Turntable Evaluation - what do you need to know and how do you know it?

[Folsom]

One thing I can tell you that for sure is not useful is anything that checks the speed once per revolution. Anything that does that is useless for actual speed control.

Btw, Herzan have worse performance below 1.2hz than a non-active table. I'm not sure that means anything but it's where one would wiggle the most.

 

[tima]

most turntables are not candidates for active because they are sources of noise. which is not a criticism; only a data point.

Could you say more on this? Is the non-candidacy for active a result of the table's self-noise triggering the piezo electric active isolation table which has no effect on table generated noise?

I thought every turntable as a mechnical device is a source of self noise.

this only measures noise coming through the footers, and i'm not claiming that lower noise makes for a better sounding turntable, but it will measure the plinth/motor noise.

I'm a little confused: When you say "this only measures noise coming through the footers ..." Is "this" the Taiko Tana device you use? And it measures noise coming from the table through the turntable's footers? (versus the rack or platform footers.)

 

[microstrip]

So, per the OP, how can we learn/acquire that and others.
What, in your studied opinion Micro, are the relevant parameters for gauging turntable self noise?

I would look for the spectra of the typical 3150 Hz signal - we can find many examples in the Miller Audio Research site, that stores the technical measurements carried by Paul Miller for the HifiNews reviews - http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/ . We have to register to see the measurements, but is is free. For an example see https://www.hifinews.com/content/pro-ject-debut-iii-s-audiophile-turntable-lab-report

Another interesting site https://www.mvaudiolabs.com/vynil/dual-1218-measurements-2/speed-stability-analysis/. Designing virtual instruments for measurements is a challenging project, but needs considerable manpower - it is not compatible with listening to music. Unfortunately we do not the equivalent of the scrape flutter measurement, designed to test the more performant professional tape machines of the past, clearly separating the big Studers and ATRs from consumer machines, for vinyl. People just refer to dynamic drag, but we do not measure it properly. Some people are IMHO wrongly assuming that steady measurements of drag are meaningful, as they do not correlate with sound quality subjective assessments.

An interesting case study - in 1966 Gordon Holt published an article in Stereophile complaining for the ignorance about scrape flutter : https://www.stereophile.com/content/why-argue Fortunately the problem was solved, but only much later: the Altair TD2S http://www.manquen.net/audio/index.php?page=1 .

 

[microstrip]

this one is simple.

assuming you have a solid floor (6" of concrete works), and a solid rack, place it on a piezo electric active isolation table with a read out screen, turn the turntable on, and see if any resonance shows up to attenuate.

my NVS registers zero noise. zero. some others not so much. my Saskia model two showed a good deal of noise. i'd assume that my CS Port would also show noise but i have not tried that. we know what happened with Chris's AS-2000 on the piezo table.

most turntables are not candidates for active because they are sources of noise. which is not a criticism; only a data point.

this only measures noise coming through the footers, and i'm not claiming that lower noise makes for a better sounding turntable, but it will measure the plinth/motor noise.

passive isolation solutions can work just fine for tt's with noise through the footers. but YMMV as to the result. that is what my Rockport had, was an integral passive air suspension. along with an air bearing......so does the TechDAS AF1 series.

before anyone gets too defensive; my opinion is that there is almost zero relevance of motor/plinth noise through footers and overall turntable performance. so what good is this measurement? i will say that fine detail retrieval of the NVS (sitting on my Tana active system) at warp 9 is remarkable. the active really makes a difference if it can be used.

Mike,

This blade has two edges - we can consider that all mechanical systems create noise. Some turntables drag this noise to ground, others to the LP and cartridge ... How should we interpret the figure you read from your table? IMHO, we risk it is a one more misleading measurement, as it can not be correlated with sound quality.

Also, we should remember that the bandwidth of active tables is reduced to low frequencies . No one can tell us that your table meter is measuring the proper noise frequencies that affect vinyl playback.

Just addressing technical aspects, not the active table fight!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Could you say more on this? Is the non-candidacy for active a result of the table's self-noise triggering the piezo electric active isolation table which has no effect on table generated noise?

I thought every turntable as a mechnical device is a source of self noise.

yes; every turntable has 'some' resonance somewhere, but some turntables don't allow enough resonance to reach the footers to show up as resonance to the peizo sensors of the active device. i don't have enough data to correlate this lack of perceived resonance to objective tt performance, only that when a tt does not itself cause noise to be detected, it then can be used with the active device and get a positive effect. it becomes a candidate.

one of my tt's is a candidate, one for sure is not, and one is likely not.

the issue is any noise/resonance detected by the peizo sensors gets attenuated, then since the turntable continues to generate the same noise a feedback loop is created that cannot be eliminated. this feedback loop makes tt performance worse, not better. and eventually it will burn out the active device as it's continually attenuating.

I'm a little confused: When you say "this only measures noise coming through the footers ..." Is "this" the Taiko Tana device you use? And it measures noise coming from the table through the turntable's footers? (versus the rack or platform footers.)

yes; the screen on the Table Stable (branded Herzan in the Western Hemisphere) TS unit has a setting where noise in the 3 axis are displayed. it only shows what it detects. if the tt platter is moving without any music then it will show the resonance from the footers resting on the top plate plus any coming from the rack. if you play music or even clap your hands close to the active device it might pick up air borne resonance too and show it as noise on the screen to be attenuated.

there is no function to determine the source of the noise exactly. which is why you have a solid rack and solid floor to remove those as much as possible as resonance sources. obviously ground noise is always present to some degree and that is also attenuated. a 'soft' rack or floor would show up as noise on the screen especially with music playing and this would cause the same issues of constant feedback as the turntable resonance coming through the footers.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

This blade has two edges - we can consider that all mechanical systems create noise. Some turntables drag this noise to ground, others to the LP and cartridge ... How should we interpret the figure you read from your table? IMHO, we risk it is a one more misleading measurement, as it can not be correlated with sound quality.

my post was crystal clear that i do not correlate lack of resonance to the footers with turntable performance. i said it multiple times. it's just a data point. the only clear objective advantage is that you can then choose an active device and a possible positive result from that. YMMV.

and agree it's possible that designing the tt to push resonance to footers instead of the plinth might have positive benefits. that would be something to consider. all possible. how to effectively measure that? or just not have the resonance to begin with? or isolate the motor to contain resonance? or have a motor with minimal resonance?

Also, we should remember that the bandwidth of active tables is reduced to low frequencies . No one can tell us that your table meter is measuring the proper noise frequencies that affect vinyl playback.

Just addressing technical aspects, not the active table fight!

which is why Emile and Ed developed the Tana 'system'; to address the whole frequency range and not just low frequencies. the Tana 'system' includes the TS platform + a 10mm top layer of panzerholtz screwed to the top plate + a thin rubber membrane + a Daiza panzerholtz shelf on top + a robustly built outboard linear power supply sitting on it's own Daiza shelf.

the Daiza product was a result of this research; trying to optimize the potential of the TS active system.

it's the whole system that addresses the entire frequency spectrum.

my original post was only intended to offer a method to measure self noise from turntables, not to infer that an active device is a panacea for turntables. in my opinion it does push performance forward for those tt's that can use it, when used in the right rack and floor context.

 

[PeterA]

my NVS registers zero noise. zero. some others not so much. my Saskia model two showed a good deal of noise. i'd assume that my CS Port would also show noise but i have not tried that. we know what happened with Chris's AS-2000 on the piezo table.

most turntables are not candidates for active because they are sources of noise. which is not a criticism; only a data point.

Mike, you seem to be suggesting here that your Saskia, your CS Port, and Rockitman's AS2000, among many others, generate noise detectable by piezo active isolation tables while your NVS does not. Perhaps those other tables are designed to drain internal vibrations or noise down through their supports into the supporting structure of the rack system while the NVS is designed to retain the noise somewhere in its own structure.

It seems to me that the important thing is to channel the turntable system's self generated or internal noise out and away from the platter and armboard where it would otherwise be amplified by the cartridge and heard through the speakers. This is a design choice and implementation issue made by the designers.

The NVS addresses the noise issue in a different way somehow based on your enthusiasm for its sound. This information about how the various turntables perform on your active isolation table does not seem to in any way tell us anything about the audible/subjective performance of the various turntables, only that some are not candidates for active isolation platforms.

How does knowing whether or not a turntable is a candidate for an active platform tell us anything about its performance or address what is being asked in the original post?

The fact that your three turntables all behave differently in this regard, and that you seem to enjoy each one very much, would imply that this information about candidacy for active isolation is not really relevant to our decision process. And this seems to be what Micro keeps suggesting about the relevancy of measurements to subjective turntable enjoyment. I guess the pertinent question is this: what really matters when trying to select a turntable? If the answer to that question is simply sound, then the question becomes what attributes contribute most to the sound of those turntables which people like.

You, Mike, would seem to be in a position to answer this given that you have three turntables of very different design which all seem to perform at a very high, or pleasing level. What can we know about your three tables, or ddk's superb collection of tables, that can lead us to some answers.

I find this thread fascinating, but I don't really know if the discussion will get us anywhere toward a better understanding of the questions raised in the OP.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, you seem to be suggesting here that your Saskia, your CS Port, and Rockitman's AS2000, among many others, generate noise detectable by piezo active isolation tables while your NVS does not. Perhaps those other tables are designed to drain internal vibrations or noise down through their supports into the supporting structure of the rack system while the NVS is designed to retain the noise somewhere in its own structure.

It seems to me that the important thing is to channel the turntable system's self generated or internal noise out and away from the platter and armboard where it would otherwise be amplified by the cartridge and heard through the speakers. This is a design choice and implementation issue made by the designers.

The NVS addresses the noise issue in a different way somehow based on your enthusiasm for its sound. This information about how the various turntables perform on your active isolation table does not seem to in any way tell us anything about the audible/subjective performance of the various turntables, only that some are not candidates for active isolation platforms.

How does knowing whether or not a turntable is a candidate for an active platform tell us anything about its performance or address what is being asked in the original post?

The fact that your three turntables all behave differently in this regard, and that you seem to enjoy each one very much, would imply that this information about candidacy for active isolation is not really relevant to our decision process. And this seems to be what Micro keeps suggesting about the relevancy of measurements to subjective turntable enjoyment. I guess the pertinent question is this: what really matters when trying to select a turntable? If the answer to that question is simply sound, then the question becomes what attributes contribute most to the sound of those turntables which people like.

You, Mike, would seem to be in a position to answer this given that you have three turntables of very different design which all seem to perform at a very high, or pleasing level. What can we know about your three tables, or ddk's superb collection of tables, that can lead us to some answers.

I find this thread fascinating, but I don't really know if the discussion will get us anywhere toward a better understanding of the questions raised in the OP.

Peter,

yes, i pretty much agree with your points. and Micro's too.

measurements are not particularly helpful to choose a turntable, and maybe not even to criticize a turntable. OTOH they might give us clues on how best to optimize them. i think i would like to know if my turntable could be improved with an active device. that would be useful. an active device can provide particular performance not otherwise accessible. i wish that both my Saskia and CS Port could utilize an active device. i know they would be even better. but their designs provide amazing performance already, so i am happy about that.

you have your Vibraplane now dormant under your SME 30. i might guess you would like to know what a Tana 'system' might do with your SME 30 if you could. which does not mean you would spend the money to acquire one, but knowing would open that up to you as a possibility. so it would have some value and we would all appreciate knowing that about our turntables.

i think we have to follow our ears. if something gives you better sound, then do it.

 

[microstrip]

... my original post was only intended to offer a method to measure self noise from turntables, not to infer that an active device is a panacea for turntables. in my opinion it does push performance forward for those tt's that can use it, when used in the right rack and floor context.

Surely. But my post was intended to say that measurements must be correlated with something that has a proper meaning, clear and accepted by the community, not random figures given by an arbitrary apparatus. IMHO self noise of equipment is supposed to affect the signal, otherwise we should have to consider the LED displays as self noise.

Most people have poor idea of measurements mostly because they find they do not correlate with anything worth considering. It is why I object to turntable speed displays with five figures supporting claims that X turntable is more accurate than Y ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Surely. But my post was intended to say that measurements must be correlated with something that has a proper meaning, clear and accepted by the community, not random figures given by an arbitrary apparatus. IMHO self noise of equipment is supposed to affect the signal, otherwise we should have to consider the LED displays as self noise.

Most people have poor idea of measurements mostly because they find they do not correlate with anything worth considering. It is why I object to turntable speed displays with five figures supporting claims that X turntable is more accurate than Y ...

Emile uses such an industrial resonance measuring device that can give us more useful measurements than an LED screen. examples have been previously posted.

 

[microstrip]

Emile uses such an industrial resonance measuring device that can give us more useful measurements than an LED screen. examples have been previously posted.

It is an excellent instrument but IMHO much less useful than a common audio spectrometer to access the performance of a turntable. If we want to support a specific measurement we have to either a) have properly analyzed statistical data to support its use (something we do not have in general in this mostly singular cases hobby) or b) a scientific theory and model behind the instrument (the case of the Altair scrape flutter meter I referred).

BTW, I am trying to stick with Tim original post intentions - addressing instruments that can provide consumers with useful and reliable information, not development tools such as his stethoscope!

 

[jeff1225]

This is a very interesting subject. I've been lucky enough to listen to several systems that had some common components, including Lamm electronics and horn/Tannoy speakers. The musical enjoyment of these systems convinced me that I needed to replicate this approach. These same systems had multiple turntables, heavy belt drives like Micro Seiki, direct drives like the SP10 and Denon and idlers like Garrard and EMT.

In these systems, my favorite table was the Micro Seiki 8000. Because no MS 8000 was available when I decided to upgrade from my Transrotor Fat Bob, I looked for a table that had as many attributes of the Micro that I could find at a price I could afford. I ended up buying the Acoustic Signature Ascona because it had several shared design goals of the MS 8000: belt drive, heavy platter, heavy chassis and a fly wheel. I was surprised how much better the Acoustic Signature Ascona was than the Fat Bob, it was not an incremental upgrade.

My next goal is to add an additional turntable that is an idler or a direct drive. I'll use this table with a 3012R so I can really come to understand the differences.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, you seem to be suggesting here that your Saskia, your CS Port, and Rockitman's AS2000, among many others, generate noise detectable by piezo active isolation tables while your NVS does not. Perhaps those other tables are designed to drain internal vibrations or noise down through their supports into the supporting structure of the rack system while the NVS is designed to retain the noise somewhere in its own structure.

It seems to me that the important thing is to channel the turntable system's self generated or internal noise out and away from the platter and armboard where it would otherwise be amplified by the cartridge and heard through the speakers. This is a design choice and implementation issue made by the designers.

hi Peter,

i was in too big a hurry this morning when i answered you and did not read the first part of your post closely enough. now later i've had a chance to more carefully read it. so when i wrote that i agreed, more properly i agreed with the bottom of your post. so i have re-quoted the top of your post above and will below respond to that part.

i do not agree that the NVS retains noise inside it's structure, as opposed to other turntables draining resonance through their footers, as you suggest. you use the word 'perhaps', so i don't want to respond too strongly. but i think it's more fair and objective to say that we just don't know about what resonance, if any, was inside the NVS, and if there was some, where it went. we also don't know the exact nature of the resonance sensed by the peizo sensors from the other turntables. we only know that some did exist and that it set up a feedback loop.....to the degree that i observed. there are things we know and things we don't know.

can resonance be effectively channeled out of the plinth and into the footers? i don't know. can it? where does it go then? into the shelf or rack? or does most of it stay in the turntable? is that the intent of the turntable designer? these are questions i cannot answer. clearly high mass turntables such as my Saskia (220 pounds), my CS-Port (200 pounds), and the AS-2000 (500+ pounds) use high mass and heavy platters (and air bearings) to deal with resonance and typically are placed on high mass racks. these approaches seem to be effective. perfect? another question.

The NVS addresses the noise issue in a different way somehow based on your enthusiasm for its sound. This information about how the various turntables perform on your active isolation table does not seem to in any way tell us anything about the audible/subjective performance of the various turntables, only that some are not candidates for active isolation platforms.

How does knowing whether or not a turntable is a candidate for an active platform tell us anything about its performance or address what is being asked in the original post?

is knowing that a turntable does not send (or sends much less) resonance to it's footers helpful in choosing a turntable?

i think it's one data point that could be helpful to a buyer. you would not buy a turntable for that reason alone. but being able to use active might be a deal maker for some. maybe you have a 86" tall, 750 pound, bass tower 6 feet from your turntable. active would be helpful for that case.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

...you have your Vibraplane now dormant under your SME 30. i might guess you would like to know what a Tana 'system' might do with your SME 30 if you could. which does not mean you would spend the money to acquire one, but knowing would open that up to you as a possibility. so it would have some value and we would all appreciate knowing that about our turntables.

i think we have to follow our ears. if something gives you better sound, then do it.

Hello Mike, I no longer have the Vibraplane, dormant or otherwise, under my SME 30/12. I removed it completely from my rack last week. The Vibraplane is an interesting device. It provided some isolation at certain frequencies and changed the sound of my system. It took me a long time to realize how the sound actually changed, and eventually I actually heard certain tradeoffs.

The sound became more focused, more bold and defined, more robust. Bass became tighter and more impactful. Backgrounds were darker. Images more stark. I valued these attributes for years until I realized that the isolation was also reducing some harmonic content and energy from the music. Was the Vibraplane dampening the energy of the turntable? I don't really know. I eventually decided that those tradeoffs were no longer what I valued, so I removed the isolation. I now find the sound more natural and like my memory of the real thing. Others may have the opposite preference.

I can understand why some listeners would prefer either one of the sounds over the other. My preferences are changing as I move towards a more natural sound. I decided that music played on my system sounds more natural without the Vibraplane, in the context of my gear and room, and my reference of live music.

I have no way of knowing this, but given that experience, and having lived with isolation for years, I am not really that interested in knowing what a Tana 'system' might do for my turntable. Are you aware of any turntables beside your NVS that show no indication of resonances reaching the piezo sensors on the Tana 'system'? I wonder how many people have even attempted to find this out. Have any of your local Seattle listening friends brought over their turntables and placed them on your Tana to see and hear the results?

You have had a very positive experience with one of your three turntables on that 'system', and I respect that. I have not read of other people having a similar experience to yours on their turntables. Until I do read of some similar data points to yours, I do not think I will make the effort to do this experiment. With regard to turntables and the direction of this thread, it seems to me that consensus goes a long way toward knowing whether or not a turntable sounds good. I do appreciate your suggestion, though.

Yes, I agree that we should follow our ears, at least ultimately. This thread is attempting to help us short cut that process somewhat in order to arrive at some basic understanding of how to evaluate turntables before we actually have a chance to listen to them. So far, all I have basically learned from this thread is that Micro does not like my suggestion of using a Sutherland Timeline for checking the speed of various turntables and that measurements do not tell us much about the sound quality of turntables.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Hello Mike, I no longer have the Vibraplane, dormant or otherwise, under my SME 30/12. I removed it completely from my rack last week. The Vibraplane is an interesting device. It provided some isolation at certain frequencies and changed the sound of my system. It took me a long time to realize how the sound actually changed, and eventually I actually heard certain tradeoffs.

The sound became more focused, more bold and defined, more robust. Bass became tighter and more impactful. Backgrounds were darker. Images more stark. I valued these attributes for years until I realized that the isolation was also reducing some harmonic content and energy from the music. Was the Vibraplane dampening the energy of the turntable? I don't really know. I eventually decided that those tradeoffs were no longer what I valued, so I removed the isolation. I now find the sound more natural and like my memory of the real thing. Others may have the opposite preference.

I can understand why some listeners would prefer either one of the sounds over the other. My preferences are changing as I move towards a more natural sound. I decided that music played on my system sounds more natural without the Vibraplane, in the context of my gear and room, and my reference of live music.

I have no way of knowing this, but given that experience, and having lived with isolation for years, I am not really that interested in knowing what a Tana 'system' might do for my turntable. Are you aware of any turntables beside your NVS that show no indication of resonances reaching the piezo sensors on the Tana 'system'? I wonder how many people have even attempted to find this out. Have any of your local Seattle listening friends brought over their turntables and placed them on your Tana to see and hear the results?

You have had a very positive experience with one of your three turntables on that 'system', and I respect that. I have not read of other people having a similar experience to yours on their turntables. Until I do read of some similar data points to yours, I do not think I will make the effort to do this experiment. With regard to turntables and the direction of this thread, it seems to me that consensus goes a long way toward knowing whether or not a turntable sounds good. I do appreciate your suggestion, though.

Yes, I agree that we should follow our ears, at least ultimately. This thread is attempting to help us short cut that process somewhat in order to arrive at some basic understanding of how to evaluate turntables before we actually have a chance to listen to them. So far, all I have basically learned from this thread is that Micro does not like my suggestion of using a Sutherland Timeline for checking the speed of various turntables and that measurements do not tell us much about the sound quality of turntables.

Following our ears is the best advice ever... and then sharing what we hear is a summative moment that helps solidify our understanding. But that anything terribly conclusive comes from any measurement or any perspective of a singular perception is where the grey comes in for me.

So to put into perspective the value of basic measurements I figure they give us some helpful vague guides to little, topology for those with greater experience provides even more rays of enlightenment over measurement. Recurring reports on experiences for many in a range of systems is so our best guide short of actual experience in our own setup... but even that is not absolutely concrete unless lived with for some time.

It’s why when people take the time to try and communicate experience beyond any simplistic shootout ranking that I find we start to learn some things of value. Not the outcome so much as just sharing in others journeys and getting a sense of what that was. These defined experiences put notions of measurement into such a distant 8th place... and absolutes for all are the most fragile understandings of all.

 

[tima]

It’s why when people take the time to try and communicate experience beyond any simplistic shootout ranking that I find we start to learn some things of value. Not the outcome so much as just sharing in others journeys and getting a sense of what that was. These defined experiences put notions of measurement into such a distant 8th place. Good to know the result of measurement for some basic confirmations but not much beyond these very basics.

Are you saying the best way to evaluate a turntable is by word of mouth?

 

[the sound of Tao]

Cheers

Are you saying the best way to evaluate a turntable is by word of mouth?

Was thinking very much more by experiencing Tim. Coronavirus makes word of mouth just not so ideal any more.

So personal experience and then a range of confirming experiences of others gives potentially greater depth to our understanding or the broadness of any finding. Then if everyone absolutely agrees that is therefore pretty good... and is a miracle. My experience of a thing is valid but also limited.

Measurements have value and tend to give us the simplest of understanding. Not that this is bad, just in ways limited. But very much people experiencing then taking the time to communicate that experience is the richest way to shared deep understanding. Saying simply (for example) that just one is best when making comparisons is useful (for me) like a measurement.

 

[tima]

Coronavirus makes word of mouth just not so ideal any more.

Heh. Online word of mouth should be virus neutral. :--]

 

[andromedaaudio]

Measurements have value and tend to give us the simplest of understanding.


Just remember Tao and to put things in perspective , without measurements one wouldnt have a low noise turntable at all

 

[Vienna]

A turntable can sound good and measure good during the pre-purchase period and can be subject to pre mature wear of bearing, shaft's bushing and thrust very soon.

I believe that the acoustic evaluation and measurements should go hand by hand with the design and engineering aspect of the turntable.
I understand that for many, the materials can be an unknown field thus the manufacturer's reputation, longevity of the design as well as the opinion of other users is necessary.