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
Sorry Atmasphere,
I missed the point about the Triplanar and the Technics 1200.

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.
There are some who are not fans of the Triplanar with regards to its performance in these areas.....but reaching conclusions about 'noise' when using different tonearms does not seem paticularly scientific nor conclusive.

This seems like an anecdote - interesting but lacking specifics. What about the arm pod details? 

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? 

You're checking cuts while this vacuum system is in operation. There are also vibrations coming from the vacuum motor which is making 90 - 95dB of noise while in its own chamber?

The obvious question - did the separate arm pod have the benefit of the isolation platform as the platter?

I'd also like to remind everyone, assuming the Technics 1200 was a MKII or later, this table was designed to play in extreme noise, in excess of 100dB is not unusual.

It would be interesting to see a more scientific test. If a plinth mounted arm is quieter, at what room SPL does it become so, and for exactly what plinth, arm, and pod.

fleib
 

Atmasphere thanks for that info. Something is not clear to me. Maybe it's just me. Did you actually permanently mount a tonearm to the lathe ?
     
You said.

What we discovered is that the arm mounted on the pillar was giving us more noise than the same lacquer played back on a Technics 1200 sitting nearby.

Just so I understand, you attempted this in order to make your business of cutting and testing playback more effective and efficient. I can understand that, and you have discussed the Technics SL1200 with Grado cart in another thread. Now you said in regards to the tonearm mounted in the pillar next to the lathe. 


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

So it generated noise, which in your line of work is how you pass or fail the discs that were cut. This is my understanding of what you are saying.   

But then you said.

By coupling the arm directly to the plinth in which the platter bearings reside the issue was solved.


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?

********************************************************   

btw - thanks for the great information on my question about the angle of the disc cut.

Pani (OP) sorry, but if I may digress for a moment...

It is consistent with the info I have received from talking with people that do this work over the years. The very important part of the information to me, is that the angle of the cut varies. The angle that the cutterhead is placed at when a disc is cut, results in an included angle in the final disc. This included angle must be duplicated with the reproducing stylus or distortion will result. I think everyone is ok with this right statement ..right ?

Now Halcro (Henry) said

I'm not sure that the cutting process tests can be transposed to the playback field.

The angle of the cut varying on the cut disc; applies directly to playback of the actual records we buy.   
 
Let us think about something.  
We all own multiple copies of favorite pressings. Have you ever noticed how lps from the same era, country and plant can sound different ?
The stylus life as Atmasphere said is based in hours. And when it is replaced it is never set up exactly the same again. And the cutting stylus puts that included angle in the disc. If that angle is not duplicated on the records we buy, you will get something on playback that is different than what was originally cut.  And it can vary with record. So to those that like to use a USB microscope to set up VTA/SRA .....?  thats another thread discussion. It does bring up importance of correct VTA on the fly (imo).  

So what .... 
To me it means the skill of the lathe operator is very important.  Imagine that same music being done on different brand lathes, different countries, different eras....
All the great engineering work that was done to capture the original recording on tape or file;  can be lost if the guy/gal doing the cutting is still learning how to do it. Sorry to ramble. Fascinating stuff.

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.








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.