Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot II

Yes - take a look at Lenco Lovers - PTP2 Slate. I am the culprit - knock the socks off my 85lb plinth. While it is in prototype stage, it already wins on sonics, refinement, air and everyting else you like to talk about. Just no going back.

David

Well, over here I am fine-tuning my new Reference System - those big Cornwalls are truly spectacular, but my neighbours will hate me ;-) - and, I've found a stone-working business which will give me a large variety of options, and I'm quite excited as it looks like I'm finally coming Full Circle.

Back when I first tripped over the Lencos, '92, I had had a financial backer - after he had heard that first Lenco which shows at the top of my system page - who was interested in getting into some sort of manufacturing. But that fell through, as at that time the large companies - Thorens, Shure, etc. - had announced they would cease production of analogue hardware, and it looked like CD had utterly won the war. Finally, many years later, I decided to simply give the audiophile world the secret of the Lencos (and the Idler Principle) and their improvements for free, here on Audiogon. But back at that time, I had planned on building plinths out of marble, as I was in love with Greece (as I still am), and marble seemed a "chaotic" material (CLD) which would give good sonic results. Marble being a chaotic material in the sense that it is compressed and heated limestone with deposits/impurities in it, which gives it that "marbled" effect.

I walked through a very large display of types of stone at this business, and gave a variety of stones - granites, marbles, travertine and slates - the Ping Test (holding up a piece of each of flicking it with my fingernail to test its deadness/lack of ringing). To my surprise, both some forms of marble and some forms of quartz (not all) rang less than slate. Travertine, a porous type of quasi/limestone/marble (and quite beautiful) - was deadest of all (and so I should some day comminssion a plinth out of this), after a truly striking impure marble (think huge swirls of intrusive material). Slate is layered and metamorphized shale/sedimentary rock whose main attribute is chemical -not physical - inertness. Marble can more truly be termed a "constrained layer damping" material - as is advertised - for it is a true mix of disparate materials. A Ping Test of a truly striking piece of marble, with gross impurities of definitely different types of stone (accounting for its striking appearance), gave the deadest of all "pings", being a true dull "thud", followed, as written, by travertine. What surprised me more was that some examples of granite were incredibly inert, which is counter-intuitive as they have high crystal content. But, again, quartz is an agglomeration of materials, as is also limestone, made, like slate, out of successive deposits, being a sedimentary rock.

Now, as with Reinderspeter's top-plate - which I eventually discovered sounded better than the regular Lenco not because of the reinforced top-plate (though this does improve things) but also largely because of the solid idler-wheel post which greatly improved speed stability and so focus, transients, detail and so on - we don't know if it is slate specifically which accounts for the alleged improvement in sound quality, or if it is the simple fact of the rigidity advantage ANY stone has over wood. I say "alleged" because audiophiles frequently fall into the trap that increased brightness/hardness - as one would expect from metal being clamped to stone - equals more information/actual detail. In a system tending towards darkness this would be a big plus, but more than that, we live in a current audiophile obsession with detail, which means Detail Uber Alles, detail trumps all, and so we have to be careful of any vogue. Interesting that all this current furore over slate started in Wales (that company lifting/plagiarizing both my system text and one photo from my Audiogon "system" in their advertising/website), which once dominated the world market for slate. Now, stone UNDER a Lenco definitely brings improvements to the machine: does it do this more effectively (i.e. eliminate flex/vibration as it does as a platform, bringing with it increased focus and control, which is why I consider a stone platform a near requirement) when the plinth is itself stone?

Given all these choices, and the high cost of having these made, I have to choose only two, so to settle the issue to my own satisfaction, I will commission a plinth made of slate, and one of marble. They can also make one for me out of soapstone (or anything else I can imagine), which should be a good material, but these pieces will be expensive so for now I restrict myself to two. If the marble is as, or more, effective than slate, then this opens up a whole new area of aesthetics, as anyone can choose any colour/type/pattern of stone according to their own tastes, and as with wood, the varieties of beautiful stone are practically limitless: blues, greens, reds, mixes of all of the above, swirls, gold-in-black, white, etc. Then let's not forget the MAIN issue of whether or not stone is better in the plinth or under a wooden one.

I am excited because for the first time since '92, it looks like I will finally have an actual physical example of that first Lenco I had planned, a brass-coloured Lenco (I will have it recoated as such) set in a white (ish) marble plinth. In admiration for ancient Greece ;-). So, Full Circle back to the first thought I had. Will be set in a place of honour, regardless of sonic results. So I use fluted columns :-)??

On other fronts, I have fine-tubed my Klipsch Cornwall system - and my buddy's Electro-Voice system, to achieve equally spectacular results from both! Holy Crap the sound!!!! But now it's time to go out to the country for a riverside beer, so I'll be back later with a whole slew of fresh lessons learned! Have fun with your idlers all!!!

Just a quickie, just supercharged an original Lenco tonearm to fantastic results! I used ultra-thin solid core internal wiring (the best tonearm wire methinks) soldered directly to Petra (Music Boy) interconnects (still my fave), replaced the original rubber V-blocks for the knife-edge bearings with brass ones sourced from Sander (can be contacted via Lenco Lovers), and drilled out the connecting end, drilled out a 'real' headshell and epoxied the thing in place, basically a repeat of what I had done way back in '93 or so when I first discovered the Lencos. But THAT Lenco was not Direct Coupled to a plinth and mounted with a Reinderspeter top-plate, and now the result is fantastic. How fantastic? Haven't had time to do comparisons yet, but sounds very clean, detailed, dynamic and with excellent tight bass with the Denon DL-103"E" (phonophono in Berlin).

I've now got the Reinderspeter Lenco sitting next to an Ultra Garrard, the Garrard having both the Kokomo bearing upgrade AND a Loricraft power supply, as well as being mounted in a truly gigantic plinth (Ultra), for ultimate refinement and the usual Idler POWER and SLAM. Not only that, while the Super Lenco tonearm sits on the Reinderspeter Lenco, the 12" Cherry tonearm (available here on Audiogon for $200) is also sounding excellent on the Ultra Garrard (it being mounted with the famed Empire 10PE MM, smokin'!). So it's the battle of the budget wonders (the Lenco tonearm much better-built than the cherry, but it's the sound that counts) on two Ultra-'Table Contenders!!

Also got myself an NOS Dynavector Karat Ruby, a superb MC, only just mounted but already sounding excellent.

Be back with further reporting and photos later. Have fun all!!

Jean, FYI, Raul Iregas had an SP10 mk II in a marble plinth and did not like the results. He "reverted" thereafter to a simple and not very heavy wood plinth (maybe made of Baltic Birch), and that is what he uses with the SP10. Two qualifiers are: (1) This was a Technics SP10, not a Lenco. The optimal plinth for a direct drive may be different from that for an idler, and (2) we don't know much about Raul's marble plinth except he did state that it was very heavy (100lbs?). Perhaps Raul would care to comment.

I've often wondered what is the point of the ping test in selecting materials for audio use? It seems to me that a good shelf or plinth material should be a material that is able to dissipate the vibrational energy put into it, as heat. There is a large body of knowledge in materials science as regards the ability of energy to pass from one material to another. (Some is reflected back and some is absorbed at each interface. When the energy pulse reaches the far boundary of the absorbing material, some of it is reflected back again toward the admitting surface.) So the question is how does the plinth or shelf material mate with the metal chassis of the turntable and then from there what happens to the energy that does get into the plinth. You could have the deadest substance on the planet, but if most of the energy from the tt chassis is reflected back at the interface OR if the mating is suboptimal in any way, the plinth is worthless. Maybe that's why marble failed in Raul's experiment. As for me, I am fairly satisfied that undamped granite sucks as shelf material, for another example. I would definitely not consider granite for a plinth.

That's why I went with Corian some years ago. Good looking, not too bad to work with, fairly easily shaped, very dead and dense with good mass.

Enjoy,
Bob