Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?
chakster, in your 5/16 post you make reference to "armwands". However it sounds to me like you refer to armboards? To me an armwand is a single tonearm arm tube/headshell assembly, such as in the EPA-500 and other arm examples. Anyway, congrats on the P444. That was on my list when looking for a vintage DD table, but a SP-10 Mk 2 was much easier to find. |
Luxman p444 has arrived. What a great turntable! I’m looking forward to mount second tonearm. Fitting in the Schick "12 tonearm with Argent MC500HS cartridge was not so easy, it took several hrs to play with alignment template comes with Hi-Fi Test LP. I haven't used this arm for a year or so, time to replace cheap Schick RCA's to Stereovox Xsadow RCA's, maybe. The sound is amazing with Saec SS300 mat. I don’t think this deck is worst than my SP10mk2, but Technics motor is more powerful, with Luxman it takes longer time to get the right speed from the start. The rest is just fine! I’m happy i don’t have to think about the plinth anymore. It’s state of the art turntable. Maybe i will replace side pannels with a proper exotic wood, but this is just a design. It was nice to find out that Chris (Artisan Fidelity) already designed new wooden cabinet for PD444 (nice one), not sure if it’s better than Original PD444 style. |
Totem, Yes, I thought about it. But the evidence of any wear at all on the thrust pad is so minimal (a dimple <2 mm in diameter and depth), that I thought the risk associated with removing the pad from the cap and flipping it over (associated with the evident difficulty in getting it out of the cap in order to flip it; it appears to be glued in place) was not worth the reward. I inspected the ball bearing under magnification last night and I don’t see any wear at all on it. I conclude that my bearing assembly is nicely broken in as is. If I flip the thrust pad, then the ball and pad would have to re-seat up against each other, which is akin to break-in all over again. Did you remove the thrust pad in your unit? |
Last night I changed the lube to Red Line 0W20, and everything seems good, once I fine tuned the adjustment of the screw cap. In my unit, there is a range of adjustment that is less than a quarter-turn (<90 degrees) between the unacceptable conditions of the gray disc rubbing against the top cover of the motor (spindle too high) and the gray disc rubbing against the PCB (spindle too low). Since the pitch of the thread in the cap is not steep, this seems too narrow for long term comfort, but we will see what transpires with continued use. I would rather not have to mess with the screw adjustment on a frequent basis. I let everything settle overnight with platter, platter mat, and record weight in place over the spindle, before I will re-install the motor. Just in case. For what it’s worth, the platter definitely takes longer to coast to a stop with the Red Line oil in there than it did with the old factory oil. I’m not claiming that this matters at all. |
rw and totem, Last night I removed the screw cap on the bearing housing and inspected the bearing. There is a very tiny dimple, probably about 1-2 millimeter in diameter, in the center of the teflon thrust plate, representing minimal wear after 30+ years, in my opinion. The bearing itself looks OK without removing it, which I am loathe to do. I will take a look at it with a magnifier to be sure it's ok. The bearing oil looks only a little bit dirty. I wiped it out and soaked it up as much as I could with lens tissue, chosen for its lack of shredding, so it won't leave little shards of paper in the well. I will replace the original lube with either Technics oil which I ordered from KAB or Red Line 0W20 synthetic motor oil, the recommended lube for my L07D bearing. I don't see any reason to change the thrust plate or the bearing itself, pending my close-up inspection of the latter. Then I will just screw in the cap a little farther than it was, so as to raise the spindle and the gray metal disc along with it, creating separation between it and the green PCB. That's the plan. |
Totem et al, I would not be surprised if wear on the thrust plate has everything to do with my problem. Tonight I removed the motor entirely from the chassis. Then with the motor on my workbench, I was indeed able to confirm my hypothesis that pressing on the spindle while spinning it could reproduce the rubbing noise. With my stethoscope I can pretty much say for sure that the rubbing is NOT coming from the bearing per se, however. It's coming from frictional contact between a circular gray metal disc at the top of the motor structure (the first thing you see if you remove the black motor cover) and the green circular PCB that lies directly underneath the gray disc. The green PCB is fastened to a brass platform by 6 screws. I perceive that pulling up on the spindle also pulls up on the gray disc; they're attached as one piece. This creates enough space between the gray disc and the green PCB such that the noise goes away entirely. Thus, I think the "cure" for this is to gently turn the screw at the bottom of the bearing well in a clockwise direction so as to push up on the spindle, because of its contact with the thrust plate, and create enough space to cancel the rubbing. Any comments on this idea would be appreciated; I am not sure of the function of the gray disc/green PCB arrangement. However it seems they must together form some sort of sensor for speed, because the pieces are not nearly hefty enough to be the stator and rotor, which I can see reside on levels below this top tier. If they are a sensor element, then I fear the possible problem that might arise from upsetting their spatial relationship. I sent a photo to JP and Peter; I haven't the time right now to post the photo on the internet so I can cite it here. At this point, I see no absolute need to mess with the lubricant. Unless someone has an opinion to the contrary and a reason to back it up. |
try this Lew: flip the table upside down and hold it. You'll feel the motor drop down; flip it right side up. Let it settle and then run it to see if the noise persists. That has worked for me before. That screw we are referring to is actually a hollow cup into which they put some kind of plastic material. A bearing ball rests on top of the plastic. You can see a pic of the ball on my system page. I conjecture, assuming there is not something terribly wrong with your motor, that the bearing ball is not properly seated on the plastic--that's why flipping it can help. How it became that way is anyone's guess. It may have something to do with the condition of the oil supporting that bearing ball. If the well is bone dry then then your finding that greater weight on the spindle leads to more noise makes sense. For all we know, the noise might be the ball grinding away dry against its plastic seat. But get in there and see what's going on. In addition to relubing the ball (even though my platter spun smoothly, the well was more or less dry, it spins much more smoothly after a relube), you'll want to check on the condition of that plastic seat and of the bearing ball. I don't know whether anything can be done to replace the plastic (maybe Peter, with his fabrication skills, can make new ones for all of us :) ), but that bearing ball can be replaced with a SiNi one. I've done it and so has Aigenga iirc. |
Dear Peter, I suppose we should take this discussion of my problem off line, since it IS rather boring to most. However, I am grateful for your interest and your input. The screw-in plug at the base of the bearing well on my unit is very firmly locked in or glued with some off-white substance that is hard enough to resist a screwdriver. I have never touched the adjustment. Nor did JP when he worked on my turntable. It's quite possible I am looking at factory goop or their version of "loctite", applied more than 30 years ago. Further, the shims under the three screws that mount my motor in the chassis are also apparently factory original, and I have never had a problem with platter rubbing on the surround in the past. JP reports the same, based on when he had my unit at his shop. Further, further, two days ago, the rubbing noise was definitely, without a doubt, coming from within the motor assembly; I was able to reproduce it by holding the motor in one hand and hand-turning the spindle, whilst the platter sat off by itself on a shelf. Last night I shimmed the motor up further so as to eliminate any chance that the noise was due to its rubbing on the surround, even though my common sense told me that this is not the problem. The finding is that when the weight of the platter is on the spindle, the noise, although fainter than two days ago, becomes audible (last night). When I add the SAEC platter mat, the rubbing noise gets a little louder. Thus I can only think that the weights pushing down on the spindle are making the problem more audible, but the problem is probably not due to platter rubbing. Tonight I will investigate with my stethoscope to determine more accurately the source of the noise. Finally, there is some advantage to my having gone to medical school; I own a good stethoscope. |
Lewm, From your description the bearing is adjusted just a smidge too low, its sudden occurrence could stem from that the screw is not "locktited" into place once the correct setting was found - if your table is "nuded" you should be able to adjust the screw slightly with the table running to find the correct setting. Best of luck Peter |
Banquo, In addition to adjusting the screw under the bearing well in order to set platter height, one can also shim the motor up, if the platter is rubbing on the escutcheon. I found on my TT101, in the course of investigating this new noise issue, that my motor is shimmed by two very thin washers under 2 of the 3 fastening screws. Under the third screw, there are 3 such washers (or shims). I demonstrated to my own satisfaction that they are all needed to help the platter clear the escutcheon with no rubbing. On that score, I know I wrote here that the noise I am hearing cannot be due to the platter rubbing. However, tonight the problem is behaving differently from yesterday. Now I do not hear the rubbing noise unless the platter and platter mat are installed. Gets louder when the weight of the mat is added to that of the platter alone. Yet, I can run a piece of paper all around the space between the platter and the chassis, and there is no evident point where the two come in contact. Thus it seems like weight pushing down on the spindle is eliciting noise from within the motor, whether it’s running or not. I can do a lube job, but it really does not seem to need it; it spins very freely. What a revolting development!!! PS. The synthetic motor lubricant recommended for the L07D bearing is Redline single grade, 50W, not whatever I wrote earlier. |
Lewm, I've messed with that screw more than I'd care to admit. It has the effect of adjusting platter height. Too low and the platter will rub against the escutcheon and make noise. Even with the platter off, if that screw is not within some acceptable range, rotating the spindle by hand will generate some grinding/swooshing/what have you noise. Although I can't explain the sudden onset of the noise, I'm pretty sure adjusting that screw will cure it. And, yes, I've used that Redline motor oil. It's fine, but Doron who is some kind of oil expert suggested I try Royal Purple. I found the platter freedom of movement to be much greater with the latter. And I recall believing that the table was quieter. I had planned to try different viscosities... but I had a pile of Music Matters jazz releases to listen to :). |
@klinerm it has a drive that makes it eminently enjoyable, so much so that I could easily listen to it all the time. If you have any interest in the Luxman, I can't imagine being disappointed in it if it's set up properly. Thanks Richard. Yes, this is one of those decks i've been looking for a long time and finally placed an order for PD444 with 3 armwands. I've noticed those armwands alone goes for crazy prices on ebay. I hope my Reed 3P with 3 screws mounting style will fit one of the armwands. But for this arm i don't actually need any hole in armwand except for the mounting screws. I've heard that someone in Japan can make a custom armwand for luxman. Do you know anything about it? I have 2 armwands model TP-MT (3 fixing screws) and 1 armwand model TP-SG (medium size hole) I would like to find TP-LH (large hole) for Technics EPA |
I just looked at the exploded view parts diagram on p. 28 of the Service Manual. That black cover is not shown as a separate part; it's shown as part of the motor assembly, which is held in place by the 3 screws, parts #69 in the diagram. That top piece of the motor case (painted black and inscribed in white lettering with some identifiers) is not involved in creating the rubbing sound I hear. I think I am going to proceed first of all by changing the lubricant. I have a 50W Redball (I think is the brand) synthetic motor oil that is recommended lubricant for the Kenwood L07D bearing. Has anyone used that stuff in a TT101. This WILL of course require unscrewing that plug at the bottom of the motor bearing well. Any other tips are appreciated. |
Thanks, Peter. I have two questions: (1) Why would this condition have suddenly occurred. Neither I nor anyone else has done anything to that slot-head screw that resides in the bottom of the bearing well, and (2) can you amplify on what part you refer to as "the top cover"? If you are referring to the black protective cover that nests around the spindle and is held in place by 3 screws, I have taken that piece completely off, and the noise remains; in fact it's easier to hear it with the cover off. Thus I would tend to exonerate the cover. Or have I got the wrong idea about what parts you are referring to? Thanks again. |
Problem with TT101 motor noise. Dear brothers of the TT101, My unit was out of use for a few weeks, because our basement was flooded in a minor way during the last torrential rain in DC, and before that I was away at a meeting. Yesterday, I fired it up and immediately heard a periodic rubbing noise coming from the motor. My sense is that it comes from the top side, not from the bearing. It can be heard once per revolution. Today I took off the platter and loosened the motor mounts so I could pull it up and look at the mechanism from the side view without actually removing the motor from the chassis. I can see no problem, nothing visual by side view of the intact motor. Yet when I spin the motor by hand with power off, I can hear the rubbing sound coming from somewhere within the mechanism, once per revolution, audible through about 30-40 degrees of the 360 degree rotation, rather on the high pitched side as rubs go. Any ideas would be appreciated. Plus, I would like to know how to take the motor apart if necessary, so that I don't screw it up in the process. I gather from appearances that the wiring harness that goes to the motor comes entirely from beneath the escutcheon on the upper level. Thanks for help. |
Chakster, I can't answer your question directly, because I haven't heard the Technics, but I think I can contribute something meaningful. I have the little brother of the PD-444, the PD-441. I think it has the same motor as the PD-444, but holds only one tonearm, plinth correspondingly smaller. Mine is mounted with a Fidelity Research FR-64s tonearm with optional height adjuster and a Yamaha MC-1s cartridge, i.e, complete vintage 70's near state-of-the-art front end. Compared to my main rig, Acoustic Signature Final Tool, Kuzma 4-point, ZYX Universe, the Luxman is a little noisier, a little less resolving, bass not as good, but it has a drive that makes it eminently enjoyable, so much so that I could easily listen to it all the time. If you have any interest in the Luxman, I can't imagine being disappointed in it if it's set up properly. FWIW. Richard |
Anyone use LUXMAN PD444 vintage direct drive turntable ??? How would you rate them against Technics Sp10mk2, those LUX decks goes for 2 grands sometimes. At least there is no need to change the plinth already made for two tonearms. Luxman pd-444 looks so nice that it's hard to resist. More info: HERE "Center of the spinning is the Load-Free Spindlestructure : by opposing two magnets inside the motor structure, the actual load applied to the bearing is lifted to a fifth of its normal value. The motor's name is MDS152C. Magnets aren't added but the motor itself is structured so as to do the above - no leaks or perturbations of the necessary magnetic flux. The platter is however maintained at large and heavy specifications to deal with 5Hz...10Hzfaster load variations.This system allows lightweight yet fully and inherently regulated moving parts. The chassis and feet mix materials to do away with resonances : two slabs of 3,2mm iron plates sandwiching a high-density chipboard for the base, neoprene rubber, springs, silicon grease,felt and iron rings for the high feet which are 10mm height-adjustable." |
To "pbnaudio": Hi Peter, I received the CU-180 clone platter mat. It fits the SP-10 MK2 platter and damps ringing very, very well. I'm keeping my TTWeights carbon fiber/kevlar/cork mat atop it, as both mats are not too thick (6mm together) and sound a bit better than either alone. What I notice most is how resolving and textured the music is at modest volume. I've not turned it into a MK3 platter, but I am most happy with the result. Thanks again for posting the link a few weeks back! |
frankmarsi, we may be similar in age, although I expect I have a couple of years on you. But like Lew, I was left wondering about the purpose of your post. In fact I suspect these audio sites are the playground for far more folks in the second halves of their lives than for younger ones. For interest in "antique" systems you might like to visit the Vintage section at Audio Asylum. For myself I built Dynakits for ST-70, PAS-3 and FM-3 in 1966 as part of my first stereo. That included a Dual 1009. Today there are still those who admire that Dual but I can't say I'd ever seek one out again. Still, I just ordered new tweeters to upgrade a mint pair of Dyna A-25s I intend to set up in the den/office after I move. I'm also looking at current upgraded versions of the ST-70 to drive them. So again like Lew, there are many who have not forgotten the merits of quality older components. Oh yes, I'm also awaiting a Dual 1229 from a friend who bought it new but no longer uses it to install in that den system. I'll reserve my Technics SP-10 Mk 2A for my main system. |
I got riled up because I could perceive no "opinion" in the context of our first post. In fact, I could perceive no point of view at all except to point out the fact that Quartz is an organic material. Anyway, I do apologize for my tone. I may have been too paranoid. My father put together a nice monaural system for my mom, in the early 1950s, even though he had no particular interest in either music or audio electronics; she was an opera and classical music lover, however. I grew up surrounded by her music and her singing; she was also an accomplished opera singer. He built a cabinet for what must have been an Altec Lansing 604, and he bought a Harman Kardon Festival mono receiver. There was a Garrard record changer as a signal source. By the 1960s, I was a jazz buff listening in college to whatever I could afford. "Antique" systems are welcome here, as far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for most others. I've got a system based on Beveridge direct-drive electrostatics; Beveridge the company went out of business in 1982 or thereabouts. It is fronted by a Quicksilver preamplifier that dates to the mid-1980s, and the phono source is either a Lenco idler-drive or a Victor TT101, both of which are early 1980s or earlier in the case of the Lenco. The biggest, maybe the only, improvements in audio equipment since the 1980s, IMO, has to do with solid state gear, and only because of better transistors and ICs now available compared to "then". CDPs are a whole lot better now than were the earliest products, IMO. Certainly, speaker design may be said to have gone down hill in many respects, even though the technology for making drivers has made advances in terms of computer-aided design (CAD) and 3D shaping. Yet, I don't hear any miraculous new speakers these days, when I go to shows. |
Dear lewm, a possible point is that you, perhaps one of the wisest and more experienced on this site has responded to things that I stand on and that are actual. Most on this site seem to take too much for granted with-out knowing the history that is pointing to the now and the future. Good-gosh, if nothing else, it should be told. And ,let us all not forget that there are owners of systems in this world that aren’t even aware of sites such as this site and others that are enjoying even better equipment. These folks simply have budgets and systems that are too great and large to even talk about it on the web, they simply enjoy themselves. It seems I must ask for forgiveness for even being on the site with my antiqued system. That old system of mine just happens to be what was the TOTL 44 years ago at the height of The Golden Age" of Hi-Fi’. Is there a division of this site for ’elders’ that I could join? One mustn’t forget that anything that’s new and great today, will, with-in a short period of time will also be history/vintage. I’m happy to read of folks who embrace an old table as the OP is speaking of and can even have discussions here with-out being lambasted. Good thing is for me, the whole experience of trying to join this sited and being met with vitriol replies has inadvertently caused me to do more listening to my music/system, which is better than wasting my time on the inter-web. Everyone would agree, it’s my choice. Nonetheless, I happy to see a member speak of his equipment. At this point of over three quarters of my life interested in electronics shouldn’t be wasted on the inter-web either whatever the connection. I was there not too long after the beginning of the whole ’hi-fi’, stereo world’s on-set. This is why I posted my opinion. fm |
Frank, What’s your point? The weekend that men landed on the moon, in 1969, my then wife and I were on the way to Martha’s Vineyard for a vacation. We had stopped in New Haven to visit my grandmother, and my wife would not leave until she could find a copy of that Sunday’s NYT: "Men Walk On Moon", it said. I was already an audiophile at that time, albeit with very little money to spend. I already knew then that I did not care for the Dyna PAS3X preamplifier. Quartz resonates at a constant frequency. So, what is your point? Other crystalline materials could have been chosen by audio engineers, but quartz was chosen instead. By the way, quartz referencing did not come into the turntable world for a few more years after 1969. Note that in the thread you cite, the ad for Technics talks about the original SP10 and the SL1100 and 1200. The turntables in that ad did not use a quartz reference; that came along later with the SP10 Mk2, etc. So, again, WTF? |
Some tips for those who should understand, even if you didn’t know. Quartz control is great but, isn’t the only technology, as it all came from good roots of this planet. There’s so much more to know. http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/technics-sl-1100-opinion.574870/page-3 The dumbing-down of this country’s too young to know audio history on this site could be very damning to us all! Don’t forget, we put a man on the moon in 1969, almost 50 years ago. Where were you at that moment in summer of July 1969? I had already built my first ’PAS-3X’ "Dynakit" pre-amp 2 years before that moment. Please don’t over-look that quartz/sand is a mineral born from the earth and when hit with a tiny voltage, it vibrates, perhaps more than your girl is using to compensate for your lack of understanding of things? P.S. Please don't get me wrong here, I still use early/vintage Technics, pre-quartz. The original SP-10 uses for all intents the same motor the SL-120Mk1 does! The whole line was servo-controlled, consequently, yes quartz controlled is better, however generally, the whole line stayed the same, except for the quart control circuitry. |
chakster As noted Panzerholz is hit and miss regarding availability, another option to Baltic birch is Bamboo ply which is dense and relatively heavy. If you have cabinet shops local, check to see if you can purchase some and or have them cut it up if they are so inclined. |
Ok, my Technics SP20 has arrived, it works fine and looks great (like new) with Saec SS-300 mat. For this deck i'd like to design a custom wooden plinth. Since the local currency is weak for a long time, i hope i can find local craftmans to save some cash. Anyway it's a second system. I really like the simplicity of my teak plinth for main SP10mk2 i use for a while, so new plinth would be the same shape with minor changes. For SP20 i'm gonna use my spare Schick "12 before i will buy something else. Need advice on materials. I believe panzerholz is not available in my area. But plenty of Baltic birch arround :)) Which material should i look for the best quality (for my plinth) ? |
Peter, That would be a very low average price for any Mk3 that is in decent cosmetic and electrical shape. Someone got a good deal. Fully done Mk3's in a quality plinth have sold for more than $12K. I paid more than $5K for mine with no plinth, about 6-7 years ago, albeit mine was NOS. ("NOS" means very little, however, when you're talking about an electronic device that was sitting on a shelf for 30 or more years. Although I got "like new" cosmetic appearance, I still had to go through the electricals, replace all caps, calibrate the drive system, etc.) I nevertheless believe that this is a stone cold bargain, whenever I listen to my Mk3. |
Haha Don.... I would rarely talk trash about belt-drives in general as I have one myself and enjoy it immensely ☺️ But when they start charging $30 Grand-$200 Grand for gigantic belt drives whose performances can be matched (or bettered) by $1000 well-chosen vintage Japanese DD decks......people need to wake up and smell the roses 🌹 For 30 years the high-end audio world ignored the great Japanese DD 'Statement" products from Technics, Pioneer, Kenwood, Sony, JVC/Victor, Denon etc and convinced the public that belt-drive was the 'only' way to 'turn'.....mainly because anyone could knock up a belt-drive in his garage (and many still do). If not for the Internet there would still be little recognition for DD turntables as a viable alternative. When I first entered the audio world with a Technics DD and Kenwood integrated stereo amp....I was soon convinced by all the British Audio mags to go belt-drive. I soon bought a Rega Planar 3 with Hadcock arm and actually heard no discernible differences to my Technics but I happily stuck with the Rega for nearly 30 years. That was then and this is now. |
It's just how things go in the collector market. Apparently, 2000Xs are right now highly desired in Asia. If you really can buy a Mk3 for $5K on Yahoo Japan, you might grab it; they are worth a lot more, up to twice that much, in the US. Many/most of the Mk3s I have seen on there have been in fairly ratty condition. |
TT101 is just the motor drive with no plinth and no arm whereas the GT2000 is a complete integrated turntable. The prices should be different. The TT61, TT71, and TT81 do not use coreless motors and from my experience with TT71, while it's good sounding, its sound does not have the flowing smoothness of tables with coreless motor like QL-Y66F, QL-Y7, QL-Y5, QL-Y55F, etc... |
GT2000/GT2000L/GT2000X seem to sell as soon as they are posted on Hifido. They probably have a waiting list. And I think the P3 there now was reserved pretty quickly after it was posted. Lewm: That reproduction brace is indeed attractive, but costs 700,000 yen or $6.5k USD... Henry & Lewm: The going price of TT101 indeed is on the low side. I recall a couple of years back seeing someone sell a TT101 with full maintenance done by the seller for >$1000 on Yahoo JP for just the motor, but I failed to bid then and haven't seen them come back again. |
So that brace is an option that would seem to fit both the GT2000 and the GT2000X. I am sure it would help to reduce or eliminate colorations I associate with MDF plinths. I'd consider it a sine qua non; I'd buy the reproduction, which is beautifully made, if I owned a GT2000. Henry, You say above that GT2000s are often double the typical price of the GT1000, which would indicate the average price of a GT2000 is ~$2000US, based on your estimate of the value of a GT1000. Then you say that a TT101 might go for $1500US (or Australian dollars, maybe?) When you consider that the GT2000 comes complete with plinth and tonearm and that the TT101 is chassis only, I think the facts rather support my point that the two are not much different in current market value. I just checked Hifido; there are indeed "mountains" of GT750s and GT1000s for sale, and no GT2000. There's a P3 for ~$5500US. |
Lewm, I was speaking generally after hiho posted his interesting (as always) info about Yamaha using Victor/JVC motors and electronics. if you follow HiFiDo you will see that mountains of GT 750s and GT 1000s sell for around $1,000 and GT 2000s are often double that with the 2000X and 2000L multiples of that price. The Victor TT-61, 71 and 81 often languish below $400 whilst the occasional TT-101 might go for $1500 so my question (and premise) remains unanswered.... |
The only differences I've been able to find between GT2000 & GT2000X are the better bearing, plinth, and tonearm in the latter. This has also been confirmed by someone who has worked on both. The platter and motor as well as the motor controller appear to be the same. GT2000X usually sells for multiples of GT2000. That gunmetal platter weighs 18kg and usually goes for more than the turntable itself. Here's one for sale: http://page6.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/f174978328 The metal frame that lewm mentioned was an optional accessory that appears very rarely on the used market. Here is a current replica of it, though in gunmetal rather than cast iron: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/y31/pro/y31ab1/phot.htm All the other original options are briefly explained here: http://audio-heritage.jp/YAMAHA/player/gt-2000.html |
lewn Does the heftier bearing indicate also a more massive platter. Not always, the big boy Gunmetal platter was an $$ option that could be fitted on either model but more often than not found its way to the to the X model. The fracturing on portions of the OEM arms was due to a breakdown over time of the pot metal or something similarly used. |
