Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

Dear Weisselk: First than all I'm not a plinth designer as you and the other gentlemans are.

Second Dbcooper ask for to you the manufacturers and third my post on the subject was only trying to understand that measurements always could help.

+++++ " With all your audio knowledge, I would imagine you would know the scientific parameters of significance? " +++++

certainly and due that you are in the plinth design/build as the other gentlemans you have more in deeep knowledge level that any of us mere audiophile " mortals ".

What I can say you is that for the time ( very remote this could happen. ) I take the design and build plinth " enterprise " you can be sure that I will be aware of those scientific measurements that could help in my design.

That you and the other gentlemans you name it do not have ( yet ) or even are not aware off means only that you don't have it: not big deal, this is a normal part/fact of the AHEE and we are accustom to.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

One of the problems with measuring turntables today is that the tools for doing standard DIN tests are no longer available. Sure you can measure noise with an unmodulated groove on a test record, but then you'd only have a number and no meaningful way to compare. The original Panzerholz plinth was done on a lark and designed intuitively (although after a great deal of research). It worked so well that it was decided to share it with others. You really have to hear it to appreciate it. It is impossible for me to imagine how it could be improved upon. I don't think it could even be made more compact.

Ckniker,
I have experience with the Boston Audio Mat 1 and Mat 2 on the SP10 mk2. Both work great. My preference is the Mat 2 because it's thicker and more substantial. It's size fits the mk2 platter perfectly, almost too perfectly. The mat fills the space completely. One advantage of the Mat 2 in this reguard is that it is twice as thick and so leaves more to grab at the edge when you want to remove it. Sticking the mat down with two sided tape is beneficial to keep it still and solid but go very sparingly or you will have a battle on your hands ever getting the mat off the platter.
Having said all that, I still think my favorite is the CU-180 and I've noticed no speed control issues with the mk2. The Boston mat is much less expensive and more readily available. I'm sure the mat you're using is quite good but if you try the Boston, I doubt you'll go back.

Timeltel, Thanks for the link to soundfoundtain. Good info on material characteristics as applicable to TT. I think this may be key determining factor on the ultimate sound EVEN AFTER you have resolved the vib issues, measured and tested and the whole shebang.

Great looking shots on Albert's plinthes. Thye certainly look top notch and make the Technics look much more substantial. And I am sure same goes for sound quality. Congrats Albert!

For those looking to quantify the resonance characteristics of various plinth materials, a fellow on Vinyl Engine seems to have done just that.

http://qualia.webs.com/dampingfactorvalues.htm

But wait, from his data it seems that MDF and slate measure the same, 0.017! Now I have no personal experience with comparing these two materials but I have read multiple recommendations against MDF for DD plinths (not sure why it is favored for rim-drives such as the Lenco). And I have read very favorable opinions on slate, both for commercial sources such as OMA and the DIY projects such as Lew's.

So how can it be that two materials can measure the same yet offer such varied sonic results? Were they the same overall size and thickness when measured? Were they layered or constructed in the same fashion? Or is the answer a combination of material characteristic and how the plinth is designed and assembled?

The last question seems to suggest its own answer, which brings us back to Albert's plinths.