|'); } // End -->|
In Reply to: Would a concrete plinth be a good idea for a sprung t/table? ... posted by andyr on October 9, 2006 at 01:36:57:
The Linn LP-12 was designed to be low mass/low energy storage. I don't think it presents a very good platform to turn into a high mass design. If you are working with an LP-12 I would experiment with low mass/low energy storage/constrained layer damping material along the lines of Ken Lyon's Neuance platforms. As Linn, Avid, Roksan, Rega, J A Michell, and a few other have show high mass is not the only game in town. Although I've heard some good sounding high mass tables I've also heard some wretched ones. Mass alone is no magic bullet.
Yes, I agree the LP12 was designed to be low mass/low energy storage - and that is key in terms of any replacement plinth. I think I've got enough feedback here to suggest that my thoughts of a concrete plinth are definitely in the worng direction! :-))
So I'll explore other options - like resin concrete or ceramics ... or even cast aluminium!
Cetech's replacement sub-chassis makes such a significant improvement over the stock pressed steel ... this inspires me to search for a plinth material which will similarly improve the sound (which wouldn't necessarily be suitable for cost-effective mass production).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: