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 :lol:

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]

:zzz:

[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 ;)

[Virtual-Symmetry]

For the second time im not referring to isolation. Of course i have isolation but the deck itself is not spring in anyway..

What about the 'LPT' that had no suspension. The top board sat on four rubber isolating supports. as did the motor pod yet i much prefered the sound to the other suspended models!

[Oldpinkman]

For the second time im not referring to isolation. Of course i have isolation but the deck itself is not spring in anyway..

What about the 'LPT' that had no suspension. The top board sat on four rubber isolating supports. as did the motor pod yet i much prefered the sound to the other suspended models!

And you are welcome to prefer it. Your opinion is entirely valid - just not shared by most people in my experience. But where would we be without diversity of opinion? There was something a bit clever about the plinth in LPT which wasn't disclosed, but I grant you it wasn't hidden springs.
In my experience I have found the opposite. Springs have made the best suspension and method of isolation. As Mark was (I think) pointing out, a lot of the problem wasn't springs itself, but the tugs and imbalances in most suspension designs.

A bad suspension, or even a good one badly set up, surely creates at least as many problems as it solves.

[Virtual-Symmetry]

A bad suspension, or even a good one badly set up, surely creates at least as many problems as it solves.

Exactly the reason i opened this thread. I much prefer to work around a deck with no suspension.I prefer a deck that is totally rigid in motion, no tugging or bouncing.

[karma67]

or another view might be to learn to set one up properly :)

[Virtual-Symmetry]

Jamie i was hoping for this to at least be a tad serious thread with your silly shit. Im more than capable of setting up a suspended turntable ta

[karma67]

ha ha calm down pow,just playing with ya,interesting that you can dish it out to mark,yet when its done to you you cant take it.
sweet as!

[walpurgis]

Steady guys. Keep it friendly.

[Justjon]

Exactly the reason i opened this thread.
Seems to me that you only opened this thread to say that you know better and damn anyone else that has an opinion.
Just saying :scratch:

[YNWaN]

Oldpinkman, you make some very valid and interesting points that I would very much like to debate on - however, this is obviously not the correct thread for such.

[Virtual-Symmetry]

& whys that then eh?

[YNWaN]

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"?

Unfortunately.


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.

Indeed, and I realise Arthur chose to pursue this option some years ago now. Personally I'm intending to do it slightly differently rather than mounting the motor directly to the chassis. The chassis is very stiff and low mass (a different material but not unlike the Aerolam or carbon fibre/balsa laminate Arthur has used) but is held within another structure - the motor is mounted to this and then the whole thing has a suspension between it and another plate.


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)

Yes, I accept that - but only to a point. I'm yet to be convinced that even a slow running DC motor doesn't produce enough noise to be an issue, particularly if coupled directly to the chassis. I realise you can mount the motor on compliant bushes but that reintroduces an element of spring on spring (though I accept this is very heavily damped).


As Mark was (I think) pointing out, a lot of the problem wasn't springs itself, but the tugs and imbalances in most suspension designs.

A bad suspension, or even a good one badly set up, surely creates at least as many problems as it solves.

Yes, you summarise my thoughts very well (thank you). The difficulty in designing an effective suspension has led some designers to abandon it altogether but I don't think avoidance is a very good solution :).

[Oldpinkman]

Ynwan

I have noted on my Happy Anniversary thread that I am hoping to pick up the PT with the modifications I specified / requested/ discussed with Arthur on Thursday. Also that I am a bit hectic with the move this week. These modifications were inspired by the threads elsewhere (Vinyl Engine) to modify PT's along Anniversary lines, and over a fair bit of bickering (I think its been 2 years now) amounted to a back to first principles "what are we trying to do?"

Your project sounds interesting - but I confess I am struggling to visualise it. Be interesting to see it when you do it. AK has a design for a completely new suspension which is truly free in all 3 planes, and although he did start to explain it over a pint, I struggled as much with visualising that as I do your project. It was rejected for my "pimp PT" partly because he still hankers after releasing an "Anni 2" - a new reference suspended deck, but also because it just won't fit to a PT plinth, and I wanted to push the boundaries with my deck, but retain as much as possible the appearance of my original deck, which I have a huge nostalgic attachment to.

A couple of points on the PT sub-chassis which might interest you. As well as light and rigid, the original PT (and Anni) chassis are good at energy dispersal, and both shape and raw crinkly edges are important for this. Secondly the reason for the balsa on the Anni chassis WASNT damping. That was a by-product which maybe adds a slightly false "analogue" loveliness. And the rigidity wasn't where I thought, or for the reasons I thought. Sorry to play fan-dances but I'm never sure with AK what I have said I won't talk about, so I'll check on Thursday. Its not really secret, its just he can get SO grumpy about some things. Having hinted lots, if you look real hard at what was mounted where you might spot what I'm getting at. In part this was why the CF "fake" Anni chassis never cut the mustard.

As for the motor - I understand where you are coming from, and rely on advice / results from the boy what is supposed to know. I noted your comment regarding slow moving DC motors, so won't make the point I was otherwise going to about certain DC motors being considered quiet enough for the purpose. I haven't yet heard this latest solution my deck is being modded with - it would still be possible to decouple further if necessary, but yer man seems to think it isnt. And as you pointed out, decoupling the motor gives you back your spring on a spring conundrum.

:cool:

[Virtual-Symmetry]

That all you bind on abart PT PT PT :rolleyes:

[Gazjam]

That all you bind on abart PT PT PT :rolleyes:

Andre,
Sometimes I wonder if you are way too analogue for the internet...

[Oldpinkman]

That all you bind on abart PT PT PT :rolleyes:

's ok. It was a reply to Ynwan and a signpost back to my own thread. We'll leave you in peace now. :)

[Pete The Cat]

How about this then. In one room I've a highly polished Rock + Heed Orbit atop a concrete slab and the thing is unshakeable. It not only needs no adjustment but also there's nothing that I can think of doing to hot rod it. In the other room I've a TD150 made from the parts of three donors which now has suspension so sensitively tuned that I have to touch the arm cue with the delicacy of a butterfly's kiss otherwise the stylus jumps and yet in spite of various modifications it still has infinite options for further tinkering. I get nothing but enjoyment from both, for those different reasons.

Pete

[Oldpinkman]

André you're so cool

[Virtual-Symmetry]

We'll leave you in peace now. :)

:whistle:

[Justjon]

Andr'e, are you 6 years old? If not, please stop acting so.
There's a whole lot of great info on this (your) thread and I'm sure after nearly 900 views there's plenty of people who are garnering some knowledge from it without the requirement of your "toys out of pram attitude".
Thanks

[Virtual-Symmetry]

Close nearly 5 Years old