Turntable Isolation platforms?

[burmashave]

I had some oak tv trays sitting around unused. It has made a great platform with 1/2 squash balls under it, stack two halves together for best results, and squash balls under the feet of the tt on the platform itself. Crazy good results, and the platform itself was re purposed. I have seen these tv trays at resale stores for almost free.

Another great benefit is that with an extra stack of squash balls placed strategically under the platform, and used with a spirit level, I finally have as close to perfect level as I've ever had, and that made a difference too.

 

[jleon92f]

I had some oak tv trays sitting around unused. It has made a great platform with 1/2 squash balls under it, stack two halves together for best results, and squash balls under the feet of the tt on the platform itself. Crazy good results, and the platform itself was re purposed. I have seen these tv trays at resale stores for almost free.

Another great benefit is that with an extra stack of squash balls placed strategically under the platform, and used with a spirit level, I finally have as close to perfect level as I've ever had, and that made a difference too.

Amazing isn't it, when I first made mine and played records using that tt, I was blown away by the difference it made in my system. I am very happy with my results.

I am making a new one that has to be bigger because of the PL-550 plinth size.:thmbsp:

Thanks,
John.

 

[theophile]

I thought that I'd post here my latest episode in my long-running turntable isolation experimentation.

First some background:

I have been experimenting with innertube isolation for approximately 15 years. The drawbacks of the innertubes are what eventually pushed me to expend large sums of money on magnetic levitation platforms/footers. Mag-lev is also finicky but I find it more dependable than innertubes.

I'm not criticising innertubes. I went with mag-lev because my experience with innertubes showed me that the concept was undeniably necessary. Equipment, and especially the turntable, needs to be isolated.

I had used my previous turntable, a Yamaha PX-2 on a diy rollerball platform which supported a SAP Relaxa 3+ mag-lev platform. This was a very good combination of approaches. The improvement to the PX-2's sound was unmistakeable and there was no way that I'd consider going back to not having the mag-lev/rollerball set-up. Thus it was a huge shock to me when I got my Yamaha GT 2000 and I set it up next to the MLRB (mag-lev/rollerball) PX-2 and swapped the cartridge over to the GT 2000 which simply sat on a piece of furniture with no support tweaks. The unsuspended GT 2000 with no support tweaks whatsoever utterly annihilated the support-tweaked PX-2. It wasn't even in the same continent, let alone ballpark.

The lesson being: Tweaks have the potential to give a boost to the performance of a component. Tweaks have to potential to allow a component to perform to the best of its ability. Tweaks do not lift a component to a performance plane that it does not naturally inhabit. A substantially better performing component will outperform a very good but relatively less capable well-tweaked component.

My present support set-up:

None of this lessened my esteem for turntable isolation. Hence when I got the (financial) opportunity I made a substantial investment in first 8, then eventually 14 Clearaudio Magix to go underneath the Yamaha GT 2000. Very expensive, but I love them. I have used the Magix underneath the GT 2000 in a three-tier support combination with a grouping of polymer objects on the second tier. On the third tier, and directly in contact with the turntable I have until this week used the Boston Audio Tune-Blocks SE and the same company's Tuneplates. This has (eventually after a long time getting the fine tuning of all these elements) been a very good sounding adjunct to the incredibly good sounding GT 2000.

Now to the point of this post:

I had always carried the memory of how my diy Rollerball experiment with the PX-2 had been so successful, yet I had never implemented this approach with the GT 2000. Well this week I spied a suitable product with a large diameter shallow cup which would be suitable to use in order to obtain a low-frequency rock and roll. I bought 4 of the products and 4 20.66mm steel bearings. Substituting the cup and ball combination for the Boston Audio products on the third-tier of my GT 2000's turntable support brought the (expected) dramatic increase in the performance of the turntable Source.

Unlike Puma Cat's recommendation of a two-cup system, I have the 4 balls themselves in contact with the GT 2000's undersides. This is in line with Barry Diament's recommendation: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=4122257&postcount=324. I enhanced this further by getting some stainless steel cut to size to fit in the area under the sides of the turntable (Arkay will know what I am talking about here). The balls now contact the stainless steel and not the HDF fibreboard of the plinth.

I will say that the three-tier combination of mag-lev (14 x Clearaudio Magix) on the bottom tier, polymer objects on the middle tier and cup and ball diy rollerball in contact with the turntable underside is a fantastic way to finally tap more of the astonishing potential of my wonderful GT 2000.

I feel that the combination of vertical isolation (Magix), damping (polymer objects) and horizontal decoupling (diy rollerballs) had combined to give the recipe for liberating the GT 2000. If you have ever heard a GT 2000, you would know that sat on a milk-crate, the turntable sounds brilliant. Given a concerted effort at a proper approach to refining the support that it sits-upon, the results are beyond any imagining that one could hope for.

Thus I would say that for humble well made turntables, isolation efforts are well worth investigating. For extremely high performance turntables they are the only way that the owner will ever access all of the performance that the turntable is truly capable of.

Do I sound convinced? :yes:

 

[classic carl]

We have several marble pastry boards given to us.
One of them measuring 12" X 18" is being used to support one of the turntables.

Here is an inexpensive one ( $12.99 ) of similar dimension.
http://www.kitchencollection.com/Temp_Products.cfm?sku=00643423
QUOTE]

I use these also, but I remove the rubber feet and replace them with 4 isolation cones from Parts Express. I can knock on the edge of the board while a record is playing without any sonic interruption. I used superglue to attach the cones.

 

[guiller]

My present support set-up:

None of this lessened my esteem for turntable isolation. Hence when I got the (financial) opportunity I made a substantial investment in first 8, then eventually 14 Clearaudio Magix to go underneath the Yamaha GT 2000. Very expensive, but I love them. I have used the Magix underneath the GT 2000 in a three-tier support combination with a grouping of polymer objects on the second tier. On the third tier, and directly in contact with the turntable I have until this week used the Boston Audio Tune-Blocks SE and the same company's Tuneplates. This has (eventually after a long time getting the fine tuning of all these elements) been a very good sounding adjunct to the incredibly good sounding GT 2000.

Would you please upload some pictures of your new setup? It sounds very interesting to me.

 

[theophile]

Would you please upload some pictures of your new setup? It sounds very interesting to me.

I apologise, but I don't own a camera.

 

[SteveA]

Interesting. I have some imported and some DIY bearing isolators left over from my rack design experiments and have been thinking of trying them under the Versalex. Maybe it is time I did.

Those Magix are interesting but I can't see myself buying without trying first. I already have way too much leftover stuff from my rack designing days.

Steve

 

[theophile]

I used to load the Clearaudio Magix down until they were almost overloaded under the assumption that they worked better like this. I have had a change of heart in the last two months and now apply a the least load on them I can.

The polymer objects (which are on the second tier) however require a bit of mass loading (to my ear). Since this also loads the Magix which are on the bottom, I lashed-out and bought three more Magix today. Which will bring the total of Clearaudio Magix beneath my turntable to 17.

The Magix are not cheap. I am however absolutely utterly convinced that the GT 2000 reaps enormous benefit from being isolated. Enough so to warrant spending close to $3400 ( in total, for the 17 Clearaudio Magix) in order to achieve that goal.

If I didn't believe wholeheartedly or didn't hear any benefit, I wouldn't do such a thing.

I have heard the difference. Thus I put my money where my recommendation is. The benefit comes every time I put on an LP. With almost 3,000 LPs, the investment has cost me $1 for each LP and that is for a lifetime.

I will invest in better quality roller 'cups' also because Barry Diament insists that the quality of the cup (and secondly the ball) is the greatest determinant for the quality of the result. For the immediate present, my utilised objects will suffice. I need to find a machinist who can do the fabrication for me.

 

[datafone]

I tried the inner tube thing, definitely not for me.

I have a solid side table, with anti-vibration matting under a thick concrete paver that the TT sits on, works well for me

 

[jimbofish]

Continuing in the "roller-cups" design, I came across this DIY idea some time ago.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Zero-Movement-Turntable-Feet/

Not sure it's the same theory, but it seems to be, at least to me.

I haven't tried it yet, so no comment, pro or con. :yes: :scratch2:

 

[SteveA]

.....
I will invest in better quality roller 'cups' also because Barry Diament insists that the quality of the cup (and secondly the ball) is the greatest determinant for the quality of the result. For the immediate present, my utilised objects will suffice. I need to find a machinist who can do the fabrication for me.

You might want to try different ball materials in the one you have as well.

I experimented with ordinary hardened steel, tungsten carbide and ceramic when I was experimenting with bearing isolators and concluded I far preferred the ceramic. I didn’t expect to hear any difference but I did. Now have ceramic under the main components and ordinary steel under the power supplies.

Also, the Versalex did not really benefit from bearing/roller ball isolators. They made a slight difference when I bypassed the TT’s own feet but I could not decide whether it was an improvement or just a change. Listened for a bit longer with them under the glass shelf the TT sits on and concluded that things did not sound quite so relaxed as normal, although it did not sound bad.

Steve

 

[theophile]

My latest purchase of 3 more Clearaudio magix arrived today.

This brings the total of these mag-lev footers beneath my turntable to 17. :sigh:

I was able to slide them into place without a total tear-down of the set-up(thankfully). After re-levelling the turntable it was time to listen.

Oh yeah.

I know how good this turntable sounds without any isolation efforts, and that is excellent. However that excellence should be considered a starting point. My experiments with vertical isolation, damping and horizontal decoupling have proved to me that unsuspended turntables, no matter how excellent their unsuspended performance might be, absolutely leap in performance with concerted serious efforts towards the above specified goals.

I am now convinced that the pinnacle of turntable performance cannot be achieved without efforts towards those goals. I also consider that each one of those elements is important in its own right. The combination of the three might just be one guaranteed recipe to optimising the performance of very high quality turntables.

I am willing to consider that there might be other additional elements that could further extend the sonic optimisation of turntables. I would consider moving my turntable into a closet which is only ten feet from my listening position, for example. This would necessitate a LONG run of cables to my amplification (ie the preamp). Thus I will put this consideration into the 'Hmmm' basket for now. It wouldn't be too difficult and might just give a further nudge to things. :scratch2:

The thing that stuns me constantly with all of these efforts and adventures in turntable optimisation, is the sheer amount of information in the humble record groove. It is pretty mind-blowing to have optimised things to an amazing degree, only to find that there is more.

Please consider, owners of great turntables, that you may only be scratching the surface - looking at the tip of the iceberg - with the extremely satisfying performance that you are presently enjoying with your turntable if you have made no efforts to optimise the support, the support's isolation and damping.

That is what I am hearing. That is why I am testifying to this.

 

[jleon92f]

I like my solid wood platform, serves me well and the sound is excellent.:thmbsp:

 

[Shawnlh]

Stumbled across this thread in my search for isolation devices. Seeing that Puma's set up costs next to nothing, I figured I'd give it a shot. I put a platform under my TT and another under my tubed phono stage. All I can say is WOW, FREAKIN' AWESOME!!! Thanks a million Puma, I owe you a beer.
Going to make some for the rest of my components as well. The only thing that will eventually replace these are Minus-K BM8's when funding allows.
Again, a large thank you to Puma Cat.

 

[theophile]

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the Steve Hoffman hardware forum.

High mass boards, blocks, cement or marble blocks, sand boxes are NOT, I repeat, NOT the way to go for turntable isolation. You're just raising the amount of resonating mass that needs isolation. All the folks who specialize in professional isolation products agree with this. A light rigid board resting on an inner tube is a MUCH better bet, or a shelf that is of the floor.

Try this: get 3/4" or 1" plywood board cut from scrap to be slightly larger than your TT.

Set this board on an 12" or 16" inner tube inflated just enough to support the board and your TT, off the shelf, this will be around 10 PSI. Put a straw under the inner tube so that it does not seal against the board from vacuum and cause a mid-bass hump.

On top of the plywood board, place a 25mm or 1" marble or ball bearing into a concave plastic furniture cup.

This is shown with wooden balls, but marbles or steel ball bearings are much better. You can use one or two cups per ball depending on what is required to raise the stock TT feet off the shelf.

Use three of these under your turntable so that there is no possibilty of rocking or wobble (you can't rock a tripod). These will act as "roller blocks" and isolate your TT from seismic rotational and horizontal resonances.

The inner tube under the board acts as a low pass filter for vertical seismic resonances in the 3-15 Hz range. Using both together will provide a marked improvement in the sound from your TT in all regards: air, open-ness, transparency, imaging, detail, etc.
Here you can see the inner tube under a 1" maple board and the homemade roller blocks under my Rega.

You should also put this setup under your amp, preamp, integrated for even more improvements. The improvements this will make in your system is NOT subtle.

Here is a shot showing this setup under my Conrad-Johnson Premier 11A power amp.

Search in the Steve Hoffman audio hardware forum for "inner tube", "Barry Diament" for many, many examples and much discussion of this technique.

As Puma says in his first post on this thread:

Search for the name Barry Diament. Barry is a well credentialed engineer. He originated the idea of using the cup and ball method with inner tubes.

 

[ETI_5000]

While his method may work, his statement that high mass boards, blocks etc don't work is rubbish, this engineer says. The heavier something is, the more energy it requires to vibrate - that's why heavy things work well. The tried and tested paving stone on a slab of thick mattress foam works well. Simple engineering.... A piece of cloth can be used to hide it from view.

 

[marcmorin]

The heavier something is, the more energy it requires to vibrate -

That's why there's never an echo in a canyon.

 

[ETI_5000]

That's why there's never an echo in a canyon.

Nothing to do with it. I didn't say that heavy things don't resonate, but they take more energy to resonate the same amount. So a 10 ton lump of rock won't vibrate as much as a 1kg lump. OK?

The echo is the air in the canyon vibrating, after reflecting or bouncing off the rock walls - not the sound of the rock vibrating. That's not to say that the rock doesn't vibrate - just not as much as the air.

 

[theophile]

While his method may work, his statement that high mass boards, blocks etc don't work is rubbish, this engineer says. The heavier something is, the more energy it requires to vibrate - that's why heavy things work well. The tried and tested paving stone on a slab of thick mattress foam works well. Simple engineering.... A piece of cloth can be used to hide it from view.

I used enough Clearaudio Magix to enable me to utilise a granite slab atop the Magix. Upon which the cup and ball set-up sits. Barry Diament is adamant that the balls need to contact the component if possible. Thus coupling the component to whatever the cups and balls sit upon. As I said, in my case the cups and balls sit upon and are coupled to a granite slab. This theoretically modifies the mass of the GT 2000 due to it's mass being now coupled to the granite. That's my intention anyway.

 

[marcmorin]

Nothing to do with it. I didn't say that heavy things don't resonate, but they take more energy to resonate the same amount. So a 10 ton lump of rock won't vibrate as much as a 1kg lump. OK?

The echo is the air in the canyon vibrating, after reflecting or bouncing off the rock walls - not the sound of the rock vibrating. That's not to say that the rock doesn't vibrate - just not as much as the air.

correct, the canyon and all that mass doesn't absorb the acoustic wave, simply reflects it, Very well I might add. True, it takes more energy to move a higher mass, but it is also true that once the mass is in motion, the higher mass object will be in motion for a longer time. But then again, the mass itself doesn't have to go in actual motion but simply transmit a mechanical wave front through the mass. I bet if you put your ear to one end of a marble slab, and tap the other end of the slab with your finger nail, you'll hear it, but can't measure the slab moving.