A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Halcro, I gotta love ya, but you wrote, "through my speakers/room/equipment interface I hear exactly the same spectrum of sound quality as through the headphones with an added air, transparency, depth, bass impact, instrument positioning and emotional content."

I submit that this is impossible. Both can be superb, but the two systems can never sound exactly alike.

I have been away for a while and I intend to stay quiet in future, but after reading the last few weeks of posts, it seems to me that the Copernicans not only want their view to be "acceptable' but also for the non-Copernicans to say "uncle". I have written many times that I am quite certain your respective systems can sound excellent, but please don't think that makes you "right" and the rest of us "wrong". In turn, I will continue to say that I don't think any of you are wrong, either. (Ct, if your tonearm did not move, it did not move. OK?)

If I were going to implement an outboard arm pod there would be certain ways that I would do it. As an illustration, I like the DaVinci approach, sans the gaudiness of that turntable. Note that the Da Vinci armpod, motor pod, and platter pod are all made exactly the same way, of the same materials, and use identical footers. Plus Da Vinci recommends that they all should sit on a specific surface atop a specific stand (available for a mere $40,000 extra).

Dear JC, You are being too generous to say that Henry or any of the rest of us have conducted an "experiment" in the true meaning of the word.

Dear Halcro: If it is true that each one home audio system listening experience is " particular/unique " to no one but the owner IMHO it is true too that there are and exist some not writed " rules " that not only serve to criticize some body else but that could help us to improve our " veneu ".

I would like to talk ( in no order. ) on what JC/Dover/Chris and you posted on your overall system quality performance subject ( please with out other attitude than the ones involved here , including me, could understand the whole subject in better way: or not ? ):

I agree that everyone of us must " build " our audio system inside the environment we have and obviously inside the limitations that home environment impose us. Like you and several other persons we must live with our audio system in the parlor instead a dedicated room as JC. Nothing wrong with that, it is part of the audio trade-offs we are accustom to live with.

Yes, for some persons maybe to have the audio equipment betqeen the speakers is not the best place but some times there is no alternative.
In my case I experienced in the past ( and lived with for some time. ) with my equpment 8-10 m. from the speakers but the amplifier till I decided to try the today set up " in between " and good that I took this road because I had and have a substantial improvement in quality performance.

It does not matters what theory say about running the signal from line stage to amp fro 10m-20m when your line stage has very low output impedance/drive that permits not signal degradation: for me this is a myth ( at least is my experiences. ). For one moment any one of you think in what several audio designers choosed as one of their targets: " the shorten signal path " " minimum signal pass travel " ( on preamps or amps. ), why is that?: because as longer the signal pass through as signal is more " expose " to degradations of every and different kind. So a good trade-off for me was shortened the signal path to the speakers.

As JC pointed out: each home audio system has its own trade-offs. Btw, my audio equipment is at lower level than the tweeter/mid-range drivers and a little behind speakers: these helps but does not means I have no " troubles " but I prefer this way that 10 m. away. Even if I went/had a dedicated room my " impulse " will be to stay with the shorten signal path that in may ways is between speakers, of course that in a dedicated room with that set up maybe I can avoid some of the troubles I have today.

JC said that equipment betqeen speakers goes against not only performance but very specific on soundstage: in my system that was not my experience, even I think ( maybe I'm wrong. ) that the equipment in between works as diffusors that helps in some way.

Dover posted about that big glass table between the speakers and seat position, he is right but ( exist a but ) depends in specific where the tweeters ( and in second place: midranges drivers. ) first reflections comes: I use to have a big round glass ( bigger than yours Halcro. ) in that position till I detected the problem and fixed changing to another small one in different position where those speakers first reflection are " free " fron the table: huge improvement I have to say.

Now, even that I and other posted that we don't experienced any single/tiny change of position in our stand alone tonearm pod JC insist about one and again:

++++ " If you have a tonearm mount that allows relative movement between the LP and tonearm pivot, you are also creating distortions. " +++++

why he did that is out of my mind. Chris posted again that even at 100 db SPL he experienced " nothing ".

on other subject he posted:

+++++ " My experience is that MM vs. LOMC is largely a phono stage and tonearm issue. LOMCs need a good phono stage, they need as few electrical contacts between themselves and the phono stage as possible, and the low-compliance types need a suitable tonearm that can sink a lot of mechanical energy without becoming perturbed. " +++++

well the MM has its own needs that we have to fulfil to aprreciate its great quality performance. Same as any LOMC cartridge asks but here IMHO exist a main big difference between MM/MI and LOMC cartridges and that difference is vital and critical it does not matters that you can fulfil the LOMC needs: 40 dbs of additional amplification!!!! for the LOMC cartridges. This means several compromises ( between others. ) as more cartridge signal stages where it must pass , a cartridge signal with so low output ( against MM/MI ) that is very sensitive to be contaminated in several ways and all these means : added distortions no matters which tonearm or phono stage we are using it.

++++ " It would be more accurate to say that I hear other distortions from MMs or MIs that annoy me even more. " ++++

which ones? with which cartridges, tonearms and phono stage?

+++++ " If you use a DD motor and you don't have much moment-inertia in the plinth, you will be creating a form of noise which is somewhat similar to the background noise of an LP " +++++

this is interesting and I like many of you want to learn so JC please tell us how is this? how can we aware of it? and if it is something like the background LP's noise then how can we detect it when on playback to not be mix up with the LP noise it self?

Halcro posted:

+++++ " When I listen through the Audeze LCD2 headphones through the Schiit Lyr headphone amp I hear no reduction in distortions compared to my speaker/room/equipment interface. " +++++

so, IMHO you have a PERFECT speaker/room/equipment. I need to learn here too because I know very well all your Halcro electronics, subwoofers, cartridges, some tonearms and TTs you own and IMHO are not PERFECT: what did you to been " there "? to been and live in that perfection? and I'm talking of perfection due that those headphones are really good with very good distortions.

+++++ " I don't doubt the experiences of others.......I expect the same respect for mine. " ++++

well, I respect you but your statements makes no clear/precise sense.

JC:

+++++ " There are reasons why I said that some of the posts suggested that the poster wasn't hearing distortions that were almost certainly present " +++++

I agree for several reasons ( latter. )

Halcro:

+++++ " It is thus a little puzzling to think that you actually believe we are perhaps listening to distortions without somehow knowing it? " ++++

and followed:

++++ " I believe that I can detect 'distortions' as well as you or anyone else. " ++++++

main reason I agree with JC is that not only Halcro, JC, me or any one else can detect " distortions " : if and only if we are aware how that or those " distortions " performs/sounds.
I can't detect what I don't know how it sounds and due to this fact those hidden ( for me. ) distortions are took as part of the performance and not as distortions.

Gentlemans, I can detect some audio systems distortions that you can't and the only reason is that you don't know those several times subtle distortions. In the same way I can't detect other distortions because I'm unaware of them when you are.

In the other side even if we are aware of it there exist different audio system resolution levels that makes things more complicated. As JC said: because you can't detect it does not means does not exist because are there.

In the other side too there are distortions that we love it as there are distortions we hate it or are more sensible to. At the end on this distortion whole subject could help is we ask: which or what is more accurate/neutral against music reference/standards?, with out a " reference " accuracy or neutrality or distortions does not exist.

So, in this subject: which are our each one references?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Nandric,
Thank you 'brother' :-)
However I'm a little perturbed about playing a game about "...who is right.."?
I believe that most of us here, have many and varied experiences which combine to create a 'direction' and a 'solution' to their audio aspirations.
The fact that I choose a belt-drive turntable (and subsequently a DD one) does not, for an instant, presume to me that those who choose an idler are 'wrong'.
I don't believe (in my theory) that 'sprung' turntables are the right way to correctly retrieve information from a vinyl record yet I acknowledge that in some circumstances, such devices overcome their theoretical limitations and provide immense enjoyment for their adherents.
In other words, I prefer an 'inclusive' theory rather than an 'exclusive' theory regarding system choices.

Dear Lewm,
If you read some of my posts, you will see that far from wishing you to cry 'uncle'.....I sincerely hope that you or others may try this theory and cry....'nay'.
But in doing so.......tell us specifically why and how it is failing.
As Raul so often begs.....give us examples of this 'movement' or 'distortion' so that we, who have invested in this methodology, may avoid those pitfalls.
So far, no one who has actually tried the isolated armpods, has highlighted a real, and repeatable deficiency?.....one we can all test or improve upon?

Dear Raul,
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I certainly don't claim my system is 'Perfect'.....far from it. I have not heard one that is.
But like you, I am astounded that what I hear through the Audeze LCD2 is as near to 'perfectly corresponding' tonally and in detail to my speakers in my poorly laid-out listening environment.
There is not a single 'revelation' I hear through the headphones that I cannot also hear through the speakers.
No tremulous triangle shimmering behind the orchestra....no slurred or muffled words that suddenly through the headset become descipherable.
There is NOTHING that the headphones produce that I can't hear as well......or better......through my speakers.

Finally, I can't help but feel that all this talk of 'distortions'.....by you Raul and also by Jonathan.....without a single example which any of us can test.....is, as Nandric and Dgob would tell you (I hope).....a smokescreen that smacks of superiority?
"There are distortions (trust me)....and if you can't hear them, your ears or systems are inadequate, but I can hear them and I can tell you what they are and where they are!"
As you often say to others Raul (and I'm with you on this :-)........tell me, show me, describe to me, what these distortions are and provide examples on specific tracks on specific records so that we....the cloth-eared ones....may hear and understand what you are describing.
Otherwise, as others have already said, these are just words....words.....words.

Hi Fripp1,

Ah, Ferdinand de Saussure, Barthes, Derrida (and by extension, Bataille, Lacan and Levinas). It is more complex than some would wish. I hope y/our despondency proves wrong.

As always...

Hi Nandric,

I do not believe (as I might have mentioned once or twice) that this is the correct place to debate these matters - at least not at the expense of the accepted topics. Yet, I am curious about your (quasi-Wolffian) view that:

"logicaly, if the premise is not true than all the deductions from the premise can't be true also. (09-16-11)"

I find this fascinating because of its apparent pre-Kantian recant of the law of contradiction (which Kojeve made so much of in his assessments in "Kant" and, of course, engaging the linguistic nuances of 'contra-diction' in French)- albeit, an inverted postulation. Of course, a lot here will depend on what sense you have of the terms ‘logic’, ‘true’, ‘from’ and ‘can’t’.

With me admittedly not having the understanding of a Fregean here, I would appreciate it if you could email me off line to discuss without any further and undue intrusion on this thread. This is obviously not intended as a confrontation but a genuine hope that you can help clarify my innocence in understanding this.

As always...