A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Halcro, your a tough cookie when an idea is presented that is not yours.

That idea wouldn't pass that test for sure but I was looking at a temp approach for others to test your nude project. I'll let them be the judge if it would be rigid enough to mount a tonearm.

"I have found that a tin of asparagus can form the ideal height for the temporary mounting of an arm :^)"

After seeing that I don't understand why you would feel the need to debunk the idea.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1294870073&openfrom&442&4#442

http://picasaweb.google.com/hfeiner/NUDETURNTABLEPROJECT?authkey=Gv1sRgCLeeoJToqbeJOg&pli=1#slideshow/5511069514869967442

Brad

Brad and Henry, I have found that small size cans of mandarin orange slices in water make excellent footers for my Lenco in slate plinth. I use 3 cans, tiptoes on the bottom of each can and a spacer on the top of each can so that the turntable makes contact through the top of the can rather than its rigid elevated lip. In theory, the assymetric distribution of the orange slices in the water help the absorption of energy entering the can from below due to floor-borne vibrations and the dissipation of any tiny amount of energy that might enter via the tt motor, altho the slate takes care of most of that, IMO. Cost = $2 per can or less plus some tiptoes that were lying around.

Henry, "Rigidity" a part of your holy trinity of armpod design, is good but not an unalloyed virtue since rigidity assures transmission of vibrations up from the shelf into the tonearm.

Some time ago I did also listen to SME 20 with Graham Phantom Arm and my Takeda Miyabi Cartridge.
I am also interested in some sentences why this turntable is good or not ... :-)
We all know, Turntable matters. But this "matter" has a lot of views, most rate something, because they like it or not, or the table does "something" or not, listeners who insist on a feet whipping presentation loaded with PRaT have normally a different view to such items than those who are mad about neutral reproduction. We all know, each his own.
Most turntables produce sonic masking and different equalizing colorations. This is based from construction. The better ones do not highlight some frequency areas and change the kind of performance based on that. Based on that (brain, which is rare) most are confused when they hear a Turntable which does nothing, only spinning the record with the right speed and adds nothing into the reproduction process. A good Turntable has no sound. When a Turntable "sounds", then this is based on mediocre knowledge about what-is responsible-for-what.. Sounding is for example, when a turntable accelerates everything, even Schubert Chamber Orchestra will have some "drive", no matter what you do, the sonic fingerprint is always present, no matter what kind of music you listen to. Those who gave up, prefer after a while only one kind of music ('...my System runs best with Blues, Jazz is horrible..')..
So, the question:
How much better should a turntable "sound" when it delivers a perfect 'normal', right performance?
And, why it is this the way it is? And is the sound also good, when the table itself is not in the 30k+ area?
Or, when it has no 3-4 motors ... we should ask Turntable manufacturers why they did this or that...
*Ahem*. Or no. Better not.. :-)

Dear Thuchan: Please don't put words/statements in my " mouth " that I never said. I never stated that is my " benchmark " for TT or that is my " King of TT in my opinion ".

This is what I posted:

++++ " Henry you need to listen the SME 30/2 that IMHO is a top performer and till today I never read of any customer with any single compliant about speed stability or isolation or almost any other kind of compliant. " +++++

so instead to posting that kind of false statements give us the specifics reasons why the SME30 is not a top performer ( along other TTs. ).

I know for sure that you have no specific answers because today you are a different Thuchan that the one that you was motnhs/years ago when you stated: " hey I'm not part of that german group ".
Obviously today you are full and deep contaminated and as you say: if that works for you fine.

+++++ " if you are thinking the SME 30/2 is a top performer I am wondering why you are not going for it. " +++++

the main reason is because when I bought my two AS and the RX5000 I need it to mount 10 tonearms to test my cartridges and try to match it with the better tonearm where the cartridge performs the better. The SME 20/30 can't give the " facilities " to achieve that target.

For your last post it is obvious that you don't know almost nothing on the SME design characteristics and operation.

Where your RX8000/SX8000 and mine RX5000 needs a damping/antivibration plattform to " seat it " the SME needs nothing at all, the SME self TT isolation works as you or any of your TT can even " dream ". You can dance ( and I mean it ) a top the rack where the SME 30 is seated with out no single disturbance to the LP playback that you can detect over the speakers.
The MSs are one of the worst TTs on this main TT target design characteristics.
This great isolation job that SME attain remember me one old Denon DP-100 TT demostration/show where the Denon dealer " put " one of his employees a top the metal top TT plinth during playback with no disturb about. This kind of isolation is what a cartridge ask for and that those MS just can't do it it does not matters what you do or did about.

The SME 30 has one of the best power supply designs ( if not the best. ) out there nothing like that so poor MS PS design. I know very well the MS PS design that I have to re-design ( not change parts that does not help when you have a wrong design. ) in my unit and the 1500 and 8000 are the same, maybe the SZ could be better but I don't know.

The SME30 speed stability and speed accuracy is well beyond on what your MS can shows, these ones are far away from there.

The best for the last:
the SME 20/30 designs certainly does not belongs to the heavy weight/mass TT approach that IMHO is a wrong approach just from start, I mean here that TT ( vintage/today ) designers from this school already trespass the limits where heavy weight/mass works in favor of the design ( mainly to help with speed stability. ) where after those limits that additional mass/weight not only does/can not help but goes in detriment/degradation of the whole quality performance level.
The more disturbing on this heavy weight/mass school is that you can ask to any designer why he decided that the platter or plinth be of 100 kg and he does not have a specific and scientific answer and if you ask him why 100 kg and not 60kg. or 120kg: he does not know!, just choosed with almost no " engeneering " there.
I ask in this thread about to that TT that will have a 110lbs in the platter and no answer at all.

That BD TT on the heavy mass/weight school are very good looking " boys " for audio childrens/rockies that say: " hey, it weights 200 kgs. and cost 70K dollars, this has to be a great top TT performer. " with out to think that does 200 kgs. generate energy rotational energy that generate vibrations tiny ones that the cartridge take it. As more heavy as worst the problem and as worst the distorions that degrade the cartridge signal.
All these guys that " die for " this kind of TT not only does not ask their self about but where goes all that rotational energy generated by the TT? could be damped in effective way? how comes? how much? and before could be dampened/dissipated where goes, because on playback there are cycles to go and perform?

Obviously the SME people as several other TT designers ( Sota, Project, rega, Linn, etc, etc. ) know very well this " heavy " problem that : voila! has no solution because is out of the mass/weight limits on TT designs ( Alek on the Onedof pointed about: he knows. ).

A TT is a cartridge slave and must be designed to fulfil the cartridge needs and between this needs is what the cartridge can " hear/sense " that you or me can't.

Thuchan, do you think that the Victor, Denon, Technics, Exclusive, Kenwood, Monaco, TTs sounds so good only because are DD ones?, certainly not: a common denominator to all of them is that are " anemic " designs where is more easy to disippate/damp the TT energies/self vibrations.

Do you know what stress level " suffer " a heavy weight TT bearing against an " anemic " design? and do you know what this means?

The " sad " thing here is to see the Wave Kinetics DD that is taking that high mass/weight road, I hope that design be inside the mass/weight limits.

Yes, these " anemic " designs are IMHO more neutral and with lower distortions than the heavy ones. That you like it the heavy ones does not means are better because are not: it only fit your distortion level targets, that maybe you even don't know for sure.

I agree with Syntax statement:

++++ " most are confused when they hear a Turntable which does nothing, only spinning the record with the right speed and adds nothing into the reproduction process. A good Turntable has no sound " +++++

well, IMHO the SME 30 belongs to that " school " where those MS and other heavy ones did/do not.

I'm totally sure that we will see additional TT designs for audio childrens/roockies in the future till those designers: LEARN what a cartridge needs over their own pocket$$$$

Anyway, this is part a bad part of the AHEE.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Lew, I have been fighting for a solution with my slate plinth in the footers area to combat floor-borne vibrations. There just aren't any in the market that provide the proper height, decoupling, height adjustment, or a way to mount them. I recently discovered these that meet all of the above and will probably buy some in the near future to give a go.

http://www.simphys.com/Pages/isolation%20products.html

A wall shelf would probalby solve the problem but still would like to try these so the plinth alone could do it's job. One of those minuk-k, vibraplane or similiar would be the ultimate.

Brad