So many great golden era DD tables out there, what do you recommend for $1000?
And of course after you have bought something, a very desirable tt pops up right here, very nice looking vintage TT-81 for a fair price considering it includes a dual tonearm plinth and a nice tone arm imho. https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis9i7be-jvc-victor-tt-81-turntable-motor-cl-p2-base-and-ua-7082-t... |
I recently picked up a vintage Micro Seiki DD-35 from a local auction. I was very pleased to find that the previous (and original) owner had taken meticulous care of it. It was extremely clean with no scratches on the beautiful rosewood plinth. More importantly, mechanically, it was in perfect working order. The original MA-505 tonearm was in perfect shape and included the original H-303X headshell, mounted with a Micro Acoustic 2002e cartridge with a stylus in excellent condition. After a good bit of cleaning, testing, adjusting and re-adjusting, it was time to hook it up. The sound was absolutely sublime. I ultimately ended up replacing the MA 2002e with the Audio-Technica VM540ML that was mounted on my current turntable. The improvement wasn’t huge, but enough for me to stick with the AT and store away the 2002e for future use. Bottom line, I think this is one of the best sub $1000 DD turntables you can get, if you can find one. I couldn’t be happier with mine and hope to get many years of use out of it. https://postimg.cc/XXwqDLWy https://postimg.cc/fSKwWHW2 |
If you really had "all bases covered" you would not need three turntables.I currently have 6 turntables (5 in use). I’m clearly off base! Then again, I have 4 complete systems. I rarely use the turntables in two of them, but am glad they are there when I want to listen to them. One I use mainly for play grading my records when I put them on Discogs. I’ve been slowly doing that just so that I have an inventory of them. The two currently in my main system are both direct drive turntables - a JVC QL-Y66F and a Technics SL1200 MKII. I have the JVC set up with a nice cartridge for my pristine records and the Technics has a Shure V15 Type IV with a JICO SAS stylus for my less than perfect records. The one in my bedroom is an old Realistic Lab 400 DD table. It has an auto shutoff feature so I can put on some music and not worry about falling asleep and having the stylus in the runout groove all night. |
uberwaltz "I quite happily have all bases covered. Garrard 401. Idler. JVC QL-A7. DD. Sony PS-LX22. BD." If you really had "all bases covered" you would not need three turntables. |
I quite happily have all bases covered. Garrard 401. Idler. JVC QL-A7. DD. Sony PS-LX22. BD. Last one is cheap and cheerful but does the job in my second system. Both the Garrard and the JVC have their plus and minus points. Hard to decide which I prefer in the main rig do just going to leave both ready to rock! |
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. |
Dear @hagtech : Unfortunatelly nothing is perfect in audio and as you pointed out DD has its own trade-offs as BD units too. We can found out really good quality performances with DD and with BD TTs. Our choices are determinated by the choice of the best trade-offs for each one of us. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Of course, if you are a DJ doing scratching, then DD is the only way to go. You need that torque. :)@hagtech First of all we’re not talking about $300 Direct Drive turntables here to serve "wanna be a dj" persons in their bedroom. These turntables may have some problems you have mentioned. But please do not mix together professional niche and high-end. The finest new Direct Drive turntable SL1000R from Technics cost $18k in USA today, and it is made in Japan. Here is a thread about it. This is reference class Direct Drive for modern High-End market and i doubt anyone in Europe and USA can compete with it nowadays, especially at this price! Matsushita is a giant company! The reason why Japan is the leader in Direct Drive technology is probably because they have been doing it for such a long time. You will not find any single problem you’re talking about in earlier Technics SP-10mkII and mkIII from the 70s/80s. Even 30 years later those vintage Technics SP-10mkIII is one of the best DD ever made and still cost a lot. Not every top class Direct Drive have a high torque like Technics motor, for example the Victor TT-101, Luxman PD-444, Denon DP-80 does not have such a high torque and immediate start, but they are also amazing turntables for audiophiles. Direct Drive is indeed a japanese tradition and they are doing it better than anybody else. |
I can only think of one Japanese manufacturer still making DD tables. Who else is left? I've never owned a DD table, so cannot confirm via personal listening tests what the sonic differences might be. But that doesn't make the servo circuit go away. It is still there! It does operate with lag and it does perform corrections within the audio band. I just can't say how noticeable it may be. Some tables will be better than others, obviously. Belt drives have issues too, with elasticity, pulley tolerances, etc. The key difference will be if there is a negative feedback servo or not. The problem is similar with linear regulators. They also operate with a servo within the audio band, reacting to changes in audio signal (unless circuit is balanced or class A). In this case I have heard the differences. It is even more pronounced when the audio circuit uses feedback. Now you have two servos working against each other, each with a different step response! If the filtering is not done well, the effect is a bit of "technicolor" brightness, sort of like the "sharpness" control on an old TV. A little bit may be good, a lot is bad. The sound can get shrill or smeared. Of course, if you are a DJ doing scratching, then DD is the only way to go. You need that torque. :) |
As far as I know Micro never moved from direct drive to belt drive. They simultaniously offered a range of direct drives (DD-series) and belt drives (BL-series). That being said, they went much higher end with belt drives (RX- and SX-series) than they ever did with direct drives. This might suggest that they had stronger faith in the capabilities of belt drive. There's one point in their 80's catalogue where direct drive and belt drive sort of converged. This is the 1500-series platform, which offered the DDX-1500 direct drive (their top direct drive model) as well as the RX-1500 belt drive, which was the entry level of the big Micro's. It could be upgraded to include all the features also found in the highest end models, including gunmetal plateaus, air bearing and vacuum disc stabilizer. It would be interesting to compare the DDX-1500 with the basic RX-1500 (with aluminum plateau and the motor drive attached to the unit), using the same armboard, tonearm and cartridge. This would be a fair 'shoot out' between direct drive and belt drive, all else being equal. Has anyone ever done this? The designer of the top belt (or string) drive Micro's founded a new company called TechDas, modernising his old designs with current technology. This would suggest that belt drive is - and perhaps always was - his preferred technology. He's now on a 'world tour' with the ultimate AirForce Zero. This monstrosity makes the old top Micro SX-8000 II look like an entry level table...... |
| Post removed |
@hagtech Is there a reason golden age DD turntables became golden age? Or conversely, why did the high-end move to belt-drive? Could you please recall Japanese turntable manufacturer who has moved to Belt Drive from Direct Drive ? I can't remember anyone. Do you own a Direct Drive turntable to compare it to a belt Drive at least to confirm your statement for yourself ? Do you actually hear any problem when you're playing records on high-end Direct Drive turntable ? Personally i have never ever experienced any single problem with high-end Direct Drive turntables such as Technics SP-10mkII, SP-20, Luxman PD-444, Denon DP-80 ... even my Victor TT-101 is working. I have no idea what Mr.Fremer is talking about. Probably a $3k vintage Direct Drive owner should buy a $6k modern belt drive instead pretending for upgrade? In Fremer's wold it will be a $60k belt drive, right ? I will never do that and i can't imagine anyone, who own a High-End DD, trading it for a belt drive. Belt Drive, say it again. OMG What i see in Analog Planet videos from various High-End shows is the ugliest belt drive turntables ever, for insane prices! P.S. I want to remind you that his review for new Technics DD was very positive. |
immediate thoughts is that there already exists a whole thread especially dedicated to that subject. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/stylus-drag-fact-or-fiction |
Is there a reason golden age DD turntables became golden age? Or conversely, why did the high-end move to belt-drive? I think there is. Fundamentally, golden age DD tables employed a PLL (phased-locked loop) to stabilize rotational velocity to a very accurate degree. The problem herein is that the frequency response of this negative feedback loop (that's what a PLL is) is right in the middle of the audio band, sitting on top of vocals. Yeah. So for every disturbance or increase in stylus drag, there is a corresponding error term which gets amplified a drives a proportional (PID actually) response in the motor to compensate, adding it's own signature. I'm pretty sure Fremer pointed this out a long time ago. A DD may have an easy time hitting 33.3333 RPM long term average, but short term in-audio-band response may become audible and annoying. In short, that's why a decent belt-driven table is more relaxing and less fatiguing over the long term. Thoughts? |
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. |
Kenwood KD-650 KD-750L-07D KD-2055 belt drive cousin of 500/600 $250 Without Arms KD-500KD-600 Sony PS-1150 belt driven PS-8750 close to Kenwood L-07D $1,000 Sony PUA-1600S carbon fiber arm Very Nice PS-X3 $280 PS-X5 $250 PS-X7 $200 PS-X6 $500 Sony TTS-8000 Yamaha YP-D8YP-D10 $704 YP-D10 $975 YP-D10 $1,000 YP-D9 (Japanese model) $1,000 PF-1000PF-800 $1,500 GT-750 $1,350 Gt-1000 $2,500 GT-2000 $2,200 Tone Arms Grace G-707 SME 2 or 3 3009 $1,000 Jelco SA-750D Technics EPA-100 $1,500 |
I tried to find a way to keep a post in support of this thread short and directed to a particular DD TT, but the thread has bounced around with a variety of suggestions and pointers, resulting in my wanting to share more broadly. Firstly and unusually I have viewed every post on this thread, and many posters recommendations are known for their valued performances, as comparisons to much more expensive Vintage and Modern TT’s. There has also been the inclusion of Idler Drive and Belt Drive TT’s, which I have not gauged any real follow up interest in, so I am assuming the OP is keeping their focus on the DD options being proposed. I am not going to go into too much discussion on the differences between the various designs drive mechanics, but there is a very good white paper from Brinkman that will give clear descriptions on the differences in the designs and how they will effect a operation of a device, as well as outline the design considerations that are required to alleviate the negative aspects of each design. I will recommend this as a reading material, and welcome one to have a cup of coffee and and a browse. My experiences with Idler Drives and Belt Drives, has been a long journey, I don’t propose that I have had the best TT’s out there, Garrard, Lenco and Linn are my experiences through ownership. Where I have ended up is that to extract the very best from these types of devices as Vintage Products, a servicing consideration is best actioned, Bearing Servicing, Motor Servicing, Drive Material Exchange, i.e Idler Wheel Rubber or Rubber Belt. Wth the above out of the way, then a consideration for the Plinth or Chassis material will yield very noticeable inprovements in the delivery. If a consideration for how the mounting set up the TT is to be placed on, then much more performance benfits will be noticed. When the above is in place, there is one last addition that will have a very impressionable effect on the performance, and that is to add a Stand Alone, Speed Control/Mains Conditioning Power Supply. These Power Supply Devices come at a cost and if they are capable of being Quartz Locked to a particular frequency, then a $1000+ for a recognised Brand is close to the ball park cost. That is a substantial outlay to attempt to achieve a noticable improvement in a performance from a TT, and many have been carrying out this method for many years. There is another way though where all the outlined considerations stated are reshuffled, as the process sort of reverses itself when going down this road, which will result in the robbing of the investigator of the wonderment created by adding a high quality Speed Controller/Mains Conditioner as the finale to their endeavours. So here goes for the outlay of a appoximation of $1000, there is a TT available with a built into the design Quartz Locked Speed Controlled/Mains Conditioning Power Supply, which is generically known as a DD Turntable. The DD TT adds up to a lot of TT for the outlay, and through its fundamental design, has a excellent power supply, equivelent or better than stand alone end game power supplies that other TT’s designs aspire to. Also for the $1000 dollars, especially if the most noted DD TT’s are being considered, there is a high quality bearing working with a TT design that will generate less noise than any of the other designs. In my view the DD as a TT is a very worthy place to go when it comes to having a TT. To date I have got a fully overhauled SP10 MKII with works carried out by a renouned EE on this design. I have a Original Spec TS 8000 and a TS 8000 udergoing major surgery under the hood to completely alter the methods used by the manufacturers build. I will soon have a DP-80, as well as a model not referred to on this thread, that I will inform the OP of next. I was informed by a individual of a Vintage DD TT they have been trialling, this idividual has a access to very expensive equipment as their profession is in HiFi retail. The individual has another hobby, and that is Vintage equipment and offering evaluations, this is not part of their business model, it is just good old inquisitiveness. The better performing discovered items are compared to very expensive modern items to make a reference. In the case of this thread the Individual rated the Micro Seiki DDX 1500 as a TT that will hold itself with some of the high priced modern brands it has been compared to, I trust the reporting so see no real reason to doubt the statement. I have shared personnal mails with this person to gather further info on their reporting on cetain devices, and been satisfied with the description on offer. Not too long ago the Aurex SR 510 was a new contender in the position to be evaluated, I was not too interested, as the Brand was not Hip, but I read on out of interest, and when I learnt that the reporting on the performance was being compared to the Micro Seiki DDX 1500 that got me very interested. To learn that this comparison was drawn from a SR 510 with the Stock Tonearm and built in Phonostage, I was more than intrigued to say the least. In a mail there was a discussion about the percieved improvements that might be had from a exchanged Tonearm ad bypassing the inbuilt Phonostage, and all roads lead to, ’I’m getting one’. I have got one for me and one for a friend, it will be with me soon and given fair lore to show itself off in the company of the other TT’s. Strangley I feel very confident for it. I will report back on the listening experience when I feel sure of the evaluation. |
| Post removed |
Assembled this system in 2018 for a friend locally. He’s leaving the country and willing to sell his analog system this year. Anyone who need a perfect Victor UA-7045 tonearm for $750 feel free to contact me. There is a decent AT20SLa cartridge, Stax headshell. Turntable is very rare mint condition Technics SP-20 (black one). I’m gonna help him to sell all these. |
Received the step down today. 99.8 and 99.9vac from the twin receptacles so good to go. Very happy with this JVC QLA7 TT and have a vintage nos Glanz cart in it right now and possibly a little light in the bass but very detailed and punchy. Hopefully all set for a while. Famous Last words. And they are last words. Thanks for the fish and so long. Ciao |
lewm"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.' Thank you very much I do try very hard lewm and I appreciate your comments. |
| Post removed |
@bimasta You’re right Chakster. But the difference is inside. The "normal" lock clamps four jaws tight — like, as I said, a drill chuck, tight as you want. Part of its brilliance is that it looks normal, and accepts normal headshells which are so easy to get. No endless quest for one-of-kind headshells. And it solves many of the problems with the early SME — it should have been a prototype but became standard. I can’t see a four jaws only inside the headshell look on my stock Technics SL1210mkII tonearm. This one indeed looks different compared to my Victor UA-7082. But the rest of the arms i am using in main system are all have 4 jaws inside the chuck lock (just like the drill lock) like the Victor 7045/7082. |
| Post removed |
@bimasta I think it’s unique to those Victor arms, and a fine improvement. Only a "small" difference and invisible from outside — though an "end-on" view shows a difference. And they had the sense to use the standard SME h’shell, always available, while others designed their own "unique" shells — they had a firmer grip (screw-down et al) but so hard to find now. The headshell and tonearm chucking lock for the headshell on Victor 7045/7082 is just like on FR 64s and Lustre 801 tonearms. No difference. |
lewm"Clearthink, You've got to be kidding. No one talks like that." English is not my first or second or even third language I am still learning it I travel to the US just a few times a year so don't have a lot of opportunity to practice and absorb Western idioms but you are free to mock my language because it is ok I don't think much of the US it's a cesspool of poverty, ignorance, and violence. |
restore JVC/Victor tonearm .. the original rubber completely dissolved https://i.postimg.cc/YqkVpdVt/rubber.jpg after ...replacement https://i.postimg.cc/FR4bjB0R/DSCN5962.jpg |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@lewm @bimasta the Victor headshell is nothing special, just standard. What they call "Chucking Lock Headplug" is also standard SME type. When i’m talking about counterweight sag i mean defective samples with 20 or even 45 degree sag down of the counterweight and this is not normal (my advice to stay away from them), look at my arm and see what was the idea when this arm was designed, this is the best sample i have ever seen (unused). The counterweight on my long UA-7082 is the same. So when you have a perfect samples on hands you realize what is good and bad (compared to defective samples). The problem with defective samples became obvious with heavy MC cartridges, in this case the original victor subweight must be screwed to the armtube on the back, to balance such cartridges the counterweight position is not close to the armshaft and if the rubber part is weak then it's a disaster! |
lewm" 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" That sounds like a poorly conceived, engineered, and executed design that results in an inherently, inescapeably, and permanently defective product. |
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? |
@bimasta This is Victor UA-7045 tonearm and standard SME type Victor headshell from this arm. Great tonearm if the counterweight is not sag down as we can see on so many used samples. BUT This is a perfect NOS sample. I’ve been using at least 3 different samples of the UA-7045 and now using UA-7082 instead. |
| Post removed |
I’m also very late to the thread, but I will still make a recommendation. The Teac TN-400. These are completely unrelated to the modern Teac TT’s with the same model number. This was a table designed to compete with the Technics SP-10 and was sold without plinth. They used an excellent technology called ’Magnefloat’ whereby the platter is slightly suspended by magnetic force to take stress off the bearings. The only thing was, they were not licensed by the inventors to use it, and they were forced by courts to cease and desist manufacture. The entire stock was sold for ridiculously low prices. My friend and I picked these up at a LA retailer for about $100 each, decades ago. Anyway, these things are built like battleships, are dead quiet, and dead on speed accurate. There is one on ebay right now for $1295, with a Grace 545 arm, and what looks like a well built plinth. These will compete with the quality of any Denon, Technics, or Kenwood you will find in the same price range. Both my friend and I are both still using them, problem free, since we bought them. https://www.ebay.com/itm/TEAC-TN-400-magnefloat-turntable-very-good-condition-rare-vintage-japan-F-S/163818421498?hash=item262456bcfa:g:2SUAAOSwcBJdVABH |
