What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

@mijostyn  I have experience of Mass Plinths (multiple years) and in conjunction with this, have had encounters with numerous TT owners who have adopted the Mass Method as their choice for a Plinth.

I have met lesser who have adopted the Standalone Tonearm Pod as a means to mount a Tonearm and even less who have adapted a TT to have a Swing Out Cantilever Armboard as a mounting design for a Tonearm.

If I were to spend a little time, using Web Searches to discover where the usage of the above methods are to be found and to gauge popularity.

I don't expect to find many utilising a Swing Out Cantilever Arm Mount unless a part belonging to a Brands TT Design, not many Plinths Only are seen produced to mount a Tonearm using this methodology.

Similar Time spent searching will certainly show where there is a popularity to adopt the Standalone Tonearm Pod, I know this as not too many years past I used a selection of witnessed designs to design a Tonearm Pod for a period of trialling I was getting to the point of putting into place.

As for a similar time searching for Mass Plinths in use, it won't be long before the idea of Bookmarking Pages will be abandoned as the quantity to be found is substantial.

A said in previous post over a long period of time,  I am a advocate of rigidly coupled, but also I am an advocate of allowing those with an interest, curiosity, want, to pursue it and have their experience. The methodology adopted is able to replay recorded music just fine.

When these individuals following their curiosity, want, interest, settle down with drink in hand and commence with enjoying the fruits of their work. I don't really see a concern for a Earthquake making a visit being too much of a Concern, maybe just a snippet of a concern for a overly noisy dead wax or invasive tick or pop. A contamination on a Styli can prove to be quite frustrating, and will ruin any replay, it is surprising how many times it is sat out and persevered to the point it has to be dealt with. 

There is only a untruth being told if a user of Vinyl claims there Styli is pristine clean for every replay put on by themselves.

In general 'most users' of vinyl enjoy the required rituals to get the better from it, but they are Human, they are not fanatics, and each will have their own level of expressed zeal.   

There are items you have raised that will come into a discussion now and again, they are discussed as they are present, and in most cases met to varying degrees of being present, each can have its own influence on the function of the parts required to produce the replay.. 

The influence is maybe unwanted, but it is a reality, it is present and it is lived with.

The Influence is not removed but some will go to lengths to manage the condition.

Reality is that the success of the management within a Home are pretty much assessed subjectively, so individuals choose their poison and the level of toxicity they are willing to persevere.   

Most who are knowing of the influences being present are thoroughly enjoying the musical experience being created, however flawed it is in relation to the ideal but  unobtanium perfect equipment / environment.

What's more is the individuals with such flaws equipment and methodology used  to manage the condition, are happy to introduce other's to experience the flawed equipment in use, in the flawed environment.  

As stated a few post back.

" Lets see which are those, whom choose to tell another how to mount their own Tonearms in conjunction with their own TT/TT's in their own Home ".

@lewm You have stated about myself,

"but it appears he is cognizant of the necessity to build his arm pods to be rock stable ".

I have never built a Standalone Tonearm Pod, I have produced a design for one, which if produced as Batch of Three, was once seen as a simplistic method to enable a variety of Tonearms of various lengths to be used in conjunction with a TT Trial Period, that was to have a TT used with Multiple Designs for a Platter Bearing.

Bearing Exchanges were to be carried out as a Comparison Trial.

I had managed to be offered from across the Globe a selection of Bearing Designs produced for one TT.

The Swap out of the Bearing was relatively easy without too much downtime due to exchanges.

From the producers of the Bearings, a Couple expressed an interest to see how different Tonearms were deemed to function when encountering the design for their Bearing.

I offered a way to accommodate this, by the means of suggesting a Standalone Tonearm Pod, strange how these engineer minded individuals did not refute that as a proposal, or the design when made known, when all bearing suppliers got wind of it still no challenges.  

The TT to be used for the Trials was with its own Mass Plinth and only able to accommodate a Tonearm with a Rega Geometry. Again strange how these engineer minded individuals were not challenging the Mass Plinth TT in use, it was agreed the TT was to be the one used.

As made known I no longer choose the Mass Plinth or the TT mounted on it as my first choice, the Mass Plinth and TT are reserved for demonstration and loans only. 

 

@lewm you are correct, actually the most correct I have seen for a long time in your statement "no one is telling me what to do", I will reciprocate it with the passion others express about archaic, halcyon ideas that have certainly moved on in other circles of thought.

I am an individual who likes a first hand 'sit in front of' experience, then I make my assessment. I don't pretend I know what is the best and express a Boorish behaviour toward any ideas from another that challenges experiences and assessments that I am comfortable with.  

As for the Base Board to Mount a TT and Standalone Tone Pod on.

My referencing a Base Board is how I have thought the methodology through and would choose to mount the Two Parts being interfaced.

As stated in a previous post, the board will be best if it has a Stable Property, ( again only my idea for this), it will with today's experiences to draw on also be a for the better if the Board has good damping and dissipation properties combined with being stable. This is not to be a statement to tell another if they do different they are wrong. 

It does offer a alternative to an individual, if they have not thought of this methodology and choose adopt it, to see if a benefit can be attained.

There are many methods adopted today to control a transfer of energy not only one 

As stated before, the TT Designs seen today and the methodologies selected as part of the design, to mount/interface the Tonearm are varied (the designs are way to varied to even be considered they are born from a one methodology only approach). 

Tectonic Plates are what they are, they keep other parties with a passion for this    field of interest extremely stimulated as does Marine Science and Astronomy. 

All Three are natural, and all can have an impact on vibration transmission that can impact on a Man Made Product.

Tectonic Plates being used as means to describe a Set Up of a HiFi Device and Supporting ancillaries is so extreme it is ludicrously off the scale. 

Is the next attempt to prove a point, using off the scale ludicrous as the parameter. Is where it is stated that Igneous Rock used in System, as a Plinth Material and Standalone Tone Pod Material will accelerate the convection and a Mini Mounting Range will form within ones lifetime in front of ones eyes, a ravine might even appear during one Albums replay.   

Comparing the Naturally Created Tectonic Plates convection to a Platter Spindle and Tonearm that are 'not' mechanically fastened to the same material,  hence, 'not'  being mechanically coupled, and as a result, able to create a convection as seen in a Tectonic Plate is utter Cod's Wallop. 

If a TT and Standalone Tonearm Pod had shown a movement toward each other at a dimension of Two Inches in one year in my own home, even if a Jack Hammer Breaking Out, next to the room with the equipment. I would be calling 'Ghostbusters' as a Meddling Poltergeist would be the most feasible explanation for the cause.

  

Send to me a private mail and I can give you a Pointer toward a Arm that has for a few put this arm and the Sibling Arm IV on the storage shelf.

No Secrecy 

I have seen posts from neonknight and the info' offered may be well suited to their outlook on things.

If the contact is made, all that will need to be made know to learn more will be offered for their own evaluation and appraisal.

It is not hard to supersede in performance a Glorified version of a early Tonearm Design from the Company Rega.

If Rega had the collateral in the early days of their becoming a Business, there 'may' have been Patents Present that would have stop most plagiarist's in their tracks.

As there is no indicator the SME V under inquiry is owned, but only being considered and is a early version. A suggestion of alternatives is no harm.

The used V Model being considered, if from the mainstream offerings is most likely $3500 - 5000ish

There is a lot of options to be put on a list at this purchase point, even a New Model of another Brand in this price range.

As said in previous Posts, if it weren't for the Rega Design being so successful and sought after, there would most likely not be a SME IV, V, 309, along with a host of others that poached the Rega Geometry and Design.    

@neonknight In relation to your wondering if OL are worth exploring.

The Tonearm I am familiar with for this Company is the Illustrious.

SME OL and Audiomods are Companies that have their TOTL Tonearms from a certain era formed from using the Rega Design and Geometry. 

SME have remained Loyal to the Rega Geometry and maintained a Singular Material used for the Arm Wand.

OL have maintained the Rega Geometry, but evolved to using Composite Materials for the Arm Wands t to the Higher End Models, but keep a Singular Arm Wand Material reserved for the lower in cost models.

Audiomods have maintained the Rega Geometry, and have joined the competition with OL and have a Composite Material used for their Series Six Arm Wand.

I own a SME IV, Adiomods Series V ( Singlar Material Arm Wand) and have been in the the company of the OL Illustrious on quite a few occasions.

There is little if any real difference between the SME IV and Audiomods Series Five. Each are quite similar in all areas of a Vinyl Replay.

When being demonstrated the OL Illustrious, there are sonics and a presentation I am quite familiar with, and this encourages me to feel the Three Tonearms are all much of muchness.

When the IV and Series V have been compared to the Tonearm I am using now. The most noticeable difference is how constrained the IV and Series Five are perceived to be influenced, there seems to be too much imparted from the design as a control, which has come to be identified with as not for the better.

When the restricted freedom is observed and the loss of detail from the recording is being witnessed is associated with the constrained manner the arm seemingly functions within, these arms can quickly become less attractive to a Arm in use that does not create this impression.

The Arm in use today, leaves a really difficult assessment to discover where it might have a fault that is unwanted on the replay, the detail and structure of the recording are laid out to be experienced in a manner that is extremely attractive and more of the capabilities is wanted regularly.

For me, after a long marriage to the SME IV and a Shorter Affair with the Series Five,  it was a very easy decision to Separate from each of these and bring into the Set Up the latest Tonearm of Choice.   

Even better for when the HiFi System is set back up for regular use, the latest Tonearm of Choice has a few tweaks which I have been instrumental in having some of the latest additions developed, and been Party to the Demonstrations during changes put in place.

I know there is the X Factor now available for this Arm, the sum of the Work undertaken has a finished function that is quite something and totally optimised for the already, very attractive and special design.  

With the present restriction to the SME Arms as a New Model, there is the situation where these designs do move to new owners without too much waiting.

Staying with the SME will not remunerate funds to enable an alternate Arm to be considered, with the funds raised from the SME Sale.

A Service won't do any harm, it will allow for it to be used once more in a improved condition, if it has a thorough cleaning of the areas that are needing to be mechanically free. It will also enable the assessment of the Arm to be a fairer comparison if the curiosity leads to experiencing other arms.

The SME V will enable the replay of music very effectively, it will even do that with a pride of ownership, as the aspired to Tonearm is present. 

If moved on for a Arm that is a better performer to your evolved preferences born from the period of new experiences encountered.

It will not take too many demonstrations to show where betterment is to be had.   , Betterment is  available, if using the accounts of others offering their subjective evaluations of other Tonearms impressions made in place of a V or IV.

The Arm will be easily forgotten, it is only the Ego Born from the period of making such a purchase that will be sticky for a while. The Marketing and Collaboration with HiFi Media proved to be very good at making the SME V one to be aspired to.

My IV is now viewed as a Cash Exchange for a Grandchild when Older if they do not want to keep it as a memory of GrandPops.

The fact the Media in the UK took to being a 'Duck to Water' on the Subject of Refurbishing Idler Drives and the SME V or IV were the Arms selected by the Companies and Media to be the tool to rein in the Noticeable imbalance of Bass, the Arms were furthered in appeal as a result of this use.

My closeness to this movement and extended communications about the Idler Drive TT, pretty much pointed to the Rega Arm, as being proven to do very similar for Bass Control to a Idler Drive by the DIY'ers, from the day.

As a Commercial Venture for the Idler Refurb, the end product was being claimed by the Companies to trounce all TT competition, the snobbery of it all, and support from the media on such claims required a SME Price Tag, to further substantiate the claims and worthiness of the TT for such an Arm.    

This mental manipulation of the Marketing and the period of time where Media Support was on offer for the V and IV used with the Idler Drive sticks in many minds, even through to the present.

I don't know of anybody who let the V or IV go, in either 9" or 12" that has pined for the return and rued the decision, in general there is decent remuneration and monies still spare, if a parity type arm is selected, a small top up in funds might be needed  to purchase a New Model that has a better presentation, but if still considering a used Model from many Brands, there should be funds available to cover the Purchase.

If I sold my IV, I would have approx' £1K profit if the funds were used to off set the against the purchase of the present used arm. 

@atmasphere To have owned an arm for 15 Years and thoroughly enjoyed it is a real blessing.

What is also quite interesting is that you deselected other Arms prior to your choice being made, that has proved to be a long-term relationship as the outcome.

I myself at times, get a motivation for probing the next ’what if’, and on occasion a new gem is discovered.

I would encourage a look into the Wire for the Arm that can be selected. If one can be discovered that is off interest, why not speak to the manufacturer about a Service for the Arm and to see if they would install a alternative wire to your choice. They may stipulate a dimension for the Wire, as a pinch point might be present in the wire route that may have a detrimental effect on the mechanical function of the arm.

Suppleness is the key, and a Silicone Sheath is a superb material to achieve this.

I am not aware of your Wire Preference for a Signal Path.

I have not got a great deal of interest in Silver Wire, I have it as a through wire Pin Tags to RCA Phono as a Silver Litz Wand Wire and have used it as a OCC Silver Wire Cable DIN>RCA .

The Cable is Superseded in use for a few years and the Tonearm is no longer used, unless to demonstrate the model to an individual with a interest in it.

To be fair to the Tonearm, it is the overall performance of the Tonearm that has been the main reason for it to be removed from regular use, how much of this is attributed to Silver Wire is not entirely sure.

Silver every so often has a presence that gets my attention, there is a SUT I intend on having a home demonstration from with Silver Coils, it will be a same Brand Copper/Silver A/B and then my owned Models in the Mix and a Head Amp.

My gut feeling from my own experiences is that there is something more to be offered from your Tonearm, and it might be a simple affair to find a very satisfying move to a betterment.

A incentive to update might be a retrospect incentive, when the impression is made from experiencing a choice for a change put in place.

@peterayer Your parameters to select a Tonearm has been as good as one could want to be achieved. The discovery made by yourself about there being 'when discovered' something that is repellent about the Flagship SME Tonearms is in keeping with my own findings.

Your description is "over 'damped and coloured sounding".

It does not need such control parameters to be in place as you have used, for an individual to discover a experience that is extremely attractive to them.

A one off experience and a attraction made is a subjective evaluation, or a extended period of A/B comparison between devices, in a controlled parameter, is still a subjective evaluation.

If a device is used, and it hits a home run, that is perfectly suited to ones unique taste and preference, that is enough, the choice made is after all, made by the one who is to experience the choice made, as part of their intended wish to have musical encounters.

When I was learning about how a New Tonearm to myself could compare to my SME IV. I come to the description the IV was seemingly constrained and controlled. There was a overbearing perception that a freedom of interaction was missing and when aware of this, it was unattractive and become a repellent, quite a outcome for someone who had been Wed to the IV as a 'go to' Arm for many years.  

The Tonearm I have now in use has the capability to create the impression it is completely free from constraint, the perception is it has a tangible freedom, and is interacting as a 'tool to do a job' in a manner that is very attractive, ( the chisel certainly is not blunted ).

In your own evaluations you used a Tonearm Pod and it is possible this Pod or another version of one is still in use.

I have no concerns for the use of a Tonearm Pod, from my observation from a time when a Two Arm Table was an attraction, and I was looking at options to create the set up.

I viewed the Standalone Pod, as not too much different from a Side Bar Cantilever Arm attachment as seen on a variety of TT Brands looking to offer a Multi-arm mounting configuration. The Cantilever can present it own mechanical deficiencies, but not enough to make a replay unattractive, the Pod has the same condition.

There is a Standalone Pod Designs I have seen in use that have a Mass Structure and a Densified Wood Arm Board as a Interface for the Tonearm. When sharing a Support Base with a TT, where the base has very stable inherent properties, the methodology for this set up, is unquestionably fit for purpose and will adequately mount an Arm, not only as a trialing mount for an A/B but also as a permanent role as a Arm Support.

A friend with a SP10 R was investigating a New Tone Arm, to enable the variety of arms to be used for the demonstrations the SP10 R owner has has a Standalone Tonearm Pod produced. From recollection the Arms used were a Glanz MH-12000s and MH-900s and a Reed 3P (9" Model). These three arms were home demo's on a few separate occasions through a Local HiFi distributor.

My SME IV was loaned for a extended demo' period, as well as a Loaned OL Arm and there was a Linn Arm already owned. 

Each of the Three above loaned /owned arms were able to be fully understood for for their impact on the performance, when used with the SP10 R and a established impression was able to be formed about each. Neither of these found their place on a Shortlist as a Model to be considered.

The Arm Purchased after the experiences encountered was the Glanz MH-1200s, which has made such a positive impression on a Standalone Monopod that is where it remains mounted.   

Even though there is a difference in how the 3012 R and Glanz arms were chosen the control criteria in place to help make the decision is with similarities, and a arm was discovered that has made a very positive impression and wanted to be lived with.

I am able to enjoy the SP10R > Glanz (Standalone Pod Mounted)> Miyajima on regular occasion and have never felt at any time something is amiss, 'recording dependent' the musical experience encountered is jaw dropping good and always wanted to be revisited.

I am hoping your jaw has a drop now and again as a result of the good musical experiences being encountered, and whilst standing in a queue somewhere the desire surfaces to get back for a listen, with a Tipple in moderation of ones favourite at arms length.

 

 

@dogberry The Standalone Tonearm Pod I designed after looking at a multitude of Designs was to have an approx'  4 Inch (100mm) OD, Hollow Phosphor Bronze Billet with a Spiked Base mechanically attached. At the time I recollect the Billet could be acquired with perfectly flat Top and Base as an additional cost to the purchase for approx' £80. From the same Machine shop a matching OD Base Plate of approx' 20mm thickness was between £10-£20 depending on Aluminium, Brass or Gunmetal.    

A proportion of the Base of the Billet was to be filled with Lead Shot. up to the level where the Billet Wall was bored to allow the Tonearm Signal Wire or Cable to exit the Void. 

The Top Plate was to be a Multi-material approach to create different damping and dissipation interfaces. At this time Delrin was an early material to be tried, as Acetal was respected as a Platter Material.

If I were to adopt this method today, I would work much closer to Densified Wood as the Bulk of the Structure.

The Tonearm Pod I regularly witness in use has been Bespoke Produced by the same Machining Company that produced the SP10 R's Aluminium Plinth.

The Design is close to mine, but has a Aluminium Hollow Billet and Thick Brass Base and Spiked Feet, Lead Shot in the Void. There are options to use a alternative Top Plate Material, but Aluminium is used at present.

The owner of the TT>Tonearm, is already starting to express a curiosity toward Densified Wood, and I suspect this may start with the Tonearm Pod, as my owned 75mm Thick Board has been discussed within the HiFi Group as to what could be done with a Off-Cut.

I am sure I have offered a Off-Cut of this same material on this forum to another member for the use as a Tonearm Pod.

If you develop the curiosity yourself let me know and I will see how I can assist with your request.         

@dogberry It is no secret I attend a HiFi Group, there is within this Group, approx' 200 years of combined experience with HiFi.

The Group is made up of long term enthusiasts, a retired dealer in Hi End HiFi,    an active Dealer, who has a range of Hi End HiFi, an EE who designs and builds.

Most members also have Educational Upbringing that belongs to the upper echelons in a society, (quite different from my own). They are experienced in Live Orchestra, Live Choir, Live Opera and the Group in general are regularly at a Live Acoustic Performance or for a few seeing a Band.

The main venue for a meet due to the accommodating size of the listening room, and the familiarity with the system by all, is the home where the Standalone Arm Pod is in use. This TT set Up has been the source to demo' numerous devices to be added into a signal path over the past few years as well as be used for Platter Mat comparisons, Puck Comparisons, RCA Cable Comparisons.

Not at any time has it been suggested there is something amiss in the SQ as a result of the Standalone Arm Pod in use, there is only satisfaction and attraction to the performance of the TT>Arm>Cart' in use. Certainly no disappointment, 'what's that'.

Do you mean on the Analog Section of Audiogon, there might be a few who a long-time honed in their collusive activities, where there is the need to project an authority. Where this unfortunately results in the discoveries of endlessly contradictory statements, where the sands are always shifting in relation to their assumptions/presumptions that something is insufficient if they say it is.

@dogberry These Pods are going to be just fine as the minimum, in truth, they are most likely going to give you a experience that is totally satisfying.

The Base the Pod and TT share is a important consideration, it is best if it has a very stable property. There are numerous materials that are stable today.

The next consideration is how the Base managers energy transferred, either ambient or from the TT Operation. The road leads the Densified Wood once more for this a material that damps and dissipates energy to the desirable effect.

The link is one I posted very recently, it has a valuable demonstration, and shows where the Densified Wood reaches beyond earlier go to choices used by many.

As said once the impression is made if you want to experiment a little. If the use of a Densified Wood becomes a interest contact me.   

 

@dogberry I know 😎, the bait is laid.

I am totally adhered to the Rigid Coupling Methodology, I was offered a option to have a Armboard Machined, which I declined for the One Plinth Material only philosophy.

The individual offering me the option has chose the Machined Armboard Option to mount Two Tonearms up to 12". This is to be used with a TT>Tonearm Identical to my own go to TT Set Up, as well as a selection of other immediately available Tonearms.

Where the two above Plinths now separate further, is that the producers second owned TT of the same model, is now in a condition that is to be used with a P'holz Chassis, that will also mount Two Tonearms up to 12" 

Another TT owner, with the same family of TT, has as already made known, chosen a Standalone Tonearm Pod.

I get to be demo'd all methodologies and that is great for me and others who choose to be present when the demo's take place, no reason why one of the pair of owned Identical Tonearms don't end up on the Standalone Tonearm Pod, as two near usage identical Cart's are ready for this Trial, and will be used on all Tonearms being compared.

All philosophies for mounting a Tonearm are pretty much exposed to be subjectively assessed.

I am to be open minded, but as a initial thought on the upcoming trial, I really don't see much to be discovered if the TT Plinth, Chassis and Standalone Tonearm Pod are mounted with a same Tonearm>Cart on a Densified Wood Sub Plinth.

'Standalone Tonearm Pod' is looking such a lovely morsel to be picked at on the set Traps Plate.

Lets see which are those, whom choose to tell another how to mount their own Tonearms in conjunction with their own TT/TT's in their own Home.

The idea of Rigid Coupling is a Philosophy for the Mechanical Structure.

I refer to this design as a Hard Coupling, if the Material used to create the coupling has a Stable Property. 

There are other philosophies used as Well, that run parallel with he above.

Looking at how TT designs are produced today, there is certainly a deviation from certain philosophies and these are evolving into a Hybrid of the Science used to produce the coupling. A Hard and Soft Coupling are being introduced.

In relation to a Standalone Tonearm Pod, is this not just a Step further from have a Tonearm Mounted on a Sub Chassis and a Bearing Mounted on a Upper Chassis, as seen in TT Designs. 

In relation to a Standalone Tonearm Pod, it is not too much different from a Cantilever Armboard used on many modern TT designs.

It does look like there is a major shift to how modern design interprets some of these Philosophies of yesteryear, even though remaining a useful guide for adopting for use today. I follow the Rigid Coupling it suits me, to suggest it is the only method pretty much questions many TT's seen in use, that are proving to be exceptional for their impression that can be made.

Very soon my own Investigation will have been carried out, it is a interest only, not a witch hunt to prove/disprove which is better. 'If' something is discovered that is standout and attractive, then this is most likely the structure to be aspired to. 

As stated a few post back.

" Lets see which are those, whom choose to tell another how to mount their own Tonearms in conjunction with their own TT/TT's in their own Home ".

The Link is showing what one design philosophy thinks about Mass and the Standalone Tonearm Pod used in conjunction with a TT.

Mind you for the price asked, I'm sure a bit of the Himalaya's could be a acquisition possibly with a village thrown in as a sweetener.

 

@mijostyn You are right I do not have a accurate handle on this issue, but from my perspective your own handle is seemingly short, with questions needing to be asked.

As stated frequently previously in other Threads as well as this one,

" I am totally adhered to the Rigid Coupling Methodology "

In this Thread, I stated,

" The Standalone Tonearm Pod' is looking such a lovely morsel to be picked at on the set Traps Plate".

"Lets see which are those, whom choose to tell another how to mount their own Tonearms in conjunction with their own TT/TT's in their own Home".

There are potentially Millions of Vinyl LP's replayed throughout a Period of a Week.

This is

'Standalone Tonearm Pod' is looking such a lovely morsel to be picked at on the set Traps Plate.

Lets see which are those, whom choose to tell another how to mount their own Tonearms in conjunction with their own TT/TT's in their own Home.

There are in use 1000's of TT's used throughout the week for the periods of replay.

The designs for the TT and Supporting Ancillaries being used, will be classed by all certain areas of HiFi usage, especially, where there is a enthusiasm to Replay Vinyl, that the TT > Tonearm in use are more than capable of replaying the Music to a very High Quality presentation. The TT and Supporting Ancillaries in use are again in certain cases designs that plenty are happy to maintain in use and others will want to aspire to.

What is most likely to be occurring, is that the musical encounters are thoroughly enjoyed, even with a Bearing Noise, Platter Resonance, Mechanically Impeded Tonearm, Warp in a LP Pressing and the impact of Seismic Activity.

The average Enthusiast for a Vinyl Replay, has invested their hard earned into their equipment, acquired a furthering of knowledge and most likely knows much of the talking points,  but these types as myself included, do not lose sleep, or 'dictate' to others, that all concerns for a replay 'must' be addressed to the highest resolve or the musical encounters are to be S**t.

 

@mijostyn your statement " the outright performance of a turntable is not a matter of aesthetics, it is one of sound mechanical engineering understanding the intricacies of life as a vibration measuring device and what it takes to get all the information out of the groove with as little distortion as possible " .

That statement is your obsession, it is your Fantastical Place, it is your Never Never Land.

 I am very relaxed about the whole subject, I don't want what is not available, and I don't want to bludgeon anybody with ideas that are unobtanium.

I have a thought process I use, when it comes to how I like to see a TT and Supporting Ancillaries Set Up. There is a design that I like to see in place and Materials used that will compliment the design.

This as the methodology, used in conjunction with all the flaws to be found in using a Vinyl LP as a Source and the Flaws present in the Mechanical Parts and Interfaces, is sufficient for my needs, I achieve a Successful Replay consistently   .

It is no different to any other individual, who has a TT and Supporting Ancillaries. They have a thought process in place, which is the parameter of choice to be used, there are no concerns to be made known, the outcome is a Successful Replay. 

None of this has to do with aesthetics, it is to do with Interfaces between the Parts required to create a Successful Replay .

I have not got a developed and obsessional prejudice towards any methodology used to create a Successful Replay

My interaction is to encourage others to create their own methodologies, not to poo poo their ideas, or put the idea on the table that a choice made for hard earned monies used to make a purchase, especially one that an individual may have desired to aspire to for a Long Period. The very idea of bluntly suggesting this has been incorrect and not of a value is not my remit. 

A Turntable with any method of creating a Interface between Supporting  Ancillaries that considers the Critical Geometries and Dimensions between the interfacing parts, is going to Successfully Replay a LP Album.

In all the time I have discussed this variance in ideas for interfacing the Ancillary Parts to the TT. There has never been the suggestion that the different methodologies are going to be the ruination of the Replay.

@mijostyn The statements being made by yourself are not ones I am willing to hold as the only way, I create measures to have a influence on a replay that satisfy myself. There is more than one road to Rome, when it comes to how a Vinyl LP is able to be thoroughly enjoyed as a Replay of a recorded material, I welcome each to share their experience and certainly won't be poo pooing all over it when shared.

@mulveling Not sure about arm pod idea - perhaps there are some reasonable use cases. But for use with a suspended table (like op’s SOTA) does NOT seem like one of them!

The Standalone Arm Pod has become quite a hot subject follow an earlier Post where a Stand Alone Arm was used with a SME 30/12.

A SME 3012R was not able to be mounted on the TT, so a Arm Pod was used to trial a SME V and 3012R.

I made it known I regularly encounter a SP 10R with a Glanz 12" Arm mounted on a Stand Alone Pod, and have never felt something was amiss.

The high risk of convection occurring, where the Standalone Arm Pod and TT were set to be on a collision course was the counter offensive to the idea, not too further on in the Thread.

I take the idea of a Arm Pod used in conjunction with a TT as a much more plausible method to achieve a Successful Replay, than considering Convection being present is the cause for the ruining of the replay. 

The Known Flaws in the entirety of the Set Up to achieve a replay from Vinyl are very well known, it is spilt milk, not worth crying over. Measures are known to be put in place to minimise the impact, but not remove the impact.

Most who are enthusiasts are settled with the impact of the Flaws they are exposed to. There are a lesser in number group who attempt to see how environmental changes can influence the flaws.

Then there are some individuals that are actually unable to separate from the influence of a Flaw on the replay, the effect on the Sonic is a attraction that is to be maintained. 

I have one like this myself, I crave my Chicago Blues Albums to be replayed through the system with a  Hooked Up, Coloured Cabinet Speaker, with a Noticeable Bass Bloom, these are the antithesis of my ESL's.

 Blues through the ESL's has not got the attraction to the music I so much enjoy, I feel so at home when the noticeably coloured sound is filling the air.

Obviously I am Heretic and need to be struck down for being so openly public about embracing a non Hi Fidelity Sound.        

@neonknight It is strange that your evaluation of the development of the Thread into how a Mounting for a TT Platter Bearing and Tonearm should be produced as a structure.

Using the Single Minded 'one method only' approach, that is being so fought for, to prove it as the absolute and only method to be used.

It Clearly is stating the first reference to a comparison between a SME V 12" and an alternative SME 12" Arm have been inadequately carried out.

The statement is also making it known the Methodology incorporated as Part of the design on your Turntable are flawed and a failing, so your use of the SME V are questionable in the individual making the statements assessment and any other that is agreeing with their view.

It is also heavily leaning toward the notion that a TT that has a Bearing Mounted on a Chassis, and the Chassis Mounted on a Plinth, along with a Tonearm Mounted on the same Single Material Plinth is Flawed. The Chassis is a different material to the Plinth and an impediment to how the energies are transferred and the mechanical coupling between Bearing and Tonearm are rigidly interfaced. 

To have a Tonearm attached to a Sub Plinth and Turntable Bearing on a Separate Plinth, is stated to be wrong, and 50 years of experience from the individual fighting their corner for the 'one method only' approach, has found proof to confirm that your Tonearm in use and any other you might choose to use are totally flawed in use, due to the design for the TT / Tonearm Interface.

I am not seeing any value to this, it is a flawed approach with limitations, as the real science will most likely show most Rigid Coupling Designs are with a compromise and a deviation for the real mechanical requirements.

As Stated Previously in posts, There is a TT Design to be tried imminently that has athe chassis removed and and a Densified Wood is the surrogate Chassis and Plinth to receive Tonearms. This is produced as a result of my interest in developing the Rigid Coupling Theory and an attempt to further remove the usually seen impediments present for the design. 

My experiences supply myself with quite different outcomes, in how I percieve how different TT / Tonearm Interfaces Perform. I am 'out there' experiencing what other do. I am not locked up in a Room all insular with a single minded attitude, that is not offering a constructive criticism in any manner. It is a attack on the usage of other methodologies, that are seen in use and endorsed by numerous individuals, who are designers, producers, dealers and enthusiastic end users.

I know there is an endless experience of Successful Replays being experienced as a Musical Encounter, as a result of not having a Turntable and Tonearm rigidly coupled to a Single Material Type on the same plane. 

On that note - I'm out of this thread as well, it has become a place to endorse the Poo Pooing all over methods adopted by a Vast Amount of Vinyl users. 

@neonknight Your request for info is based around alternative Tonearm Options to the SME V of a Dimension a as stated in the OP " The replacement has to be 9 to 10.5 inches. 

"What are you talking about? I wrote nothing about this "theory". You people created it all on your own". 

12" Tonearms were brought into the Thread not by @pindac 

The follow up to the sharing about a 12" arm being deselected for another, is where the thread fell apart, as the the usual P**ing Match kicked off to prove one opinion is more valid than another's.

Your Thread being hammered with unimportant info' and tolerated by yourself, with no value seen in the content being presented to your own inquiry. 

Standalone Tonearm Pods were not brought into the Thread by @pindac .

Making the Statement " stand alone tonearm pods are a disaster in progress " is not produced from the @pindac Keyboard.

The follow up reasoning being bludgeoned into the thread for explaining the disaster of a Standalone Arm Pod is flawed and suggests that TT designs that aren't Rigid Coupled are, and points the finger at numerous TT / Tonearm Interfaces as being inferior in their design, suggesting aesthetic is a contributor to the failure.

The SOTA Cosmos Eclipse is as exposed to the accusation of being a inferior design as all the others 'thrown under the bus'.

@mijostyn is wrong, especially when they are advocates and are actively promoting a TT and Tonearm, the same Brand as your own that is not a Rigidly Coupled Design.

My assessment is that the design has way to many parts to be used for the Structure to even be considered as a Rigid Structure. The Separate Tonearm Pod is an assembly of Laminations of different materials and attached to a separate material to the Platter Spindle.

What I feel confident in saying is that the design used in your case, with whatever tonearm of a 9" - 10.5" Dimension, will be capable of producing an " endless experience of Successful Replays "

2 

@mijostyn  I stand by both the following statements, both relating to the mentioned TT.

The SOTA Cosmos Eclipse is as exposed to the accusation of being a inferior design as all the others 'thrown under the bus'.

What I feel confident in saying is that the design used in your case, with whatever tonearm of a 9" - 10.5" Dimension, will be capable of producing an " endless experience of Successful Replays "

@lewm I don't do 'Angry', I do attempt Fair Play  to all. ( I persevere in my supplied content, as I know there are other who read Audiogon, and will never post and maybe never join. I think it's Fair they are seeing content where they are not left feeling ridiculed and shot down for choices that may have been made.  The usual Gon in-house Thread Development are what they are, no beef from my side their).

In the case of this thread I have made it known I have experience, (some regular) of TT / Tonearm Interfaces created using a variety of methodologies and using a variety of Materials used for the Structures Produced for mounting the Set Up.

I have made it known I am Wed to the Rigid Coupling Concept and have my own particular disciplines in place towards how I want to see it present. (which is the adoption of minimal parts in the assembly that can be used to create a structure that assists with the Functioning Mechanical Parts, as well as having inherent properties for being efficient at the management of Transferred Energies). 

I have made it known that I don't carry a prejudice towards other methods used to create a TT/Tonearm Interface, and from my assessment, all variants encountered of a TT/Tonearm Interfacing that has been experienced in use, each are in my view capable of producing a Successful Replay.

Even if I am choosing not to use a particular type of Set Up. I am not and will never, be the one, whom will be telling the end user of a TT>Tonearm in their own home, that their methodology for using it is a disaster.

 

 

 

@mijostyn In this Thread/Pantomime there are the usual Villains, Hero's and Loveable Types.

As in all Pantomime's, Shouting at the Performers is expected, you certainly are accustomed and seemingly quite comfortable with being a Member of the Performance and Participating as the Audience in this type of Theatre. Especially, when the content is for pure entertainment purposes and no more.   

In a Pantomime there is the very enjoyable interaction where the Audience get their chance to thoroughly enjoying the moment of 'Booing of the Stage' the Villain.

@mijostyn You've had plenty of well deserved Boo's from @pindac for one Season. 

@lewm I have had my fair share of visitors to experience my system throughout the years. This is a great side to having a enthusiasm and sharing it with likeminded individuals.

I am not a EE, I do Structure, but have avoided the EE Side of the enthusiasm, even when offered a one to one training by EE's I revere, I have not chosen to do the learning. The individuals who are EE's and I have a very long relationship with are expert, they do the math, the design and the construction of the working Prototypes and Working Models.

As I do not do EE, I have travelled to meet individuals who do work within this field, either as a highly adept enthusiast, through to HiFi Company Directors who are active in the Mainstream Marketplace.

These individuals are met as part of a Group of enthusiasts getting together and certainly not a Commercial Venture.

As a result of Commercially Organised Events, Forum Organised Events or by being Member of a Local HiFi Group, that is an assembly of various levels of EE expertise, enthusiasm and trade.

All the above adds up to one thing, I am not insular in my Enthusiasm, I am not locked away and limiting my experiences, I am knowledgeable of the works undertaken by others, I have regularly been demonstrated a Speaker, Power Amp, Pre Amp, Phonostage, DAC, TT, Tonearm, Cart', CDT/CDP, Lots of HiFi Foo and more recently streaming devices.

I get the opportunities to receive auditions of devices on systems I have become familiar with costing between £40K - £180Kish.

The Devices Demo'd or Systems being used, do not matter, what matters is that likeminded individuals get together and have Social Interaction, Banter, Food and Enjoyment, along with the Sharing in each others music tastes.

I would never listen to Choristers, Sea Shanty's, Obscure Orchestral Renditions, I do now, and am much the happier for it, there has been a few how have I deprived myself moments.

It is all about the music, the enjoyment of music and nothing else, equipment is a tool and means to an end.     

A Blown Out Bass or a Ear Shredding High Frequency are occasionally to be experienced from a New Addition to be demo'd. It does not matter, it is what it is, that's how the Music (which is the highlight was presented) and the next demo' is put to the test to see how it handles presenting another musical encounter.

I really do not obsess over equipment, it is a tool, I keep my ear to the ground, and do like to have a hands on experience of what equipment can do, but if it was not happening around a Cup of Coffee between friends, then it has no appeal to me.

As said on numerous occasions, I do most of listening to music in the home with my wife, and her go to device is Alexia, and indirectly that is where the bulk of my musical encounters are found and thoroughly enjoyed.

Putting on the Purpose Produced HiFi System is only a different tool, produced around a selection of different disciplines, to get the replay from a medium with a recorded information embedded. 

I dance to both the Purpose Produced HiFi and Alexia with equal gusto.      

@neonknight The following is the statement made in my post on Page 1, after having given a description of how I have come to perceive Tonearms, Owned, Encountered and having Experienced in use, that share in using Rega Design and Geometry.

"When the IV and Series V have been compared to the Tonearm I am using now. The most noticeable difference is how constrained the IV and Series Five are perceived to be influenced, there seems to be too much imparted from the design as a control, which has come to be identified with as not for the better".

Your most recent statement suggests something of this nature is being perceived through pairing the V with Cart' only.

There is a lot of perceived unconstrained musical replays available, it will require a change of Tonearm Completely.

I am all for a Wire Change, I have recently discovered substantial benefits from being demo'd a Wire I am a advocate of used in a Wand.

The change of a Bearing is not going to offer too much, as I have been quite familiar with V/12 in use and this presents with the same perception of constrained, the V/12 has the ABEC 7.

The ABEC 7 was the bearing I was to have put into the IV with a exchange Wand Wire, prior to it being superseded as a Tonearm.   

The owner of the SME 20/12 is now using the SCHUE with a OL Illustrious>Sumiko Pearwood and OL Motor Upgrades, and is extremely impressed, and is certain in their assessment of the Sonics, it is a TT on Parity with or Better that the SME used for many years.

The SCHUE is imminently to be Trailed A/B against a New Belt Drive Model arrived to be demo'd within the HiFi Group.   

 

@whart  Seeing such height for a Standalone Tonearm Pod is something I do not see everyday. The Structure of the Turntable requires such an elevation for the Tonearm Mounting

Are there other methods on offer to mount a Tonearm for use with this type of design for a TT.

As Your Kuzma XL and the TT in the Link share similar Structure as a design, are there any real differences that can be determined for how the Stand Alone Tonearm Pod, Interfaces / Functions that has been purposely produced for both the XL and the OneDof.

I am sure the designers of each TT have very carefully considered, going above and beyond to ensure the maintenance of the critical  interface between the parts. 

It is the known differences, if any are known that has my interest.

Mono & Stereo © 2022: ONEDOF™ TURNTABLE (monoandstereo.com)

The Transfiguration Proteus is Cart' I have shown an interest in and once was tempted to purchase, but chose to help the Vendor the Cart' find a route to resolve the issue they had with it.

I regularly keep a check on the Market to see what turns up.

The owned SME IV sounds constrained to the Tonearm I am using at present and this also being a Tonearm I see no need to change, it is a keeper and has a couple of changes awaiting that will lift its performance further.

The SME IV is directly compared to a owned Audiomods Series V, and these are much of muchness, there is little to separate the presentation. 

I have a good handle on the presentation and the perception of a constrained/excess of control during a replay.

I have regularly heard the V/12 and the OL Illustrious and can perceive the same constrained presentation.

As stated previously, if not for Rega becoming so successful as a early launched Brand and maybe not having a Watertight Protection over their Product, the Four Models referred to above will most likely not have been developed.

These are inflicted by the Geometry and Design of the Rega Adopted Methodology.

As made known as well both the IV and OL were deselected by another who was going through the motions of selecting a Tonearm.

All will successfully replay recorded music, not all from my acquired experience, are able to offer a sense of real freedom/liberty, allowing not usually revealed embedded information to form in an expansive and beyond the usual detail as the basics of the presentation. When the Envelope of  note or vocal has the perception of being tangible, Tonearms of the Rega design are quite easily Superseded for a different fundamental of a design.  

@best-groove I get it, Just Like Linn never used the Ariston Design 🤔

The RB300 was a sale item in 1983, it was receiving rave reviews in 1983/84 and selling by the Shedload, taking away sales from other Brands who did not know how to get a lookin.

The SME V Debuted as a Prototype in 1984 andwas not a sale item, it was a shot across the bow to Rega showing the Market a Up Market Rega was in the making.

The explanation for the delay of the launch, was that supply chain materials were being tested.

The general consensus is the Rega was interrogated to the point a Lawsuit was not in the making. When the legal side was no longer a concern the SME V was launched in 1985.

SME got away with it and so followed the early upgrade options for the Rega from Third Party Suppliers, which evolved into more Rega Type Arms.

I am not disputing the amount of Brands with Rega Type Arms, much Joy and Pride f Ownership has been attained.

I am a SME IV user 'no more', who was wed to this arm for many years.

Also I am a Audiomods Series Five user 'no more', but could not really differentiate the IV and Series Five.

These arms are a design that from my evaluation are able to create a perception of constraint and a excess of control on a replay.

It is the perception of this control and how it has become repellent, no longer attractive that has been the motivation for me to make the change. 

As these designs are varied across the Brands, in the methodologies to produce them with serious considerations for the methods used to upgrade, it is off interest to me why there is so much of a muchness detected across the Arm Design in use.

A friend has been doing Freelance work for a Company that is producing Tonearms to compete with the Rega Design Arms and has had a option on all arms in the line, after having use of them on their Home System, they have not adopted one of these arms in place of their other Tonearm options, of which one is the design I use now.

In my simplistic world, I associate this with the Rega Design Effect.

 

The dispute has evolved into the challenging of reports to be found on Comparative Performance on a Certain Drive Type of TT.

The dates of Launch are well recorded in History, and I see no further dispute on this matter.

As I am a long term user of Idler Drives that stretches back to the Nineties and in the Country where the Idler Revival was quite prominent, there is a decent amount of info’ to suggest that the RB 300 proved to be a contender has been shared in plenty of circles with an interest in such matters.

With all the Mod’s evolving and being offered for the RB 300, I’m sure the Gap closed for the V/300 comparison to ’beaten by a nose’, more than, ’beaten by a length’.

As said, I adopted the SME IV, and did not compare Rega Design Arm Options during the 90’s. With Hind Sight being the Best Manager, Common Sense will have led me to the RB 300, but the 'Ego' and Power of Marketing proved different as a influence.  

The Rega Design Arms referred to by myself in this Thread, have been compared quite extensively over the past Seven years. The result being that during this period the Arms of this Design are no longer ’in use’ as the main Tonearm. As still owned Tonearms the Rega Design Models are kept for Demo’ purposes and as loan items.

SME with the Companies inherent engineering prowess from the day, could identify and produce a mimic in days once a few designs with dimensions were on paper.

As Pattern Makers, Milling a Wand from any material to create a Part to be shown on a Prototype will have been a job for a apprentice.

@best-groove No need for me to supply anything, the Dates are the History and these are recorded very well.

A Search should even reveal that the RB 300 has a Gross of a estimated 400 000 sales, of which a substantial amount of sales were accumulated in 1983,84,85 (Shedloads)

As for Magazines, when SME were finally getting reviews of the launched V Tonearm in the Mid-Nineties, there is seemingly the usual influence from a Manufacturer, where the only reference to a Competitor Arm (RB300) is where the strengths are made known as improved on the competitor and how these are claimed to be better. No A/B Arm Comparisons allowed in any form of a Description.

The Idler Drive Community did that, and pretty much made it known the RB 300 was as a good a match as a SME V or IV when used with this Motor Drive.

Again interesting how Linn, with their TOTR Tonearm of this era, was a close mimic of a Swiss Brauer Arm.

Was the SME IV and later 309 produced as a cheaper V, to give a more affordable entry, or as a Model to tempt more customers away from Rega's continuing success in creating sales to SME? 

The Turntable that is the Predecessor to the Linn Design Deck id the Ariston RD11.

Castle Engineering produced Parts that were critical to the function of the Ariston RD11 

The change occurred following the British Patent, published as BP1394611.

Linn was formed as a Company shortly after the Patent and was to be closely associated with Castle Engineering.

I visited numerous HiFi Retailers throughout the Late 80's and well into the 90's.

It was soon learned that a HiFi retail outlet did not give fair lore to all on demonstration, as a result of this I had a few retailers I trusted above the plentiful ones available from this era, ultimately ending up having Bespoke Equipment Produced to bypass the salivating sales person looking to have ones hard earned put their way.

Rega Designed and had Produced their RB 300, as it was a cutting edge design and use of technology. The Product proved to be such a successful design, it is the Copycat Design of Four Decades.

 

When considering a change for the better to my Analogue Set Up. I was confident the most benefit was to be had from having the Phonostage in place that offered the most to meet my needs.

To get the best handle on this idea, I have a few thousand+ road mile journeys behind me, and have received demo's of numerous phonostages.

After having experienced the most typical circuitry and maybe a few more not so typical, where demo' Models have had a Value of up to £10K, I was Wed to the Valve Phon', not the Rich in Tone Designs, the Lean End of the Scale, was where I found my preference.

I was quite sure work done to the owned SME IV Tonearm was able to lift it to a level to be ideal for my Phonostage ambition. I certainly felt sure I had done the footwork and was to get the results to talk about and share with others in use.

Not as such, at a home event arranged by a forum member, I was given a unexpected and surprise invite.

At this social gathering I encountered a group made up of EE's, EE Minded and Trained Mechanical Engineers and Enthusiast Mechanical Engineers.

All present I had come to learn were known for having created a design for Analogue Source that had recognised to have been very beneficial.

I was informed I was invited as the host thought I might enjoy experiencing some the equipment brought along for demo'. The host made the right call about myself.

For weeks after this event, I was in wonderment about one Demo' probably the 'Show Stopper' and all who were present were very appraising of the work undertaken to get to the presentation on offer. 

The Demo' that was captivating was produced by a Tonearm. I made inquiries and arranged for a further Demo' at the producers home.

On a Solid State System, with Cabinet Speakers ( I don't do either as a full system), I was once more introduced to the Vinyl Source I was captivated by.

The introduction was a little educational as well, as the producer thought I would like to be shown how the Working Prototypes produced over a period of time sounded and compared. 

I had been given descriptions of how the design evolved and had been introduced to the use of modern materials within the evolving design.

I know of materials that are selected to be used today that are with inherent properties that far outperform common used materials selected for most Brands past and present Tonearm Designs.

The stability of these materials have enabled a whole new R&D in relation to machining tolerances and friction control.

Reduced Machining Tolerances have resulted, with improved dimensions to further  minimise movement. The Modern Materials of a certain type, have allowed for no increase in friction as a result of materials remaining so stable when used in the environment chosen for them.

I was on this first experience with the Tonearm Producer, demonstrated the Tonearm Design as Three Different Assemblies, from a period of R&D.

The differences were materials used to interface with the bearings.

One with a typical selected material, with the parts produced to the tightest usable tolerance.  One with a early adopted Modern Material for the R&D stages, that was claimed to be very good, much improved over the Typical choice, but had a stability that was prone to increase a impact of friction at times, so machining tolerances, even though tighter than a typical materials tolerance allowance, had to be accounted for, as a control measure. It took quite a few attempts to optimise this materials usage at a interface.

Last but not least, One with a material discovered that is extremely stable and can receive much tighter tolerances for the machining without a unwanted impact on the friction and overall freedom of the Mechanical Function.

All Three Arm Designs were swapped out over the course of a Few Hours, where each was used with the same TT>Cart' and on the same system.

The last one was quite something of a revelation, it was indelible as a experience and I own a later guise of it.

On this same period of demo's, one other Tonearm was to be demo'd, it was produced with the same materials as Tonearm that was extremely impressive, but had New Bearing used that were much more suitable to the modern material and environment to be used in.

The experience of this Demo' is nearly six years past and the impression made remains, which is basically the Fourth Tonearm demo'd, was seemingly a substantially improved Arm over the Three Arms Demo'd, but way beyond the performance of the The Third Tonearm Demo'd, which was the one I was already sold on.

The Design for the Arm I own, has been further tweaked by the designer over the period I have owned the Arm. I have been instrumental in encouraging some of the investigation undertaken and now adopted.

I have been invited to the be demo'd the finished work over the past years and have always heard it compared to my Tonearm Model.

The latest guise has the X Factor there is something that is not describable present, it has to be experienced to fully understand how accurate and desirable  the presentation is. 

 

 

Belt Drives in General have Two Bearings.

One utilised to Mount and Rotate the Platter, and one to supply a Lateral Force for a Coupling (Belt ) to rotate the Platter at a required Speed.

Two Spindles in use that can't be set into their housings, that are not making a tight fit, as this will create a friction, which will be a unwanted impediment to the desired function of the Spindles.

Two Spindles with a looseness that can create their own eccentric rotation, when rotating independent from each other. 

Two Spindles that when coupled to each via a ancillary such as a (Belt), the presence of the Belt when coupled and supplying the necessary rotations. will pass to and throw the energies of the Two Spindles 'out of sync' eccentric rotations.

As a result of the two 'out of sync' eccentric rotations, Oscillation is now occurring and inconsistent tension of the Coupling (Belt) is occurring.  The inconsistent Tensioning is now producing Speed Fluctuation and the Oscillations are also passing unwanted energy into the Platter.

Energies passed into the Platter are now at risk of contaminating the signal being  detected in the modulation as the result of the styli tracking the groove, (a styli is not prejudiced, it will send a signal whether intended to be sent or not. The  recordings design is not a protection, the Styli will send a signal born from a contamination from a unwanted source, where energies that are becoming a contamination are failing to be transferred away from the styli whilst in operation).

A method used as a control measure is to produce a Substantial Platter of High Mass, a 12Kg+ Platter might be considered a lightweight for some designs.

Put a 9Kg Platter onto a Inverted Bearing with a questionable Anchoring at the Base to the Structure and a Spinning Plate Design is in the making, excessive eccentric rotation of the Platter is only a period of short usage away, the impact of this on the Oscillation of the Belt and Speed Stability is one to run to cover from, but some are loyal to their product and bear with it, maybe investing in extremely expensive Speed Correction devices.

The wear that has been seen within the Bearing Housing of such a design is the worst samples when witnessed, bushes are almost ellipse shaped when the Inner Shape is observed, Heavy Platters on questionable Bearing Assemblies are not to be the best selected.

Some try to avoid issues with the inconsistent dimensions of the Belt causing Wow and Flutter, by adopting a Gossamer Thin type coupling material.         

Add to the above the inconsistencies to be found in the Belt Dimensions and the Cogging of the Motor (Torque Variations), the Wow and Flutter is very much a concern and very sophisticated Speed Control Measures are becoming the next stage of investigation, some of which are more expensive that a very speed accurate of the Shelve TT and in some cases with a Tonearm and Cart' to boot as well.  

Another method used as a measure to Control the Transfer of Energies that are a contamination and unwanted to be received by the Styli is to use a Two Part Support Structure.

A Design that adopts the Sub Chassis to reduce the need to manage external energies and Motor Transferred Energies. Where there are permutations as part of the design to mount the Motor, Platter Bearing and Tonearm on different Surfaces belonging to the structure, as a Measure to reduce the impact of Contamination born from the TT's usage and set up environment, especially where there is a desire to remove energy that is unwanted being transferred to the Platter/Styli.

There are also seen measures where the Motor is a Standalone Motor Pod, with the intention of isolating the energy produced from the motors operation, being transferred through the Support Structure the other Critical Parts to be mounted.

There has been a recent reveal within this thread, that there is a real concern for convection occurring, and this is a issue to be concerned about when a Standalone Pod is utilised. A convection occurring can certainly impact on the Wow and Flutter, especially if convection is to impact on the Motors positioning to the TT.

The Inconsistency of the Belt Tensioning will be the cause of Speed Fluctuations occurring as the result. Another issue some might find is best themselves if avoided.   

A Suspended Structure is another Measure adopted as a design to manage Transferral of energies and a unwanted contamination impacting on the Styli. 

In some cases a Sub Chassis is suspended from a Plinth. In such a case the Platter Spindle may be found attached to the Sub Chassis, in some cases the Tonearm is attached to the Sub Chassis as well.

Where the Platter Spindle and Tonearm are attached to the suspended Sub Chassis, there are designs using this method that have the Motor attached to the Plinth as a means to isolate energies created from the motor and reduce energy Transferral.

The Motor when mounted on the Plinth, is to supply a lateral force to a Platter that is attached to a Floating Structure. The energies produced from this lateral force is not only impacted on by the eccentric rotation of the Two Spindles and the Inconsistences of the Belt Dimension, the eccentric rotation of the two spindles and oscillation that is developing has the energy contained to create a movement of the suspended chassis.

The result being a increase to the Wow and Flutter as the Coupling (Belt) is now operating in a environment that has even more ambient impacts on the Belt, where much increased risk of Belt Slippage is able to occur.

Add to this a Sub Chassis that is able to produce a momentum when being influenced by a lateral load, when using a Platter of substantial weight, the Pendulum can get a momentum that will have the best capacity of most systems to increase Belt Oscillation that has an unprecedented impaction on the overall replay, each individual set up environment and support structure will yield very different end results.

There are quite a few items to be considered when considering the Belt Drive TT, from the most basic design to the designs that have gone to extreme lengths to engineer out a unwanted effect only to create New effect needing to be overcome.

Idler Drives and Direct Drives have lesser concerns overall, and they have developed their own fanbase for these reasons.

The Belt Drives have there following of hypochondriac worriers or those that are oblivious to the shortcomings of the design, and revel in its usage when nowhere near optimised.

All said an done I will one day have a decent session in front of a Kuzma Design, as I am liking their take on a TT, especially the Bearing Structure.

The report is that Hideaki Nishikawa is a fan too, good enough for him, certainly good enough for my limited knowledge on TT matters.  

@lewm There has been plenty of 'throwing under the bus' within this Thread.

From recollection it first started when a SME 3012 was a made known preferred choice over a SME V/12.

It has reared it head on a few occasions since and now with your latest statement the 'throwing under the bus' continues.

For the record, I am not prejudiced against any Drive, I have used Three of the most common examples and still own all Drives oof a common example.

A Idler Drive Superseded a Belt Drive and a DD Superseded the Idler and Belt Drive. At one point, not too many years past, I was with all the required knowledge to produce a Idler Drive design that could be a Belt Drive or Idler Drive.

I regularly visit individuals who have Belt Drive TT's, Idler Drive TT's and DD TT's.

More Importantly I am very respectful of their choices and know each is able to very successful produce a Replay that is able to be enjoyed.  

I am into the musical encounter and the social aspect of this hobby as first priority, I don't do equipment as the goal, or the must have to be aspired to.

Equipment is a Tool and a Tool is only as good as the skill of the user.

There are plenty of very worthy Tools able to produce a great end piece in the hands of individuals who will never know the tools true capability.

There are some who have the Tool and express curiosity about how to get the best value from its capabilities and reap the rewards for their endeavors to learn more.

I know which side of the fence I am on. 

As a second interest that has a allure and nothing else, I am into the Mechanics of the Trinity of TT>Tonearm>Cart'.

I have spent hours with individuals who are skilled by career in Mechanical Engineering and have extended this discipline to Micro Mechanical Engineering, the types who machine parts for Cameras and Watches, and have a love of vinyl, taking these skills to the table on this subject.

I have also spent hours with individuals who have access to very skilled machinists who are adept at carrying out micro machining, as a result of being engineers that produced reduced scale working Models of bygone equipment.

I have shared numerous mails with likeminded individuals from across the Globe and have been supplied great snippets, as well as supply snippets of info' very much worthwhile pondering. A vast amount has been learned about alternate materials and how they are on paper improved in their properties over other options seriously considered. Even though there may never be a face to face meeting, respect and friendships grow.  

As said it is a allure, it is not a must have in my life.

With this interest, I have developed a few ideas about, what I class as being for the best and of most importance for the Integrated Function of the Trinity.

I have learned of and experienced first hand, measures that can be put in place to supply each interface within the Trinity with an improved environment to function.

Some of this has to be experienced to fully understand how the benefits are showing out, words can't do it justice, all they can do is let it be known betterment can be attained.

I am sure my viewpoints on such a matter will cause a few to have their feathers ruffled, but Hey Ho, I am getting a great deal form the learning, creativity and experiences being encountered.   

I thought I made it known a Idler Drive is not the only TT with Two Bearing Spindles, of which one is found in a Motor and the Other Attached to a Platter.

I also thought I shared the issues that 'do arise' from the Two Spindles used on a Belt Drive TT and how some, 'not all' measures are put in place to attempt to manage the impact on the system of the Two Spindles working in conjunction with each and coupled by a Belt formed from a variety of material types.

As said, there is a lot of design, that can be put in place for a Belt Drive, as a means to control unwanted conditions inherent to the design in general.

How far these designs are to go will escalate the costs, especially when one is to buy into the philosophies of Certain Brands for the creation of their most engineered designs.

I do not see such extremes needed to control the Idler Drive, and there is plenty of Money available to create a Market Place for a substantially over engineered Idler Mechanism, they do not require the same engineering to optimise them as a Belt Drive has proven to require.

As said, I have today chosen to go for a DD TT, that has been given a specific material for its plinth, when in use, there is as a result of the Drive a cogging issue, that many will say is something that is to be of a concern.

I am yet to experience anything that is noticeable from the drive method, that is a detractor and leaves something extra wanting to be present.

This positive outcome may be due to the work the EE/Engineer who carried out work on the DD TT, producing a a Modified Speed Control Design, and the improvements made to the Platter Bearing.        

I only attempt to have input on this forum with a content that may be beneficial to an individual who stumbles on threads are a later time, whilst making a investigation into a Topic of Interest.

I would like to think there are explanations supplied of experiences encountered that by myself that are reasonable. I would like to think the content belonging to suggestions made by myself are reasonable.

I don't do much to steer a person from attaining their own experiences of all areas of HiFi, I regularly suggest the taking up the hot seat as the very best place to make a evaluation, and make it known, this is the method requiring the footwork, as usually the mountain won't be coming.  

As a onlooker and a contributor to a Thread that is running live within the analog forum on the Gon.

It is a task to contribute and not get caught up in the endless rounds of P***ing Matches that quite often show, as the, 'same old-same old' migrates across the relevant threads, fade away as the thread becomes a spent threads and resurface with Gusto at the next available opportunity.

 As said, for me it is the enjoyment of the music 'first',  equipment (tools) to produce the replays of recorded music 'second', and learning about the betterment for the functioning of the Tools 'third'. 

For the bulk of music heard today, Alexia is just fine, music at the command of a voice, in the Company of my Wife, pure Bliss.

Then there are the musical encounters on the Home System of which CD is quite a substantial period of allocated time and the Vinyl LP is maybe just a little more used.

Then there are the Social Gathering put in place solely for likeminded types to spend a period enjoying in a shared Musical Encounter.

Social Gatherings with a agenda to encounter New Experiences, where the Tools to be used to aid the replay of recorded music are to the most present, New Devices made available for Assessment , DAC's, Streamers, CDT's, CDP's, Phonostages, Pre, Power and Integrated Amplification. Turntables, Tonearms, Cart's, Cables and HiFi Phoo.

Most importantly all done with an Open Mind and no prejudice towards any methods under demo'.   

I use what I use, but I experience a whole lot more than I restrict myself to using. 

It is quite something how an individual can assess a situation and then see it is the Antithesis of another's approach. 

I see XLR and thought of a exchange to a OCC Pin/Male Connector immediately.

I see a Phon' as a idea to use with the XLR and thought about acquiring a used Model, followed with exchanging the Chassis Mounted XLR to a OCC Sleeve/Female Connector and using PC Triple C Wire as an exchange material on the Signal Path within the Phon' 'if a wire is in use' for this role.

I know the Verismo will sing like not imagined, I say this with confidence, as I have been Demo'd a Windfeld as a Cart' through a Tonearm > Phone with a above average parts used for the build.

I am a advocate of PC Triple C Wire and have been quite encouraging in the idea of adopting the Wire to be used for a variety of Roles.

At a later date I was introduced to the same set up, with PC Triple C Tonearm Wand Wire, Pure Copper - Low Eddy Connectors on Tonearm Wand Wire and Phon' Chassis, and PC Tripe C used within the Phon' on the Signal Path.

The Windfeld when Demo'd was almost unrecognisable, the betterment of the Cart's performance was quite something to be experienced.

The Designer/Builder of the Tonearm and the Phon' could not explain their surprise, they certainly did not foresee, the end product from their investigative endeavours. 

I have also been Demo'd lesser value Cart's that I am quite familiar with from the Ortofon Design, and this Wire and Connector arrangement has allowed for the Cart's to excel, and again are not recognisable to the Cart's when heard in the system in the earlier guise. To the point that on a occasion the impression made from a Cart' with substantial hours of usage, was able to be kept in use for a very extended period, to the point that there was no time left to use a Cart' I specifically brought along to be used, the impression such a simple set of changes can have is is substantial in relation to a Betterment and a New Indelible Experience has been encountered, that is worthy of a mention.

I will be looking into see the thoughts shared on the Verismo/Proteus, as I am a Ortofon Wed User, who formed a suspicion the Proteus was a worthy Cart' to consider from another Brand.

The Method experienced and the one that has been investigative and proven to have a very impressive impact is the use of PC Triple C Wire as a Arm Wand Wire and if able to be achieved, exchange the Phon' Internal Signal Path Wire for PC Triple C.

PC Triple C is not found as a Metal in Connectors at present, Designs that use Pure Copper or a OCC  for both Male Female are available.

Limiting the use of the OCC or Pure Copper Connector to the Cable Only is a method to create a partial result, that is able to be further benefitted by adding a partnering design to the chassis. 

In the case of a RCA exchange a Pure Copper Low Mass / Low Eddy Connector will be a good selection.

XLR's from what I have been offered as a description, are a Low Mass/ow Eddy Design, choosing the metal for the connection is the additional consideration.

The impression made from the experience of being demo'd versions of the above has been so, that I am having the above done to the Pre-Amp that is to be Built for me. 

When the HiFi System is back into action, I will be looking to have similar done to the other devices in use, the Power Amp's are already agreed to be converted to the above methodology by the Designer/Builder when the Design is to include the Balanced Circuit in conjunction with the Single Ended.  

@neonknight Through a communication with a Third Party Technician Service with strong ties with Ortofon, it is now a case that since shortly before pre-covid times, Ortofon stopped releasing parts for their products to outside resources.

I missed the boat, as I missed a place on a final order, where I was to have another TOTR Cart' internals purchased and stored for an upcoming rebuild I had in mind. For me after hearing the results from a similar re-build the punt was worth it, but not to be.

Joseph Long 'Needlestein' is a very good option, the Service is not limited to a particular Cantilever/Styli, there are discussion to be had, and a viable design is in many cases available.

Joseph has worked on plenty of Ortofon Cart's from Vintage to Modern, salvaging non-working to fit for purpose, through to TLC on a heavily contaminated specimen.

A friend has told me of a individual based in Washington, who has very recently had a Kontrapunkt C overhauled by 'Needlestein' and are blown away, it was a wild card venture, and the Cart' has now superseded much more expensive modern design models.    

r

Due to Brexit, the Third Party Service based in Holland, stopped dealing with Items from the UK.

This has been a loss, as the Technician really knows the Ortofon Products from the past 20ish Years as there is design used that the Technician has had a input to.

Being a Ortofon user as a preference, it is a shame to have had lost the support of such a knowledge base.

A Ortofon Cart' that has been under the hand of a Technician and optimised for mechanical function in relation to their intimate knowledge of the Brands Set Up Parameters, can standout as a contender to a upper level model.

I have experienced this, but after regular experiences and periods of usage increasing for the Cart's being compared, there is a time that arrives where the upper model shows it strengths.

The Verismo is one on my Radar, as has been the Proteus.

Your earlier reports has influenced my leaning toward Ortofon and the Verismo, as the Cart' of interest.

The only others on the Radar are the MSL Platinum and the Mutech Hyabusa.

I am assured through another source, maybe the most experienced I know of using modern and vintage Analogue Replay ancillaries, that the Hyabusa is extremely close to the Platinum and the extra cost is not necessary, if being without the MSL  Brand is not of such a concern. 

@neonknight My friend with the modified Schue TT > OL Illustrious has been very impressed with the set up, and has now come to the conclusion there is more to be discovered.

The Schue will soon be coupled with a OL 'Conqueror Mk IV' > Sumiko Pearwood.

It would seem the arm upgrade will bring something new, the Conqueror is one that has superseded the use of the SME IV and V, this is a demonstration I am looking forward to.

It also puts another level of Tonearm in the lineup for the upcoming Tonearm Comparisons to be carried out.  

@neonknight I was informing you that the owner of the Schue TT, feels the TT was worth the additional investment, hence the more expensive Tonearm is being acquired.

As for the design of OL Tonearms above a certain price level, I can only say I have been impressed during the demonstrations and look forward to this next one to take place. 

@neonknight Yesterday I was at a Local HiFi Group Meeting, which took place at a New to the Group Members home.

The Scheu > OL Conqueror IV > Sumiko Pear Wood was brought along for the Analogue Presentation.

The day was filled with first time encounters, the Amp's in use were Monoblock Devialet with B&W 800 D3 Diamond Speakers.

The sound of the Amp' > Speakers is not my usual experience, and the Phonostage was the Amp's Built In device, again another unfamiliar device.

The Schue seated on IsoAcoustics Gaia III Footers, adorned with the Conqueror as a debut Tonearm, presented in a way that was very impressive and showed of the qualities that could be attained from being used with a unfamiliar System.

It would have been great to have heard the upgrade arm to the Illustrious, used in a more familiar set up and listened to the comments offered by those who know the Schue and System in use well. All present apart from the new member are familiar with the Schue in use, and were of the view, during its use in this system there was a very attractive presentation being encountered.