Jamh, I am very interested in your modifications. I note that you have removed both the sprung suspension and the Aerolam subchassis from you PT donor - why is this? Please note that this is not intended as a veiled criticism, I am genuinely interested to know your thoughts and hear about your experience.
Those are good questions: if it's not broke.. But in my case my PT was in a rough shape, we moved from California to Victoria and the movers must have dropped it a couple of times. So I was wondering what to do with it.
I'm not a fan of springs, if you look at all high end turntables these days, they are replacing the metal springs with rubber or sorbogels. The problem with springs is that they are not very good at damping, their movements continue in sine wave. Rubber-like substances act more logarithmic in their damping behavior. Nothing beats (IMO) weight+sorbogel.
Now I could have tighten the base and gone for some sort of isolation platform, but even there you don't get the stability of a directly coupled mass. Wood always sounds good. Compare any wooden instrument with its metal counterpart. In a turntable, direct coupling to wood takes away the harshness of the sound (due to high frequency vibrations in metals such as tonearms, headshells, the PT frame).
Subjectively, I much prefer the current sound. More relaxed, better bottom end and a sweet high.
I really like the PT's platter. Perhaps not heavy enough compared to today's high end, but perfectly matched to its motor's strength. Decoupling the motor ought to be a good thing too.
Anyways, those were my reasons..
I'm not a fan of springs, if you look at all high end turntables these days, they are replacing the metal springs with rubber or sorbogels. The problem with springs is that they are not very good at damping, their movements continue in sine wave. Rubber-like substances act more logarithmic in their damping behavior. Nothing beats (IMO) weight+sorbogel.
Now I could have tighten the base and gone for some sort of isolation platform, but even there you don't get the stability of a directly coupled mass. Wood always sounds good. Compare any wooden instrument with its metal counterpart. In a turntable, direct coupling to wood takes away the harshness of the sound (due to high frequency vibrations in metals such as tonearms, headshells, the PT frame).
Subjectively, I much prefer the current sound. More relaxed, better bottom end and a sweet high.
I really like the PT's platter. Perhaps not heavy enough compared to today's high end, but perfectly matched to its motor's strength. Decoupling the motor ought to be a good thing too.
Anyways, those were my reasons..
Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my query so thoroughly.
I don't entirely agree with many of your suppositions but that is another matter - if your deck does what you want then its right.
Many decks are indeed using sorbothane (or similar) methods of decoupling their decks. However, I am far from convinced that this is purely for its sonic superiority. In particular, these materials offer relatively little rejection of low frequencies. However, a suspension intended to reject low frequencies is relatively difficult to implement properly and often complicates the design significantly compared to the relatively simplistic approach required to use Sorbothane type products. I have in the past used rigid coupling, then Sorbothane type de-coupling. The same deck was later re-engineered to also incorporate a second level of suspension with much improved rejection of low frequencies - this gave significant benefits in terms of bass transparency.
I don't entirely agree with many of your suppositions but that is another matter - if your deck does what you want then its right.
Many decks are indeed using sorbothane (or similar) methods of decoupling their decks. However, I am far from convinced that this is purely for its sonic superiority. In particular, these materials offer relatively little rejection of low frequencies. However, a suspension intended to reject low frequencies is relatively difficult to implement properly and often complicates the design significantly compared to the relatively simplistic approach required to use Sorbothane type products. I have in the past used rigid coupling, then Sorbothane type de-coupling. The same deck was later re-engineered to also incorporate a second level of suspension with much improved rejection of low frequencies - this gave significant benefits in terms of bass transparency.
The fact that the new Thorens TD350 is the first (and most expensive) in the line of new Thorens decks shows this.
Other mnfs also use solid plinths at the entry level to replace with suspensions as one moves up (Wilson Benesch for eg).
WRT high end solid structures, I think they were always around to some extent but the internet has exposed the English speaking world to more then Linn....
WRT to Pink, have a look on the Funk Firm website. Solid plinth decks that sound great with sorbothane supported acrylic balls for isolation.
Are they better then the suspended old Pinks designed by Arthur Khoubessarian? He says not but to make an Anni today would cost a fortune he claims.
Other mnfs also use solid plinths at the entry level to replace with suspensions as one moves up (Wilson Benesch for eg).
WRT high end solid structures, I think they were always around to some extent but the internet has exposed the English speaking world to more then Linn....
WRT to Pink, have a look on the Funk Firm website. Solid plinth decks that sound great with sorbothane supported acrylic balls for isolation.
Are they better then the suspended old Pinks designed by Arthur Khoubessarian? He says not but to make an Anni today would cost a fortune he claims.
After a good week of listening, I can honestly attest that my current sound is superior in "every" respect. There is more air around the instruments, the highs are "very" extended and the bass is deeper and tighter. The soundstage extends way left of the left speaker, and way right of the right.
Perhaps a different wood (denser) might be worth trying for the arm. As the air fills with high energy bass, some of it must get picked up by the light arm. At the price it cost, I might as well build a couple with different woods (nah, too busy enjoying it). One thing worth doing though is an additional arm for a mono cartridge.
I wouldn't have done the modifications if I didn't need to, but I am extremely happy with the outcome, and the old table was very good to start with. Perhaps it is that the ~12in wooden arm is better than the short PU2, but I suspect the table and the suspension have an impact too.
Think about it: imagine your car has metal wheels and spring suspension, as opposed to rubber wheels and hydraulic shocks (which the sorbogels want to mimic on a small scale). The springs will take out the bumps on the road initially, but their momentum interferes with the smooth surface coming right after (muddy the sound).
BTW, check out if you can find it Jack Sheldon's "out" Capitol T1851 - 1962. The sound engineering is unbelievable.
Perhaps a different wood (denser) might be worth trying for the arm. As the air fills with high energy bass, some of it must get picked up by the light arm. At the price it cost, I might as well build a couple with different woods (nah, too busy enjoying it). One thing worth doing though is an additional arm for a mono cartridge.
I wouldn't have done the modifications if I didn't need to, but I am extremely happy with the outcome, and the old table was very good to start with. Perhaps it is that the ~12in wooden arm is better than the short PU2, but I suspect the table and the suspension have an impact too.
Think about it: imagine your car has metal wheels and spring suspension, as opposed to rubber wheels and hydraulic shocks (which the sorbogels want to mimic on a small scale). The springs will take out the bumps on the road initially, but their momentum interferes with the smooth surface coming right after (muddy the sound).
BTW, check out if you can find it Jack Sheldon's "out" Capitol T1851 - 1962. The sound engineering is unbelievable.
To Tubenut and ynwoan:
Thanks for forwarding me to the Funk Firm site. It made for interesting reading. I had no idea about the new PT mods. I'm not really sure for that much money, you wouldn't be better off with a new vpi scout or something..
There is a difference between what I did and their offering: weight. I've used almost an entire 4x8 sheet of birch plywood! Weight has a x^2 impact on vibration amplitude.
Here are my costs:
birch plywood: $70
glue, screws, nuts, etc: $30
AQ sorbo-gel feet: $40
Pure silver transformer cable: $40
total: $180
Thanks for forwarding me to the Funk Firm site. It made for interesting reading. I had no idea about the new PT mods. I'm not really sure for that much money, you wouldn't be better off with a new vpi scout or something..
There is a difference between what I did and their offering: weight. I've used almost an entire 4x8 sheet of birch plywood! Weight has a x^2 impact on vibration amplitude.
Here are my costs:
birch plywood: $70
glue, screws, nuts, etc: $30
AQ sorbo-gel feet: $40
Pure silver transformer cable: $40
total: $180
I doubt it, the Funk Vector turntable with an Incognito wired Rega type tonearm is different but in a similar league to a scout. The Funk tables use far simpler motors and drive circuits then the modded classic would though I believe there is little or no difference in the bearing. The midrange is just scary for a deck at this price. But that has always been an Arthur Khoubessarian trait.
Have a look at what Art Dudley reckons about the LP12 mods...
I am however biased as I represent Funk in South Africa......
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.