Suspension design question

Stumbled across this interview with Roy Gandy from Rega. He claims that suspension in turntables was designed to take the bounce off the stacked records that dropped from a changer. Is this really true? I thought suspension had something to do with isolating vibrations during playback?

Quote:
"On spring suspensions, he said the design began many decades ago when turntables were included in one-box music centres that comprised an amplifier and radio. These turntables could play a stack of records and each time a new record was played, it would drop with a thud and the spring suspension was designed to absorb the impact, he pointed out."

 

no

 

I've never heard of that, but 78's are heavy, and the suspension does bounce a little as they hit the platter. The LP's and 45's are too lightweight to bounce a changer's suspension. It is my guess, the suspensions of early record changers were rather stiff for stability of operation, but also helped to isolate the changer from surrounding vibrations, cabinet resonances and acoustic feedback.

 

Absolutely "no". Here's a link containing ads that go back as far as 1953, boasting about the spring suspensions. No changers in sight. If Gandy actually made the changer remark, he was babbling:

http://www.soundfountain.com/beltdrive/belt-drive-turntable.html

My RP6 doesn't need a suspension because Rega has taken a non-suspended engineering approach to TT design. I really like the table. There are a variety of great table designs that all provide silent, rumble free, vibration free, feedback free, microphonic free operation when paired with a complimentary arm and cartridge combination.

Suspensions never helped record stacks on a changer. As a matter of fact, suspensions rock slightly each time a record drops from a changer stack. That slight movement creates micro scratches each time the records in the platter stack move against each other. It's dopey.

 

Yeah, the 301/401 Garrard are non-suspended too, and considered some of the best. I could imagine non-suspended design rely more on the quality of the tone arm.

 

Yes, and one of the things that makes hi fidelity so interesting, are the different design approaches. And how interesting how so many of them work well, and sound so good!

 

One of many weird and completely untrue claims from Rega.

 

Acoustic Research legend Edgar Villchur designed the first three-point, "independent suspension" turntable in 1960 (produced for 25 years, as: the A.R. "XA", "XB", and "XC").
It was BELT drive and completely MANUAL. The whole point was to decouple motor vibration from the subplatter; which resulted in: lower rumble specs (to the then-breakthrough figure of -55db) and wow and flutter down to .03% (each setting a NARTB standard).

 

The claim by Roy Grandy of Rega is applicable to "stacker changers" loaded with 78 RPM records. The discs are heavy and fall hard. The changer springs do absorb some of the energy of a 78 RPM record drop. For 7 inch 45 RPM and 12 inch LP, no! The changer springs tended to be too stiff to make any difference, except for some acoustic isolation perhaps.

 

Fixed it for ya.

 

No, he perfected it. You forgot about a company called Stromberg-Carlson and their Perfectempo belt drive. It preceded AR with the 3 point suspension, invented by Mitchell Cotter by some 2-3 years. AR's Edgar Villchur did some very significant improvements to this design, and AR inspired Thorens with the TD 150, which inspired Ariston, which got subsumed by Linn. P.S. There was no AR XC. There were "The Turntable" and it's follow on models before AR left that business.

 

The highly under-rated Orpheus Silex turntable from Melbourne Australia is regarded as having the first suspended turntable design. Few are aware because it came from "the other side of the world" to the people who write HiFi history.

 

When was it introduced to the public? Is it a 3 point suspended design? I suspect it may have predated Stromberg-Carlson by some time, Stromberg-Carlson's design was released in 1958. And is known to be the father of the 3 point suspended designs. It begat AR, begat Thorens, begat Ariston/Linn. I'd like to know the year Orpheus introduced it. And some history please. Then the record can be set straight.

 

I'm sure there is an element of truth in that statement (especially on the cheaper stackers of the day), however blanket statements often are filled with holes.
There are many examples out there of well engineered sprung tables that don't have a stacker option.
After all, he is a believer in the light/stiff design.

 

Here is a patent application, filed in the US Aug. 28, 1959, and in production for many years before that. It is a 3-point suspension design, 4-speed. The Orpheus was probably developed around in the 1940's, there were several models and the design changed. However, there are not many surviving records. The first Orpheus had a square base, then it changed to the curved design shown in the earlier post pic. The Orpheus Silex introduced the tonearm being mounted on a "mushroom" connected to the sub platter. The drive was by a belt and idler wheel. It competed against Garrard 301/401's in the 1960's.

The patent:
US3048408.pdf

Here is an extensive discussion on the history of the Silex and it's neglected place in the hifi history books:
First "Spring" Suspension Production Turntable?

 

Thanks for replying back at me and the rest of us here. Yes, this looks to be the father of the 3 point suspended turntables, and has mono era precedent. So, definitely Orpheus Silex is father to the 3 point suspension idea.

 

If I'd been around in the late-'50s, a turntable I would've wanted (after it caught my attention on the WWW) is a FAIRCHILD 412.
One of the few belt drives around then and one of the few of those '50s turntables which looked like a separate component (instead of looking like it belonged in a drawer). Its' design appears to take the "weighty" approach to dampening things rather than being spring-cushioned.

 

Roy Gandy from Rega is making here, if correctly quoted, a rather extraordinary claim and I'm taking the Sagan approach which demand extraordinary proof because I don't remember seeing a single suspended turntable with a disc changer during the 70's. Therefore I can't see why companies would design a suspended turntable and sell it without a changer if this was the original intent.

 

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Ever heard of the Technics SL 1350 and the SL-1650, both are DD suspended record changers. Uncommon but exist.

 

Didn't the Dual changers from the 70's have suspensions.

 

It neither prove nor refute his claim. It just show that I wasn't aware of some turntable changer models. In other words, it's anecdotal. What need to be shown is that there is a direct connection between record changers and suspension design and just claiming there is doesn't make it true. For example, one can make the opposite claim that most changers were suspended because this design was universally common for all turntables during this period and then he will also need to provides numbers to back his claim. Somehow, I think that it might be easier to prove the later than Gandy's claim.

 

Those changers were 3 point suspended, friend.

 

Not 3 point suspended.

 

Many Duals had changers during the 70's, including the 1225 that I own. Bought by my father in 1976.

 

The Duals had coil springs tack-welded under their plinth with a piece of foam and locking screw through them. It was (solely) intended to LEVEL the table in a console cabinet (as the wooden base was an optional extra). It wasn't, where: the platform holding the bearing of the platter was isolated from the mounting of the motor.