Subject: Re: [teres] Motor & Controller Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:24:44 -0700 From: StepHydro@aol.com, StepHydro@aol.com To: teres@aiko.com In a message dated 02/28/2000 12: Maybe I should grease the belt, so I can practice up! I don't like that "feature" either. I've an AR Xa that has required it for twenty-more years. Inconvenient. Cheers/Don Carron Subject: [teres] Teres-Motor&Supply Pulley Draft #2 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:48:56 -0700 From: Chris Brady, Chris Brady To: teres@aiko.com Here is the next revision of the pulley. Hopefully it has all of the changes that were requested. The design should accomodate a 1/4" flat belt or a round belt of up to 0.1" diameter. Comments? Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: pulley.gif pulley.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif) Encoding: base64 Subject: Re: [teres] Teres-Motor&Supply Pulley Draft #2 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:38:39 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com Much better, Chris. I am a little concerned, however that 1/4", although probably enough for a common rubber belt, may not be adequate to accomodate anything handmade, such as some of the possibilities knocked about previously. It would be difficult to handmake a 1/4" strip of anything (other than recording tape). If possible, I would suggest enlaging that area slightly, perhaps to around 3/8", or so. Igor --- Chris Brady wrote: > Here is the next revision of the pulley. Hopefully > it has all of the changes that were requested. The > design should accomodate a 1/4" flat belt or a round > belt of up to 0.1" diameter. Comments? > > Chris > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=pulley.gif __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: Re: [teres] Teres-Motor&Supply Pulley Draft #2 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:36:04 -0700 From: Chris Brady, Chris Brady To: teres@aiko.com I thought about making the pulley taller but the motor shaft is fairly short (.425"). If we make the pulley much taller than the shaft then it would be more prone to wobble. It seemed that .6" was a reasonable compromise but going to .675 should still be ok. Chris Igor Kuznetsoff wrote: > > Much better, Chris. I am a little concerned, however > that 1/4", although probably enough for a common > rubber belt, may not be adequate to accomodate > anything handmade, such as some of the possibilities > knocked about previously. It would be difficult to > handmake a 1/4" strip of anything (other than > recording tape). If possible, I would suggest > enlaging that area slightly, perhaps to around 3/8", > or so. > > Igor > > --- Chris Brady wrote: > > Here is the next revision of the pulley. Hopefully > > it has all of the changes that were requested. The > > design should accomodate a 1/4" flat belt or a round > > belt of up to 0.1" diameter. Comments? > > > > Chris > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=pulley.gif > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com Subject: Re: [teres] Teres-Motor&Supply Pulley Draft #2 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:13:54 -0700 From: phclark, phclark To: teres@aiko.com I agree. Peter C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Kuznetsoff" To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [teres] Teres-Motor&Supply Pulley Draft #2 > Much better, Chris. I am a little concerned, however > that 1/4", although probably enough for a common > rubber belt, may not be adequate to accomodate > anything handmade, such as some of the possibilities > knocked about previously. It would be difficult to > handmake a 1/4" strip of anything (other than > recording tape). If possible, I would suggest > enlaging that area slightly, perhaps to around 3/8", > or so. > > Igor > > --- Chris Brady wrote: > > Here is the next revision of the pulley. Hopefully > > it has all of the changes that were requested. The > > design should accomodate a 1/4" flat belt or a round > > belt of up to 0.1" diameter. Comments? > > > > Chris > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=pulley.gif > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > Subject: Re: [teres] Teres-Motor&Supply Pulley Draft #2 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:00:56 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com Good, I had the same concern, but had figured that if we mount the end of the pulley we want to use closest to the motor...Should be a bit steadier, and apply less leverage. Igor --- Chris Brady wrote: > I thought about making the pulley taller but the > motor > shaft is fairly short (.425"). If we make the > pulley > much taller than the shaft then it would be more > prone > to wobble. It seemed that .6" was a reasonable > compromise > but going to .675 should still be ok. > > Chris > > Igor Kuznetsoff wrote: > > > > Much better, Chris. I am a little concerned, > however > > that 1/4", although probably enough for a common > > rubber belt, may not be adequate to accomodate > > anything handmade, such as some of the > possibilities > > knocked about previously. It would be difficult > to > > handmake a 1/4" strip of anything (other than > > recording tape). If possible, I would suggest > > enlaging that area slightly, perhaps to around > 3/8", > > or so. > > > > Igor > > > > --- Chris Brady wrote: > > > Here is the next revision of the pulley. > Hopefully > > > it has all of the changes that were requested. > The > > > design should accomodate a 1/4" flat belt or a > round > > > belt of up to 0.1" diameter. Comments? > > > > > > Chris > > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=pulley.gif > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: RE: [teres] Motor/supply kit/Mounting Plate Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:22:30 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com Daus, I would add to that the fact that in you AR the motor is placed under the platter, is it not? This is rather close to arm when it is in play. The Teres motor will be quite a bit further away, and will not have a metal platter stirring the fields around the cartridge, either! Finally, your Shure, a fine cartridge, is also less prone to hum. I differ with you on the motor plate resonance issue, it *is* important. You are thinking about damping the *noise* issued by it. That is not the major consideration here, and that level is likely to be very low, in any case. The more important thing to consider is the vibration that could reach the pulley, and which damping of the mounting plate will not stop, or affect as much as the radiated sound. Vibration at the pulley, particularly with the use of non-compliant belts, such as popular opinion is favoring in this group, will transmit to the platter, where it can translate into FM type distortion, which then gets *amplified*, as the direct output of noise from the motor plate is not. Igor --- "Mackris, Thom G." wrote: > Daus, > > No time to reply in detail at the moment, but one > item. The motor is DC, > and apart from some spurious effects at the brushes, > you won't have the > shielding issues inherrent in an AC motor like your > modded AR or my Merrill. > Interesting comments about the aluminum carrying the > "hum" to the cartridge. > I would have only expected ferrous metals to do > this. > > Mu metal had been mentioned early on, although at > the time there was not a > much interest - the thinking at the time, I suppose > was that there was time > to address this later on. It's getting close to > "later on". > > Yes, modeling clay! Igor had turned me on to some > black gooey stuff that's > used to seal automobile windshields - enough of this > black tarry ribbon to > go around a windshield sells for ~ $10.00 in an auto > parts store. It never > hardens and will not flow and make a mess, at least > up to temperatures > experienced in an automobile in the Summer in > Arizona :-)) > > > Cheers, > Thom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daus Studenberg [mailto:daus@ufl.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 4:37 PM > To: teres@aiko.com > Subject: Re: [teres] Motor/supply kit/Mounting Plate > > > I think the plate would look really great! It would > give that really > professional look! HOWEVER, I hate to say that it > may cause some minor > problems. The resonance issue is really not an > issue because plenty of > modeling clay will take care of any resonance on a > thick aluminum plate and > is actually better than wood because of the > increased stiffness and high > dampening. My concern is with magnetic fields. I > have the typical Grado > Blue/unshielded motor combo on my modified AR > turntable. Before I had the > acrylic platter, I found that the aluminum platter > contributed to add a > SIGNIFICANT amount of motor and AC hum (try this out > with an AR turntable, > you will see what I am talking about). I found out > a turntable design that > has less metal is better or at least less aluminum. > Speaking of which, have > we talked about shielding the motor or is it > shielded?? Part of the reason > that I am going for the separate motor mounting > configuration is that I have > had a lot of problems with motor noise from its > stray magnetic fields. I > may be using Mu-metal around my motor housing for > shielding. I would be > interested in a group purchase of mu-metal. > Perhaps we could use a > phenolic board painted black or a 1" thick block of > acrylic?? Of course, I > plan on using the Shure V15MX-VR (anyone like this > cartridge??) so hopefully > hum will not be that much of a problem! :) Daus > > > > > > --- Chris Brady wrote: > > > I am wondering if there would be interest in > > > including > > > a motor mounting plate in the motor/controller > kit. > > > I expect that there will be a lot of different > > > shapes and > > > sizes of motor pods, but perhaps we can agree on > a > > > single > > > mounting plate design and benefit from a > quantity > > > discount. > > > > > > I am thinking that a round mounting plate, say > 4" in > > > diameter > > > with mounting holes around the edge would work > for > > > either a > > > round or rectangular motor pod. We could each > make > > > our own > > > but with enough units they could be precision > made > > > on a NC > > > mill at a reasonable cost. If made from fairly > thin > > > aluminum > > > (1/16 - 1/8") it would be inexpensive. However, > we > > > could > > > also opt for a more expensive design made from > 1/4 - > > > 3/8" > > > aluminum with nice recessed holes for cap screws > and > > > an > > > anodized finish. The thicker plate may not work > any > > > better > > > but it would sure look sweet. > > > > > > Chris > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: RE: [teres] Belt Tensioning Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:49:32 -0700 From: Schei, Kenneth, Schei, Kenneth To: 'teres@aiko.com' Good idea, Igor. How about this for a refinement: Instead of adding a weight and pully, just support the motor pod on a pivot on the platter side of the pod so the motor pod is its own weight, and its cantilever from the pivot provides the constant tension. The geometry can be adjusted to get the tension we want. Cheers, Ken Ken Schei, P.E. Project Engineer Antarctic Support Associates Email address: scheike@asa.org Phone: 303-643-0163 > -----Original Message----- > From: Igor Kuznetsoff [SMTP:gorkuz@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 11:15 PM > To: teres@aiko.com > Subject: Re: [teres] Belt Tensioning > > All, > The subject of belt tension & the difficulty > of maintaining a consistent value in the absence of > belt compliance, should we use any of the number of > non-rubber compositions we have been discussing, has > suggested to me a couple of simple solutions I would > like to advance for consideration. > > 1) Consistent tension can be arranged easily using a > simple pulley & weight arrangement, set up in > opposition to the pull of the drive belt. This should > be a considerably preferable solution to something > like using a spring, which would reintroduce, to some > degree, the resonant behavior which we are talking > about avoiding by using a non-compliant belt. Simply > depending on the mass of the motor pod set up to apply > pressure will only cause to the pod to tip awkwardly, > not a dependable means of accomplishing this. It will > always creep out of adjustment, or the belt will > stretch, and even a little of that, and that'll be > that. A weight & pulley combo will work much more > reliably. To continue with the non-compliant theme, > it would also be good to use an equally stretchless, > and preferably well damped string to hang the weight. > An additional fine point would be to add some simple > viscous damping to that system at the pulley. This > could be done by arranging some simple means of > applying greasy drag to that pulley. Alternately, if > the pulley has a smooth working surface, it could be > immobilized, or a smooth, relatively large radius > right angle bend of some sort is arranged for the > string to go over, then even friction will apply some > damping, which could be amplified with a little > lubricant. Silicone fluid or grease would probably > the slick ticket for this unction function. > > 2) An even tidier, but, I suspect, slightly less > effective technique could be arranged using either: > a) An arm hanging off the top of the motor pod with a > moveable weight arranged much like most arm > counterweights. Or: b) A "boom" arm, pivoted at the > pod base & angled upwards, with a weight on a string > running over it much like a large version of a "Lenco" > type anti-skate weight & monofilament-over corkscrew > like arm arrangement, could be built onto the pod > (only no "corkscrew" is needed for this). Just > visualize one of those large construction cranes > attached to the side of the motor pod. Either of > these would be oriented away from the pull of the > belt. With either of these types, we would be > depending on the force generated by the weights to tip > the motor pod against the pull of the belt in a > constant fashion unaffected by creep. These methods > are not as easily amenable to additional damping, > unless, perhaps something was worked into the base. > > For any of these arrangements to work reliably, the > pod base would have to be designed to allow enough > compliance on an axis aligned with motor pulley & > platter bearing to allow the weights to do their > thing. These systems will automatically compensate > for only minor belt stretch, and will require > occasional touch up of pod placement. > > Igor > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com Subject: Re: Re-sized Belt Tension Drawing Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:35:36 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella Thanks! That is the very thing I've been needing! Wish I had it for the periphery clamp drawing! Wonder how long it would take to download it? Didn't you see the "A" button-that's text/ pointing to the buttons & waiting for a moment...well, you know. It is awkward, though. I found that the trick (because it is almost impossible to put the letters quite where you want them-the system is crude) is to lay them out somewhere on the work space, then *copy*them, paste where you *do* want them, and, *without releasing* the click, position them exactly where you want them, release, use the delete box function to erase the now useless original text. Igor --- Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella wrote: > You can letter with Paint ??? > > I downloaded Graphics Workshop from Download dot > Com: > > http://download.cnet.com/ > > I don't really know how to use it other than to > re-size drawings and to > convert from one format to another. The quick 'n > dirty subchassis design > ended up being 2 meg in Paint !! I then opened it > up in Graphics Workshop > and converted it to a jpg file 1/20th the size. > > I'm attaching a converted copy of your drawing - > shrunk to a 17.8 K jpg file > from a half meg. > > Cheers, > Thom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Igor Kuznetsoff > To: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 12:30 AM > Subject: Re: test > > > T- > There may be more than that happening. We *are* > experiencing some similar effects (Teres), but posts > between my 3 addresses aren't doing much better-I > just > now got a test post from an hour ago. > Also-you don't need to answer this tonight-but > how > did you reduce the size of the 'table drawing (not > scale-bytes)? My motor pod dwg came out 479K & had > fewer lines in it than your dwg. Even more oddly, > after transmission, I finally received it after over > an hour, *over* the 2.8M (should not have fit into > the > 200K I have left), and it *arrived* blown up to > *655K* > !?! Peter Clark had requested a drawing of the pod > 2days ago, so I did that, but don't see how I will > be > able to post this to the group, though I could post > it > directly to him. That would have been an awful lot > of > work to post just one person, especially after > figuring out how to use Paint (for the first time). > Sure is a clunky program, terrible controls. Even > the > drawing functions in Word are better than that, just > can't be opened by some people like Jeremy. (??? > Still > don't understand why???). Wish I had realized that > Paint could do the conversion . I tried all the > other > things I had first, and ended up with files >1.5M, > yahoo wouldn't send those at all! I was able to > convert back and forth Word to bmp today. P.S.- The > Alta Vista mail system seems to have **no** method > of > attachment, and a really poor address book system- I > had to give you 2 slightly different names just to > get > your 2 addresses into that book. It refused to list > 2 > different add's associated to the same name! > > I > > > > --- Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella > wrote: > > I think Roscoe did something. I signed up with > > yahoo for travel - I got a > > laptop from work. I got a few posts and then > > nothing ... nada. I also > > received very spotty posts from my work e-mail. I > > was just about to e-mail > > Roscoe. I'm in the process of getting all of the > > e-mails on diskette so you > > can load them to your Outlook Express mail. > > > > You're fine. Roscoe musta messed up. I'll let > him > > know. > > > > Cheers, > > Thom > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Igor Kuznetsoff > > To: Thom G. Mackris > > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:07 PM > > Subject: test > > > > > > T- > > Something seems to be wrong with my mail > system. > > Posts stopped arriving (entirely) early this > > afternoon. > > I thought that there just weren't any, but I tried > > to > > post myself several times to check & see if the > > motor > > pod drawing I did would work (it is way too > > large-479K, > > !!! done in Paint - why?!?!?). That didn't > arrive, > > so > > I assumed that it was because of the size (domo > > would > > bounce it anyway. How did you do the chassis dwg & > > make it fit??) So, I tried a small test message, > > to > > myself. That didn't arrive. I tried one to my > > other > > address, that didn't arrive. Tried one *from* the > > other address, that didn't arrive. Please send me > > something short ( I have only 200K of space left, > > this > > situation is becoming really *CRITICAL*. > > > > ?????? > > Igor > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > > http://im.yahoo.com > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/jpeg name=BeltTens.jpg __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: Re: Re-sized Belt Tension Drawing Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:50:41 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella T- That's great but.... I can't copy, save it to disk, or do anything at all but look at it....????? I've seen this kind of hangup before, I'll try again later, it might work better when there is less on-line traffic, but I don't know, and I was hoping to put this nuisance to bed, already. Igor --- Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella wrote: > You can letter with Paint ??? > > I downloaded Graphics Workshop from Download dot > Com: > > http://download.cnet.com/ > > I don't really know how to use it other than to > re-size drawings and to > convert from one format to another. The quick 'n > dirty subchassis design > ended up being 2 meg in Paint !! I then opened it > up in Graphics Workshop > and converted it to a jpg file 1/20th the size. > > I'm attaching a converted copy of your drawing - > shrunk to a 17.8 K jpg file > from a half meg. > > Cheers, > Thom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Igor Kuznetsoff > To: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 12:30 AM > Subject: Re: test > > > T- > There may be more than that happening. We *are* > experiencing some similar effects (Teres), but posts > between my 3 addresses aren't doing much better-I > just > now got a test post from an hour ago. > Also-you don't need to answer this tonight-but > how > did you reduce the size of the 'table drawing (not > scale-bytes)? My motor pod dwg came out 479K & had > fewer lines in it than your dwg. Even more oddly, > after transmission, I finally received it after over > an hour, *over* the 2.8M (should not have fit into > the > 200K I have left), and it *arrived* blown up to > *655K* > !?! Peter Clark had requested a drawing of the pod > 2days ago, so I did that, but don't see how I will > be > able to post this to the group, though I could post > it > directly to him. That would have been an awful lot > of > work to post just one person, especially after > figuring out how to use Paint (for the first time). > Sure is a clunky program, terrible controls. Even > the > drawing functions in Word are better than that, just > can't be opened by some people like Jeremy. (??? > Still > don't understand why???). Wish I had realized that > Paint could do the conversion . I tried all the > other > things I had first, and ended up with files >1.5M, > yahoo wouldn't send those at all! I was able to > convert back and forth Word to bmp today. P.S.- The > Alta Vista mail system seems to have **no** method > of > attachment, and a really poor address book system- I > had to give you 2 slightly different names just to > get > your 2 addresses into that book. It refused to list > 2 > different add's associated to the same name! > > I > > > > --- Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella > wrote: > > I think Roscoe did something. I signed up with > > yahoo for travel - I got a > > laptop from work. I got a few posts and then > > nothing ... nada. I also > > received very spotty posts from my work e-mail. I > > was just about to e-mail > > Roscoe. I'm in the process of getting all of the > > e-mails on diskette so you > > can load them to your Outlook Express mail. > > > > You're fine. Roscoe musta messed up. I'll let > him > > know. > > > > Cheers, > > Thom > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Igor Kuznetsoff > > To: Thom G. Mackris > > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:07 PM > > Subject: test > > > > > > T- > > Something seems to be wrong with my mail > system. > > Posts stopped arriving (entirely) early this > > afternoon. > > I thought that there just weren't any, but I tried > > to > > post myself several times to check & see if the > > motor > > pod drawing I did would work (it is way too > > large-479K, > > !!! done in Paint - why?!?!?). That didn't > arrive, > > so > > I assumed that it was because of the size (domo > > would > > bounce it anyway. How did you do the chassis dwg & > > make it fit??) So, I tried a small test message, > > to > > myself. That didn't arrive. I tried one to my > > other > > address, that didn't arrive. Tried one *from* the > > other address, that didn't arrive. Please send me > > something short ( I have only 200K of space left, > > this > > situation is becoming really *CRITICAL*. > > > > ?????? > > Igor > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > > http://im.yahoo.com > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/jpeg name=BeltTens.jpg __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: Re: [teres] Motor Pod Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:05:42 -0700 From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella To: teres@aiko.com You were echoing my thoughts, Jon - getting the vertical plane of the motor shaft and the platter bearing perfectly parallel appears as if it would be a chore. Any thoughts on how this can be accomplished without staying up late? Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Lane To: Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:14 PM Subject: RE: [teres] Motor Pod > Peter, > Does this help? (see below) > > Igor Gentlemen, Respectfully, the pivoting motor assumes a round belt, right? The geometry is compounded with this arrangement making flat belts (magnetic tape) impossible to use. Such belts will chafe the pulley and run against one or the other rim depending on motor tilt. I've been taking the following as truths: 1. A slightly radiused pulley for self centering a flat belt. 2. Solidly fixing the motor against as much mass as possible. 3. Pursuant both of these, orienting the motor shaft absolutely vertical with respect to the platter rim. >From there, a variety of tensioning methods can be used from merely sliding the motor base away from the platter to using a idler. Investigations into instrumentation drives reveals the latter is common - I'd intended to use it myself. A spring-tensioned idler using a quiet rotating pulley would be simple, cheap and effective. And self-tending. But tilting the motor from perfectly vertical eliminates the flat belt option. Is the pulley design decided on at this point? Jon lane Subject: Re: [teres] Motor Pod Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:34:39 -0700 From: phclark, phclark To: teres@aiko.com > Peter, > Who is Heath Robinson? Heath Robinson is the English Rube Goldberg. > There was this last week: > > Also, in case you were not aware, Express > Machining(the Lift folks) have released a replacement > counterweight for the Rega > http://www.expressmachining.com/heavy-wt/heavy.html > > Now, if you buy two of those... :-) It's a thought... Peter C > > > --- phclark wrote: > > I was right, it is Heath Robinson. And I still > > think it has merit. The > > first drawing I think is preferable as the weight > > position regulates, as > > distinguished from the second where the weight > > itself must be changed in > > order to regulate. > > > > Two point contact will do the trick. > > > > Makes the belt easy to change. > > > > One could utilize spare Krugerrands for the weights. > > > > Makes the motor easier to isolate. > > > > Obviates the necessity for an idler. > > > > I speculate that the bottom plate might be > > constructed eccentric to the > > motor housing to facilitate initial adjustment. A > > whiz with Statics could > > figure out how eccentric for a given motor assembly > > weight. With the motor > > mounted on the rotatable top plate, this should not > > create undesirable > > bearing wear that couldn't be compensated by > > periodic rotation, already > > under discussion. > > > > Maybe we could have the weight (absent spare > > Krugerrands) machined to match > > the arm counterweight. How's that for anal > > retentive? > > > > I actually think this is a slick idea, possessed of > > a certain elegance, > > since it kills so many birds with one stone. > > Thanks. > > > > Peter C > > > > Subject: Re: [teres] Motor Pod Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 02:04:18 -0700 From: phclark, phclark To: teres@aiko.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Lane" To: Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:14 PM Subject: RE: [teres] Motor Pod > > Gentlemen, > > Respectfully, the pivoting motor assumes a round belt, > right? I don't think so. The geometry is compounded with this arrangement > making flat belts (magnetic tape) impossible to use. I still don't think so. > Such belts ??? will chafe the pulley and run against one or the other ????? > rim depending on motor tilt. I don't see any particular reason that the motor couldn't be run vertically, or close as dammit. A small level placed against the housing for initial tensioning would be all that would be required to get it vertical. I am assuming a fairly hefty motor assembly here, that would not tend to shift upon tensioning. The amount of counterwight tension, I suspect, would be at most a few ounces, not enough to disturb a motor assembly conceivably weighing 20+ pounds. > > I've been taking the following as truths: > > 1. A slightly radiused pulley for self centering a flat > belt. OK, so far. > 2. Solidly fixing the motor against as much mass as > possible. Upon reflection, I'm not sure fixing is necessary. Mass would be important no matter how you did it, though less so if your mounting was rigid to a massive subchassis or plinth. > 3. Pursuant both of these, orienting the motor shaft > absolutely vertical with respect to the platter rim. Agreed, but this is not a big problem as I envision the application. > From there, a variety of tensioning methods can be used from > merely sliding the motor base away from the platter This, at first glance, is a rather imprecise and non-repeatable way to go about this. > to using a(n, sic) idler. An idler is otherwise a good idea, one that I came up with independently of all you other geniuses. But, and a Big But, it's monkey motion and adds complexity. Like how do you tension the idler, what idler bearing do you use, how much potential noise/vibration/caca do you potentially introduce into the system with another rotating mass (no matter how small (many folks are putting mucho skull sweat into eliminating ALL vibrations,)) what contact surface with the belt will there be, where do you put the idler and can you tension it independently without another ten pounds of hardware? > Investigations into instrumentation drives reveals > the latter is common - I'd intended to use it myself. A > spring-tensioned idler using a quiet rotating pulley would > be simple, cheap and effective. And self-tending. > > But tilting the motor from perfectly vertical eliminates the > flat belt option. Again, I'm not so sure about this. The beauty of Igor's idea is its simplicity. And, another thought, it also affords the ability to move the motor assembly around to an extent, should this prove to be efficacious to the ridding of nasties. A permanent mount would be just that, and you live with whatever bad judgement you made about placement. My $0.03. Peter C Subject: RE: [teres] Motor Pod Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 02:17:06 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com Jon, You've misinterpreted the design, I'm afraid. The text preceding it even suggested equipping the pod with a bubble level. What might that be for? This design needs to be *able* to tilt, so that it is free to apply pressure, but should be set up *vertically*, as drawn, so that the tension is applied by only the arm or pulley, not the off-center weight of the motor pod itself. Idlers are a good idea for rather different reasons, to distribute pull vectors & reduce the teeter-totter tendencies of platter/bearing systems, and were fairly thoroughly discussed earlier in the design process, and then put aside for a later stage of design, which we are approaching. It was decided at that time that the use, or not, of idlers would probably be an individual choice, with the thought that their benefits would be dependent very much on how well they were implemented. The consensus at that time was that, vis-a-vis VPI & their idler "removal tweak", for instance, idlers could be as good or bad for results as their bearing & machining quality dictated. Setting up an idler system also adds quite a bit of complication both machanically and chassis layout-wise. I happen to be a fan of using them, and even suggested the possible use of VCR pinch rollers as insertable, high quality but inexpensive ready-made bearing units which come with built-in damping in the form of their rubber (tread) exterior surface. Personally, I would avoid the use of any springs, if possible, around a TT as they are resonant, substituting rubber or other viscoelastic parts wherever possible. An idler used for the purpose you describe would allow the pulley to remain vertical & the tension would be repeatable, but "sliding the motor away from the platter" would not give you either of those qualities, and would be very undependably un-self-tending, as the text suggested. Igor --- Jon Lane wrote: > > > Peter, > > Does this help? (see below) > > > > Igor > > > Gentlemen, > > Respectfully, the pivoting motor assumes a round > belt, > right? The geometry is compounded with this > arrangement > making flat belts (magnetic tape) impossible to use. > Such > belts will chafe the pulley and run against one or > the other > rim depending on motor tilt. > > I've been taking the following as truths: > > 1. A slightly radiused pulley for self centering a > flat > belt. > > 2. Solidly fixing the motor against as much mass as > possible. > > 3. Pursuant both of these, orienting the motor > shaft > absolutely vertical with respect to the platter rim. > > From there, a variety of tensioning methods can be > used from > merely sliding the motor base away from the platter > to using > a idler. Investigations into instrumentation drives > reveals > the latter is common - I'd intended to use it > myself. A > spring-tensioned idler using a quiet rotating pulley > would > be simple, cheap and effective. And self-tending. > > But tilting the motor from perfectly vertical > eliminates the > flat belt option. Is the pulley design decided on > at this > point? > > Jon lane > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: Re: [teres] Motor Pod Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 02:39:37 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com Peter, You've got it! Jon, I would add that you are assuming that the "flat belt" area is, well, flat... But, it is *not*. Remember, we designed a *convex* surface into it, ostensibly for belt auto-centering, but this also affords a few degree's grace to the verticality issue. I see that Peter must have been writing this while I was writing the other response, with similar results, down to mention of the level, and the problems of getting worthwhile performance out of idlers. Igor --- phclark wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Lane" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:14 PM > Subject: RE: [teres] Motor Pod > > > > > > Gentlemen, > > > > Respectfully, the pivoting motor assumes a round > belt, > > right? > > I don't think so. > > The geometry is compounded with this arrangement > > making flat belts (magnetic tape) impossible to > use. > > I still don't think so. > > > > Such belts > > ??? > > will chafe the pulley and run against one or the > other > > ????? > > > rim depending on motor tilt. > > I don't see any particular reason that the motor > couldn't be run vertically, > or close as dammit. A small level placed against > the housing for initial > tensioning would be all that would be required to > get it vertical. I am > assuming a fairly hefty motor assembly here, that > would not tend to shift > upon tensioning. The amount of counterwight > tension, I suspect, would be at > most a few ounces, not enough to disturb a motor > assembly conceivably > weighing 20+ pounds. > > > > > I've been taking the following as truths: > > > > 1. A slightly radiused pulley for self centering > a flat > > belt. > > OK, so far. > > > 2. Solidly fixing the motor against as much mass > as > > possible. > > Upon reflection, I'm not sure fixing is necessary. > Mass would be important > no matter how you did it, though less so if your > mounting was rigid to a > massive subchassis or plinth. > > > 3. Pursuant both of these, orienting the motor > shaft > > absolutely vertical with respect to the platter > rim. > > Agreed, but this is not a big problem as I envision > the application. > > > From there, a variety of tensioning methods can be > used from > > merely sliding the motor base away from the > platter > > This, at first glance, is a rather imprecise and > non-repeatable way to go > about this. > > > to using a(n, sic) idler. > > An idler is otherwise a good idea, one that I came > up with independently of > all you other geniuses. But, and a Big But, it's > monkey motion and adds > complexity. Like how do you tension the idler, what > idler bearing do you > use, how much potential noise/vibration/caca do you > potentially introduce > into the system with another rotating mass (no > matter how small (many folks > are putting mucho skull sweat into eliminating ALL > vibrations,)) what > contact surface with the belt will there be, where > do you put the idler and > can you tension it independently without another ten > pounds of hardware? > > > Investigations into instrumentation drives > reveals > > the latter is common - I'd intended to use it > myself. A > > spring-tensioned idler using a quiet rotating > pulley would > > be simple, cheap and effective. And self-tending. > > > > But tilting the motor from perfectly vertical > eliminates the > > flat belt option. > > Again, I'm not so sure about this. > The beauty of Igor's idea is its simplicity. And, > another thought, it also > affords the ability to move the motor assembly > around to an extent, should > this prove to be efficacious to the ridding of > nasties. A permanent mount > would be just that, and you live with whatever bad > judgement you made about > placement. > > My $0.03. > > Peter C > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: RE: [teres] belts Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:49:29 -0700 From: Schei, Kenneth, Schei, Kenneth To: 'teres@aiko.com' Gordon: I like the silk idea. It's very Ennemoser-ish. How do you plan to do the splice? Ken Ken Schei, P.E. Project Engineer Antarctic Support Associates Email address: scheike@asa.org Phone: 303-643-0163 > -----Original Message----- > From: MaughanAudio@aol.com [SMTP:MaughanAudio@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 5:11 PM > To: teres@aiko.com > Subject: Re: [teres] belts > > I plan to experiment with a silk ribbon (available at better fabric > stores). > One version will be coated with a very thin layer of silicon (RTV). This > version will give better traction. Silk by itself may slip too easily. The > > two ends will be glued together using a supper glue. This sounds primitive > > but if you are careful it will work and the testing will bring out how > well. > I also like the idea mentioned by others of using recording tape for a > ribbon > belt. I will also try this and see which I prefer. Subject: Re: [teres] belts Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:51:25 -0700 From: MaughanAudio@aol.com, MaughanAudio@aol.com To: teres@aiko.com Ken Schei wrote regarding using silk ribbon for belts, quote, "I like the silk idea. It's very Ennemoser-ish. How do you plan to do the splice?" My answer to that is supper glue. Unfortunately that will create an imperfect junction. However I doubt it could be heard, but for those who could not tolerate an imperfection like this, then Jon Lane's solution of manufactured "endless" belts out of Kapton or Mylar is an excellent solution. If these belts are available and the length will work with my setup then I'll purchase one. Whatever happens, I will definitely make some to try out of silk ribbon. Subject: RE: [teres] belts Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:03:03 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com Gordon, You could also try plain old contact cement in place of the RTV. It should be easier to coat thinly with that, and it will provide traction, remain flexible. If it doesn't prove too thick, you could try doubling the layer of silk until the ends (almost) join, but on opposite sides of the continuous second layer, giving you a loop of consistent thickness, rather than a thickened spot at the splice. Just some ideas. Igor --- "Schei, Kenneth" wrote: > Gordon: > > I like the silk idea. It's very Ennemoser-ish. How > do you plan to do the > splice? > > Ken > > Ken Schei, P.E. > Project Engineer > Antarctic Support Associates > Email address: scheike@asa.org > Phone: 303-643-0163 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MaughanAudio@aol.com > [SMTP:MaughanAudio@aol.com] > > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 5:11 PM > > To: teres@aiko.com > > Subject: Re: [teres] belts > > > > I plan to experiment with a silk ribbon (available > at better fabric > > stores). > > One version will be coated with a very thin layer > of silicon (RTV). This > > version will give better traction. Silk by itself > may slip too easily. The > > > > two ends will be glued together using a supper > glue. This sounds primitive > > > > but if you are careful it will work and the > testing will bring out how > > well. > > I also like the idea mentioned by others of using > recording tape for a > > ribbon > > belt. I will also try this and see which I prefer. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Subject: Re: [teres] belts Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:30:02 -0700 From: Doug Kelly, Doug Kelly To: teres@aiko.com Igor, this is more or less what I was thinking of for a video-tape mylar belt. I was thinking 2 separate layers with offset splices, but the same general idea. I also thought of using thin double-sided carpet tape to join the layers - if you can get complete contact on both layers, this should give you a uniform thickness belt, which shouldn't delaminate. I hope to get around to trying this over the weekend, if not sooner. Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Kuznetsoff" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 12:01 AM Subject: RE: [teres] belts > Gordon, > You could also try plain old contact cement in > place of the RTV. It should be easier to coat thinly > with that, and it will provide traction, remain > flexible. If it doesn't prove too thick, you could > try doubling the layer of silk until the ends (almost) > join, but on opposite sides of the continuous second > layer, giving you a loop of consistent thickness, > rather than a thickened spot at the splice. Just some > ideas. > Igor > > --- "Schei, Kenneth" wrote: > > Gordon: > > > > I like the silk idea. It's very Ennemoser-ish. How > > do you plan to do the > > splice? > > > > Ken > > > > Ken Schei, P.E. > > Project Engineer > > Antarctic Support Associates > > Email address: scheike@asa.org > > Phone: 303-643-0163 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: MaughanAudio@aol.com > > [SMTP:MaughanAudio@aol.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 5:11 PM > > > To: teres@aiko.com > > > Subject: Re: [teres] belts > > > > > > I plan to experiment with a silk ribbon (available > > at better fabric > > > stores). > > > One version will be coated with a very thin layer > > of silicon (RTV). This > > > version will give better traction. Silk by itself > > may slip too easily. The > > > > > > two ends will be glued together using a supper > > glue. This sounds primitive > > > > > > but if you are careful it will work and the > > testing will bring out how > > > well. > > > I also like the idea mentioned by others of using > > recording tape for a > > > ribbon > > > belt. I will also try this and see which I prefer. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com Subject: [teres] rim drive Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:18:52 -0700 From: Anya & Fred Humphrey, Anya & Fred Humphrey To: teres@aiko.com Hi, all I bought a Lenco at a hamfest last weekend for $15 ($10US!) to see what I could learn. It has a) fairly large bearing surface area: ~17cm^2 b) oil reservoir in mid-spindle c) removable thrustplate! d) precision, heavy cast aluminum platter e) rim drive. I put in 90 weight gear oil and played it but found the rumble distracting. The thrust plate is a steel disc about 1 mm thick with a very thin plastic disc on top of it. I ground down a small, nail-in furniture glide to make a new plate. This is probably just nylon, but it's very white and hard, so sometimes I tell myself it's delrin. This reduced the rumble almost to inaudibility. I could live with this! Well, not in my main system, but it sounds better than my heavily tweaked CD player. Compared to the Maplenoll: -considerably worse resolution -rolled off highs -extended bass -much "faster" bass - yes, I know there's no such thing, but the words describe the aural impression. The last point is of course the reason people are excited about rim drive, and my experience here makes me want to explore it further. The Lenco is sub-optimal in many ways, one of them being its failure to meet Manfred's interesting criterion that two compliantly linked objects should be of greatly different mass. It has a powerful motor driving a heavy platter through an idler wheel that uses a fat, compliant O-ring. If I can damp the platter sufficiently, I want to try my old transcription TT which uses a huge motor and a very light precision platter with a very stiff rim drive wheel. And of course ultimately, I plan to try both rim drive and Manfred's controller on the Teres. But it's going to be with the stiffest belt I can find. Subject: Re: [teres] rim drive Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:14:16 -0700 From: Kalman Rubinson, Kalman Rubinson To: teres@aiko.com On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Anya & Fred Humphrey wrote: > I bought a Lenco at a hamfest last weekend for $15 ($10US!) to see what I > could learn. snip And, I assume, is continuously adjustable from 16-80 rpm! Kal Subject: Re: [teres] motor/platter belt Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:08:01 -0700 From: Kalman Rubinson, Kalman Rubinson To: teres@aiko.com On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella wrote: > I think Kal was speaking in relative terms, Peter with one end of the > spectrum being a rubber belt (most isolation / lossiness) and the other end > being something like magnetic recording tape, or I'm guessing (ignorance > here) Kapton. > > Obviously, all belts couple otherwise the platter wouldn't spin > Exactly. I was merely suggesting a willingness to try it. I now have used rubber, fabric and tape. Kal Subject: Re: [teres] motor/platter belt Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:43:31 -0700 From: Igor Kuznetsoff, Igor Kuznetsoff To: teres@aiko.com If you don't try, you don't find out. And a belt is easy to change out. A good area for relatively painless experimentation/optimization. No irreversible pre-commitments are needed in this area. Igor --- Kalman Rubinson wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella > wrote: > > > I think Kal was speaking in relative terms, Peter > with one end of the > > spectrum being a rubber belt (most isolation / > lossiness) and the other end > > being something like magnetic recording tape, or > I'm guessing (ignorance > > here) Kapton. > > > > Obviously, all belts couple otherwise the platter > wouldn't spin > > > > Exactly. I was merely suggesting a willingness to > try it. I > now have used rubber, fabric and tape. > > Kal > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ Subject: Re: [teres] motor/platter belt Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 19:17:17 -0700 From: MaughanAudio@aol.com, MaughanAudio@aol.com To: teres@aiko.com I'm rolling my own. Ribbon silk purchased from any quality fabric store, with the ends cemented together using super glue, and then a coating of silicon RTV on the inner side to achieve good friction to the pulley - platter. I feel this will achieve the desired end results of being 1) cheap and easy to customize to whatever length is required; 2) little elasticity to prevent oscillations; 3) tractive surface to allow for a reasonable coupling to the motor drive. Subject: [teres] Belt Tension Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:13:38 -0700 From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella To: Teres_List CC: Bob Pickwoad (h); Blair Hansen All, Speaking of idle masturbation over non-issues - something I'm certainly as guilty of as anyone else - getting the ideal belt tension with Manfred's controller is a trivial, non-problem. I'll bet Manfred got a good laugh out of watching us solve this "problem". At least one thing is certain - we sure had fun talking about it back in March. There's absolutely no reason to mess with inclined planes, sliding weights & bearings on tracks, drunks on crutches, or any other complications after hearing Chris' preliminary reports on the controller's operation. When the belt is too loose and slips, the LED status shows the controller hunting quite a bit on startup. As you slide the controller back a bit, voila! Everything locks into place. I'm thinking that a nice, heavy motor pod with something like a felt bottom would work very nicely for positioning and getting just the right belt tension. You wouldn't need anything more than rubber stick-on feet. BTW, since the design of the upper sandbox is on hold, Chris decided to temporarily damp the aluminum plate (which is ultimately intended to sit in the sandbox) by bolting a piece of MDF to it. At the same time, he replaced the temporary MDF armboard with the aluminum/acrylic/aluminum sandwich (3/16" aluminum & 1/2" acrylic - total thickness of 7/8"). It's hard to know which of the two changes to attribute the improvement to (both of our guesses is that damping the aluminum plate had greater positive effect), but the 'table got better by a wide margin - blacker blacks, bigger, deeper, wider sound with more of a sense of space. Bass was more tuneful and surface noise was reduced. Joan (my extroardinarliy golden eared wife) officially gave me permission to sell my Merrill when the Teres is up and tunning. We're on our way. Cheers, Thom Subject: Re: [teres] Belt Tension Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 04:11:40 -0700 From: Manfred Huber, Manfred Huber To: teres@aiko.com Thom, >getting the ideal belt tension with Manfred's controller is a trivial, non-problem. >I'll bet Manfred got a good laugh out of watching us solve this "problem". Well I did not exactly laugh about it but I made I few contributions to this discussion where I said that I see no problem with belt tensioning. On the other hand I think that a system that automatically keeps the tension constant is convenient. >When the belt is too loose and slips, the LED status shows the controller >hunting quite a bit on startup. As you slide the controller back a bit, >voila! Everything locks into place. Yes, the LED status indicators are pretty good in showing you that there is a problem with the setup. At the time I designed the hardware of the controller I intended to use the two LEDs as indicators for 33/45 rpm operation but later I decided that using them to show the internal status of the controller is a much more useful feature. Keep an eye on the maximum allowable radial force of the motor bearings when using a stiff belt like 1/4" recording tape. Maxon specifies 5.5N which can be easily reached when moving around a very heavy motor pod. >I'm thinking that a nice, heavy motor pod with something like a felt bottom >would work very nicely for positioning and getting just the right belt >tension. You wouldn't need anything more than rubber stick-on feet. I used small rubber feet on my motor pod at the beginning. Later I found out that I get better sounds when using steel spikes on the pod. This did not make much of a difference when using a thin nylon string but if sure made a difference with the recording tape. My Scheu has no subchassis. Both the turntable and the motor pod sit on a sheet of heavy plywood. They both have steel spikes that rest on small small ceramic discs. Together with the recording tape this means that the link between motor and platter is about as non-compliant as can be. This is what worked for me. your mileage may vary! Regards Manfred ------------------ Manfred Huber MHuber@t-online.de ------------------ Subject: Re: [teres] Belt Tension Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:59:43 -0700 From: Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella, Thom Mackris / Joan Panzella To: teres@aiko.com Hi Manfred, Thanks for the clarification. I hope I didn't communicate to anyone one can be casual about belt tensioning, because as you said, materials like magnetic tape can put excessive radial loads on the motor's bearing if you're not careful. While some sort of automatic tensioning would be convenient, I will approach the problem as you have, first trying a felt pad on the bottom bottom, also trying rubber feet, knowing that I hve the option of installing small spikes. Cheers, Thom ----- Original Message ----- From: Manfred Huber To: Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [teres] Belt Tension Thom, >getting the ideal belt tension with Manfred's controller is a trivial, non-problem. >I'll bet Manfred got a good laugh out of watching us solve this "problem". Well I did not exactly laugh about it but I made I few contributions to this discussion where I said that I see no problem with belt tensioning. On the other hand I think that a system that automatically keeps the tension constant is convenient. >When the belt is too loose and slips, the LED status shows the controller >hunting quite a bit on startup. As you slide the controller back a bit, >voila! Everything locks into place. Yes, the LED status indicators are pretty good in showing you that there is a problem with the setup. At the time I designed the hardware of the controller I intended to use the two LEDs as indicators for 33/45 rpm operation but later I decided that using them to show the internal status of the controller is a much more useful feature. Keep an eye on the maximum allowable radial force of the motor bearings when using a stiff belt like 1/4" recording tape. Maxon specifies 5.5N which can be easily reached when moving around a very heavy motor pod. >I'm thinking that a nice, heavy motor pod with something like a felt bottom >would work very nicely for positioning and getting just the right belt >tension. You wouldn't need anything more than rubber stick-on feet. I used small rubber feet on my motor pod at the beginning. Later I found out that I get better sounds when using steel spikes on the pod. This did not make much of a difference when using a thin nylon string but if sure made a difference with the recording tape. My Scheu has no subchassis. Both the turntable and the motor pod sit on a sheet of heavy plywood. They both have steel spikes that rest on small small ceramic discs. Together with the recording tape this means that the link between motor and platter is about as non-compliant as can be. This is what worked for me. your mileage may vary! Regards Manfred ------------------ Manfred Huber MHuber@t-online.de ------------------