I have been contemplating for a while which turntable to pursue given so many choices. Every time I look around, I just can’t help drooling over a fully restored Garrard 301 or 401. Aside from being an idler-drive, I keep reading and hearing about their unique ability to reproduce music with its sense of drive and impact thus making them very desirable to own. And with available meticulous restoration services and gorgeous plinth options, what’s not to like, right!
Would you please share your experience, good and pitfalls (if any) with a restored Garrard 301 to avoid before I go down this path.
And what about the IEC inlet and power cord, would they be of any significance. My two choices would be Furutech FI-09 NCF or FI-06 (G) inlets.
I have already purchased a Reed 3P Cocobolo 10.5” with Finewire C37+Cryo tonearm/interconnect phono cable with KLEI RCA plugs option.
Still exploring Cart Options, so please feel free to share your choice of cart with Garrard 301 or 401.
Upgrading the capacitors in the RIAA filter and the output coupling capacitors does wonders for the sound.
I am surprised that:
I am in general not a fan of tube rolling at all.
It seems to me that if a better capacitor does wonders, then a better tube might as well! Perhaps I have fooled myself, but I'm surprised to find that changing a rectifier tube can affect the sound quality, never mind the tubes in the signal path. I am not guilty of changing types of tubes, only the manufacturer.
Dover, I own the old QS preamp that has a built in MM phono stage, along with its linestage,
Yes - that's the one I'm talking about. In hindsight it may have been the power supply feeds to the tubes that had some design foibles that were precarious. I have the circuit diagrams here with updates by Mike ( there were several updates to that pre ), but my tech was not happy. He did explain to me the design issue, but I can't remember the detail - its some years ago.
Dover, I own the old QS preamp that has a built in MM phono stage, along with its linestage, not the newer models that I think are separates, a phono stage and a separate linestage. Since I have measured the voltages across the tubes, and thereby also calculated plate current and plate dissipation, I can assure you that the early 1990s era QS does not run the tubes "very hard". The plate dissipation is well within spec. Upgrading the capacitors in the RIAA filter and the output coupling capacitors does wonders for the sound.
Your focus on speed and transparency aligns perfectly with your preference for a balanced and revealing system. It’s great that your approach to tube selection considers the nuances of classic circuit design. That level of detail ensures optimal synergy and performance without introducing unwanted coloration or sluggishness.
My journey into analog so far has been nothing short of amazing experiences. There is still lot more work ahead as I look forward to receiving the elusive Woodsong plinth + implementation of 2nd tonearm and Mono cart by Spring 2025.
Do you find that your preference for Telefunken or Mullard shifts depending on the type of music you’re listening to or is it the system’s overall tonal balance?
No. I listen to mostly Jazz & Classical.
My preferences are for maximum speed and transparency. I very seldom have any issues with system balance - having multiple arms/cartridges is enough.
One thing I cannot stand is slowness or aberrations/colourations - I find that ultimately they grate on you over time. Best to build a balanced system to start with.
In terms of tube choice - its the particular application that can determine tube variant in my experiences - specifically with classic circuits eg Marantz you have tubes that perform gain functions and tubes that are used in a cathode follower application ( no gain, used as buffer to generate a low impedance output ).
Occasionally I have found that the 2 best tubes in those positions are not the same.
@lewm
I used to distribute Quicksilver, I have owned them years ago - the QS preamp runs the tubes very very hard.
Dover, Please lighten up. I was quoting Lalitk. That is why the words were in quotation marks. Evidently Lalitk experiences the TFK ECC83 as tonally rich. As we all know, one's impressions of the SQ of any single item in a system are dependent upon what else is in the system and what is in the caput of the listener. Although I have to say that I preferred the sound of TFK ECC83s against any other congener in my Quicksilver preamplifier, I also hold with noromance that you can adjust tonality elsewhere, such as by careful choice of output coupling capacitor, and etc. I used the TFKs in the Q because I have owned a quad of them since the 1970s, and I figured I ought to at least give them a try. The Quicksilver is a superb sounding unit, in my opinion, but these days it just sits on the shelf. Mullards were underwhelming in the Quicksilver, not even second choice. I am in general not a fan of tube rolling at all.
You both are right—Telefunken ECC83s are not “tonally rich” in the sense that Mullards or Amperex tubes are. They’re prized for their neutrality, speed, and precision rather than warmth or fullness. Their sonic signature tends to be leaner, more transparent, and dynamic, which is why they excel in circuits like the Marantz 7, where their neutrality complements the design’s inherent qualities.
As you mentioned, tube performance is highly circuit-dependent. Telefunkens might shine in a circuit designed for clarity and speed, while Mullards or Amperex tubes with their fuller and richer sound, might be better suited for systems aiming for warmth and body. It’s fascinating how tube rolling allows for such fine-tuning, but also how generalized statements about “the best tube” fall short when we take into account circuit topology, system synergy and personal preference.
Your experience highlights the beauty of experimentation, something I deeply believe in.
Do you find that your preference for Telefunken or Mullard shifts depending on the type of music you’re listening to or is it the system’s overall tonal balance?
@doverFunny, I had a drawer full of the box plate Mullards you mention. Nice if one likes creamy, warm, and slow, with no air. I'll concede that Teles can be a little lacking in warmth. However, I maintain that you can adjust tonality elsewhere in the system without slowing it all down in the phono amplifier.
TFK ECC83s are so "legendary" for their "tonal richness"
No they are not.
Exact opposite - in the Marantz 7 circuit they are fast, reasonably transparent and very flat. I have a draw full of premium flat plate Telefunkins. They have never sounded rich.
If you want rich - Mullards tend to be much more fullsome the expense of speed and neutrality.
The problem with any discussion on tubes is that the best tube can be circuit related - you can't make blanket statements.
I like Telefunkens, but, I never considered them to be tonally rich sounding tubes. The ones I heard were very lively and dynamic sounding, but, considerably leaner than the likes of Mullard and Amperex.
Absolutely correct - I have drawer fulls of flat plate telefunkens - they are as described. I also have a stash of Mullard CV4004 and M8137's both are richer and fuller sounding than the Tele's.
In my Marantz 7 I preferred the Telfunkens.
In my Jadis preamp I preferred the Mullards in some positions ( but not all ).
I like Telefunkens, but, I never considered them to be tonally rich sounding tubes. The ones I heard were very lively and dynamic sounding, but, considerably leaner than the likes of Mullard and Amperex. The Telefunkens that I ended up using in my phono stage are ECC803S tubes that are very expensive. They came in their original box, This was quite a while ago when there were some concerns about fakes, but, the Chinese had not yet perfected the fake diamond molded into the bottom of the tube. The box looked suspiciously clean and new, but the ends crumbled when I opened them, which indicated that t boxes were very old.
Thank you for your recommendation. And I agree, Telefunken ECC83/12AX7 tubes are legendary for a reason. I am also looking at Mullard’s from 60’s which are known for silky and pleasant top end without being rolled-off. The best of these tubes retain a fine sense of "air" at the top, and the upper midrange is smooth and liquid. These tubes reproduce the human voice, especially female voices, with haunting realism. And then there is Siemens ECC83 NOS 1968, that are favorably touted for phono stages and preamps.
I may end up buying a pair of each and see which one’s are the keepers:-)
Dover, who else besides Sovtek make “long plate spiral” 12AX7s and also market those tubes as LPS? But of course you can use any 12AX7/ECC83 in your phono stages.
I haven’t heard an amp that hasn’t been improved by rolling in old production Telefunken ECC83/12AX7. Failing that, Grant Fidelity have a Black Treasure 12AX7 that is wonderful.
I agree with your assessment. This is a very special phono at a screaming bargain. I have been listening to records two straight days…lol. Have you done any tube rolling? My unit came with JJ ECC803S, they are breaking in nicely and have whet my appetite for more.
Sovtek 12AX7LPS is indeed not a separate “variant” of the 12AX7 but rather a Sovtek-branded 12AX7 with the “LPS” designation,
So for those of us who speak English as a native language, the 12AX7LPS is indeed a variant of 12AX7, whether you subscribe to either Merriam-Webster or Cambridge dictionary. I personally use 12AX7HTF's in my Marantz 7.
Maybe so but that shouldn’t deter anyone to not experiment, right? It’s a calculated gamble with any NOS tubes…well regarded NOS 12AX7s or ECC83s (like Mullards, Telefunkens, or Amperex) may not be low noise as Sovtek but what they have in spades is harmonic complexity and tonal richness.
The Sovtek 12AX7LPS is indeed not a separate “variant” of the 12AX7 but rather a Sovtek-branded 12AX7 with the “LPS” designation, which stands for long plate spiral. This spiral filament design helps reduce hum in applications like phono stages, where low noise is critical. Its long plates can offer a bit more detail and tonal richness compared to short plate designs.
I had an extensive dialog with the manufacturer prior to my purchase, the Model 4 supports all 12AX7 variants. My particular piece is supplied with JJ ECC803S and it is dead quiet.
Cheers! I've been really happy with mine. What it lacks in load options makes up in fidelity. I just think they nailed it – in my system anyway. Hope it works out for ya.
12AX7LPS is not a variant of 12AX7; the LPS suffix is a Sovtek code for low noise. So it’s a Sovtek 12AX7 that was presumably tested and selected for low noise. It’s well regarded, at least for having low noise. A randomly chosen NOS 12AX7/ECC83 is unlikely to be as quiet.
Softone Model 4 is here. Its breaking-in and sounding promising. It’s dead quiet (uses a pair of 12AX7 variant), clarity, bass response and imaging seems to be spot on.
I took a slight detour and bought Softone Model4 Equalizer. It appears to mate well with LOMC carts. Since I already own few NOS 12AX7/ECC803S tubes so it should be fun tweaking this little gem. Will know how good this thing sounds by end of the month.
Plinth - Same source as yours :-) As far as SUT, very likely EMIA as a test case and then I will decide between Hashimoto or Etsuro. I won’t be at CAF but plan on going to AXPONA 2025.
I have been enjoying analog bliss for past month or so. There is something very endearing about Garrard 301. Is it the timeless classic design or the toe tapping musical engagement…maybe little bit of both. 301 is a keeper!
I believe it’s time to further explore and maximize my investment. So, I ordered a heavier/thicker aluminum platter (topped with gun metal matt) and brass oil bearing to try it out. And more importantly, a custom plinth with dual arm boards. Opted for much sought after Hawaiian Koa in Satin finish with Brass arm-boards. The plinth weighs about 85lbs and arguably his best work off late. I can’t wait to experience it in my Man Cave…expected delivery around April 2025.
To have the most attractive aesthetic does add cost, especially if a professional Cabinet Maker Service is to supply fascia materials and carry out the finishing. Spray Paint Coating as a Fascia Finishing can be much more cost effective.
I am today more Wed to a aesthetic that has Honesty, the structure is not masked.
Mass Plinth and Idler Drives are from an era, when not too much was known about materials that are with an intrinsic property for Damping/Dissipation.
There are extra options today for selecting a Plinths function. Where Mass is a Sink to absorb motor energy, reducing energies transferred through the Platter to the Stylus. Damping/Dissipation, where energies are canned through the material and substantially reduced in their impact on other local materials.
There is plenty to be read on a forum like Lenco Heaven, to produce a basic idea for how each in use are perceived.
My recollections are those who moved on from a Mass Plinth have not returned to the structure. Damping/Dissipation has its attractions.
“What specifically do you not like about the DAS plinth? @ketchup
The finish and build quality leaves lot to be desired, certainly not worth the asking price. Others may disagree with my assessment and that’s ok. The plinth is on the lighter side and lacks appropriate mass needed to reject the excess energies produced by the motor and the platter bearing. You probably know this, a poorly made plinth will store and then amplify those energies with such efficiency that they encroach upon the music. I may not have the worst made plinth but it is certainly not what I had hoped for.
The plinth appears to be made from constrained plywood and layered with a polished veneer. The bottom plate may very well be MDF layer for all I know. It took lot of experimenting with different footers to drain the negative energies away from plinth. It’s working well for now, however I wouldn’t hesitate to replace it when I cross path with something wildly superior; both in terms of build and aesthetics.
Bamboo Board with three tiers as the minimum and compressed on both planes, is a improved Board for intrinsic Damping/Dissipation Properties over most of the usual board types seen used for Plinth construction.
A 401 listened to, mounted on a Compressed Bamboo Board Plinth, is my most impressed listen I can recollect.
Compressed Bamboo Board as referred to above does not cost too much. As a ,material it can be further enhanced for the attractive intrinsic properties, by applying thinned oils for it to absorb. I recollect seeing Shellac referred to as well as a Treatment to improve the properties, all good on my camp, as aesthetics are also being dealt with as well.
"When you buy something like DAS plinth you are buying weetbix wrapped in xmas paper."
That's a little harsh, no? I think most (maybe all) DAS plinths are 100% birch ply (not counting the veneer obviously) with the exception of the ones with rounded top corners that I mentioned above. Those have one layer of MDF on the top.
Look at these pics. These are all birch ply since they do not have large radiused top corners. Why would you call that a weetbix wrapped in xmas paper? Not trying to argue at all. Just trying to understand what you're saying. Seems like pretty solid construction to me.
MDF is basically wood dust and glue. The reason MDF has no purchase when you screw into it is because the glue is the most expensive component, and the manufacturers only put enough in to just hold the wood dust together and no more. It is designed as a very low cost material. I worked for a number of years in the timber industry.
When you buy something like DAS plinth you are buying weetbix wrapped in xmas paper.
This doesn’t necessarily mean it will sound bad, it simply means you are buying a plinth that’s full of wood dust and glue.
Personally on my 301 I used a hybrid of compressed bamboo ply and birch ply. Bamboo ply is harder than Maple, can be CNC’d ( I did mine myself ) and provides a stable platform that won’t warp over time. It is not pretty though, which appears to be important for some folk.
I do not use wood veneers because they are not stable and eventually you can see all the joins and I personally can’t stand that. If I wanted a wood finish I would do a shindo style laminated solid wood block plinth.
What specifically do you not like about the DAS plinth? I believe yours is constructed with a slab of MDF on the top. That's how he builds the plinths with the radiused edges because he can't wrap the radiused edges with veneer. If it were plywood, you'd see the layers of ply at the radius.
Do you think the top MDF layer has any negatives? Is the TT chassis coupled to the MDF layer or is it coupled to the next layer of plywood below the first layer of MDF? I believe DAS mentioned to me that the TT chassis actually sets on the MDF layer, but it was a long time ago and I may be misremembering.
I am very happy with Etsuro Bordeaux. I do need a mono cartridge, thinking about recently released Hana SL Mono MK II. I also upgraded my phono board with Accuphase Integrated to AD-60 and returned Allnic phono since it was not a day n night upgrade over my AD-60. Once AD-60 fully burn-in, I am going to pursue an SUT, very likely HM-7 or Etsuro. Too bad, SUT’s are not returnable, my decision would’ve been lot easier. Also looking at 301 spindle and platter combo but this looks like a late December or early January purchase.
Are you using an external PSU with your Garrard 401? I know there is a LDA option but then also found this on eBay.
Good point! Platter mats is something I’ve not experimented with yet. I went with Herbies Audio Lab ~ Way Excellent II Turntable Mat in 4mm thickness. They make good stuff so it was an easy choice without driving myself insane over plethora of available options.
When setting up support structure for a Stylus to perform at its optimised / close to optimised. My experiences had, has discovered that 2mm (1/16) in a thickness of a materials used under the Stylus can make a major difference.
The TT is not up and running at present, but because I was very impressed by the AT 677 Mat, I have a Micro Seiki Copy of a Mat made in very similar metal to the AT 677, but at a 10mm, approx' (3/8) thickness.
Forex Foam Mats used as 5mm Thick Mat, are in my set up extremely attractive in use on both ID TT and DD TT's. Take the same material mat in less than 5mm, when used in my system on a DD TT, the outcome is the usage is very short lived. This material type at lesser thicknesses does not perform attractively.
The same outcome occurred on a system in another Home on a BD TT, the system owner was so impressed with the 5mm Mat I gifted it to them.
“materials and solutions necessitated by compromise. ” @noromance
I hear you. That’s the first thing I wanted to analyze by adding the roller blocks underneath the plinth. During my 3 hours listening with different reference recordings, I noticed no compromises in dynamics or tonality of music. If anything, we gained clarity and solidarity in playback…everything sounds right. I am able to crank up the volume without causing or adding any kinds of distortions to the sound.
It’s a huge WIN, and all I want to do is buy more records, unwrap & clean and play them on my Garrard 301 😊
@lalitkThe time now is to forget 'what was' and enjoy the 'what is'.
The obvious audible intrusion has been tamed, it will be a period of time, before the wish to bring to forefront a sonic that is detected as being not the most attractive is desirable to be tidied up. You are with quite a few trials of different permutations for support to be utilised, before Propping Flooring is the treatment.
In case I forget. the Diament Guidance, suggests the Roller Bearing will work on improvements to isolation in the Horizontal Axes, there is still Guidance on how to treat the Vertical Axes to have an improved Isolation. There are many who have done this and have found it to be of value. A said, there is also those who are strongly suggested to have built their Business offering the method.
@lalitkThat is good news. As long as you are hearing the best qualities of the turntable system. When I experimented with supports and feet, I noticed that tightness, speed, extension, and intensity were impacted by materials and solutions necessitated by compromise.
Thanks for your post and the link to the article. It does makes sense. I’ve been determined to make things work and so glad that I’m finally able to enjoy my TT . The root of the problem is my suspended flooring. One of the poster already suggested addressing the flooring by installing Jack posts to firm up the flooring. That’s a long term solution, unfortunately not in the cards right now. I do realize the need to address this as some of the boards have loosened (normal a for 17 years old home) underneath the carpet.
The lengths we go to, just to spin a bloody record…LOL!
" 3, Producing support structures under the TT can be undertaken at a variety of costs and even more permutations for Plinth Materials and Footers used as separators and then the TT’s Mounting Feet. Working with the various options of permutations is where the real magic occurs. To really get the benefits it is best when done as the last exercise of the three treatments.
There is not a ubiquitous methodology for this one, I have loaned out many materials to be used on other systems, as the Mount for the Source, the differing environments and methods used to support the Rack, as well as the Rack Type creates very different outcomes of how a material is assessed for its impact on the end sound. Perseverance wins through" .
@lalitk Now the keenness to resolve the mechanical interface has been addressed with vigour and experimentation the solution for one particular and unique environment has been discovered, which from my end brings the notion, your now on your Journey with the Pedal to the Metal.
I still remain firm on the notion, further tidying up of the end sound is able to be discovered, but do ’encourage’, a period of tome to allowed for, to enable thoroughly enjoying the music encounters now to be had for an extended period. It is now important to become very familiar with the attractions being presented during the music replays that are now available to be perceived by yourself.
Many Years Past, a selection of the UK Idler Drive users were Wed to Barry Diament’s guidance for Vibration control, especially the Roller Bearing Footers.
It looks like your footers are quite similar as a function.
It is also widely suggested in the UK that Townsend Isolation Platforms started out as a Product from using the Diament design for a inflated supported platform.
As the Diament suggestions for methods are very affordable and achievable, and in the case of this Thread been successful, the Link will be good to review.
The idea of Perseverance wins through, is the real requirement to create the conditions that work as the perceived optimal set up.
I have been questioned on this, to the point the suggestion is not much more is to be achieved. I do not yield to the idea, there is a reason to stop, honing mechanical interfaces for the benefit of a Stylus to function at it optimised, is for myself when participated in, a real time enjoyment. .
My Garrard 301 is finally free from the gremlins of air and floor born energy. The solution…20 years old Final Laboratory Daruma 3-II’s from my closet. They have managed to effectively float the turntable thus freeing the TT from any mechanical vibrations. They are very similar to Symposium Rollerblock Jr. I just need to be careful to not knock off my TT off the rack with my knees…LOL!
Atleast now I can focus on finding a more stable ‘isolation’ solution and not think about replacing the plinth.
Original Plinths for Idler Drives of which I owned a 401 original Plinth were built with basic cabinetry assembly practices and were creating a larger air Void.
The non rigidity of the Cabinet ( think Syli requirements) and the large Volume of air caused audible resonance when transferred to the Styli.
Plinths today are usually seen with tight tolerance rebates for the TT to bed into and the Plinth Structure is substantially rigid.
The magic really occurs when the materials for the structure are able to Damp/Dissipate energies produced very effectively, hence the Styli is working in a much improved environment.
It is all about the Styli sensitivities to received energies, keeping the energy passed from the Styli to become the electrical signal to undergo various stages of gain as unadulterated as can be achieved at the Source, which is the Styli.
As a point of reference : Has anyone here ever heard a Garrard 301 in its original plinth ? You know ---- the one that the designers of this marvelous TT chose as its companion plinth ?
Also do not overlook the 'fact' the Platter is receiving side force that will add a force to the Platter Spindle.
Think of the Bearing Housing fastened into a quite thin metal as an anchor point. The Force on the Platter that is also being loaded into the Spindle will be encouraging the Bearing Housing to route force into the interface between Bearing Housing / Chassis.
Flexion is to occur and will be most amplified at the Base of the Beating Housing.
Eccentric Rotation can be occurring at the Bearing Base, that is then in a lesser degree being produced at the Spindle.
The overhang of the Platter Rim from the Spindle and Platter Mass will assist with amplifying rotations that are eccentric.
A Styli in a Groove in such an environment is going to be functioning in a way that is not allowing for it to be a optimised interface in the groove.
Bracing the Bearings Base, or Rigidly Coupling the Bearing Housing Base is a long time seen fix on TT's that have the potential to produce a flexion in the Chassis, that is at its worst when impacting detrimentally on the Bearing Housings Base.
A lot can be achieved if keeping the original Bearing Housing and producing mod's for it, most replacement bearings seen today as a commercial offering, are only a end design that utilises plagiarized DIY Designs.
Sorry I missed your post. Spring base isolation and Stillpoints are next on my list. And I am gathering information on all the available bearings and then going to decide which one gets my $$$. As far Audio Grail plinth, I just don’t care for ‘boxy’ looking plinths..lol!
My biggest concern heading into this project was,
1) am I going to like the sound of 301, and
2) rebuit quality, ease of use.
Both of these are answered to a great degree. I kinda knew 301 won’t be perfect from get go…I chalk this up to my inexperience and couple of poor choices. Despite of its challenges, I’m enjoying spinning records on 301. So 301 is not going anywhere, I honestly see myself keeping 301 around for a long time and tweak it further with parts like bearing, platter and even change out plinth to further elevate its performance.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
