Radicalsteve,
You can get custom delrin mats here:
www.appliedfidelity.com/
Regards, |
Richardkrebs,
This is not a freewheeling platter running at speed. It's constrained by the string.
If you measure as suggested, I think you'll find zero movement of pod or platter.
Regards, |
Lew,
You mean 21mm short of the lead-out groove, which would be about 80mm from the spindle?
Reducing torsional affects on the cantilever is extremely important and obviously a tradeoff for alignment error. The Viv arm won a couple product of the year type awards so it might be very good?
I believe the pivot is held in place with some kind of magnetic fluid.
http://www.highend-electronics.com/viv-labs.html
Regards, |
Halcro, Lew,
A straight arm with no offset is normally set to one null point a little inside of the center of the recorded part of the record. I think this would correspond to 96 - 98mm from the spindle.
There is an arm like that now called Viv Rigid Float. It has won some accolades. I've never heard it. "They" say the benefit is from eliminating most torsional forces on the cantilever.
Regards,
http://stereotimes.com/post/viv-lab-rigid-tonearm |
Hi Halcro,
You might have a problem with that. The arm is probably designed with at least 15mm overhang and with an SAE type headshell, chances are the cart will be too far forward. In order to achieve underhang you'll have to move the arm further back.
If you have some kind of arm pod set-up, this might not be a problem. Otherwise I think you'll have to drill a new armboard. I have an arm similar to a Graham Robin and no way without remounting.
I believe the alignment is 5mm toward the spindle from the center of the recorded part. That would be 95mm from the spindle, if I'm not mistaken.
Regards, |
Correction - the lead-out starts at approx. 60mm and the record goes to 160mm, so I guess it would be more like 105mm from the spindle.
I have a few records that are recorded much closer to the label. You'd have to experiment. VE has a free download protractor called Chpratz. It's a calibrated straight line with a grid all the way and calibrated with distance from the spindle.
One thing that peaked my interest was a comment by one of the reviewers. He thought the shorter version of the arm sounds better - less resonance and vibrations. I was thinking of getting one of those straight arm DJ tables just to try it, but I couldn't bring myself to do it.
Regards, |
Lew, Concerning these non-offset arms, I believe the RS-A1 says tangent at 1/3 of the way from the inner groove. It's not clear if the inner groove is the lead-out groove or at the record label, but I think it means 1/3 of the way to the outermost groove or 92mm from the spindle. If it means 1/3 of the way from the final lead-out it would be 85mm from the spindle. The record label extends to 50mm from spindle (which makes 21mm from the spindle - in the label). The lead-out is at 60mm. The recorded part is to 155mm, and the record edge is 160mm. The description isn't explicit, maybe it lost something in translation.
Anyway, it makes sense that the one tangent point would be slightly toward the inside of the record. I've never seen a Viv arm. Fremer said something about the magnetic fluid being held in a chamber and the arm pivots effortlessly with no play or wobble. It won a couple product of the year awards. I thought maybe someone here was familiar. It costs over $4K.
Regards, |
Lew, Right you are, different pages. I was talking alignment. Interesting thing about that Viv arm. They say you can mount it almost anywhere. No drilling, it's a surface mount.
What about replacing resistors? They are said to age also. Do them on an individual basis?
Regards, |
Halcro,
The purpose of a mat is to provide a stable surface with a similar impedance of the record, or so they say. Some think the best mats are forms of acrylic, methacrylate (Delrin), carbon, or vinyl. The trick is in preventing vibrations from reflecting back to the record. Achromat does this with bubbles somehow. Perhaps a lead sheet would be more affective.
Beside the obvious problem of weight, lead is soft and manufacturing a flat sheet might be a problem, but I doubt if any material is more affective at slowing vibrations. A lead sandwich or under mat might be ideal.
Regards, |
........or have their ear bitten off. Bon appetit.
Sorry I chimed in.
This has already been done by Pierre Lurne, only with a platter rather than a mat. I happen to have some sheet lead. Might see if it's doable. |
Halcro,
No one has yet to provide a provable theory how or why a mat works?
This stuff might seem like rocket science to you or I, but it's not. The record/platter interface is understood, but platters are made differently and people bring their preferences to the evaluation table.
If you read the literature describing the Acromat, you know that its mechanical impedance is trying to match that of a record so vibrations are drained unimpeded. The bubbles are to prevent the vibrations from reentering the record.
Apparently this works, at least to some extent. Some people are getting good results. This approach is taken directly from Pierre Lurne (physicist). He devised a platter that was (I believe) 10mm of lead sandwiched between methacrylate slabs. Lead is extremely affective at slowing vibrations and the methacrylate was formulated to match the record. The formulation of acrylic and methacrylate can be varied to different hardness.
Rubber or sorbothane is good at damping, but generally isn't a rigid platform - it gives.
A leather top mat can soften the blow so to speak, between the record and a hard platter - metal or glass. It too will give, but if it's thin and LP is hard clamped, it might not compromise detail? You can say the same about sorbothane, but IMO that only goes so far.
With that said, I just ordered a thin leather/suede mat. I'm still going to make a lead mat. I have to figure out how to do it and what to use on the outside. I always liked the Goldmund mat, but they're pretty much gone.
The notion that JVC had this figured out 35 years ago, is akin to burying your head in the sand. Look at all the statement tables back then, NONE had a great mat or platter, at least the interface.
Regards, |
Totem395,
Thanks for the info. It seems like torque or lack of, and speed correction circuitry are major contributors to SQ of various DD's. I saw a GT2000 years ago, but never had the pleasure of playing with it. If the motor can power a 18kg platter, one would think it's a bit much for the stock 5.8kg one?
I'm sure it sounds good. I was just wondering about comparisons. An anecdote about a Victor engineer is interesting, but.....
Regards, |
Halcro,
If the record/platter interface isn't yet understood or a matter of opinion, why defer to original options offered for your old table? The fact that there were options implies there is/was no one right solution. Perhaps not, but I think this interface is understood better than it was 35 years ago.
Seems to be three schools of thought, damping, impedance matching - preventing reflections back, and coupling or decoupling like Resomat. Admittedly, I didn't consider that one.
I suspect platter mass and rotational imperfections might have something to do with preference. Perhaps cart/arm synergy is the biggest factor.
Regards, |
Interesting to consider torque to mass ratio with the Yamaha GT 2000. Stock platter was 5.8kg. Optional platter was 18kg and was used w/o modification. That's almost 40lb. The Goldmund Reference platter was 35lb, was said to be too heavy for a DD table. |
Lew,
There are photos of both the GT2000 and 2000x at Vintage Knob. Stock aluminum platter is pretty hefty at nearly 13 lbs. The x platter looks similar, but is gun-metal. The motor shaft on the x is beefed up to 6cm vs 2cm for the 2000, but apparently the rest of the motor was the same.
The heavy platter was an option on the 2000 so I guess the shaft could handle the weight.
How do you think these Yamaha's stack up? |
Totem,
No, the weight of the record didn't seem to do anything, and the pliability of the mat seemed to create the problem, but you've given me an idea. I normally use a reflex clamp, but not in the reflex mode. In other words, just holding the record in place. Perhaps if I dig out a felt washer and reflex the disc, the pliability will be an advantage?
I'll give it a try.
Regards, |
A heavy weight will only create a solid bond in the center label area of the record, maybe slightly further. I think a clamp would be as affective preventing movement of both record and mat.
A reflex or periphery clamp should be more affective coupling the music part of the record. I haven't yet located the felt washer.
I suspect a leather mat is a bad idea. The compliant surface under the record seems to be the problem. The record needs to be supported in such a way that allows no movement of the groove. |
Halcro,
How thick is your pigskin mat?
Do tell, your formula for success. How heavy is the weight?
How can someone duplicate your results if the methodology is unknown?
Is a weight more affective than a clamp, and is Mike Tyson your hero?
Regards, |
Halcro,
You assume too much. My Sota reflex clamp is > 200g, but more importantly, I can use as much down force as I like and easily clamp onto the spindle putting 600g pressure on the label.
I think you missed my point about applying pressure more evenly across the surface. I also think your results are due to the thinness of the mat, < 0.5mm.
Regards, |
Halcro,
Interesting observations about periphery clamps. When a vacuum system is over applied it has a similar deadening affect, at least to these ears. Using a reflex clamp in reflex mode can have the same affect, depending on what's under the record and the rest of the record player. A combination of an over-damped tonearm (SME V - too much silicon) and a physically stressed record will sound dead as a doornail. Combine this with a ponderous sounding belt drive and it's torturous.
The best I've had is a Goldmund DD platter w/Goldmund clamp used only to hold the record in place. There was also a Goldmund mat made of methacrylate. Sota had what they called a Supermat that seemed like a similar hardness and was slightly concave. This would help flatten a record and compensate for outer groove brightness if clamped hard enough, but one had to exercise restraint.
All this leads me to believe a Delrin type acrylic or possibly carbon, and an unstressed record is the best.
I'll give away the deerhide - better results with a hard rubber mat.
Regards,
|
Lew,
I think there are similarities here. Have you tried the peripheral ring with the Sota clamp?
Matching the mechanical impedance of the record seems like a good idea, but only if vibrations are not reflected back. I think that's why a 5mm carbon mat is more affective than 3mm.
Griffithds likes the Funk Firm mat that purports to do just that - prevent reflections from coming back to smear the sound.
Perhaps using a metal platter or mat is a better match for slightly stressed vinyl? I use neither, but considering your and Halcro's posts, it seems logical.
Think I'll try the Achromat next. Maybe I'll take some sheet lead to a machine shop and have a thin undermat made.
Regards, |
Lew,
The record/platter interface seems to have so many different factors, experimentation is required, but then we have to take into account things like the sound of a particular cartridge. Assumptions can also be a problem. What works for one record might not be so great for another?
It seems that reflexing or using a vacuum changes the natural resilience of the vinyl and the way the needle is reflected off the groove. These two approaches are often thought of as a positive, but at what point does it become negative, and what kind of surface is under the record? I think using a weight and periphery clamp does the same thing, perhaps more predictably than guessing how much force to use when reflexing a record.
Because a metal platter or mat is harder than vinyl, and the mechanical match up is the opposite of a compliant mat, I would think it would be easy to make erroneous assumptions. It would be mandatory to immobilize the record anyway so you could vary center clamp weight or amount of reflex. Are there metal platters w/vacuum? You could even add weight to a periphery clamp. I doubt if that would help, but you tell me.
A compliant mat is like damping. A thick rubber mat supplied with inexpensive tables is generally more forgiving, but overdamped, smeared, and with less resolution. A very thin compliant mat like some felt or Jico thin one, seem to be the right damping for a metal or glass platter. I had an LP12 years ago and I used it with the felt mat.
The Pierre Lurne' approach is to dissipate rather than dampen, with tonearm and platter. In this respect he's probably the most copied turntable designer. The problem with dissipating vibrations is, where do they go? A hard platter/mat should be efficient transmitting, but where do they get reflected and do they come back?
My approach just copies Lurne'. Lead is very good at slowing vibrations.
Regards,
|
If the table has a suspension it's necessary to have the arm move with the platter.
If there is no suspension the advantage of a subchassis (structure that connects arm pod to the main bearing) is convenience. The disadvantage is, vibrations are usually more easily transmitted from platter, and possibly motor, to the arm.
Maintaining a fixed relationship between arm pod and platter makes it easier to keep mounting distance accurate, especially when swapping arms. Armboards can be cut based on that fixed relationship. |
Good one Halcro, this debate gets funnier by the minute. Assuming the Kenny was set-up and then played at room temp, there should be virtually no discrepancy in distance. 70°F = 21.1°C, and 79°F = 26.1°C (for those of us...). Is that enough to cause several mm change?
Still, the point is made and it seems valid, at least to me. Why is it better to have arm and platter joined at the hip? Potential for extraneous interactions seems greater, not less. |
Lewm,
There's another side of this coin. A rigid coupling of the arm pivot and main bearing, has greater potential to degrade. DD motor vibrations will be more easily transmitted to the arm.
A strict relationship between arm and platter can be maintained with high mass pod and platter structure, mass coupled to, or rigidly fixed to the mounting surface. In this case pivot to main bearing distance is not compromised. With either approach success depends on implementation.
Regards, |
Thuchan,
I was thinking a cantilevered armboard would have greater potential to resonate, but maybe that too would depend on execution.
Free floating pods? I think the pods would have to be coupled in some way. If by free floating you mean mass coupled, that would be possible, but difficult to execute. If you eliminate the plinth/subchassis, then the mounting surface becomes the means of closing the loop. Pods could also be rigidly coupled.
Regards, |
Thuchan,
Contemplating a DD non-suspended table, I disagree with Dover. In this case mass/weight is used to insure the platter is not a moving target, and the mounting surface for both arm pod and platter is potentially a superior "closed loop" system. You're simply using the mounting surface to close the loop. Using a plinth or subchassis to insure stable arm/platter relationship is convenient but might have greater potential for degradation.
In practice, I think good results are more dependent on implementation with either approach, and I wonder about a cantilevered armboard. Seems like a bad idea.
Regards, |
Dover,
Your "rules" apply to belt drive tables and seem inappropriate here. How is a DD motor mounted on a separate platform? Using a plinth or subchassis does not necessarily maintain mounting distance better than separate pods.
Regards, |
Thuchan,
A DD affords possibilities not available to BD and suspended, and when looking at the complete design I think you should also consider other aspects. Energy dissipation is of paramount importance.
J Carr tells us that only a very small percentage of cart mechanical energy is used by the generator. The rest goes into the cart body, headshell, then travels down the arm. Some of it will be absorbed (converted) by the mass of the counterweight and arm structure. Then it goes into the plinth/subchassis or is dissipated to the mounting base.
Just as a plinth can convert or transmit cart mechanical energy, it can transmit motor or acoustic energy to the arm. Doing away with plinth/chassis does not entirely free you from this consideration. A mounting base could potentially do the same.
Slate happens to be good at transmitting vibrations. I suspect its successful use in tables like Saskia, is due to its weight. That table weighs 200 lbs. but I don't know much else about its construction. Mass/weight tends to convert mechanical energy to heat. Which brings us to your 101 pod. Steel is much heavier than aluminum, almost 3X for the same volume, and brass is heavier yet. Lead is even heavier and is very good at slowing vibrations. In the past it was used in tables and speakers in combination with other materials.
Feickert Triple uses two steel(?) bars on each pod connecting them to the platter base. He also has some kind of anti-resonance circuit. Without his testing capability it might be better/easier without the connecting rods? You could plant the pods at locations convenient for different length arms and still use armboards.
Regards, |
Lew,
"I hate to go into this yet again, but in theory one wants the tonearm and the tt bearing to be subject to the exact same external forces so they can respond in unison, resonate in the same way at the same frequency, etc, which should result in minimal dissociation between them in terms of energy dissipation."
That's where we disagree. As you pointed out, motor vibrations might be minimal in a high quality DD, but having arm and platter/bearing subject to the same external forces is a potential problem IMO. What about sound pressure waves hitting the record and plinth? The cart/arm already has to deal with this and might have to deal with it again if it's transmitted from plinth/chassis back to the arm.
I completely agree with Dover concerning BD or suspended tables, but if a DD is firmly planted where is the movement, the moving target? If a platter wobbles, it will wobble regardless.
The goal of controlled energy dissipation is to get rid of cart vibrations and isolate the arm from other ones. I think this is more easily accomplished w/o a plinth/chassis. The final exit of all vibrations should be out the feet otherwise it's just damped, although that might be sufficient.
In the real world either approach can be great or disappointing depending on design, materials etc.
Regards, |
Aigenga,
I won't bore you with excuses. I have yet to make the mat. Since the lead I have is about 2mm thick I'm thinking of getting the 3mm Achromat.
If anyone wants to experiment with sheet lead it's not hard to source online, but the shipping will usually be more than the product. I found some at a roofing supply. I think they call it flashing. This is a piece about 3 feet sq. and it cost something like $70.
Don't think this is used much anymore. When I called, the guy said they had no sheet lead until he remembered flashing. Wear gloves.
Regards, |
Tuchan,
In this case Halcro's table meets Dover's criteria for a closed loop. The loop is closed by the mounting base rather than a plinth or chassis.
Regards, |
Calculating force to slow a 22kg platter is looking at it backwards. Stylus drag is nothing but friction. It's applying the brake to a rotor (platter) and the feeble motor slows. Instead of a heavy platter requiring more friction to slow it, it requires less to slow the under torqued motor.
I doubt if this is enough friction to tilt a 25 lb. pod, even 8 microns which isn't a whole lot. Time to move on? |
Richardkrebs,
A powerful motor doesn't validate your conclusion. It does bring the platter back to speed quickly. You assume a 100% torque conversion between motor and platter. All that happened was the transmission (string) slipped for a moment.
Once again, stylus drag is a bit of friction not some powerful force. That is, unless you're talking about Super Drag which can bend steel and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
BTW are you related to Maynard G ?
Regards, |
Lewm,
I see your point, but what you fail to see is, it's completely dependent on design. Any pod rigidly coupled to the base is connected to the platter, assuming the platter is rigidly coupled. Suppose you have one of those pneumatic vibration isolation stands or a lead balloon under your table. What difference would it make? Complicate matters with a subchassis and you're just as likely to insure spurious resonance as avoid them.
**Whereas, if the tonearm and platter are well coupled and must move together, then such external sources of energy are cancelled, in effect.**
Cancelled? This is the mantra of the suspended. What external forces, sound pressure? You're just as likely to increase consequences, as cancel. Extraneous vibrations should be dissipated, not perpetuated.
Regards, |
Lew,
I suspect a massive pod on spikes threaded into the bottom of the pod might be better than bolted to a base/shelf. I understand what you're saying, I don't think it's necessarily true.
**Whatever happens to the tonearm, from whatever source of spurious energy of any kind at all, should also "happen" to the platter/bearing at the same point in time.**
"Whatever" covers a lot of ground. Are you tracking through a seismic event, perhaps your dog bumped your TT stand? I chose sound pressure waves because it's the logical choice for a non-suspended table. In that case I think it might be better if the pod and platter were not joined at the hip. Spurious energy would more likely to be transmitted and propagated from one to the other by their common joining. This is a bad thing, not good.
Once again, having the platter, arm and motor moving in unison is the law of suspended tables. Even those with a fixed motor seem to get half decent results sometimes. Throw out the suspension and what specifically are you talking about with spurious energy? Why is it better having them joined? Methinks it's worse, with greater potential for degradation.
Regards,
We're not |
Lewm,
Okay, take away the movement in unison aspect of a suspension, and exactly what are these extraneous sources of energy?
Why is it better if they are joined by a plinth or whatever, than planted on the base?
Don't tell me they will act in unison to some undefined energy and cancel affects, because they won't. I'm saying it's more likely negative affects will be increased.
A plinth or chassis is a logical design for a commercial table, but it is also good at transmitting extraneous energy between platter and arm. I can't understand why you think this is desirable. Heavy pods coupled to a heavy base is more likely to resist this negative energy, depending on design.
Regards, |
"What are the measurable physical properties of lead that could support the contention that it is superior....."
Weight, density, damping coefficient? We're talking about the transmission of vibrations through a material(s), and this stuff isn't exactly unknown.
If you affect the torque to weight ratio of an existing motor system, then you might screw up performance? That rates a duh.
Lead doesn't hold shape and is normally used between pieces of more rigid material. It's extremely affective at killing vibrations. If the idea is to match the record impedance with the material directly under it, then lead is a good choice as sandwich material.
Perhaps Trans Fi type spikes is a better choice? I think Naim Audio has a similar scheme. I've never used them. |
Aigenga,
"On the subject of platter mats I just want to re-iterate that I am using a lead mat glued to an Achromat. I thought that Fleib or someone else was about to try the same thing and wonder how that worked for them?"
I'm experimenting with this now, and I'm wondering about the details of your mats. I bought a 3mm Achromat thinking 5mm might be too thick with an additional 2mm underneath.
BTW, the 3mm version seems to have deficiencies when used alone.
As it turns out, once flattened, roofing lead is more like 1mm thick and weighs about 510g. It seems to greatly improve the Achromat, but I suspect it would be better with the 5mm version. The question is, would the 5mm mat with 1mm of lead, outperform the 3mm with 2mm of lead.
The Achromat is somewhat of a surprise looking like "fine" cardboard. It's more like 2.5mm and unless you glue it down the edges tend to lift if you only clamp the LP on the spindle. I find myself listening to the last 50mm of a side, for evaluation.
Like most of you I have a collection of mats. Mine includes a 3mm hard acrylic, and one of expanded foam - also about 3mm. So far best results seem to come from the lead in the middle with either the foam or acrylic on the bottom and the Funk on top. The foam combination is a little warmer. The acrylic seems faster/cleaner, but either combo sounds pretty good.
I'm thinking of die casting lead mats of different thickness/weight. A lead undermat seems to have great potential. Perhaps thicker sheet lead is less trouble.
Regards, |
Nope.....
Doesn't add up. The Goldmund mat was about 3mm and close to the mechanical impedance of the record. Vibrations pass through relatively unimpeded and the aluminum (usually) platter would reflect them back to the record. The mat will only take you so far and is eclipsed by the Goldmund platters methacrylate + lead.
A copper or stainless mat will pass the vibrations through to the platter with less resistance, but is dissimilar from the record and is less efficient draining vibrations in the first place.
That is why lead is the material of choice under a mat that tries to match the record. Lead is much more efficient at slowing vibrations and less are reflected back. Given the thickness limitations of a mat it's somewhat of a turkey shoot. |
Last month Lew brought up an aspect of performance that we read little about, speed correction timing.
"It's also the case that the L07D servo was deliberately designed to exert a much looser control on the speed than does the Technics servo, for one example. I think it only activates when there is +/-3% speed error."
Maybe it's my imagination, but I've heard this difference between my Kenny and other direct drives. Any thoughts on the timing of speed error control?
Can properly functioning non quartz servo controls outperform some quartz locked counterparts?
Regards, |
Lew,
When Lurne was working under contract for Goldmund I imagine there were constraints. The T5 linear arm wasn't held in the highest regard and the DD suspensions were problematic with any arm substitution. Many users including myself defeated the suspension. The Studio came with alternate springs, but most users were clueless about how to substitute.
This is the first I've read of problems with speed stability. These are quartz locked with a JVC motor. Perhaps you're referring to the earlier Pabst motor, but the ones I've heard didn't seem to have speed problems if everything was functional. The Reference was servo controlled belt drive.
Lurne is probably the most copied TT designer in audio. Not sure which Audiomeca you're referring to, but take a look at this design including the suspension:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/belladonna2_e.html
Regards, |
An update on the lead under-mat project. I've determined the lead sheet I'm using is not completely flat. This is made from flashing for roofing. I don't know about other types of lead sheet.
I think casting a lead mat is the way to go, but I haven't started that project. A 2mm lead mat should weigh about 1Kg so weight might not be prohibitive? Combined with a 3mm top mat close to the mechanical impedance of a record, might yield great results.
Regards, |
10-13-15: Halcro
And let's gets real.....no-one is going to reinvent a new DD turntable which can be built in a 'garage'.
HW did it with a cogless super motor that still can't match the performance of the 30 year old Victors and can't be made for less than $30,000.
Henry, are you saying the motor can't match the Victor or the overall performance, or both? I'm curious about the basis of this statement.
Regards, |
Well, that is interesting. Maybe it's harder to correct speed inconsistencies of a 20 lb. platter? I don't think electronics has ever been VPI's long suit and this technology hasn't changed in the last 35 years. Harry is an old plinth builder, ironically for JVC.
You wouldn't by any chance have those charts for the TT81 and 71?
Regards, |
Hi Henry,
According to VintageKnob, the TT81 does not have the double bidirectional servo. The 101 has a second quartz locked servo outside of the drive to compare phase. Looking at absolute speed, it doesn't seem to make much difference?
I think there's something to be said for a 20.lb platter on a DD. Can't say I've heard the VPI Direct, but I wouldn't dismiss it on that basis.
On the other hand, $30K would buy a bunch of Victors.
Regards, |
Halcro and Griffithds,
They both have bidirectional servo, but the 101 has an additional servo to compare phase - double bidirectional. Why else are the electronics so much more complicated on the 101?
You're saying this is incorrect?
A massive platter imparts solidity to the sound, viable if and only if correct speed can be maintained. That's why so many belt drivers w/heavy platters sound ponderous IMO.
I'm not making claims about VPI Direct. Brinkman makes a couple of DD's also. Anything new is going to cost. Not everyone can deal with their 35 yr. old table breaking down.
Regards,
|
Griff,
That's beyond belief. VPI still has Aries listed as a current table. Even if it were discontinued you should still be able to get an armboard. Have they no shame?
I suspect they've grown too fast and forgotten where they came from. They used to bend over backwards to help the customer. Now the customer bends over buying an expensive VPI.
If you ever get that 801 mounted I'd be curious what you think. I just got a UA-7045. It needs a little work.
Regards,
|
Halcro,
I told you where I read that stuff and asked if it was correct. You don't seem too sure about all the additional complexity you talked about. It's all from the speed control adjustments and breaking?
As far as platter weight you said, "This is a subjective view and IMO has become an oft-repeated audio myth...
It implies that turntables like Rega and Project cannot have "solidity"to their sound....
I have found that to be too much of a generalisation."
You're arguing against an implied generalization?
First of all I never made that generalization.
Secondly, I still believe that "audio myth" has some merit.
You make a good case for speed stability and I'm not disputing that, but it's not the only parameter IMO.
Now I'm playing devil's advocate against vintage tables?
Of all the millions of DD tables sold back in the day, I wonder how many have burned out motors or discarded for a broken part or lack of a good tech.
All I own are vintage tables, but for some people new is easier, especially with dealer support. Maybe VPI has gone rogue, but most companies support past product. |
Griff,
I don't usually speak against VPI, but their answer to your inquiry, "I was told by a return email that they no longer provide arm boards for the Aries", doesn't seem open to future possibilities. Perhaps their answer was worded differently, or that's not exactly what they meant?
If some part or material has become unobtainable, there's not much they can do, but VPI now seems to have a take the money and run philosophy. They sell out their parts for discontinued tables (HW19, TNT, Traveler) and abandon their product and customer. You could take the first Sota ever made, send it to Sota for refurb and they'll give you options. It would probably make more sense to buy a new table, but they don't leave the customer hanging. Rant over.
I can fix everything on the 7045, except I'm not sure about the VTA adjuster lock. It seems frozen in the open position. Does the arm need to be mounted for it to lock?
Not too late to cancel the charge. BTW, I was surprised to see the counterweight fixing bolt is 4mm thread. Heavy duty arm.
Regards,
|
