The Mike New Technics Bearing

[chris@panteg]

As far as i know there are still no published test results for the MN bearing or indeed the TS bearing.

If the noise floor is so dramatically lowered then this should be measurable should it not?

I prefer a combination of listening backed up by a scientific approach.

[MartinT]

I prefer a combination of listening backed up by a scientific approach.

Yes, so do I. Sound engineering sense often helps the thought processes into an understanding of what might and might not work.

I was only half joking about the stethoscope idea and listening to the base of the bearing, I just can't see an easy way of getting one (or a contact mic) to it while playing and neither can I revert to my original (mint) Technics bearing. I'll keep thinking about it.

[Marco]

Hi Keiron,

Marco, with reference to your posts targeting me above, I would let this rest but you are publicly and inaccurately misrepresenting and mocking me.

First of all, I owe you an apology, as unfortunately your comments came at a time where I'd just had to deal with Pimlico-boy being a royal pain in the ass, on another thread, and wasn't in the best of moods, so I'm sorry about that.

I simply said I would be interested in some measurements because I cannot understand how these items can make such a “significant improvement”.

How about this for a simple hypothesis:

The MN bearing, for example, is unquestionably much better engineered than the stock Technics item (one only has to hold both in one's hands, and examine them side-by-side, to absorb that fact), using superior quality materials in the process, thus its use on the Technics results in a reduction in audible noise, compared with the stock item, due to it transferring less vibration to an area where it will be picked up by the stylus, muddying the sound and affecting the accuracy of music reproduced during playback...

In essence, therefore, a better bearing is a better bearing, and so, quite simply, it does its job more effectively!

That to me seems like a pretty rational explanation, not to mention is precisely what happened when I compared the 'before & after effects', once an MN bearing had been fitted to my T/T, when no other new variables existed that could've been responsible for the improvement.

For me, that all makes perfect sense, and so if I saw others whose opinions I respected expressing those views on AoS, after they'd bought an MN bearing, I wouldn't need the readout on a piece of test equipment to sell it to me!!

There's always a point in hi-fi when you have to trust your judgement, go with your gut feeling and take a punt on something, as measurements aren't always going to be available to act as your ears or provide 'proof' that something works, especially during the many instances when what we can genuinely hear can't currently be measured.

As for the mocking “yawn” you aimed at me and your comment you “couldn’t give the slightest tossing wank about measurements” - ignoring the lack of respect here...

Like I said, I'm sorry about that. Unfortunately, years of battling on forums with selfish and blinkered 'objectivists' have left their scars, and so the 'defence shields' go up whenever I sense that someone is 'playing the measurements card', in order to discredit or disrespect my valid subjectivist experiences, especially when Mr Pimlico had just done precisely that, and so unfortunately you got caught up in the backlash.

I can only say that I’m grateful that the engineers who design most products do give a toss. I like my turntable to run at 33 1/3, not 34 rpm. I want to know it will work safely on 240v. I want to be able to measure VTF accurately.

Sure, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, as merely an end user of product and music lover, I prefer to let the engineers worry about the measurements, whilst I concentrate on assembling a system that delivers the best sound I can afford (using my ears as the final arbiter).

I have re-read the ‘ethos’ and nowhere does it say that discussion of engineering principles or measurements is not allowed. Indeed it makes specific reference to welcoming viewpoints based on measurement.

Indeed. Essentially, on AoS, we promote open-mindedness and free-thinking. 'Objectivists' are always welcome, *providing* that they behave themselves, which means respecting the fact that this is predominantly an 'ears first' subjectivist forum, and so they must express their views in line with that, accept that their opinions are liable to be in the minority, and not attempt to 'convert' others to their way of thinking.

Sadly, not many are able or willing to do that, so after a period of time where they're given ample opportunity to fit in, they end up being banned, simply because they fail to stifle their belligerence and innate desire to 'educate' those who simply don't want or need such 'educating'.

That's it in a nutshell! Anyway, I apologise again and accept that I got you wrong

Marco.

[CageyH]

I believe that this is the usual response?

[Marco]

Not sure what you mean, Kevin?

Marco.

[CageyH]

Going back to the bearing baseplate, do you have to remove the three bearing mounting lugs on the chassis?

As for the bearing, it's a lovely looking bit of engineering. It's a shame to hide it away under a platter, but a slight (and I mean a very slight) improvement could be made to ease installation. Either a PTFE "shim" or increased clearance of the upper surface to PCB to stop having to attack the wire/solder tails with a pair of side cutters. That would make it absolutely spot on in my opinion. It's not that it's difficult to install - anybody with a screw driver and nail clippers/side cutters can do it - more of a case of continued product development.

If you have the cash to invest in a bearing drop MCRU a line, as he offered me a sale or return trial on the product. I was doubtful that it would make a big difference, and I have to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised. I know Andrei has issues with his bearing, and I would love to know why it does not deliver what I heard in my system. I have been back to the original several times before committing the funds, just to double check.

Blind testing would be hard, as I don't trust Mrs H near my deck with a screwdriver, and she is not interested in it anyway. She sees it as a waste of money!

[CageyH]

Not sure what you mean, Kevin?

Marco.

Not a lot. It's just a commonly used smiley in these parts.
It's actually a refreshing change to see someone publicly apologise for being wrong.

[Marco]

I've never had a problem admitting when I've got it wrong. I'm human, the same as anyone else, and so can (and do) make mistakes

Marco.

[Marco]

I know Andrei has issues with his bearing, and I would love to know why it does not deliver what I heard in my system.

+1.

I simply can't fathom how Andrei cannot hear the totally unsubtle, no-brainer, sonic improvements that I could, near-instantly, when I originally did the comparison between the MN and stock bearing, and continue to hear and enjoy to this day.

However, as they say: life is full of mysteries...!

Marco.

[CageyH]

My thoughts are that he has a near mint technics bearing that does not yet show any signs of wear. The design of the original bearing lends itself to high wear, as I doubt many people lube it as often as they are supposed to. I am also guessing that the tolerance stack of his bearing assembly could be near perfect.

If the bearing has little wear, and is lubed correctly, there will be a minor difference between the two.
I stripped my original bearing, cleaned and lubed it and saw minor signs of wear, mainly at the base of he spindle. It does not retain oil in the area, which for me is a problem I had to fix. My solution was just to buy the bearing that Mike has already Engineered.

The MN bearing will stand up to wear much better, and and each one is precision machined, and this is what you pay for. It would be much cheaper if demand was higher and it was able to be productionised.