2. analog
  3. 124260-369

Tonearm mount on the plinth or on Pillar ?

Folks,
I am looking to buy a custom built turntable from Torqueo Audio (http://www.torqueo-audio.it/). They have two models, one with a wide base plinth where the tonearm would be mounted on the plinth (as usual) and the second is a compact plinth where they provide a seperate tonearm pillar to mount the tonearm. According to them the separate tonearm pillar version sounds more transparent and quieter because of the isolation of the tonearm from the TT. My concern is whether seperating the tonearm from the plinth would result in a lesser coherence in sound ? Isnt sharing the same platform results in a more well-timed, coherent presentation ? Any opinions ?
pani
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,103 posts
 
Dear @atmasphere /friends:    

"""   The entire arrangement has to be by definition rather dead, else sounds in the environment can affect the cut............ 

IOW, it was not suitable for actually telling if our cut was truly silent, set up in this fashion.

. I hope this gives you some idea of how easy it is to measure this!.....

  

Now I understand this is bad news for some and as a result there will be those that think that somehow these principles don't apply to their machine. It is true that I did not make the measurements on anything other than our lathe,...............

 if the arm is anchored to a point that is able to move with respect to the platter. ..........


I think that we have a problem here:

your target in that tests and your " intuitive " premises are way diferent to our audiophile main targets and premises. So, your conclusion is not conclusive about what we want to test UNDER DAY BY DAY LISTENING ANALOG EXPERIENCES and that's why for you is so " easy to measure ". Your methodology can't fulfill our audiophile targets and premises and can't help us because the your " vision " of the whole subject is overall limited.

No, your news are not bad news for me, your news does not affect me in anyway because diferent targets.

Audiophile DAY BY DAY LISTENING SCENARIO means ( between other things. ):

- DD and BD TTs in the audio system.
- Diferent tonearms and cartridges.
- Some systems using tube technology and other SS one.
- Diferent type of speakers that " dissipate " sound in diferent ways. Some of the systems using subwoofers.
- Normally we don't listen continuously at 95 db SPL. We use variable SPLs even in the same system.
- Each system room " dissipate sound waves in different ways. We have not an " anechoic " room treatment. We just have a decent rooom treatment and not always.
- All of us listen everykind of music. Jazz, classic, pop, country, rock, etc, etc. where each one of kind has different needs ( SPL ) with sound waves that are different.
- No one of us has a dead silent platform, plinth or the like.


and I can go on on many other " premises " we have to take in count, even to use the " right " external tonearm pod/tower

So, I think that we want " more " than your " easy measures ". In my case I want to know where is the SPL ( if exist. ) umbral where the theory start to reflect the " damage " creating ADDITIONAL colorations/distortions because the non-integrated TT tonearm approach.

For me seems not so " easy " but the other way around: huge complexity.

Anyway, it's obvious that even that you could considered an audiophile your self we are way different or just ignorants about. At least me.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.








Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,103 posts
 
Dear @pani: Now that you have several opinions on your main subject thread: which was your choice?

By the pictures that italian TT design looks beautiful/gorgeous ( Italians are very special people on good looking design, anything. ), especially the one with  the stand alone tonearm pillar that between other advantages gives you the opportunity to mount 2-3 tonearm/cartridges at the same time in the TT.

Today, other than audiophiles,  I can't think that  all the TT/tonearm manufacturers that choosed the stand alone fashion are just wrong.

Till today no one over the net proved it, no real facts.

So, the " ball " is in your " field " now.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


moonglum
619 posts
 

Peter Breuninger states that he "would put this combo up against anything currently available" (scroll to 6 mins 50 secs on the readout).

Looks good enough to be Italian too. :)

It contravenes a lot of currently "fashionable" logic e.g. not putting the drive pulley right next to the platter which would have maximised belt contact around the circumference.

Shame he only plays it for a minute. ;^)

Although I’m not a believer, I’ve got to be honest, despite the brief exposure it did sound good. :)

(They do also make models with the linked chassis BTW....)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdo2Yf3BArQ

atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,935 posts
 

First we're told, **All we have to do is place the turntable in a room with speakers playing loudly and then measure the output of the cartridge.**

Then, **As to sound pressure- we get about 90-95db of noise going on when mastering. The vacuum system is enclosed in its own chamber, but still makes noise when in operation.**

All of the above?

Yes.
So. Are you referring here to playing the cut disc back on the nearby technics sl1200 in your work environment ? or did you actually mount the tonearm that was on the pillar directly to the lathe plinth?
It seems most expedient to answer this question- the answers to both parts is 'yes'. The pillar got abandoned- currently we are designing a machined bit that matches the shape of the lathe's plinth so we can bolt the arm mount directly to the lathe. In this fashion it will be impossible for the base of the arm to have movement different from that of the platter bearings.

I don't see how attaching the tonearm to the plinth can affect the 'noise'?
Surely the 'noise' is a function of the isolation, the tonearm pod mass, fixity, density and material selection as well as the tonearm rigidity.
I've explained it twice in this thread already. What part of my prior explanations are unclear? The 'noise' is actually introduced when the arm and platter bearings are able to move in different planes and rates. This is what happens when a separate arm pillar is employed.
your target in that tests and your " intuitive " premises are way diferent to our audiophile main targets and premises. So, your conclusion is not conclusive about what we want to test UNDER DAY BY DAY LISTENING ANALOG EXPERIENCES and that's why for you is so " easy to measure ". Your methodology can't fulfill our audiophile targets and premises and can't help us because the your " vision " of the whole subject is overall limited.
Actually this is not true. First you have to consider that we have audiophile intent- which you have to have if you want to do a decent job mastering an LP! Second, I think you are confusing the cutterhead with the lathe itself. The lathe is a first-class turntable that outclasses most turntables ever built, and obeys all the same physical laws. This is why adding a tone arm for playback faces the same issues as any other turntable.
In my case I want to know where is the SPL ( if exist. ) umbral where the theory start to reflect the " damage " creating ADDITIONAL colorations/distortions because the non-integrated TT tonearm approach.
As previously mentioned, I have explained this twice already in this thread. I suggest you re-read my initial posts and then ask me questions that might clarify some of the points made.
terry9
2,354 posts
 
Well, Ralph, your explanations are perfectly intuitive to me. 

When I replaced my TT plinth, a rigid coupling of the platter bearing and the tonearm seemed intuitively obvious - I used a sandwich of heavy, precision aluminum plate, with the bearing surfaces machined into a high precision match. Improvement was not subtle.

Your calm is admirable.

 

More to discover