• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Pinnacle of vinyl playback

Guess the price (not known at the moment)

  • $5k

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • $6k

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • $7k

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • $8k

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $9k

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $10k

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • $11k

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • $12k

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $13k

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $14k

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Total voters
    10

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Don, you're probably right when you point out that the reproduction chain in vinyl playback is complex, which means it's difficult to forecast a meaningful SNR number.

Here's a good read on the theoretial DR of vinyl:
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html

The author assumes that the LP disc is made of diamond and makes some calculations to estimate DR.

However, DR and SNR is not exactly the same thing...

When it comes to cartridges, it's been said that the Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement, at the ridiculous price of $15k, has an SNR of more than 100 dB:
http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Statement-Phono-Cartridge

I don't know where those figures come from and how they are measured, but this guy claims the same thing:

http://www.purevinylclub.com/key-advantages/

I know the 2 latest sources are dubious, and cartridge producers don't publish SNR data of their über expensive gear.

In other words, it seems like it may be possible to keep SNR at around 90 dB in vinyl playback, given the LP disc doesn't ruin an otherwise perfect audio chain...


Thanks for the links, very interesting. I remember reading, someplace, ages ago, that the theoretical limit was around 100 dB, but for real (standard) vinyl was closer to 70~80 dB due to the material and manufacturing, and rapidly dropped to 60 dB or so after a few plays due to damage, dust pick-up, and so forth. In practice the best I have measured (again years ago, but with the best TT's of that time) was around 70~75 dB. That first link is sort of mixing up SFDR and SNR but the general trends are there... Surface noise, eccentricity (off-center hole, out of round grooves), warps etc. on the record combine with TT wow and flutter, rumble, electrical and mechanical noise, etc. to reduce real-world SNR into the 60's at least when I have measured it. Of course the source is also a factor; heavily compressed pop music may have much lower dynamic range than the TT system can deliver. Some TT's way back when would automatically center a record, and of course there are endless variations on clamps, mats, vacuum hold-down, and other schemes to get rid of record warp. And cleaners (just read an article describing the virtues of a "mid-level" cleaner suitable for "middle- to high-end audiophiles" that listed for $5,000 USD -- ouch!) Long way from my DiscWasher brush and fluid that I used so religiously back then.

I am familiar with the difference between dynamic range, which I call spurious-free dynamic range (SFDR), and SNR. That is why I used dynamic range and not SNR is mentioning DAC specs. To put numbers on it, for a sampled data converter (ADC or DAC), theoretical SNR goes by 6N and SFDR by 9N where N is the number of bits.

The Clearaudio cartridge is one of several claiming exceedingly low distortion. Again, I don't doubt it is possible, just that anything like that is achieved in the real world. That said, I have not kept up with the state of the art in records, so perhaps modern LPs are capable of >70 dB. The best tapes I have measured hit up around 80~85 dB IIRC (1" or 2"masters) and a modern front end should beat that. And for those with ultrasonic hearing a record can contain and cartridge can extract frequency content well above 20 kHz, all the way to around 100 kHz or so. I used to have (actually the store for which I worked owned) a metal measurement LP along with a handful of pristine test LPs manufactured with a special harder material. Wish I had kept a couple...

I remember the change I heard and measured as I stepped up from a cheap BIC TT through Dual and Garrard to more expensive models like Thorens, Linn, Oracle, etc. I own an older TT whose model I've forgotten, a Linn copy, and I put a Magnepan UniPivot on it after trying several other arms (Grace, SME). Reducing mechanical noise and improving speed stability can make an audible improvement, but at some point you are limited by the record itself. My collection took a big step up when MoFi, Telarc, and others started producing good-quality LPs (this was the late 70's and early 80's when standard vinyl was getting thinner, more warped, noisier, and generally poorer IME/IMO). I have heard a few good systems recently and they sound great to me, but not great enough for me to pull my TT out of storage. I've pretty much abandoned it for digital, and the best digital recordings to my ears are better than the best vinyl. The main problem I've had is as Amir and others have said; remastering/editing noisy old tapes by filtering and compressing them and putting them on CD has created a lot of CDs that, while they should be technically superior, sound worse. Blah.

I expect the SP10 will be an excellent TT, at hopefully a reasonable price, whatever that means. I didn't participate in your poll because I simply don't have a good feel for it; I would guess in the $5k to $10k range but given the price of other top-of-the-line models from e.g. Shure I would not be surprised to see it up in the $15k to $20k range or even higher. We'll find out soon, hopefully. Along with test results showing what sort of performance it achieves.

I am surprised there aren't more linear-tracking arms and TTs around these days. I expected all the SOTA systems to have vacuum hold down, diamond bearings, and linear arms these days.

Here's a question for you vinyl gurus that I have thought about from time to time: Has there been research into the RIAA curve, does it need updating to take advantage of modern equipment (recording and playback)?
 
Last edited:

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Which is my point, really: That vinyl playback has been locked in a 1970s bubble where few or no real game changing improvements have taken place in the past 40 years.

Sure. And I could say the same for mechanical watches, which were made technically obsolete by the invention of quartz watches, which nearly killed the mechanical industry.

But the mechanical watch industry reinvented itself as something to be owned not because it was the most accurate device for time keeping, but for other reasons - male jewelry, collectibility, craftsmanship, nostalgia, conspicuous consumption, etc.

I think most new vinyl buyers, especially millenials, fit those criteria.

Other than Michael Fremer and his small band of hairshirt vinyl supremacists, most of my friends who enjoy vinyl don't think its superior. But they do think it's different and more fun, which is enough.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Here's a question for you vinyl gurus that I have thought about from time to time: Has there been research into the RIAA curve, does it need updating to take advantage of modern equipment (recording and playback)?

Recording isn't the issue -- it's the physical limitations of the medium and cutting lathe that require the RIAA curve.

And there is some guy out there promoting 'HD vinyl', which I assume would require a different curve.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Cutting lathes, the physical record material (plastic), and playback system are among what I meant by the equipment. That should also include cartridges; a modern design might offer compliance and mechanical range that would allow greater (larger) cuts and thus greater dynamic range.

Or not...

Many years ago I read an article postulating a digital record, wherein a carrier was modulated to produce the grooves on the records, and the recovered signal demodulated to produce multilevel digital words that were sent to a DAC for playback. That should make a few heads explode... :)
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Cutting lathes, the physical record material (plastic), and playback system are among what I meant by the equipment. That should also include cartridges; a modern design might offer compliance and mechanical range that would allow greater (larger) cuts and thus greater dynamic range.

Okay, but to what end? If you want an analog medium with better dynamic range, studio master tapes with Dolby A have about 80 dB dynamic range, which is about 10 dB more than the best vinyl.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
I worked for Garrard in the mid 1970s.
I learned a lot then. As far as I can see nothing I learned then is irrelevant today, and nothing people are doing today is based on new ideas. There are some better materials more readily available today but a lot of the fundamental engineering is in some cases either ignored (or not known about) and many of the record players I see on the market today are more about styling and marketing hot-buttons than sound (in both senses of the word) engineering.
I have 4 record players which all sound different for easily explained reasons, but have settled on one of them for permanent "residence" because it is well engineered and too big and heavy to easily store.
I don't buy records any more but play those I own whenever they contain the music I want to listen to next.
There are practical aspects of manufacturing an LP which mean that even if you spend a gazzillion on optimising the engineering of a record player the resulting output won't be an accurate reproduction of the original performance recorded because of the changes necessary to manufacture the LP.
On the subject of dynamic range it seems to me that nowadays most music is consumed on the move in noisy environments where losing the dynamic range allows people to hear the quiet bits.
People listening seriously at home seem to be so small a market for digital recordings few suppliers cater for us at all these days. My best sounding CDs tend to be the oldest. LPs, otoh will not be played on a train or in a car, so continuing to push the limits of LP capability makes as much sense as it ever did.
Sadly the potential of digital is rarely exploited. Luckily for me I mainly listen to classical music where this is a less likely to be a problem.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Okay, but to what end? If you want an analog medium with better dynamic range, studio master tapes with Dolby A have about 80 dB dynamic range, which is about 10 dB more than the best vinyl.

No special end, I don't have a dog in this hunt. The thread is about SOTA in record (vinyl, LP) playback, so I was asking what else might be improved. I'm an engineer, I get curious about such things, even though they may fall into the "who cares?" or basic research category. I also wonder about rotational speed; 33 1/3 rpm is probably impossible to change now, but would a different speed provide better sound? There were a few 45 rpm recordings released years back that claimed superior sound due to the higher speed.

Technically I am more interested in the SOTA of data converters and e.g. the pros and cons of delta-sigma vs. other converter architectures (conventional multibit or not, like phase encoders and Hadamard-sequence based designs for wideband applications; the latter not necessarily audio, but I won a couple of research studies to explore them and it was a fun project).
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
Worth reading IME.
This shows a couple of the shortcomings or playing records, I saw these effects back in the 1970s but (obviously) have no documentation which belonged to my employer.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/turntables/feedback.html

As a noise and vibration research engineer I had only worked in heavy engineering previously. When I started at Garrard one of the older engineers took me under his wing and got me to do some tests to find things for myself. We mainly looked at the output of the RIAA equaliser on finished designs (and evaluating competitors products), since that is what is being listened to.
The two things which stuck in my mind were the effect on the output due to SME type removable headshell (not good and inconsistent) and the fact that a solid plinth deck picked up the vibration of buses driving by on the road 4-floors down on the other side of the factory car park.
I would never use an arm with detachable headshell, or a deck without a proper isolation system (ie not bits of rubber).
 
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Worth reading IME.
This shows a couple of the shortcomings or playing records, I saw these effects back in the 1970s but (obviously) have no documentation which belonged to my employer.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/turntables/feedback.html

As a noise and vibration research engineer I had only worked in heavy engineering previously. When I started at Garrard one of the older engineers took me under his wing and got me to do some tests to find things for myself. We mainly looked at the output of the RIAA equaliser on finished designs (and evaluating competitors products), since that is what is being listened to.
The two things which stuck in my mind were the effect on the output due to SME type removable headshell (not good and inconsistent) and the fact that a solid plinth deck picked up the vibration of buses driving by on the road 4-floors down on the other side of the factory car park.
I would never use an arm with detachable headshell, or a deck without a proper isolation system (ie not bits of rubber).
Unless it's an advantage, as I suggested a few posts back:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/pinnacle-of-vinyl-playback.1881/#post-49190
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I would never use an arm with detachable headshell, or a deck without a proper isolation system (ie not bits of rubber).

What do you mean by "not bits of rubber"?

Decoupling makes sense in case of unwanted vibrations and petroleum based decouplers are often used (like sorbothane).
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
Producing less rumble is nice, but plenty of TTs are low enough already.
Getting the plinth and arm mount to minimise vibration getting to the cartridge body is more important since the output from the cartridge is the relative movement or generator and stator.
Pickup cartridges inherently have high distortion 0.5% is exceptional laterally at mid frequencies, >5% common at higher frequencies I would not be surprised if plots showing >20kHz output from record players are not mainly distortion products. Pivoting pickup arms add their distortion too and getting the alignment accurate enough to minimise this requires test equipment to do properly.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
Indeed. A bit of extra bass reverb could well sound nicer. Lots of people say solid plinth turntables have "better bass".
What do you mean by "not bits of rubber"?

Decoupling makes sense in case of unwanted vibrations and petroleum based decouplers are often used (like sorbothane).
Decoupling makes complete sense, the problem is that polymers don't isolate very well. Sorbothane absorbs some frequencies but is useless for wide band isolation.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Producing less rumble is nice, but plenty of TTs are low enough already.
Getting the plinth and arm mount to minimise vibration getting to the cartridge body is more important since the output from the cartridge is the relative movement or generator and stator.
Pickup cartridges inherently have high distortion 0.5% is exceptional laterally at mid frequencies, >5% common at higher frequencies I would not be surprised if plots showing >20kHz output from record players are not mainly distortion products. Pivoting pickup arms add their distortion too and getting the alignment accurate enough to minimise this requires test equipment to do properly.

Which makes me look forward to seeing what Panasonic comes up with (plinth and arm) for their rejuvenated SP-10R.

PS: Decoupling is an interesting theme which is worth its own thread. It's also an area where science and serious research are relatively scarce.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
Which makes me look forward to seeing what Panasonic comes up with (plinth and arm) for their rejuvenated SP-10R.

PS: Decoupling is an interesting theme which is worth its own thread. It's also an area where science and serious research are relatively scarce.

The science and technology of decoupling is mature and well understood - just absent or misunderstood in most hifi products :)
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
The science and technology of decoupling is mature and well understood - just absent or misunderstood in most hifi products :)

I was having this passage in mind:

"A thorny issue that deserves much more accurate scientific analysis both theoretically and experimentally, is the mechanical decoupling of the loudspeaker from the rest of the system (console, stands, etc.). In the past, when the hi- world was closely linked to the professional one, it was established that a loudspeaker sounded better if mounted on an extremely heavy slab, generally a marble one. This support was xed to the ground by spikes so the slab could damp vibrations thanks to its huge mass. At the same time the slab had to provide a remarkable stability to the speaker thanks to spikes that fastened it to the ground.

Nowadays many brands (Isoacoustics, DMSD, Primacoustic, Auralex and many other) offer real decoupling systems with rubbers and other elastomers. But how could we move from the idea of having a fastened monitor to a so-called oating one?".
Source (pages 38-40): https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Monitoring-Supplement-2017.pdf

PS: This may look like I'm going off-topic on the vinyl issue...but given the fact that physical disturbances, noise, is a big part of vinyl playback it may not be so far off-topic after all...
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
I was having this passage in mind:

"A thorny issue that deserves much more accurate scientific analysis both theoretically and experimentally, is the mechanical decoupling of the loudspeaker from the rest of the system (console, stands, etc.). In the past, when the hi- world was closely linked to the professional one, it was established that a loudspeaker sounded better if mounted on an extremely heavy slab, generally a marble one. This support was xed to the ground by spikes so the slab could damp vibrations thanks to its huge mass. At the same time the slab had to provide a remarkable stability to the speaker thanks to spikes that fastened it to the ground.

Nowadays many brands (Isoacoustics, DMSD, Primacoustic, Auralex and many other) offer real decoupling systems with rubbers and other elastomers. But how could we move from the idea of having a fastened monitor to a so-called oating one?".
Source (pages 38-40): https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Monitoring-Supplement-2017.pdf

PS: This may look like I'm going off-topic on the vinyl issue...but given the fact that physical disturbances, noise, is a big part of vinyl playback it may not be so far off-topic after all...
The difficulty is in giving universal advice.
The most thorough solution to isolating a turntable in all 6 degrees of freedom was that of Edgar Vilchur with the original AR turntable notably adopted by Linn.
For the best isolation a minimum damping is required, since damping "short circuits" the isolator at frequencies well above resonance. In suspension systems where impact or low frequency excitation is unavoidable, like a vehicle, damping is essential. Where impact and vlf excitation during normal use can be avoided, like on a turntable, the best isolation uses no damping, ie simple carefully positioned steel springs are an excellent solution.
Unfortunately footfall and handling can excite resonance (I don't consider this normal use ie listening) but it annoys many, so they reject good isolation.
I could go on...
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Sure. And I could say the same for mechanical watches, which were made technically obsolete by the invention of quartz watches, which nearly killed the mechanical industry.

But the mechanical watch industry reinvented itself as something to be owned not because it was the most accurate device for time keeping, but for other reasons - male jewelry, collectibility, craftsmanship, nostalgia, conspicuous consumption, etc.

I think most new vinyl buyers, especially millenials, fit those criteria.

Other than Michael Fremer and his small band of hairshirt vinyl supremacists, most of my friends who enjoy vinyl don't think its superior. But they do think it's different and more fun, which is enough.

Hey, watch (hee hee) what you say. I own a 1967 Rolex GMT Master in all stainless, which cost me $235 new retail back then. It has been on my wrist all the time ever since, except in the shower and except for several weeks each decade or so being overhauled, very expensively, I might add. A jeweler spotted it on my wrist last year, asked to take a look at it and offered me $5,000 cash on the spot. He did say used retail these days would be $7,000. But, it is too much a part of me to part with. It will be part of my legacy to my daughter.

But, you are right. Though a "certified chronometer", it does not keep time as well as many ordinary quartz watches costing way less.

Meanwhile, there is a 1980 vintage Oracle Delphi II turntable in a box in my garage, set up with an Eminent Technologies air bearing linear tonearm. A VPI vacuum cleaning machine is there, too. They were last used a few decades ago. I don't miss them. I found LP delivered a "sentimental" and not particularly realistic sound, whose appeal to me was just lost.

An infamous, over the top, LP nut of a reviewer friend (now a former friend) invited me excitedly to his house a few years ago with other audiophiles to hear a then Highly Regarded $160,000 OneDoF turntable with Triplanar arm, exotic cartridge and phono stage. It had been set up by the TT maker in person, who was also there. Carefully selected, super-duper LPs were played. I listened patiently and curteously, amid the gushing comments in the room from other audiophiles about how magically wonderful it was. Later, once outside, another friend and I both laughed and shook our heads. Is that the best ya got? It was stupendously underwhelming to say the least by our sonic standards.

Fun? The novelty had long worn off for me in prior decades. I prefer better sound. But, the thousands of LPs acting as some haphazard acoustic "treatments" (?) still line the walls of my listening room gathering nothing but dust. But, like my Rolex, just owning them has a sentimental appeal.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
That vinyl playback has been locked in a 1970s bubble where few or no real game changing improvements have taken place in the past 40 years.

That's how I feel about computers, since 1984.

Before:

upload_2017-9-3_14-28-34.png


After:

desktop.gif


Mouse, GUI.

Nothing new, just incremental improvements.

(There were some a few GUI based workstations around a little before that, we had them at work, in the Documentation department.)
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Hey, watch (hee hee) what you say. I own a 1967 Rolex GMT Master in all stainless, which cost me $235 new retail back then. It has been on my wrist all the time ever since, except in the shower and except for several weeks each decade or so being overhauled, very expensively, I might add. A jeweler spotted it on my wrist last year, asked to take a look at it and offered me $5,000 cash on the spot. He did say used retail these days would be $7,000. But, it is too much a part of me to part with. It will be part of my legacy to my daughter.

But, you are right. Though a "certified chronometer", it does not keep time as well as many ordinary quartz watches costing way less.

Meanwhile, there is a 1980 vintage Oracle Delphi II turntable in a box in my garage, set up with an Eminent Technologies air bearing linear tonearm. A VPI vacuum cleaning machine is there, too. They were last used a few decades ago. I don't miss them. I found LP delivered a "sentimental" and not particularly realistic sound, whose appeal to me was just lost.

An infamous, over the top, LP nut of a reviewer friend (now a former friend) invited me excitedly to his house a few years ago with other audiophiles to hear a then Highly Regarded $160,000 OneDoF turntable with Triplanar arm, exotic cartridge and phono stage. It had been set up by the TT maker in person, who was also there. Carefully selected, super-duper LPs were played. I listened patiently and curteously, amid the gushing comments in the room from other audiophiles about how magically wonderful it was. Later, once outside, another friend and I both laughed and shook our heads. Is that the best ya got? It was stupendously underwhelming to say the least by our sonic standards.

Fun? The novelty had long worn off for me in prior decades. I prefer better sound. But, the thousands of LPs acting as some haphazard acoustic "treatments" (?) still line the walls of my listening room gathering nothing but dust. But, like my Rolex, just owning them has a sentimental appeal.

I experienced the same on a $$$$$ setup which played back both digital and vinyl. You could easily hear the surface noise. Ouch!

Another friend of mine has a much cheaper setup, going through the top McIntosh phono preamp with some built-in filters etc. His vinyl rips are a delight. No big issue with surface noise.

My point is: The very expensive setup you heard may have come from an amateur boutique. McIntosh is, still, simply well-engineered and -built.

Just my trying to sort out listening impressions here, which is probably worth as much as this:
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
I was having this passage in mind:

"A thorny issue that deserves much more accurate scientific analysis both theoretically and experimentally, is the mechanical decoupling of the loudspeaker from the rest of the system (console, stands, etc.). In the past, when the hi- world was closely linked to the professional one, it was established that a loudspeaker sounded better if mounted on an extremely heavy slab, generally a marble one. This support was xed to the ground by spikes so the slab could damp vibrations thanks to its huge mass. At the same time the slab had to provide a remarkable stability to the speaker thanks to spikes that fastened it to the ground.

Nowadays many brands (Isoacoustics, DMSD, Primacoustic, Auralex and many other) offer real decoupling systems with rubbers and other elastomers. But how could we move from the idea of having a fastened monitor to a so-called oating one?".
Source (pages 38-40): https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Monitoring-Supplement-2017.pdf

PS: This may look like I'm going off-topic on the vinyl issue...but given the fact that physical disturbances, noise, is a big part of vinyl playback it may not be so far off-topic after all...
I don't disagree. Electromechanical LP playback is subject to many physical forces, including the acoustic ones in the room. My old Oracle Delpi was spring suspended, like AR, Linn, etc., and it was one of the first to introduce the screw down clamp to dampen outside acoustic vibrations on the disc itself. Still, I always preferred a wall, rather than a floor stand, mount for better isolation from footfalls. Very low frequency vibrations would otherwise still cause the suspension to jiggle.

But, except for a very few attempts, dealing with off center play and record warps, which introduce considerable momentary forces of their own inducing sonic penalties, these issues are just generally accepted. Part of the fun?
 
Top Bottom