Right, that's exactly my point. You heard the Sati with an SME V at Bill's yeah? Going from a linear tracker + turntable package to a turntable + pivoted arm (and what I assume is a different cartridge) is hard to extrapolate.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
The design of the bearing is proprietary and owners do not discuss it publicly for that reason. I think there have been discussions about the motor and platter material, surface and matt in the subforum. It is a very deliberate and careful design built to an exceedingly high standard. I guess the same can be said of other turntables.
By that logic you will not be able to compare an integrated package with anything, especially where one of the integrated elements is the reason for the excellent sound. It is not possible. Additionally, SME V is a very common arm and I will say there are other tables better than the Horning. Bill also has Dynavector arm on it with the DaVa.
Btw, there was a point where the cartridge was common, i.e. Red Sparrow, but that is not fair to Horning as the Red Sparrow will not do well on the SME V. Just keeping things common for the sake of it is not the right way to do a compare, though it should be done to extract the data point. For a compare the individual element has to be optimised as far as possible. The Horning now has the DaVa on it so it is quite optimised.
It sounds like we're in agreement.
My point is that blanket statements are rarely correct and that nuance/context is important. Your follow up with that additional context was super helpful to me as a reader. The original less so.(I haven't heard the Horning and don't have an opinion. It's worth mentioning that I do think Tommy makes cool stuff. )
Regarding turntable bearings, what is important is the coupling and stability between the surface of the platter and the mount of the cartridge.
To this end, the base of the arm and the surface of the platter must be rigidly coupled, and also completely dead. It will never be both of course, but the idea here is that if there is any vibration at the platter or anywhere in the plinth coupling the two (incited for example by airborne energy), the base of the arm will be moving in the same way in the same plane. If this is so, the pickup will be unable to interpret that motion. Of course there can be no looseness or chatter in the tonearm bearings, and its arm tube must not be able to resonate.
Anything falling short of this will exhibit a coloration. The engineering problem is very similar to that of the steering and suspension of a car. If any play is present, the car will have handling problems and could even be dangerous.
Air and magnetic bearings have a special challenge since they eliminate mechanical coupling; the bearing must have coupling from the platter to the plinth. I'm not saying it can't be done; I am saying that if the designer was not paying attention to this issue, the result will leave performance on the table regardless of the price. Put another way, if the platter is able to move back and forth in a different way than the tonearm, how is the cartridge not going to pick that up??
This is also why separate tonearm towers, independent of the plinth, are a bad idea.
If you wonder why the Technics SL1200G is such a good turntable, its because the designers paid attention to this rather basic design imperative (as well as making it one of the most speed-stable machines made). It employs a rigid subchassis to which the plinth is rigidly coupled; in this way the platter spindle is rigidly coupled to the base of the arm and the two assemblies rob energy from each other, rendering it dead as well. The weakness of that 'table IMO/IME is the platter pad and the arm (although the arm gives many high end audio tonearms a serious run for the money). I found a way to mount a Triplanar on the machine and I replaced the platter pad (the platter also is damped from the factory). The issue I'm facing now is the spindle is a bit too short to allow a proper clamp. Its going to get machined to deal with that, hopefully sooner than later...
To this end, the base of the arm and the surface of the platter must be rigidly coupled, and also completely dead. It will never be both of course, but the idea here is that if there is any vibration at the platter or anywhere in the plinth coupling the two (incited for example by airborne energy), the base of the arm will be moving in the same way in the same plane. If this is so, the pickup will be unable to interpret that motion. Of course there can be no looseness or chatter in the tonearm bearings, and its arm tube must not be able to resonate.
Anything falling short of this will exhibit a coloration. The engineering problem is very similar to that of the steering and suspension of a car. If any play is present, the car will have handling problems and could even be dangerous.
Air and magnetic bearings have a special challenge since they eliminate mechanical coupling; the bearing must have coupling from the platter to the plinth. I'm not saying it can't be done; I am saying that if the designer was not paying attention to this issue, the result will leave performance on the table regardless of the price. Put another way, if the platter is able to move back and forth in a different way than the tonearm, how is the cartridge not going to pick that up??
This is also why separate tonearm towers, independent of the plinth, are a bad idea.
If you wonder why the Technics SL1200G is such a good turntable, its because the designers paid attention to this rather basic design imperative (as well as making it one of the most speed-stable machines made). It employs a rigid subchassis to which the plinth is rigidly coupled; in this way the platter spindle is rigidly coupled to the base of the arm and the two assemblies rob energy from each other, rendering it dead as well. The weakness of that 'table IMO/IME is the platter pad and the arm (although the arm gives many high end audio tonearms a serious run for the money). I found a way to mount a Triplanar on the machine and I replaced the platter pad (the platter also is damped from the factory). The issue I'm facing now is the spindle is a bit too short to allow a proper clamp. Its going to get machined to deal with that, hopefully sooner than later...
Love to see a photo of your 1200G and hear how it compares to your own Empire based table (which I worship!)
I'd be happy to do that- I'm having to redo the arm board since the mechanical drawing I had made up for it has gone missing. I don't hear a lot of difference between the two; so I don't miss the Atma-Sphere 208 in terms of sound, but I think it did have a better 'classic' appearance. Both are quite resistant to high volume levels
Bring on the noise!I'd be happy to do that- I'm having to redo the arm board since the mechanical drawing I had made up for it has gone missing. I don't hear a lot of difference between the two; so I don't miss the Atma-Sphere 208 in terms of sound, but I think it did have a better 'classic' appearance. Both are quite resistant to high volume levels
Being proprietary was never a reason for not being discussed. Manufacturer and owners simply do not want to show or discuss it. End of game.
The bearing is discussed and studied, just not with everyone. Yes, it is the end of the game.
I think while micro said it is end of game, you meant to say it is the end game, because end of the game is something else entirely!
Love reading your posts, always very well explained and with tons of knowledge, with info that is often not found anywhere else.
Didn’t ddk copy someone else’s design? I thought I read in this thread the AS1000 was made by someone in Japan decades ago.
The original American Sound AS1000 was designed in Japan around 1970. It was built at a shipyard on commission for an audio dealership. Very little is known about its origins and they only made a few. There are other similarly unknown tables around. DDK tracked down two known samples and studied them. He made some significant changes to improve what was already a superb turntable.
I am one of the lucky few besides David who has done a direct comparison between the two designs. It was in my system using the same cartridge, tonearm and cable and I wrote about it here. The AS2000 is better. It is not a copy, but it is based on the earlier design. I know of at least eight design differences between the two turntables which result in a more natural sound.
Last edited:
I saw a reference to this article by Jeff Day in Karen Sumner's thread about audio language.
@adamaley, I enjoyed Jeff Day's article. Thank you for posting the link and bringing it to my attention. I can particularly relate to the following passage as it relates to my new system and the thread I started to describe its sound.
"Naturalness: This is something that is almost never discussed in audio but may be one of the most important attributes in providing a satisfying re-creation of a musical event. The one attribute that I hear in much of high-end audio these days is an artificial tonality, the music simply sounds synthetic and no longer real. Instruments don’t sound of themselves, but a new hyper-real synthetic recreation. I find this sound to be the very antithesis of engaging.
Causes: To my ears certain elements add to this creation. Inert speaker enclosures and especially speaker enclosure made from synthetic materials, ceramic and diamond coated drivers, metal film/metal oxide resistors, solid state rectification, too much silver in the circuit and systems that focus of removing all vestiges of harmonic distortion. I think it was Herb Reichert that said things sound like what they are made of and that is certainly what I hear. Synthetic materials produce synthetic tone. I can’t remember the last time I heard an audio system in a high-end dealer that didn’t sound artificial, and seemingly the more a system costs the worse it gets. The target of super high spatial resolution, super low harmonic distortion, airy highs and black backgrounds espoused by the high end is a dead end for many of us."
Meditations on High-Fidelity: Andy Moore shares his audio insights from the Land Down Under! - Jeff's Place
Andy Moore traveled all the way from Australia to Seattle for a work-related conference, and while in the Emerald City, Andy made a 400 mile plus side trip to stop by Jeff's Place for a visit. It was a pleasure and true honor to meet Andy and get to know him, and I'm so glad Andy was... Read More »jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com
@adamaley, I enjoyed Jeff Day's article. Thank you for posting the link and bringing it to my attention. I can particularly relate to the following passage as it relates to my new system and the thread I started to describe its sound.
"Naturalness: This is something that is almost never discussed in audio but may be one of the most important attributes in providing a satisfying re-creation of a musical event. The one attribute that I hear in much of high-end audio these days is an artificial tonality, the music simply sounds synthetic and no longer real. Instruments don’t sound of themselves, but a new hyper-real synthetic recreation. I find this sound to be the very antithesis of engaging.
Causes: To my ears certain elements add to this creation. Inert speaker enclosures and especially speaker enclosure made from synthetic materials, ceramic and diamond coated drivers, metal film/metal oxide resistors, solid state rectification, too much silver in the circuit and systems that focus of removing all vestiges of harmonic distortion. I think it was Herb Reichert that said things sound like what they are made of and that is certainly what I hear. Synthetic materials produce synthetic tone. I can’t remember the last time I heard an audio system in a high-end dealer that didn’t sound artificial, and seemingly the more a system costs the worse it gets. The target of super high spatial resolution, super low harmonic distortion, airy highs and black backgrounds espoused by the high end is a dead end for many of us."
Jeff Day quotes -
Yes, it's a word. But I suspect the nominalists will object to turning an adjective (natural) into a noun -- into "naturalness". Whatever. Used for audio, I'm fine with "natural" and "natural sound". Maybe Jeff Day should read here as the concept most definitely is discussed in Peter's thread and elsewhere, sometimes with furious objection. But it is good to see positive publicity for the topic more broadly, along with the contributions of Karen and others. Thanks to @adamaley for bringing attention to the article.
It would be interesting for Day or Reichert to state the inverse of this. Day prefers to talk in the negative -- what does not sound natural. Would that be something like "natural materials produce natural tone" ? He lists synthetic materials he believes sound synthetic. What materials sound natural?
I like the consequences Day presents that come from talking about materials, such as "The target of super high spatial resolution, super low harmonic distortion, airy highs and black backgrounds espoused by the high end is a dead end for many of us." But I don't think talking about materials is the way to get there and is ultimately a distraction that could produce more heat than light. Day likes wood - great, so do I. But I'm leery of presupposing a particular assessment based on materials. Let's listen first. Peter's post #5 here begins to characterize that sound. I actually prefer his approach.
While urging caution over introducing new terminology, I appreciate the idea behind that section of Day's column titled: "A Musical Language for Evaluating Audio Performance".
Yes, it's a word. But I suspect the nominalists will object to turning an adjective (natural) into a noun -- into "naturalness". Whatever. Used for audio, I'm fine with "natural" and "natural sound". Maybe Jeff Day should read here as the concept most definitely is discussed in Peter's thread and elsewhere, sometimes with furious objection. But it is good to see positive publicity for the topic more broadly, along with the contributions of Karen and others. Thanks to @adamaley for bringing attention to the article.
It would be interesting for Day or Reichert to state the inverse of this. Day prefers to talk in the negative -- what does not sound natural. Would that be something like "natural materials produce natural tone" ? He lists synthetic materials he believes sound synthetic. What materials sound natural?
I like the consequences Day presents that come from talking about materials, such as "The target of super high spatial resolution, super low harmonic distortion, airy highs and black backgrounds espoused by the high end is a dead end for many of us." But I don't think talking about materials is the way to get there and is ultimately a distraction that could produce more heat than light. Day likes wood - great, so do I. But I'm leery of presupposing a particular assessment based on materials. Let's listen first. Peter's post #5 here begins to characterize that sound. I actually prefer his approach.
While urging caution over introducing new terminology, I appreciate the idea behind that section of Day's column titled: "A Musical Language for Evaluating Audio Performance".
I allways liked our world , actually I love life because it is wonderful , like beautifil nature , like deep and complex science, like our advanced hearing system every thing is more complex than we think. It seems there is no end in this beautiful world.
I hope I never die and see the world more than 1000 years.
It will be interesting to see what happen to high end audio in the future.
I very like to think about how our brain react to different sound.
I allways told I love natural sound of Paper drivers and tone beauty of copper and ...
What makes me think more is how we react to these audio components when we hear different music types. I think it is a complex subject
thank you Peter for your topic
I hope I never die and see the world more than 1000 years.
It will be interesting to see what happen to high end audio in the future.
I very like to think about how our brain react to different sound.
I allways told I love natural sound of Paper drivers and tone beauty of copper and ...
What makes me think more is how we react to these audio components when we hear different music types. I think it is a complex subject
thank you Peter for your topic
People have talked about the "naturalness" of materials for decades...pretty much since the introduction of synthetic materials into audio products. Day introduces nothing new here. One the first "gurus" in audio I met was convinced that things sound like what they are made of and to a large degree I think he was right. This extended to things like racks, shelves, what the cables sat on etc. etc. etc.
I remember there was a mini craze (at least in this part of Europe) around the application of C34 resin to drivers to make them sound more "natural". I think it was a natural mastic like something you would treat a piece of art with but it was of natural origin rather than synthetic poly urethane or vinyl alcohol or whatever guys are treating their drivers with (what is Aquaplas that JBL used forever?)
Having heard lots of horn materials now, I still think good old stacked and milled birch or beech plywood or hardwood makes the best damped least obvious horn signature for a given shape horn (the horn shape, as Earl Geddes demonstrated, is also quite important). That is why many Altec fans are getting replicas of Altec multicell horns out of wood as they sound better than the original metal ones.
Interestingly, Cessaro went away from wood horns to some kind of synthetic stone polymer because it was more dense and "dead" Would have been interesting to hear the same speaker with a horn from both materials to see if they really made a good decision there or not.
I learned about Aquaplas while researching the M9500s:
Aquaplas is an acoustic treatment JBL brushed on speaker cones. It is used to dampen resonances as well as to add mass to woofer cones. For compression driver diaphragms it is sprayed on very lightly to reduce the inherent resonances. The material has been applied in other industries to materials to reduce resonance and noise, eg. diesel generators, movie cameras and the USS Albacore submarine. I believe it is a product of the Blachford Acoustics Group, later named AntiVibe.
Aquaplas is made with silica and clay along with with some type of bulking agent. I suppose those are natural ingredients. It may also contain a set of pigments to aid in the bulking structure. The clays used might be to give both structure and rheological characteristics (flow and deformation science), allowing the proper viscosity for the fluid to allow spray application. It was also available in a spackle form. JBL tinted their Aquaplas a light green.
Similar threads
