With all due respect to Mr Thalmann, he did not repair my TT101, perhaps because my TT101 always worked properly when it was at Bill's shop in Virginia. That is to be expected when something is "intermittent".
JP fixed my TT101, and it still is working perfectly to this day. Do what JP says. |
And don't lose any of those five copper washers shown in the photo. Also, when you put the motor back together, make sure you put the washers back exactly where you found them, as they effect critical spacing between rotor and stator inside the motor. |
I am going to guess that you replaced the wire that was broken with that thin gauge green insulated wire, seen in the last photo at about 7 o'clock on the face of the PCB.
|
Your Sony is probably still working because it has had one owner since new, who used it regularly, which is good for the longevity of the electrolytic capacitors inside. But they won't last forever.
i hope your glee to read of other people's problems is a put on for fun. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that score.
|
No apology needed.
i advise you to replace all electrolytic capacitors now, before any problems associated with their failure occurs. It's cheap to do even if you have to pay someone else to do it. That plus maybe a relube of the bearing should get you another 30 years. |
Ok, boys.
i really couldn't care less what anyone else does. My advice is sincerely offered, and that's all it is... advice. A more conservative approach with which I would also agree is to inspect all the existing electrolytics for swelling or leakage of fluids, and then to replace only those that exhibit such signs.
Obviously , any work done by an incompetent person could create problems, rather than fix or prevent them. That's always a caveat.
Anecdotal reports that this or that DD has run apparently well for decades with no servicing prove nothing. It's a fact that electrolytic capacitors have a finite life span, like it or not. I do agree as I wrote above that regular use and controlled temp and humidity could greatly prolong trouble free service. Do you still have a problem?
|
By the way also, unless one has owned the DD from new, one cannot be certain that the electrolytics in the circuit were not already replaced by a previous owner, thus making it seem as if the turntable is defying laws of nature. That's one more reason why anecdotal reports should be taken with a grain of salt, albeit the Sony in question apparently is in the possession of its original owner. Cool.
|
I think the point of this thread, most of all, is that we don't have to give up on our vintage DD turntables purely for reasons of their having aged into obsolescence and unrepairability. In general, they can be brought up to date functionally, and they can be repaired if malfunctioning. In other words, we are not living dangerously. Prudently, maybe, but not dangerously. |
Those of you who live in Europe might consult "Thuchan", who posts here from time to time. He evidently found a genius somewhere near where he lives (Bavaria?) who has a comprehensive understanding of this circuit and was able to repair Thuchan's TT101. Thuchan's real name is Eckard; I have no idea where he got the moniker he uses. He is a very nice guy. I sold him a chip to help in the repair of his TT101.
If your TT101 needs a push start or a touch of the platter, it most likely is NOT running optimally, even if the tachometer reads out correctly. Sounds to me like it might at least need to be calibrated, because the symptom suggests that torque is suffering. This is JP's lament; most of us do not know the true potential of these DD turntables, because most un-serviced tables are out of calibration after 40 or more years.
Best-groove, I got in trouble with Raul and Downunder for harping on the need to replace electrolytic capacitors, but in your case I would ask the repair guy why or how he has ruled out a leaky capacitor as the cause of or a factor in the repair of your unit. After all those hours of effort, it would take only one or two more hours to just do it. Other known issues: (1) micro-fracture cracks in the PCB that can cause short circuits if they cross traces in the PCB. (That was the problem in my unit, which you say had problems similar to yours.) You almost need a magnifying glass to see these defects. Your tech needs to know where to look for these, based on the nature of your problem. (2) the PCB itself absorbs moisture in a humid environment which can cause malfunction. I got these tips from JP, after he worked on mine.
|
Raul, I disagree with you on the relative merits of the TT101, once it is working up to maximum level. I place it slightly above the SP10 Mk2 and the Denon DP80 (where I prefer the DP80 to the Mk2). I haven't compared my TT101 "head to head" with my L07D or my SP10 Mk3 (the TT101 is in my Beveridge system; the other two are in my Sound Labs system), but I would assume it would be a notch below both. But this is not a point worth arguing about. Keep in mind that the new SP10R or the 1000R are not exactly low cost machines. Even an Exclusive P3 can be had for far less money. |
I agree with Raul that a coreless motor, executed to the level of excellence of the iron core motor in the Mk3, would in theory be superior for the job of driving a platter. However, Raul's additional contention that the Mk3 platter, all 21 lbs of it, is subject to "ringing", is absurd on its face. It weighs 21 lbs! It is made of stainless, brass, and iron all bonded together powerfully and therefore benefits from CLD. Any solid object will resonate at some frequency or other if hit with a mallet, but the notion that the Mk3 platter, among all turntable platters in the world, is particularly subject to ringing is.... (I guess I already said... absurd.)
Time, and some intrepid pioneer who listens to both turntables side by side, will eventually tell us if the SP10R really has a leg up on the SP10 Mk3. My guess is that the Mk3 is already operating at such a high level (in the DD pantheon) that discerning whether the 10R is really superior is going to be like arguing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. (Siri knows this, if you've ever asked her.) |
Dear Raul, If I did write that I prefer the DP80 over the TT101, it was a typographical error. Because the opposite is true, although I do like and admire the DP80 very much. (I did and do say that the DP80 is less colored than the two SP10 Mk2's that I have owned.) I think if you'll re-read my post, you'll find you misinterpreted my words; I prefer the TT101 to the DP80 by a smidgeon. This means very little to anyone else. It's only my personal opinion. I will say also that the TT101 plinth should be discarded in favor of a more modern and higher mass design, IMO. That makes a lot of difference to the performance in my experience. Halcro and Thuchan (and also I) have done this.
I think you were quoting me, when you wrote, "those 21 lbs and the build materials and as you said does not impedes resonances". But I think you got me wrong, again. I wrote that the material composition of the Mk3 platter makes it rather more immune than most to resonating at a single frequency, because of the CLD construction. I then went on to concede that anything will resonate if you whack it hard enough, which IMO is an irrelevant way to test platters. But the MK3 platter would tend to resonate in a broad band of low amplitude, again because of its composite construction. The bottom line is that compared to most other platters, the Mk3 platter is more dead. I can only hope that the SP10R platter is as dead. It's lighter in weight, according to specs I read. Don't get me wrong, however, I would love to own a 10R some day.
The MS platter may or may not be resonant, but those heavy platters are made of a single metal, which may make a difference.
|
When I purchased my DP80, it was not running correctly. It did "run" but there was a problem; at this point in time I've forgotten what it was. It's a 100VAC model, and the seller told me he ran it with 120VAC. No wonder it was problematic.
I gave it to Bill Thalmann. Bill replaced all the electrolytic capacitors and replaced many of the discrete transistors for modern ones that according to Bill perform better and are more reliable. I also obtained a new chip from a vendor in Hong Kong. This single chip is essential to normal operation of most of the high end Denons, and Bill installed the new one in mine, mainly because that was found to be the source of the original problem. Bill also calibrated the unit, and I have had zero problems with it since then. (I will say this: In my experience, the DP80 after Bill worked on mine is more reliable than the TT101, but this is comparing only one sample of each. Hardly worth drawing any conclusion from that.)
The difference between 1981 and 2018 is going to be mostly in the fact that these days we have faster and more complex ICs. I am not sure that that is an important advantage for modern DD turntables vs vintage ones, because the operation of the servo governing both is not "rocket science". In fact, there may be some advantage to slower reacting corrections coming from the servo. (That's a subject for another thread, I guess.) The L07D, for example, deliberately relies more on platter inertia than on rapid, frequent servo corrections to maintain constant speed. In this way, the design contrasts with Technics. I can't prove it, but I have often wondered whether the seductive "liquidity" of the sound from the L07D has something to do with this aspect of its design. (My latest experiments with the L07D also suggest that one MUST add EMI shielding under the platter in order to get the most out of it. Without added shielding, there's a faint "gray"-ish coloration that causes the sound to hang on the speakers and reduces the dynamics.) On the opposite side of the ledger, modern corporations tend to be run by accountants who are all about reducing costs.
Also, from what I read when it was introduced, the Grand Prix Monaco has space age speed correction, possibly faster than any other design. Is anyone in love with the GP Monaco?
Also, don't you think we can dismiss the Stereophile ratings of anything? It's just commercial crap. We know that many great pieces of gear never see the light of day on that listing. |
I don’t want to touch the argument about vintage vs new production DD Technics with a 10-foot pole. Nor do I even want to argue about which vintage DD turntable sounds best; all the best ones have avid supporters.
But, Raul, I wrote that my DP80, like I guess all DP80s, was made to run on 100VAC. The seller (person who sold it to me) told me he had been running it at 120VAC. In other words, he ignored the labeling on the side of the chassis. (He was in California, where some rules of nature can be broken.) He even said it was running OK on 120VAC, but it was not. There was no evidence that the power supply had been deliberately modified in any way to work at 120VAC, although that might be possible to do. In fact, I always suspected that the malfunctioning of the control IC was caused by his subjecting the turntable to excess AC voltage. So, there was nothing out of the ordinary about my DP80. I bought step-down transformers on eBay, one each for the L07D and the DP80. Oddly enough, my TT101 does have the capacity to take 120V, 100V, and maybe even 240V, by setting the primary of the power transformer. Someone else told me that there were a batch of 120V TT101s made to be sold at US military PXs in Japan, and mine might be one of those. |
The TT801, so far as I can tell, is nothing but a TT101 with vacuum platter. This required a large wooden box to house the pump and added a lot of tubes and channels inside the chassis that could cause problems. The motor and the electronics seem to be identical between the 101 and 801. Vacuum platter is not my cup of tea anyway (because of the potential to add noise), but if you like it, you can add the Audio Technica platter mat with built in vacuum to a TT101 or most any other turntable; you don't need the 801 to get there. Yet the TT801 seems to command big bucks in the marketplace, maybe as a collectible. Otherwise, I don't know why. |
I think we've had this discussion of switching PSs before on this thread, but maybe not. Anyway, at that time I also pointed out that David Berning, the designer of Berning amplification products, has been using switching power supplies at least in his (tube) amplifiers for many years, certainly more than a decade. Meantime, his products are much admired and not inexpensive. So far as I know, no reviewer or end user has ever complained about switching noise or anything of that sort. I have used (briefly) two of his ZH270 amplifiers in mono configuration to drive my Sound Lab speakers and detected no problem related to PSs. Keep in mind that DB is a brilliant fellow and an innovative engineer; not all switching power supplies are created equal. So-called linear power supplies can also be crappy if badly implemented. |
So surprised to learn here that you love SME turntables, Invictus. Not. Will the SME 20 also take out my appendix? Can I go to it for advice on investments? Does it do dishes? I figured your posting here on a belt-drive turntable must be your idea of a joke, so I hope you can take a joke, too. |
I’m still chewing on the idea that the automobile did not eliminate the horse industry. I say “chewing”, because during my recent visit to Tokyo, I noticed that horse meat was on the menu In at least one restaurant. Let’s be honest, the automobile certainly did displace the horse as a major mode of transportation.
Halcro would be in the best position to answer the question about the TT 81 versus the TT 101. Every time I read about it, the newest info changes whatever was my preconceived notion. I think the motors may be the same per se, but the electronics are different. Or vice versa.
Shane, all I care is about it is even if my LP collection is worth zero, my family will get by financially without me.
|
My advice would be to wait for one of the other guys to answer your question with some degree of certainty. Are you saying that you may replace the motor of a TT 101 with that from a TT81? Or what is it that you want to be “compatible”? |
Halcro, As I recall there were back and forth arguments as to whether the TT81, like the TT101, had a coreless motor. I thought that question was finally answered in the affirmative. If so, are you saying that the coreless motor in the TT81 is not identical to the one used in the TT101? Because, if the motors are idenical, I would guess that it is the electronics that differentiate the two, most of all, and it is not inconceivable that a motor from a TT81 could be incorporated into a TT101, resulting in a feaux TT101. Which I think is the question here. |
bestie, I think Halcro's response means you should not attempt a transplant. It would be like putting a pig heart (or an "Abbie Normal" brain*) into a human, a willing substitute but not up to the job.
(*See the movie, "Young Frankenstein".) |
I neglected to note that the monster got the girl in "Young Frankenstein", not because of his superior intellect, if you know what I mean. Dr. Frankenstein did OK, too, with his nurse assistant. |
For those of us who are not Dual cognoscenti, what is a Dual 701? I guess we should assume it's DD. Dual pioneered the coreless motor. In fact, most coreless TT motors in use even up to today (Brinkmann) are naught but developments on the Dual motor. Does the 701 contain such a coreless motor? |
Pablo, You wrote, "I would say it hasn’t been turned on in the last 15 years." There's one clue to a possible problem. The electrolytic capacitors do not like to get old, but more than that they do not like to sit on a shelf with no voltage across them for 15 years. At the very least, you should have brought up the voltage on your motor gradually, using a Variac. This can allow the electrolytics to re-form and possibly save the bacon. At this point, I doubt that a Variac would help, because the damage may already have been done. I would suggest you unplug it and then have a pro replace all the electrolytics, just to begin with. Other guys here do not like me to preach this particular gospel (replace old 'lytics with new after acquiring an aged DD turntable), but even most of them would have to agree that this should be done in your case where you know the history of disuse, before you blow up more unobtainable parts. The 'lytics are dirt cheap. The integrated circuits needed to make the tt run correctly are very difficult to source, if not impossible. |
Look near the AC cord outlet to find the recommended AC voltage. |
Of course you can check each electrolytic for its integrity, before replacing it, and thereby save some cost and bother. But also you need not replace film capacitors. As a rule, they last virtually forever, if the unit has been stored at a reasonable temperature and humidity. If you read elsewhere in this thread, you will see other problems that commonly arise especially with the solder joints and especially with the printed circuit boards used in the TT 101 which are known to be hygroscopic. And to be fragile.
But if you first replace the major electrolytic’s and see what you’ve got, then you can assess what other problems may apply. Also in my first post I neglected a very important point. Most TT101s were built for 100VAC. If you plugged yours into 120VAC that too might cause the failure mode you observed. You’ll need a step down transformer before you go further, if you haven’t already got one.
|
Under the platter, you will find a rocker switch labeled “run” or “hold”. In the run mode the tachometer will display the RPM from zero to the set value. For example if you are set to 33.33, then the tachometer will read from 0 to 33.33 over and over again. This can be very distracting. Maybe that’s what you are looking at. Check that switch under the platter. Set it to hold and you will see a static display of the RPM. At least you should see that. If you see anything else, that is an indicator of a problem. Also, I would point out, with all due respect, that cleaning the contacts is not tantamount to changing all the electrolytic capacitors. Without meaning to sound dour, the more you power up the unit without having identified the problem, the greater is the possibility that one of the hard to find ICs is suffering a fatal calamity. |
Feet are like religion; everyone has his favorite. I'm not a particular fan of the AT616, but is 250GBP similar to the cost of a component for any of us crazies? I would have thought not.
|
Pablo, I don't know where you "heard" that calibration of a QL-10 would necessarily cost $1000. I believe that some time ago on this thread, JP Jones remarked that he could not hope to repair a malfunctioning unit for less than $1000. That's a far cry from saying that it takes a kilobuck just to do calibration. If the unit is functioning properly, a knowledgeable person, e.g., JP, could probably do the calibration for much less cost. When the TT-101 is "broken", it is a real can of worms, which made JP's off the cuff estimate of $1000 seem fairly reasonable. JP can comment if I am way off base, or not. |
Platter continuing to rotate after you press the stop button is associated with calibration. A well calibrated turntable should stop pretty much dead when you press the stop button. But my TT101, which was calibrated by JP and works wonderfully, also moves an inch or two more after I press the stop button with an LP on the platter and a heavier than normal turntable mat (SAEC SS300) . I decided not to worry about this, because of the extra mass. If JP is anywhere around, perhaps he will comment.
|
In my opinion the armboard on the factory Plinth is a weak link. It’s made of MDF; I never heard an MDF part that didn’t seem to add coloration. I replaced mine with solid aluminum, custom made. Furthermore I reinforced the arm board from below by bolting it to another large piece of aluminum under the plinth. I can’t say I did an A-B comparison, but the result seems very neutral.
|
In my research, I never came across a communication from Victor wherein they suggest that the bearing "never" would need service. This is in contrast to the Denon DP80, where Denon do warn customers to leave the bearing alone. (But I daresay they probably were not envisioning a 40+ year lifespan when that advisory was issued.) Anyway, when I had my TT101 motor apart, it was very easy to access the bearing well, and I did clean out the well and replace the lubricant with a single grade synthetic motor oil, the same brand and weight that are recommended on the L07D website for the Kenwood L07D. I kept the original bearing ball and thrust pad, as they exhibited very little sign of wear.
Chakster, Does the occasional noise that you hear seem to emanate from inside the motor? Is it periodic in nature, which is to ask does it come and go with each revolution of the platter and at a faster rate when you are in 45 rpm mode? If so, you might be hearing the rotor rubbing on either the underside of the top cover of the motor or the stator below the rotor. (I am relying on my memory of the anatomy of the motor, which may or may not be accurate, but it's the rotor doing the rubbing, I think.) There is a fine adjustment of that spacing that is achieved by use of very thin copper shims, at the factory. Under the bearing well, which you can access without taking the motor apart, you will find a slotted head cap. You might try very gently turning that threaded cap up or down, and see whether it affects the noise. That cap can be used to fine tune the spacing between the rotor and the stationary parts that reside above and below it. Slow and gentle is the word of the day.
|
Beautiful workmanship, Totem. Congratulations on your artistic taste and craftsmanship.
|
Haven't had a response from Chakster about the noise, but here are some more details about how I eliminated the faint rubbing sound I had that was due to the rotor rubbing on either the inner surface of the top cover (rotor too high) or on the stator itself (rotor too low). I first created a hole in the bottom of the chassis can, directly under the bearing housing in the dead center of the chassis can, using a hole punch designed for cutting thin metal. Then, while the motor was operating, I reached under the chassis with a thin blade slot-head screw driver and engaged that slotted, threaded cap situated at the bottom of the bearing well. Adjusting the position of that cap in it threaded mount moves the entire spindle assembly and everything attached to it, which includes the rotor, up or down. I gently and very slowly turned the screw driver, trying both directions because I did not know which way it needed to go, until I eliminated the periodic rubbing sound. Voila'.
|
By the way, absent visible damage or shape distortion, what difference does it make whether a metal platter mat is “used” or NOS? My response would be “none” or “zero”. At best, I might pay a 10% premium for NOS but for no good reason. I do agree that $300 is a fair price for a nice used sample.
|
Stuff that involves electronics or moving parts that are known to wear out is an entirely different matter from an inert platter mat. (By the way, my Mk3 was NOS when I bought it. I have the original carton, etc.) But you are entitled to think and do as you wish. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. And of course, I am only comparing flawless used mats to NOS mats. Obviously, a damaged platter mat is worth maybe nothing but certainly much less than a nice sample of a used mat or an NOS mat. If you look at my sample, hold it in your hand, you would not know whether I took it out of its original box brand new or whether it came to me "pre-owned", as used car dealers in the US are likely to say. I also own two samples of Boston Audio Mat2. I bought one brand new and the other I bought used off Audiogon or eBay, used but perfect. At this point, after many hours of use, you could not tell one from the other. And they'll be that way indefinitely, unless I mishandle one or the other.
I didn't know about that set screw, but now that I do know, I will continue to ignore it. What useful purpose would it serve to fasten the mat to the spindle? (Incidentally, if it's missing, and if one wanted to use it, set screws in all imaginable sizes are available either in a good local hardware store here where I live, or on the internet from such companies as McMaster-Carr.). Yes, it's cool to have the box, etc. That's why I concede I would pay maybe 10% extra for an NOS sample vs a perfect condition used sample. OK, maybe 20%, if a perfect used one was not available at the time I was searching for this product. I lack patience.
|
Are you sure it’s a great idea to couple the SAEC to the spindle with that set screw? Seems to me it creates a path for motor vibration to propagate into the platter where it would be efficiently spread. Not that the TT101 motor has a noticeable problem with mechanical noise.
Anyway, I bought my SS300 from Raul who then became a non-fan of it. I like it on my TT101, but I try not to be dogmatic about platter mats.
|
I should mention that I remain a fan of the Boston Audio Mat2, probably ahead of the ss300 on most turntables. Go on and dump on that one, if you like.
|
Raul, I respect your opinion but you are given to extreme views. I also factor that in. What is the composition of the SOTA mat, because I don’t recall that they ever marketed a separate mat? Their earlier turntables had a glued on felt mat which seemed good in theory, coupled with their CLD platter. But I thought it dulled the sound, perhaps partly due to the vacuum hold down system. This was on my Star Sapphire series III. |
I hardly think the SS300 is the second best mat of all time, if the SOTA mat you reference were to be the named best of all time. But you've made your own opinion clear. Like I said about my own current preference, the BA Mat2 is generally a smidgeon ahead of the SS300, but I happen to like the SS300 on the TT101, for some reason. Yet there are some who dislike the BA Mats, too. If energy dissipation is your fetish, then the BA Mats are certainly designed with that in mind.
|
Chakster, You yourself quoted the following: "By incorporating different carbon graphite material, we successfully
achieved the identical performance of Mat 2 with less thickness (4 mm)
and the reduced price."
So since the thickness of the Mat2 is no problem for me on either of two turntables where I use Mat2s, why would you say the new product is "better" than the Mat2, when even the manufacturer claims it is only "identical" in performance?
If it matters, probably Raul would object just as strenuously to the M-S mats as he does to the SAEC mat, on the grounds that all 3 are metallic. I do see his point, in principle; you don't want to reflect energy back into the LP. However, I use my ears more than my principles, and the SAEC does seem to match well with the TT101, perhaps because it adds mass to the platter, which may be more important than energy transfer or lack thereof in that particular case. Further, the SAEC does seem to be designed to delimit the spread of energy across its entire surface, for whatever that is worth.
Uber, With diligence and patience, I think you could find a used Mat1 or Mat2. But maybe it's cheaper and faster to just buy this new copy.
|
The Mat1 is thinner than the Mat2. That alone may account for any differences in performance. I own both versions, and indeed I prefer the Mat2. I don't know why it might sound a touch better to my ears except for its greater mass; thickness is not an issue for any of my tonearms or turntables. Once again, on the issue of new vs used when it comes to tt mats, so long as a used one is "like new" or in mint condition, there should be zero advantage to buying new. I purchased my Mat1 and one of my Mat2s new from Boston Audio. My second Mat2 was purchased in mint used condition. I can no longer tell them apart. I think I paid $200 for my second Mat2, off eBay. If one is fetishistic enough to require new only, so be it.
|
Yes, I think the BA website is kaput, last time I looked. They were either bought or went out of business, for some reason. One person suggested they had a lot of trouble manufacturing that mat, maybe because it may tend to be brittle and to fracture during the manufacture process.
Raul, The reason I and perhaps others settle for preferring one item vs another based on personal taste ("I like it", in other words) is because very rarely in this hobby can one draw a proven cause-effect relationship between the physical nature of the thing and the way the thing sounds. For example, you correctly note that metals resonate. (You say at audio frequencies, but I would like to see proof even of that statement. I think the resonant frequency would also depend upon mass and shape, as well as on the material.) You go on to claim that the resonant behavior at audio frequencies of a turntable mat feeds back into the stylus, which we can all agree would be undesirable. What is your proof of that? Can you cite any scientifically done studies on resonance of turntable mats to support your claim? Also, what would excite resonance in a metal mat? Only energy that is delivered by a resonating LP. But as you would also point out, energy transfer between a vinyl LP and a metal mat would be poor based on known physical laws; most resonant energy should be reflected back into the vinyl. So, if a metal mat doesn't sound good to your ears, I would prefer to blame the poor capacity of a metal mat to absorb and dissipate energy in the LP that results from the vibration of the stylus tip. That, at least, makes sense in theory that we know, but we have no data to prove that the phenomenon occurs to a significant degree. So, instead of thinking I know why this or that happens in audio, I prefer to say here that I just like one thing or another, and it's only my opinion. We're all different, and I choose not to impose my opinion on anyone else, except to make it plain what my opinion is. If you want to take up the mantle of a guru with the final say on all audio issues, have fun. Others are always going to have opinions that differ from yours. Live with it.
|
This has been discussed elsewhere, possibly earlier on this thread. The TT801 is essentially a TT101 with vacuum hold-down. To incorporate the vacuum system, it seems Victor used, or would have had to use, more ICs, to replace discrete transistors in the electronics section, than were used in the TT101, because there is much less space in the TT801 chassis for PCBs than there is in the TT101 chassis. There is a nice cutaway depiction of the TT801 on Vintage Knob that shows how much plumbing was incorporated into the TT801, even though the vacuum pump itself is housed separately. If one wanted vacuum hold down on the TT101, one might be better off to find and restore one of those vacuum mats made by AT, although I understand that restoration of those is problematic, at best.
|
Dave, I noticed that you now have an L07D. Given your capabilities and your propensity for modification, have you considered changing the tone arm wires in your LO7D? I can’t prove it, but I think they are a kludge compared to the rest of the turntable. I have made some attempts at disassembling the tonearm, in order to do it, but I am fearful of damaging something that I cannot fix. So I have backed off on the idea. One option that I have not tried is simply to run some tonearm wires of my own choosing on the outside of the arm wand across the pivot and all the way back to the preamp. That would look bad but probably work. |
Luis, As you noted, my finding of the shims under the motor was for the Victor TT101, not for the PD444. I don’t own a PD444. Did you find a similar system for mounting its motor?
As Pindac either said or implied, what you have to do most of the time in order to inspect the bearing and replace the lubricant (which is always a good idea for a turntable more than 40 years old, unless you know it has recently been serviced) is to figure out how to remove the spindle from the bearing well. (Maybe Dave or Chak can instruct you as regards the PD444.) Then you will be able to see what you have there. See if there is a lot of residue from the old original lubricant, and if there is, you can clean it out with a mild solvent; I use photographic lens paper soaked in the solvent, because that type of paper does not leave fragments of itself behind. You definitely do not want the bearing well to get contaminated with any foreign particulate material. So I don’t use a Q-tip or any conventional tissue. For lubricant, there are many opinions. The L07D group to which I belong recommends synthetic motor oil, single-weight; I think it’s 20W Redball. I now use it in all my vintage DD turntables.
|
I just did look at your photos. First of all, you have turned the chassis upside down; we are looking at the bottom of the bearing well, are we not? Typically the spindle is removed from above, by pulling it up out of the bearing well. As an aside, the wiring harness is as much of a rat's nest as what one finds inside a TT101.
|
Royal Purple Synthetic is a perfectly good alternative lubricant to the Redball. Preferably you want single weight, between 0 and 20W. I keep meaning to check my container of Redball so I can quote the weight exactly, and I keep forgetting. The PCB and wiring you see in the PD444, apparently blocking access to the spindle, of course has nothing to do with the spindle and its bearing. I failed to look at your photo but it might be a simple matter of removing a few screws that must hold the PCB in place in order to see what you need to do to remove the spindle, if you want to go in that direction. Like Dave, I am a big proponent of replacing all OEM electrolytic capacitors empirically. Some others prefer to check the OEM ones and replace only those that test poorly. This assumes you own a capacitor tester. If your unit has been sitting in storage for years, that may contribute to outstanding cosmetic appearance but it does not bode well for the condition of electrolytic capacitors. They go bad on the shelf perhaps faster than when subject to frequent use in circuit.
|
