A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Syntax A.J. Conti's technical papers on his over all design are very forward thinking.
However what stopped me from pursuing his Signature model a few years ago was the acyclic material he used in its construction, a material which is relatively inexpensive and easy as pie to mill.
Sure there are differant types of acrylic material but it turn me off anyway for the price of this table and my thoughts were is it a material choice just to keep cost's down?

Conti's innovative designs through out the 2800 could be entirely focused on the neutral side of things and perhaps were not effected so much by his choice of using acrylics, but i'm only guessing.

Reading Conti's papers and the reviews his tables should be crowned as a benchmark for most other tables out there including frequent mention everywhere of A.J.Conti's innovative thinking behind his designs, however this is not the case.

Dertonarm with his up and coming arm and table may find himself in the same boat with his own innovative thinking behind his products, appreciated by a few and misunderstood by many.

Dear In_shore, I never thought about acrylic but am not sure about the other way round. Yes I know that we are talking about inanimate matter. But I first got Lurnes
Audiomeca J1 which was all of acrylic. Then the ASR Emitter II and Basis Exclusive which are 6 boxes all of acrylic and when I changed Audiomeca for the Kuzma Stabi Reference I again got a huge amount of acrylic. However I
was never interested in acrylic. So 'obviously' acrylic must be somehow interested in me?

Regards,

Dear Dgob: There is no doubt that exist a scientific ( physic/mathematic and the like. ) answer for many audio phenomenons but the issue is that till today does not exist and no one already attempt to " build " an audio model that not only has all the audio factors/parameters involved when we are talking to predict for sure audio system or audio item quality performance level but that has all the interactions/relationship between those factors/parameters that have influence in that " live " performance. DT " won't go on theoretical here " because IMHO he has nothing on hand that could give you a prediction about performance sound between cartridge/headshell/tonearm and its several alternatives on weight, compliance, stylus shape, cantilever material, headshell build material, tonearm whole design, internal cable, cartridge pin connectors, cable, phono stage and the like.

The best IMHO that we can do is try different alternatives and over hundred maybe thousands of " observation " method achieve some partial conclusions.

Yes, I agree with you: that scientific " stage " almost always arrive late to the audio party, especially when we are talking of quality performance level on analog because when we are talking of electronic designs the scientific " stage/path " is the first guest to arrive. So depend of waht we are talking about and what we want to know and with what level of consistence and accuracy. I'm with the scientific " road " always that can be use it and always when is " practical/workable ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul,

As though to prove the point, following your review, I've recently tried the Technics 100Mk4 on my Audiocraft AC3300 with a 13g aluminium headshell and finally found an alternative set up (other than my Morch DP6) on which that particular cartridge shines. This is after being largely disatisfied with trying numerous other headshells of distinct weights and/or build materials.

As I have discussed with Daniel off line, I do look forward to seeing what he comes up with on the tonearm and tt front but am not certain if this will really address the questions originally posed around perfect arm/headshell/cartridge selection. I genuinely stand in hope.

As always

Dear friends: Another stand alone tonearm arm board in another " children luxury " that like the Onedof came with tree BD. If you ask for the price then this is not for you: can't afford it.

This is the " beauty " of the BD ( commercial succe$$. ): good looking, heavy and pricey because the customer can " see " where his money goes against a DD alternative that has less drawbacks but looks " normal ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.