@lewm
"Prima facie it seems that when you played your record, it doubled the charge" First, 0.1kV to 0.2kV is a range where the meter is not very accurate and readings are not very repeatable ..., such a low amount of static charge is inconsequential even if real. ... Do you have a background in this field, or are you a physicist or other scientist?"
I must confess that I was educated in physics at Cambridge and I have tried to keep up since! Physicists now explain almost every known property of the universe in terms of four fundamental forces which act on the very smallest particles, including the electron. Protons and neutrons comprise three smaller quarks! These are the objects for the comparison of the four forces.
Gravity and electromagnetism both operate over long distances up to infinity and follow the inverse square law. The word electromagnetism is used because a moving charge creates a magnetic field. The other two forces only operate over tiny distances about the size of an atomic nucleus.
In everyday life, we experience gravity as a dominant force, but that is because every atom in the earth tugs at us. These same atoms have no net electrical charge, so the way-stronger electromagnetic force balances out as equal attraction and repulsion. But rub a few electrons on to an insulating surface and they will lift paper and cartridges against all the gravity of the earth. They will also attract and hold dust. This is the principle used in electrostatic air filters, which my electrostatic speakers would try to emulate except for the built-in dust covers (back on topic?).
"I posted to correct RichardBrand’s statement that the stylus rubbing on vinyl causes static charge".
You did not do a very convincing job because your own measurements indicated the opposite. The "white paper" you mentioned inferred the contribution was negligible (not zero!) compared to 30,000-Volts produced using cat fur! Mind you, that seminar was spruiking the benefits of the static-reducing in-built brush Shure introduced with the type IV cartridge. I contend that any static will encourage dust collection and that is bad for record playback.
I am not silly enough to think your measurements were accurate, since you only stated results and not the procedure used to get them. Hence I wrote prima facie or on the face of it!
The most reliable way of reducing static is to immerse your record in a conductive medium, like water, but then you have to dry it without re-introducing static.
More contentiously, I believe the best way to reduce the dust load on your records is to use a hinged dustcover, but only if you have one. Operationally it is not too hard - bit like lifting the lid on a toilet. Unlike a hinged dustcover, leave the lid up when in use ...
|
Wyoboy, I feel compelled to correct incorrect information that falls within my range of knowledge. Ideally, the information on this site should be as accurate as possible, because some of these posts are read and believed by newcomers to the hobby. For example, that is why I posted to correct RichardBrand’s statement that the stylus rubbing on vinyl causes static charge. You can call me a pedant or some other pejorative term because of my compulsion to be an intellectual policeman. Maybe I deserve it. I don’t claim to be infallible, and I always welcome correction; I have certainly been wrong many times; I only know that because others have seen fit to correct me. But that way, I learn too. The question for me is why do you care whether or not I post here?
dwette. I too use lucite (acrylic) dust covers that just cover the platter surface, like yours, on my Technics SP10 Mk3 and on my Denon DP80. My Kenwood L07D was sold new with exactly that type of cover, and I use the original Kenwood version on my own L07D. I need two more, one for my Victor TT101 and one for my Lenco. They are in my basement system. For some reason, the finished room area in my basement is amazingly dust free, maybe because the few windows down there are sealed shut.
|
@wyoboy
Using a feather duster on occasion isn't a PITA at all. It literally takes less than a minute every once in a while. Managing a big acrylic dustcover most certainly is a PITA. I previously had a Clearaudio Ovation with a single 9" arm, and had an acrylic cover made for it. It ended up a stupid waste of money because I got too lazy about using it and had no good spot to store it while playing records.
Good riddance to the whole unnecessary dustcover nonsense. That's where I am on it. I really have no issues having none at all.
re: attaching pics
I use postimages.org to host the image, and then use the Image icon in the message tool bar here to paste in the link (url) from postimages.
|
@dwette BTW how did you attach the pic of your TT--i tried to do that in another thread and it was just stripped by AG
|
@dwette I was going to ask for a pic of your TT but you attached one and i can see there's no way for you to fabricate a cover so that's that. Seems like a bit of PITA to have to feather dust and mocrofiber everything but since playing LPs is tactile anyway then i guess that's just another part of the process...in our environment here in Arizona we have so much dust it would take much more than that to clean the table if i didn't have a cover so i'm glad i do--and it's a simple matter to just take it off and set it to the side when i play LPs...
|
@wyoboy
I don't need a dustcover, nor do I even want a dustcover. Whether it's $120 or $350 it won't make a difference for anything anyway, IMO. But as I mentioned earlier it's also impractical for me. There is really no way I can site one on my turntable that would make any sense and not become a total PITA.
What I do have is one of those acrylic mats you can buy on Amazon for $20. In the end I really only need to keep dust off the platter itself. For the rest of the table a feather duster and/or microfiber cloth now and then work great.
This photo shows that acrylic mat on the platter. I just remove it when I play records.
|
@lewm I don't know why you keep posting on this either--you've covered it soup to nuts and, at this point, you won't change anyone else's mind who disagrees.
@dwette Having a custom cover made of acrylic to protect the TT is not expensive--i had one made for my custom Jean Nantais table for $120. I remove it when i play but i have a second TT, an old Sony DD from the 70's that has a hinged dust cover that i just put up when i play LPs and have both removed it and played LPs with it down and i can't tell the difference in any position, although i would probably unhinge it and remove it if that were convenient when i play LPs.
|
"Prima facie it seems that when you played your record, it doubled the charge" First, 0.1kV to 0.2kV is a range where the meter is not very accurate and readings are not very repeatable. The meter never reads zero, for example. So the difference between the two readings may not even be statistically significant. Second, like I said, it is much more likely that my touching the LP had more to do with the difference, if it was even real. Third, such a low amount of static charge is inconsequential even if real. The problem we are addressing has to do with charges far in excess of 100V (0.1kV). 10kV (or 11kV in the specific case I noted) is 100 times higher 0.1kV. Do you have a background in this field, or are you a physicist or other scientist? If so, feel free to point out the error in my thinking. Since you don't have access to my meter, you could not have known its quirks, so I don't mean to criticize you for that.
I don't know why you compare "electromagnetic force" to gravity. First, the magnitude of the difference as you express it has no meaning unless you know the relevant parameters for the source of the EM force, in the case of EM, and the sizes of the objects that experience gravitational attraction and the distance between them, in the case of gravity. But also, electrostatic attraction is not identical to electromagnetism. The point about the Zerostat is only that if used properly it will reduce the charge to a harmless level. And it costs a lot less than most of the modern alternative gadgets.
Some flat earthers maintain that what we experience as gravity is due to electrostatic attraction. They have to resort to such an explanation, because if the earth were flat, it would not be massive enough to account for the gravity we do experience.
|
@lewm
It seems the 30,000 Volts recorded by Shure corresponds to the breakdown voltage of air in a Californian winter - with a very low relative humidity of 10%.
Shure's measured voltage dropped dramatically when the record was placed on the grounded platter (much of the field migrated to the platter side) and returned as soon as the record was lifted.
Prima facie it seems that when you played your record, it doubled the charge so I am keeping an open mind on whether the rubbing stylus can create charges. Charges attract dust like crazy, and dust down to smoke-size particles and even down to a few microns may be significant.
If I remember, I now run my carbon-fibre brush both before and after playing to try to remove fresh dust before the records goes back into its anti-static sleeve. I am still waiting for an ultrasonic cleaner to arrive from China!
In modern physics theory, electromagnetic and gravitational forces have hugely different magnitudes. About 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times different! Which explains how plastic combs can pick up paper on a dry day, and charged records can significantly affect stylus tracking forces.
That Shure seminar was not too keen on Zerostat-like devices: "Another form of active ionizer is in the form of a pistol-shaped, device, which produces positive ions when the trigger is pulled, and negative ions when the trigger is released. This device is effective for large charges, but it is hard to avoid leaving residual charges on the record since there is no way of detecting the zero charge condition" which accords with your measurement.
|
In my informal "experiment", I first yanked an LP from its paper sleeve (in order to be sure it got charged up) and measured the charge on one surface, 11kV. Then I treated that surface with my 40 year old zerostat and measured the same area again, 0.1kV. Then I played the LP and measured the same area yet again, 0.2kV. That is the definition of "negligible". And the very small increase in charge density may well have been due only to my handling of the LP after playing it. However, you are not alone in your previous belief that the diamond stylus rubbing on vinyl causes static charge. Several makers of the very expensive static charge removal devices (not the relatively cheap Zerostat) parrot this belief in their advertising brochures.
|
@lewn
Thanks for that Shure thing! I guess it is in a chapter from 1978 in high-fidelity-phonograph-cartridge-technical-seminar-faq.pdf entitled CHARGES ON THE RECORD--A STUDY OF STATIC ELECTRTCITY ON PHONOGRAPH RECORDS.
The only mention of stylus rubbing causing electrostatic charges seems to be "Incidentally, measurements with these instruments will also show that electrification from the direct friction between the diamond and vinyl is, oddly enough, negligible’.
The author created static charges initially by rubbing the record surface with cat fur (labelled CAR FUR in the table!) resulting in 30,000 Volts when the record was lifted from the table. Considering he switched cat fur for a more repeatable 10,000 volt probe, I am not surprised the stylus is regarded as a negligible (but not zero) contributor!
The seminar reinforced that the most effective way to temporarily remove static is to use a carbon-fibre brush. One was attached to the V15 Type IV cartridge but this approach seems to have gone the way of the dodo.
Saved me spending on a Zerostat!
Another surprise for me was learning just how much static electrical forces can change the tracking force!
All good stuff ...
|
Stylus rubbing on vinyl is not a cause of static charge. This was shown by Shure Corporation in their published white paper on static charge. I and some other guy here who also owns a static charge meter have repeated the experiment with the same result. No cigar on that idea.
My position has been stated twice already. I use no dust cover during play; I completely remove the cover, if the TT has one. But I advocate that each of us should make his or her own decision. My practice is based on my listening tests and my subjective opinion of what sound best. I do agree it’s a fine idea to cover the TT when it’s not in use. For the past many years I’ve had 5 TTs up and running with 6 different tonearms and cartridges, 3 TT s feeding one system and two TTs feeding another separate system.
|
@lewm
I thought you made your position clear in your first post, no need to say any more!
You are right - electrostatic forces are orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Another way to create static charges is to rub vinyl with a diamond stylus. Those charges immediately attract dust. Interestingly about 30% of dust extracted from records is diamond!
In my opinion the OP raised a good question - should the dustcover be raised or not when playing a record. Clearly this presupposes there is a dustcover and that it is hinged. If your turntable does not have a dustcover, or the dustcover must be removed when playing, this topic is not going to change anything for you.
I read up about the Wilson Benesh GMT One System turntable, which weighs almost half a ton and uses lots of materials science, university types and research grant money to minimise unwanted resonances. This behemoth does not have a cover, although it costs house-money! Obviouly they don’t worry about airborne feedback, or dust!
For the record (sic) my dust cover is hinged to an outer plinth which only connects to an inner plinth via the sandstone blocks they stand on. Otherwise there is an air gap, a bit like a double-glazed window.
|
Evolution ain’t what it used to be!
But you can still have a laugh!
|
I guess that is "yourlogic". Unfortunately or fortunately, we are not all living in Fuller's geodesic domes. Another prediction of his gone awry. But it interests me that you can read what Elliot wrote about dustcovers vis a vis turntables and in any way conform that thought with Buckminster Fuller's thoughts on anything. The only way I can see that parallel is if you take the dust cover as a modern innovation, which of course it is very much not. Far from it. It is rather more accurate to say that progress in turntable development has included the gradual elimination of dust covers.
|
lewn
So pleased you are following this very interesting thread, some call it a boring subject….you know!
The last few posts are relevant to dust covers, you were just not paying attention but just wanted to reciprocate.
elliottnewcombjr was just stating the obvious with ongoing engineering development. Buckminster Fuller was a renown inventor and his views are also relevant to the discussion.See his famous quote posted.
In an earlier post elliottbnewcombjr also stated this opinion on turntable covers….
’’Impractable TT’s (any TT) without a dust cover is an incomplete solution, an abomination, they should be ashamed of themselves’’
Fullers reasoning is the same….
‘’You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something (that can be improved) build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete’’
Elliott and myself may not agree on everything, but we do agree with Buckminster Fuller and the need for constant development.
|
Not that I care much, but what do the last few posts have to do with dust covers?
|
elliottbnewcombjr
‘’Alices Restaurant’’ has all come back to memory!
Buckminster Fuller is new ground and has made me look into his history…..’’Spaceship Earth’’ and all that!
One of his theories remind me of Linn’s LP12. All the expensive tinkering over the years and upgrades to make this model better and things have not changed in 50 years.
l love his logic and this quote from him….
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
Why have Linn never built another turntable and try to better the LP12?
l wonder what Fuller would have made of this staying in the past?
|
mylogic
I’ve witnessed Arlo Guthrie a few times yapping away, then he says "I know I’m supposed to be singing, but you can’t always do what you’re supposed to do’ And the stories are all related to where he started.
You would love a Buckminster Fuller lecture, in 1967 that crazy man took an entire auditorium at Pratt Institute on a meandering thought trip and at the end of the hour slammed it home, OMG, I still remember it like it was last week.
Vibrations getting to the surface are all related to the Dust Cover on/off issue, as is this fundamental question about equipment location.
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/location-of-compoments?lastpage=true&page=2#2757920
Thorens, yeah, they should have had more clearance than that in that model.
|
The zerostat works, but what it does is to reduce static charge, not magnetism. Static charge develops on every LP when it is handled because vinyl is one of several materials that easily accumulates an excess of negative ions on its surface. The magnitude of the negative charge can be great enough to dramatically attract the cartridge, increasing the effective vertical tracking force of the stylus on the LP, causing distortion and even damage. This of course is a pull on the cartridge in the opposite direction from what you observed with a lucite dust cover that got charged up and then discharged. In that case, the charged cover was exerting an upward force on the cartridge. LPs get charged up when you remove them from a paper sleeve or when you touch them with your finger tips after walking across a wool carpet, for examples.
|
I haven't seen it addressed so far in this discussion so I'll relate an experience I had back in the late 60s / early 70s when visiting my favorite audio emporium. The owner kept a very orderly showroom and a regular dusting of the display components helped keep it that way. On one visit, the owner took me aside to show me a discovery he accidently made while on his dusting routine. If memory serves, I believe the turntable in question was a DUAL 1019 and the cartridge was a SHURE V-15. He played a record with the dustcover down, ran his dusting cloth over the plastic lid and the playback sound changed considerably. He then produced a "ZeroStat", a pistol-shaped device that was used to de-magnetize vinyl reccords prior to playing and activated it over the dustcover. The playback sound returned to its previous character. If I hadn't seen and heard it I wouldn't have believed it possible ! The dusting cloth had magnetized the dust cover enough to cause the tonearm to lighten up its tracking force and the ZeroStat dispersed the magnetic field to restore it to its original tracking force ! I never tried to duplicate the feat at home and had no reason to believe that the owner was playing a trick on me, so, to this day, I play my TT with no dustcover in place. Was he trying to get me to buy a ZeroStat ? I dunno, but I did buy one and still use it on occasion !
|
I have two turntables, and I like both. A Sonograph SG-3 and a Kenwood. Both have dust covers that I use to protect the TT when not in use. I had noticed the acrylic dustcover material would attract dust to the cover and would sift through the crevices in the dustcover hinge joints. I ended up solving this by getting a destat source from Amstat Industries to produce a charge to counter the electrostatic attraction of the Acrylic. It is a polonium 210 alpha emitter fixed in a bar array, and gets two sided taped to the inside of the dust cover or base of the TT. Works well; is safe. Not inexpensive because it needs to be periodically replaced as it decays off and looses its effectiveness. but it does destat the dust cover and everything under it including the vinyl record.
|
Am l am correct in thinking that Rega and Project turntables are light weight minimalist designs? They certainly look like featherweights in the hi-fi boxing ring….
Maybe that’s why they shy off covers? Highly likely they already know that their design structures are not massive enough to resist external forces unlike decks with heavier more substantial plinths.
|
I don't know why I keep posting on this, because it is one of those questions where every one of us is already convinced of the efficacy and rightness of his or her current practice. We are all pretty much old farts and set in our ways. Suffice to say, what I have already said, anything anyone else wants to do is fine with me. I am operating based on my own past experiences, and so probably is everyone else. But please please don't accuse others of (1) not having a system good enough to hear what you hear, or (2) being a Philistine and so able to tolerate the horrible problem that you have seen fit to prevent.
|
It is pretty obvious most turntable manufacturers would rather not have to deal with dustcovers!
Thought I'd try to measure the attenuation from my cover, so I dug out my Denon Audio Technical CD and played some test tracks. At the same time, I ran a Sound Meter application on my Android phone and put the phone on my platter mat near the pickup. I could watch the phone while raising and lowering the dustcover.
On 1000-Hz test tones, the attenuation was about -13-dB with the cover down, while it was only about -3-dB down on white noise On pink noise there was barely any difference!
I must point out that my plinth and table lean towards the massive side. The more the mass, the less the amplitude generated by a specific acoustic energy level. I find it interesting that Pro-ject don't want airborne vibrations to enter their plinth from a dustcover, but are presumably happy for them to enter the platter directly.
Acoustic feedback might make for nicer sounds, and could even explain why so many like records. But it does not make for accurate playback if that is your thing.
|
My Pro-ject tt user manual specifically states the dust cover can pick up resonance from the loudspeakers and pass those resonances into the plinth, therefore remove the dust cover while playing.
|
@lewm
Household-wide, I normally subscribe to the equilibrium theory of dust - eventually enough leaves to balance the amount arriving! But if you do use a dust cover while playing, the air volume inside the cover is pretty much a closed system so once the dust settles, no more arrives. Most seems to end up on my stylus which I can now see with my new Zeiss loupe.
@noromance
I am not surprised you can hear a sheet of paper inserted under a record. A lot of sound energy is generated by the stylus and some of this energy hits the bottom of the record. If the record is well-coupled to the platter, the energy will pass into the platter and be dissipated. With paper, it is more likely to bounce back and affect the stylus.
At least, that's the theory behind the Achromat which is basically a vinyl mat infused with tiny air bubbles to absorb vibration. Vinyl couples well with vinyl!
I am surprised at the lack of acoustic feedback I am encountering. But whether you consider a dustcover to be a massive undamped structure or not, it provides more attenuation than thin air! It cannot create more sound energy than hits it, and some is absorbed and some reflected.
Of course, if the record surface and the cartridge body are both displaced equally by impinging vibrations, there is no relative movement to contribute to the signal output by the cartridge.
|
I have a Rega P8 and recently had the opportunity to play with a Naia. Can confirm that Rega ships their $13,000 TT with the same janky dust cover the P8 comes with, if that tells you anything.
|
Like Bill mentioned in his OP, of course there is such a thing as acoustic feedback that could in the worst case affect the cartridge, but the cure for that is to move the TT or the speakers so as to prevent the phenomenon. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, acoustic feedback of sufficient magnitude to affect the cartridge is also going to energize the massive undamped dust cover with possibly worse consequences. No experiment is necessary, ltmandela.
|
And various test scenarios. One lid up, one lid down and for good measure one lid off
You seem good to go on this one. Please let us know (if you care to) your summations on the differences if any?
|
@lewm
Yes I do not shout while playing, but the MUSIC PLAYING BACK certainly does, and would definitely be feeding back into the cartridge.
If you do not want to believe there is feedback distortion, try this.
You need two TTs. Setup the "motionless needle taping" on one table, play loud music through the other table. Then playback the dead needle tape. You will hear the music you were playing on the active table.
|
The big question now is…..Has anyone’s opinion changed?
|
To my reading of it, the OP is not asking a question; it makes a statement. To wit: "So the often offered extremes: a) Always play your records with the dust cover down, or b) put the dust cover away in it's box and never use it, should both be recognized for what they are are - not solutions at all. First principles: Identify the problem(s), seek solutions and alternatives, prioritize."
That reminds me of Mike Myers SNL character, the lady on the apocryphal NYC radio show, "Coffee Talk", who would pose an issue without an opinion, and then say "Discuss". Predictably, that is what has happened here. Bill left off the obvious third option, which is to use the dust cover only when the turntable is not in use, and that too has been discussed. I wager no one's opinion has been changed.
|
lewm
What l meant was RB was one point ahead of the field.
Also it was not my original point….. It was ‘billstevenson’ who posted this thread !
And l see a few posts back, billstevenson is having a laugh too !
|
I think you’ve made your position clear. “Exposing the record for the least amount of time is paramount “, for which you awarded RB one point, to zero for all other opinions. So what more do you want on this boring subject?
|
Anyone getting back to the real question posted on this thread?
Theres been so much off track mumbo-jumbo on furnishings, table/chairs, record clamps and TV innuendo. This just shouldn’t be here!
Point on task was simple, ‘dust covers’ on or off?
|
Elliot, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a square-shaped flat screen TV before now. Happy new year.
|
"@elliottbnewcombjr Why not move the dining table set to the other end of the room?"
You would think, right. Of course I have moved the table/chairs out, tossed down a rug ... to compare/prove it still sounds great with them there. I’m actually quite pleased with how versatile the room is.
It’s one room, 14’ wide, 24’ long only 8’ high, with both music/dining at one end and living/video other end, a cross aisle to a 3 season porch just in front of these 2 listening chairs which simply turn around to join living/video which is oriented across the 14’ width behind them
Imaging is all Phantom in 2 Channel, the table and chairs may actually help with imaging once you accept that no sound is blocked, here we add a Christmas Tree which also blocks nothing except your mind if you think about it.
I add 3 leaves in the table for family gatherings
a member pointed out that the piano might make vibrations, I thought so too. I have tried with my Amazing Bytes CD to start/stop/listen to all 29 1/3 octave test tones, I cannot get the piano to sing.
The speakers are on 3 wheels, I can push them back into the corners when needed for holiday dinners, position/toe them in for one or two listeners, DBX Cross Dispersion Method as discussed here
https://www.audiogon.com/systems/11516
|
Just how resolving is the system? Or the listener's apparatus? I can hear the difference a sheet of paper makes under a record. Dust notwithstanding, the audible impact of a hunk of plastic added to a system must be discernible.
- the sonic effect of closing my dustcover seems to be subtle to non-existent, at least to my ears.
- I hear ZERO difference with the cover up or down !
|
‘richardbrand’ has a head start with the answer so far l think. Exposing a record for the least amount of time is paramount. 1 - 0 to Richard.
|
Ok everyone take a deep breath, go play a record. Now do you feel better? Do you know where your dust cover is?
|
LP12 owner here : Dust Cover always on even when DSD64 ripping Vinyl. Why ? Dust and Dog hairs coming from my Garage and my two Dogs. Plus I hear ZERO difference with the cover up or down !
For 40 years (ok...I took a 6 year hiatus) LP spinner (my previous MoFi hadn o dust cover ....period) and Dual CS515 prior always played with the cover down.
That’s my take on the subject.
Happy New Year Everyone !
|
I think for all those who think using a dustcover is a panacea, turn out the lights and cast a UV light on the playing surface and tell me it's dust free. [hint: it isn't]
A lot of high end tables (like mine) don't really even support using a dustcover, during play or otherwise. After hundreds/thousands of hours of use without one it's just not an issue.
|
@lewm
You raise good questions. Hopefully, some grad student somewhere will research the answers. I have my beliefs/worries, but it's all speculative.
|
So I have a question for those of us who advocate using a dust cover during play, for the primary reason to avoid the accumulation of dust. (The acoustic argument is different, I think.) Let’s assume we all agree there is some sense to using a dust cover when the TT is not in use. Presumably, that keeps the area under the dust cover free of dust during those periods. Furthermore, when you remove an LP from its sleeve and place it on the now uncovered dust free platter, we can have reason to believe that the LP playing surface is also free of dust, relatively speaking. Then most of us use some sort of record brush prior to play, and some of us take steps to reduce the static charge on the playing surface, which would go further to delimit the possible accumulation of dust during play. Moreover, it takes about 20 minutes to play one side of a 33 rpm LP, so the net exposure time to the environmental dust is about that long. Do you in the dust cover user during play camp suppose that in the course of 20 minutes, the LP could possibly accumulate enough environmental dust to cause ticks and pops (presumably that could only affect the innermost grooves, since they would be exposed longest to the air before being "read" by the stylus) or to otherwise damage the LP? Even accounting for the fact that when you set the stylus down on the outermost grooves, the LP is likely to be "clean"? And finally, what do you think happens to dust in the air that you trap over the LP surface, by the very act of using the dust cover? At least with no dust cover, the airborne dust has a chance to pass harmlessly across the LP surface and land somewhere else. Once the dust cover is placed, the airborne dust has nowhere else to go but the LP surface.
|
As a record rotates, the air closest to the surface gets accelerated towards the periphery, drawing a steady stream of air down around the spindle. So reduction of air-born dust suggests closing the dust cover during play.
A dust cover also acts a bit like closing a window, and it will attenuate external airborne vibrations from reaching the cartridge. My Garrard 301 table is in the same room as my speakers, which are either dipole Quad electrostatics or KEF Reference 1 with rear ports. The dustcover is an acrylic affair made by SME and is voluminous with plenty of space. I am very surprised that the sonic effect of closing my dustcover seems to be subtle to non-existent, at least to my ears.
Obviously, there is acoustic output from the needle / cantilever which is partly airborne and partly transmitted through the vinyl record, I am using a 5-mm Achromat to absorb record reflections and transmission to the platter, which leaves those airborne sounds we can just hear if we are close enough. They will reflect internally from a lowered dustcover but I would have thought the sound level would be far less than the speakers generate with the lid open!
So I put the lid down unless i forget!
|
Elliot your bias compensator is way off….
This thread is about turntable covers … on or off!
|
@elliottbnewcombjr
I use a center weight and peripheral ring on my Clearaudio Innovation and they work quite well. However, the turntable is designed for them I also use Clearaudio's versions so they fit and do the job perfectly.
|
I believe the previous post is hi-jacking this debate.
I thought we were talking about turntables cover on or off?
Anyway, back on track please…..
oldaudiophile, you are a kindred spirit. I believe entirely what you say. I replied to the original poster without reading all through the other replies. I did not ‘hack’ your opinions but we are of the same old school l believe. Yes Thorens did a public relations job on that complaint about the cover being too small and unfit for purpose.
l am in the UK and Thorens dominated mainland Europe in the 70s and 80s (not UK which was Garrard territory). I am very familiar with Thorens turntable owners in that period and spent many evenings music listening with their set ups. I can never recall any manuals stating remove the covers ever! Unless someone bought a chassis deck to install on a hi-fi bench then the cover on or off issue may have been different.
Hi-fi has become a bit of a home living statement now so it must be always on show. Now it’s all about design over aesthetics and manufacturers today have abandoned in most cases the use of turntable covers.
|
|
