Nude Turntable Project

Well things never go smoothly do they?
After chasing some known arm-pods worldwide, I was shocked to learn that the basic cost of each one was $2000-$3000...and that's without the delivery costs, duty etc.
This lead me to design my own pods in solid brass (after all I am an Architect and solving design problems is my 'metier'?), however when I sent the drawings for pricing, I received quotes for $1500-$2000 as machined in brass and powder-coated!
Apparently this was because they had to cast the brass before machining it as there were no billets available of the correct size for immediate machining?
I then tried pricing for machining in stainless steel and still received prices of $1600!!?
I then tried a 'casting' price for brass (or bronze) and managed to get that down to $450 if I had 3 pods cast.
With the arrangement of the 'Nude TT-81', an arrangement of 3 or even 4 arms as satellites was certainly possible so I've just let that contract for the 3 arm-pods to be cast in solid bronze.
This will now take another 3 weeks.
Meanwhile, what I thought might be a relatively economical alternative to a modern high-end deck with high-end arm and LOMC cartridge, looks like getting a bit out of hand?

The TT-81 cost $350, the Grace G-940 arm was $460 and the Empire 4000D/III Gold was also $350 so for a total cost of $1160, I thought I could put together a total analogue system far cheaper than the cost a single high end LOMC cartridge?

Now the sickness has begun and with my requirement for placing the TT-81 so far from the Phonostage/Preamp, the long Cardas phono cable costs $900 and the armpods will end up costing $600 each.....and I need 3 of each to service my ever-growing 'madness'!!?

Now I have bought a Micro Seiki MA-505S tonearm and am still looking for another arm.
Additionally I'm also looking for headshells, silver wiring and additional cartridges!
Someone please STOP me!!?
MADNESS

Dear Audpulse,
Thanks for the kind words.
I don't know much about idlers and haven't really heard any.
I'm willing to believe all the good things I hear after my direct experiences with vintage TTs.
Good luck with your own 'nude' idler. Any pictures?......I like 'ugly'!

I bet when someone was trying to fix the earlier problem, they accidentally hit delete.

I think you're right Banquo?
I thought maybe they didn't like Aussies taking their snakes for a walk?

Anyway, they tell me it's back?

Is this a plinth?
PLINTH
The NVS direct drive turntable which Albert Porter and Mike Levigne have bought after ditching their SP10 Mk3s mounted in expensive plinths.
Discuss?

I have now designed the arm-pod which is being machined and have ordered 2.25 metres of Cardas Golden Reference phono cable with 5 Pin DIN and XLRs which is being made.
I have a pristine example of the Grace G-940 damped unipivot tonearm (on Raul's recommendation) Here
In 2 weeks hopefully, I'll be good to go?

Thanks Shane,
You're right of course and if it sounds promising with the 220-100V transformer, that's the first change I'll make.

I don't think I've seen cans of mango at Coles but I'll try Ebay to hear the difference :-)

Dear Raul,
Thanks for the advice.
Of course if the experiment has some success I will get some armboard Towers and will ask you for some help?

Regards and I AM enjoying the music with The Empire 4000D/III cartridge.
Halcro

First problem encountered.
The Phantom II does not 'fit' against the TT-81 because of the extra 'banding' around the platter and the SME base to the Graham arm.

NUDE TT

Hi Banquo,
Thanks for your concerns.
You're right about there being space to fit Chris' long spikes under the Victor.
I feel like an idiot for not seeing that before?!
It is now possible for me to design a circular aluminium frame cut and welded out of 10mm thick flats into which I can just 'drop' the Victor.
After I get my preamp back with a working phonostage.......that may be my next project.
Plenty of scope for rigidity, levelling and isolation in that concept I think?

Up and running.
Took Downunder's advice and 'mounted' the 12" DaVinci Grandezza Ref.
RUNNING

Downunder,
Certainly not 'pain'.
In fact on first listen (despite the makeshift nature), this is surprisingly good sound.
I think HiHo may be right about JVC/Victor?

After listening for several hours to the 'Nude' TT-81 with various well-known albums, I have to say that it does not seem to suffer in any way in comparison to the Raven AC-3.
It's too hard to make any detailed comments or comparisons because:-
1. The TT-81 was on the floor
2. It didn't have the correct 240V-100V step-down transformer (which it now has)
3. It was played with an 'unrestrained' DaVinci Grandezza arm with a ZYX Universe LOMC whilst the Raven has a 'restrained' Continuum Copperhead with Empire 4000D/III Gold MM cartridge

What I heard was enough for me to make room on my wall-hung shelf for a permanent place for the TT-81 Here
whilst I design and build an arm-pod, find a tonearm to use and purchase a 2 metre length of low-capacitance phono cable.

The Project continues!

Thanks for the encouragement Bpoletti.
I guess it's too late to stop?......but I am having fun.

I'm thinking of getting the Fidelity Research FR-64S tonearm. There is so much hype about this arm (especially among the Germans), and although it's a high mass arm and won't necessarily mate well with my MM/MI cartridges, i think I owe it to myself to hear this setup with a LOMC cartridge as well and I have a spare Universe cartridge that I can compare directly with the DaVinci setup on the Raven?

Does anyone have other suggestions for good vintage arms that I should look for?

Here's an update on some further purchases whilst I await the arm-pods
EBAY IS GOOD

I've just received the raw bronze castings for the arm-pods (see link).
I designed the pods to suit all the arms I'm familiar with so that the inside diameter hole is 55mm diameter which can take the thick VTA tower of the Continuum Copperhead arm whilst the cable entry/exit slot in the curved rear of the pod, allows for the Phantom II sideways connection din plug as it moves up and down on its VTA travels.

The pods are now off to the automotive paint shop for its 'piano black' polyurethane finish and the drilling and tapping of the spiked adjustable feet and the aluminium top plate.
Hopefully I will have the completed pods back in a week?

I also bought off EBay, the 'famous' Fidelity Research FR 64S tonearm (thanks Tuchan) with silver wiring and stainless steel armtube.
I will be able to hear for myself whether the hype about this arm is correct or if Raul and Ralph (Atmasphere) are correct in their assessments?
LATEST

Hi T_bone,
The aluminum top plate is 10mm (3/8") thick and comes with the correct sized hole pre-drilled for each arm and is screwed to the bronze arm-pod.
Each top plate costs a mere $90.00 so many arms can be accommodated by simply switching in the appropriate plate.
The 55 mm diam hole in the arm-pod is independent of the arm and it's top plate.
I hope this is clear enough but next week all will be revealed to answer your questions?

The quality of workmanship and finish on the Micro Seiki MA-505s which you recommended, leaves every other arm in the shade IMHO.....even the modern "high-tech"arms like the Phantom II, Copperhead and DaVinci Grandezza.
If it sounds as fine as it looks, I'll be very happy?

The sides of the pods will be smoothed and finished in 2 pack gloss black polyurethane paint.

We have LIFT-OFF!
Now a few weeks of heavy running in of cartridges, arms and cables before preliminary listening impressions?
NUDE TURNTABLE

Thanks T_bone. I'm pleased with them and initial listening tests are very promising.

Thanks Genesis168,
I will certainly be comparing the TT-81 to the Raven AC/3 but this comparison may be more than simply that?
Raul has helped me to realize that the great MM cartridges made 30 years ago, are more than just a match for the very latest and expensive LOMC cartridges of today. They are in fact IMHO, more natural,detailed, truthful and distortion-free than the very best MCs.

So who determined 35 or more years ago, that MM cartridges were deficient and that MC cartridges were inherently better?
And why did the audio press push this belief and why did the high end consumer swallow this propaganda?

Similarly with turntables. Who was it who decided that the simple belt-drive method was inherently better than idler-drive and direct-drive? And again.......why did the audio press (especially in England) push this concept?

And who was it who suddenly determined that 'bent' tonearms with detachable headshells were poor sounding devices and straight arms with fixed headshells sounded better?
Did anyone actually listen to the best of the 'bent' arms and compare their new fixed straight arms to them?

With so much actual feedback now available via the Internet, there is evidence that the last 30-40 years of so-called technological development in high-end audio may be nothing more than marketing, PR and promotion by people and companies with self-serving interests?

This Project may shed some light on some of these questions?

Bpoletti,
I started with the Empire 4000D/III on the Grace 904, the Empire 1000ZE-X on the Micro 505s and the ZYX Universe on the FR-64s. I then switched to the ATT155LC on the FR-64s and the AT-20ss on the 505s.
I've put back the Universe on the FR-64s and plan to attach the Dynavector XV-1s to the FR-64s later today.

Fear not........I am trying to cover all bases here?

DearRaul,
Thanks for your encouragement. It was you who planted the idea for this whole experiment and I am enjoying it and learning a great deal about TTs, arms and cartridges.
The reason I can't turn the TipToes upside down is because the base of the cones need to be positioned directly under the centreline of the vertical metal wall enclosure of the TT-81 so that no structural 'moment' is induced which allows the turntable to 'flex'.
I tried the Tiptoes positioned inboard slightly so that they were flush with the wall of the enclosure and there was so much 'moment' induced in this off-set, that you could physically twist the turntable by holding the top and rotating.
In the current arrangement, there is no movement possible whatsoever but I am looking at maybe trying StillPoints instead but they are mighty expensive to simply 'try'?
My armpods are on adjustable steel 'spikes' which are necessary to 'level' them but also to transfer the immense load (26 lbs) onto 3 infinitesimal points so that they become immovable when using the arms.
This works a treat as I am able to pull, adjust, and change headshells without the slightest risk of even minute movement of the pods.

Regards and many thanks Raul
Henry

Genesis168, I agree with you and would go even further.
There are turntables and arms made 30 years ago that are demonstrably better than even the very top models of today's designs IMO.

Imagine an arm today that not only has VTA 'on the fly' but also has Anti-Skate 'on the fly' and also VTF 'on the fly'?
That not only has hydraulic arm 'lowering' but also hydraulic arm 'raising' and both static and dynamic balancing AND inter-changeable headshells?
Anybody?......Anybody?....Bueller?
Well the Micro Seiki MA505s from 30 years ago has it all and is built like the pre-war Leica cameras.
Oh....and it sounds very nice as well.

T_bone,
Until you hear the very best MM cartridges that Raul is helping us find, on the best-matched low-mass arms designed for such high compliance cartridges, you will not experience the sound that has made Raul embark on this campaign?

And from my experience, the very best 'modern' tonearms are simply not designed to match these high-compliance cartridges?

I have personally conversed with 3 of today's top turntable and arm designers/manufacturers (no names), and do you know what arms they invariably use to compare their designs to?.......the Graham arms and in particular the Phantom. They will also listen to the Triplanar in comparison.
Not one of them mentioned listening to any 'vintage' arms in their design comparisons nor did any of them do any serious listening with MM/MI cartridges?
They all used LOMC cartridges to 'voice' their arms with one of them admitting to 'voicing' his arms using Lyra cartridges particularly the Olympos and Titan.

Now T_bone, if you've ever mounted a high compliance MM cartridge in a Phantom arm, you will know that it is not a match made in Heaven? And yet this is the arm that some of the top modern-day designers are using as their 'Reference'?

If a current arm designer does not listen to his arm in comparison to a perfectly working FR-64s or FR-66s (with silver wiring), then progress in arm design is still a long way off IMHO?

Dear Pryso,

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear but in my Intro to this Project I provided a Link to my System Page where I stipulated that I would NOT be testing the TT-81 with a plinth. To quote.....

.Now this will NOT be a scientific test in the sense that I won’t (at this stage), be testing the TT81 in a plinth.

You see I can't grasp the purpose of a plinth in a Direct Drive Turntable?
For an Idler Wheel or Rim Drive I can see that there are gears and rods and metal moving parts to support as well as the thrust bearing for the platter and similarly with a Belt-Drive there is the support for the thrust bearing and sub-platter assembly as well as support for the motor (usually) and of course there is the mounting required for the arm-board and arm.

With a Direct-Drive where the motor is in-line and supports and turns the sub-platter directly, I see no physical necessity for a plinth other than to perhaps support an arm-board assembly?

In any case, thanks for your comments and I apologise again if i wasn't sufficiently clear in the beginning?

Sorry T_bone,
I didn't intend to denigrate your experience with vintage MM cartridges although re-reading my post I can understand if that was your impression?
Rather I was dubious about your admiration for the design of 'modern' tonearms?

I too a few years ago, approached this subject thinking that the new tonearms must be better than the old due to increased technology and knowledge however my recent experiences are leading me to agree more readily with Dertonarm's view that very little new has been uncovered (as opposed to discovered) about the real principles of tonearm design since the 70s and 80s except for perhaps making them more easily adjustable?.....but even that is dimmed slightly by the MA 505 example.

My apologies again and as always, individual experiences may differ?

These are the two turntables under review.
TWO TURNTABLES

Is the modern-day Raven with its three state-of-the-art modern arms, eight times better than the 30 year old Victor TT-81 with its three vintage arms?
Not in my opinion.

Is the modern-day big Raven better head-to-head with the ‘nude’ vintage Victor TT-81?
Not in my opinion.

Could the ‘nude’ Victor TT-81 DD turntable actually be better than the modern high-end belt-drive Raven AC-3?
Please read on…………

The ‘germ’ for this Project came from an exchange of Posts on Audiogon about the relative merits of different plinth materials for the ‘infamous’ vintage Technics SP10 MKIII DD turntable.
Different woods were discussed together with slate and Panzerholtz, all of which apparently, changed the sound of the SP10 MKIII.
Raul, a rather ubiquitous poster on this site, provocatively claimed that to his ears the SP10 sounded better without any plinth?

Now for several years I have been following the claims of various groups of audiophiles for the advantages of idler/rim-drive turntables and direct-drive turntables over the generally accepted supremacy (of the High-End Audio Industry), for belt-drive.
Having started in audio with a cheap Technics DD turntable 32 years ago I had progressed rapidly to belt-drive with a Rega Planar 3 and had auditioned Linns and a SOTA Star Sapphire in my system during that time.
I must confess with some embarrassment, that I have never been able to hear dramatic differences between most decently made turntables and that includes the Continuum Caliburn and the Rockport Sirius III.
In fact I’m generally at a loss to understand how others are able to differentiate the ‘sound’ of the turntable from that of the arm/cartridge combination in an unknown system?
So those readers who claim to be able to, can ignore the rest of this report content in the confirmation that I am (and always have been), a cloth-eared dolt?
I have always heard far more dramatic differences in cartridges and to a lesser extent, various arms although as most analogue lovers acknowledge, the arm/cartridge synergy is an inseparable entity?

This comment from Raul about the Technics SP10 sounding fine to him without a plinth germinated in my mind a plan, which might allow me to hear the sound of a vintage DD turntable without the expense of purchasing a respected plinthed Technics, Pioneer or Denon?

I found a 30 year-old Victor TT-81 on Ebay and the story as it developed, is described in this Forum.

I took a long time to evaluate many cartridges on many arms spanning both turntables so as to be quite sure of my impressions and conclusions.

The first thing I noticed about the TT-81 DD turntable was the distinct absence of ‘colouration’ or ‘signature sound’.
I recall in his review of the Raven AC-3 in TAS 2008, Jonathan Valin commented on its rich and beautiful sound but intimated that ‘every’ record was projected with this richness and beauty (no such bad thing?).
In other words, the table itself seemed to ‘overlay’ a euphonic colouration.

It’s not that one is aware of this occurrence unless one is able to directly compare the presentation to another table (in Valin’s case, the Walker Black Diamond).
The downside to this colouration is that differences in cartridges and tonearms are harder to differentiate. Indeed, even changes to arm geometry, VTA, VTF and azimuth are harder to discern.

With the TT-81, suddenly even the slightest change to VTA, VTF or azimuth is instantly noticeable.
Cartridge and arm differences were clearly and repeatedly discernable whilst with the Raven, they seemed subtle and often minor.

The second thing that became apparent with the TT-81 was a slightly more rhythmic presentation to the music.
This is hard to accurately describe but on ‘Easy Skankin’ from the Bob Marley album Kaya, the Raven had a more ‘laid-back’ beat whilst the TT-81 drove it forward on the ‘front foot’ so to speak.
Which one is more correct I’m not sure. Each one is perfectly listenable, but it does, over time, become apparent that rock music in particular, has a ‘punchier’ snap to the beat and off-beat. This does get the feets a’tappin.

The third difference was to me, the most convincing yet I’m at a loss to explain or understand it?
We are all aware that with live music (whether acoustic or amplified), when the volume and/or complexity increases, the “air” seems to expand to accommodate the increased volume without distortion.
With home audio on the other hand, the louder and more complex the music becomes, the more ‘constricted’ the “air” seems to become with an increase in perceived distortion?
I’d always associated this phenomenon with speaker limitations, listening room limitations, amplifier clipping or recording-source overload?
With the TT-81 however (especially with MM cartridges), when the volume/complexity increased, the “air” seemed to increase just as it does in the live event?
It wasn’t totally as unlimited as ‘live’, but it was the damn closest I have yet heard.
Could it be the torque and power of the DD turntable ‘pushing’ the vinyl past the stylus thus overcoming the increased friction of the more heavily modulated grooves of the loudest/complex passages whilst the belt-drive turntable does not have that advantage?

I am not going to describe all the ‘new’ sounds and instruments I discovered on familiar discs. Those clichés are so meaningless I sometimes wonder if the reviewer heard any instruments when he first bought the disc?
Nor am I going to tell you how wonderful all my favourite tracks sounded on the TT-81 compared to the Raven AC-3. Comparing degrees of ‘wonderfulness’ must surely be an exercise in self-abuse and in any case, a wonderfully recorded track will often sound ‘wonderful’ on many systems, even poor ones.
I have a far more revealing test which involves well recorded but demanding source material which can sound unlistenable on any but the very best systems (http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1236947666&openmine&zzHalcro&4&5#Halcro)
Now the tracks….”Alabama” and “Words” on Neil Young’s “Harvest” album are a real favourite of mine to test a ‘system’.
So unlistenable have they sometimes sounded on various systems (including mine), that wives have literally vapourised like banshees down hallways shrieking at the pain.
The very ‘best’ I have managed to extract out of these two tracks on the Raven was with the Empire 4000D/III on the Copperhead arm with cartridge/arm geometry set to the micron.
At that stage, the tracks were listenable but still never ‘enjoyable’.

On the TT-81 with all three arms fitted with MM cartridges, these tracks were finally able to be understood in respect to their recording techniques and became ‘almost’ enjoyable…….no shrieking wives to be seen or heard.
The climax to Respighi “Pines of Rome” (LSC-2436) was suddenly understandable as his attempt at a musical ‘orgasm’ and with the TT-81 there were no distortions.
The Arnold “Overture to Tam O’Shanter” on Witches Brew (LSC-2225) was handled with ease and aplomb whilst the Prokofiev “Love for Three Oranges Suite” on Mercury SR-90006 45RPM was shocking and startling instead of ‘shocking and unbearable’.
Another test in this regard is to play side 3 of the original Apple recording of the Beatles “White Album” without squirming?

In other words it was no contest in this regard which I prize rather highly.
The TT-81 crushed the Raven.

I had read reports that suggested the bass performance of DD turntables was not generally as good as belt-drives?
With the TT-81, the bass went lower than the Raven AC-3, with more control and better definition whilst the highs were simply ethereal. Now the bass of the Raven is renowned as being amongst the best and deepest of modern turntables so another myth bites the dust?
When Michael Fremmer claimed that most turntables’ bass performance seemed to directly reflect their weight (ie the heavier the table, the better the bass performance), he obviously hadn’t encountered the Victor TT-81?

Soundstage?….front to back?…side to side?
I heard no appreciable differences between the two tables and really I find this attribute to be more related to the cartridge than the turntable.

What I really love about the TT-81 and the three vintage arms I have, is the ‘instant’ start-up and ‘stop’ of the platter and the easy switching of headshells with cartridges.
Until you experience this ‘blessing’, you won’t believe that you struggled with changing cartridges on modern arms without a word of complaint?

I really love ‘rave’ reviews….even when they seem to go OTT so here goes………
To test this $300 thirty year old turntable against the $18,000 Raven AC-3 is one thing.
Let’s bring in some real competition!!!
REAL COMPETITION

Here is the Continuum Caliburn with Cobra arm and Lyra Olympos cartridge which costs $120,000 without the Castellon stand and is rated by Michael Fremmer as the greatest turntable/arm combination he has ever heard.
With the TT-81 and the Grace 940G with the Technics EPC100 Mk3 and custom arm-pod, the cost is $2,360 and although it was not possible to listen in the same room through the same system, there was simply ‘daylight’ between the two sounds.
The TT-81/Grace/Technics combination trounced Goliath (much to the chagrin of Goliath’s owner).

When I began this Project, I really hoped to spend a couple of thousand dollars to hear the differences between belt-drive and direct-drive turntables and also to end up with some ‘cheap’ vintage tonearms.
What has eventuated is the creation of an analogue playing system, the likes of which I have never heard equaled anywhere.

I know nothing about the Technics SP10 Mk2 or Mk3 turntables and their similarity or otherwise to the Victor TT-81.
The fact that most users agree that they sound better in some form of plinth is persuasive (although if every plinth material and thickness changes the ‘sound’ why is that not a ‘colouration’?)

The TT-81 sounds simply ‘perfect’ naked. If anyone can explain to me (logically and scientifically) why wrapping a plinth around this turntable will make it better, I’d be interested?

For the here and now I must conclude that Raul has a valid viewpoint about his ‘nude’ DD turntable preference…..at least in relation to the TT-81.

Dear Cabbiendi and Nilthepill,
Thank you so much for your kind words.
Often it's difficult to know if anyone is reading this or is even interested, so your feed-back is very encouraging.

Cheers

Dear Ecir38,
Thank you for your kind words and also the link to the info on the Micro tonearms.
I find it frustrating to find any 'history' on all these vintage arms, turntables, and cartridges as I think Google does not include many Forums in its searches and that where most of this archival information is now to be found.

I simply love the Ma-505s not only for its sound but for its looks, design ideas and superb manufacturing quality. It has all the looks and feel of a pre-war Leica camera but the ingenuity of its VTA (on-the-fly), Antiskate (on-the-fly) and unique VTF (on-the-fly because of its Dynamic weighting), makes adjusting 'by ear' the easiest I have ever found in any arm.

Bpoletti and Raul,
Thanks for the kind words.
Dear David,
A lot of your questions can be answered by looking through my 'progress' postings on this site.
You will see photos as I procured arms and cartridges and designed the arm-pods and then had them cast in solid bronze and then had them painted in an automotive shop.
1) the TT-81 sits on Tip-Toes (3) which are important to pack to get level.
Also important is to position the cones so that their centerline is directly under the pressed metal wall of the motor housing. This maintains the utmost rigidity and transfer of loads so that no twisting or movement of the casing is possible.
2) No base. The TT-81 sits on a 33mm laminated shelf cantilevered off the brick wall via aluminum brackets.
3) Towers are free-standing and made of solid cast bronze each one weighing 25 lbs and fitted with screwed adjustable spikes for leveling and isolation. A 10mm solid aluminum top-plate to the pods has a centre hole drilled to suit whatever arm you might have and this plate is screwed to the bronze pod.
4) The proximity of each arm-pod is determine by the individual arm's spindle to pivot distance geometry which comes with each arm.
A Feikert aluminum distance gauge is essential for setting these up. Once set, the weight of the pods sitting on 3 spikes makes them virtually immovable in general arm use.
5) No treatment to underside of metal curved motor shield of the TT-81.

If you still have further questions after looking through the progress "links", please feel free to ask.

Good luck.

Thanks again Pryso,
Yes you're right. The shelf is certainly 'mass' loaded but with the actual turntable isolated on spikes, there is theoretically a de-coupling from this 'mass'?
And don't the adherents to massive plinths require direct 'coupling' via bolts or screws? Although I do recall someone making plinths who advocates that the turntable merely 'sits' on the plinth without mechanical connection?

Nice post In_shore.
I've never heard a Kenwood LO7D......but apart from all reports on its superb sound.......it gets my vote as one of the most beautiful decks ever designed.

Thanks William.
As I intimated in my conclusive post, I really feel that the cartridge is possibly more important than a well executed turntable design of any type? And the arm may be just as important?
At the moment I am listening to the the Empire 4000D/III on the FR-66s on the Raven AC-3 and it is quite literally sublime.
The Fidelity Research 12" arm is definitely the "King" of tonearms as it has been described.
It really beats the Continuum Copperhead which itself beat the Phantom II and DaVinci 12" Ref Grandezza.
So as with all things in audio, there are no absolute "absolutes"?

Dear David,
No problem at all.
Good luck with your own project. Please feel free to ask any questions.
All the best to you over the holidays.
Regards
Henry

What on earth could it be?

What on earth indeed Banquo??!
I'm beginning to think there is perhaps more here than complex feedback?
I've raise a new topic to see if any Gurus on A'Gon might have some ideas?
Have you any thoughts?
Cheers
Henry

Welcome Thuchan,
It's always good to have you drop by.
I know you've been busy with your own Project (horn speakers I believe?) but you were responsible for me getting the Fidelity Research FR-64s arm and after hearing how great it was, I wasted no time in obtaining it's big brother the FR-66s.
You of course discovered the joys of great 'vintage' analogue gear long ago (how many RX-5000 turntables do you now have?..............five?!!!!!) just as other dedicated audiophiles have like Cuong Pham in Vietnam who has 4 or 5 Thorens Reference turntables in every colour available?
So I'm quite surprised that you have not progressed onto the great vintage MM cartridges especially when you've had the Empire 4000D/III for 3 months now? Just mount it in your FR-66s and you will see what all the fuss is about?
Yes, now that I have the Victor TT-81 with my own arm-pods, I am able to mount any arm I can obtain. Who knows what the future will hold?
Good luck with your own Project.

Dear David,
As Ecir38 mentioned, a lot of your answers are to be found in earlier postings where the arm-pods are shown in the 'raw' cast form with all the holes and cable entry points clearly visible but re-cap:-
1) Aluminium is too light and mild steel is magnetic. I needed to make sure that the arm-pods could not be easily moved once the geometry of each arm had been established. I investigated machining stainless steel, brass and bronze but they all need up costing about $2000 each, so I went for casting (either brass or bronze) and bronze is cast here in foundries on four out of five days of the week compared to limited casting of brass.
2) Arm-Pods are solid except for 55mm diam hole in the centre to accommodate all the arms I could think of?
3) See previous photos.
4) I just meant to make sure the table was level by using packers under one or more Tip-Toes.
5) Yes the shelf is 33mm thick laminated particle board.
6) Not practicable. Apart from all my running around to organize, the height of the pods are determined by the height of the turntable you are using.
SME recommends that the mounting height of the arm is 41mm below the level of the platter although most modern arm are mounted 30-35mm below the platter.
I found that with vintage arms, a height of 47-48mm below the platter allows for more flexibility in getting the arms level.
7) Screwed spikes were drilled and tapped into the bottom of each pod. The are chrome plated brass and are leveled by screwing in and out.

Sorry I can't be more helpful but you are really asking me for my 'intellectual property' which took me 3 months to design and have fabricated.
Good luck.

Dover,
I have a stethoscope and have done all the listening you suggest...and more, and hear nothing "revelatory" in regard to 'noise' within my turntable structures.
However this is by no means a scientific or 'white paper approved' form of documentary evidence which laboratory testing could easily provide?
Your use of terms like "noise", "friction" and "vibration" are inexact, undocumented and unquantified.
Hardly a convincing argument regardless of how often you continue to repeat it?

Dear Chris,
It's interesting to hear your conclusions on the 'nude' Technice SP10Mk2.
It seems to indicate, as Raul has been urging, that people should at least try things before arriving at conclusions....especially if trying is relatively easy?
I was concerned at using steel for arm-pods because of the possibility of magnetic interference with such a 'lump' of ferrous material?
It may be interesting for you to try a 'non-ferrous' arm-pod next as a comparison? Of course that will not be as cheap as the steel option?
I still enjoy my 'Nude' TT-81 as well as my big Raven AC-3. As I mentioned, my experiences indicate bigger differences in cartridges and arms than perhaps well executed turntables of different drive philosophies?
Happy New Year to one and all.

Lawrence,
THIS is 'The Nude Turntable Project' Thread.
I'm not sure on your confusion?
If you click on the 'Date' in the left-hand column........you will see every posting from then on.
All the descriptive information you are after....is right here.

Hi Lew,
I'm surprised this 'Nude Turntable Project' has escaped your eagle eye for so long?
As I've said during the postings, I don't presume to extend any of my findings to idler or rim- drive decks as the mechanics of those are quite different to direct drive.
I also defer to your observations on the SP-10 Mk3 due to it's initial high torque although once correct speed has been attained I can't see how its stability is very much different to the SP-10 Mk2 or the TT-81?
If you have the time to read through all the posts and photo links, you should be able to see the TT-81 sitting on 3 aluminium tip-toes directly on the 33mm thick laminated paricle board shelf.
This shelf is sitting on patented aluminium cantilevered brackets called T-Brax (from England) which slot into adjustable aluminium support rails screw to the masonry wall.
There is no question that this 33mm shelf is 'mass-loaded' by the weight of all the equipment thereupon, however both the Raven and the TT-81 are effectively decoupled from this shelf by the Tiptoes.
The closest I've managed to hear 2 same arms on both decks is with the FR-64s on the TT-81 and the FR-66s on the Raven. The same cartridges have been swapped in for both these arms.
These comparisons have led me to conclude at this stage that the cartridge/arm combinations are more important than the drive systems employed assuming competency in those drive systems is equivalent?

Aigenga,
Those rubber bands look like a good idea to control any possible audible vibrations of the thin metal enclosure.
Where did you obtain them?
You say you can hear a difference?

I am assuming that before you tried the TT-101 semi-nude and then fully nude........you listened to it coupled to its original wood plinth?
If so.....could you describe what you heard in the moves to a fully nude model as many readers here have commented on the lack of plinth/no plinth comparisons (are you there Lew??)

Returning to your comments on the reduction of 'noise floor'....with which I agree....and the ability to turn up the volume......I do somewhat disagree on your comment about 'poorly recorded' albums sounding worse?
I have found that generally, even the worst recordings seem to be more listenable via the TT-101?

Dear Chris,
I agree with your perceptions and also am convinced that your isolated tonearm base goes a long way to explaining some of the improvement.

An explanation for that reasoning is contained in a new thread i have posted "A Copernican view of the Turntable System" HERE

Cheers
Henry

Why has my thread 'A Copernican View of the Turntable System' been completely erased?

No one at Audiogon will respond to me?

I remembered that the TT-101 motor runs hot and needs to vent.

Hey Gary,
I hope you didn't cover the bottom vents of the steel 'cage'....as that is where the cooling air is dragged through to pass over the motor and vent through the side?
A hot Victor is an unhappy Victor :^(

Congratulations on your 'soon to be' TT-101 Banquo.
They are rare to find in good condition? It took me over a year to finally find one.
Are your intentions to run it 'nude'?.......as it will make an interesting comparison to your SP10MkII?

Lewm,

Why re-open the argument?

Errr.....because that is the subject of this Thread? :-)

Incidentally......have you managed to listen to your TT-101 yet?

Dear Raul,
I'm truly happy for you :^)
As you say......it's quite hard to imagine the differences until one actually hears the purity and absence of previously 'unrecognised' distortions?
It was your encouragement which first made me test a 'nude' DD turntable.
I believe that a plinth would certainly 'change' the sound.
How can that be a good thing?
As far as I can see.......any 'change' in sound from the 'nude' TT....must be an 'addition' to that sound?
Is that not a colouration/distortion?
What are you using as an armpod with these two turntables Raul?
Cheers
Henry

Welcome to the club Dickson.

Who knew there were so many TT-101s out there still in working order?
How did you acquire yours?.....and have you had a chance to hear it operating?

The drawings have been sent.

It would be good to hear the feedback from all these new Victor owners?

Cheers
Henry

Just a comment on mats which may be of interest to the 'now' many TT-101 owners here..........compared to the standard rubber mat supplied with the deck, which I found adequate........the best mat I have heard on my TT-101 is the Micro Seiki Cu180.
This mat gave a silence and depth to the sound that was impressive.
Unfortunately.....its weight (1.8Kg).......rendered the brake-stop mechanism inoperable, with the platter continuing to spin after the stop button was pressed.
This bothered me (although some readers appeared unperturbed) and I searched for a different solution.
The Victor pigskin mat (available in black or brown from Tommy at TopClass Audio in Hong Kong)......applied directly to the aluminium platter of the TT-101 gave virtually all of the benefits of the Cu-180 mat with the added bonus of even better 'brake' function.

Interesting solution Aigenga and nice photos.
I think you have successfully removed your TT-101 from it's plinth and can claim to be running officially 'nude' :^)
It would be good to hear your impressions in more detail when you become more accustomed to the sounds?
Cheers
Henry

Hi Lawrence,
Perhaps you can start HERE
But there are questions and progress reports all the way through.