And not only that... The whole orthophonic sound system design was conceived as a complex network of masses and mechanical impedances whose sizes and compliances were selected to comply with compromised requirements, all it driven to obtain the best power transfer from three record groove to the air vibration, in the chosen frequency range. The suppression of such an important compliance as the rubber neck which couples the soundbox mass to the tonearm mass maybe can not be noticed by a standard ear, but no doubt it impacts on the designed transmission of power, impairing it.
The needle vibration ascends by the needlebar to the spider, but the bar is supported on the soundbox, and at the support pivots there is an equivalent reaction force exerted on the entire soundbox body. The vibration communicated to the entire soundbox at the needlebar support point has an enormous back reaction in the soundbox entire mass, which is coupled through the compliance of the rubber neck to the tonearm mass. Also at the diaphragm edge, supported on the soundbox body, there is another reaction force. These forces tend to vibrate the entire soundbox and tonearm. No doubt that the masses of tonearm and soundbox being so large, make them act as a sort of 'force sump' for that part of the circuit, but the compliance of the rubber neck is needed to isolate both masses one from the other, to control the reaction as desired by the designers, especially when one considers the enormous differences of this reaction at the lower and higher frequencies.
To modify the compliance and mass of that part is like changing the chokea and condensers on the earth line of a radio circuit. It still can sound well, but undoubtedly the original design is changed and something is lost. To do it intentionally, with perfect knowledge of the original and the altered values of these components, under an engineered design, on order to obtain a desired effect, can be done in pursue of improvement or changes of these frequency response, etc etc.
But I don't believe that the design of that new aluminium backplate, with an important reduction of compliance and mass, was something performed by Percy Wilson, Davey, or any of the usual experts... It seems to be just a casualty and an ignorant oversimplification of the design. It's like going back to the trial-and-error gramophone design of the past, spoiling the design of the WE men that invented such a marvel. They took the old experimental design and improved it by these delicate changes of impedances and masses, and they got an enormous well-engineered response. The drastic replacement of these parts by such different ones is the destruction of these engineering efforts.
In the other hand, that is just what I'm trying to do with my experiments with the exhibition soundboxes... I have no doubt why I don't obtain a satisfactory sound!
although in truth it isn't the same case, for there is not such an engineered background in this case, but a refined and carefully developed trial and error process, and no more than experimental work.
