Tables That Feature Bearing Friction

Dear Dertonarm: This is not a contest ( like you want to be ) on who have the reason or who knows more about.

I posted that I'm not ( yet ) on the TT design. Right now I don't know if there are better alternatives and which ones are even I can't say that your is the " one ".

Right now I'm a " spectator ". I have several " ideas "/common sense that are the ones that I will follow when we start our TT design.
What have I on hand?, almost nothing. My TT design is on " desk " waiting for like the amplifier one. Each thing at its time.

I'm not saying that your approach is wrong what I'm saying is that it is not " the best and only way ". In the time we already finish our research on the TT and start the design, tests, execution, tests, tests, test, then I will have a more precise arguments that exist other alternatives that can even and can outperform the ones that exist today including yours, not before: I don't have the " cads " yet.

No, you don't do nothing ( steped on... ) in the FR that is a " so so " design even with its own FR cartridges. No, I don't want comeback to this subject, I point out only because you name it again. I posted that when we obtain the patents on our tonearm design I will share with everybody, not before, science is science.

+++++ " Yes, I can tell you what building materials in what part of the TT are most likely the best to contribute to an excellent behaviour regarding vibration damping and energy transfer.
Why should I tell you. To convince you? " +++++

I don't need that you convice me, normaly I take the steps by my self to convince me about any subject that has interest on what I'm trying to achieve.

I don't care and means nothing if you name some materials with out scientific tests that prove/establish that that combination of build materials and its inter-relationship ( platter, plinth, bearing, arm board, footers, etc, etc ) are dead NEUTRAL below any real playback work conditions.
I think you can't do it, I mean that you don't have it, do you? .
Now, if you have it I don't need that you tell me, sooner or latter I will find the answers ( maybe a different ones from yours and maybe some like yours. ) about when we are in deep in our design.
I ask about only because you don't touch this " main " TT deign factors. I wonder why?, perhaps another un-finished/futile TT design?.

IMHO all our un-finished designs ( protoypes. ) have a very important " steps/role " in the final product and that role is that through these prototypes we can achieve our targets to build the real FINISH product.
I have some Phonolinepreamps and tonearm prototypes where I can " read " the different steps that bring me to the final product.
We have many differences in our way of thinking ( between you and me. ) and one of them is that I never think that I'm at the end of the audio item learning curve final design, at least I never experienced that I'm there.

I have my dream phonolinepreamp design like the tonearm, cartridge, TT and amplifier ones. These " dream designs " are perfect ones and wonder what? are commercial ones too but we need time a lot of it to make those " dreams " come alive but my final " prototypes " are a good step on the right road.
I can tell you that if I was Matushita Corporation where I can have any kind and any quantity of resources for audio projects then maybe in two-three years those " dreams " comes true but we are two-three persons that make this job in our free and just because we like it and enjoy what we do about.

Anyway, like I already posted go on: many people here are having fun and that's good. It will be " futile " if I try to go on. In good shape: thank you for your time.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I thank all the participants on this thread for sharing their knowledge and experience. Sitting on the perch of not being willing to build my own TT, and not being willing to spend ultra-bucks to buy someone else's summum, and being quite happy with what I have, I am very happy to hear a variety of opinions and experience because I am learning a lot from the discourse. I think if EVERYONE took a step back, they might learn something. Because people are coming at this from different perspectives, they seem to be getting their noses bent out of shape. Almost everyone here except Dertonarm is coming at this from the side of what is commercially viable (either because they need to make something commercially viable, or because they need to buy one which is made by someone else). Dertonarm is coming at it from a different angle.

Years ago, I read the Teres Project archives. They were extraordinarily enlightening to me at the time. I found dissenting opinions, and well-meaning hypotheses which turned out to not work, but in the end a lot of openness to challenging the existing ideas in order to create something better. In the end, those better ways were created (and I would suggest Chris Brady and recent Teres model purchasers believe the Teres Project results are still being improved upon) through hypothesis and trial. The results were that through astute selection of materials and drive system, an excellent TT could be built which was less expensive than the otherwise self-declared state-of-the-art. I would assume that subsequent models higher up, which garnered much praise by people with great systems improved upon the first renditions. It is obvious through Chris' assertions here that he believes his new DD system, and perhaps others', improve(s) upon those highly-praised BD TTs). I am sure they do. The fact that they are still being improved upon means that everyone is finding better and better ways to skin the cat. Dertonarm's main point is that the cat is still the cat (unless, of course, it is Schrodinger's cat, in which case, it may not be), and that there must be a 'best way' at some point (assuming that everyone's measure of 'best' is the same).

I think that Dertonarm will not deny, disavow, disagree, or demean anyone's opinion that a given DD motor driving a high-mass platter can sound better than a given belt-drive high-mass platter system. I am pretty sure that what he is saying is that he has not found it to beat his belt-drive high-mass platter and he has found the compromises in the DD method to be greater than the compromises in HIS BD HM system. Dertonarm has, in every thread, refused to comment on what he thinks sounds better (partly because it is beside the point I expect), but consistently appears to be looking for someone to provide technical input or results rather than an opinion or the result of System A having been better than System B (which is not so much a demonstration of physics as a demonstration of implementation). Trying to critique his results as invalid because he still finds compromises in it is also beside the point.

So far, the fault I find in Dertonarm's discourse is the assertion that DD or idler drive would not work with "highest possible platter weight" and using "high inertia for self-stabilized speed." It may be right, it may be wrong. It is, however, not defined nor supported. If there is a mechanical slippage system (slipping belt drive) there is, by definition, a compromise. In my opinion, the PERFECT implementation of a TT would not use mechanical slippage. It would also not depend on electromagnetic slippage. In a perfect system, it would be pure 100% speed-stable drive. I am assuming his assertion is based on his experience that mechanical slippage may be a smaller compromise than building a system of electromagnetic slippage with no mechanical slippage. In any case, let's see the technical reason why such is the case. I, for one, would expect that one could build a very very good DD HM system given enough time and enough resources - though in the end it comes down to motor speed/torque stability and whether that stability is greater than the speed stability offered by a 'clutch' system of thread slippage.

While Dertonarm's conclusions appear to be 'dogmatic' to some, they appear to be the result of trial and experience. His tone may be dry, and that seems to antagonize some people, with somebody now suggesting he has an 'agenda' (similar to the way some people 'have an agenda' with tubes and OTLs, and others with single driver loudspeakers?). I personally do not see 'constant demeaning of dissenting opinions' so much as I see challenges to demonstrate that opinions are backed with technical results. I am sure that if someone could prove that a DD with high mass platter had better speed stability than a thread drive, many would be interested (including Dertonarm). It just happens to be that while some people profess that such a thing is possible and they have heard it with their own ears, someone else thinks it is still a method with less accuracy than is available than through what he has done himself.

I would encourage everyone to look at these discussions the way they might if they had participated in the Teres Project Archives email exchanges. There is nothing wrong with dissenting opinion (and I for one do not see Dertonarm's commentary to demean dissenting opinion), but Dertonarm's whole point is that he is striving to improve upon what exists, not prove that one existing thing is better than another. His question to all is whether anyone can demonstrate that one method is, in a technically definitive way, superior to another.

Frank, I for one hope you do not regret chipping in. I always enjoy reading your informative posts. As to your last point, I completely agree that in coming up with a commercial product, there are always compromises - it cannot be otherwise as there is always the cost factor (and while I agree with your comment about not everyone designing to a price point or saying 'that'll do', unfortunately, that is inherent in some way in every compromise). As to your point about belittling people, I did not see it that way so much as I see people having two conversations which don't mesh. Most people in the real world and Mr. D in the theoretical. I, for one, am not at all convinced Mr. D is right (though I would love to listen to the table he created) about high mass BD (even though my preferred TT at home is a HM BD with slipping thread drive). I expect DD is probably 'better' because I expect it is easier to control the electromagnetic slippages than the mechanical ones. However, this is based on a total lack of experience doing it myself so I for one, encourage real, technical discourse.

A last technical question to you, Frank:
If you put in opposing pulley/threads, why would all 4 resonate at the same frequency? Would not the drive (pull) side have a different tension than the 'lag' side - thereby making same resonance on 4 strings impossible?

Dear Raul, if this were a contest (a contest about what ? Knowledge ?) - it would be fairly boring.
Aside from this there is nothing in your last post which requires any response as there are again (as so often..) no facts and nothing which has to do with the topic of this thread but only with personal animosities.
Boring.

Dear Dgarretson, before I get off for holiday, - first of all: very nice set-up you have done with your modificated TNT. There is much more insight and mechanic knowledge displayed in your set-up, than in many comments posted on that topic here in the last days.
As for the denier of the aramide thread.
It depends on your intention regarding the amount of grip you wish to have on your platter. With your set-up the thread does entangle the platter for 5/6 of its circumfence. I would start with a thread about the "thickness" of a sewing-linen. This will run smoothly through the pulley groove of the VPI motor and will give "fairly" good grip without becoming too massive. Aramide thread have become so inexpensive and widely available ( it was a very different situation 18 years back.....) - just get a selection of 3-4 different strenghts. For best comparism - why don't start with a aramide thread excatly the strength/thickness of the string you are using right now. That way you get a direct "result" as for any sonic benefit/or possible drawback of the aramide in your given set-up.
I really am interested to learn about your findings.
Please let me know.