Michell Audio MD Jonathan Nye in conversation with The Ear
As Michell Audio launches its new generation of turntables, Jonathan Nye discusses the evolution of design, the science of isolation, and what lies ahead for the iconic British brand.
The Ear (TE): Were you in audio before you joined Michell?
Jonathan Nye (JN): I worked in a hi‑fi shop when I was 16 — I did my work experience there. It started earlier though my brother is a guitar player, and he loved audio and all sorts of things like that. He had lots of different hi‑fi systems and made me my first set of speakers out of a huge PA array that you’d normally have horizontally. He cut it in half and stuck them in my room with an old Superscope amp — they went loud, which was all I cared about back when I was 10.
TE: That would have been a ’70s amp?
JN: It was already old when I got it — it was my mum’s. He put it all together and that was my first hi‑fi. Then CD players came along, and I had an Amstrad CD mini‑system. I used the headphone output into the Superscope amplifier. By that time, I had JPW mini monitors and fashioned a subwoofer from an 18‑inch Cerwin Vega bass guitar driver he had. I was always playing around with all sorts of bits and pieces. I once found a Technics turntable in a skip, renovated it, and that became my first turntable.
I went on to study sound engineering; I wanted to be a sound engineer and did various courses over four years. Then I discovered they wanted me to make tea in the studio for five years before I could actually earn any money — so that fell apart. I went back to the hi‑fi shop and got a job heading up their custom‑install business. It was in the early days of QED Systemline and that sort of thing — the beginnings of home installation. I did that for a while, then set up my own business which ran for 12 years. By that time, I’d married into the Michell family, and by 2013 I’d joined the company — I’ve been involved in all different aspects of audio for a long time.
Gyro and Revolv
TE: Did you do the design work on the new Gyro and Revolv turntables?
JN: Well, me and a lot of software — I’ll admit I’m not that good with software! We have a design partner, David Stephen, who’s a master. He handled the modelling and all that sort of thing.
He’s been a long‑standing friend of mine and designs a lot of medical equipment, which proved quite interesting because much of what he works on can’t be influenced by vibration — it has to be well isolated. It’s quite an interesting crossover. I knew what he did, but it wasn’t until we started designing the turntables that we realised the similarities. Medical equipment must be isolated from vibrations coming through the building, and there’s a lot of plant in hospitals. Many of his technical ideas came to fruition in the turntable.
TE: I remember going to see SME back in the day when they used to make a lot of medical equipment. They probably still do. What was the process of redesigning such a classic turntable?
JN: We looked at what we do now and its limitations. We examined the cast chassis and realised it could definitely be improved. When you looked underneath, it wasn’t particularly pretty — not just aesthetically, but from a technical point of view. There were big stainless‑steel weights that were really only there to counterbalance the arm on one side. So we asked: how could we use what we’ve got more effectively, structurally? We started looking at the material and asked how we could improve that.
TE: Was it done for sound‑quality reasons, engineering reasons, or both?
JN: Both. We’ve always made incremental improvements, but we were keen to create a new flagship turntable — that’s been in development for a while. The change in material and manufacturing of the chassis allows us to do just that. It obviously lifts the Gyro itself, but it also allows for steps both up and down — it’s a new platform that gives us scope either way. We’d done everything possible with the Gyro over 40 years; every tweak imaginable. We decided that if we were going to do this, it needed to be a foundation for Michell’s future.
New sub‑chassis
TE: Is the new machined sub‑chassis heavier than the original casting?
JN: Not by much. The overall turntable is heavier because of the new base plate, but the actual chassis isn’t. The structure is simply much more uniform. The difference between the cast material and what we use now is that the casting goes into a mould hot, with gases escaping — you end up with random holes throughout the structure. Even when they paint those, they have to bake them to get the excess gas out; otherwise, it pops the paint off. We have a really good casting company in Ipswich — they do military work — but even then, the process has its limitations.
TE: You’re using brass weights to counterbalance the arm in the new chassis — why the change from stainless steel?
JN: We could have just machined pockets for stainless weights like before, but stainless is hard and quite reflective. Vibrations travelling along the sub‑chassis basically bounce off it. Brass is softer and better damped. We’ve placed the weights in tight‑fitting pockets, evenly distributed across half the chassis, so they actually help break up and control resonance. It’s essential that the brass weights fit precisely into the aluminium pockets to optimise that effect.
TE: So it must be quite high‑precision machining to get that fit.
JN: Yes — there’s a small hole in the middle of each weight where the screw goes; when you push them in, you can feel the air shooting out. Without that hole, you’d struggle to insert them — the fit is that tight.
Spring to weight ratio
TE: There’s still another weight underneath at the front, isn’t there?
JN: In the old turntable we had an acrylic spider to hold the leg positions and support the suspension. It was essentially just a base.
TE: So this is the same thing?
JN: It does the same job but adds mass so that the new Sorbothane feet provide maximum isolation. We found the turntable was slightly too light to get the best out of the softer feet.
TE: Spring‑to‑weight ratio?
JN: Exactly. We increased the mass by making that part from aluminium instead of acrylic. Aluminium is much more rigid and has a higher Q — meaning energy isn’t absorbed as much as with acrylic but is transferred back to the feet, where it’s converted to heat. The decay of vibrations is much quicker, and that’s not about mass so much as structural uniformity. If the structure is rigid and consistent, it performs better, and these materials do that very well. When you look at the bottom piece in the image, that’s just the front radius of the new base.
TE: Now you’ve got a centring system to keep each spring concentric with its support post — quite elaborate by all accounts.
JN: It turned out to be a fairly simple solution. We like to keep things simple — the simplest ideas usually work best. When we developed the Levis feet, we needed a mechanism to keep the lower part centred within the upper part. The Levis feet have opposing magnets — one in the bottom, one in the top — but you don’t want the top and bottom touching, so we developed a little ball‑and‑spring system.
There are three of these assemblies in the bottom part of each Levis foot, which run in grooves in the upper part. Once the weight of the turntable is on, the balls are slightly pushed in. You’ve got a small spring isolating the bottom from the top, with a little polymer ball — it keeps everything centred, avoids metal‑to‑metal contact, and works brilliantly.
Fine‑tuning the suspension
TE: Is this the same in the suspension posts on the Gyro?
JN: Yes, there are three springs, three little rods and three tension screws. We set the tension so that each spring compresses evenly, keeping the suspension perfectly centred. You might have seen me demonstrate this at the launch — when you push it down, it now just bounces back smoothly and evenly. Even compression across all three springs keeps the suspension perfectly centred and stable.
TE: So it settles faster than before?
JN: Exactly. You still get the same level of isolation as before — nothing’s been lost. We’ve simply retuned the spring itself and added self‑centring.
TE: You said you changed the tuning by one hertz. That doesn’t sound like much.
JN: It doesn’t, but when you’re starting from four and a half hertz, that’s roughly a 22% change.
TE: Ah, good point.
JN: Lowering the spring frequency helps isolate low‑end vibrations more effectively. Most structural vibrations — the ones coming up through furniture — top out around 200 Hz, but footfall and other very low‑frequency movements are much lower. At four and a half hertz, we were already well isolated, but suspended floors can still introduce movement. Someone, somewhere, will always have a floor that sets it off — you can’t design for everyone.
Vibration, environment and real‑world use
TE: Isn’t vibration from loudspeakers usually more of an issue than footfall?
JN: It is, but you have to consider all possible causes. When we developed the Levis, we saw how dramatically performance varied depending on the environment. Someone in a concrete house in the countryside, with a solid rack, will notice less improvement than someone in a London flat with buses rumbling past. Background vibration plays a huge role. Every room, every floor, every setup behaves differently. Then there are the speakers — subwoofers, bookshelf, floor‑standers — so many variables. You can’t cater for everyone; you just aim for the best balance.
TE: So generally, the lower the frequency, the better?
JN: Yes, to a point. Go too low and the suspension becomes unstable, or you start introducing other resonances. Ideally, you want to be between about 2.5 and 5 Hz. Even a small reduction makes a noticeable difference.
TE: Got it. So lower frequency equals better bass isolation and tighter sound?
JN: Exactly. Better isolation from low frequencies means cleaner, tighter bass response.
Michell tonearm
TE: When we last met, you hinted at a Michell tonearm. Is that still in the works?
JN: Yes. We’ve actually been developing tonearms for longer than the new turntables. But a few years ago we decided to focus on the decks first — we needed to establish those before launching our own arms. We wanted the new turntables in place before introducing our own arms — everything has to align logically. Unless you’re manufacturing on Rega’s scale, with their tooling investment, you risk big disparities in price and positioning. We didn’t want tonearms that cost more than our decks. So we paused that project, got the turntables right, and now everything aligns naturally.
The new Revolv and Gyro — and the models to come — share a consistent sonic signature. It’s recognisably Michell but more precise and accurate. That gives us a strong foundation for future tonearms.
Motors and power supplies
TE: Are the motors and bearings in the new turntables the same as before?
JN: The motor itself is the same DC unit — good torque, quiet operation, incredibly reliable. The difference is in the motor pods: they’re heavier, machined from two pieces instead of three, and much more rigid. They’re also fully electrically shielded.
TE: And the power supply?
JN: That’s been re‑engineered. The regulation circuit is based on our HR supply, and the transformer comes from the old standard supply. We added more components to switch between 33 and 45 RPM, and the housing is now CNC‑machined from a single block of aluminium for improved shielding and grounding. Lessons from the Apollo project played a big part here. Every part of the chain — motor, cable, and power supply — is now fully grounded and shielded to eliminate stray RF.
TE: When do you expect the Gyro and Revolv to reach the shops?
JN: We originally said mid to late November, but realistically it’ll be early December — hopefully in time for Christmas.
Bearings and build quality
TE: You mentioned bearings earlier — any changes?
JN: The Revolv uses the same bearing as the TecnoDec, but with a damping collar around it. The Gyro’s bearing now has two oil helixes instead of one, giving a more even oil film and better lubrication.
TE: Will the older GyroDec and Gyro SE models be discontinued?
JN: We’re still supplying them for now, but once stocks run out early next year, that’ll be it. We’ll, of course, continue to provide spares and servicing. When they’re gone, they’re gone — but we’ll always support what’s out there.
TE: You’ve always supported older gear. That early model you showed me — Pete Thomas’s, with the three support pucks — what’s the story there?
JN: That predates our first Transcriptors collaborations. It’s a Transcriptors Reference — unlike the Hydraulic Reference, which had an oil bath under the platter for speed adjustment, that model used only three platter weights and a strobe disc for manual speed control.
TE: Amazing.
JN: Yes, though I doubt tightening the strobe disc actually slowed the platter! It’s a very early unit, and most of it had fallen apart, but we’re restoring it. When it goes back to Pete, it’ll have new trims, gold‑plated weights, pads, a new belt — basically as new.
Prototype CD player
TE: When I visited the factory you showed us a prototype CD player — was it conceived before or after Pioneer’s inverted‑platter designs?
JN: It was early — mid‑1980s, maybe. John saw Tomorrow’s World demonstrating the first CD players and built our prototype around the same time he was developing the Syncro turntable.
TE: So before Pioneer?
JN: Yes. It wasn’t inverted, but it did use a stabilisation puck — similar to what Naim later did. Transrotor in Germany were big customers then; they made a similar aluminium player based on the same idea, and John was likely involved. John was always experimenting — always a few steps ahead of what others were doing.
Looking forward
TE: Fascinating — really ahead of its time.
JN: Absolutely. John was always pushing boundaries.
TE: Thanks, Jonathan. I’m looking forward to hearing the new models when they’re out.
JN: My pleasure. I think you’ll be impressed.