A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Ralph: +++++ " " If the arm is mounted on a separate 'island', it will be impossible to reproduce the LP exactly, as any differences between the platter surface and the arm base, for example microscopic vibration or resonance, will be interpreted as coloration by the reproducer... " +++++

Maybe I'm wrong or I don't understand some issues on your statement but let me add some thoughts about that I think need further explanation by you or any one that want to do it with the precise answers:

according your statement that " microscopic distortion " has enough " intensity " for the cartridge can pick-up through the TT mat and LP.
This means that independent of what happen with the tonearm ( please forget for a moment on the tonearm subject. ) that platter distortion will be " taked " by the cartridge through the mat+LP: right?

Now, if the tonearm is atached on the same TT estructure/plinth then that distortion will be pick-up by the tonearm it self and " communicated " to the cartridge in addition to.

What all these means is that the cartridge pick-up not only those TT platter distortions but additional from tonearm too on the same generated platter distortions.

What happen if the tonearm is on a stand alone base?, well that those microscopic platter distortions will not contaminate through the tonearm too.

can this be an advantage of a stand alone tonearm arm board due that exist only one distortion focus ( TT platter ) instead of TT platter and tonearm?

+++++ " Absolute rigidity between the LP surface and the cartridge body is paramount! That requires no slop in the arm or platter bearings, and that the platter, plinth and arm tube are both rigid and acoustically dead. " ++++++

agree but this is true for either approach and the stand alone tonearm board IMHO not preclude that your statement be achieved.

Ralph and dear gentlemans I'm not promoting $$$$ nothing on purpose and certainly I'm not entilted or go " till I die " for the naked TT project and stand alone tonearm board.

I just want to learn and try to confirm or not the virtues on our approach that till today is ( for the ones that tested. ) workink just great an better than the other " normal/orthodox " alternative.

All of you know my attitude that not think always on orthodox/inside the box way and yes the naked project ( like Halcro name it. ) is part of that way of thinking.

We are not " deaf " in the same way any of you are not and I'm sure that if we heard differences, not tiny ones I can say, any one of you could hear it when decided to test our approach that could be yours.

I respect all opinions but seems to me thay opinions like the one from my good friend Lewm where he is against stand alone tonearm board because " theory " say is a " wrong/bad thing/approach " ( because that boat explanation. ) with out tested by it self only could create " confussion/mix up " in other persons where is not necessity to do it.
My take here is to test by one him self to understand what is down there instead to speculate about.

Ralph, do you already tested?, if not try to do it and make the comparison and tell us if you heard/hear drawbacks in quality performance level with the stand alone tonearm board.

As anything in audio not all is totally black or white but in between.

+++++ " acoustically dead... " +++++

like you many of us use those words in audio but what those words need really " means " for have validity in our subject.

Acoustically dead on what we are discussing means for me a " stage/scenario " where the cartridge can't reproduce or can't take it a " distortion " coming from tonearm/TT or elsewhere or maybe that could be picked-up by the cartridge with no audio reproduction influence.
Till today I don't know any scientific studies on that subject with different phono cartridges in different scenarios and with different in duced kind of distortions.
So, for me these " acoustically dead " words has no real significance other than a desirable audio factor.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Dear Raul, I am saying NOTHING, nada, about the Raven in any way, shape or form. The Raven is a belt-drive turntable with no formal "plinth" but does have a massive metal base to which tonearms and bearing are rigidly attached, and a massive platter. That would seem to me to be a good design; I have never ever heard one. I have repeatedly maintained that large formal wooden plinths as we used to know them are probably passe' for belt-drive.

Also, I think you can't have it both ways. In other instances you have frequently maintained that those who disagree with you are hearing euphonic distortions, but distortions nevertheless, and that the goal should be to reduce all distortions of any kind. Once you take that view, can you really say that if an outboard arm pod induces pleasing distortions, that is OK?

Sorry also, Halcro and Chris are great guys. I am pleased to feel like I know them. But neither of them did a "test", if a test is to be taken as a synonym for a valid experiment, and they both admit that.

Dear Halcro, In reference to your remark above, last month I finally bit the bullet and bought a Parasound amplifier (after much research and hand-wringing) just to have music while I play with my "real" OTL tube amplifiers. The Parasound does an OK job in the meantime on my Sound Labs.

Dear Lewm: I still think that the best way to improve quality sound performance in an audio system is reducing/lowering " distortions " ( any kind and everywhere. Even against " theories ". ).
The whole naked TT project seems to " align " with that target.

Btw, do you already find out/bought those three tiptoes for test that DP-80 " approach?: you don't need to make or buy anything else ( only change VTA. ) and obviously you don't need more " floor/space " in your system and obviously too you already have a great and way big and weighty stand alone slate tonearm board ( acostically dead? )!!!!

Have fun.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Perhaps we're chasing phantoms here?
Are turntables just like cartridges and speakers?
Different flavours for different folk yet doing the same job in different ways?

After all, who amongst us here is brave enough to name the best turntable he's ever heard for fear of being shot down in flames?
Yet there are the reviewers who aren't afraid to do exactly that.

Jonothan Valin names the Walker Proscenium as the best with the DaVinci Gabriel second best.
Michael Fremer names his Continuum Caliburn/Cobra the best while Harry Pearson has the Clearaudio Statement up there.
Yet they're all very different design models?

I don't think many of us on this Forum have the same table or tonearms yet we all seem to derive much pleasure from playing vinyl (except for Raul:-))?

If we have an imperfect medium within an imperfect chain mixed with personal preferences and unlimited combinations and permutations of equipment, is it any wonder that no one item can be universally called 'the best'?

Perhaps that's also why we continue to seek that elusive indefinable 'upgrade' which will suddenly make sense of our miserable and meaningless lives?