Interested to know where the the speed variation is measured, the platter, the record, or the signal output of the cart?
Thanks
In my own previously posted test about stylus drag effects due to modulation changes and the resulting effects on platter speed, the test was done while measuring various modulated test tones from the record (as received by the cartridge) and compared with the actual platter speed (as taken from the direct drive servo).
There was nothing worth even worrying about with this subject on stylus drag.
About the only "drag" to it all is even discussing it.
It's in people's minds.
Back in the day we had a half-dozen such tables (same arm, same cart, same everything. Everyday we illustrated to people that TTs themselves sound different. We sold a lot of TTs. And i fully expect that local sales of DD tables of the day (including SP10 II, Denon 3000…) were depressed compared to most everywhere else.
dave
hi,
So ,I own two CJ walker (55 and 61) the first is fitted with a DENON DA 307 linked with audiotechnica AT 33E the second a scorpio MK1 and ortofon MC15II
When I got the CJ 55 we have implemented the tone arm , the cartridge and start up the suspension adjustment (the amp was a couple of AR CAMBRIDGE PRE amp and amp, the loaundspeakers ESL 63 QUAD..
I kept in mind this fantastic experience for ever! the ESL63 are absolutely fantastic monitor system to adjust optimal sound stage in respect of the variation of the three drivers of the suspension in listening the disc.
So i can imagine the listening difference existing between two identical machines having a different suspension adjustment stage!
Kin regards
Raymond
So ,I own two CJ walker (55 and 61) the first is fitted with a DENON DA 307 linked with audiotechnica AT 33E the second a scorpio MK1 and ortofon MC15II
When I got the CJ 55 we have implemented the tone arm , the cartridge and start up the suspension adjustment (the amp was a couple of AR CAMBRIDGE PRE amp and amp, the loaundspeakers ESL 63 QUAD..
I kept in mind this fantastic experience for ever! the ESL63 are absolutely fantastic monitor system to adjust optimal sound stage in respect of the variation of the three drivers of the suspension in listening the disc.
So i can imagine the listening difference existing between two identical machines having a different suspension adjustment stage!
Kin regards
Raymond
So I agree definitively, I start listening TT session in comparaison since 1975 at this time we were discovering all the commercial TT using DD motors
the old professional or classic machines remain among the best in term of PRAT ( peace, rythm and timing) like EMT 327/930 Garrard 301/401/TD 124 as well as LINN/ARISTON/PINK TRIANGLE /CJ WALKER/exct for the british Oldtimer product...No doubt there are some valuable product today but listening sessions are mandatory to evaluate the range!
Kind regards
Raymond (from center of France)
completely agree,plinth tonearm board and bearing material all effect the sound,for example i have fitted torlon and lignum vitae bearings to my sony tts-8000 and both reduce the noise floor over the standard bronze oilites. i also have a technics sp10 mk 2 and the difference between it and the sony are noticeable.
Since the underlying factor is personal opinion - which is entirely subjective - then no, one turntable can never sound 'better' than another, only different. Once all the obvious mechanical requirements have been met, even ABX testing will only show a preference to a particular sound signature if such tests result in statistically viable data. The expectation bias in building and modifying audio equipment is huge and if this results in 'better' sound then all the effort has been worthwhile, but from a brutally scientific viewpoint, we're simply kidding our brains. Been there, done that, now just enjoy music for what it is...
I am intrigued, it is probably my poor interpretation of what the discussion is about, but the underlying factor doesn't need to always be judged by personal opinion, i am a world master at expectation as you describe it, modifications always sound better until you measure otherwise, so just above someone mentions reduced noise floor, this can be measured. When i isolated my motor pod from the base on which it is supported i measured the reduction in a low frequency (20 and 40 Hz at an inaudible level) presumably emanating from the motor, this can also be seen as a reduction in the sidebands apparent on a tone signal measured, and it all sounds better as a result, so - same turntable slightly different set up, sounds different, is that what we are reading about?
The one thing that always annoyed me is the widespread use of the word "sound" when describing turntables.
I suppose this results from the Herd Mentality that many humans follow.
For instance, the title of this thread is "Can one turntable SOUND better than another?"
Ultimately, you don't want it to "sound" or make a "sound" at all, right?
You don't want to hear or notice any contributing effects from it, other than what's in the record groove, correct?
Far be it for me to become an online "nit picker" as many seem to be, because I'm certainly not, I just prefer to use a more suitable term for turntable quality operation.
And that term would be "performance".
I suppose this results from the Herd Mentality that many humans follow.
For instance, the title of this thread is "Can one turntable SOUND better than another?"
Ultimately, you don't want it to "sound" or make a "sound" at all, right?
You don't want to hear or notice any contributing effects from it, other than what's in the record groove, correct?
Far be it for me to become an online "nit picker" as many seem to be, because I'm certainly not, I just prefer to use a more suitable term for turntable quality operation.
And that term would be "performance".
That also seems a very fair comment to me, yes, perform better would perhaps be a better description, but referring back to my description above of my little motor noise experiment, if the output one hears at the end of the chain is less coloured/distorted by extraneous input such as motor noise it sounds less bad, which i believe is better, so whilst a poor description perhaps it gives a good feeling of what's being described?
M
the cartridge and tone arm form an acoustical system. so tonearm stiffness and damping have an effect. I copied an early pritchard wooden tone arm to a solid honduras mahagony version. converted a friend´s pioneer PL12D tonearm into a juniper wooden version as a birthday gift. the results were stunning.
Indeed, transmitted mechanical noise is a bad thing, you want to keep it far enough below what's recorded on the record so that its not noticeable.
An interesting discovery that I came across while restoring and servicing record-playing machines at the shop might be useful to some, so I'll post it here....
Record changers, those machines so disliked by "picky" audiophiles for their so-called sub-standard performance, all used a ball bearing race below the platter, instead of a single pivot bearing used in "upscale" turntables.
So now, you've got 3 or 5 (or more) little balls rotating in a sandwiched set of polished thrust washers.
This now is prone to rumble of varying levels depending on the quality of the bearings, the quality of the thrust washers, and the absolute perfect seating of the assembly of the spindle assembly.
Many manufacturers used a rumble-reducing rubber/neoprene washer below the lower thrust washer to allow for quieter operation.
Yet.... the platter's bottom sleeve was physically and directly against that top thrust washer, and capable of transmitting any bearing noise up to the platter.
One changer that I restored, was built this way, and was reasonably quiet at 33 1/3 RPM.
However, when maually spun at a fast speed, with an ear to the spindle area, I could notice a subtle and definite "whir" sound, even with a fresh pliable rumble washer installed.
An experiment I chose was to install the rumble washer between the bottom of the platter sleeve and the top thrust washer - effectively isolating the platter from the spinning bearings below it.
This now resulted in a greatly quieter rotation when spun by hand at a high RPM, and dead silent at 33 1/3 RPM.
In fact, the "budget" record changer's "performance" is enhanced to the level that the built-in record noisefloor is the only thing that is noticed at high volume levels.