The necessity for absolute tt speed control
- Thread starter spiritofmusic
- Start date
Oh, I swapped the Xerxes et al way before I went all tubes. Interestingly I've heard Vertere at a few shows, and the Roksan signature is still present, albeit at way greater price of entry, and it still leaves me cold.
Interestingly going to the SOTA speed stable upgrade on my current tt has introduced a hint of correctness or neutrality in my sound, losing a little of the "loosey goosey" quality I had before. Most evident on my TT now being less accommodating on the worst masters/pressings I own.
I've counted maybe a half dozen albums fully exposed as challenging, with dozens more revealed as hugely more immersive and informative.
A real "reassessment" type of upgrade.
Interestingly going to the SOTA speed stable upgrade on my current tt has introduced a hint of correctness or neutrality in my sound, losing a little of the "loosey goosey" quality I had before. Most evident on my TT now being less accommodating on the worst masters/pressings I own.
I've counted maybe a half dozen albums fully exposed as challenging, with dozens more revealed as hugely more immersive and informative.
A real "reassessment" type of upgrade.
It would be interesting if @microstrip installed a Roksan Xerxes on @spiritofmusic's current system.
Tim, it seems to me you have a fear of being blindfolded, you might actually like itYour example is not exactly what i suggested. You went from a DD TT with a low mass platter, relying heavily on constant feedback to the same table with better feedback, of coarse there is a big uptick in sound quality by better speed stability. I suggest you have someone dial up or down the speed 0,005 rpm using your same reference table with the super precise/fast adjustment. and then honestly tell me you can hear the difference in pitch. I must admit it takes a lot higher speed change for me to hear a difference, as long as the speed is steady .
I kept meaning to get back to your message.
The blindfolded leading the double blindfolded. Let me take off this damn nanny mask first. I am sick of stuff covering my face.
I agree that people may be more sensitive or less sensitive to processing vibrations in the air.
Yes, you are correct, feedback is constant in a practical sense - the table reports speed to its controller at the rate of 166.289 times per second. The controller can adjust voltage at a rate of over 1000 changes per second. In actual practice deviation from a perfect 33? may occur once only per side. This is a different approach with a different type of motor and technology from what you've described. I believe it is based partly on technique used in microchip fabrication and is computer driven. This is not an argument but a description. I'm not saying one drive mechanism is superior but I won't rule out that one can be superior, at least in theory. ( cf. Moncrieff's classic paper on drive technology) But, I bend the knee to implementation.
The controller no longer supports speed adjustment so your suggested experiment cannot happen. I think where we are differing is you want me to gauge or assess the effects of speed control for a single instant or instance and that's not how I work. Pitch is but one aspect of music and I believe stable accuracy impacts much or most of what we experience given that timing is half of the signal wave form. Timing impacts everything in music. If someone was to do that v. narrow experiment let them listen to a steady state single tone for ... what, ten minutes, then let the change occur sometime after that. As I wrote earlier "I don't really know the numerical threshold of audibility for a single blindfolded instance of comparison." - whether or not 0.005 rpm difference is pitch differentiatable within the scope of your experiment. Accuracy implies stability over time.
Creating a dichotomy between stability and accuracy is easy, but imo, it is a false dichotomy if not an unnecessary one. It's not like one is required to make a choice. I prefer not to settle for one while giving up the other.
Tim, i have made a choice, a choice to use a motor that is less speed stable by a factor 10, but substantially better sounding, and chosen not to use feedback in this particular application even tough it is available at the flip of a switch. This choice has been made after substantial experimentation with belts, capacitors motor- housings, controllers and a variety of motors over a 6 month period. The difference is not subtle, and my choice was made solely on listening results. It is of coarse a completely different type of drive system/control system than what you are using, here platter mass/inertia are a big part in the equationI kept meaning to get back to your message.
The blindfolded leading the double blindfolded. Let me take off this damn nanny mask first. I am sick of stuff covering my face.
I agree that people may be more sensitive or less sensitive to processing vibrations in the air.
Yes, you are correct, feedback is constant in a practical sense - the table reports speed to its controller at the rate of 166.289 times per second. The controller can adjust voltage at a rate of over 1000 changes per second. In actual practice deviation from a perfect 33? may occur once only per side. This is a different approach with a different type of motor and technology from what you've described. I believe it is based partly on technique used in microchip fabrication and is computer driven. This is not an argument but a description. I'm not saying one drive mechanism is superior but I won't rule out that one can be superior, at least in theory. ( cf. Moncrieff's classic paper on drive technology) But, I bend the knee to implementation.
The controller no longer supports speed adjustment so your suggested experiment cannot happen. I think where we are differing is you want me to gauge or assess the effects of speed control for a single instant or instance and that's not how I work. Pitch is but one aspect of music and I believe stable accuracy impacts much or most of what we experience given that timing is half of the signal wave form. Timing impacts everything in music. If someone was to do that v. narrow experiment let them listen to a steady state single tone for ... what, ten minutes, then let the change occur sometime after that. As I wrote earlier "I don't really know the numerical threshold of audibility for a single blindfolded instance of comparison." - whether or not 0.005 rpm difference is pitch differentiatable within the scope of your experiment. Accuracy implies stability over time.
Creating a dichotomy between stability and accuracy is easy, but imo, it is a false dichotomy if not an unnecessary one. It's not like one is required to make a choice. I prefer not to settle for one while giving up the other.
Last edited:
How this looks to me......
i have 2 turntables without any servo/feedback speed feedback regulation process, and two with servo/feedback regulation. my ears certainly can hear the difference.
3 of the 4 are high level modern designs. one DD is vintage.
i have 2 turntables without any servo/feedback speed feedback regulation process, and two with servo/feedback regulation. my ears certainly can hear the difference.
3 of the 4 are high level modern designs. one DD is vintage.
Last edited:
Mike, That is quite interesting. I presume the CS port and EMT do not use feedback while the Saskia and NVS do use feedback. Is that correct?
Could you describe what you hear and your level of certainty that it is the feedback in the motor controller that you say is responsible for the differences you hear from these four very differently designed turntables?
You are in a wonderful and enviable position with these four turntables at your fingertips to explore such questions.
Yes, but you do not know the real technical reason of sound difference between them concerning just the drive system - but we will surely feel tempted to imagine why ...
(...) As I wrote earlier "I don't really know the numerical threshold of audibility for a single blindfolded instance of comparison." - whether or not 0.005 rpm difference is pitch differentiatable within the scope of your experiment. Accuracy implies stability over time.
Creating a dichotomy between stability and accuracy is easy, but imo, it is a false dichotomy if not an unnecessary one. It's not like one is required to make a choice. I prefer not to settle for one while giving up the other.
Well, I can assure you no one will be able to get 0.005 rpm difference.
And yes, what we should address is simply accuracy and mostly precision. Stability is not a concern, unless we address very poor designs, such as the Forsell DC motor controller. The discussion can be very simple, unless we want to justify our expensive tools or preferences ...
no; the EMT948 and Wave Kinetics NVS both have servo controls. fine sounding speed perfect spinners for sure, never felt either lost anything from this.
the CS Port LFT1 and Saskia model two have no servo feedback circuits. the Saskia does have provisions for a feedback loop with an optical reader in the plinth cavity, so it's an option to be added. but it's not in play now. Win told me he put that in, in case at some point he thought it would help.
i have no 'Peter' or 'Micro' levels
of certainty about the cause and effect of servo. that's not my deal. OTOH there is just a relaxed and agile feel to the music with the CS Port and Saskia which draws me into them. and a grainless ethereal way of doing things.note; this post is a 'natural' free zone.
I have no certainty either Mike. Thanks for the correction and for your description of the sound. It’s another data point which is consistent with recent observations I have had.
Do you find you listen to the CS port and Saskia more often than to the other tables?
Do you find you listen to the CS port and Saskia more often than to the other tables?
yes.
but it's not that simple as this servo issue.
the EMT948 has my Miyajima Infinity mono 0.7 mil cartridge on it. so i'm only using that when i'm playing a stereo cutter head mono pressing.
the NVS has the standard Durand wood arm wand Telos with the other Infinity mono, the 1.0 mil for the early wide groove mono pressings. so it gets those.
recently i added a second Durand Tosca to the NVS. but not all Etsuro Gold cartridges are created equal, and the phono cable and phono stage i'm using for that Tosca are not equivalent to the LFD phono cable and CS Port phono/EMIA silver SUT. i can switch the cables and phono between the 2 Toscas as they are side by side, but i've found that the synergy with the Saskia of the cable/phono/SUT is not completely matched with the NVS synergy. so i'm investigating stepping up in my solid state phono performance beyond my internal dart phonos.
the NVS/Tosca/Etsuro Gold/dart phono is a fine sounding combo i've only had in play for a short time, so this story has not yet played out.
i've spent the last 2 years maxing out the CS Port and Saskia, ignoring the NVS. those took awhile to get all the way right. so i just need to work through it as i do want all three tt's to be at their best.
One day, just for kicks i would recommend measuring speed with a RoadRunner, you will probably be surprised how far from perfect speed is, especially on the Saskia, and how little it matters sound wiseno; the EMT948 and Wave Kinetics NVS both have servo controls. fine sounding speed perfect spinners for sure, never felt either lost anything from this.
the CS Port LFT1 and Saskia model two have no servo feedback circuits. the Saskia does have provisions for a feedback loop with an optical reader in the plinth cavity, so it's an option to be added. but it's not in play now. Win told me he put that in, in case at some point he thought it would help.
i have no 'Peter' or 'Micro' levels
note; this post is a 'natural' free zone.
I would venture a guess that Win put that optical sensor in for a optional speed reading display also, and decided against it. Sometimes it is better not to know, or our OCD can get the better of us
Last edited:
One day, just for kicks i would recommend measuring speed with a RoadRunner, you will probably be surprised how far from perfect speed is, especially on the Saskia, and how little it matters sound wise
i have a Roadrunner, but it will stay in my tweak drawer where it belongs.
i bought it years ago in a weak moment. i must stay in my lane.i do use a strobe to check the Saskia speed from time to time and it stays spot on. the CS Port has a built in strobe which i watch and the speed becomes perfect at about 90 minutes of playing. i can listen to both within a couple of minutes of running (so absolutely agree on the significance of absolute speed) and the speed of both always seems 'right'. i know that both do get 'more perfect' after an hour, and some days they both keep running all day.
i'm in my happy place on this issue.
if you ever visit i will allow you to use the Roadrunner.
Thank you Mike ! I have come to the point where i promised myself not to adjust speed unless it sounds off, but am in reality setting a perfect 33,333rpm when i have flipped the recordi have a Roadrunner, but it will stay in my tweak drawer where it belongs.
i do use a strobe to check the Saskia speed from time to time and it stays spot on. the CS Port has a built in strobe which i watch and the speed becomes perfect at about 90 minutes of playing. i can listen to both within a couple of minutes of running (so absolutely agree on the significance of absolute speed) and the speed of both always seems 'right'. i know that both do get 'more perfect' after an hour, and some days they both keep running all day.
i'm in my happy place on this issue.
if you ever visit i will allow you to use the Roadrunner.
I have installed a on/off switch on the cable connecting the RR with the controller so it only takes about 20 seconds to turn feedback on and off. But i should probably just put the RR in a draw and suppress my OCD
one obvious issue is that the CS Port is a string drive, high mass platter design, and the Saskia is an idler, but one designed to sound much like a string drive high mass platter design. so it's fair to consider that maybe these issues contribute significantly to the presentation along with the non servo. i suppose one would need to try a servo on both to know what is doing what to a higher degree.
That both very capable designers have made the same choice in execution of feedback in their otherwise different TT's, could be a indication.
Having experimented with both, I find music reproduction superior, without speed feedback and continuous speed corrections.
Continuous speed correction is an indication of other issues not necessarily related with the motor
however I am using Roadrunner and Vibration measurements, as predictive maintenance tools. They both together are providing very early trustworthy maintenance indications, related with the bearing condition , lubrication, belt/pulley cleaning and belt condition
Continuous speed correction is an indication of other issues not necessarily related with the motor
however I am using Roadrunner and Vibration measurements, as predictive maintenance tools. They both together are providing very early trustworthy maintenance indications, related with the bearing condition , lubrication, belt/pulley cleaning and belt condition
Last edited:
on the CS Port website in the description of my turntable, the LFT1. when i first read it, it just made sense. it's no longer anywhere on their website.
it was a picture, i could not simply cut and paste it, so i transcribed it to myself to use when i wanted to relate this idea; had to clean up the translation a bit so it read properly. not sure if it was something that CS Port wrote themselves, or if they saw it and decided to use it. my guess is that it's source was Japanese. a very 'zen' sort of way to put things.
when i listen to the CS Port LFT1, it's doing some very special things i've not otherwise ever heard before in the same way. not big things. but musically important things. delicate inner textures and fine shadings. i'm addicted. that grainless musical window reveals much.
Last edited:
Similar threads
