Turntable Isolation Journey


Nearing the end of my journey to solve footfall & feedback issues in my small-room "home office" system with very bouncy floor and flexible walls. Turntable is the only source here -- and it’s a Clearaudio Innovation Compact with no suspension or special isolation feet. This system always sounded good, but was rendered nearly unusable at higher volumes due to turntable isolation that was inadequate relative to this room’s challenges. The worst artifact was when structure-borne feedback from the speakers would cause amp clipping on bass-heavy tracks. This clipping would manifest as an extremely loud singular POP sound, especially hitting the tweeters. It only occurred during the loudest parts of track with bass-heavy elements, and was so loud it was still significantly above the level of the music -- much louder than a POP you would hear from vinyl surface defects. The POP sound was startling, and clearly very bad for tweeters (fortunately my Tannoys seem to have survived several of these incidents). For a time I thought these POPs were from static electricity discharge, but they were NOT. In my quest I tried many solutions and tweaks over a few months, and I’d like to share a rundown of what worked versus what didn’t.

What Helped (MVP products & tweaks):

  1. Townshend Seismic Isolation platform -- Single biggest difference maker, for combating both footfalls and structure-borne feedback from speakers. Amazingly-well designed and built. Leveling was a snap. Well worth the price! If you spend money on isolation, spend it here. Highly Recommended. I’m now considering more Townshend products for under my speakers and in the big loft rig.
  2. Rack Bracing -- Pushed rack right up against the wall (stud / drywall) with a 2’x2’x2" Auralex foam panel tightly wedged in between the top half of rack & wall. This SIGNIFICANTLY cleaned up rack oscillation from footfalls. I see a LOT of folks with nice turntables atop tower-style audio racks, and they could benefit greatly from this "hack". It is cheap & free; the only downside is you may need to reposition your rack. I learned about this "hack" by a couple comments buried in "turntable isolation" threads searched via google. This really CANNOT be overstated.
  3. HOCKEY PUCKS -- Placed under rack spikes in place of the stock aluminum cups or Herbie’s Giant Gliders. Just let the spikes sink right in! This actually cleaned up the very last bit of energy from footfalls; foot stomps with needle-in-groove are now DEAD QUIET. super cheap and effective! Far superior to most audiophile footer devices. Might also help in rack bracing by tightly constraining the rack between wall & floor (Herbie’s Gliders were too slippery).
  4. Rack positioning -- Get your turntable & rack away from the speakers. If you can move the rack far enough behind your speakers, that might be OK, but most rooms cannot accommodate enough depth for this. Placing the rack several feet down a sidewall worked best in this room. Choosing a structural wall also aids in rack bracing. Make sure you don’t place the rack in a room "node" where bass is amplified. Walk around while music is playing to find a nice quiet-ish spot. I kept my amps by the speakers and ran 5 meter XLR cables from the preamp / rack.

What Underperformed:

  • Critical Mass Sotto Voce rack -- the rack is gorgeous and nicely rigid, but doesn’t have nearly enough mass to combat the bouncy floor in this room. Once braced against a wall, the rigidity of this rack was allowed to shine. However, before the bracing, its performance was poor. I will say I have Critical Mass’s Maxxum rack in my (main) loft system on a more solid floor, and the immense mass & rigidity of that rack was game-changer for that system. I do like CMS products, but they are dearly expensive.
  • Critical Mass Black Platinum filter -- Top shelf of the rack. This actually has a significant positive effect, but is limited to the midrange and treble frequencies. It cannot combat footfalls or low frequency feedback. I still like and use this platform, but at more than twice the cost of a Townshend platform it belongs in this category.
  • SOTA Nova V Turntable -- I thought this table’s suspension would render it impervious to room issues, but it’s not. It helped with footfalls but some structure-borne feedback was still getting through. I suspect the suspension needs a tune-up. Quite frankly I think the OLD suspension (it started life as a 1990s Star III) was better tuned and more stable before it came back as a fully rebuilt Nova V, circa 2018. The new vacuum platter was a huge improvement but the new suspension has been disappointing. The Clearaudio deck also sounds a bit better, so now with the Townshend platform it’s an easy choice. Note that the Townshend also uses springs as its isolation mechanism, but I noticed that the Townshend’s oscillation is far better controlled and damped versus the SOTA. You can SEE and HEAR its performance advantage.
  • ISOAcoustics Gaia III speaker feet -- these seemed to have some small positive benefit, but honestly not a lot. Not worth the money.
  • Lovan Sovereign modular rack (three 10" modules high) -- these are very similar to the VTI racks I see everywhere (which I’m also familiar with). These racks lack rigidity and stability. I would not recommend placing a nice turntable on one of these racks. However, if you do, please brace it against a wall (Auralex foam works great). They’re relatively cheap and look good, so I at least understand their popularity. If you have this rack, at least try hockey pucks under its spikes :)

What Was Worthless (Don’t waste your money like I did):
I’m not going to bother expanding upon these; suffice to say they had no discernible positive effect.

  • ISOAcoustics Orea Indigo feet (under maple board & turntable).
  • Symposium Segue ISO turntable platform
  • Herbie’s Lab Giant Gliders (steel) - Placed under Sotto Voce rack spikes
  • Speaker spikes -- at least they look cool :)

128x128mulveling

@mulveling This conversation for myself is now heating up, P'holz gets me all fired up. 

More importantly, I retired from building a system many years ago, and took on the task of working with interfaces that the system is dependent on, Electrical, Mechanical and Acoustic have all been thrashed out. This Subject under discussion on P'holz, is where I am now at with a New Material being utilised for Mechanical Interfaces and it is superseding all other choices for materials that are in use.

The Taiko Sub Plinths are very good in my view, as they are P'holz, but are even better for one other thing, they really show how much money can be saved when sourcing the Panzerholz Material B25 Cross Grain Structure oneself. If a Fibonacci Arch is routed into the acquired board of P'holz, then the Taiko is almost mimicked. By acquiring the P'holz oneself, they can be assured the Spec' for the material is the one that is most desirable, as tests available to be seen to confirm this.

How the P'holz is acquired and how much is to be paid is for oneself to decide on, getting the Spec' correct is very important.

As a guideline my last purchase of the same P'holz as above was for a Board of a dimension 2mtrs x 1mtr ( 6' 8" x 3'3") which cost £850. This could be cut to produce 10 Boards @ 500mm x 400mm ( 20" x 16"), coming in at £85 per Board that can be used as a TT's Plinth, Plinth/Chassis or Sub Plinth.

I have been using two Tiers of P'holz as a Sub Plinth, seated on and separated by AT-616 Footers. Depending on the weight of the Audio Device, I have a selection of footers to be used to separate the device from the Top Tier.

This support method has been taken to other homes as well and loaned for demonstrations, it is a unanimous agreement that betterment is to be had when utilised. Usually the assessment is that unidentified smearing is discovered as having been removed, as it is replaced by new insights to detail being presented, that is a very attractive outcome as the initial observation.

The Sub Plinth Assembly has been used under a variety of different Drive TT's, where it really shone in a unexpected way, was when it elevated a Garrard 401 to new heights. The method has also undoubtedly honed the presentation for the better from other TT's. A few who have been present during Dem's and have an interest in P'holz are now using P'holz as Sub Plinths in their own systems.

There has been similar outcomes, but not as noticeable when used with CDP's and CDT's > DAC's, the biggest audible tidy up being when Valves are present in the Digital Device.

A Valve Power Amp' that had been Imported and demo'd at a local HiFi Group event was considered to be mediocre, but OK for the retail price. When put on the P'holz Sub Plinth Assembly the Amp' become much more gathered in the lower registers and was quite unrecognisable, as the Mid's and Highs were very present as a result. 

I will suggest two uses for P'holz in your system, one will be easy to accept, the other a little more difficult, but very doable.

The idea of the extra tier added to the Townshend Sub Plinth, is the easiest to accept and will in my view be very valuable as a addition. If the material used as the additional tier is a Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood, that is produced with a Cross Grain Structure for the laminations, a compression to 50% of the original thickness is also desirable, there are other Brands of Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Woods that achieve this, but P'holz B25 is meeting this Spec'.

Note: It is not just the Densified Wood Material that brings on the magic, it is also the footers used as separators. The P'holz can be tweaked to a much more personal taste through trials on different footers. As stated in a earlier post, I have found the Solid Tech 'Feet of Silence' to be ideal for my unique preferences, there are much cheaper variants of these that are worthwhile trying out.  Another friend has settled on 'Sorbo Hemispheres' as their choice for a Footer, and another is using Knock Off 'Stillpoint Ultra 6's'. Trials will bring one to their own selections to suit their preferences. 

If the added tier is produced, I feel that there will be a giant step taken for your TT, to become a rival to the advanced in design sibling the 'Wood'.   

The next suggestion, and maybe not too easy to digest, but one I can't but help feel will transform the good impression further is to investigate the TT's Sidebar Tonearm Support.

I have been involved in experiments where the P'holz has been produced as a Headshell and a mount for a TA, (not a design that resembles a conventional Base Plate) Each has been A/B compared to previously used methods and each new method for a mechanical interface, has added something very special to the sonic.

Note: These changes are small, but are wanted to be maintained as they add to the attraction of the listening experience.

If the Sidebar can be swapped out for the B25 material, I do believe there will be a WTF moment from the impression being made.

Additionally, if this route is taken and a machining service is utilised to help produce the items, do ask for any waste materials to be turned into Cone Footers, this will not be regretted.     

 

When you stack springs you create lateral instability, bad news for turntables. The Sota turntable was special because it was the first turntable to hang from it's springs instead of sitting on them like the AR XA or the LP12. This is also the method copied by SME, Avid and the Basis Inspiration. Hanging the turntable is a much more stable system. Only a suspension tuned to less than 3 Hz will isolate a turntable from environmental rumble. Sota also uses a magnetic thrust bearing. It is compressed by the weight of the platter to a very high frequency and damped by very thick bearing oil. As @mulveling suggested it is not in any way a suspension that will isolate the turntable from anything as it does not include the tonearm and cartridge as well as the frequency is too high. This is the argument against using such a bearing as it detaches the platter from the tonearm in the vertical direction. Functionally it does not due to compression and the oil. 

 

My Sota Nova VI has the magnetic bearing.  Much quieter than my previous Sota Star V.  I thought the Star was quiet and what I was hearing was groove noise because the noise seem to vary from record to record but that noise is gone with the Nova.  Further, I have the Eclipse Motor and Roadrunner speed control system.  It works really well but I wasn’t too sure until I figured out how to use it.  One button turns the motor on/off and also toggles the speed between 33 and 45 rpm.  I had to learn to hold the button down for a count of 2 when starting the motor.  Otherwise, the speed wants to toggle to 45 rpm.  The button has to be held down for the count of 2 when turning the motor off.  I knew that and once I realized the same holds true for turning the motor on everything was fine.

I have a set of Sota cones as well as the Sota rubber feet for the turntable.  I experimented with both.  For me the sound is better with the rubber feet.

"Then we have the unknowns:

  • Just how rigid is that rack of yours?
  • What is the structure of your floor -- this matters more than what’s on its surface. If your floor is not rigid enough, then it won’t be enough for your rack to be rigid. That’s where the wall bracing comes into play.
  • Close proximity between the table and 1 or more speakers, ESPECIALLY a port, can be problematic. Applies doubly for a subwoofer. I don’t have a subwoofer to contend with in any of my systems. Do you have a high pass filter on the main speakers, or are they run full range? If filtered, that could at least protect your mains from certain kinds of dangerous feedback issues (woofer flapping, amp clipping), though the subwoofer will have to be robust enough to deal with it."

Sorry if I was not clear. Floor is padded carpet over concrete so footfalls are not an issue. The turntable beng close to a speaker is the worry.  The l&r speakers run full range.

Stil waiting on Tri to ship my arm. Table has been sitting at the dealer for weeks.

Y’all take care,

Robert

This is an interesting subject and quite a difficult one to draw any generalisations in.

For what it's worth, back in the 1990s I experimented with various wall racks for my turntables and found that none of them really helped to the degree I had hoped.

The wall in question was a solid brick dividing wall and various mounting methods were tried.

Unfortunately, because I live near a fairly busy main road, these wall mounts only served to magnify and transfer the tiny movements of the wall itself to the turntable and eventually the stylus itself.

This proved especially damaging when using a turntable which featured a sprung suspension which can only cater for vertical deflections in a certain frequency band.

Anything below or above this band caused readily heard problems which were made worse by wall mounting.

 

Ultimately, I think whilst nothing beats a solid concrete floor, or a sold brick wall, and even if the equipment itself has some form of isolation built in,  the quietness of its location is the main factor. 

If your home is subjected to regular outside vibrations, the best you can do is to ameliorate some of these, but I don't know any way of eliminating them completely.