A new TT from Steve Dobbins,"The Beat." ???


From the first postings on the internet it sounds like a killer.

Does anyone know anything about this new TT?
kftool

Showing 2 responses by t_bone

Ken,
Thanks for the color. I might do the same thing on the platter for my 308. It would be great to get a better one. I would love to build a better platform as well - rather than the MDF box. As to numbers, in Japan at least, there are probably a fair bit more DN-308s than 100 because it seems like every NHK broadcast center and recording location, and a huge number of schools/universities/libraries/museums/etc were convinced to buy them (by government bureaucracy-funded NHK). I expect this was because of pressure to monetize the time spent by the engineers, and commit everyone to the NHK standard. I have heard that NHK effectively designed much of this table for Denon using their own engineers. FWIW, I have probably seen a couple dozen 308s over the years, and fewer 307s, and still fewer 306s (which I think were belt-drive). I have probably seen 20% of that number of console tables like this made by Victor and Matsushita (the original pro-use in the early 70s were Matsushita-labelled, not Technics it appears).

As to usage... it does have that funky headphone jack for headphones of a particular impedance (one can still buy them for about $350), and the mini speaker, but it is clear they were also meant to play for broadcast as well because the thing has a built-in phono stage AND preamp with 600ohm balanced output for direct-to-amp playback. When I talked to Denon today, the two people I know there separately said that Denon would refuse to service a table owned by an individual in Japan and it was explicitly up to the user to figure it out for himself. Not a terribly satisfactory response, but it is what it is. Thankfully, there are a number of people out there in the private sector who can service them.

The same people, speaking about the DP-100, said that the DP-100 was sold to a few radio stations but the vast majority were sold to consumers. Most commercial users took the DN- series because they came with a service/maintenance contract (like most companies do with copiers these days), whereas the DP-100 did not come with the same service package.

As to total numbers made, on the DN-308 (and earlier DN-307 and DN-306) they said they WOULD not answer. As to the DP-100, they said they COULD not answer because the data was lost (but noted that it was only an order-built machine, and production lasted 4 years). That is four times I have asked in the last year to four different people involved with Denon servicing and four times I have been told they have no idea. Not encouraging, but it is what it is. Based on serial numbers, I know it approaches 50.

As to the motors in the DP-100 and the DN-308. They are, I was told today by a guy who serviced the DN-308 in the past and now does old tables in the consumer section, completely different beasts. This makes some sense when I think about it because the DN-308 came out before the AU-169 cutting head motor (which is in the DP-100) which was first presented in a technology show in 1979. I think my Denon DN-308 comes from 1979 (you can check your date by looking on the bottom row of the serial number plaque on the front underneath the console portion; an "S" (or a 昭和 or a 昭) and a two-digit number; "45" is 1970 and "55" is 1980 - If you have an "H" or 平成 then a number, it will likely be a single-digit number and H1 was 1989).

Separately, you've got mail...
Kftool,
The platter of the DN-308, as is, unfortunately rings like a bell. It is the same
design as was on the DP-6000 which was replaced by the double-platter
construction of the DP-80. It is well worth treating I expect (I have not done
mine) and could be worth completely replacing IF you could replicate the
magnetic encoding on the platter which allows for the magnetic pulse speed
check. If the motor is the same AU-169 unit which goes on the DP-100 (and
I cannot be sure but I will give the Denon service guys a call today), then
there is plenty of overhead for a bigger platter though you might have to tune
torque application part of the speed control circuit to "load" it for
a different platter inertia. The DP-100 platter is 6.5kg. Assuming the motor
is the same, the motor would have a built-in suspension (the main spindle is
supported on an "oil cup" cushion above the stator). As for
vibrations, the DP-80 and DP-100 literature suggests that most of the
vibration which is defeated through the double-platter construction is borne
through the frame/spindle/bearing though the DP-80 makes some claim to
its construction lessening 'howling margin' (which is Japanese for
airborne/speaker-induced vibration) which would suggest the DP-100 does
too. In any case, the platter construction benefits of DP-80 vs DP-6000 are
apparent.

One could conceivably build that onto the DN-308 platter through a retrofit
of a spring-leaf system for the platter (If one made it too tall, one would have
to make it ultra tall and cover the spindle too with a new one). I can send
cutaway pics of the DP-80 method and the DP-100 method (which involves
oil-damping wells within the sub-platter to dampen vibrations borne to the
upper platter) if you want.

In any case, I too am curious about what Steve Dobbins has done with the
separation of motor and bearing. As long as tolerances are tight, I would see
no reason why the motor and bearing have to be physically directly-
connected other than that eventually they sit on the same platform. That said,
I don't think I am about to build one DIY...