Hi Steve,
Good points, heading out to skate so I have to be quick, but I have carefully examined this bearing for exactly the reasons you state and there is no evidence of wear at all. No play, no wobble or runnout either, but increased belt tension greatly exacerbates the noise. This table had very minimal use in its first life, according to the original owner it was infrequently used in the years prior to 1971 and never used at all after that. Most of the problems I have had have been due to lack of use and congealed lube that was hard to get out of things.
The intermediate pulley on the MKII is lighter, thinner walled, and less well damped than the original MKI. The design as you mention applies a significant thrust load to the bearing.. The ideal for me would be a MKI pulley with a machined shaft of the right height stuck in the existing bearing and locked in place..
I can slightly adjust the height of the intermediate pulley as the bearing assembly is easily adjusted. I probably should have a look at the thrust plate at the bottom as well. All can be examined.
Some quick tinkering this afternoon and it is quieter, but not as quiet as a MKI. I have to believe I can do better than this..
Thanks for your insights..
Good points, heading out to skate so I have to be quick, but I have carefully examined this bearing for exactly the reasons you state and there is no evidence of wear at all. No play, no wobble or runnout either, but increased belt tension greatly exacerbates the noise. This table had very minimal use in its first life, according to the original owner it was infrequently used in the years prior to 1971 and never used at all after that. Most of the problems I have had have been due to lack of use and congealed lube that was hard to get out of things.
The intermediate pulley on the MKII is lighter, thinner walled, and less well damped than the original MKI. The design as you mention applies a significant thrust load to the bearing.. The ideal for me would be a MKI pulley with a machined shaft of the right height stuck in the existing bearing and locked in place..
I can slightly adjust the height of the intermediate pulley as the bearing assembly is easily adjusted. I probably should have a look at the thrust plate at the bottom as well. All can be examined.
Some quick tinkering this afternoon and it is quieter, but not as quiet as a MKI. I have to believe I can do better than this..
Thanks for your insights..
10 years ago I was happy to buy NOS (still in greasy plastic bag) TD124 MkII. So, it hadn't been used at all, but the noisiest part was (and still is) the intermediate pulley.
That's interesting, and in some sense reassuring (or not)
as the one other friend I know locally who owns a MKII has the same exact noise issue as I do.The pulley on mine rings, and sings, and worse.. I've checked everything, the only thing that seems to make any difference is applying talc to the belt and choosing a comparatively loose one. The zamac platter also sings along if the idler is too hard or there is any rubber on the inside of the platter due to use - that's not too hard to address with a good cleaning now and then.. Probably the case that a new idler would take care of that totally. I think the installation of the denser, fairly non-resonant ferrous platter would make a significant difference. The two MKI I worked on recently were *very* significantly quieter with the platter on or off. (Neither of these I might add were in nearly as nice overall condition as my MKII, and appeared to have had a fair amount of use, and in one instance the corrosion present on some parts indicated less than ideal storage conditions at some point in its life.)
My MKII still sounds great, although I believe there are real improvements to be had.. I've only had mine a few months and am still on steep portion of the learning curve, but I am observant and a quick study. I think there is an answer lurking out there - I just have to find it.. Having a larger frame of reference helps too..
My take on the MKII is that there is one real improvement over the MKI, and the other "minor" changes were probably to reduce inventory and assembly costs.
- The intermediate pulley in the MKII appears to be very similar if not identical to the one used in the TD-135, noting of course that I have not yet compared part numbers to see if this is actually the case, it's certainly inspired by that part. The finish on this part is not as good as on the MKI as well.
- North American MKII use a pair of chintzy wire nuts in place of the terminal block - these I will replace at some point.
- Zamac platter on high serial # machines sold in North America and elsewhere. Based on the difference in machining and materials cost required I believe the zamac platter was much cheaper.
Last edited:
Did you mean platter? If that's truly the case then a new idler might help.
Platter materials have no effect on the intermediate pulley issue at all, but may on the idler and the singing platter issue. (Which mine mostly doesn't do) Again the MKI units with their 51 yr old idlers did not seem to have either of the issues mentioned in my previous post..
That's what I would expect..
Have you tried talcum powder on the belt (?) - this in my limited experience actually makes a very big difference on the MKII, and much less of a difference on the MKI.
Last edited:
A few things I'm getting out of this discussion:
1) The service manual lists the same part number for the E50 motor on both the mk1 and mk2. part number ME380. This would lead one to conclude that both versions of the TD124 had the same 10 watt motor. Perhaps those who suggest that the mkII had a 15 watt motor were referring to the Papst Aussenlaufer replacement that was offered in the late seventies. But that motor is a subject for discussion thread all by itself.
2) The mkII has a different step pulley design from the mk1. However there are later mk1 examples that also use this step pulley. I've seen at least one. If sn# is high on a mk 1, suspect the later step pulley design. In the service manual the part number listing shows: "CB1351 (new type)"
3) Without direct exposure one can not sure if slightly more noise generated at the step pulley of the mk11 translates into inferior sound quality. It may or may not be of any consequence. This might be worth exploration.
4) for owners of the mk1, the mkII motor mount conversion kits being offered by Schopper and SQ38s (ebay) offer a tremendous upgrade.
5) The iron platter of the original TD124 is just fine.
Other notes:
the Thorens non magnetic platter. According to Joachim Bung in his book "Swiss Precision" 2nd ed., the stabilized cast zinc platter was made available for the TD124 from about 1963 onward. Here's a useful quote from that book: " The non-magnetic platter was connected to the main bearing's spindle via an adapter. "Wow and flutter and rumble figures", a test published in fono forum explained, "remain unchanged." The idea was to use the non-magnetic version on the TD124 with certain electrodynamic cartridges that featured strong magnets that would be attracted by the normal version of the flywheel -- such as the Decca ffss and the Neumann DST. On these, for example, stylus pressure could not be precisely set."
more from Bung on this subject:..." Thorens explained using stabilized cast iorn for the normal flywheel was because it retained its shape, it had great shielding characteristics, and the price of this material was inexpensive. Additionally, the cast iron's heavy weight of 4.5 kilograms contributed to the TD 124's exceptionally good speed consistency. This is on average "twice as constant as that of the competition's best turntables" The distance of eight millimeters between the playing surface of a two millimeter high record on the platter and flywheel is great enough to avoid any influence on electromagnetic cartridges. At times, one hears that Thorens TD 124/II was serially fitted with the non-magnetic flywheel, that when Thorens began production, some "escaped" the factory with cast iron platters. This is not true. The non-magnetic flywheel CB788 was always an accessory that needed to be ordered extra. Thorens, by the way, gave the all-clear for the use of the popular electrodynamic cartridges Ortofon SPU and SPU/T on the normal version of the TD124. "The cast iron flywheel puts a pressure of .6 to .75 grams on these objects the tonearm can thus be statically balanced outside the flywheel's vicinity. One must perhaps regulate stylus pressure taking these additional energies into consideration. The set stylus pressure should be reduced to 1.5 grams for the Thorens BTD-12S tonearm. A slight sideways attraction on the edge of a 30 centimeter Lp can also occur within the first four millimeters. Therefore, it is recommended to very carefully lower the cartridge directly at the beginning of the modulated grooves."
(from p. 65)
whew..! This is a useful book, btw, for anyone becoming ocd on the subject of the TD124. (count me in that group)
-Steve
1) The service manual lists the same part number for the E50 motor on both the mk1 and mk2. part number ME380. This would lead one to conclude that both versions of the TD124 had the same 10 watt motor. Perhaps those who suggest that the mkII had a 15 watt motor were referring to the Papst Aussenlaufer replacement that was offered in the late seventies. But that motor is a subject for discussion thread all by itself.
2) The mkII has a different step pulley design from the mk1. However there are later mk1 examples that also use this step pulley. I've seen at least one. If sn# is high on a mk 1, suspect the later step pulley design. In the service manual the part number listing shows: "CB1351 (new type)"
3) Without direct exposure one can not sure if slightly more noise generated at the step pulley of the mk11 translates into inferior sound quality. It may or may not be of any consequence. This might be worth exploration.
4) for owners of the mk1, the mkII motor mount conversion kits being offered by Schopper and SQ38s (ebay) offer a tremendous upgrade.
5) The iron platter of the original TD124 is just fine.
Other notes:
the Thorens non magnetic platter. According to Joachim Bung in his book "Swiss Precision" 2nd ed., the stabilized cast zinc platter was made available for the TD124 from about 1963 onward. Here's a useful quote from that book: " The non-magnetic platter was connected to the main bearing's spindle via an adapter. "Wow and flutter and rumble figures", a test published in fono forum explained, "remain unchanged." The idea was to use the non-magnetic version on the TD124 with certain electrodynamic cartridges that featured strong magnets that would be attracted by the normal version of the flywheel -- such as the Decca ffss and the Neumann DST. On these, for example, stylus pressure could not be precisely set."
more from Bung on this subject:..." Thorens explained using stabilized cast iorn for the normal flywheel was because it retained its shape, it had great shielding characteristics, and the price of this material was inexpensive. Additionally, the cast iron's heavy weight of 4.5 kilograms contributed to the TD 124's exceptionally good speed consistency. This is on average "twice as constant as that of the competition's best turntables" The distance of eight millimeters between the playing surface of a two millimeter high record on the platter and flywheel is great enough to avoid any influence on electromagnetic cartridges. At times, one hears that Thorens TD 124/II was serially fitted with the non-magnetic flywheel, that when Thorens began production, some "escaped" the factory with cast iron platters. This is not true. The non-magnetic flywheel CB788 was always an accessory that needed to be ordered extra. Thorens, by the way, gave the all-clear for the use of the popular electrodynamic cartridges Ortofon SPU and SPU/T on the normal version of the TD124. "The cast iron flywheel puts a pressure of .6 to .75 grams on these objects the tonearm can thus be statically balanced outside the flywheel's vicinity. One must perhaps regulate stylus pressure taking these additional energies into consideration. The set stylus pressure should be reduced to 1.5 grams for the Thorens BTD-12S tonearm. A slight sideways attraction on the edge of a 30 centimeter Lp can also occur within the first four millimeters. Therefore, it is recommended to very carefully lower the cartridge directly at the beginning of the modulated grooves."
(from p. 65)
whew..! This is a useful book, btw, for anyone becoming ocd on the subject of the TD124. (count me in that group)
-Steve
Hi Steve,
I can confirm the comments about the intermediate pulley as I just acquired a MKI parts unit with a 45xxx serial number and it has the newer design, although the pulley itself is sightly different in minor ways. (It is clearly the same design)
Swiss Precision book is on my Christmas list and as far as I know my wife has ordered it.
Good information on the cast iron platter. I will acquire one at the next opportunity..
For any one with any doubts about my comments bear in mind I am a bit of a perfectionist, and I love this turntable regardless of its quirks. An engineering masterpiece in every respect of the word..
Next post pix and the story of the "Ersatz TD-124"
I can confirm the comments about the intermediate pulley as I just acquired a MKI parts unit with a 45xxx serial number and it has the newer design, although the pulley itself is sightly different in minor ways. (It is clearly the same design)
Swiss Precision book is on my Christmas list and as far as I know my wife has ordered it.
Good information on the cast iron platter. I will acquire one at the next opportunity..
For any one with any doubts about my comments bear in mind I am a bit of a perfectionist, and I love this turntable regardless of its quirks. An engineering masterpiece in every respect of the word..
Next post pix and the story of the "Ersatz TD-124"
The Ersatz TD124
A couple of posts back I mentioned a turntable that appeared to be a TD-124 with a bunch of TD-121 parts on it - which is exactly what it turned out to be..
The original top and bottom platter, spindle and main bearing have been removed along with the strobe and a lot of mechanical components. Someone then installed a TD-121 platter and bearing on this chassis. Other parts may have been used to fix another TD-124. Very difficult to know.
I theorize that the strobe and platter assembly might have been used to upgrade a TD-121 due to the presence of that platter.
Some parts will be used on my TD-124 and the rest will be saved for future repairs to other tables. Unfortunately there are just too many hard to source parts missing from this one to make it a viable restoration candidate, what is there is not in bad condition indicating that this probably was a usable table prior to be cannibalized. A shame really..
A couple of posts back I mentioned a turntable that appeared to be a TD-124 with a bunch of TD-121 parts on it - which is exactly what it turned out to be..
The original top and bottom platter, spindle and main bearing have been removed along with the strobe and a lot of mechanical components. Someone then installed a TD-121 platter and bearing on this chassis. Other parts may have been used to fix another TD-124. Very difficult to know.
I theorize that the strobe and platter assembly might have been used to upgrade a TD-121 due to the presence of that platter.
Some parts will be used on my TD-124 and the rest will be saved for future repairs to other tables. Unfortunately there are just too many hard to source parts missing from this one to make it a viable restoration candidate, what is there is not in bad condition indicating that this probably was a usable table prior to be cannibalized. A shame really..
Attachments
I transplanted a couple of parts from my old MKI into the MKII.
I assessed the condition of the MKI idler pulley and it seemed to be better overall than the one in the MKII - more concentric, no bobbles and softer, more resilient rubber. It runs quieter and does not excite the platter at all. (The other one was not too bad in this regard, but it was very slightly audible in amongst the rest of the mechanical symphony.)
The intermediate pulley from the MKI is very interesting, and I wish I had taken some comparative pictures of the two of them - although interchangeable, the level of finish on the older pulley was better, and the pulley is probably 0.025" thicker than the newer one in the "skirt" area where the belt runs. There are other trivial differences. It seems to run significantly quieter overall.
I am wondering about those new motor bearings I purchased.. My impression is that Steve's bearings may result in a quieter running motor under load. Not enough experience to be sure of this, but given the problems these bearings gave me initially I am thinking I might be replacing them soon..
In terms of the 10W/15W motor issue my turntable actually states power consumption as being 15W as does the unit 45xxx that I have. The two MKI units I have worked on and the other MKII I have seen also state 15W.. I suspect this might be an allowance for the neon lamp that the motor windings also power, and for higher losses under high line conditions. A TD-124 expert in Italy who runs a small parts business offers replacement windings for the E50 motor and indicates that he has encountered different winding configurations between MKI and MKII motors and that these later motors have windings designed for increased torque, and less heating. I observed no practical difference in motor performance on any of the turntables I have worked on so far - working properly all get the platter up to speed in about the same length of time and well under one revolution whether iron or zamac.. Still it is an interesting supposition.
The link to that site is here:
Sugli avvolgimenti del 124 (Sorry Italian only, which I can read without translation, you can run through the Google translator which is dreadful..)
The gist of what he says is that: he offers an improved winding based on those found in the MKII version of the motor which offers increased torque and less heating. The original MKI motor he alleges had small wire and insufficient turns, and ran extremely hot, sometimes cooking the windings driving the very heavy platter. Thorens apparently realized there was an issue around serial # 40000 (MKI series) and revised the motor using larger wire and more turns and this led to the improved motor used in the MKII. The replacement windings he offers pop right in with a minimum of fuss. This winding design is based on the sacrifice of three original motors for analysis of the windings, and extensive prototyping.
My experience in the consumer and other areas of electronics industry generally is that rather significant changes to a part may be made without a change in the actual part number, and revisions to an existing part number are not reported to the outside world. So as he alleges it is quite possible IME for two externally identical motors to differ in internal details like winding design.
I assessed the condition of the MKI idler pulley and it seemed to be better overall than the one in the MKII - more concentric, no bobbles and softer, more resilient rubber. It runs quieter and does not excite the platter at all. (The other one was not too bad in this regard, but it was very slightly audible in amongst the rest of the mechanical symphony.)
The intermediate pulley from the MKI is very interesting, and I wish I had taken some comparative pictures of the two of them - although interchangeable, the level of finish on the older pulley was better, and the pulley is probably 0.025" thicker than the newer one in the "skirt" area where the belt runs. There are other trivial differences. It seems to run significantly quieter overall.
I am wondering about those new motor bearings I purchased.. My impression is that Steve's bearings may result in a quieter running motor under load. Not enough experience to be sure of this, but given the problems these bearings gave me initially I am thinking I might be replacing them soon..
In terms of the 10W/15W motor issue my turntable actually states power consumption as being 15W as does the unit 45xxx that I have. The two MKI units I have worked on and the other MKII I have seen also state 15W.. I suspect this might be an allowance for the neon lamp that the motor windings also power, and for higher losses under high line conditions. A TD-124 expert in Italy who runs a small parts business offers replacement windings for the E50 motor and indicates that he has encountered different winding configurations between MKI and MKII motors and that these later motors have windings designed for increased torque, and less heating. I observed no practical difference in motor performance on any of the turntables I have worked on so far - working properly all get the platter up to speed in about the same length of time and well under one revolution whether iron or zamac.. Still it is an interesting supposition.
The link to that site is here:
Sugli avvolgimenti del 124 (Sorry Italian only, which I can read without translation, you can run through the Google translator which is dreadful..)
The gist of what he says is that: he offers an improved winding based on those found in the MKII version of the motor which offers increased torque and less heating. The original MKI motor he alleges had small wire and insufficient turns, and ran extremely hot, sometimes cooking the windings driving the very heavy platter. Thorens apparently realized there was an issue around serial # 40000 (MKI series) and revised the motor using larger wire and more turns and this led to the improved motor used in the MKII. The replacement windings he offers pop right in with a minimum of fuss. This winding design is based on the sacrifice of three original motors for analysis of the windings, and extensive prototyping.
My experience in the consumer and other areas of electronics industry generally is that rather significant changes to a part may be made without a change in the actual part number, and revisions to an existing part number are not reported to the outside world. So as he alleges it is quite possible IME for two externally identical motors to differ in internal details like winding design.
Last edited:
Isn't that interesting! There is this prevailing idea floating around that so long as the idler tire doesn't show signs of age cracking and / or flat spotting, that the tire is as good as the day it was vulcanized. My thought:.....rubber ages/hardens over time exposed to the atmosphere. The idler tire is a critical part of the TD124's performance.
Good news. This may be the solution to the belt issue?
re: 10W versus 15W motor ratings, part numbers etc.
Good info, thanks. Thanks also for the translated short summary of the Italian gentleman's page. I did do a page translation (Yahoo babelfish) and was able to gain a gist of his intent, but was grateful that you offered a clean summary.
The mk1 motors do tend to run warm. More so when motor bearings are in misalignment and/or improper lube is within them. In the handful of TD124's coming through here (all mk1 with low-ish serial numbers) I have encountered motors that responded well to the clean/lube/adjust procedure. That all wanted to run warm but after careful bearing adjust and a week or two of run-in time, tended to run significantly cooler than at first. Given this observed behavior I don't see a danger of their imminent failure. Contrary to that, I think these surviving motors have already proven their durability and longevity. That they can be refurbished and put back to use in an 'as good as new' condition just adds further evidence to their hardiness. Long live the E-50.
That much said; an improved motor would be most welcome. As our Italian expert notes:
Then it would seem that this is where we want to go. mkII E-50 motor with double grommet suspension and 15W windings. For those with earlier motors, the option would seem to be; A) rob a mkII of its E50 (or a later sn mk1) or 2) purchase new windings from this gentleman. I did not find any pricing for his products.
Hi Steve,
After a day of listening with the salvaged idler and intermediate pulley a couple of things seem subtly improved. The mechanical symphony I have commented on is clearly much less, and the "new" idler also runs quieter.
Overall I think the table sounds a tad better, but I'll take an improvement no matter how small any day..
There seems to be fundamental difference in the formulation of the rubber used in the early MKI idlers as well as this one from a late MKI, and the ones I've seen in the very small sample of MKII tables I have worked on/looked at. (Come to think of it - a very small sample size of both.. ) They have a slightly different appearance if you look at the pictures with the later MKII idler having four equidistant holes near the inner molding perimeter - and the rubber is harder. I am not sure whether this hardness is actually a function of aging or not, but the older (and strangely more resilient) idler pulley does run noticeably quieter.. All of this does point to the possibility that idlers generally could be replaced with some performance gain on most tables. These idlers are generally in better shape than most on other tables I have encountered though and perhaps that is why so few believe they need replacement..
Some time ago I was more confident about the motor issue, but as I have gained a little experience I have to admit I see no discernible difference in motor performance between the few early MKI motors I have overhauled and my MKII motor. If anything mine might be slightly noisier, but I am inclined to lay this at the feet of those eBay replacement motor bearings. I plan to use your bearings exclusively in the future..
I'm currently listening for a minimum of a few hours a day and often a lot more. It's very interesting to listen to long familiar records and realize that you just heard something you never knew was there before. A daily occurrence now. It's an extraordinarily solid performer, and one I would recommend to anyone lucky enough to get their hands on one - all of this presupposes that one has a system of sufficient resolution to allow the table to do its thing. Mine came out of a system where this clearly was not the case..
After a day of listening with the salvaged idler and intermediate pulley a couple of things seem subtly improved. The mechanical symphony I have commented on is clearly much less, and the "new" idler also runs quieter.
Overall I think the table sounds a tad better, but I'll take an improvement no matter how small any day..
There seems to be fundamental difference in the formulation of the rubber used in the early MKI idlers as well as this one from a late MKI, and the ones I've seen in the very small sample of MKII tables I have worked on/looked at. (Come to think of it - a very small sample size of both.. ) They have a slightly different appearance if you look at the pictures with the later MKII idler having four equidistant holes near the inner molding perimeter - and the rubber is harder. I am not sure whether this hardness is actually a function of aging or not, but the older (and strangely more resilient) idler pulley does run noticeably quieter.. All of this does point to the possibility that idlers generally could be replaced with some performance gain on most tables. These idlers are generally in better shape than most on other tables I have encountered though and perhaps that is why so few believe they need replacement..
Some time ago I was more confident about the motor issue, but as I have gained a little experience I have to admit I see no discernible difference in motor performance between the few early MKI motors I have overhauled and my MKII motor. If anything mine might be slightly noisier, but I am inclined to lay this at the feet of those eBay replacement motor bearings. I plan to use your bearings exclusively in the future..
I'm currently listening for a minimum of a few hours a day and often a lot more. It's very interesting to listen to long familiar records and realize that you just heard something you never knew was there before. A daily occurrence now. It's an extraordinarily solid performer, and one I would recommend to anyone lucky enough to get their hands on one - all of this presupposes that one has a system of sufficient resolution to allow the table to do its thing. Mine came out of a system where this clearly was not the case..
Last edited:
t's an extraordinarily solid performer, and one I would recommend to anyone lucky enough to get their hands on one - all of this presupposes that one has a system of sufficient resolution to allow the table to so its thing. This one came out of a system where this clearly was not the case.
or maybe they are pleasant artifacts of idler noise added to the signal. You still use default thorens alu upper "ringer"with the rubber mat right? And this old hollow plinth -correct? and it's better than SME 20 ? with conical stylus ? You realize how does it sound ;?) Damn I really have to put Rega RB1000 on Thorens to sort it out. It's a pain without VTA and 3 point mount though...
or maybe they are pleasant artifacts of idler noise added to the signal. You still use default thorens alu upper "ringer"with the rubber mat right? And this old hollow plinth -correct? and it's better than SME 20 ? with conical stylus ? You realize how does it sound ;?) Damn I really have to put Rega RB1000 on Thorens to sort it out. It's a pain without VTA and 3 point mount though...
Yeah, I know exactly how that sounds..
Despite its obvious imperfections, and the SME's supposed lack of same, the TD-124 is much more involving, and seems more than competitive in a lot of other ways.. And here is the killer, it images and does depth far better than the SME, and if that's an artifact it's one I will try hard not to fix..
It has still got a significantly lower noise floor than any of the records I play which in engineering talk probably means the intrinsic SNR is good enough for the medium it is reproducing. Endless tinkering has brought it still further. A slate plinth is in the offing and eventually I hope to acquire a Schopper platter as well.
Strangely enough the stock mat works better than several diy and aftermarket solutions I have tried - a first in my experience..
And unfortunately I have the late dual ringer version of the TD-124 with the very ringy zamac platter as well as that upper aluminum platter you mentioned. Somehow despite all of this it all manages to achieve a synergy with that piece of plastic spinning on top of all that imperfection that I have not ever heard before.
It's good enough that a couple of my friends having heard it are now refurbishing TD-124 of their own, one of whom also owns three SME tables..
I'm having fun listening to music on vinyl again, and hearing things on very familiar material that I have never heard before. Isn't that what this hobby is all about...
Last edited:
Comments about SME 20 referenced elsewhere in this thread
In fairness to the SME 20/2 which IMHO is a great table I should disclose (or re-disclose) that this particular table was poorly packed by the seller, and that the table sustained significant damage in transit which included the threaded portion of the spindle being snapped off preventing very effective clamping of the disk to the platter.
My usage of the SME 20 also did little to allow the SME to fairly win this competition either. Comparison was done between SME 3009 arms on both tables and this also probably put the 20 at a comparative disadvantage as the proper SME IV or V series arms are in another league altogether to the SME 3009 Series II.
My Zu/Denon cartridge while nice is a very obsolete 50yr old design, and not reflective of the best available today. For me it might be good enough, but that's just me.
In the interest of setting the record straight, I feel that I did not give the SME 20/2 a fair shake, and comparing a TD-124 regardless of condition to a damaged SME 20/2 mis-used as stated above probably does nothing more than mislead.. No one should assume reading this thread that a TD-124 is comparable to, better or worse than an SME 20 in good running order without doing that direct comparison under well controlled conditions themselves.
I will stick to discussing the virtues as well as technical issues surrounding the TD-124 as I understand them at a given time. (That also is subject to evolution.)
In fairness to the SME 20/2 which IMHO is a great table I should disclose (or re-disclose) that this particular table was poorly packed by the seller, and that the table sustained significant damage in transit which included the threaded portion of the spindle being snapped off preventing very effective clamping of the disk to the platter.
My usage of the SME 20 also did little to allow the SME to fairly win this competition either. Comparison was done between SME 3009 arms on both tables and this also probably put the 20 at a comparative disadvantage as the proper SME IV or V series arms are in another league altogether to the SME 3009 Series II.
My Zu/Denon cartridge while nice is a very obsolete 50yr old design, and not reflective of the best available today. For me it might be good enough, but that's just me.
In the interest of setting the record straight, I feel that I did not give the SME 20/2 a fair shake, and comparing a TD-124 regardless of condition to a damaged SME 20/2 mis-used as stated above probably does nothing more than mislead.. No one should assume reading this thread that a TD-124 is comparable to, better or worse than an SME 20 in good running order without doing that direct comparison under well controlled conditions themselves.
I will stick to discussing the virtues as well as technical issues surrounding the TD-124 as I understand them at a given time. (That also is subject to evolution.)
This morning I purchased a Merrill EDM mat made specifically for the TD-124 from a fellow on Audiogon.. Should be very interesting to see what sort of effect that has on the sound as it is reputed to significantly mitigate the resonance issues in the aluminum top platter.. Hopefully it is an improvement without sucking the life out of the sound..
I was curious about the SME20 as part of this discussion. But it makes sense in a way that you made a comparison between it and a partially refurbished TD124 while using the same (vintage) tonearm and cartridge. The SME 3009 (S2?) with Zu DL103. Then it would seem logical (and an understatement) that the limitations of the 3009 arm would prevent the SME 20 from delivering its sonic goods to full extent. On the Td124, however, the same arm might mask certain 'sonic artifacts' of the belt/idler drive train while allowing its more positive traits to be on vivid display.
At one point I tried a Graham 2.2/Ortofon Jubilee on my Td124. That was interesting. The Graham/Jubilee did allow the TD124 to 'breath' a little more than I had heard previously. There was definitely some air and detail not previously heard. Not too bad at all. Yet, at the same time it was allowing all this air and detail to float about, the arm also seemed to soak/suck out some of the musical energy and momentum heard previously. Drums not popping out of the speakers as far or fast, etc. I didn't leave the Graham on there for long. Replaced it with a silver-wired Zeta.
So I thought to try a tonearm/cartridge combo that would accentuate the positive parts of the TD124 -- energy delivery -- while at the same time not limit too much musical detail. This obviously points out some of the character of the TD124.
In its standard form, the TT does "seem" to reproduce a somewhat darker colored rendition of the recording. Yet it does produce a fair amount of musical detail while not being the last word in such. Certainly not in the same league as a high quality belt drive TT for inner detail delivery....if that's what one craves.
For me A re-bodied DL103R seems very close to being right for this tt in my system. Somewhat dark and colored, but with a pleasing balance of energy and detail. Coherent top to bottom, fairly vivid mid-range and with a good excitement factor. Btw, I prefer to use this TT for playing back old Merc Living Presence Lps. Mono or Stereo. It seems to get the dynamics of those recordings.
It will be interesting to read your notes on the Merrill EDM mat.
On the subject of the "ringing" upper shell platter of the TD124; I've spent some quality time straightening more than a few bent shells in order to get them to spin true and function correctly with the clutch. What I have noticed is that the material used in them is a very soft aluminum. Quite dead to the knuckle rap. A very pliable aluminum that one can manipulate/straighten with fingers to some degree. It is also easily deformed by accident if one drops it to the floor. Just saying, it likely doesn't 'ring' as much as some would imagine. Particularly when the rubber mat is attached. Rather dead. A low pitched knock with no sustaining ring. Someone should measure and chart that.
-Steve