Kronos TT: As Good As It Gets ...?

Well, part of the ethos of DIY is pushing the boundaries, trying out ideas not accepted or known in the mainstream - getting more bang for your buck. This is an interesting variation on solving the problem of spinning a piece of plastic such that one is not aware of this happening - and is apparently quite successful at doing this.

For people who are interested in getting better sound, and trying new ways of doing such, it may be of value ...
 

YNWOAN

Member
2007-01-12 6:01 pm
To be honest, the USP of this deck is a bit of a (very elaborate) gimmick. Yes, in theory, the rotating platter applies torque to the suspension (assuming the deck has one); but, in reality, the suspension would have to have a ridiculously compliant suspension for this to be an issue.
 

YNWOAN

Member
2007-01-12 6:01 pm
The process is stabilised already, by the torsional component already present in a decks suspension. The speed of rotation of the platter is just not great enough to make this a problem.

It is an overly elaborate solution to a non-existent problem. Introducing another platter, bearing and motor to a turntable is likely to introduce more issues than those that it may 'conceptually' resolve.

I've read the manufacturers hypothesis and it is conceptually valid in that the rotating platter does impart rotational torque to the chassis. However, I don't agree with the hypothesis regarding the sonic impact of that torque or the solution.

Remember, the platter is supposed to be rotating at a constant and unvarying speed. The moment of rotation is a fixed. The actual moment is quite low, as is the platters velocity.

In this case, the deck uses two completely independent platters, bearings and motors. If there is any variation in the speed of these two platters relative to each other it is likely to introduce significantly more rotational instability that if it were not there.
 
Last edited:
I did a little more digging around, and the opinions of those who have heard it seem consistent - even on forums where cynicism is rampant. In essence, it does the job at least as well as anything else out there. Now, whether this is due to the principles espoused by the designer, or because of the excellence of the fundamental engineering of the unit is in dispute - my interest is in understanding why this particular design has hit an apparent sweet spot ...
 
I did a little more digging around, and the opinions of those who have heard it seem consistent - even on forums where cynicism is rampant. In essence, it does the job at least as well as anything else out there. Now, whether this is due to the principles espoused by the designer, or because of the excellence of the fundamental engineering of the unit is in dispute - my interest is in understanding why this particular design has hit an apparent sweet spot ...

I wonder how it compares to the even more expensive Clearaudio Statement!
 
I've heard it - the only one in the UK.

I can't say I was struck by the increase in detail/resolution. However, I would add that the dominant part of that system was the appalling speakers being used!

I would be curious to know more details? Do you remember the entire set up, from cartridge to cables to preamp to power amp speaker cable and speakers?
 
The process is stabilised already, by the torsional component already present in a decks suspension. The speed of rotation of the platter is just not great enough to make this a problem.

It is an overly elaborate solution to a non-existent problem. Introducing another platter, bearing and motor to a turntable is likely to introduce more issues than those that it may 'conceptually' resolve.

I've read the manufacturers hypothesis and it is conceptually valid in that the rotating platter does impart rotational torque to the chassis. However, I don't agree with the hypothesis regarding the sonic impact of that torque or the solution.

Remember, the platter is supposed to be rotating at a constant and unvarying speed. The moment of rotation is a fixed. The actual moment is quite low, as is the platters velocity.

In this case, the deck uses two completely independent platters, bearings and motors. If there is any variation in the speed of these two platters relative to each other it is likely to introduce significantly more rotational instability that if it were not there.

I agree with this.
Plus the fact that the platters are not at the same level, creating another source of disturbing torque.