| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Analog Playback» Ultimate Turntable (185 posts, 10 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 10 (185 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Michael Fremer Continuums…..  Pre-manufactured box speaker...  Audio News Forum     54  418525  01-21-2006
  »  New  The Foolishness of Analog People..  Late to the discussion but cannot resist...  Analog Playback Forum     56  392302  01-30-2006
  »  New   A longer turntable belt...  SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...  Analog Playback Forum     60  356827  02-02-2006
  »  New  My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..  My analog setup update....  Analog Playback Forum     9  81305  04-04-2006
  »  New  Micro Seiki SZ-1T..  I guess it's my own fault....  Analog Playback Forum     2  24521  06-10-2008
  »  New  Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...  Will not work...  Analog Playback Forum     14  70383  11-26-2008
  »  New  Active Tonearm Monitoring System...  The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...  Analog Playback Forum     2  24076  07-14-2009
  »  New  The HoroMusic turnable...  And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...  Analog Playback Forum     6  45948  08-05-2009
  »  New  Audio Note new turntable and inflation..  When I see the crap like this thing…...  Analog Playback Forum     13  98978  01-03-2010
  »  New  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?..  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  11872  03-13-2010
  »  New  A turntable platter as a turbine?..  A turntable platter as a turbine?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  9418  10-27-2010
02-26-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
enjoy_the_music
Strasbourg, France
Posts 12
Joined on 02-21-2007

Post #: 21
Post ID: 6784
Reply to: 6783
Yes...add it to the list!
Yes we're creating the ultimate turntable so why not.

''So can you imagine adding to a tonearm a function to catching the proximity from the center and dynamically reset the anti-scatting? How about automated tonearm’s vertical excursion to compensate the records thickness and self tuning of VTA? What would be next? The room temperature analyzer that would automatically adjust the viscosity of tonearms damping ligules in case of the hater in your room went off and the temperature change for 5 degree.''

I didnt say the TX-1000 sounded good. It has many shortcomings in other areas.

I agree with the high mass principle. Although I havent owned the large Kuzma I was wed to a Thorens Reference and will soon wed a Micro RX-5000. I have had and still own a number of the direct drives...it is my analogue hareem.

I guess the ultimate turntable could be belt driven or direct drive as long as the drive control was ultimate. However that said in realityland perhaps the direct drive would have difficulty with such a mass...not so much the rotation, but the accuracy. 

I was recently asked about a Lyrec AD40. Apparently some guys in Korea are making/were making turntables based on this model. I believe they used the Lyrec/Neumann motor which looked like it turned the huge platter via a long shaft. I will try to find pictures of this beast.


02-26-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 6785
Reply to: 6784
I do not think ultimate turntable should be expensive.

Well, I think the larger then rational mass of “silent” TT platter eliminates all other moments. If you have a 150 lead-like platter then would it be direct drive, belt drive, or pinch roller would be absolutely irrelevant. The moment of inertia of this thing would be mammoth and you can apply torque by impulses once a second – the platter will not have reflected it on sound. The ultimate tonearm for the “ultimate turntable” is a whole another subject…

Still, if I go for ultimate turntable concept then in my book where less is more it would be a large mass TT with air or magnetic (perhaps electromagnetic) suspension. It is interesting that in the subject of “big turntables” the turntables have some kind of mysterious high values; this it is very little in analog come from a TT. There are expensive turntables out there with price tag of $30K, $50K, $80K…. What an idiocy! A function of TT is to spinning a disc – nothing else! Why should it be so expensive of complex of even simple and cheap $100 turntables already produce speed stability that is order of magnitude more stable that it is imaginable to hear. In fact the most horrible problem with speed stability I ever experiences in my live was from $100K Continuums Turnable… so where is the common sense?

I think the ultimate turntable would be the maximum mass driver with lowers torque possible. The turntable shell uses a simplest and minimalistic implementation and has absolutely minimum options to adjust anything.  I truly do not know what might be added to a suspended high mass platter in order to make it better. A mashie shop would take let say $3K-$5K for a 150-200 pounds platter with vertical bearing. From there you need $100 to buy niobium magentas and $5 to buy good glue… The only problems I see that if you do it then your turntable will not have a brand name and you will have no one to balm when your turntable turn out sound like crap.

Teh caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-26-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 23
Post ID: 6786
Reply to: 6785
The ideas that work?
The "best" TT I ever heard - by a mile - was the old Versa Dynamics, but the performance quickly deteriorated, apparently from water vapor messing up the "straight-line" arm function.   Oh, well.

Mass is definitely part of the answer.  Maybe use an idler to get the platter moving and then switch it off to a belt drive.  This might allow the use of a more friendly belt material than whatever it would take to get a heavy platter off rest.

Lead and/or or various sintered materials seem to work best for platters, and it is better, or just as well, IMO, to keep the mass +/- constant than to layer it.

If the magnetic fields could be reasonably contained then this might be a better platter lifting/decoupling strategy than air, which is likely to contain some water.  Lateral constraint is another issue I have not thought through yet, but perhaps magnets could also be used to keep the platter centered enough to use minimal mechanical restraint.  Big platters dragging can make BIG rumble, and wobble of any sort will out.

Good drive motors are expensive, but I see no good reason to go over the top with it.  DD with a big heavy platter seems like asking for trouble.

Experiments have convinced me that there are better and worse ways to deal with extraneous energy from the stylus/disc interface. Platter material/composition sure seems to play a big part (see above), along with disc/platter interface.

Perhaps it's a sop, but in the real world I happen to love vacuum holddown; just enough to effectively couple the disc consistently to the platter.  Here again, no reason to get exotic.  The small inexpensive pump on my rig has been silent and trouble free for 20 years.  OK, it is faintly audible as it first sucks the disc down.   But it shuts down to inaudibility once the vacuum level is achieved.  No doubt it could be done better; but this is proof it can be done simply, inexpensively and reliably.  And I can and perhaps should say that, at least with the minimal vacumm, there has been no harm to my LPs over a 20 years of using the vacuum holddown.

As for suspension/isolation, there might be situations where LP playback does not need it, but I have not seen these situations.

It looks/sounds like many TTs spring from rampant imaginations that put "design ideas" and or pre-conceived notions about appearance ahead of actually dealing with obvious issues as simply as possible.  In fact, turntable "manufacturers" seem to be more likely than most to invent/focus on problems so they can "solve" them in fantastical ways.  The results are too complex by half, and many of their "features" are just nonsensical, while the overall designs yet ignore or fail to deal with significant performance issues.

Best regards,
Paul S
02-26-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
enjoy_the_music
Strasbourg, France
Posts 12
Joined on 02-21-2007

Post #: 24
Post ID: 6787
Reply to: 6786
How to levitate the platter?
How would you go about this?

If the platter was massive you would need some very strong magnets?

Therefore the platter would have to be quite deep so the magnets fields did not interfere with the cartridge. Would you manufacture the platter out of non-magnetic material so the over time the material itself would not become magnetised and start generating it's own field?

Making a vacuum hold down is quite simple, but would it be easier to use a device like the old Audio Technica AT-666? I guess the material used in the latter is not the ultimate. You don't need a great amount of vacuum to hold the record down.

What do you mean when you talk of a belt that 'hangs'?

So how many days do you think this massive platter would take to get up to 33rpm...never mind 78 Smile

Regards

Richard
02-26-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Ronnie
Stockholm
Posts 81
Joined on 06-30-2005

Post #: 25
Post ID: 6789
Reply to: 6787
Turntables & Vacuum
enjoy_the_music wrote "but would it be easier to use a device like the old Audio Technica AT-666?"

I had one of those, and it was horrible. You need to stop the platter, attach a hose, pump (manually if I remember correctly), detach the hose.
Mine would lose the vacuum grip before a whole side had been played.

I have many ideas for an ideal turntable, but haven't really identified any problems with my old plastic Technics DD, so I have minimal interest in turntables for the moment.
02-26-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
N-set
Gdansk, Poland
Posts 454
Joined on 01-07-2006

Post #: 26
Post ID: 6791
Reply to: 6785
Dynamical speed stabilization
 Romy the Cat wrote:

Why should it be so expensive of complex of even simple and cheap $100 turntables already produce speed stability that is order of magnitude more stable that it is imaginable to hear.

Teh caT

isn't that a bit too fast & similar to saying that obtaining an incredibly low THD way below the hearing limit is possible with a cheap $100 transistor amp?
ok, but under which conditions? dynamically, with real life signals and loads?does it relate to the sound in any way?
not that i'd ever try to defend 100$k or whatever mastodonts, and not that i really have much experience with analog, but
let me point out that the force injected by the needle moving through a groove can apparently be quite substantial
(loud passages etc) dynamically slowing down the plate. if i were anywhere close to desing a TT (not in this century for sure)
i'd not underestimate it. heavy plate seems a safe starting point?.


Cheers,
Jarek
02-26-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 6794
Reply to: 6787
How to levitate a massive platter?

Very cool question. Without having any rational justification to make any educated guess I would pull idea out of my ass – just because the idea make sense to me.

If I make a massive palter I would go for very tall vertical shaft to minimize the platter’s latitude bearing. As the example might be taken the EMT 927 with a long tail below – I love the idea. However the longer shaft, the more shaft surface the more tension in the shaft - so it should be balanced somehow.  No ball bearing would care >150poinf, unless you want to fix it each two years. So I would use some kind of other methods – air or magnetic. But there is a ketch in it. I still believe that the platter should not be decoupled from the base – I have written about it in the beginning of the thread. A platter should be grounded, not electrically but mechanically and it should have path of mechanically ground. So, if I go for an ultimate solution then I would suspend the platter with air for insane in order the air to care 95% of the platter mass. Then I would have the ball bearing that would care the reminding 5-10 pounds. Sure when the platter is not spinning I should be not lower to the flimsy bottom bearing but somehow maintained in a lifted position.

Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-27-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 28
Post ID: 6795
Reply to: 6794
Errr... doesn't Contimuum do this?
Re, bearing/ground path versus platter mass:  The usual option is to use somewhat less than 150 lb platter ;>Wink, which is the compromise I opted for, for lots of swell reasons, one of which is because a lighter platter still allows for a realistic mechanical bearing/coupling that doesn't drag all that much and still lasts.

However, other factors being equal, I also believe that the heavier platter/lighter bearing is the superior idea.  I'm still leary of air but see no reason that magnets and solinoids could not be employed to do the grunt lifting and holding-off-the-bearing-while-stopped, respectively.  Base bearing could be typical carbide shaft and/or ball on zirconium plate, or similar, as long as it NEVER took full weight or a bump.

Never having played with an actual 150 ib. platter I wonder if it actually benefits from a "ground path" as much as, say, a 35 lb platter.

Now I'm wondering what is the curve for benefit/platter-mass.  I know it's up past Linn, my own Sota Star, etc; but where does it start to trail way off?

Best regards,
Paul S
02-27-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
guy sergeant
United Kingdom
Posts 258
Joined on 08-03-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 6797
Reply to: 6795
Platter Mass, How much is enough?
There was a Japanese company called Melco who did some experimentation with platter mass back in the 70's.  I seem to recall that they felt 30Kg was where it stopped making a difference.  The greek ACA president with his flywheel assistance feels its alot more.

http://www.aca.gr/paper37.htm

Personally, I feel DD done properly is an adequate and more elegant solution. The fact that it was accurate enough to cut the records we listen to also suggests this to be the case. 
02-27-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
enjoy_the_music
Strasbourg, France
Posts 12
Joined on 02-21-2007

Post #: 30
Post ID: 6798
Reply to: 6795
Platter becomes plinth.
If the platter was fully levitated then it would essentially become the plinth. Choice of material/s would then be the key issue.

When I used to work in robotics research my colleagues began to check out high temperature superconducting (HTS) bearings. They have interesting potential in turntables. Boeing were also looking into the for flywheel/energy conservation duties.

http://www.atz-gmbh.com/Products/HTS_bearing/hts_bearing.html

Obviously it could be a bit OTT but who knows.
02-27-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 31
Post ID: 6800
Reply to: 6797
Co-equal tasks
Guy, I have used a Technics DD and thought about the lathe/DD connection.  Then I thought about the idea of various transducers, from microphone to cutter, to stylus and speaker, and I wonder if TT/lathe is a similar case, where similar function is not co-equality.

Wouldn't all the mass so far outboard from the motor shaft make for an expensive solution, both in terms of support and speed control, where it seems at first glance to be a case of the tail wagging the dog?  Sure it could be done, but how well, in terms of LP playback, and at what cost?

I'm very suspicious of DSP, or any kind of feedback-type speed control, by the way, if only because it seems superfluous in view of ostensibly simpler solutions.

I think a heavy platter with a small motor and a whimpy belt go a long way toward buffering speed variation in practical playback applications.  How would DD handle it?  Maybe just buy and adapt a lathe?  Shouldn't that do it?

Best regards,
Paul S
02-27-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 6801
Reply to: 6797
Vacuum, platters, lathes, and everything elese.

 enjoy_the_music wrote:
Making a vacuum hold down is quite simple, but would it be easier to use a device like the old Audio Technica AT-666? I guess the material used in the latter is not the ultimate. You don't need a great amount of vacuum to hold the record down.

Actually you are incorrect. To make vacuum hold down properly is quite complex. The ay how Audio Technica and Sota did it was simple but it is why it reportedly did not work well. (I used Sota a few times). Micro did it extremely good with real-time sucking. The benefits are arguable though – there are some pluses and some minuses. I feel that the idea of negative curving is much more interning then the vacuum hold down, still even the negative curving have own pain in ass disadvantages.

 N-set wrote:
let me point out that the force injected by the needle moving through a groove can apparently be quite substantial (loud passages etc) dynamically slowing down the plate.

Only with flimsy platters perhaps. With heavy enough platter and with a platter with right damping it should not be the case.

 guy sergeant wrote:
There was a Japanese company called Melco who did some experimentation with platter mass back in the 70's.  I seem to recall that they felt 30Kg was where it stopped making a difference. 

Melco was in bad with Micro and I think Micro came from Melco. Japanese has another company with a ridicules name: it was called “American Sound“, they made TTs even heavier then Micro 8000

 guy sergeant wrote:
The greek ACA president with his flywheel assistance feels its alot more.

http://www.aca.gr/paper37.htm 

Wey good artailsy, I have seen it before but never was able to read it carefully. I hate to read from computer screen and it a site has no printing options then I tend do not read it. From what I was able to glance I might say that if his platter takes 30-60 minutes to stabilize then his design is bogus. Putting, record in, touching the platter, cleaning the record – it is all affect the pressure to the platter and platter should be able to recover it really fast. I hate to think that I need to hard-clean record and then wait 10 min until the platter get cruse speed.  I think all heavy platters should have step-torque controls.

 guy sergeant wrote:
Personally, I feel DD done properly is an adequate and more elegant solution. The fact that it was accurate enough to cut the records we listen to also suggests this to be the case. 

I think it is incorrect rational. I am not proposing that DD idea are bad or good I just say that juts because some companies in past make DD cutting lathes then it proves absolutely nothing and should not be a reason for imitation juts “because it was cut on TT lathe”.  It is not to mention that all earlier cutting lathes were belt driver and then, for the sake of economy/space some of them went to DD. BTW, none of the c used heavy platters. I am sure if someone would case to make the cutting lathes today, with contemporary high level of demands and with the same amount of appreciation as it was done 60 years back then the today’s lathes would be much  more capable then the best  Georg Neumann’s lathes…

Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-27-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 33
Post ID: 6802
Reply to: 6801
In lieu of the vacuum, what? (and a sneaky clamp reference)
Yes, the varying profiles of disc faces present another issue, all right.  But is this to say that a typical loose arrangement gives superior sonics during real world playback?  After all, the profile/slope must still be reckoned with.  Futzing around, tapping a loose disc with a straightened out paper clip while the stylus rests on the disc is not a pure "scientific" test, of course; but if nothing else the wild variation in the sound from loose discs is troubling.  Now, I think I hear this stuff when my vacuum is not properly engaged.  In any case, I obviously buy into the aural benefits of vacuum HD, even at the rather primitive level of implementation that my TT offers, although the Sota does not just suck down then shut off like the AT, but it continues sucking enough to keep the established vacuum constant; it just takes far less work from the pump once the initial purge is done, and there is a servo that handles this.

Though a long-time "vacuum guy" I feel no need to beat the gong for it.  Still, I have for some time wondered that otherwise-better TTs do not offer the vacuum option.  It just seems like something worth doing if you're going that far out to begin with.  With all the ancillary technology, it still seems like disc/platter interface gets brushed under the rug, especially when "manufacturers" go to great lengths to tout platter composition as it relates to vinyl and/or they offer clamps.  I also happen to use a fancy clamp; but I would not bother if I did not already have a +/- effective disc/platter connection.  I certainly do not see clamps as any kind of solution for warped disces.  For that matter, vacuum at the level I use it is not a solution for warped discs.  While it miight make a warped disc playable, vacuum might or might not make a warped disc flat enough to do the interface job I want from it.  I get the best results from discs that are reasonably flat to begin with.  Also, the clamp is mostly a sink, and I would never recommend the use of a clamp across the board, as I have seen/heard plenty of cases where a clamp made things way worse in short order.

Best regards,
Paul S
02-29-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mats
Chicago
Posts 76
Joined on 09-18-2005

Post #: 34
Post ID: 6819
Reply to: 6801
DD again
Romy wrote:


"
 N-set wrote:
let me point out that the force injected by the needle moving through a groove can apparently be quite substantial (loud passages etc) dynamically slowing down the plate.

Only with flimsy platters perhaps. With heavy enough platter and with a platter with right damping it should not be the case."


It should not be the case one would think, but perhaps it is.  What after all accounts for the congestion one so often encounters with large scale, content rich orchestral recordings.  (Why do so many audiophiles play simple pop and jazz music, and why do classical lovers often go all digital?)  Well, a friend of mine suggested that not even his Verdier could maintain speed through complex passages, and that this was the main cause for congested sound.   He preferred a simple Technics SL1200 for speed stability.  The SL1200 has its own issues, (some of which I have adressed; battery power, cooler running),  but my personal  experience is that  the Technics offer  better  performance of complex music than the TT's I have had, A Well Tempered, a Linn and a Townshend.   No personal experience with heavy platters as you can see.  Still this is a subject I feel worthy of further discussion.  Who has had a DD and a heavy platter table side by side for comparison?

Mats
03-01-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 35
Post ID: 6821
Reply to: 6819
Not that heavy
Mats, I am not so sure about where this may be headed, because the last thing I want to do is start an AA style pissing contest or suggest that any given product or design is the one to have, mainly because I just don't believe that any product simply plugged into a system is going to make a positive contribution.  So please consider my remarks as abstract and related to the technological ramifications of each design rather than brand or genre loyalty, which I certainly lack, anyway.  Since I know these threads can get heated from here out, please feel welcome to make me wrong, and I'll thank you and move on.  I don't remember you ever introducing isolated stats or theories or dragging in witnesses as proof of anything, and I hope no one else will do this either, because where would that get us?

OK, I said that.  So, I had an old SP10, which I simply did not care for.  It just never sounded right to me either in terms of noise via playback or the speed - in terms of music -  despite the fact that the built-in strobe looked great.  So, naturally, I wound up with an SP12 and, naturally, it was not much better in terms of speed but way worse in terms of noise via playback.  FWIW, I had the same issues with a Dennon I played with, and also a friend's friend's Kenwood; they all had the same problems.   You must have had a reason or reasons to go to batteries.  I never tried that, but the "perfect" speed control I was getting sounded more like original CD to me, and I never could solve the breakthrough issues, either, despite exotic coatings under the platter, isolation measures, etc.

And that's where the Sota Star (vacuum) came in.  To the point, I am NOT saying the Sota Star is a world beater, but - once set up properly - in terms of sound via playback it is in another class altogether where it matters to me, simply more musically coherent and a lot less noise via playback.  While I would not say that speed is my old Sota's strong point, it's problems are yet more tolerable to me.  Also, I imagine I could improve it significantly by replacing the 20 year old drive motor.  I'll tell all if I ever get around to it.

If I were designing from scratch I would try to find my bearing and levitation components first, then make the platter as heavy as I could given the beaings/suspension.  I'm guessing around 25-35 kilos. Then I would find the drive system, meaning a no-larger-than-necessary AC motor, minimal analog regulation and a suiltable whimpy belt.  Then I'd do primitive and reliable vacuum, having allowed for it as I went along. 

If nothing else, DD seems to work against a heavy platter, and runout becomes so damned critical, in practical terms.  Also, and also critical to me, DD seems to preclude the vacuum, because why would you couple the disc to the motor?   Lastly, what about the "perfect speed control", anyway?   How come that never seemed to work in the first place, at least in terms of sonics?

Basically, I don't understand why anyone would put a great deal into solving DD problems when it appears to me that relatively cheap, simple technology is already available to do the job more effectively, based on my own experience, anyway.

Best regards,
Paul S
03-01-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mats
Chicago
Posts 76
Joined on 09-18-2005

Post #: 36
Post ID: 6825
Reply to: 6821
Is it a drag?
Nice to read your thoughts on this subject Paul.  My interest at this point is to explore the issue of speed stability in the face of complex music, and its possible effect on congested sound.  Is there a relationship?  I suspect there is.

My experience is that none of the light platter belt drives that I have had were able to perform well.  My current DD however, is doing better at negotiating complex passages.  Now, you who have heavy platter belt drive tables, do you not have issues with congestion due to speed irregularities?  To make it even trickier, if you have trouble resolving complex passages, how do you know if it is the turntable or the recording?

That there are other issues with DD tables that may prevent acceptable musical performance I do not doubt.  My initial modifications with batteries, decoupling and lowered power consumptioin have been helpful.  The platter should likely be even lighter and made of wood.

Take care,

Mats.
03-01-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
enjoy_the_music
Strasbourg, France
Posts 12
Joined on 02-21-2007

Post #: 37
Post ID: 6826
Reply to: 6784
Forces in the groove
Just a quick question.

There has been mention of the forces in the groove during play. Out of interest how strong are these forces?

03-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
hagtech


Hawaii
Posts 117
Joined on 02-13-2006

Post #: 38
Post ID: 6827
Reply to: 6826
Lathe as reference
So why wouldn't you just copy what was done with most cutting lathes?  Seems to me that stylus drag would be roughly the same (geometrically) for both cutting  and playback.  Thus, the cutting lathe slows down in response to large orchestral passages.  Would you not want the same effect during playback, thus cancelling out a velocity error?  I would think a cutting lathe makes for perhaps the best playback.

jh
03-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 39
Post ID: 6828
Reply to: 6825
Finding the message
Sure, I believe there is a speed/congestion relationship, but I do not think it is singular, and furthermore I think there is more to the speed issue "itself" than meets the eye, if you get what I mean.

At this point all I can say is that the belt/heavy combo I am using simply beats the DD's I've tried for getting the music from the LP, including complex music, and this is a big part of why I prefer LPs to CD for all types of music, including classical, given good electricity.  How else to say it?  The belt drive/heavy platter just seems more "steady" and neutral in musical terms to me; it is less of a factor, less "jittery" and less of a "participant" than light and/or DD 'tables I've tried.  What does that say about speed, per se?  I'm not exactly sure.  But I don't want a definition of speed stability that costs me my music, that's for sure, eg, It's accurate to .00001%, but it sounds like crap.  No, thanks.

TT or recording?  I use the best sound I can get as a reference for what is possible.  If I can EVER get great sound from a complex, overcut disc, then the both the TT and the recording are doing something right.  Now, what TT does it best?

There are so many issues to consider, though, even with respect to speed alone.  At this point it is easier for me to figure out how to get the most music from the belt/heavy platter, and I have laid out my thinking.  But my mind is not closed.  As soon as I hear someone do better with DD, I'll try it again.  At this point, give me a massive flywheel over a servo motor and a light platter, since steady beats "nimble" where music via TT is concerned, according to my experience. 

Best regards,
Paul S
03-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
coops
London, United Kingdom
Posts 115
Joined on 02-16-2007

Post #: 40
Post ID: 6829
Reply to: 6828
Dd tt's
Paul which direct drives have ou tried?
Page 2 of 10 (185 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Michael Fremer Continuums…..  Pre-manufactured box speaker...  Audio News Forum     54  418525  01-21-2006
  »  New  The Foolishness of Analog People..  Late to the discussion but cannot resist...  Analog Playback Forum     56  392302  01-30-2006
  »  New   A longer turntable belt...  SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...  Analog Playback Forum     60  356827  02-02-2006
  »  New  My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..  My analog setup update....  Analog Playback Forum     9  81305  04-04-2006
  »  New  Micro Seiki SZ-1T..  I guess it's my own fault....  Analog Playback Forum     2  24521  06-10-2008
  »  New  Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...  Will not work...  Analog Playback Forum     14  70383  11-26-2008
  »  New  Active Tonearm Monitoring System...  The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...  Analog Playback Forum     2  24076  07-14-2009
  »  New  The HoroMusic turnable...  And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...  Analog Playback Forum     6  45948  08-05-2009
  »  New  Audio Note new turntable and inflation..  When I see the crap like this thing…...  Analog Playback Forum     13  98978  01-03-2010
  »  New  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?..  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  11872  03-13-2010
  »  New  A turntable platter as a turbine?..  A turntable platter as a turbine?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  9418  10-27-2010
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts