2. analog
  3. 129445-13747

High mass vs Low Mass Turntables - Sound difference?

As I am recently back playing with analog gear after some 15 years away, I thought I would ask the long time experts here about the two major camps of record players -- high vs low mass-loaded-type tables...

For example, an equivalently priced VPI table (say a Classic, Aries or Prime) versus a Rega RP8/10 or equivalent Funk Firm table...  the design philosophies are so different ... one built like a tank, the other like a lightweight sports car...

Just wondering if the folks here have had direct experience with such or similar tables, and what have been your experiences and sense of strengths and weaknesses of these two different types of tables.



128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xjjss49
randy-11
1,913 posts
 
higher mass will lower the Q of of the resonant system

- for those allergic to Google, that means any resonance near a certain freq. will be lower in amplitude and more spread out than a higher Q for both higher & lower freq.

it isn't really that it harder to get to resonate

higher mass is just one of a number of engineering design factors that can be used to deal with resonances - there is no way one could take a number of xlnt turntables and weigh them to rank their SQ

BEST THING: put the turntable (and it's pre-preamp) in a different room or area that is acoustically isolated from the listening room
jjss49's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
jjss49 OP
6,601 posts
 
so back to the ORIGINAL QUESTION...

anyone here able to do direct, head on comparisons?

i just care about the sound...
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,639 posts
 
jjss49
anyone here able to do direct, head on comparisons?
Either approach can yield outstanding sound. I'd put Oracle and Linn at the top of the low-mass designs - I had an Oracle Delphi for years and it was superb. I've long since returned to a high mass VPI and that's my preference.

High mass designs are easier to setup and tune, in part because the pickup arm mass is relatively insignificant compared to that of the plinth. Higher mass designs are also easier to operate; you can rest your hand on the plinth without bottoming out any springs.

I sold my Oracle to a friend who still uses it. It still sounds great. There are really many good examples of each design approach.
rotarius
431 posts
 
Well, I have to correct "The Audio Doctor" because I am an engineer and it pains me to read some of the stuff on audio forums.  First of all, it should not be about different philosophies, it should be about scientific fact.  Saying that something more massive will store more energy and release it more slowly compared to something lighter is just plain WRONG.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
rotarius
Well, I have to correct "The Audio Doctor" because I am an engineer and it pains me to read some of the stuff on audio forums. First of all, it should not be about different philosophies, it should be about scientific fact. Saying that something more massive will store more energy and release it more slowly compared to something lighter is just plain WRONG.

its not so simple but it pains me to say I think the statement is actually CORRECT. There are other factors to consider, however, such as inertia and stiffness. Not to mention rotational moments which would obviously be much higher for heavy platters.
More to discover