OBJECTIVE VS SUBJECTIVE
Let’s bear in mind, first of all, the words of Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, former Chief Research Engineer, H.H. Scott:”If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing.”
There are those who insist that the issue of musicality is personal, a purely subjective thing. These are the types who always say “What do you mean?” when you speak of musicality or “What is PRaT other than nonsense?” As written earlier, these are the information uber alles types who think that all audio is simply about “information,” though, again, it is not clear exactly what they mean by information, unless they mean pure raw detail, a relatively easy thing to aim for, both from the manufacturing point of view, and from the consumer point of view, and let’s not forget from the reviewing point of view. If only life were so simple, as these types evidently so heartily wish.
But, as Recklinghausen so pithily put into words, when it comes to measuring and identifying, it is not so simple, in the end it is the human ear which determines either success or failure when it comes to musical systems. From the beginning I have argued that musicality was not a purely subjective phenomenon (similar to the saying “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”), but was traceable to certain phenomena which either had not been identified, or which were obvious yet ignored. By obvious, I mean, for instance, that better speed stability should lead to better timing, obviously. Timing means rhythm, and rhythm, of course, comes back to musicality. To take a “for instance”. The fact that idler-wheel drives always come out having better rhythm in comparisons with belt-drives (known for rhythm or not) should underline a consequent lack of speed stability in belt-drives. Dedicated belt-drivers counter this by claiming certain idlers are “coloured” when it comes to rhythm, otherwise they would have to admit that there is a problem. And they would have to admit that the speed stability tests routinely used by the industry is somehow masking these speed instabilities. This demonstrates not only Recklinghausen’s dictum, but also the saying “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Meaning the tests are so conducted as to produce a favourable outcome. Similar tricks are used throughout the industry, from sensitivity ratings for speakers through power ratings for amplifiers and so on.
So, what holds true for drive systems and the issue of musicality – i.e. that there are physical reasons for either the presence or lack of musicality which is measurable – also holds true for materials and musicality. Which is to say that – as I did when I first heard an idler-wheel drive and knew without a shadow of a doubt that it was a superior drive system because I could clearly hear better timing and rhythm, not to mention SLAM and well-defined bass – so I continue to trust my ears and accept that certain materials increase , or more accurately, preserve rhythm, timing and coherence, while others do the reverse and damp them down or destroy them utterly.
When I set out to improve any turntable, I treat timing, rhythm, coherence and beauty as real things, real objective phenomena (i.e. they sound good because they are good), which are not personal and subjective, but clearly audible to myself, and to most who hear my work (not everyone is sensitive to timing to the same degree). So, for instance, I routinely get comments like “…and I have never enjoyed listening to as many different kinds of music as I do now…I never had my wife nearly as interested in joining me and clearly respond to whatever is on… I have not had before the sensation of real bodies inhabiting the space…nor have I been surprised by the sudden entrance of a saxophone or a drum or a voice…nor have I heard every little bit of vibrato in Nina Simone’s voice. I could go on Jean but I would rather put on a record…”
I do not simply jump on an existing bandwagon and exploit the latest unthinking flavour-of-the-month material or drive system, which looks good on paper but which are rarely seriously tested, and never tested for issues of musicality, timing, coherence, beauty, which are issues which are either ignored as either subjective (and so largely illusory) or whose absence is noted but ignored because it would otherwise contradict a cherished theory or gimmick. I listen deeply to each material, which has steered me steadily towards a certain set of materials, both metal and wood, which will one day be analysed and reduced to their significant, contributatory physical characteristics (already done by myself to a certain extent and the basis for my ongoing improvements like my new main bearing, but which I’ll keep to myself for a while).
MY CONCLUSIONS
The trick in rebuilding and improving classic idler-wheel drives is to preserve – and not damage (this is the Prime Directive) – the superiority of the idler-wheel drive system in retrieving and preserving the coherence, timing and dynamics macro and micro embedded into those tiny grooves. To accomplish this I use carefully-chosen and assembled combinations of metals and woods – not coincidentally the classic materials of instrument-making – in the restoration and improvement of such classic machines as Lencos, Thorens TD-124s and Garrards. There are woods, currently popular (for no other reason than they are used in expensive record players, and have gimmicky properties having nothing to do with actual sound), which damp down dynamics, lessen timing, blunt transients and muddy the sonic waters considerably. There are woods which are bright and impart a hard edge, lighten the bass, separate elements rather than preserve coherence. The same is true for metals, and for all materials, like synthetics or stone. Even an idler-wheel drive can have its musical capacities diminished in the never-ending search for more detail: timing and coherence and beauty are fragile. What looks good on paper – mechanical strength, stiffness, etc. – often does not translate well into an audio application. This is because all materials, regardless of their mechanical characteristics, have a sound. And often, this sound, regardless of the specs, is quite simply bad. But since material A is popular and looks good on paper, this aspect is ignored, leading to less-than-desirable results which are usually promoted as good, the sonic reality ignored.
Experienced audiophiles should know that the quest for an “absolute sound” cannot be realized by simply adding up a series of “neutral” components, due to the fact that even were we to grant the existence of a truly neutral component, the interactions between them and other components are unpredictable, leading to a variety of colourations. There is brightness (dealt with, for instance, by darker cables) or darkness (dealt with by brighter cables) or indeed a complete mismatch requiring a change of equipment (new cartridge, tonearm, amp, speakers, etc.) In fact this whole question of component and cable matching, and the sound and imperfections of materials, is the basis for the Reference Lenco reviewed by Arthur Salvatore.
It logically devolves from the above that what we are doing in assembling a musically-successful stereo system – with superior information-retrieval, tonal fidelity, wide bandwidth, timing and coherence preserved – is more balancing out a series of components which have various characteristics to make a pleasing and informative whole, than simply adding up lab standard equipment. This, in fact, is more along the lines of building a musical instrument, which is apt, since we are building music systems. Those who see this process as more akin to assembling lab equipment and chase the absolute sound – whatever that is – “neutral” component by “neutral” component predictably end up with musically-flat and unsatisfying sound systems.
Given all these elements and factors, and with years of setting up and matching various turntables, tonearms, cartridges, phono preamps and cables, I realized, fully and absolutely, that the idea of a “dead” plinth – however successful my “Classic” recipe of Russian birch-ply and mdf was – was a will’o the wisp. How does one define “dead” or “inert”? Just as some materials are bright and reflective, like stone and certain metals, so some materials (which includes metals and woods as well as synthetic materials) are SO dead they effectively sap the energy from the music, damp down the dynamics, roll off the high frequencies, blunt the transients. Would anyone build a record player out of Sorbothane, or a bag of sand? Both too soft. So we need harder then. So what’s harder and yet “dead”, but not so dead it actively rolls off the high frequencies or muddies the bass? Where do we draw the line between too dead and just dead enough? We are back to a balancing act, indistinguishable from building an actual musical instrument, striving for a particular tone and abilities. Balance, not “neutrality,” is more reflective of the reality of building and designing a record player, even if the end result is tonal neutrality and accuracy, which also includes, let’s not forget, timing, coherence, beauty, excitement.
THE REFERENCE LENCO
So, in building a record player, it is more useful to think of it as lutherie, building an actual musical instrument, however the aim is also tonal, and other, accuracy. I threw out the rule book, the notion of “neutral” materials and directed myself to very “live”/resonant/coloured woods instead – steering clear of currently-popular dense and “dead” woods – and strove to tap into their inherent liveliness, dynamic abilities and frequency response (i.e. widest frequency response), their inherent musical abilities including endless dynamic range, while taking steps to suppress their natural colourations and imperfections. I took the unprecedented step of actually testing out my theories in order to fairly judge them before implementing them: I listened to these materials in various combinations, and invited over musicians to borrow their ears to test for tonal accuracy, and had several versions made of the various elements, of different woods and metals, to find the right combinations to end up with a balance so perfect, a product so tonally correct and dynamically free, that some would not believe me when I explained I resorted to a “live” rather than a “dead” plinth. Of course, here we get into semantics: what do we mean by “live”, what do we mean by “dead”? I believe “balanced” best describes ANY such work, though the end result may be “neutral”.
As usual, given that no material is perfect – i.e. they are too dark, or too reflective, or too dead, or too live, or emphasize this frequency and suppress that – constrained layer damping, the bonding of different materials to each other to suppress or minimize their particular colourations/deviations while preserving their strengths (i.e. constrained layer damping is used in specific manners) provides the best answer to these problems, and so I use it in every aspect of the construction of my record players, from the platter/mat through the main bearing to the plinth The results of all this balancing and instrument-building is the Reference Lenco, incredibly well described and documented by Salvatore, whose analysis is the best of its sort I’ve ever read, including my own.
In addition to the woods and the assembly techniques I use in building the Reference Lenco plinth (which apply as well to other classic machines, which may requires some changes in materials to account for a given tonal balance and inherent sonic characteristic), there is also my new main bearing. This time I listened to various metals, alone and in combination, not only listening for increased detail (easy to do if you want to overlook such issues as brightness or tonal accuracy), but also and most of all for timing, coherence, and musical magic, exactly as if these were real, measurable quantities. In these tests I developed a theory, had prototypes made to actually test it out, and once confirmed started small-run production. These new main bearings are for the Reference Lenco only, for the Classic Lencos I developed a modification for the original main bearing along the same principles (listening for overall balance and timing) which includes new bronze bushings and thrust-plate.
THE CLASSIC REBUILDS
At a lesser cost, my “Classic” rebuilds – being that combination of Russian birch-ply and MDF I proposed and made popular to the DIY crowd and continue to use – conquered or battled to a stand-still, in conjunction with the Lenco, every single high-end belt-drive, Direct Drive and even idler-wheel drives it was ever pitted against, from the ubiquitous Linn LP-12s through the VPI TNTs, Forsells, up through the Platine Verdiers and on up to the SME 30 and the Mighty 50,000-euro EMT 927. This recipe – properly implemented and carefully assembled (hint: if bonding different materials works, then bonding them more carefully and effectively will yield even better results) has proven its worth in terms of tonal balance, dynamic freedom, and preservation of timing, coherence and beauty. It is, essentially, responsible for the Lenco phenomenon worldwide, due to its great musicality and effectiveness. I have since refined and improved my Classic rebuilds with a small change in materials, and with my own modifications for the main bearing, and with various other avenues for further upgrading and improving. However good my Classic Lencos now are, my Reference rebuilds are something else again, for further on these refer to Salvatore’s review and owner comments. Any claims that someone else’s work is “close to” or identical to mine, or my Reference Lenco, is completely false, a fantasy since these builders neither know my recipe nor my techniques, nor have they heard one.
I publicized and promoted the “Classic” Russian birch-ply/mdf plinth recipe back at the beginning of my internet activities, back when I believed in “dead” plinths, achievable by the principle of constrained layer damping. I proposed it in the interest of ensuring the numbers I needed from my DIY campaign, simply because these materials were easily sourced and were practical, being flat sheet materials, easily worked, and had higher mass than most other wood products. I encouraged its use even before I had actually tested it (to that date I resorted to complicated materials combinations including woods, Corian, drywall, etc. and split-plinth designs), but when I finally got around to try it I heard something inherently, musically “right”, with potent dynamics, overall tonal balance and excellent timing (or PRaT). My championing of this combination persisted through the years, and now it dominates the DIY world, because, quite simply, it works.
After all, even before several of the improvements I now include standard in my “Classic” rebuilds, a “Classic” 100-pound Lenco, with serious mechanical issues (not known until after the Shootout), publicly battled a SME 30 to a standstill, matching it and in some ways beating it for information-retrieval, same for the bass and for imaging, quite clearly outperformed it in terms of dynamics and palbability, only falling behind in terms of high-frequency extension (which spurred my following improvements, including mat and main bearing modification). This is easily verifiable, again, in the ensuing discussion on the second iteration of the Home Despot thread. The owner of the SME 30, accepted the results, but attributed all the Lenco’s victories – palbability, dynamics and rhythm in particular – to colourations, that old debate about “information” versus “musicality”. DIYers are welcome to this recipe, but I have since modified this recipe and my techniques in my “Classic” level rebuilds, and also include various modifications and techniques I have never given out, since in many cases they devolve logically from what came before (i.e. I expect DIYers to do some of the mental work themselves). My least “Classic” Lenco today is far superior to that which battled the SME 30 to a standstill, as demonstrated by the Shootout in Athens vs the EMT 927 (which itself, for those who bother to verify this, is far above the SME 30 in overall sonic abilities).
MASS
Another element in my rebuilding and improving of classic idler-wheel drives is the use of simple mass, as I coined long ago, Mass is Class. This isn’t complicated and is not a matter of theory or opinion except to those who have not heard it, or who have and refuse to believe it (for whatever reason), since it is repeatedly testable and verifiable (amazing how many actually refuse to verify anything at all) . It is simple fact, which I would not claim falsely, since it can be so easily verified: take ‘Table A and affix it to a 40-pound plinth and listen to it; then take ‘Table A and affix it to an 80-pound plinth identical in every respect except mass. ‘Table A will, when mated to the heavier plinth, produce much more detail, quicker transients, deeper bass, higher highs and produce a blacker background, all without affecting timing, coherence or beauty. Many criticize this approach because it is not inventive enough, which really means it is not complicated enough. What it is, is simple physics (it is harder to move a large mass than a small one), and very effective. I am not impressed by gimmicks, by simple complexity, or by simple expense or rarity, but only by musical results. In other words, the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
DIRECT COUPLING
If the reader has gotten this far and has read Arthur Salvatore’s review, then he will be greeted early in his analysis by the vanishingly low background noise of the Reference Lenco. This too was discovered years ago and promoted, and is an advantage of wooden plinths over all other materials: I call it Direct Coupling, and it can only be done with wood, it cannot be done with stone, evidently. This is really very simple. Simply bolting the machine to the plinth holds the machine to the plinth by pressure from above and from below (the nuts), allowing both the bolt and the chassis to vibrate with no effective “sink” to eliminate said vibration (coming from the tonearm/cartridge and the motor). Driving screws through the chassis and into the very meat of the plinth which, being wood, yields while gripping, is ar more effective, and provides the necessary “sink” for the turntable’s various sources of vibration. Visualizing this, picture the [massive] metal screw forcing its way through the very meat of the wooden plinth and firmly against the chassis from above, so that the screw is completely married to and engulfed by the wood (thus multiplying the actual surface area contact) and unable to move, all its vibrations, communicated from the chassis, now being forcibly “eaten” by the wooden plinth with nowhere else to go. This is one reason the benefits of increased mass are so clearly audible. It is also why the Reference plinth is so clearly and audibly superior to the Classic plinths. Though wood may not have the “gimmick factor” of other materials (difficulty for the sake of difficulty, complexity for the sake of complexity, instead of simple results), it is supremely well suited to the job of preserving musicality, and reducing noise so as to allow the drive system to show its musical abilities, which are in turn more clearly defined.
Testing this is, once again, very simple: take ‘Table A and bolt it to a plinth and listen to it. Then take ‘Table A and drive screws through the bottom and into the meat of the same plinth and then listen. This is precisely what I did back when, and the result was, for Direct Coupling: MUCH quieter backgrounds , a truly shocking reduction in noise (especially given greater mass) including surface noise, which led to greater detail and separation, higher highs and lower lows, all much cleaner. Again, neither timing nor coherence nor beauty were damaged, and instead were enhanced, as the use of mass, of Direct Coupling and constrained layer damping all progressively enhance the idler-wheel drive’s inherent abilities by allowing a deeper and deeper appreciation of the whole by a greater retrieval of information, detail, while exposing its coherence, how it works together as an organic, musical whole.
THE FINAL PRODUCT
However “romantic” I may be when it comes to retrieving and preserving musicality, excitement, beauty, I am a very practical man. There is the matter of the patterns of the cutouts, done so as to maximize Direct Coupling, allow for various mechanisms while preserving as much mass as possible, and to allow simple practical matters such as accessibility in terms of possible mechanical problems, tonearm set-up, to allow enough air-flow around the motor, and to minimize motor vibration (which Direct Coupling deals with astonishingly well: even in a machine whose motor can be heard across the room, no noise breaks through the needle to the sound system).
Once all these elements of the plinth attended to, including choice of external veneers and woods, sanding and varnishing, then there is the issue of the tonearm boards. I choose a particular wood which I have found superior to all others sonically, and which also has the advantage of being mechanically stable. This I fasten to a cutout in such a way as to maximize the constrained layer damping principle: the bolting of the tonearm board to the plinth is done to reduce the tonearm board’s own already-excellent sonic signature.
But all is not woodwork, there is also the machine itself. I take apart each motor, strip and clean it completely, and re-lube with superior lubrication, hand-tuning each for maximum torque and minimal noise. This, of course, is the heart of the machine.
In the case of the Lenco in particular, I still use the original chassis instead of the after-market versions because, once certain things attended to, it sounds superior, more open, with better high-frequency extension and more of that excellent timing, delicacy and musical excitement and beauty. I pour marine-grade glass-epoxy into the hollows to damp down vibration/noise (CLD again), and perform the Post Mod, which is the sole true advantage of any after-market chassis: any sonic advantage it had, it turned out in testing, was due to the post to which the idler-wheel assembly itself is affixed. On the original chassis, this post is so affixed so as to allow all sorts of horizontal movement (like a drunken sailor), leading to various speed instabilities on the horizontally-arranged motor. In the after-market version, the post bolts into the mechanism and so stands very still and solid and stable, thus ensuring a great increase in speed stability. I arrange the post on the original Lenco chassis in such a way as to eliminate horizontal movement and so achieve a great increase in speed stability, which leads to an easily-audible increase in information-retrieval, including fine detail, clarity, separation and organization, tight bass, clean high frequencies (which proves the importance of speed stability). Direct Coupling to a wooden plinth makes separation of the motor from the chassis moot, which is to say unnecessary (in a wooden plinth), proven by Salvatore’s review, which shows state-of-the-art black backgrounds, vanishingly low levels of noise. Logic and evidence, however much I remain romantically-inclined (i.e. my Reference Lenco is state-of-the-art in terms of low colourations and limitations in spite of my search for musical magic), informs my every choice, from my first exposure to the idler-wheel drive system, through to the discovery, recognition and promotion of the Lenco, through to the Reference Lenco itself.
I pay great attention to each element of the drive system, including the idler-wheel and the idler-wheel arm itself, which I damp, clean and relube to minimize noise, by various means, while reducing friction. It’s all about noise reduction, torque and power transfer, while preserving and enhancing musical abilities.
The glass-epoxy in the original chassis also provides a foundation for further bodywork, which enhances and modernizes the final look after professional recoating, with all holes filled-in and painted with a tough and durable polyurethane paint, and also preserves the essential Lenco look, making this great machine identifiable. At every step of my rebuilding, it is form follows function, with multiple uses for each aspect, carefully considered, and with emphasis placed on preserving and enhancing the musical experience.
DIYers and competitors are free to take as much of this as they can; my own work, techniques and materials to achieve my results, and my philosophies and understandings, which infuse my final results, my sonic signature, evidently remain my own.