|
So Raul,
In a nutshell, are you saying basically to trust your own ears? |
"So a heretofore unknown fault inherent to a belt drive turntable became apparent. "
How can you know the drive mechanism is the reason?
Aren't the two tables best optimized with different tonearm, and cartridge plus also set up and calibrated differently? Any combo of these could account for a difference. Not to mention dirt accumulated on the stylus, etc.
I would not expect any properly set up high end rig to sound inherently muddy and garbled, but I am sure you heard what you heard. |
My Linn Axis sits low to the ground on a very heavy solid oak coffee table ($30 used) which in turn sits on the thinly carpeted concrete foundation of my house. It plays beautifully here, the best ever. If you can provide a solid foundation like this for any good table, not sure what value a massive plinth can add.
I think a similar solid foundation is a requirement for practically using the no plinth option as Raul suggests.
A solid foundation beneath the table greatly reduces or perhaps even eliminates the need to fortify the table itself IMHO. |
I can definitely see where a copper or metal mat in general could liven things up assuming the table drive can handle the weight! |
I still do not get the whole fascination with DD turntables in general, but I can see how a heavy plinth could benefit by providing better isolation from motor noise which I suspect would be more inherent to start with in general with DD tables.
To me once a table reaches a certain level of performance, such as teh ones discussed here surely do, the differences are often most subtle and personal preferences become a predominant factor. I doubt one could be conclusively determined to trounce the other.
Also, I am not so sure it is possible to keep any group of respectful listeners from influencing the opinions of the individuals no matter how professional or sophisticated the bunch in cases where performance is by design uniformly at an extremely high level. |
I used to sell many belt, idler and direct drive tables back in their heyday and heard many. I could never attribute a clear sonic difference to drive type. Tonearms, carts, and other things but never drives. Nobody told me any type was superior. Strobe light speed indicators indicated that either drive done well could be equally accurate. I steered most customers to the belts in that DD tables cost more for no real benefit I could discern. I never sold any really good idlers, so I was not a fan of those at all.
These were my collective observations having been there and done many different tables. Granted, these were stock units and not the beefed up versions available today.
Either DD motor noise is an issue and the plinth the solution or not. I do not know for certain which but I don't think you can have both both be true. The plinth might still be helpful for external vibes, but as I alluded to above, there are other more effective ways to establish a solid foundation to isolate table from external vibes.
YEs, I am familiar with the fact that DD motors rotate more slowly and that in itself is an advantage (one of many any design can sport). |
One more thing I can note from my experience with DD and belt tables years ago is that overall DD tables did indicate better speed control overall than belts. Belt drives tended to have greater variability in speed accuracy from unit to unit as indicated by strobes, however, the better belt drives measured similar to DD tables in this regard. Often belts would have dirt or otehr deposits on them which caused slippage and measurable speed variations, even with new out of the box japanese tables of the day. Usually, cleaning of the belt in otherwise good condition with light solvent would remedy the problem. I was most diligent about checking this aspect of a belt drive table before turning over to a customer. Also most belts do wear over time and that results in similar slippage and speed variations as indicated by strobe and the remedy here is to replace the belt.
I have no data on longevity of DD tables in regards to speed accuracy in comparison to belts so I cannot comment on whether one or the other offers greater stability over the long term. I suspect good DDs may have an advantage here however if there is a problem the remedy to fix would be more costly than a belt replacement.
Also, DD tables are clearly more robust and suited for DJ use in that these tables are transported frequently and belt drive tables are not well suited to be transported continuously without additional preparation I suspect.
|
My assumption is the materials are chosen for their combo of high mass and rigidity, dampening ability and aesthetics. |
I'm still not getting it.
I believe a table spinning at a constant speed has 0 acceleration. Acceleration occurs as the table gets up to speed and prior to playing. So I'm not sure I understand how the higher mass plinth can enter into this. If teh plinth does not move or rotate during playing at target speed, then it should be fine I would think.
Also my understanding of the panzerholz material used in aLBERTS plinths is that it is very rigid but lower mass than comparable standard wood materials, so I'm not sure that adds up either.
I could see the value of the plinth using that material in theory again if the intent is to isolate from vibrations from the motor or perhaps even otherwise. No doubt any kind of motor used to drive a table produces vibrations, so perhaps the tonic is in teh specific cases where this is an issue otherwise, though I am skeptical it is an issue common to all tables in particular those already designed out of the can to deal with the issue.
I will also add that I cannot imagine a case where applying a more massive plinth properly can hurt, and they are very nice looking for sure! |
"panzerholz was chosen for its cost effectiveness"
My understanding of that material is quite limited, but by cost effectiveness I do not mean inexpensive but more in regards to overall value compared to using other materials with similar unique physical properties (whatever those may be). |
"3000 views"
That's just Albert's drawing power.
Albert is like Kim Kardasian in that way except his drawing power is a byproduct of talents beyond just his good looks! |
"Just some thoughts; fire away."
Frogman,
you've got the passion which is likely 98% of the battle in my mind! Most of the rest doesn't really matter. |
Good point about mats. Perhaps combo of mat and plinth is most important? |
I've seen some carbon fibre mats that might have similar properties but lower mass for tables that might not handle a 4 lb copper mat. They are not cheap but less than copper also I see. |
Table/arm/cart function as a system. You can toss the plinth, mat, and anything else that is there for benefit of the table into that system also. You want to optimize each system and compare. Components that perform optimally in one system may not in another. That could be plinth, mat cart, whatever.
If done well, each optimized phono SYSTEM should perform well. Each better or worse perhaps in particular aspects of the resulting sound. Which is better will often be a matter of personal preference and also how that phono system fits into the larger system as a whole as well. Obviously, use of high quality components in the properly integrated system is an insurance policy of sorts towards better performance, but not necessarily an indicator of better sound.
Not sure what else can be said objectively. Each case is different. Unless you exactly replicate a system that sounds good, it is hard to predict how any particular component will sound when you use it in your system. It is a combo of art and science through trial and error over the long term that delivers the end results. Knowledge, time and money are necessary ingredients. Otherwise, all bets are off. |
Heavy + rigid = better isolation.
Is it any more complicated than that? |
One thing for sure, those old and often somewhat austere tables sure look a heck of a lot better in a nice, shiny, big new plinth! That alone is worth something! |
Well, I thought I had a handle on this. Now it appears to have increased in complexity beyond my level of comprehension.
I understand that sound propagates at different speeds in different materials, but how this has an effect on the resulting sound in teh case of a turntable plinth is beyond me. I thought the goal of the big massive plinth was just to limit motor vibrations, not play a part in transmission of sound. How does that happen?
My gut feel is this article relates some interesting facts for consideration but that you are really cutting hairs with little chance of predicting end results trying to sort through any of this in a quantitative yet meaningful way.
On teh other hand, I suppose that's what being on the bleeding edge is all about, so cut away. |
FWIW, I think the original plinth is made from obsidian, which is volcanic glass. Obsidian glass cools from lava rapidly and essentially has no crystalline structure whereas slate is a metamorphic rock formed over long periods of time under extreme heat and pressure and evidences strong alignment of crystalline molecules. So that is a very major structural difference. Does it affect the sound? Again, who knows.... |
slate is a metamorphic rock with a highly aligned crystal structure.
I would expect different physical characteristics depending on orientation. Whether this is significant or not for this application? Who knows? |
