Hi Bill,
Great link. The 950 is too much for me. Rebuilding something like this would certainly teach you about every nuance it has. I suspect you would need training for this.
It would seem that the engineers that designed that turntable went to extremes in order to attain that level of performance. The electronic servos would have been designed with loop constants matched to the mechanicals as a system. I doubt other turntables were designed to that level of integration.
I had to rebuild everything on the Thorens TD-126 MKII, even a new motor for the arm (cassette deck capstan motor). I did have Gary at Better Music do a rebuild on the suspension using Linn suspension parts. An eye opener, these two brands are not that far apart. He used the suspension components from an LP-12 upgrade kit with minor modifications. I had him do the TD-125 MKII and a TD-145 MKII that I have. Sadly, Gary died suddenly a couple years ago. He was the best turntable technician I had ever seen. The tech that other techs use. His hands brought out a higher level of performance from my turntables that makes them more enjoyable to use.
I guess at the end of the day that the drive method doesn't matter as long as it is designed for the intended application. DD drive is really the only way to give them at the BBC the features they needed. For the home system, I guess it really doesn't matter how you get to the end result. I still cringe thinking about getting high performance out of an idler wheel drive system. I guess it can be done.
-Chris
Great link. The 950 is too much for me. Rebuilding something like this would certainly teach you about every nuance it has. I suspect you would need training for this.
It would seem that the engineers that designed that turntable went to extremes in order to attain that level of performance. The electronic servos would have been designed with loop constants matched to the mechanicals as a system. I doubt other turntables were designed to that level of integration.
I had to rebuild everything on the Thorens TD-126 MKII, even a new motor for the arm (cassette deck capstan motor). I did have Gary at Better Music do a rebuild on the suspension using Linn suspension parts. An eye opener, these two brands are not that far apart. He used the suspension components from an LP-12 upgrade kit with minor modifications. I had him do the TD-125 MKII and a TD-145 MKII that I have. Sadly, Gary died suddenly a couple years ago. He was the best turntable technician I had ever seen. The tech that other techs use. His hands brought out a higher level of performance from my turntables that makes them more enjoyable to use.
I guess at the end of the day that the drive method doesn't matter as long as it is designed for the intended application. DD drive is really the only way to give them at the BBC the features they needed. For the home system, I guess it really doesn't matter how you get to the end result. I still cringe thinking about getting high performance out of an idler wheel drive system. I guess it can be done.
-Chris
Hi Dilbert,
What was it about the Platter Matter you didn't like? We had the same table. Or was it just the maintenance of cleaning the mat constantly? The original Platter Matter is still on the same TD-125 MKII, and I bought the second one used when I got the TD-126 MKII up and running a couple years ago now.
I found the Platter Matter focused the sound, it eliminated a lot of noise and something else I couldn't put my finger on. It was just a lot better.
-Chris
What was it about the Platter Matter you didn't like? We had the same table. Or was it just the maintenance of cleaning the mat constantly? The original Platter Matter is still on the same TD-125 MKII, and I bought the second one used when I got the TD-126 MKII up and running a couple years ago now.
I found the Platter Matter focused the sound, it eliminated a lot of noise and something else I couldn't put my finger on. It was just a lot better.
-Chris
when the platter is heavy enough around 14kg or more, the wow/flutter, becomes negligible.
However the bearings must be very special to have low noise.
However the bearings must be very special to have low noise.
Hi Chris, in those days I doubt my system had anywhere near the resolving capability of today. But, to the best of my memory, I heard zero improvements with the mat.
Good to hear you are deriving the benefits of it.
So how do you design an entry level turntable that's good, and still competes in the under $500 market. It's basically a race to the bottom, and you end up with a whole category of lousy sounding turntables.
It goes back a lot further than that. Try the 1970's.
jeff
Well Chris, I went over that old Zenith with performance in mind, and whoever bought it would be pleased and not have to worry about playing records with it.
The Zenith ceramic cartridge used in it is very compliant and definitely a record-saver.
These things were way ahead of their time.
at least the engineered-down modern (stone age like) TT have fixed many issues:
1. the suspension is almost non existent BUT the platter and arm is one, fixed, preventing the wobble and bouncing the vibration into the arm.
These DD turntables have a suspension for the platter, not only the suspension is not leveled, the platter doesn't rotate perfectly horizontal.
2. the arms have more adjustments and better damping materials.
3. the vibration are transfered to the whole turntable, the needle and vinyl moves together no matter what is going.
For the old DD system, the vibrations make the table move with the arm, everything moves, the platter springs absorb some and then the platter moves... so it is a very resonant system, even if it prevents skips etc if you bang on the floor, the other little vibrations are amplified, creating a 'fuzzy funky sound' effect.
1. the suspension is almost non existent BUT the platter and arm is one, fixed, preventing the wobble and bouncing the vibration into the arm.
These DD turntables have a suspension for the platter, not only the suspension is not leveled, the platter doesn't rotate perfectly horizontal.
2. the arms have more adjustments and better damping materials.
3. the vibration are transfered to the whole turntable, the needle and vinyl moves together no matter what is going.
For the old DD system, the vibrations make the table move with the arm, everything moves, the platter springs absorb some and then the platter moves... so it is a very resonant system, even if it prevents skips etc if you bang on the floor, the other little vibrations are amplified, creating a 'fuzzy funky sound' effect.
Last edited:
I was going to dump the sp10 until I got the heavy platter mat. Now it sounds right.
billshurv,
you say there are more functions of a t/t - other than rotating at precise speeds and without noise, rationally I can't think of anything.
Surely personal likes aka colouration/bloom or neutrality are catered for by the arm/cartridge combination, the deck should introduce zero.
wiseoldtech - years ago I bought a s/hand Pickering 7500S with original stylus which was virtually unplayed. Also as part of the package I bought the UK made PLZ pre-preamp. I never tried the PLZ so never gave this cartridge a fair evaluation. It's a LOMM combining the best of MM and MC. I have used a cheaper Pickering and definitely preferred it to the Goldrings. Did you ever try this topline Pickering? The PLZ measures fine but for pennies I shall replace the caps.
you say there are more functions of a t/t - other than rotating at precise speeds and without noise, rationally I can't think of anything.
Surely personal likes aka colouration/bloom or neutrality are catered for by the arm/cartridge combination, the deck should introduce zero.
wiseoldtech - years ago I bought a s/hand Pickering 7500S with original stylus which was virtually unplayed. Also as part of the package I bought the UK made PLZ pre-preamp. I never tried the PLZ so never gave this cartridge a fair evaluation. It's a LOMM combining the best of MM and MC. I have used a cheaper Pickering and definitely preferred it to the Goldrings. Did you ever try this topline Pickering? The PLZ measures fine but for pennies I shall replace the caps.
The turntable must hold the tonearm in an exact plane with respect to the platter
the turntable should isolate itself and the tonearm from external vibrations
The turntable should not sympathetically resonate to said external vibrations
The turntable should not electrocute its owner
Etc.
And that's before you get onto the whole looks and marketing thing.
the turntable should isolate itself and the tonearm from external vibrations
The turntable should not sympathetically resonate to said external vibrations
The turntable should not electrocute its owner
Etc.
And that's before you get onto the whole looks and marketing thing.
I've used the Pickering XV15/1200E with the Dual turntables back in the 1970's.
They were ok, but I preferred the Shure V15 type2 Improved a bit more.
billshurv ,
all the points you raise are covered by my comment 'noise' OK I'll expand that to include vibration/resonances but surely that's implicit.
The Kenwood KD series was a ground up approach by the engineers and many use the deck as the basis for shelling out serious money by way of expensive arms/cartridges.
The die cast aluminium spider construction with excellent gimbal arm mounted on one of the legs - if you want to get anal you can mount 3 more arms on the other legs.
The original feet and the material used, so well thought out - threaded brass adjustment screws enabling exact levelling, minimal but just enough absorption pads built in.
The Tx decoupled from the spider frame suspended by a simple frame with rubber grommets.
The solid core silver tonearm wiring soldered to a small piece of tagboard giving just enough play.
I'm lucky to have 2 of these decks. As the first has a damaged plinth I shall remove this and go skeletal giving a piano black paint treatment to the spider. I need to think of a Zen like way to deal with the TX and have a piece of slate precisely cut to take the anodized aluminium control panel - that will take care of your presentation point.
wiseoldtech - I also have a Pickering XV15 and the Sure one but I was hoping you might have had experience of the 7500S and it's dedicated PLZ pre-preamp. It's low tracking weight should be very vinyl friendly.
all the points you raise are covered by my comment 'noise' OK I'll expand that to include vibration/resonances but surely that's implicit.
The Kenwood KD series was a ground up approach by the engineers and many use the deck as the basis for shelling out serious money by way of expensive arms/cartridges.
The die cast aluminium spider construction with excellent gimbal arm mounted on one of the legs - if you want to get anal you can mount 3 more arms on the other legs.
The original feet and the material used, so well thought out - threaded brass adjustment screws enabling exact levelling, minimal but just enough absorption pads built in.
The Tx decoupled from the spider frame suspended by a simple frame with rubber grommets.
The solid core silver tonearm wiring soldered to a small piece of tagboard giving just enough play.
I'm lucky to have 2 of these decks. As the first has a damaged plinth I shall remove this and go skeletal giving a piano black paint treatment to the spider. I need to think of a Zen like way to deal with the TX and have a piece of slate precisely cut to take the anodized aluminium control panel - that will take care of your presentation point.
wiseoldtech - I also have a Pickering XV15 and the Sure one but I was hoping you might have had experience of the 7500S and it's dedicated PLZ pre-preamp. It's low tracking weight should be very vinyl friendly.
Those of us who have to work with slippy suppliers who weasel out of things that are not exactly defined have to be a bit more specific 🙂. After all a DD motor on an expanded polystyrene block would meet your spec!
Kenwood did a lot of KD models. I have the KD550 (which I call my konkrete kenwood) which is a fine deck but not in the league of the 990/1070. Sadly prices for those are now beyond my justification limit. But the 550 is no slouch and works as well now as the day I first saw it 40 odd years ago.
Kenwood did a lot of KD models. I have the KD550 (which I call my konkrete kenwood) which is a fine deck but not in the league of the 990/1070. Sadly prices for those are now beyond my justification limit. But the 550 is no slouch and works as well now as the day I first saw it 40 odd years ago.
Decades ago, cartridge manufacturers all jumped on the band wagon to see who could produce one with the lightest tracking force.
And which one would design the fanciest stylus profile with the catchiest name - stereohedron, shibata, line contract, etc etc...
And back then, I was like many, who bought those premium cartridges, and yes, they performed well.
But "the lightest" doesn't mean crap to me, it's pure marketing hype as I found out.
It's based on "fear", as is most products and services are even today.
Because fear is a strong, powerful tool, like a schoolyard bully knows well.
Fear that you'll wear your records out needlessly, unless you buy their hyped up model.
I got off that nutty wagon, and realized what it was all about, and I'm glad I did.
I had proof that it was marketing hype to sell the "better products".
You know the same goes for anything - (buy the Mercedes!, not the Toyota or Chevrolet)
There is nothing bad about having a cartridge that tracks above that "delicate 1 gram".
In fact, 2 or 3 grams is the average range for some very nice and reasonably priced Audio Technica cartridges (AT95E, etc.)
And as for conical styli, FIVE grams is just fine!
I've got records that my parents played on a console stereo many times through the years with a 5.5 gram tonearm - these records today in my possession play just fine, even today. - my proof that the "hype" and "fear" is unfounded.
Of course, the tonearm itself must be in good operating condition, as frictionless as possible.
The "band wagon" was quadraphonic sound, which was a "thing" back in the early 70's, and the reason for the Shibata profile. Pretty sure it was all about tip mass, and tracking ability, not "lightest tracking force".
jeff
And I KNEW back then, when selling audio in a local "audio salon" that Quad was a gimmick to make more money by eniticing the masses with a "new toy".
I also knew it wouldn't last - which it didn't.
The quad systems were too confusing to the average person, too many platforms to have need for - SQ, CD, Matrix, etc etc...
I heard the best quad systems in our showroom, and in homes, and it didn't impress me to spend that kind of money.
So that turned off a lot of people.
I told my customers that all they needed for a fine system was TWO good speakers.
There is a "cutoff point", and being reasonable to some things.
Others obsess, and that's their own illness.
Do you remember the 'Quadraphonic Synthesisers' like this one from QED?
They fed the out-of-phase information present in all recordings to a second pair of loudspeakers placed at the rear of the listening area.
I experimented with such passive DIY surround sound circuits back in the day. The rear speakers did provide some extra ambience, but the results were ultimately dissatisfying.
