Isn't the single advantage of an idler drive the fact that the motor has a direct link to the platter through the idler wheel, therefore having 'instant' torque? I would have thought driving an idler via belts removes the advantage of an idler drive.
What a damn good idea stew:
Gona have to be very careful though. I'll put the cart in a vice & i'm thinking of wire through the holes in the mags I have a few rare earth ones that just happen to have a hole in them. Perhaps tie them to the tree! If they ever touched it might get a bit more than just messy, Ripper.
Have to go & purchase one of those 3rd hand thingies.
Stew, should I put this in another thread.
Jay
Gona have to be very careful though. I'll put the cart in a vice & i'm thinking of wire through the holes in the mags I have a few rare earth ones that just happen to have a hole in them. Perhaps tie them to the tree! If they ever touched it might get a bit more than just messy, Ripper.
Have to go & purchase one of those 3rd hand thingies.
Stew, should I put this in another thread.
Jay
Is there a preference to what project to do for a turntable?
I can start with whatever seems to be a consensus: a belt drive; DD; idler or completely new plinth/platter/bearing/motor...
So where to begin to provide the most universal project and some insight or encouragement to others? How about a re-plinth on an idler? These tend to have the most complex cutouts for the plinth and I think one of the reasons so many have been left in poor sounding plinths for so long. Out on the Interweb, after doing all the required maintenance and any repairs required, many re-plinth idlers and seem to be perfectly happy. Once that is done, the stock tonearm is addressed by checking the bearings, checking the signal wiring, and repairing or upgrading as necessary. The most adventuresome out there consider new tonearms, custom platters, and what I would describe as "ultimate" plinths and re-plinth. Remember that the goal here is to provide an example of what can be done with very little money invested.
In the spirit of keeping costs down, I am not suggesting any go looking for their ultimate TT to work with at this stage. If a decent turntable of whatever drive type is available to you to wrench on, use it. Or if willing to spend a little money on a TT, look for units at a Goodwill or thrift shop or something in your cousin's attic, or whatever. Please don't go looking for the Lenco/Thorens/Garrard (301/401), Ariston RD11 (or any of the Ariston-like tables such as the Linn LP12, Heybrook TT2, or Systemdek), SL1200/KD500/Micro-Seiki or whatever your ultimate dream TT might be. A Dual (of any type: belt; idler; DD), Miracord, or not well known or poor DD could be the exact thing to work on. Or if you have a bunch of "junk" tables or parts lying around use what you can.
guys: no need to be too strict regarding "should this be in another thread", although it might be helpful for those not following the TT and tonearm threads.
stuey: The Thorens TD124 is such a belt/idler hybrid and is well regarded . Although not privy to the design as conceived and the original rationale behind it, I suspect the idea was to isolate motor noise from the platter and the idler itself.
all: Remember this should be fun and not an expensive exercise. I will defer much maintenance and model specific information to the excellent sites on the Interweb as well as right here at diyAudio.
I hope that this clarifies the goals of the project. (once a specific turntable type and the project scope is decided upon I will create a proper list of well defined project goals and benchmarks)
I can start with whatever seems to be a consensus: a belt drive; DD; idler or completely new plinth/platter/bearing/motor...
So where to begin to provide the most universal project and some insight or encouragement to others? How about a re-plinth on an idler? These tend to have the most complex cutouts for the plinth and I think one of the reasons so many have been left in poor sounding plinths for so long. Out on the Interweb, after doing all the required maintenance and any repairs required, many re-plinth idlers and seem to be perfectly happy. Once that is done, the stock tonearm is addressed by checking the bearings, checking the signal wiring, and repairing or upgrading as necessary. The most adventuresome out there consider new tonearms, custom platters, and what I would describe as "ultimate" plinths and re-plinth. Remember that the goal here is to provide an example of what can be done with very little money invested.
In the spirit of keeping costs down, I am not suggesting any go looking for their ultimate TT to work with at this stage. If a decent turntable of whatever drive type is available to you to wrench on, use it. Or if willing to spend a little money on a TT, look for units at a Goodwill or thrift shop or something in your cousin's attic, or whatever. Please don't go looking for the Lenco/Thorens/Garrard (301/401), Ariston RD11 (or any of the Ariston-like tables such as the Linn LP12, Heybrook TT2, or Systemdek), SL1200/KD500/Micro-Seiki or whatever your ultimate dream TT might be. A Dual (of any type: belt; idler; DD), Miracord, or not well known or poor DD could be the exact thing to work on. Or if you have a bunch of "junk" tables or parts lying around use what you can.
guys: no need to be too strict regarding "should this be in another thread", although it might be helpful for those not following the TT and tonearm threads.
stuey: The Thorens TD124 is such a belt/idler hybrid and is well regarded . Although not privy to the design as conceived and the original rationale behind it, I suspect the idea was to isolate motor noise from the platter and the idler itself.
all: Remember this should be fun and not an expensive exercise. I will defer much maintenance and model specific information to the excellent sites on the Interweb as well as right here at diyAudio.
I hope that this clarifies the goals of the project. (once a specific turntable type and the project scope is decided upon I will create a proper list of well defined project goals and benchmarks)
Still there does seem to be a bias toward the idler...I should fit into that category. My candidates are two lowly freebies: Garrard AT 60 t2 (I think) and Dual 1009. I let my BD-1/Black Widow get away, and my other beltdrives are just AR clones from Europe. Throwins or something. DDs even lowlier RS bits.
Idler drive (Dual 10XX) example as the "official" Nanook TT thread project...
... but for those with DD or belt drives, don't despair. Pretty much everything discussed will apply at some level to your tt as well.
So let's adopt a typical Dual 10XX idler as the official example. Again, the same basics will apply to any idler drive type, belt, DD, or rim drive. I have chosen the Dual because there are so many out there is varies stages of disrepair or in pieces, or rotting away someplace. These old Duals can still be had for relatively little money, particularly if a changer (same as the Garrard Lab60 and Lab80 tts). Changers are inexpensive compared to their more expensive manual tt bretheren, but often lack the former's great bearings.
The bearings in many of these changers are a "bicycle" style. They have a cage, but the cage has lose ball bearings, as sometimes seen in bicycle headsets. I know those that I have certainly use them. Is there an alternative that can be used in its place? And if so what modifications may be required? I'll look into that for folks looking to upgrade.
So the basic plan of action will be:
That should do it. Have I forgotten anything? If any have suggestions or feel that I have forgotten anything, please post!
... but for those with DD or belt drives, don't despair. Pretty much everything discussed will apply at some level to your tt as well.
So let's adopt a typical Dual 10XX idler as the official example. Again, the same basics will apply to any idler drive type, belt, DD, or rim drive. I have chosen the Dual because there are so many out there is varies stages of disrepair or in pieces, or rotting away someplace. These old Duals can still be had for relatively little money, particularly if a changer (same as the Garrard Lab60 and Lab80 tts). Changers are inexpensive compared to their more expensive manual tt bretheren, but often lack the former's great bearings.
The bearings in many of these changers are a "bicycle" style. They have a cage, but the cage has lose ball bearings, as sometimes seen in bicycle headsets. I know those that I have certainly use them. Is there an alternative that can be used in its place? And if so what modifications may be required? I'll look into that for folks looking to upgrade.
So the basic plan of action will be:
- ensure that the Dual works and is in need (or not) of some regular maintenance and do said repairs
- take apart/strip the old Dual of all the changer parts including the tonearm
- seek out replacement parts and any upgrade parts, after considering the alternatives
- design a close fitting solid plinth, such as those often made for all of the "big dog" idler wheel turntables. I have an idea regarding the ability of almost anyone to do this, even without a fancy multilayered cut plan. We'll develop one (custom cut plan) for the Dual. The process should easily transfer to other turntables.
- consider the aesthetics of the finished project (appearance and ergonomics) including the placement of the AC power cord, and any possible RCA jacks for those that want to be able to use regular interconnects
- consider the changes that will be needed if not using the stock power switch (which is controlled by all that changer mechanism that we've already removed, if doing so)
- seek out and implement some sort of support feet, and/or a secondary support for the soon to be re-plinthed old Dual
- construct the plinth and do a trial fit of the turntable to the plinth.
- Make any minor changes changes that may need to be made and do another trial fit.
- put a finish on the plinth (which of course is to each individual's taste), whether a painted finish, stain or veneered finish. As I am a little lazy and not a good woodworker I will use a stain based finish in a colour similar to what is on my old Oracle Alexandria MkII
That should do it. Have I forgotten anything? If any have suggestions or feel that I have forgotten anything, please post!
Oops, I'm a pillock. My comment above at post #26was towards ORNJ's post #10 where he said:
I like the idea of also doing an idler drive. I was working on a design where the motor would be down below with multiple belts driving the idler wheel to try and keep the motor noise out a bit. Then the idler wheel was going to be suspeneded some how so that preasure was placed on the platter but keep it from causing any rumble hopefully(that was my intent atleast)
...but I forgot to quote it! Duh.
Stuey
I like the idea of also doing an idler drive. I was working on a design where the motor would be down below with multiple belts driving the idler wheel to try and keep the motor noise out a bit. Then the idler wheel was going to be suspeneded some how so that preasure was placed on the platter but keep it from causing any rumble hopefully(that was my intent atleast)
...but I forgot to quote it! Duh.
Stuey
Stew, I have no experience with these lower end Duals but have seen a lot for sale at good prices. How good is the drive mechanism? I have horrible memories of an old BSR idler drive of my fathers where the platter was a bit wobbly from the factory, not doing wonders for wow.
(Yes, I know BSR is rubbish).
(Yes, I know BSR is rubbish).
Ok as stated earlier mines a Knackerd old Lenco 78 Idler Drive.
First pic, Platter completely stripped.
Second pic, Plater cut & then stuck back together, with fiberglass impregnated resin (nasty stuff) & some masking in place.
Third pic, Plater now a different shape & almost for resin.
As it's going to take a bit of time for me to get the resin, I'm buying 20kg
so lots of sticky & potentially messy hrs ahead…
The masking etc will need to be very carefully done, so as not to let this stuff get out of control.
This is where most of my time on this project will be for some time.
& at the moment I think it will take 3 resin pores to get it to what I think will be right for this deck.
Jay
First pic, Platter completely stripped.
Second pic, Plater cut & then stuck back together, with fiberglass impregnated resin (nasty stuff) & some masking in place.
Third pic, Plater now a different shape & almost for resin.
As it's going to take a bit of time for me to get the resin, I'm buying 20kg
so lots of sticky & potentially messy hrs ahead…
The masking etc will need to be very carefully done, so as not to let this stuff get out of control.
This is where most of my time on this project will be for some time.
& at the moment I think it will take 3 resin pores to get it to what I think will be right for this deck.
Jay
Attachments
Stew;
Ripping the debris away worked, mind you it was touch n go as wether the tree would stay in the ground !
Jay
Ripping the debris away worked, mind you it was touch n go as wether the tree would stay in the ground !
Jay
of Duals, BSRs, Garrards and Lencos...
Stuey: As Arch states the BSRs are/were horrors. The worst that can be said of the Duals is that they were never the state of the art, but are almost universally good solid performers that were well built. Are there better turntables out there? Yes! But are those better turntables readily available almost anywhere on the planet? No! I like the Dual idler drive system better than the one in the Garrard changers, mainly because of the variable pitch offered by them. The 10XX series is a workhorse. The motors are not sealed types (open like the Lencos) but are quite robust. The Garrard Lab series motors are bigger yet and are sealed (IIRC. I'll have to dig up the old Lab60 or Lab80 that I have to check). My particular Dual has a broken idler/pitch assembly. I have to fix or repair that first or resort to a belt driven turntable for the project.
I like the Duals plenty. Regardless of the model or the drive type they have proven that the motors and bearings are durable. In later Duals, the tonearm wires are soldered to a little PCB , and those solder joints tend to fail over time. I think the Duals were let down by noisy plinths and bad arms, both of which will be resolved in this project. The basics are all there though: good platters (although sometimes a little too light, but in an idler with a large synchronous motor less of an issue, as the relatively large motors maintain inertia in the drive system), suitable bearings (usually), good basic control electronics and switches, durable, plentiful, and still relatively cheap. The worst part of the old Dual changers (as well as the Garrards and almost every other changer made regardless of the maker) is the changer mechanisms which were mechanically complicated. The Garrard mechanism used no plastic (again, IIRC), but it has been a while since I looked at the bottom of the two that I have. How best to summarize the differrences? The Garrard mechanism is made of much better materials, the Dual has a much better variable pitch adjustment. The motor systems on the Lab60 and 10XX are somewhat similar, while the Lab80 has a motor the size of a small automotive alternator. The Lab80 is altogether a completely different beast than the Lab80 as the motor is much larger, and everything is just much larger and more robust. I need a platter for the Lab80, so if the Dual can't be easily fixed in a timely fashion, the Lab60 or a belt drive will be the project turntable.
Why was the platter cut? Whoever did that to a Lenco (regardless of how knackered it was) shouldn't have...
Stuey: As Arch states the BSRs are/were horrors. The worst that can be said of the Duals is that they were never the state of the art, but are almost universally good solid performers that were well built. Are there better turntables out there? Yes! But are those better turntables readily available almost anywhere on the planet? No! I like the Dual idler drive system better than the one in the Garrard changers, mainly because of the variable pitch offered by them. The 10XX series is a workhorse. The motors are not sealed types (open like the Lencos) but are quite robust. The Garrard Lab series motors are bigger yet and are sealed (IIRC. I'll have to dig up the old Lab60 or Lab80 that I have to check). My particular Dual has a broken idler/pitch assembly. I have to fix or repair that first or resort to a belt driven turntable for the project.
I like the Duals plenty. Regardless of the model or the drive type they have proven that the motors and bearings are durable. In later Duals, the tonearm wires are soldered to a little PCB , and those solder joints tend to fail over time. I think the Duals were let down by noisy plinths and bad arms, both of which will be resolved in this project. The basics are all there though: good platters (although sometimes a little too light, but in an idler with a large synchronous motor less of an issue, as the relatively large motors maintain inertia in the drive system), suitable bearings (usually), good basic control electronics and switches, durable, plentiful, and still relatively cheap. The worst part of the old Dual changers (as well as the Garrards and almost every other changer made regardless of the maker) is the changer mechanisms which were mechanically complicated. The Garrard mechanism used no plastic (again, IIRC), but it has been a while since I looked at the bottom of the two that I have. How best to summarize the differrences? The Garrard mechanism is made of much better materials, the Dual has a much better variable pitch adjustment. The motor systems on the Lab60 and 10XX are somewhat similar, while the Lab80 has a motor the size of a small automotive alternator. The Lab80 is altogether a completely different beast than the Lab80 as the motor is much larger, and everything is just much larger and more robust. I need a platter for the Lab80, so if the Dual can't be easily fixed in a timely fashion, the Lab60 or a belt drive will be the project turntable.
Why was the platter cut? Whoever did that to a Lenco (regardless of how knackered it was) shouldn't have...
I say, go for a Stripped Down Garrard AT-60...With a Porch Mounted Arm, you will not Hear any Rumble...
Attachments
Last edited:
Stew, ( is that youre real name ? )
I just started with a Lenco L75.
Removed all not necessary parts.
Putted the chassis on alu. leadshot stuffed; tubes assembled on a piece of 20mm "panzerholtz" .
Swapped the Lenco bearing for a home brewed one by Jos, a LencoHeaven member.
And not to forget stacked platters. Two Lenco and a 30mm Clearaudio acrylic platter on top.
I`m still not sure about that stacked thing, because I think the quality of motor and bearing are the most important.
The benefit of a chassis on "studs " : you can simple demp the chassis local by one ore more removable studs.
Hans.
I just started with a Lenco L75.
Removed all not necessary parts.
Putted the chassis on alu. leadshot stuffed; tubes assembled on a piece of 20mm "panzerholtz" .
Swapped the Lenco bearing for a home brewed one by Jos, a LencoHeaven member.
And not to forget stacked platters. Two Lenco and a 30mm Clearaudio acrylic platter on top.
I`m still not sure about that stacked thing, because I think the quality of motor and bearing are the most important.
The benefit of a chassis on "studs " : you can simple demp the chassis local by one ore more removable studs.
Hans.
Last edited:
Hey Sled, can't the rumble pass to the cartridge via the platter and record? Or does most rumble come through the plinth and arm base? I guess this depends on how much vibration can get through the idler wheel (assuming it's not bearing noise). Or am I way off?
Good thread already Stew.
Good thread already Stew.
Last edited:
Waiting for the tread to mature - it seems it's heading everywhere at the moment...
Basic principles should be in an ideal world with the motor and bearing issues dealth with and that the platter to needle is as sturdy as possible - no vibrations should migrate from motor to needle whilst keeping a perfect speed.
Regards
Basic principles should be in an ideal world with the motor and bearing issues dealth with and that the platter to needle is as sturdy as possible - no vibrations should migrate from motor to needle whilst keeping a perfect speed.
Regards
Last edited:
http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=11964.0
Incredibly Amazing Turntable by Radgear - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
This guy Radgear can change any existing turntable.
Incredibly Amazing Turntable by Radgear - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
This guy Radgear can change any existing turntable.
A few (OT) questions answered and plinth/platter considerations
tomatamot: Ya, Stew is my real name as in Stewart which is the second translation of Stuart. Both can be given names, and surnames. Stuart is the first translation of the name so is often a surname, and Stewart is often a given name. Sorry for the lesson in semantics...
Wow, what a beautifully simple table. If I wanted a skeletal table, I'd rip my Oracle Alex MkII from its plinth and make a DIY Delphi or Premier (although the electronics work for a DIY Premier might be out of my league). Some folks have had a lot of trouble with the Alex's sub-chassis bending, but mine seems to be good.
All, sorry for the diversion, back on topic
Why a wooden plinth design? I wanted to stick with a more traditional looking table because so many folks expect that and often it is much easier to get the "SOF" approval. Wood is also easy to work with, and most can manage a little woodworking (and certainly non can be worse than mine). As many good designs exist for improved chassis for Garrard 301/401 and Thorens TD124 tts, I thought that would be a place to start. Don't get me wrong, if the top plate of the Garrard or Lenco or whichever turntable one starts with is properly supported, I think the table should sound excellent.
Regarding overly massive platters, I am a little against those for a few reasons:
I agree with Turbon. Of course this is why I warned all that this is not a democracy., and I will be directing this thread. So now I don my "director's hat" and/or my "Officer Nanook" uniform and try to move on...
audiostar: Great link. I'll peruse it latter. One thing of note, though is that the plinth is massive and the basic turntable is left alone, other than the addition of a his custom laminated 4mm cork Vinyl platter mat.
So basically everyone go have a look at the link provided by audiostar. Consider this project to be essentially the top tier of that project, but in a rectangular box. And of course if you like the skeletal approach or a different shape for the plinth, please indulge yourself.
tomatamot: Ya, Stew is my real name as in Stewart which is the second translation of Stuart. Both can be given names, and surnames. Stuart is the first translation of the name so is often a surname, and Stewart is often a given name. Sorry for the lesson in semantics...
Wow, what a beautifully simple table. If I wanted a skeletal table, I'd rip my Oracle Alex MkII from its plinth and make a DIY Delphi or Premier (although the electronics work for a DIY Premier might be out of my league). Some folks have had a lot of trouble with the Alex's sub-chassis bending, but mine seems to be good.
All, sorry for the diversion, back on topic
Why a wooden plinth design? I wanted to stick with a more traditional looking table because so many folks expect that and often it is much easier to get the "SOF" approval. Wood is also easy to work with, and most can manage a little woodworking (and certainly non can be worse than mine). As many good designs exist for improved chassis for Garrard 301/401 and Thorens TD124 tts, I thought that would be a place to start. Don't get me wrong, if the top plate of the Garrard or Lenco or whichever turntable one starts with is properly supported, I think the table should sound excellent.
Regarding overly massive platters, I am a little against those for a few reasons:
- had the original designer feel the need he/she would have designed the bearing system more robustly
- the same for the motor
- consider the additional potential wear on an idler wheel if double or triple the load is presented against the idler wheel. Better get some spares...
- consider the chassis. The top plate and or sub-chassis would have been more robust to support the additional mass of the upgraded parts
I agree with Turbon. Of course this is why I warned all that this is not a democracy., and I will be directing this thread. So now I don my "director's hat" and/or my "Officer Nanook" uniform and try to move on...
audiostar: Great link. I'll peruse it latter. One thing of note, though is that the plinth is massive and the basic turntable is left alone, other than the addition of a his custom laminated 4mm cork Vinyl platter mat.
So basically everyone go have a look at the link provided by audiostar. Consider this project to be essentially the top tier of that project, but in a rectangular box. And of course if you like the skeletal approach or a different shape for the plinth, please indulge yourself.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.