Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

Doron, I misunderstood. Some people like olives and some don't. That's cool. As for me, I have yet to hear any box speaker I could live with, knowing that I could also have what I do have as an alternative. (I don't use the term "panel" speaker, as there are many kinds of panel speakers, e.g., Magnepans, which I do not wish to include in my endorsement. Nor do I feel the same enthusiasm about all ESLs, only certain ones.)

Small point: As I understand it, the L07D platter is not completely suspended via Maglev. Rather, the load is only partially dissipated in that fashion; there is still some vertical force exerted on the bearing and thrust pad. (I never have pushed down on my platter so as to prove that to myself.) But to your point, the Kenwood engineers definitely saw some benefit in Maglev.

Harold, You are welcome to dissect the wonderfulness of the L07D and attribute that quality to magnetic levitation of the platter, but I think that misses the point. IMO, the L07D is transcendent because in its design every aspect of construction and function was considered and addressed in one single product, from plinth to headshell. One may quibble here and there with some of the choices that were made, but there is no denying that the L07D's excellence is the product of its "whole-ocity", if Harvey Rosenberg will forgive me for borrowing his parlance.

Doron, I have never seen in person an EMT927, but in my mind the EMT927 and the Lenco L75 are at opposite ends of a spectrum; the Lenco is on the "less is more" end of the spectrum, and the EMT is on the "more is more" end of the same spectrum. The business of torque is a mystery to me, because there is to some degree a correlation between torque and performance for dd and idler tt's (leaving belt-drive out of the discussion), but with some exceptions. The Lenco has a physically large and powerful motor, but the torque that can be delivered to the platter is always limited by the coefficient of friction between the idler wheel and the platter surface that is in contact with the idler wheel. In a Lenco, that contact patch must be small, because there was a negative trade-off to using a wide idler wheel, as is typical for idlers that drive the inside rim of the platter or the outside edge; a wide contact patch would cause "scrubbing" in a Lenco, between the idler wheel which "wants" to go in a straight line and the platter, which must rotate in an arc. So, the torque of a Lenco is truncated by the force required for the wheel to dissociate from the underside of the platter and skid. If you grab the platter, you can feel that happening well before the motor comes to a stop.

I forgot to add that we replaced nearly all the original transistors, as well, since some of them have a reputation for having been unreliable. We used modern equivalents that have a better track record.

If you see Popsy walking very very slowly down the middle of your street, and if he looks kind of greenish and seems to want to eat you, just offer him an SL1200.

Henry, You're correct. There was one point in the past where I did think I had the problem solved, or more fairly, I did think that after all the re-soldering and fussing either I had accidentally re-soldered the exact right bad connection so as to actually fix the problem without knowing it, or the beast had cured itself in some mysterious way. At that point, the TT101 in its QL10 plinth was sitting on our kitchen counter. However, when I then moved it to its point of use in my basement, it turned out still to be possessed of evil spirits. If you recall, we also speculated on the vagaries of my household AC lines or the role of RFI, as causative agents. At one point, you removed the canister/shield from your unit, and I thought you reported that it ran more reliably in the nude. Isn't that when you discovered the wonders of the TT81? We talked at that point about the fact that the canister itself acts as a shield for RF generated inside the TT101, etc. Anyway, nude is advantageous for sonics as well as for reliability (no failures now in 4 days running off my basement AC), and I'm leaving it nude.

Dear Henry,
Here's a story about my TT101 that fits this thread. As you and some others may recall, I bought mine very cheaply in "broken" condition. Bill Thalmann re-capped it and Bill and I re-soldered many of the joints. All of that work did improve things, but it still has/had an intermittent problem that was rather maddening: It starts up fine but after 1-2 minutes, it "dies"; the power seems to cut off and the platter will coast to a stop, even though the "Power" light stays on. For this reason, I sort of gave up on it temporarily. I had a plan to build a jig for it, so that I can flip it over on either side, top or bottom, to work on the wiring harness, because my last hope is that the issue has to do with a cracked wire or a cracked solder joint somewhere inside one of the multi-prong connectors that traverse the various layers of the chassis. Today we're having a snow storm, so I spent some time building the jig. Then I removed the metal cannister/shield from the TT101 chassis and mounted the now naked chassis in my jig. For the heck of it, I re-installed the platter to see if I could reproduce the problem. Guess what. The TT101 runs reliably at perfect speed consistently, in naked form mounted in my jig. I think you had a similar finding way back when you were having an issue with your TT101. Do you still use yours in the "nude"? I am going to do that. I think the metal can is putting pressure on one or another of the harnesses and bringing out an underlying issue with solder joints or old wires that is moot when the TT101 is in the nude. I'll send you an email with a photo of my jig, which is just a piece of plywood cut out for the TT101, held up in space by three threaded rods.

So, this also makes me want to build a minimalist plinth to mount the nude TT101, something like yours but with an attached platform for mounting a tonearm, rather than an outboard arm pod.

You are perhaps referring to my innovative tt "feet", made of small cans of Mandarin Orange slices in water. I think Del Monte brand sounds best (joke here), but you may have different brands in Oz. I still use them under my Denon DP80 and Lenco L75, both of which are mounted in slate slabs. Actually, I do one thing further: the bottom of each can (3 per tt) sits on a tiptoe so as to isolate the sides and rim of the can from the shelf. I think you guys or the Brits say, "Works a treat". In this case, if you're unhappy with the feet, they are STILL a treat: you can open the cans and eat the contents. Oddly enough, when you remove the paper labels, the cans look quite avant garde and art deco. One visitor to my home thought they must be very expensive boutique footers. (Cost = ~$2 per can.)

Have you seen the Denons remounted in elaborate wood plinths, by PBN Audio? They've done a beautiful job, and I have no doubt that the Denons are much improved by getting rid of their cannister shield, just as are the Victors. But PBN go much farther to improve performance, other than merely removing the cannister, albeit at a very steep price. I've got to remove the cannister from my DP80, as well, even though it runs "like a top". I think the cannisters are a sonic negative, regardless of how they may or may not affect function.

Today its freezing and raining and gray outside. I took the opportunity to re-mount the now nude TT101 back into its heavily re-enforced plinth. Lo and behold, it still works. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Four days and the TT101 is still running reliably in the nude, back in its QL10 plinth. I realize no one gives a damn but me, but I just thought Halco would appreciate my keeping his thread alive.

I am convinced that the bottom canister cover, now discarded, was putting some stress on the wiring harnesses, such that an existing marginal solder joint or cracked wire was pushing or pulling so as to cause an intermittent circuit issue. I really don't care to find it (only because I and Bill Thalmann have already spent so much time looking for it with no luck), if things continue to go well.

Henry and Don, From Henry's first post about the pigskin mat, I got the idea he was saying it was supplied OEM with the TT101, perhaps not with the TT81. My TT101 has what I deem to be its OEM mat, but it sure does not look to be made of any natural material. On the other hand, it is much harder than were the OEM rubber mats that came with my DP80 or either of my two Technics SP10s (Mk2A followed by Mk3). So, what am I looking at? Henry, can you describe the TT101 mat or post a photo? Mine has many concentric ridges in it, running all the way from inner groove area to outermost grooves, also unlike Denon or Technics rubber mats. It's possible that it's not made of rubber, but I don't know what else it could be. Thanks.

Henry, Thanks for the tip on the clickable links. As for mats, since I have yet no listening experience with the TT101, I cannot comment on its mat. With my Lenco and my SP10 Mk3, I am a big fan of the Boston Audio Mat1 (for the Lenco) and Mat2 (for the Mk3). (Mat2 is thicker and heavier than Mat1.) I've tried several different mats on each, and the BA mats are current winners. I totally agree about the colorations of the OEM rubber mats as heard on my Denon DP80 and on my Technics tt's. They not only color the music, but I think the rubber mats have colored people's opinions about direct-drive "sound". I wanted also to note that Kenwood was ahead of its time in offering its stainless steel platter sheet in lieu of rubber. But so too was Micro Seiki in offering a copper mat (and a gunmetal platter which can be used with no mat), albeit they are not famed as makers of dd turntables. Kenwood made an optional ceramic platter sheet for the L07D. I have only seen photos of that, but the scuttlebutt is to avoid it. I would not feel inclined to mess with the stainless steel platter sheet on the L07D. Currently, my SP10 Mk3 is receiving the Krebs upgrade and so is out of service. I have been listening regularly to the L07D with an Ortofon MC2000 cartridge (Raul's old favorite MC), and the sound is glorious. I cannot fault it.

Thanks for your concern re the TT101 on "Hold". There is no problem in terms of displaying 33.33 or 45.00. It goes right up to display those two speeds and holds those numbers firmly. The problem is that occasionally it will go into its typical failure mode after 3-4 minutes: the tach lights go out, except for the decimal point, and the platter coasts to a stop (no brake effect). It's as if someone pulled the plug, except the power lights are all "on". If you then re-start, it will work fine, as if nothing bad had happened. So far, in the nude, it has been dead nuts reliable when set to "Run" but does crash as described, about one out of 10 times, when the tach is set to Hold.

Thanks to Henry pointing out the clickable links, I was able to see the photos of the Jico mats. I definitely do not like the fact that the mat hangs over the edges of the platter. Most all LPs have a "lip" around their circumference. Optimally this lip should hang out in space over the edges of the circumference of the platter or platter mat, so the playing surface can be in contact with the platter or platter mat. Having this lip on the LP in contact with the mat would tend to lift the whole playing surface of the LP by a fraction of a millimeter or so off the mat. Just my opinion, but I do not care for that characteristic. I would try to trim the mat so to avoid that issue.

Johnny, I am very glad that the new Pioneer exists, because it will be attractive to those who fear "living dangerously" with vintage DD's, and it may help, like the Technics SL1200 did, to spread the word of the virtues of DD. But what "vibration issues" are you referring to?

Pryso, Someone wiser than I once told me that a good speaker cable usually makes a good power cord. In my experience with the Kimber 8TC and the Goertz copper ribbons, this axiom has held true so far. It suits my contrary nature, as well.

Banquo, Keep in mind that the recommended Redline viscosity, and this is only for the Kenwood L07D, is straight 20W, not a blend. So, if you can find it, maybe compare that to RP 20W. Or, compare Redline in the 5W-30 weight to the RP 5W-30 you already own. But maybe also wait to hear back from Doron, if he responds to my post.

A quart of any of these oils should last several human lifetimes (let alone TT lifetimes), even for a freak like me who has 5 TT's, but dammit I cannot find my quart of Redline 20W. I am motivated to try it out in the TT101 and maybe also the SP10 Mk3.

Doron, You obviously know your stuff when it comes to lubricants. Thank you for the information, some of which I once knew but had forgotten. Your last remark is the focus of my question: Do you mean to say that there is some fundamental difference in the way Royal Purple (RP) motor oils are formulated as compared to Redline motor oils which would account for the reported observation that RP 5W30 sounded better than Redline 20W, other than viscosity? My point was that the difference in sonics observed the the OP might have been due entirely to the difference in viscosity between the two oils. Do you think yes, or no? It was after that when I made my ignorant remark about slow motor speed.

You must realize that if you say RP oils are superior to Redline for use in a typical TT, then at least several of us are going to run out and buy RP motor oil. I've got the Redline 20W in my Kenwood L07D. By the way, I'm not interested that much in "stop times". I don't know what it means for a tt platter. A very low viscosity lubricant (I can imagine) might allow for long stop times (at first) while also doing damage to the bearing in the process.

The funny or sad fact is that the mat has a large effect on sonics,…. after all the money is spent on the tt, tonearm, and cartridge. It's the salt and pepper of vinyl.

Dear Doron, BA mats, brittle sounding or not, are not made of carbon fiber; they are made of graphite. (But I submit this with some trepidation, knowing now that you are an expert on materials science.) On two very different turntables (Lenco and SP10Mk3), I find them to be relatively neutral. On my Kenwood L07D, I find no reason to deviate from the OEM stainless steel "platter sheet", but if you asked me how I feel about metal mats in general, I would say that the BA graphite mat2 beat out the SAEC SS300 metal mat on my Mk3. Go figure.

Dave, How much does the Resomat weigh, in comparison to the stainless steel platter sheet on the L07D? One of my reasons for not experimenting with the L07D, besides the fact that I adore its sound already, is the fact that the mass of the platter sheet is figured into its servo design. If I were to sub out the platter sheet, I'd look for something of very similar mass.

Fleib, I have seen a lot of GT2000s, both in person whilst in various Tokyo audio emporia and on the internet. The ones I have seen all seem to have a relatively "thick" platter, due to peripheral rim thickness more than anything else, but I don't know whether I am looking at the 5.8kg standard or the 18kg optional. Did you find a photo of the latter? That's a huge difference in platter mass for use on the very same motor with the same servo feedback mechanism, unless the motor/servo is switchable so as to accommodate the heavy platter. As Dave mentioned, the L07D power supply does have such a switchable mechanism, to be used when one is using their dedicated record weight and peripheral ring (and in Dave's case, he uses it with his complex platter "sandwich").

WRT your discussion with Halcro re the LP/platter interface, I would say you're both correct. The nature of the interface is "understood", but there is no agreement how best to deal with it in order to achieve max fidelity of sound reproduction.

My impression from touring Tokyo audio salons is that the GT2000 is much more commonly seen for sale these days than are some of the other TOTL vintage direct-drive turntables. This can only mean that many more of them were sold vs for example the SP10 Mk3 or the Exclusive P3/P3a. However, I have seen a GT2000X only in those photos on Vintage Knob, never saw one in "real life". Thus I missed the point that the GT2000X has the heavy platter; I thought it was distinguished only by its more massive plinth. All of that said, I have never heard either Yamaha. One criticism I read was of the tonearm. It is apparently made at least in part of plastic, probably some high-tech plastic but plastic, nevertheless. There was an article detailing the fact that those tonearms can develop stress fractures (maybe on Vintage Knob???). I don't know if this applies to all tonearms supplied with the GT2000 and GT2000X or only a particular one.

Does anyone here own a GT2000/X? How about a Luxman or Onkyo TOTL direct-drive? Those last two seem really rare to find these days.

Thanks, Sampsa. Have you compared your GT2000 to any other vintage DD turntables? Have you ever seen either the 18kg platter (hard to believe) or a GT2000X?

I concur. First job of a mat is to be flat. Of course, the platter supporting it has to be perfectly flat too.

Henry, Your point is well taken in general, but in this case I believe Fleib wrote only a few posts above your last one that he did purchase a leather mat and did try it, albeit his was made of deer hyde.

Fleib, What I wonder about is whether the stainless steel platter sheet of the L07D becomes a negative, when the LP is pressed firmly against it, since by all rights you'd think that immobilizing the LP with a ring and a weight should be a good thing to do. I probably should play with other platter surfaces, but the L07D design does not make that so easy to do. However, I can try the ring plus the Sota clamp.

On another note, I just had my SP10 Mk3 updated a la Krebs. The preliminary results are surprising, in that I really did not think much could be done to make the Mk3 sound any more lively and coherent than it does/did prior to the upgrade. Now I may be a convert. More anon, when I have had more time to listen.

Fleib, I own a SOTA reflex clamp. On my SP10 Mk3/Boston Audio Mat2, I just sit it on top of the label, and I do not activate the clamp. I figure it weighs about 200g, give or take, and that is "enough". For my L07D, I own the OEM peripheral ring and the center record weight (which is quite heavy). When I listened with both devices in place, the veritable life seemed to have been squeezed out of the music, like toothpaste out of a tube. After more experimentation, I use nothing at all on my L07D, no clamp, no weight, no ring. Love it to death. There are no rules for this I guess; it's very subjective.

Pryso, No, the Krebs mod has to do with motor and PS. You are free to choose your own mat. Richard is around here somewhere; perhaps he can weigh in on the mat question.

Fleib, I really have to say that I am so content with the L07D "as is", that I don't worry about ring vs no ring or how heavy is the record clamp. I am either getting old or lazy or both. However, I have all the doodads here, should I be moved to try the ring and heavy center weight again. I should think that a vacuum mat where the surface is metallic would be a very tricky proposition, since it would be difficult, maybe impossible, to achieve a good seal between vinyl and metal. Thus there would be a constant low grade "leak" of air and possibly not only no vacuum effect but noise added as well.

SP10 Mk3 a la Krebs is getting better from the very good baseline.

If you are soliciting opinions from anyone with an opinion, then here is mine. It is a great idea to have a massive arm pod, and Henry has done a fine job design ing and constructing his. I could never do as well. However, the arm pod should be firmly physically attached to the same structure that supports the turntable bearing, so that the two are as close to being one as is possible. The arm pod should not stand alone.

Take a look at the arm mount and the underside of a Kenwood L07D, if you want to get an idea of how this can be done.

Sorry, Fleib. After reading some of your most recent posts, I see that we are not that far apart in our thinking. Just a little bit apart.

I wonder where is Halcro to argue the other side?

Moonglum, No, I have not tried it, yet.
Halcro et al, I only re-stated the case for a rigid connection between tonearm and bearing for the benefit of anyone who is reading this thread for the first time. Such an individual (Thuchan in this case) ought to hear both sides of the question before deciding which direction to choose. Like Henry, I am past trying to convince anyone else who has already made up his mind. But Henry, with all due affection and respect, your analysis of the L07D is ludicrous, certainly compared to the risk for drift of alignment of a fully outboard arm pod. The L07D is a system, using several different metals (stainless steel, alu, brass) with different temperature coefficients of expansion, closely coupled with substantial fasteners and massive. The temperature of a typical listening room varies by a couple of degrees during the course of time. Of course, if you leave your tt in the freezer on off days or cryo-treat the entire unit, you may want to do a re-alignment.

Henry, Come back to me with actual numbers to describe the possible change in mounting distance, given what you perceive to be the problem. My listening room varies in ambient temp by about 4 F degrees, from 68 to 72. According to my calculation, the fractional expansion of an alu bar (which this is not) would be .000052 (4 times 13*10^6, using the inches/F coefficient) over this 4 degree F span of temperatures. Further, the aluminum yoke embraces a stainless steel and brass pod (yes, a heavy and damped pod like yours, except it does not touch the shelf) that in turn embraces the vertical shaft of the tonearm in a clamping collet (not with a flimsy set screw). The alu is constrained from expanding and contracting by the bond between it and that pod plus the fact that it is also surrounded by the concrete-like material that constitutes the plinth itself. In other words, your critique of the L07D is off the mark, at best, and a sidebar to the central question. But let's stop here; I am OK with your belief structure; it has no effect on me whatever, and I am sure your music sounds just fine. This is all about splitting hairs anyway.

Dear Thuchan, I may be wrong in my assessment of the top line MS tonearm mounts; I have only ever seen them in photos. Possibly they are more rigid than they appear to be. If so, my apologies.

Henry, Just for the record, I stated long ago that while I would agree with the hypothetical aspects of Richard's analysis, I do not and did not think your pods were in fact being moved by stylus drag, but like you say, it is a question open to experimentation.

I performed the analysis of thermal expansion using F degrees and inches. (By the way, I left out a minus sign on the exponent; the coefficient is 1.3 X 10^-6.) By this analysis, an alu bar that is 9 inches long at 68 degrees F (roughly the pivot to spindle distance of an L07D) would expand to 9.000468 inches at 72 degrees F. The expansion of .000468 inches is equal to .0119 mm. This is less than insignificant, even if the construction of the L07D were to be of pure alu, which is not the case (see above). So let's put that to rest, just as I am willing to put to rest the idea that your pod moves strictly due to stylus drag.

Fleib, Try to see the point that if the tonearm and platter move at different times due to differences in resonance or susceptibility to spurious energy sources, then those movements are added to distortions produced by spurious movement of the stylus. Whereas, if the tonearm and platter are well coupled and must move together, then such external sources of energy are cancelled, in effect. For this reason also, we are told to wear seatbelts. I once saw a short movie in which a porcelain cup was put into a small barrel. Then the barrel was thrown down a set of stairs. Of course, the cup inside the barrel was shattered. Then the experimenter strapped the cup firmly to the side of the barrel and repeated the experiment. This time, the cup emerged intact. Keeping the tonearm and platter in consonance has the same beneficial effect. You may disagree, but that is the basis for my thinking, not to mention the thinking of 9 out of 10 designers of commercial turntables.

Hiho, Without a doubt, tt's with outboard arm pods can sound great. Especially if the arm pod is very massive, like Henry's appear to be. We're just arguing hypotheticals. But the nice thing about "hypotheses" is that if you go by a valid one, then getting to a good endpoint is that much easier.

I agree with Halcro. This latest discussion belongs on the Copernicus thread. Why Halcro's favored topology, which is not at all original to Halcro, has anything to do with Copernicus, I have never understood, but that's ok. It's catchy.

Go forth and build your pods.

Thanks for changing the subject from vituperation and the definition of an I-beam to mats, a subject we can all sink our teeth into, or not. Mats are crucial in determining the sonic character of a turntable, all other things being equal. Thus inevitably one's choice will be to some degree a matter of taste. After mucking about with several different types, I have settled contentedly on the Boston Audio Mats 1 and 2. They are as good as or better than everything else I tried, but I do not kid myself that there could be nothing better out there that I have not tried. On the L07D, I stick with their stainless steel platter sheet, although I am otherwise convinced that the BA Mat 2 sounds a bit better than an SAEC SS300 (another metal mat), on my SP10 Mk3.

Dover, I totally agree that it is wise to use a mat that approximates the weight of the OEM mat on a DD turntable with servo control. I have preached that gospel for years, but lots of folks ignore the principle and claim to be getting away with it. This is one reason why I stick to the OEM platter sheet on my L07D. That and the fact that the L07D sounds so terrific. I do suppose that there is a copper mat out there that would approximate the weight of the platter sheet (5 lbs, I think). Why do you suppose that copper might sound significantly different from, not to say better than, stainless steel? It's also the case that the L07D servo was deliberately designed to exert a much looser control on the speed than does the Technics servo, for one example. I think it only activates when there is +/-3% speed error.

Yep......

What are the measurable physical properties of lead that could support the contention that it is superior for a platter or whatever other use in audio, including making capacitors? Furthermore, what is one looking for in such properties? This consideration will only engender another bunch of subjective opinions; I am not saying lead is right or wrong. Nor am I saying that I prefer any other material to lead. But our arguments are circular, always leading back to the fact that we are trying to connect our subjective opinions to physical facts, and the physical facts can be used to support one's argument in almost any way one wants to use them. What is missing is an objective way of assessing platter performance that is truly meaningful, and then the capacity to vary the properties of the platter to see how they affect that objective parameter of excellence. Ain't gonna happen. Call me a nihilist.

It occurred to me that the Walker Audio Proscenium famously employs a huge lead platter, nothing but lead. No CLD or anything. In keeping with my previous post, I must maintain my nihilistic position whilst making any point, but I could say that to my ears the Walker does not commit the sins that Geoffkait has assigned to lead per se. Does anyone think so? Most think it's one of the best sounding tt's ever made, in fact. (I don't own one.) This does not necessarily prove Geoff is wrong or that lead is a panacea, either.

Dover, I've got a fully refurbished L07D sitting right next to a Krebs-modified SP10 Mk3 which I bought NOS (before replacing all electrolytics and having Bill Thalmann perform the Krebs mod). These are easily the two best turntables I have ever heard in my system, yet they sound very subtly different. Before the Krebs mod was performed on the Mk3, I would say the difference between the two was greater than it is now, in favor of the L07D. But of course, there are more differences between the two than those having to do with the drive system: The tonearms, tonearm wire, and phono cartridges are all different as well. They both feed into the same Atma-sphere MP1 phono stage. But it's fair to say that prior to the Krebs mods, I tended to favor the L07D (with an EMI/RFI shield installed between motor and underside of platter). The Krebs mod keeps the virtues and advantages of the Mk3, absolute firm sense of pace, while ameliorating the rather "clinical" nature of its sound, as compared to the L07D, which might in fact err on the side of romantic but intensely "musical". (I distrust that word, too.) These days, I could live with either, happily, but might now give the edge to Mk3. The Krebs mod is transformative.

Richard, I had reason recently to disassemble my L07D motor and then put it back together as well. I do not recall seeing any rubber grommets. What I did see were some nylon grommets and some brass grommets, neither of which afford much elasticity. Is it possible that the motor you looked into had been "messed with" by someone, some time in its past? If you look at the service manual, and if you consult Howard Stearn, the L07D guru who lives in Virginia, you would get confirmation that the grommets should be nylon or brass. Howard talked me through the rebuild process. My memory may be playing tricks on me re the rubber grommets, but I believe this is the case.

Fleib, For all I know, Pierre Lurne' is a genius when it comes to platter design, but I am no fan of any of the turntables with which he was associated. The ones I've heard (Audiomeca, Goldumund Studio, etc) all "suffer" I think both from speed irregularity and an overly spring-y suspension. They are kind of a yin to the yang of direct-drive turntables.

Downunder, As the Krebs mod breaks in, the Mk3 pulls slightly ahead of the L07D. By the way, my L07D has never been a problem as far as getting it up and running. My lamenting has been in relation to the TT101. I've had two L07Ds and no problems with either one.

Fleib, My gross impression of the Audiomeca that I heard on many separate occasions was that it suffered from what I now think of as an ill of belt-drive, maybe a stretchy belt or maybe its bouncy suspension. Some in those days used a compliant belt and mounted the motor on the stationary chassis whilst the platter was suspended, a great set up for speed variation as the platter suspension responded to the environment. However, this may be unfair criticism, since I do not know how the motor was mounted in the Audiomeca. Anyway, the sound was "woolly", for want of a better word.

Dover, My Mk3 is mounted in a ~100-lb slate and cherry wood plinth, and I have implemented a massive bearing damper much like that used by Albert Porter in his Panzerholz plinths. Of course, the L07D plinth I've left alone, apart from updates to the feet.

Chak, can you post some photos? I yield to Raul’s description because I know he’s seen, tried out, or owned most everything, but the notion of drilling an LP as he described it seems dubious at best. On the other hand, my sample of the SS 300 has the tiny hole described by both you and Raul, and I don’t see how it could be used to fasten the mat to the spindle or the platter. Thanks if you can manage it.

By the way, if one were paranoid about the platter mat slipping on the platter, very thin double-sided tape would forever take care of that problem. As to the issue of an LP sliding on the surface of the SS 300, I find that doubtful. There is some frictional connection between the LP and the platter mat. Besides, I use a record weight or a clamp.

Then state your source. I have no idea whether you’re right or wrong. And I never said or suggested you made it up. I’ve searched the internet and can’t find an ss300 owner manual, even in Japanese. I’m just curious; that’s my nature.

Raul, what are you talking about? I have the ss300 you sold me. Can you provide some factory published information to support the idea that SAEC recommended drilling LPs? If you can, that would remove all doubt. If you can’t then maybe you can say where and how you got the idea. There’s nothing personal in this discussion so calm down. You have no reason to react so angrily.

I then no what we have here is another failure to communicate.

Auto correct got me in that last post. I meant to say, “I THINK what we have here is a failure to communicate.”
The quote is from the movie  “cool hand Luke”, for those of us who are old enough to remember it.

Possible "scoop" on the new Technics: From the drawings, it appears to have a coreless motor, a la my lovely L07D and the cantankerous TT101. That would be great. Furthermore, the magnets appear to be attached to the underside of the platter at its outermost perimeter, with the coils in fixed position beneath them, which would tend to benefit torque. One can only hope the thing will not cost $50,000.

Forgot to ask: I have reached the end of my rope with the TT101. In my efforts to fix it, I have achieved one thing; the fault is now constant, not intermittent. The good news is that this may make it easier for a really good tech to diagnose the problem, which I think is related to malfunction of one of the two opposing servo mechanisms. So, the question is, has anyone identified a tech who is well versed in these particular issues?