (one of many any design can sport). |
Dear Lewm: Maybe I'm wrong but I can't read where Mapman posted that DD TT are noisy per se.
Anyway I thinmk that the noise TT subject it is not a cue for real differences in TT drive mechanism performance.
If we take the best DD we can have noise figures like -96db in the SP-10MK3 ( it will be interesting to make a measure today in one sample of this TT. ) or around -100db like Rockport but there are good examples in the BD side with TT in the -90db values. I can't speak on this specific noise subject about idler drive TTs.
What for me is or could be interesting is not to know those " fantastic " values/specs but to know which is the TT noise threshold where there is no or where don't have any more influence in what the cartridge " takes ", where is that threshold TT noise figure/value where there is no more influence in the quality performance we are percieving.
Because: how can we sure that those -90db or -100 db or whatever are good enough?
This is something IMHO that belong to the TT designers as many other TT subjects/questions that today there are no clear and precise answers.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
One more thing I can note from my experience with DD and belt tables years ago is that overall DD tables did indicate better speed control overall than belts. Belt drives tended to have greater variability in speed accuracy from unit to unit as indicated by strobes, however, the better belt drives measured similar to DD tables in this regard. Often belts would have dirt or otehr deposits on them which caused slippage and measurable speed variations, even with new out of the box japanese tables of the day. Usually, cleaning of the belt in otherwise good condition with light solvent would remedy the problem. I was most diligent about checking this aspect of a belt drive table before turning over to a customer. Also most belts do wear over time and that results in similar slippage and speed variations as indicated by strobe and the remedy here is to replace the belt.
I have no data on longevity of DD tables in regards to speed accuracy in comparison to belts so I cannot comment on whether one or the other offers greater stability over the long term. I suspect good DDs may have an advantage here however if there is a problem the remedy to fix would be more costly than a belt replacement.
Also, DD tables are clearly more robust and suited for DJ use in that these tables are transported frequently and belt drive tables are not well suited to be transported continuously without additional preparation I suspect.
|
I made no comparison between direct- and belt-drive turntables on any level, especially to say one is noisier than the other. I was just addressing what I perceived to be an inference by Mapman that direct-drive turntables are inherently noisy, because of the positioning of the motor. Nor does it follow that because a DD turntable might (or might not, according to Raul) sound best in a massive plinth, this is an indication that DD tables have special issues with noise. To me the rationale for the massive plinth is the high torque of DD motors in the more expensive tables. This torque is applied at the center of mass of the platter and so is best counter-acted by a massive plinth. Earlier I made mention of Newton's third law of motion. The acceleration of the platter by the motor is exactly counter-acted by a force to twist the motor/chassis. If we firmly fix the motor/chassis in a massive plinth, then the angular acceleration on the motor/chassis goes down in proportion (In a linear system, F = ma; where m = mass and a = acceleration. If m goes up, a goes down.) Thus vibrational forces induced by the very torque of the motor (not by noise per se) is diminished. This is the way I think of it. |
Dear Mapman: Speed accuracy and speed stability is IMHO a critical main target in any TT design but seems to me that in the best TT set ups ( either drive mechanism. ) that is not any more an issue, I can be wrong but that's what I think.
What I don't know for sure because I never measure it is that if my vintage BD and DD TTs are right on original specs as my today TT designs ( that I assume are on target in this regard. ).
All in all I don't heard/precieve any trouble with my units regarding speed accuracy or stability.
Regarding DJ the main problem is that DJ's needs heavy torque ( at any " moment " ) with the TT and very fast start/stop TT characteristics and I don't know yet any BD that can meet DJ needs job.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
I'm still not getting it.
I believe a table spinning at a constant speed has 0 acceleration. Acceleration occurs as the table gets up to speed and prior to playing. So I'm not sure I understand how the higher mass plinth can enter into this. If teh plinth does not move or rotate during playing at target speed, then it should be fine I would think.
Also my understanding of the panzerholz material used in aLBERTS plinths is that it is very rigid but lower mass than comparable standard wood materials, so I'm not sure that adds up either.
I could see the value of the plinth using that material in theory again if the intent is to isolate from vibrations from the motor or perhaps even otherwise. No doubt any kind of motor used to drive a table produces vibrations, so perhaps the tonic is in teh specific cases where this is an issue otherwise, though I am skeptical it is an issue common to all tables in particular those already designed out of the can to deal with the issue.
I will also add that I cannot imagine a case where applying a more massive plinth properly can hurt, and they are very nice looking for sure! |
Mapman, You are quite right that not all that torque is used during play. We like to think that some torque now and then is needed to maintain speed stability in the face of stylus drag, which can vary in degree related to the tortuosity of the record groove. Torque is also in play when the platter goes off speed for any other reason, like due to cogging, etc. I never saw anyone put any numbers on these forces, so I don't know how great or small they may be. If we ever had any real facts to go on, we would not need to have these rambling discussions. |
Also my understanding of the panzerholz material used in Albert's plinths is that it is very rigid but lower mass than comparable standard wood materials, so I'm not sure that adds up either. The Panzerholz used in Albert's plinth is very dense. It is made up of European red beech plies compressed under high pressure into a sheet about 1 1/4" thick. It's density is on the order of 85 lbs./cubic ft., which makes it heavier than than all but the densest exotic hardwoods. John |
i own 2 vintage tt's with Dobbin's plinths; a Garrard idler drive 301, and an Technics SP-10 Mk3 DD. i did also have a Dobbins plinth'd SP-10 Mk2.
so why do these plinths improve performance over the basic stock tt or OEM plinths?
my opinion, already touched on by others here, is that 60's, 70's and 80's 'even SOTA' tt's had their strengths and their 'areas of potential improvement'. obviously the strengths were that much more R&D could be directed to building motors since these companies were much more able to spend that money than the typical tt builder of today. OTOH their weaknesses were that the case work was an afterthought in comparison. system performace (cartridges, arms, phono stgaes) did not necessarily reveal limitations of the build quality back then.
it's not simply adding mass, or adding isolation. it's more a matter of engineering the precise plinth construction that will optimize the drive system. what is the best combination of materials put together in a particular way to allow the tt to have maximum livelyness, low noise, and drive which sounds the best.
i know that Steve Dobbins built many dozens of plinths before he sold his first plinth for the SP-10 Mk2. he did the same for the Garrard 301, and then again for the SP-10 Mk3. i know he experimented with many materials and ended up with a constrained layer design. eventually on the Mk3 he discovered that (in his opinion) mounting the Mk3 with the casework still in place compromised the performance due to the high torque of the Mk3 motor. the original casework allowed 'flex' and a slight smearing of the sound. eliminating the case and mounting the Mk3 'nude' inside the plinth performed better.
not every plinth designer necessarily agreed with Dobbins on that issue.
in any case; it should not be surprising that 30+ year old casework could be improved upon. |
Dear Mikelavigne: We have to remember too that in the case of SP-10's or EMT these TT's were designed for Radio Stations/broadcasting more than to home audio systems.
Nice to hear that I'm not totally wrong about my thoughts on a nude ( non casework. ) SP-10 as a improvement.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Raul, to be clear; my comment on the nude (original case-work removed) SP-10 Mk3 referred only in the context of installing the nude SP-10 Mk3 inside a custom plinth. possibly that was inferred by your comment; Nice to hear that I'm not totally wrong about my thoughts on a nude ( non casework. ) SP-10 as a improvement. but that was unclear. you could be referring to a nude SP-10 with no plinth. in that case, although i have not listened that way myself, i would be skeptical it would be optimal. |
Dear Mike: No, I'm refering almost on what you posted about nude. This is what I posted in my firsat post in the thread:
++++ " Even seems to me that my SP-10s and Denon's could perform even better with out its metal bottom cover. I don't try it yet but maybe is time to make this test and see what happen. " +++++
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Raul,
ok, i get it about what you were referring to.
OTOH it's clear we are not referring to the same thing at all.
you are mentioning about the stock SP-10 and removing the bottom-plate of the stock case-work in hopes of improving performance.
i am referring to completely removing the case-work and installing the motor and platter inside a custom plinth...and even that point is only related to the Mk3 due to it's considerable torque.
so my comment about a 'nude' SP-10 does not support your comments. they are related in a round about way but i don't share your viewpoint although it would not greatly surprise me if removing the bottom of the stock casework might be better. although i think it more likely that removing only the bottom plate would cause the remaining casework to resonate more.
i don't mean to be argurmentative; i'm simply trying to make sure that my intended meaning is clear. |
++++ " Even seems to me that my SP-10s and Denon's could perform even better with out its metal bottom cover. I don't try it yet but maybe is time to make this test and see what happen. " +++++
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. Mike is not suggesting running the Technics MK 3 nude. His comment does not support what you've been pressing since the beginning of this thread. One Technics MK3 renovation by Dobbins removes the MK3 top cover with speed switches (which is often damaged) and puts the rest of the table into his heavy plinth. Speed change is still accomplished at the motor controller. I leave the cover and switches and support the entire works with a heavy brass rod attached to an iron block fastened to the chassis with stainless steel. This mechanism locks down any vertical movement and flex while absorbing motor vibration. I have no doubt Steve has addressed this problem in another way and gets excellent results. With either method, both of us and most others such as the famous original constrained layer MK3 plinth by Akito Knita rely on multi laminations, mass and constrained layers to bring out the best performance of these powerful tables. |
Dear Mike/Albert: I'm not asking and don't need that you support nothing I posted.I know exactly what Mr. Doobins made because I seen at his place.
In my personal nude version I can't go with out the top " case " only the bottom one because I need it ( the top one ) to put on place the AT footers.
The subject is that many " things that surround the original SP are resonance/vibrations focus so is good to work with out it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Mike and friends: You posted: +++++ " although i have not listened that way myself, i would be skeptical it would be optimal. " +++++
I think this statement, that I respect, said all about nude version discusion:
+++ although i have not listened.... +++++
My subject is not if I have reason or not. I already heard several DD TT with different new plinths and the nude version. At least what I'm saying is because I heard it.
All the ones that are " skeptical " on the subject never had the opportunity to heard a nude version and the ones that in direct or indirect way are already in the commercial plinth market have no interest about.
Enough and useless to go on from my part.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: On other topic: TT torque. I would like what do you think on the whole torque subject?
In a home system IMHO we really don't need that fast start/stop that the SP-10 or DP100 or EMT has and that was asked in Radio broadcasting job or for Djs. These TTs were not designed for audiophile specific needs.
I never had on hand the today DD Monaco design and I can't speak if comes with that kind of very high torque.
We really need it? or a DD design for home systems really does not need it and maybe could work/perform better with lower torque? what do you think?
Maybe Teres too could put some light on this important TT characteristic? or Monaco TT owners and of course any one that could share his experiences about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Raul,
The DP100 was very specifically designed for audiophiles. Denon sold their DN-307s and 308s for radio station and other pro use. The people at Denon's affiliated repair place are adamant about that. The Denon DN-308F is also a high-torque beast.
From everything I have been able to find out the SP-10MkII and Mk3 as are seen and used by audiophiles were specifically designed for audiophiles. The broadcast-use tables had different features.
I can't speak for the EMTs. The EMT lookalike Sony PS-X9 was sold to radio stations and audiophiles alike burI can't find any evidence they were ever used in Japan in radio stations though I have seen a couple of absolute 'beaters' in my time, which indicates to me it is possible. I know of two people, one in Germany and one in the UK who have ex-radio station PS-X9s. Most of them in Japan were audiophile-bought/owned.
The Exclusive P3 and P3a, the Onkyo PX-100M and the Lo-D TU-1000 were also very expensive audiophile-oriented high-torque tables without a broadcast market. |
Thank you, T-Bone.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Is not the Micro Seiki DQX-500 basically a 'nude' direct drive from 30 years ago?
Has anyone had direct experience with this model to see whether they agree with Raul's 'nude' preferences (no pun here Raul)?
|
Raul, I guess what I was speculating about earlier is as follows: Many/most of us equate the good qualities of the Garrard/Lenco/SP10s/etc to the "high torque" of their respective motors. Turns out in real analysis done by Mark Kelly that the Garrard and Lenco motors are in fact not particularly high in torque; they are just large in size and relatively inefficient in converting AC input to power output. Yet without a doubt both are wonderful sounding turntables (even better when installed in proper plinths, I would insist). With the SP10s and some other DD tables, they really do have high torque motors and do also sound good. I just don't know whether the two facts (torque and sound quality) are linearly related. It seems to me that what we are liking about these idler- and direct-drive turntables is inherently related to the drive mechanisms but not necessarily to motor torque. I had promised myself not to make any more sweeping generalizations for which my listening experience is totally inadequate, but here I've done it again. I can also say, to support my thesis in part, that the Kenwood L07D motor has only "adequate" torque, yet the L07D just is a fantastic turntable. For another thing, my tricked out Denon DP80 has much less torque than my SP10 Mk2 and sounds as good, in similar slate plinths. |
Dear Lewm: My experiences are very similar and that's why I'm asking. That very high torque looks that is no linear to DD quality performance at all.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Which turntable makes/models are covered? |
08-22-10: Brianw
Which turntable makes/models are covered? Technics SP10 MK2, Technics SP10 MK3 and Garrard 301 |
Thank you, Albert. I'm hoping that this thread will get back on track, where we can discuss what you do, which types of wood/finishes are available, and if you have tried various woods, what were the sonic characteristics of each?
Thank you. |
Raul is there anyway of seeing pictures of your nude sp10?
Looking at this whole project of vintage DDs from a first time perspective further research I gather Steve Dobbins and Albert Porter chose their plinth material for very specific reasons that go beyond a knuckle wrap test.
Soft slate for Mr.Dobbins design and panzerholz plywood for Mr.Porter. My question did you guys use any sciencetific tests choosing this material? |
My assumption is the materials are chosen for their combo of high mass and rigidity, dampening ability and aesthetics. |
|
I have really serious doubts that panzerholz was chosen for its cost effectiveness! |
Halcro, you raise in interesting question. Those old M-S direct-drives are not rated in the top tier, but a modern equivalent is the Grand Prix Monaco, which could be said to be plinth-less, even though it appears that the carbon fiber bits are there to provide some resonance control. The GPM certainly IS top tier, as is the Teres Certus. The latter basically has no plinth either, but once again, there is a lot of wood in the Certus, and it's not entirely there for looks. It would be nice to hear from those designers.
By the way, in view of the original post, I don't think this is off topic, but if it is, I do apologize. |
"panzerholz was chosen for its cost effectiveness"
My understanding of that material is quite limited, but by cost effectiveness I do not mean inexpensive but more in regards to overall value compared to using other materials with similar unique physical properties (whatever those may be). |
Lewm the topic in general has attracted over 3000 views thus far,impressive to me or is this pretty much the norm?
I think this thread may have the potential of some great information and learning,even if the topic has drifted off course
David |
"3000 views"
That's just Albert's drawing power.
Albert is like Kim Kardasian in that way except his drawing power is a byproduct of talents beyond just his good looks! |
Rhythm is the heart of music. It is more important than melody, harmony, tone color etc. Ask any musician, and he/she will tell you that the most beautiful tone, sounding the most beautiful melody, but with bad rhythm is meaningless. There is a truism among musicians that "no-one ever got fired for having a bad sound". An exaggeration perhaps, but the point is that without a great sense of rhythm, resulting in beautiful, controlled expressiveness, everything else becomes irrelevant. That sense of rhythm/expressiveness is also the most fragile element of music. The slightest deviation/distortion, and the "feeling" of the music is destroyed; to a much greater degree than by deviations from an "ideal tone", whatever that might be.
I often feel that we audiophiles are not respectful enough of the fragility of music. The recording/playback process, even under the best conditions, can only destroy some of the expressiveness. What is left, to be retrieved by the stylus tracing the grooves is even more fragile, by virtue of the fact that there is less of it there, as compared to the original performance. This is the reason for being intimately familiar with the sound of live music. We simply won't know what we are missing otherwise.
What does all this have to do with the subject of this thread? To me, everything. After years of trying to make my belt-drive tables (currently a VPI TNT6) sound right, and having owned some of the less exotic direct-drive tables, I am coming to the conclusion that direct-drive is the way to go. I have not heard every heavy-hitter in either camp, but have heard enough of them to feel comfortable with this conclusion, for myself. My TNT is adequate in the speed stability department, but only adequate; most of the time. Tonally, I think it is great. The DD tables I have lived with (not the heavy hitters), have had great speed stability, but not the expressiveness. I think this is due to their inferior tonal characteristics. This is the tricky part of all this. The sense of rhythm/expressivenes of a turntable, regardless of it's drive technology, is affected by it's tonal qualities; which are the result of the resonance properties of the materials employed. But, as with musicians, if you don't start out with rock-solid speed stability, nothing else matters. For this I am now convinced, you need direct drive, and high(ish) torque. The only tables I have heard that struck what I consider a really great balance of rhythm/expressiveness and tone were of the DD/heavy plinth types. These were a replinthed SP-10 MK2, and a lowly replinthed Luxman DD, that as much as I hate to admit, made more music than my TNT.
So how do we explain the sense of rhythm/PRAT of the Linn-type tables. I believe that with those designs, the balance of rhythm/expressiveness and tone has been tilted in favor of a tonal balance that psychoacoustically "lifts" the sense of expresiveness, without actually being as rock-solid (accurate) as the direct drives. Kind of like those "low-fat" potato chips that have twice as much salt as the regular ones, in an effort to make them as satisfying.
Just some thoughts; fire away. |
"Just some thoughts; fire away."
Frogman,
you've got the passion which is likely 98% of the battle in my mind! Most of the rest doesn't really matter. |
Where can we buy the PanzerHolz wood? ... I really want to try.
Thanks |
Frogman, The relation between the whole and the parts is called aggregate when the parts are 'similar' or composition when the parts are disimilar. A sentence or statement, for example, is a composition. The notion of essence is from Aristotle. For him then a particular part
must be essencial while the other parts are 'only' accidental. This doctrine is called 'essencialism' but is untenable in logical, philosophical and scientific sence. Why should ,say, word 'is' in 'S is P' (subject predicat)be
essential? BTW the 'is' in this 'S is P' composition has 4 different logical readings so as a consequence we need a new determination of the 'essence' among those 4 logical readings of ,seemingly, 'the same word'.
There are some 'parts' of a composition, say a symphony, that we may like more then the other parts. To me every person is free to choose his own 'beloved part'. While we
all have probable different inclinations or sensitivitys we
have this in common that we love music in general.
Regards, |
Google is your friend.
BKB Industrial in Ontario carries it. Couldn't find any sources in the states. |
**** The notion of essence is from Aristotle. For him then a particular part
must be essencial while the other parts are 'only' accidental. This doctrine is called 'essencialism' but is untenable in logical, philosophical and scientific sence.****
Namdric, in one of your own posts in a different, previous thread you also wrote:
****I was wrong to suppose some kind of 'objective facts' behind our preferences****.
I disagree.
Aristotle was correct. The notion of "essence" is at the root of many of the discussions/arguments that we engage in, in our efforts to determine the superiority of one "part" over another similar part. It is usually a pointless argument because there is always that pesky issue of "preferences". But, the fact that we all have our preferences does not invalidate the existence of an indentifiable "essence". Or, to use a term dear to audiophiles, an "Absolute". The real issue, as I see it, is the normal and very human discomfort that we all feel at the notion that our own personal knowledge and understanding is incomplete; that there is room for further knowledge and understanding.
In that same previous thread you also correctly pointed out the "we all hear the same way". Putting aside the issue of the "interpretation" of what we are hearing, you are absolutely correct. As concerns music and sound, the "essence" of music is something that is most definitely identifiable and recognizable. Extensive exposure to the sound of live music is not the only way to gain a deeper understanding of the essence of music, but it is certainly the most effective. I say "not the only way", because the power of music is something that will always touch us; in spite of ourselves. But this "essence" that we talk about, as concerns the record/playback process, is something that is primarily at the mercy of those "parts" of the equipment "composition" that concern rhythm. There is where most of what determines the preservation of expressive nuance lies. I don't believe this is a matter of "preference", but in fact, an absolute.
Regards. |
Dear Frogman, There is also great joy in discussion with
eloquent persons for the sake of argument. My problem with
the éssentilism in the context of 'composition' is that when you take the 'essential part'apart and remove the 'accidental' one you will have no composition. Ie a composition presupposes more parts then one. The musical works are creations of composers and they are called compositions. I don't believe that the composers will allow
any partitioninig of they work. Thy even have protection
from the law by copyright wich is a part of intellectual property law. So even in the law- matters we need ,uh, the
'composed' parts.Ie a single part regardless of importance or essence will not do.
Regards,
|
Here is some info for you DIYers that are interested in trying panzerholz .First some back ground info
BKB Industries out of Ontario Canada imports this specialty ply direct from Germany by the skid/ship load
The applications which panzerholz is used mostly heavy industry to Formula 1 including armor car applications ect.
Specification example ,product code B15 @ 2130 mm x 1000 mm x 30 mm, density 87lb/3feet so thats just under 7 feet long by 39 inches wide by 1 inch thick, weight about 130 + pounds cost just under $600.00
Request for sanding @ tolerance of + - 0.3 mm is extra under &20.00
B25 many more laminated layers and weighs in more is $700.00 + a sheet
Now if you wanted or even could buy a single sheet you have to realize what something of this size and weight would cost to ship to your door if it was not feasible for pick up
Briefly speaking with BKB they tell me they have had inquires from individuals from the DIY audio hobby for single sheet purchases ranging in all available thickness all the way to 100mm thick sheets OK looking at the specs of that 30mm thick b15 sheet you need a fork lift for that 100mm thick one and then what.
BKB did indicate to me if there were a standard thickness and size wanted by individuals they would consider a package size and amount cut and sanded but then again size and thickness of b15 or b25 would have to be agreed upon among DIYers in this hobby, another dilemma?
I do have some woodworking skills picked up as a pass time hobby and I understand with further conversation with BKB this panzerholz is not easy to work with and its not just the weight im talking about
On Mr.Porters page here on Audiogon he did briefly mention the difficulty of cutting this plywood, it will dullen the best carbide cutting edges quickly
Another key fact when cutting is using a varible speed carbibed cutting tool used at low rpm,maybe a over head router if you happen to have one sitting around.
Something to think about before calling BKB |
Wonder if you can cut it with a waterjet, a la slate.
For comparison, a slab of Pennsylvania slate that is 12 inches square (one square foot) and one inch thick weighs 15 lbs. (Slate from other sources can be more or less dense. For example, Vermont slate, from northern VT, is more dense.) So, a slab of PA slate that is 7 ft long by 39" wide (lets say 3 ft, so I don't have to use a calculator) by one inch thick would weigh 315 lbs. By no means do I mean this (the fact that slate is more dense) to infer that slate is "better" than Panzerholz for plinth-building, because in fact I am coming to believe that a combination of these and/or similar materials might be optimal. And it's quite possible that Panzerholz is superior to slate; I haven't tried it. To be honest, the foregoing information about the difficulties of obtaining and working with Panzerholz just shows the wisdom of ordering a finished plinth from Albert. |
Lewm being a wood base product I think using a waterjet cutter would adversely effect it. BKB did send me via email a product information form outlining specific use of carbide cutting tools,polyurathane adhesives only to be used and to seal the product against moisture, swings in temperature and humidity ect once all cutting is completed
I also thought about a constrained layer plinth using soft slate and panzerholz and yes I agree the panzerplywood would not be easy to obtain and in the end may prove too much for the typical DIY to work with, Mr.Porters plinths look to be a good alternative his pricing for material cost labour intensive job as such leaves little for making much profit. At first glance it looks like a simple thing to make but don't bet on it |
Lewm,
Apart from the OTT article on the Grand Prix Monaco in Hi Fi Plus by Roy Gregory a couple of years ago, there does not seem to be huge fan base for this turntable?
Have you heard one or compared one to other DD turntables? |
