So many great golden era DD tables out there, what do you recommend for $1000?
I found a QL-A7 schematic over here. https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/jvc-ql-7-turntable-unstable-speed.835544/ https://i.imgur.com/EpvHSek.png and it shows a 120v transformer for USA. But it also uses a regulator circuit (X820/X821) to drop the unregulated rectified ~46v down to 22.5volts. So it will probably be ok, just that those regulators will be working a bit harder and hotter. Might not be a bad idea to use a step-down though. |
A lot of the finer points written on this and other audiophile forums sail right past my limited understanding, but I would say that you might look for something solid and semi-manual from the 1970s and then put some money into a good (and compatible) cartridge, which is where the sound is really made. My Dual 704 with Shure V-15 III really sounds as good as I can possibly want; as does Sony 2251 w/Grace G840 tonearm and Stanton 681EEE. i also have Technics SL1401--built like the proverbial brick outhouse--which may be optimal with a medium-compliance cart (though it sounds good with my V-15 II). All tables above are trouble-free and dead-quiet. If the plastic base of the Dual gets you down you can spend more for a 701, mentioned by someone above. (The 704 has a better counterweight and VTA, if that matters.) The older mid-to-upper-end Yamahas, Kenwoods, HK/Micro-Seikis, Denons--all should do the job without breaking the bank. |
I am very pleased with my Sony PS-X60 (265 usd) from 1979 as far as I remember. I bought it two years ago and it works and plays wonderful after a simpel repair of the speed adjustment. It replaced a JVC QL-A7, which was nice too, but not as musical. https://www.vinylengine.com/library/sony/ps-x60.shtml |
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. |
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-... |
I think Uber got the right step down. there is a picture of the back of the unit with the specs saying Kashimura TI-41, 110-130v input, 110v output 120VA max.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/r5cAAOSwM91adukl/s-l640.jpg |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Hi Uber, have you had more time to listen to your QL-A7? Did it come with the JVC arm (maybe the UA-7075? https://audio-heritage.jp/VICTOR/etc/ua-7082.html) |
The arm does indeed look like the 7045. However ZERO playtime yet as still waiting for the stepdown transformer to arrive and I am NOT taking any chances. Has given me chance to clean it inside, although it was very clean looking internal already , but Deoxit never hurts! Set it up with a NOS Glanz cartirdge so will be ready to hit the ground running when the stepdown shows up. Hopefully this week although I am out of town for work all week anyway. |
| Post removed |
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. |
lewm"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" Actually a platter can not spin in two directions at once as simple common sense will tell you no need to quote, reference, or apply Newton to arrive at that simple conclusion. |
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 |
| Post removed |
@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. |
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? |
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. |
@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! |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
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 |
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. |
@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. |
| 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 |
