Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

My whole point was raised to try to understand the position of those who believe that the only worthwhile (valid?) comparison is when just one component is changed - the turntable in this case. Mapman perhaps presented my perspective best when he focused on the table/arm/cart as a "system". It is comparing differences within systems that becomes tricky.

Raul, I hope you know I respect your experience and observations. Many times in your MM/MI thread you have commented on matching the best arm or headshell to optimize the performance of a given cartridge. You are unusual in owning such a large selection of tables, arms, headshells, etc. that you can really fine tune the set up for any cartridge to evaluate it, and report your impressions based upon the optimized system. I believe your reviews are better than any paper or on-line magazine for this reason.

To draw a parallel, you do not evaluate every cartridge in the same arm/table/headshell so far as I know. And even if you have a "preferred system" where you make your initial evaluations, you obviously do try other combinations to obtain the best performance of the cartridge under review.

So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems, i.e. that it is the best of the two tables. If one size fitted all, this would be a far simpler hobby.

Peace to all and happy listening.

So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems, i.e. that it is the best of the two tables. If one size fitted all, this would be a far simpler hobby.

after first acknowledging there is no real ultimate truth of 'what's best' when comparing tt's, i think one can form useful conclusions with reasonable efforts. particularly when you own 2 or 3 tt's over a period of time amd move arms and cartridges between them. characterisitics do emmerge. preferences get established. if that preference holds in multiple situations it gains in credibility.

it helps to have 2 of the same cartridges, or two of the same arms, or even a phono stage with 2 inputs. this allows speedy 'single varible comparison'.

but for me it's the months of listening to tt's side by side which allow a real sense of what is what. quick looks are useful but less valuable for me.

as far as 'system' synergy; i suppose there are amp/speaker/room combinations which may favor one vinyl front end over another. maybe tubes and horns may invite idlers and Koetsu's, as an example......but at the top of the vinyl food chain i don't see much of that approach. vinyl gear that aspires to be SOTA are typically all around performers and not limited to one system character.

at the end of the day colorations will always get in the way of the musical message.

Dear Albert, Now that you may be lurking here for a moment, can you say what mat you are using on the Mk3? Someone said "copper" but now which copper mat. As you know, there are several in the marketplace. Also, it would be interesting to know what other mats you may have tried and not liked. Thanks. Hope a response does not create a conflict of interest for you, as a dealer.

By the way, I think you and Raul are both correct. The best most scientifically "valid" comparison is the one performed as Raul suggests. But that was not possible in this case, and Albert's comparison must be the next best thing. I especially am swayed by the "months" of listening by Albert and many other skilled listeners, and the use of several different cartridges, that went into the decision process. But the conclusion is that the Walker table with its tonearm, etc. was not loved as much as the Mk3 with its tonearm, etc, where "etc." includes mostly the plinth materials, since other variables WERE held constant.

Initially Albert favoured a Technics MK2 model in a newly constructed plywood plinth then later moved onto panzerholz with much differant results
It was also pointed out over the course of time some of Alberts listening group involved also switched from their long standing turntable preference to a MK 2 or model 3 Technics.
Some of you here have multipal direct drive and prefer other brands over the Technics sp line

Common knowledge among us here simply points to personal preference's,and as Mike Lavigne points out,choose your colourations wisely

09-16-10: Lewm
Dear Albert, Now that you may be lurking here for a moment, can you say what mat you are using on the Mk3? Someone said "copper" but now which copper mat. As you know, there are several in the marketplace. Also, it would be interesting to know what other mats you may have tried and not liked.

I tried many combinations with both Technics MK2 and MK3. Both versions of the stock Technics mat with and without Texas Instruments FerriShield (FerriShield helped a lot with MK2!). Also the Boston mat, TT Weights (2, 3 or 4 of these, with and without periphery ring). Also the Funk Firm from GB, the Micro Seiki CU-180 and Herbies mat.

My absolute all time favorite is the Micro Seiki CU-180 (I have three of them now). Be sure it's genuine if you are buying one, there are lots of copies and counterfeits. Second place is the Boston Carbon Fiber and then the rest sort of fall wherever, depending on what compromise you prefer.

Mapman wrote:

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.

We can close the thread now, that's pretty much perfectly stated :^).