Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

enjoy_the_music wrote:

Making a vacuum hold down is quite simple, but would it be easier to use a device like the old Audio Technica AT-666? I guess the material used in the latter is not the ultimate. You don't need a great amount of vacuum to hold the record down.

Actually you are incorrect. To make vacuum hold down properly is quite complex. The ay how Audio Technica and Sota did it was simple but it is why it reportedly did not work well. (I used Sota a few times). Micro did it extremely good with real-time sucking. The benefits are arguable though – there are some pluses and some minuses. I feel that the idea of negative curving is much more interning then the vacuum hold down, still even the negative curving have own pain in ass disadvantages.

N-set wrote:

let me point out that the force injected by the needle moving through a groove can apparently be quite substantial (loud passages etc) dynamically slowing down the plate.

Only with flimsy platters perhaps. With heavy enough platter and with a platter with right damping it should not be the case.

guy sergeant wrote:

There was a Japanese company called Melco who did some experimentation with platter mass back in the 70's.  I seem to recall that they felt 30Kg was where it stopped making a difference.

Melco was in bad with Micro and I think Micro came from Melco. Japanese has another company with a ridicules name: it was called “American Sound“, they made TTs even heavier then Micro 8000

guy sergeant wrote:

The greek ACA president with his flywheel assistance feels its alot more. http://www.aca.gr/paper37.htm

Wey good artailsy, I have seen it before but never was able to read it carefully. I hate to read from computer screen and it a site has no printing options then I tend do not read it. From what I was able to glance I might say that if his platter takes 30-60 minutes to stabilize then his design is bogus. Putting, record in, touching the platter, cleaning the record – it is all affect the pressure to the platter and platter should be able to recover it really fast. I hate to think that I need to hard-clean record and then wait 10 min until the platter get cruse speed.  I think all heavy platters should have step-torque controls.

guy sergeant wrote:

Personally, I feel DD done properly is an adequate and more elegant solution. The fact that it was accurate enough to cut the records we listen to also suggests this to be the case.

I think it is incorrect rational. I am not proposing that DD idea are bad or good I just say that juts because some companies in past make DD cutting lathes then it proves absolutely nothing and should not be a reason for imitation juts “because it was cut on TT lathe”.  It is not to mention that all earlier cutting lathes were belt driver and then, for the sake of economy/space some of them went to DD. BTW, none of the c used heavy platters. I am sure if someone would case to make the cutting lathes today, with contemporary high level of demands and with the same amount of appreciation as it was done 60 years back then the today’s lathes would be much  more capable then the best  Georg Neumann’s lathes…

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site