Raul,
Yes, i did notice your absence from these fora, and I was hoping that you had not left us and that you were not ill or something bad like that.
Also, I did not think you were not cognizant of the importance of the turntable mat, and it interests me to know that you guys have developed your own. Is it available "to the public"?
I always felt, and said so, that the DP80 gives away nothing to the SP10 Mk2, but to say that it is superior to the SP10 Mk3 means to me only that you need to re-acquire a Mk3 that is in bona fide good electrical condition and listen to it again using your acquired knowledge. Contrary to what you once told me, I hear a big difference between Mk2 and Mk3.
Since you are not shy about stating your negative opinions, please I ask you not to be insulted when I say that marble is not good material for a plinth (don't know about onyx) and that the stock Denon plinth, even the best one that came with my DP80, pales in comparison to slate. The Denon wood plinth imparts a dead/dull sound. (Yes, plinths can do harm,and I am not surprised that naked beats Denon wood plinth.) And I now know that slate can be made better by CLD'ing it with a hardwood base, as I have done for my SP10 Mk3. I am going to do the same for the DP80 plinth. These sentiments are all "IMHO", of course.
The differences between the spec sheets for the DP75 vs DP80 don't mean "spit" (American idiom for "nothing"). I even think the two tt's were measured by Denon back around 1979-1980 when the standards for measurement changed, and all tt's suddenly became 2-3 db quieter, just due to the new method of weighting. Example of that is the Exclusive P3 vs P3a, which looks quieter on paper but was subject to a different method of measurement vs P3. If you hear a diff between those two motors, it is not due to stuff you can find on the spec sheets. |
Raul,
Since you have discovered a turntable that reduces distortions considerably over what you have been using, then surely that renders your views on the best cartridges moribund. You may well have written off many cartridges that you thought were not neutral, but in fact were highlighting turntable distortions.
Are you now going to re-review the 200 odd cartridges that you thought were no good?
Agree with Lew from personal experience marble ( sharp upper midrange resonances ) and wood ( dull, turgid ) are very poor plinth materials.
Also agree with Lew re the SP10mk3, I have 3 friends who have owned these for many years, and the improvement over the SP10mk2 is huge. I would rate the L07D as superior to the SP10mk2. |
Dear Lewm: TT mats are critical on any analog rig. Our blend propietary build material makes very good job and perhaps in the future could be available to the public, what stops us to do it is that the material is to expensive but obviously that that " expensive " level depends on the " rewards " when using it: we will see.
Yes, you are right about the SP10 2 and 3, things was that I did not compare it bis a bis and the last time I heard the 3 was on Steve Doobins system and even that was a good experience I can't say that the 3 performance was excellent but only a good one.
What I'm hearing through my Denon DP-75 is just outstanding, I don't have on hand a SP10MK3 but what I remember is way out of the DP-75 naken performance level.
Yes, agree with you about marble and I don't know how easy is to " excite " 40kg of marble through a Denon TT.
Btw, when I bought my Denons I remember I bought each one as stand alone TT/motor units where I can choosed between different plinths and tonearms.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover: No, I can't re-review not 200 but even 20 cartridges again. IMHO the ones I top rated could be stay in that way because the Denon TT contributes the less to performance degradation in the same way for the top and lesser one cartridges, of course that could be one or two " surprises " with the lesser cartridge but I don't thing so in that way.
What is clear to me is that every time distorion system goes lower each one audio item system link quality performance goes higher and shows additional " things " that were hiden through those now lower distortions.
As I said it several times: differences on system quality performance level depends mainly on distortion levels on each system. IMHO the name of the game in our beloved high end audio world are: distortions distortion levels and distortion level means accuracy levels.
I always look for neutrality that for me means: accuracy and low low distortions ( every kind. ).
Many of us are in love with our each system distortions till step by step and time to time we are aware of those distortions and when we improve/lower those distortions then we fall/take in count that what we was hearing ( higher distortions ) was way wrong even that we liked.
Normally we are aware of distortions when those distortions goes lower. If nothing change in our systems we can't or is almost imposible to be aware of those distortions other than comparing it to other systems.
I discussed several times with other Agoners about distortions and some of these persons give me answers like this : " if those are distortions so be it because that's the way I liked ".
My system as all other audio systems has its own distortions but I can say that today the distortions in my system are really low and this fact makes a difference for the better not easy to imagine and understand it only when you heard/hear it.
Unfortunately the AHEE accustomed to almost all of us to hear high distortions through our systems and those distortions high levels are part inherent on our each one audio system but IMHO we need to improve about asking: hey is there something wrong in my system? where? why? how can I improve over? and all these is a hard exercise that needs certain knowledge level to achieve new system quality performance targets. I continue on this very well rewarded system improves quest.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear friends: What are in common between these TTs other that are TTs: Denon DP-80/75, Garrads, Kenwood Lo70, Technics SP10s, Sota ones, SME 20s, Michel, Roksans, VPIs, Project, Oracle, Exclusive, Linn, etc, etc, ?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Raul,
May I ask why you put your Denon DP80 and 75 in the storage closet in the first place? |
"What are in common between these TTs other that are TTs: Denon DP-80/75, Garrads, Kenwood Lo70, Technics SP10s, Sota ones, SME 20s, Michel, Roksans, VPIs, Project, Oracle, Exclusive, Linn, etc, etc, ?"
Some sound good. Some sound REALLY good. And some of them are not so good, IMO. But your point is well taken. Drive technology per se is not the sole determinant of what is going to give one pleasure.
Dear Dover, I would not go so far as to say that "wood" (any kind of wood) cannot make for a good plinth. Just that the laminate used by Denon was not so great, although the way they constructed the DK300 plinth was ahead of its time, I think. These days there are some excellent wood plinths being made and sold, by all accounts. I did not mean to start another "plinth war". |
Dear In_shore: For years I used only DD TTs, one of the first I owned was the Pioneer PL-630 and then the Denons.
Someday I discovered Stereophile and through reading there I " learned " that the way to go was: BD TT, so I bought my first BD that was a Micro Seiki 1500 and just when I had on hand I was " impressed " by its build quality and weight I mounted and heard it and I liked.
In those old times my ignorance level was really high and obviously my system had poor performance even I was unaware what distortions really meaned. Were the times where specs on japanese electronics were " impressive " low.
After time I accustomed to the BD signature heavy weight TTs and changed to AS and Micro Seiki 5000.
All these years ( Denons and SP-10s in the closett. ) I learned and I mean really learned and my ignorance level goes lower. I think that 2-3 years ago I thought: hey why not to take a listening to one of SP10s? and that's what I did, at the same time I thought too: why not naked/plinthless? yes why not? and I did it.
The differences for the better ( IMHO ) through sevral tests and time listening the Technics convinced that I was wrong about BD TT and wrong about DD ones.
Today I still own BD TTs because between them permited me to mount 10 tonearms/cartridges at the same time and help Guillermo and I in our tonearm self design.
Weeks ago I decided to test the Denons and now I'm here happy and enjoying music as never before: yes: plinthless fashion.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Raul
When you find the time you will have to copy Halcros arm pod design or dream up something similar.
Either way, running nude or set in a plinth ,whatever anyone chooses they think works best for them, carry on.
Lewm
I think Chris Thornton of Artisan Fidelity should win a prize of sorts for artistic craftsmanship and be recognized for resonate control with his plinths now that he switched to Panzerholz material.
Lastly one table that currently stands out in my collection with all the tables that were mentioned above by Raul is Kenwoods LO7D.
High lighted in a Kenwood ad copy for this statement table outlines an intense engineering focus of select material used in conjunction with a theory of a rigid continuous loop of the Lp, cartridge, arm, platter, motor and bearing,...I think should be interesting read for anyone not familiar with the LO7D.
Finally with the little experience that I have had with other DDs its no longer surprising some are hyper sensitive to what their coupled to.
No wonder for some of you, your DD got a new lease on life performing nude.
|
Nice post In_shore.
I've never heard a Kenwood LO7D......but apart from all reports on its superb sound.......it gets my vote as one of the most beautiful decks ever designed. |
Dear Inshore and Halcro, I dearly love my L07D, and I totally agree with you on the engineering. Those guys were way ahead of their time in designing and building that plinth. And what strikes me about the L07D in action is its inherent dead silence and neutrality and the (for want of a better word) smooth, unintrusive operation of that coreless motor. I even think highly of the tonearm. The only problem with the tonearm is the wiring. I plan to bypass all the internal wiring and the plug at the base of the tonearm, to make a "straight shot" from the cartridge all the way to the phono input. Yet, even with the stock wiring, the Stanton 980LZS on the L07D is a marriage made in audio heaven. |
I added a second arm to my JVC QL10 (TT101 and JVC QA7045 arm and solid particle board/wood plinth) using a bracket of my design screwed solidly into the plinth, and a Micro-Seiki AX-6G arm-board. As you may know the arm-board attaches to a post on the plinth and is swung into place and tightened down.
The new board sits almost an inch above the level of the plinth - it had to swing in over the plinth to achieve proper overhang. This left me with the arm too high. So to maintain VTA I had to raise the platter. That requirement brought this thread to mind.
I raised the platter by unbolting the TT from the plinth and supporting the nude TT on three Audio-Technica feet but left it in place in the hole in the plinth. The plinth is on aurios/tip-toes, and both tonearms (epa-100, QA-7045) are solidly mounted to the plinth.
So now I have a nude TT101 surrounded by two arms on a heavy wooden plinth. Initial listening tests are very favorable. I was quite skeptical of the nude idea, but I must admit a veil has lifted as have my doubts. I can only surmise that the motor was introducing vibrations to the plinth that were picked up by the tonearm. I was very happy before, I am happier now.
I hope the pics make all this a bit clearer:
http://s1106.photobucket.com/albums/h373/Garya1/Dual%20Tone-Arms%20Dec%202011/
Thanks to Halcro and Raul. |
A thought just occurred. Has anyone tried a DD TT with a plinth but with the arms mounted on external pods? Comparing that configuration to the same TT nude might shed light on the effect that a plinth has on the TT versus the effect on the tonearm. |
Aigenga, I think that's a better idea than the typical "nude" approach by putting footers underneath the bottom cover. Glad you got good result from that. I always maintain there's really no true "nude" turntable in a direct drive system because the turntable itself is a plinth in holding the motor. So the motor is the real nudist. What I really want to see is to take the motor out and put it in a plinth can compare that to a nude style a la Halcro and Raul.
Thanks for the nude pictures! :-D
_______
|
Dear Aigenga: What a coincidence. That's exactly the way I made my very first attempt to " nude " my both Denons in its marble and onyx weighty plints and the way I tested last weeks where the motors were seated onsmall tiptoes in the stone plinths.
Lewm that's the way I give you an advise several months ago for you can chech your Denon and Technics with your customs plinths, where the plints in reality function as a whole arm boards.
Thank's for the pictures.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Hiho: Maybe I'm a to " slow " here to understand your post. What do you mean with " take the motor out " when the motor is integral part of the bearing/platter?, maybe I can take out all the TT inside electronics but I can't understand the other way around: could you explain me?: thnak's.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Interesting solution Aigenga and nice photos.
I think you have successfully removed your TT-101 from it's plinth and can claim to be running officially 'nude' :^)
It would be good to hear your impressions in more detail when you become more accustomed to the sounds?
Cheers
Henry |
Rauliruegas: "What do you mean with "take the motor out" when the motor is integral part of the bearing/platter?" I meant to take the bare motor out and route/extend the wires back to the electronics. It's a deconstructive or purist way of doing it. This way the motor truly has to "mount" to something without interacting the stock chassis. As I said, what you and Halcro have been doing is not really "nude" setup because the stock chassis is acting as a plinth. So there is a plinth in there, except people don't recognize it. I hope this makes it clear to understand. Happy holidays! _______ |
|
Dear Hiho: Now I understand and yes that's an option.
Now, I named from the first time Naked/nude because for me that was: naked/nude. I can't remember in no where something similar.
The subject is ( mainly ) that in what we name naked/nude fashion the quality performance is way better against other top TT ( BD or DD ) that came with plinth or what we are accustomed to named plinths.
Anyway, I take your point: thank's.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hiho, Now take THAT and mount it in a piece of slate or hardwood, and you've got something, IMO. Where are the electronics? Show us what is at the other end of those wires coming off the bottom of the motor. Thx.
You've given me further reason to hang on to my DP80. FWIW, the Technics Mk3 and the L07D are already in this configuration; all electronics are off-board. Steve Dobbins took the Mk3 one more step by eliminating the decorative "chassis" that houses the Mk3 motor and brake system. I don't think that would add much, because the Mk3 chassis is pretty much solid metal. There are no hollow spaces that could ever resonate. What it does do is to get that square escutcheon out of the way which would facilitate mounting of multiple tonearms on board the plinth or use of outboard armpods. I don't quite know how Steve managed to separate motor from chassis; it's not obvious from external inspection how that could be achieved without some cutting. |
Lewm: "Where are the electronics? Show us what is at the other end of those wires coming off the bottom of the motor. Thx." Here's a picture of the DP80 from bottom view of the gut. As shown, the motor has only three wires with a three-pin connector to connection "CN3" on one of the circuit boards. Here are more pictures from the invaluable Japanese website Amp8.com http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/denon/dp-80-3.htmhttp://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/denon/dp-80.htm This approach of removing the raw motor from stock chassis to custom plinth has been done before, especially on the Technics SP-10Mk2 by Kaneta: http://homepage2.nifty.com/~mhitaste/audiotop/audio_apparatus_page/sp-10mk2.html P.S. One more thing about Denon or Sony direct drive turntables is that there's a tapehead to read the magnetic print on the platter inner-rim for the speed servo system so besides the motor wires needs to be rerouted and extended back to the stock chassis, the wire for the tapehead need that as well. I believe in the western world, the Mitch Cotter turntable uses the same concept using either a Technics or Denon DD table as the basis for the mod. _______ |
|
Lewm: " I don't quite know how Steve managed to separate motor from chassis; it's not obvious from external inspection how that could be achieved without some cutting." Here are many innards pictures of the Technics SP-10MK3 from Amp8.com. Just click on any one of the links to see repair and gut pictures of each unit. http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/technics/technics.htm _______ |
Hiho, I have been inside my own Mk3, so I have seen those sights. I looked at a few of the URLs you provided and don't yet see how the Mk3 motor can be parted from the company of its chassis, but perhaps the info is there somewhere. I guarantee I will never do it. Doing it for the DP80 promises greater rewards, because there we do have the issue of a hollow space under and around the motor housing. But re-establishing the tape head reading system is a ticklish business, I would think. I did add damping to the underside of my DP80 chassis, in the form of beeswax melted out from an old KLH9 ESL power supply. There was a definite audible improvement.
I have also seen those websites and deeply regretted that I cannot read Japanese. My son could easily translate, but he hates for me to ask such favors and would therefore take forever to do it. Do you read Japanese? |
Lewm: "I looked at a few of the URLs you provided and don't yet see how the Mk3 motor can be parted from the company of its chassis, but perhaps the info is there somewhere." Here are couple pictures showing the SP10Mk3 motor wires can be detached from the connector next to the motor, whereas in SP10Mk2 the wires exit out of the motor and routed to the PCB. http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/technics/jpeg/10mk3-2g.jpghttp://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/technics/jpeg/10mk3-21.jpgLewm: "Doing it for the DP80 promises greater rewards, because there we do have the issue of a hollow space under and around the motor housing. But re-establishing the tape head reading system is a ticklish business, I would think." I agree. The DP80 holds great promise and you might like it even more after "replinthing" it. Yes, re-establishing the tapehead position will be tricky but not impossible. I have few Sony PS-8975 tables that I am tempted to try a new plinth but the tapehead issue is discouraging me so I moved on to other DD turntables for experiment... Lewm: "Do you read Japanese?" I can read Chinese but not Japanese. There are some Chinese characters, Kanji, that I can decipher but it's hard to understand in proper context. I just use Google Translate. Amp8.com via Google Translate______ |
I take it that the two URLs you cite above show the top and bottom of the denuded Mk3 chassis. (Well actually I KNOW that the top photo shows the top view of a Mk3 motor cum chassis.) When I look at the two photos, I do not see where the chassis can be separated from the stators of the motor. Probably there is some way to do it and also to remove the bearing housing. Then you must re-seat those two in some sort of structure so that there is a PERFECT concentric relationship retained. (Otherwise, you will have wow problems like none of us could ever imagine.) Also, you must create that structure, which holds everything in this exact proper orientation, so the platter can fit over it. Not a job for Joe Amateur (or Lew Amateur). Steve Dobbins is an experienced machinist, which is how he can get away with explanting those items successfully. Alternative is to get out a saw and just cut away the decorative escutcheon. The Mk2 is a piece of cake by comparison. |
"I do not see where the chassis can be separated from the stators of the motor."
Hi Lewm
In those photos it looks to me that there are 4 allen bolts accessible from the top(on the black ring)..... they are also visible from the bottom.
If you look closely from the bottom there appears to be a fine gap where the vertical wall of the motor meets the horizontal part of the plinth.
The motor should pull out from the top. |
|
Hiho, I stand corrected. I am not sure the four screws you highlighted are the ones that do the trick. They may just secure the circumferential part of the brake system. However, the other photos clearly prove it can be done. Where the heck did you get these nice photos? I treated my Mk3 like it was inviolate, because it was NOS. I did not give much thought to explanting the motor. It would be very very easy to make a sturdy plinth for the motor alone, based on your photos. IMO, the major gain would be to facilitate the use of more than one tonearm, because the remainder of the chassis is very solid, not likely to be a source of resonance or noise. In stock form, if one wishes to use two tonearms, the secondary one will have to be at least a 10-incher, if not a 12". |
|
|
|
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to you guys, including Henry. |
Happy New Year to you too Lew.......and all turntable lovers.
Nude or fully dressed?
Cheers Henry |
|
Sure looks like a plinth to me? |
Halcro, sorry to disappoint you with the non-nudity. :) The Technics SL-1200mk2 motor's stator is directly soldered to the circuit board so it's almost impossible to separate the motor independent from electronics. The SL1200 is, to me, a rather cheaper incarnation of its older siblings, the SL-1300mk2, SL-1400mk2, Sl1500mk2, and the armless SL-150mk2, which all have a heavier balanced platter and detachable motor. Those models already improved on the SL-1200mk2 so I feel it's misguided to go overboard on modding the best selling DD table of all time. If people want to improve the SL1200, just get those models or the SL-M2. Hey, it's their money... Back to the Monarch plinth; it is not possible to denude the SL1200 without destroying the electronics. They were constructed as one piece. By the way, that metal enclosure in one of the pictures is the housing for the power supply. But the Monarch is still a fine example of taking the bare motor out of its stock chassis/plinth and install onto a new plinth. I suppose someone can mount the raw motor & electronics on a platform with some screws and call it a nude project. :) _______ |
OK Guys, so what about the TT-71 aka JVC QL-7/7A?
I have one sitting unused for a while with a cracked dustcover and a sagging tonearm counterweight which I bought for $35.00.
I know it is not a QL-8 or 10, but... |
The TT-71 in the QL7 or QL-7A uses the same motor as the TT-81, except less sophisticated electronics. It's a good performer and I used to own several of them. I sold them all after comparing to other models with coreless motors such as QL-Y66F or QL-Y7, just not as smooth sounding but still very respectable and I much prefer that over any mid-priced Technics. The tonearm is underrated. Have fun with it, since you didn't pay much for it. Experiment away!
_______
|
Thanks, HiHo,
Your thoughts and this thread as a whole has really motivated me to revive this table.
I fixed the tonearm weight today and will solder a broken wire tonight.
Long Live Analog! |
I have made the move to a fully nude TT with DIY arm-pod, from a semi-nude version and so am resurrecting this excellent thread.
Previously, I had my JVC TT-101 turntable supported on sorbothane feet - independent of the plinth, but still sitting in the plinth's cut-out. The tone-arms were mounted to the plinth, which therefore served as a large arm-board.
You can see my previous set-up here: http://s1106.photobucket.com/albums/h373/Garya1/Dual%20Tone-Arms%20Dec%202011/
Now I have eliminated the plinth completely and support the turntable on three brass points. The single tone-arm is mounted on a Micro-Seiki copper-alloy armboard which is in turn mounted to 1/2 of a 20lb dumbbell. Both the TT and the pod sit on separate parts of a large sheet of granite.
And here is what it looks like now: http://s1106.photobucket.com/albums/h373/Garya1/Nude%20Turntable%20and%20DIY%20Arm%20Pod/
In addition to cutting one end off the dumbbell (close to one end)I had to increase the diameter of the shaft to 1.17 inches from 1.13 inches to properly mount the MS AX-6g arm-board. This was done using 4 layers of aluminum tape (used for hvac ductwork). I also sanded the bottom (rubber coating) flat. All together the pod weighs about 15 pounds. I wanted a heavier dumbbell but the shaft diameter was too large for some and the base was rounded on others. The total cost of the arm-pod was $285 of which $250 was for the arm-board.
I used double stick tape to secure the pod and the TT to the granite to maintain geometry.
Sound-wise the noise-floor dropped noticeably which sharpened the leading edges of the notes and made it desirable to raise the volume while listening. My wife pro-claimed this to be a marked improvement (unusual for her). I find it to be far more revealing, which is good for good lp's and bad for mediocre ones.
I would highly encourage anyone interested in doing this to pursue it. An easy and rewarding change. |
Hi Aigenga,
Thanks for posting those pictures which were illuminating.
As your set-up is now nearly identical to mine......it would be interesting to compare some differences?
Firstly.....is the base for the turntable/armboard mounted on a floor stand or off a wall shelf?
Secondly....I can understand why you elected to use the Micro Seiki armboard and then had to attach it to your 'pod'......but to me, there a few compromises in that set-up which you may be able to change to see if you can detect any differences?
The cantilever affect of the Micro armboard will inevitably increase any vibrations /movements over a 'directly' located arm to armpod by a factor of eight or even more depending on the length of cantilever.
Secondly.....my armpods are mounted on 'spikes' whilst yours are 'attached' with double-sided tape?
I know that Chris......who has also 'nuded' his SP10MkII.......initially had his on sorbothane feet until cleverly achieving stainless steel spiked legs.
As you similarly have done......perhaps there might be a difference with spiked armpods over 'attached' armpods?
What do you think? |
Halcro,
Yes, I agree that a cantilever will magnify vibration and it is a new thought for me. Micro Seiki and many other manufacturers have used this approach for decades and this MS arm board is made out of a very heavy copper alloy that will dampen the 'diving board' effect considerably. So perhaps it isn't that much of a problem?
The double-stick tape is mostly for holding geometry on a very slippery surface. I could put the base of the pod on 'tip-toes' and use tape under the cups like I did under the turntable.
I have designed another pod made from heavy stainless steel that I will show once I've got it together - 3 weeks or so. It will be a straight vertical design so I will have another data point.
Last night I put two heavy rubber straps around the lower portion of the table - pictures soon (maybe before you read this). It was a worthwhile change as I noted a loss of 'cupped hands' coloration.
I also want to mention that I have changed the mat. It is now a 1lb lead mat from Merrill glued to the bottom of a thick Achromat. Best I've heard.
Gary |
Halcro,
I added two photos: the rubber strapped turntable and the component rack. The rack is cast iron, stands seven feet tall and is 3 feet wide. It weighs 200 lbs maybe 300. I am considering building a wall shelf and integrating it into the rack at the level where the TT is now. Yet another project.
Gary |
Gary, I will chime in here by saying that you need to copy the same material used by Halcro when it comes to armpod. Anything else will just be good but not to the level of sonics performance of that of Halcro. He seemed to me the only person that I know of to have the most correct material. |
Audpulse, I do what I can. My cantilevered arm pod looks somewhat like the arm boards on Halcro's Raven. .
I've thought more about taping the pod to the granite slab vs putting it on points. My current thought is that taping it makes it one with the slab from a mass perspective and points will isolate it. I am going to try both but I am betting that the massive approach is preferable - a 40lb arm board seems good to me.
Gary |
Ingenious DIY work Aigenga.
I too would like to have Halcro's pod, but if I recall he had a friend do the casting, which casting would have otherwise cost mucho dinero (not to mention the difficulty of locating such a person in the first place). We do what we can.
Don't spikes couple, as opposed to isolate?
I'll be joining the tt101 club very soon. We 3 can compare notes. |
Gary, I am not referring to the design but that BRONZE is the best choice for armpod that I am currently aware of. |
Aigenga,
Those rubber bands look like a good idea to control any possible audible vibrations of the thin metal enclosure.
Where did you obtain them?
You say you can hear a difference?
I am assuming that before you tried the TT-101 semi-nude and then fully nude........you listened to it coupled to its original wood plinth?
If so.....could you describe what you heard in the moves to a fully nude model as many readers here have commented on the lack of plinth/no plinth comparisons (are you there Lew??)
Returning to your comments on the reduction of 'noise floor'....with which I agree....and the ability to turn up the volume......I do somewhat disagree on your comment about 'poorly recorded' albums sounding worse?
I have found that generally, even the worst recordings seem to be more listenable via the TT-101? |
