I have a humble Pro-ject Debut (in red) with a Ortofon 510 cartridge. I use it through a DIY phono amp that uses the Circuit from the ESP (Rod Elliot) website with a few modifications of my own. These are mainly filtering of the powersupply to the amp and TT.
I use a glass Platter with a felt matt that does not weigh as much as the standard metal platter, but it doesn't chime like a gong, like the metal platter.
The most impressive mod I done was to cut open the outer sleave of some Shark audio cable from Maplins and "clip it around the tone arm. This really worked well. The TT had a problem with sibilance and this cured it as well as many other improvements. I also made a metal plate that shields the motor from the cartridge. This really does reduce the pick up of the motor EMF by the cartridge to almost nothing.
I've also tweaked the tonearm bearings a little by adjusting the bearing pressure to get it as tight as possible without it starting to bind the bearings.
I'm quite happy with the TT and the sound but I've been thinking about further mods but I don't know what will give the best results. So I thought I would guys.
My currents thoughts are;
New Tonearm, possible a pro-ject carbon fibre one or a Rega RB250 / 300.
Changing the motor our buying the pro-ject speedbox or speedbox SE.
More mass on the platter
or something else I havent thought of yet.
Can people advise what mod they think gives the most improvement as I would hate to buy a new tonearm just to find out it doesn't sound much different from my modified old one.
Cheers
I use a glass Platter with a felt matt that does not weigh as much as the standard metal platter, but it doesn't chime like a gong, like the metal platter.
The most impressive mod I done was to cut open the outer sleave of some Shark audio cable from Maplins and "clip it around the tone arm. This really worked well. The TT had a problem with sibilance and this cured it as well as many other improvements. I also made a metal plate that shields the motor from the cartridge. This really does reduce the pick up of the motor EMF by the cartridge to almost nothing.
I've also tweaked the tonearm bearings a little by adjusting the bearing pressure to get it as tight as possible without it starting to bind the bearings.
I'm quite happy with the TT and the sound but I've been thinking about further mods but I don't know what will give the best results. So I thought I would guys.
My currents thoughts are;
New Tonearm, possible a pro-ject carbon fibre one or a Rega RB250 / 300.
Changing the motor our buying the pro-ject speedbox or speedbox SE.
More mass on the platter
or something else I havent thought of yet.
Can people advise what mod they think gives the most improvement as I would hate to buy a new tonearm just to find out it doesn't sound much different from my modified old one.
Cheers
I can't for my life understand why anyone would want to buy a Rega RB-300. The silly plastic stuff has to go on the 250. But there's no end to upgrade possibilities. Get the works from Origin Live and you have an arm that embarrasses the RB-1000. You know about all that already.
But for my money it would be an arm without anti-skating mechanism. What you gain in tracking you lose in everything else. You get firmer sound from a first version SME 3009 than you get from the overpriced and overrated SME V. Anti-tracking is only good if you like muddled sound and hate details. You live in denial if you think you can add stuff without consequences, good or bad. To my knowledge, there's no arm made today without anti-skating mechanism. But if there is, that is the arm I would buy. (If anybody here knows of such an arm, please let me know. Thanks.)
But for my money it would be an arm without anti-skating mechanism. What you gain in tracking you lose in everything else. You get firmer sound from a first version SME 3009 than you get from the overpriced and overrated SME V. Anti-tracking is only good if you like muddled sound and hate details. You live in denial if you think you can add stuff without consequences, good or bad. To my knowledge, there's no arm made today without anti-skating mechanism. But if there is, that is the arm I would buy. (If anybody here knows of such an arm, please let me know. Thanks.)
Have you seen the pro-ject arms. The anti skate mechanism is just a bit of nylon fishing line attached to a weight that pulls the arm out. This can be easily disabled by just removing the weight.
However, I have just done a mod which involved sticking a piece of sink plug chain to the bottom of the weight. This way as the weight gets pulled up it has to take up more chain with it so the anti skating weight is increased slightly as the tonearm moves in.
Because there is no springs involved there is no increased problems with resonance.
However, I have just done a mod which involved sticking a piece of sink plug chain to the bottom of the weight. This way as the weight gets pulled up it has to take up more chain with it so the anti skating weight is increased slightly as the tonearm moves in.
Because there is no springs involved there is no increased problems with resonance.
Modern quality arms have good anti-skating mechanisms. No doubt about that. My problem with it is that it causes new problems while making so little difference to begin with. And you have to go thru all the hassle of setting it up. I just can't reason the mechanism. Had I ever had any problems with tracking then I might have preferred it. I only know about tracking problems and distortions on the inner tracks on LPs because I have read about them. Never experienced any myself. But then, I don't have "golden ears." I don't hear the sampling rate of CDs, like some (probably very few) people do. I mention CDs because oversampling is my other pet peeve. Am I right about these things? For my needs and what I want out of my sound system, yes.
I have to agree with some of what you said. I got into the DIY to learn more about electronics and to make things for my system at the same time. Alot of issues around upgrades of equipment seem to be about tackling engineering problems that once fixed make the system sound better. Iv'e tried all sorts of things to tweak my hifi and only some of then have had effect thats been noticable. The anti skating mod while solving an engineering problem has had no effect of the sound as far as I can tell.
Anti skating is just another engineering problem that supposedly made our hifi sound bad. A whole load of different ways of combating skating have been designed and I have herd of very few that people dont complain about becuase thay cuase other compromises that then have to be fixed. Then the fixes cause more compromised elsewhere and these have to be fixed, and so on.
Anti skating is probably an issue if you listen with your head clamped in one place so you get perfect stero image all the time. I like to put the hifi on and walk into the kitchen and make a cup of tea then lay on te sofa and read a book.
Anti skating is just another engineering problem that supposedly made our hifi sound bad. A whole load of different ways of combating skating have been designed and I have herd of very few that people dont complain about becuase thay cuase other compromises that then have to be fixed. Then the fixes cause more compromised elsewhere and these have to be fixed, and so on.
Anti skating is probably an issue if you listen with your head clamped in one place so you get perfect stero image all the time. I like to put the hifi on and walk into the kitchen and make a cup of tea then lay on te sofa and read a book.
I've just been in the fortunate position to buy a new analogue front end. As the situation dictated I purchased the turntable first then I upgraded the arm, then the cartridge. What came as a surprise to me was the difference the turntabel made. I auditioned a few decks and plumped for a deck with an aluminium platter that weighs about 20Kgs, it's 60mm thick and spins on a ceramic bearing. This was the most significant improvement that made the rega 300 and AToc5 sound quite excellent. I then changed the rega for an OL Silver which while very worthwhile did not give the same improvement as the T/T. Again a surprise is how just good this sounds in comparison to a Thorens TD160S and the Michell Mycro both of which had this cartridge. In absolute terms this front end is better than any I've experienced.
So my advice is by all means tweak away, that's after all what this forum is about, but don't spend too much on the arm until you've had an opportunity to hear what a different T/T can do. Maybe try and build a more massive platter for your Project.
Kev
So my advice is by all means tweak away, that's after all what this forum is about, but don't spend too much on the arm until you've had an opportunity to hear what a different T/T can do. Maybe try and build a more massive platter for your Project.
Kev
Indeed. The Thorens 150 and 160 are great turntables. But they don't have the bottom end of the technically similar, but larger 125/126/127/32X/2001/3001. The latter just have a more powerful presentation. I guess you can say that a cartridge and arm can only read what's there. In turn, that's the reason I don't like the anti-skating mechanism. I want an arm to do one thing only, bring out the most of my Garrard 301. I don't need the other stuff, whatever that stuff is.
pardon me a simpler solution is to chuck out the glass platter and replace it with an acrylic one which is much more inert and does not ring and because it is lighter lowers the load on the bearing, the arm is a whole different matter altogether which someone suggested in another post [ the rb 250] a whole lot better arm [according to a feature article in hi- fi world feb 1999] and tweak it with an origin live upgrade kit cheers TC
Gday.
A n00bish respond: With a belt drive, replacement with a lighter platter, wouldn`t that mean a slight alteration in the RPM, no.
qwad said:
A n00bish respond: With a belt drive, replacement with a lighter platter, wouldn`t that mean a slight alteration in the RPM, no.
Gday.
@primalsea. yes if you are lucky, but i shold replace a glass platter. i would probably go for a more "dead" material than acryl, ex: steel composite kit or got burnt one in ceramic.
attached is some ideas from the Vinyl Engine gallery.
All rega am afraid. In some areas, i belive the last one,
is a better alternative then a standard round platter.
But then again, it depends very much, how you do it.
@primalsea. yes if you are lucky, but i shold replace a glass platter. i would probably go for a more "dead" material than acryl, ex: steel composite kit or got burnt one in ceramic.
attached is some ideas from the Vinyl Engine gallery.
All rega am afraid. In some areas, i belive the last one,
is a better alternative then a standard round platter.
But then again, it depends very much, how you do it.
Attachments
It looks like the changing the platter won't be a bad idea so I will go for that.
Im waiting for a local engineering firm to quote me to make a 20mm acrylic platter rebated to fit the project. Im also planning on having a concentric rebate around the edge of teh platter to accomodate a steel ring. The whols platter should weigh about 1.5 Kgs with most of the mass on the outer edge. Inertia of the ring should help even out any speed inconsistancies.
The ring at the moment will be held in place by silicone sealant so that it does not touch the platter directly. Is this a good idea or should it be in firm contact with the platter.
Im waiting for a local engineering firm to quote me to make a 20mm acrylic platter rebated to fit the project. Im also planning on having a concentric rebate around the edge of teh platter to accomodate a steel ring. The whols platter should weigh about 1.5 Kgs with most of the mass on the outer edge. Inertia of the ring should help even out any speed inconsistancies.
The ring at the moment will be held in place by silicone sealant so that it does not touch the platter directly. Is this a good idea or should it be in firm contact with the platter.
My physics may be a bit out here, but I think that the idea is to make the platter as inert as possible to deaden any vibrations. By making the platter massive any resonant frequencies are pushed down into the lower area away from the important midband. By combining the two, inert and massive you are getting the best of both worlds.
A good test is to place the stylus on the stationary record, turn up the volume and rap the platter, thebase and the stand to see what is feeding through to the stylus. The objective being to minimise the pickup at the stylus. Speed fluctuation will obviously be less the more inertia there is in the platter so concentrating mass at the outer edge will maximise this effect.
The platter on my deck is 60mm deep so while your engineering firm is at it why stop at 20mm. I suspect that in this case bigger is better.
Good luck and keep us informed, I'll be interested in your findings.
kev
A good test is to place the stylus on the stationary record, turn up the volume and rap the platter, thebase and the stand to see what is feeding through to the stylus. The objective being to minimise the pickup at the stylus. Speed fluctuation will obviously be less the more inertia there is in the platter so concentrating mass at the outer edge will maximise this effect.
The platter on my deck is 60mm deep so while your engineering firm is at it why stop at 20mm. I suspect that in this case bigger is better.
Good luck and keep us informed, I'll be interested in your findings.
kev
Here's a pic of my custom machined 25mm thick Acrylic platter with recessed outside diameter. You can also see the custom machined aluminum hub/bearing assembly underneath it. I also machined an identical platter from ABS which I actually prefer to acrylic.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Have you tried a platter matter mat or the Herbies Lab silicon mat?
The reviews seem good for the latter. The former a friend has for some years. He's tried felt and ring mat and others.
Is it not the case that the heavier the platter the better the damping of the motors cogging effect. But also the greater the bearing noise?
Doesn't anyone do a magnetic levitation and drive deck yet? Would be no noise there? Not sure about hum pick though.
The reviews seem good for the latter. The former a friend has for some years. He's tried felt and ring mat and others.
Is it not the case that the heavier the platter the better the damping of the motors cogging effect. But also the greater the bearing noise?
Doesn't anyone do a magnetic levitation and drive deck yet? Would be no noise there? Not sure about hum pick though.
1) I have not tried a platter mat other than the stock Rega mat.IanAS said:
I didn't notice much difference with it, bass improved a little
but the soundstage was also less defined.
2) Acrylic and plastics in general are lighter than glass so you can
use a thicker platter to obtain the same weight or mass. If you
care, you can look up the specific gravity of acrylic versus glass
and you will see what I mean. I am not necessarily from the
school that high mass is best.
http://herbiesaudiolab.home.att.net/ttmat.htm
I just bought the Herbies mat for the CD player. It is a marvel. Very effective. Even on the cheaper DVD players.
He's called it a Grungebuster. A very apt name.
It might be worth giving his Turntable mat a go. I have the felt mat on my Mantra. But, apart from recently when I got the deck out from storage when I had a phono stage for a week, I haven't played records for maybe 10 years. They sounded like they had something. But what a palava! And the enormous cost of all these little bits to improve the sound!
Looking at these 1980's 'quality' decks with a new a more experienced eye for engineering and I'm struck by how ultra cheap they were made. I wonder if the reason is that they exist to justify the cost of the dearer ones. ie a £50 deck sold for £300 to justify the cost of the £75 deck sold for £1500!!
I just bought the Herbies mat for the CD player. It is a marvel. Very effective. Even on the cheaper DVD players.
He's called it a Grungebuster. A very apt name.
It might be worth giving his Turntable mat a go. I have the felt mat on my Mantra. But, apart from recently when I got the deck out from storage when I had a phono stage for a week, I haven't played records for maybe 10 years. They sounded like they had something. But what a palava! And the enormous cost of all these little bits to improve the sound!
Looking at these 1980's 'quality' decks with a new a more experienced eye for engineering and I'm struck by how ultra cheap they were made. I wonder if the reason is that they exist to justify the cost of the dearer ones. ie a £50 deck sold for £300 to justify the cost of the £75 deck sold for £1500!!
I have read somewhere on this forum that a little bit of platter resonance is needed. I would hazard a guess that any vibration has to go somewhere and only solid objects allow it to be transmitted away from where you dont wont it. Rubber and felt mats dont really absorb vibration they just isolate the cause of the vibration from the other thing that the mat is in contact with. I have also herd that rubber and mats actually reflect the vibrations back. I think!! the above is true although probably not explained particulary well.
How ever I do have on good authority that adding mass to your cd is not always a good thing. CD's should have the centre hole concentric to the outside edge however this is rarely the case. Thats why many cheap and lightweight transports vibrate when in use.
CD's initially spin at 500RPM which is enough to cause problems, unlike TT's that only spin at max 78RPM if your an old fart.
Balancing tolorances are calculated using the diameter, RPM and mass of the spinning object.
The tolorance is defined as a measuremnt like 2 grams per 10 mm. Which means that the spinning object must not have a deviation of more than 2 grams within a 10mm diameter at any point on the rotating mass. This tolorance can be less stringent the closer to the centre of the rotation you go. so if the spinning object now only had a diameter of half its previous value the tolorance could now be 4 grams per 10mm.
So with balancing its better to have more mass in the centre, not the edges.
Adding more mass all over a cd will not always be a better thing to do especially when you bare in mind that the chances of you centring the extra mass properly on the CD which may not have a concentric hole anyway.
Anyway back to TT's. I have tried all sorts of tweaks like adding a lead ring to the platter attatching a split cable sleeve around the edge of the platter a platter made of lead and some carbide angle grinder wheels. All the tweaks ended up with a platter that did not ring at all. I didn't like any of them and went back to the glass platter with a felt mat which just seems so much better to me. However, horses for course, It's great for me but I cant say it will work for all people and all TT's
The best thing I can recommed is to experiment with lengths of split coax cable sleeve clipped onto the tome arm. This is fantastic IMHO, cheap and effective! and really help with sibilance which used to be unbareble on a few records I have that dont seem to be the best rcordings that wee made (The Cure, Head on the Door LP).
How ever I do have on good authority that adding mass to your cd is not always a good thing. CD's should have the centre hole concentric to the outside edge however this is rarely the case. Thats why many cheap and lightweight transports vibrate when in use.
CD's initially spin at 500RPM which is enough to cause problems, unlike TT's that only spin at max 78RPM if your an old fart.
Balancing tolorances are calculated using the diameter, RPM and mass of the spinning object.
The tolorance is defined as a measuremnt like 2 grams per 10 mm. Which means that the spinning object must not have a deviation of more than 2 grams within a 10mm diameter at any point on the rotating mass. This tolorance can be less stringent the closer to the centre of the rotation you go. so if the spinning object now only had a diameter of half its previous value the tolorance could now be 4 grams per 10mm.
So with balancing its better to have more mass in the centre, not the edges.
Adding more mass all over a cd will not always be a better thing to do especially when you bare in mind that the chances of you centring the extra mass properly on the CD which may not have a concentric hole anyway.
Anyway back to TT's. I have tried all sorts of tweaks like adding a lead ring to the platter attatching a split cable sleeve around the edge of the platter a platter made of lead and some carbide angle grinder wheels. All the tweaks ended up with a platter that did not ring at all. I didn't like any of them and went back to the glass platter with a felt mat which just seems so much better to me. However, horses for course, It's great for me but I cant say it will work for all people and all TT's
The best thing I can recommed is to experiment with lengths of split coax cable sleeve clipped onto the tome arm. This is fantastic IMHO, cheap and effective! and really help with sibilance which used to be unbareble on a few records I have that dont seem to be the best rcordings that wee made (The Cure, Head on the Door LP).
I'm not sure what you mean. But sure, the 1970s and 80s were poor decades for audio. At least European audio. But there were exceptions if you looked. The Thorens TD-160 with an SME 3009 is the equal of any modern €1000 deck. The only real difference I have seen in the years between the Garrard 301 and the SME Model 30 is the emergence of the "high-end" label. Thank adzines like Stereophile and other mouthpieces for the audio industry for that. At least they are consistent -- the best gear is always the most expensive gear.
"When Sony declares that DSD-format can store 4 times the data, they probably mean that there is 4 times the space on the SACD-disc compared to CDs. But since the DSD-coding is so ineffective, the real information is considerable lower... It is nothing less than a tragedy that Sony/Philips system SACD still is considered to be a real competitor to DVD-A, though it has lower real resolution than the CD-system in the highest octave."
As said, nothing has changed. The hype continues. And the ever gullible market swallows I whole as the good little consumers they are.
What I mean is that there is not much difference between the lower priced and very high priced equipment.
In the trade it seems that a rule of thumb is that retail cost is about ten times parts cost.
So a £300 TT cost £30 in parts. Hence my coment about them being made ultra cheaply.
Fortunate then are the people who can make their own.
I was talking to an ex-employee of Pink Triangle recently. He said their idea was that there should be no audible sound if you listen up close to the stylus meaning all the energy has been transfered into the stylus and absorbed by the platter. This is supposed to be the great thing about the acrylic platter. It absorbs well.
My friend with the platter matter has it on a 10lb steel platter. He said he got no sound eminated. The mat is doing it's job.
Yes, "high end" actually means High Expense. Not High Quality. A poor sounding player but walnut clad and gold and diamond decorated would be high end. In practice I find there is little to justify the high price asked. I think its about some people wanting exclusivity, so they want to purchase what is beyond the justifyable means of others just so can they can impress their friends with how much they spent.
In my experience the best sounding music reproduction systems are modified ones, not high cost. Or at least, the cost has gone into the right parts in the right places.
Re the CD mats and their mass and them being concentric. The Herbies lab is a low mass high absorbtion thin silicon that sticks to the CD. You just peel it off and stick it on your next CD. It is difficult to get it perfectly centralised. This seems in practice to be of no significance.
Re the lead platter. Interesting. Perhaps it wasn't absorbant?
Is there a danger that putting PVC sleeve on the arm will increase the mass too much for hte cartridge compliance? I think that mod might help my standard RB250. I think a pal said to me the he poured PVC glue down the inside of his SME arm which helped a lot. And put hard expoy in the holes inthe head shell, also helped. But in the end he sold the arm and got a Hadcock unipivot arm which he modified. Hadcock adopted one or two of his mods I believe.
In the trade it seems that a rule of thumb is that retail cost is about ten times parts cost.
So a £300 TT cost £30 in parts. Hence my coment about them being made ultra cheaply.
Fortunate then are the people who can make their own.
I was talking to an ex-employee of Pink Triangle recently. He said their idea was that there should be no audible sound if you listen up close to the stylus meaning all the energy has been transfered into the stylus and absorbed by the platter. This is supposed to be the great thing about the acrylic platter. It absorbs well.
My friend with the platter matter has it on a 10lb steel platter. He said he got no sound eminated. The mat is doing it's job.
Yes, "high end" actually means High Expense. Not High Quality. A poor sounding player but walnut clad and gold and diamond decorated would be high end. In practice I find there is little to justify the high price asked. I think its about some people wanting exclusivity, so they want to purchase what is beyond the justifyable means of others just so can they can impress their friends with how much they spent.
In my experience the best sounding music reproduction systems are modified ones, not high cost. Or at least, the cost has gone into the right parts in the right places.
Re the CD mats and their mass and them being concentric. The Herbies lab is a low mass high absorbtion thin silicon that sticks to the CD. You just peel it off and stick it on your next CD. It is difficult to get it perfectly centralised. This seems in practice to be of no significance.
Re the lead platter. Interesting. Perhaps it wasn't absorbant?
Is there a danger that putting PVC sleeve on the arm will increase the mass too much for hte cartridge compliance? I think that mod might help my standard RB250. I think a pal said to me the he poured PVC glue down the inside of his SME arm which helped a lot. And put hard expoy in the holes inthe head shell, also helped. But in the end he sold the arm and got a Hadcock unipivot arm which he modified. Hadcock adopted one or two of his mods I believe.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.