A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Raul,

Thanks for the tip, again.

Halcro,

Glad to be aboard. I'm now trying the stand alone armboard. Well, actually I've just removed the armboard and fixing column from my Acoustic Signature Mambo and ficed that in place. Looking forward to trying that out.

Cheers

Hi Lewm,

Raul and Jose sorted my set up with the crossover filter for the Talons built into the Levinson amp (Raul could give you more information on this) and the subs using their own filters. They all run from the pre outputs on the Essential 3160. I use the subs like mono's: left output driving the left sub and right output driving the right sub.

Hi Hiho (enter elves stage right!),

I think you can find it here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openmine&zzDgob&4&5#Dgob

I have only seen it but am pleased to hear you suspect that it is 'revolutionary'. I wouldn't be surprised though. It does seem beautifully engineered.

Halcro,

I just came across this thread and thought I'd chip in my penny's worth. I've recently been testing my Technics SP10 Mk2 with and without plinth. I would definitely say that "without" plinth is the way to go. The music almost seems to be released with the loss of the plinth and staging and timbre are enhanced in a way that just sounds more natural/real (almost like, 'free your TT/ free the music'). Better still, you improve the sound while saving money: that can't be bad.

I simply sat it on some Audio Technica AT616 precision pneumatic footers and attached an ash armboard. I would strongly recommend you give it a try. I was a sceptic but hearing is believing.

.

Halcro,

Sorry, I was responding to your relevant posting on your Systems page and now see that you are already trying this and that we agree. I suppose the removal of any potential vibration and the minimalist approach to analogue might seem obvious.

Congrats

Lewm,

Yes, the largest set are the AT616 footers. The others work well also, I think.

Worth a try if you see any going (Yahoo Japan often has variations).

Atmasphere,

Just a quick question but for those of us using pneumatic footers, wouldn't that mean that the seperation of tonearm (including mount/armboard) from the nude TT represents the decoupling of both and the removal of a common plinth?

Kant demonstrated that the argument - "that might be true in theory but it is not in practise" - invariably pointed to the deficiency in a relevant theory. Maybe, if the common experience proves sufficient, we will find the reason why. That seems to be the way of progress!

Please accept my question as a genuine search for an explanation for what appears to be happening and all the best with your TT launch.

T_bone,

I have been trying my stand alone armbase for the past three days and it has not moved, despite my having been deliberately more robust in handling than I would normally. Unlike Halcro, my armbase (as can be seen on my System page) is only held in place with a few blobs of blue tac. I did take some time in adjusting to ensure that arm and cartridge were perfectly aligned with the detached nude TT but after that I have treated the entire exercise as if it was a normally fixed arrangement. As you know, I'm using the AT616 pneumatic footers and so that might be encouraging if the results althmore surprising for that.

It is too early to be certain of all my findings but I would honestly (and VERY unexpectedly) say that you should just give it a go. The differences are blatant, to me.

Halcro,

I have been playing with the detached armboard and note major differences in my analogue performance. Beyond question are improvements in staging and a more refined sound across the piece (I have been playing my TT at clearly increased gain levels, which I take as one sign of this). Bass is also far tighter and more detailed.

My Mambo armboard has three M6 screw holes in the bottom by which it is screwed onto the TT by an attaching rod (apparent as the armboards base in my System photograph). If I remove that attaching rod it will therefore be possible for me to use three spikes instead of the blue tac. I intend to try this out both because the blue tac approach has provided such marked differences and to see if this puts the debate beyond question.

Atmasphere,

Thanks for sharing this. It clarifies your point well. I am still left with the issue about theory and practice though.

The Acoustic Signature Mambo shares your approach with increased mass and a rigid and directly affixed arm-column. It is simply phenomenal in its performance when well isolated. However, the seperated Technics/arm-column improves on specific areas. Key among these are the scale (depth, width and height) of the sound stage; the air/audible space that exists between performers and the ease with which the entire performance is resolved (leading to smoother sound at higher volumes).

I am still not absolutely certain what trade-offs might be happening and so I will explore this fully before determining if what I am hearing is just different or actually 'better'. One thing for certain is that it is a dramatic difference.

The questions that remain would therefore (at least for those using pneumatic devices under one component or both to decouple the arm-column/TT) seem to include to what degree and at what specific point or level do disparities in vibration of arm column/TT impair the quality of sound produced. They might also include questions of how much does appropriate VTF compensate for any such disparities. This and - 'most importantly - the obvious difference in performance that I am getting at present are important reasons why I'll continue to experiment with the phenomenon of seperation and decoupling. As part of this, I am considering trying spikes, viscoelastic and pneumatic options under the arm column itself, as I am not wholly convinced that seperation and decoupling "must" involve disparity.

Time and my hears will tell and both can only be further assisted by the kind contributions of people such as yourself.

Chris,

Sorry but just a quick follow up. Did you try the arm tower on your fourth AT616 and, if so, what was the outcome?

Thanks

Raul,

Thanks. I'll look into a digital option.

Jcarr,

I appreciate your comments as usual and recognise the logic (indeed a Japanese technician who used to produce tonearms in the 80s has pressed the same logic on me for some time) but can only say that my experience of isolated tonearm and turntable does not accord with the theory. Whatever the reason, the results really do speak for themselves.

Atmasphere,

I think what you say about the popular plinths for the Technics seems true to my experience. I know someone who used the SAEC solid metal plinth and who still swears by it. However, shipping costs for that monster from Japan are just too prohibitive: at least for me in the in the current economic climate. I think it is also made predominantly or completely from Aluminium and so there are likely to be resonance problems. However, I'm not too certain if they went along the same route as Acoustic Signature in a mixed metal approach similar to the one you have suggested.

I also agree about the most expedient approach and that is precisely (if I follow you correctly) what I and others have been trying to do. The only question is whether instead of pinning it to a platform, using the AT616 provides a suitable alternative. This leaves the question of finding a decent arm tower and the experimentation that Halcro and others seem to be undertaking seems fascinating along these lines to me. I'll try the spikes seated on some industrial absorption material and let you know how that goes.

Thanks again

T_bone,

Many thanks and I look forward to finding out.

Banquo363,

Congrats. They certainly make a difference.

Chris,

As Raul and Halcro suggest, three seems the magic number. They have obvious advantages in making things level and stable (as with the tripod in general) and you can easily adjust the height of each individual AT616.

Hope that helps

Halcro,

I'm having difficulties with the spiked stand-alone arm column. In my system, it definitely increases the bottom end and lower midrange but I feel it does so excessively. The cost of these elevations seem to be a loss of air/acoustic layering and refinement. However, they gave greater impact on certain percussive instuments and so I need to find a middle ground.

I'm still playing with this and will try a mix of the spikes and blue tac approaches to see if I can tune in the necessary accuracy in tone and staging.

The fun continues...

Lewm,

Yes. I'm using this as an exercise in decoupling and I've now gone back to using a combination of viscoelastic sheeting, blue tac and spikes under the arm column. Early days but so far, so good...

Atmasphere,

Thanks again. The funny thing is that the spikes do not offer the level of rigidity that I need. They do however offer grounding. The mix of methods that I am currently using is producing very interesting results but I still need time to explore the accuracy and pros and cons of this (decoupling) approach.

I'll give ffedback once I'm certain.

Atmasphere,

PS: I still hold some interest in trying the metal sandwich platter. So if you fancy pulling your finger out about designing one (that I could import to England), do give me a shout off-line;~) SAEC just wont work, financially at present!

Halcro,

I have experimented with weights on the arm columns and with vtf variations. So far, not adequate. However, the fun continues...

Atmasphere, do take my suggestion seriously.

Lewm,

I don't think there was anything annoying about your opinion. Honestly! The key issue here is one of decoupling and if you review this thread you should see why the experimentation.

Chris/Halcro,

Thanks for your suggestions and I will look into having a heavy arm column produced that may work better with the spiked option. The weight limitations with the Mambo column could be where the problems lie and it'll be fun (and, hopefully, rewarding) to try this out. I'll let you know as soon as I can sort this out.

On the issue about both the TT and arm tower being on spikes I think Chris has hit the nail on the head. If you are seeking complete isolation, the different methods are secondary. The question resides in how effective both methods are at controlling resonance and vibration.

Henry, if you get a chance to try out the AT616 footers you might be surprised - I was. This also offers you the potential to truly decouple arm-column and TT, which was where I came in, as it were. Lewm, I hope that answers your scenario.

Atmasphere,

Thanks again. I'm going to load up the arm tower as soon as I find a local engineer able to undertake this for me.

On frequency extention, I'd hasten to add that I am playing this set up at very high volumes and the quality needs to be heard to be appreciated. So as I said, I think for everything to click into place I will follow your, Chris and Henry's suggestion of building a heavy arm tower. The gains I already have with the current approach to decouplling makes this a more than worthwhile endeavour.

Grateful for all your kind suggestions and contributions.

T_bone,

I suspect the weight will be the issue and I am in the process of addressing this.

About the potential effects of this: I am deliberatley aiming to de-couple tt from arm tower. That in short is my experiment and is not (from my limited understanding) adverse to meeting the basic laws of scientific proof. Also, and given the basis to this exercise, I really do not see that by coupling the arm tower to both the Symposium Ultra and its supporting wall shelf in any way "negates the effect of adding on the weight to the armpod."

I think that Chris and Atmasphere have already suggested the potential for varied approaches to 'isolation' and to 'damping'. Beyond that, I can only reiterate that the gains already achieved by decoupling the tt (in a manner that I know you appreciate equally) has proven as huge a success as we have previously discussed. The question (and basis to my experiment) is whether further gains are to be had though the method of damping an isolated arm tower. The isolation point seems to me proven in my initial blue tac approach and the results that I obtained there. The damping of the arm tower is where my attention currently lies. To wit, weight.

I can offer no greater certainties than that and the obvious results already obtained at this early stage.

Banqu363,

You are not deaf - unless deafness can be spread through ICT! The use of mixed methods (pneumatic and spikes) produces a level of accuracy that I still find startling.

Sadly, I do not own a fourth AT616 and so that option is currently not available. Also, I would still need a different arm tower to sit on this as the Mambo column does seem short on mass and might not stabilize - then there's the question of the height that this would raise my tonearm in relation to the tt (but a suitable arm tower could undoubtedly address these factors - if I had a fourth AT616).

I look forward to hearing back from you on the results.

Good luck

T_bone,

I have made a few adjustments to my system. Having now further customised my arm tower to a weight of 6kg, I also used three spikes to couple it to the platform. However, and I really have no idea why this should be, the real transformation came in removing my Symposium Ultra platform and seating everything directly on my birch wall shelf: WOW!

I can now state that having the tt and arm tower on seperate axis of isolation works. I have owned a few tt's (including the Roksan Xerxes, Roksan Xerxes 10, SME 10, Clear Audio Master Reference and Acoustic Signature Mambo)and a variety of platforms and isolation. Yet I have never had the level of performance that I am currently getting from the nude Technics SP10 MkII with a completely decoupled arm tower. The inner detail, staging, clarity, ease and frequency extention all show major improvements to what I have heard before (outside of live venues of course).

I will continue to experiment with test tracks and human and technological support to confirm or challenge my perceptions. However, I have no axe to grind here but I would hasten to say that this must be tried out. The differences are not subtle!!!

Atmasphere,

I just recalled your referring to the fact that: "elastomerics... are more efficient if they are loaded properly!" This might answer why the removal of the Symposium platform had such a major impact. However, I did increase the weight of the armtower to over 6kg and this brought no major improvements - save stabilizing the imaging.

Whatever the reasoning (and I acknowledge that the loading was inadequate in this instance, particularly as the platform works wonderfully under the behemoth mass of the Acoustic Signature Mambo) the set up is really and truly wonderful. I remain amazed by this relatively cheap option and the gains it brings.

Nevertheless, I will still try a platter of the SAEC type at some distant point just because I have learned to never close my self off from possible alternatives and the gains that these might bring. The curent set up simply seems the best of the alternatives that I have tried and/or listened to so far.

Obviously and highly recommended.

T_bone,

Yes, that's the way it's set up now. Really impressed.

T_bone,

Excellent and do let me know how it goes if you do try it.

Atmasphere,

You're right, the spikes and resultant image stabilization was a major improvement. What I should have said was that it did not bring performance back to where I had it when only using blue tac and not using the Symposium. The combination of spikes and the removed viscoelastic platform has brought major improvements in this regard but I still need to test for any trade-offs and ensure where (if anywhere) weaknesses might now lie.

Onwards and upwards

Raul,

I cannot doubt the truth of your statement. I would encourage others to try it out but also understand if they decide to go another route.

Atmasphere,

Examples of the viscolelastic materials used for isolation and damping can be found at:

http://www.equarack.com/isolation-footers.htm

Maybe I have misused the terminology or misunderstood. If so, my apologies.

Thucan,

I think Raul has just posted something about his arm on the MM/MC thread. I know that it is aesthetically pleasing but if its performance matches its beauty, we might be in for something very special.

Hi Raul,

Just a little anecdote to suggest why "I would [strongly] encourage others to try" the nude Technics and decoupled arm tower. My wife has become desensitised of the joys of hifi due to the decades of constant component change and repeated play of stock test tracks that this has involved. It seemed a miracle when she both noticed and commented positively on what she heard this week. Similarly, my seven year old daughter tends to criticise my music and finds no time for jazz and classical music which, I am told, I "always play". Well last night, I was playing Peggy Lee and Ella Fitzgerald. She danced to all tracks and asked me questions about Ella and her life. I know this might not seem like much but it touched me greatly and I believe this was down to the natural and detailed way in which the records are now being presented.

Given that the changes I have made have cost me absolutely nothing so far (although I might vernture towards having a customised arm tower made - a la Halcro - at some future point), I simply cannot see why anyone would not at least try this out.

Atmasphere,

I've reattached the support base to the Mambo arm tower and then placed 5.5kg weight on that. I've kept the two (of the three)exposed spikes on the column and then drilled and tapped a 6mm hole at the end of the support base: so as to have a tripod of spikes that hold the whole thing about 3mm above the birch wall shelf. I've then rolled four small balls of blue tac and placed these under the four corners of the support base (the weights ensure that the blue tac is squashed firmly against the platform (or plinth!)and that the arrangement is grounded through the three spikes.

It's not the prettiest arrangement (given the old small bar bell weight that I have used on the arm tower/ supporting base) but it really works and is costless - until such time as I can obtain a more aesthetically pleasing arm tower.

Chris,

No doubt about it. The importance of unexpected family appreciation has only been further enhanced by the fact that it has cost me nothing to achieve these results: other than a little time in ensuring perfect set up parameters.

Hi All,

So I've suggested my being impressed by the changes that I have achieved in moving to a naked Technics SP10 Mk2 with a decoupled, stand-alone arm tower. Yet I started to wonder what precisely constituted this "better". Well, in a ham-fisted attempt to clarify my thinking here I thought I'd share some impressions of this experience.

As I noted, with the new analogue arrangement, the first and most obvious change is that the sound stage is far larger. This means that the spacing between musicians is not only wider but it is markedly deeper too. This is accompanied by the sensation of actual acoustic space between musicians and presents a perspective that is far closer to that provided in an actual live performance.

The next most obvious feature relates to the above one but is that you acquire more control over complex performance material. Large orchestra crescendos do not become confused and the instrumentation remains identifiable throughout. This goes hand in hand with the much increased sense of ease that performances attain.

The next most obvious change is the increased level of 'detail' that you get. For me, detail is the critical factor of quality in high fidelity replay. This is not only being able to hear additional instruments but also to be able to distinguish timbre and every audible feature that makes a live performance. To neglect the certrality of detail as the key criteria seems to me to depend on a violent limitation on what one means by 'detail'. For me, the term means 'more information' and that is surely (be it in increasing the bite of string instuments or; the rasp of brass or; the percussive impact of drums, strings or keyboards or; the quieter spaces that give good staging) at the heart of everything that the audiophile is seeking. Well, you get more detail when playing your music through this new analogue arrangement.

This fact leads to a need to 'equalise your hearing'. This seems critical to me because (I believe) we can become familiar with hifi norms that have little to do with actual live performances. One such norm is the spotlighting of a frequency range and or instrument at the cost of the full range of the actual performance. It's difficult to explain what I mean here other than to say that proportion is generally lost with this form of hifi spotlighting (there are of course other forms of equipment that can also achieve these negative results - including certain cables and forms of amplification).

In the new arrangement, the lead instrument/frequency is brought back into perspective with the full ensemble. This does not mean that there is a loss of detail in such a lead instrument or frequency range. What it seems to mean is that the supporting detail is brought out into what becomes a more detailed performance in which everything just seems right (key instrument or frequencies included). Listener fatigue also goes on holiday as this new detail makes its entrance. As I say, I found that it made me reassess the various cues that I had become accustomed to basing my assessments of components on. And that put live performances (or intimations of them in line with my own experiences of live performances at a variety of venues) back to the fore of my appreciations.

I name four recordings that underpin, and seem to fully testify to, my impressions. These recordings are:

1. Bach, Goldberg Variations, Glenn Gould (1982) CBS
2. Bach, Donatas & Partitas, Nathan Milstein (1975) Deutsche Grammophon 2721 087
3.Prokofiev, Romeo and Juliet complet ballet, Algis Zuaitis, Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra, EMI CPD 41 4452 3 and
4.John Surman, Westering Home, (1972) Island Records, HELP 10.

I wont go into detail about the factors that come through on these phenomenal works: they are worth listening to regardless of the quality of ones equipment. Suffice it to say that all four of these recordings make my above impressions certainties for me. Yet all recordings take a similar route to improvement (obviously in proportion to the quality of their own performance and recording) with my nude turntable and detached stand alone arm tower.

I strongly recommend such experimentation for those who might seek to explore my experience and appreciation of what constitutes its being better.

Dear Nandric,

Thank you. I think!

Just by way of clarification around my listening, there are notes on the recordings that I have suggested above. As I say, they are worth having in their own right:

Review of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet complete ballet, Zuraitis:

http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/February%201990/42/813451/PROKOFI+EV.+Romeo+and+Juliet%E2%80%94ballet,+Op.+64.+Bolshoi+Theatre+Orchestra++Algis+Zuraitis.+Classics+for+Pleasure+0CD+CDCFPD4452+(two+discs,+nas%3A+142+minutes%3A+ADD).+From+EMI+SLS1650933+(883)

Reviews of Bach’s Goldberg Variations, Gould:

http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2002/sept/gould/

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/32884/Glenn-Gould-Bach%3A-Goldberg-Variations/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bach-Goldberg-Variations-BWV-988/dp/B0002ISFRU

Reviews of Bach’s Sonatas and Partitas, Milstein:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pdp/profile/AUPFJ7DHP16HO/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp

http://www.epinions.com/review/pr-Bach_Sonatas_Partitas_Nathan_Milstein_Music/content_61056388740

Reviews of Surman’s Westering Home:

http://www.allmusic.com/album/westering-home-r148391

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/john_surman/westering_home/

These are all available with a little effort for anyone who does not own them. Maybe the Prokofiev is a little more difficult to obtain but well worth the perseverance I feel.

Anywhos, it would please me if any of this proves helpful.

Happy listening

Banquo363,

Thanks very much. Yes, I've placed the power supply on the Symposium precision couplers and sat that on the Symposium svelte platform - which sits on the birch shelf. These viscoelastic platforms still work effectively under electronics (such as power supplies and amplifiers - also spectacular between stands and speakers).

On the Gould, I much prefer the 1981 rendition (1982 recording). His introspection and maturity just seem more appealing and engaging. I also think the recording quality is better and his habitual background vocals just seem to add to the 1982 recording in ways that his 1955 cannot.Maybe that's all just a reflection of my own aging perspectives finding accord with his.

Banquo363,

Sorry, just to add on the 1982 preferance, you get much more playing time to enjoy on his later and much slower rendition and I think the fact that I simply adore the music makes this a plus (not to mention that the more time plus better quality really do appeal on the miserly 'value for money' front)!

Raul,

Thanks for the warning. I did spend an inordinate amount of time ensuring that both armtower/arm and tt were levelled exactly the same, within the limitations of the small spirit level that I use for this purpose. If I can find an even more accurate method/tool I will definitely try to make it even more exact if possible. If you (or anyone) have a suggestion of how to improve on this, it would be gratefully received.

Thanks again for your kind help throughout

Halcro,

Thanks for the kind words. Regarding the plinths tried, I tried a birch, aluminium and acrylic composite plinth. I also tried various directly coupled arm boards. These included ones made of birch/aluminium, ash and MDF.

Of the armboards, the ash was the best performer (in view of the achievements and criteria that I have used for the nude approach). The bespoke plinth is of my and my artisan brother-in-law's design. It performed well but the experiment with the nude and stand-alone approach has meant that we're back to the drawing board and trying to see if we can incorporate some of the apparent lessons into a new design.

This is only an exercise to see what is really possible (plinth wise) for those who MUST have a more traditional arrangement. However, given financial and time constraints at present, it might be quite some time before any advances are made on this front. When they are and assuming that the results are worth noting, I'll definitely feed back.

In truth and thanks largely to your and Raul's initial suggestions, the nude and stand alone approach are (as I've sought to explain) all that I could wish to achieve.

Halcro,

Sorry, I should have also said that I have also based my comments on the nude approach in the light of my experience with the various other TT's that I have owned, which I have referenced before.

Raul,

Only the Moerch DP6 and Audiocraft AC3300 LB.

Ct0517,

I'm not altogether certain. Moving the Technics onto the AT616s made an immediate difference to staging, pitch and tone. However, isolating and mass-loading the armboard definitely enhanced these gains and brought about the full potential that I've pointed to above.

AS you'll recall from my earleir comments, one of my key interests was to see if the isolation/decoupling of turntable from armboard and plinth would reap rewards. It now seems beyond doubt to me that such isolation offers a huge step forward.

Lewm,

I do have a long carpenter's level that I use for making measurements of larger areas (of shelves, turntable etc). However, the small precision vial that I use can be used to ensure the level at a variety of (often small and intricate - arm tower etc) places/points/spaces.

Not withstanding the noted issues regarding using the larger spirit level here, I think the laser level sounds a really interesting idea and I think would now probably be fairly cost efficient as you suggest. I'll look into the practicalities and thanks for the suggestions.

Banquo363/Chris.

Apologies for the mix up on the AT616 and arm tower issue: a mix of old age and inattentiveness I fear.

Lewm,

Both my arms are 9" or less and work perfectly on the Technics SP10 Mk2. Don't let concerns about size stop you trying this all out. It's definitely worth it.

Lewm,

I will post photo's of the arm tower as soon as I can and let you know.

If you look at the design of Halcro's armpod, you can see how an off-set mounting hole can allow great flexibility (even more than my current arrangement) for mounting and locating any tonearm. Something for the future maybe.