Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

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 :^).

Dear Pryso: +++++ " 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,..... " +++++

well I don't know what others can think about my take is this:

if I made the test process using only one cartridge then I agree with you that in that " system " ( as you name it ) I prefer one or the other TT but we can take this preference as " universal " one.

Never is easy to make serious audio comparisons always exist so many parameters that we can't ( many times ) involve all of them.

A TT comparison has ( between others. ) some critical points: tonearm, cartridge, mat, plattform and electrical source. If I want to decide one TT over other first take for me is to choose the RIGHT cartridges to do it. It is not only that I need to know the performance of those cartridges but that almost all of them had/have low low colorations with a wide frequency spectrum and I said " almost " because I like to have at least one not so good cartridge performer a cartridge with " especial "/wrong/bad distortions.

IMHO my comparison conclusion will be as good as the cartridges choice. Obviously that a test comparison has a whole process including LP's tracks choice to do it and many things but the source/cartridges I choose were and could make " the differences ".
In my analog test comparisons and reviews I try to put at minimum the system variables even I use the same internal wire in tonearms under test.

Btw, I don't like to make test audio comparisons/reviews in items over " long time " like M.Lavigne point out he use to do it. I prefer a short time before my ears be equalized with the sound under test and I could lose an " alert " brain attitude about.

Everyone has his own procedure/process on the subject, the important thing/point here is IMHO that that your own process almost always function/be precise with the lower mistakes in the conclusions.

The other subject is that I don't belive in " massive/group " tests/comparisons on any audio item.
That a " group " like here in the thread arrived to the same conclusion means IMHO almost nothing, let me explain about:
each one of us are different, we have different audio/music/sound priorities, we like different kind of colorations/distortions we even have different audio knowledge/experience level and different ears frequency response: how in the life 7 or 10 or a " group " with so many differences can have the same conclusion in an audio item when additional to all these differences exist the " group " bias/push?

This is easy to prove: take a small group say 6 persons that are listening in front of an audio system, then they are trying to decide about quality performance with the track they are listening and happen that the person with the highest know how move its head to one side and the other ( saying NO. ): you know what? this sole movement makes a difference in each one opinion.
But we don't have to go very far to look answers to this " group " subject: here in this forum in any thread we read there are many many times that two almost same know.how level persons can't agree in an audio subject now imagine a " GROUP ". I respect the ones that do/did it but for me with all respect ( I'm not talking on each one person but the process it self. ) that means almost nothing.

In the same manner that two or more persons take the same audio item choice and change what they own at home means that " group false emotions " put its sign in each person in that group even if they don't like it. The group feeling belong sometimes is very strong.

I never take decisions because a " group " and not because I don't respect other people ( that I did/do. ) or because I dimish other people about ( that I did not/do not. ) but because my targets are my targets and almost I is the only person that can understand in deep due to subjective factors .

Anyway, I think I understand your point of view and I hope you could do the same on mines.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Prizo: in the third group of sentences must say: can't and not only can.

R.