Hi Halcro,
I should begin by saying, “nice job on the granite plinth”,
which I neglected to mention on my earlier post. The black granite matches the armpods
beautifully.
Thank you for the in-depth explanation to my inquiries. The reason for my curiosity is because I’ve
recently joined an exclusive” Are we living dangerously?” club. My JVC/Victor TT-101
was sold to me with a CL-P2 plinth and acrylic dust cover. The Victor CL-P2 plinth is made from particle
board with a veneer clad, faux Rosewood, as with most plinths made from this era.
The plinth itself is quite heavy and comes with four large plastic footers. The TT motor is evenly secured with hardware
to the wood plinth. I’m looking for ways
to improve on this plinth; whether it is a custom plinth as you have done or
tweak the existing CL-P2. An Elgar 6000A
line conditioner is used to feed 100VAC to the TT-101. I’ve dialed down the
Elgar to the lowest possible voltage of 105VAC to best meet TT-101 requirements.
I need to shuffle my equipment around to accommodate the TT-101 before spinning
any vinyl on this TT.
Since my inquiry on how your custom granite plinth is
coupled to the TT-101 motor, several posters have commented to your approach. To me, it seems intuitive to mechanically
fasten the motor to the plinth for best sonic results. What was the rationale
to have the motor “sit” on the rubber points rather than have it bolted in
place? I noticed the metal skeleton plinth also used rubber supports. Did you experiment both ways before concluding
that this was sonically the best approach? It seems intrinsic that the plinth
material selected has a lesser degree of importance when the motor just “sit”
on the plinth as opposed to mechanically coupling the motor to the plinth.
Furthermore, is it possible the granite plinth sounds better
than the open metal skeleton design because the granite design encases the TT
and is able to shield air borne vibrations reaching the motor?
Regards,
Norm