Re Turntables:
AR invented the subchassis design while Thorens invented direct drive in the '30s but never implemented it except very much later on on two or three models which were re-badged EMT tables.
Goldmund/Lenco invented belt drive but equally didn't implement it, sticking with idler wheels.
The Linn LP12 was a bolt-for-bolt copy of a Thorens deleted the year before Linn started selling theirs. Pretty much all Linn parts except the arm board were directly exchangeable with the deleted Thorens but unlike Linn they used better springs which allowed the use of the heavy Dynavector arm.
AR invented the subchassis design while Thorens invented direct drive in the '30s but never implemented it except very much later on on two or three models which were re-badged EMT tables.
Goldmund/Lenco invented belt drive but equally didn't implement it, sticking with idler wheels.
The Linn LP12 was a bolt-for-bolt copy of a Thorens deleted the year before Linn started selling theirs. Pretty much all Linn parts except the arm board were directly exchangeable with the deleted Thorens but unlike Linn they used better springs which allowed the use of the heavy Dynavector arm.
Lenco seems to have a bit of cult about it these days. The Lenco guys I know are adamant that tables like mine (VPI) or John's (Linn) are junk, incapable of properly reproducing music. Their setups do sound quite good, better than I would expect from a rim drive, but I haven't been able to do a side by side comparison, and I suspect that the objective flaws of a rim drive might become more evident in that kind of listening test. But who knows, maybe they're right and the rest of us are wrong. 
Personally I never understood the obsession with idler wheels either.
If I could have any TT I'd go for a EMT 950 Widebody in BBC spec.
They are almost affordable now that they are 20-30 years old and they can be had for £2000+. When new they cost about as much as a comfortable London family home.
If I could have any TT I'd go for a EMT 950 Widebody in BBC spec.
They are almost affordable now that they are 20-30 years old and they can be had for £2000+. When new they cost about as much as a comfortable London family home.
Perfect turntable
I was once asked to describe the perfect turntable concept . My answer was to buy a windmill or lighthouse as a starting point ( if only ..... ) . I calculated that a bobbin of fishing nylon wound around the typical 10 mm diameter centre bearing would need to be the height of a lighthouse as a gravity drive . It would have a quick rewind when changing LP sides . Even if impractical it is good to have a definitive answer to work from .
Apparently some 78 cutting lathes were done this way .
On a turntable I made I had to get a motor built . It was studded at Greenwich University and was recommended for patent ( it got they guy his degree ) . All I will say is it is an induction motor and has very low noise bearings and massive power compared with a Linn ( 28 times used at 7 times ) . It is run from a 150 watt power amplifier of 0.006% distrotion at 52 Hz ( only because that part was easy so why not do it well ) . The amplifier seldom using more that 50 W . I went on to use that amplifier for music so developed it to do both jobs .
Mostly all other aspects of turntable design have been perfected . Many versions exist of how to do it .
A Platine Verdier with lighthouse drive would be nearly perfect . A magnetic brake used to speed regulate and damp the system .
The Lenco's problem is the idler is almost under the stylus . On the rim is easier . Lenco's do sound good .
In amplifiers life is easy . Class A exists so no lighthouses required . Class B , C , D , G , H are other choices .
If asking my design was mechanical class B ( analogy ) .
I was once asked to describe the perfect turntable concept . My answer was to buy a windmill or lighthouse as a starting point ( if only ..... ) . I calculated that a bobbin of fishing nylon wound around the typical 10 mm diameter centre bearing would need to be the height of a lighthouse as a gravity drive . It would have a quick rewind when changing LP sides . Even if impractical it is good to have a definitive answer to work from .
Apparently some 78 cutting lathes were done this way .
On a turntable I made I had to get a motor built . It was studded at Greenwich University and was recommended for patent ( it got they guy his degree ) . All I will say is it is an induction motor and has very low noise bearings and massive power compared with a Linn ( 28 times used at 7 times ) . It is run from a 150 watt power amplifier of 0.006% distrotion at 52 Hz ( only because that part was easy so why not do it well ) . The amplifier seldom using more that 50 W . I went on to use that amplifier for music so developed it to do both jobs .
Mostly all other aspects of turntable design have been perfected . Many versions exist of how to do it .
A Platine Verdier with lighthouse drive would be nearly perfect . A magnetic brake used to speed regulate and damp the system .
The Lenco's problem is the idler is almost under the stylus . On the rim is easier . Lenco's do sound good .
In amplifiers life is easy . Class A exists so no lighthouses required . Class B , C , D , G , H are other choices .
If asking my design was mechanical class B ( analogy ) .
Last edited:
Lenco seems to have a bit of cult about it these days. The Lenco guys I know are adamant that tables like mine (VPI) or John's (Linn) are junk, incapable of properly reproducing music. Their setups do sound quite good, better than I would expect from a rim drive, but I haven't been able to do a side by side comparison, and I suspect that the objective flaws of a rim drive might become more evident in that kind of listening test. But who knows, maybe they're right and the rest of us are wrong.
My observation also .......
ARX . Good enough for any music lover .
One funny thing the designer of the AR turntables said is he wouldn't know how to get his turntable to image . He didn't have to because it did .
Simply put he is right about it isolating . A vertical bounce is important on an ARX . (We always call his turntable ARX , not sure if it is correct ) .
I think Ed Villchur underestimated the friction forces on the stylus . That's all
Frenchman Verdier hypothesized that if a bearing has drag and the force required to defeat drag is 10 times that of anything the stylus might cause , then the system should not have dynamic wow . Dynamic wow if it exists at all , that is ( like TID it is controversial ) . Perhaps ARX does have dynamic wow ? Linn and Thorens are clones as are practically all other turntables .
Forgive me Mr Verdier if I misquote you . That's what I understood all those years ago you said .
Verdier pointed out that drag and magnetic damping are not friction .
Garrard bearings have a big drag problem . It takes 15 minutes to come to speed . Maybe that's the secret ?
Technics has high frequency dynamic wow problems to my ears . Not enough pole pieces per revolution . It is not very good as a cutting lathe motor I would say if music has pace ( used as motor replacement by some ) . A Sculley cutting lathe makes an ideal turntable . I have to say it , the better turntables are built like cutting lathes . The Lenco is not bad if looked at from that point of view .
I only say about the Technics as some would say it to be perfect . It is in many ways . Denon direct drives are probably better as they run their stepper motors on AC and had the patent for that . Strange how paying royalties stops intelligent design . The Garrard 201 made before 1939 was virtually identical to a Technics SP 10 except having mechanical speed control . The 201 is fancied to be superior and was AC drive .
One funny thing the designer of the AR turntables said is he wouldn't know how to get his turntable to image . He didn't have to because it did .
Simply put he is right about it isolating . A vertical bounce is important on an ARX . (We always call his turntable ARX , not sure if it is correct ) .
I think Ed Villchur underestimated the friction forces on the stylus . That's all
Frenchman Verdier hypothesized that if a bearing has drag and the force required to defeat drag is 10 times that of anything the stylus might cause , then the system should not have dynamic wow . Dynamic wow if it exists at all , that is ( like TID it is controversial ) . Perhaps ARX does have dynamic wow ? Linn and Thorens are clones as are practically all other turntables .
Forgive me Mr Verdier if I misquote you . That's what I understood all those years ago you said .
Verdier pointed out that drag and magnetic damping are not friction .
Garrard bearings have a big drag problem . It takes 15 minutes to come to speed . Maybe that's the secret ?
Technics has high frequency dynamic wow problems to my ears . Not enough pole pieces per revolution . It is not very good as a cutting lathe motor I would say if music has pace ( used as motor replacement by some ) . A Sculley cutting lathe makes an ideal turntable . I have to say it , the better turntables are built like cutting lathes . The Lenco is not bad if looked at from that point of view .
I only say about the Technics as some would say it to be perfect . It is in many ways . Denon direct drives are probably better as they run their stepper motors on AC and had the patent for that . Strange how paying royalties stops intelligent design . The Garrard 201 made before 1939 was virtually identical to a Technics SP 10 except having mechanical speed control . The 201 is fancied to be superior and was AC drive .
Thank you.
This is very first time I see history told as it was, for some reason, most Brits want Linn to be an absolute exception to every rule. The fact that it is a very good TT indeed is not even in dispute, but the "fact" that they invented the system is very much in dispute.
Lenco seems to have a bit of cult about it these days. The Lenco guys I know are adamant that tables like mine (VPI) or John's (Linn) are junk, incapable of properly reproducing music. Their setups do sound quite good, better than I would expect from a rim drive, but I haven't been able to do a side by side comparison, and I suspect that the objective flaws of a rim drive might become more evident in that kind of listening test. But who knows, maybe they're right and the rest of us are wrong.
I don't think so. I have had an idler wheel driven TT (Dual 1019, sold like hot cakes in its day) and I can confirm that it is noisier than an equivalently priced belt drive. Direct drive came later on, and is with us with a very sketchy reputation - while some were very good, giving the best of belt drives a run for their money, some were rather horrible.
My own Dual CS 604 was a good one, but the one after it, CS 606, is best left forgotten.
Nige, if you can, and if you already haven't, do try a Dual 701 or 721. These used Hall effect generators instead of classic electric motors, and if there's one thing nobody can blame them for, it must be a complete audible lack of wow and flutter, let alone any speed deviation.
Despite Dual's promo, I suggest you use a standard weight cartridge rather than the Ortofon LM series, in my view, it does better with that.
Despite Dual's promo, I suggest you use a standard weight cartridge rather than the Ortofon LM series, in my view, it does better with that.
Dual 704 / 721 inc V15
I had a CS Dual 704 to use ( my hairdresser Phil had it the last I remember , his girlfriend was Radiohead's PR lady , I had no idea at the time who they were ) . I bought my dad a CS510 on the strength of it , still in use today . When Dual stopped being imported buy Farnell UK I was asked what progress Dual had to make to succeed . I suspect I created the Dual CS 505 ( a cheaper 510 ) . If not other people were saying the same things which I suspect would be true . I have always been a turntable obsessive . ADC wanted me to work at Birmingham . ADC/ BSR was the world largest producer of turntables ( ever , not Garrard ) . What I proposed would have caused union problems , completely new designs . What did come along was Project which is exactly what I suggested to BSR . I think if my information is correct that Project still make 100 000 units a year . More fantastically Dual still have facilities to do similar . Many of us think Vinyl like motorcycles is not dead yet . Peacefrog are doing Vinyl because it's the only way to make money . It carries a premium . That's wrong of me to say that and it only part of the truth . A nice part all the same . The Empire Troubadour was loaned to me by the Dual importer . I liked it but felt it to be a bit unfinished as a design . I think it was better than most in many ways . The Linn Basik LVV arm was an ADC arm . ADC is a story worth telling also . How did I become Dual's condifident ? I swapped the rep 6 Empire Cartidges for a Decca London . To be honest I didn't want the 6 Empire cartridges and took years to loose them ( they were very nice , however not trendy ) .
I had a CS Dual 704 to use ( my hairdresser Phil had it the last I remember , his girlfriend was Radiohead's PR lady , I had no idea at the time who they were ) . I bought my dad a CS510 on the strength of it , still in use today . When Dual stopped being imported buy Farnell UK I was asked what progress Dual had to make to succeed . I suspect I created the Dual CS 505 ( a cheaper 510 ) . If not other people were saying the same things which I suspect would be true . I have always been a turntable obsessive . ADC wanted me to work at Birmingham . ADC/ BSR was the world largest producer of turntables ( ever , not Garrard ) . What I proposed would have caused union problems , completely new designs . What did come along was Project which is exactly what I suggested to BSR . I think if my information is correct that Project still make 100 000 units a year . More fantastically Dual still have facilities to do similar . Many of us think Vinyl like motorcycles is not dead yet . Peacefrog are doing Vinyl because it's the only way to make money . It carries a premium . That's wrong of me to say that and it only part of the truth . A nice part all the same . The Empire Troubadour was loaned to me by the Dual importer . I liked it but felt it to be a bit unfinished as a design . I think it was better than most in many ways . The Linn Basik LVV arm was an ADC arm . ADC is a story worth telling also . How did I become Dual's condifident ? I swapped the rep 6 Empire Cartidges for a Decca London . To be honest I didn't want the 6 Empire cartridges and took years to loose them ( they were very nice , however not trendy ) .
Last edited:
Garrard 201
Garrard 201 . 1930 . Worlds first commersial direct-drive sold in commercial quantities . Thoren's made auto-changers under license from Garrard . Having played with a 201 I feel it to be superior in many ways to a 301 . Hum would be problem as the coils are so close to the stylus . I have access to a 201 which will get a big acyclic platter one day . It is one with 331/3 made circa 1953 . I also have an older one I can use ( pre 39 ) .
I have read the internal memo for the 301 ( circa 1953 ) . Mr Mortimer used glass as a reference to compare bearing surfaces to . As far as I know 301 was the worlds first transcription turntable . It was for mono use and needed revising later . If I am right about being the first he had no one to copy .
Villchur very rightly objected to the 301 ( vertical vibration ) . 401 was better . 501 which was my baby has - 79dB rumble ( -72 dB unweighted ) . Alas 401 was not a profitable turntable ( company flagship ) . Had they have asked Mr Durney to sort it out I am sure -82 dB would be possible ( I am told we did do one once that was , I never saw the tests ) .
History of Garrard
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=g...Cc6d8gPb2vSfCQ&ved=0CIQBELAE&biw=1252&bih=849
http://www.soundfountain.com/beltdrive/belt-drive-turntable.html
Garrard 201 . 1930 . Worlds first commersial direct-drive sold in commercial quantities . Thoren's made auto-changers under license from Garrard . Having played with a 201 I feel it to be superior in many ways to a 301 . Hum would be problem as the coils are so close to the stylus . I have access to a 201 which will get a big acyclic platter one day . It is one with 331/3 made circa 1953 . I also have an older one I can use ( pre 39 ) .
I have read the internal memo for the 301 ( circa 1953 ) . Mr Mortimer used glass as a reference to compare bearing surfaces to . As far as I know 301 was the worlds first transcription turntable . It was for mono use and needed revising later . If I am right about being the first he had no one to copy .
Villchur very rightly objected to the 301 ( vertical vibration ) . 401 was better . 501 which was my baby has - 79dB rumble ( -72 dB unweighted ) . Alas 401 was not a profitable turntable ( company flagship ) . Had they have asked Mr Durney to sort it out I am sure -82 dB would be possible ( I am told we did do one once that was , I never saw the tests ) .
History of Garrard
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=g...Cc6d8gPb2vSfCQ&ved=0CIQBELAE&biw=1252&bih=849
http://www.soundfountain.com/beltdrive/belt-drive-turntable.html
Last edited:
Maybe most Brit audio journalists? I always thought Linn was overhyped, but then I have a Thorens TD160S. There was a time when it seemed that the only game in town, if you believed the magazines, was Linn + Naim. I guess it made writing easier for them, if they didn't have to hear or think.dvv said:
Linn
Funnier than you think what you just said . When very young I was told by Paul Benson at a Hi Fi show ( Hi Fi Answers ) to ask a man close by if he was about to have fight . No he wasn't and he invited me to his factory at Caslemilk Glasgow . He was astonished when I turned up . Linn park was next to the factory . I still know that man . He taught me how to listen .
That is true what you said DF96 and you are right that the British hi fi press was a bit mesmerized .
LP12 is a very well made TD150 .
TD160 is said to be the work of Charles Trehorn . When I asked modern Thoren's staff they never have heard of him . He was the British importers technical man . He certainly did the TD160 S . If not the importers told stories .
My son uses TD166 Denon DL 110
Funnier than you think what you just said . When very young I was told by Paul Benson at a Hi Fi show ( Hi Fi Answers ) to ask a man close by if he was about to have fight . No he wasn't and he invited me to his factory at Caslemilk Glasgow . He was astonished when I turned up . Linn park was next to the factory . I still know that man . He taught me how to listen .
That is true what you said DF96 and you are right that the British hi fi press was a bit mesmerized .
LP12 is a very well made TD150 .
TD160 is said to be the work of Charles Trehorn . When I asked modern Thoren's staff they never have heard of him . He was the British importers technical man . He certainly did the TD160 S . If not the importers told stories .
My son uses TD166 Denon DL 110
Last edited:
Did a bit of measuring on the tube amp last night. Looks like a good bit of ringing even on a purely resistive load. However, even a good DAC output has some ringing on a square wave, so sorting that from the amp ringing is the trick. Maybe use a function generator, instead of a DAC output.
I'm a bit suspicious of my test rig, so will continue to poke at it.
I'm a bit suspicious of my test rig, so will continue to poke at it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.