Hi,
Stuff way before the Internet ever existed, improving turntables
was a passion 30 years ago and I got rather good at it. Nothing
to do with the inane dogma and pretense on the internet that
seems to be apparent nowadays rather than sound engineering.
Answer is nothing like what you have made ...
rgds, sreten.
I've nothing against "steampunk" and rehashing / rebuilding
older turntables for current use. A vinyl source is cool, and
should look the part. Actually being a good vinyl source is
a different kettle of fish and if that is easy I wouldn't have
learned much 30 years ago, it isn't and I did learn a lot.
Last edited:
Response to last posting
Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. How can you make judgments without having heard something? My design is based on sound engineering principles. Let's hear from you about your ideas-should be quite interesting?
Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. How can you make judgments without having heard something? My design is based on sound engineering principles. Let's hear from you about your ideas-should be quite interesting?
nicely done Chris.
but (just my personal opinion on aesthetic):
I tend to like what I consider to be more traditional looking turntables. Multiple motors can give you the same result as massive platters. It seems to me there can be a certain "ridiculousness" to some tts. Yours it at what I might consider to be my personal limit 😉 .
No doubt it sounds good, as you had a pretty nice place to start with.
I've got a Maxxon DC motor and a controller kit here, perhaps I should try that. Hmmm... DC rim or idler drive....
Got to love the possibilities.
Merry Christmas (or whatever holiday one might observe this time of year) to you all.
but (just my personal opinion on aesthetic):
I tend to like what I consider to be more traditional looking turntables. Multiple motors can give you the same result as massive platters. It seems to me there can be a certain "ridiculousness" to some tts. Yours it at what I might consider to be my personal limit 😉 .
No doubt it sounds good, as you had a pretty nice place to start with.
I've got a Maxxon DC motor and a controller kit here, perhaps I should try that. Hmmm... DC rim or idler drive....
Got to love the possibilities.
Merry Christmas (or whatever holiday one might observe this time of year) to you all.
Hi,
Actually I think you have a very good idea of what I'm talking about.
Modding a turntable for sound quality is about purpose, and
the more you understand what you are trying to do, the
more likely you are to succeed in your goal.
Whilst you can hit the jackpot with random ill thought
out mods, though it is always possible, it is unlikely.
Even if you do, because there is no real method, there is
no reason it is generally applicable and will generally work.
You learn from your failures just as much, if not more,
than your successes, that comes with experience *.
Some decks are simply not worth extensive mods
in my experience. YMMV and your welcome to
your own opinions about such things.
If I come across as judgmental fair enough, I guess
I am. More than anything I like like good reasoning.
rgds, sreten. Hope your having a good Xmas.
* e.g. the main bearing of a lot of budget Duals
is a lost cause when it comes to precision, IME.
They can be tweaked a bit, a lot is pointless IMO.
Last edited:
Hi
I do understand what you are saying. I have been building decks for a long while. The hierarchy of requirements is:
Main Bearing- I am using one from a Linn LP12 on this deck-a good one. The best one I have come across was a Michell Gyro bearing-super engineering-using it on one of my other decks currently-not sure why you mention the Dual-a bit random and one I'd never consider anyway.
Drive the platter from the rim-much more stable.
Plinth-I left suspended subs behind a long while ago-I go for mass any time and slate does a great job-I've yet to find a better material.
Drive-ensure the motor is decoupled as much as possible. A separate pod works well
Drive belt-failing idler drive (Which I have with my 401) the silk thread is great with a minimum of motor noise being transmitted via this method
Three adjustable feet terminated in 5mm ball bearings-again super decoupling
That's about it-get these right and you have the basis of a great deck.
Regards
Chris
I do understand what you are saying. I have been building decks for a long while. The hierarchy of requirements is:
Main Bearing- I am using one from a Linn LP12 on this deck-a good one. The best one I have come across was a Michell Gyro bearing-super engineering-using it on one of my other decks currently-not sure why you mention the Dual-a bit random and one I'd never consider anyway.
Drive the platter from the rim-much more stable.
Plinth-I left suspended subs behind a long while ago-I go for mass any time and slate does a great job-I've yet to find a better material.
Drive-ensure the motor is decoupled as much as possible. A separate pod works well
Drive belt-failing idler drive (Which I have with my 401) the silk thread is great with a minimum of motor noise being transmitted via this method
Three adjustable feet terminated in 5mm ball bearings-again super decoupling
That's about it-get these right and you have the basis of a great deck.
Regards
Chris
What Chris is saying is very valid, we don't need to keep on reinventing the wheel.
Most manufacturers of High End TTs still use much the same 'Engineering principals' that I learned as an apprentice, that the closer the tolerance of the components in the product, the better the product will be. Till that is the F******g bean counters get hold of anything good.
The Well Tempered TT being the exception.
With it's decidedly wobbly bearing.
And Hanging by a thread Golf Ball Arm !
Who would of thought that, (sonically) a Thin Flimsy piece of Cotton Thread, would prove to be better at driving a TT than a High speck Ground & toleranced rubber drive belt designed specifically for such……
IMO sound engineering principles, is only somewhere to let the imagination start from.
This has always worked for me & I see no reason why it should be hampered by Luddites.
If a dumb sounding idea works then let be known about.
Rant over, Have a nice day y'all
Ps It's wild wet n windy hear…
Pps still got electric so can still listen to an old tin can Decca with it's string holding the stylus in place, playing muzak on the Linn 12" Turd spinner.
Most manufacturers of High End TTs still use much the same 'Engineering principals' that I learned as an apprentice, that the closer the tolerance of the components in the product, the better the product will be. Till that is the F******g bean counters get hold of anything good.
The Well Tempered TT being the exception.
With it's decidedly wobbly bearing.
And Hanging by a thread Golf Ball Arm !
Who would of thought that, (sonically) a Thin Flimsy piece of Cotton Thread, would prove to be better at driving a TT than a High speck Ground & toleranced rubber drive belt designed specifically for such……
IMO sound engineering principles, is only somewhere to let the imagination start from.
This has always worked for me & I see no reason why it should be hampered by Luddites.
If a dumb sounding idea works then let be known about.
Rant over, Have a nice day y'all
Ps It's wild wet n windy hear…
Pps still got electric so can still listen to an old tin can Decca with it's string holding the stylus in place, playing muzak on the Linn 12" Turd spinner.
Mostly true 🙂
That means perhaps we should call this thread the "ChrisG turntable thread"😉(please do not take this as an insult or sarcastic in any way, I guess it's a poor attempt at humour). We could all benefit from some of your personal experiences. I've been trying to build decks for as long as I've been doing the tonearms, about 5-7 years or so. I welcome any and all personal insights regardless if I might agree or disagree with whatever is being suggested or stated as being effective. I have always viewed dissension or, for that matter, any argument (as in a debate or difference of opinion) as a gateway to better understanding, not necessarily an attack on one's thinking as long as it is not personal. (eg: "you idiot....", etc.)
I can't agree more. This echoes the Linn hierarchy somewhat.
I suspect that sreten named the Dual bearing in particular (I stated I would be working on a Dual and/or a Garrard Lab60), because the ones used in Dual changers are a POS (as are the ones used in the Garrard changers, and I might suggest all changers). Here I agree, a substitution for something that would be superior to these 5 tiny loose balls, perhaps a better cup and cone and truly loose balls in a much larger size (the ones in the Dual bearing are perhaps d=4mm) would be appropriate.
I use high tensile strength nylon upholstery's thread. I suspect that 100% pure silk thread would be excellent as well. 1/4" and 1/2" tape (video and audio) can make excellent non-stretch (or low-stretch) belts and has been used in a few designs.
There is no strict requirement for 3 feet, rather than 4 (or even more). Four feet are perfectly acceptable based on the mass of the table and where its centre of gravity is. It's just that 3 points define a plane and can make it easier to level a turntable, but there are no rules per say that limit the number of feet to 3, 4 or however many as may be required. It just makes it more difficult to get exactly the same mass being supported by each.
Chris:
I feel that almost everything you have stated is very solid advice, and of course mostly true.
No doubt you get excellent results. And I do know many swear by slate plinths, regardless of the drive type of the turntable be installed in a plinth made of it (apparently soapstone can be very good as well).One thing I see is how many folks are confused about the goal of using various feet. Are they isolation (as in decoupling) types (like the famous Audio Technica AT605 feet) or are they coupling types (typically hard cones or spikes)? Do you want to isolate the turntable from its surroundings, or do you want to use the building as a "seismic sink" having any vibrations passed to the building (as in a "sink")?
Sorry if it seems that I may be pandering to sreten, but this is a case where the end result and the basic goal of a turntable re-build or re-plinth needs to be established prior to an "end" project. For experimentation, one should make no assumptions and begin educating one's self, making as many mistakes as one needs to so that they become convinced of whatever they were trying to establish. But for a final end result, one should have a specific goal in mind. Perhaps I never emphatically stated that some sort of goal needs to be stated and adhered to previously, but do I find myself agreeing with sreten in this regard.
all: Please remember the goal of this thread: take a POS turntable and make something eminently more listenable. And I am not suggesting any large expenditures. In fact I am suggesting the opposite.
That means perhaps we should call this thread the "ChrisG turntable thread"😉(please do not take this as an insult or sarcastic in any way, I guess it's a poor attempt at humour). We could all benefit from some of your personal experiences. I've been trying to build decks for as long as I've been doing the tonearms, about 5-7 years or so. I welcome any and all personal insights regardless if I might agree or disagree with whatever is being suggested or stated as being effective. I have always viewed dissension or, for that matter, any argument (as in a debate or difference of opinion) as a gateway to better understanding, not necessarily an attack on one's thinking as long as it is not personal. (eg: "you idiot....", etc.)
I can't agree more. This echoes the Linn hierarchy somewhat.
I suspect that sreten named the Dual bearing in particular (I stated I would be working on a Dual and/or a Garrard Lab60), because the ones used in Dual changers are a POS (as are the ones used in the Garrard changers, and I might suggest all changers). Here I agree, a substitution for something that would be superior to these 5 tiny loose balls, perhaps a better cup and cone and truly loose balls in a much larger size (the ones in the Dual bearing are perhaps d=4mm) would be appropriate.
I suspect this is via a string belt? Or are you suggesting an idler wheel rim drive or a direct rim drive as per the Weathers turntables?
Suspensions when properly designed and tuned can help reduce vibrational feedback and isolate the platter (and tonearm if mounted on the suspended sub-chassis). Remember just as in motor drive types there are no absolutes. There are benefits to the high mass approach as well in comparison to a light sub-chassis suspended type. Rather than spend time designing a suspension from start to finish, I'd either tune what I have or remove it all together. There are very good examples of very effective suspended turntables, as well as many "high mass" non-suspended types that are less than perfect. It can come down to what do you expect or need the plinth/suspension to do? If isolation is paramount, then a suspension is a must. If coupling the tt to the building (via the plinth and any equipment supports whether sitting on a floor or hung off the wall) is required then a purely "massy" plinth may be all that is required.
Yes! Regardless of drive type, else use whatever means available to isolate the motor from the plinth if possible. Because of the prevalence of large motors in idler drives ( in comparison to belt drive types), I might add that a large motor exceeding the the torque requirements is something to consider. Whether right or wrong I am of the opinion that a larger motor will have an easier time stabilizing the inertia to some constant rather than a super-high mass platter. Ten pounds (4.54 kg)or up to 2" (51.4mm) thick seems to be what I consider to be reasonable, but that is a personal preference as I like the old school "traditional" plinth looks, particularly in suspended turntables.
I use high tensile strength nylon upholstery's thread. I suspect that 100% pure silk thread would be excellent as well. 1/4" and 1/2" tape (video and audio) can make excellent non-stretch (or low-stretch) belts and has been used in a few designs.
Er...rather super coupling. A high mass supported by 3 small ball bearings will result in a significant amount of pressure. Decoupling is exactly the opposite. That is, if a significant displacement occurs (due to a passing bus or other relatively low frequency event) does it affect your turntable if playing? So the idea in decoupling is to reduce the pressure at the points of contact to a minimal amount so that the effects of a change in the resonant frequency and amplitude of the disturbance to the building/foundation/floor/equipment rack system is reduced.
There is no strict requirement for 3 feet, rather than 4 (or even more). Four feet are perfectly acceptable based on the mass of the table and where its centre of gravity is. It's just that 3 points define a plane and can make it easier to level a turntable, but there are no rules per say that limit the number of feet to 3, 4 or however many as may be required. It just makes it more difficult to get exactly the same mass being supported by each.
Chris:
I feel that almost everything you have stated is very solid advice, and of course mostly true.
No doubt you get excellent results. And I do know many swear by slate plinths, regardless of the drive type of the turntable be installed in a plinth made of it (apparently soapstone can be very good as well).One thing I see is how many folks are confused about the goal of using various feet. Are they isolation (as in decoupling) types (like the famous Audio Technica AT605 feet) or are they coupling types (typically hard cones or spikes)? Do you want to isolate the turntable from its surroundings, or do you want to use the building as a "seismic sink" having any vibrations passed to the building (as in a "sink")?
Sorry if it seems that I may be pandering to sreten, but this is a case where the end result and the basic goal of a turntable re-build or re-plinth needs to be established prior to an "end" project. For experimentation, one should make no assumptions and begin educating one's self, making as many mistakes as one needs to so that they become convinced of whatever they were trying to establish. But for a final end result, one should have a specific goal in mind. Perhaps I never emphatically stated that some sort of goal needs to be stated and adhered to previously, but do I find myself agreeing with sreten in this regard.
all: Please remember the goal of this thread: take a POS turntable and make something eminently more listenable. And I am not suggesting any large expenditures. In fact I am suggesting the opposite.
What is the benefit of silk vs any other material? How does it transmit less motor noise? Is it because it is compliant (elastic, stretchy) and forms a mechanical filter with the rotational masses? If that is so, then wouldn't a conventional rubber belt work just as well? And if compliance is the goal, to filter motor noise, then don't we lose control of the rotational velocity of the platter? If, on the other hand, we like silk because of its high tensile strength and resistance to stretch (low compliance) then wouldn't something like Kevlar thread (used by fly tiers) be even better?
Stew, are you using a flat or twisted nylon thread? You might want to take a stroll down to the local tackle shop and have a look at various fly tying threads; round vs flat, nylon, silk, kevlar, probably stuff I don't know about, many diameters.
Hello Everyone
I've just been reading the last few contributions with interest and have the following comments to make:
My current deck isn't just a 'first off'- I've been experimenting for years since my university days when I first messed around with a Garrard 86SB
Since then, the only commercially-produced turntables I have used that I have been happy with are Garrard 301 and 401's and a Scheu Analogue. I had a number of Pink Triangles but they were flawed-anyone who charges what Arthur did for a deck where the top plate was held in place by 'Pritt-Pads' is really taking the mickey!
Therefore my base line is pretty good. The current deck uses elements that I have found have worked well. The silk thread drive is not only cheap (my wife thought I had taken up dress-making when I asked her to come into the sewing shop with me!) but also effective. I've used slate on this and have a slate plinth for my current 401 waiting in the wings and this is a super material-looks good too.
So there you have it-I prefer to damp resonances with mass-suspended decks feel like a toy in comparison- did you ever see the springs on the PT? Less than a 'quidsworth,' I would estimate.
I have another deck I'm pleased with-uses a Gyro bearing (superbly engineered) and an original Gyro platter-solid slab of aluminium. This is used as the test bed for my arms-changing the arm is a doddle. It uses an MDF base and again decoupled dc motor and silk thread. Very pleasing performance indeed. Looks quite a bit different to my other deck but still puts in a super performance. I'll post some pictures later
Regards
Chris
I've just been reading the last few contributions with interest and have the following comments to make:
My current deck isn't just a 'first off'- I've been experimenting for years since my university days when I first messed around with a Garrard 86SB
Since then, the only commercially-produced turntables I have used that I have been happy with are Garrard 301 and 401's and a Scheu Analogue. I had a number of Pink Triangles but they were flawed-anyone who charges what Arthur did for a deck where the top plate was held in place by 'Pritt-Pads' is really taking the mickey!
Therefore my base line is pretty good. The current deck uses elements that I have found have worked well. The silk thread drive is not only cheap (my wife thought I had taken up dress-making when I asked her to come into the sewing shop with me!) but also effective. I've used slate on this and have a slate plinth for my current 401 waiting in the wings and this is a super material-looks good too.
So there you have it-I prefer to damp resonances with mass-suspended decks feel like a toy in comparison- did you ever see the springs on the PT? Less than a 'quidsworth,' I would estimate.
I have another deck I'm pleased with-uses a Gyro bearing (superbly engineered) and an original Gyro platter-solid slab of aluminium. This is used as the test bed for my arms-changing the arm is a doddle. It uses an MDF base and again decoupled dc motor and silk thread. Very pleasing performance indeed. Looks quite a bit different to my other deck but still puts in a super performance. I'll post some pictures later
Regards
Chris
The problem with the thread, whatever material you use, is the knot.
It does "cloc" at each passage over the pulley of the motor.
It can't be harmless.
It does "cloc" at each passage over the pulley of the motor.
It can't be harmless.
Hello A ch
The same drive method is used by the (very) expensive Scheu Analogue turntables. When you use this method the ends of the knot are always on the outside of the platter/pulley as it rotates. The actual knot in contact is negligible. I've never noticed any issues using the silk thread and you can't hear any regular 'noises' via my very revealing system.
So the verdict-it works better than any rubber belt- its lack of transmission of any motor noise and the fact that it is 'non-compliant' in use-unlike a rubber belt-makes it a winner-next best thing to direct rim drive in my book.
The same drive method is used by the (very) expensive Scheu Analogue turntables. When you use this method the ends of the knot are always on the outside of the platter/pulley as it rotates. The actual knot in contact is negligible. I've never noticed any issues using the silk thread and you can't hear any regular 'noises' via my very revealing system.
So the verdict-it works better than any rubber belt- its lack of transmission of any motor noise and the fact that it is 'non-compliant' in use-unlike a rubber belt-makes it a winner-next best thing to direct rim drive in my book.
I believe-you, of course.
Maybe it is not audible (probably I can't ear it) in the sound but there is a variation of thikness of the "belt" each time the knot passes on the pulley (on the platter too but it is relatively less important).
I think it is a pity to mill or turn a turntable at less than the µm and have such a big defect, even if it is not audible.
Maybe it is not audible (probably I can't ear it) in the sound but there is a variation of thikness of the "belt" each time the knot passes on the pulley (on the platter too but it is relatively less important).
I think it is a pity to mill or turn a turntable at less than the µm and have such a big defect, even if it is not audible.
Hi
I'm a great believer in practical experience when it comes to turntables. All I can think of on this is the the thread is so fine it doesn't store energy in the same way as a rubber belt would. Where it scores is that if you have a very quiet dc motor (as I have) the lack of flex (that you get with a rubber belt) means that speed variation due to 'drag' etc is reduced enormously. For the sake of spending a few pounds on a reel of silk thread, I'd say give it a go. One thing is for sure-I'm never going back to a rubber belt.
I'm sure that there is a scientific view on this- too many manufacturers have 'invented' problems in the past and then tried to back it up with 'theory'-which has conned many people (including me!!) out of a lot of money in the past.
I'm a great believer in practical experience when it comes to turntables. All I can think of on this is the the thread is so fine it doesn't store energy in the same way as a rubber belt would. Where it scores is that if you have a very quiet dc motor (as I have) the lack of flex (that you get with a rubber belt) means that speed variation due to 'drag' etc is reduced enormously. For the sake of spending a few pounds on a reel of silk thread, I'd say give it a go. One thing is for sure-I'm never going back to a rubber belt.
I'm sure that there is a scientific view on this- too many manufacturers have 'invented' problems in the past and then tried to back it up with 'theory'-which has conned many people (including me!!) out of a lot of money in the past.
phivates and nezbleu: Silk has relatively low density and is low mass. It has the same tensile strength of good Easton arrow shafts (100 ksi). Not as strong or as dense as Kevlar or nylon, but more than ASTM 514 high strength steel (although measured in a completely different way than a solid). Silk is not slick, it is actually quite grippy.
Because of the relatively few fibres required for a suitable strength and therefore little mass (which means very little energy storage) and its inherent grip, not a lot of tension is required to allow the thread to grip the pulley and the platter. It is very suitable as a belt material.
As others have suggested good nylon thread can be used as well.
...and so it is...
...er I wouldn't be using any alcohol for a damping fluid, it is hydroscopic and the alcohol content would just evaporate away. I'd much prefer in relaxing and consuming said fluids whilst listening to music and marvelling at how good "kitchen table" constructions can work. Even cooking oil could be used as damping fluid in a pinch 😉 .
Hee hee I'm with Stew on the fluid, no good wasting good liqueur. I used a Christmas pressie, shower gel, nice and gloopy and as a bonus my corner smells lovely and it works 🙂
Hi,
Any damping fluid should not contain anything that evaporates,
so both alcohol and water are a complete no-no. Vegetable oils
oxidise, so they are no good. Motor / engine / fork oils are OK,
but tend to thicken with the more volatile components tending
to evaporate in open air. Which leads to the classic damping
fluid, a grade of silicone fluid / grease, which does the job.
rgds, sreten.
Thinking about it a water gel hydroscopic enough to maintain
its consistency in a normal environment could also work.
Can't think of one though.
Any damping fluid should not contain anything that evaporates,
so both alcohol and water are a complete no-no. Vegetable oils
oxidise, so they are no good. Motor / engine / fork oils are OK,
but tend to thicken with the more volatile components tending
to evaporate in open air. Which leads to the classic damping
fluid, a grade of silicone fluid / grease, which does the job.
rgds, sreten.
Thinking about it a water gel hydroscopic enough to maintain
its consistency in a normal environment could also work.
Can't think of one though.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.