A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Thanks for the input Jonathan.
If I may ask.......how have you managed to determine this grading and for how many materials?

Hi Henry.

By building, listening and measuring, not only to my own designs and prototypes, but those of other designers also. Subsequent discussions with yet other audio designers and retired designers have suggested that we generally agree about the ranking.

Compared to machining, casting is cheap if large numbers of parts are to be produced, and therefore would be most attractive to a manufacturer such as myself. This is particularly true when the shapes get complex, which drives machining costs up, up, up. Unfortunately, so far I haven't been able to convince myself to use casting for anything more demanding than an active digital cable enclosure.

How many materials? Off the top of my head, aluminum(s), magnesium(s), brass(es), bronze(s), iron(s), copper(s), titanium(s), stainless steel(s). Probably more if I jog my memory.

BTW, none of the above necessarily means that you and I would come to the same conclusions. It very well could be that your audio system and listening habits are different enough from mine that we'd have to agree to disagree.

cheers, jonathan

Has anyone tried making their arm tower with brass? Do you see any advantages/disadvantages with this material?

Cheers

Dear Halcro, Jcarr's "table of material's sonic quality" is correct. The key is the decreasing ability/speed to transmit energy in the different processed materials. Cheers,
D.

Hi Jonathan,
I imagine though, that the 'processing' of the material and the 'significant effect on sound' due to that, would vary depending on 'where' in the signal-processing chain that material was applied?
For instance, I can imagine a tonearm headshell or arm-tube having a more 'significant' effect on the signal than say......an isolating spike or cone, or an arm-pod or a shelf bracket?
Cheers
Henry