So many great golden era DD tables out there, what do you recommend for $1000?

Keep watch on Audiogon listings and on Audio Asylum Trader site.  I found a Mat2 a few years ago, after BA went out of the mat business.  They do come up from time to time.

Gallus, You got me interested when you mentioned the Luxman switch box, because Luxman makes good stuff.  However, the AS4 seems to be made for AV systems, which is to say it's for switching high level signals, not mV level signals as seen from a phono cartridge.  I think a high quality switch could be done with relays, but you would want to use only the highest quality parts and to have a smart person design and build it.  So, the cost would be correspondingly high ($1000 or more, I would think), and STILL there would be an inevitable signal loss involved.  I've thought about having such a switch made for my system, and my numbers are based on an actual conversation with a potential custom builder.  I decided not to do it, but I do own two high quality phono stages that each provide more than one pair of phono inputs.

Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd would sound beautiful on any turntable, I suspect.
Uber, if that TT81 includes a 7082 tonearm, I'd say you'd really like it more than your QL-A7.  As to the early lift-off problem, I suggest you go on the internet, Vinyl Engine first of all, and search for an owners manual (if one did not come with your unit) and a service manual.  That's where you have to start.  In my experience, there is no harm done to either the cartridge or the LP, if the stylus sits in the run-out grooves even for a minute or two until you can get off the listening seat and manually lift the tonearm. Thus, automatic lift-off holds no particular appeal for me.

Was just thinking today (while listening to it) what an incredible performer the TT101 is. It was worth every bit of the aggravation I endured to get it fixed, finally. (Thanks, JP.)
"Catmandude", Probably the best on line moniker I have seen yet. Congrats.

I am past engaging in the BD vs DD vs ID debates.  I have come to agree with what Raul wrote above, and I've made my choice in favor of DD turntables (and a much modified Lenco) based on bang for the buck.  The really good BDs, to my ears, start at ~$25,000 (new).
Now for my real question: Does anyone know where I can find a video showing how to service (change the lubricant) in my DP80 bearing well?  If someone can provide a verbal description and/or some still pics to go with, that would be much appreciated.  Thanks.  If you think I should start a new thread on this topic, let me know.

bigkidz,
I looked up the Sony 8750 on Vintage Knob. Some photos suggest it has a coreless motor.  Do you know whether it does or not?  If it does, then maybe it might be a stealth L07D, as you suggest.
I don't think anyone would say that a Yamaha GT1000 is worth more in the marketplace than a GT2000. I'd say that both the GT750 and the GT1000 could be had for less than $1000 or maybe a very little more than $1000, in the case of the GT1000.

Chak, Was your post removed?

bimasta, Please use only the world's smallest violin to lament the plight of poor, embattled CT. 

Clearthink, Not at all mocking your command of the English language, and you know it.  Your choices of verbs and adjectives used in triplicate is impeccable.

Clearthink, You've got to be kidding.  No one talks like that. Did your mom say to you that you must eat, masticate, and devour your dinner?

Chakster, As I have pointed out to you many times, the CW is OK to sag a little bit. The rubbery joint between the CW arm and the pivot is meant to decouple the CW from the effective mass of the tonearm. Also, a little bit of sag does help to place the center of mass of the CW more closely aligned with the plane of the surface of the LP. This helps to reduce the change in VTF produced by warps. However, you’re quite right that that joint does wear over time, producing excessive sag in some cases. But a little sag is just fine. What’s important is to maintain the decoupling effect. (If the rubber washer were to be worn away or falls out, then there’s a problem.) Many if not most vintage Japanese tonearms have a straight and rigid connection between pivot and CW, wherein the CW cannot possibly sag below a straight line with the main arm tube. Modern tonearms in general have tended to decouple the CW from the main arm. So, I think of the 7045 as a particularly modern design when compared to that of its peers.
Thanks for your photo of the Victor headshell.  I don't have the original headshell with my own UA7045, so I could not address the question at hand about the collar/headshell joint.  What I see in your photo is that the original headshell looks much like any other standard SME-type joint.  Is that the point you wish to make?

You obviously didn’t get it, clearthink. You’re not thinking, clearly.

bimasta, The idea of using no plinth with a DD was the subject of a lengthy and some times contentious thread, me being one of those on the "nay" side of that argument.  The reason is this: Newton pointed out that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion).  This means that any torque delivered to the platter has an equal and opposite rotational effect on the chassis; it "wants" to spin in the opposite direction.  Only gravity and the resulting friction between the chassis and the shelf is keeping a DD from spinning in both directions at once, around the spindle as an axis of rotation.  Ergo, it makes sense to add mass to the chassis in the form of a heavy and dense plinth.  Even leaving out the effect on damping of resonances, adding the mass increases the friction force between the chassis and shelf and assures that the work being done by the motor is diverted only to the motion of the platter.

Note, you can feed 120V into mine and optionally get 120V out, whereby it acts only as an isolation transformer.  Or you can get 100V out.

Uber, I looked at your URL on eBay.  That product may be a step-UP transformer, converts 110V to 130V.  Nowhere does it clearly say exactly what it does, however.  Anyway, you want 100V out, not 110V, which is the low value quoted in the eBay ad.  If it is a step-UP, you may be able to run it backwards, plug the "130V" input into your wall which is ca 120V and then maybe you'd get ~100V out.  The ratio 130/110 would be operative.
This one is the one I use, maybe under a different brand name but essentially exactly what I have:https://www.ebay.com/itm/PowerBright-Step-Up-Down-Japan-Transformer-Power-On-Off-Switch-Can-be-Used-...

Built like a tank.  Sounds like a tank. (Just kidding.)

Uber, If your new QLA7 is built for 100V, then a step-down transformer is a MUST. Do not run your turntable on US 120V. I would not even plug it in until you have a stepdown. If you mismatch the voltages, the question is not "whether" but "when" you will have a failure. Sooner or later, you will. Second point, you say that you own or have ordered a "120W" (Watts) step down. This sounds suspiciously like it should read 120V (Volts). If it’s indeed 120 Watts output, then you are way in excess of what you will ever need. No problem. What you want is a transformer that takes 120Volts input and puts out 100Volts. And it is wise to have an excess of current capability over what the turntable draws. A plaque or label on the turntable chassis usually tells you the power consumption (in Watts). Typically the Japanese DDs draw less than 20W. I use a separate 50W stepdown for each of my (two) 100V Japanese turntables that require it. I bought them off eBay.

The GT1000 is or was the "little brother" of the GT2000.  The GT750 is the new baby in the family, with no teeth. Every opinion I have ever read is to the effect that the GT2000 stood alone in the Yamaha line-up.  Even the GT1000 and certainly the GT750 were made to a much lower price point; they may look similar, but there are big differences from the GT2000.  I have also seen all these variants, side by side in one case, during my several visits to Tokyo.  In the flesh, the differences in quality of construction are obvious.  I admit, however, that I have not heard the lesser models.  Last spring I passed up a really mint, like new, GT2000L, which was for sale at ~$1800.  I was sorely tempted, but sanity eventually ruled, since I have 5 TT's as it is.  Anyway, it was a beautiful piece just to look at.  Not a scratch on it.  Probably would have cost $500 to $600 to ship to me on the East coast USA.

Removable headshell is a "feature" of a tonearm, not necessarily of a turntable.  With some ingenuity, one can usually replace the factory supplied tonearms on these units. Back in those days, every tonearm on the market had a removable headshell.  It was not until the advent of the Triplanar and probably a few others I can't think of that we had the choice of a fixed headshell, and as you know, some think that's a major improvement (in rigidity), not a negative.

Cliff, The subject of the thread is vintage Japanese DD turntables, in case it is not obvious.  So the Well Tempered Classic doesn't qualify.  You ought to try out one of the turntables we are talking about.  You'll like it.

It's one curious case where the tonearm alone (from a P3) costs much more than the same tonearm, if you purchase it along with a turntable, like the PL70LII.  In my opinion, the PL70LII with that tonearm is a screaming bargain at $1600 (price on Yahoo as quoted by Jessica above).  I've seen the tonearm alone advertised for as much as $6000.

Raul, The PL70LII is pretty well known to be a stealth bargain, if you "study" pioneer turntables. It only lacks some of the fringe features, including the massive suspended plinth, of the Exclusive P3.  You're correct about the tonearm, too. Sometimes you see them for sale on "Hifido", the Japanese company that sells a lot of vintage stuff of all kinds, both in their real stores in Japan and by mail order. They are completely reputable, and they know how to pack and ship a turntable.  If anyone wants to look, google "Hifido English".  Unless you read Japanese.

Raul, with respect, I have to disagree on the gt750. It’s not in the same league with TT81 by most accounts. And you said it yourself: the manufacturer published specs are not meaningful for comparing two products from different companies. Also the Yamaha tonearm on the gt750 is very suspect, partly made of 1970s plastics. The gt2000 is top notch, no doubt, and comparable to TT101, but the gt750 is two big steps down. GT2000X is probably in the big leagues with P3, SP 10 mk3, L07D, etc

By the way, ALL the Japanese DDs with coreless motors borrowed heavily from the design of the Dual coreless motor of the 1960s.  The Kenwood, Victor, Yamaha, Pioneer Exclusive, and even the recent Brinkmann coreless motors are similar to each other and built just like the Dual if you take them apart. (I’ve done it for Victor and Kenwood motors and seen photos of all the others.) Kenwood and perhaps other companies were actually sued by Dual over this issue back in the day.

If the bi-directional servo patents momentarily stumped JP, don't feel bad.
Best-groove, I know the DA307 has its defenders, and I can tell you that the rubber gasket separating the front end of the arm wand from the pivot point is still intact on mine, as you predicted, but my question is why have a point of discontinuity and potential flexibility between the headshell and the pivot point? Seems to me you don't want flexibility there, and 99% of tonearm designs are aimed at rigidity above all else.  But I don't think the DA307 is junk; I just don't have a use for it at the moment so I store it in a shoebox.  I also store my Technics EPA250, Dynavector DV501 and an extra DV505, Grace woodie, and Victor 7045 tonearms in other shoeboxes or in their factory containers.

A comment on the "bi-directional servo":  The TT101 (and the TT81, if Halcro says so) certainly have exceptional speed control, but when JP Jones eventually fixed my TT101 and got it working, his comments on the "bi-directional"-ness of the servo were of a skeptical nature, if I recall correctly.  (One would think that the term indicates the platter is not only speeded up, if too slow, but also retarded, if its running too fast.  Not sure that really happens.) I cannot recall the specifics; maybe JP will comment if he is around.  Anyway, it doesn't matter, because the point is that the system works superbly although very electrically complex.

Thanks, Halcro, for chiming in with your opinion on the TT81 vs TT101. I really like my TT101, but I have no way to know how the two compare.

Uber, After deciding at one point to sell the DP80, because I wasn't using it (and because who needs 5 turntables?), and then not being able to get much money for it, I just recently put it back into operation.  I was not as fond of the DK300 plinth as Chak apparently is, so I replaced it with a 65-lb slate slab, and I mounted a Triplanar on the slab to work with the DP80.  (Mine came with a DA307 tonearm, which is sitting in a shoebox somewhere.) I recently put the DP80 ensemble back into regular use for MM cartridges (or other high output types).  So now I am back up to 3 turntables feeding my upstairs system.  And 2 for the basement system.  I know this is nuts, and I fear for my heirs who will not even know how to run all the equipment.  One problem that arises is I cannot keep 5 cartridges happy; they like to be used often to sound best.

best-groove, So mainly you object to the cost of the PBN version of the DP80 and to the probability that when you go to sell it, you won't make a profit or get your original investment back, which is also true of almost any new audio product.  That's OK, but it's not the point.

best-groove, Don't you think the "engine and electronics" ARE the DNA of any turntable, including the DP80?  IMO, the major deficiency of the original product was exactly its plinth (and tonearm, but that's a different argument).  By re-doing the substructure from A to Z, Peter has transformed the guts of the DP80 into a true high end product. Which sadly is out of reach of the OP's budget.  If you're just objecting to the cost of the re-done DP80, that's too bad.  I'd love to have one of the PBN versions, if I were not already more than supplied with turntables.
But as to the notion that one could not find an original DP80 for $1000 or less, I am a little dubious.  A few years ago, when I thought about selling my completely "done" sample, I got little interest at around $1200, indicating that the market could not bear that price.  With patience and a little luck, I think it could be done.  If the OP wants a tonearm too for his price limit, then all bets are off.

Uber, Difference between TT71 and TT81 is probably an audible shade.  Difference between TT81 and TT101 is probably a more audible shade.  You might ask Halcro, who has had a TT81 side by side in his home system with a TT101.  But I doubt there is much if any difference in cost on today's market between TT71 and TT81, so why not go for the latter, if you must have a Victor and cannot afford a TT101 (or don't want to deal with its possible problems)? Best-groove seems to be recommending the TT81, too.  For me, the DP80 would be the choice over any Victor except the TT101.  And TT101 vs DP80 would be a toss-up.  I own both and use both.  (TT801 is simply a TT101 with vacuum hold down.  If you think the TT101 is mechanically and electrically problematic, think about that 40-year old vacuum platter of the TT801, complete with decayed rubber gaskets and its associated outboard pump.)

I don’t know where Raul got the information that the "specs" for the DP60L are better than those for the DP80. Perhaps he is even correct, but the DP80 was regarded by Denon as the top of their commercial line, bested only by the DP100 and DP308, which were more intended for professional and studio use. The second most desirable of the commercial line, or maybe a model of equal performance, is the DP75, with the DP60 behind those two. (Raul used to tell me that the DP75 is also superior to the DP80. I’ve seen no data to justify that statement.) There were no universal standards for how to measure turntable specs back in those days, and it would depend upon how Denon made the measurements and in what year, since there were some changes in how to measure S/N, etc, after 1979. Turntables marketed after 1979 will seem to have better specs because of changes in the method for measurement. This does not mean that I think little of the DP60. It would be a fine choice, too.

I think Best groove et al are correct; the SP10 Mk2 did not have the MN6042 chip. I stand corrected on that.
Best groove, Do you know what is special about "bi-directional servo"?  I think it's 90% marketing.  But the TT101, which also has bi-directional servo control, is a great turntable.  I'd put the TT81 on par with maybe the Denon DP60. TT71 is not in the ballpark.  These model differences did mean something, after all.

Bestgroove, Here you go:http://fidelisanalog.com/product/mn6042/

Best-groove, "MN6042" is the part number of the vital chip used in the Mk2, the MK3, and one or more of the SL series.  I do not know whether it is used in the old SL1200.  SL1500 comes to mind, but I have not looked it up.  In any case, before Fidelis Analog started reproducing the functions of the chip on a PCB and selling it, there were many who bought used SL1500s (if that's the correct SL number) for the sole purpose of cannibalizing the chip for their Mk2 or Mk3.  If you search here on "JP Jones", you will probably find all the info you need. Or maybe look at one of the old threads on the SP10.

"Servo" and "brushless" are not mutually exclusive; one has nothing to do with the other. But beyond that, I cannot answer your question.
Sleepwalker,  You have often mentioned the SL1700.  Are you referring to the vintage version?  Last time I was in Tokyo, I saw the SL1700 for sale brand new; Technics apparently still make them.  What I saw might hvae been "Mk2" or Mk3".  But I think they are "old technology", which is to say not related to the SL1200G series: therefore no coreless motor, and none of the other associated improvements.  As you know, for well less than $2K, one can have one of the G series SL1200s. (I forget the correct alphanumeric designation for the least expensive model.)  Unless the SL1700 that you have in mind is dramatically cheaper, I cannot imagine why one would prefer it over a G series.  (I do realize we have been over this ground before.  It's just that I've forgotten your response.)

best-groove, I beg to differ with your claim that the SP10 Mk2 does not rely upon a now discontinued chip.  It does, in fact.  Up until a year or two ago, that chip was unobtainable. (I think the part number is MN6042, but right or wrong as to part number, there IS a critical chip.)  Many users of the Mk2 and the Mk3 purchase the one or two of the SL1200 variants that also use that particular chip, just to have a spare.  However, in the last two years, JP Jones succeeded in producing a PCB that does the job of the MN6042 with even more resulting speed accuracy.  And the PCB is not physically larger than the original chip. He sells it for a very reasonable price at Fidelis Analog.  He'll also install it for extra cost.
As to the Pioneer Exclusive turntables, these are the P10 (not "PL10") and P3.  The P3 is the ne plus ultra of vintage Japanese DD.  The Pioneer PL70II is also very highly regarded and may or may not be competitive with the Exclusive P10.  (See write-ups on Vintage Knob.) But the P3 is in another league, and another price range.
I agree with Raul; coreless motors are the way to go.

I paid $600 for my DP80 with plinth and DA307 tonearm, but of course that was about 8-10 years ago, and the DP80 was "broken".  Turned out to be an easy fix.  Anyway, even at $1500 a proper DP80 will compete with any belt-drive at least up to $5K.  I realize others may disagree, and I have no problem with that.  To each his own.  In my opinion, the DP80 will out-do the TT81 or PL70 but is on par with a tricked out SP10 Mk2.  I happened to like the DP80 better when I owned both, however.  TT101 would be more like competition for the DP80.

Denon DP80