Nude Turntable Project

Dear Ct0517: Good that you are enjoying your TT plinthless set up. Chris IMHO the " merit " comes from your self that decide to tryed.

+++++ " All I can say is less distortion, very neutral sound. A big improvement. " +++++

IMHO this is all about: " less/lower distortions ", I posted several times that our each one " goal/target " ( main one ) to attain excellence level on system quality performance is trying to obtain ( at each audio link in the system ) the lower distortions we can. As distortions goes lower ( elsewhere/anywhere. ) as MUSIC takes its real " overall meaning " like that " very neutral sound " you already experienced.

Any TT plinth has its own " distortions " and unknow behavior for all of us when we go plinthless we are taking out/switch-off a " distortion place/center " where the cartridge signal was and is degrade.

+++++ " I gave the plinthless set up a try since it cost very little to experiment with " +++++

this is exactly what I posted several times in this forum on the plinthless subject: everyone can try it with almost no " money " to invest.

I think that this plinthless subject is more an each one attitude for test it.

To all the people that support DD TT plinths I always ask them: do you already tested a plinthless set up ? why don't you try it?, no one till today give an answer about and follow their " road ", fine with me.

Something that is really nice is that all the persons that already try the TT plinthless set up all reported ( just like you ) that the quality performance beats the normal TT plinth set up.

This plinthless subject is just that other ones like DD TT that a few years ago no one cares about and in those " all times " I posted that the DD alternative could and can beats the BD one or that the MM/MI alternative is more than an alternative but a " superior " analog source against the LOMC alternative or that the way to go with LOMC was and is through active high gain phono stages instead setp-up transformers or that the way to go is to playback cartridge analog source alternatives through phonolinepreamps ( integrated ) instead stand alone phono stages or the latest " electrical power system source direct connection " instead all those " electrical power conditioners " or...or....

Over the time like what you are enjoying " things " takes its right and true " perspective ".
here in my country people say: " things fall by its own " weight " ".

I hope that in the future people gives to it self the opportunity to test and hear what happen with all those " audio subjects " and decide according, in the mean time the ones that already did it will follow enjoy the greatness of those " alternatives/subjects " .

¡ Happy New Year for all of You !

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Chris,
It's interesting to hear your conclusions on the 'nude' Technice SP10Mk2.
It seems to indicate, as Raul has been urging, that people should at least try things before arriving at conclusions....especially if trying is relatively easy?
I was concerned at using steel for arm-pods because of the possibility of magnetic interference with such a 'lump' of ferrous material?
It may be interesting for you to try a 'non-ferrous' arm-pod next as a comparison? Of course that will not be as cheap as the steel option?
I still enjoy my 'Nude' TT-81 as well as my big Raven AC-3. As I mentioned, my experiences indicate bigger differences in cartridges and arms than perhaps well executed turntables of different drive philosophies?
Happy New Year to one and all.

Dear Raul and Halcro – thank you for the info.

Halcro excellent point on using a non-ferrous metal– I was so obsessed with anchoring the ET arm with weight that I overlooked that. Wish I had asked earlier. I hear no audible noise but my MM virtuoso cartridge would have told me more about any noise and it is being retipped.

Instead of making a second pod for the vpi arm I am now thinking of doing another ET pod in a non-ferrous metal. :)

Can’t tell you how much fun this has been – Like it has been said before there is so much real estate to work with - any arm can go on a pod and be switched in and out. Once you have a reliable drive system the possibilities and options are huge not being limited by plinth space and arms that will fit it.

I like all my cartridges with the ET arm but are there any sleepers I can try ?

Thank you again -Happy New Year to all

Great post, Henry, and I was not aware of this thread until this moment. As you know, I was one of the many who was and is in disagreement with Raul regarding the necessity for or value of a heavy, dense plinth to go with a DD turntable. But as Pryso says, you have not addressed this issue here. What I would like to know, however, is what IS your Victor tt sitting on or in? Raul makes a point that he uses the rare, and no longer available new, Audio Technica feet under the chassis of his SP10 Mk2. (As an aside, altho Raul evidently did own a Mk3 in olden days, he does not now own one and has not owned one since before he began his and our MM/MI saga. I really defy anyone to use a Mk3 with no plinth at all, because the torque of that motor will rotate the unfettered chassis at every start-up, thanks to Newton's Third Law, and screw up the alignment of all those tonearms you have stuck on outboard arm pods.) I would also like to know what is the make-up of that white shelving upon which you place your gear. Is it possible there is some fortuitously beneficial coupling between the shelf and the un-plinthed Victor? And finally, were you ever at any point able to compare the same tonearm/cartridge combinations on any two of the turntables you tested? By the way, I would rank the Victor as high up among the best of the mid- to upper level Japanese DD's, but like the Denon DP80 and some of the Kenwoods and Sonys, it has not gotten much attention compared to the SP10s. It is not obvious to me that the TT81 would be inferior in any way to an SP10 Mk2. (I would rank the SP10 Mk3 on the highest plain, along with the P3, the L07D, etc. These tables DO kick ass.)

So far, we have you and Albert Porter who have each compared a "good" vintage dd turntable to a current top line belt-drive turntable, with surprising results. I would guess there are others who have done a similar comparison and reached the opposite conclusion, but since they heard what they expected to hear, they have not bothered to comment. As you know, I am firmly in the idler- and direct-drive camp based on my own experiments in my own system, but since I never owned a $10,000 belt-drive in the first place, there is always some residual curiosity.

Hi Lew,
I'm surprised this 'Nude Turntable Project' has escaped your eagle eye for so long?
As I've said during the postings, I don't presume to extend any of my findings to idler or rim- drive decks as the mechanics of those are quite different to direct drive.
I also defer to your observations on the SP-10 Mk3 due to it's initial high torque although once correct speed has been attained I can't see how its stability is very much different to the SP-10 Mk2 or the TT-81?
If you have the time to read through all the posts and photo links, you should be able to see the TT-81 sitting on 3 aluminium tip-toes directly on the 33mm thick laminated paricle board shelf.
This shelf is sitting on patented aluminium cantilevered brackets called T-Brax (from England) which slot into adjustable aluminium support rails screw to the masonry wall.
There is no question that this 33mm shelf is 'mass-loaded' by the weight of all the equipment thereupon, however both the Raven and the TT-81 are effectively decoupled from this shelf by the Tiptoes.
The closest I've managed to hear 2 same arms on both decks is with the FR-64s on the TT-81 and the FR-66s on the Raven. The same cartridges have been swapped in for both these arms.
These comparisons have led me to conclude at this stage that the cartridge/arm combinations are more important than the drive systems employed assuming competency in those drive systems is equivalent?