When going from AF5 to CSport TAT2M2 you could definitely say the AF5 is more damped and that was using the same arm, cartridge, cables. I’m not saying the AF5 sounded damped in a bad way but the sound between the two was very different. I think it’s mostly due to the soft mat and vacuum hold down. I ended up using a 10mm thick carbon “mat” (no vacuum on record) on the AF5 and the sound was much better.
Best turntable under 50k?
- Thread starter Frankie67
- Start date
When going from AF5 to CSport TAT2M2 you could definitely say the AF5 is more damped and that was using the same arm, cartridge, cables. I’m not saying the AF5 sounded damped in a bad way but the sound between the two was very different. I think it’s mostly due to the soft mat and vacuum hold down. I ended up using a 10mm thick carbon “mat” (no vacuum on record) on the AF5 and the sound was much better.
There is nothing similar between the SME 30/12 and the AF1P or AF3P. I know this because I tested them in the same system using the same cartridge. By the way, I’m referring to the Premium models of TechDAS turntables, not the regular ones, though the regular AF1 is still in a league of its own.
As the performance of a tonearm improves, it becomes more rigid, holds the cartridge more steadily, and moves more freely when needed, thanks to better bearings. This results in quieter, distortion-free sound with excellent bass response. In contrast, an inferior tonearm struggles to hold the cartridge steady and moves along with it. This happens on a microscopic level, as its lower-quality bearings resist movement and cause chatter. Consequently, a lesser tonearm produces more harmonic distortion, which can often be perceived as “airiness.” This explains why the SME V-12 sounds more rigid, delivers better bass, and is perceived as less airy compared to the SME 3012R, which is an inferior arm.
The internal cable of the SME 3012R is certainly poor, though not as bad as the vdH silver cable inside the SME V-12. The same applies to tonearm cables. Once the awful cable inside the SME V-12 and the hybrid vdH tonearm cable are replaced with a Kondo silver inner cable and LS-41 silver tonearm cable, the tonearm begins to show its true potential. However, even then, the SME V-12 still doesn’t rank as a top performer in my view, and the Graham Elite is not even close, let alone the SME 3012R.
In the case of the SME 3012R, the cable plays a role in its shortcomings, alongside other drawbacks I haven’t mentioned here. Its rolled-off cable helps mask the unpleasant aspects of its poor performance, but it cannot restore lost dynamics. This is akin to correcting one mistake with another.
I’m not surprised when you described the V-12 as “damped” because, much like in music, a more dynamic recording can be perceived as quieter just like reduced distortion perceived as less airy. The SME V-12 is indeed a better tonearm.
You make a valid point on understanding the quality of a turntable when you say it's when you live with it in your system.
Of course the capability of the system, the room it is properly setup in and differences in tonearm/cartridge would reflect on the experience so it's hard to determine the absolute quality of any table.
Having lived with the Bardo and heard the Brinkmann Balance fairly frequently but not on my system I would find it difficult to venture an absolute opinion. Although I might not fully appreciate the true quality of either my feeling would be that the Bardo is a fine table and would be a very satisfying source for the majority of listeners. For those wanting further refinement and something in the" what's best" category then the Balance would get my nod.
Personally I chose to go in a completely different direction and am extremely happy with an Artisan Fidelity Garrard 301/ Groovemaster/SPU setup. In my room and system it is giving me the most enjoyable sound I have ever experienced. Is it a candidate for " What's Best" , well I would doubt it but it is best for me right now.
Mtemur, I am not saying the big Micros are equivalent of the AF1P. They are very different designs. I prefer one, you prefer the other. I wrote earlier that I would love to directly compare the SX8000 II to the AF3P with I prefer to the AF1P. Some like what air suspension does to the sound, but I prefer no air isolation.
I also did not say I prefer the SME 30/12 to either of the TechDAS turntables. I just wrote that I used to own it and compared it to the Micro.
I do not know who set it up, but in those days, Bob Graham did the set ups for many of the AF1 turntables he delivered.
Sorry guys, I did not mean to step on your thread about the Micro, etc.
No problem, the thread is about turntables under $50K. Do you sell those turntables? If so, good luck.
As far as I understand that you don’t like air suspension under the plinth, claiming it creates a “signature sound” that you find undesirable. You prefer the AF3P over the AF1 because the AF1 uses air suspension under the plinth. It's ok up to this point.
But how can air suspension be considered bad under the plinth yet miraculously great under the platter? How can you criticize the AF1 while praising, admiring, and marveling at all iterations of the American Sound turntables and the SX 8000 II, when all of them feature air-suspended platters? If air suspension is doing it's thing under the plinth as you described it's certainly doing it under the platter.
Please don't tell me AS turntables are different, their designer accounted for that etc. And don't expect me to believe TechDas engineers (who also designed and manufactured Micro Seiki 8000 II) don't know any better than the people manufactured AS turntables.
Last edited:
That is not clear to me, mtemur. The various designs and implementations seem quite different. It the case of the AF1 and say a turntable on top of an air platform or air footers, the air is in bladders and has volume. The pressure is higher, 80 lbs with the Vibraplane, I don't know about the AF1 bladders. It is 1-2 lbs with the AS2000. The bladders are used to damp and to isolate. The cushion of air under the massive platter of the American Sound tables creates a near frictionless bearing, and it flows. The turntable base is separated from the platter but not the armposts. Mass is very different between these tables. The AS2000 platter can not be pushed down the way the bladders can be. The Micro and TechDAS bearings still have parts that rotate, very different from the AS2000. Resonance and energy are handled in different ways. I do not hear the air signature on the American Sound or big Micro. They sound more like the AF3. I do not know all the reasons, but based on listening, the sound character is quite different. I am sorry that this non technical response may be unsatisfactory.
Last edited:
No, TechDas doesn't have any parts to rotate other than platter. I installed a couple of them. No oil, lubrication or moving part as far as I can see.
So, does the AF1P and AF3P.
So, does the AF1P and AF3P. Their platters cannot be pushed down, floating over 30 microns of air.
Of course, there are differences between American Sound turntables and TechDAS turntables, but I highly doubt that American Sound is made as well as TechDAS. However, that’s not the point here. We cannot compare a DIY turntable to a commonly available, manufactured one because access to American Sound turntables is limited. I’m not going to continue discussing how different or how similar they are over technical details. I'm sure it (AS) sounds good, and you certainly enjoy it, but since it’s a DIY (no matter what you say, it’s still DIY), it’s not relevant to the people here.
Last edited:
I’m suggesting the AF 3P and the Micro Seiki as turntables under $50,000, the thread topic. Certainly not recommending the American Sound turntables.
I mistakenly assumed the techDAS was similar to the Micro. A film of air supports the platter, but it is connected to a spindle which centers the platter and rotates with the platter. The AS is very different in design, but also the air pressure is much lower.
I don’t know what you mean by DIY. David Karmeli designed the turntables, but he did not manufacture or build them, nor the motor or motor controller.
Last edited:
If I DIY a horn, the drivers will be built by A, crossover by B, cabinet by C. That’s how DIY is. Some also build the cabinets themselves. Doesn’t make it better or lesser, at the end you listen to the end product and decide
OK, I’m just trying to understand what people mean by DIY. Those horn speaker builds seem different in that the assembler is selecting parts that he does not design and then building a speaker for himself. David found the right motor, but as far as I know, he designed the rest and the motor controller was a collaboration between David and the engineer. It’s the same motor used in the Air Force Zero and I think David actually supplied the motors to TechDAS for their flagship turntable. A very capable machine shop with its own engineers figured out how to build the turntable. Perhaps a guy in his basement could figure out how to get 150 pound platter to free spin for half an hour before it stops and then build it with tools at home, but I’ve never seen it.
The rack I used in my previous system was definitely DIY. I designed it and built it myself. My current rack was designed by me with some help from David with the isolation, and it was built by someone else so I did not do it myself.
Last edited:
One man’s DIY is another man’s custom, bespoke component.
Of course I put my own DIY projects in the bespoke category.
Of course I put my own DIY projects in the bespoke category.
Last edited:
They are also similar that both are belt drives, so I can assume you can get that signature too?
i think DIY relates to a one off situation of put together parts. but not 10 or 20 of them. then there is a production turntable at considerable volume such as the Tech Das. the AS is a bespoke product somewhere in between. there are other luxury high end products like that that don't have the volume or production type assembly's that are very good.
not everything falls into a neat category.
maybe the original American Sound, with only a handful ever built, might be said to be DIY. but i don't know the intimate details.
also; DIY is not a knock. the very, very, very best can be DIY where it can be done without ANY limits. since there is no need to repeat it or stop the refinement process.
not everything falls into a neat category.
maybe the original American Sound, with only a handful ever built, might be said to be DIY. but i don't know the intimate details.
also; DIY is not a knock. the very, very, very best can be DIY where it can be done without ANY limits. since there is no need to repeat it or stop the refinement process.
Last edited:
Since you were off for a few days, I though you were busy setting up a new system
Bonzo, I am sure you have learned this from your travels. There are many differences and implementations that go into the different designs. But now that you bring up belt drives, I have learned a lot about this. The SME uses a compliant rubber belt with small free length from the motor pulley to the sub platter. Speed suffers, but this might also have to do with the motor and controller and relatively less mass of the platter. I know that SME keeps working on the motor and controller. I believe the TechDAS tables have a non stretch belt with a different coating on each side. The belt is rigid and wide with a seam and similar or the same as used with the big Micros. I prefer that to the stretchy belts.
I did a lot of experimenting with belt type (floss, different threads), tension, and length, as well as torque later on the American Sound. Also where the motor is located and on what type of platform relative to the turntable matters. On some designs you want minimal influence from the motor on the platter, and the type of connection matters. On others, you want more influence from the motor. A lot depends on the platter and the bearing. I would not generalize on a "belt drive signature". Do the people you visit experiment with their belt drives? It can make quite a difference. I had a long talk with AJ Conti about belt technology and type when I visited him in his workshop once. He told me it all matters, and he was working mostly with flat rubber belts of different thicknesses and compositions. His platters were fairly low mass, so that is a factor too. The topic is fascinating.
Similar threads
