High or low-mass record weights/clamps: which is best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YNWaN

My concerns regarding heavy record weights are not related to bearing wear or suspension compression (although these are valid factors). In addition, motor torque is not an issue as it is unlikely to be a problem even with very heavy weights as the mass is at the centre of rotation and has a very low rotational velocity. In my opinion (and experience), coupling the record directly to any mass results in a negative sonic impact (irrespective of associated positive elements) - heavy duty bearings and high torque motors cannot address this.

I'm not saying mine is a universal solution - but it is the best solution I have encountered. With regard to it's interaction with minimum contact mats - respectfully, I suggest I understand these better than most.

However, as Marco suggests, I would rather this thread were not hijacked to discuss the merit of alternative drive systems etc.

---

Very fair point Mark , ok .

Quote:

---

In my opinion (and experience), coupling the record directly to any mass results in a negative sonic impact (irrespective of associated positive elements) - heavy duty bearings and high torque motors cannot address this.

---

We'll have to agree to differ on that matter, as my experience of using high-mass weights, with the likes of the Platine Verdier, Scheu Analog Premier, Thorens TD124, SP10, and Goldring G99, suggests otherwise! Theories are fine up to a point, but only using the specific turntables you've worked with, as a reference ;)

Like Clive says, much depends on the mat being used, as the mat and clamp/weight should be viewed as 'one', in terms of achieving the required sonic synergy.

The SL-1200/1210, in my experience, doesn't like high-mass clamps or weights, although does benefit significantly from the use of a medium-mass weight, such as the Bruil, especially in conjuncton with a 5mm Achromat, firmly coupled to the matching Funk Firm platter, in order that the former 'mates' with the latter, to create a cohesive 'whole'.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YNWaN

Well, I'm not sure what we are agreeing to differ on exactly - in your last paragraph you seem to agree with me - is that not the case?

---

Indeed, but where we differ is in the area of high-mass weights not working with high-torque direct-drive T/Ts, idlers and high-mass string and tape-drive T/Ts. From experience, I contend that they do (depending on what type of mat is used), whereas this suggests that you think otherwise:

Quote:

---

In addition, motor torque is not an issue as it is unlikely to be a problem even with very heavy weights as the mass is at the centre of rotation and has a very low rotational velocity. In my opinion (and experience), coupling the record directly to any mass results in a negative sonic impact (irrespective of associated positive elements) - heavy duty bearings and high torque motors cannot address this.

---

Quite simply, I hear no negative sonic impact when using high-mass record weights with the above types of T/Ts; in fact quite the opposite, as there are usually always significant sonic benefits!

*That* is where we differ, although we agree that this doesn't apply with the SL-1200/1210 :)

Marco.

I think where forum opinions, and Mark's and my own might differ, is that we've measured the difference in bearing rumble on quite a wide variety of decks; in standard trim, with heavy (400gm+) weights and/or with the bearing supported magnetically to reduce or eliminate entirely the pressure on the point contact.

I don't recall a single example where added weight didn't increase rumble. On some decks its was hardly measurable <0.5db on my Kuzma for example, which uses a plastic bearing journal and contact point. With other decks, particularly heavily built idlers, the difference was more profound, with a Goldring 99 being the worst at closer to 3db more noise. If there is noise in the chassis a heavy weight would appear to be a bad idea from a noise point of view. If you can achieve a similar level of consistent downwards force without the added weight then surely that would be the goal in these circumstances- in fact in all circumstances where you wish to couple the record more closely to the platter/mat. I'm not sure that every deck benefits from increased coupling, but some do.

There's certainly no example in which added bearing noise/motor rumble is beneficial, irrespective of what mat arrangement you have. The question simply becomes does coupling the record to the mat/platter improve the sound. If so then the obvious choice is to do this in the way that introduces least noise.

As a side issue obviously there are problems with added mass to suspended chassis turntables which go beyond issues of noise. For these decks then the lightweight clamp is a win win- more optimum suspension and less chance of increasing bearing noise through added weight.

It's nice to see Mark taking a different approach to optimizing vinyl playback and coming at potential solutions from a different angle that bears obvious fruit. Of course those with vested interests in commercially available alternatives will always try to pick holes in a new idea, especially when they are lacking in genuine creativity themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sq225917

Of course those with vested interests in commercially available alternatives will always try to pick holes in a new idea, especially when they are lacking in genuine creativity themselves.

---

Who's picking holes? Are you saying Marco's in the TT weight business?

Oh I see now....the email notification of your post shows you originally directed your post above to myself, your then changed it to start "I think where forum opinions".

You seem a little distracted as I've not been picking holes at all, not as far as I can see or intended anyway. If you must know I've used TT weights from time to time and the only one I got on with was the integral Michell one on a GyrOrbe but I wasn't looking for a fight with anyone but you seem to be.

No problem, Simon.

At the end of the day, all we can do is comment on the results obtained from our own practical experience, whether that be through measuring and listening, or purely the latter - it doesn't matter, as all our respective experiences in that area are valid.

In that sense, I stand by everything that I've written, regarding the subject of record clamps/weights, as it's based on what I've heard to date.

It would certainly be interesting sometime to compare Mark's mat and record weight solution, to my own, using my T/T as the 'guinea pig', rather than the usual belt-drives, as I suspect that we would hear the respective benefits and downfalls of BOTH approaches - and that's the main point in debates such as this: everything in audio creates some form of compromise, therefore all we can do, effectively, is choose our compromises.

There is no 'perfect solution' for anything.

That principle applies to the design of record weights/clamps, the same as everything else. Therefore, it's best to accept and embrace that fact and resist the temptation of becoming absolutist! ;)

Marco.

Clive I changed the start of the post because after reading the full post, once posted, it had drifted from just discussing topics you raised to wider concerns. True enough Marco isn't in the turntable business, I never stated that he was.

Marco, I have no doubt at all that adding a record weight into the mix can improve things in some cases. What I'm pointing out is the possibility that people could benefit from the clamping effect without the deleterious effects of the added weight that is typically required to achieve the clamping. I can't measure how much a record weight improves what people like about a particular deck, but I can measure the negative effects of the increased weight.

It's simple equation. If we know adding weight increases noise, but we also know that it can improve the sound due to clamping the record then surely a clamp without the weight would be even better?

Surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sq225917

Clive I changed the start of the post because after reading the full post, once posted, it had drifted from just discussing topics you raised to wider concerns. True enough Marco isn't in the turntable business, I never stated that he was.

---

Simon, the reason it originally looked as though you were have a go at Marco is that anyone reading the recent posts would have seen that the most vociferous discussion was between Mark and Marco. I said very little. I then saw the forum notification which showed your original text where it's clear you were having a go a myself. Yes there's some history here but in all reasonableness it's simply not the case that Chris, Marco or myself were trying be awkward - this is a discussion forum FFS! Your comments about vested commercial interests were out of place, certainly in my context, I assume Marco's too, I can't comment on Chris as I don't really know anything about him.

The only derailing of the topic has come from yourself.

First of all, let me state categorically that I am part of no business involving the production of record weights! :doh: Right, now that bollocks is out of the way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sq225917

Marco, I have no doubt at all that adding a record weight into the mix can improve things in some cases. What I'm pointing out is the possibility that people could benefit from the clamping effect without the deleterious effects of the added weight that is typically required to achieve the clamping.

It's simple equation. If we know adding weight increases noise, but we also know that it can improve the sound due to clamping the record then surely a clamp without the weight would be even better?

---

In theory, absolutely yes, but in practice, who knows?

The fact is, there are simply too many variables to consider (not least of which is how said claimed improvement affects the rest of the partnering system, sonically) for any definitive answer to be formed, which is proven by the fact that Mark and you have achieved notable sonic benefits from adopting that method, using certain turntables (including your own) as a reference, and yet whenever I've used high-mass record weights with the T/Ts I've mentioned previously, it has ALWAYS resulted in a significant sonic improvement, which is the opposite of what you're claiming.

Therefore, if your theory, when put into practice, were true in all instances, then why didn't I hear any negative sonic impact (and indeed the exact opposite) when using heavy record weights with the D/D, high-mass string/tape drives, and idler T/Ts I've previously mentioned?

Marco.

Dunno if im being a tad behind the door but the whole idea of putting even more weight onto a bearing let alone stress on the motor is something ive never contemplating doing! ive always gone the lightweight Michell type clamp route (Even though im fuming at the min as i have a NOS Michell 'Focus One' clamp boxed that i cannot find anywhere in the house for he life of me) :steam: