Project RPM9 + general TT questions.

[marios_mar]

After owning a Pro-ject 2 turntable I can say that they are well built and I am overall happy with the sound.

What I am not happy with is that the anti-skating adjustment is done very roughly by bending a little metal hook that the weight hangs on and secondly with the fact that the built looks are poor. Compared to a 70's thorens turntable this project of mine looks so cheaply built. And it feels cheap as well compared to the thorens. The smoothness of the tonearm lift for example.

Anyhow I am overall satisfied with thorens especially with the price that they cost, they way my TT sounds, and they look reliable.

So I have an offer to get a nice RPM-9 . Its one of the most rational choices for a high end TTs here in EUROPE together with Gyrodec etc.
T
1.he only thing that worries me is how I will be able to set the anti skate weight exactly. And also tell me is this (setting it exactly) a necessity? Or is rouglhy good enough.

2.Another question would be about an MC cartidge stylus's lifespan and and the costs of retipping an expensive cartridge.

Should I get this turntable (the price is reasonable) or is it not a good choice for a turntable that I won't be looking to upgrade (that is what high end is after all, right?)

These STAX headphones have caused a chain reaction of upgrades being so revealing and detailed.

 

[stuartr]

I have a music hall mmf-9, which I believe has the same arm, cartridge, motor and platter. It has a different style plinth...The arm is quite beefy, and I have never once in two years of owning it had a problem with skating. I did not set it up myself, however, but I am fairly certain that the anti-skating weight is at the recommended setting. It was certainly not a table that required a lot of tweaking. Another table that I liked a lot was the scout, which has a bit nicer build quality, but is more delicate, appears to require more adjustments, and is the same cost, but without a cartridge.

 

[marios_mar]

thanks stuart for the info.

The rpm-9 though has the motor seperated from the rest of the table so it should be quite different.

What about the Pro-ject 9C arm vs Scout comparison?

any thoughts on that?

 

[Rob N]

It should be sufficient to set the antiskate to roughly the right amount.Alot of turntables have the 'weight on a string' antiskate adjustment and it's usually pretty reliable.

I own a Gyro SE and the build quality is amazing for the price,it has a wonderful airy sound and can easily be upgraded to virtually a full Orbe.

 

[stuartr]

Marios -- the MMF-9 also has a motor completely separated from the chassis, there is just a cutout on the table, so it looks like it is not...
As for the arm question, I cannot really answer. The arm on the MMF-9 is not as delicate as the one on the scout, which wobbles a lot and seems to be lighter. Other than that, I cannot really separate out what the difference would be. It is very highly regarded, but beyond that, I cannot comment with confidence.

 

[cpw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr The arm on the MMF-9 is not as delicate as the one on the scout, which wobbles a lot and seems to be lighter.

My scout arm does seem very light and wobbly.
It is also much more susceptible to vibrations from the floor (my fat @ss walking past the rack)than my music hall TT but it does sound better too.
The Scout manual has an interesting take on anti-skate. They say that all anti-skate mechanisms are imperfect and, to a large degree, not necessary.
They use the twist in the wire from the block to the arm to counteract the effect and say to simply add or remove a twist or two to adjust it. It seemed kinda goofy to me at first but works just fine.
You can download the manual at VPI's website if you want to read their theory on anti-skate.
CPW

 

[stuartr]

I think CPW hit the nail on the head. The scout seems to be very susceptible to vibration -- it has only one plinth and is essentially a solid block of MDF. You really need to isolate it well. The MMF-9 has a triple plinth design, each with sorbothane cups underneath it, so I think vibrations are absorbed a little more easily. That said, I think the scout probably sounds a bit nicer when all set up properly. I don't think it is a huge difference, but there certainly is a difference in presentation.

 

[GWN]

Most of the good sound of the Scout can be attributed to the arm (their new inverted bearing is the other part). The JPW 9 arm is excellent. The difference you see w.r.t. the wobbling is inherent in the design. The Scout arm is a unipivot. As such the arm rest on a single pivot point as opposed to the Project/MMF arm which is of conventional gimbals bearing design.

Lots of people don't like unipivot arms because they tend to flop over one side when cued by hand. One of the best tonearm in the world, the Graham 2.2, is a unipivot design. It does have outriggers to help stabilize it.

The Scout with its hard deck design needs good isolation from the floor. A poorly set-up suspended turntable will also be susceptible to footfalls.

 

[marios_mar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr I think CPW hit the nail on the head. The scout seems to be very susceptible to vibration -- it has only one plinth and is essentially a solid block of MDF. You really need to isolate it well. The MMF-9 has a triple plinth design, each with sorbothane cups underneath it, so I think vibrations are absorbed a little more easily. That said, I think the scout probably sounds a bit nicer when all set up properly. I don't think it is a huge difference, but there certainly is a difference in presentation.

have you listened to both tables with the same system and same cart or do you speculate on that stuart?

is the scouts arm carbon fiber?

and has a magazine performed a test yet?

does the Scout have a seperate motor as well?

in your MMF do you head any motor noise?


I would excpect from such a high end table to head only the tape hiss or silence with digital recordings. (of course with a perfect condition disc)

 

[stuartr]

I speculated. I heard it hooked up to my amp and headphones though. Not at the same time as my MMF-9. They had different cartridges. The scout's arm is not carbon fiber. I am sure magazines have performed tests. Here is stereophile's test: http://stereophile.com/analogsourcereviews/776/
It does have a separate (or at least semi-separate) motor. I have not used a stethoscope on my table, so I don't know if there is any noise, but I imagine there is, since I think almost any turntable will have some noise. That is the nature of the beast. It is not noticeable when music is played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marios_mar have you listened to both tables with the same system and same cart or do you speculate on that stuart? is the scouts arm carbon fiber? and has a magazine performed a test yet? does the Scout have a seperate motor as well? in your MMF do you head any motor noise? I would excpect from such a high end table to head only the tape hiss or silence with digital recordings. (of course with a perfect condition disc)