A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Lewm: And not only that even with that force vector we can't be sure how it will perform on true playback. So this is faint statement too: theory with out any test that prove that " all " is solve through that plinth.

We have to take in count that we are " playing " with induced resonances/distortions at " microscopic " level not in the " macro " domain.

We need to know which kind of resonance/vibrations, at which intensity, at which frequency range are pick-up by the cartridge and how we perceive it through playback in our system.
Not an easy task and certainly can't be solve because of that " force vector diagram ". Complex because we need to separate ( totally ) those resonances/vibrations coming from the TT body and if we are using a plinth we have to separate the plinth ( stand alone ) either as the ones coming between the TT body and the plinth.
We need to separate from the other focus of TT/tonearm/cartridge system own resonances/vibrations, we need to identified and determine each one specific influence in the cartridge overall quality performance level and then decide how to " cure " if need it.

Is this faint?, certainly is and with out a serious scientific " process " the best we have is to try the non-plinth ( naked. ) alternative and judge about against the plinthed one: easy!, other " theories " as Lewm posted somewhere are only useless speculations, facts is what we need and the naked project is a non-scientific fact that at least put some light on the subject where each one " theories " can't do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

A What?

Dear Lewm, it is just a plain force vector diagram - nothing that would require anything specific.
And no, the fact that for specific examples of different TTs ( moving mass, static mass etc.) some individual factors will show different values, does not alter the value nor validity of the complete vector model for TTs.
In any case, grown up men in general and audiophiles in specific don't want to be lectured in public.
So - those really interested in the background on the physics of TTs will do the vector diagram themselves.
The others...... well .... business as usual.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.
There are much more complex machines then turntables out there which likewise are explained and researched (designed ... ;-) ...) on the firm ground of force vector models.

Cheers,
D.

Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " A FV-diagram will clarify the topic. " +++++

imho THE TOPIC IS IF A NAKED tt SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A PLINTHED ONE. Till today the ones that already tested the naked option reported a better quality performance level against the plinthed one.

Please let us know how that FV-diagram can tell us the same: IF A PLINTHED TT SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A NAKED ONE.

Please don't put " clouds " on your answer or take other topics be precise and specific, no more retoric.

A second question: THAT " fv-DIAGRAM " has ears? how good are ?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.

Which question/topic do you believe it will clarify?

1. Is a plinthless TT better or worse than a plinthed TT?
2. Is a self-standing tonearm better than a directly coupled tonearm?

(1) or (2) or both? Do they amount to the same question for you? By ‘better or worse’ I mean that from the perspective of the end user and not from a design perspective (even if it’s true that the design takes the end user's perspective into account).

How specifically does it clarify? Which concepts? And if one makes a distinction between clarifying a question and answering it, I take your claim above to imply that drawing the FV diagram doesn’t by itself answer the questions at hand. That is, the FV diagram doesn’t settle the dispute between Lewm and Halcro/Raul/Chris.

Also, do you believe that the specific sound quality (phenomenological experience) of a TT set up can be deduced a priori from knowledge of its constituent parts + arrangement? I ask this in all seriousness since, in the monumentally amusing ‘TW Acustic Arm’ thread you seemed to suggest that one could infer the sound of that arm merely by knowing how it was designed (+knowledge of the physics pertaining to arms); that is, know it without actually listening to it. I suspect that if you do believe this, then the conversation is over since Raul’s empiricism, if I understand his above post, isn’t having any of it.

I’m a grown man and I also like to go to public lectures, although you are right that I don’t like to be lectured. If you tell me something useful that I don’t know about something I’m interested in (which won’t be all that difficult in this context), then far from receiving scorn, you’ll have my gratitude.