guy sergeant wrote:

Is this the kind of set up you're contemplating?

guy sergeant wrote:

Your first law of upgrading usually seems to be "identify what dissatisfies you in your playback before you try to change things" or something like that. Very sensible advice. What is it about the sound of your existing TT that prompts you to want to change it?  Do you perceive some lack of stability, constancy, perhaps some tonal aberration or is it just its performance compared with your FM that has brought on this urge for improvement?

guy sergeant wrote:

Sorry, I have a better understanding of the purpose of this exercise now. Are you making 2 new platters or is one to be the existing Micro Platter?

Nope, juts adding RX-5000 platter and base to the existing RX-8000

guy sergeant wrote:

Given that your RX 8000 appears to have a platter made of phosphor bronze (gunmetal) what is your second platter going to be made of? (I understood from some research that Micro felt the phosphor bronze platters better lent themselves to use with SS electronics)

The very same “yellow” platter. The “tone” of the platter is irrelevant. The “tone” becomes relevant if you play vacuum hold-down (MKII) and a record sits atop of the “bare” platter, or atop of a platter decoupled with a very thin fabric. I do not like vacuum hold-down and in my case the platters employ quite thick TT mats that make the platter’s tone irrelevant.

guy sergeant wrote:

How is the phono stage being revised? Are you planning for different eq settings for various vintage recordings?  Will all of your cartridges still be loaded via the ET2?

I would not comment on it at this point in depth. Very basically I would be an offensive design where a “correct” phonostage and ET2 will be working against all 4-6 tonearms, without any switching of cable, adjustment of loading and so on….  Cruelty the revision is in a progress and if I turn out to be successful then I will post information about it

Rgs,
Romy the caT

Antonio J. wrote:

Which one? Where can I find it? how much is it? What's it made of? I've tried a few mats and I always found in all of them some added "colorature". I've not tried any of the "audiophile approved" ones since I didn't expect any of them to work, and they're not inexpensive either, but maybe it's time to change my mind.

I do not know, Antonio. I tried very few "audiophile approved" mats and they were too much “Fremery” to me: means showy but with not substance. I have a few mats (or perhaps now is just one left) that picked quite long time ago from some TTs of 70s and that work perfectly fine. I have no idea what they are and where I can get them. They are most likely rubber-made but have a very high density. They feel mode feel like metal or plastic then rubber. They are a approximately few mm high, rather on a thick side, weight a couple of pounds and as far as I concern do Sonically whatever is necessary. I do not know what quality a TT’s mat should have by being sandwiched with my platter it “sounds” very nice, at least I can’t identify anything wrong - platter related. I have also, and sometime used a parabolic mat (along with my parabolic add-in platter) but it requires using a heavy center-poll weight (clamp). I do not like the center-poll clamp and therefore I tend do not run the parabolic top.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

To Antonio,

it is not necessary to “to find some mat with those characteristics of yours”. The characteristics of mat would be applicable only I context of the TT you use (platter, suspension and so on). With my Micro 8000 that has very dead sounding platter to begin with, I really do not need mat to do anything\ and the very hard rubber TT mars do very well for me. Older Technics turntables employed wonderfully-hard mat, some Micro Seiki mat were nicely hard (actually Micro did some stuff for Technics and at the time they share some product lines). Nakamichi did some very cool, hard and heavy mats. I mean the hard rubber it was the better it would be…. but only in “my case”. If you have a light platter with own sound (most of them do) then the composition and density of the TT mat might be different. Once again - it all should be view in context of entire TT setting (type of patter, existence of clap, shape of the mat, TT topology and many other things)  and it should not be juts blindly imitates. Still, I would stay with rubber mats of different density and would not go for any carbon, plastic, subroutine or any other “invention type” of mats.

To the rest folks.

Ok, I did some initial experiments with my Micro Seiki double deck projects.

I spent entire day to move the motors, platters, arms around. It was not always possible to get out the arrangement exactly what I wanted as other then sound considerations dictated what to do (access to the given arm, layout of the cables form the tonearms, the location of the phonostages, the length of arm boards, and many other things). In the end I find that the locations of motor do not affect sound as much as tension of the belt between the platters. I was not able to use two-belts approach as I have no means to maintain the height of the belt between the platters (I would need an idle roll to do so). So, I stack to a single belt of 87” so far.

The final layout that I ended up with largely die to my recent thoughts about my phonostages – I am planning to use juts one phonostages (I will most likely writhe about I future). Therefore, the accessibility to the 6 inputs of my single phonstages and the phonostages position become quite imperative factor.

Above the image now I ended up so far. The phonostages sits between

Above the image now I ended up so far. The phonostages sits between the motor and the TT’s platters. The TT platters together sit atop of a Vibraplane. It kind of all-together comfy to use and I did not detect any problem with sound so far. The middle platter, that presumably should be in heavy “slipping mode”, works juts fine with none measurable speed deviation. For a time being I use tahe magnetic tape but will be ordering a thin and light rubber belts if I settle with this configuration for good.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Antonio J. wrote:

Dear Romy, thanks for your comment. I actually don't want the mat to do "something" for me sonically, but to teach me how far I'm I of my ideal. Knowing your goals and taking for granted that the 8000's platter must be rather dead sonically, I assume those mats must be quite dead also. The purpose to use some sonically dead mat is to learn if the platter I'm using now is as dead as I'm supposing (it's quite high mass at 20Kg and the surface is a carbon composite layer weighing about 5Kg). I don't use any clamp (it doesn't work as good as clamps worked on the old TT) and the plynth is not suspended. The "a priori" approach is that a dead mat would eliminate or at least "damp" some sound from the platter, but as you point, maybe the platter has some kind of sound that helps in the results I'd like to get, so in my context, it would be better not to use any mat. I'll have to check it.

I do not think that anyone would be able to “teach” and I do not thin that there is nothing to teach about the mats. A good “sounding” platter does not require any “actions” from mat and the hard rubber mats do exactly this. In fact if a platter is god then you can play a record right atop of it and it should have near the same sound as with a hard rubber mat. The problems begins what the platters sound “strange” then we begin coming up with all imaginable stupid means to get “correct sound” out of the platter buttering the platter with mats or with other bogus sound-shaping means. For instance I was very surprised recently that Micro RX-5000 has in fact quite colored platter sound. I had two RX-5000s and I did not remember any negative feelings about it. However, the one RX-5000 that I fished recently has very ringy platter. After servicing the RX-5000 and setting it up I had to figure out how to make it sound neutral. I ended up with layering a thin layer of sorbotan atop of the platter and then cover it with thick hard rubber mat. It works so far fine but I am not sure that it will be the final solution.

Antonio J. wrote:

I hope you keep us posted on your findings. Which is the heavier platter? Did you find any interesting difference in placing one TT closer to the motor than the other? Are you planning to try the 3012 on the other TT? I'll be glad knowing what combination of tonearm and stereo cartridge in that setup works for the highest dynamic contrast, I don't mean to sound louder at fffff but having more intermediate steps beween ppp and ffff. That's something that lately is obsessing me. I find my vinyl quite acceptable tonally (for my taste and exigence which probably are at a different level than yours) but I'd like it to be more "colorful" dynamically. I hope I've explained myself.

The heaviest platter is on the right, having more contact surface with the belt. So far everything is more or less OK, besides the DC motor have more work to do, suck more current form PS and head the transformer more it would like to be heated. More "colorful" dynamically? Why do you feel that it has anything to do with combination of tonearm and a cartridge?

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do not think that anyone would be able to “teach” and I do not thin that there is nothing to teach about the mats. A good “sounding” platter does not require any “actions” from mat and the hard rubber mats do exactly this. In fact if a platter is god then you can play a record right atop of it and it should have near the same sound as with a hard rubber mat. The problems begins what the platters sound “strange” then we begin coming up with all imaginable stupid means to get “correct sound” out of the platter buttering the platter with mats or with other bogus sound-shaping means. For instance I was very surprised recently that Micro RX-5000 has in fact quite colored platter sound. I had two RX-5000s and I did not remember any negative feelings about it. However, the one RX-5000 that I fished recently has very ringy platter. After servicing the RX-5000 and setting it up I had to figure out how to make it sound neutral. I ended up with layering a thin layer of sorbotan atop of the platter and then cover it with thick hard rubber mat. It works so far fine but I am not sure that it will be the final solution.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The heaviest platter is on the right, having more contact surface with the belt. So far everything is more or less OK, besides the DC motor have more work to do, suck more current form PS and head the transformer more it would like to be heated. More "colorful" dynamically? Why do you feel that it has anything to do with combination of tonearm and a cartridge? Rgs, Romy the Cat

Antonio J. wrote:

Well, I don't know if there's something wrong with the platter and I'd like to know it. All I know is that lower bass has kind of "detachement" from the mid-upper bass, that I don't hear from the tuner nor the DAC.

If it doe not happen on all recording but only on foe ten flipping of ability polarity switch would help. If it happens with all recordings then time-align the LF channel, reduces it at minus 2-3dB and forces yourself to listen at bass-reduced level for a direction of at least 2-3 weeks. What it boils down that some of the bad LF sections (I do not know what you use BTW) raise acoustic pressure of LF in a room faster then the rise tonal pressure… Your problems defiantly might be due to many other reasons but I would start from that I have mentioned and analog gave the most demanding bass among all other sources.

Antonio J. wrote:

It's not that I want to find a most-dynamic cart-tonearm combo, but to know which is in your opinion, of your current carts and tonearms, the pair that dynamically is performing better, and if any, what are the trade offs you find. I suppose that there's no perfect combination and possibly you end up liking some combination for some precise record, and other one for a different disc, but in spite of that, it could happen that you found some pairing specially good from the dynamics point of view. It's possible too that my former observations were wrong and the "righter" music I perceived had nothing to do with dynamics. To me it's very difficult to correlate music and the way I interact with it and the "sonics", although I can detect a wrong sonic performance. At least I get acceptable music, which is way more than I was able two years ago ;-)

Hm… yes and no. I do not match cartridges with tonearms to a large degree. Peaty much if I could (and probably I should) I would have all my 6 tonearms presented with six 3012 of higher affective mass. My arms more have functional separation then matching. Anyhow, my “references tonearm” with witch I play good and cleaned stereo records of general music is 3012R with 18G in headshell paired with Shelter 901

Rgs,
Romy

Do not believe me, I do not believe myself! I would like to tell you honestly that if this thing would be said by other person I would accept it as a pure BS because I have no reasoning to believe that it might be true…. but it is what actually what is going on.

I did not listen my TT for a few weeks, the FM and my digital recoding of the broadcasts really put TT to the back burner. Plus my resent “design mode”….

Anyhow, looking at my very intriguing success with the “Fundamental Channel” and my trying to “harmonize” sound via “Fundamental Channel” at the correct amplitude I deseeded to go for something “complex”. It is raining in Boston and I am in very good listing mood … therefore went for my shelves with selected “best recordings ever”

I pulled the 1982 pressing of “Ses Recitals 1954 – 1969” by Maria Callas. This collection is nothing short of stunning: 11 absolutely beautiful LP very-very nicely pressed by EMI-Pathe Marconi and 200pages book, covering the best years of the greatest singer. Yes, we all have dozens and hundreds Callas recording but could be too much Callas? Although I know the specific performances when Callas did better then in this Recitals but it is 22 sides of Callas in his prime!!! Did you ever see any better single collection of opera recording in such a phenomenal performing and recording quality?

Callas voice has everything you can imagine in Music and everything you can imagine in Sound and I decided to spend a day with her. Suddenly, as soon the runner record was played I realized that I lost bass in my analog. Interestingly, for few weeks that I did not listen it nothing, absolutely nothing was changed in analog and I was puzzled.

Then I detected that for those 3-4weeks the reel-to-real tape that run across both platters of my Micro Seiki got week and almost hangs. It still spins the patters with default stable speed (I did not hear any speed abnormalities and usually on soprano recordings it is might be heard intentionally) but it kind of juts “touch them”. I figures that it was kind of too loose and I added a little bit mote tension. Are you ready for it? I go my bass back!!!!!! I loose it back and force and the bass result clearly deviated with the tension of the tape.

Well, I would understand if it were a heavy belt and a light platter but… How, how come that a tandem of the zillion tone platters got affected by the light and no partially strongly applied real-to- real tape? I have no rational explanation!

Rgs,
Romy the caT

Time to fall for the idler wheel propaganda?
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1075644493&read&3&4&&st0

Despite the sheer mass and moment of the Micro's platter(s), the tape must either be detracting from (when loose) or helping (when taught) the bass.

Speculating on the former, perhaps the tape when slack interacts (slipping and sliding) with the platter to create some kind of electro-magnetic charge? Speculating on the latter, I wonder if the tightened tape manages to dampen some kind of resonance inherent in the platter?

Yes, the theoretical static from the slipping ferromagnetic tape it was always that did not like in the tape idea but I always thought that the effect, if it ever take place, would be absolutely negligible, partially considering that I use conductive players the are grounded. I do not know if it was it, I do not think that I ever will and obviously if it was the static then I was absolutely beyond of something that I might detect.

I still would like to return to the rubber belt as I use to but unfortunately I have no idea what to get longer belt (I think it was 65” or 85” … I do not remember already). I was thinking to get the obtainable 35” belts and to glue them but I doubt that I would be able to do it well enough. There are people who can do long rubberish plastic belts, and I have them, but I do not like them – they are too heavy and too stiff.