A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Thuchan,
Now you have me even more confused. I had been asking you about the SME 30 which you stated that you heard in two good system and did not like it. Now you write about the SME 20 and compare it to a Ford Mondeo. Did you hear the Model 30 or just the Model 20?

Could you please be more specific about why you don't think the SME 30 is a good turntable? Do you also think it is "flat and not vibrant" like the Model 20? And if so, why do you think it sounds like that? Please understand that I am only asking for your opinion based on your experience with your system in your room. In other words, a subjective opinion.

Dear Dgob: Good, the 100CMK4 is very good performer.

In the other subject certainly was not addressed by him. Please re-read my post about and if you want to discuss off line then we can do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Thuchan: As you said different drive TT systems works depending on implementation and even more important than that: depending on the designer targets. Yes,, there are options other than the commercial ones for TT designs and the hybrid always is an alternative.

IMHO the main subject is not that designers does not looks to other solutions but that almost all are luking the TT as an stand alone item.

Today almost all the main/normal TT targets are accomplish one way or the other. speed accuracy, speed stability where we have specs/figures here ( from many years and today TT samples. ) as low 0.001% ( Walker Rocport, Technics, Denon, etc. ), with wow&fluter as low 0.007% ( Audio Turntable ) or signal to noise ratio/rumble at 90db to over 100+db almost undetectable ( Technics, Rockport Avid, Clearaudio, Walker, etc, etc. ).

So IMHO these subjects are already ( I posted several times. ) well covered from the point view of measurements. As always there is land to improve but whom of you can detect for example a TT with a speed stability accuracy of 0.001% against the same TT that measure 0.0003%?

IMHO a TT designer after fulfil the " normal " targets the main target is to fulfil the cartridge needs and I mean it.

This IMHO is where I think exist a " long land " to explore and I think and hope that in the future the TT advance that we could " see " will address the " fulfil cartridge needs " and what this really means.

Now, +++++ " The SME 20/2 is in my honest opinion a fine reproduction machine but to my taste flat and not very vibrant. " +++++

even that I talked on the SME 30/2 I will take your 20/2 statement and the first question is: is it not what we are looking for in a TT? a DEAD SILENCE TT design that does not add nothing to the cartridge performance and that does not take out nothing to the cartridge/groove tracking performance.

Why need we a TT with " dynamic, power, vibrant and the like " performance characteristics?, I don't want it, my target is only that the cartridge take the 100% of the information in the grooves with out no single " factors " that could disturb its job in anyway. Same for the tonearm.

IMHO several differences between this and that and the other TT came mainly ( I'm speaking on good/decent designs, any drive system. ) the way each TT DISTURB the cartridge work. Same for tonearm. Is here where differences on performance begin and appear and not because example: 150db SN against " only " 98db.

That you like it how the TT DISTURB the cartridge job that does not means is right but only that you like those type of colorations against more accurate/neutral designs and there is nothing wrong with that: it is your previlege and your audio way of living.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Peterayer,
sorry this was a wrong transfer when I wrote the last comment. I listened to and I always mean the SME 30.

best @ fun only

Dear Raul,
when I am assessing a turntable's sonic footprint I need to have comparable preconditions, meaning same tonearm, same cartridge and same phono pre ideally. Sometimes you have to compromise on one or two units differing which is not the ideal way.

Nevertheless when I am listening to a record I do expect that the audio chain and especially the phono parts (turntable is one, maybe the most important part of it, or not?) are able to reproduce the signal like it was recorded and create a warm, open, detailed and as Syntax is mentioning a 'toe whipping vibration'. If the music is not dynamic ( not meaning overdynamic which e.g. some not well adjusted idlers may produce ) or wishi-washy etc. somehing was wrong during the recording process or is not well transported by the audio chain.

When I have listened to the same record with the same tonearm, the same cart and the same phono-pre (the preamps and amps both excellent comparable tube solutions) only the turntable is different (! SME 30/2) I am not the only one, at least in the specific session, who thinks he is able to assess the sonic footprint of a turntable.

If the result is a flat and not vibrant impression I do not care if the principles of neutrality in turntable building are the most desired precondition. I just assess the turntable misses something or adds something which I do not prefer (Peterayer - of course subjective).
Now you (or some others) may put me in the corner of a certain music philosophy you are not liking sharing with me. But this is how the world is and we may allow many audio listeners to enjoy their SME 30 with good feelings. I now know in which corner I must put you :-)

best @ fun only