GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

In the Forum: Analog Playback
In the Thread: Tree motors from one side? Buttery operated?

Post Subject: More money than brain?Posted by Romy the Cat on: 4/22/2012

Well to pile up superfluous things into audio components in order to make products more expensive is not alien thing in audio. My question was not about to mock the Raven company. It might be fine TT, I do not know anything about them and I do not particularly care. Still, any person who has ether have brain or does not have brain, after he or she buy that TT, would unavoidably make experiment to learn how the DC powering of motor and multiple motors affect sound. In the TT of this configuration is it very simple to put the bell over one motor and it is very simple to switch the motor to run from AC. Let presume that I am a gullible person and let presume that it WILL be sonic difference what a person do it. If it will not be difference then off cause all bets off and the TT need to be smashed over the head of the persons who made it. But if the sonic difference, would it beneficial different or not, does exists then my question is way would it be?

I have a friend of mine, the guy who I do not consider to be an audio idiot, and year back we had a big argument about powering of TT motor. He insisted that by raining PowerPlant to power his Seiki S-Z1M motor he has some kind of sonic benefits. I absolutely did not believe it. I did not hear the different in his room and I did not hear the difference in any TT that I tried. It is DC motor with 19V power supply and it stabilized at 12V. There is no exoteric thing in that and motor “see” only voltage. The motors on Micros are light and platters very heavy. The belts are low tension belts and the moment of inertia on the air-suspender TT is huge. My TT takes 4 min to stop if I take the belt off. Why any imaginary voltage-related issues with motor supply can have any impact to the platter? It looks like Raven uses more or less heavy platter and they insist that they invested some efforts into “kinky” bearing with very low friction. If so that this platter shall glide on own inertia and as platter achieves the cruse speed the motor only very slightly push the platter to compensate the minor friction loss. Why the DC supply on motor would do any difference is beyond me.

The 3 motors BS is also a big mystery to me. With light platter one might argue that it makes sense – multiple motors can tilt or bias the platter and get rid of the hypothetic bearing beating. I personally do not subscribe this approach but I do see a valid argument for multiple motors in case very light platter used. However, to do it you need to have motors on the different side of platter, not on the same side as Raven has. We do not bias the tilt of the motor axis but we bias the axis of platter. To do it with multiple motor located on the same side of platter is ridicules. Also, the amount of motors I feel is absurd. It is know that any surface might be balanced perfectly only on 3 feet. No surface is balanced on 4 legs, never ever, as only 3 legs of any 4 legs design are actually work. So, Raven and others use 3 motors that along with platter forms 4-leg environment – a foolishness from my point of view. One motor drives, the second motor buffers, what the hell you need another motor for? The third motor can ONLY ether drive or stop, it can’t not do anything else - so what the purpose to use it, particularly if the system use elastic rubber belt?

Sure, all the theories go to toilet if you engage third motor and hear that Sound change in the direction you need. I do not think that it might be the case but I am sure somebody might have experimented with it and can shade some light.

The Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site