Of course, we're discussing a turntable that was nearly 30 years old when you got it. The problem is that the idler wheel rubber material was the same age. You can clean it up and improve the traction, but time has taken its toll, making all the rubber stiffer and drier, and therefore transferring more vibration from the motor. Same holds true for the motor mounts. I would expect a lot of failure in glue joints as well. When they were new, these Duals were pretty quiet by any standard. Not belt drive quiet, but you only heard something when you had it cranked really loud and the stylus was on silent grooves.
You can't go wrong with either one!
A/B testing, side by side, I preferred the 1019. Both tables had the same model cartridge stylii combo. 1019 was lightly better at 3 d imaging. That short fat tonearm sounds amazing to my ears!
A few things though. If you can live without the built in strobe, the 1219 has an all metal headshell while the 1229 is connected to the toneaarm with plastic. I prefer the metal of the 1219 and the bling of the chrome trim ring on the 1219's platter! Also, the original 1019 cartridge mounts (sled) are more trouble some than the 12XX series mounts. I do see a seller on ebay making new 1019 mounts with spring contacts, so that should make the 2 mounts equal in that respect.
Please don't listen to the Naysayers about idler wheel rumble! They probably never had the pleasure of hearing an idler drive table!! If the motor mounts and idler wheel are supple, round, and working as new, rumble is a non issue.
All the best,
Dominic
A/B testing, side by side, I preferred the 1019. Both tables had the same model cartridge stylii combo. 1019 was lightly better at 3 d imaging. That short fat tonearm sounds amazing to my ears!
A few things though. If you can live without the built in strobe, the 1219 has an all metal headshell while the 1229 is connected to the toneaarm with plastic. I prefer the metal of the 1219 and the bling of the chrome trim ring on the 1219's platter! Also, the original 1019 cartridge mounts (sled) are more trouble some than the 12XX series mounts. I do see a seller on ebay making new 1019 mounts with spring contacts, so that should make the 2 mounts equal in that respect.
Please don't listen to the Naysayers about idler wheel rumble! They probably never had the pleasure of hearing an idler drive table!! If the motor mounts and idler wheel are supple, round, and working as new, rumble is a non issue.
All the best,
Dominic
1229 has a very good arm. This makes them the bargain idler drive now that everyone has woken up to the Lenco's. People like me think that many idler drives can out perform belt drives at any price. With care the rumble can be brought down to cutting lathe levels.
An idler mixes the advantage of direct drive with more pole intervals per revolution due to gearing effect. The cogging if a hysteresis motor is minimal.
My experience with 1229 was in Tandburg ( spelling ) music centres . When I was 18 I won a prize from Tandburg for detecting an overload problem with the factory fitted Shure M44-7 in 1229. Once cured the sound was fantastic. The amp and FM also. Wish I had one now as it was so compact. The Shure is a superb pick up and would suit 1229. Many will never know as it needs a bespoke preamp. As good as a Decca London and better than almost any other Shure. I intend one day to have a posh stylus fitted to one. Stereo separation is about 20 dB which is fine in reality. Output at 10 mV is not always ideal. Loading > 68K I would say.
An idler mixes the advantage of direct drive with more pole intervals per revolution due to gearing effect. The cogging if a hysteresis motor is minimal.
My experience with 1229 was in Tandburg ( spelling ) music centres . When I was 18 I won a prize from Tandburg for detecting an overload problem with the factory fitted Shure M44-7 in 1229. Once cured the sound was fantastic. The amp and FM also. Wish I had one now as it was so compact. The Shure is a superb pick up and would suit 1229. Many will never know as it needs a bespoke preamp. As good as a Decca London and better than almost any other Shure. I intend one day to have a posh stylus fitted to one. Stereo separation is about 20 dB which is fine in reality. Output at 10 mV is not always ideal. Loading > 68K I would say.
It's not quite that simple. Most things have ideal gain. Worth saying as some will try to see if they can do better ( you should ). If overload margin is about >30 dB you are right. Even so it can be worth finding out. In fact you will find this is universally true and has almost nothing to do with overload margin these days. It will be the law of you volume control mostly. Again many are better than they were. The 68 K loading matters. Higher if you can if the pre amp is OK with it. A slight tweak of 75 uS to suit. 10 pence to paradise 0 pence to mediocre. Your choice. One up grade I can mention is quality of this loading resistor. I have no idea why it matters as down stream it seems not to. I only know this as a famous PU maker sent me some to fit and insisted they would be better. It was for his friend. Tyco foil types. I was very surprised. I have graphs and they tell me nothing or very little.
Back to gain. If matching a CD to an amp I suspect it is less critical, technically certainly so as there should be no unwanted spectrum ( I know ) . Turntables often do give far more when gain it correct. It is well worth the effort. Some will spot it more than others. It's like a TV correctly set up as my best analogy.
I often use a Shure 44 -7 into my MC preamp designs. They sound OK considering the wicked overload that should be happening. I put it down to the way the circuit recovers etc. Far more complex than is thought. Exaggerated scratches is the first sign of a troubled pre amp.
Back to gain. If matching a CD to an amp I suspect it is less critical, technically certainly so as there should be no unwanted spectrum ( I know ) . Turntables often do give far more when gain it correct. It is well worth the effort. Some will spot it more than others. It's like a TV correctly set up as my best analogy.
I often use a Shure 44 -7 into my MC preamp designs. They sound OK considering the wicked overload that should be happening. I put it down to the way the circuit recovers etc. Far more complex than is thought. Exaggerated scratches is the first sign of a troubled pre amp.
well not much money gets you 25dB overload NAD PP 3 digital phono preamplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com. Really not sure about the rest of your arguments. It's obvious if your gain budget is completely screwed then you will have suboptimal performance but Phono stages are no different from anything else in a system.
I was advocating self build. Whilst about it, think of what I said that everything has an ideal level.
Starting with the power amp configure for 500 mV sensitivity. That should make the pre amp design easier. It could sound better as the power amp loop gain will be higher which usually means more stable for the VAS cap chosen. If the distortion went from 0.0005 to 0.001 % I can live with that.
If the input resistor can be bootstrapped ( from feedback LTP base 2 ) the input impedance might be raised to 100K with no noise penalty. I am guessing 2 x 5K could be used. Used 10 K as upper feedback arm if so to get balance, 180 R bottom arm if 100 watts 8 R ( gain of 56 ). Use 2SA1085 inputs to keep noise low.
This means a simple passive preamp ( volume control ) can be used. They have near infinite overload marge. 10 K log looks about ideal.
Next a number of buffers with variable gain. One CD input straight to the volume control.
For phono I would have a variable gain control. Two end stop resistors to set max and min. Have passive 75 uS with EQ options ( 25 to 100 uS ) in this first stage. The 3180/318 uS active with fixed gain of about 17 at 1 kHz. My friend has a spare RCA next to phono in for his loading options. Cheap and excellent.
25 dB overload in the old days would have been seen as a failure. And 53 db a result. That's a bit daft. 32 dB is not hard to arrive at. If a really weird idea of a boosted op amp was used the sky is the limit. I tried it once and saw problems. It is an op amp running double voltage using the music to control the voltage difference across the op amp. Thus a NE 5534 might survive +/- 38 V rails. One can do it by building the second stage with a mini power amp. I dare say a real power amp chip held in class A would be fine. A 30 mA CCS to V- should work. There you are a Guinness book of records phono stage for a beer budget. Try +/- 50 v rails if so with +/- 10 V to op- amp 1 ? The record is 53 dB held by Technics. It is all active if I remember. If you do that strictly MC then a double inverting stage can be made with no real problems . The 75 uS in upper feedback arm and 100 R input resistor into virtual earth input of op amp -ve input.
Let me give you a real rife version of this. A tax law came out for 1.8 litre engines. BMW in haste put together a Reps special as it was company car laws. The 518. Not the 6 cylinder 2 litre of the 520. The 1.8 of the 318. Much loved and bought by many. The problem was some very ordinary cars were faster. Over the year 2 seconds was shaved of the 0 to 60 time and it used less fuel. Nothing dramatic was done. All it took was getting the gear ratios correct. The more seamless overlaps reduced fuel use also.The car apart from 4 cylinder vibration was the better 5 as handling was impeccable as the power was not able to expose chassis problems.
What you are saying to me seems very lazy or worse. Design with op amps is far easier than the old days. Almost Lego. For someone with time to devote the ideal gain and loading can be found.
In my work we built a £15 000 transcription turntable for Masterpiece in London. Mostly to transcribe 78's. The Shure was the easier choice as Expert make 78 styli for it. Andy bought the really ancient styli for acoustic 78's also . The arm was SME series 5. I suspect that was because he could afford it. The Shure had it's supplied 0.7 LP stylus. The sound unbelievable. I built the EQ device which was valve ( EF 86 shunt feedback PU gain , EF 86 EQ stage with high Z anode output ) . Mostly a rebuilt Leak Varislope with a 2 x 2 transistor buffer with bootstrap to run the mixing desk.
The Quad 33 has an overload figure of 40 mV on M1 ( 1 kHz Quad book with the 33 ) . The Quad was thought of as a joke. Using a Denon DL110 that's still >27 dB. If you own a 33 that's the sweet spot found. I dare say 44-7 into M2 would be OK. The DL110 will make you use full volume control at times. What it avoids is the Quad sound most people have. That is enclosed and a bit grim. Strangely the DL110 45 kHz bandwidth doesn't trouble the Quad when level was right. Quad were aware of this and provided a whole unpopulated section S1 to make your own. The 33 was panned in the press and rightly so. The valve version not as wonderful as some think either.
Douglas Self pointed out that PU's like 44-7 have the highest dynamic range regardless of type. If the HF is not squashed by too low loading ( 68 K was the old standard) and pre amp set up right it will sing.
As a rule of thumb with a modern preamp 6 db excess gain sounds about right. This allows under recorded stuff ( DGG ) to work better.
If you like BBC Radio 3 that needs 12 dB over again usually.
CD is well set to 500 mV usually. My power amp I recently made is 620 mV. That was the best it could give with low distortion ( SE valve ). That was excellent. The original design 5% THD and 2.5 V in ( a design with many followers ). Mine 1 % THD and nicer type 620 mV and same number of valves (2) and 8 watts. It was done with bootstrapping.
You know sub optimal is the other F1 cars. They all look about right. Williams should be given the title on money spent basis. Now that's how to do it.
So a 1229 M44-7 and a preamp of careful design might rival the silly money turntables. I would build is a skeleton plinth from MDF or Maple ( not Marble ) . Trim the spring dampers ( guess like latter Dual ) to have a bit of movement. Set tracking weight to upper range of Shure advice. If a 44 E is fitted it will sound different and might even sound dull. There was a 44-5 for stereo only I seem to remember. Expert make them I think ?
I would guess Goldring 1042 the very best match. That fits the standard model preamp design so means the quality of the preamp the only question. It is a PU that works with anything so can be used over and over. Lenco GL 75 arm even. Would think a OK match with Quad 33. Personally I would build the S1 card up for that. Sadly when Quad really was Quad they would have said how. Maybe they still can.
Starting with the power amp configure for 500 mV sensitivity. That should make the pre amp design easier. It could sound better as the power amp loop gain will be higher which usually means more stable for the VAS cap chosen. If the distortion went from 0.0005 to 0.001 % I can live with that.
If the input resistor can be bootstrapped ( from feedback LTP base 2 ) the input impedance might be raised to 100K with no noise penalty. I am guessing 2 x 5K could be used. Used 10 K as upper feedback arm if so to get balance, 180 R bottom arm if 100 watts 8 R ( gain of 56 ). Use 2SA1085 inputs to keep noise low.
This means a simple passive preamp ( volume control ) can be used. They have near infinite overload marge. 10 K log looks about ideal.
Next a number of buffers with variable gain. One CD input straight to the volume control.
For phono I would have a variable gain control. Two end stop resistors to set max and min. Have passive 75 uS with EQ options ( 25 to 100 uS ) in this first stage. The 3180/318 uS active with fixed gain of about 17 at 1 kHz. My friend has a spare RCA next to phono in for his loading options. Cheap and excellent.
25 dB overload in the old days would have been seen as a failure. And 53 db a result. That's a bit daft. 32 dB is not hard to arrive at. If a really weird idea of a boosted op amp was used the sky is the limit. I tried it once and saw problems. It is an op amp running double voltage using the music to control the voltage difference across the op amp. Thus a NE 5534 might survive +/- 38 V rails. One can do it by building the second stage with a mini power amp. I dare say a real power amp chip held in class A would be fine. A 30 mA CCS to V- should work. There you are a Guinness book of records phono stage for a beer budget. Try +/- 50 v rails if so with +/- 10 V to op- amp 1 ? The record is 53 dB held by Technics. It is all active if I remember. If you do that strictly MC then a double inverting stage can be made with no real problems . The 75 uS in upper feedback arm and 100 R input resistor into virtual earth input of op amp -ve input.
Let me give you a real rife version of this. A tax law came out for 1.8 litre engines. BMW in haste put together a Reps special as it was company car laws. The 518. Not the 6 cylinder 2 litre of the 520. The 1.8 of the 318. Much loved and bought by many. The problem was some very ordinary cars were faster. Over the year 2 seconds was shaved of the 0 to 60 time and it used less fuel. Nothing dramatic was done. All it took was getting the gear ratios correct. The more seamless overlaps reduced fuel use also.The car apart from 4 cylinder vibration was the better 5 as handling was impeccable as the power was not able to expose chassis problems.
What you are saying to me seems very lazy or worse. Design with op amps is far easier than the old days. Almost Lego. For someone with time to devote the ideal gain and loading can be found.
In my work we built a £15 000 transcription turntable for Masterpiece in London. Mostly to transcribe 78's. The Shure was the easier choice as Expert make 78 styli for it. Andy bought the really ancient styli for acoustic 78's also . The arm was SME series 5. I suspect that was because he could afford it. The Shure had it's supplied 0.7 LP stylus. The sound unbelievable. I built the EQ device which was valve ( EF 86 shunt feedback PU gain , EF 86 EQ stage with high Z anode output ) . Mostly a rebuilt Leak Varislope with a 2 x 2 transistor buffer with bootstrap to run the mixing desk.
The Quad 33 has an overload figure of 40 mV on M1 ( 1 kHz Quad book with the 33 ) . The Quad was thought of as a joke. Using a Denon DL110 that's still >27 dB. If you own a 33 that's the sweet spot found. I dare say 44-7 into M2 would be OK. The DL110 will make you use full volume control at times. What it avoids is the Quad sound most people have. That is enclosed and a bit grim. Strangely the DL110 45 kHz bandwidth doesn't trouble the Quad when level was right. Quad were aware of this and provided a whole unpopulated section S1 to make your own. The 33 was panned in the press and rightly so. The valve version not as wonderful as some think either.
Douglas Self pointed out that PU's like 44-7 have the highest dynamic range regardless of type. If the HF is not squashed by too low loading ( 68 K was the old standard) and pre amp set up right it will sing.
As a rule of thumb with a modern preamp 6 db excess gain sounds about right. This allows under recorded stuff ( DGG ) to work better.
If you like BBC Radio 3 that needs 12 dB over again usually.
CD is well set to 500 mV usually. My power amp I recently made is 620 mV. That was the best it could give with low distortion ( SE valve ). That was excellent. The original design 5% THD and 2.5 V in ( a design with many followers ). Mine 1 % THD and nicer type 620 mV and same number of valves (2) and 8 watts. It was done with bootstrapping.
You know sub optimal is the other F1 cars. They all look about right. Williams should be given the title on money spent basis. Now that's how to do it.
So a 1229 M44-7 and a preamp of careful design might rival the silly money turntables. I would build is a skeleton plinth from MDF or Maple ( not Marble ) . Trim the spring dampers ( guess like latter Dual ) to have a bit of movement. Set tracking weight to upper range of Shure advice. If a 44 E is fitted it will sound different and might even sound dull. There was a 44-5 for stereo only I seem to remember. Expert make them I think ?
I would guess Goldring 1042 the very best match. That fits the standard model preamp design so means the quality of the preamp the only question. It is a PU that works with anything so can be used over and over. Lenco GL 75 arm even. Would think a OK match with Quad 33. Personally I would build the S1 card up for that. Sadly when Quad really was Quad they would have said how. Maybe they still can.
It's hard to understand the wisdom you are trying to impart here other than you like DJ scratching cartridges.
I prefer to normalise to the CD 2V RMS levels for the power amp. My current phono stage runs at the same levels so I don't have to swing the volume around much between CD and vinyl. 1V if you want an extra 6dB headroom and don't want to put that in the preamp. I don't have any vintage stuff that needs line gain anymore.
What is more interesting to me is the conjecture I need to test that a number of bodies can use the same stylus assemblies with minor modifications to the plastic. I have lined up ready to test an M55, M75 and A&R P77. If the theory tests correctly you can compare all 3 with the same stylus. Now that is an interesting area to explore,
I prefer to normalise to the CD 2V RMS levels for the power amp. My current phono stage runs at the same levels so I don't have to swing the volume around much between CD and vinyl. 1V if you want an extra 6dB headroom and don't want to put that in the preamp. I don't have any vintage stuff that needs line gain anymore.
What is more interesting to me is the conjecture I need to test that a number of bodies can use the same stylus assemblies with minor modifications to the plastic. I have lined up ready to test an M55, M75 and A&R P77. If the theory tests correctly you can compare all 3 with the same stylus. Now that is an interesting area to explore,
Well 2V CD to me is a little low. Many CD's " were " recorded at - 20 dB. If the amplifier is 500 watts then you will have no problem at 2 V and will be a wise precaution. With my valve amp that means 0.8 watts output at full volume if 2 V . I would imagine although I have not measured it for years that CD is typically peaking at - 6dB. 0VU is bad news in digital systems. In fact analogue master-tapes aid CD transfer as the engineer can try a number of takes. Same thing exactly as saying here about amp matching. Exact level matters. Call it digital saturation if you like in this example. Denon did a fantastic test CD of this. It is a very big deal and completely out of our control.
The P77 is interesting. It is exactly the tip I would like for the M44. It is an Expert Styli tip.
The old Rotel RCD 965 is a great CD player. It has low output. It is strange how washed out it sounds when not matched to the amp.
The main thing I am trying to say is now that cartridges are expensive ( 1042 ) don't throw the Shure away and perhaps put two fingers up to the experts. The scratching PU's if Stanton are sublime devices. The Ortofons not bad. Rega Carbon looks very nice ( AT91 I suspect ). Should be ideal for a 1229 and all preamps within reason. A little low on output for the Leak Varislope.
BTW. If you have two volume controls you can have the very best of all things. That is standard power amp gain and then relaxed loop for extra gain when required ( helps everyone to have that and keeps it simple ). The advantage is as the gain increases the amplifier actually becomes more stable. The sound will be more grungy at high volume as mostly our ears are giving up rather than any superhuman ability to hear what the amp is doing. The bass will get more old fashioned and that will be very nice. Volume two should go from 10 to 11. You could even have - gain to make the amp super low distortion if verified with spectrum analyzer that the stability is still OK. I doubt that would be my choice. FET amps using Exicon FET's in the Hitachi circuit might be OK doing that. I had a Hitachi 100 watt amp with gain of 10 to 100. It was fine. The 10 was driving a motor. Standard gain was 34. The - gain might suit if using >100 dB / watt speakers like Klipsche to keep hiss down.
The P77 is interesting. It is exactly the tip I would like for the M44. It is an Expert Styli tip.
The old Rotel RCD 965 is a great CD player. It has low output. It is strange how washed out it sounds when not matched to the amp.
The main thing I am trying to say is now that cartridges are expensive ( 1042 ) don't throw the Shure away and perhaps put two fingers up to the experts. The scratching PU's if Stanton are sublime devices. The Ortofons not bad. Rega Carbon looks very nice ( AT91 I suspect ). Should be ideal for a 1229 and all preamps within reason. A little low on output for the Leak Varislope.
BTW. If you have two volume controls you can have the very best of all things. That is standard power amp gain and then relaxed loop for extra gain when required ( helps everyone to have that and keeps it simple ). The advantage is as the gain increases the amplifier actually becomes more stable. The sound will be more grungy at high volume as mostly our ears are giving up rather than any superhuman ability to hear what the amp is doing. The bass will get more old fashioned and that will be very nice. Volume two should go from 10 to 11. You could even have - gain to make the amp super low distortion if verified with spectrum analyzer that the stability is still OK. I doubt that would be my choice. FET amps using Exicon FET's in the Hitachi circuit might be OK doing that. I had a Hitachi 100 watt amp with gain of 10 to 100. It was fine. The 10 was driving a motor. Standard gain was 34. The - gain might suit if using >100 dB / watt speakers like Klipsche to keep hiss down.
If you develop even a passing curiosity is this try an experiment. Build your circuit using chip holders. Get rid of them later if convinced it matters ( I'm not ). Try various chips and gains.
See if you find what I do. Op amps sound great at unity gain. It is possible better than original as the wire now has a low impedance source. I don't doubt it for one minute it could be identical and yet better. That is 90 % of the time hard to say and 10 % the current available can be heard. Now try gain from 2 to 10 ( match volume if you can ) . Often if me I find ones I don't like at these gains.
Some older op amps had external compensation. If my conjecture is right all options can be made to sound excellent when like that.
NE5534 is said by many to be a pile of junk. It is not unity gain stable but does have comp pins ( rule of thumb 10 is it's minimum stable gain, even then not always ). My feeling is people who strongly dislike 5534 never used test gear to check it was working correctly. It oscillates at the drop of a hat. I suspect with correct compensation fitted it can do any gain level.
The reason I suspect this is true is most op amp manufactures go for unity gain stability. In doing this they loose a little performance. MM might need a gain of 4 on stage one. That is a bad thing if so. I can hear it. Give it a gain of 10 and pot it down.
Hopefully this link opens. I tend to prefer passive first active 3180/318 stage. Otherwise all is true. Mr Self points out ( maybe here ) that the noise floor sets the dynamic range. 10 mV helps even 5534 give it's best. Few devices are much quieter in a way that matters. The 5534 comp pins can be used to add external transistors. The input transistors can be switched off to get very low noise. Other op amps can not do this in general. Seems it won't, this is what I typed. Douglas Self on high output PU.
See if you find what I do. Op amps sound great at unity gain. It is possible better than original as the wire now has a low impedance source. I don't doubt it for one minute it could be identical and yet better. That is 90 % of the time hard to say and 10 % the current available can be heard. Now try gain from 2 to 10 ( match volume if you can ) . Often if me I find ones I don't like at these gains.
Some older op amps had external compensation. If my conjecture is right all options can be made to sound excellent when like that.
NE5534 is said by many to be a pile of junk. It is not unity gain stable but does have comp pins ( rule of thumb 10 is it's minimum stable gain, even then not always ). My feeling is people who strongly dislike 5534 never used test gear to check it was working correctly. It oscillates at the drop of a hat. I suspect with correct compensation fitted it can do any gain level.
The reason I suspect this is true is most op amp manufactures go for unity gain stability. In doing this they loose a little performance. MM might need a gain of 4 on stage one. That is a bad thing if so. I can hear it. Give it a gain of 10 and pot it down.
Hopefully this link opens. I tend to prefer passive first active 3180/318 stage. Otherwise all is true. Mr Self points out ( maybe here ) that the noise floor sets the dynamic range. 10 mV helps even 5534 give it's best. Few devices are much quieter in a way that matters. The 5534 comp pins can be used to add external transistors. The input transistors can be switched off to get very low noise. Other op amps can not do this in general. Seems it won't, this is what I typed. Douglas Self on high output PU.
Last edited:
and many are much higher Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL -20dBFS average level with a decent dynamic range does happen.
I've build plenty of phono stages, valve, transistor and opamp. Currently using an ebay cheapy DPA (thick film hybrid opamps) until I decide what to build next. but for now enjoying the music too much.
I like the idea of the thick film. I tried to get a thread going on a SMD op amp that could stand +/- 50 V if wanted. It could have dumpers added if to be a power amp. No takers and to be honest the interest has passed. One version I did build as a power amp was unity gain stable. That is important as if I ever finish my OB speakers it has active EQ wrapped around the amp.
I am building all passive phono stage. The input impedance is so high to stage two it might just work. Ones I built in the past were not to my liking.
Back to the Dual 1229. And Shure if fitted. The crime is so many turntables are rejected because no one really researches them. When working well they can surprise. There is plenty of info on the usual stuff. Not very much on rather excellent humble stuff. I say this without any exaggeration this Dual is much like the VW Beetle. Without much extra work it becomes the Porsche. I have driven a Beetle with standard engine and Porsche parts. It was totally excellent and better than many Porsche I feel ( time to think if nothing else). These humble Dual's have it in them to shine.
I am building all passive phono stage. The input impedance is so high to stage two it might just work. Ones I built in the past were not to my liking.
Back to the Dual 1229. And Shure if fitted. The crime is so many turntables are rejected because no one really researches them. When working well they can surprise. There is plenty of info on the usual stuff. Not very much on rather excellent humble stuff. I say this without any exaggeration this Dual is much like the VW Beetle. Without much extra work it becomes the Porsche. I have driven a Beetle with standard engine and Porsche parts. It was totally excellent and better than many Porsche I feel ( time to think if nothing else). These humble Dual's have it in them to shine.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.