|
|
Post by pinkie on Sept 29, 2016 16:42:41 GMT
I am going to dip a toe in the water here. My previous thread, about whether I had talked about the Pink Triangle mods or not established (I think) that I hadn't, and that Andre and AlanS were hoping I wouldn't. Can I suggest those gentlemen watch the cricket, or create exciting threads of their own rather than heckle here
So - the prologue (in your best Frankie Howard voice).
Previously, I have always been a "buy it off the shelf" boy. But somehow, since finding HiFi forums, I ended up in the Techipedia and SL12000 mods. Good news - I got to meet Wonky and become friends. Bad news - well forums and Techie modding. And for no particularly good reason I started to wonder whether aspects of my PT could have been better.
Going out an buying a 2nd hand Anni would have been one option. But by now I had renewed my friendship with Arthur, was down in Newhaven at least a few times a year, and had somehow googled up a post on the Vinyl Engine forum about modifying a PT TOO (actually a PT 1 converted to a PT TOO - which made the whole process more viable). It looked fun, pretty much within my skill set, and nothing like I remember what we considered relevant or useful at PT all those years ago.
So I started chatting with Grumpy, and trying to get him interested enough to provide his thoughts on what was worth doing, and what wasn't. And why Anni came about, and all that stuff. And we dug out an old Anni and set it up against a modded Techie and my PT and a Saffire. Then Kinetic and Boing came along, and it became clear that solid decks, whilst achieving fine results, were not how AK would design his "ultimate statement".
Now - this process was driven by Arthur being interested in concentrating on his current business and products, and not wasting time on has-beens like the PT, and me being interested in retaining my PT for nostalgia reasons but taking it to the limit. 2 compromises to "the ultimate pimp" resulted from this. We have not gone for a strata platter (the bonded glass jobby) because it entails significant modifcations to the suspension to cope with the weight, which would have been Klutsy in the extreme if keeping the original plinth and footprint (on a minor level I changed my red achromat for a white one to look more original). And anyway - if we started modifying the suspension, AK has a new design which allows true free movement in 3 planes, but wants to keep it up his sleeve, and yet again it would not work with an original PT plinth.
So - the project was established to take a PT to the ultimate performance, not worry too much about cosmetics, and retain - as far as possible - an original (nostalgic) PT look. There is some tidying up to do - but it is a runner - and I am very pleased with it. Next episode - what are we trying to achieve?
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Sept 29, 2016 17:23:14 GMT
Would love to see some pics!
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 29, 2016 17:58:29 GMT
Looking forward to it Richard.
Can I ask a favour of you on behalf of others?
Could you bear in mind that not everyone has intimate knowledge of Arthur and his products? (I believe these people do exist). Don't assume that everyone knows what a Saffire/Boing/Vector or whatever is.
Just a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 19:13:02 GMT
Can't wait to hear more and see pics. I'd (looks like wrongly) guessed AK would've moved away from a sprung sub chassis. I haven't like most sprung decks, but I put that down to having a single motor located in a stupid position and a subchassis that's badly designed. I'm guessing your PT won't be affected by either. The Voyd was the only sprung deck I enjoyed and I assumed it was the 3 motor arrangement that made most difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Sept 30, 2016 6:44:17 GMT
Thank you for the comments so far. Firstly a pic. A (few) more to follow with the story The PT installed  Let me take on board ChrisB's point, and go back to the beginning. In the 70's the UK HiFi scene had fallen under the influence of Linn and Naim - who's combination of turntable, arm, cartridge, amplifiers and speakers became the ultimate goal of magazine readers. So in the context of turntables - "normal best" was a Linn LP12, and if you weren't getting one of them, you were either getting an inferior step on the ladder, or an anti-establishment (nutty) alternative. The LP12 was not a revolutionary design. It was a beefy engineered, and very well marketed version of a basic design by Ariston and Thorens. There was the idea that turntables - the "Motor unit" could influence the sound. Mostly this was a beefy motor and a heavy platter for flywheel stability, and some method of isolating the motor vibrations from the record, and maybe isolating the environmental vibrations from the record. The Ariston Thorens Linn route was to mount a sub-chassis with the platter and armboard on it on isolating springs, which isolated the signal generating area from the environment and the motor. They did this with a rubber belt driving the platter instead of an idler wheel - but stuck with a phase locked AC motor. Arthur and his partner Neil Jackson were HiFi nuts and bought an LP12. And were very disappointed. Partly this was naievity - expecting that if they had paid £300 there should be £300 worth of components. Arthur costed the LP12 at about £50. This naievity was to cause the company to struggle with an underpriced product when the Pink Triangle (production cost £120 - £150) was launched for £300. But mostly Arthur was disappointed that it was just a record player like they had always been with bouncier springs than most for the isolation - and unstable and fussy. As a physicist and engineer at Westland Helicopters - he decided to "do it properly" This brings me back to my earlier point about "not what I remembered". Love it or hate it, PT's had a "concept" to the design. And that concept was largely "dealing with (unwanted) energy". So the electrical signal from the cartridge that we get to listen to is made by the stylus tip moving relative to the cartridge coils. An electrical signal will get produced by any relative movement between those 2 regardless of whether intentional (the movement set out by the record groove, relative to a fixed and unmoving cartridge body) or unintentional - vibrations from the motor, the music the system is playing from the loudspeakers, other environmental noise - and CRITICALLY - friction and surplus energy at the stylus/record itself. Not hard to proove it is there - it can often be heard as "needle talk". In a perfect system, all of the kinetic energy input by the motor would be converted to electrical energy in the cartridge coils. Needle talk is one form of waste - but dispersed as acoustic energy. At the micron level, there are a whole bunch of others. Ideally there would be no noise (waste energy) at all. Failing that, the key is to do something with it uniformly across the audible frequency range. Remember - the issue is relative movement. If one frequency is "louder" than another due to resonances, that will not just affect noise threshold and dynamic range, but colour the sound. This "energy management" concept was not new - it was just rather randomly addressed, almost coincidentally in designs like the LP12. Starting from first principles, AK wanted to get the energy away from the stylus quickly and uniformly and then disperse it. I'll tell the story the way it was told to me, but I start to wonder, whether the suspension idea didn't beget the record interface idea. So - the big revolution for which PT (at the time) was most famous - and an idea AK patented - was instead of having a heavy non-magnetic ("MAZAC") metal platter as support, and either felt or rubber mat as "termination" - the interface between the record and the platter, a PT had a platter machined from acrylic as both support and termination. There was no mat! I will pause here, and pick up in another post, or it gets too long!  |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Sept 30, 2016 8:18:57 GMT
Machined acrylic was sufficiently rigid for the support, and "grippy" for the termination. It was also a close impedance match with vinyl. In effect the platter turned the record into a very thick record. The energy at the stylus thus passed rapidly and evenly away from the record surface into the thick record structure (the platter) and from there, via a precision fit bearing, into a rigid sub-chassis where it could get dispersed Innovation no2 was the bearing - inverted to put the friction point at the record surface, and precision engineered with a hard sapphire thrust plate. Innovation no3 was the sub-chassis. The LP12 had a trapezoid pressed steel plate which audibly "boinged" - not helped by the high mass of the platter. Arthur used aerolam (used to make helicopter floors at Westland) as a light , rigid, non-resonant dispersive honeycomb structure which avoided adding resonance by flexing. Instead of a trapezoid shape and the standing waves it promoted, the PT chassis was cut as a circular form, extended to the armboard OK - another photo, although this one gives away the modifications I had wanted to come to later  This one is modified with the new motor and vector pulley carrier (the 3 pronged propeller thing) and has a new hole cut for the motor - but still has the original motor hole. However - the shape is what I was talking about at this stage. Innovation no4 (well, OK, maybe not innovation - high risk decision against the current fashion and Linn dogma) was to use a DC motor instead of the phase locked AC motor. This allowed electronic control circuitry to enable 33 or 45 rpm (on the LP 12 to play a 45rpm record you had to remove the platter and belt and fit a different motor pulley). But it also allowed a low noise non-cogging silky smooth superior motor - controlled by a circuit designed by my other mate from PT days - Owen Jones. However, together with the light weight platter this caused the grim nightmare of Martin Colloms and his idea of "dynamic wow" or "slowing under load" to dog acceptance of the PT. Complete bollocks. PT resolved the problem at the time by giving into market forces (Colloms and the Linn?Naim axis) and using the cheap and nasty AC motor used by Linn and Rega in a turntable rebadged as "Export" - essentially a PT but now with an AC motor which magically resolved the dynamic wow issue. The irony of course is that today Linn use a high quality DC motor, as did the PT Anniversary, and as does my Pimp, and of course, as does every direct drive deck. But at the time, it was a minor nightmare. DC motors were responsible for slowing under load. Innovation no 5 - the suspension design. Although referred to as "suspended sub-chassis" turntables, decks like the LP12 were really "floating sub-chassis" designs. The flexible boinging sub-chasssis, and its very high mass platter, were perched on 3 springs, and held down by the arm cable acting as a marquee guy rope (OK - my Linn phobia causing slight exageration - but it was an unstable nightmare). AK created an inherently stable alternative. First he suspended the sub-chassis by hanging it off springs from overhead rails. This uses gravity to stabilise rather than de-stabilise the system. As he described it to me, if you take a weight on a coil spring, and you balance it on top, every time you "excite" the system (wobble it) gravity will pull the weight and cause it to topple over. If you hang the weight from the spring, gravity does not cause it to topple over - it pulls it back to its central position. Of course, the LP12 and the PT had 3 springs and not one. So for the idea to work properly THE CENTRE OF MASS HAS TO BE AT THE CENTRE OF SUSPENSION. Innovation no6 - the PT sub-chassis is balanced. The system is designed so that the centre of mass should be at the centre of suspension - the transit bolt. To achieve this needs a lightweight (not 4Kg) platter (in the confines of a regular plinth) and the mass of the platter to be balanced by the mass of the arm. PT's achieve this by glueing a lead weight of varying weight to the arm board. The lead weight is chosen to complete the required mass at the armboard when combined with the mass of the arm itself. So a PT supplied armboard, not only has the right shape hole cut in the right place for the arm, it also includes the right additional weight to balance the suspension system. There are some limitations - the PT does not work with very heavy arms. Finally - am I stretching a point to make this an innovation? - the PT allows easy suspension height adjustment by using acrylic sliders in a rail - accessed by a hex socket or screwdriver from holes in the plinth. Adjusting an LP 12 was a nightmare. Not only was it a black art of twisting the springs on their mounts, and "dressing" the arm cable to hold the suspension in place, but the springs were accessed from under the turntable by removing the base plate. I used to perch the plinth between 2 kitchen chairs, but I believe Linn dealers used a jig! Still a nightmare. The PT can be levelled with a record playing (gently). Basically you level the suspension once, and it is set for all time. A transit bolt allows you to lock the sub-chassis whilst moving it. Mine travelled back and forth to Uni digs, and I just unscrewed the sub-chassis, fitted the belt and platter (a bit fiddly) and it was set up - no further adjustment required. Dressing the arm cable on a PT is no black art to hold the suspension - it is just a question of creating a loop which is as loose as possible to minimise interference with the free hanging suspension Another pause I think  |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Sept 30, 2016 9:20:57 GMT
Some more footnotes for ChrisB
PT TOO was the first "refinement" of the original PT. It used an AC synchronous motor. It relocated it and fixed it to the top plate instead of the suspension rails. And the top-plate was bonded to the plinth (which would have made those vinyl engine modifications tricky on a genuine PT TOO)
Vinyl Engine is another Hifi forum.
Export (and its variants) refined the control electronics and moved the motor again - but was essentially the final production version of the standard Pink Triangle turntable
Anniversary was special - Pink Triangles, and AK's finest hour. We'll come back to that during the course of this rambling account of my turntable mods
Saffire is currently the flagship Funk turntable. Funk Firm is Arthurs current business. Pink Triangle passed away over 10 years ago. The main features of Saffire for the purposes of this thread are that it is a solid rather than suspended deck, uses a DC motor and sophisticated class A control electronics, and represents Arthurs current production "ultimate" turntable. It also has the vector drive system - more later. It is also "unconventional" looking (big time)
Kinetic is a cradle with springs designed to fit Vector and Sapphire. (Vector is the "basic" model design of Saffire - but looks the same and so fits the same cradle). Essentially it converts the solid decks back into suspended designs. When I asked AK why he had abandoned suspended designs (which were fundamental to that integrated design philosophy we were talking about) his answer was "market forces". In the new age (post vinyls decline, pre the new revival) turntables needed to be "plug and play". Punters didn't want to cope with wobbling jelly moulds. Dealers demanded solid designs. Maybe forums and the rediscovery of Japanese Direct Drive decks played a part in this - I'm not sure. Solid designs mean dealing with the energy by some form of "Mass sink" rather than spring isolation.
Boing was an idea for using the spring arrangement in the kinetic cradle to make sprung feet which could be fitted to Rega, Technics and other turntables - sort of turning them into suspended sub-chassis designs - at least adding an element of spring isolation from the environment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 9:24:56 GMT
Hello Pinky:
1. Why not scrap the Aerolam, Its ugly & im sure Something laike Balsa wood laminated with Carbon Fibre would be just as good?
2. If they don't like heavy arms why were they nearly always sold with Helius 'Orion' Pick-Up arms that weigh a ton?
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Sept 30, 2016 10:13:05 GMT
Thanks Andre
Helius Orion was not "too heavy" - it is pretty close to the limit and doesn't use much (any??) lead on the arm board. It's not HEAVY like an air-tangent (which actually is more unbalanced than heavy for PT's, cos its mass isn't concentrated at the arm board so much). Stogi Kuzma? - But a PT can accomodate most normal 9" or 10" arms. I personally thought the Orion was gorgeous on it - so that may be why you see so many.
Crinkly ugly aerolam is invisible in normal use - hidden behind the sleek elegant plinth and top-plate (no comments about skirting board called for). I have described its qualities - light, rigid, dead, and "dispersive". All that honeycomb creates a larger surface area. And it is rigid match for coupling the arm board and bearing. You're running ahead of me with the balsa carbon fibre laminate which AK did use - and was part of those other mods on Vinyl Engine
That brings us back to "Anni copying". The sub-chassis was the Anni innovation we've not copied (and AK has 2 spares in a drawer - so it wasn't ruled out). However - pretty much anywhere you google the CF/balsa sub-chassis "Anni" variants are considered poor cousins of the original. Why? - cos the trilaminate Anni sub-chassis was still aerolam - just tuned by the endgrain balsa. If I hadn't moved to France, and it was a bit simpler to pop into the factory, I would be interested in exploring this further. But I have moved to France - so - I'm going to have to speculate a bit.
This does lead me nicely into the "which mods matter" discussion. The Vinyl Engine mods included "damping" the subchassis with a spray compound - rather than bond end-grain balsa to it as the Anni sub-chassis did. Tri-laminate was aluminium, end grain balsa, aerolam. But the primary purpose was rigidity. Damping was an (undesirable??) side effect. The question marks are because its colouration is a very "analogue" one. It's hard not to like it. But it is a colouration. The rigidity issue was to improve bass - always a weak point on a PT. This was because the bearing was not coupled as rigidly to the sub-chasis as it ideally needed to be. This was because, with the old design using 3 bolts - if you tried to tighten too much then you crushed the aerolam.
But - as far as I have been able to determine, the CF / endgrain balsa has always been a poor cousin to the original trilaminate.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Sept 30, 2016 10:27:56 GMT
Oops. Proofing I see I mentioned a purely cosmetic change for me in the first post - a red Achromat for a white one. I kind of assume most people know what one is, but Achromat was one of the early products of AK's new Funk business, and another one he patented. It is sort of a Pink Triangle concept in a box. Although its a mat (so what happened to innovation number 1?) it retains the idea of the close impedance match / thick record by being a plastic that is "close to" vinyl. Only this time, instead of relying on transmitting the energy to a subchassis to disperse (mostly as heat) it does it with tiny bubbles in the mat structure itself. The walls of the bubbles flex with the energy and turn it into heat. Not unlike the Green Glue used to sandwich plasterboard in recording studio sound proofing.
It adds a small refinement to the PT sound - which is why I have retained it - although it spoils that "keep it original appearance" a bit. Hence white instead of red (the red was a "here try this" from AK without any thought to aesthetics when I first (re)met him). The mat also makes it a bloody tight fit under the lid with some arms and thick vinyl when the VTA is correct since the original design had no mat.
It has also allowed AK to move away to using a bonded glass structure for the "support" in his funk platters. The glass is more rigid and more dead, and the achromat does the impedance match dispersal stuff. I rejected this in my modifications as being just one step too far from original appearance. As it turns out we would probably also have rejected it because it would have been too heavy and cause suspension problems that take you too far from the original design. AK can keep it in his new suspension idea deck if he does it, and of course it is no problem on the solid decks. Also, from my perspective personally, whilst I could eventually hear the improvement, we are on the very fine end of subtle, and it just didn't matter enough to me to justify spoiling the "keep the original appearance" goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 1, 2016 6:26:34 GMT
Is that the gentle purr of snoring I hear? Must be time to talk drive systems...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 7:49:41 GMT
Well I'm finding it fascinating and also enjoyable. I think you've provided a lot of answers and raised few questions so far. Is bonded glass the same as why the likes of Rega use? one thing I always struggled to grasp was the acrylic platter. Wouldn't it have the same resonant frequency as viny and reflect vibration back upwards? Probably completely misguided but my grasp of physics is on a par with my knowledge of Opera, perhaps even less  |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 1, 2016 8:37:12 GMT
This is likely to be the blind leading the blind when it comes to physics Andrew. I'll check with Grumpy for responses if its controversial. My understanding is a resonant frequency won't cause a "reflection back". The resonant frequency of a material or system is the one at which a low level of energy is required to excite it. That means there might be a natural frequency at which vinyl is easily excited but that will just mean it vibrates more at that frequency than others. The acrylic platter doesn't reflect back. Quite the opposite. It helps any energy that is in the vinyl move evenly without one frequency being blocked or reflected. Go back to the "thick LP" idea (edit: its also why copying the patented idea - although a source of outrage for AK - partially missed the point. Unlike Achromat - the acrylic platter wasn't a packaged solution in the PT - but part of it. It helped the energy move away from the record surface, but it still needed an aerolam sub-chassis to disperse it in. No champagne bubbles in acrylic. However, even without bubbles it was half an answer since dead and rigid are still good)
The bonded glass is different from that used by Rega (if we are talking about RP2 and RP3 - I can't pretend I know Rega's current TT range in detail). They just use glass - as does Funk in LSD , Flamenca, and (I think) Gett. AK did confess "Roy Gandy got it right after all, then" (don't for heavens sake tell anyone I said that). Just ordinary bog glass is quite a good platter material - but "strata" uses some magic glue between 2 layers of glass - and AK keeps this magic glue secret, and I think Arthur thinks "strata" as he calls it, is unique to Funk. The result is dead. If you hold a glass platter on a bit of wire through the hole in the middle, and tap it with a screwdriver it rings like a bell. Do the same with a strata (or acrylic) platter and it is (almost completely) dead. But it is equally rigid - more so I believe.
Which allows me a little diversion into Andre's territory about balsa and carbon fibre, and the subject of damping and rigidity. (see Funks website about the F.X arm idea for AK's discussion). Merely being "dead" as can be achieved with damping is not necessarily a good solution. In this case, when designing LSD AK was looking for an inexpensive platter material and tried MDF. Rather like the balsa wood arm tube we tried - a complete disaster. Great control of resonance, but lousy dynamics
I think this is why, I think I prefer my current version of the pimped PT to Anni - and certainly to the CF/Balsa chassis variants. Its to do with rigidity of structure and its affect on dynamics. I'm not sure I really understand completely why, buy I have now observed the effect enough times to accept the premis. Vector and the motor controller would be other reasons - but the "live" chassis may be another.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Oct 1, 2016 8:42:23 GMT
I found that ETP sounded better than glass as a platter, but I guess it's quite dependent on the plinth construction, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 1, 2016 9:08:28 GMT
So - what can be done to improve a PT (PT TOO, Export)?. Lots of detail probably, and things like plinth bracing, lid material, colour of hinges and other details probably make some difference. But the main issue was the drive system. The PT used a belt drive system - as did all the competition at the time (in those days, Linn, Systemdek, Walker, Oracle, Mitchell, - you name them - it was all belt drive. Direct drive, now in a resurgence, wasn't on the radar)
Direct Drive would have been tricky in the PT context (although not impossible) because of its size, weight, and the fact that there were not a shelf full of universal products to pick. It also has its weaknesses regarding the slow rotational speed of the motor itself compared with a belt drive - which in many implementations leads to "cogging". And one of its major strengths - high torque is more relevant in the context of professional DJ implementations than it is for HiFi. So what if my PT takes 3 revolutions to get up to speed? It takes me that long to cue the stylus.
But Belt drives have 2 major weaknesses. Actually one of those isn't really a belt drive weakness - its a suspended deck (which were all belt drives) weakness.
No 1 is that the belt pulls on the platter from one direction. Conventionally, belt tension pulls the platter towards the motor… The platter now tilts due to the tension. Rotation means it has to keep tilting over, i.e. The bearing dances around - it precesses. Locating the motor in line with the stylus can mitigate the effect somewhat, but its a problem. Direct drive assuredly avoids this, and in the good systems is audibly better for it. Arthurs solution, on his solid decks (and retro-fitted to some PT's and Anni's) is to "vector" the load with 2 slave pulleys. The effect is not subtle. My deck allows me to run it "straight" Anni style with a small PT belt, or "vectored" using a large belt and the 2 slave pulleys.
The other problem is that the belt interferes with the suspension (and / or the suspension interferes with the drive mechanism). As the suspension moves it tugs on the belt, and the belts tension interferes with the free movement of the suspension. This of course, was the primary (unique?) innovation with Anniversary. If you mount the motor on the sub-chassis, then you remove that interference. You free up the drive mechanism from the suspension, and free the suspension from the belt. And open a whole new can of worms...
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 1, 2016 9:13:19 GMT
I found that ETP sounded better than glass as a platter, but I guess it's quite dependent on the plinth construction, too. I won't dispute your findings Martin - not Arthur's finest hour. I paid the price with FGTH and "Ferry across the Mersey". Unfortunately the glass version you were using was almost certainly faulty . And of course, a turntable is a system with lots of inter-related elements and the final solution will be a balance*** In this context - at the time - the issue was whether the mass of the glass upset the servo control of the Technics DD motor. *** my point about acrylic in a PT design context also needing the sub-chassis, and also about glass being too heavy for the PT suspension. There will be tradeoffs. |
|
|
|
Post by Sovereign on Oct 1, 2016 11:21:29 GMT
Looking good and starting to take shape
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 11:40:53 GMT
An interesting insight.
Lovely wall shelf too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 14:32:45 GMT
I must say this thread is just getting better and better. It's set me off wanting another turntable and I am now intrigued about modifying it too. "Pinks" have always stunned me with their clarity but all too soon I missed the bass. I've owned a few over the years and always went back to weightier decks. I've never owned a Voyd but when heard, it had the clarity and clout I craved. Now I'm thinking I can pick up a deck and have a lot of fun getting more out of it than I've had before.
Thanks for the explanation about the bonded glass design. I've always had a lot of respect for Arthur's restless inventiveness. Your persistence in getting him to help with your PT has helped me learn and understand more already.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 1, 2016 16:08:51 GMT
Thanks James, Kevin, Andrew James - yes its taking shape. I would say its sounding good - if I can resist the temptation to play with arms, it is where I want it for sound. There is some cosmetic and ergonomic tidying to do Kevin!! Yes - I bought the same shelf as you. Only trouble is its a bit small for a PT due to the absolute bain of my life with PT - the f**** lid. That "skirting board" plinth - which Neil considered (rightly in my opinion) to be more furniture for your money than the planks used by Linn (with grooves cut in them) meant that it wasn't possible to use a standard lid because of the depth, and so began the saga of glue showing on joints, and lids breaking in transit that enriched my life. I made not a few personally by hand. But that depth means I can only just open the lid on the shelf with the rubber feet of the plinth right on the front edge. Worse - really I'd like it deeper. I was thinking of having a custom lid made - AK has a good source now, and there are a couple on AOS doing nice looking work. With the suspension set at my normal preference (the middle of the range) shutting the lid causes it to hit the counterweight. So really, if I had a custom lid made I would like it 10mm taller. But that would mean it wouldnt stay open without pulling the deck off the front of the shelf. Oh joy Andrew - you were spot on with some of your critiques of the original PT. Although I will go back to spinning this story out - repeating a punchline I put on the "threads I have started" - when I first plugged this in for Mrs Pinkie to listen to (she had not been privy to the development auditions at the factory) her comment was "I thought we agreed not to use the sub-woofer for records". Now - this is all relative. I was reflecting that yet again I have a largely "official" set of Funk / PT mods, and I recall DQ on HFS taking the piss on the basis that magically, whatever was the latest product from PT/Funk -was perfect and the last word according to me. And he has a point. But I think this relates to how I like a complete system - and how I tinker and try to get more of what i like, and probably am cold to things that are legitimately important to other people. For me - that is a statement that I love the Quad ESL63's in an appropriate room. All the things they do well, when they do it well, hook me and have me enthralled. And I live with the things they do less well . And they are nothing to do with PT, Arthur, Owen, AJ Westlake or any of my "gurus" (as Marco used to label them). But Arthur and Owen both have both ESL speakers, and both also focus on those aspects of music reproduction. So little wonder there was a meeting of minds, for a particular version of "Hi Fidelity" - that happens to appeal to me - at Pink Triangle and other businesses those guys were developing product for I LOVE what this PT is doing. But it is part of a complete system - arm, cartridge, amps speakers, and yes even bloody cables, that are tuned for getting more of "that my hifi thing". Just plonking my record player in another system, built to different priorities would probably be a big disappointment. Although I will have a punt at describing some of the differences, in a way its just the same as it always was. Its a Pink Triangle on steroids. It hasn't become a Linn, or SL1200. It's more similar now to how it was 6 months ago, than it is similar to any other record player I have listened to recently (at all really). If it has grown more like anything then it has become more SL1200. But its still heart and soul a PT I am being nagged that I have to go and feed neighbours cat now  |
|
