Turntable Suspensions

[Virtual-Symmetry]

What is your preference, with or without ?

I personally had so many Springy Belt drives that i can safely say no thank you..

My present turntable does not have a floating suspension by design but springy feet. It has never sounded better since i removed them.

[YNWaN]

Some form of suspension is a must as far as I'm concerned and every non-suspended deck I've encountered has sounded better on some form of secondary suspension (pneumatic for example). You can bypass the suspension on my deck by fitting the transit bolts, but it sounds better with the suspension active.

[Virtual-Symmetry]

I had an idea you would be the first one in here being the last word in audio

Im referring to the Turntables own suspension btw

[YNWaN]

Well, that would be the first word, not the last word. To be honest, the only reason I saw you thread was because of your timing posting it. If you have some form of reasoned argument as to why no suspension (springs are not necessarily needed for a suspension) is superior then let's hear it. You asked for peoples opinions and I gave mine - no need to be sarcastic just because it contradicts yours. If you only wanted agreement you should have made that clear....

[Ammonite Audio]

My own feeling is that the best solution is for the deck itself to have no suspension, but that it should be coupled to a sensibly designed platform that isolates the whole shebang from floor/wall borne vibration.

[YNWaN]

Actually, that's similar to my own thoughts on the matter and the deck that will replace my current one will follow such a path. I do think the relationship between the motor and the platter has to be controlled and this can be an issue with some turntable suspension. However, I don't think you can just bolt the motor to the chassis either and some form of motor suspension/isolation is still required (not just bolting it to a lump of something heavy).

[YNWaN]

There are still a lot of decks aspiring to the absolute that have the motor outside of the suspension and this certainly can be made to work well. The problem with the suspension, with regard to drive geometry, is that it has to be compliant in all planes if it is going to be effective. Inevitably the drive system applies a vector force and that will interact with the compliance of the suspension. Any speed fluctuation will effectively interact with the belt compliance and that of the suspension as a spring acting on a spring. However, how the interaction manifests is down to damping within the system, the various spring rates and the frequency of excitation. I'm intending to build a test rig to look at the effectiveness of the isolation I intend to use (a kind of leaf spring arrangement) on the motor but if it doesn't work I will return to mounting the motor to the main plinth outside of the suspension proper.

[Virtual-Symmetry]

[YNWaN]

Yes, very well argued.

[Oldpinkman]

You're right Mark. This thread hardly encourages discussion of the subject. I think were all just supposed to say "yeah I've seen the light too and prefer no suspension. How did it take me so long"?

Whilst it doesn't address the freedom of movement and consistency of compliance in all planes, mounting a motor on the sub-chassis removes your spring on a spring problem - and has been used to good effect in a couple of turntables I know. The need to decouple the motor depends very much on the motor used. As you point out some isolation from the environment is essential for decent resolution (albeit not to just get a noise out of a record player)

I've a feeling this is the wrong place to discuss this. Must get me a solid