Suspension vs. non-suspension turntables???

Hmmm. Just because something's old doesn't mean it's time to change it. In fact you might find out it's shockingly expensive to change. My rega planar 3 cost me $300 many years ago when I lived not far from Southend in the UK. I think I'd be spending well over $1000 to get a significant improvement in it now, and that's money better spent on a new cartridge and more LPs or CDs.

I'd guess you'll get better advice if you can tell us what improvements you're seeking versus the roksan.

I've only ever owned non-suspended designs, so I can't answer your question.

Yes, I have owned some of your "usual suspects". Here are my impressions of the differences between the two.

I started with the (non-suspension) Basis 1400, with a RB300 arm and a Koetsu Black cartridge. It was a very good upper entry level table. Good dynamics and fairly low noise floor. I originally had a Benz Micro Glider II on this table and when I went to the Koetsu Black, and noticed a definite drop in the noise floor.

I then moved on to the (suspension) Basis 2001, with a RB900 arm and the same Koetsu Black cartridge.
Since the arms were similar (the big difference being the upgraded cabling on the RB 900), the biggest difference I noticed in the tables themselves was the dramatically lowered noise floor of the 2001. The background is pretty "black", and therefore, I appreciate the subleties of the music more. In addition, I feel the bass was more extended as well. The treble also seemed like it was more extended, but I think the lowered noise floor may have been accounted for some of that.

My two cents worth anyway.

Both types have their adherents, obviously, and there've been some interesting threads on the topic before. Search the archives and you'll find them.

When I chose my TT I was also unable to audition. I chose by following this (admittedly deductive) "logic":

- making a good suspension is both difficult and expensive (I had an inexpensive, suspended deck as a negative example)

- assume a price point (let's say < $10K)

- consider a table of each type at that price point

- the maker of the suspended table must dedicate a significant portion of his costs to designing, engineering, sourcing and building the suspension

- the maker of the non-suspended table dedicates virtually none of his costs to the suspension (just three cones or whatever)

- therefore, the maker of the non-suspended table has more resources available to optimize other critical elements like the bearing, motor, plinth and platter design and materials, etc.

Therefore, this hypothetical non-suspended table "should" outperform its similarly priced hypothetical rival, and will certainly be easier to set up and forget.

It seems likely that a non-suspended table should be more dynamic. The less the table moves laterally in response to energy from groove transients, the more of that energy will be transmitted to the cartridge generators. OTOH, a good suspension should isolate the stylus/groove interface from structure-borne and motor vibrations better. This would yield blacker backgrounds and a lower level of detail retrieval. Nonsuspended tables rely on higher mass and a mix of materials to meet this goal.

This is all I had to go on when I made my decision. I'm happy with the results on my Teres, but so are most Basis owners!