Clearing up some misinformation
I used to own a VersaDynamics 1.0 and am fairly familiar with most of the issues involved. There has been some misinformation on this thread and I would like to clear some of it up.
The first turntable VD made was called the 2.0. It had an air bearing for both the platter and the "tonearm". Both bearings were made by Precision Instruments in Minneapolis. John Bicht had input as far as his requirements, and PI has a consultant that works with them to design the best solution. So the bearings were a team effort.
John wanted to get rid of the tonearm tube altogether, as he felt that all of them resonated so much that they hopelessly colored the sound. He came up with a brilliant solution whereby the air bearing for the arm would pivot over the record. Instead of a tonearm, there was just a "headshell" that traveled along the air bearing.
The effective tonearm length was very short and the vertical bearing was about 1/2" above the record surface. Both of these factors would lead to a lot of warp-wow on a warped record. JB therefore used a vacuum hold-down to ensure the record was flat. This also had the benefit of reducing any resonances of the record itself while the stylus was vibrating on it.
~~~~~~~~~~
He always knew that there would be a cheaper one, and later on he introduced the 1.0. Same arm and arm bearing, but this time the platter bearing was a unique zero-clearance design (probably inspired by Bill Firebaugh's Well-Tempered Turntable). The platter was still a constrained layer affair, as was the plinth, but they were not as massive as on the Model 2.0.
There were a few options on the Model 1.0:
- Dust cover
- Stand (two heights available)
- Adjustable azimuth headshell.
That's all I can remember, but there may have been one more. I believe that all of these were standard on the Model 1.0.
~~~~~~~~~
John was a brilliant designer, and these turntables still are among the best ever produced. However, he was a less good businessman and closed the shop after a couple of years and many rave reviews. He is still alive and living in Colorado. You can see his website at Versalab - home of Versalab Espresso & Photographic & Heiland products -- the M3 Espresso System the ultimate high-end machines for espresso - the Print Washer - the Parallel - the Splitgrade where he currently sells espresso makers and some analog photography equipment. He will also provide spare parts for the turntables, but he charges for telephone advice.
~~~~~~~~~~
After he ceased production on the turntables, he imported the MicroMega CD players briefly and found a lot of the sonic problem with digital was due to RFI. He made a line of ferrite-based RFI filters called the "Wood Block" and "Red Rollers" and so forth.
He then came up with some updates for his turntables. He felt that they were significant enough to skip some levels, so the 1.0 became the 1.2 and the 2.0 became the 2.3. These were DIY kits that took many, many hours to install. They largely consisted of adding ferrites to keep the RFI from the microprocessor based control box away from the phono cartridge and also an increase in the arm pressure to increase the rigidity of the arm bearing. A special set of gauges was required to change the arm pressure. At one time he would either rent them or sell them to you, but nowadays you would probably have to buy them yourself from a scientific supply house.
~~~~~~~~~~
John had very strong opinions on the proper way to do things. He was adamant that a stepper motor was the best way to spin a platter. The tonearm had a very small clearance and could "stick", causing the record to skip. He would say to turn the pump off and just "scrub" the rod with the headshell. There is a carbon sleeve in the headshell (at least in the Model 1.0) so that it could not scratch the polished rod. I don't know if he still recommends that method.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I have had very bad experiences with ferrites and would not recommend using them. John would disagree with this advice strongly. I think there are a few ways to improve the performance of these brilliant 'tables, but very few.
Once is to defeat the spring suspension. (I believe that JB endorsed this idea.) Replace the springs with rigid blocks and tighten down the transport screws. The material of the blocks will affect the sound. I would recommend myrtle wood blocks. (JB would probably disagree with this.)
The other is the motor and control system. The ultimate goal would be to eliminate the uP and its high frequency (4 MHz???) crystal. This would be a major project in itself, plus the uP drives the stepper motor. So one would either need to drive the stepper motor a different way or else use another motor altogether. Again, JB was adamant that the stepper was the best solution.
~~~~~~~~~
What specific problems were you having?
I used to own a VersaDynamics 1.0 and am fairly familiar with most of the issues involved. There has been some misinformation on this thread and I would like to clear some of it up.
The first turntable VD made was called the 2.0. It had an air bearing for both the platter and the "tonearm". Both bearings were made by Precision Instruments in Minneapolis. John Bicht had input as far as his requirements, and PI has a consultant that works with them to design the best solution. So the bearings were a team effort.
John wanted to get rid of the tonearm tube altogether, as he felt that all of them resonated so much that they hopelessly colored the sound. He came up with a brilliant solution whereby the air bearing for the arm would pivot over the record. Instead of a tonearm, there was just a "headshell" that traveled along the air bearing.
The effective tonearm length was very short and the vertical bearing was about 1/2" above the record surface. Both of these factors would lead to a lot of warp-wow on a warped record. JB therefore used a vacuum hold-down to ensure the record was flat. This also had the benefit of reducing any resonances of the record itself while the stylus was vibrating on it.
~~~~~~~~~~
He always knew that there would be a cheaper one, and later on he introduced the 1.0. Same arm and arm bearing, but this time the platter bearing was a unique zero-clearance design (probably inspired by Bill Firebaugh's Well-Tempered Turntable). The platter was still a constrained layer affair, as was the plinth, but they were not as massive as on the Model 2.0.
There were a few options on the Model 1.0:
- Dust cover
- Stand (two heights available)
- Adjustable azimuth headshell.
That's all I can remember, but there may have been one more. I believe that all of these were standard on the Model 1.0.
~~~~~~~~~
John was a brilliant designer, and these turntables still are among the best ever produced. However, he was a less good businessman and closed the shop after a couple of years and many rave reviews. He is still alive and living in Colorado. You can see his website at Versalab - home of Versalab Espresso & Photographic & Heiland products -- the M3 Espresso System the ultimate high-end machines for espresso - the Print Washer - the Parallel - the Splitgrade where he currently sells espresso makers and some analog photography equipment. He will also provide spare parts for the turntables, but he charges for telephone advice.
~~~~~~~~~~
After he ceased production on the turntables, he imported the MicroMega CD players briefly and found a lot of the sonic problem with digital was due to RFI. He made a line of ferrite-based RFI filters called the "Wood Block" and "Red Rollers" and so forth.
He then came up with some updates for his turntables. He felt that they were significant enough to skip some levels, so the 1.0 became the 1.2 and the 2.0 became the 2.3. These were DIY kits that took many, many hours to install. They largely consisted of adding ferrites to keep the RFI from the microprocessor based control box away from the phono cartridge and also an increase in the arm pressure to increase the rigidity of the arm bearing. A special set of gauges was required to change the arm pressure. At one time he would either rent them or sell them to you, but nowadays you would probably have to buy them yourself from a scientific supply house.
~~~~~~~~~~
John had very strong opinions on the proper way to do things. He was adamant that a stepper motor was the best way to spin a platter. The tonearm had a very small clearance and could "stick", causing the record to skip. He would say to turn the pump off and just "scrub" the rod with the headshell. There is a carbon sleeve in the headshell (at least in the Model 1.0) so that it could not scratch the polished rod. I don't know if he still recommends that method.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I have had very bad experiences with ferrites and would not recommend using them. John would disagree with this advice strongly. I think there are a few ways to improve the performance of these brilliant 'tables, but very few.
Once is to defeat the spring suspension. (I believe that JB endorsed this idea.) Replace the springs with rigid blocks and tighten down the transport screws. The material of the blocks will affect the sound. I would recommend myrtle wood blocks. (JB would probably disagree with this.)
The other is the motor and control system. The ultimate goal would be to eliminate the uP and its high frequency (4 MHz???) crystal. This would be a major project in itself, plus the uP drives the stepper motor. So one would either need to drive the stepper motor a different way or else use another motor altogether. Again, JB was adamant that the stepper was the best solution.
~~~~~~~~~
What specific problems were you having?
Hello Charles,
I'm glad to meet someone who is familiar versa.
The problem in France is that there was to my knowledge, (which is confirmed by JB ), a 1.0 Versa and that is sold I have. I got no instructions and it was hard to make it work better. My job helped me a lot because I am a technician in a Linn Elite shop in Paris and I am specializing in turntable.
I had problems in the arm, tracking groove was not done correctly. I am in contact with the vinyl engine site with a user Versa and he gave me some information that I have been very useful. I would love to have the service manual in order to keep the compressor properly because I think that a review would not be a luxury even if it works normally.But JB is not very talkative about it and as my English is absolutely poor, I will not try to call me it would be extremely costly.
So I'm looking for items that can help me on this turntable.
I will still bring myself to order some parts to be sure not to crash one of these days ( Vacuum gasket, Drive belt, Arm air hose...etc )
Anyway, thank you for your intervention, I have learned about JB and his wonderful turntable.
I'm glad to meet someone who is familiar versa.
The problem in France is that there was to my knowledge, (which is confirmed by JB ), a 1.0 Versa and that is sold I have. I got no instructions and it was hard to make it work better. My job helped me a lot because I am a technician in a Linn Elite shop in Paris and I am specializing in turntable.
I had problems in the arm, tracking groove was not done correctly. I am in contact with the vinyl engine site with a user Versa and he gave me some information that I have been very useful. I would love to have the service manual in order to keep the compressor properly because I think that a review would not be a luxury even if it works normally.But JB is not very talkative about it and as my English is absolutely poor, I will not try to call me it would be extremely costly.
So I'm looking for items that can help me on this turntable.
I will still bring myself to order some parts to be sure not to crash one of these days ( Vacuum gasket, Drive belt, Arm air hose...etc )
Anyway, thank you for your intervention, I have learned about JB and his wonderful turntable.
You have triggered a memory for me. I believe that the 1.2 update kit included some different parts for the compressor in order to raise the pressure. I bought the kit but never installed it, so that is why I don't remember it so well.
I loved the turntable for its performance, but I had the short stand. This was supposed to sound better than the tall stand, but it was just at the right height for a toddler to "play" with. Since I had two baby boys, I decided to sell the Versa and buy a turntable that was simpler to use. I was tired of having the compressor in a closet to reduce the noise, hoses running across the floor, an extra control box and all of the things required to make it work.
Now I have a dps turntable from Germany with the three-phase synchronous motor. In theory, this is the only motor that eliminates all vibration and all torque pulses (but that is only if everything is perfect!). I have the Kuzma 4-Point arm. This is an incredible arm that is the only arm other than an air bearing to have both low friction and no bearing "chatter". A brilliant design!
So now my setup is very simple and very beautiful and very easy to use. I sort of miss the Versa, but not the $100 price for a replacement mat or the $75 price for the vacuum "lip" at the edge or the $50 price for the spindle bearing lubricant. I also don't miss the hoses nor the noise of the compressor. I also don't miss some of the things that I disagreed with in the design, such as the ferrite for the upgrade.
With my current turntable, it is easy to change the arm if I don't like the current one. I can change the belt or the record clamp or the platter mat. The turntable is beautiful and fits on a standard equipment rack. The power supply is small and easy to use. It is the Ayre power supply and there is only one button and no adjustments.
I think the problem is that John was ahead of his time. If he were selling his turntables now for $30,000 (1.2) and $50,000 (2.3), he would be making a lot of money and people would like owning his turntable. But as it is, only used ones are available. They sell for low prices (I think I sold mine for $5,000) and people that own them don't want to pay JB another $1,000 for parts or service instructions. Oh well -- one of the best turntables of all time!
Charles,
Thanks for throwing in those details... I don't think anyone had the differences confused or that the 2.0 came first... or the difference in the bearings.
If you can say something more about how the bearing on the 1.x is set up, I'd appreciate it... it is new to me, and looking at it I am somewhat scratching my head about how this is supposed to work and be set up, and what the purpose of the pin in the center is, and the "rings" (for lack of a better term) that mate with the aluminum (not terribly well finished) ring on the bottom of the platter.
I don't think that putting an outboard motor and/or controller to run the platter is a major issue (assuming you have the machining capabilities)... so that's for me speaking for myself only!
Attached is a shot of a 2.0 that I modified for a client many years back now, and you can see what I did for the "springs". Those are hydraulic dampers, the worked perfectly - at rest they do next to nothing, but they keep the TT chassis from swinging about and bouncing all over creation!
Short of adding in an air isolation system (not a bad idea) in place of the springs, this works great.
Again, if you have the machining capability on hand. I do, so it was practical for me.
Charles, PM or email me if you would?? Thanks.
_-_-bear
Thanks for throwing in those details... I don't think anyone had the differences confused or that the 2.0 came first... or the difference in the bearings.
If you can say something more about how the bearing on the 1.x is set up, I'd appreciate it... it is new to me, and looking at it I am somewhat scratching my head about how this is supposed to work and be set up, and what the purpose of the pin in the center is, and the "rings" (for lack of a better term) that mate with the aluminum (not terribly well finished) ring on the bottom of the platter.
I don't think that putting an outboard motor and/or controller to run the platter is a major issue (assuming you have the machining capabilities)... so that's for me speaking for myself only!
Attached is a shot of a 2.0 that I modified for a client many years back now, and you can see what I did for the "springs". Those are hydraulic dampers, the worked perfectly - at rest they do next to nothing, but they keep the TT chassis from swinging about and bouncing all over creation!
Short of adding in an air isolation system (not a bad idea) in place of the springs, this works great.
Again, if you have the machining capability on hand. I do, so it was practical for me.
Charles, PM or email me if you would?? Thanks.
_-_-bear
Attachments
Hello Bear,
No, people were saying that the 1.0 did not have the adjustable "headshell", while the 1.3 did, and things like that. There were just a few misconceptions floating around out there that I wanted to clear up.
The platter bearing on the 1.x is a work of art. (Surprise!) Basically there is a round peg in a square hole. The 'table is supposed to be either perfectly level or else tilted straight back one or two degrees (depending on the mood of JB when he wrote the instructions). The belt and gravity pull the platter straight back so that the round peg only contacts the back two sides of the square hole.
On the platter there is a ring around the post that is ground with a special rough finish to hold grease. This rotates on a mating ring made from a hard polymer. A special grease is used to both lubricate and also seal the vacuum. JB still sells this grease, but it ain't cheap! You only need a little bit, so the small tube should last a lifetime. DO NOT substitute this grease. Using the wrong grease can cause all kinds of problems, from damaging the bearing to clogging up the vacuum pump.
As far as a motor goes, the only motor that I would use would be a synchronous motor. DC motors don't have the torque required to turn the relatively high friction bearing of the Model 1.x. A carefully chosen synchronous motor can work, but JB was adamant that it would be a step backwards.
However it *could* eliminate the RFI of the stepper controller if implemented properly. But to take advantage of that, you would want to replace ALL of the control functions of the control box with things that did not require a microprocessor.
The best synchronous motor is a three-phase. Most three-phase controllers are based on crystal oscillators and digital electronics, so you are back in the same RFI boat again. The only pure-analog three-phase oscillator I know of is the one we developed for the German dps turntable (and possibly the one he sells also, I don't know).
The other thing is that to minimize the vibration and stray field, you want to mount the motor inside a heavy stainless steel "pod". All in all, I'm not sure that it's worth the effort. The first thing to do is to get it running. Then you can think about mods...
You can PM me if you like, but I prefer not to unless there are special circumstances. If I go to all the work of typing a lot of stuff, I want as many people to see it as possible.
No, people were saying that the 1.0 did not have the adjustable "headshell", while the 1.3 did, and things like that. There were just a few misconceptions floating around out there that I wanted to clear up.
The platter bearing on the 1.x is a work of art. (Surprise!) Basically there is a round peg in a square hole. The 'table is supposed to be either perfectly level or else tilted straight back one or two degrees (depending on the mood of JB when he wrote the instructions). The belt and gravity pull the platter straight back so that the round peg only contacts the back two sides of the square hole.
On the platter there is a ring around the post that is ground with a special rough finish to hold grease. This rotates on a mating ring made from a hard polymer. A special grease is used to both lubricate and also seal the vacuum. JB still sells this grease, but it ain't cheap! You only need a little bit, so the small tube should last a lifetime. DO NOT substitute this grease. Using the wrong grease can cause all kinds of problems, from damaging the bearing to clogging up the vacuum pump.
As far as a motor goes, the only motor that I would use would be a synchronous motor. DC motors don't have the torque required to turn the relatively high friction bearing of the Model 1.x. A carefully chosen synchronous motor can work, but JB was adamant that it would be a step backwards.
However it *could* eliminate the RFI of the stepper controller if implemented properly. But to take advantage of that, you would want to replace ALL of the control functions of the control box with things that did not require a microprocessor.
The best synchronous motor is a three-phase. Most three-phase controllers are based on crystal oscillators and digital electronics, so you are back in the same RFI boat again. The only pure-analog three-phase oscillator I know of is the one we developed for the German dps turntable (and possibly the one he sells also, I don't know).
The other thing is that to minimize the vibration and stray field, you want to mount the motor inside a heavy stainless steel "pod". All in all, I'm not sure that it's worth the effort. The first thing to do is to get it running. Then you can think about mods...
You can PM me if you like, but I prefer not to unless there are special circumstances. If I go to all the work of typing a lot of stuff, I want as many people to see it as possible.
I would expect that the special "grease" is just a suitable viscosity silicone grease?
White/clear??
The idea is that one does not want the vacuum pull it into the line or compressor... I would think?
Someone asked about the compressor - it's not particularly special as far as I can tell. It's a commercial product. If you use a regulator, I would think you can use any air source, and the vacuum I can't imagine being way too high with a compressor of similar size and capacity... just my guess...
Charles, my TT does not have an adjustable head piece, it is one piece.
I am thinking of a way to make a solid but relatively fast way to swap carts in and out...
I'll see, but defeating the suspension does not seem like something I will start with. This based on my experience with the 2.0. It sounded tremendous.
We'll see what the box does or does not do. A lightning hit on the line would have rendered it silicon wire... so that would mean a complete re-do.
Apparently there are some sine controllers for 3ph synchronous motors around. I don't have one though...
Stainless pod? Why, when I can have EDM'd Tungsten?
(nah)
I thought that was how the bearing worked. Thanks for the confirmation. Needless to say, I was surprised to see how it was set up!
_-_-bear
White/clear??
The idea is that one does not want the vacuum pull it into the line or compressor... I would think?
Someone asked about the compressor - it's not particularly special as far as I can tell. It's a commercial product. If you use a regulator, I would think you can use any air source, and the vacuum I can't imagine being way too high with a compressor of similar size and capacity... just my guess...
Charles, my TT does not have an adjustable head piece, it is one piece.
I am thinking of a way to make a solid but relatively fast way to swap carts in and out...
I'll see, but defeating the suspension does not seem like something I will start with. This based on my experience with the 2.0. It sounded tremendous.
We'll see what the box does or does not do. A lightning hit on the line would have rendered it silicon wire... so that would mean a complete re-do.
Apparently there are some sine controllers for 3ph synchronous motors around. I don't have one though...
Stainless pod? Why, when I can have EDM'd Tungsten?
(nah)I thought that was how the bearing worked. Thanks for the confirmation. Needless to say, I was surprised to see how it was set up!
_-_-bear
Last edited:
Grease -- I would buy a tube from VersaLab first. Then try to reverse-engineer it -- maybe... But this is not a place to save money. One tube will be a lifetime supply. Sure he marks it up 3x, but so what? $50 or whatever he charges is worth it. That is one of the best TT's in the world.
Compressor -- Sure, it is off the shelf. He didn't make his own compressor, or even have a custom model made for him. But what is the advantage? Or is your compressor dead? I would rebuild it before I bought a new one. Again, you need a starting point and you will be ahead of the game to figure out where to start from. After that you might be able to improve it.
Headshell -- The adjustable azimuth one was just the standard one cut in half. Then there was a socket head cap screw (maybe a 6-32 or an 8-32, something like that) right above the cartridge. But it was a $375 option! That's because after the two pieces were made, he lapped the mating surfaces on a surface plate by hand to get an absolutely rigid connection.
If you are trying to retro fit, you will have to either buy one from JB (very expensive) or cut yours in half, throw away the front part, make a new front part that is the same as the old one but add the length of the saw cut, drill and tap the slider, drill a clearance hole in the front part, finally lap both pieces to get them absolutely flat. Not a job for the faint of heart...
Motor Controllers -- Ayre will sell one, but it is stupidly expensive. Maybe $3,000 in the US. It puts out 12 Vrms at 33 rpm and 17 Vrms at 45 rpm. (A motor is an inductive load and requires higher voltage at higher frequencies to achieve the same current. This is some of the stuff we discovered during our year-long development cycle. It seemed like a simple task, but we kept finding flaws that had us start over. We ended up with a 3-phase analog oscillator with exactly 120 degrees between each phase and distortion below 0.001%. This feeds three zero-feedback power amps that raise the distortion slightly -- I think to 0.003%. It sounds WAY better than a low distortion sine wave and a capacitor to give a ~90 degree phase shift as is commonly done. The only audiophile TT I know of with a 3 phase motor is the SME, but they use a digital frequency synthesizer. Makes perfect sine waves and all, but has a crystal -- probably 100 MHz -- spewing RFI all around. I don't know of any others.)
Motor Pod -- Tungsten would be nice! I don't think the Versa 1.0 had one. The dps uses a stainless one.
Compressor -- Sure, it is off the shelf. He didn't make his own compressor, or even have a custom model made for him. But what is the advantage? Or is your compressor dead? I would rebuild it before I bought a new one. Again, you need a starting point and you will be ahead of the game to figure out where to start from. After that you might be able to improve it.
Headshell -- The adjustable azimuth one was just the standard one cut in half. Then there was a socket head cap screw (maybe a 6-32 or an 8-32, something like that) right above the cartridge. But it was a $375 option! That's because after the two pieces were made, he lapped the mating surfaces on a surface plate by hand to get an absolutely rigid connection.
If you are trying to retro fit, you will have to either buy one from JB (very expensive) or cut yours in half, throw away the front part, make a new front part that is the same as the old one but add the length of the saw cut, drill and tap the slider, drill a clearance hole in the front part, finally lap both pieces to get them absolutely flat. Not a job for the faint of heart...
Motor Controllers -- Ayre will sell one, but it is stupidly expensive. Maybe $3,000 in the US. It puts out 12 Vrms at 33 rpm and 17 Vrms at 45 rpm. (A motor is an inductive load and requires higher voltage at higher frequencies to achieve the same current. This is some of the stuff we discovered during our year-long development cycle. It seemed like a simple task, but we kept finding flaws that had us start over. We ended up with a 3-phase analog oscillator with exactly 120 degrees between each phase and distortion below 0.001%. This feeds three zero-feedback power amps that raise the distortion slightly -- I think to 0.003%. It sounds WAY better than a low distortion sine wave and a capacitor to give a ~90 degree phase shift as is commonly done. The only audiophile TT I know of with a 3 phase motor is the SME, but they use a digital frequency synthesizer. Makes perfect sine waves and all, but has a crystal -- probably 100 MHz -- spewing RFI all around. I don't know of any others.)
Motor Pod -- Tungsten would be nice! I don't think the Versa 1.0 had one. The dps uses a stainless one.
Hi
Why try to improve an already perfect turntable?
JB knew what he was doing, otherwise you have to find a 2.0 or 2.3.
He had written an article in a French magazine no longer exists (The Audiophile)
I read and reread many times this article, and all I can say is that today's manufacturers have invented nothing, JB had understood everything on the turntables and how to get all the information on a record.This man is a genius!
I'm appreciative and I'm looking just to keep his turntable in its original form and maintain performance. He deserves to be better known than it now; How many people know that he created the Mission 774 arm?
What I would like to discuss with him, it should be exciting.
Why try to improve an already perfect turntable?
JB knew what he was doing, otherwise you have to find a 2.0 or 2.3.
He had written an article in a French magazine no longer exists (The Audiophile)
I read and reread many times this article, and all I can say is that today's manufacturers have invented nothing, JB had understood everything on the turntables and how to get all the information on a record.This man is a genius!
I'm appreciative and I'm looking just to keep his turntable in its original form and maintain performance. He deserves to be better known than it now; How many people know that he created the Mission 774 arm?
What I would like to discuss with him, it should be exciting.
I agree, it would be hard to improve upon the Versa Dynamics turntables.
JB found some ways and made the upgrade kit. One improvement was to remove the cosmetic cover at the rear of the Model 1.0, as it was thin sheet metal and resonated. (Very much like removing the finger rest from a tonearm.) Also the pressure to the arm bearing was increased, which improved the bass and the sound staging. I am pretty sure (but could be wrong) that he also recommended defeating the suspension -- and that assumes that you are using his special high-performance stand.
The only thing that I would do differently (after being a full-time designer of high-performance audio equipment for around 25 years) would be to change the way he deals with RFI from the control box. His solution was to use ferrites. I think the best solution would be to eliminate the RFI at the source, but that would be a MAJOR re-design. The second best solution would be to use other RFI mitigation techniques other than ferrites. JB would argue with me that I was an idiot, but that is my opinion and it is based on a lot of experience with ferrites (including using them in our products for two years).
But the bottom line is that it remains a brilliant design and is unlikely to be surpassed at any time soon.
JB found some ways and made the upgrade kit. One improvement was to remove the cosmetic cover at the rear of the Model 1.0, as it was thin sheet metal and resonated. (Very much like removing the finger rest from a tonearm.) Also the pressure to the arm bearing was increased, which improved the bass and the sound staging. I am pretty sure (but could be wrong) that he also recommended defeating the suspension -- and that assumes that you are using his special high-performance stand.
The only thing that I would do differently (after being a full-time designer of high-performance audio equipment for around 25 years) would be to change the way he deals with RFI from the control box. His solution was to use ferrites. I think the best solution would be to eliminate the RFI at the source, but that would be a MAJOR re-design. The second best solution would be to use other RFI mitigation techniques other than ferrites. JB would argue with me that I was an idiot, but that is my opinion and it is based on a lot of experience with ferrites (including using them in our products for two years).
But the bottom line is that it remains a brilliant design and is unlikely to be surpassed at any time soon.
Yep, probably a best bet.
No, no. I have one that works. Another poster asked about it...
I can do that, or have it done. Either way.
Doubt that I will go that way. I think I will create something that works like a shoe on the existing arm thingie... I think. Subject to change. First pass is to run it stock anyhow... thanks for the description.
So, no pins for registration on the "adjustable" one? I thought it was just so you could change carts!
No fears mate!
[/quote]Motor Controllers -- Ayre will sell one, but it is stupidly expensive. Maybe $3,000 in the US. It puts out 12 Vrms at 33 rpm and 17 Vrms at 45 rpm. (A motor is an inductive load and requires higher voltage at higher frequencies to achieve the same current. This is some of the stuff we discovered during our year-long development cycle. It seemed like a simple task, but we kept finding flaws that had us start over. We ended up with a 3-phase analog oscillator with exactly 120 degrees between each phase and distortion below 0.001%. This feeds three zero-feedback power amps that raise the distortion slightly -- I think to 0.003%. It sounds WAY better than a low distortion sine wave and a capacitor to give a ~90 degree phase shift as is commonly done. The only audiophile TT I know of with a 3 phase motor is the SME, but they use a digital frequency synthesizer. Makes perfect sine waves and all, but has a crystal -- probably 100 MHz -- spewing RFI all around. I don't know of any others.) [/quote]
Sounds way better - because??
Seems like one could put the digital part in a nice shielded housing and LP filter the output get rid of the HF hash??
There are commercial chipz galore that do this trick today... I ran across at least one that is supposed to output the sine wave bit, but I didn't read the details to see what was involved... it might be a pwm made to make pseudo sines... dunno.
I'd like a prefabb'd solution that I can lightly modify for RFI considerations or stability if required...
No he mounts the motor on grommets on the bottom plate... not very elegant.
_-_-bear
No, it was only to change the azimuth. Changing the cartridge would require a second "headshell", plus you would have to pull the cartridge pins off every time. The lead-out wire was very fragile, as it could cause the record to "skip" if it were too stiff. But that made it difficult to change cartridges even once without yanking off the cartridge clip.
The snotty answer is that a three-phase controller sounds better than a quasi-two phase controller because it does. It's true, but it doesn't explain anything.
We can try to explain stuff, but we always fall short. A three-phase theoretically cancels all vibrations and all torque pulses. If you think about it, that is a HUGE advantage. And it turns out to be in real life also.
Seems like it, doesn't it?
But that isn't the case. If it were then every piece of electronics would be free from RFI and every line conditioner would sound the same because they would all be perfect.
But it doesn't work that way in real life. It's better to think of RFI as that slime monster from those '50s horror movies that could slip through any crack. As long as it exists, you can't block it or shield it. The only way to get around it is to not make it in the first place.
Anything you can buy is going to do it wrong. And that includes nearly all of the add-on turntable frequency "stabilizers". They are all digital. Some are PWM, but more common these days is DDS (direct digital synthesis). They send a sequence of numbers to a DAC chip and it will make any waveform they want.
On paper it looks great.
But in the real world I would rather listen to the 60 Hz from the wall.
No he mounts the motor on grommets on the bottom plate... not very elegant.
Do you mean the Versa or the dps? I assume you mean the Versa. That is very typical of turntables. I'm pretty sure that JB modded his own 'tables to mount differently. I can't remember if that was part of the update kit from the 1.0 to the 1.2 or not.
It turns out that the speed variations created by a suspension cause more harm to the sound than does the vibration transmitted to the motor. Look at the latest low-cost VPI. The motor is hard bolted to the top plinth! But there is now wobbly sound from the belt stretching or the motor mounts flopping around. And a good motor run at low speed won't introduce much vibration.
Heh...
I appreciate your observations...
In no way do I disagree with what ur saying about these effects.
It's useful to hear what you found on these matters, my experience while not insignificant is less than yours, certainly on this topic.
Speed variations you say... in a 20+ lb platter? Hmmm... interesting.
_-_-bear
I appreciate your observations...
In no way do I disagree with what ur saying about these effects.
It's useful to hear what you found on these matters, my experience while not insignificant is less than yours, certainly on this topic.
Speed variations you say... in a 20+ lb platter? Hmmm... interesting.
_-_-bear
You have to spend more time listening and less time thinking.
Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean that it will actually sound good.
Perfect example is the turntable we import, the dps, designed by Willi Bauer in Germany. Ignore the fact that we import it. We don't sell very many and we make less than 1% of our income from that product. So the fact that we import it doesn't mean I am biased either way. We chose to import it because I love the way it sounded and wanted to buy one. I figured that if I liked it, others would too. (Looks like I was wrong!
)That 'table has an acrylic platter less than 1" thick. Can't weigh more than a few pounds. No fancy weighted rim or any tricks. But what he does do is the same trick as the Versa 1.0 -- the platter bearing has a lot of friction. Therefore the motor is in control. By having a nice powerful motor, he gets great sound. In fact better sound than any mega-weight platter I have heard.
More than one way to skin a cat...
Aaarrgghh!!!
Sorry, I mistyped. The above sentence from my previous post should have said "But there is no wobbly sound" not there is "now" wobbly sound...
I hope I didn't confuse anyone too much.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I am quite confused most of the time...
You say you make money in this business?
Ah well...
Anyhow the friction idea has been floated before... notably in an old (now) Audio Amateur mag article on TT motors...
And I thought you meant to write: "...there isn't now wobbly sound..."
See?
_-_-bear
You say you make money in this business?
Ah well...
Anyhow the friction idea has been floated before... notably in an old (now) Audio Amateur mag article on TT motors...
And I thought you meant to write: "...there isn't now wobbly sound..."
See?
_-_-bear
Yes, all kinds of theories, and you can find examples of each design "school" with wonderful sound and other examples with not so good sound...
So as always, it is difficult to predict how something will sound. It is always best to listen to it. If you can live with the complexities, either Versa will provide state of the art sound for not a lot of money. Used ones are not cheap, but they are extremely cheap compared to a new turntable with comparable sound quality and build quality.
I just reached a point in my life where I preferred a simpler solution -- one that was easier to use, didn't take up so much room, and was quieter. (JB claims that properly set up that the pump will make no audible noise, but I could never get mine that way, no matter how hard I tried.) But I almost wish I had kept it just as an engineering marvel to gaze at -- sort of a sculpture or work of art!
So as always, it is difficult to predict how something will sound. It is always best to listen to it. If you can live with the complexities, either Versa will provide state of the art sound for not a lot of money. Used ones are not cheap, but they are extremely cheap compared to a new turntable with comparable sound quality and build quality.
I just reached a point in my life where I preferred a simpler solution -- one that was easier to use, didn't take up so much room, and was quieter. (JB claims that properly set up that the pump will make no audible noise, but I could never get mine that way, no matter how hard I tried.) But I almost wish I had kept it just as an engineering marvel to gaze at -- sort of a sculpture or work of art!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.