A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Raul, I have read not one word that persuades me that I am missing something important by denuding a turntable or using an armpod. Not one person has my equipment or anything like it, or my turnables tonearms cartridges or has done a real "experiment" that proves anything at all. Mostly I read that the guys that have tried these constructs have found it to be pleasant and to make them happy, sometimes after much fiddling and some expense. My turntables/tonearms are also pleasant and make me happy. Please leave me be on this subject. This is what I was saying above; there is room in the universe for both approaches, so I at least wish to move on. You and a few others cannot be happy it seems unless the rest of us acknowledge that the plinthless/armpodist way of doing things is genius. It's not; it's just another way of doing things that inevitably comes with its own set of compromises. (Of course, this is my fault for posting here again. Sorry about that.) I guess I'd rather sling solder than machine metals.

Hello Jcarr, I'm coming into this discussion rather late, but please explain a statement:

**FWIW, I also agree fully with Daniel and Travis regarding outboard arm pods. When you play a record, what you are actually doing is measuring it against the platter and spindle. Mounting the tonearm on a separate pod allows relative movement to occur between the tonearm pivot and the platter / spindle, and this will interfere with the accuracy of measurements.**

The set-ups I've seen with separate arm pods look like massive affairs where both the spindle housing and pods are planted so there can be no relative movement between them. Of course these are non-suspended tables. So, what are you talking about? Why is it preferable to use a plinth to maintain spindle/arm distance, rather than the base? I would think that using the plinth has greater potential to muddy up the sound.
Regards,

Dear all,
this is a thread full of helpful ideas how to improve the installation of TTs and the whole system. I needed over ten years to find out that the most limiting factor for good sound is the listening room itself. Usually you cannot change the room's structure and you need to compromise on many topics. This was exactly my situation in 2006.

Then I decided to build my own room. It took me two years studying and doing preparations for the final design, building structure and all the issues for the potential technical and acoustical effects. At this place I do not repeat what I am writing on my page but let me express that besides of the best construction material the right size of the room, having enough space behind and above the speakers and also between the speakers and the listening position is most important.

Either you do it in a monitor setting very close to the speakers as Jonathan suggests or you do it like I did keeping reflections ( also the first reflections ) under control by putting special frequency related treatment material in the additional extra-ceiling and also breaking the waves by the
surrounding wall installations avoiding glass and flat structures at the same moment.

It may sound funny but it is a big challenge to create a room which breathes and still has some atmosphere, so you like to stay there and do not feel entering a bunker or a dead room. In the end we want to relax and enjoy the sound - not the distortions. I have to admit that some theories work pretty well when being implemented but there are lots of thoughts also in this thread applying on "small rooms" which definitely do
not work in my listening room. Not a big issue for me anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to highlight my special situation ( maybe a little too :^) . What could be more important is that if you have a nice system and you do think about an apropriate room you may put some efforts in this rather than rebuilding the system all the time, or shielding everyhing around you. We need to live with airborne and structural waves but you can do a lot of improvements.

best & fun only

This thread moves fast, so pardon me for stepping back a few days.

Jcarr: Thanks for the response to my post regarding the placement of my rack. I recently changed my rack from an Ikea shelve that was low and wide to a proper rack that is tall and narrow. The change in dynamics and bass response was dramatic. The new rack as far back as it can go but less than 500mm (20") back from front face of the speakers.

Besides the the interconnects there is also the issue that my dedicated power line runs to an outlet located on the wall between the speakers. Moving the rack would require pulling the wires again or a long extension cord.

All this is to say, that my experience with the change of rack leads me to agree with Tuchan's statement that the most limiting factor to good sound is the room. Understanding and taming your room and its contents will likely have bigger impact than any gear upgrade. That is not say that good gear is not required, it is necessary but not sufficient.

Dear Thuchan, Some Dutch Jew was reading the paper and suddently started to cry. His best mate Mos asked what the reason was. Sam : "Don't you see the Rockefeller is passed awy.''
Mos : 'I am really sorry but I had no idea that Rockefeller is family of yours.'
Sam: 'that is exactly the problem.'

Regards,