Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

Pryso,

my guess, knowing the likelyhood that Albert tried quite a few of the pretender/contender cartridges while he owned the Walker, is that Albert had a pretty good idea of what cartridges worked the best on the Walker. and in any case; the Walker does not allow for an alternate arm, so you are stuck with comparing the Walker with it's fine linear tracking arm.

so Albert would have been in as good a position as anyone to make the comparison with the cartridges he knew at that time. he had way more experience with cartridges on the Walker than the Technics.

i have a Rockport Sirius III and sitting next to it is a Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk3 with a Reed and Talea arm. i have multiple cartridges which have been switched back and forth. i have my opinions about this and that which is as close to 'a truth' as you are likely to have.

i respect Albert's perspective.

Mike, I may not have made my point clearly. I too respect Albert's experience and perspective. So based on that I can accept that he believes his custom Technics to be more satisfying (better?) than his (at the time) Walker.

My intended point was to challenge those who discredited his conclusion because of component variations - the arms in that case. Comparing different turntables by utilizing the same platform, arm, wire, and cartridge may not necessarily be a level playing field in my opinion.

Dear Pryso: What Albert decided and why he decided on the subject is only his privilege and no one else.
In the other side that I disagree with him as I stated/posted is my privilege and IMHO at least I put my " mouth " on what I believe, other prefer stay in silence: that's their privilege.

I totally disagree for many things ( between others ) that you take ( hipothetically )two different sources ( phono cartridges ) with two different tonearms with two diferent tonearm wire to make a two TT comparison: how can we do it? when both sources has its own " signature " that between other things can put in your " brain/mind " some kind of bias/preference, how can you be " neutral "/non-biased to one source or the other only by its " signature " sounds?.

Two different sources that not only has its own " signature sounds " , these " signature sounds " means IMHO: that handle different the audible frequency range because has different frequency response, different crosstalk/channel separation, different distortions, different frequency range at both frequency extremes, different tracking " hability ", different, different and different...., there are no two cartridges alike that I know even in same cartridge model could be tiny performance differences.

How could you compare two TT where the TT's are " surrounded for different: source/cartridge/, tonearm, wire/cable and the like? Please let me know how can you do it? Pryso think for a moment: when you test a Dynavector XV-1s ( or any cartridge. ) in two different tonearms ( everything the same. ) you always will have two " different " performances. Now imagine when you have all different ( not only the tonearms. ) as you propose.

I have to say that I can't imagine that comparison but if you explain to me I will try to understand it and maybe is time to change my overall point of view on the subject.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Addressing a couple of points:

I totally disagree for many things ( between others ) that you take ( hipothetically )two different sources ( phono cartridges ) with two different tonearms with two diferent tonearm wire to make a two TT comparison: how can we do it? when both sources has its own " signature "

I've stated this at Audiogon many times but want to post a response again since it keeps coming up. The two turntables were fitted with identical cartridges, one was obtained from Lloyd Walker himself for the comparison.

Tone arm wire was the same or in favor of the Walker (better quality on Walker for part of the test). Phono stage, power cables, cartridges and all electronics were identical. Perhaps even more important, the test was not an A-B comparison, but rather long term listening with multiple visitors over a period of many, many months on a wide variety of software with every conceivable adjustment to tweaking the variables.

Albert had a pretty good idea of what cartridges worked the best on the Walker. and in any case; the Walker does not allow for an alternate arm, so you are stuck with comparing the Walker with it's fine linear tracking arm.

Mike Lavigne is stating what I posted earlier in this thread. The Walker is manufactured with it's own arm and it's not removable.

Test was done the only way it could be. Every variable that could be equalized was done and the impossible was left as is.

Table/arm/cart function as a system. You can toss the plinth, mat, and anything else that is there for benefit of the table into that system also. You want to optimize each system and compare. Components that perform optimally in one system may not in another. That could be plinth, mat cart, whatever.

If done well, each optimized phono SYSTEM should perform well. Each better or worse perhaps in particular aspects of the resulting sound. Which is better will often be a matter of personal preference and also how that phono system fits into the larger system as a whole as well. Obviously, use of high quality components in the properly integrated system is an insurance policy of sorts towards better performance, but not necessarily an indicator of better sound.

Not sure what else can be said objectively. Each case is different. Unless you exactly replicate a system that sounds good, it is hard to predict how any particular component will sound when you use it in your system. It is a combo of art and science through trial and error over the long term that delivers the end results. Knowledge, time and money are necessary ingredients. Otherwise, all bets are off.