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

[Clive]

I've had a quick play with these 2 weights on my 301.



The effects are really rather obvious. This is only a subjective test on one record deck so I wouldn't want to generalise too much from what I've heard.

1) The heavier weight - RHS in the pic - this gives a stronger bass which times better, definitely more foot tapping. Vocals are better focused dead centre, this aids intelligibility.

2) The Grippa - LHS in the photo - this is tightened down onto the record. Bass is a same as 1) above but the vocals don't quite have the focus of 1).

3) The Grippa not tightened down, this has least vocal focus of all and bass weight/timing is though there's no weight in use. There's surface noise too, which wasn't at all noticeable with 1) and 2).

I don't have suitable scales to weigh the weights but the interesting thing is that Grippa is not that much lighter than the heavier weight yet when used simply as a weight the results are not good.

[Marco]

Most interesting, and kind of backs up what I wrote earlier!

Marco.

[MartinT]

Yes - greater focus and tighter bass are the aspects I notice moving from a medium weight (Bruil) to a heavy weight (Stillpoints). I have yet to hear any more rumble, but I doubt that even the Stillpoints' weight is going to upset the Mike New bearing.

[MartinT]

You can't hear rumble directly unless it is very bad indeed - what you can hear is the absence of its influence when it is lowered, or removed.

Agreed, Mark, and my noise floor keeps lowering every time I improve the phono system.

[Marco]

You can't hear rumble directly unless it is very bad indeed - what you can hear is the absence of its influence when it is lowered, or removed.

Yup, but what you have to weigh that up against, conversely, are the sonic benefits (if any are heard) of using a high-mass record weight, which in turn, was responsible for creating the increased rumble.

It's a catch-22 situation, and like I said earlier, the only solution is to seek the best compromise, and use your ears to judge what that is.

Clearly, the use of a heavier record weight, in Martin's system, has not caused an overall deleterious effect, despite arguably increasing the effect of rumble from his turntable

Marco.

[Marco]

What if you could have a record weight that behaved exactly like a high mass design, but actually has low mass....?

Then I would listen to it with the same turntable on which I heard the improvement with the high-mass weight, compare the results, and then decide which weight was best, to my ears, in the context of the test system.

What I wouldn't do is dismiss the high-mass weight, simply because it caused (inaudible) increased rumble - and I certainly wouldn't presume that the low-mass design was superior, simply because measurements said so!

Marco.

[Marco]

It's only a conceptual proposition.

Just because there isn't a flashing neon sign proclaiming the existence of low level distortion, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And just because it exists doesn't mean that the effect isn't outweighed by positive sonic benefits in other areas, obtained by the use of the high-mass record weight!

Are we finished going round in circles yet?

The important message amongst all this pointless arguing is, forget measurements and just use your ears to judge, as Martin has clearly done, to his benefit, with the use of his new high-mass record weight, despite it being claimed that it should be worse because it's heavier than his old one!

As for the distortion/noise argument - if noise and distortion were the only issues to consider, then why aren't all 'quieter' solid-state amps automatically sonically superior to ALL their 'noisier' valve counterparts?

Marco.

[Marco]

Yes, I am

Excelllent, I'm finished, too, so let's leave it there and move on!

Marco.

[Rare Bird]

TFFT

[Marco]

Wossat stand for?

Marco.