View Full Version : RDC Cones under the 1210?
Been carrying on with my little personal Technics feet journey - it's been a steady but nonetheless interesting learning curve to be on, and it's clearly obvious that not only does it matter what feet are used (yes I have a degree in stating the bleedin' obvious :D ) but what the turntable is mounted on, relative to which feet are in place, and the acoustic in what the system is used.
On wood (Q4 in my case) or a small dedicated TT table (an Audiotech in my case) then the VA feet are clear winners giving the deck a feeling of sonic gravitas and dynamic differentiation where the Isonoes just make it, well, bland and musically vague.
However (and this is where the fun has started)....
On my new Atacama Equinox rack the roles are largely reversed. The VA's still sound excellent but they do over-bloom the deck's presentation - this hasn't been helped by the fact that moving the room around as increased the system's bass output - not boomy per se but just too much bass with a double-thump present from a room reaction.
The Iso's help to cool the bottom end balance somewhat, and re-dress the balance.
So, the moral of this particular story (and who knows it may help some others considering what feet to try) is not only look at what feet to get, but also bear in mind what they're using the turntable on and how their room sounds. Now, to throw another spanner in the works...
Today I tried just threading in some M6 spikes and the result has really got me thinking - why not solidly mount the turntable? I don't have an issue with footfall but it was fairly obvious that some of the cone flap my speakers have been displaying is down to some very low frequency reaction travelling from the speakers into the rack (via the suspended concret floor). Putting granite slabs under the speakers has virtually eliminated the problem as it has damped out, or certainly lessened the speaker stands' spikes dumping their energy into the floor. With the spikes under the deck (pointing down onto a glass shelf) there's still no feedback loop been caused and it sounds fabulous - slightly leaner (no bad thing) but with clearly less mush to the sound with more inner, and more importantly more musically relevant detail.
So to the point of this thread (sigh of relief all round!) has anyone tried RDC cones or other some such 'solid' footer under the 1210? Certainly in my rig I'm wondering if I might be onto something. :)
Not plugging but I use the RDC equipment rack and got sent some cones a while ago, the larger ones fit under the Tech and made the sound much more solid, they make lots of variations too including 2 part ones which I also tried to good effect.
I find I cannot post tweaks which I sell as no one believes me when I say how good they are, others have to concur first!
Will take a pic of the larger cones tomorrow night and post for anyone interested.
Thanks David - the cones I've got my eye on (from searching the www) are the M6 threaded Cone 1's which will just screw into the 1210's base.
These are the best ones, for perfect fitment under the 1200/1210...
http://www.clearlight-audio.de/content/pics/3.jpg
You do need to bolt the first half onto the existing techy space for the feet.
The only problem is they cost £185 and you only get 3, so only for obsessives!
The ones you have highlighted will work ok. I just secured them with blu tac, I have a set you can borrow
if you pm your address, I sell a few although do not advertise them much, the RDC equipment rack is something quite special but it should be as it sells for a grand!
Hi Richard,
Interesting, especially about the Isonoes.... Just a quick question: does your Atacama rack have glass shelves? :)
Marco.
Hi Richard,
Interesting, especially about the Isonoes.... Just a quick question: does your Atacama rack have glass shelves? :)
Marco.
It does Marco - interestingly, I do have some frosted glass coasters which didn't really work for the Iso's on my previous heavy oak wooden shelf, or onto the Audiotech board. On the Atacama they work significantly better. I'd say that the gap between the Iso's and the VA's on the Atacama is narrower than it was (the other way) with the VA feet on the old shelf, but they are slightly better nonetheless now...I think that makes sense. :scratch:
Trying the simple metal spikes onto the glass shelf (not directly but onto coins to prevent damage) has most certainly tweaked the desire to try other alternatives now. Only real downside now - and I feel this is a room acoustics issue as it wasn't so bad before - is that I'm getting more of a top end zing from the system. It's noticeable via digital inputs too so it's not source-dependant.
All fun! :)
Thanks for the kind offer of a borrow of the cones, David - always good to be able to try stuff. They may work, they may not but it's an itch I feel is worth scratching. :)
PM on its way.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2012, 23:14
Thanks for the kind offer of a borrow of the cones, David - always good to be able to try stuff. They may work, they may not but it's an itch I feel is worth scratching. :)
PM on its way.
Not tried this one but I have enough cones here to try it. Interesting possibilities with this one.
Regards D S D L
Not tried this one but I have enough cones here to try it. Interesting possibilities with this one.
Regards D S D L
Will be interested to hear of your experiences Neil - good or bad. This is purely the ramblings of someone who'll 'try anything once' (er...except incest and country dancing...schnorrf) and I do try to keep as open a mind as possible...
Sometimes, in hifi, I've found after over 30 years of tinkering/bodging/breaking...and having the very rare 'lightbulb-above-head' moment that improvements can be wrought in the most unlikely fashion. Many times going completely against accepted 'wisdom'. It's times like that which really make this whole crazy hobby such fun.
To that end I'm looking forward to having a play with the cones - sure it may not work well at all but such itches, once felt, need to be scratched. :)
Ammonite Audio
14-01-2012, 16:17
The SL-1200 feet, or any alternatives put in the same place, are attached to the rubber base layer rather than to the alloy chassis. So, the resonance characteristics of any springy foot will be in addition to a completely different resonance characteristic of the (relatively unsupported) rubber base layer at each corner: you end up with two mass-spring systems fighting each other. Actually, because of the uneven distribution of masses around the deck, each corner will have its own spring rate and resonance characteristic anyway. I don't think that this is good design - imagine your car with a springy driver's seat that is excited by the car's suspension, but not in tune or time with the suspension. When I had my SL-1210 I experimented with the stock feet, Isonoes, Oak Cones and finally Stillpoints, with the latter two being the best - I think this is because neither have any resonance character to speak of, so there's just one fairly ordered mass-spring system at work rather than two.
Things got more interesting when I looked at interfacing the (effectively) solid Stillpoints directly with the alloy chassis. This was done via some of the screw points that attach the rubber base layer underneath the deck, around the periphery of the platter well. It was possible to place 3 Stillpoints, with balls facing upwards, in positions that kept the deck safe and stable, even if it did look a bit odd raised off the support platform. The feet at each corner are, of course, in the air. Now things really started to work out, and the deck had a much more natural musical feel about it. Think about the difference between hearing a piano, against hearing someone playing a piano.
At the time, someone here (and I think it may have been Jerry) tried the same thing with RDC cones and reported similar benefits. I do recommend giving it a go.
Thanks for that Hugo - I do seem to remember you having some joy with the Stillpoints. Although (as you well know) I have no scientific knowledge, what you say does make sense re 2 different 'sprung' masses.
What was interesting using the simple spike arrangement I tried yesterday was the fact that there was less cone-flap from the speakers than with either the VA or Isonoe feet in place. The system has been suffering this for a while now, and with the Jico'd M75 I couldn't seem to get rid of it - on some records it was worse than others. Putting the old granite boards under the speakers has helped hugely (showing that whatever was affecting the deck was coming through the floor, even though it's pretty solid) and the cone-flap is much more under control.
With the spikes, the cone-flap is still there but reduced even further - now that is something I didn't expect!! The whole plot, from rack to plinth is absolutely solid using spikes, so we're just relying on the Tecchy's rubber base and weighty constructing to damp out any energy coming in from its surroundings. Perhaps also the energy put into the arm by the cartridge now has somewhere to go, and is less of a 'closed loop?' (I'm clutching at straws here - the physics is way beyond me!!). :)
Big respec' to David of MCRU for sending me through a set of RDC cones to try - many thanks. :)
Well, fitted them to the Tecchy and fired her up to listen to some choons...
First impressions?
Hmmmm...oh no, something's not quite right. It's as though the deck's taken a couple of steps back from the VA or Isonoe feet. It's now splashy, somewhat muddled and harsh but I'm not going to give up straight away as I think it may be worth trying another shelf, other than the glass - possibly even plonk it onto my Audiotech table - talking of which I tried the AT table the other day and to my shock it didn't bring anything to the party at all. The first time in fact that this table hasn't brought a turntable to life.
I'm not 100% happy with things at the moment, but in a moment of 'sod it - try anything once' I put my Ringmat on top of the Achro. This wasn't to hear what the combo sounded like, but simply to get the vta much more realistic - and you know what? It does sound loads better - running the Shure at absolutely parallel to the lp has brought about a small transformation.
It's still a bit harsh and shouty (I'm thinking the arm's limitations are just very tentatively poking their head round the door), a tad fatiguing and not terribly melodic in a way I like my rig to sound. Even at low volume it sounds 'loud' if that makes sense? This was one reason why I've been seeking cartridge suggestions - the SAS Shure is a very fast, incisive sounding little beast, and sounds marvellous on big-scale orchestral (that posh tip digging out loads of detail) but on rock music it gets a bit wearing - more so than it ever did in the 3009 or the PL71's arm.
Having a slightly warmer-hearted cartridge may just help out on some records. Oh the joy of detachable headshells! :D
bobbasrah
19-01-2012, 10:56
Aside from limiting mechanical interactions by minimal interface such as pointed support feet (incorporating or not various absorbong mechanisms), would it be correct to assume that with the DD designs, platform/plinth/mat/arm resonances are being "tuned" to optimise the variables on a case basis, rather than optimise general isolation ?
Can you try to sort the bass problems in the room by re-positioning the speakers? maybe moving the deck around aay from room modes (or trying to find a null-point in the room) will help?
Can you try to sort the bass problems in the room by re-positioning the speakers? maybe moving the deck around aay from room modes (or trying to find a null-point in the room) will help?
Hi Dave - I've been trying all sorts these last few days and it's starting to do my head in! I'm getting bass bloat via digital sources too, and there's a definite 'double-boom' on hard-struck kit bass drum. It seems there's a clear room reaction going on, but I really can't put my finger on it. Trouble is, our room's dimensions are just about the worst possible ie the length is twice the width (22'x11').
The best thing I've found to do is bung the Royds' ports with some loosely-fitting foam sponge but this tends to make the speakers sound pinched and dampens their dynamics - it does of course lessen the bass output but there's obviously still room-reaction. It's fine on classical/acoustic music as there's less bass impact to cause problems but it's a PITA on rock/funk/jazz with lots of fast bass lines. Knowing the Claymore is a bit of a bass monster, I brought in our little TEAC mini system from the family room to hook up to the speakers but driving them with that (sounds pretty damn good actually!) the problem persists.
I have thought of one way to lessen cone flap though and that's to get a 'stiffer' cartridge (hence the plea for ideas for an MC cartridge) which will ride warps better in the massy-ish arm; the Jico may well be outside its comfort zone in the Technics' arm, especially with the added 12g of the Sumiko headshell.
It'll be interesting to hear the rig at Scalford in a different room, where as much as having a good time it'll be a useful chance to hear the system out of its home environment.
Update:
With the ports bunged up there's very little or no cone flap, even with the wick turnedup quite high. Now, would this be a cart/arm mismatch* or is it down to the fact that because the speakers aren't putting out anywhere near the same amount of low frequencies, there's less feedback through the system?
The cones flap on pretty much any record with a small amount of warp (either cyclic or quicker oscillations)
*On the HFN test record the arm/cart resonance sits about 5-7Hz - so not ideal really. :scratch:
Now, Richard Dunn is going to have another attempt at making mincemeat out of me for saying this, but isn't the Claymore supposed to have a fulsome and undamped bass?
Generaly, speakers with some bass extension, used in rooms like this, often work better firing across the room, rather than down it. Have you tried it this way - apologies if you have already.
Regarding amps - have you got a "HiFi" mate who can lend you something different to try? Quirky vintage alternatives could be summat like an Onix??????? You might even try an NVA again, since you've already owned (and liked?) them in the past? If this isn't an option, maybe an alternative phono stage with the option of the IEC bass roll-off below 20hz...
Hope this helps - sort of..... :scratch:
P.S. The KAB damper will help with warp-wobble on the bass cones.....
sq225917
19-01-2012, 19:39
Gromit, try a hard cone under the front left corner and soft feet under the other three. See what you think it sounds like sinking vibrations in the chassis via the foot position furthest from the tonearm mount. ;-)
You're absolutely right Dave - the Claymore doesn't mess about with its bottom end, and to be fair it is pretty full-on. In a larger room which is acoustically very dry - I tried my rig in our smaller rehearsal studio at work last year - it worked brilliantly but what's probably not helping things here is that 3 corners of the room are now 'empty'. I need to get some kind of bookshelf/heavy furniture into a couple of more of those corners to help sort things - the room's also fairly sparsely furnished.
Running the Royds off our little TEAC earlier the bass was still somewhat overblown so whilst the Claymore won't be helping the case, it's probably not totally responsible.
Simon - never heard that trick before but I'll certainly give what you say a try! :)
bobbasrah
20-01-2012, 11:32
Just to throw a spanner in the works......If this is appearing on digital and phono sources, and indeed another system entirely, the only common denominators are the speakers and the room, and the speakers are designed to produce a good bass response.
Are you not trying to deal with room modes by throttling the speakers rather than mitigating the modes?
PS -Studios are built to counter reflections and modes
Good point and PLEASE don't think I'm having a go at the Claymore. StudioSpares do a cheapish range of damping sheets I believe (see SQ's threads in recent times) which you could hide hehind shelving and other furniture in the corners possibly..
bobbasrah
20-01-2012, 15:37
Good point and PLEASE don't think I'm having a go at the Claymore. StudioSpares do a cheapish range of damping sheets I believe (see SQ's threads in recent times) which you could hide hehind shelving and other furniture in the corners possibly..
If there are no domestic or physical constraints, you could rig corner (where modes tend to accumulate apparently) panels using 100mm glass wool batts onto a wood frame, even on a experimental basis.
Batts are cheap enough, BUT even at 150mm thick at the low frequencies of room modes, they reduce rather than kill the modes.
I found these highly effective at dampening rear reflections, and increase both the front focus and the volume level before the modes appeared.
Thanks fellas - all valid points, I'm just going to have to reduce the effects as much as possible, within the realms of domestic harmony of course! :D
The cone-flap thing, it's most certainly at its worst on slightly warped/oscillating records (ie the ones which make the cantilever wobble slightly) and I'm more and more convinced it's a cartridge/arm/phonostage mismatch. Think will see if someone can lend me a CA 640P as it has a rumble-killing setting which shuts off pretty much everything below 20Hz - that'll hopefully kill the cone-flap. The prodigous bass levels in my room won't be helping either of course.
Wish also that I had a stiffer cartridge to try to see if it is actually the Shure/1210 combo causing the issues. Just a bit p*ssed off at the moment as it took me ages to hit upon a combination of kit/room setting which worked well in our old (much smaller) place and now it's happening all over again. :scratch:
Ammonite Audio
20-01-2012, 17:52
You're welcome to try my Ortofon 2M Black
Result! (well...result-ish).
Managed to drastically reduce the cone-flap - the cart/arm mismatch which I'd been concerned about has been proved to be the case. Searching through one of my many hifi 'drawers' where all sorts of junk can be found, I came upon an old Stanton 500II. Fitted into the Tecchy headshell and hey presto the flapping has been reduced by a very large margin - just a few temors on the lead-in groove (rarely had a cartridge in 30 years that hasn't done this). Doesn't sound particularly marvellous but it'll have to do for now.
So...I'm now on the look out for a different cartridge. A real shame as I bloody love that SAS'd Shure. :(
You're welcome to try my Ortofon 2M Black
Sorry Hugo - you must've posted this just before my post below so didn't see it. :doh:
That's extremely kind of you, although I was thinking of trying something a little less esoteric! I've still got my mind on the Ortofon Rondo Red at the moment which Nick at the Emporium is selling; if it doesn't work out I could always send it back which is something I couldn't do with a new cartridge.
Would just go for the devil I know and get a 103 but I really don't have a suitable phonostage to get the best out of one at the moment.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/Gromit011/DSC00167.jpg
:)
As an aside I fitted a new 103 earlier in the week, I bought a MF phono amp the small one the size of the V-DAC, its bloody brilliant for the money, around £100.
Get a Goldring G800 and send it off to Dominic for fettling, well worth the outlay in performance terms. You can borrow mine if you want to get to grips with how it sounds?
Hi David - that would be excellent, thanks. Certainly worth a try. I'll get these RDC's back to you asap - they were definitely worth giving a go, but I think it might not have been one of my best ideas.
The Claymore's got an excellent phonostage - in fact I used it with my last 103 in the PL71 (a dream team if there ever was one) - but with the problem I've got with overblown bass output in my room, and the 103 being quite full in that region - it may not be the best choice in the 1210.
Still, one should never say never. :D
Richard, if the little earthing strap on the back of the cartridge hasn't been removed, it'll have to come off, since you'll get a loop between the arm and the signal return the strap is linked to. Either that, or use the little plastic isolator fixings the cartridge came with.
All you need for the Shure is a KAB damper (I'm sure :D), which will tame the excesses if set up correctly... The 2M-Black should be fine though if you can borrow it. An M97XE with SAS tip may also be worth saving for too...
Sorry Hugo - you must've posted this just before my post below so didn't see it. :doh:
That's extremely kind of you, although I was thinking of trying something a little less esoteric! I've still got my mind on the Ortofon Rondo Red at the moment which Nick at the Emporium is selling; if it doesn't work out I could always send it back which is something I couldn't do with a new cartridge.
Would just go for the devil I know and get a 103 but I really don't have a suitable phonostage to get the best out of one at the moment.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/Gromit011/DSC00167.jpg
:)
Richard, those Stanton cartridges are great fun!:)
Richard, if the little earthing strap on the back of the cartridge hasn't been removed, it'll have to come off, since you'll get a loop between the arm and the signal return the strap is linked to. Either that, or use the little plastic isolator fixings the cartridge came with.
Hi Dave - I removed the wee plastic spacer thingies because the headshell bolts wouldn't screw through them. :doh: Still, as it is there's no hum in the system at all - it's possibly even quieter than the Shure (which was quiet in itself) and it seems the tag it still in place...oh, spot the 'just fit whatever skanky old headshell wires you can find' thing... :D
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/Gromit011/DSC00170.jpg
Andy - yup, not the last word in finesse but an extremely punchy little thing. Sounds really good on funk/disco for some reason. :D
Pretty dire on orchestral/solo piano though. Still, it'll do perfectly well until a solution is found to the cone-flapping problem. To that end I'm really considering just getting a different cartridge now so will probably end up selling the SAS'd Shure. :(
Richard if you like some of what that Stanton is doing you could try the 681EEE which us what I am currently using in a Sumiko headshell. It has the fun element plus some proper hi-fi finesse, I haven't quite got it set up perfectly yet - need to post a thread on that - but I am a beginner in such matters - you can get a 681EEE for £110 delivered so quite a bit cheaper than some of the other options you are looking at. Just a thought,,,
Stratmangler
21-01-2012, 11:10
Your cone flap is probably down to the Merlins being bass reflex speakers - try stuffing the ports and see how much the flap reduces.
You probably won't like the sound, but thats not the point of comment.
Your problem can be addressed with speakers that have better mechanical damping characteristics.
I'm thinking sealed box....
Hi Chris - I had mentioned the port-bunging in a previous post...
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=286609&postcount=15 but wouldn't expect anyone to go trawling all the way through the thread. I have done this though, and in doing so pushed the speakers back towards the wall (they were approx 2' out - now approx 6") which has helped replenish the slightly bleached tone they displayed with the ports plugged. Somehow there seems to be slightly less room-reaction this way - relying on the room itself to bolster the bass, rather than the ports has helped a little.
The saddest thing about all this though - despite cart/arm mismatches - is that whilst always maintaining someone would have to prise my beloved Merlins from my cold dead hands, it may be that they just do not suit our new house. For those who know me and my system, that is little short of tragic as in past years several pairs of speakers (of all shapes/sizes/price) have been tried but the Royds have well and truly kicked them back out of the door.
There is a pair of Dean Altos for sale on Wigwam which are sealed boxes and could be worth a punt.
Martin - I'm not sure at the moment if a high-ish compliance MM is going to work in my rig because of the above problems, more's the pity. The SAS'd Shure isn't happy so I don't think a 681 would be either - I'm more and more convinced that a stiffer, heavy-tracking cartridge is the answer, which has been borne out by using the Stanton 500 (tracking at 3g) and there's much less speaker cone mis-behaviour. With the Shure in place, using the HFN test record (which I'm not usually a believer in but needs must sometimes) we're getting a cart/arm resonance between 5-7hz which ain't really healthy.
Martin - I'm not sure at the moment if a high-ish compliance MM is going to work in my rig because of the above problems, more's the pity. The SAS'd Shure isn't happy so I don't think a 681 would be either - I'm more and more convinced that a stiffer, heavy-tracking cartridge is the answer, which has been borne out by using the Stanton 500 (tracking at 3g) and there's much less speaker cone mis-behaviour.
I see...this seems to be becoming one of those situations where you change one thing in your system and then, eventually, end up having to change everything else.
Stratmangler
21-01-2012, 11:45
Hi Chris - I had mentioned the port-bunging in a previous post...
My bad :doh:
I have a high compliance cart hanging off the arm on my SL 1210 (arm's a modded RB250), so I'll see if I have any cone flap issues with a warped record through my FH3 speakers (back loaded horn), and report back :)
Stuffing ports using drivers designed for ported use often kills the midrange "air" as the drivers are designed not to have air-damping behind them (for want of a proper technical description :rolleyes:).
The Stanton has a treble droop and does sound a little soft - both my mk1 and V3 styli are the same, although for a cheap fix, try a Pickering XV15 VE stylus - or the XV15-TE alternative, which tracks at a lower weight. Both well under £30 and use the same body and exhibit far more sparkle - in a slightly "raw" way which isn't at all unpleasant..
The 681EEE is a goodie but the bass isn't quite in a good Shure category I think, unless it's used in a low mass arm. A good one tracks superbly at 1.2g and is smooth up top with no edge or grain - just a bit unexceptional at times I find with mine.
Stuffing ports using drivers designed for ported use often kills the midrange "air" as the drivers are designed not to have air-damping behind them (for want of a proper technical description :rolleyes:).
This does seem to be the case Dave.
I've just spent an hour or so (good job the Missus and the kids were out!) putting duvets in the corners of the room, putting a blanket over a large picture I've got hanging behind the listening sofa - there's a bit less bass output for sure but it's still rather strong.
As to the cone-flap, I've been moving the deck around:
1. On top of the rack with all sets of feet (VA/Iso/RDC cones)
2. On an Audiotech table with all of the above.
3. Both cartridges.
The cone-flap's at its least with the Stanton in place but it's still there - with the ports unplugged it's still quite bad, enough for me to hear the cone rattle occasionally which clearly won't be doing it any good.
My own thoughts on this - wayward though they probably are - are that it's down to the amp, and its phonostage in particular which probably doesn't have enough roll-off at the bottom end to eliminate warp issues. I've never really had an issue with cone flap with the Royds before in the 5 years I've owned them, and having tried God knows who many permutations of turntable siting/feet/cartridge in the last few weeks the only thing which has remained is the amplifier. The other is the turntable. :scratch:
Stratmangler
21-01-2012, 13:58
Well my cones flap around like some very flappy things :eek:
That said, the music I'm hearing sounds luvverly (The Thorns eponymous and only album).
Well my cones flap around like some very flappy things :eek:
That said, the music I'm hearing sounds luvverly (The Thorns eponymous and only album).
Looks like we could start a 'Flappy Cones-r-Us' club....er maybe not lol. :eek:
Just run the HFN test record with the Stanton - resonance is at a very lovely 12hz (unlike the Shure's 5-7hz) so it's clearly happy in the arm. :)
bobbasrah
21-01-2012, 14:19
Perhaps a bit left field Richard, but if the objective is to avoid getting the mode excited, perhaps swapping out interconnects or even speaker cables for those less "revealing" at the bass end of the spectrum may be worth a try rather than than throttle the speakers or start changing out perfectly good kit.
Perhaps a bit left field Richard, but if the objective is to avoid getting the mode excited, perhaps swapping out interconnects or even speaker cables for those less "revealing" at the bass end of the spectrum may be worth a try rather than than throttle the speakers or start changing out perfectly good kit.
Got to be worth a try Bob - I'm presently using Talk 3 speaker cable which I bought 18 months ago to use with my then Exposure pre/power rig, finding it worked extremely well (even better as it was only £4/m!) but that's not to say it'll be ideal with the Claymore. I'll have a trawl around the Bay of E, see what's around.
sq225917
21-01-2012, 17:07
Have you tried that single hard cone yet Richard ?
Cable Talk, and no doubt the current Talk Electronics speaker cable, used high quality copper cables from BICC, which were wrapped in various ways. The "better" ones used a dielectric that claimed not to chemically react with the copper over time and the 4.1, Excel4 (fig 8 version) and Concert (bloody large green hose-pipes:)) were actually very good with no added "zing" as other cables like Chord Co Rumour and Odyssey have. In your situation, these latter cables may just help a bit to liven things up a little and take your attention away from the bass region. I know it's not the be-all-and-end-all, but it may just assist a little in a subtle way.
Simon's idea really does warrant trying and, since you've got the bits already.......
Have you tried that single hard cone yet Richard ?
Thanks for the reminder Simon - yes, I've just had an hour's play with what you suggested. It's really quite interesting, a definite change in sound - slightly leaner, more leading-edge aggressive but I don't mind that (sounds more dynamically 'live'). Couldn't get it set up ideally as the Isonoes are a fair bit taller than one cone so had to pack the solid corner up with some coins under that foot.
Will have another go when I've got the VA feet back off a 1210-owning mate who's borrowing them at the moment. They'll be a lot easier to attain the same height with, being slightly shorter than an RDC.
sq225917
22-01-2012, 00:58
Cool, keeping it level is important. I've always found this the best option under cd players of a solid plinth deck, maybe it sinks the noise as best and cleanly as possible rather than allowing it to dissipate around the chassis as four floppy feet would.
Cone flap cured, courtesy of Mr Denon...
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/Gromit011/DSC00176.jpg
Borrowed a mate's 103R (he now runs an SA) which sees the wee Roydee's cones behaving themselves much, much better. It doesn't sound that brilliant - reckon the tip's on its way out as there's a lot of sibilance, and the sound is generally harsh. Fine on simple stuff but it loses the plot quite badly when things start getting jiggy. It also shows the classic case of too much load on the MC input (the 103R is 14ohms internal as opposed to the std 103's 40ohms so prefers less load IME) it's very bright and 'wispy' sounding, lacking depth. Still, there's a little project there.
Reckon may send it off to Dom for a quick look-over and take things from there. :)
Anyone tried the Finite Elemente Cerabase or Cerapucs under the SL1200?
http://www.finite-elemente.de/en/accessories/cerafamily/application
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.