Alternative platters ?

[Mike_New]

Hi Neil,
So you are saying that the vector magnitude is the speed versus angular position in degrees; plotted as XY co-ordinates
I guess that makes sense.

[Oldpinkman]

"The sonic presentation of the SL-1210 now has a power and authority, together with a sense of ease and lack of strain that I've never before experienced. As good as the deck was previously, with it already being extensively modified and upgraded elsewhere, when the stock platter was in place (with any mat), there was a tendency for some material to become 'shouty' and for the overall presentation to lack a little subtlety - and with it the sense that music was being artificially processed, rather than delivered as a genuinely credible and real performance.

This rather annoying 'signature' had always been present no matter the effect of upgrading the PSU, tonearm, mat or feet - until now.

With the Mike New platter in place, gone is the somewhat 'clangy' and sometimes slightly 'over-insistent' presentation of the Techie, and with it the tendency for voices to sound 'shiny' and a little metallic. What one gets now is real depth, emotional expression and tonal colour, which when framed within the significant reduction in the T/Ts overall noisefloor, combines to create a palpable sense of realism.

Quite simply, with the Mike New platter in place, the Techie has finally 'grown up' and thrown off the shackles of its somewhat uncouth exuberance, and more than ever now, has become a genuine (and serious) hi-end turntable. It is now crystal clear to me just how much the flimsy and resonant 'bell-like' stock platter influences the sonic performance of the superb Technics motor unit, and how this effect manifests itself on music.

I feel that this is where the real sonic improvements of the Mike New platter lie (greater mechanical integrity and lower resonance), rather than anything necessarily to do with increased mass, as it fundamentally addresses the deficiencies in the design of the stock platter. Remove those, and the superb Quartz controlled D/D motor and control circuitry take the extra mass of the MN platter in their stride (from initial start-up onwards) and deliver a musical presentation with uncanny realism that engages and beguiles one in a way which almost defies belief. "

What's going on?

[Marco]

Am I missing something? I confess to scanning through the earlier thread http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...o-Towers/page2 but it appears Marco and others are trying a MUCH heavier and higher inertia platter, weight and a new bearing, and greatly prefering the sound to the standard technics, with no mention of the adverse affect on the motor causing "wibble". Marco talks of the strain on his Amex this vast improvement necessitates. Nobody has posted "even with the noticeable wibble caused by the heavier platters, we prefer the Oyaide / Mike New to the stock Techie". And these are platters approaching 10Kg

In my case, the negative sonic aspects of the high-mass MN aluminium platter were only discovered when said platter was compared directly with the Funk one, firstly with my T/T at home, and then later in Martin's system, using both my T/T and his. Therefore, that discovery was made much later, after my initial impressions were posted about the improvements the MN platter produced over the stock Technics one, and were simply not mentioned on the forum until the matter came up again much later.

I still fully stand by those comments, as even though the MN platter is by no means perfect (is anything?) it still offers a massive improvement over the stock Technics one (or indeed any combination of 'fancy mats', such as the Oyaide, used on the stock platter), which is a major contributory factor of the, shall we say, less than 'audiophile' sound quality produced by an un-modified SL-1200/1210 (as indeed you've succinctly described, ahem, 'elsewhere' )

Let me make this crystal clear:

Mike's composite aluminium platter still remains as a viable upgrade option over the stock Technics item, as it brings some unique sonic qualities to the table (no pun intended), with the Technics SL-1200/1210, that no other aftermarket platter I've heard gives, and in some systems (e.g, Rexton's), the benefits of that will outweigh any negatives, such as have been outlined here. It's simply that Martin and me overall prefer what the Funk (MK I) platter does, in the context of our T/Ts and systems, and believe it to be, overall, more compatible with the control circuitry of the Technics.

In any hi-fi system, synergy between all constituent components is what matters most - and so in some contexts, the 'high-mass' MN platter will be a more ideal choice than any other. The same applies with all the other platters. Therefore, much to the dismay of some (those too lazy to think or make decisions for themselves), platter-wise, there is no 'one size fits all' or universal 'best' - and so, as ever, one simply has to use one's own judgement criteria, and preferably listen to some of the options available, before deciding which solution (if any) is right for you

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

Marco

I appreciate your points, and concur about our individual preferences and need to choose for ourselves. And I can fully understand how one product can be better than another, until a 3rd product comes along. But the issue here is not a subjective appreciation of the blend of sonic preferences which legitimately affect our choices. It's how much mass the Technics motor can work with. An objective technical issue, which could be measured, for which, for the minute, we are using the "ears as the final arbiter"

My interest is peripheral in a way, since almost regardless i hope to get Arthur to produce a strata PT platter just to try. But it will be helpful to hear the 2 materials on the Technics (since they are both available). The issue is does that decks ability to handle the mass of the platters enter the equation and invalidate the test in the context of choosing a material for my Pink Triangle?

And in that context, in the post I quoted, referring to a platter which I believe Mike New has stated weighs 10Kg, you stated "and the superb Quartz controlled D/D motor and control circuitry take the extra mass of the MN platter in their stride (from initial start-up onwards) and deliver a musical presentation with uncanny realism that engages and beguiles one in a way which almost defies belief. "

I don't understand how that comment fits with Martins assertion that he can "hear" that the motor can't cope with just over 2Kg.

That is my confusion

[Marco]

Sorry, I can't help you there. The comments you've quoted from me on that thread, in reference to the abilities of the Technics D/D motor, were posted before I became aware of the negative aspects produced by the MN platter, which prolonged listening and further comparisons unfortunately revealed only too clearly.

This proves how dangerous it is to make snap judgements in audio, and why I resist arriving at a final conclusion about any piece of audio equipment, until after having spent sufficient time with it, in order to get a proper handle on what it's doing.

Being completely non-technical, I can't offer any valid opinion on the graphs or test results published from pfm, or on Martin's assertion above. I've posted here simply to clear up some of the confusion (which Biff outlined) in relation to my earlier comments about the MN composite aluminium platter and where I stand on that matter now

Marco.

[MartinT]

And Martin - what do your plots tell us about this platter mass/inertia issue? They don't measure any of the heavy platters.

In isolation, Richard, it tells you little except that the Technics has a great drive system with little signs of motor cogging, the MN Bearing doesn't have stiction and and the Funk/Achromat combo are an ideal weight. That's why I suggested that we need similar plots for some heavier combinations where we can start to make comparisons.

Remember, though, that all the test plots are taken at 33rpm and the issues with heavy platters are more evident at 45rpm. Two of the reasons I didn't notice the issue for quite a while is that the problem is subtle at 33rpm and you need to know your system very well; and I rarely play 45rpm material.

[Marco]

If you remember, you were relatively unaware of the problem with the MN platter until I brought the Funk platter down to your place and demonstrated it to you...

Marco.

[YNWaN]

But the issue here is not a subjective appreciation of the blend of sonic preferences which legitimately affect our choices. It's how much mass the Technics motor can work with.

But it's not, it's not really about the motor as such, it is more about the motor adjustment circuit and the feedback circuit. I realise that it may sound pedantic to make such a distinction but there is a tendency to make simplifications, and draw parallels, that are not valid.

[MartinT]

Perhaps I should add: the step-up in sound quality from the Technics platter to the Mike New heavy platter is very large. From the MN platter to the Funk platter is much smaller. Let's not get things out of proportion here.

[MartinT]

If you remember, you were relatively unaware of the problem with the MN platter until I brought the Funk platter down to your place and demonstrated it to you...

Yes, exactly, which is why I posted my message above stressing that the comparison is more subtle. I was also more aware of it when playing 45rpm records, and once heard it was easier to spot.