Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

I know I'm stretching the positive here, remember A J Conti, his claim to fame is ultra high demands on the end "TRUENESS" of his product, hence the normal acrylic platter vs. his acrylic platter and how it may compare. This is the "anal" I am speaking of, I only hope I can achieve it once.

The use of differing materials from wood to high tech options. I'll either fall flat on my face or end up with something very special.

And you will have fun and learn a lot. This is what a hobby is all about. Imo – whether the learning is happening with the music itself new/old or the equipment part – when you stop wanting to learn you start to die a slow death.

Slaw – I can share some observations in regards to TT design from my experience the last four years.

What sets my Verdier apart from other tables I own and have owned is the use of materials, an understanding of their properties and documented results from measurements that were taken. I have emailed with JC Verdier many times, he has all the information and is very open with info; just as BT is with his tonearm. BTW from pictures JC Verdier is very impressed with the ET2.5 and did not know what it was when he first saw it . The Verdier is all about decoupling with levitation. The decoupling is carried over into the spindle/platter design as the spindle is brass and the platter Aluminum.

My Jean Nantais Lenco uses a Metacrylate mat that JN bonded to the stock Lenco platter to become one. You would never know it was not part of its original design if I didn’t tell you. His plinth is meant to become one “thing” 100 pounds worth with the top plate and tonearm. The top plate holding the platter from what I see must be fixed to the plinth in a way that it is “bonded” to it as well just like the Met mat and becomes part of - for the idler resonance control. I don’t like the spindle as it fatter.

My learning/hobby TT has been the SP10MKII. I am on version ?? now :^). It sounds better with the copper platter but I fear I will screw up the servo on it due to the weight. The latest version can be seen in my virtual system.

Whoa! My testosterone runneth over. That armwand... did I miss something?

Mounted today :^) Its too hot to go outside. The CF version is in the pic too.

Richard

It sounds better with the copper platter but I fear I will screw up the servo on it due to the weight.

I made that comment in regards to my SP10MKII - any comments / advice with your and others MKII experience ?

Thanks Chris

Chris.
Quite a few of my customers use after market metal mats. SS and CU.
This adds considerably to the moment of inertia of the platter, but none have had any problems that I am aware of.
My own custom platter is the same weight but a slightly higher moment. Again no problems.

Slaw
I very much look forward to reading about your TT project.
As before I agree totally that things need to be true. If you are controlling the whole process and have access to a good machine shop, this should not be difficult.
My TT and Pre happen to sit on granite surface plates, surplus left overs from our machin shop. They are used, not of their flatness but their energy sinking properties.

If you are going to pod the arm, is it necessary to retain the standard arm/ plinth arrangement? Could you machine the arm pillar and pod as one piece? Some would argue that multiple paths to the plinth (pod) can be problematic. Maybe have the final adjustment of the arm's trueness set by the pods feet? Just a thought.

I have fused my custom arm pillar to the plinth with a solvent that actually melts the surface of the acrylic. The vendors of this stuff claim that the result is a homogenous material as strong as the parent. Thus the pillar and plinth are effectively one. I retained the ability to correct any dimensional errors since the whole plinth could be machined with the arm pillar attached.

I'm sure that your project is going to be a lot of fun and produce brilliant results.

Ct0517 - I have listened at length to several SP10's both MkII and Mk3 both with and without the krebsupgrade. To my ears none of them are particularly transparent. Both the Micro Seiki 5000 ( air bearing ) and Ipad (on BDR cones with Cambridge 840 DAC ) sound more resolving, more fluid in terms of timing and have an openness that eludes the Technics.
Re the mats - I've compared the std, stainless and copper and preferred the copper - a bit more focus and cleaner through the mids. The Mk3 is substantially better than the MkII - less jittery and grainy, but bear in mind the Mk3 platter is considerably heavier and more damped than the MkII. In my view playing around with mats on the MkII merely highlights its shortcomings, and you may be better off with something relatively benign rather than resolving.