Dear Weisselk: First than all I'm not a plinth designer as you and the other gentlemans are.
Second Dbcooper ask for to you the manufacturers and third my post on the subject was only trying to understand that measurements always could help.
+++++ " With all your audio knowledge, I would imagine you would know the scientific parameters of significance? " +++++
certainly and due that you are in the plinth design/build as the other gentlemans you have more in deeep knowledge level that any of us mere audiophile " mortals ".
What I can say you is that for the time ( very remote this could happen. ) I take the design and build plinth " enterprise " you can be sure that I will be aware of those scientific measurements that could help in my design.
That you and the other gentlemans you name it do not have ( yet ) or even are not aware off means only that you don't have it: not big deal, this is a normal part/fact of the AHEE and we are accustom to.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Well, I thought I had a handle on this. Now it appears to have increased in complexity beyond my level of comprehension.
I understand that sound propagates at different speeds in different materials, but how this has an effect on the resulting sound in teh case of a turntable plinth is beyond me. I thought the goal of the big massive plinth was just to limit motor vibrations, not play a part in transmission of sound. How does that happen?
My gut feel is this article relates some interesting facts for consideration but that you are really cutting hairs with little chance of predicting end results trying to sort through any of this in a quantitative yet meaningful way.
On teh other hand, I suppose that's what being on the bleeding edge is all about, so cut away. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
RE: Diameter of Boston Audio mats
Just thought you guys all might like the following info I received this morning from Boston Audio:
"Both of these mats are 192.25mm in diameter. The size of the Mat 1 was reduced compared to the launch version about two years ago so that it would fit more tables (yours included I believe), and that was done before the Mat 2 was launched."
I currently own a TTweights Ultimat for my SP10 Mk II and am considering getting a Boston Audio Mat1 or Mat2 (haven't decided yet. recommendations?) for comparison purposes.
Chris |
please email me if anyone want details on the acrylic record mats from Germany |
Lewm, the audiolife platter might add a small amount of drag at start up, but frankly it could just be my imagination since the deck has so much torque it really is not discernable. As for the servo, I wondered (worried) about that, but never experienced any issues - maybe the rotational mass cancels out all concerns! I also wondered if that extra weight might have a deleterious effect on the bearing. Also, I use a brass record weight that weighs a good 1.5Kg - even so the deck performs way better with the extra tonnage than without!
Steve |
Franks,
There is a Boston mat that does not completely fill the recessed "cut" area on Technics platter but works wonderfully.
In other words there were two sizes available when Boston Audio and I spoke on the phone, I ordered the slightly smaller than standard diameter. |
Albert, a question about the Boston Audio mat on a sp10 mk 2. Where you able to fit the standard mat-1 on the Mk2 platter or did you have to have one custom sized? I ask because the mat's diameter per BA is 293.5mm and the diameter inside the lip that I measured is 292.5mm. |
To have answers why these vintage tables react so positive to certain material and built methods would be of interest would it not? I have ideas about that. First of all the Technics SP10 MK2 and MK3 sound good in their original Obsidian plinth. They sound good with the original Technics arm too. The MK3 is especially powerful, expending a lot of energy keeping speed perfectly as set. I think any after market plinth, even one made only with multiple layers of Baltic Birch properly bonded, result in an improvement over the original Obsidian. When you move into a plinth like Steve Dobbins builds, Oswald Mills builds and I build, you simply improve upon lesser methods. Higher quality, heavier, less resonant materials push these tables up against the best out there, regardless of when they were built. I think belt drive is less sensitive to this but also result in improvement when heavier designs are implemented. In other words, Mapman is correct Heavy + rigid = better isolation.
Is it any more complicated than that? As Raul frequently states, mating these tables (new or old) with proper arm and cartridge combo finishes the job we begin with table and plinth. |
Jonathan Im well aware why a musician would want to play these irremplacable instruments. Im sure these master craftsmen centuries ago did have a method of tests but long forgotten.
Why not put them on display and have a new one built for a tiny fraction of the cost? If needed to try to replicate the tone of these old instruments, ancient wood is available to purchase today
I simply asked,please read above again and I,m not looking for a fight its just that I disagree about test methods.
250 pounds of mass loading with slate is one method to do I guess and Alberts plywood plinth for his sp10mk2 was the beginning of the end to his Walker table.
To have answers why these vintage tables react so positive to certain material and built methods would be of interest would it not? |
Heavy + rigid = better isolation.
Is it any more complicated than that? |
Dear Dbcooper: +++++ " Did either of you use or have commissioned any sort of measuring test on panzerholz and soft slate?
I ask this because of the near endless material one could choose from for a mass loaded constrained layer plinth be it man made and or ftom mother nature " +++++
this is the third time that you ask the same looking for the answer that can tell you/us if there are scientific/measures/numbers behind the plynth TT build material choosed.
NO answer till this moment from any of the ones involved in the build of those plynths for TT.
My common sense dictate that IMHO they don't have any scientific study/ies that serve as foundation to those plinth designs choice.
I hope I'm wrong and they come here and shows those measuring tests that shows differences in plinth build materials and plinth different shape design, we will see.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dbcooper,
Its an interesting question, about testing a material to try and determine its sonic properties. Let me relate an anecdote which might be appropriate.
A couple of years ago, I was invited to one of the "jam" sessions held at Gregory Singer's violin shop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Singer has a small performance space inside his wonderful shop, filled with some of the world's finest stringed instruments. Not only do Juilliard students often come to play, but so do some of the world's finest concert musicians. On the night I came, cellist Nicholas Anderson brought his Gofriller Count Marcello cello, made by Gofriller in Venice is 1697. The group played the Brandenberg Concerto, which was written a couple of decades after this cello was made. To say that I have NEVER heard anything like this instrument is an understatement. Even better was that I got to sit about 5 feet away from it, and I also had a chance to see the cello's back. Which is the point of this response- this cello has a bookmatched knot, not a small knot, but a really big, ugly knot, in butterfly fashion, on the upper section of the cello's rear.
I would think that in 1697 there was not a shortage of wood to use for making cellos. Its extremely rare to see even one knot in a Strad, Guarneri, etc. Yet this cello had not one, but two knots. As an aside, Pablo Casals and Jacqueline du Pre both played Gofriller instruments, but the real issue is, why did Gofriller use this material?
I don't think he did any "tests" in the sense you mean. There were no labs back then.
I'm not suggesting tests are not worthwhile, but you would have to know what you are testing for. Would it be transmission speed of sound through the material, and of what frequencies? And what thicknesses? In the case of Albert, since he is using a kind of clamping system to drain vibrations from his SP10 chassis, this would certainly affect the range of vibrations or resonances being transmitted into the plinth, so then how would you test that?
Furthermore, you would need to know what parameters actually make for the "best" sound. 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.
Jonathan Weiss
OMA |
Albert and Jonathan, Just out of curiosity regarding your chosen plinth material Did either of you use or have commissioned any sort of measuring test on panzerholz and soft slate?
I ask this because of the near endless material one could choose from for a mass loaded constrained layer plinth be it man made and or ftom mother nature
My research these past few weeks into the history of speciality plinths shows a long list of methods and material from manufactures and especially the DIY communities that goes back decades
I just find this whole subject of vintage record players interesting that in these modern times one can in some cases like yours Albert advance their vinyl play back using select material with a vintage tt.
On a final note Jonathan mentioned above a denon cartidge body made of panzerholz indeed interesting material. |
Dear Radicalsteve, 4.5 KILOGRAMS? Really? Holy patootie; that is 9.9 lbs, which is more than the platter weighs on a Mk2. How long does the table take to get up to speed, not that this alone is any measure of how the servo functions with such a huge increase in total mass? The proof is in the pudding, I guess. |
Radicalsteve,
Where did you get the Plattentellerauflage mat you mention that's made in Germany? What is the cost? |
Hi Albert,
You were referring to the 2008 RMAF show, where OMA debuted the Saskia turntable created by Win Tinnon, for which OMA made the slate plinth and other slate parts. That was an idler drive turntable, not a rim drive (a rim drive does not necessarily use an idler wheel, for example, such as in the Teres product, or in one of the TT weights decks.)
OMA no longer is partnered with Mr. Tinnon, by the way.
See you in Denver,
Jonathan |
Regarding mats, I have used the Audiolife mat (platter?) on my SP-10 Mk2 with no ill effect for a couple of years and this mat weighs 4.5Kg. The Cu-180 also sounds quite fine on this deck. Interestingly, when I had the Cu-180 on my Micro-Seiki SX-8000 it was significantly less dynamic than my Plattentellerauflage mat from Germany - worth looking into for very reasonable $$. |
Dear Albert, Thanks for the further clarification on which turntable gets the Micro mat. I fully agree that the Micro and the Mk3 would go well together. My reservations only relate to using the Micro with the much lighter and much less torque-y Mk2. There are guys who do it, however. |
Jonathan, I thought you were partners with Win Tinnon. I stood in the hallway with Win and spoke at length about how good the table sounded.
Maybe it was another show other than CES? I've covered almost every audio show and they sometime run together in my mind. |
Hi Albert,
I wish we could take credit for the rim drive you heard at CES, but we were not there, and have not made a rim drive deck to date. I wonder what you heard? All of our turntables and plinths are made of slate, but perhaps it was a Denham TTweights deck? I think he makes a rim drive?
You and I do concur that mass is everything in dealing with this type of deck. It's true I have not gone through the journey of self discovery that Raul has, training myself ruthlessly to hear in seconds what takes others years to discern, but the idea of a low mass plinth for the SP10 turntable has to be a colossal piece of silliness.
In any event, look forward to seeing you at RMAF again. And one of my favorite wooden Uwe bodies for the Denon 103 is the panzerholz. It's an interesting material.
Jonathan Weiss
OMA |
Jonathan, Steve should be at RMAF but I'm going to be taking photo's as usual.
I heard the OMA rim drive at CES and was mightily impressed, probably the best source at the show. If your SP10 plinth is indeed 200 pounds of slate it cannot help but sound wonderful. I'm all about the belief that mass is required to tame the powerful MK3 and Slate is another way to get there.
In some ways we're doing the same thing. Slate naturally has constrained layers, formed by nature. I'm getting mine by using layers formed under pressure (German Panzerholz). |
Hi Albert,
Thanks for the response- I did read Mike's response, but I always prefer getting an answer from the maker of a product directly.
As for what OMA does, we have always made slate plinths for customers with Technics SP tables, and continue to do so. I even have a client who does mastering for vinyl reissues such as Mosaic who uses a SP15 in one of our plinths, as he needed it to run backwards to play back metal "fathers" of 78's (apparently you can't easily do that with an SP10).
But our Tourmaline deck does indeed remove the SP10 motor and platter unit from the chassis, and mounts it directly into a 200 pound slate plinth. Which is why I was curious if either you or Steve had taken that approach.
I look forward to hearing both your SP10 system and Steve's at some point. Will either of you have a deck at RMAF? We will be in Room 573 with the above mentioned setup.
Yours,
Jonathan Weiss
OMA |
Jonathan, you posted this in another tread: 11-01-09: Weisselk
I make slate plinths, under the OMA name, so obviously I am not unbiased. And I HAVE listened to an SP10 with no plinth. Which is why it strikes me as rather absurd to go that route. Same with people who like a skeletal or box plinth with decks like the Garrards.
Weisselk (Answers | This Thread) I realize this was in response to "nude" or no plinth but it got me looking at designs on the OMA website. I see Technics SP10 are left in their original casework and you obviously have had good results with that. I also leave the Technics in it's case but support it with an aircraft aluminum sandwich within the interior. On the bottom an iron block is secured with stainless screws that join the Panzerholz and aluminum sandwich. This iron block is drilled and tapped, a brass rod screw tensions up against the Technics bearing after the table is installed in the plinth to further reduce any possibility of chassis flex. Mikelavigne answered your question about Steve's plinths and I have answered about mine. You're not being ignored. |
Dear Mapman: +++++ " are you saying basically to trust your own ears? " +++++
not exactly and not so simple. I trust in my very long training process that was/is already tested under any " real " audio environment here at my place and in several ( dozens+ ) other audio systems, including the Albert one, testing any audio item or whole system you can imagine.
My ears are only part of that testing process and certainly a trusty tool. I'm trained on purpose not at random, the process follow a discipline at each process stage.
Till today that process show it his value, confidence and validity when repetition is need it. I can't remember any significant fail on the process in any test with any audio item in any audio system.
Yes, IMHO and due to my in deep training that process is " bullet proof ". Is it the best out there?, certainly not but is the one with almost 100% of success.
Some Agoner's are witness of its effectivity and could give a testimony about.
Have I golden ears? can I hear better that other people?, no it is only that I have a procedure a self training procedure/process where I know exactly what to look for and how find out or not, " simple " as that.
This testing/evaluation process permit me to have audio conclusion in hours when other people needs weeks or months to do it. Btw, in anyway IMHO if you are unaware in the first listening hours of the main virtues and " errors " of the audio item under evaluation then over the time you just can't do it in precise way.
I can't explain step by step all the evaluation/test procedure/process and there are " things " that even I can't explain how I can discern on it other that my day to day training.
Btw, my first step, out of my place, is to heard/hear the system by 15-20 minutes through digital source. One of the main/critical factors in the process is to have/choose the right music tracks on LP's/ CD's and the knowledge level on those recordings.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Jonathan, on 9-5-2010 i did answer your question 2 posts below your question. i'll quote it. Jonathan,
i'll do my best to answer your question.
Albert does not do the 'nude' SP-10 Mk3 plinth. his Mk3 plinth design keeps the case-work on the Mk3. Steve Dobbins Mk3 plinth, which i own one of, does at least remove the top case-work. however; i do not know myself whether he removes anything else from the Mk3 before installing it in the plinth. my impression from my conversations with him is that the motor is secured directly to the plinth; but exactly what that might mean relative to your question i'm not 100% sure of. |
I guess my question in the midst of this s///t storm is not going to get answered? It's a really simple question, no interpretation or opinions required. |
Lewm,
I don't think the MK3 is effected by the weight of either of these mats. All I'm hearing is the difference in construction or whatever else is going on between these two "hard material" designs.
My MK2 was not effected by the Boston mat or Funk Firm. I don't remember trying the Micro Seiki CU-180 with it.
The Micro Seiki mat is so expensive I was late moving into them. The Boston is a superb alternative and far less expensive. I think very fairly priced based on construction and performance (at least in my system). |
Albert, Thanks for your response on mats. It is surprising that your favorite and second favorite mats are wildly different in material construction AND in weight. The Micro, according to others above, weighs ca 4 lbs and the Boston Audio Mat, which I like a lot on my Lenco, must weigh much LESS than the stock rubber Technics mat, which weighs a bit more than half a pound, if memory serves. I have already expressed my concerns re using the Micro mat on the Mk2, due to the fact that it increases total mass of platter + mat by about 50%, which one would think would not be good for optimal servo performance. But the proof of the pudding is in the listening. |
So Raul,
In a nutshell, are you saying basically to trust your own ears? |
Prizo: in the third group of sentences must say: can't and not only can.
R. |
Dear Pryso: +++++ " So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems,..... " +++++
well I don't know what others can think about my take is this:
if I made the test process using only one cartridge then I agree with you that in that " system " ( as you name it ) I prefer one or the other TT but we can take this preference as " universal " one.
Never is easy to make serious audio comparisons always exist so many parameters that we can't ( many times ) involve all of them.
A TT comparison has ( between others. ) some critical points: tonearm, cartridge, mat, plattform and electrical source. If I want to decide one TT over other first take for me is to choose the RIGHT cartridges to do it. It is not only that I need to know the performance of those cartridges but that almost all of them had/have low low colorations with a wide frequency spectrum and I said " almost " because I like to have at least one not so good cartridge performer a cartridge with " especial "/wrong/bad distortions.
IMHO my comparison conclusion will be as good as the cartridges choice. Obviously that a test comparison has a whole process including LP's tracks choice to do it and many things but the source/cartridges I choose were and could make " the differences ".
In my analog test comparisons and reviews I try to put at minimum the system variables even I use the same internal wire in tonearms under test.
Btw, I don't like to make test audio comparisons/reviews in items over " long time " like M.Lavigne point out he use to do it. I prefer a short time before my ears be equalized with the sound under test and I could lose an " alert " brain attitude about.
Everyone has his own procedure/process on the subject, the important thing/point here is IMHO that that your own process almost always function/be precise with the lower mistakes in the conclusions.
The other subject is that I don't belive in " massive/group " tests/comparisons on any audio item.
That a " group " like here in the thread arrived to the same conclusion means IMHO almost nothing, let me explain about:
each one of us are different, we have different audio/music/sound priorities, we like different kind of colorations/distortions we even have different audio knowledge/experience level and different ears frequency response: how in the life 7 or 10 or a " group " with so many differences can have the same conclusion in an audio item when additional to all these differences exist the " group " bias/push?
This is easy to prove: take a small group say 6 persons that are listening in front of an audio system, then they are trying to decide about quality performance with the track they are listening and happen that the person with the highest know how move its head to one side and the other ( saying NO. ): you know what? this sole movement makes a difference in each one opinion.
But we don't have to go very far to look answers to this " group " subject: here in this forum in any thread we read there are many many times that two almost same know.how level persons can't agree in an audio subject now imagine a " GROUP ". I respect the ones that do/did it but for me with all respect ( I'm not talking on each one person but the process it self. ) that means almost nothing.
In the same manner that two or more persons take the same audio item choice and change what they own at home means that " group false emotions " put its sign in each person in that group even if they don't like it. The group feeling belong sometimes is very strong.
I never take decisions because a " group " and not because I don't respect other people ( that I did/do. ) or because I dimish other people about ( that I did not/do not. ) but because my targets are my targets and almost I is the only person that can understand in deep due to subjective factors .
Anyway, I think I understand your point of view and I hope you could do the same on mines.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
09-16-10: Lewm
Dear Albert, Now that you may be lurking here for a moment, can you say what mat you are using on the Mk3? Someone said "copper" but now which copper mat. As you know, there are several in the marketplace. Also, it would be interesting to know what other mats you may have tried and not liked. I tried many combinations with both Technics MK2 and MK3. Both versions of the stock Technics mat with and without Texas Instruments FerriShield (FerriShield helped a lot with MK2!). Also the Boston mat, TT Weights (2, 3 or 4 of these, with and without periphery ring). Also the Funk Firm from GB, the Micro Seiki CU-180 and Herbies mat. My absolute all time favorite is the Micro Seiki CU-180 (I have three of them now). Be sure it's genuine if you are buying one, there are lots of copies and counterfeits. Second place is the Boston Carbon Fiber and then the rest sort of fall wherever, depending on what compromise you prefer. Mapman wrote: If done well, each optimized phono SYSTEM should perform well. Each better or worse perhaps in particular aspects of the resulting sound. Which is better will often be a matter of personal preference and also how that phono system fits into the larger system as a whole as well. Obviously, use of high quality components in the properly integrated system is an insurance policy of sorts towards better performance, but not necessarily an indicator of better sound. We can close the thread now, that's pretty much perfectly stated :^). |
Initially Albert favoured a Technics MK2 model in a newly constructed plywood plinth then later moved onto panzerholz with much differant results
It was also pointed out over the course of time some of Alberts listening group involved also switched from their long standing turntable preference to a MK 2 or model 3 Technics.
Some of you here have multipal direct drive and prefer other brands over the Technics sp line
Common knowledge among us here simply points to personal preference's,and as Mike Lavigne points out,choose your colourations wisely |
Dear Albert, Now that you may be lurking here for a moment, can you say what mat you are using on the Mk3? Someone said "copper" but now which copper mat. As you know, there are several in the marketplace. Also, it would be interesting to know what other mats you may have tried and not liked. Thanks. Hope a response does not create a conflict of interest for you, as a dealer.
By the way, I think you and Raul are both correct. The best most scientifically "valid" comparison is the one performed as Raul suggests. But that was not possible in this case, and Albert's comparison must be the next best thing. I especially am swayed by the "months" of listening by Albert and many other skilled listeners, and the use of several different cartridges, that went into the decision process. But the conclusion is that the Walker table with its tonearm, etc. was not loved as much as the Mk3 with its tonearm, etc, where "etc." includes mostly the plinth materials, since other variables WERE held constant. |
So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems, i.e. that it is the best of the two tables. If one size fitted all, this would be a far simpler hobby. after first acknowledging there is no real ultimate truth of 'what's best' when comparing tt's, i think one can form useful conclusions with reasonable efforts. particularly when you own 2 or 3 tt's over a period of time amd move arms and cartridges between them. characterisitics do emmerge. preferences get established. if that preference holds in multiple situations it gains in credibility. it helps to have 2 of the same cartridges, or two of the same arms, or even a phono stage with 2 inputs. this allows speedy 'single varible comparison'. but for me it's the months of listening to tt's side by side which allow a real sense of what is what. quick looks are useful but less valuable for me. as far as 'system' synergy; i suppose there are amp/speaker/room combinations which may favor one vinyl front end over another. maybe tubes and horns may invite idlers and Koetsu's, as an example......but at the top of the vinyl food chain i don't see much of that approach. vinyl gear that aspires to be SOTA are typically all around performers and not limited to one system character. at the end of the day colorations will always get in the way of the musical message. |
My whole point was raised to try to understand the position of those who believe that the only worthwhile (valid?) comparison is when just one component is changed - the turntable in this case. Mapman perhaps presented my perspective best when he focused on the table/arm/cart as a "system". It is comparing differences within systems that becomes tricky.
Raul, I hope you know I respect your experience and observations. Many times in your MM/MI thread you have commented on matching the best arm or headshell to optimize the performance of a given cartridge. You are unusual in owning such a large selection of tables, arms, headshells, etc. that you can really fine tune the set up for any cartridge to evaluate it, and report your impressions based upon the optimized system. I believe your reviews are better than any paper or on-line magazine for this reason.
To draw a parallel, you do not evaluate every cartridge in the same arm/table/headshell so far as I know. And even if you have a "preferred system" where you make your initial evaluations, you obviously do try other combinations to obtain the best performance of the cartridge under review.
So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems, i.e. that it is the best of the two tables. If one size fitted all, this would be a far simpler hobby.
Peace to all and happy listening. |
Dear Albert: As I stated/posted I'm not questioning your decision in any way: it was and is your decision.
What you quoted of my post was in reference on Pryso statement where he think that to matched different cartridges in two different tonearms makes " the work " for comparison on two different TTs where everything is different.
In your case ( and I mean your case because Pryso put your TT comparison as an example. ) we only have two variables: different tonearm and different tonearm internal wire and I don't know if you use the same mat in both TT if not then three variables ( I assume was used the same plattform to both TT's. ).
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Table/arm/cart function as a system. You can toss the plinth, mat, and anything else that is there for benefit of the table into that system also. You want to optimize each system and compare. Components that perform optimally in one system may not in another. That could be plinth, mat cart, whatever.
If done well, each optimized phono SYSTEM should perform well. Each better or worse perhaps in particular aspects of the resulting sound. Which is better will often be a matter of personal preference and also how that phono system fits into the larger system as a whole as well. Obviously, use of high quality components in the properly integrated system is an insurance policy of sorts towards better performance, but not necessarily an indicator of better sound.
Not sure what else can be said objectively. Each case is different. Unless you exactly replicate a system that sounds good, it is hard to predict how any particular component will sound when you use it in your system. It is a combo of art and science through trial and error over the long term that delivers the end results. Knowledge, time and money are necessary ingredients. Otherwise, all bets are off. |
Addressing a couple of points: I totally disagree for many things ( between others ) that you take ( hipothetically )two different sources ( phono cartridges ) with two different tonearms with two diferent tonearm wire to make a two TT comparison: how can we do it? when both sources has its own " signature " I've stated this at Audiogon many times but want to post a response again since it keeps coming up. The two turntables were fitted with identical cartridges, one was obtained from Lloyd Walker himself for the comparison. Tone arm wire was the same or in favor of the Walker (better quality on Walker for part of the test). Phono stage, power cables, cartridges and all electronics were identical. Perhaps even more important, the test was not an A-B comparison, but rather long term listening with multiple visitors over a period of many, many months on a wide variety of software with every conceivable adjustment to tweaking the variables. Albert had a pretty good idea of what cartridges worked the best on the Walker. and in any case; the Walker does not allow for an alternate arm, so you are stuck with comparing the Walker with it's fine linear tracking arm. Mike Lavigne is stating what I posted earlier in this thread. The Walker is manufactured with it's own arm and it's not removable. Test was done the only way it could be. Every variable that could be equalized was done and the impossible was left as is. |
Dear Pryso: What Albert decided and why he decided on the subject is only his privilege and no one else.
In the other side that I disagree with him as I stated/posted is my privilege and IMHO at least I put my " mouth " on what I believe, other prefer stay in silence: that's their privilege.
I totally disagree for many things ( between others ) that you take ( hipothetically )two different sources ( phono cartridges ) with two different tonearms with two diferent tonearm wire to make a two TT comparison: how can we do it? when both sources has its own " signature " that between other things can put in your " brain/mind " some kind of bias/preference, how can you be " neutral "/non-biased to one source or the other only by its " signature " sounds?.
Two different sources that not only has its own " signature sounds " , these " signature sounds " means IMHO: that handle different the audible frequency range because has different frequency response, different crosstalk/channel separation, different distortions, different frequency range at both frequency extremes, different tracking " hability ", different, different and different...., there are no two cartridges alike that I know even in same cartridge model could be tiny performance differences.
How could you compare two TT where the TT's are " surrounded for different: source/cartridge/, tonearm, wire/cable and the like? Please let me know how can you do it? Pryso think for a moment: when you test a Dynavector XV-1s ( or any cartridge. ) in two different tonearms ( everything the same. ) you always will have two " different " performances. Now imagine when you have all different ( not only the tonearms. ) as you propose.
I have to say that I can't imagine that comparison but if you explain to me I will try to understand it and maybe is time to change my overall point of view on the subject.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Mike, I may not have made my point clearly. I too respect Albert's experience and perspective. So based on that I can accept that he believes his custom Technics to be more satisfying (better?) than his (at the time) Walker.
My intended point was to challenge those who discredited his conclusion because of component variations - the arms in that case. Comparing different turntables by utilizing the same platform, arm, wire, and cartridge may not necessarily be a level playing field in my opinion. |
Pryso,
my guess, knowing the likelyhood that Albert tried quite a few of the pretender/contender cartridges while he owned the Walker, is that Albert had a pretty good idea of what cartridges worked the best on the Walker. and in any case; the Walker does not allow for an alternate arm, so you are stuck with comparing the Walker with it's fine linear tracking arm.
so Albert would have been in as good a position as anyone to make the comparison with the cartridges he knew at that time. he had way more experience with cartridges on the Walker than the Technics.
i have a Rockport Sirius III and sitting next to it is a Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk3 with a Reed and Talea arm. i have multiple cartridges which have been switched back and forth. i have my opinions about this and that which is as close to 'a truth' as you are likely to have.
i respect Albert's perspective. |
A question about comparisons, based on the Walker-Technics comments posted here.
Many experienced hobbyists agree about the importance of component matching - speaker with room, amp with speaker, arm with cartridge. Raul was pretty specific when he suggested the importance of arm, headshell, and even platter mat for cartridge performance.
Why then would anyone argue that the only fair comparison of the Walker versus Albert's Technics should be made using the same or identical arms and cartridges? Who is to say the optimum arm for Albert's Technics would be the same as that used on the Walker? And even if the same (or identical) cartridge(s) was/were used in the comparison, what is the assurance it/they offer optimal performance when different arms are used.
This may not seem scientific but I believe music is an emotional experience. Therefore applying science-based tests may not always be most appropriate. For me a better test would be to optimize the Walker and it's arm with the best matching cartridge (obviously choices will vary but since the evaluation will be made on an individual basis I consider this OK). Then do the same with Albert's Technics, this time matching arm and cartridge. Then make the sonic comparison with EACH table optimized.
Your choices in optimizing each table may be different than mine and our respective conclusions may or may not agree. But each of us would have based our ratings on the best we felt each table could perform.
I trust this in not beating an old subject to death but in all my years in this hobby I've simply observed too many varying opinions about what is good and what is not so good to believe that rigorous "scientific" testing procedures (eliminate the variables) present any truth. |
Jonathan,
i'll do my best to answer your question.
Albert does not do the 'nude' SP-10 Mk3 plinth. his Mk3 plinth design keeps the case-work on the Mk3. Steve Dobbins Mk3 plinth, which i own one of, does at least remove the top case-work. however; i do not know myself whether he removes anything else from the Mk3 before installing it in the plinth. my impression from my conversations with him is that the motor is secured directly to the plinth; but exactly what that might mean relative to your question i'm not 100% sure of. |
Mr Weiss lovely work you do. Your choosen plinth material Pennsyvinia soft slate did you select by scienctific methods or guessing this material maybe be good and simply trying it. |
