just picked up as early model of that. I designing a new sub-chassis for it. saw review of three commercially available sub-chassis that identified he center of gravity. Which is odd to the right a few inches. Which causes uneven pre-load on the springs.
Am i missing something in thinking that i should make one where the COG is under the spindle?
Am i missing something in thinking that i should make one where the COG is under the spindle?
It won't be exactly at the spindle, since the sub chassis and some of the parts mounted on it (like the tone arm),
are not symmetric about the spindle. The platter does not completely dominate the COG location.
It will shift toward the tone arm mounting base, as a first approximation.
are not symmetric about the spindle. The platter does not completely dominate the COG location.
It will shift toward the tone arm mounting base, as a first approximation.
Last edited:
the tone arm beng 223mm away from the spindle acts as a lever. however if the tone arm weight can be used or approximated the cog can be moved to the spindle by desiging the sub planter to do so. The arm board and tonearm move the COG even further away from what it is on a bare sub-chassis. that back spring takes a higher load by far. one person, from Linn, commented that the different spring tensions provide for differing filter effects. they havent changed the spring location since day one. idk...
That' s right. They can't change the locations of the spring mounting holes, since upgrade or replacement parts
that they sell would not fit older LP-12s. And the differing resonances of the springs is a bug, not a feature.
Not sure why there is confusion regarding C-of-G for the machined sub-chassis with integrated arm-boards.
jeff
jeff