Dear Alectiong, no - it won't end your upgrade itch. Not for 10 years to come. Most likely not even for 10 months to come. Not because of the quality of the Raven or any other current available so called high-end TT. And asking here the other audiophiles won't help either.
Ask any 10 audiophiles their opinion and you most likely will get 11 different answers.
The only possible way to a "calm audiophile state of mind and art" is different.
Select one single component of the chain you really LOVE. Then carefully and without altering the other periphery do form a suitable and matching chain around it - to your taste ONLY. Without asking others or without comparing the sound with other set-ups.
When you've done and am satisfied, cancel all subscriptions to audio magazines and forget the links to all audiophile online forums.
That is the way to "true audio nirvana".
If you happen to be the first to find a better way, I really would like to learn about it.
Have a great journey - and remember to ask and remind yourself from time to time, whether the road is the goal or rather the goal is the goal......
D. |
Dear Mordante,
this "Throwing money at audio isn't a garantee for a good sound" is the single most important sentence in this and most other threads regarding analog audio.
Hardly anyone will like, even fewer will follow it, but it tells the truth and nothing else.
Dear Alectiong, go follow Solong's advise. He did follow some of my advises and I can confirm from direct first hand experience that his Raven does sound different (in a most positive way...) from all other Raven set-ups I know or have seen.
The Raven - as ANY other TT - does benefit from isolating from periphery vibration.
It's essential to isolate ANY TT out there (any which doesn't already feature a below 3 hz or better isolation in its design...) on a Vibraplane, Minus-K or similar.
Otherwise 90% of the money spent on the particular TT were wasted.
The full potential is only shown/heard/experienced when the TT is isolated from building frequency.
A - sad and somehow frustrating - technical and physical fact on thsi planet.
Ask any scientist who works with a microscope then and now - they will all tell you the same story.
The periphery conditions of an analog TT are identical.
Have a nice audio journey,
D. |
Hi Alectiong, any of these TT's will bring you closer - if properly set-up.... which does require some extra work and "tweak" with some of the TT's mentioned now - to a "positive retirement" state of audio mind - (I am mentioning the vintage ones here, as others most certainly will promote different current production TT's...).
And yes, - I have heard them all in familiar set-ups - safe for the PV Magnum...:
* Platine Verdier
* Platine Magnum
* Micro RX-5000
* Micro RX-8000 or SX-8000 (but I can NOT recommend the vacuum version)
* Basis Debut Gold
* Epic
* Melco
* Apolyt
4 of these you are not likely to find at all on the used market.
Aside from the Basis Debut Gold and the Apolyt all other do need some treatment on the platter (a GOOD mat...) and all others aside from the PV Magnum and the Apolyt do need an isolation from underground by means of a Vibraplane or Minus-K or similar (see Syntax system for inspiration and illustration).
This is essential.
Some others will now recommend some idler-drive or vintage DD-TTs or Walker, Continuum, Rockport or whatever.
It will be a long journey......
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Raul, dear Thuchan, we hopefully learn from mistakes, we learn certainly from results and sometimes from experience. But I can not see, what can be learned from an "opinion" of another listener who always have (must have, as he is a different individual...) preferences, taste and bias more or less different from your own.
We shouldn't mistake the gathering of opinions for "learning" from others.
An opinion is no more than that - an individual impression (expressed however...) formed by an individual matrix which has evolved over a lifespan of very unique - in fact singular in their combination - experiences, preferences, taste (or the lack of it....), moods and social circumstances.
An opinion is not transferable (well - all audio reviewers do make their living out of the fact that 99.9% of all audiophiles don't agree with me on that point....) - not in audio and not elsewhere in life.
If more people would trust their ears only and would listen to the set-ups more carefully and with less prejudice (i.e.: opinions from others...) more audiophiles would get much better results.
Enjoy the - long..... - journey.
D. |
In high-end audio a fast and straight journey needs a really good roadmap, the ability to read that map and a very precise idea of ones destination.
Thats why it is such a long journey.......
D. |
.... and sound pressure, building frequency - just to complete the listing even further and to illustrate the point a bit more precisely.
The different sound of turntables does indeed has its roots in different combinations of faults and periphery sourced disturbances which alter the playback situation and falsify the signal during the extraction from the grooves.
A truly great turntable has no sound.
Best possible isolation from building frequency and ground- as well as air-transmitted vibration is a FIRST major step.
Picture the electron microscope...... I mean this it is so obvious and easy.
The sharp image of an electron microscope resting on an isolation table (or inside an isolation suspended ROOM....) and the totally disturbed vague idea of something when the suspension is switched off.
The similarities between the TT w/tonearm and cartridge and the elect.-microscope should be obvious - both do deal with comparable dimensions and both need undisturbed surroundings to do their job.
Get the AC-3 on a Vibraplane first (or a Minus-K) - listen then rethink about sound and the way you want to go.
In any case - enjoy the journey.
D. |
Dear Lewm, excellent point !!
** We just may or may not agree on what is a cow and what is a racehorse. **
That is exactly the dilemma .........
Both animals do live on grass (or should....), both do chew grass (again and again...), both feature 4 legs, 2 eyes at the sides of their skulls, several stomachs and tend to leave at the first sight of real (or anticipated...) danger.
But as similar as they may look grazing from 200 yards , as different they are if viewed in close range.
It already stops at the hoof (or the lack of it....)......
I do not think that Alectiong will give a Technics SP10MK2 a listen.
What he did describe and what he wants to achieve will lead him on different and much more costly paths.
The SP10 MKx is nice.
With a sophisticated plinth it is good - compared to the price range $3k to $7k.
You want to try a really good DD TT, one that shows off the abilities of this drive concept?
Get a Mitch Cotter B-1 w/ big Denon DD.
You get a WORKING suspension with low frequency tuning for free.
But even this monsters abilities do soon come to an end.
But you do not get around its way too low platter weight (way too low to successful fight back playback inherent vibrations transmitted into the platter - and already way more heavy than the Technics SP-10's platter.....) in the first.
If you are running a speaker REALLY capable of the lowest 2 registers (... like Syntax's for instance, which shows a low level authority, speed, air, transparency and lack of distortion you won't hear anywhere else ...) in flat response, you will find out in due course, that all great turntables able to provide those lowest 2 registers (and by doing so "donating" to the listener all the upper registers with increased ease and transparency as well...) will feature a platter weight of at least 30 lbs and way up.
Regardless of bearing type or drive mechanism.
It is a game of amplitude of energy implied versus mass.
We can't get around it.
At least not on this planet ......
The 8 TT's I have recommended to listen to indeed have this one feature in common (the Basis may be a little less (but only a little...) in weight, but makes up for it with extreme good damping - but then it too is the one in the group with the least low bass dynamics - sorry, Syntax.....).
Turntable design is working with fairly easy physical rules and the ability to get along with them in a given price frame and idea of physical appearance.
A truly great TT will never come cheap, will always be very heavy and will always feature a high mass platter and low frequency suspension from periphery.
This is not my honest opinion nor my concept - its a direct result of mother nature and her concept and the bundle of physical events taking place when mechanical information is extracted by a tonearm/stylus combination from a grooved record.
Don't like that idea? - Me neither ..........
But then I never liked gravity too.
Unfortunately my dislike of gravity never actually helped.
Enjoy the journey........
D, |
Hey Syntax, poor man ..... "born to suffer" ...... or just enjoying it.....?
Cheers,
D. |
Well - Solong can provide an astonishing amount of insight into the setting up of the AC-1 and AC-2 respectively.
The AC-3 adds a 3rd motor - that is miles more expensive, but won't alter the performance.
The AC-2 already - if properly set-up... - does provide an AC with force-free horizontal bearing. This is the real advantage - not having a 2nd or 3rd motor, but eliminating a dreadful force vector in the horizontal plane. Thus considerably lessen the sound and the wear in the bearing axis.
It works with the Raven, it works with the Micro Seiki (their engineers put this in action with the inertia units HS-series back in the early 1980ies....), it works with every TT......
In the standard set-up of a Raven AC-2 the bearing most likely is not vector free - see Solongs set-up for illustration and inspiration and how it should be done.
Hey Solong - give us some nice pictures of your Raven AC-2 !
Its not a tweak - its applied basic physics.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Lewm, I am not familiar with the Saskia. There will be a mathematical term possible to give figures of the platter mass in relation to the energy level emitted by the stylus while extracting the information from the groove. This is of course depending on the compliance of the suspension of a given cartridge.
If you can do in the interim with some empirical research I have done in the early 1990ies, I can assure you that the 1st critical point is around 12-13 kg. The 2nd and last "barrier" (sonically...) falls around 35 kg. Above that you are in calm waters and can rest assured that even the most stiffest carts can no longer emit enough energy into the platter so to provoke any vibration of the platter which in return does alter the extract information.
It is a very similar effect as the one in billiard tables.
The picture is as follows:
- a machine kicks off a billiard ball on 2 tables covered with the same fabric and in the same room - both leveled perfectly.
On the table with the thicker stone platter underneath the fabric, the ball will run much longer.
The ball retains more of its rotating energy as the mass underneath is so much larger, that it does not deduct that energy - result: longer run.
That proven and common knowledge.
Same applies to turntables.
Put a given cartridge/tonearm combo on a TT with a platter of say 70+ lbs and you will notice while comparing to a TT with a 20 lbs platter less background noise, much more airy and authoritative bass and - surprise ... - a slightly louder playback level.
All these effects can be linked back to the fact that the cartridge/tonearm combination can do its work more undisturbed and do retain their energy.
Any math term explaining this relation must include compliance, stylus contact area, VTF, effective moving real mass, record net weight, platter net weight, contact area record to platter and - last not least.. - platter weight.
I am sure someone will help us with a formula....
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Mosin, to add inertia and by doing so increasing speed stability of the moving system is indeed a wise decision. However - this added "dynamic mass" is not "seen" by the stylus assembly as it is only a dynamic (sic) part of the moving system. The platter of your TT still remains at a static net mass of 12.5 kg (which still is pretty much for an idler drive and already in a serious league).
So for the model I have set up we do need the bare net mass of the platter.
The added inertia helps to stabilize the speed - but it does not help the platter in its fight against tracking-born vibrations. Its only the pure static mass underneath the record - i.e. the platter itself - which matters in this case.
Nevertheless its always a smart move to increase inherent speed stability by added inertia - even in an idler drive ( which once again shows indeed, that there are many ways leading to Rome - but in the very end they all merge at the Capitol (or the Via Appia.... in case you want it to be a triumphal march....).
Keep up the good work.
Enjoy the journey,
D. |
Lewm, on the "billiard analogy" ALL other factors (level, felt/fabric, size etc.) are the very same - the only difference being the mass underneath the felt. Be it slate, granite or (seldom...) other hard stone. Check out billiard tables - the huge difference in prices of different models by the same manufacturer is direct related to mass (mass underneath the felt...) and usually the published thickness of the stone platter underneath the felt is the "price factor" per se.
So - lets just predict that it is the larger mass only which makes the difference (and this too is the technical fact..).
The larger the difference in mass between two singular bodies - one (the smaller) moving on the other - the less energy is absorbed/withdrawn from the smaller moving mass by the larger mass underneath. Resulting in more inherent energy "staying" with the moving corpus and is used for movement = longer distance running.
In billiard - which I was into in my youth - this is common sense and knowledge. At least in Snooker and Karambolage - not sure about Pool....
So - let just take that fact for granted.
Of course the inner damping of the platter does add to the overall result, as does the clever sequence of different speed of sonic distribution in different materials, but the total mass has a paramount impact.
Take the platter of the vintage Basis Debut Gold.
Its not that heavy (but still above 20 lbs I think) and it is very well damped despite its vacuum suction.
However, its lower bass performance - while being very good - can NOT compete with the low register performance of platters twice its weight.
I too wished it would be otherwise.
My new turntable thus features a very complex platter with a total weight of 135 lbs (static net weight ...... but there will be 2 inertia units going with it.... so the dynamic mass will be , well - immense).
Not because I like heavy cylinders, but because I know what I need to do to achieve what I want.
The drive system does make a difference, but to a much lesser extend that widely assumed.
It does make a sometimes huge difference with poor (cheap) motors and/or light platters.
I already had a great argument with the idler-drive and direct drive fraction here on Audiogon some months back.
I know why I use the drive I am using and I am getting the results I wanted and which others won't believe.
For the model set up in my earlier post there is only one thing that matters - brute mass.
The other points mentioned do matter too - and a few more.
Enjoy the journey,
D. |
Dear Lewm, this is all a matter of the conservation of energy. The rolling billiard ball is just an analogy to illustrate (roughly..) the behavior of two masses in contact with each other and with VERY different individual masses and the smaller mass (stylus) in movement on the surface of the larger mass. What I am trying to do is to illustrate that point and I must apologize, as I am apparently not very successful.
Sorry about that.
In any case maybe soon some seasoned members will join us here and tell me how wrong I am and that I have no clue of a) physics and b) turntables.
So best to do for us all may be to just forget my model and that funny idea with the billiard table and that nonsense about conservation of energy and carry on as before.
Enjoy the journey,
D. |
Dover, my tonarm/cartridge is silver-wired FR-66s/B-60 w/FR-7fc special. I am currently re-designing my initial TT from the 1990ies. It will be finished late this winter. I will post pictures and a description when finished. |
Lewm, well - pretty fruitless to discuss a long proven physical fact (which the longer running distance on the thicker slate plate billiard table is) or at least it direct (objective !) technical result - isn't it?
Well Thuchan - in fact we are not finished with billiard playing ( and to me it sounds more and more that we never will...) - but I am leaving the table now for good.
Cheers,
D. |
Writing off air-bearing featuring TT's categorically because of an individual point of view how bearings in TT's work and interact with tonearm, plinth and underground is not at all an approach worth further consideration. While the SP-10 MK3 is a nice and well made DD-TT, it is nowhere near an estimated nor possible optimum in TT design. It is a 30+ year old design made for broadcast applications and following a certain, - then en vogue - principle of the day. As the idler-drive TT were 2 decades earlier.
An air bearing (working...) being less expensive than an average "true mechanical grounded" bearing ? What do you think the bearing in the SP10 MK3 did cost ? Whatever you guess now - its not half of that figure.
It is somehow funny, how - especially in TT design - everything is worshipped which tries to get around physics and real investemnt in material and financial resources. The one and only real clever approach in making a good cheap TT I have ever seen was Bill Firebaugh's initial design - it only suffered seriously from choosing the wrong velocity in its damping fluids.....
True mechanical grounding ? Tell that anyone in any laboratory working with microscopes - you're in for a good laugh and instant empirical proof that it won't work.
We will never see a lightweight TT nor an unsuspended one, with a platter less than 30-50 lbs coming anywhere near the point of closing the book on TT nor approaching its true frontiers.
As we all will see - as they will come and go in half years turn.
The same they have done so for the past 40+ years in high-end. |
Managing the vibration introduced by the tracking process is a different matter. This is not disputed in any way by me. However - the isolation from OUTSIDE vibration traveling into the TT - is essential, a true conditio sine qua non. The inherent vibrations have to be eliminated inside the system (here: TT) - the external vibrations have to be kept away from the system (again: TT...).
An ideal solution/scenery: different room to eliminate sound pressure effects PLUS isolation from building resonance by means of a vibration isolating platform tuned for below 2Hz resonance frequency - 0.5 Hz if possible.
Regarding the isolation from outside vibration TT's (at least the ones worth mentioning and claiming themselves to strive for the state of the art) do indeed have the very same needs as an electron microscope.
Avoiding having the very tiniest details smeared by low frequency outside vibration moving into the TT system.
Anyone not accustomed to this, I strongly recommend giving their beloved TT a listen after setting in on a Vibraplane or Minus-K with enough load close to the maximum allowance.
The following listening will answer all questions in a matter of 20 seconds.
I know it - I have watched the faces of various audiophiles often enough in those first seconds.
After that all critics turned to true believers in the simple laws of mechanic.
But - its kind of costly and won't work with some of the fancier "high-end" rack due to lack of guts (here: stability).
It doesn't look to good either.
A well loaded Vibraplane moves into the game very much like a solid full linebacker with 240 lbs+.
But after all - this is a game for real men.
And here once again the boys are separated from the men - as the later do what has to be done and not just talk.
Enjoy the journey,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, smart as it looks, expensive (and thus tempting...) as it is and originating from both our fatherland ( and thus I would love to promote it for its origin alone, - against all global thinking...) with its long time fame for excellent engineer approach - from my now 17 years 1st hand experience with active and passive air-supplied isolation for turntable design, I would always go for the passive option.
I know very well why and have learned from the past. The Halcyonics is active compensation by mechanical means.
Very similar to the feedback-loop in amplifier design and/or pre-compensation in loudspeakers (Backes&Mueller...).
The Minus-K ( almost as expensive, american made and pure passive in a VERY smart manner...) is more than just a serious contender.
In the Silencer you already see the "audiophile touch" - great looks, most money put into the fancy cosmetics - we are so accustomed to.
However - you get 98% of the performance with a Vibraplane for 20% of the money. Proofing again the principle of Pareto (even more here...).
The point is not, whether to use a Halyconics, Minus-K or Vibraplane or a custom made solution. The point is to understand the issue and to fine-tune the solution to the precise needs.
But the main point is - to do it.
Or in philosophical terms and phrases:
Either Descartes: cogito ergo sum...
or J-P Satre: to be is to do .....
or rather Frank Sinatra: schubi-dubbie-doo......... |
Dear Thuchan, see whenever possible I look for the option which does involve the least periphery and as few parts which can actually fail. Thus bringing the meantime before failure as well as the percentage of possible failure to the minimum possible.
All this of course with equal performance. In this particular matter it all comes down to low resonance frequency and high damping - no matter whether active or passive. |
I am familiar with the Final audio products - and with the Parthenon.
As for "timing" and speed control. My table runs with the big Studer Capstan motor with regulation and Studer speed control. This was good enough for the majority of the music recorded from the 1960ies to late 1990ies. So the stability of the "timing" on most of your records was determined by this very motor drive and its control board. I always found this a most suitable solution.
Especially so as it makes all other TT-motors look like lightweight dwarfs.
As for air-bearings ... well, there are air-bearings out there quite different to the ones "usually" seen in high-end audio. Its all a matter of "thinking in different scales".
And - its not just you being "sensitive to speed stability". Everyone with a remote interest in piano music will gladly join in. |
Dear Lewm, dynamic mass of a TT is certainly important, as it adds considerably to its inertia (and is thus a matter too of the "geographical" dispersion of that dynamic mass in the horizontal distance to the "eye of the hurricane" - i.e. the bearing center), but in absolutely no way it adds to the mass "seen" by the record or stylus.
Why ?
You are standing on planet Earth - right?
Whether our planet spins or not doesn't alter its total mass.
Especially not the difference in mass between you and mother earth.
Now - if you jump from firm solid rock ground it will be different as if you'd jump from a suspended wooden floor and the landing will be different too - right?
Do I need to say more ?
I know that there are very few "physical facts" in audio life were audiophiles can agree upon, but can we agree on that? |
Dear Lewm, again - ALL OTHER FACTORS are identical. Force vector of stroke, felt, air, humidity, everything except the thickness of the slate.
This elaborate analysis you found is what it is - a nice mathematical analysis of the forces, speed, impacts and angles occurring during billiard. It has nothing to do with the model we are talking about.
On the other hand I am certainly on no mission (as I do not believe in missions at all..) to convince you or anyone else.
If you do not agree to that model and to that principle of static platter mass and its contribution to undistorted tracking on the record you have a) a good large party on your side and it is b) totally fine with me.
As I mentioned before - just forget my silly ideas and model, don't bother anymore and continue as before.
Neither you nor anybody else have to accept nor buy that idea.
I certainly have no problem, but simply want to repeat one last time: ... ALL other factors (including the felt..) in that model are identical (just think about this for a moment - it tells the whole story - factor-elimination! - and it requires far less time than looking for written papers via Google......).
For your consideration - the increased thickness do bring one other factor into the "game" which too does contribute to the decreased tracking distortion as well as to the "longer run" of the ball on the table (and you won't find that covered in the maths either.....). But it makes little to no reason to discuss the next point when the first factor is still clouded.
Well, - I was used all my life to think and act far away the mainstream.
You do not find fresh grass (neither for your cows nor for your racing horses... ) if you walk on paths and grounds hundreds have walked before. |
Dear Aoliverio, while I will not question the ranking you have listed, I would nevertheless like to mention, that it too depends on the transmission (belt, string, tape - whatever). Introducing a low grip string/thread with a certain "amount" of "wanted slip" then the first group with high mass platter/high inertia will display an extremely smooth and constant speed with little to no measurable derivation once 33 1/3 are obtained. The higher the inertia/mass and the lower the grip of the thread the more constant the speed. I would call this the "Micro-Seiki-RX-Principle" as it first was introduced and widely used by Micro Seiki with their RX-series of turntables. Furthermore the thread with low tension/grip is about the very best "isolator" from motor/flywheel generated vibrations.
As for the motors - in the set-up with low tension thread and high inertia their importance is decreasing. I simply choose the best capstan motors and stop worrying about the issue at all. An expensive, heavy and uninspired choice, but a very satisfying and final one too.
However - the more rigid the coupling between platter and motor and the less mass/inertia in the platter the more importance in the speed stability and low vibration of the motor drive.
Here again I would choose a really good big tape machine capstan - for the very same reason as before: stability of speed, very little vibration.
What we find on our records was recorded with these capstans in big Amperex and Studer machines for 4 decades.
I think if it is good enough for the source of our records, it is good enough for their reproduction. |
Dear Lewm, well - as I mentioned before - there are many audiophiles and "audio scientists" out there who do favor direct drive or idler drive in turntables ( both principles do build on the idea of "control" and the motor and its quality has a huge impact on the result) and who will present wonderful technical descriptions and "proofs" for their preference.
But that is not my problem. I do use thread/string drive with very low grip and "wanted slippage" to accomplish what I want and use extreme high mass and inertia to get to a kind of self-stabilizing system. This has one huge drawback: - a fairly long time to get to the needed speed.
I am using a motor which is extremely expensive (and weights 12 lbs without any cover ... raw) and would by the way qualify easily for the most demanding ID or DD TTs.
I have told you in a direct email what are the points behind direct drive and idler wheel drive and their origins and original purpose.
We will see all 3 drive principles in various versions side by side for the next decades. Every one of them will have their cheerleaders and followers.
Fine.
No worries Lewm - I certainly will not get nervous about anyone's experiments. I have done my own. Too many people do misinterpret their dreams, philosophy or ideas for physical facts. And any experiments result is depending on its conductors ability (or his will...) to read it and draw the (sometimes unpleasant...) objective conclusions. |
Dear Aoliviero, the Studer capstans I worked and work with are all AC. In this model it is all about constant speed of the motor spindle/pulley/flywheel.
I see your point. A motor trying to compensate slippage by altering speed is of course a contradiction for the slippage concept.
In general - this concept is kind of tricky to set up and works only with certain TT's (platter mass...). It works with thread/string NOT with belt. It works best (as all drive principle in TTs) when the horizontal plane of the bearing is force free. The actual "embracement" of the thread around the platters diameter must have a pretty large angle - 210 degrees and more.
It not easy to fine tune, but once done it works smooth and reliable and gives extreme constant speed with ease. What I always liked particular about this model was the "natural touch" - letting inertia doing its work undisturbed.
Nice. Quite the opposite of the "control" approach. |
Using a rim drive will make all efforts for minimizing outside vibration coming towards the platter and thus towards the tracking process obsolete in one single move. |
Yes, the "camp two" is considerably smaller. You may add to that short list the big Micro Seikis, Final Audio, Epic and Melcos of decades past. Than the german Apolyt from the 90ies with so far 15 units built and featuring the most extreme and most expensive approach of this principle. The classic Platine Verdier however does feature eddy-current brake (side effect of its vertical magnetic supported bearing) and is used today by various owners with all kinds of DIY-drives (I have seen idler-wheel driving PVs as well as tape, belt, thread and even transmission belts).
Cheers,
D. |
I do prefer thread drive with calculated slippage over idler wheel and direct drive. This allows me to use the platter mass (static mass.... ) I want and know to be essential to go past the frontiers and I get an extremely constant (by using extreme inertia) speed for free. The high platter mass is a conditio sine qua non in my ears and eyes and sadly is contradictional to the principles of both idler wheel drive as well as direct drive. Both direct coupled drive principles imply direct control of the platters speed at every single moment. Really high inertia (I am talking about a 110+ lbs platter with 10" diameter spinning... ) is working against the control (and the needed control in these drive principles) in ID and DD TTs.
I do not question the fact that there are people who favor ID or DD and who think the sound they present is great and the best they ever heard.
Fine.
Yes, Alectiong has long moved on and our discussion is also long going in a direction which goes far beyond anything Alectiong wants to hear or talk about.
The discussion about drive principles will go on as long as TTs are build. As will the discussions about 9", 10" or 12"+ tonearms, MMs or MCs, tubes or solid state, full-range vs. multiple-driver and so on.
Everyone follows his ideas or the ideas he likes best for whatever reason.
Fine.
There is no problem at all. Some will continue with idler wheel drives, some with direct drives old and new and some with belt drive. Very few will go for thread drive with high platter mass and slippage.
Fine. |
Mosin,
there are many parts in the audio chain. With some of them "quality" can not be judged "objective" in any way, but is a matter of synergy or "taste". Well, a turntable may be a mysterious machine to some. The drive method - and you got me wrong in that point - is not paramount in any way. It is just, that certain technical features which are paramount regarding the ultimate performance of a turntable for phono playback can not be implemented with 2 of the currently in use 3 drive mechanism.
A turntable is no mysterious machine. It is a machine. Nothing else. No voodoo, no secrets, nothing supernatural.
Applying all the physical aspects in a correct - and consequent - way will always result in a very heavy device with a high mass platter and an isolation from mechanic periphery (underground) below 1 Hz resonance frequency.
This device will never come cheap. The drive mechanism will be a logic choice following the high platter mass and the resulting inertia.
I have listened to all turntables which I found worth listening to after inspection of their technical design. I do not believe in philosophy or implementation of "ideas" in turntables. It is all about constructing a machine with consequence. To do so I apply physics without taking into account whether it looks good in the shop or whether it fits a certain price range. Its about performance and consequence. Two things lacking too often in too many fields and minds. And the turntable is NOT a link in a given audio chain. It is the very foundation of the extraction of the audio signal from its mechanical matrix. Looking for synergy or compensation effects here is inconsequent and will means to abandon the search for maximum performance right from the start. What is lost here is never again found.
Others will have different point of views and different approaches and will certainly not share this view in some or all aspects. But that is not my problem. It is totally fine with me.
Cheers,
D. |
That is the problem and the core misunderstanding between applied physics and taste. A mix-up or inherent error often happening in Audio. Many discussions in audio thought to be about technical or physical issues are in fact about taste, believe and fellowship.
We have seen some posts here lately which did not content one single technical aspect.
But even regarding taste - you know Oscar Wilde's unforgettable phrase.
But I am confident that Dover as well as me would be able to locate the right spot for a gourmet dinner. And we would choose the chef who really knows what he's doing and would not follow the latest hype or up-written advise which has just opened and presents a Cheeseburger with some golden sprinkles as haute cuisine. |
Siltskin, I couldn't even recommend you following my advise. Neither in selecting the main course nor in high-end audio. Extremely expensive, not on the manual at all but special ordered, very special spices and only for the very educated and seasoned taste.
To make things even worse - I stopped eating meat in the very early 80ies........ |
Dover - as for the inevitable knot in threads (unless to melt certain special material together). I observed that if the knot is made in a special way, it moves onto the outside of the circle and won't interfere with pulley nor platter anymore. I will make a drawing of the knot and send to you by PN next week - when I have my Wacom board.
By the way - you may too give sewing linen a try. It has some very little stretch left (but only noticeable if the tension is too high anyway...), but features extremely high inner damping and a nice combination of grip and natural slippage (sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it really is that way). It works very good on the RX-5000 and even much higher platter mass.
However - surgical silk (I have way too many PhDs among my friends not giving this a try) is a very good choice too. |
