Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot II

Yes, Chris. From my end, there is certainly interest in a drop in replacement for the Lenco motor. Should be a huge improvement.

Jim, not trying to speak for Chris at Teres but the replacement motor for the Garrard is much more compact than the Lenco or Garrard motor. There would be no reason for the Lenco replacement motor not to be as compact. It would let you cut out less plinth material and retain more mass. I have a pretty good hunch that an eighty pound plinth would no longer be needed. The Teres motor is very smooth. Also, no vibrating speed control lever to make room for. The lever could just be removed as all speed is controled from the black box. The speed is very accurate I might add.
BTW, I am listening to a Versus/Teres driven 301 right now. It is a very nice improvement over the stock 301 motor. Part of which no doubt comes from the removal of all of the stock linkage and idler. How much is yet to be determined.
I am curious how the Lenco nation feels about removing the stock motor and idler wheel, the heart of the beast, even if removing them makes a marked improvement in sound? Is it no longer a Lenco?

IMHO the Lenco motor is adequate, if not excellent. Simple design and easy to adjust if necessary.
It would be very difficult to spend $1700 for a motor one does not need. But if you do, I'd be happy to purchase your Lenco motor for $25!!!

Considering the Verus will be the motor of choice for many belt drive decks as well as idlers with impractical to repair engines, it will probably become part of the analog lingo ie Verused Spacedeck, Verused 301, Verused Rockport oops just kidding :) Perhaps abbreviated to VRD?

So a Lenco will become a VRD L75 etc etc However, this thread is called 'Building high end tables CHEAP etc' so the everlasting Lenco motor will be good enough for many folks. :) Horses for courses ...... until the cheap clones arrive from you know where.

Chris, if you need a demo VRD-Lenco setting up in the UK, please just ask, I'll let you know where to post the test motor! :)

Regards

Chris, How do you envision your replacement Lenco motor? Would it drive the underside of the platter directly with a vertically oriented "rim"-drive wheel, or would it drive the platter via the Lenco idler mechanism or some facsimile thereof? Anyway, I for one would be interested to learn more.

By the way, why was/is it necessary to develop a remote mechanism to flip the Verus motor against the inner rim of the Garrard 301 then away from contacting it when the motor is not in use? Would it not be sufficient simply to turn the motor on and off and let it lean on the inner rim at all times?

Thank you for having the guts to introduce a paradigm shift into the competitive belt-drive marketplace.

First I want to be clear that I am "contemplating" doing a Verus motor for the Lenco. This is not a commitment.

I can see a few ways to do a Lenco/Verus. I suspect that the best approach would be to create an assembly much like what we did for the Garrard. The Garrard assembly consists of a mounting bracket, a pivoting motor block and a motor with a 2" drive wheel installed on the motor shaft. The drive wheel rests against the inside rim of the platter. The motor block has a pivot that allows the motor block to tilt away from the platter. The weight of the motor block establishes the drive wheel pressure. Thats the general idea. A picture would probably help. For this to work on a Lenco the inside of the platter rim would need to be true and smooth.

Another option would be a replacement for only the motor itself. From the pictures I have seen it looks like the Verus motor would fit inside of the existing Lenco motor housing. The tapered shaft could probably be fitted to the Verus motor shaft. I expect that this would be sonicly inferior, but some may wish to retain the original idler.

We have not developed a mechanism for tilting the motor away from the platter for the VRD-Garrard but will probably do so. The motor needs to be tilted for platter installation but not for normal operation.

Chris

There's no way that you can use the inside rim of the Lenco platter. It has vertical extrusions all around. Mine anyway (L75).

I have a couple of Lenco platters, one has ridges around the rim inside and the other doesn't. No way you could design a "universal" Lenco motor using rim drive, you'd have to drive the underside of the platter.

But the other question about the Garrard motor, when the original motor is off the rim drive wheel is moved away from the platter to prevent a flat spot - that's one of the functions of the linkage.. The Lenco doesn't have that problem because the wheel is metal with just a thin rubber coating. How does the Verus motor prevent flat spotting if it is rigidly mounted on the Garrard?

Chris, Since you have already stimulated responses from some Lenco-lytes, let me add another possible bone of contention: "We" tend to think that the Lenco drive system, where the underside of the platter is in contact with the idler drive system, not the inner rim of the platter, may have some inherent superiority over conventional rim drive. (This may be correct thinking or it may not be; I'd be interested in your comments.) Rightly or wrongly you might have a hard time converting "us" to rim drive for that reason. Now, if you can conceive and execute an idler drive system that is quieter and utilizes a motor that is superior to that of the Lenco, you may have something. As I suggested earlier, there may be a way to mount your drive wheel in a vertical orientation such that it can directly contact the underside of a Lenco platter. There are attendant problems related to how to maintain the proper and constant pressure against the platter in such a set-up, but not unsolvable ones.

A combination of the platter and bearing of the Bogen B60/61 and the flat chassis plate from a B55, will provide a suitable outer rim for the low height Verus. In the first instance for testing the application this is the Lenco(stein) to use. What makes a Lenco vertical drive good is the clever application of the spring mounted motor and superb idler wheel, but rim drive is working fine for other platters and will work as well on a Lenco.

The Verus will allow us to audition platters and bearings in a way not possible before. This has far reaching possibilities, I hope Chris is ready!

Regards

Hi Chris,

It’s an honor for many of us to have you post to this, the 2nd iteration of the “Home Despot” idler discussions, as well as your consideration of the possible candidacy of the Lenco as a platform for the Verus motor.

After reading the Teres promotional material about this motor and drive system, a couple of questions have occurred to me that I hope you can elaborate on. At first blush, they may seem to be “challenging”, but be assured that the purpose is one of inquiry into the discipline of what drives a record, and drives us all in this pursuit.

Unlike a true idler, the tire of which can take wear without affecting the speed relationship between motor and platter, the Verus motor’s direct drive wheel will have a direct effect on speed as it wears (quite correctable, no doubt). Should Verus owners hang onto those stroboscope discs, which they are encouraged to discard in promotional literature, for just such an event? Is there a way to recalibrate the “speed lock” for anticipated wear?

Secondly, is a general question on the area of variable torque. Coming from a camp where hard-cranking, big idlers are often the “quest”, it seems curious that Teres would put engineering effort into a low-torque optional adjustment. The promotional material leads one to believe that this option allows for a smoothness in listening playback. Is this smoothness, in fact, the “wow” of imprecise speed?

Many thanks for your continuing contributions here.

All best,
Mario

Boy, lots going on in just a few days!! I've been off-line over the weekend enjoying the last "summer" weekend (temperatures in the mid-twenties Celsius when they are ordinarily 10 degrees cooler), hiking the provincial parks and watching the amazing Perseid meteor shower (we're talking fire-balls with smoke trails).

BIG Kudos to Teres for so bravely turning their backs on the belt. As my Vintage Guru would say, FINALLY, the industry is waking up, the charge led by Teres! I confess I never thought I'd see the day when the War for the Idler-Wheel/Wheel/against the Belt would actually lead to a change in the industry, so I'm caught entirely by surprise, having adjusted to eternally being consigned to a rebellious fringe element.

That said, Teres is a commercial company, and it's wise to take pronouncements with a grain of salt, and to separate advertising from truth and facts. I refer here to the following lines: "An idler setup suffers from cogging effects but to my ears it's a better compromise than the smearing you get from the greatly increased isolation resulting from a belt. But it is a still a compromise." Now, there is a LARGE difference between a large idler-wheel drive simply bolted to a plinth, and one which has been Direct Coupled to a large high-mass plinth. Furthermore, as I am all too aware of right now (working on a bunch of TD-124s by coincidence), rubber mushrooms, rubber gaskets and so on act like springs (not to mention actual springs), allowing the very powerful motors in these old idlers to actually move the 'table, leading to the claimed speed instabilities and cloudiness.

Now Direct Coupling to a giant plinth not only improves speed stability, but it also drastically reduces noise, drawing away and eliminating everything from the 'table's own noises (motor included of course) to simple surface noise. I would love to hear the effect of the Verus motor on a Giant Direct Coupled Garrard, perhaps one will show up in my area. Looking more specifically at the motors, these old induction motors are brushless like the Verus, and are essentially cogless, once one gets rid of the suspension which amplifies various motor energies, as they spin at an average 1500-1800 RPM, eliminating/smoothing out their own speed imperfections. Being coupled securely via a rubber wheel rather than a belt, the platters themselves act as flywheels to the motors (this design philosophy being expressed most of all on the Lencos), regulating and smoothing out speed imperfections in purely analogue fashion with no need for electronics. The trick is Direct Coupling to a Giant plinth.

Finally, there is more to this whole issue than mere silence, there is the issue of the amount of torque. These old idlers have MASSIVE torque, and the question is: does the Verus provide an across-the-board improvement with no sacrifices in transient speed (a function of torque as well as speed stability), dynamics (ditto) and bass reach, SLAM and detail? I am especially aware of this facet of idler design, as European Lenco motors do function in NA (but not the reverse) and are actually quieter than the NA variety (can hold it in your hand and feel/hear nothing). But their torque is significantly less, as is the SLAM, transient speed and PRaT. So, how much of the perceived improvement to the Garrards is simple silence (addressed by Direct Coupling to a Giant plinth) and “smoothness”, with PraT, SLAM and transient speed being ignored; and how much is across-the-board improvement? I hope to hear a Verus soon, and perform yet more experiments!! Be very interesting to see how the horizontal orientation of the motor works out if a Lenco version is released. FINALLY, the Lenco gets some serious consideration, and thanks for that!

Hi Lew, I found the article on the Garrard 501, and the main improvement is indeed to the motor, which, given the current discussion, is crucial and fundamental. If the magnetic cushion removes the noise while retaining the torque, then this indeed is a very large step. Loricraft have also resorted to electronics to further control motor speed, who knows how much this contributes? I'd love to hear one of these as well.

On the issue of direct drives, it is well-known what I think of quartz-locking and how this too leads to a form of audible cogging (dryness and dynamic constriction): I find the servo-controlled variety thus much more musical and fluid. The Sony 2250 has an absolutely superb main bearing (makes me think of the Roksan’s superb bearing), and extracts astonishing amounts of information (this tested with a smaller plinth, simply bolted). So I will be rebuilding this into a Giant Plinth and going the Direct Coupling route, and testing out a power conditioner to see how this affects the servo-controlled speed stability.

Have fun all, WHAT developments, and thanks again to Teres/Chris for waking up (as my guru would put it), smelling the roses, and stepping forward, and most of all for joining us on our journey here on Da Thread and posting!!!

Dopogue, thanks for heads up on the vertical extrusions. Back to the drawing board...

Jlln, I do not expect that flat spotting will be an issue. The o-rings we use are fairly hard and also very durable. Much more durable than materials that were available in the 60's. Also the pressure is quite small. If I am wrong replacement o-rings are about $0.50 and are readily available.

Lewm, I have no idea if there would be an advantage to driving the underside of the plater rather than the rim. From a theoretical perspective there would be slightly more "scrubbing" with the Lenco approach since the driven surface is not moving in a straight line. At first blush this would seem less effective, but who knows. I do like the elegance of the approach.

We may be able to come up with a way to use a Verus motor to drive the underside of the platter. Constant pressure would not be a problem but it may require too large of a drive wheel. I need to think about this.

Mario_b, good questions, thanks for asking. You are correct, as the o-ring wears the speed will change. However, as I noted before the o-ring material is quite durable so it is unlikely that after even years of play that the overall diameter of the drive wheel will change more than a few thousandths. So the speed change will be very small. The controller has switches that provide precise 0.16% speed adjustment steps. So maybe it will advisable to check and possibly re-adjust the speed every year or two.

The Verus controller has a torque adjustment. First of all using the term torque is not strictly correct. This adjustment controls the voltage to the motor which in turn affects the maximum torque that can be delivered. However, the actual torque delivered is a function of load. The load is always much less than the maximum torque so the extra energy is just converted to heat. My point is that the adjustment never actually changes the torque. What the adjustment does change is how rigidly movement of the rotor is controlled by the magnetic field in the stator. The effect is very similar to adding compliance between the motor and platter, but on a much, much smaller scale. Higher voltages are analogous to more rigid coupling. A higher torque setting results in tighter more precise sound. But you can go too far with the sound becoming analytical and dry. I am sure that it is all about precision of speed but I do not think that the lower torque settings are necessarily less precise.

Chris

Johnnantais,

A few corrections. While we no longer produce belt drive motors I do still think that they have a place in the industry. But that place is not at the top.

Induction motors are indeed brushless but they are not coggless. Any single phase AC motor by definition will exhibit nearly 100% torque ripple (or 100% cogging). The incoming power is essentially cycling on and off at either 50 or 60 time per second. When the AC voltage crosses zero then the torque produced by the motor also must be zero. When the AC voltage peaks the torque also peaks.

The RPM of an induction motor is determined by the AC frequency and the number of motor poles. More poles increases the frequency of cogging but in no way diminishes it.

While flywheeling from the platter and/or motor does aid in speed stability it is not a cure. Otherwise the heavy belt drive platters would womp on idlers with relatively light weight platters. Experimenting with a 70 pound platter we still found that subtle changes affecting cogging were clearly audible.

Cogging is always detrimental to good sound. What can be debated is if cogging is better or worse than common fixes. A rubber belt is very effective at reducing the effects of cogging. But it introduces it's own problems that many, but not all, find worse than the cure. An idler wheel is far less effective at reducing cogging effects and also introduces a lot less negative effects. It's all about compromises. But if you start with a motor that does not cog then everything is a lot easier, and better.

I am total agreement about the detrimental effects of "quartz-locking". Thats why we don't use any sort of servo circuit in either the Verus or Certus motors.

Johnnantais,

Is there a link where you explain this mod, so I don't have to read 500 posts?

Also, is lenco 85 a good model for this?

Thanks a lot in advance...

I am looking forward to this.

Hello all. Just to back up jean's claims re old sony stuff. My TA-3200F amp outgunned my Leak tl12+ monoblocks and homemade triode monos in every area mentioned by jean above, to my utter astonishment. As a result i sold the Leaks for $1,200 and kept my $200 sony. the Sony TA-4650 that i have has a dead power stage, but the pre stage has a lovely phono section and partners my 3200 beautifully, driven of course by my red Lenco. Bought a Marantz PM4 (a ken kessler personal recommendation, despite his rather obscure taste in ancient brass bands, sorry ken) a few weeks ago, and its phono stage doesnt match the sony combo, but its line stage may be just ahead. 15 watts per channel into pure class A, some say even better than the Sugden A21 variants.

Hello from the country after a long absence all, I've been very busy with both audio and non-audio related stuff the past couple of weeks. Sorry for the delay Gonglee: no, the L85 is a belt-drive and therefore persona non-grata, go for either an L75 or L78, which both show up quite often on eBay. Anyway you look at it there's a lot of reading to do, so focus those eyes and brain, and good luck and have fun!!

Thanks for the support Gilbodavid, as always. I do have a few Sony stories to relate which address various issues. Over the last two weeks I had to occasionally go to the nearest large town, and waiting for a friend to emerge from work I decided to kill some time in a high-end shop. A fellow is standing there and we get talking. He asks me what source I use and of course I launch into my usual explanation of idler-wheel drives. It turns out he is fresh from the latest high-end audio show where he had spoken with Chris and heard his Verus demonstration, and so was very open to my claims for the idler and the role of torque and weaknesses of belts. It turns out as well that he had a Garrard 401 sitting in a closet and asked if I could fix it up for him. Of course, I said yes, and invited him to come out to the country to enjoy the scenery and hear the Glories of the Idler for himself. So up he shows, and within twenty minutes of listening commissioned me for both the Garrard rebuild AND a Giant Direct Coupled Glass-Reinforced Lenco, which shows just how audible this theoretical cogging is (theoretical in the sense of inaudible). The system?: of course the Lenco/RS-A1/Denon DL-103E combo, going through my Sony TAE-5450 pre; and out to my ESS AMT4s via the Sony TA-3140F amp (in stock form). As always when high-end audiophiles (and this guy is involved in both manufacturing and distribution of high-end components, and was a vice-president of Nortel) hear my system, he gets up and looks behind my components to try and find the explanation for the stunning sound quality (these vintage components truly are stunning, the Heil Air-Motion Transformers still amongst the best drivers ever designed, and the AMT4s perhaps the best matching of woofer to AMTs ever managed), and seeing my 24-ga. solid core and Petras said "Incredible, even your cables are crap!!" I was being disingenuous when I replied "Yep, nothing to point to but the Lenco!" as of course, I know that the AMT4s ARE incredible, as are the vintage Sony components. But asking an audiophile to accept both the Mighty Lenco AND various "crap" vintage compnents is to ask too much, best let it all sink in slowly ;-).

Getting back to the issue of truth and advertising I raised before, I point once again to the foundation which Teres'/Chris's advertising and posts asks us to implicitly accept as fact: "An idler wheel is far less effective at reducing cogging effects and also introduces a lot less negative effects. It's all about compromises." The spoken fundamental assumption is that idler-wheel drives have seriously audible cogging effects AND serious compromises. As I wrote, which was NOT that there was no cogging, these motors are "essentially cogless, once one gets rid of the suspension which amplifies various motor energies, as they spin at an average 1500-1800 RPM, eliminating/smoothing out their own speed imperfections." Anyone who has held a Garrard motor in their hands while it is running has to have been astonished by how little vibration emenates from this massive motor, I know I have. Once one further eliminates any form of suspension for the 'table itself (either springs or the misguided use of rubber in whatever shape), which emphasizes the motor vibration rather than eliminating it (the classic idler set-up mistake), one hears, when the platter is acting furthermore as a flywheel to the motor via the very secure coupling of motor to platter via the idler, smmmoooothnesss and no cogging or smearing, which however is heard VERY& audibly in any belt-drive, massive platter or not. Those who speak of slipping here should try the following simple test: simply press a record brush against a record on a revolving idler and see how much push/torque there truly is. In fact so much that neither DD not belt even approaches the power, which of course speaks for the effectiveness of the idler-wheel approach, which allows for these enormously powerful motors without slipping. The fellow who commissioned two idlers after hearing the Verus is testimony to just how audible this effectively theoretical cogging is. Result trumps theory, not the reverse, something which scientists and engineers would do well to remember. Once again these briliant words spring to mind, the immortal words of Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, former Chief Research Engineer, H.H. Scott: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing." I.E., experience trumps theory.

This is not to say that the Verus is not a TREMENDOUS boon to belt-drivers and the world in general, both because it provides an ingenious way to improve belt-drives and save them from a fundamental design flaw, but also provides an ingenious test/experiment/demonstration to underline the weaknesses of the belt-drive I have been going on about lo these many years. BUT, it does not, I believe, improve on a properly set-up idler-wheel drive, though perhaps some day I will get the chance to do the experiment myself on a Giant Direct Coupled and properly restored Garrard.

The trumpeting of the flaws/compromises of the idler-wheel approach is advertising also in another sense: it asks us to accept as fact that the Verus approach is the current top of the potential of the wheel (very debatable), and that Teres' own very expensive DD is therefore inherently superior to the best idler-wheel drives. BUT, if the Verus is NOT superior to a properly set-up idler, then this claim is also debatable. Time and experience will tell, of course I believe a properly set-up idler is currently at the top of the food chain.

So, getting back to DDs, yet another EMT DD owner has gone to the Dark Side, and so sent me an e-mail with the title "Giant Lenco is Sounding EXTRAORDINARY!!!" Furthermore, I have now rebuilt my Sony 2250 into a Giant Plinth, and Direct Coupled it to boot, and it sounded extraordinary as well. As previously written, this 'table is a detail meister, and with the Direct Coupling and Giant Plinth it also took on many of the characteristics of the idler-wheel drive: tremendous PRaT, great flow and musicality, and excellent transient speed. I wondered, "Do we finally have a match for the Mighty Lenco?!?" I sat entranced and amazed, and switched back and forth for a while. I also plugged the Sony into a power conditioner (a Monster) and thought I heard further refinement in the upper frequencies. But, as time went on, it became clear that from the middle range down to the lowest bass the Sony was simply - like a belt-drive - missing all sorts of information. For instance, while the Sony captured the pluck and transient edge of strings, along with the high frenquencies, it lost out on the body of the instrument, the decay and the wood and lacquer, clearly heard on the Lenco. Voices had mouth but no chest, relatively-speaking (against a belt-drive I believe the Sony extracts more low-frequency information). Everything sounded more natural, with more body on the Lenco. And once THIS became audible (it took a while to sink in the Sony was so good), THEN it became clear that the Lenco's high frequencies were also more extended, natural and even more detailed. Nevertheless, the Sony IS an amazing 'table and should be recognized along with the Thorens TD-124s of this world as a classic well worth rebuilding. Just how serious a 'table is the Sony?

Being a Canadian and long in search of a lovely Oracle turntable for my collection, I accepted one Oracle Delphi MKIV, Anniversary Edition, in black and gold, as a trade against the Garrard 401 rebuild/plinth. It predictably suffered badly against the Mighty Lenco/RS-A1/Denon DL-103 combo, and this with SME IV tonearm allied to a Dynavector XX-1. BUT, how will it fare against the Sony/RS-A1/DL-103 combo? THIS I will do over the coming weekend and report on further. In the meantime, the Sony is a true Mighty Classic, and deserves replinthing and a serious tonearm. For those who don't like the dry and dynamically-constricted sound of quartz-locking, but LOVE those soft-touch controls (and boy do I like those piano-key controls!!).

Anyway, that's enough for now I think (breathe a sigh of relief ;-)), the Battle of the Idler is FAR from over, have fun with your discoveries and experiments all!!! Now, back to this country scenery.

Johnnantais,

I don't wish to start a debate but I must say that I am a bit surprised by your comments. We certainly have a lot of common ground and I applaud the work that has been done here to bring great sound to the masses.

I have done a great deal of experimenting with motors with varying amounts of cogging. In all cases reducing cogging has a clearly audible, positive effect on sound quality. Even very small changes in cogging are quite easy to hear. I should add that for most, identifying the degradations from cogging is not easy. Not that it is hard to hear but rather that there is for most, no reference point. As a case in point; those that have never heard a good idler will have no reason to suppose that they are missing anything. A trusty belt drive table would likely seem flawless or at least nearly so. Just because nothing objectionable is being identified, one should not assume that there is no room for improvement.

Because someone who heard a Verus motor at a trade show commissioned an idler is hardly evidence that cogging is inaudible. A comparison of motors in the same turntable that exhibit different amounts of cogging would be experience rather than theory.

It sounds like what's needed is to run the experiment. Is that possible? Can a Verus motor be substituted for a Lenco motor, or can you imagine a way to A/B a Teres and a fully modded Lenco?

Bolson, It would be fairly simple to to a A/B comparison by simply placing a Verus motor so that it drives the outside of the platter.

A comparison has been done with a Garrard 301 and the results are reportedly quite favorable.

Chris, I think I speak for most of us when I say that I admire your guts in bringing the Verus to market, and I am happy for your evident success with it. As for driving a Lenco with the Verus, have you given any more thought to either orienting the Verus horizontally or mounting the drive wheel horizontally within the Verus chassis, so one can drive the underside of the platter of a Lenco, a la the original design? As someone else noted, some (but not all) Lenco platters have vertical ribs spaced at intervals around the circumference of the inner side of the rim of the platter, which would prevent classic rim drive. (I've got two platters, one with and one without the ribs.)
PS. When driving the Garrard 301/401, does the Verus sit on the underlying shelf or is it isolated in some way from the shelf and the chassis?

"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."

Gentlemen,

Whoever said that was certainly right, and it begs the question, why? Why adapt a motor that cost the better part of $2000 on a turntable that is essentially a stamping with a platter that is not particularly friendly to the idea of that particular motor? Add to that a 10mm spindle with a reasonably unsophisticated bearing arrangement, and the commonplace practice of removing a corner, so that a decent tonearm will fit. Then, consider the holes left by unnecessary linkage that one would want to remove after the motor modification. Somehow, fitting the Verus seems like a exercise in futility to me, not because the motor doesn't have merit, but more because the candidate for the transplant just isn't the best choice. Suddenly, you have a different turntable that has no remnant of a Lenco signature, and you have spent more than $2000 for a result that lacks sophistication in many ways. All this talk of severe change is not to say that the Lenco cannot be made into a very fine sounding turntable because it has been many times, but making a drive concept change would require a total re-think of the design, even more than it did with the black turntable that I built. That turntable started as a Lenco, but few people consider it to be one anymore because it contains few original parts, and even those have been radically modified. This is no different in that regard, except mine does retain the "soul" of a Lenco which is why I linked it to this thread. It is a true idler, and its wheel is employed in the same fashion as a Lenco.

Mine was a case where one thing lead to another, but this proposal departs from that due to the fact that one knows going in that such changes are necessary to achieve the desired results. Speaking of desired results, what are they? It seems to me that adding a Verus would change the signature of the Lenco to the point that it no longer exists, so why not choose a better match at the outset? That logical choice would be to buy a Teres turntable, wouldn't it? You would have a more friendly bearing arrangement, and no unnecessary components to plan around. The same goes for doing it with a Garrard, or any other existing idler, doesn't it? Then again, what signature sound are you looking for, and are you married to any particular brand, or even still, are you married to any particular drive concept? I submit that if you are not, we are posting in the wrong thread.

I suppose it all comes down to the issue of the signature of a turntable based on the model, and whether you want an idler driven turntable, or something altogether different.

...just food for thought

-mosin

Hi Mosin,
Your points are well taken and center in on the crux of the “growth pains” that have been simmering for quite some time on Project Lenco, that being - at what point does innovation, be it simple tweaks or redesign, take away (or add, for that matter) from/to the “signature” sound of the original Lenco? And if we are assured enough by the listening results of our re-designs, that marked improvements can be made with innovations, what weight should be given in homage to the original Swiss essence?
Jean Nantais’ point of keeping it simple for a broad base of plinth builders, who took up his original challenge in this “thread as portal”, certainly had a good deal of validity in spreading mass appeal and maintaining a high degree of momentum which has lasted nearly four years. This philosophy neatly melded with the “collector” contingent, many of who use stock Lenco tonearms and maintain complete reversibility even from mass constrained plinths.
But this portal seems to have pretty much dried up as an induction center, whether that’s because potential takers have been tapped out or seek guidance over at Lenco Lovers which has a registered user base of 550… who knows?
But for some experimenters, it became an issue of “How you going to keep them down on the farm, after they’ve seen innovation”.
The Teres motor aside, the greatest innovation to come Lenco’s way after the wonders of a mass constrained plinth, at least for me, has been Peter Reinder’s custom designed top plate. It’s now in a second “improved” run and attacks what many feel is the Lenco’s weakest link – the thin stamped top plate which was not designed for edge coupling to a plinth and can take a bit of gymnastics with trial and error for successful direct coupling through the platter pan.
This 4mm hunk of laser cut steel affords a much fuller coupling to a solid plinth and makes the issue of tonearm plate cuts moot. Plinth cutouts are vastly simplified – all layers being the same – unless one wants to innovate further.
One of those “one step-further” tweaks that I have attempted using Peter’s plate has been trying to capture and “sink” bearing noise into the plinth. In the next week or so, I should know whether this has any added benefit.
But while we have you here Mosin, what would do (have you done) to redesign the Lenco bearing while keeping the original spindle and platter sleeve?

- Mario

I agree with Mosin that mating a Verus to a Lenco may well result in a bull with teats; I was just inquiring about Chris' future plans. However, I don't think it's crazy to mate the Verus with a Garrard, since the Garrard at least was designed for (inner rather than outer) rim drive. Whether the result can still be called a "Garrard" is another matter for debate, if one cares to debate such a semantic issue. The question is whether you get a better sound.

"But while we have you here Mosin, what would do (have you done) to redesign the Lenco bearing while keeping the original spindle and platter sleeve?"

Mario,

Although I did modify the bearing and spindle in the first turntable, I would not do it again. Rather, I would scrap them entirely (which I have done in this second turntable). In the first, I potted the bearing housing with an epoxy to prevent seepage of lubricant (making it quieter overall in the process), and I placed a hard stainless thrust pad over the existing one. Also, I replaced the steel ball with one of equal size, but made from silicon nitride. Next, I extended the length of the spindle, so I could layer the stock platter with a non-compliant Delrin top. Detail was increased an incredible amount. These modifications, however, changed the signature of the turntable measurably, and that goes to the crux of the entire issue because although I have a much better sounding turntable, is it a Lenco? The votes aren't in on that, yet.

Regards,
Win

.

Mosin, I apologize; I am afraid that each of your responses engenders further questioning, and I am sure you don't want to play host on this thread. However (a big however), I am very interested to know more about what you did to improve on the Lenco bearing/spindle combination, as I agree that this is a weak link and that "a chain is no stronger than its weakest link". (1) How did you extend the spindle length? Did you make or have made an entirely new spindle? (2) Are you familiar with the bearing upgrade supplied by Joel and described on the Lenco Lovers site? Have you seen or tried that one? (3) Is the silicon nitride ball commercially available, or did you have that made as well? (4) Finally, when you say that your mods changed the performance "measurably", what measurements were made? Thanks, and I will not bug you further.

In the vein of taking a Lenco to its limits, while still holding on to its Swiss engineering essence (who am I to attempt an improvement on this great drivetrain), I’ve finally finished up on the Interstate l-75.
It incorporates high degrees idependant isolation/coupling to each system component in drawing off unwanted transmissions into the plinth. The tightrope of isolation versus coupling seems to have been successfully traversed because this is one, dead silent Lenco that provides an extremely high degree of intimate music retrieval and engagement. A lot of variables came into play all at once with this Lenco build, so it is near impossible to tell what effects each has on its playing success. Nevertheless, two stand out as paramount in importance – Jean Nantais’ tutelage in careful maintenance and resurrection of Lenco components to be sunk into the sandwich recipe of a solid mass constrained plinth. And Peter Rheinder’s custom designed topplate that allowed the sinking into that plinth to be a foolproof proposition.

At some point, I’ll try and tidy up my System room and update it with pictures. In the meantime, anyone who is interested can see the finished Interstate here:
http://www.lenco-lovers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1870

And the making of it here:
http://www.lenco-lovers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1517

All best,
Mario

Mario,
Very nice. Congratulations!

Spectacular!!!!
I am sure it sound as good as it looks.
And thanks for sharing your project with the rest of us here and on Lencolovers forum.
P.S
I am placing order with Peter for 2 plates (Sm,& Med)
Do you think it is within my skills - I am a rookie, still working on my first Lenco.

Cheers
Mariusz

Hi Oregon and Marius,

Thanks so much for the kind words.

Marius,
Sight unseen (I've got a new order in for a small, as well), I still think that the Lenco plinth build with the PCTP Mk II will be considerably easier than a build with the original Lenco top plate.

The second version comes with custom machined motor mounts and all fittings holes will be pre-tapped. Construction of the plinth layers will be vastly simpler because each layer gets the same size cut-out for just the motor hole.

If one sticks with Peter's designed speed lock system for 33rpm & 45 rpm (as opposed to my "I want it all" custom speed channel), this should fall into a "beginner's level" wood project.

All best,
- Mario

It's nearly Christmas all, so Merry Christmas in case I go missing again!! Up here it's constant snowstorms and sub-zero tempertaures, the snowbanks are piling high. Slow internet and intermittent access means I post less. Though my workshop is out here I'm currently almost devoid of a soundroom, so Lenco-inspired rants have slowed down considerably as well.

Mario, that is one beautiful creation, as always!!! I've just picked one of my own Reinderspeter top-plates from being professionally coated (in cream) so I can soon report on it's own benefits vs my own Reference Lenco. Just so those watching don't get the wrong idea: it's not that the Lenco NEEDS extensive modification in order to become perhaps the top-performing LP-spinner on the planet, all it needs is restoration and adjustment, and Direct Coupling to a neutral high mass. Pouring marine-grade glass-epoxy into the hollows of the top-plate go a LONG way to eliminating the weakness of the top-plate along with, of course, the Direct Coupling itself. Of course, Reinderspeter's top-plate eliminates any of the tricks, while making Direct Coupling more complete. Anyway, had the review happened, I had built an "original" Lenco with no modifications other than restotration and the Giant plinth in order to make the point of how truly Mighty the original Lenco is!! There will be other opportunities.

To reiterate the Lenco's inherent Mightiness ;-), my exposure to the Giant Lenco vs the 11,000-euro EMT 930 - and that of the two EMT 930 owners - was shock and surpise, as the EMT sounded like the original Master Tape, and the two fellows who own the EMT in fact make master tapes of professional musicians as a hobby!! I gulped a Mighty Gulp, but using the RS-A1 on both 'tables to ensure a level playing field, the Lenco comfortably outperformed the EMT, which itself would likely embarrass every belt-drive and DD on the planet (the EMT idler-wheel drives are considered superior to the DDs). As well, no belt-drive yet has even come close to the Lenco's performance, and the Giant Direct Coupled Garrard 301 (oil bearing) itself utterly embarrassed a Massive Plattered PLatine Verdier (and the Garrard was plunked down on no platform and into an inferior phono stage with inferior cartridge, effectively with one hand tied behind its back), which was subsequently sold. In turn, the Garrards do NOT outperform the Lencos, though they can be brought up to Lenco levels by Direct Coupling to a high mass, and careful and painstaking restoration and readjustment.

The issue is TORQUE, and as with mass, it seems almost that there is no such thing as too much torque in order to deal with the VERY serious problem of stylus force drag, the braking action caused by the friction of the stylus in the groove. A European motored Lenco has a dead-silent/vibationless motor when used in NA, and seems from this point of view superior to the NA motors. But though they are dead silent, one can hear a loss of energy: of SLAM, of transient speed, impact and definition, and so on. Audiophile judgments are often not to be trusted, as they will constantly and year after year throw the baby (i.e. PRaT, SLAM, jusicality, musical excitement, etc.) out with the bathwater (noise), which explains the large number of muiscally-uninvolving electronics, speakers, and sources. They then declare that PRaT is an illusion, in order to avoid facing the musical consequences, and end up in a never-ending change of equipment. The secret to preserving the TORQUE and eliminating noise is simple: Direct Couple it to a high neutral mass. This improves the speed stability vastly, so that any cogging effects are eliminated and, more importantly, the motor ceases to actually move the 'table around and so muddy the speed stability by relative motion. Once done, the Lenco does not need a whole host of items replaced and immproved on in order to make it the Best on the Planet. But, of course, it can be even further improved by those who want to improve things ever further.

Does the Lenco even have a sound? I've pondered this often: it has state of the art detail retrieval, imaging, transient speed and definition, bass, highs, in fact, EVERYTHING. If it does have a sound it's that mesmerizing and POWERFUL liquid flow of the Amazon in Full Flood: unstoppable underground POWER on tap, lying behind the music, always there in reserve, while the perfect timing and transients, and astounding SLAM allied to delicacy and fluidity continue unabated. Is this a colouration? Perhaps, or perhaps this IS the true sound of music. Either way, it's very hard to stop listening and being astounded by a Giant Direct Coupled Lenco.

Moving on to the Sony 2250, I compared my Oracle Delphi MKIV, equipped with a SME V/Dynavector XX-1, to the Sony equipped with a Morch UP-4/Ortofon Jubilee, so the stack was, according to economics and reputation, stacked in favour of the Delphi. In the event, the Sony utterly outclassed the Oracle (which has just been returned from the factory), in every conceivable way. Not only that, but using a Monster power conditioner, the Sony's bass improved along with detail and a sense of fluidity. It even has great musicality and PRaT. So the Sony is a Contender in the True High End 'Table sweepstakes, provided, as always, it is Direct Coupled to a high mass. Fun to use too due to those great pinao-key controls. But, using the RS-A1/Denon combo, it is clearly inferior to the Lenco in equivalent plinth, though there will be further tests.

Anyway, have fun all, time to get back to work, and start shovelling!!

A Happy New Year to you all from Canada!! I have recently had some very interesting experiences with regards to both DDs and Idlers, and the effects and importance of Direct Coupling, having had the opportunity to compare the servo-controlled Sony 2250 - which according to common wisdom is an OK DD until one gets to the serious/classic Technics SP10 MKII (which is to DDs as the Garrards are to idlers according to the common wisdom) - and the Technics SP-10 MKII. Results have a bearing as well on the Lencos and their motors.

Both DDs were set up on plinths of equivalent mass and construction. While the Sony can be Direct Coupled, having, like the Garrard 301s, holes for bolts to pass through, the Technics SP-10 MKII sports integral bolts which must be tightened to the plinth from underneath. Construction of the Technics, as well, means that unlike the Lencos holes cannot be drilled through the bottom to achieve Direct Coupling.

The Sony is servo-controlled, which according to the accepted understanding (i.e. press and industry promoted this view to the point where it was accepted wisdom; same process as led to the hegemony of the Belt-Drive) is inferior to quartz-locking, as servo-control leads to endless hunt-and-seek as it endlessly responds to speed variations caused by stylus force drag, thus seriously affecting overall speed stability. Quartz-locking provides an independent reference (the regular pulsing of the quartz crystal), not responding to speed variations brought on by stylus force drag (interesting that while both idlers and DDs were built to combat stylus force drag, belt-drive was not until much later in its history, or via a very few Japanese manufacturers and Thorens with their massive models, via the use of massive platters), and so was deemed and pronounced the superior system. As with belt-drives, I had accepted this as true as well, though I had accepted the superiority of the belt and so never investigated this further until after I had discovered the Idlers.

After I had already been seduced by the Idlers and started the original Home Despot thread, I investigated the DD system via Technics' SP10 MKII, as the only "threat" to the Idler, the Technics being pretty well THE DD to have (as with the Garrards for the idlers). I built one into a truly massive Giant plinth, and found that despite great neutrality, information-retrieval and bass detail, reach and control, it could not match the Lenco for fluidity, PRaT or musicality, while not being able to beat it in the aforementioned audiophile areas. And this was in the days before Giant plinths and Direct Coupling (which yield HUGELY better results). The Technics also had a characteristic "dry" sound which is reminiscent of digital artefacts. While these experiments were going on, I tripped over as Technics SL-1100, Technics' first DD (in fact, the first DD ever built and marketed I believe), and servo-controlled. It came with a removable armboard as standard, mounted with a Grace 707. Now, by this time I had pretty well dismissed DD as dry and unmusical overall (compared with both Idlers AND Belt-Drives), so imagine my suprise when I plugged it in and found it to be both fluid and musical!! When, eventually, a Sony 2250 motor unit ('table/chassis same as the Garrards designed to be built into a plinth with separate tonearm) came my way, a servo-controlled unit, I jumped on it to test it out, as I had come to the conclusion that quartz-locking was the problem, which was audible to human ears via a sort of sampling ratio (the quartz pulsing), resulting in both dryness and a constriction/reduction of the dynamics.

The Sony 2250 has going for it heavy and superb construction, ESPECIALLY the main bearing which is superior to the Technics. But its platter is lighter than that on the Technics, it has less torque than the Tehnics, and its construction, while excellent, is not as heavy as the Technics. The Technics, in addition to this, has a large and hefty separate power supply/quartz-locking reference. It would seem on the surface of it to be the superior machine, even by idler standards (i.e. more torque). To even the playing field, I plugged the Sony into a Monster power conditioner. I was shocked to hear by just how much the Direct Coupled Sony 2250 outclassed the Technics when I switched the handy-dandy RS-A1/Denon DL-103"E" combo from one to the next, playing the same source material. I had thought that due to the Technics' various advantages, it would outclass the Sony in strict audiophile terms (detail, imaging, etc.) while the Sony would take it for fluidity, PRat and musicality. But switching the tonearm fror one to the next was, first of all, like doubling the volume control on the preamp, dynamics were HUGELY superior to the Technics! In addition to this, bass was deeper on the Sony, detail was VASTLY superior, as was clarity and transient speed. On first audition, using an "a capella" tune, the Technics seemed to be telling the truth. But switching to songs with instruments, the truth of the Sony's superiority became evident. The digital/"neutral" sound of the Technics, as with digital media, was mistaken for truth. But music should be first and foremost musical, and this type of neutrality (flatness/lack of colour) is in fact a severe colouration. Some, however, are seduced by this sort of bogus "truth". Music is NOT cold and analytical, as so many audiophiles seem to believe it should be but, in its natural state, musical and rivetting.

Finally, I mounted the RS-A1/Denon combo on the Giant Direct Coupled Lenco, and the gap between it and the Sony was as significant as the gap between the Sony and the Technics. But, the Sony has PRaT, musicality, fluidity and extreme detail (just not as extreme as the Lenco) and, given a better power filter (a frequency regenerator which does not rely on quartz-locking, if such a beast exists) and a better platter (you can't mess around with platter mass with DDs, as the mass of the platter is carefully calculated into the drive due to the extreme slow revolution of the motor, 33 1/3 RPM at 33 1/3, and 45 RPM at 45). The solution for the Sony is then, the Boston Audio Mat 1, which being made of graphite should not weigh much, but add much-needed solidity to the platter. Who knows how good the Sony would then be? I hope to answer this question eventually. But I will say this: in standard trim but with a power supply/filter/regenrator, I will challenge all Technics SP-10 MKII and EMT DD owners, as I did the Lenco vs belt-drives, and go around crushing these fabled machines, and lay to rest another suspect Dogma :-). I throw down the gauntlet ;-)!! I have every confidence that a Giant Direct Coupled Sony 2250 will outperform an EMT DD. Hopefully chances for these shootouts will materialize.

So what happened with the rise of quartz-locking in the case of the DD? Well, precisely the same process as occured with the rise of the Belt-Drive vs the Idler, a program of misinformation and the acceptance of the judgment of "experts" by the general population, in contradiction to their actual auditory experience. As with the idler which had superior PRaT, gestalt, dynamics and overall musicality to that achievable by belt-drives, the press and industry simply declared all these sonic/musical attributes as subjective and thus illusory, and so removed them as issues. In addition, the rising Belt-Drive Hegemony saw the DD as a threat (to profits as well as belt-drives are MUCH cheaper to manufacture), and came up with the criticism of the servo-control system in order to nip it in the bud. The industry (Technics) responded with the quartz-locking system, which with the appropriate measurement system yielded very impressive measurements indeed, and damn all that subjective stuff. It became the standard, and the opposition of the belt-drivers (fluidity/musicality) vs the DD-ers (analytical/"truth"/control) was born, the Idler for the moment releagted to a simple footnote in history.

One more lesson to be learned: though the Technics has far more torque than the Sony, the Sony STILL beat it by a very significant margin, meaning that torque only takes you so far. Of course, the Tehnics' torque is contantly reined in and so defeated by its own quartz-locking mechanism, and the Sony's ability to be Direct Coupled makes more effective use of what torque the Sony does have (i.e,. Direct Coupling to a high mass goes a LONG way to stabilizing whatever motor system is used). Extrapolating with respect to the Lenco's own Mighty sonic results, we see that the Lenco motor is FAR better than it is generally considered to be, as its fluidity and audiophile performance is still vastly superior to that of even the Sony (so far), while having considerably more torque.

Digesting all these results, the most effective DD should in fact resort to no cuircuitry/correction whatsoever, apart from clean electric power, and rely instead, as with the Idlers/Lenco, on pure mommentum/mass of the platter to even out the motor's imperfections (a delicate balancing act) in order to achieve perfect - i.e. FLUID - speed stability. THIS machine (torque and build of a Technics SP-10 MKII and main bearing of a Sony) might challenge the Mighty Idlers!!

Recently I Direct Coupled a quartz0locked Technics SP-25 (it can be Direct Coupled, but has a lighter platter and less torque and lighter construction) to a high-mass plinth and achieved far more musical results than from the bolted but heavier SP-10 MKII, so soon I will compare the two to see how much Direct Coupling increases overall musicality.

For the moment anyway, the Idler is at the Top of the Analogue Heap, Vive la Idler, Viive la Lenco!! Enjoy your respective projects/experiments all!!

Jean, What about the Denon DP80 and the earlier DP6000? One can defeat their speed correction mechanism easily and try them both ways. Plus I think they compete with any that you mentioned as regards quality of construction and thoughtful design. (The DP80 has the DP100 type split platter to isolate platter from motor.) But would any of these tables run at anywhere near a stable and correct speed without the correction systems they employ? I dunno but don't think so.

Hi Jean and Happy New Year to you!
Interesting that your DD dabbling mirrored some of my own recently, albeit that mine was an example much lower in the ocean strata – but certainly no bottom feeder to my ears – the Pioneer PL-518 (1977). This semi-auto (auto-return) is servo-controlled (18 pole/24 slot) and comes in at a bit over 20 lbs. – no small part of that heft coming from 2” of a solid particleboard plinth into which there is a high degree of direct coupling (sub-platter, armboard etc.). The sprung suspension is designed into the footing and can easily be changed out for solid footing to a marble + rubber/cork/rubber isolators type of sub-plinth arrangement if desired.
After picking this TT up at our municipal Re-Use center for $10, I was able to free up the linkage very quickly, but could only overcome the nascent EMI hum coming off both motor and neon strobe light by incorporating the Astatic MF-200 flux cartridge that Grant steered me towards.
The Pioneer was part of holiday audio “makeover” for a family member that wanted to “get into vinyl” (not everyone can get a Lenco – especially starting out). A pair of large Advents that I refoamed and competent little Technics receiver rounded out the package. But by far, the unexpected little gem of this roped together ensemble was that Pioneer DD which was quite musical and delivered some thumping bass.
Seems I followed up on your qualified DD recommendation telepathically, and as in so many times before heartily agree with your appraisal and reasoning.
By the way, many thanks for the compliment on my Interstate Lenco build.

All best,
Mario

Jean - I have been itching to ask a question regarding tonearms.

As I still sometimes read the old thread (dull afternoons at work) your raves about certain older tonearms remain fresh in my mind.

Now that you have the Dynavector and the RS-A1 to sport your Denon, are you still using the likes of the MAS, 1005II, Mayware, etc.? What about MM in general?

Nervous in high compliance-ville,

Mike

Hi all!! Starting with Mario, you're most welcome, your work is always an inspiration in dedication! A lot of DIYers should have a gander and think about the satisfaction of a project well done. I've discovered that in woodwork patience and care - not professional experience - is the Prime Ingredient. Measure twice and cut once as they say. I absolutely LOVE to hear about budget Giant-Killer systems, especially using vintage components! Though my own sytem is made up entirely of such items (excepting currently my tonearms and cartridges), I STILL have hankering to pull out my AR2ax's and play with them, and my Yamaha 625's, and so forth, and have some fun.

While on the subject of vintage tonearms, hey Mike! No, I haven't abandoned either vintage tonearms or MMs, having been busy lately conquering my area with the Decca: there's now a Decca Revival going on in Ottawa thanks to a combination of the Mighty Giant Direct Coupled Glass-Reinforced Lenco/Graham 2.2 Ceramic combo. Last I heard, the Decca has displaced both an upper end Benz Micro MC AND a Koetsu Platinum Something-or-Other. I've also been experimenting with an incredible and Final-Type match-up: the combination of the Rega RB-250 with the Grado cartridges, including the Woodies. Now I've often been on record speaking for the RB-300 as opposed to the much-hyped RB-250 (OL etc.), but this is in the case of MCs, with which the RB-300 extracts much more refined and "complete" results. But with an MM, ESPECIALLY the Grados, the RB-250 yields truly State of the Art astonishing results, so much so I bought myself a RB-250 for my own Woody. I made the discovery initially when setting up a Lenco for a friend on a budget. He bought an RB-250 to keep costs down, and I talked him into a Grado Platinum as a Final Cartridge. I was frankly stunned by the results, his system now counting amongst the best I've heard anywhere in the world (using old and stunning JSE Infinite Slope speakers, a Superphon Dual Mono Revelation preamp, and a couple of 20-watt ASL tube monoblocks). Now lately, I mounted my RB-250 to the Technics SP-25 in heavy plinth (Direct Coupled) and mounted my Grado 8MX to that, and am again stunned by the results.

And more ahead, as I bought an NOS Audio Technica ATP-12, which is, in terms of build quality/engineering, superior to the AT-1005 MKII. Can't wait to try it out. I am about to mount my Black Widow to my new Reference Lenco (I've improved things some more by more extreme application of certain principles) to show what this baby can REALLY do. One thing about this ultra-low-mass tonearm: a cartridge on this tracks the most severe warps as if they didn't exist. Plus, I've never heard one on one of my Giant babies, let alone my new "Ultra Lenco" (and I've not yet applied these principles to Reinderspeter's top-plate...we're entering realms of music reproduction which border on a violation of the Laws of Physics!!).

Though my Reference tonearm/cartridge combo is now the JMW 10.5/Ortofon Jubilee (though not budget, for the price this combo still ranks as a Giant Killer and stunning value, as they are both "reasonably" priced at roughly $2K each), I was frankly stunned at the results I got from the classic AKG P8ES on the JMW, which may in fact have outperformed the Decca...I'll have to get back to this cartridge and see what more I can extract from it. I HIGHLY recommend the AKG as a State of the Art Contender, no need for caveats in any area. I also clearly remember the stunning results I got from my Transcriptors Vestigal tonearm, likely the lowest-mass tonearm ever made (and WEIRD and so FUN), which extracted SUCH detail and transients from my Grado Woody it matched the best MCs I've heard. Finally, in my Fun Bag, is the Decca International Heavy Metal version I have, which might displace even the JMW 10.5! We'll see.

A note on the highly-underrated (despite a stream of rave reviews) and misunderstood JMW tonearms (especially the 10.5 and above): these tonearms "humanize" otherwise cerebral MCs (which normally cannot match MMs for gestalt, PraT and overall exhuberance/musicality) and so bring them much closer to MMs in overall sonic characteristics. I've heard the Lenco/JMW in many systems, with always the same results: an utter naturalness allied to state of the art detail and imaging, and perfectly even tonal balance, from the lowest lows to the highest highs. I believe it's due to a combination of the unipivot design and very high overall mass, which ups the gestalt of the normally analytical/dissective character of most MCs.

And finally Lew, those sound like fabulous machines, I've heard a lot about the better Denons, but haven't yet managed to get my hands on one. As to speed stability, since there is no such thing as perfection in this world, then it is not so much the overall speed stability which matters as the TYPE of speed instabilities which matter. Take quartz-locking: with a given speed stability measurement (averaged in such a way as to make the figures look very impressive) their speed stability figures outdo many much better designs, as I've discovered. But the quartz-locking is causing a sort of go-brake-go-brake-go-brake which disappears when averaged out over a certain time period/frequency, but to which the human ear is EXTREMELY sensitive. Using the same measurement test, another DD (of course servo-controlled) yields much inferior results, but sounds MUCH more stable in terms of overall gestalt, transients and dynamics (i.e. these are not mitigated as they are with quartz-locking). So perhaps the servo-controlled system at a certain frequency/time sampling is vastly inferior, but perhaps at a smaller sampling frequency the speed stability is vastly superior (i.e. averaged over one thoudsandth of a second to the next one-thousandths of a second the Quartz is superior, but perhaps at the pico-second to the next pico second level the servo is MUCH superior, yielding a more liquid/musical result). With respect to simply removing ALL correction circuitry from existing DDs you're right, the results would likely be disastrous. A DD would have to be designed from the ground up to operate on simple momentum. When removing the platter of my Sony, for example, one can see the motor/spindle of the 'table go, in quarter-turns, revolve-STOP-revolve-STOP. But, mount the platter and this HUGE cogging simply disappears. This demonstrates that the platter mass is calculated into the final result, and a DD designed with no correction whatsoever would also have to be so designed, to work without electronic speed stability tricks, which many audiophiles mistake, it being a matter of wondrous computing technology, as big PLUS, when in fact the correction circuitry is a big bandaid to cover up a great LIABILITY, i.e. the extremely slow revolution of DDs, as is necessarily so (33 1/3 for 33 1/3 and 45 for 45, as opposed to 1800 RPM for Idlers), which magnifies any imperfections hugely (the faster a motor revolves, the more simple momentum "papers" over the speed instabilities).

Anyway, more fun'n games ahead for me and evidently for you all, have fun all!!

I tried to verify this via the internet but could not find the relevant information plainly stated. However, is it not the case that Quartz-control is a subset of servo control? IOW, quartz control is a servo using a quartz-based oscillator as a reference. If true, it would be of interest to know the reference used in the servo-controlled tt you are enjoying.

Hi Lew, no, the issue as far as I understand it and understood back in the day was that servo-control is reactive, meaning that it reacts to deviation from absolute speed stability (whatever tolerance) and corrects, thus bringing with it an endless hunk-and-seek as it never achieves perfect speed stability (this was the argument anyway, as experience shows the system had its advantages ;-)). The advantage of quartz-locking was that it was not reactive, the quartz "signal" being the independent Reference, and so divorced from the antics caused by stylus force drag, and not reactive. I notice that in this respect, the Technics SP-10 MKII has lots of torque, so stylus force drag or not an issue (but, the quartz-locking reference is itself a problem, as it is audible), and the quartz-locking itself thus more effective (i.e. a true reference signal).

10-4 Jean - got it! Cut once and if it is too short cut it again :0)

About the Decca metal tonearm - can you post a pic or a link to this model. I have seen many Decca arms for sale since you talked about it but I dont recognize the difference plastic one and the metal one.

I agree about the VPI arms - every one says they are a great bargain but no one ever mentions them as a contender for being one of the best in any specific circumstance. I liked my 12" enough that I never upgraded it. I am even a little skeptical about the newest undamped version.

Regarding the Decca carts, until a few weeks ago, I was unaware that Ikeda makes a similar line of cantilever-less cartridges for what seems like slightly less money. I lost an auction for one in Australia last week.

Mike

Lew, I was notified that you had asked about a DP80 in this thread. As you may know, I fully restored a DP80 awhile back. From a purely listener's standpoint, the DP80 "sounds" every bit as good as any of the Lencos I've built - and better than some. In fact, it with a Kuzma Stogi Reference and Sumiko Celebration is one of five tables I own and one that I turn to as often than not (Not Mentor, 2 Lencos, and a Garrard 301 being the other three). Of course, this could owe to plinth materiasl, arm/cart combos, etc., etc., etc. I cannot tell you the technical reasons for speed adjustment of the DP80 like I could the Lenco, but I do know what I hear. For what it's worth, and all that. :)

If you'd like more detail than this forum will allow, please e-mail me. I post here such that others having your same general question may have intertest salved or, better yet, piqued!

Hi Mike, sorry, my digital camera was destroyed by a grain of sand (while my '70s Nikon FM falls off of speeding motorcycles with nary an effect) during my travels. The Heavy Metal Decca can be recognized by its "futuristic-looking" headshell, sloped with holes drilled out of it to minimize mass, somewhat like the Hadcock headshells. The pillar also sports a cylindrical bubble-level as opposed to the circular one of the more common plastic one. The main pillar is much longer and made of steel, and the cable is detachable 5-pin DIN with a heavy-duty spring-collet. Finally, the counterweight is also drilled out with two holes through is and is assymmetrical so it can be used to correct/balance azimuth.

I had always thought the Ikedas were more expensive, but with the new expensive models and the rise in prices, the Ikedas may be becoming a bargain. It would be great to hear one on a Lenco/JMW combo!!

I'm about to test out a new Garrard 401/SME V combo to see how it fares against a Lenco/Dynavector 507 MKII/Dyna 17D MKIII. In my experience so far, it seems the 401 is actually superior to the far more expensive Garrard 301 grease-bearing (we're not talking a Crushing, but instead a matter of slightly more Lenco-like fluidity) we'll see what happens in further testing.

On the subject of the Technics SP-10 MKII and quartz-locking, Technics' SP-10 MKI was servo-controlled, and I would LOVE to get my hands on one of these! Nevertheless, the main bearing of the Sony 2250/2251 is about the best I've ever come across (about as good as the superb Roksan main bearings), far better than that on other DDs or indeed anything else at all I've tested, which might give it some important advantage, not to mention OF COURSE its Direct Coupling-friendliness. We'll see how it fares in testing against other DDs with time. As always, careful application of Direct Coupling and high mass, and reliance on one's ears and against prejudice in all its forms (i.e. the penchant to automatically assume that expensive exotic materials sound better than the tried-and-true utterly tonally neutral and dynamically monstrous Russian birch-ply/MDF recipe; the penchant to again equate price-tag with final results - i/e/ EMT better than anything, Garrard better than Lenco, Unobtainium better than Obtainium etc. - in fact all forms of Audio-as-Status; and various forms of axe-grinding which do nothing but continue to muddy the waters and slow down actual progress and honest discoveries, and so on and so forth Ad Infitinitum and especially Ad Nauseum) will lead to true progress in design and results, both for the DIYer and in the industry.

As George on Cyprus was always fond of saying, engineering is about engineering TO A PRICE, which is to say, that if it takes $100K to match via, say, Oh, it's on the tip of my tongue...yes!, a Belt-Drive!, a MUCH cheaper idler-wheel drive (and even DD, which at $20K or perhaps much less - given the riddance of expensive circuitry/bandaid - should be able to outperform, correctly designed, a $100K Belt-Drive), then the Belt-Drive design is ultimately an engineering FAILURE. Similarly, as I've often written, if a steam-driven automobile can be made to match the top speed of a combustion engine, but it will weigh 100 tons (several obscenely-priced high-mass belt-drives come to mind) and cost $100,000,000, then it is, quite simply, the inferior system. Until the DD is done correctly, the jury's out on whether or not it can be made to match the superb results of a Giant Direct Coupled and carefully-restored/rebuilt/tuned idler-wheel drive, which relies on pure analogue speed stability rather than tricksy electronic bandaids to achieve speed stability which does not offend the human ear/brain. Of course, as opportunities arise (any of these DD legends materialize in my greedy hands), you can rely on me to faithfully and honestly report on actual results. The Lenco and the Sony are both a HUGE wake-up call on what's important in vinyl playback, the Lenco because it slays pretty well anything on the planet, the Sony because it demonstrates the audibility of quartz-locking/sampling frequencies to maintain speed stability (ditto the analogue Lenco).

Finally, don't forget the Uber Directive all, have fun!! So, a 'table with superior PRaT and liveliness is ALWAYS better than a 'table which majors on analysis at the expoense of the MUSIC (which should, it goes without saying, be musical, anything less being a severe colouration/flaw), and so kills the music. Not that State of the Art results in terms of detail and so forth cannot be achieved with a trusty old idler-wheel drive ;-). Have fun all, and have a good weekend! Now, to mount that Black Widow and see how the AKG P8ES fares....:-).

Thanks - Jean. I think I'll sand on my GIANT #2 tomorrow. You know what I mean :)

MIke

Hi Mike, how's your new Giant Lenco coming along? Out here in the country I've been busy with some experimentation and preparing for and then enjoying the local winter carnival, which involved lots of horses and lots of beer!

I had wanted to mount the Black Widow, but it turns out it was a casualty of my last move. So I rewired an NOS Sonus tonearm instead, using a Giant Lenco as platform, the Sonus being a very low-mass version of the Mayware unipivot, and mounted both an AKG P8ES and a Grado Master. The Sonus, with the Grado mounted to it, seems to equal the VPI JMW tonearm with the Grado, and so by extension with MMs, which is great news for audiophiles on a budget! But the JMW's abilities with MCs gives it the overall edge in performance when it's matched with the amazing Ortofon Jubilee cartridge. As I wrote before, the JMW seems to bring otherwise analytical MCs into MM territory for gestalt and PRaT, so that the JMW/Ortofon Jubilee matches the erstwhile unmatcheable Grado for these two specific qualities while drawing ahead in every other area, excepting perhaps the Grado Woodies' way with acoustic instruments/resonances of natural materials (i.e. wood, lacquer, strings).

Of course, more listening is required to pin down these elusive qualities with respect to the JMW/Jubilee vs Sonus/MM. Right now, I have the Master mounted on the JMW, which sounds excellent and comfortable and intensely "together", as Grados do, and so I'm in no hurry to go back to the more detailed Orotfon for now.

I have to sing the praises of the Jubilee however, which is a true contender for State of the Art in terms of detail and other traditional MC strengths, which most agree is currently the Bass Master (in terms of reach, detail, all sorts of low frequency information, etc.), and which matches the Denon DL-103 for overall excitement and musicality and, when mounted on the JMW, also matches MMs for PRaT and gestalt. So good is the JMW/Jubilee match, in fact, that I'm having trouble finding a combo for the second tonearm board (my Lenco is a two-tonearm Lenco) which can provide a viable alternative! The Jubilee is ten times the price of the venerable Denon however; but its stylus is said to last 5000 hours as opposed to the Denon's 600-800 hours, and it is superior in perhaps every area. I will have to next mount my special Denon DL-103E on the JMW and see how it stacks up in a head-to-head, lots of comparison fun!! I'm thinking of drilling out the tapped RS-A1 bolt-holes so I can mount threaded cartrdiges like the Jubilee and the Grado Woodies to it as well. More reports of the AKG P8ES on the way as well, on both the Sonus and the JMW. Be bringing in the Rega RB-250 soon too, and I hope also the Transcriptors Vestigal! Throw in the Piezo YM-308 MKII as well for fun, and at some point the Pickering TL-2S currently being promoted by Dopogue and sweeping the world according to all reports. I've been a BIG fan of the Pickerings for a long time now (I remember the stellar peformance of their stereohedron models, and the excellent neutrality of the XV-15/625E), and look forward to trying out this new discovery by Dopogue, being I think a current model.

And let's not forget as well the MAS 282 tonearm, which had me convulsing under the spell of the Kundalini Effect a while back, when matched to the Grados: astounding gestalt, bass, SLAM and musical excitement (provided the crappy tonearm cable is replaced with something better, like the Audio Technica tonearm cables which come with their vintage tonearms and which are superb). Can't wait to start all this experimentation and comparison, things will be getting quieter for now and so I'll have time, as well as finally getting around to building the Reinderspeter steel top-plate version of the Lenco, for even greater performance, already mind-boggling due to the Mighty Idler-Wheel technology!!

Have fun all with your own respective match-ups, I look forward to reading about more fortuitous matches and combinations!

Hey Jean. Had a productive weekend. I put Giant #2 back on the workbench and filled some small holes and ran some tests to tint the top black to contrast with the G99 that I epoxy painted white. Next task is to make a template and cutout the arm boards.

Also started rewiring the Sonus MKIV arm. It hasn’t been too bad to deal with – just have to hook up the output cables to the Cardas wire and put it back together.

TIP: for stripping thin tonearm-like wire, Radio Shack makes a wonderful tool. Wire-Wrapping Tool Model: 276-1570 looks like a jeweler’s screwdriver but has sweet little wire stripping tool concealed in the handle. It is for stripping very thin wire - it made stripping the Cardas tonearm wire – literally - a 1 minute job. I once made a set of speaker cables (8 strands ea) out of 30ga. kynar wire wrap wire and didn’t know about this tool – it would have made it a breeze – as opposed to the torture that it was.

Finally a TWEAK-O-Gram from your pal (Me)... Have youse seen those ridiculous contraptions that claim to degauss CD’s (and now even LP’s) for supposedly better sound? Well, a couple of week ago I just happened see an old audio tape degausser for $10 on eBay, so I bought it on a whim. “Hummmm.... I says, if no one bids on this here thing, I’ll see if there’s anything to them claims”. So’s – yesterday and again this morning I listens to a CD and I immediately go degauss it and put it back in the player. The fairly obvious effect was that the soundstage was taller and wider and there seemed to be greater bass dynamics and improved detail. For $10, what’s to worry?

Mike

Hi Mike, thanks for the tweak suggestions. Pierre, the designer/builder of my 100-watt SS amp, had once very convincingly demonstrated the effects of the degaussing tweak, but these machines were no longer available (I think sold by Monarchy at the time), great to know there's a cheap and available alternative! Thanks as well for the tip on the Rat Shack tool, I'll look for it.

On the tonearm/cartridge front, more news: in fact, none of the vintage tonearms I've tried match the JMW, Morch or RS-A1 tonearms, due principally, I believe, to the suppression of internal resonances, and in some cases also the headshell resonances. The Sonus has a flimsy plastic headshell to minimize mass, and no internal damping at all. Nevertheless, the Sonus/Grado Master came close to the JMW/Grado Master, but with other cartridges the gap was rather large, showing that Grados like low mass, regardless of specs. The real advantage of vintage low-mass tonearms (excepting perhaps the lowest-mass Morch) is that they track the most difficult warps with the utmost ease (no momentum to create the ski-jump effect), and so enlarge the collection and reduce problems. They also save on suspension and stylus wear. I won't give up on the Sonus yet though, as I'll try the fab vintage Satin MC (a gorgeous sound like the Grados, but aimed more specifically at stringed instruments) I have on it next to see what's what.

I had tried the Audio Technica ATP-12 tonearm, a superbly well-built higher-mass professional tonearm with no provision for anti-skating (but seems to work perfectly well nevertheless), but better-built overall than either the AT-1009 or AT-1005 MKII. It sounded great with the Ortofon Jubilee (at 10 times the price!) and a variety of other cartridges I tried. But, compared with the JMW 10.5, there was a slight hardness/brightness, those tonearm resonances again. But it came surprisingly close! All this on my new Reference Lenco of course, I'll have tio try the Rega RB-300 and RB-250 tonearms again to see how they measure up in overall performance now that my Reference has reached new heights.

More on the Jubilee: properly set-up - and this means on a large idler-wheel drive with its clear superiority in terms of PRaT, gestalt and SLAM and transient speed to every other system so far (though we're working on optimizing DDs) - it is a stunning high-end cartridge, which at the price (just under $2K) is a steal, considering its competition lies in the <$8K league. The only high-end MC I've heard so far which matches and beats the incredible Denon DL-103 and variants which so far - for musical power and togetherness - have been King of the MC Hill. I had set up the Denon DL-103"E" (retipped by phonophono in Berlin) on the JMW nad was as always seduced by the musical power, intensity, and togetherness. But when I switched back to the Jubilee, there was all that and more, and even more musical power! As always when setting up cartridges and tonearms on belt-drives, a true idea of a given cartridge's character and performance escapes us, as the belt-drives' various speed instabilites - MOST clearly audible in the relative lack of bass when compared with idler-wheel drive, which itself is the simplest and most evident proof of the inability of belt-drives to deal with stylus force drag and so achieve true speed stability (as opposed to bogus/not real-world speed stability reached by cooking the testing books via biased testing) - cause brightness and poor tracking, among other phenomena such as loss of transient speed and timing. Take the Ortofon Jubilee and mount it on a Lenco/JMW and Bingo!-Presto! it becomes a Denon for musical power and togetherness, and as well preserves its leading-class detail, bass and overall clarity. Also, being King of the Hill when it comes to bass, its results in this one area is truly awesome when mounted to an awesome idler-wheel drive!!

Given all that, I'm still experimenting with various viable alternatives to the Mighty JMW/Ortofon Jubilee pairing, and by this I mean equal but different in overall performance and musical effectiveness. I'm hoping either a re-wired Rega RB-250/Grado Master, or the MAS 282/Grado Master pairing will do the trick.

Tomorrow, in a truly scary high-end system, I'll be setting up a Lenco/Dynavector 507 MKII/Dynavector 17D MKIII, for the previous owner of the Oracle Delphi MKIV/SME V/Dyna XX-1 VdH, already handily outperformed by the Giant Direct Coupled Garrard 401/SME/Dyna XX-1. It'll be interesting to see how the two - Lenco and Garrard - sound compared to each other in such a high-calibre system!! The Oracle is already moot :-)!! Have fun all!!

Hi Mike

RE: Degaussing Plastic - in a a word or two "It Works". I was very skeptical when I read about treating vinyl records to a degaussing before play - very counterintuitive on the surface.

Well, a listen to "Ambrosia" on the Monster L75, a slow pass with the bulk tape eraser (both sides), and another spin on the Lenco was all it took to cure my skepticism. Really. The nay-sayers will say "Nay" and that's OK... my Hi-Fi is resolving enough to let me hear the difference, and that experience is proof enough for me.

BTW - ditto for CDs. I've not yet seen if it shows up as a better picture from DVDs (anyone else tried that already ?)

...and remember to degauss your brain before a listening session (pink noise blast, decreasing to zero, played over headphones)... er - just kidding !

But seriously, do let us know your experience with treating LPs to a buzz from the eraser.

Cheers,
Grant

Hi All,
Happy Anniversary! Our four-year undergraduate program is completed. On to mastering the audio universe! With a bulk degausser in one hand and a Lenco in the other, nothing can stop us! Seem like ions ago since Jean cast his net and snagged so many of us into this blast. It’s been fun and continues to be so whether publicly extolling or privately building – seeking and questioning.
The ‘table playing field has changed in four years. If not in an outright ground swell of idler support, then belated, grudging acknowledgement and respect for a system that was all to quickly passed by. It seems that idler hands were not the work of the Devil, afterall.
Sail on.

- Mario

Hey, I missed the four-year anniversary of the beginning of the Idler-Wheel War!! We've come a LONG way baby, and actually affected the industry and brought to light the phenomena of stylus bforce drag, and the connected issue of speed stability and drive systems!!

Those who deny themselves the Glories of the Idler - the incredible transients, bass SLAM, reach and detail and natural presentation of detail - literally don't know what they're missing. But, thankfully, the Ship of Lenco - and other idlers and associated experiments and discussions with DDs and so forth - sails on, thanks for that Mario and all other participants!

I simply had to post and say that Lenco's are indeed awesome tables, able to spar toe to toe with many current offerings out there, including bleeding edge gear. I've been reading about the Ship of Lenco for a few years now, I finally had to break down and try one, so I built a relatively modified version of an L-75. I used a similar arm to my existing table for the Lenco and my same cartridge to keep all things equal. After a 3 month build, I was a bit apprehensive about what the modified Lenco would sound like-

To say I'm impressed about the sonics would be an understatement. I'm very impressed. All the usual descriptions apply here, frequency extension, air, soundstaging, prat, and above all... MUSIC ! Lots of foot tapping, albums and covers flying everywhere as old favorites are ripped out and rediscovered, playing air guitar, playing real guitar, me suddenly bursting into song, it's all there.

I'm not sure exactly how to describe the sonics, but something is just plain right. So many pieces don't have that quality that it becomes difficult to verbalize why the sound is just plain better, but it is. I'm not foolish enough to say that they will better any top tier (and top budget) tables out there, but they won't be embarrassed, and that much I'm pretty confident about.

Thanks to Mario, Jean, etc for carrying the flame about these wonderful tables. It would indeed be sad if these gems got lost to the hands of time and weren't enjoyed as they should be. It's a testament to a great and somewhat timeless design.

RFG

I made a post recently on Lenco Lovers about my fancy new CD player having sonically bypassed my Lenco (in my vintage living room system). Well over the weekend, I finally rewired my Sonus arm with the Cardas wire and purple sattelite wire (Thanks Jean and Mario) - and as you probably already expect, the Lenco is comfortably back in front.

What I did not expect was that rewiring would make the music more accessible. As happenstance would have it, I had a few uncleaned second hand records close to the table when I got the arm finished and put back on. I put on Ray Charles "Genius + Jazz = Soul". This sonically OK sounding record (Impulse) not only sounded great but for the first time I was able to understand what Ray Charles intended using the Hammond organ on this record. I must have heard this record for the first time 25 or 30 years ago in the college library, and it always sounded to me like a vaguely lame attempt by Ray Charles to use the B3 just because it was popular. However, after rewiring the Sonus and using a Ortofon VMS20Super MM, I realize now that Ray was not trying to copy the popular B3 sound of other famous players - to my mind, he was going for the same type of mildly distorted staccato sound he eventually got from the Fender Rhodes electric piano.

Cool, no?

Hi Grant - who knew? Will try LP records presently.

Mike