A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Raul, I am saying NOTHING, nada, about the Raven in any way, shape or form. The Raven is a belt-drive turntable with no formal "plinth" but does have a massive metal base to which tonearms and bearing are rigidly attached, and a massive platter. That would seem to me to be a good design; I have never ever heard one. I have repeatedly maintained that large formal wooden plinths as we used to know them are probably passe' for belt-drive.

Also, I think you can't have it both ways. In other instances you have frequently maintained that those who disagree with you are hearing euphonic distortions, but distortions nevertheless, and that the goal should be to reduce all distortions of any kind. Once you take that view, can you really say that if an outboard arm pod induces pleasing distortions, that is OK?

Sorry also, Halcro and Chris are great guys. I am pleased to feel like I know them. But neither of them did a "test", if a test is to be taken as a synonym for a valid experiment, and they both admit that.

Dear Halcro, In reference to your remark above, last month I finally bit the bullet and bought a Parasound amplifier (after much research and hand-wringing) just to have music while I play with my "real" OTL tube amplifiers. The Parasound does an OK job in the meantime on my Sound Labs.

Dear Lewm: I still think that the best way to improve quality sound performance in an audio system is reducing/lowering " distortions " ( any kind and everywhere. Even against " theories ". ).
The whole naked TT project seems to " align " with that target.

Btw, do you already find out/bought those three tiptoes for test that DP-80 " approach?: you don't need to make or buy anything else ( only change VTA. ) and obviously you don't need more " floor/space " in your system and obviously too you already have a great and way big and weighty stand alone slate tonearm board ( acostically dead? )!!!!

Have fun.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Perhaps we're chasing phantoms here?
Are turntables just like cartridges and speakers?
Different flavours for different folk yet doing the same job in different ways?

After all, who amongst us here is brave enough to name the best turntable he's ever heard for fear of being shot down in flames?
Yet there are the reviewers who aren't afraid to do exactly that.

Jonothan Valin names the Walker Proscenium as the best with the DaVinci Gabriel second best.
Michael Fremer names his Continuum Caliburn/Cobra the best while Harry Pearson has the Clearaudio Statement up there.
Yet they're all very different design models?

I don't think many of us on this Forum have the same table or tonearms yet we all seem to derive much pleasure from playing vinyl (except for Raul:-))?

If we have an imperfect medium within an imperfect chain mixed with personal preferences and unlimited combinations and permutations of equipment, is it any wonder that no one item can be universally called 'the best'?

Perhaps that's also why we continue to seek that elusive indefinable 'upgrade' which will suddenly make sense of our miserable and meaningless lives?

Dear Raul,

+++++ " 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!

Sorry, but ... my remark was meant utterly sarcastic....;-) ...

And finally - it is always words vs words (as "personal experience" vs "personal experience"). The personal preference - that thing you named "fact" ... - of one person is worth as much or as little as one other's.
There are no empirical tests available here.
There are no "facts" here drawn from personal "tests".
Sorry.
Wished there were.
So everyone's "tests" are bitterly limited, since drawn from listening with different and most likely not perfect periphery and based on a bag full of individual circumstances and likes/dislikes.
So totally worthless for the next person - unless he/she is a blind "follower" of the former.
"Falling back" on plain and simple or complex physical models might not be tempting to some, but it is at least an universal objective attempt.

Picking up on Halcro's initial words:
For thousands of years people believed that the sun is moving around the earth. They had "proof" every day and it was an undisputed "fact" drawn from "personal test and experience".
After all they all saw the sun wandering through the horizon, setting and rising again the next morning.
Galileo (and long before him less well known arabic, greek and egyptian men of thought and clear view looked behind the plain "obvious" view and found a different approach and physical fact.
An approach free from individual experience......
Now just exchange "geocentric conception of the world" with "personal tests and facts in audio" and you see the point.
We ( well, .... most of us ...) have moved on to the heliocentric conception of the world ( and right now are on our way to another even more universal conception ... .... at least some of us ...;-) ....) and we ( ... some ...) will move on in audio too.

And as such it is the more scientific and Copernican point of view and attempt ( Halcro .... ;-) ...).

Cheers,
D.