Thorens TD124 “Mk1”/Mk2 plinth

I think the main difference is mk1 had a ferrous platter that can play havoc with a LOMC, whereas the mk2 platter is nonferrous. So yes there probably is no difference as regards the plinth. If I’m in error I trust I’ll be rapidly corrected.

Thanks. I got in touch with a guy in latviia who sells these on eBay and he assures me there’s only one pattern.

A dealer in my area is a BIG fan of the 124 and has reconditioned dozens of them likes the ferrous subplatter much more than the non-magnetic aluminum subplatter.  He is not concerned with magnetic attraction from powerful MC magnets.  If you want something that has the sonic properties of the ferrous subplatter without magnetic attraction, a company named Schopper sells such a replacement.

I’ve read that name - Schopper - in several forums.

I’m big on LOMC carts. Have been using an Ortofon Verismo for about 18 months, have a VDH Stradivarius Koa XGW I have yet to put on my TT - I don’t even have it unpacked yet, or my audio room finished. Just moved into a new home - hopefully the last - on a farm. Have plenty to do already but I keep plugging away at several hobbies at a time. I’ll look into the company.  Thanks.

I’m using a collection of Ortofon SPUs on my ferrous sub platter. I do use a thicker mat and have raised my tonearms a bit to correct the angle.  I do not have any issues whatsoever with magnetic forces on the cartridges. 

Yes, it might be more of a theoretical, rather than a practical, issue.  My dealer puts very expensive cartridges, like Platinum Signature Rosewood Koetsu cartridges on modern tonearms (typically Ortofon, Triplanar, or Audio Noe) on idler tables like the Thorens 124 and Garrard 301 and 401 and Lenco tables.  Of these tables, he likes the Thorens 124 the most.  

Great choice, I wish I had kept my TD124, it produced the best bass I ever had (with V15Vxmr beryllium cantilever tracking at 1.0gm on SME 3009) but that wonderfully machined bearing is very susceptible to vertical transmission, my floors were too springy, so think about it’s location, perhaps a wall shelf.

It's metal frame is solid, you do not need to stiffen it, you simply need to isolate it from any vibration getting to it.

Larry, you fail to specify whether the TD124 that causes no issues with the various cartridges you name is a mk1 or mk2 type. One sensitive way to check for magnetic attraction is to set VTF with a digital gauge and then, with the gauge still in place, gently raise the headshell by a mm or 2, and see whether the gauge goes negative briefly in the process.

I use Decca cartridges which incorporate relatively large magnets with my MKI TD124. I have no issue with the original iron sub platter EXCEPT this: I make tracking weight adjustment for these cartridges with an LP vinyl placed on the platter mat. The mat incorporates metal or other material interwoven (Auditorium 23), however the magnetic pull of the platter still affects downforce on the cartridge if downforce reading is taken with only the mat in place. Placement of an LP under the stylus to then check tracking weight, for my system, is the only way to obtain a more or less accurate readout. YMMV.

I know the Ortofon Family Sound very well and have expressed an interest in experiencing the Ortofon Verismo in use, and silly me had an invite in the past I never followed up on. The real interest has been the Damper, as I recollect Ortofon stating a New Compound was created for the Verismo. 

The Aucurum Coils will share a little Gold with your Koa, The Diamond Cantilever in comparison the the Boron may prove interesting. The differences in the Bodies will be very interesting to see what is the most attractive. A Sumiko Pearwood with Boron Cantilever has always kept itself on the most attractive side of a Rich Tone for my tastes.

Please make more known when the Verismo and the VDH Stradivarius Koa XGW are being used together.

Ignore my post of 07-08 at 4:30 PM.  The test I described is to detect whether the weigh pan of a digital VTF scale is ferrous (some are); it obviously won't work to detect a magnetic attraction between the cartridge magnets and a ferrous platter or subplatter.

psf, After stating that you have no issue with the TD124 platter, you go on to describe what I would call an "issue".  Anyway, it sounds like you know how to deal with it satisfactorily. I don't know about the strength of the magnets used in Grado cartridges, but I do know that my Ortofon MC2000, which seems to have its magnets in the "belly" section of the cartridge body, hanging close to the LP surface, definitely does have issues if you try to use it with even a stainless steel platter that has significant iron content.

The model this dealer prefers IS the Mk 1 with the ferrous subplatter.  Most fans of this table prefer the sound with the ferrous subplatter.  If I owned the table, I would go with the Schopper subplatter just for peace of mind alone.

Why (for what reason) does anyone think the ferrous subplatter would sound best? I wonder.

It has a different resonance characteristic.

Maybe. But if it’s the resonance of iron , then why would a nonferrous aftermarket subplatter suffice as a substitute where the mk2 nonferrous sub platter is judged to be inferior?

The after-market Schoppers subplatter IS made of a type of cast iron similar in acoustic properties to the original subplatter.  However, the cast iron is impregnated with a material that greatly decreases magnetic attraction; it was material supposedly invented for use in submarine construction where not attracting magnetic mines was a big help.

Schopper call it “bronze”.

Which is an alloy of mostly copper and some tin. No iron content.

It has been been a while since I was on their site.  It was either Schoppers in the past, or some other company that offered the non magnetically attracted cast iron subplatter.  Schopper's current offering is bronze.  I have no idea if it is as non-resonant as cast iron.  Cast iron rings for only a brief moment when struck, I saw this demonstrated in a Fern and Roby turntable that was made of cast iron for that very reason (their first audio product).  

I have not heard a Thorens 124 with the aluminum subplatter so I don't know from my own experience if it doesn't sound as good.  I have only heard tables with the original cast iron subplatter.  I have helped with setup of cartridges on the tables with cast iron subplatters and did not notice any issue with magnetic attraction.  In any event, most of the tables reconditioned by this dealer needed nothing more than a good cleaning, a replacement of the rubber mushroom suspension parts and perhaps a gentle resurfacing of the idler wheel.  The braking mechanism almost always needs readjustment too.  

My local dealer likes this table so much that he recommends it for systems well into six figures where the customer would be willing to spring for something much more expensive.  He puts modern arms on the table and uses plinths from various commercial sources or plinths made by the person who makes his custom speaker cabinets.  These plinths are simple, somewhat light weight boxes; he prefers this to the heavier plinths that use much more wood to make them extra rigid.  

I can believe that cast iron is relatively nonresonant, if only because Albert Porter uses a large cube-shaped cast iron block to dampen the bearing inside his Panzerholz plinths for Technics SP10 mk3s and Mk2s. When I was creating my own plinth for my own Mk3, Albert advised me to use iron for that function and for the reason that he felt it was nonresonant, but I was fearful that such a huge chunk of iron would affect the massive magnet that is fastened to the Mk3 platter, which functions as the rotor of the massive motor, thereby possibly reducing motor torque.  So I went with brass instead, inside my Mk3 plinth which is made from a huge piece of slate cradling the chassis. Then the slate cum chassis sits on and is bolted to a cherrywood base that harbors the large chunk of brass. In both Albert’s plinths and my one-off plinth, there is a threaded rod that passes through the chunk of metal (iron or brass in my case) and snugs up against the base of the mk3 bearing housing. Interestingly, you can tune the result by tightening or loosening the contact between the rod and the base of the bearing housing. Not too tight sounds best.

I think but am not certain that there is a layer of bronze in the 21-lb Mk3 platter.

To the OP: Woodsong Audio (Chris Harban) makes some beautiful plinths for the classic idlers, including the TD 124.  I have two of his creations, a Garrard 401 and a TD124.  The latter is in a figured mahogany - check my systems page for pictures.

The Woodsong plinth I saw was exquisite in terms of appearance.  I have not seen an Artisan Fidelity table, but the pictures look very promising.

lewm,

It sounds like you employed some pretty heroic measures to get your plinth to perform as you like.  You certainly know more than most how resonant behavior affects the sound.  This is a tricky business as it is not simply the case of reducing or increasing some measure of performance so much as getting it to a point where it sounds right.  I have a table/arm combination-Basis Debut vacuum clamp/Vector tonearm--that is designed to damp resonance to the utmost, and while I like how it sounds, others find it is to damped and "dead" sounding; it really is a matter of taste and system matching.

Lots of responses covering the TD-124 platters.  Does anyone have any concerns about the thin metal outer platter only making contact with the sub platter with 6 or 8 thin rubber discs?  The reason I point this out is that the sadly ignored Thorens TD-121 has a single one piece platter.  Of course, on the TD-121 you lose the braking mechanism, which, though handy when it worked, was fiddly and rattly. Also missing from the TD-121 was the strobe (and the near unobtainable neon bulb) and the speed change mechanism making the 121 essentially a single-speed ‘table though if you removed the platter you could reset the idler wheel to a different position and speed.  Other than those things I mentioned, the TD-121 was identical to the TD-124 including the magnetic speed trim mechanism on the intermediate wheel.  I bring all this up because the TD-121 was my first real turntable I bought in the late ‘60’s when I was in junior high school for $20 from a radio station converting to tape cartridges.  The turntable came set up for 16 2/3 RPM and was equipped with a 16” Audax tonearm, a hand built over-sized plinth, and a mundane Pickering pickup.  Luckily, a local shop called Stereoland had an Empire 980 arm with a Shure M3D already mounted on the requisite Thorens TD-121/124 tonearm board. Yes, they’re identical.  I used that rig, with many, many stylus changes well past my college years with a Dynaco PAS-3X/Stereo 70 combo and EPI 100 speakers.  That modest system easily blew away any Japanese setup that most of my dorm mates had though they all laughed at me for my Eisenhower-era acquisitions.  Even in the 70’s, they only knew vacuum tubes from their Grandpops’ Grundigs and Blaupunkts they brought back from Europe after WWII.  Except for a brief fling with a Dual 505, a table I likened to a puppy; cute, lightweight, and disorganized, I used that TD-121 rig until I blew up two credit cards on a big boy Linn LP-12/ Ittok/Troika setup in the late 80’s which I still use to this day. Thanks to a gift of a mint TD-124 equipped with the infamous Keith Monks arm, the unipivot  job with the 4 little open vats of mercury (!) for signal transfer and damping.  No wonder it was mint.  After some years and a call to the city who came out in hazmat suits and a special vacuum, I went about the total restoration and modernization of that TD-124. The motor had to be rebuilt twice, the second time by Schopper AG, along with new motor mounts, base mounting rubbers, belt, an aluminum idler wheel with a choice of black or red O-rings (they do sound different), a beautiful NOS Ortofon plinth, and a Panzerholz tonearm board with a new Ortofon TA-210 arm with 2M Bronze mounted to it.  After all that, that 124 was better than before but still noisy. So I moved the tonearm and board to my stock TD-121 and I was taken aback.  It wasbetter, much better actually.  Now with motor lubricated with STP (it did take a while to come up to speed 😆) the noise of the 121 was lower than the 124 and easy to ignore, like an evening in a quiet suburban area as opposed to the all out hot-rod TD-124 being more like New York City in the middle of a summer night, all air conditioning compressors and traffic noise.  My point of this long story is that with all those extra features of the 124:  the 2 piece platter, the linkages of the turntable brake, the extra metal parts involved in the speed change mechanism - none of these extra metal parts without any sort of damping involved - all add to intrusive noise without improving the sound, that an equal, but more simple device, the TD-121, is not hampered with.  Force and drive yeah, OK, but more modern designs, even ones from the late 80’s, are simply better at letting all the music, especially the gentle little details, get through.  
Thank you all of you whom read this through to the end.  I hope I didn’t ruin your breakfast!  Happy Listening!

Larry, I don't claim to know much about resonance control, except by observation and an attempt to apply some logic.  Also, I never know if I have achieved the best result possible based on the science.  I only go by what I hear. For example, I listened to the SP10 Mk3 in its heavy slate plinth alone,first and for several months. It sounded fine that way. Then I got into some conversations with Albert Porter who was kind enough to share some of his secrets, mainly as regards damping the platter bearing. That prompted me to add the cherrywood subplinth with the built in massive lump of brass to damp the bearing, and I do think the sound got "better".

Porchlight, When I decided I wanted to own an idler drive TT, I auditioned a Garrard 301, a Lenco L75, and a TD124.  All of them had been upgraded and tweaked, but given that each was in a different system and in a different listening room, etc, to make precise comparisons among the 3 would not be fair.  Nevertheless, I liked the TD124 least of all, and it wasn't a close call to eliminate it at the start, mainly due to noise.  So I don't doubt your impression that the TD121 may be superior. I subsequently acquired an NOS Lenco L75, dumped the plinth, the chassis, and the tonearm, mounted the works on a PTP3 top plate (see Lenco Heaven), had the platter sprayed with a dampening paint, had a 50-lb plinth made from PA slate, and added a Phoenix Engineering motor controller with Roadrunner tachometer, to drive the OEM Lenco motor.  Totally by the seat of my pants. The SP10 Mk3 and Lenco projects were fun, but I would never do it again, which is why I won't sell them.

@porchlight1 I appreciate you writing all of that down and saving me the trouble. I have a couple of comments:

1. I love the Thorens TD-124 and have rebuild several of them. The thing I liked the least was the analog speed control system (strobe). They always wander - some more, some less. But it's often noticeable, especially if you compare one to a speed controlled TD-124. After the first two I always removed the analog control parts and installed a Keystrobe unit. Yes, it's digital. Get over it and listen. A stable platter doesn't sound different, just better. Way better. I have no financial interest in this company but IMO this is the single best improvement you can make to a TD-124 or Garrard 301. Keystrobe

2. I tried rebuilding a couple of TD-121s and stopped. They look like a TD-124 but they aren't. They seem to be made "less good" and were not made to the same tolerances as the TD-124. The two I rebuilt sounded good but not great. My two cents worth: buy a 124 or go in another direction.

Acrylic glass is non resonating. I would think that casting a resin sub platter in a polyurethane rubber mold would be relatively simple and would weigh a lot less than bronze.