Nude Turntable Project

DearRaul,
Thanks for your encouragement. It was you who planted the idea for this whole experiment and I am enjoying it and learning a great deal about TTs, arms and cartridges.
The reason I can't turn the TipToes upside down is because the base of the cones need to be positioned directly under the centreline of the vertical metal wall enclosure of the TT-81 so that no structural 'moment' is induced which allows the turntable to 'flex'.
I tried the Tiptoes positioned inboard slightly so that they were flush with the wall of the enclosure and there was so much 'moment' induced in this off-set, that you could physically twist the turntable by holding the top and rotating.
In the current arrangement, there is no movement possible whatsoever but I am looking at maybe trying StillPoints instead but they are mighty expensive to simply 'try'?
My armpods are on adjustable steel 'spikes' which are necessary to 'level' them but also to transfer the immense load (26 lbs) onto 3 infinitesimal points so that they become immovable when using the arms.
This works a treat as I am able to pull, adjust, and change headshells without the slightest risk of even minute movement of the pods.

Regards and many thanks Raul
Henry

Genesis168, I agree with you and would go even further.
There are turntables and arms made 30 years ago that are demonstrably better than even the very top models of today's designs IMO.

Imagine an arm today that not only has VTA 'on the fly' but also has Anti-Skate 'on the fly' and also VTF 'on the fly'?
That not only has hydraulic arm 'lowering' but also hydraulic arm 'raising' and both static and dynamic balancing AND inter-changeable headshells?
Anybody?......Anybody?....Bueller?
Well the Micro Seiki MA505s from 30 years ago has it all and is built like the pre-war Leica cameras.
Oh....and it sounds very nice as well.

T_bone,
Until you hear the very best MM cartridges that Raul is helping us find, on the best-matched low-mass arms designed for such high compliance cartridges, you will not experience the sound that has made Raul embark on this campaign?

And from my experience, the very best 'modern' tonearms are simply not designed to match these high-compliance cartridges?

I have personally conversed with 3 of today's top turntable and arm designers/manufacturers (no names), and do you know what arms they invariably use to compare their designs to?.......the Graham arms and in particular the Phantom. They will also listen to the Triplanar in comparison.
Not one of them mentioned listening to any 'vintage' arms in their design comparisons nor did any of them do any serious listening with MM/MI cartridges?
They all used LOMC cartridges to 'voice' their arms with one of them admitting to 'voicing' his arms using Lyra cartridges particularly the Olympos and Titan.

Now T_bone, if you've ever mounted a high compliance MM cartridge in a Phantom arm, you will know that it is not a match made in Heaven? And yet this is the arm that some of the top modern-day designers are using as their 'Reference'?

If a current arm designer does not listen to his arm in comparison to a perfectly working FR-64s or FR-66s (with silver wiring), then progress in arm design is still a long way off IMHO?

Halcro,
I have been using the Technics EPC-100CMk1-4 and the EPC-101C for years as well as one of the well-mentioned Empires and a couple of the Graces. I have tried some of the AT MMs, other Empires, and the Garrott P77 (and probably one or two others) as a result of this thread. I have also been prompted to try out some of the Graces not mentioned here) and have enjoyed them immensely.

I have mounted those carts on a variety of vintage (i.e. contemporary to the carts) arms of the period, where possible specifically matching the armwand or arm to the specific cartridge where specified in the tonearm manufacturer's literature (several tonearm manufacturers specifically refer to specific cartridges (by manufacturer and model) in their manuals). I don't THINK I have done these carts an injustice. I have in the past couple of years compared some of these carts to some of the great MCs of the day as well - the top-level Audio Technicas (I like the low impedance models), Supex, Audiocraft, Accuphase, Fidelity Research, Sony, old Koetsu, etc. carts. Since discovering one of the best MC headamps of the time, I now understand that it is eminently possible MC detractors are not getting enough out of their MC cart.

Personally, my desert island top three of vintage carts (i.e. from the time of those tonearms, and assuming all were equally repairable) to match with those vintage arms would p-r-o-b-a-b-l-y include three MC carts. I have yet to get my AKG P100E fixed.

I just got the bearings on one of my EPA-100Mk2 tonearm changed to grade 3 silicon nitride (rather than grade 5 ruby) and the tonearm rewired with a silver litz run to silver eichmann plugs (i.e. straight to phono input). I am looking forward to trying some of the MM carts on this arm, as it may become the lowest-friction highest-rigidity tonearm available to me for medium-high-compliance carts.

Sorry T_bone,
I didn't intend to denigrate your experience with vintage MM cartridges although re-reading my post I can understand if that was your impression?
Rather I was dubious about your admiration for the design of 'modern' tonearms?

I too a few years ago, approached this subject thinking that the new tonearms must be better than the old due to increased technology and knowledge however my recent experiences are leading me to agree more readily with Dertonarm's view that very little new has been uncovered (as opposed to discovered) about the real principles of tonearm design since the 70s and 80s except for perhaps making them more easily adjustable?.....but even that is dimmed slightly by the MA 505 example.

My apologies again and as always, individual experiences may differ?