Today I concluded what I suspected from the beginning:  in the double-deck configuration I lost some bass. I know that Micro did some heavy mass stabilizers for their TT and some other companies did the same. People clamed that sound got “better”.  I always had suspicions about it and what I made my double-deck where the second deck acted effectively a stabilizing flywheel for a playing platter I felt that the effect was not as dramatic as people proposed. I might accept the upper mF range become very minorly smoother but the degree was warring with the forth of the belt. The lighter tension of the bell the less effect and at “normal” tension there is no effect from the “flywheel”. However what I did detect also that with the “flywheel” I was slightly close up at the very lowers bass. It was not major change, in fact it is very-very minor but it was there. Then I was looking at the installations of the guys who commented positively about the flywheel benefits… and I discovered that none of their speakers even were able to care lower bass. Well… this answers  the things...

Anyway, it is still might be becose the “specific belt” , or the belt's force or the motor,, or zilions of other resosns... but for now I use my double-deck TT one deck per time, switching a single belt from one platter to other when I need… (Thanks the layout and positioning of my motor allows me to do it)

I do not know if I agree, or take seriously belt creeping. Belt creeping is applicable for the systems where the speed or tension a variable. However, in the case of TT, where the speed and tension are constant the amount of belt creep is constant also. If so, then the belt creep as well as the belt slip are all equalized and “included” after a platter have reached its cruse speed. Not to mention that in context of platters large mass I think all contribution of all belt related issues become negligible. I think people build those theories about slipping and creping for defend type of transmissions – like power transmissions. In TT it would be a typical relatively-powerful motor driving some kind of 3 pounds acrylic platter. In this setting the torch on the motor is co-measurable with the torch of platter. However, if you have a very low torch motor and large mass platter then, I think, all bets off. I kind of always with irony look at the turntables when you turn motor on and the platter practically instantaneously hits 33prm. To me it is an indication that platter-motor coupling is wrong. I think the only “correct” coupling is possible if a motor and the belt can not drive the platter. You should turn motor and the platter should stay still. Then you push the platter with your hands and only then the motor and belt can stabilize it at 33rpm…

BTW, in largest Micro Seiki turntables are made exactly like this – motor could not start platter. However they resolved the problem, making it friendly, with very elegant solution. When you turn the “largest” Micro motors they begin to speed very violently with 10-20 times more speed then necessary. Usually it’s enough to give to a platter the initial “kick”. Then the Micro’s torch-sensor comes to play and it detects what contra-force the motor experience. if it detects that the platter is spinning with near-necessary speed then it drops torch monitoring, stabilize low voltage in motor and let it be. On my motor the voltage of the initial “kick” is 15V and the voltage of the “cruse” operation is about 4-5V. I think it is very elegant and very friendly solution. I never push my platter with hands…

Anyhow, another thing that I’m contemplating now in order to make both of my platters spinning is to drive one with belt and to drive another via an idler wheel. I think if I find a large enough, soft enough idler wheeland mount it on a proper arm then it might be an interesting to try. Now I need to find in garbage some kind Studer A810 and pull out of it the idler wheel arm assembly… :-) Here is how I visualize it…

John, I had nothing to do with Voyd or Pink Triangle, I also not a big fan of Audio Note UK.

Mono cartridges is good, in fact I feel that Mono Cartridges IS A MUST for anyone who do analog more of less serious. Defiantly a second arm is more convenient then a second TT…

Anyhow I would like do not go into details about Mono cartridges as this is not the thread about cartridges. Very briefly juts to reply your question.  I had 4 Mono cartridges:

Denon 102
Ortofon  CG 25Dia
Ortofon  SPU MONO Ellipticalh
Ortofon  SPU MONO Conical

The cartridges are listed in the order of my preference in descending order with the best at the bottom. I do not know about any other mono cartridges.

with his photo and comments on his Technics SP10.
Inexperienced imbecile that I am in participating in thread discussions, my question went into limbo (and thank you for responding to it).

And thanks to you, I bought the SPU Mono some time back and now looking for a TT to permanently house it

tokyo john wrote:

Anyway, I actually wanted to ask you something else. I need another TT to accomodate my mono cart (some people are not as lucky as Romy to have 8 arms hooked up to one TT!)...

it was always my sentiment that it is much better (comfortable and functional) to have two tonearms then two turntables. If you have one turntable that you fell comfortable with, then it is always possible, with no expiations, to add a second arm. Yes, it might screw up the turntable cosmetic or resale value (if you care about such a thing) but a comfort of lowering a second arm without any hassles really overcomes all other considerations. I do not know what TT you have buy I defiantly would NOT go for a second TT - only if I need to put a Mono arm into the game. Even if you have the smaller “rectangular TT” then it is always possible to hard-attach an extra surface along with the top long side of your TT and use this new space as an arm-base for a second arm. Going for a longer arm in this setting is a most reasonable solution….

The problem that I see with two TT (and I commenting from my own experience) that you need to lift a record and put it on the other platter. I find it annoying. In my setup my right platter is my main platter and it has my most beloved arms and mono/stereo needles. This platter does over 95% of all play and I go for the left platter only if I would like to have “intentionally different sound”.

Frankly speaking using the double deck TT for a while (the same I presume would be for a second TT) I do not find the idea worth duplication. It is too much hassle for too little actual gain. If I were an audio professional why do listening and audio assessments for living (although those assholes do their audio evaluations by listening CDs over a telephone!!!)  then I see some justification for setting up multiple playback opportunities. But for music listening I feel 2, maximum 3 arms are enough. More is worse. I never understood why people have multiple turntables with zillion arms and now after years of using the multiple turntables with zillion arms I understand it even less.

So, John, do not let yours to slide into the irrationalism of multiple platters: juts “glue” a second Mono arm to you TT and it will be it.