Sewing machine oil although not perfect is better than motor oils. It might un-gum the works also. If the platter turns freely when no belt fitted I doubt much is wrong. You could try Loricraft Audio via their shop for their oil. It is very like what Linn and Ariston used in the early days. ATF should work.
It looks now that I can not get ball bearing out of bearing housing. Can anyone confirm if bearing ball is captive on early Ariston RD11 bearing... but captive ball is attached inside bearing housing on these, unlike later PTF sleeved RD11S bearings where captive ball seems to be attached to sub platter spindle.
Any links available?
Best Regards
Kimmo
Any links available?
Best Regards
Kimmo
Thank´s for advice. This magnetic tool looks very handy for many use. Must find one.
Now I got enough light in bottom of bearing housing. It seems that ball bearing has been permanently installed in bottom of housing. There seems to be whitish (nylon, teflon...) collar around ball bearing.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Now I got enough light in bottom of bearing housing. It seems that ball bearing has been permanently installed in bottom of housing. There seems to be whitish (nylon, teflon...) collar around ball bearing.
Best Regards
Kimmo
There is not too much you can do... other than replace whole bearing assembly. Luckily platter seems to be turning OK...
I have now reinforced plinth corner joints with wood blocks. 9904-111-31302 motor that seems to be original one has worked OK after drop of oil in top bearing. Clutch assembly also works OK... As they are now easy to take off. Is the idea to disassemble clutch assembly and motor for thorough cleaning and lube job good or bad. Should I fix something that has not been broken yet for sake of long life.
Best Regards
Kimmo
I have now reinforced plinth corner joints with wood blocks. 9904-111-31302 motor that seems to be original one has worked OK after drop of oil in top bearing. Clutch assembly also works OK... As they are now easy to take off. Is the idea to disassemble clutch assembly and motor for thorough cleaning and lube job good or bad. Should I fix something that has not been broken yet for sake of long life.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Ariston plinth has now been cleaned with steel wool and mixture of BLO and turpentine. Plinth corners have been reinforced with fillets and damping compound has been added around motor and suspension bolt area of top plate. I also added aprox 2 cm of heat shrink tubing around suspension bolts... so upper suspensions grommets will slide against smooth surface whenever suspension movement is disturbed.
I hope that I will be able to bolt everything together tomorrow. But... I have question about how suspension spring washers should be assembled. In my RD11S there are two washers between lower suspension grommet and adjusting nut. One washer is flat and other one do have some tilt on upper surface. Situation is quite visible in picture I am enclosing. I suppose that idea is to force springs to lean some direction.
My question is now: Should I adjust spring washers to create pulling force against tension created motor drive belt? Or... do washers serve some other purpose.
Best Regards
Kimmo
I hope that I will be able to bolt everything together tomorrow. But... I have question about how suspension spring washers should be assembled. In my RD11S there are two washers between lower suspension grommet and adjusting nut. One washer is flat and other one do have some tilt on upper surface. Situation is quite visible in picture I am enclosing. I suppose that idea is to force springs to lean some direction.
My question is now: Should I adjust spring washers to create pulling force against tension created motor drive belt? Or... do washers serve some other purpose.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Attachments
Try it the Linn way and have only the plain washers. Linn suggested spit as lubricant on the upper rubber part. Carefully rotate the spring to centre it. Any torsion will cause it to unwind in a day or so. Many claimed LP12 went of tune after a few months. They do if set up by many shops. Mine is 1989 and has been tweaked once. It took 4 hours to build up when new. 1 1/2 hours was considered how long it should take. Linn said 15 minutes if knowing how. Nonsense. The whole LP12 has to come apart and everything checked. 90% of the time all the original parts could be used. I would say the LP 12 as supplied was a pre tested kit.
Place the longest spring near the motor. The most round to the front ( being round is almost a defect !! ). The spring with most offset to the arm base. By carefully trying with belt fitted a perfect vertical bounce can be found with minimal gyration. This has the better possibilities sound wise. That is it favours the vertical information. It should also aid rotational problems. When the arm cable is fitted the movement should not change dramatically. The arm cable can stop mild gyration. The worst being the bounce stops quickly. Linn found very good quality nuts that are square. I suspect ones could be made with a bolt and file. Or a small tube spacer that is square. Make sure the bolts are vertical. The top plate should be slightly looser than people might imagine as it is part of the suspension. Linn did that by having very small battons ( about 1/4 inch , 6 mm ) . Linn asked the bolts on the top plate be only sensibly tight to ensure the top plate works. Said by them in the 1980's to be 25 % of the suspension. The LP12 top plate was slightly concave. We had a tool to set the bolts to allow both things.
I have set up the RD80's with the intended parts. It is quick and easy. I suspect the Linn way is better.
Looking at your photo I would be tempted to build a Linn type chassis brace and plinth brace. Look at any LP12 photo. On the mid period LP12 the brace was epoxy glued. This is very simple and works. Also for simplicity an aluminium 2 x 1 inch L section brace is easiest to source and make. Use a low strength glue at first if wanting to be certain it's what you want. PVA might be OK. I suspect 1/2 inch plywood would be better. I have never tried it so can't say.
Place the longest spring near the motor. The most round to the front ( being round is almost a defect !! ). The spring with most offset to the arm base. By carefully trying with belt fitted a perfect vertical bounce can be found with minimal gyration. This has the better possibilities sound wise. That is it favours the vertical information. It should also aid rotational problems. When the arm cable is fitted the movement should not change dramatically. The arm cable can stop mild gyration. The worst being the bounce stops quickly. Linn found very good quality nuts that are square. I suspect ones could be made with a bolt and file. Or a small tube spacer that is square. Make sure the bolts are vertical. The top plate should be slightly looser than people might imagine as it is part of the suspension. Linn did that by having very small battons ( about 1/4 inch , 6 mm ) . Linn asked the bolts on the top plate be only sensibly tight to ensure the top plate works. Said by them in the 1980's to be 25 % of the suspension. The LP12 top plate was slightly concave. We had a tool to set the bolts to allow both things.
I have set up the RD80's with the intended parts. It is quick and easy. I suspect the Linn way is better.
Looking at your photo I would be tempted to build a Linn type chassis brace and plinth brace. Look at any LP12 photo. On the mid period LP12 the brace was epoxy glued. This is very simple and works. Also for simplicity an aluminium 2 x 1 inch L section brace is easiest to source and make. Use a low strength glue at first if wanting to be certain it's what you want. PVA might be OK. I suspect 1/2 inch plywood would be better. I have never tried it so can't say.
Thank you for advice Nigel. I remember when Lin arrived here in Finland, magicians reduced resonance frequency of suspension by lowering sub chassis relative to top plate. I always wondered how this is possible if springs did not get changed or sub chassis weight was not increased. 
Basically there is not too much to do if the spring rates are correct. You just level TT chassis and sub chassis. You should also make sure that not too much vertical tension is created when springs are adjusted, so sub chassis does float correctly and bounce is as straight up and down as possible.
I found answer to my question about cam washers in Ariston RD11s manual. Ariston asked to centralize armboard in aperture by adjusting cam washers. This means that that springs are also centered in the bushings, if manufacturing tolerances are good enough. Which seems to be the case as this produced nice up and down bounce as you recommended. Whole sub chassis adjustment took about 1 hour to make. I created some tension in the springs as armboard has moved slightly in the cutout, but this has not degraded bounce anyway. I will readjust cam washers when I will remove bottom cover for reinforcing.
Re pic... pic was from my RD11s... I will post some pics about mine when this project has been completed.
I have now tried to re learn how to adjust whole turntable/arm/cartridge combination as I have used vinyl gear very little since early 90´s.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Basically there is not too much to do if the spring rates are correct. You just level TT chassis and sub chassis. You should also make sure that not too much vertical tension is created when springs are adjusted, so sub chassis does float correctly and bounce is as straight up and down as possible.
I found answer to my question about cam washers in Ariston RD11s manual. Ariston asked to centralize armboard in aperture by adjusting cam washers. This means that that springs are also centered in the bushings, if manufacturing tolerances are good enough. Which seems to be the case as this produced nice up and down bounce as you recommended. Whole sub chassis adjustment took about 1 hour to make. I created some tension in the springs as armboard has moved slightly in the cutout, but this has not degraded bounce anyway. I will readjust cam washers when I will remove bottom cover for reinforcing.
Re pic... pic was from my RD11s... I will post some pics about mine when this project has been completed.
I have now tried to re learn how to adjust whole turntable/arm/cartridge combination as I have used vinyl gear very little since early 90´s.
Best Regards
Kimmo
With the LP12 it was simple. When it looked nice it was correct. I don't really see how changing the chassis height changes things as you rightly say. When I did a RD11 I had to guess a little. I think the few hundred LP12 I saw helped me with all suspended decks.
My Garrard 401 returns soon. They are almost cousins in sound. When I move home I will have two systems. LP12, NAD 3020 and Magnepan SMGa. Would you believe that really works. The NAD far better than is possible.
I have never used a Hadcock arm with the RD11. It could be ideal.
Anyone at the Whittlebury hi fi show this weekend I will be with Loricraft. I don't work for Loricraft. It's my friend and I help out. I did design the record cleaning machine in days gone by. A variation of the Wilson design circa 1962.
My Garrard 401 returns soon. They are almost cousins in sound. When I move home I will have two systems. LP12, NAD 3020 and Magnepan SMGa. Would you believe that really works. The NAD far better than is possible.
I have never used a Hadcock arm with the RD11. It could be ideal.
Anyone at the Whittlebury hi fi show this weekend I will be with Loricraft. I don't work for Loricraft. It's my friend and I help out. I did design the record cleaning machine in days gone by. A variation of the Wilson design circa 1962.
Doing something as simple as soldering or sub chassis setup is much easier when you have done it for couple of times, as you said. You learn the ticks of the trade and it is most important to know when something is as good as it can be. Overdoing something can actually destroy some unavailable part of interesting project.
This may be slightly off topic, but we seems to have quite much in common. My father did refurbish my grease bearing Garrard 301, but he was unable to open motor for clean and lube job. Motor is working but old, so motor rebuild has to be done before active use of TT. I have slabs of mahogany for new plinth and SME V to arm this old beast. Any idea if Martin Bastin style plinth or 25 mm baltic birch plywood (made in Finland) motorboard on 4 squash or tennis balls is way to go?
I considered Hadcock to be used with Garrard, as I believe George used 401 when original Hadcock arm design was made. I abandoned the idea as I disliked idea of using silicone fluid. For some odd reason I have always looked Mayware Formula arms as possible parts of some future TT projects.
I used to be NAD salesman for 1,5 year and sold some 3020, 7020, 7120... models. My memories about quality of NAD is plagued by reliability issues and service bulletins for many upgrades needed, especially for early production units. Top of the line models were usually the worst and entry level models like 6020, 4020 and 3020 were better. As far as I can remember I disliked RIAA stage of 3020... but it is possible that the unit I tested was early model and your 3020 is later upgraded one. However, idea of full function serious 2 x 20W amplifier is good, as very few peoples do actually need more power.
Best Regards
Kimmo
This may be slightly off topic, but we seems to have quite much in common. My father did refurbish my grease bearing Garrard 301, but he was unable to open motor for clean and lube job. Motor is working but old, so motor rebuild has to be done before active use of TT. I have slabs of mahogany for new plinth and SME V to arm this old beast. Any idea if Martin Bastin style plinth or 25 mm baltic birch plywood (made in Finland) motorboard on 4 squash or tennis balls is way to go?
I considered Hadcock to be used with Garrard, as I believe George used 401 when original Hadcock arm design was made. I abandoned the idea as I disliked idea of using silicone fluid. For some odd reason I have always looked Mayware Formula arms as possible parts of some future TT projects.
I used to be NAD salesman for 1,5 year and sold some 3020, 7020, 7120... models. My memories about quality of NAD is plagued by reliability issues and service bulletins for many upgrades needed, especially for early production units. Top of the line models were usually the worst and entry level models like 6020, 4020 and 3020 were better. As far as I can remember I disliked RIAA stage of 3020... but it is possible that the unit I tested was early model and your 3020 is later upgraded one. However, idea of full function serious 2 x 20W amplifier is good, as very few peoples do actually need more power.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Last edited:
The NAD has a heat sink able to do 20 watts and no more ( music is 1/6 that and techno 1/3 ) . The power amp will attempt 92 watts 2 R. I have my own RIAA so maybe I would agree. Useful all the same. NAD 3020 = Landrover Defender. Pre power split is if you like the diff lock.
The new Roksan arm looks OK.
Loricraft float the low mass top section on squash balls when 301/401/TD124. I am having a plinth built like that with a marble base. Polished concrete if I have time. The Loricraft follows the AR/TD150/RD11/LP12 route of low mass above the suspension. People don't like squash balls because they haven't given someone a pot of money for them and had mysterious things said about them in their favour. That's very sad because they work. They need cardboard shims when they settle. Even when nearly flat they still work. They is no special sort say Dunlop as the difference needs them to warm due to being hit.
There is good reason to go off subject. It often answers questions about design concepts. The low mass RD11 chassis. Linn say vibration get around the loop and has minimal time delay. That seems reasonable. Mr Vilchur( spelling ? ) was asked in recent years how he made his deck image so well. He refused to answer. Easy. The movement is where possible vertical and the low mass chassis.
Terry and I invented the Yaksahumi Cable Company. When people ask where we got things it is always The Yaksahumi Cable Company. I believe in cables. What I don't believe in is they should cost much money. We thought of painting the balls gold and calling them Golden Balls from The Yaksahumi Cable Company. Painted with 8 N's Gold or better still OFG. It really worries me when people won't trust something because it is too cheap!
The new Roksan arm looks OK.
Loricraft float the low mass top section on squash balls when 301/401/TD124. I am having a plinth built like that with a marble base. Polished concrete if I have time. The Loricraft follows the AR/TD150/RD11/LP12 route of low mass above the suspension. People don't like squash balls because they haven't given someone a pot of money for them and had mysterious things said about them in their favour. That's very sad because they work. They need cardboard shims when they settle. Even when nearly flat they still work. They is no special sort say Dunlop as the difference needs them to warm due to being hit.
There is good reason to go off subject. It often answers questions about design concepts. The low mass RD11 chassis. Linn say vibration get around the loop and has minimal time delay. That seems reasonable. Mr Vilchur( spelling ? ) was asked in recent years how he made his deck image so well. He refused to answer. Easy. The movement is where possible vertical and the low mass chassis.
Terry and I invented the Yaksahumi Cable Company. When people ask where we got things it is always The Yaksahumi Cable Company. I believe in cables. What I don't believe in is they should cost much money. We thought of painting the balls gold and calling them Golden Balls from The Yaksahumi Cable Company. Painted with 8 N's Gold or better still OFG. It really worries me when people won't trust something because it is too cheap!
Ariston RD11s rebuild
I promised to send pics about rebuild earlier.
From 1st and 2nd pic you can see that I covered upper portion of mounting bolts with heat shrink tubing to ease suspension movement when disturbed. Also smallish corner blocks have been added to reinforce old plinth. I covered area around spring mounts and motor with acrylic putty to dampen resonance. There is also layer of putty behind chassis brace. I used acrylic putty as it is less messy and easier to remove than other materials. Motor does have 1979 date code so deck has most likely been made in 1979 or 1980. Does anyone know if RD11 was made same time as RD11s as there is RD11 sticker on chassis top plate?
From two last pics you can see that plinth, that looks to be veneered with rosewood, is now quite clean looking. I used mixture of boiled linseed oil and pine turpentine along with steel wool to rub plinth clean. Veneer now looks old, but it is fairly clean. Build quality of deck is rather good. Only sign of BL like build of this timeline is Ariston Audio logo, that is slanting slightly to the left.
Best Regards
Kimmo
I promised to send pics about rebuild earlier.
From 1st and 2nd pic you can see that I covered upper portion of mounting bolts with heat shrink tubing to ease suspension movement when disturbed. Also smallish corner blocks have been added to reinforce old plinth. I covered area around spring mounts and motor with acrylic putty to dampen resonance. There is also layer of putty behind chassis brace. I used acrylic putty as it is less messy and easier to remove than other materials. Motor does have 1979 date code so deck has most likely been made in 1979 or 1980. Does anyone know if RD11 was made same time as RD11s as there is RD11 sticker on chassis top plate?
From two last pics you can see that plinth, that looks to be veneered with rosewood, is now quite clean looking. I used mixture of boiled linseed oil and pine turpentine along with steel wool to rub plinth clean. Veneer now looks old, but it is fairly clean. Build quality of deck is rather good. Only sign of BL like build of this timeline is Ariston Audio logo, that is slanting slightly to the left.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Attachments
NAD 3020 and MMGs and SMGa loudspeakers
Nigel: Here in North America, all Magnepans seem to be driven nicely by high current amplifiers. Certainly any reasonable high current amp (even something like the old Harmon Kardon PM series integrated amps) that sounds good will do. Many have used the Adcom amplifiers to very good effect. The Magnepans (at least not the smaller ones) don't need power, but do require some current. As for any magnetic planar speaker, they can be over-driven, but you'll know when you push them too hard. I've always wanted a pair, but have pets that would destroy them just by being pets...
I recall listening to a small Adcom (535, 545, or 555, I can't remember which) power amp with a matching Adcom pre-amp (or maybe one of their pre-amp/tuners) driving a set of MMGs in the early 1990s. The sound was pretty special. For something that can sound absolutely stunning, get a pair of powered subs and run them each in L or R mono. The subs should be something that is quick (any sub that could work with ESLs will do fine). As they must be "quick", large drivers need not apply unless driven by huge amplifiers with a large current swing.
Nigel: Here in North America, all Magnepans seem to be driven nicely by high current amplifiers. Certainly any reasonable high current amp (even something like the old Harmon Kardon PM series integrated amps) that sounds good will do. Many have used the Adcom amplifiers to very good effect. The Magnepans (at least not the smaller ones) don't need power, but do require some current. As for any magnetic planar speaker, they can be over-driven, but you'll know when you push them too hard. I've always wanted a pair, but have pets that would destroy them just by being pets...
I recall listening to a small Adcom (535, 545, or 555, I can't remember which) power amp with a matching Adcom pre-amp (or maybe one of their pre-amp/tuners) driving a set of MMGs in the early 1990s. The sound was pretty special. For something that can sound absolutely stunning, get a pair of powered subs and run them each in L or R mono. The subs should be something that is quick (any sub that could work with ESLs will do fine). As they must be "quick", large drivers need not apply unless driven by huge amplifiers with a large current swing.
A company I know borrowed some Magnepans for a show. I have to say my SMG'a and 3020 was nearer to my experiance of real life.
Looking below the RD11 it is less tidy than an LP12. When I was about 22 and now 59 I went to see Linn. Ivor made it clear he would show me things but no more than that. I think that must be the best that can happen in life. After a question only a child could ask he told me he had a TD150 and missed it when returning from the 6 day war. His father wasn't best pleased with him as he was supposed to study. He was even less pleased with the idea of making a better TD150. It was make 50 or forget it. Jack the father spotted the bearing as a weakness. Hamish Robertson sold the 50 as Ariston. 100 more were built and the two men fell out. Linn wanted too much money for them Ivor was told. Thus the LP12 was born. The RD11 revised back to TD150 style bearing. Ivor said it wasn't an entirely true story but the best he could do. I think that's very fair. Many argue about this, few ever say about the TD150. I think Peter Dunlop made the next RD11's. I had a friend at Ariston called Ray Collins, he confirmed the story. Ray was out of the film Get Carter to a tee. No, he was better than any of them except the star.
Looking below the RD11 it is less tidy than an LP12. When I was about 22 and now 59 I went to see Linn. Ivor made it clear he would show me things but no more than that. I think that must be the best that can happen in life. After a question only a child could ask he told me he had a TD150 and missed it when returning from the 6 day war. His father wasn't best pleased with him as he was supposed to study. He was even less pleased with the idea of making a better TD150. It was make 50 or forget it. Jack the father spotted the bearing as a weakness. Hamish Robertson sold the 50 as Ariston. 100 more were built and the two men fell out. Linn wanted too much money for them Ivor was told. Thus the LP12 was born. The RD11 revised back to TD150 style bearing. Ivor said it wasn't an entirely true story but the best he could do. I think that's very fair. Many argue about this, few ever say about the TD150. I think Peter Dunlop made the next RD11's. I had a friend at Ariston called Ray Collins, he confirmed the story. Ray was out of the film Get Carter to a tee. No, he was better than any of them except the star.
Hi, Err.... no. The early LP12 is as near as dammit a RD11, not other way round,
No, emphatically. RD11 No 1 to No50 was an LP12 in type and build and made at Castlemilk Engeering next to Linn Park. Some say 180 were made, I was told 50 as best I remember. Opal and Vauxhall style they were the same. Hamish was unwilling to pay the money. Ivor said there was no point in making a TD150 clone. Hamish thought Ivor was very wrong. The BSA, Norton and Triumph twins were much the same in motorcycles. The big deal is a RD 11 sounds different in the non Linn version. The bearing is what it is. However much can be made different and better than either LP12 or RD11. What Ivor could not agree to was Jack's his dads bearing being rejected. He admitted selling the next 100 RD11 was not what he had in mind. All the 100 were remade as LP12. Linn were holding 100 RD11 that needed to be sold. Linn was born out of that need. Linn didn't dispute that when I was 22 . Ivor thought Arison had a big lack of vision. The story is vastly more interesting than that. I will not tell it as I don't have the facts. Look it up under death of H R if records exist. From what I know a complex man.
There was a lot of very sour grapes about the LP12. It has created many false stories ( both ways no doubt ). The ones that can be proved is RD 11 No 1 to No 50 has the Linn point bearing. Later on only LP12. To be clear the Dual CS 505 has a point bearing aso. It can be done without costing too much.
The one thing to remember is neither man designed the TD150. No one ever seems able to say that. That is like talking V8 engines and thinking Ford not in the story. As the RD11 reverted to the TD150 bearing is does beg the question what is it they were selling? RD11 were never cheap so a TD160 was the LP12's true competition. For what is is worth I think a TD160 S is better than a RD11. At todays prices I wouldn't hesitate and buy a RD11. In my heart it is a TD160 beater. I knew Ariston very well. There was no passion. Peter Dunlop went on to make System Dek. That was a highly original product. That proves that the skills were on offer. Ariston was like BL Rover. If only someone had passion it might be alive today. Land Rover is where it did just about survived the dead hand of the 1970's.
Nicely done Kimmo!
Kimmo,
the refurb looks very nice. From what I can tell the RD11 has the power switch on the LHS, while the RD11S has it on the RHS. You should also be able to identify the table from its serial number (someone must have a database or similar somewhere)
Nigel,
I was suggesting that the Magnepans seem to really like high current amplifiers. The 3020 would not be what I would suggest a typical pairing, at least not here. The store that I heard the Adcom/Magnepan MMG or SMGa speakers was (at the time) one of the world's largest Magnepan dealers (IIRC) and had a ton of experience with them. Unfortunately Magnepan has always been a little coy concerning recommended amplifiers for use with their loudspeakers. But here's a link to their take on it. But here's a direct quote from that page: "The short answer is direct-coupled, Class A/B designs with high current capability have proven a good choice for many decades. But to learn more, you'll need to read further."
So no specific recommendation. But the general one is as I have suggested: An amp capable of high current. The 3020 had a current rating (at the 40 Watt "dynamic" output) of 5A. When I say high current (such as the old HK PM 635 integrated amp) I'm suggesting something like +/- 15A or more. In the case of the PM635, the specification is "high instantaneous current capacity of 18A. To me the single biggest weakness of this integrated amplifier was the terrible push type speaker wire terminals, which could easily be upgraded.
When I sold audio we had both the HK PM635 and the NAD 3020 in stock. In direct comparisons, the HK pretty much came out on top in terms of the ability to drive complex impedances. If you tried pairing the HK to any speaker with the then hard-sounding metal domes, it sounded pretty bad. Put something with a silk dome behind it and it was much better. The little NAD did have a very enjoyable sound and could be paired with almost any tradition 2 or 2_ way loudspeaker and give nice results in the top end, but always sounded pretty bad at the bottom.
Sorry for side tracking the conversation guys...
I promised to send pics about rebuild earlier.
From 1st and 2nd pic you can see that I covered upper portion of mounting bolts with heat shrink tubing to ease suspension movement when disturbed. Also smallish corner blocks have been added to reinforce old plinth. I covered area around spring mounts and motor with acrylic putty to dampen resonance. There is also layer of putty behind chassis brace. I used acrylic putty as it is less messy and easier to remove than other materials. Motor does have 1979 date code so deck has most likely been made in 1979 or 1980. Does anyone know if RD11 was made same time as RD11s as there is RD11 sticker on chassis top plate?
From two last pics you can see that plinth, that looks to be veneered with rosewood, is now quite clean looking. I used mixture of boiled linseed oil and pine turpentine along with steel wool to rub plinth clean. Veneer now looks old, but it is fairly clean. Build quality of deck is rather good. Only sign of BL like build of this timeline is Ariston Audio logo, that is slanting slightly to the left.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Kimmo,
the refurb looks very nice. From what I can tell the RD11 has the power switch on the LHS, while the RD11S has it on the RHS. You should also be able to identify the table from its serial number (someone must have a database or similar somewhere)
Nigel,
I was suggesting that the Magnepans seem to really like high current amplifiers. The 3020 would not be what I would suggest a typical pairing, at least not here. The store that I heard the Adcom/Magnepan MMG or SMGa speakers was (at the time) one of the world's largest Magnepan dealers (IIRC) and had a ton of experience with them. Unfortunately Magnepan has always been a little coy concerning recommended amplifiers for use with their loudspeakers. But here's a link to their take on it. But here's a direct quote from that page: "The short answer is direct-coupled, Class A/B designs with high current capability have proven a good choice for many decades. But to learn more, you'll need to read further."
So no specific recommendation. But the general one is as I have suggested: An amp capable of high current. The 3020 had a current rating (at the 40 Watt "dynamic" output) of 5A. When I say high current (such as the old HK PM 635 integrated amp) I'm suggesting something like +/- 15A or more. In the case of the PM635, the specification is "high instantaneous current capacity of 18A. To me the single biggest weakness of this integrated amplifier was the terrible push type speaker wire terminals, which could easily be upgraded.
When I sold audio we had both the HK PM635 and the NAD 3020 in stock. In direct comparisons, the HK pretty much came out on top in terms of the ability to drive complex impedances. If you tried pairing the HK to any speaker with the then hard-sounding metal domes, it sounded pretty bad. Put something with a silk dome behind it and it was much better. The little NAD did have a very enjoyable sound and could be paired with almost any tradition 2 or 2_ way loudspeaker and give nice results in the top end, but always sounded pretty bad at the bottom.
Sorry for side tracking the conversation guys...
If it not a dristaction the old 3020 was a good current supplier. Hi fi Choice UK got 92 watts transient 2 R ( a big 170 watt Sony gave 2 watts ) . Quad 303 loves them also. ESL was not a nicer load. RD11, Hadcock, DL110 and SMGa would be a giant killing system.
Going back to my vistit to Glasgow it must have been at the time this RD11 was built. Ivor as best I remember said " his partner " was always on to something new and was loosing interest. I can imagine although not much more expensive the RD11/LP12 was more than a TD160. It would have been to many untested. It must have been very difficult to sell. The hi fi trade was very set in it's ways and would rather sell tried and tested Thorens. The TD125 ( not 4 ) was in the LP12 price range. TD125 was much like the Valhalla LP12. It is said the Valhalla was for the post Castlemilk RD11, yet not taken up ( Peter Walker of Walker Deck I think told me. He was friend of Hamish ) . I have no idea if that was true. Contrology Ltd made it. I met the very nice gentleman from Stamford Audio who sells the Hercules kit for LP12 the other day. It should work well in RD11. I did a very long analysis of Valhalla. The main info is 2 x 220 uF 250 V to replace 47 uF and an isolation transformer to get it very good . That takes the beat frequency problem down from - 40 dB to about - 60 dB. The LP12 must float and not be centre tapped to ground if isolated ( safer also ) . The beat if 50 Hz is very bad news.
At the time LP12 came out I bought an ERA mk6 and SME for £77. He went on to make the Verdier I think. The RD11 was about the same price without arm. The ERA in some ways better than either LP12 or RD11. The SME was about £35.
When talking to Ivor all those years ago he was very willing to say the LP12 was intended as an Ariston. The other man took it away from Ivors vision.
A similar story. I once shared a 1953 Triumph T110 iron engine that would do more than 120 MPH ( 130 perhaps as the fairly accurate 120 MPH speedo was hard up to the end stop, Some early Norton Combat engines even faster, none lasted well ). I had been told it was a race engine. Nothing looked different inside. I was told later the why and the what. It was a selected example. The connecting rods better than 6 thou from vertical. That would allow it to free rev. The Triumph engine was all wrong yet it worked ( very wrong ). The better thought out Norton and BSA engines never really did what they should. Triumph like Linn knew what really mattered. With a little thought none of this is too complicated. The RD11 might like some LP12 springs and rubbers. I have lost my box of them. I would have sent some on.
Going back to my vistit to Glasgow it must have been at the time this RD11 was built. Ivor as best I remember said " his partner " was always on to something new and was loosing interest. I can imagine although not much more expensive the RD11/LP12 was more than a TD160. It would have been to many untested. It must have been very difficult to sell. The hi fi trade was very set in it's ways and would rather sell tried and tested Thorens. The TD125 ( not 4 ) was in the LP12 price range. TD125 was much like the Valhalla LP12. It is said the Valhalla was for the post Castlemilk RD11, yet not taken up ( Peter Walker of Walker Deck I think told me. He was friend of Hamish ) . I have no idea if that was true. Contrology Ltd made it. I met the very nice gentleman from Stamford Audio who sells the Hercules kit for LP12 the other day. It should work well in RD11. I did a very long analysis of Valhalla. The main info is 2 x 220 uF 250 V to replace 47 uF and an isolation transformer to get it very good . That takes the beat frequency problem down from - 40 dB to about - 60 dB. The LP12 must float and not be centre tapped to ground if isolated ( safer also ) . The beat if 50 Hz is very bad news.
At the time LP12 came out I bought an ERA mk6 and SME for £77. He went on to make the Verdier I think. The RD11 was about the same price without arm. The ERA in some ways better than either LP12 or RD11. The SME was about £35.
When talking to Ivor all those years ago he was very willing to say the LP12 was intended as an Ariston. The other man took it away from Ivors vision.
A similar story. I once shared a 1953 Triumph T110 iron engine that would do more than 120 MPH ( 130 perhaps as the fairly accurate 120 MPH speedo was hard up to the end stop, Some early Norton Combat engines even faster, none lasted well ). I had been told it was a race engine. Nothing looked different inside. I was told later the why and the what. It was a selected example. The connecting rods better than 6 thou from vertical. That would allow it to free rev. The Triumph engine was all wrong yet it worked ( very wrong ). The better thought out Norton and BSA engines never really did what they should. Triumph like Linn knew what really mattered. With a little thought none of this is too complicated. The RD11 might like some LP12 springs and rubbers. I have lost my box of them. I would have sent some on.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.