Dear all: +++++ " The only thing I WILL say, and I am rather tired of repeating it, is that obviously there are such things as "bad" plinths. I have heard two such. I can readily believe that no plinth may sound better than a bad plinth. " +++++
yes and a bad plinth sounds worst than just a " plinth ". What are you trying to say?, that the Raven has a bad plinth?
how is that? why is a bad plinth? or your statement is only because Halcro prefer the naked one to the Raven? who is the right person that could tell us on the current TTs which ones comes with a bad plinth, why and where are the tests that prove it? not only this but where is the plinth reference/standard against other plinths will be tested?
your words are only words with out facts that can prove it in anyway.
Btw, you can make an " easy " test on your DP-80 ( I did it in my system before. ): find out three delrin tiptoes-like ( the small ones ) or the small metal tiptoes and over/top these three tiptoes put the DP-80 ( the DP-80 will rest on the tiptoes with its outer metal ring/chasis, got it? ).
Those three tiptoes will rest a-top on the slate plinth that now will works like a big tonearm board more than a TT plinth. Btw, take out the metal DP-80 item that cover the TT motor, you just unscrew it.
If you decide to do it then listen to it and then come back to share your experiences. Yes I know this is not a " full naked " project but near to it and you don't need to build a stand alone tonearm base.
+++++ " Better to say that with no plinth, some resonances are or might be left undamped that might more often than not be pleasing, to a given listener. " +++++
words and more words. How can you prove it?
why not think on more positive way: eliminate those " left undamped " resonances by design with out a necessity of a plinth. Could be?, Lewm IMHO all belongs to the TT design and execution of that design where the build materials choosed are critical.
Theory will be fine but you have to test and prove if what theory " say " is true and real and give you the right answer on the quality sound level you will percieve.
+++++" the fv-diagram was just a simple proposal to illustrate that the energy inside a working record playback system will travel and where and how it travels. That energy, its amplitude and reflections are responsible to a large extend for the turntable's share of what we call "sound". " ++++++
yes it is only that and can prove nothing on why the people that tested a naked TT like more than with plinth.
+++++ " It was just a proposal to illustrate the physic behind sonic discussion of a component ... " ++++++
DT that could illustrate only a minimum part of what overall is happening there. Even you don't know for sure what's happening. Like with Lewm, only words with no facts.
+++++ " It is just that I want to know why a system or a component does what it does the way it does. " ++++++
lovely statement and very similar of what I like but IMHO your f-vector diagram can't do it.
DT IMHO if you want to really know what is happening and what is not happening and why you need at least ( between other things. ) what I posted before:
******** 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. *********
don't you think?
+++++ " I certainly am perfectly fine, if the discussion returns to and concentrates on the ultimate audiophile fallback position: "I and a few others prefer that sound". " ++++
agree, you can't argue with only words against people that tested both approaches and that have facts and not only words like you. So permit me add to your last statement:
I and a few others that " tested " prefer that sound!
+++++ " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer. " +++++
Ralph, maybe I don't follow you, let me go with Lewm whom more than once posted on the subject the example of a boat in the sea where the ones inside the boat moves according with against an external person to the boat that can follow the boat movements. If this is what you mean I agree.
Now and this is only a thought that I can't prove in this precise moment:
any tiny/microscopic resonance in the LP could be take it by the cartridge like a " coloration ": inside the boat or out of the boat.
Please let me know if I'M missing something.
In the other side, nothing is perfect and always exist trade-offs. Till today the stand alone arm boards works just great ( even if goes against theory. Please remember that we audiophiles care more on what we are hearing than in theories that can't prove the other way around, at least we don't have that experience where the theory is corroborated on this whole subject. Please if you have share with us. ) and this fact IMHO is what it counts at the end of the day.
A top a desk theories are just fabolous and " sounds " great but we have to test it and prove what those theories " say ".
Every time I can I like to argue and work with facts that are IMHO what it counts.
Of cource I'M with Halcro, Chris an the other " tested " persons.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
