Can't comment on Albert's product except to say I am certain it is very high quality. But I have "refurbished, replinthed, and rearmed" some of these direct drives in slate and/or wood (Technics Mk2, Mk3; Denon DP80), and the results are worth the expense and physical effort. |
Dear Dbcooper: I still think and support that the best DD TT plinth is NO Plinth.
I heard many of those beautiful DD ( Denon, Technics, etc. ) with new plinths and none I heard has better quality performance than the non-plinth TTs I have. Including designs by Mr. Porter or Mr. Doobins.
IMHO there is no plinth with out self resonances and TT/plinth related resonances and like it or not that plinth/TT resonances were " capture " by that extremely sensitive microphone name it: phono cartridge.
I know that a no-plinth DD TT can looks even awful but I'm not talking about the TT looks but about what IMHO is the more critical and important target for the ones that are " music lovers ": first rate quality performance.
Yes, today many people are doing business with those plinths that IMHO does not help to improve the DD TT quality performance.
So, this subject is more of what we are looking for about: quality performance or better look.
Maybe there are not many persons that already tested his DD TT in no-plinth fashion: I think could be a good " audio exercise " to do it, just for fun!
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, You wrote, "So, this subject is more of what we are looking for about: quality performance or better look." Is there no room in your universe for an opinion that differs from yours? I respect your personal opinion that your SP10 Mk2 sounds best with no plinth. I would hope you could also respect my opinion and that of many others that the SP10 Mk2 sounds best with a well designed and in some cases massive plinth. I don't think that those of us who prefer the heavy plinth are merely interested in the appearance of the turntable, and it's unfair to imply that, IMO. And by the way, removing the metal bottom cover is not incompatible with mounting the chassis in a plinth. As regards plinth vs no plinth, the OP could obviously try it both ways and decide for himself. The no plinth solution costs very little money to implement, if one can find the rather rare Audio Techinica feet that Raul uses under his chassis. |
That's Steve DOBBINS Raul!...:-)
Perhaps Steve or Albert would care to discuss the why 's and how's of they're respective plinth applications and what they feel it has achieved for them?
I'm sure that they would say the "better looks" was not the motivating reason! |
Well guy's, I have high regard for both of your opions, I never thought about running a Technics SP10 MKII in the nude. I do have one that I just bought.
Raul what is your idea for a arm pod, what do you use material wise?
I will try this and see.
As for looks Im not too concerned,if it works very well then maybe do some cosmedic dress up.
Lewm I know you like the performance of your big DD Kenwood and someday I will have one also. I do have a Kenwood 990 that will be run with x frame only with the exception of a swinging arm board attached.
Anyhow these projects look to be a load of fun.
David |
Dear Lewm: Of course. I don't mean that all of you that choose the plinth in yours DD TT were/are not looking a better performance, sure you are looking that.
What I'm telling is that the better plinth IMHO in no plinth. You will need to hear a SP-10/DP-80 with no plinth for understand what I'm refering to. That's all.
Yes, I respect all of you: why should did not ( I not ) ?, I have no single reason for.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Isaac Newton gives us the best reason for using a massive and well-damped plinth. It's his 3rd Law of Motion, which is summed up thusly: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The motor of an SP10 Mk2 and especially the Mk3 has enough torque to rotate the whole chassis, if nothing else is holding it in place. Thus the rotational energy available from the motor is partially wasted in motion of the chassis, when there is no plinth. I have seen this phenomenon in action when I applied power to my Mk2 whilst it was sitting unfettered on my workbench. It nearly rotated itself off the bench and onto the floor. Granted, I am being melodramatic, because max torque is not developed except in the first second or two after start-up. And I really don't mean to be dogmatic on this subject; I am just going with my ears here. |
Dear Lewm: A debate can start on the subject but only if who want to debate already heard both alternatives.
When you already do it maybe you still like the plinth option and I'm sure no one " die " for your choice.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear David: An aluminum stand alone tower but you can use any material you want like: steel, brass, wood, acrilyc etc, etc.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Not to split hairs but what is a plinth?
Most of us would agree the solid platforms securing motor unit and arm such as Lew's basic slate or Albert's or Mr. Dobbins' more complex designs are plinths. And the standard hollow box platform sold with most tables is still a plinth.
But then what about those skeletal designs like Oracle, Michell, or David's modified Kenwood? They all include an armature to mount the tonearm with the motor unit. As I understand Raul's design, it is a single wood platform (3/4"?) which bolts to the motor unit and extends to the side to provide for arm mounting. Isn't that a plinth too, albeit a minimal one?
It seems a true plinthless table would be one where the motor unit is self contained and free standing from the tone arm, the latter secured to its own weighted base.
None of this may matter to the OP or other readers unless they interpret Raul's statements to mean he suggests a separate and free-standing arm and base. As I understand his table(s), that is not his approach. |
Dear Pryso: What you refer on my SP-10 is right and that was its configuration.
Latter on I change for a true non-plinth and separate tonearm tower. This one is what I'm refering to.
IMHO we DD TT owners has a rare and unique opportunity ( that maybe never comeback. ) to test and enjoy a non-plinth TT with what for me is and has IMHO better quality performance against the same plinth TT.
What any one can lose if they try it?
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
08-17-10: Azjake
Perhaps Steve or Albert would care to discuss the why 's and how's of they're respective plinth applications and what they feel it has achieved for them?
Azjake The original SP10 Technics was released late 1969 or early 1970 and it operated with feet (no plinth) as Raul describes. Matshusta engineers found lack of stability and solidity of performance and from that point on offered later versions with increasingly massive plinths. As for design, materials make a big difference. Technics in an attempt to add mass with beauty, designed the obsidian (volcanic glass) plinth which had a nice shape and was beautifully polished. However, when Hi-Fi Choice reviewed it, they reported that the bass frequencies were lacking and there was a shallowness overall in the mid and upper mid frequency region. Cause was reported to be from amorphous "structure" of volcanic glass and that other solid glass plinths and / or platters exhibit similar characteristic. I agree with this British review, it's an accurate description of what I heard in my experiments. Noteworthy too, SAEC Japan (the wonderful tonearm builder) designed a massive, ultimate plinth for SP10 that is still sought after today. If you dont believe material has an effect on the outcome of the plinth please consult data on density, sound propagation, stiffness and transfer. A good source to begin is: The practising Scientist's Handbook, Alfred J. Moses. (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1978). Anyone who wants to try their Technics or other high torque direct drive table with slender footers and no mass are welcome to do so and report back their findings. |
Raul&Lewn,I hope I will be not crashed between two giants
of our forum. I have also no Solomons intentions. My interest is pure pragmatic.
Lew I think that your slate-plinths are beautiful but hope
that they are also affordable in contradistinction to Alberts and Dobbins 'alternative'.From this 'stuff'(aka slate) we in Europe make floor-covering and there is in Germany a speaker-producer who uses the same stuff as building material. So my assumption is that at least the stuff is affordable. My question is about the provision for
the tonearms. I noticed this 'black thing resting (and rusting?) on a spike' wich one can put everywhere but most of us are not so brave to put a cart in such a thing.I mean a provision such that one can use more then one tonearm.
Raul are other feets then the AT's also suitable for the purpose? Then ( this question is already asked) the armbase to put next to the TT. Those are not easy to get but I have seen a German producer who make them on request but for +/- 600 Euro. Can you suggest some cheaper solution?
Regards, |
There is no cheap way out for an effective plinth. It took many hours to develop Albert's plinths and so far many, many months of listening. The first plinth made from Baltic birch was very good and in it the SP-10 MkII trounced the Walker, using identical cartridges. The first Panzerholz plinths were actually made for the Garrard 301 and made mincemeat of the $500 built-up plywood ones from Europe. The single arm Panzerholz plinth for the SP10 was a significant improvement over the layered plywood version and the new two arm version, with its higher mass offered even more improvement, especially in the midrange. Panzerholz is frighteningly expensive and Albert's plinths are very labor intensive to fabricate, so the prices are at a place where very little profit is made. There are very few audio products out there where the cost of the raw materials represent one third of the retail price. The opinions on the effectiveness of these plinths aren't Albert's alone. There are at least twenty longtime and highly critical analog fanatics in his group whose opinions helped shape the design over the last three years.
John |
John, There are 'modest' people who are also satisfied with
the 'second best' and probable also able to buy some LP's. That is btw the reason that I am so kind to Lew.
Regards, |
Dear Nikola, If my slate plinths are at all "beautiful" it is only because the company that cut the slate for me does a nice neat job. Once I got the slate slabs back here, I just sealed them with a mixture of oils, and that's all I did for beauty. (The sealer makes the gray-ish slate go more toward the black color.) I paid not much attention to beauty.
Dear Raul, I consider that we are friends, so this is a friendly discussion. To me the issue of mounting the tonearm on a separate base is a whole different can of worms. There are really good reasons to link the tonearm and turntable bearing solidly in space that have little to do with massive plinths. But I do admire your willingness to experiment with all sorts of unfashionable ideas. I HAVE heard an SP10 in a minimal, low-mass plinth, and it was quite unremarkable. I have not tried mounting any tonearm separate from the turntable chassis, because I just think that's not a good idea. Here is my thought experiment that leads me to this conclusion: Suppose you are in a small boat floating in a lake. Someone asks you to perform an intricate task by hand, like calligraphy for example. The paper on which you have to write can be either in a separate boat, so that you have to lean out of your boat and do calligraphy in an adjacent boat, OR you can have the paper and pen in your own boat. Obviously, the task is going to be easier when you, the paper on which you have to write, and your tools are in the same boat, because a second boat is going to bob up and down independently of yours, thereby increasing the difficulty of doing your job maximally well. That's how I think of the tonearm/cartridge vs the turntable; they should be in the same mechanical universe, not in two different universes. The tonearm/cartridge movements due to environmental influences should be identical to those seen at the platter bearing. If you mount the tonearm on a separate pod, there are no guarantees of that. You are introducing another source of error, needlessly. I know there are fancy, expensive turntables that feature separate tonearm pods; I think the idea is fundamentally flawed. |
Nandric, I understand that. I am a person of less than modest means myself. My point is that the creation of an effective plinth is more than just the application of idle woo. There is a lot of work involved and for Raul to casually dismiss it as worthless is unfair to everyone involved. He certainly hasn't tried Albert's plinth so his opinion of it is of no value itself.
John |
Dear John: First than all I'm not diminish the Albert job or any other person job. I was very clear in my answer to Lewm about, please read it.
In the other side and like Albert point out too: why don't test a Denon/Technics/Pioneer/Kenwood in non-plint fashion and then share your experiences against the plinth version.
+++++ " The first plinth made from Baltic birch was very good and in it the SP-10 MkII trounced the Walker, using identical cartridges. " +++++
that test IMHO was invalid because there were at least 2-3 different parameters that had influence in the quality performance that preclude a precise answers: different tonearm, different arm board and different tonearm wire.
In that time and when I was ( for second time: thank you Albert. ) in Albert home I told him this.
Btw, I'm not only twice in Albert's home listening his audio system but the second time I knew 7-8 persons of his group and I have a more or less clear their aptitudes on system listening/discern, not only that but Albert knows very well my " ears ".
Additionally I had other audio systems DD TT plinth experiences other that with Albert.
Not only that I own two different ( self design. ) heavy plinths ( 50 kg each one. ) that I used and test with my DD TTs ( Lewm, no stand alone arm board. ).
So I'm not totally unaware like you think.
Anyway, the subject is that there are more than one alternative for the DD TT overall approach.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
that test IMHO was invalid because there were at least 2-3 different parameters that had influence in the quality performance that preclude a precise answers: different tonearm, different arm board and different tonearm wire. Be that as is may, the differences in pace and tracking as well as noise are more attributable to plinth and turntable motor than to the above mentioned. The Walker is sold as a (very expensive) complete package and is therefore destined to go up against other packages as is; so no excuses there. The Walker is a great performer and no doubt many others prefer it to anything else. It was a great shock to find that the humble Technics was preferred by us, especially after a long romantic relationship with the Proscenium. john |
Dear Jlsemrad: +++++ " Be that as is may, the differences in pace and tracking as well as noise are more attributable to plinth and turntable motor than to the above mentioned. " ++++
who/whom told you this? how can you validate this? peace, tracking and noise: and you think that the tonearm/cartridge/wire relationship were less important?
I don't know who you are but for what you posted in this thread IMHO your overall understanding/knowledge on the subject is poor for say the least, you ignore many things on the subject or you know something that I did not.
I can understand that a person likes more a orange than an apple: because IMHO this is what you do on that Walker/Technics tests, but " trounced the Walker "? this is very/totally different issue.
If you have on hand facts behind your statement then I'm willing to learn and if not IMHO is futile that I continue argueing against your ignorance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
In our case, the power of the direct drive motor made a big difference in keeping up with dynamic passages on certain records. The superiority in that regard was very evident. The background was blacker with the Technics even though most consider belt-drives to be quieter. The Walker got the benefit of the doubt being provided with the better cable of the two. The bass was more solid and better defined with the Technics as well. In what area did we feel that the Walker was superior to the Technics? None - hence the word trounce. Please note that we are talking about preference, just as we prefer the Allnic phono stage to the J&R solid state phono stage.
You may hold differences in preferences but that is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks.
John |
Dear John: Attacks?, for me some one that is unaware of " something " it is an ignorant on that subject.
How do you name your ignorance, that kind of " unaware/ignorance?
Allnic?: just pathetic.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
The Walker/Technics test seems like it was one front end versus another front end and the group preferred one over the other. How is that invalid? They were not comparing arm vs. arm, or cart vs. cart, or table vs, table which would have been very difficult or impossible. I haven't read anything about the cables or phono amps used. The only conclusion I can draw from that test is that during those sessions, that group of experienced music lovers preferred one front end over the other. I don't even think it would be correct to deduce that the drive systems (DD vs belt) made the most difference in the test.
It would be interesting to hear from more people who have tried their DD tables with a solid plinth and then without one. |
I don't even think it would be correct to deduce that the drive systems (DD vs belt) made the most difference in the test. It would be reasonable, however. There is a great deal to be said for tight control of the platter's rotational velocity during difficult and dynamic passages. Many in our group promptly traded in their high end belt drives (Basis, VPI, etc.) for the Technics/heavy plinth combination and were rewarded with similar satisfying results. The resurgence in popularity of vintage direct drives is in no small way related to their performance in this regard. John |
Interesting how certain products trounce in one system and are trounced in another.
One audiophile I know (outside of USA) has quite a few turntables and an extremely good syhstem. Walker Proscenium Black Diamond II , MS SX 8000II, Kuzma XL 4, MS SX 777 FV, Exclusive P3a, Technics Sp10 mk2 and Mk3 with and without SME 312S.
His best sounding table is the Walker. A lot better than his SP10 mk3. His best sounding DD table is the Exclusive P3a.
BTW, he is an avid audiophile and has no sales motives
cheers |
Hi Downunder, I presume that the judgement of the relative merits of the turntables is completely subjective. Yes? (But what else can it be, really?) Can you disclose what type of system is in use? (Speakers, preamplifier, amplifier, etc.) Have you heard the various competitors and do you agree with the conclusion? Raul (and I) would also want to know what tonearms and cartridges are at play. With the P3 and the Walker, one is "limited" to the single built-on choices of tonearm, and by the same token those two tonearms cannot be used with any of the other tables. (I say limited in quotes, because in both cases the respective tonearms are superb, although very different from each other.) This hobby is so freakin' difficult. Interesting that the mighty Micro Seiki's are not in the top 2. |
Hi Lew
I think you may agree that once you have reached a certain level of quality, all relative merits are subjective and linked directly to one's room interaction, individual components, set up, tastes etc etc.
I have not heard any of the tables mentioned with the exception of my P3, hence I cannot comment on the relative rankings.
The gentlemen has no hidden agenda's and does not participate on audio websites, just an audiophile who has listened in his own system. He has the best offerings from companies like walker, allnic, atmosphere,cj,karan to name some.
my post was not to critique the relative rankings as absolute, just to indicate that there is no absolutes.
Lew, this hobby is not difficult, it is fun and a great way to enjoy music
|
dbCooper,
I am sorry to see the direction your thread has taken. One year ago, I visited Albert after hearing multiple top end tables(all belt drives in the 20,0000-30,000 range). I bought his wenge plinth/sp10mk2 table(Baltic Birch/Basswood) because it sounded better to me than any other I'd heard at a fraction of the price. Since then, I have bought two more of his plinths(the twin arm panzerholtz versions and they are sonically and functionally wonderful. I thoroughly believe the narrow profit margin ESP considering the labor innvolved. I have a mk2, mk3, and soon another mk3 to replace the mk2. Every arm cartridge combo I have tried sounds wonderful in these plinhs with no trace of rumble. This puts me firmly in the jlsemrad, Albert, and Lewm camp on this issue.
I respect Raul but I feel he's speaking more out of passion than objectivity here(Allnic may not be everyone's cup of tea but clearly not just awful).
Thank God college football is upon us. Their forums are also insane but at least on Saturday the money talks and BS walks.
Good luck in your pursuit db, my money's on panzerholtz and I highly recommend Albert's if you don't have the knowledge/ti
e to do it yourself. |
My experiences with properly designed heavy plinths is all positive.
When well executed, I believe the primary function is to add enough mass to improve resonance control without killing dynamics. This is the tough part and art!
The net effect especially on turntables like the Garrard and Technics, which have so much torque, is to improve stability and reduce vibration enough allowing the front end of the system to function quietly and retain the drive and power of the original design.
This lowering of the noise floor while retaining the punch and drive of their original design, creates a rock solid foundation, which IMO was not understood in the original plinth designs. After you experience this improvement or upgrade, it is tough to go back. Also any comparison of the performance of a Garrard or Technics to another turntable without the proper base IMO is an invalid comparison. Of cource I am assuming either system is serviced and in top working condition.
Even the turntables I have owned with minimal or no plinths, the Kuzma XL, Verdiere and Walker understood the importance of mass.
The top Micro Seiki designs with minimal or no plinths had massive platters. One would think that if enough great designs have one thing in common-Mass- there must be something there.
My impression and experience in listening to light turntables is not positive. I have listened to both the Garrard and the Technics in minimal plinths and there is no contest. They don't perform!! |
Thanks for your response, DU. When I remarked about the difficulty of this hobby, it was more in fun than anything else. If in the end all of this were not subjective, there would be no fodder for these discussions. But I do have to agree with Jlsemrad in the sense that there DOES seem to be a "sound" associated with the best DD turntables that one either does or does not prefer. One can easily learn to hear through the tonearm and cartridge to discern that quality imparted by direct-drive (and for me idler-drive as well). And the plinth (or the no-plinth) is very much a part of that equation. As I mentioned to Raul, when I bought my first SP10 MK2, it came in a mediocre lightweight wood/MDF plinth. To me that sounded "gray", dull, lifeless, even though the pace of music was well recreated. Similarly, my Denon DP80 came to me in a Denon DK300 plinth, the best of the ones Denon made for that table. Like the Mk2, the DP80 in the DK300 was rather lifeless. The DP80 really came to life, however, in slate (and admittedly after an electrical restoration as well). I am not at all arguing that slate per se is any better than a well conceived wood plinth. Slate was just the easiest route for me, since I am no kind of woodworker and could not afford the best of the wood plinths. |
Dear friends: It is curios: all of you speak about the benefit of high mass and disagree with the non-plinth subject but; at least for what any of you posted here, no one of you already tested ( in the last three months ) a non-plinth version against the plinth fashion one in the same "" serviced system in top working condition "".
Btw, the platter mass in a BD TT design is a must and different on the DD needs. The Monaco is a today example of this.
The subject of plinth or no plinth, high mass or low mass, etc are important subjects that gives different quality perfromance but IMHO what really matters and makes " the difference " is the platter build material or the mat that is in " primary " touch with the LP: here it is the " secret " of different performance level.
Btw, mi position about Walker vs Technics is on the TT it self where IMHO and with all respect no one here can say that the Technics/Denon is better TT than the Walker.
I'm a DD oriented person but this does not means that we can make light statements about with out true validation.
A TT is an incomplete audio item that needs a tonearm/cartridge combination to shows its performance. The tonearm/cartridge combination IMHO and through many tests about makes a heavy difference in any comparison.
The same cartridge with the same tonearm in the same TT with the same wire/cable but in a different headshell performs different. Albert you can test it now that you finally own a headshell removable tonearm design.
No, I'm not talking with " passion " ( not even with the Allnic subject. ) but with objectivity through hundreds maybe thousands of TT/tonearm/cartridge tests. I can validate every single word I post here, usually I don't " speak " on subjects that I'm ignorant or that I can't validate or validated by first hand experiences.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
I don't see anything wrong with the statement that the Technics trounced the walker. The Walker is sold as a complete system/package (tonearm/table) and I am sure it is a fine table. There is no other choice for table/arm combo in this case so it had to be compared as it was. I am sure Albert put on his best cartridge and cables for both the Technics and Walker so in this case a fair comparison. Yes, not apples to apples but it could not be done in this case.
What the guy was trying to imply is that they (all of the people who were at the listening session)preferred the much cheaper technics table when compared to the "walker system" which cost a whole lot more hence it "trounced the Walker".
I guess "they" were speaking from "real" experience and there is nothing wrong conveying it t"the way they heard it". Ultimately, it is just an opinion and IMHO, and it is definitely VALID. |
I have heard the Walker in a friend's system, and I think it is fantastic. I never heard it side by side with any direct-drive turntable, and frankly I would be surprised if an SP10 Mk2 could "trounce" a Walker, regardless of the plinth used, but I have no argument with what someone else heard. However, the finding spurred me to experiment with direct- and idler-drive turntables, because there is no way I am going to afford a Walker.
My completely empirical thoughts on the subject of plinths and platters is as follows: For belt-drive turntables, minimal or no plinth and a very massive platter correlate positively with performance. One can argue all day long about whether the motor for a BD table needs to be strong to control the platter or weak to allow platter mass to dominate. I don't know; both ways could work if designed well. Multiple motors for BD seems silly to me. For direct-drive turntables, a well-designed plinth seems to help. I will grant Raul's contention that I/we have not experimented with no or a minimal plinth, but I certainly have experimented with light weight bad plinths, and they do harm rather than good. I think platter mass is probably less important for DD than for BD. I think I am going to like core-less motors over other types (based on what owners say about the Exclusive P3, and what I hear from my Kenwood L07D), and I think there should be "enough" torque to control the platter, but massive or excessive torque may not be a dominant requirement. For DD, the motor control mechanism is very important (duh!). |
Dear Genesis168: Everything can be VALID depend what we want to find out.
Many years ago I offered Albert to make a test on the SP-10 against the Walker with the same tonearm/cartridge combination: I offered to give two same tonearms and the Technics for the test and only that he has to find a stand alone arm mount device for the Walker.
For different " factors " that test never happen. The target was to know how these two different TTs performs one against the other.
I don't have any bias in favor of the Walker or Technics or any other TT I'm only trying to say that because I like more oranges than apples the apples are " trounced " because certainly there are other cartridges that could be a better match with the Walker tonearm and can " trounced " the Technics.
I remember very clear what I told Albert when I heard the Technics in his system instead the Walker: " Albert I prefer your system performance through the Walker ". He was gentle enough to explain me the circumstances around that I was not take it in count.
This is not what Albert wanted/liked to know or waited because their audio friends prefered the Technics except one of them that agree with me.
The Walker/Technics example seems to me that is not totally fair, it is like if some one with the Rockport TT ( with dedicated tonearm like the one M.L owns. ) made a comparison against a Garrad and then a group of persons likes the Garrad over the Rockport: " trounced " the Rockport.
Could this means that the Garrad really " trounced " the Rockport?, certainly not.
I read a lot of posts where the people said that the SP-10 is better than the Walker. The people speak on this " rumor " only because in a comparison some persons like more a Technics configuration that a Walker different configuration.
Seems to me that is really unfair for the Walker. IMHO the Walker TT is not inferior to the SP-10 and maybe even better than the Technics in similar " circumstances/environment/set-up ". I own three SP-10s and I'm not against Technics is only that IMHO is totally unfair that " rumor " with out validated true foundation.
Anyway, as you say it is only an opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
My Linn Axis sits low to the ground on a very heavy solid oak coffee table ($30 used) which in turn sits on the thinly carpeted concrete foundation of my house. It plays beautifully here, the best ever. If you can provide a solid foundation like this for any good table, not sure what value a massive plinth can add.
I think a similar solid foundation is a requirement for practically using the no plinth option as Raul suggests.
A solid foundation beneath the table greatly reduces or perhaps even eliminates the need to fortify the table itself IMHO. |
How about those drilling platforms on the sea searching
for oil or gas? Are those 'legs' or feets inadequate? Or
are those low torque drive mechanism? |
Dear Nandric: Thank you. My first big laugh of the day!!!
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear mapman: Very good point of that " solid foundation rack/plattform ".
Now that you mentioned maybe I forgot to think on those low mass BD TTs like Linn or Oracle or Michel that have a different approach and that in a precise/right set up can " sing " too.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Perhaps trounced was too harsh a word, but in fact the Technics won out. The judgement and final conclusion were made after many weeks of care listening, discussion, and evaluation by a diverse group of individuals, not a weak one in the bunch who is prone to be swayed by group opinion. Many different kinds of records and music were auditioned, audiophile quality or not, from old blues recordings from the early fifties to the latest release of high quality recordings of Baroque and classical music. No opinions were formed on the basis of listening a single favorite track from the latest Janis Ian release. No one in our group "works the room" to extract an opinion from someone else that is in agreement with their own. Certainly Albert, above all, seeks comment and opinion from his friends to help clarify what exactly is happening with his system.
The original poster wanted to know what opinion people had of the Porter Panzerholz plinth and that is what he got from me.
John |
The Panzerholz plinths sold by Albert are designed strictly to damp vibration from the cogging action of the powerful DC mother which by necessity is in communion with the platter and the rest of the chassis. In no way is there a claim that it will isolate the cartridge from vibration external to the turntable. The designer has no control over external forces and the plinth is designed to give the user a compact and self contained (as well as aesthetically pleasing) solution to the problem of noise intrinsic to the motor itself without him having to resort to the aggravating hair-shirt method of placing the armboard in a physically detached position from the rest of the turntable.
John |
Dear John: Attacks?, for me some one that is unaware of " something " it is an ignorant on that subject.
How do you name your ignorance, that kind of " unaware/ignorance?
Allnic?: just pathetic.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. Raul- Please understand that I respect and admire your deep understanding of LP playback. But - to label Allnic as "pathetic"? A generalization such as that one damages your credibility. We all understand your passion for the hobby, and we respect it, but you should be more gracious than that. Rule number one in business: Never bad mouth the competition. Tell me why your product is better. Don't tell me the competition is "pathetic". Remember that you are a manufacturer as well as a hobbyist. Disclaimer: Allnic dealer (and yes, I have heard Raul's phonolinestage in my system, and it sounded great) |
Dear Slipknot1: Pathetic was for Jlsemrad that bring to the thread an audio item that has nothing " to see " with the TT subject, I wonder what he want it to explain ( I don't care at all any more. ).
+++++ " Rule number one " +++++
btw, maybe those rules were " writed " by the AHEE and I don't always follow its rules. Even I don't always follow what I learned into the AHEE, remember?: " thinking out of the basket " .
If I need it or ask for I always like to share my experiences with out hide anything even if goes against me or against my audio item designs.
I can't be in other way or change that attitude.
Example, if you ask me something: what do you prefer? that I give a nice answer only for you be " happy " or you want to hear what I have to say about?
Do you know something?: time ago my audio friends call me to meet me at their homes along other persons to heard his system and give my opinion along the other people opinion. Through the time these same audio guys now call me for the similar " job " but along no one: just me ( private. ). You know why?, exactly that's why.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Jlsemrad, Interesting idea. Perhaps the reason that Raul likes the outboard tonearm pod with his plinth-minimal SP10 is related to isolating the tonearm from undamped resonances created by the motor. Still, I think the tonearm and bearing need optimally to reside in a closed system with each other. |
I owned the Walker Proscenium with Black Diamond arm, the upgrade air suspension (yes Walker were available without), Prologue platform, latest version silver tonearm wire, two tonearm termination blocks both (RCA and XLR), the latest pump and of course, the Walker Ultimate motor controller.
The Walker was plugged into a dedicated 20 amp circuit separate from my digital. Porter Port plug (of course :^) and a very expensive top line power cable.
This rig was (and still is) one of the finest turntables ever made, I owned it for many, many years and the last upgrades were done here at my home by Lloyd Walker himself with help from Fred. It just does not get any better than that.
At the time of the test my electronics were Aestheitx Io and Callisto with every possible upgrade (including some that were not yet released to the public). World class equipment regardless of what Raul or anyone thinks of it.
The Walker was tested with three phono cables, two were RCA termination and one was XLR.
This test occurred over many, many months with dozens of participants. Raul was here for only a few hours so he has no idea what all went on. All together there were 15 or 20 from my own group, two reviewers, three audio manufacturers and various visitors invited from Audiogon.
The Walker was played as a system since the arm cannot be removed and we tried three phono cartridges and multiple tonearm cables in an attempt to hear every possible variable.
There was no agenda other than continual search to learn and work to improve my reference system. It's always been that way and will continue. |
I still do not get the whole fascination with DD turntables in general, but I can see how a heavy plinth could benefit by providing better isolation from motor noise which I suspect would be more inherent to start with in general with DD tables.
To me once a table reaches a certain level of performance, such as teh ones discussed here surely do, the differences are often most subtle and personal preferences become a predominant factor. I doubt one could be conclusively determined to trounce the other.
Also, I am not so sure it is possible to keep any group of respectful listeners from influencing the opinions of the individuals no matter how professional or sophisticated the bunch in cases where performance is by design uniformly at an extremely high level. |
As an example, we played a Bill Evans Lp that always sounded fabulous with the Walker. But when played on the Technics, a particularly complex and dynamic passage from the piano was suddenly controlled and articulate rather than muddy and garbled. So a heretofore unknown fault inherent to a belt drive turntable became apparent. This was no small, subtle difference. In fact, it was in a way embarrassing that we would think that up until that point everything was fine and wonderful when instead it was flawed. How were we to know that Evans was playing it one way and not the other?
Certainly the overall sound of a system is a product of personal preference, but in this case (among others) the better performing turntable was obvious.
John |
Dear Albert: +++++ " This test occurred over many, many months with dozens of participants. Raul was here for only a few hours..... " +++++
I 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.
Any one can do it if has the training/discipline process need it for.
I respect the members of the " group " I knew at your place ( including a reviewer. ) where I knew their listening aptitud too.
I think that you don't need to justify your choice because my posts.
As you I know what I heard.
Albert, my opinion is only that: just an opinion. What it matters is what you think and your opinion because is you who has to live with that system and who has to be happy with: not me. If you are happy then I'm too because of that.
The subject IMHO goes beyond personal " affair ". Maybe Mr. Walker can comes here and could give us his thoughts on the whole subject, things could be that I'm wrong.
In the other side: do you already tested the sp-10 nude version?, because IMHO this is what the thread " owner " would like to know.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
I think the person asking the question about plinths should do his own test about nude plinth and disregard what both you and I say. If you read back on my post of 8-18-10 Anyone who wants to try their Technics or other high torque direct drive table with slender footers and no mass are welcome to do so and report back their findings. I think that sums everything up precisely, except I could take a cue from Raul and say: "Raul, do you already tested the sp-10 Panzerholz version? becasue IMHO is what the thread owner would like to know." |
Dear Albert: No, I did not. Could you send me a sample just for fun?
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
"So a heretofore unknown fault inherent to a belt drive turntable became apparent. "
How can you know the drive mechanism is the reason?
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.
I would not expect any properly set up high end rig to sound inherently muddy and garbled, but I am sure you heard what you heard. |
