CS Port LFT1 turntable added to the system
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
Mike, I will be very curious to learn if, over time, you are somehow able to isolate the sonic characteristics the linear tracking tonearm versus the pivoting tonearms.
i would need to buy the attachments and move the linear tracker to an attachment, then add a pivoted arm to another attachment. i guess we can only add the pivoted arm attachment, then move the linear tracker box in and out of the system and do it that way. but why go to the trouble to do only that then not be able to use the arms together?
so it's doable if i get a good reason to spend the money to do it. and that is unlikely as a sit here today. so i expect we are left with how the CS Port does as a system including the linear tracker.
it is nice to know a pivoted arm is always an alternative, and that a pivoted arm and linear tracker can be used together.
What Ron asked he should be able to find out by himself soon if it does not take another year to setup his system. I saw Bergman Odin listed on his system info. Enjoy music.
Tang
What Ron asked he should be able to find out by himself soon if it does not take another year to setup his system. I saw Bergman Odin listed on his system info. Enjoy music.
Tang
yes, i did notice that too.
wonder if the Bergman offers that alternative?Mik feels that the CS Port linear tracker is special and is a big plus for the CS Port, and he would be in a position to know that. he said that he has the attachments, but don't know that he has tried them yet.
Mike, it is too bad that that granite slab on the arm pod box can not be cut for a second arm mount, though dimensions may not work. That would seem to be a cleaner solution than those metal parts for attaching to the plinth to accommodate two arms. The design seems complete as three separate units with physical separation/ isolation between the units an integral part of the design. I suppose this turntable with LT arm should be considered a complete system much like the Walker turntable is. Variations may introduce compromises.
I suppose one could put the motor unit in back and another arm box with cutout for a second arm on the left side of the plinth. Or LT box on the back, and a second arm box on the right.
I suppose one could put the motor unit in back and another arm box with cutout for a second arm on the left side of the plinth. Or LT box on the back, and a second arm box on the right.
Peter; i don't think mounting another pivoted arm to the current linear arm box is a workable idea. the arm box is not heavy enough, and as you suggest, the spindle to pivot distance would be too far. the box would have to look different. likely not a huge challenge to craft a big chunk of something that might work. but throw the 'zen' look out the window.
with the air tubes mounted on the back side of the plinth that would not be an alternative. so the motor and air tubes occupy 2 sides. which leaves the front side for a separate arm as an alternative to mounting both arms on the plinth as the picture shows.
you see quite a few turntables with separate free standing arm pods, in other words mass loaded bases to mount arms. get yourself a big chunk of stainless or granite and have it tapped for mounting your arm of choice and set it in front of the plinth. this would allow for the linear tracking arm box to be used optimally, and any pivoted arm would be optimal too. only it would look like hell.
or buy a tt that has the arm mounting scheme already that you prefer.
mounting arms to plinths is normal. the question becomes is the linear tracker on a separate box a performance advantage? i sure view it that way.....but have not tested that for proof.
but the outstanding motor, plinth and platter design does get one's imagination flowing. i'm sure Mik or CS Port reading this stuff are rolling their eyes.
Last edited:
Respectfully suggest these comparisons are not relevant although they are interesting and in fact may be accurate. There are just too many variables for any conclusions to be reliably drawn here. If one used the same arm and cartridge it would be a far more relevant comparison. Multiple variables require far more stringent statistical analysis in science. Of course, this is not a scientific experiment per se, but the same caution of interpretation applies, even if it's simply a critical listening exercise. My guess is that Mike will be shifting the players (arms and cartridges) with time which will allow a far better assessment of the relative merits of each tt over the long term. I'm eager to watch for developments here!
Peter; i don't think mounting another pivoted arm to the current linear arm box is a workable idea. the arm box is not heavy enough, and as you suggest, the spindle to pivot distance would be too far. the box would have to look different. likely not a huge challenge to craft a big chunk of something that might work. but throw the 'zen' look out the window.
with the air tubes mounted on the back side of the plinth that would not be an alternative. so the motor and air tubes occupy 2 sides. which leaves the front side for a separate arm as an alternative to mounting both arms on the plinth as the picture shows.
you see quite a few turntables with separate free standing arm pods, in other words mass loaded bases to mount arms. get yourself a big chunk of stainless or granite and have it tapped for mounting your arm of choice and set it in front of the plinth. this would allow for the linear tracking arm box to be used optimally, and any pivoted arm would be optimal too. only it would look like hell.
or buy a tt that has the arm mounting scheme already that you prefer.
mounting arms to plinths is normal. the question becomes is the linear tracker on a separate box a performance advantage? i sure view it that way.....but have not tested that for proof.
but the outstanding motor, plinth and platter design does get one's imagination flowing. i'm sure Mik or CS Port reading this stuff are rolling their eyes.
FWIW - I see the co-development of TT and arm solution as being a real advantage rather like the Vyger with its linear tracker. The resultant voiding of the audiophile tweaking anxiety is a good thing imho not to mention the specific voicing and absolute precision matching that has been achieved by the cs Port team. I would personally just enjoy the CS Port with LT arm as designed. I would explore the active isolation option if there is no noise transmitted - would be at least interesting. My gut says that the cart choice is going to be the key though.
Anyway - what do I know - just food for thought
Hi Marty,
I don’t disagree with your sentiment regarding scientific rigour (I spend my life designing studies too). That said, I am not sure that ensuring the same cart and arm is helpful in this context simply because TTs tend to work best with certain types of arms/carts so you can arrive at wrong conclusion about a TTs alone. All you can say is you prefer TT A with this exact arm and cart more than TT B with the same combo. It is like internal and external validity - the internally valid means of assessing this is as you say. In reality the choice is based on so much subjectivity that Mike is almost better to find what he likes as 3 best combinations and then ask which combination do you prefer.
Anyway - not disagreeing just offering another perspective.
If it was not the too many goodies arriving at the same time (Extreme and Daiza
) I would have mounted the Eminent Technology ETII in the AF1P . Since the Forsell departed I have been missing the sound of a linear tracker. There is something unique in a parallel tracker, perhaps an absence of specif artifacts that makes them different from other arms - sounding more like top digital, if I can say so. I moved several versions of the ET in several turntables along the years, and much later after I moved in pivot tonearms I was happy to find again the some basic properties in the Forsell tonearm - both are are air bearing linear tonearms.
IMHO this the type of subjective find you must experiment to understand - no words can fully describe it.
If it was not the too many goodies arriving at the same time (Extreme and Daiza
I moved several versions of the ET in several turntables along the years, and much later after I moved in pivot tonearms I was happy to find again the some basic properties in the Forsell tonearm - both are are air bearing linear tonearms.
IMHO this the type of subjective find you must experiment to understand - no words can fully describe it.
I think you might be very pleasantly surprised by the AF1 and LT arm combo. I heard that it works very well.
If it was not the too many goodies arriving at the same time (Extreme and Daiza
I moved several versions of the ET in several turntables along the years, and much later after I moved in pivot tonearms I was happy to find again the some basic properties in the Forsell tonearm - both are are air bearing linear tonearms.
IMHO this the type of subjective find you must experiment to understand - no words can fully describe it.
certainly linear trackers have a degree of 'extra' release from the idea of sound from speakers. that little additional freedom from phase anomalies....i think. but this is a touch traded off with a degree less weight and slam.
my opinion is that so far with the CS Port linear tracking arm has all the weight and slam of a quality pivoted arm, if maybe not the most i've heard of those things. i would say it has very good 'bass' to express it simply. there is no doubt that it also has that magical holographic release from any sense of speakers.
It is as you said Bill. For people with multiple tts, they likely give impression and experience on tt/arm/cart in combination. They could do as Marty said, but that would only to satisfy the need to know exactly what equipment does what and to entertain us people on this site of what we want to know. Pleasure listening is why they bought different tts. So, most people are not like me and Ked who has urges for knowing in specific. Even for me some times I get tired of testing equipment systematically because it takes time and effort to do stealing away a pleasure listening time. But one thing though, when you have living experiences with multiple tts like Mike in the past and Mike now, you, if your ears don't suck, will likely able to identify the characters of each of your tt without doing a systematically correct testing to the last detail. We friends in this forum already are lucky to read Mike's impression as is.
Marty,
i agree with the limited value of this feedback.....my post went on to be very clear about the fact that this was a quick hot take, and that we don't know much.....
Bill, i agree.
Last edited:
While utmost resolution is the primary task at hand it seems to me that eventually an FR66S (or other arms of its kind and character) would be a lovely option to have on one of these decks. Just an idea now I'll bow out
Eric, don't be shy. make that case with more information for those of us not intimate with 'it's kind of character' and why.
or.....maybe the cartridge should do this part? do we need a different arm to reach the performance goal (you have in mind)?
i ask because i can't imagine i will add another arm to the CS Port unless it was my only turntable. what someone else might do is anyone's guess.
thanks.
Last edited:
What Ron asked he should be able to find out by himself soon if it does not take another year to setup his system. I saw Bergman Odin listed on his system info. Enjoy music.
Tang
Some year, some decade, hopefully. I will never have the same model of cartridge on each of the 3012R and the Odin on the AS-2000.
Maybe the diamond tip version of the ZYX is higher resolution than the UNIverse Premium, but I don’t care. I am very comfortable in my knowledge that I like the ZYX UNIverse Premium on the 3012R. I know that combination works for me.
The Odin will carry the Opus 1.
That will be it for me. Done.
Except I love that Durand Tosca!
But we cannot have everything we want. The Odin takes up two tonearm positions on the AS-2000, so a third tonearm is not possible.After I heard the Reed 5T at audioquattr I knew I had to have a linear tracker for sonic reasons. I heard an airiness and a kind of ethereal sound I don’t think I have ever heard before.
The General’s admonition about pivoting tonearms on irreplaceable original LPs made a linear tracker mandatory for vinyl preservation reasons.
Mike, I am very happy for you that you now have a linear-tracking tonearm!
Last edited:
I love Durand's work a lot. Its just that the steel FR64/66S have such a joyful (dare I say colorful) presentation and some pressings really 'love' it. Also (may or may not be important) they allow use of even the lowest compliance carts, as well as having proven synergy with other medium compliance carts (already well blogged about). Plus having one removeable headshell is nice in case you start amassing more and varied carts. A steel 3012s1 or a 3012R (perhaps more neutral but still...) could also add this. Maybe the Glanz (have no experience with it personally).
The FR66S however is a shoe-in. Maybe on the Saskia. With the heavy B60 base. Pretty cheap too given the company...
The FR66S however is a shoe-in. Maybe on the Saskia. With the heavy B60 base. Pretty cheap too given the company...
I am a huge FR fan. I do have the 64s and foolishly let the 66 go many years ago for something "better" I use my arm with the B60 VTA base and it works very well with Koetsu.
The SME is not without character either IMO .. just different flavours. For the attempt to neutrality I use other means.
The quality of the FR speaks for itself regardless of your vision.
Similar threads
