|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.165.50.98
In Reply to: RE: Subchassis -- high mass or low mass? posted by Tube747 on September 21, 2016 at 19:48:52
Try it. The metal sub chassis is stamped. It is lightweight compared to a heavily built wood or steel chassis. Beware the porch glider effect from a heavy sub chassis as you will overwork the springs and really get it in motion. I would pick Carbon Fiber over wood for stiffness and lightness as that is the purpose of the Keel. the Keel is Aluminum to decrease mass while stiffening the sub chassis I believe. However, as many of the fans will tell you, it might not be the LP12 that you loved for many years.
PS. Flipping the top plate and putting the motor opposite the tonearm works miracles in the noise department.
Follow Ups:
So theoretically the aluminium is better, but not for sound.
What about carbon/Balsa?
Theoretically one can use more aluminum to make it stiffer and yet have less mass so it can weigh the same as the steel plate that is not ribbed for rigidity. Aluminum itself would not necessarily sound better. The carbon/balsa would also be more material with less mass for further rigidity. I have no idea if aluminum itself or the balsa/carbon make it sound better, they just increase the stiffness of the sub chassis.
Why do you say an aluminium subchassis doesn't deliver good sound? If that is the case ... then why would Linn choose aluminium for their Keel subchassis?As others have said, due to the spring construction, a subchassis should be lighter ... rather than heavier. However, the subchassis material itself, has an affect on the sound.
I think magnesium & titanium are lighter than aluminium - but I suggest:
* these materials are more difficult to machine, and
* they are certainly more expensive. . . than aluminium. Hence, Linn chose aluminium (however, we don't know whether they ever listened to a magnesium Keel! ;-)) ).
A CF-end grain balsa-CF composite makes a good subchassis - as does the CF-aluminium honeycomb-CF construction started by Cetech in about 2000. The top CF skin is used to mount the bearing housing & spring bolts ... the intermediary material and bottom CF skin act as a dampener for the top CF skin. (The 2 skins must be separate - the sound is terrible if you wrap the balsa all the way round with CF.)
I have no doubt Linn will come out with a better-sounding subchassis made from some different maerial, at some stage. :-))
Regards,Andy
Edits: 09/22/16
has a specific gravity about 2.7 times higher than 7075 T651 aluminum. but it also has tensile strength that is 2.7 times or so of the 7075 aluminum In theory one can make a structure that is the same strength and the same weight form either material. Aluminum will be bulkier will have exactly 2.7 times the volume. a thinner structure of the same strength will have higher resonant frequency as well as other mechanical differences. In comparison common aluminum 6061 T5 is about half of the strength of 7075. Nothing is without compromises.
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
So the issue is ... for a subchassis on a sprung TT (LP12, Thorens ...) which is it better to have - a higher resonant frequency or a lower resonant frequency?
Andy
if it is above, inside or below the audible range of frequencies. It is below you want the lowest possible, if it is within you want it most damped if it is above you want it real high. Right?
dee
;-d
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
how do I establish what the resonant frequency of my chassis is? Bcoz I could make another chassis using thicker aluminium if the current resonance is in a bad place.
Here's my "SkeletaLinn":
The bearing and platters are LP12; there are LP12 springs and grommets under each apex of the triangle, sitting on brass pods which provide the levelling mechanism.
Andy
:)
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
It sounds great, too (much better than my LP12 ever did!). :-))
Andy
Great Idea!!
Now I'm considering a different trend by building the same LP12 as you did based on DIYHIFISUPPLY BIX belt drive dual motors with LP12 platter.
I guess it will be wonderful! 2 DC motors driving the platter!! I like it.
Thank you very much!!!
The improvement when I added the 2nd motor was significant but what that BIX TT delivers may not be as good as it can be. It depends how a DC motor works.
With an AC motor, when you have 2 motors and 2 belts driving the platter/subplatter, you need to have a slight difference set up between the 2 motors (call it a 'phase difference'). Essentially, AC motors 'cog' - so there's in effect a period where the motor applies rotational force to the platter ... and a period when it doesn't. You need the 2nd motor to be applying its rotational force during the period which the 1st motor is not - so you need a pretty sophisticated speed controller (I am using a prototype of the "Number9").
If a DC motor doesn't do this but simply applies its rotational force evenly - then the BIX kit will be fine (from that PoV).
Andy
Hmm I agree. However I worries the noise generated by the AC motor will transfer to the bearing.
I come up an idea after talking to my friend. Unlike the BIX with rectangular chassis, I can have the acrylic chassis made in Big Arrow shape, and motor positioning on each corner, the Cirkus bearing is indicated by purple circle, the star will be where the tone arm goes.
That's why AC motor get a very good chance to transfer the noise to the bearing under this arrangement.
Mounting the motors on the same chassis as the bearing is a baaad idea, IMO.
On mine, each motor is bolted to the underside of a approx 4"x4" earthed steel plate - these plates are bolted to the top of 3"D brass cylinders (very heavy).
The cylinders don't rest on the perspex base of the TT (which the brass pods under the springs do) - there's a hole cut in the perspex, so the motor pod rests on the benchtop below and doesn't come into contact with the sides of the hole. So the motors are entirely separate from bearing.
Are you sure DC motors don't have any vibration (for your "arrow chassis")?
Andy
Which one has lower mass? Acrylic vs. Carbon/Balsa?
Also, it seems to me an acrylic subchassis wouldn't be as self-damping as either a CF composite or the carefully engineered aluminium Keel.
Andy
I've considered the Tiger Paw Akula subchassis, but looks like its more heavier than the Keel I guess.
Wouldn't it be advisable to keep the total weight of the suspended subchassis constant? Because the springs were presumably chosen for performing well with the weight of the original subchassis. Within that limit, one could play with stiffness. Seems to me if you change the weight of the suspended element, then you need to alter the springs to suit the alteration in weight. Doing that properly is a complex engineering problem.
means you must stick to one arm, also!
Andy
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: