Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

@luisa31There are many wonderful vintage tables available at affordable prices. The Victor and Luxman are part of the elite club and can be difficult to find. Denon, Yamaha, Technics, Pioneer all produced great tables in the golden age and many avail. I have both the Victor and Luxman. They are glorious two arm tables. 

I'd like to get eventually a second TT, the Victor TT-101 could be the one or a PD-444

Discovering the best Direct Drive turntables I've come across Victor TT-101 many years ago (thanks to this thread).

Later I bought two of them, my second unit was purchased as a donor for parts, but appeared to be a good working sample.

We're working on a very interesting Victor project at the moment. Two Americans and two Russians are involved. After participating in our long thread here on audiogon about Victor TT-101 restoration I decided to ship one of my samples to Fairfield County (Connecticut, United States). This is where Mr. JP Jones himself will proceed with recap, joint inspection and calibration of the Victor TT-101.

Nobody touched my unit before, but there are several experts in Germany, Australia, and the United Kingdom. However, we believe that Mr. JP Jones is the best, he's the one who worked on several units in our community and he has the Victor TT-101 himself along with some other mega rare Technics turntables. Another reason I'm sending my TT-101 to JP is very simple - this turntable will stay in the USA after complete restoration. Now this beauty is packed and shipped. It will be a long transit over the Atlantic ocean. 

@halcro and @chakster 
we are living dangerously - but lifes boring if we aren't.

All said and done. I got my QL10 back - and it was worked on by wilkinsons - re-cap and re-solder dry joints
Speed was perfect - plenty of torque - super fast start up.
HAd to re-position the deck yesterday.
Switched it on - slow start up only gets to 28.75 rpm - something equally vague on 45rpm. No torque and very slow.
CAn anyone hazard a guess as to the problem?
Sc 3042? Anything else?
I reckon it must be something on the actual power supply and quartz lock - but that is not from knowing anything as an electronic engineer

@lohanimal  The mat and clamp i like the most is this one 
It's heavy, no problem for my Technics or Luxman, but for my Victor and Denon turntables with highweight platter i'm gonna use SAEC SS-300 and Sakura Systems THE MAT. 

Since we discussed SAEC Solid Mat earlier in this thread i want to post an update, because i got an English manual for this mat finally, i will not post the paragraph about drilling record labels to screw them into the mat :) 

But the rest of the information from the manual is below: 

FROM THE ORIGINAL SAEC SS-300 (ENGLISH) MANUAL:

The conventional turntable mat is made of soft material such rubber, in the belief that soft cushion will effectively filter out vibrations between the turntable and puck-up stylus.

***A lesson from an old tradition:
In certain Buddhist ceremonies a bell or wood block is used which sits on a cushion. The cushion, being softer than the bell or wood block, does not prevent the instrument from ringing when it is struck. It merely damps the vibrations somewhat so that they are of shorter duration (that is, they decay faster) than in the case of bell or wood block suspended in the air.
The record disc and turntable platter used in conjunction with a soft mat are in state resembling that of the bell or wood block on a cushion. As the stylus oscillates in the record groove, the disc having a certain elasticity, it caused to vibrate slightly. Depending on the size and other physical properties of the disc, these pulsations vary in frequency from 100Hz to 400Hz. If the turntable mat is softer than the record disc, it will deform along with the vibrations of the disc. The Sympathetic vibrations are of sufficient amplitude to cause an audible low resonance peculiar to record playing. Likewise the turntable platter, when a soft mat is used, vibrates sympathetically and contributes to the problem of low resonance.

***A classically simple solution:
After two years of development, the audio engineers at SAEC have produced a completely new turntable mat which solves the problems of the conventional soft mat. The new SS-300 Solid Mat is of material harder than any record disc. Placed directly on the turntable platter, the Solid Mat by its mass and hardness cancels sympathetic vibration of the platter. Likewise a record disc in immediate contact with the Solid Mat is prevented from vibrating. Where as the conventional soft mat merely damps sympathetic vibrations, the Solid Mat reduces these vibrations by 10 to 15dB compared to the conventional mat, thus effectively eliminating the problem of low resonance.

***We did it our own way:
This new component brings us an important step closer to the realizing a technical ideal of record-playing. For a record to be reproduced perfectly, the stylus and its cantilever must oscillate with no interference from vibrations of the other record-playing components. Thus not only the headshell and tonearm but also the turntable platter and record disc itself should be completely oscillating.

The famous SAEC tonearms with their patented Double Knife Edge design are the only tonearms made that have solved the problem of tonearm resonance. This was accomplished by radical departure from conventional approaches.

Again with the SS-300 Solid Mat, SAEC has turned conventional wisdom on its head to solve the problem of record and turntable resonance.


*** Turntable Solid mat. Model SS-300:
The holes is the mat are made not to cause resonance in the radiant direction on the plane of the turntable.

Aluminum alloy - using special surface treatment (rough surface).
The solid mat is so shaped that may be used for many representative record players and turntables.

The resonance of a turntable itself (resonant sound from turntable), which could not be eliminated by the conventional type turntable mat made of soft material like rubber, is prevented by using the SS-300 solid mat, which creates a state of non-resonance through its interaction at its critical point.

The Solid Mat must be placed directly on the turntable platter. Do not use a soft mat between the Solid Mat and the turntable platter, since the Solid Mat will then be caused to resonate either independently of or jointly with the soft mat. Similarly do not place a soft mat between the Solid Mat and the record disc!

Under ordinary condition there will be no problem of slippage, since the SS-300 Solid Mat has a special nonslip surface.

Do not place a stabilizer weight on the record disc, as this will deform the disc and reduce the effectiveness of the Solid Mat.

Use reasonable care in placing record on the Solid Mat. Do not place/remove records while the turntable is rotation.

Do not drop the Solid Mat, since any crack or deformation will reduce its effectiveness.

@chakster in fairness they are fairly intricate...

Out of interest do you use the JVC mat or another mat on the TT101? I have a SONY TTS 8000 but it does not have the OL2K mat and would love a modern alternative for that mat too

Dear @chakster I’ve seen you mention the AT 616 legs before.

My problem with them is that the cheapest set i have seen is about £250.00. I do not have a problem affording that but there are modern options by Townshend that are worth exploring. Likewise I just find the thought of accessories costing as much as many a component a bit silly.
That said I would like to know what goes into their design

Townshend Seismic Isolation Pods cost $675 (I paid about the same for my AT-616).
The Seismic Pods come in individual weight capacities of as little as 1-2 pounds per Pod, to as much as 64-140 pounds per Pod.

The set of 4 x AT-616 support 10 to 60 kg (22 to 132 lbs.).
See what’s inside the AT-616 , i like this design very much.

I never seen the AT616 anywhere in Europe or USA for the price you’re referring to (the price you mentioned is for cheaper and smaller AT-626). If you can find AT-616 for 250 pounds buy it immediately! I would buy two sets myself for this price if it’s true. 250 GBP for the set of AT-616 is a joke, it's steal, almost like a free gift! 

The AT-616 were about 400 euro even 7 years ago and now cost twice as much (or very near). I sold my spare set in 2019 and you can still read and check pictures if you you need more technical details here.

Anyway, the AT-616 is what i’m gonna use under my Victor TT-101 plinth @lohanimal

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.

there are effective and much cheaper solutions, for example the Gaia III of Isoacoustics (36 kg set of 4) that work very well and cost significantly less even in replacement of the original feets.

Dear @chakster I've seen you mention the AT 616 legs before.

My problem with them is that the cheapest set i have seen is about £250.00. I do not have a problem affording that but there are modern options by Townshend that are worth exploring. Likewise I just find the thought of accessories costing as much as many a component a bit silly.
That said I would like to know what goes into their design

I have the same stock plinth from QL-10 but the color is much darker. I like this small plinth better than the one designed for 2 tonearms. Stock feet is garbage, the best are AT-616 pneumatic and this is what i’m gonna use. Will put my Technics EPA-100 mkII or Ikeda IT-345 in this plinth.

If a buyer can repair TT-101 in his own country then it is worth the investment for sure! But at the same time some killer DD turntables like Denon DP-80 are cheaper and almost always in perfectly working condition (same with my beloved Lux PD-444).

P.S. Victor UA-7045 is a very nice tonearm if the rubber grommet is strong enough to support counterweight (or must be replaced with a new one). After owing various samples of NOS or perfect 7045 (and some not perfect ones too) i finally upgraded to the UA-7082 and now with Victor MCL10 cartridge it is a killer tonearm! 

I will say this. The TT101 and the other Japanese Uber decks may well be a pain to service now - they are complicated - they were back then - they are so now. 
My only question is - is it really worth the bother?

So then guys i've bought a second QL10. 
Why?
The first one came from Columbia and useless parcel service trashed it - sadly the guy who sold it packed it like an idiot too.
Wilkinsons in Lancashire did a superb peiece of work over a long period of time to fix it. I got them to put a new PTFE thrust plate and install a silicone nitride ball into the bearing. They recapped it - re-soldered any dry joints and gave it a lengthy electrical 'wet test'. I have now put it into a plinth. I had a local guy polish the platter. Electrically brilliant - the only problem is that UPS managed to smash the cover, break the legs and worst of all damage the platter - its tilted at one end by about a mm - and i am paranoid about a precision instrument (which a turntable is) being slightly out.
I tried to locate a platter and was told to get a machinist to either true my platter or make a new one. If it was to be the latter i guessed it would  easily cost £300 - £500 - it would not have the damping rubber either.
Then along came a QL10 for sale in Glasgow - and I had to have it - with the UA 7045 arm for £400 - fully working. I've sent it directly to Wilkinsons to get it recapped etc - I want it to be 'good as new'.
I must say that the seller bought it about 8 years ago, in a JVC stand, with the top of the line JVC amp for... £25.00 - good man.
@gipsonian - if you are in the UK contact wilkinsons - they know their onions

The SAEC mat is not prone to slipping on the platter surface even without tape and without drilling the LP, but I do use a record weight and will continue to do so. The drilling seems to have been recommended to prevent the LP from moving with respect to the mat. Live and learn.

That's actually pretty fascinating overall.

However what I find really odd is that over all the years I have been listening to and perusing LPS in stores etc, that I have never seen one single example with a hole drilled in it for this purpose.

Anybody ever seen one that would align with this information?

Vinyl was too cheap in the 70’s ?
Record dealers drilled sleever and cut corners on the sleeves to mark discounted vinyl, but drilling record labels is something strange, maybe not strange for Japanese ? LOL

Why disc stabilizers are not recommended by SAEC for their Mat ?
Disc stabilizers (record weight) were very popular in the 70’s/80’s

Without record weight drilling is the only way to fix the record to the mat to avoid slippery according to SAEC

I prefer weight on top, no drilling for sure.
I thought SAEC provided that metal bridge to fix the mat to the spindle, i was wrong :( 

SAEC also warned up: they do not recommend to use tape, even thin tape under the mat.

Who will be the fool who will pierce his vinyls having this mat?

SAEC also do not recommend to use record weight (disc stabilizer) on top of the disc according to the manual as it will reduce the effectiveness of the solid mat. So we did everything wrong :)) 

I certainly owe Raul an apology for doubting him.
Raul, I apologize. Wherever you are.

@lewm Here is the SAEC manual in English if you can read it.
and another page. Someone just posted it online, so i can share his images here, hope it’s ok.

He said that drilling and screwing it’s for wet playback technique, wow

READ HERE

Attachment?

@lewm 

 I’ve searched the internet and can’t find an ss300 owner manual, even in Japanese. I’m just curious; that’s my nature.

there you go, look here 

You tell me, what's the cutoff?

One of those nice cozy fitted pine boxes......

Well when I was 25, 55 was a geezer.   I suppose the older we get, the further geezerland moves.   You tell me, what's the cutoff?

When did 55 become "geezer"?

I've also entered geezer land soon to be official senior citizen at 55 yrs in May.  Beats the alternative!

Regarding the original thread title, my TT101 is nearing unuseable state, but spins at 33 rpm still, but even that acting up till it's warm.

Know of anyone who'd be interested in working on this?

Dear @bimasta : You are rigth, I over reacted. Obviously I was not in good mood in that moment.  @lewm  sorry for that.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Ah so being born last century makes one "old"? LOL.
Yes I am fully aware it was 1967, I probably saw it though about 75 or 76?
Hard to remember that far back being such an old codger I am afraid.

Hi-fi is hobbies from old pensioners by that time.

You don't have to be that old to remember Cool Hand Luke.

Remember watching it in my teens for sure.

Still rated as one of Paul Newman's better performances.

Umm, I think you for sure are not young!   Movie is from 1967!

Lewm
You don't have to be that old to remember Cool Hand Luke.

Remember watching it in my teens for sure.

Still rated as one of Paul Newman's better performances.

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.

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

Raul, I’m sure your memory is very clear, based on your reading at the time, that the hole in the SAEC mat is there to match holes in the LPs. Maybe way back when, it was cool to drill little holes in our records.

I remember a time when I’d remove an LP from the TT, set it safely on its cover lying on the floor before putting it away — and my girlfriend would step on it while coming to kiss me.

No problem, just buy a new copy at Record Hunter for $4.

Nowadays that record might be so rare it’s priceless, and a hole would be unthinkable.

But to reply to a mild word like "dubious" with "How dare you" seems a bit over-sensitive.

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.

Dear @bimasta : I can be wrong but does not means I posted because an " idea/imagination " .

R.

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 will never puncture my precious golden age vinyls or expensive MoFi prints for such bullshit..." Best-groove

Drilling holes in a record label meant it was "remaindered" — it didn’t sell, no one wants it — and it went straight into the $1 bin.

I use the SAEC mat, and have many LPs worth $1000 and up. I won’t make their value plummet to $1.
---------

And Raul adds a gem:

@lewm : "but the notion of drilling an LP ... seems dubious at best."

"Dubious? When you never had on hand the original one and you never experienced it? How dare you to post that so secure statement?

"You are totally wrong because that tiny hole is for what I posted!"

Audiogon offers the most learned and insightful info I can find online, and I do check other sites. The great info here is often surrounded by intense debate, but it’s worth it.

Raul’s shows that "intense" debate can become ferocious.

And if any of you think this comment of mine is even slightly flawed —

                                                  "HOW DARE YOU!!!"

If Raul can do it, so can I.

@bimasta

 RAUL disagrees with you, Chak —"That tiny hole at the inner position in the SS300 is not to fix it to the spindle. SAEC makes a research about and they found out that the LP/records tend to slide through a metal mat surface so its advice is that with a small nail use that hole to fix the LP to the mat and for this you have to make a tiny hole on each LP at exactly the metal mat hole position then and before play you insert the tiny nail in the LP through the metal mat hole. In this way the mat and LP spins at unison/evenly."

Neither seems worth the bother to me, or even the few seconds to think about it. And note it could be done with any other mat regardless of the material, and no one ever bothered.

Hmm, interesting. I have 6 page manual with my NOS NIB SAEC mat, the manual is in Japanese of course, but there are some pictures.  

I will translate from Japanese to make sure about it. 

Making a hole in the record label is indeed a strange idea, because to fix the pad from the top of the record it must goes through the record to reach a treated hole in the mat. 

Fixing the mat to the spindle hole with that thin metal "bridge" under the record surface is what i expected. But maybe i'm wrong, anyway it would be nice to find the answer. It is crazy if SAEC suggested us to drill the records :)) I think a heavy record weight on top could solve the issue, but SEC never made any record weights, just a mat. 

I will post some pictures later. 

Dear @lewm  : "   but the notion of drilling an LP as he described it seems dubious at best. "

dubious? when you never had on hand the original one and where you never experienced it. How dare you to post that so secure statement?

You are totally wrong because that tiny hole is for what I posted.

Anyway, I don't care any more because I don't own any SS-300.

R.

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.

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.

I will never puncture my precious golden age vinyls or expensive MoFi prints for such bullshits....baaaahhhh.

RAUL disagrees with you, Chak —

"That tiny hole at the inner position in the SS300 is not to fix it to the spindle. SAEC makes a research about and they found out that the LP/records tend to slide through a metal mat surface so its advice is that with a small nail use that hole to fix the LP to the mat and for this you have to make a tiny hole on each LP at exactly the metal mat hole position then and before play you insert the tiny nail in the LP through the metal mat hole. In this way the mat and LP spins at unison/evenly."

Neither seems worth the bother to me, or even the few seconds to think about it. And note it could be done with any other mat regardless of the material, and no one ever bothered.

A tiny hole in the mat near the spindle hole made to fix the lightweight SAEC MAT to the turntable spindle/platter, not to fix the MAT to the RECORD @bimasta 

But you have no idea how it works because you never seen SAEC manual and those parts are missing. Those holes are connected by very thin and flat metal bridge screwed to the mat, and it's under the record. 

"SAEC’s SS-300 mat is aluminum, anodised black and then coated with a very thin ( and very strong ) teflon coating

"The success of the mat is in its cut-outs in the physical design as well as the coating which stops ringing and is gentle on records as well as being anti-static and balanced

"Long out-of-production, I’ve tried dozens of mats and the SAEC is a keeper." Rtatts

Good new info, thanks. I was in the dark, never knew.

I’ve been using one for close to 30 years. I never heard of it when I found one in a Thrift shop for $5. I figured it got separated from its TT, and dutifully searched for it to reunite them. If the TT was worthy of the mat, they would be a score at Thrift shop prices and I’d grab them both. If it was a mismatch, they’d be cheap and I’d grab them either way. But there wasn’t a single turntable there, of any description, just the mat alone.

$5 for the SAEC is petty theft, and for all my faults I’m not petty. I even explained to the Cashier it was underpriced and he said "Five bucks or shut up."

I won’t say it’s the best, with 100,000 other mats out there to try... but I don’t need the best: very good is good enough for me.

And that tip about the tiny hole+pin to keep records from moving? Fabulous! There’s NOTHING worse than an LP slipping! Tracking at 1.4g, needle-drag can shift the groove .00000000324mm retrograde before you know it, and ANY good ear can hear the tempo go kablooey, not to mention the pitch.

I start drilling tomorrow. With a CAD-Drillpress and a 5-metre long 1mm bit I can do 5000 LPs at once.

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.

@lewm i rarely seen BA mats, when i tried to buy from BA direct it was sold out and you know it was many years ago. I hope that teamed up with Sakura they made something better, because it is not just a re-issue of BA-2 or BA-1. Compared to SAEC those mats must be fixed to the platter with tape (i'm thinking to do so), they are so light and the hole diameter is slightly bigger than needed.   

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.