Taiko Tana-LPS-Setchi---listening
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
In our experience metals in simple shapes have to be damped to minimise oscillatory behaviour, ringing. Transmissibility in metals is very high and damping very low, so it tends to ring like a bell. Brass and copper have roughly twice the damping factor of steel which has roughly twice the damping factor of aluminium. We prefer to use copper, damped with panzerholz where possible but both have serious drawbacks, cost, weight, machining and finishing difficulty. For the Tana top platter for example we cannot use copper because of the extreme tolerance required, we use a special grade of aluminium with very tight tolerances because there can be no pockets of air between the sandwich layers, these air pockets can cause oscillations which can cause errors in the Table Stable feedback loop. It's very hard to get the required tolerance in a machined copper plate. Panzerholz is very nice as its stiff, has a very high damping factor and very low transmissibility, but it's also slightly compliant, we can get it to be completely flat by applying a large pressure force over an extended period of time.
This is interesting indeed.....
When I first placed my Victor TT-101 in granite plinth with three outboard bronze armpods on my Herzan TS-140........I had all the stainless steel spikes resting directly on the aluminium Herzan top-plate
Upon switching on the power....an RFI/EMI hum was emitted from the speakers.
After much anguish and the help of my Russian electrician.....we placed plastic poker chips under all 12 steel spikes
And voila......total silence
Mostly transient and pulse measurements. Something that could explain your improvements - I am almost sure they will not show in this type of graphs.
There is a lot more than damping when analyzing the vibrational behavior of a defined body - mass and shape can not be ignored, as they define the boundaries.
Damping analysis usually considers material damping and structural damping - it seems to me that in this type of application structural damping is dominant. Although I have no direct experience in mechanical analysis it seems to me that the problem is much more complex than it seems - at less I have seen people spending long times in Comsol Multiphysics to simulate such structures.
Just my .02 about platforms ...
And voila......total silence
Nice job! How do you like the herzan underneath your tt?
Ofcourse! I was specifically replying to the “just metal” quote in the post you quoted.
They are related but structural should definately be dominant in magnitude.
Some of your hypotheses in this and other related threads may not be that far-fetched imho.
back to the 'promised' impressions of the dart pre on the digital side (earlier I focused on the vinyl impressions) with the Taiko Tana TS-150 underneath, and the stock TS-150 now under the SGM server. how does the Select II equation differ with those active devices switched?
it is interesting and has taken me a few days to digest. there are trade offs, but the net is a gain. it's missing a bit of the density of the Taiko Tana under the SGM.....but only a bit. but everywhere else it's a slight gain. higher transparency, more focus and more lively. the bass has more slam and authority. more flow and forward lean to the music. the music is more compelling and profound. there is this tension and projection of the music.....more 3D and reach-out-and-touch holographic. the imaging has moved forward beyond the speakers toward the listener. these are individually quite small things that add up to greater immersion.
the digital is just astonishing right now. i'm lost into it really.
and the vinyl had a nice lift (as I previously commented) from the move of the Taiko Tana version of the TS-150 to the dart pre (considering the internal phono's). I've not done any tape since the move, but i'm sure that will be some better too similarly to the digital (without any trade-offs as i'm taking nothing away there).
the next question will be when I upgrade the stock TS-150 (now under the SGM) to the Taiko Tana level; will it end up under the SGM then, or.......the dac box of the MSB? (the Taiko Tana under the dart pre is never moving away from it). from feedback from Ed and Emile of Taiko/SGM, it has the greatest effect under a dac. so I figure that is where it will be. of course; the SGM is also slated for an upgrade to it's circuits too in the near future, as is the MSB with it's Ethernet renderer. so nothing is standing still.
it is interesting and has taken me a few days to digest. there are trade offs, but the net is a gain. it's missing a bit of the density of the Taiko Tana under the SGM.....but only a bit. but everywhere else it's a slight gain. higher transparency, more focus and more lively. the bass has more slam and authority. more flow and forward lean to the music. the music is more compelling and profound. there is this tension and projection of the music.....more 3D and reach-out-and-touch holographic. the imaging has moved forward beyond the speakers toward the listener. these are individually quite small things that add up to greater immersion.
the digital is just astonishing right now. i'm lost into it really.
and the vinyl had a nice lift (as I previously commented) from the move of the Taiko Tana version of the TS-150 to the dart pre (considering the internal phono's). I've not done any tape since the move, but i'm sure that will be some better too similarly to the digital (without any trade-offs as i'm taking nothing away there).
the next question will be when I upgrade the stock TS-150 (now under the SGM) to the Taiko Tana level; will it end up under the SGM then, or.......the dac box of the MSB? (the Taiko Tana under the dart pre is never moving away from it). from feedback from Ed and Emile of Taiko/SGM, it has the greatest effect under a dac. so I figure that is where it will be. of course; the SGM is also slated for an upgrade to it's circuits too in the near future, as is the MSB with it's Ethernet renderer. so nothing is standing still.
Last edited:
I like it a lot.
With the separated arm-pods, not only is the turntable and plinth subjected to structure-borne and air-borne vibrations affecting the shelf upon which they are mounted.
And with both subwoofers sitting directly under the wall-mounted shelf.....the amount of low-frequency air-borne vibrations entering the shelf is significant.
And that can be seen from the digital displays on the Herzan LCD....
Interference of active platform SMPS electronics under my various sensitive components psus was another main reason I’ve decided to stick w passive platforms solutions.
I think that's what the Taiko Tana top plates solve from my limited understanding of their systems....
Marc, were you able to identify that as such during your trials? I only became aware of it as a potential issue by reading this thread and the results of the testing with regard to high frequencies and interference.
Peter, no, this was purely a theoretical disadvantage for me, with my tube gear and associated psus being prone to hum.
Since there is somewhat of a consensus that passive pneumatics are better suited to springy suspended wooden floors, and potential of hum issues with active, my choice was an easy one in the end, sealed by the advantages heard in SQ.
Since there is somewhat of a consensus that passive pneumatics are better suited to springy suspended wooden floors, and potential of hum issues with active, my choice was an easy one in the end, sealed by the advantages heard in SQ.
Current laboratory active tables are probably an overkill for audio purposes - I can easily consider that in our crazy application an active table with just two degrees of freedom optimized for audio would sound very similar to those ultra expensive tables!
Francisco, it’s not my consensus, but other’s.
When I put it out there that in my passive Stacore v active Kuraka trial, passive was superior across the board, I was told by the proponents of active that my springy wooden floor was not the ideal surface for active to show of its best.
Now of course this could be right. Otoh, it could also be because passive is better suited to audio applications than active irrespective of the floor.
I personally don’t subscribe to the aforementioned consensus, I’m more likely to consider a new passive design that has been formulated from the ground up to be optimal for our uses to be the reason.
The lack of hum issues in going passive was an additional parallel concern for me.
When I put it out there that in my passive Stacore v active Kuraka trial, passive was superior across the board, I was told by the proponents of active that my springy wooden floor was not the ideal surface for active to show of its best.
Now of course this could be right. Otoh, it could also be because passive is better suited to audio applications than active irrespective of the floor.
I personally don’t subscribe to the aforementioned consensus, I’m more likely to consider a new passive design that has been formulated from the ground up to be optimal for our uses to be the reason.
The lack of hum issues in going passive was an additional parallel concern for me.
Marc, did you hear a hum issue when you tried the active isolation in your system?
Similar threads
- Sticky
