question, as when i used to work along side with mike knowols "APHASON" THERE WERE NO NEED OF MODS EXCEPT TONE ARMS, Then why are manufacturers are making mods for what they claim was perfect in the first plce?!! can someone help on this issue.
The Mods And Cons Of T/t's
- Thread starter nando
- Start date
you mean money making? we know nothing is perfect, nothing ever will but how far will you go to reach perfection on something that in it's creation was supposed to be as such? o.k. every audio equipment can be twigged but the cost that can be done has two advantages 1/ is your aficionado enthusiasm and knowledge,
2/ is up to manufacturers to say "only once" not 15+ ?
2/ is up to manufacturers to say "only once" not 15+ ?
YNMOAN
Trade - AudioFlat
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 0
No, I don't mean 'money making' (that is not at all what I wrote and not at all what I meant) - I mean what I wrote; no system is perfect and improvements can always be made - such is the nature of progress (and product development).
Manufacturers do the best they can with the technology and materials available at the time. As new processes and materials become available, so new opportunities for further development present themselves.
To be honest Nando, you will have to be significantly less cryptic in your criticism. Isn't Musical Fidelity rather renowned for changing their product line every five minutes?
Manufacturers do the best they can with the technology and materials available at the time. As new processes and materials become available, so new opportunities for further development present themselves.
To be honest Nando, you will have to be significantly less cryptic in your criticism. Isn't Musical Fidelity rather renowned for changing their product line every five minutes?
Last edited by a moderator:
quote
so is everyone, but at what price? no disrespect to you but i am merely asking for opinions, i sometimes do not agree with mf or others i will speak my mind whith out prejudice, but your views are very welcome to me, i appreciate that.
so is everyone, but at what price? no disrespect to you but i am merely asking for opinions, i sometimes do not agree with mf or others i will speak my mind whith out prejudice, but your views are very welcome to me, i appreciate that.
YNMOAN
Trade - AudioFlat
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 0
Nando, I appreciate your sentiment, but I'm honestly not sure what point you are making - sorry.
It's all very well for Mike Knowles to say that there was no need for mods with his turntable; but the truth is it was quite significantly modified when it went from using one motor to two. In addition, if the Alphason turntable was still in production I'm sure a number of other modifications would have been made (in truth, it wasn't in production for very long).
It's all very well for Mike Knowles to say that there was no need for mods with his turntable; but the truth is it was quite significantly modified when it went from using one motor to two. In addition, if the Alphason turntable was still in production I'm sure a number of other modifications would have been made (in truth, it wasn't in production for very long).
Last edited by a moderator:
it was for years, but not widely stocked, mr. knowles lost faith and due to sickness he had to back step from electronics , went on to making racks, stands, and donated most of his profits to charity, my point as you ask is mod's should not cost that much, or maybe i am wrong? ok, dealers have to make a prfit but a mod i think should not cost more then the t,t itself or should it?
RobHolt
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2004
- Messages
- 4,126
- Reaction score
- 12
There are mods such as changing the type of rubber feet, perhaps the arm cabling or components within the drive electronics of a TT that will subtly change the performance - those are what I'd call 'mods'.
Others, and Mark/Andrew's Rubikon is a good example go beyond modification and enter the area of redesign IMO. They are changing something so fundamental to the operation and performance of the TT that it effectively becomes a different TT.
Linn have done this themselves of course and personally I think such a major change would constitute at least a Mk2 designation.
It follows that some simple modifications cost peanuts while others are more extensive and costly.
Others, and Mark/Andrew's Rubikon is a good example go beyond modification and enter the area of redesign IMO. They are changing something so fundamental to the operation and performance of the TT that it effectively becomes a different TT.
Linn have done this themselves of course and personally I think such a major change would constitute at least a Mk2 designation.
It follows that some simple modifications cost peanuts while others are more extensive and costly.
YNMOAN
Trade - AudioFlat
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 0
This effectively describes my position on the matter - the cost of the modification depends on what it is; the value of that modification is up to the potential purchaser. Hi-fi is very much a luxury item; nobody HAS to have it and even those that do have it are in no way obliged to buy the latest modification.
YNMOAN
Trade - AudioFlat
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 0
When Andrew first asked me to design him a new chassis he specified that he wanted something wholly better than what he currently had; if that could have been done by gluing on a few bits of Dynamat then that is what I would have done. However, what was actually needed, to achieve his stated requirements, was a whole lot of design, prototyping and 'from scratch' manufacture; inevitably this proved to be significantly more costly than a few bits of Dynamat.
One doesn't just sit in front of the computer and go 'right, I've got five minutes to make a modification' you know (well, perhaps some people do). Time is money as they say and time spent on development has to be recouped.
One doesn't just sit in front of the computer and go 'right, I've got five minutes to make a modification' you know (well, perhaps some people do). Time is money as they say and time spent on development has to be recouped.
YNMOAN
Trade - AudioFlat
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, that is for others to judge - but I am pleased with the results (and so are the dealers who have heard it).
To be honest, this is becoming a bit of an advertisement which was not my intention - or the aim of your original post Nando.
To be honest, this is becoming a bit of an advertisement which was not my intention - or the aim of your original post Nando.
I am the owner of a turntable which I have made changes to. I get a lot of questions about how it looks, a lot less about the changes that more fundamentally affect its performance.
I have replaced the motor with an after market DC motor. It did what it claimed but at considerable expense relative to the materials involved. Am I paying for Origin Lives R&D costs? Or is a mature product that has sold thousands of units now just reaping large rewards for its continued success? That can be discussed for ever but, truth be told, it needed a new motor and choice was virtually none existent at the time.
The next most significant change I made was to put damping material on the sub chassis. Rigidity was not an issue with my deck. The subchassis dates back to the late 1950's when the first ones appeared on an AR deck, made of cast alloy. Apart from a slight change of geometry to accomodate an arm board rather than a dedicated arm bolted directly to the subchassis it had changed little in principle between 1957 and 1983. That helped clean the sound up quite significantly.
The third change was the replacement of the base board with 18mm MDF. This was modified to fit flush with the body of the turntable.
Finally (and most unexpectedly) replacing the feet with cones was disastrous with bass all but vanishing. Going back to soft rubber feet improved the issue and I have since settled on soft sorbothane feet.
I have not spoken about the arm changes I made because for me that falls into the domain of business as usual with my turntable. However I will state that I now use an Audio Origami PU7 and the changes made to the table have made it a suitable platform for the PU7. Thing is, had I spent that cash on a new turntable or a quality second hand table from Michell, SME, Avid or any number of others I would have an equally desireble table that would certainly perform better and actually retain its value, unlike the money I have spent on mine. Despite the time, and energy I have invested in my table, not to mention money it is still an AR Legend, value somewhere between £60 and £160.
I have replaced the motor with an after market DC motor. It did what it claimed but at considerable expense relative to the materials involved. Am I paying for Origin Lives R&D costs? Or is a mature product that has sold thousands of units now just reaping large rewards for its continued success? That can be discussed for ever but, truth be told, it needed a new motor and choice was virtually none existent at the time.
The next most significant change I made was to put damping material on the sub chassis. Rigidity was not an issue with my deck. The subchassis dates back to the late 1950's when the first ones appeared on an AR deck, made of cast alloy. Apart from a slight change of geometry to accomodate an arm board rather than a dedicated arm bolted directly to the subchassis it had changed little in principle between 1957 and 1983. That helped clean the sound up quite significantly.
The third change was the replacement of the base board with 18mm MDF. This was modified to fit flush with the body of the turntable.
Finally (and most unexpectedly) replacing the feet with cones was disastrous with bass all but vanishing. Going back to soft rubber feet improved the issue and I have since settled on soft sorbothane feet.
I have not spoken about the arm changes I made because for me that falls into the domain of business as usual with my turntable. However I will state that I now use an Audio Origami PU7 and the changes made to the table have made it a suitable platform for the PU7. Thing is, had I spent that cash on a new turntable or a quality second hand table from Michell, SME, Avid or any number of others I would have an equally desireble table that would certainly perform better and actually retain its value, unlike the money I have spent on mine. Despite the time, and energy I have invested in my table, not to mention money it is still an AR Legend, value somewhere between £60 and £160.