Nude Turntable Project

Question: "I placed the 420STR on the record and hit the 'mute' and that's when an almighty noise erupted." Is this step #5? You just placed the 420STR on the LP and then un-muted?

I presume the tt was activated, platter was turning. Yes?

Can you characterize the crescendo of "noise"? Was it low frequency, high frequency, etc? Was it like what one hears at, say, a rock concert where the sound man is trying to adjust the mike and one can get that obvious microphone feedback between the bass player's speaker and the microphone, a "screech"?

Since your unit is already being repaired, I suppose all this is moot, but it might be a good idea to try to hash it out so the problem does not repeat itself, I guess.

Henry, I see that you already started a separate thread to discuss the problem. Sorry for asking you to repeat yourself here. I will read what has already been asked and answered on the other thread. Almarg is a very knowledgeable and thoughtful guy, as are others who have responded on the other thread.

The 'nacked truth' seems to be that there is no such a thing as a 'nacked TT'. The most of those we are talking about are made in Japan, while J.Carr explained that there
is no equivalent in Japanese for 'our' expression 'plinth'.
They use the expression 'base' instead so whatever one put
under his 'nacked TT' is obviously a 'base'. Raul's claim
to be the first who discovered the 'nacked truth' mentioned even 3 of those 'pneumatic' AT footers with obvious convinction that the expression 'plinth' has a
very clear denotation while those huge pneumatic footers
on which both his Denon's were 'footed' should be seen as a
totally different animal. I am known as very fond of semantics but this 'subject' is actually about the relation between the language and the so called 'reality'.
Besides without the notion of an 'base' one get confused
regarding what is 'above' and what 'below' so some of us
even used the copper mat to put not 'obove' the platter but
under the 'nacked TT' with some strange results.

Regards,

Dear Nicola, I do think there is a qualitative difference between a real plinth (including the 3-legged skeletal one described by Henry) and using just footers of one kind or another under the bottom of the chassis proper (which by the way was never intended to support the weight of the entire object). I guess you know as well that "base" is a synonym for "plinth" in English.

Dear Lew, First of all glad to see that you are well and
even more so to see your contributions again. There are
two competing theories of truth. One is the 'referential'
the other based on 'meaning'. Say 'bachelor' means the same
as 'unmarried man' or 'plinth' means the same as 'base'. This one is also called 'analityc'. The problem however is that we need the reference to the reality: there is no truth inside the language. Both are combined in Tarski's theory of truth which is based on quantification and conditions. Say: 'some man are young and bold'. 'Some' is an quantifier while 'young' and 'bold' are conditions which some persons need to satisfy in order to make such statements true. Even persons who have never heard about whatever theory of truth are obviously able to say: 'I know 3 of such persons'. This means that they understand what 'young' and 'bold' means but also that there are such persons in reality which they are able to recognise. In your 'meanings theory' no Japanese will be able to recognise any 'plinth' while we in the West would have no idea what 'base' is refering to. As a scientist you are supposed to believe in the 'universal truth'. The 'synonym'
approach will not do as you can check by Quine or may conclude from my explanation.

Regards,