A Copernican View of the Turntable System


Once again this site rejects my long posting so I need to post it via this link to my 'Systems' page
HERE
128x128halcro
Plinths? Much of this discussion has me wondering.

Plinths are constructed in so many different ways that I believe it is impossible to generalize about their sonic contribution. Many earlier designs were a simple box (open inside). More recently most seem to be made with solid materials. And the variety of materials is almost endless -- particle board, MDF, ply, Birch ply, solid hardwoods, glued strips of hardwood (like cutting boards), Corian, Obsidian, slate, marble, granite, composite (like some Kenwoods), glass, acrylic, aluminum, stainless steel, lead, etc. Then there are composites or combinations of these materials, as with constrained layer damping. Setting aside dimensions, each material has its own resonant frequency. So how can the "sound" of plinths be lumped into a single category?

Even a "plinth-less" table must have some means of support for the motor, bearing, spindle, platter, and arm (be it separate or attached). And those support materials also have their own resonant frequencies.

So what I really wonder about is if those who now find favor with plinth-less designs have simply eliminated the sound of unmusical resonances in whatever plinth material they experienced with a plinthed table? If so, does that mean ALL plinth designs are inferior? Or simply that the plinth they did hear was not the best material choice? And further, would a better material choice result in favoring that over their plinth-less example?

I certainly respect comments by Raul, Halcro, etc. but I also respect those of Albert Porter, mikel, J. Weiss, etc. I remain confused! ;^(
and Steve Dobbins, whom I wish would comment more often.
Tim, You are saying what I have said a couple of times over the past week or two. There is little doubt in my mind that a "bad" plinth can make things worse. This does not prove that a good plinth (by anyone's definition) is necessarily inferior to what its aficionados refer to as "no plinth". Also, the optimal solution is likely different for different direct-drive turnables. (I don't think anyone challenges the notion that one needs a good plinth for an idler or that no plinth is quite a good solution for a belt-drive tt.)

We plinthophiles can always take refuge in saying that the plinth which was found wanting in comparison to no plinth was of an inferior design or construction. No-plinthers can in turn say that poor performance is due to failure to use the correct footers or to dampen the shelving, etc. So, we can all rest assured that each of us has the right idea.
Pryso, you are inviting the plinth makers, except of Raul. What do you expect being delivered. Nevertheless good move!
Dear Thuchan: ++++ " I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound. " +++++

well not infected yet but maybe starting to...?????

the whole subject is that through SACD/DVDA the digital source is really good and as I posted better than what we are accustomed to think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Pryso: Today if I have to design a TT I will think very seriously and in deep about the TT plinth whole subject ( what we normally understand for plinth. Yes even in a naked version there is a body where the TT seats but IMHO this is not the plinth we all are refering to. Of course we can hang-up but even here we need some " body ". ).

The first think that comes to my mind after several experiences with naked TTs is that the best plinth ( any ) is no plinth.

All plinths as you point out has its own resonances/distortions. That we can't " hear it/aware of it " does not means that the phono cartridge that is a very sensible " microphone " can't do it. That's where the differences we heard comes.

Yes different build material plinths has different behavior but why any one ( other than commercial business$$$ ) one of us have to worry about that " unknow " plinth behavior if we just can eliminate.

What I really be more " conscious " is on what surround the TT: body of the TT it self where the TT will be seated.

Instead to worry on this " TT's body " and plinth ( two subjects ) I have to " worry " only on one subject and try to have/design that perfect TT's body that can makes the less degradation to the cartridge audio signal. This make sense to me.

I'm not saying that this is the only way to think: no, the people that thing plinths are the way to go are welcome.

Now, we have to take in count if what we are designing is a DD or BD TT because each one has its own needs.

In the other side the plinth/no-plint subject is only a " small " part/factor that has influence in the cartridge quality performance level as several other " factors " as the one Halcro pointed out: arm board.

Obviously that the proof of any TT plinth design approach is when we hear it in our audio system and can confirm how good or not is that approach. Every other " thing/though " IMHO is only theory/speculations
that can't be prove it or mere assumptions.

We IMHO need facts and IMHO too right now we have not all the facts that can prove for sure the value of each approach that conlcude with out any doubt wich and why is the UNIVERSAL and best design approach.

All the experiences and opinions of the people that already try/tested the naked alternative proof something: that we like better the naked approach and second that all the ones already tested agree: we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

I like un-biased opinions on the subject ( un-biased $$$$$$ opinions. ) like these one:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&78&4#78

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&84&4#84

and obviously the Halcro one.

Anyway, an interesting and learning discussion. Keep on.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.