Copernicus was right

 

A good friend of mine developed the theory that we need to follow the ideas of Copernicus understanding the importance of a tonearm in the analogue playback system.

Using his words “For thousands of years it was believed that the earth was the centre of the solar system and that the sun revolved around it. Before telescopes existed, Copernicus proposed that it was the earth in fact, that revolved around the sun.

The tonearm is now the centre of this ‘Turntable System’ and is the most important element. It must be rigidly held on a base which is perfectly flat, non-magnetic and relatively immune to structure-borne and air-borne feedback. This base must ideally have no contact with mechanical or electrical interference and must under no circumstances, move or deflect in any manner.
This base should ideally have no contact with the drive mechanism of the platter or the plinth, sub-platter, belt, gears, idler-wheels etc.
this base should be an island”

This copernican view of a turntable system favours separate arm pods. While some audiophiles developed their own armpods I was going for a rare  tonearm stand, the TOHO  arm base TH-80  – a wonderful piece of machinery building of the golden Japan  Analog Times…

Cop 1

We may not forget including here different opinions on the matter like that the tonearm/cartridge do form a mechanic-dynamic system and the two together with the plinth/underground do form a mechanic system. The discussion may have not ended yet…

Cop 2Cop 3Cop 4Cop 5

Furtheron I developed my own AudioCirc design and built several arm pods serving my many tonearms. here is one of the units:

pod 1

3 thoughts on “Copernicus was right

  1. I think there are many directions in analogue which are equally valid……or at least audibly acceptable.
    Is belt-drive more correct than direct drive or idler drive?
    Is moving coil more correct than moving magnet or moving iron?
    Is unipivot more correct than gimbel bearing or knife edge?
    Beyond a certain level of excellence and fidelity…..different paths can be equally satisfying.

    Like

  2. Henry,

    To continue your line of thought:
    Is class ‘A’ amplification more correct than ‘AB’, ‘H’ or ‘D’?
    Is fully complimentary more correct than quasi complimentary?
    Are tubes more correct than solid state?
    Is vintage audio equipment more correct than modern audio equipment?

    One could continue with these questions for quite some time. I have found that any number of the above can be musically satisfying.. I have listened to very modest simple systems that were astonishingly engaging, and begs the question of how much do we really need to enjoy our music? Each of us answers this question differently by the systems we choose to listen too.

    I have always been fascinated by how different each of our systems are and yet we seem to enjoy them just the same. An excellent example of the contrast in systems is Eckarts and Tim Gurneys.. Exploring these different ideas and learning from others experiences is what makes blogs such as this one so enjoyable.

    Norman

    Liked by 1 person

  3. You’re right Norman….there is not one path to ‘audio nirvana’.
    And Eckart is smart enough to know this and lucky enough to be able to ‘taste’ and include many of these ‘paths’ in his wonderful system.
    Regards
    Henry

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s