Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?
I find that it's not so dead nuts reliable when the tach is set to Hold, as it has been on Run.Lew, If the TT-101 does not display 33.33 and 45.00 when set to 'Hold'....it is not performing correctly...๐ฅ If you have the Manual downloaded from Vinyl Engine....see if the problem is described in 'Trouble Shooting'....โ |
I take Lew's point about the Jico mat overhanging the platter's raised metal edge..... On the other hand, with the original Victor Pigskin mat which doesn't overhang......the vinyl record's outer edge is then resting on the metal edge whilst the rest of the disc is resting on suede....๐ With the Jico mats, the whole record is in contact with the leather...๐ Which is better I prefer to be determined by listening...rather than theoretical speculation....๐ There is much we simply cannot scientifically yet explain in the complex chain known as 'vinyl'....๐ก |
Hey Don, See my response to Lew about the overhanging mat.... If you are already able to post a 'clickable' Link using the 'markup tags' then use the last one to create your own title.... Press the 'Preview first' button before 'submitting' to ensure that it works correctly. You may have to practice a little....๐ Good luck.. |
A good point Totem.... Rubber platter pad |
Shane, I don't believe that it's a rubber mat under the Jico leather mat in that image...? It looks to be more like a rigid plastic mat like the Achromat...? I have friends who like to use a leather/suede mat on top of a rigid one (especially metal) like the Cu180...in combination, the two mats can often ameliorate any stringency in the upper harmonics... I really can't imagine using a leather mat on a ribbed rubber one...but hey....you can certainly try it...๐ |
A heavy weight will only create a solid bond in the center label area of the record, maybe slightly further. I think a clamp would be as affective preventing movement of both record and mat.It's intriguing that people would rather theorise or speculate when the cost of actually trying and listening can be so minimal...๐โ |
Don, I ordered the special Achromat 1200 which was designed for the lip on the Technics 1200....so I suspect the underside is already tapered to accomodate this? Will post photos when it arrives. I've also got a glass mat on its way from Japan. Apparently Victor produced one for their turntables and get this.....the instructions say that the pigskin mat is designed to go UNDER the glass mat...โ๐ This would never have occurred to me...๐ Of course I'll try it both ways....but I wonder if you've tried a suede mat UNDER your Achromat..โ Worth a try....those Victor engineers knew their 'onions'....๐ ๐ |
I also have the Victor pigskin mat that came with the TT-101On top of what Totemโ Perhaps I need to get out more often.Hold your horses Totem......I might be able to save you the effort...๐ The Achromat 1200 arrived this morning sporting its rebated underside which fits nicely clear of the Victor edge lip. Multiple comparisons ensued:- 1) Achromat on its own 2) Achromat plus Jico (thin) on top 3) Achromat plus Jico (thin) below 4) Achromat plus Victor Pigskin on top 5) Achromat plus Victor Pigskin below Let me warn you....the Achromat is NOT a perfectly flat item and in all cases where it was used, the 'warp' created was obvious with the tonearm rising and falling noticeably....๐ซ All comparisons are against the bare Victor platter with the thin Jico mat.... 1) With the Achromat on its own....the bass became less defined, the midrange slightly less transparent whilst the treble harmonics lost some of their 'shimmer' (and 'shimmer' is good ๐โ๏ธ). 2) With the Jico mat on top, a slight degrade to the bare Achromat. 3) With the Jico mat below..it seemed surprisingly worse. 4) With the Victor pigskin on top..not much better than the Jico. 5) With the Victor mat below...not much difference to the bare Achromat. I then, for reassurance....again compared the Victor pigskin on bare Victor platter with the thin Jico on bare Victor platter and it is very very close...๐ ๐ I would still give it (just) to the thin Jico...but could happily live with the Victor. When I receive the glass platter mat...it will be interesting to repeat all these comparisons...๐ |
Fleib, To paraphrase Mike Tyson... Everyone's got a theory until they're punched in the faceAfter listening to multiple different materials and combinations on the Victor DD turntables......I know what sounds best to me....and so far it's what the Victor engineers themselves agreed on, the pigskin thin platter mat. The last mat I will try is the glass one....also designed for these decks. The Walker Proscenium turntable uses a platter made of granulated lead and epoxy I believe...๐ |
Fleib, I don't think the record/platter interface is understood as you claim and that's where we differ... If it were....there would not be the plethora of platter materials, shapes and weights nor the cornucopia of platter mats (materials, thicknesses etc). I don't believe there are even two turntable manufactures with identical platter/mat combinations...? And if...as you declare.... The purpose of a mat is to provide a stable surface with a similar impedance of the record,then the majority of turntable and mat manufacturers fail in this endeavour..๐ฑ Some think the best mats are forms of acrylic, methacrylate (Delrin), carbon, or vinyl.And some people DON'T think that.... Some people even think that NO mat is better....and on some platters I have found this to be true... And then, as Lewm points out....some even think that the less contact the record has with a platter...the better๐ If you believe that all these opinions reflect an "understanding" of the record/platter interface....I simply beg to differ...๐ |
Fleib, http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1317949815&openflup&355&4#355 I have a number of record weights ranging from 450Gm to 600Gm. They all perform their task adequately.... |
The glass platter mat arrived yesterday beautifully packaged and included an ingenious silicone rubber record puck which squeezes the record onto the the vinyl without adding weight over the spindle..๐ The glass mat is beautifully made and I tested it on its own as well as with the Victor Pigskin mat both under and over it. It was easy to dismiss the silicone puck as being inferior in sound to the heavy Yamaha record weight I usually employ...๐ To cut a long story short....the results were quite similar in all respects to the Achromat with the glass being slightly better.... The clear winner was again the Jico thin leather mat.... As always....YMMV..๐โ |
The L07D is a system, using several different metals (stainless steel, alu, brass) with different temperature coefficients of expansion,The basic frame of the L-07d shown in my attachment is cast aluminium which has twice the expansion co-efficient of steel. For every centigrade degree change of room temperature (and unless your room is fully air-conditioned 24/7 the variation can easily be 5 degrees C)...there is clearly change in the distance between the spindle and tonearm pivot of several millimetres which is disastrous in the scale of vinyl groove information extraction. Now please tell me Lew....what is the exact "drift of alignment" of my fully outboard armpods? |
You accept without question that a stylus can slow a 22kg platter.Untrue.....I never accepted this fact until proven to me by the Timeline. And I still find it hard to believe...... Your calculations are frankly nonsense IMHO. Simply provide the evidence.... Even the Greeks 2500 years ago could easily set up an experiment using tensioned string to prove your theory. Stop waffling and simply prove what you say using the dozens of methods available to real scientists today. If you can't or won't, it would seem reasonable to keep your imagined beliefs a well protected secret...๐ |
A plinth or chassis is a logical design for a commercial table,And I think that just answered Lew's question why most turntable manufacturers produce the 'attached' package. It's easy, convenient and generally 'plug'n'play'. But this discussion really belongs on the Copernican Thread which, despite its absence from recent activity, has had nearly 1,000,000 hits so hopefully some readers are inspired to try it out...โ๐ As I repeated many times...I'm not trying to convince the sceptics here. I'm merely relaying my findings after creating the model and comparing it to all the commercial turntables I have heard and owned myself. The only answer I could find to explain the improvements I was hearing...was the presumption that a massive level armpod was perhaps the important ingredientโ๐ I never imagined the hostility this simple mission would unleash....and all from those who have never tried it themselves...๐ฑ Please forgive me...๐๐ฝ |
Sadly.....I think I have to admit that Tommy of TopClass is correct in his assessment which inspired this Thread. But perhaps mainly in relation to the Victor TT-101...๐ฑ My TT-101 has been with my Tech for over two months because it suddenly developed speed issues (on both 33.33rpm and 45rpm). He has replaced five chips without any success and as all the electrolytic capacitors have previously been replaced as well as all the soldering...he has nowhere else to go. He has already spent too many days (and money) trying to wade through the complexity of this particular turntable. Compare that to the comparative simplicity of the TT-81 which does exactly the same job (albeit without the coreless motor) and I mourn the opportunity Victor spurned by not adding the TT101 motor to the TT81 electronics...๐ฉ I found a TT-101 for Thuchan who has had his Tech in Germany trying to get it working for nearly five months..... Thankfully the TT-81 sounds just as impressive and I have heard that the TT-71 also performs well. I have lived with the TT-101 for 3-4 years and have loved it....but it is no longer in my future. I lived dangerously during that period and unfortunately those who still own 'fully functional' TT-101s must hear the clock ticking.....๐ |
Downunder, I'm confident that your P3 will keep going...and if it doesn't, it will be easily rectified by Chris Kimil. Despite the fact that I have to agree with Tommy about the 'risks' involved with TT-101 ownership....it is NOT because of the scarcity of new parts available. Every chip, transistor, and capacitor for the Victor is procurable. The problem with the TT-101 is simply its complexity. I believe there are few risks involved with ownership of any of the other Victor models and there are hundreds of Denon DDs available on the used markets as well as a seemingly endless supply of Yamaha GT-750 DDs from Japan. I have just brought in a Victor QL-A7 from Japan for my son (who has recently dived into HiFi and vinyl). Listening to this in my system (with a Signet TK-3Ea/155Lc cartridge) was a sobering experience. This $600 table literally shamed the belt-drive Raven AC-2 loaded with mega-dollar arms and cartridges. It also sounded stunningly better than my 'nude' TT-101 and TT-81 Victors (also with their mega-dollar arms). This salutary experience has caused me to reflect on the wisdom of my 'nude' turntable mounting. The heavy wood plinth of the QL-A7 combined with the four large mildly compliant feet appear to bestow upon the performance, a depth and palette somewhat greater than is extracted with the steel cradle and spiked feet of my 'nude' mounting. Changes are in the wind....๐ |
Oh yes Professor.... I have already settled on the thin Jico suede mat as a 'delicious' match. However my son will have to do with the thicker Jico mat...๐ I know you prefer an alternate mat with your TT-71.... Shane...that Victor is twice the price I paid for the QL-A7...which also comes with a 2 year Guarantee from HiFiDo....๐ I also don't recognise that arm whilst the A7 comes with a rather fine Victor arm...๐ผ I do think the TT-81 with its bi-directional servo control is potentially better than the TT-71 (or at least as good) so there is no way I am ridding myself of it and the three bronze armpods. Rather...I need to examine how I can create a cradle with more mass to test whether my theory is correct...? |
But the gems, as far as pure turntables are concerned, are actually in the integrated turntables such as QL-Y7, QL-Y66F, QL-70A, etc., all have coreless motor and smooth sonic.Hiho, I'm not sure what you mean by "integrated turntables"? The QL-A7 I bought for my son has the tonearm integrated with the table and has an electro-mechanical device integrated into the plinth which operates the armlift up and down....and also automatically lifts the arm and stops the platter at the end of the record. All without interfering with the structural integrity of the arm itself...๐ Forgive me if I'm wrong....but I thought that only the TT-101 had the coreless motor? |
Aigenga, Halcro, get yourself either a single purpose turntable wall shelf (like the Solid Steel that I use) and spike the turntable to it, or a good stand and an isolation pad like an SRA or Symposium. I would put my naked TT-101 against any plinthed DD and be sure of a favorable outcome.You're right of course and this is indeed a recommended method IF one has a dedicated rigid wall shelf like yours. The problem occurs in a situation like mine where the shelf is shared and not dedicated...or where the shelf is heavily loaded because of the mass of the armpods (again like mine). Mass-loading a shelf induces stresses within the shelf strata and these stresses (mainly the tensile ones) induce low-frequency 'noise' or vibrations in the shelf material. A massive plinth can help absorb these vibrations without itself resonating especially if the plinth is mounted on slightly resilient feet. A very low-mass plinth (like my steel cradle) is easier to precipitate into its resonant frequency and steel spikes do little to hinder this. Most turntable manufacturers are aware of this structural feedback issue and attempt to combat it in various ways like mass, sprung suspension, air isolation feet etc. Rega believes a low-mass plinth (or even skeletal) is best when mounted on compliant rubber feet. This structural feedback issue is so important that Mark Doehmann has designed his new turntable with a Minus K stand inbuilt into the plinth. At any rate, I have been doing a lot of testing lately and, because I can do nothing about my shared shelf and its mass loading....I need to try and devise a solution to creating 'mass' for my cradle situation...๐โ๏ธ A tricky problem.... |
So Hiho, If one wanted a Victor coreless motor unit which shared the dimensions of the TT-81/101 and had all the operating controls on the platter unit itself (like the TT-101)....I assume that these are not available as 'stand-alone'? Is there a model in your integrated list from which I could remove the motor unit as a 'drop-in' for my TT-81/101? |
Happy Days......๐๐ I picked up my TT-101 yesterday....all fixed ๐ After 3 months of tracking down 5 ICs from around the world (which weren't needed), and then removing and testing over 40 of the 100 or so transistors in the circuit boards (they were all good).....my Tech re-soldered all the joints in the Control Panel ICB. Even though he had removed and re-soldered every single joint 18 months ago.....because this was an intermittent speed-related issue, he had a hunch.....and lucky he did...๐ It all appears to be working correctly. Fingers crossed..โ๏ธ The good news for all TT-101 owners (and other vintage DD owners also) is that all the ICs and transistors he removed and tested were perfect. It seems most of the problems with these old dames is in the ancient solder joints. Find a good Tech and have him remove and replace all the solder joints BEFORE looking for more complex problems. Oh....and if there is an intermittent problem (are you listening Lew)....re-do the joints again...๐บ |
Thanks Banquo, My Tech originally redid every solder joint as per your specific instructions which I had passed on...๐ So this was obviously a recent break in one of these new joints. As your Tech wisely knew.....inspecting with a magnifying glass is a wise precaution..... I think it would benefit Lew to send his TT-101 to your Tech. He sounds like he 'knows his onions'....๐๐ |
Hi Totem, I think, as you say.....the most encouraging part of this exercise was the fact that every transistor of the 40 that my Tech took out and tested was perfect. The ICs were more difficult as many of the test figures in the Victor Service Manual didn't make sense or were simply wrong. In any case....all the original ICs were also fine. So it bodes well for most vintage DD decks out there (which certainly have nowhere near the number nor complexity of solder joints of the TT-101) that they are a good chance of continuing their 'normal' service for the foreseeable future. And with the seeming cutback in production of Harry's VPI Direct at $30,000....that's good news ๐ |
Lewm, From what my Tech showed me, I'd be firstly inclined to not worry about the values you are getting when you test some of the ICs. He showed me three or four values in the Service Manual that he said bore no relationship to those he measured.....and the ICs he measured, actually worked perfectly once the solder joint problem was remedied. As I surmised above....with the TT-101, firstly suspect a poor solder joint before thinking 'bad' IC or transistor. |
Lewm, I know the whole sordid Continuum story directly from Mark. He is an astute audio guy with a genuine love and passion for the possibilities. He has always appreciated the damage that structure-borne feedback causes to most turntable-based systems and has been an admirer of Minus K platforms for many years. He is in fact the Australian Importer and Distributor for Minus K so it is no surprise to see him develop a turntable with a Minus K 'built-in'... Somewhat reinventing Linn...๐นโ And let's gets real.....no-one is going to reinvent a new DD turntable which can be built in a 'garage'. HW did it with a cogless super motor that still can't match the performance of the 30 year old Victors and can't be made for less than $30,000...๐ฑ Rockport came the closest with its Sirius III but it would cost $200,000 today and was somewhat let down by its tangential tonearm.... And yes....ventilation AND breathing space is a crucial requirement for most vintage DDs....but especially the Victors. |
Regards Fleib, Here is the Feikert Speed App for the VPI Direct as published by Fremer in Stereophile and here is the corresponding one for my TT-101. Now all the Raw Frequency and Lowpass-Filtered Frequency figures are near identical for both turntables yet look at the General Mean Frequency comparison figures..... The VPI Direct is 4.5 Hz above the 3150Hz Test Tone Frequency whilst the TT-101 is spot on. Oh I know 4.5 Hz is tiny and probably irrelevant in the scheme of things BUT.....the VPI is using the most expensive and sophisticated motor for this application currently available and has 35 years of computer advanced technology to draw on yet can't match the accuracy of the 35-40 year design work of the Japanese Victor engineers...๐ก But these Charts are not the most revealing part of the Feikert Speed App. Here is the real time analogue print-out of the actual sinewave produced by the VPI Direct whilst tracking the 3150 Hz Test Tone. Ignoring the fact that it is well above the 3150 Hz frequency line.....observe the continually varying pitch of the mean frequency (a straight line is theoretically perfect) as it drops and raises tone. THIS is the real analogue graphic of the true speed-constancy performance of the test turntable. Here is the Frequency Chart of my TT-101 and here is the long-term frequency chart of my TT-101. Now tell me what you see and how the world of audio technology has improved over the last half century.....โ๐ |
I don't have charts for the other Victors yet but here is a video of the TT-81 under the Timeline with three arms going on and off and showing no deviation of the laser on the wall mark. Based on this evidence and the fact that the TT-81 employs the identical forward and backward speed monitoring of the TT-101....I believe the Feikert figures would be similar. |
Hi Fleib, According to Vinyl Engine and the Victor TT-81 Service Manual.... Servo system: Quartz-locked positive and negative servo controlVintage Knob appears to be wrong..... I think there's something to be said for a 20.lb platter on a DD.I haven't heard anything said that is supported by solid evidence...? If you're going to monitor and control a platter as swiftly and effectively as possible, it seems sensible to make it as light as possible whilst accomplishing its other duties. That's what Victor has done within its design objectives whilst Technics chose another with their SP10 MkIII and Kenwood yet another with their L-07D and Pioneer another with their Exclusive P3. The fact is that there are so many good and great vintage DD Japanese turntables still in existence that anyone wanting to hear what one can do for his system, need not wait (possibly in vain) for the next great modern iteration of this drive choice. It will almost certainly not be better than those mentioned whilst almost certainly will cost multiples more. |
They both have bidirectional servo, but the 101 has an additional servo to compare phase - double bidirectional. Why else are the electronics so much more complicated on the 101?I don't know where you read this Fleib, but the description of both TT-81 and TT-101 in the Service manuals are identical except the 101 has a 'coreless' servo motor. Most of the additional complexity of the 101 I believe is centred on its circuitry of multiple 1Hz pitch adjustability (5 steps up and 5 steps down) together with its digital speed indication and its complex new braking system. A massive platter imparts solidity to the sound, viable if and only if correct speed can be maintained. That's why so many belt drivers w/heavy platters sound ponderous IMO.This is a subjective view and IMO has become an oft-repeated audio myth... It implies that turntables like Rega and Project cannot have "solidity"to their sound.... I have found that to be too much of a generalisation. I can understand the concept of a massive platter for a belt-drive deck which is trying to rely on inertia for its speed maintenance but for a DD which is quartz-locked and servo-controlled, a heavy platter simply involves a more powerful motor with all its associated problems. I believe 'solidity' comes firstly from the ability of the turntable to maintain perfect speed through the heavily modulated grooves (resulting from complex low-frequency information) without suffering 'stylus drag'. A feat I still have not seen performed by a belt-drive.... Secondly I believe 'solidity' is greatly improved by the rigidity of the turntable supporting structure, its isolation from structure-born feedback and then the materials chosen to implement these. It's interesting to note that the Victor engineers did not change anything about the platter weight and materials between the 81 and 101 and I can tell you that the 'solidity' achieved by this 'lightweight' aluminium platter is unmatched by any megaton platter I have heard. And I thought we just discovered that old solder joints were the only problem areas of these old turntables....? And this might be just the TT-101.... No problems at all with the TT-81 or the thousands of other makes and models of 70s Japanese DD decks out there from all the Forum reports...? And just to lay to rest another bugaboo about these vintage decks....they are generally easy to repair by any competent Tech....and all the ICs, transistors, capacitors and resistors are still readily obtainable...๐ |
Hi Thekong, I don't know how many Sirius IIIs were made nor how many are still in operation......but it was more than 10 years ago that I was able to listen at length to one in my friend Richard's system. That was before the Timeline or the Feickert Speed App...๐ What I remember clearly to this day, is the shock of hearing familiar records reproduced with a clarity, brilliance and definition from the mids to the ultra-highs I was unused to. The lack of mid-bass to lower-bass definition and power I wrongly or rightly lay at the feet of the tangential tracking arm...... With my Victors....especially since the granite cradle....that clarity, brilliance and definition are now familiar residents chez moi ๐ albeit without the forward emphasis of the Rockport (probably due to the balance of the complete bass presentation with the Victors)...? Richard has had a Caliburn for the last nine years so opportunities to test the Sirius III have deserted me. It would indeed be interesting to see how she tests against the best vintage Japanese gear..? Regards |
If anyone was interested in an SP10 Mk3, this one may be better value as it includes tonearm and base... |
