Hello everyone
For some time now I've had a TD125 with said tonearm standing around, and I'm just not as happy with it as I should. I know the improved is not as great as the original but still quite a good arm. Now I just got a replacement stylus for the original M75MG cartridge and thought I'd do a little more research on some problems.
First:
Is it normal that my stylus gets ripped out of its groove when the anti skating is set to the recommended value?
Even on the first track of a record, in the outermost grooves. Not to speak about the arm moving outwards when the lift is operated... Is this something you have experienced as well or do you suspect a mistake on my side?
and secondly:
With original Headshell, cartridge and mounting plate, I have to slide the base of the tonearm all the way to the left (closer to the tts' spindle) and still the alignment is slightly off with the gauge I use (66.04mm and 129.9mm standard Baerwald null points) - What do I do wrong or is this normal?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Bin
For some time now I've had a TD125 with said tonearm standing around, and I'm just not as happy with it as I should. I know the improved is not as great as the original but still quite a good arm. Now I just got a replacement stylus for the original M75MG cartridge and thought I'd do a little more research on some problems.
First:
Is it normal that my stylus gets ripped out of its groove when the anti skating is set to the recommended value?
Even on the first track of a record, in the outermost grooves. Not to speak about the arm moving outwards when the lift is operated... Is this something you have experienced as well or do you suspect a mistake on my side?and secondly:
With original Headshell, cartridge and mounting plate, I have to slide the base of the tonearm all the way to the left (closer to the tts' spindle) and still the alignment is slightly off with the gauge I use (66.04mm and 129.9mm standard Baerwald null points) - What do I do wrong or is this normal?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Bin
Hi,
Its hard to imagine how you can screw up the antiskating setting,
but yes you must be doing something wrong / not very sensible.
Optimum arm base position should not be near the extremes.
rgds, sreten.
Its hard to imagine how you can screw up the antiskating setting,
but yes you must be doing something wrong / not very sensible.
Optimum arm base position should not be near the extremes.
rgds, sreten.
Set up information for this arm can be found on www.vinylengine.com
Note that if the pad on the lift is slick the arm may skate during lowering.
Is the table properly leveled?
What is the tracking force? The anti-skate should probably be set in the notch closest to the fulcrum for any tracking force less than < 2gms.
I've owned a number of 3009 Series II Unimproved, and like the Improved even less.
I'd look at the Schick 9" arm, a Hadcock 228, or Jelco over one of these.
Less costly options would include a Rega or an www.audiomods.co.uk arm (modified Rega)
Note that if the pad on the lift is slick the arm may skate during lowering.
Is the table properly leveled?
What is the tracking force? The anti-skate should probably be set in the notch closest to the fulcrum for any tracking force less than < 2gms.
I've owned a number of 3009 Series II Unimproved, and like the Improved even less.
I'd look at the Schick 9" arm, a Hadcock 228, or Jelco over one of these.
Less costly options would include a Rega or an www.audiomods.co.uk arm (modified Rega)
Thank you for your replies. I know right?! But all I do is following the original manuals instructions. I did not change anything about the tonearm base plate, so if the seller was honest it should still be the original.
and thank you kevinkr, yes the table is properly leveled and I did degrease and roughen the lift surfaces. What you describe is exactly what I experienced. But in the manual the only recommend tracking forces of up to 1.5g and they tell you to set the anti skate to the corresponding division. That FOR SURE doesn't work. Originally I had 1.5g tracking forc and the as in the outermost notch. Thank god I had a scrap record to test it... So from now on it'll stay in the division for .25g.
Yeah, I'm starting to really dislike this arm as well.
I'll lok into that, thank you.
Best regards,
Bin
and thank you kevinkr, yes the table is properly leveled and I did degrease and roughen the lift surfaces. What you describe is exactly what I experienced. But in the manual the only recommend tracking forces of up to 1.5g and they tell you to set the anti skate to the corresponding division. That FOR SURE doesn't work. Originally I had 1.5g tracking forc and the as in the outermost notch. Thank god I had a scrap record to test it... So from now on it'll stay in the division for .25g.
Yeah, I'm starting to really dislike this arm as well.
I'll lok into that, thank you.
Best regards,
Bin
I found that cartridges operating at higher tracking forces were less problematic during cuing and landing on the lead in.
I have exactly the same tonearm and have no issues with it. All set and passed all tests with hifi new analogue test LP. You definitely doing something wrong or your tonearm has some fault.
Could well be, what cartridge and tracking force are you using? Note that I had the same problems with the anti-skating on several 3009 Series II that I owned, but the arm/cartridge combos in question passed all of the bands on my test record as well. (I forget which one I have)
The SME3009 has a fixed angle of cartridge axis to hinge.Hello everyone
For some time now I've had a TD125 with said tonearm standing around, and I'm just not as happy with it as I should. I know the improved is not as great as the original but still quite a good arm. Now I just got a replacement stylus for the original M75MG cartridge and thought I'd do a little more research on some problems.
First:
Is it normal that my stylus gets ripped out of its groove when the anti skating is set to the recommended value?
and secondly:
With original Headshell, cartridge and mounting plate, I have to slide the base of the tonearm all the way to the left (closer to the tts' spindle) and still the alignment is slightly off with the gauge I use (66.04mm and 129.9mm standard Baerwald null points) - What do I do wrong or is this normal?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Bin
That determines the optimum distance from hinge to cart needle.
This in turn results in an overhang relative to the record spindle.
Could you measure the range of overhang at the two extremes of the slide?
That would give us a clue to whether the arm is located at the correct distance from the spindle.
xpycmuk: you are a GOD 
and the acutex is only 4g.
But with AS set to minimum I also pass all the bands on my test LP.
EDIT: the measurement from centre position is about 225mm, so about 212mm all the way to the left. AFAIK, this IS wrong!! Wouldn't it be 217mm to centre point? Sorry to have waisted your time 🙁
and the acutex is only 4g.But with AS set to minimum I also pass all the bands on my test LP.
Will do! the only thing is that I didn't change anything about that, so if it's wrong, did Thorens mount it the wrong way?
EDIT: the measurement from centre position is about 225mm, so about 212mm all the way to the left. AFAIK, this IS wrong!! Wouldn't it be 217mm to centre point? Sorry to have waisted your time 🙁
Last edited:
I have a very old td150 which had a tp arm fitted as standard.
I changed the arm to a 3009/2 imp
and found that the arm hinge was too close to the spindle.
This is in part due to the quite small chassis and cover used for the td150.
I made up a new arm board, that mounted the arm further from the spindle, to allow proper adjustment using the two point zero error method.
I changed the arm to a 3009/2 imp
and found that the arm hinge was too close to the spindle.
This is in part due to the quite small chassis and cover used for the td150.
I made up a new arm board, that mounted the arm further from the spindle, to allow proper adjustment using the two point zero error method.
I also have the TD125 and SME 3009 type 2 improved combo and everything works perfectly as it should. Is the tonearm wiring at the base of the tonearm twisted up and pulling the arm round?
Since my last post I have been searching the internet for td125s with 3009 II imp, and from the pictures I can tell NO difference in mounting position. Maybe they did this due to restrictions in postioning possibilites as well. But I think I might go ahead and ask Joel, a retired thorens employee and non-retired expert, about that matter.
BTW the TD150 is beautiful! Great table you got there.
BTW the TD150 is beautiful! Great table you got there.
It's normal.
So Joel, being the nice guy he is explained to me that Thorens did factory mount 3009 II imp. arms. The mounting hole centers at 217.9mm from the spindle, but the tolerances were quite large, so it is well possible that you get an arm that you have to move all the way to one side to get it aligned. I just tried it again, and in fact that's the case with my board.
Not as eshtetically pleasing, but factory. So if anyone experiences something similar, don't worry, it's perfectly normal.😀
So Joel, being the nice guy he is explained to me that Thorens did factory mount 3009 II imp. arms. The mounting hole centers at 217.9mm from the spindle, but the tolerances were quite large, so it is well possible that you get an arm that you have to move all the way to one side to get it aligned. I just tried it again, and in fact that's the case with my board.
Not as eshtetically pleasing, but factory. So if anyone experiences something similar, don't worry, it's perfectly normal.😀- Status
- Not open for further replies.