What is the car measurement for engine responsiveness? Or for steering feel? For comfort of the driving position? There are lots of qualitative assessments where a measurement to produce a number is just not possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG
Printable View
What is the car measurement for engine responsiveness? Or for steering feel? For comfort of the driving position? There are lots of qualitative assessments where a measurement to produce a number is just not possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG
The reason i mentioned the speed thing with a heavier platter was that i was around at a noted forum members last week. He has a lovely set-up, much modded 1210, nice arm and cart, external power supply internal mods and an aftermarket platter of the metal variety. His deck sounded great, 33 1/3 sounded awesome, with bass timbre to die for (#jealous) but he couldn't spin a record up a 45 rpm for love nor money, not even close it was 44rpm or even slower (He's removed the slider). |So I was wondering if the designers of these things consider the 'whole' or just the part they work on. Because increasing the slider just increases the speed, it doesn't alter the compensation speed of the feedback loop as well.
No way! All moderators are equal, belonging to the same workers' collective and getting paid the same . . . err, hang on :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldpinkman
Just out of interest was fuzzy logic technology around when the 1210 was designed so that platter inertia could be corrected. Sorry if I appear ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
For sure - I was working with vendors long before I became a mod here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
That was a problem I found with a heavy metal platter, the fact that spinning at 45rpm really pushed the circuit's compensation to the limit. I could hear the 'warble' even after I removed the Sound Hi-Fi motor dynamics mod. For my ears, platters that weigh about the same as the Technics original are best suited to the circuit (strictly, have the same rotational momentum).Quote:
Originally Posted by sq225917
Most interesting, Simon. Maybe you can now see (hear) what all the fuss is about! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sq225917
So who was this "noted forum member" - surely he's not that shy (and would actually be quite proud of your assessment of his turntable)!!
A most astute and valid observation. It's one of the reasons why I abandoned the high-mass platter approach and went for the much lower-mass Funk (MK I) platter, as what you're describing became sonically obvious to me when making the comparison.Quote:
...but he couldn't spin a record up a 45 rpm for love nor money, not even close it was 44rpm or even slower (He's removed the slider). |So I was wondering if the designers of these things consider the 'whole' or just the part they work on. Because increasing the slider just increases the speed, it doesn't alter the compensation speed of the feedback loop as well.
Marco.
Ditto! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
So where does the (heavier) MKII Funk platter sit within that theory? ;)
Marco.
Thats my deck that needs viagra to get it upto 45rpm! To be fair I dont actually play 45's or 12"'s, and I must admit that whilst the pitch stabiliser has been removed it can easily be replaced. I did do a little tinkering with the 35/45 RPM selector when I got rid of the strobe light and several LED's that I thought I didnt need. This was when I went through a process of getting rid of everything off the PCB and any any additional "garments" that I thought were surplus to requirement. The 1210's party trick is copious bass which is perfect for my system and may give credence to the theory of extra mass giving extra bass, this is useful for the music genre's that I prefer. I dont think I can be arsed buying another platter, I like what I've got. I'm finding I'm spending more time with my valve system at the moment.
Technically it was, but it wasn't being used in contexts such as this as, essentially, it needed a programmed processor to be integrated, ie. a separate computing element..Quote:
Originally Posted by REXTON
Good question. I guess there's heavy and then there's heavy in terms of good mass and bad mass - Mikes original metal platters are very heavy / weigh a good amount compared to the stock techie platter. How much does the original funk weigh Marco ? ie: is it close to the techie original ? Mikes ETP is definately a fair bit lighter than his metal ones but heavier than the stock techie platter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Couldn't this be done now as a regulator mod onto the PCB? In fact, can such a thing be purchased?Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
Put it this way you would not want to drop my platter on your toes. You'd be coming to see me on a profession basis to perform a digital athrodesis for fractured phalanges :rofl:
Lol - I had a feeling it was yours, Andy... The removal of the slider was a bit of a giveaway! So when are you upgrading to the ETP or a Funk platter? ;) Oh, and most importantly, why wasn't this bake-off reported on the forum? It's something we'd all loved to have read about....Quote:
Originally Posted by REXTON
Anyway, well done for demonstrating just how good a modded Technics can sound to a well-known, hard-bitten sceptic/belt-drive fanboy (no offence, Simon)!! :D
Aside from the arm and cartridge, our T/Ts share a lot in common. One thing I've discovered, and which becomes obvious when anyone actually listens to a judiciously modded SL-1200/1210, and makes some proper comparisons, is just how much of a neutral platform it allows the partnering arm and cartridge.
Quite simply, with 99% of the common failings of a turntable removed, one gets to hear not only what the partnering arm and cartridge are actually capable of, but pretty much exactly what's on your records! In that sense, Martin's T/T or mine, built largely from the same foundations as yours, will simply offer a different flavour on the same theme.
I would truly love to take either your T/T (when playing 33rpm records, lol) and/or Martin's and mine along to an event such as was held recently at Windsor, and put them in direct competition with the ridiculously priced 'badge-fi' T/Ts on demo - then watch the snobby exhibitors of the latter cry into their soup!! :lol:
Marco.
The fact that a 1200/1210 fails to reach speed at 45rpm concerns me because it inherently operates in a different manner to most (pretty much all) other turntables. The 1200/1210 uses a load sensing feedback loop that increases torque as it senses load and continuously references speed against a synthesised ideal. If it cannot achieve 45rpm it strongly suggests that is unable to generate sufficient torque. It is often stated that the Technics has huge torque but this isn't strictly true, What it actually has is the ability to increase torque as it senses increased load - most of the time torque is quite low. In addition, the speed correction circuit cannot be switched out and does not default if the operating parameters exceed it's expectations. If the deck physically cannot achieve 45rpm it is right on the edge of being able to make the corrections it wishes to (beyond its abilities at 45rpm and it is highly unlikely that the impact would not be felt at 33.3rpm).
:rofl: I dont think I will be upgrading thats just the point. For the time being I'm happy. I'm glad Simon liked my deck and TBH there wasn't really a bake off. Simon fetched me a very impressive piece of kit over for a listen. I think people should listen a little more closely to what Simon and Mark have to say they have some great ideas. My own personal theory with regards the 1210's evolution is simplification of the PCB and removal of all the excessive crap that's on the PCB. If I had the knowledge I'd mod the PCB even further and remove the ability to spin at 45 rpm, a simple dedicated circuit which was specifically designed to spin as accurately as possible at 33rpm which could take into consideration increased platter mass (i.e. Mark's idea) via fuzzy logic. What I need is a simple PCB with these features which can be soldered directly to my PCB under my MN platter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
No, absolutely not. Adding such a thing would require an actual computer to be attached full time (and a total redesign of the circuit). A regulator is an entirely different thing. You can't 'bolt on' fundamental design decisions in the way you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by REXTON
----------------
Fuzzy logic is, in principal, quite a simple idea (but complex to implement). What one has to bear in mind is that digital deals in absolutes, on or off, open or closed, act or do nothing. Now these decisions can be broken up in to may thousands of steps and decided on very quickly, but no overriding application is included. Fuzzy logic enables an additional algorithm to be applied; so instead of if A+ is detected apply B- until A+ is no longer detected, you can have, if A+ is detected apply half the opposite force for a fixed time followed by a quarter force etc. The Technics circuit is a relatively simple circuit in terms of control technology in that it senses an element of drift and compensates for it. It does not include a model of the actual lossy forces that the physical system has, it exists entirely in the electronic world. When it applies correction it assumes that this is made instantly, if it is not it continues to act against that and continues to do so even it is unable to.
You can book me a place as well ... It would be worth the trip. One question though: have you kept a count of how much it cost to get your TT up to its current level?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Sure, but all of the above assumes the use of a high-mass platter, not entirely compatible with the T/T's control circuitry.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
I can assure you that my T/T, with the much lighter Funk platter fitted, has no trouble whatsoever in achieving 45rpm, as indeed measurements have shown (not mine incidentally). The same also applies, in that respect, when the stock platter is in situ.
How else would the Technics have become such an icon in clubs and discos worldwide, where 90% of the time it would've been spinning 7 and 12" singles, if it couldn't do it accurately? ;)
Furthermore, measurements aside, I play 12" singles often (and indeed own many hundreds of them), so if there was a problem reproducing them accurately at 45rpm, I can assure you that I'd have noticed!
Marco.
Yes, a damn sight less than the cost of, say, a Continuum Caliburn, or an Air-Force One (which Martin listened to at Windsor)!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrei
Marco.
It's not worth it if you don't use the 45rpm facility and are happy with your T/T.Quote:
Originally Posted by REXTON
Cool... Which was?Quote:
I'm glad Simon liked my deck and TBH there wasn't really a bake off. Simon fetched me a very impressive piece of kit over for a listen.
I totally agree. I've always rated (and largely agreed with) what they both have to say about hi-fi, as long as Simon doesn't wear his belligerent 'objectivist's hat' too often (as evidenced on pfm and elsewhere)!! ;)Quote:
I think people should listen a little more closely to what Simon and Mark have to say they have some great ideas.
Sounds like an interesting plan. I hope you can achieve it! :cool:Quote:
My own personal theory with regards the 1210's evolution is simplification of the PCB and removal of all the excessive crap that's on the PCB. If I had the knowledge I'd mod the PCB even further and remove the ability to spin at 45 rpm, a simple dedicated circuit which was specifically designed to spin as accurately as possible at 33rpm which could take into consideration increased platter mass (i.e. Mark's idea) via fuzzy logic. What I need is a simple PCB with these features which can be soldered directly to my PCB under my MN platter.
Marco.
That is specifically what I was referring to - I did make it clear, I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
In theory, at least with respect to the compensation circuit, the lower the platter mass and the lower the rotational inertia, the better. The fly-wheel effect, as seen in many other turntables, specifically does not apply in this instance because the platter speed is actively monitored and compensated for - adding inertia simply makes this more difficult.
Thus the 'warble' at 45rpm with a heavy platter as it continually tries to compensate, the momentum of the platter takes longer to respond than it expects, and it compensates again ad infinitum.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
Such a thing does not exist I'm afraid. You would need a custom programmed chip and custom control board (from scratch).Quote:
Originally Posted by REXTON
Yup, spot on. Your position on the matter was clear to me, Mark. However, I simply wanted to make it equally clear (beyond question), for all those reading, that the problem you describe is not inherent in the stock Technics T/T, nor with the lower-mass aftermarket platter designs from Funk (and probably also Mike's ETP platter).Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
What's rather satisfying in all of this, from a personal point of view, is that my decision to move from using a high-mass platter, to a lower-mass one, has been technically vindicated (as well as sonically, some time ago, using my own judgement criteria). Martin also occupies the same happy position :)
Marco.
Yes, precisely. However, an aspect of this, though at a lower level, is likely to still exist at 33.3 rpm.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
Rexton's deck just couldn't reach 45, not even close. I imagine there's a voltage limit in the circuit some where that can be overidden to fix this, though the compensation loop speed will still be an issue. Heavy platters are probably not the 'ideal' for these decks as Marco has already noted. Which probably explains why even the Sp10 MK3 came with a light platter despite its monster motor.
Don't take it so hard, old man. :) I did state that my comments were meant for those who tend to read things quickly and are given to follow another person's preferences blindly; not a personal slight on you. The only time they should blindly follow someone is when *** I *** say something is awesome. Then, it's just cold hard fact. :D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
Yeah, the monster motor, is there to better achieve the theoretical instant variation in speed, to better overcome inertia of the platter, not to overcome extra stresses placed on the system.
No offence was taken, Biff. Just gently yanking (!) your chain :)
...and in broadcast applications in radio stations, to make start-up times even faster for broadcasters, and thus near-instantaneous! Start-up speed there is critical.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
The huge motor/lightweight platter concept is also applied with great success on EMTs. I guess that there was something in it after all (with idlers and D/Ds, that is)... ;)
Marco.
Any low mass platter will start up quickly because it has low inertia; that doesn't inherently make it better though, that depends on the drive system as a whole.
Indeed, and that is what I was alluding to in the last sentence of my previous post. This is essentially an idler and D/D thing. The opposite (high-mass platter route) can happily apply when strings or belts are in the equation, and an absence of complicated loop speed compensation circuitry.
In fact, some of the best belt/string-driven T/Ts I've heard have featured the use of truly MASSIVE platters. Oddly those, to my ears, have also sounded most like a good D/D or idler (in terms of majoring on rock-solid stability and bass authority)...... ;)
Marco.
Folks,Quote:
Originally Posted by synsei
As many of you already know but I will repeat it: I have not been able to contact the guy who put my website together for the last 12 months or more.
However out of the blue he emailed 2 days ago saying all my emails went into his 'junk folder', maybe he's trying to tell me something.
I do not have independant control for editing my website which must be corrected to the advantage of all.
I hope I can get it sorted soon.
MIKEQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike_New
Quick GET his phone number !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The platter on an SP10 MK 3 weighs 10 kg , the motor and control circuitry is a different ball game to the 1200 of course .Quote:
Originally Posted by sq225917
I tried to point out some time ago that a high mass platter doesn't work on a 1200 , the compensation circuitry is set in stone .
[QUOTE=chris@panteg;497388]Why is it set in stone?? the RC network around the op-amps.Quote:
Originally Posted by sq225917
can be changed.
If you remember some 6-8 monthe ago I put forward the notion that a switchable arangement could be provided for this purpose, in conjunction with the comments and help from a guy in Holland, if I recall. But no one seemed to be interested.
Something else that's just crossed my mind about Andrew's set-up, which Simon heard and loved... Andy, did you have the ST-80SE plummed in at the time? :)
Marco.
What do you think Simon took round Marco... ;).
Lol - the Paradise... Thing is, did he get a listen to Andy's SUT, in conjunction with his own phono stage, while he was there? Specifically what I'm getting at here is Andy's own phono stage used directly in MC mode, versus MM mode with his SUT, if such a thing is possible in his set up.
If so, it'll hopefully have given Simon an inkling as to why Andy chooses to use an SUT, and why, in some circumstances, it improves matters.
Marco.
I guess he heard it as Andy normaly has it configured.
[QUOTE=Mike_New;497391]still the same it appears Mike :)Quote:
Originally Posted by chris@panteg
Guys I'm at work I will update when I have some time.
Sure, but did he hear it sans SUT, directly through the MC input of his phono stage, before the Paradise entered the equation?Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
*That* is the question, amigo. If not, an opportunity was missed to demonstrate the superiority of an SUT, over an active MC stage, in the context of Andy's system.... Let's face it, he wouldn't have kept the ST-80SE if it didn't improve things ;)
The Paradise may have been overall better, but that would only have been because it outperformed his Sugden Masterclass PA4, when comparing one phono stage against the other.
Marco.
I'll leave aside the SUT versus active bit..... but the Paradise doesn't have MM input.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Well, no doubt Si will be along in a bit to clarify; but there doesn't seem much point in listening to the Sugden without the SUT if that is how Andy normaly uses it - as Jez says, the SUT couldn't be used with the Paradise even if you wanted to. The Paradise is inherantly a MC stage and cannot be configured for MM.
Yup, Mark, I fully understand that, but that's not what I'm getting at. Let's remove the Paradise temporarily from the equation... What I'm getting at is if Simon got to hear Andy's Sugden phono stage with and without his SUT?
If not, an opportunity was missed to demonstrate the superiority of an SUT, in the context of Andy's system (therefore backing up previous arguments here over the claimed efficacy of SUTs), as the fact is he wouldn't be using it if his T/T sounded better connected directly to the Sugden.
If that was demonstrated to Simon, and he heard the improvement the ST-80SE provided in that context, then it would've added to his experience of SUTs, and moreover, provided further subjective evidence showing that SUTs can improve matters in the right circumstances, thus demonstrating that it is a valid approach.
Ya gets me now? :)
We will obviously have to wait until either Andrew or Simon confirm if the above comparison was carried out or not.
Marco.
[QUOTE=Mike_New;497391]Mike , I have learned this from Richard Peachey , he spent over 20 years working on DD turntables , he claims he understands the science behind the SL1200 series ! And I believe him , I have a large number of emails containing technical information which is mostly beyond my understanding to be honest .Quote:
Originally Posted by chris@panteg
But he made it very clear to me , using a solid high mass platter is a mistake , he tried it himself over ten years ago , adding a big and beefy PSU will not overcome this as some believed , there is a little leeway but not much .
I'll try and dig through the emails again and perhaps pass on some though not all of the info as some of it I promised not to divulge .
Ah, I yeah, you mean did he get a demo of the Sugden with and without the SUT? Dunno, in short
Is Richard an electronics design engineer? I am no expert on the historical genesis of DD TTs but it would seem that perhaps he must have worked on the SL designs if it was 20 years ago, in which case talking to him would be instructive.