Yup. Saw that Fender take on the MoFi UltraDeck. MoFi has renamed it the PrecisionDeck, but under the exceptional Fender inspired finish, which sure is eye catching, it’s still an UltraDeck. Not that the UltraDeck isn’t a sweet TT for the money, but that finish represents a $1500 bump in price. But hey, I’m with senna1a, if it entices more folks to get into (go back!) to vinyl works for all of us. Keeps analog alive and healthy.
Thorens TD160 B mk2, SME arm, Ortofon cartridge.
Definitely overpriced. I had a chance to pick up an open box Ultradeck for $1200 about six months ago but I don’t own any records and the thought of the phono preamp and starting a vinyl collection sounded like another giant rabbit hole and lots of cash! If I had a vinyl collection I would of pulled the trigger and would probably be discussing upgrading the ultra deck now.
2 Likes
A significant Fender tax.
2 Likes
I don’t doubt that this might help in certain combinations or with certain arms, but if we think what a well constructed arm should theoretically do, many phono accessories don’t make sense or should even rather harm than help.
Usually an arm should as directly as possible pick up the cartridges resonances and deduct them as fast as possible to an absorbing base. The meaning is to prevent the resonances from staying fully or partly within the cartridge. If a damping (can’t be elimination) of resonances directly under the cartridge helps, this theoretically means, that the arm previously didn’t adequately achieve deducting them to the base.
A lot of tweaks (not only phono tweaks) help the playback of less perfect components but harm the playback of more perfect ones. Quite similar with various turntable mats. But as always…if it helps in the individual situation, it’s good.
1 Like
Very well stated!
I agree, I would like to think that the amount of design, engineering and tuning/testing that goes into developing and manufacturing “hi-end” tonearms (in my case a Kuzma 4pt-11) would eliminate the need for additional damping or SR DOTS and the like
That said, anything that works for an individual system/set-up is a good thing! and my statement doesn’t stop me from chasing nirvana through isolation, cables, fuses, tube rolling…and the list goes on
Best,
-JP
My stock Delphi V & Turbo PS went back to the mothership last Christmas and was upgraded with all the sonically significant Delphi VI updates along with the granite Reference plinth. It sounds as pretty as it looks!
4 Likes
I had a Delphi IV with an SME V long ago. With the V they introduced the granite base and other changes (electronics and few others). Although granite is a quite ringing stone (especially in this low thickness), there might be a certain effect. But what did they change with the base from V to VI?
The Delphi is a nice suspension design, imo it’s main weaknesses were the granite base (not that relevant due to the overlying suspension design), the concave platter causing a non perpendicular cantilever suspension when azimuth is set correctly (or wrong azimuth) and the motor mounted on the same base as the rest of the turntable (not as relevant as with a non suspended design). The platter composite is very good. Pretty sound and particularly looks!
The damper is made by Origin Live, who make exceptionally good turntables and arms. I use an Illustrious Mk3 arm. The damper is supplied with all arms, up to $25,000. I don’t think they would supply it if it had a negative effect.
Yes, it’s strange…but I think one must admit, that it’s a bit as if someone puts a layer of rubbber inbetween the base of a speaker and a spike. The spike then has nearly no meaning anymore. But it may work, if the base below the spike doesn’t absorb the resonance deducted to it anyway. Then it might be better to damp the speaker resonance a bit between the speaker and the spike.
Townshend podiums completely isolate speakers from the floor. Very popular.
Yes, isolation is an alternative concept. But then (unless the resonance isn’t completely eliminated within the isolation layer) the resonance is at least partly kept within the producer of the resonance (in this case the speaker, or the cartridge). I think one reason why this is not optimal is equivalent to the success of the Isoacoustics feet. They care for the compensation of the remainng resonance at least in the for speakers most important horizontal direction towards chassis excursion.
I don’t say such a headshell damper doesn’t sound good in those setups, I just say, from an engineering point of view and from the basic design idea of a cartridge/tonearm/basis system, it’s questionable in its logic.
You would love Babcock Dairy ice cream made in the dairy department of UW Madison.
1 Like
It also depends on the overall design and what frequencies you are intending to address, usually low for speakers and very high for cartridges. The Origin Live item is a fairly hard damper, Townshend do products for both damping and isolating.
My audio cabinet and the units in it are damped with industrial products designed for light machinery. The cabinet feet cost about $5 each and the units are sitting on material that cost about $20. They are a sandwich of hard rubber and softer rubber between, designed to compress, buy the size for the expected weight.
Yes, all fine. And what you say about that the effect of resonance measures e.g. depends on the weight of the unit is correct.
One reason why my trust in general resonance measures (like one damper design for any arm and any cartridge) is limited, especially in the over sensible case of micro effects within phono. The measure that is generally valid is “deduct as fast as possible and then eliminate as completely as possible”. An efficient damping measure usually must be designed much more individually to the application (e.g. resonance of the individual cartridge material or arm)… just as in your example of machinery feet, it doesn’t help to isolate a light machine with a too hard isolation device. Resonance measures are mostly highly individual to be efficient and different cartridges and arms behave differently there I’d say. My trust would rise if they’d design different dampers for each arm and cartridge body weight used.
Interesting results. Close to 50% of those with turntables only use them moderately or occasionally. Would be interesting to know why that is. Is it mostly due to the inconvenience of operating a turntable versus other sources?
I have a friend who sold his turntable and phono stage and is going into streaming only mainly because of the convenience. He believes digital can sound just as good if not better than vinyl.
I have another friend that would not touch digital with a 10 foot pole accept for video. He believes that digital can never sound as good as vinyl.
I have both and as good as vinyl is, my digital is not that far behind. Digital has evolved to the point that it can be just as enjoyable to listen to, if not more.
3 Likes
I’ve been listening to my TT more and more as I buy more records. The reason I voted that I use it 50%+ of the time is that I have music on CD that I don’t have on LP; hence, I listen to both.
1 Like
5 Likes