so Albert, on your Technics tt collection, are you pro-clamp or anti clamp? on the Walker did you always use the clamp?

or does it depend on the flatness of the Lp? if the Lp is flat do you go nude? (without clamp).

from your post it sounds like if you use a clamp; there are different choices but not a clear favorite.

btw, sorry for all the questions......but i'm basically lazy and i would enjoy you doing all the work.

mikelavigne May 19, 2009 13:49

aren't the vacuum clamp-down systems built so that there is a very thin cushion of 'vacuum' between the platter and the record (other than where the rubber lips meet the vinyl)?

once the vac is pulled the layer of air between the LP and platter becomes a "spring."

are all vacuum systems created equal? i really do not know the answer. i've only used the one on the Rockport.

on the Rockport that there are 4 grooves which extend out from the center which carry the negative air pressure. my understanding is that the platter surface is held firmly against the Lp by the negative pressure from those 4 grooves. if you push against the Lp while the vacuum is engaged there is zero 'give'. in any case it is much more firmly planted than any clamping system or magic mat can do.

it is hard to imagine that any other mat or clamping system system would not have a GREATER tendancy to be a spring than the vacuum system i use.

am i missing something here?

mikelavigne March 15, 2009 01:11

I am also a Peter McGrath fan and have spoken to him 5 or 6 times and listened to a few of his recordings; in 1980 the ML-5 was likely SOTA for solid state output RTR. no doubt the ML-5 made many fine recordings. i am also going to assume Peter has moved forward since then....solid state circut performance certainly has.

my info on the relative performance of the ML-5 came from a number of pro audio guys i spoke to when i seriously considered purchasing an ML-5 as an alternative to my Studer A-820. i wanted to buy the ML-5 but could not find anything/anyone telling me it would better more current output electronics. my conclusion was to keep going with the A-820 (a superior transport to the A-80) and pursue custom output electronics.

mikelavigne January 19, 2009 23:05

Ferrari; the ML-5 is a Studer A-80 with Mark Levinson early 80's output electronics. i have not personally heard one of these. the only one i have seen for sale they were asking a fortune for; and i think that a person could do quite a bit better in performance with adding the Aria (ATR Services), the Bottlehead Repro, or maybe even deParavincini output electronics to a high quality RTR deck. it's just that 20 year old solid state circutry (even Mark Levinson) has a 20 year old solid state sound. i would expect my deParavincini Technics RS-1700 to be a good deal better sounding. i would expect the ML-5 to better a stock output A-80.

the ML-5 is a special piece of audio history and nicely done; but there is no good reason to expect it's audio performance to be special in the context of today's best sounding output electronics.

mikelavigne January 19, 2009 22:14

Albert,

congrats on the Mk3, it is a work of art.....and i'm sure it sounds better than it looks. i will await your Mk2-Mk3 comparison conclusion with much anticipation.

i wonder if the SME is as good a match for the Mk3 as you felt it was for the Mk2?

also; hopefully soon you can comment on the Coralstone and the Supreme......

thanks for doing all the work.....you will make my decisions much easier. i know with all the break-in issues it will be some time before there are any solid answers.

mikelavigne November 27, 2008 14:11