Suspended Basis vs Nonsuspended Teres


Hi:

I am preparing to upgrade my TT and I am seriously considering a Top-of -the-Line Teres with Basis Vector Arm or Graham 2.2 and Shelter 901 combination. In researching the arm, I had some e-mail exchanges with AJ Conti from Basis.

It was kind of him to correspond with me and I am appreciative of his input. Of course, he endorses his own TT but he was very negative about others except SME. I have excerpted a couple sections to illustrate. Is he correct that nonsuspended tables are inferior unless you purchase a Vibraplane platform. And, do we believe that the Basis has 50 dB less environmental noise infiltration than other TT. My lack of hands-on experience with these TT and their strengths and weaknesses leave me wondering. I have no doubt about the quality of Basis TT but I am seeking input from several sources I trust. Audiogon is one.
see comments below.

"The 2001 with Vector is clearly superior to the SME 20 with any arm. The only turntables I would consider, if I were buying out on the market and knew all I know about all of them, would be Basis Debut series, 2500 series, 2001, SME 30, SME 20.

"Once you own the Vector, after you place it on something else, you will wish you bought Basis, especially after you see one, see the platter turn but have it look so stationary you don't think it's turning, such is its rotational accuracy, and they you note the platter on yours
going up and down as it rotates..........or after you realize that even the 2001 is TOTALLY isolated from all room vibrations, including its own motor, while any Teres, VPI, Nottingham have 50 DECIBELS MORE outside world garbage
getting in than the 2001. Yes, 50 decibels. ... That means NOISE, every unisolated turntable, including our own 1400 and 2000 (only offered to get in a lower price range where
all of the competition is unisolated) are full of noise, changing the tonality, losing and obscuring detail which you can never get back. It is pathetic and ridiculous to offer the $3k plus turntables that are offered without isolation, pretending cones and mulitple layers of actylic and other materials can "isolate" (proving the incompetance or dishonesty) of the designer or sales guy at the company. I love what Teres said to one of their dealers: "We can't
compete with the expertise, fixturing, tooling that Basis has, but here's why we are great-we listen to each one and throw away an entire unit if it does not sound good." What a great statement of "We don't know what we're doing, but
we try hard to not let poor product out the door."

cardiackid
Hi,

You know, I was just about ready to change my table until I got the RS-A1 arm. (Hmmm, talking about changing what was not originally planned!)

Anyway, this arm (RS-A1) changed the whole spectrum of my analog set-up. (It replaced the Basis supplied RB-300.) It's faster, more dynamic (like, very dynamic), better focus and has more detail.

Goes to show sometimes you can hit the nail without looking!

Next stop: a better cartridge.

Just thought I'd share what I have done.

Cheers,
George
I'm not at all surprised about Chris' experience with the granite slab, but I see it in slightly different terms than he does. I don't think that removing the compliant feet gave the slab a 'pathway' for resonant energy to 'dissipate', so much as the full-surface contact between it and the underlying wooden rack-shelf provided very much more damping, needed to kill its strong ring. Think of it this way: Wouldn't the same thing have basically happened if he had placed the shelf *on top* of the slab, only to a lesser degree due to the shelf's lesser weight?

My non-suspended TT is placed on a Symposium shelf atop compliant footers, but that shelf is not massive and is fairly well internally-damped and so doesn't ring much on its own, unlike the granite slab. High mass alone is not always our friend in this area, especially depending on how its shaped (think of an equivalent mass shaped as a block and as a slab, for instance, and then imagine a gong and an anvil made of an equal mass of the same metal - the gong rings much lower and longer, the anvil much higher and quicker).

All vibrational pathways are two-way, and I don't want my unsuspended 'table not to be isolated from floor vibrations or from airborne vibrations that are transmitted to my audio rack. If everything is rigidly coupled, then acoustic feedback becomes a real possibility with an unsuspended 'table at high playback volumes, especially in the case of a suspended wooden floor.

Chris mentions 'dissipating' self-generated vibrational energy from the TT on one hand - and how compliant isolation can supposedly thwart that goal - but then goes on to describe how Teres intends to damp this vibration internally through their chassis design. My belief is that these two statements are somewhat contradictory, and that for dealing with energy created at the bearings and stylus/groove interface, damping is the only way you can realistically go (through the use of nonresonant TT construction - which since TT's are rigid means damped, either by using relatively self-damped materials like acrylic or by constrained-layer mixing of unlike materials - and an appropriately compliant full-contact mat with clamp, though some will argue that).

To me, the reason non-suspended TT's can work well in the real world, and the reason less-ambitious suspended designs might not always be unequivocally superior, has largely to do with damping. Many less-expensive sprung-chassis designs are essentially undamped or only rudimentarily damped in their suspensions, so that even though they are resonantly 'tuned' as low-pass filters, this is like a choice between a car with no springs, and a car with springs but no shock absorbers. Clearly, though it will be more complex, cost more, and require more precise engineering, the best ride will ultimately be gotten with both springs and shocks, and I do agree with AJ that a premium TT ought to be both fully suspended and that the susupension needs to be effectively damped.

But on the budget end, where I live, I agree with Chris that unsuspended might often have the potential to be best in practical terms, although I'll demur about rigid coupling as a rule. I think an unsuspended 'table that's internally well-damped, coupled with a non-resonant rigid shelf that's mounted on appropriately-chosen compliant footers, can emulate to a useful degree both the low-pass isolation and overall system freedom from resonance that you would expect from a more expensive suspended design. In fact, if we disregard for a moment the question of where you put the motor, it seems to me that there might be little intrinsic difference between a 'table that carries its own sophisticated damped suspension, and setting an unsuspended 'table on a platform such as a Vibraplane that can perform largely the same function. But - perhaps unlike the manufacturers under discussion her - I've never put that proposition to a practical test, and neither have I ever owned a competently suspended/damped premium TT.
You're missing an essential point in this discussion. In order to fairly compare ANY two turntables you must use the same associated equipment with each. That means ALL components-tonearm, cartridge, phono stage, amp, speakers, stand, cables, etc., have to be identical. You must even use the listening room. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. Any comparison done with different equipment in a different environment is meaningless. The most important link in the audio chain is the cartridge. That's where the signal originates. No amount of money spent on any components down the line can make-up for a flawed cartridge. Also, the quality of reproduced sound is so subjective as to be nearly impossible to qualify. We all have ideas of what sounds best to us and have psyco-acoustical prejudices. Really folks, forget the engineering and all the other stuff. You've just got to LISTEN to what you are thinking of buying and decide based on that. I would never spend thousands of dollars on ANY turntable without listening to it first with my own equipment. If a dealer or manufacturer is not willing to allow you to do this, I suggest you shop elsewhere. If anyone is interested, all else being equal, in my experience spring-suspended turntables almost always sound better than non-suspended ones.
Table before cartridge. I would argue that the sound starts with the vinyl spinning on the platter of the turntable. Then it goes to cart/arm, then phono. Our table upgrade was much more "jaw dropping" than our cart upgrade. YMMV.
In general, I agree with Aroc. In my thinking, I concluded the table must be of very high quality first to allow the full benefits of the cartridge to be appreciated. The cartridge selection then must be selected to match the arm-table combination and the phono preamp. I already upgraded the phono preamp to a Steelhead in my particular case.

Gjpgamer, describes an ideal situation not available to me in St. Louis. We seem to have a dearth of High-End Dealers involved heavily in analog. The retailers must market primarilly home theater to survive here. Therefore, the option of trying several in my home is unlikely unless I ship one in with a 90% assurance to buy. It would not be fair to the dealer to do otherwise IMO.

I have also concluded from this other threads, that the requirements of the TT stand will be related to the TT choice. Trying out an unsuspended TT on my Atlantis equipment rack may not be appropriate. I plan to optimize a dedicated TT stand to the TT I select.

Analog reproduction is truly a multivariate problem with many elements that must work together. However, the effort is well rewarded. I have enjoyed the input and look forward to making a choice and enjoying the music.