Home - Castle Precision Engineering
See Westarye for makers of RD11 post Castlemilk ( storage heaters company ). Castlemilk is Linn familly.
http://weno-electric-heating.com/Information_ Sheet.pdf
Same Peter Dunlop as post Castlemilk RD11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p4WwtE4j6A
Linked design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNS1_Ex0vhU
Peter Walker friend of Hamish and STD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-GrDPTHaw8
Fons caused Linn and Ariston much trouble at the time. They were a rave of the year it came out. I never saw one myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3snKq-Suf3U
See Westarye for makers of RD11 post Castlemilk ( storage heaters company ). Castlemilk is Linn familly.
http://weno-electric-heating.com/Information_ Sheet.pdf
Same Peter Dunlop as post Castlemilk RD11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p4WwtE4j6A
Linked design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNS1_Ex0vhU
Peter Walker friend of Hamish and STD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-GrDPTHaw8
Fons caused Linn and Ariston much trouble at the time. They were a rave of the year it came out. I never saw one myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3snKq-Suf3U
Fons International Mk 1 (CQ-30) -- choosing a tonearm - Vinyl Engine
I think this is the nail in the coffin and as I suspected and why Linn broke up with Ariston. Fons was Hamish also and running side by side at the same time. What a nightmare partner. The STD I suspect was also him. The latter Ariston company was a sensible outfit including the great Ray Collins ( We called him 3, 2, 1, you have to be an older Brit to know that game show ). RD80 was good value when sorted out. Like a LP12 it didn't work out of the box. Unlike a LP12 it didn't cost much. It was a labour of love to sell. The square Systemdek did work out of the box. A wonderful piece of not like Thorens design. Peter Dunlop was so careful. He drove 2 Systemdek to Oxford to hand deliver ( 600 miles ? ). That was at £130 including tax retail. What a very nice man he was. Doubtless a few more also on the way. Ours were the last two in the car I think ?
Now something I didn't know. Colin Walker was the Linn distributor!! I am sure he would have said if I had asked. I suspect Castle having more money made them interested to force the LP12 to be recognised. Castle I saw in the late 1970's looked modern even if now. A submarine engine was being modified. A £50 000 job, but one off. As Ivor said " LP12 is our bread and butter ".
https://linnsondek.wordpress.com/
I think this is the nail in the coffin and as I suspected and why Linn broke up with Ariston. Fons was Hamish also and running side by side at the same time. What a nightmare partner. The STD I suspect was also him. The latter Ariston company was a sensible outfit including the great Ray Collins ( We called him 3, 2, 1, you have to be an older Brit to know that game show ). RD80 was good value when sorted out. Like a LP12 it didn't work out of the box. Unlike a LP12 it didn't cost much. It was a labour of love to sell. The square Systemdek did work out of the box. A wonderful piece of not like Thorens design. Peter Dunlop was so careful. He drove 2 Systemdek to Oxford to hand deliver ( 600 miles ? ). That was at £130 including tax retail. What a very nice man he was. Doubtless a few more also on the way. Ours were the last two in the car I think ?
Now something I didn't know. Colin Walker was the Linn distributor!! I am sure he would have said if I had asked. I suspect Castle having more money made them interested to force the LP12 to be recognised. Castle I saw in the late 1970's looked modern even if now. A submarine engine was being modified. A £50 000 job, but one off. As Ivor said " LP12 is our bread and butter ".
https://linnsondek.wordpress.com/
Last edited:
Nigel
Thank you for insight... but it is not clear to me when and how RD11s replaced quite different RD11? And... did Dunlop redesign of RD11s?
RD11s sub chassis was re engineered to take round armboard and is quite different compared to LP12 and RD11 sub chassis. RD11s plinth was also quite different as top plate was better supported by wooden parts as it was not hanging on empty next to armboard. This was considerable design change compared to not so tightly fitted top plate of LP12/RD11 you described earlier. As far as I understand bearing change occurred earlier during RD11 production... ie. late production RD11 modes did use same bearing that RD11s does have.
Can you make educated ques how many RD11 were made and timespan of RD11... and when RD11s appeared and how many were produced and when quite different RD11 Superieur replaced RD11s?
I suppose my RD11s does have RD11 sticker with serial number 007795 on top plate near platter bearing, as they did have RD11 stickers in stock and did not see any need to print correct RD11s stickers to replace older ones.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Thank you for insight... but it is not clear to me when and how RD11s replaced quite different RD11? And... did Dunlop redesign of RD11s?
RD11s sub chassis was re engineered to take round armboard and is quite different compared to LP12 and RD11 sub chassis. RD11s plinth was also quite different as top plate was better supported by wooden parts as it was not hanging on empty next to armboard. This was considerable design change compared to not so tightly fitted top plate of LP12/RD11 you described earlier. As far as I understand bearing change occurred earlier during RD11 production... ie. late production RD11 modes did use same bearing that RD11s does have.
Can you make educated ques how many RD11 were made and timespan of RD11... and when RD11s appeared and how many were produced and when quite different RD11 Superieur replaced RD11s?
I suppose my RD11s does have RD11 sticker with serial number 007795 on top plate near platter bearing, as they did have RD11 stickers in stock and did not see any need to print correct RD11s stickers to replace older ones.
Best Regards
Kimmo
I knew and liked both companies. Reading between the lines Hamish found the best company he could to make RD11. It was an unashamed 100 % copy of a TD150 with Jack Tiefenbrums bearing. Hamish very quickly got fed up with being told a very nice deck except the price. He refused to buy the last batch leaving it to Ivor to sort it out. I read that the Ariston company went into liquidation about then. The RD11S seems to be Peter Dunlop mostly. Without it's LP12 bearing it is more or less an exact TD150. The TD150 has one spring at the front that is not exactly where you would ideally put it ( discuss ). RD11, 11S, LP12 are TD150 clones and also have the spring wrongly placed ( makes it hard to set up , makes it stable when set ). If RD11 S is better on that I couldn't say as I don't have one to look at. Memory says about the same.
The only reason I went to this trouble is if anyone Throrens should be the ones saying how unfair. Linn had the money to continue. Under normal circumstances LP12 would have died as other decks were cheaper without the Linn being obviously better in the terms of the day. To be clear on another point. TD150 is not as good as RD111S. It is a little hard to understand as they are very alike. RD11S sounds different to LP12. I don't think the platters are the same and that might be part of it ( Mazak and Aluminium I guess ) . LP12 sounds quicker and like a Garrard 401 in style. RD 11S is somewhere between TD150 and LP12. TD150 is lovely, yet coloured. People who like modern turntables would say the same of LP12.
RD11S were often sold by dealers who could not get on with Linn or didn't want to. I suspect they sold 10 : 1 although RD11 S was perhaps 20% cheaper. Serial numbers seldom mean much. Some companies start a new 1000 number each year and then sell 120 decks. TD160's was real trouble to the RD11S. It was cheqaper and perhaps better. It came as best I know via K J in London. The LP12 history link I gave seems correct and fair. RD11 is an LP12. RD11S is a better TD150. The difference is RD11S uses a ball bearing thrust. Linn are the designers as the bearing is the only significant difference over TD150 in simple engineering terms. TD150 had less bracing. I suspect TD150 is only half the turntable it could be.
The loose LP12 wood is 25 % the suspension of an LP12 ( I quote them ) . Whilst I doubt it is a big deal I wouldn't rush to think it better if thicker wood is used. If you think about it they were and are good engineers. It was a choice. It's a minimal contact area.
At my best guess 300 RD11S were made 1971 to 1973 ( ? ). Of these only 180 were sold as RD11. It looks to me Hamish Robertson never was directly involved with RD11S altough it seems Fons CQ30 was sold from the same address at one time. My mind says Peter Dunlop was probably sold RD11 as LP12 . He choose to change it. Linn did have a patent pending for some years for the exact bearing spec. Perhaps that was enough to say time to change. I suspect if a special interface was made between the bearing shaft bottom and ball the LP12 advantage would vanish. A graphite disc comes to mind.
The only reason I went to this trouble is if anyone Throrens should be the ones saying how unfair. Linn had the money to continue. Under normal circumstances LP12 would have died as other decks were cheaper without the Linn being obviously better in the terms of the day. To be clear on another point. TD150 is not as good as RD111S. It is a little hard to understand as they are very alike. RD11S sounds different to LP12. I don't think the platters are the same and that might be part of it ( Mazak and Aluminium I guess ) . LP12 sounds quicker and like a Garrard 401 in style. RD 11S is somewhere between TD150 and LP12. TD150 is lovely, yet coloured. People who like modern turntables would say the same of LP12.
RD11S were often sold by dealers who could not get on with Linn or didn't want to. I suspect they sold 10 : 1 although RD11 S was perhaps 20% cheaper. Serial numbers seldom mean much. Some companies start a new 1000 number each year and then sell 120 decks. TD160's was real trouble to the RD11S. It was cheqaper and perhaps better. It came as best I know via K J in London. The LP12 history link I gave seems correct and fair. RD11 is an LP12. RD11S is a better TD150. The difference is RD11S uses a ball bearing thrust. Linn are the designers as the bearing is the only significant difference over TD150 in simple engineering terms. TD150 had less bracing. I suspect TD150 is only half the turntable it could be.
The loose LP12 wood is 25 % the suspension of an LP12 ( I quote them ) . Whilst I doubt it is a big deal I wouldn't rush to think it better if thicker wood is used. If you think about it they were and are good engineers. It was a choice. It's a minimal contact area.
At my best guess 300 RD11S were made 1971 to 1973 ( ? ). Of these only 180 were sold as RD11. It looks to me Hamish Robertson never was directly involved with RD11S altough it seems Fons CQ30 was sold from the same address at one time. My mind says Peter Dunlop was probably sold RD11 as LP12 . He choose to change it. Linn did have a patent pending for some years for the exact bearing spec. Perhaps that was enough to say time to change. I suspect if a special interface was made between the bearing shaft bottom and ball the LP12 advantage would vanish. A graphite disc comes to mind.
This is worth a read. The 1961 AR is the grandad of them all. Whatever you do don't junk the arm. With for example a Denon DL110 it is great and might work better than a low cost Rega arm.
BELT DRIVE TURNTABLE Philips Thorens Verdier Melco Micro Mercure NOTES DIY
BELT DRIVE TURNTABLE Philips Thorens Verdier Melco Micro Mercure NOTES DIY
Nanook
I have story about high current capability of amplifier. Last spring I did Armstrong 621 rebuilt, you can read it from here Armstrong 621 rebuild - Members Pictures - Speakers, Electronics, etc. - The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
When I received the amplifier, thermal switch was open all the time. This switch was supposed to short circuit 1 watt 47 ohm resistor between transformer secondary and diode bridge that powered 3300 uf/100V main reservoir cap. 47 ohm resistor protected 1A diodes from surge, when amplifier was powered up. If you think that there was 47 ohm 1 watt resistor in series to two 8 ohm speakers in parallel, max long term output was less than 100 mW, more than this was available on short term basis from 3300 uf main reservoir. Yet amplifier sounded OK with low volume. Of course there was no way to exceed available long term power, but 100 mW can deliver reasonable SPL with 90dB/1W speakers anyway. Moral of this a bit funny story is: Too much power or amperage is not needed for 80 dB SPL with fairly efficient speakers, but with difficult impedance in inefficient speaker nothing seems to be enough if your goal is high volume in large room.
Nigel
There is something fishy in your 1971-73 RD11s timeline. I am enclosing scan of Ariston RD11s vs. Pioneer PL-510 review in November 1976 issue of Swedish Hifi & Music. You may note that platter is different than in my RD11s, this one does have two rubber rings to support LP... how about 7" and 10" records? Your idea that manufacturing year was somehow coded in serial number would most likely mean, that 007795 serial number was made in 1977 if one or two first numbers indicate build date. If last number is the date code build year would be 1975. Motor seems to have 4179 date code, this would mean 1979 build date but motor may be replaced due failure. I must check if there are any date codes printed on spark or motor run caps, whenever I open the hood next time.
In Vinyl Engine was mentioned that RD11 Superieur was priced 350 GBP in 1983 and 1984 Hifi Choice. RD11s with SME3009S2 was priced 1900 SEK in 11/1976 issue of Hifi & Musik, LP12 was priced 1490 SEK and Grace G-707 was 585 SEK in the same magazine. So... RD11s was sold for slightly less money than LP12 in Sweden too.
It was a bit funny as you mentioned AR turntable. I actually have 3 pcs AR XB. Two fairly original ones and one that I replinthed in mid 80`s. I also installed Rega arm and replaced the original platter bearing with a bit tighter tolerance´d one. Original AR bearing was one sloppiest fitting I have ever witnessed. I ran immediately in troubles with tighter fitting bearing as spindle shaft was not true. It was straight enough for original bearing but not for tighter one. I managed to sort this one with luck, but I ques original tolerance´s were used to ease production. As far as I remember I used the original AR arm with cartridges like Pickering XSV-3000, Stanton 881S, Acutex M320-III and Entre EC-1. I suppose that the original arm was not too suitable for nice Japanese Entre MC and I decided to replace arm with Rega. It is difficult to tell was Rega the reason for improvement as I replaced bearing and plinth same time.
As I said earlier, I have not been too interested in turntables in the past 20 years, but this seems to be more and more interesting. I hope that you all feel same way.
Best Regards
Kimmo
I have story about high current capability of amplifier. Last spring I did Armstrong 621 rebuilt, you can read it from here Armstrong 621 rebuild - Members Pictures - Speakers, Electronics, etc. - The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
When I received the amplifier, thermal switch was open all the time. This switch was supposed to short circuit 1 watt 47 ohm resistor between transformer secondary and diode bridge that powered 3300 uf/100V main reservoir cap. 47 ohm resistor protected 1A diodes from surge, when amplifier was powered up. If you think that there was 47 ohm 1 watt resistor in series to two 8 ohm speakers in parallel, max long term output was less than 100 mW, more than this was available on short term basis from 3300 uf main reservoir. Yet amplifier sounded OK with low volume. Of course there was no way to exceed available long term power, but 100 mW can deliver reasonable SPL with 90dB/1W speakers anyway. Moral of this a bit funny story is: Too much power or amperage is not needed for 80 dB SPL with fairly efficient speakers, but with difficult impedance in inefficient speaker nothing seems to be enough if your goal is high volume in large room.
Nigel
There is something fishy in your 1971-73 RD11s timeline. I am enclosing scan of Ariston RD11s vs. Pioneer PL-510 review in November 1976 issue of Swedish Hifi & Music. You may note that platter is different than in my RD11s, this one does have two rubber rings to support LP... how about 7" and 10" records? Your idea that manufacturing year was somehow coded in serial number would most likely mean, that 007795 serial number was made in 1977 if one or two first numbers indicate build date. If last number is the date code build year would be 1975. Motor seems to have 4179 date code, this would mean 1979 build date but motor may be replaced due failure. I must check if there are any date codes printed on spark or motor run caps, whenever I open the hood next time.
In Vinyl Engine was mentioned that RD11 Superieur was priced 350 GBP in 1983 and 1984 Hifi Choice. RD11s with SME3009S2 was priced 1900 SEK in 11/1976 issue of Hifi & Musik, LP12 was priced 1490 SEK and Grace G-707 was 585 SEK in the same magazine. So... RD11s was sold for slightly less money than LP12 in Sweden too.
It was a bit funny as you mentioned AR turntable. I actually have 3 pcs AR XB. Two fairly original ones and one that I replinthed in mid 80`s. I also installed Rega arm and replaced the original platter bearing with a bit tighter tolerance´d one. Original AR bearing was one sloppiest fitting I have ever witnessed. I ran immediately in troubles with tighter fitting bearing as spindle shaft was not true. It was straight enough for original bearing but not for tighter one. I managed to sort this one with luck, but I ques original tolerance´s were used to ease production. As far as I remember I used the original AR arm with cartridges like Pickering XSV-3000, Stanton 881S, Acutex M320-III and Entre EC-1. I suppose that the original arm was not too suitable for nice Japanese Entre MC and I decided to replace arm with Rega. It is difficult to tell was Rega the reason for improvement as I replaced bearing and plinth same time.
As I said earlier, I have not been too interested in turntables in the past 20 years, but this seems to be more and more interesting. I hope that you all feel same way.
Best Regards
Kimmo
Attachments
Last edited:
I have a 625 Armstrong in the kitchen . My old boss Leslie Westwood sold the gentleman who made Armstrong his parts when an Oxford student. Armstrong was after the car he owned. I met him when the 700 series was introduced. A very nice design and very nice man, his designer came also.
I did see one of the original RD11 I think with o-rings. Most had been LP12 modified. 2 switch LP12's are rare. They are the rejected 100 RD11 remade. BTW. LP12's of that era have a concave top plate and it is correct. Bolts are bent down with a tool to get the bounce. The small wood parts encourage the concave .
One story you might all like. A student came to me with a very broken LP12 he thought was a bargain. It was almost a LP12 mk1. Everything that could be wrong was wrong and the guy who sold it took him for a ride. The bearing was ruined and the sound was truely awful. The point had a large rough area. LP12 never wear so this must remain a mystery. No oil most likely.
I did the job for nothing in my spare time using parts from upgraded decks. Tony Stenet the Linn rep caught me bashing the coffin plate sub chassis on the steps of the shop with a hammer. The shops plate glass window to see that it was right. The bearing was then bent into place with a Linn supplied gas pipe. Tony insisted I stopped and I insisted he should get lost. I got that deck 100 % perfect. 100 % and not 99%. That is as good as any LP12/RD11 that ever left the factory in 1975 lets say or earlier. Tony had to talk to Ivor about it. Ivor said if me he should let it go. That LP12 was supurb and was a snap shot of early days ( I made an exact mk1 as I was curious and it was the parts I could give for nothing ). A very powerful sound and in some ways a better sound. The armboard restored by using wood glue and matches. The new threads reinforced with superglue. I heard Tony became very rich and then left Linn. I gave him a very hard time as although I love LP12 I have no time for brainwashing.
Take what I say about the bearing to heart. There was no obvious rumble. It just sounded awful. Like bad CD I would say.
About Serial numbers. Some say 180 RD11/LP12 were sold 1971 to 1973. Ivor implied it was only 50 sold and he insisted 100 was a minimum number to continue. The 100 were built and no money arrived. Knowing what I do, that sounds right. So if true only 50 real RD11 were ever sold. I know my industry and that is very likely. Some say Ivor is too aggressive. I suspect without that he would have stopped making LP12 in lets say 1975. Castle engineering is very sucessful. It didn't need LP12. Ivor it seems did. For all that Ivor and Charlie met you at the factory front and had the main office. I suspect Jack wanted Ivor to learn how to run Castle. In the end Ivor floated away to the new factory. At the factory it said " Remember young mothers have to use these toilets " followed by a warning of what could happen. Ivor told me the North British Locomotive Works and the ship yards taught his staff. What Ivor didn't know they did. As Ivor said " Where in the world would you get this staff, with this training , at these wages "? " These guys can make an LP12 bearing as big as a house, to the same spec ". " They did when it was ships. "
I did see one of the original RD11 I think with o-rings. Most had been LP12 modified. 2 switch LP12's are rare. They are the rejected 100 RD11 remade. BTW. LP12's of that era have a concave top plate and it is correct. Bolts are bent down with a tool to get the bounce. The small wood parts encourage the concave .
One story you might all like. A student came to me with a very broken LP12 he thought was a bargain. It was almost a LP12 mk1. Everything that could be wrong was wrong and the guy who sold it took him for a ride. The bearing was ruined and the sound was truely awful. The point had a large rough area. LP12 never wear so this must remain a mystery. No oil most likely.
I did the job for nothing in my spare time using parts from upgraded decks. Tony Stenet the Linn rep caught me bashing the coffin plate sub chassis on the steps of the shop with a hammer. The shops plate glass window to see that it was right. The bearing was then bent into place with a Linn supplied gas pipe. Tony insisted I stopped and I insisted he should get lost. I got that deck 100 % perfect. 100 % and not 99%. That is as good as any LP12/RD11 that ever left the factory in 1975 lets say or earlier. Tony had to talk to Ivor about it. Ivor said if me he should let it go. That LP12 was supurb and was a snap shot of early days ( I made an exact mk1 as I was curious and it was the parts I could give for nothing ). A very powerful sound and in some ways a better sound. The armboard restored by using wood glue and matches. The new threads reinforced with superglue. I heard Tony became very rich and then left Linn. I gave him a very hard time as although I love LP12 I have no time for brainwashing.
Take what I say about the bearing to heart. There was no obvious rumble. It just sounded awful. Like bad CD I would say.
About Serial numbers. Some say 180 RD11/LP12 were sold 1971 to 1973. Ivor implied it was only 50 sold and he insisted 100 was a minimum number to continue. The 100 were built and no money arrived. Knowing what I do, that sounds right. So if true only 50 real RD11 were ever sold. I know my industry and that is very likely. Some say Ivor is too aggressive. I suspect without that he would have stopped making LP12 in lets say 1975. Castle engineering is very sucessful. It didn't need LP12. Ivor it seems did. For all that Ivor and Charlie met you at the factory front and had the main office. I suspect Jack wanted Ivor to learn how to run Castle. In the end Ivor floated away to the new factory. At the factory it said " Remember young mothers have to use these toilets " followed by a warning of what could happen. Ivor told me the North British Locomotive Works and the ship yards taught his staff. What Ivor didn't know they did. As Ivor said " Where in the world would you get this staff, with this training , at these wages "? " These guys can make an LP12 bearing as big as a house, to the same spec ". " They did when it was ships. "
Last edited:
Another old Ariston RD11s
I've recently acquired an ancient Ariston RD11s and have enjoyed reading through this thread. I've repainted the badly flaking plinth and have refurbed the main plate. It came with a Mission 774 arm as well! I've gotten a new set of Linn springs and will start reassembly later this week.
I've recently acquired an ancient Ariston RD11s and have enjoyed reading through this thread. I've repainted the badly flaking plinth and have refurbed the main plate. It came with a Mission 774 arm as well! I've gotten a new set of Linn springs and will start reassembly later this week.
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 notice your power supply is set up differently to mine. I wonder what the extra component is for? Looks like a resistor on the opposite side?
I suppose you can do wiring according to pictures of my RD11s. I do not remember exact value of green spark cap, but my quess would be something like 10-22nF... but anything between 10nF to 100nF rated for 275VAC mains operation should be fine. I suppose that the original one was not rated for mains operation like they use to be in the old days... usually caps for 1600 - 2000 V DC operation were used. However if replacement is needed anyway... why not use properly rated cap?
Best Regards
Kimmo
Best Regards
Kimmo
Blimey! It's been a while since I posted in this thread.
Happily, the advice gathered here has kept my beloved RD-11s running smoothly for a couple of years. However, I've recently picked up an old RD-90s, which isn't great, but it does work ok-ish, which means my RD-11s can finally get some rest and recuperation and some much needed TLC.
The first job I want to tackle is a new motor. The Origin Live kits look very tempting, but they are way beyond my limited pocket, so I was wondering if anyone here has any rather more cost effective suggestions for a motor upgrade on a RD11s?
Happily, the advice gathered here has kept my beloved RD-11s running smoothly for a couple of years. However, I've recently picked up an old RD-90s, which isn't great, but it does work ok-ish, which means my RD-11s can finally get some rest and recuperation and some much needed TLC.
The first job I want to tackle is a new motor. The Origin Live kits look very tempting, but they are way beyond my limited pocket, so I was wondering if anyone here has any rather more cost effective suggestions for a motor upgrade on a RD11s?
I'm sure you're right. And it does indeed work. However, it doesn't sound happy. It makes what I can only describe as a cogging noise. Given its age - I believe it's the original motor - I suspect it might be time to start considering a replacement.
Bear with me here RCruz, because you're dealing with a simple soul. By angle capacitor you're referring to a motor capacitor and not the power capacitor?
The reason I ask is that I changed the power capacitor to cure a significant motor vibration that was evident when the turntable was plugged into the mains, but not switched on. This is the capacitor which I believe is there to prevent an audible pop when the unit is switched on. I assume you don't mean this one? I'd hate to think I created this problem myself...
The reason I ask is that I changed the power capacitor to cure a significant motor vibration that was evident when the turntable was plugged into the mains, but not switched on. This is the capacitor which I believe is there to prevent an audible pop when the unit is switched on. I assume you don't mean this one? I'd hate to think I created this problem myself...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.