I have just acquired a 32 year old JVC/Victor TT-101 DD turntable after having its lesser brother, the TT-81 for the last year. TT-101 This is one of the great DD designs made at a time when the giant Japanese electronics companies like Technics, Denon, JVC/Victor and Pioneer could pour millions of dollars into 'flagship' models to 'enhance' their lower range models which often sold in the millions. Because of their complexity however.......if they malfunction.....parts are 'unobtanium'....and they often cannot be repaired.
Flieb, I like your idea of a lead platter mat, but as you've found...I don't know how to maintain a constant thickness with sheet lead? It is so malleable that you can depress it with your fingertip..... The only solution I can imagine, would be to laminate it between two sheets of glass or acrylic but then you lose the critical benefit of the lead/platter/vinyl interface...👀
Halcro, It seems that it isn't as uneven as it looked. With a raised edge or 2  going around every rotation it looks like a warped LP. Lead isn't that malleable,. It's bendable but tends to stay where you leave it. Your fingers won't leave a depression. The tedious part is cutting to size and using a calipers-flattening and going back and forth. A machine shop should be able to make short work of it. You could cast it, but it seems like too much trouble? BTW, wear gloves. I think I forgot.....
Haven't listened to the 81 yet. My tech has been super busy and it's just going out. I didn't buy a plinth..... I also want to recap my AHT and a couple more tables. Â
Also, using a laser tach for speed check. It says 33.3 go figure.
I suggest laminating the lead to a thin sheet of aluminum using contact cement or epoxy. Use a roller to flatten them. I don't think it's a good idea to have exposed lead that can come in contact with the platter or your skin.
Not a good idea to be touching the lead, especially with little cuts on your fingers. Wear rubber gloves at the least. If you're cutting the lead with a tin snip you have to be careful of sharp edges etc.
Laminating to AL makes no sense to me. Most of the platters are already ALÂ We have approx. 6mm total thickness to work with. Depending on the table, motor torque etc. I want it all lead + leather.Â
Contact cement is no good here. It's too thick and uneven. The top surface can be painted, varnished or whatever, but it's the interface with the platter that makes all the difference.Â
On the safety of a lead platter. The Walker Audio tt uses a solid lead platter. They coat it with something that both imparts a nice black shiny smooth finish and probably makes it safe to handle. One might inquire with Walker Audio how they do that. Just a thought. Also, Fleib, wash hands before eating.
My other question about a lead platter is how do you assure that it maintains its shape around the spindle, were fit is critical to keeping the platter level? I don't know what Walker does; perhaps in their case the spindle is cast into the platter as one piece.
Lew, Now you tell me. The greatest cowboy hero of all time told me to eat lead. He missed me cause I was partially behind a tree, but I gave it a try. Can't say I liked it much. Didn't have a lot of taste, and caused tremors of the spirit and insomnia.
Now that I think about it casting should be relatively easy.Â
I thought Walker has a giant lead platter? Lurne' figured out the "ideal" platter which is 8mm lead sandwiched between black methacrylate. Black whole grain isn't gluten free, but once those tremors overtake, you become one with the universe and it matters not. The 8mm thickness in our miniverse is based on the reflection back of any vibration when it hits a boundary. Since we only have 6mm ...... You just need a different adhesive,Â
The base is crushed marble in a lead and epoxy resin and gorgeous. The Platter is 75 lbs. of encapsulated lead, the most resonance-free material known to man.
It also used to be on Walker's website but I see that he has since removed all reference to lead.....👀
From a 6 Moons Review of the Walker... The base is crushed marble in a lead and epoxy resin and gorgeous. The Platter is 75 lbs. of encapsulated lead, the most resonance-free material known to man. It also used to be on Walker's website but I see that he has since removed all reference to lead.....👀
More nonsense from the marketing gurus of a typical audio company - materials do not have resonance, they have bulk properties which affect the resonance of the structure in which they are used. In the case of the Walker the composition, materials used ( including epoxies and any other materials ) and the manufacturing process itself will all affect the final resonant properties.Â
The question remains, what is "encapsulating" the lead platter of the Proscenium? Possibly Walker now plays down the lead platter for fear of either having violated some environmental regulation or for fear of being singled out on that same basis. Given that the Proscenium turntable now retails for over $100,000, the platters are not likely to end up in some toxic waste dump, not until Armageddon, anyway.
Funny you should mention encapsulating. The AHT non-signature had encapsulated Vishay space shuttle resistors. Those babies didn't budge from being next to the sun to absolute zero. They are the plug-in resistors for gain and load and are right on the board along with a DC offset pot(s).Â
You think nude Vishay are pricy? In the '90s they were $60/ea. wholesale. The piece was sold direct for $5.5K, kind of amazing.  I was always suspicious of Dan's story about leaving. I figured he was working for the military, but who knows?
I think Halcro once posted photos of the circuit boards in his Halcro preamplifier. Either he or someone else did. The parts and the entire upper surface of the PCB were shown to be coated with some plasticene material, in sort of an off brown/gray color. Impossible to service, but also impossible to copy, and said to have been applied for its dampening effect.
Lewm, I showed my tech Halcros photos at the time and he said no problem - there is enough web info to work the Halcro circuit out and you can solder through the gunk if you know what you are doing. Having said that he has a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering and has been designing high tech electronics commercially for some years, not one of the self taught "experts" you often find in audio.Â
Fleib, Contact cement is not thick or uneven if sprayed. It's what speaker companies use for veneer. I've used it to laminate lead to armboards. It works well. As for the veneering of the lead, you could use something other than aluminum if desired. I would use copper myself. Or you could just coat both sides with leather using contact cement or the like. I've worked with lead a good bit and once built huge subs for a customer/friend that had lead between a layer of plywood and MDF. They were rather heavy as I recall.
Another week rolls by and no progress. Maybe I'll hook up with my Tech later today. One of the problems with coupling a mat - do you want a "permanent" solution like a Goldmund mat, or maybe introduce another material like copper, which might also need some coupling. Maybe there's an adhesive that will hold it in place which is easier to change out if you want to experiment?
Here's the deal with the Kenny type AR compound. It's said to be ground limestone and polyester resin. That's kind of a general description. Polyester resin varies from auto body filler to driveway coating. They start calling the stuff resin. Apparently there are mucho variations. Maybe I should try Bondo first and call the table "Big Pink". I suspect a driveway coating type might be better. A 5 gal. bucket requires a hand truck, but you can get it already dyed. Ground limestone comes in a 50lb. (?) sack and is the stuff they use for lines on a football field.
Okay, a little experimentation is in order here. I suspect this should be done in one pour. If you're working with cement or concrete you can build it up, like sculpting with clay. I think this is more like a casting. What proportions? Weigh the component parts and try it? It's not as straightforward as you might think. Meanwhile, I only have so much time before South Jersey is underwater and Front Street in Philly is beach front property. No joke. The rate of ocean rise is greatly underestimated. Maybe I'll move to the Rockies. I hear their water is extra poisonous due to the old mines filling up with water and heavy metals infiltrating the supply. Sounds like rock and roll to me.
Fleib Many years ago I decided to completely replace the platter on my SP10 MK3 The new one consists of a trilaminate of acrylic on the top 15 mm of lead and then duralium. The  duralium interfaces with spindle and spigots to the lead and acrylic keeping thinks nicely centered. It also houses the rotor magnet and speed sensor/commutation assembly. I spent a lot of time before hand experimenting with glues. I settled on an epoxy where I adjusted the ratio of the two parts to create a glue that was around the same hardness as acrylic. The idea being to simulate a laminate where the lead was fused to the acrylic. This rather than introducing a lossy layer of glue between the two materials.
The total weight is around 10kg as per the original. Moment of inertia is slightly higher.
I like the result. That said back then I did not experiment with metal or graphite mats. I now know that a SS mat works extremely well on the SP10
Fleib The speed sensor consists two parts..., The sensor coils which are stationary and a toothed magnet which is attached to the platter. Sorry, I wasn't clear in my earlier post.
Richard, What interests me most is WHY did you decide to make an entirely new platter for the Mk3? And what are the consequences to how it works associated with incorporating one half of a speed sensor device into the platter? (What's a "toothed magnet"? I've never been bitten by a magnet.) Did this entail a basic change in the circuitry?
There were several reasons for the new platter...
- I had just sold my Goldmund Studio and admired the design of its platter, which is acrylic and lead. Although not the lead plug inserts it used. My design uses a lead disc insert.
-Â The SP platter audibly rings a little without a mat.
- Cosmetically the SP platter looked weird on my newly build triangular plinth.
- It was a fun challenge making a completely new one.
This was some 25 years ago and I cannot recall the performance differences between the two designs, but I did stay with the new assembly. I still have the original platter and it would be possible to try it again. Have heard the original perform exceptionally well with some of the more exotic mats available.
The magnetic teeth are there on the standard platter, so the electronic architecture is original. Â Check out the small diameter central ring on the underside, be careful you don't get bitten.
Perhaps you are like me; as I have aged, I am less and less inclined to DIY or Do-It-MYself, except when it comes to the actual electronics. I still enjoy messing about in a tube circuit. I look at the 3 slate plinths I had made for Lenco, Denon DP80, and SP10 Mk3 (slate + wood in this latter case), and I wonder where I got the patience and energy. I would not take on such projects again.
Had an interesting conversation with my Tech yesterday. He's been fixing all kinds of stereo equipment for a long time. He's one guy I know who is actually older than me and wise in the ways of keeping equipment functional. He essentially said, if it's not broken don't fix it.
I told him my TT81 was fully functional, but I wanted all the electrolytics replaced and the board(s) gone over for cracks, old solder etc. He said he could do that but electrolytic caps don't automatically go bad after 20 or 40 years. They might last 80 years, and could very well last longer than I.Â
After discussing a couple of pieces I have waiting in the wings, so to speak, I've decided to take my tube amp to him. I can't get the bias adjusted on the left channel input board, although it sounds good. This amp was built by Dan Fanny and is 50/wpc, class A/B. It was originally my tweeter amp and can pass a perfect square wave at 1KHz. Rise time is about 2usec and it sounds like nothing at all.Â
I'll start experimenting with anti-resonant material and let you know.
That’s interesting about the life span of electrolytics. Electrolytic manufacturers typical spec capacitor life at several thousand hours--though I suppose that this is calculated at the most extreme conditions of voltage and temperature. I only have anecdotal experience with their failure in TTs. My L07D lasted about 300 hours before exhibiting speed instability due to a failing electrolytic. I then replaced them all.
I guess I am guilty of being a frequent advocate of replacing electrolytics in vintage DD turntables, meaning electrolytics that are typically at least 30 years old. My main reasons for that are (1) it's cheap insurance against a future failure, and (2) in the worst case scenario a bad electrolytic that might cost one dollar to replace (if you can solder) eventually can result in the destruction of an irreplaceable transistor or IC. Â I agree that when you do replace ALL the electrolytics with new, you are probably discarding a few capacitors that are still good, but the cost is trivial. Â (I'd love to see an 80-year-old electrolytic that still works fine, however. We're talking 1936.)
Plus there is the added possible benefit that modern electroytics are generally a little better, specification-wise, than they were in 1980. Your "stuff" might work better because of that.
I'd have to say I agree about replacing electrolytic caps. Maybe I'll practice soldering on boards, but for now I don't feel competent. My Tech was being a little facetious with the 80 year thing. I'm of retirement age and he's a little older so he was alluding to components outliving their owners. I didn't make that clear.
The amp is a little tricky to adjust/fix. The input board has a pot for each channel, but figuring out what to balance is a little confusing. I sat down with a pin out of the tubes and remembered what Dan explained. It might not make sense to most techs/designers (don't know), but it works.Â
That was originally my tweeter amp for a pair of Infinity Emit tweets located between 2 Acoustat panels driven by Dan's version of a servo amp. My room wasn't big enough for woofers. The system I copied was that of Dr. Marty Wax. He had a 30wpc Bernig for his tweets and big Rowland monoblocks for conventionally driven panels, but he had a pair of large Entec woofers. That system was the closest to live, I've heard. BTW, the panels were driven full range on the bottom with the woofers augmenting the bass.Â
I have a DP-80/DK300 with SME 3010 arm and AT ART9 cartridge the cartridge only has a few hours on it but it is very sweet. I also have a DP-6000/FR64s.
To contribute some DD info I had a Micro Seiki DDL-120 w MA505. It was an interesting turntable, the platter was 3.2kg of zinc and also had lead in the plinth. I am not sure whether its motor was coreless or not but it had very low torque.
In terms of sound quality I would rate my Denon DP-80 and DP-6000 above the DDL-120.
Much of the problem of getting accurate information is that most of these TOTL DD decks were Japan only releases.
So in the absence of good info on these turntables I look on Hifido and the prices the turntables sell/sold for. I assume there is a correlation between current price and its sound quality/ reliability.(desirability?)
I am bit confused re this assumption though because Victors/JVC including the TT-101 sell at the cheapest end of the market. In this thread it its very highly rated and on TVK its stated to be one of the best turntables ever.
I am looking to add another turntable possibly a Kenwood KP-9010 which has a coreless motor and can be nuded very easily, it seems you just need to take the plinth off and you can mount upto 4 tonearms on it. Alternatively I could secure a Yamaha GT2000L or TT-101.
There are certainly more Kenwoods & Yamahas available than a TT-101.
Welcome to the Thread fast_mick. You're right about the perceived 'value' of certain brands in the Japanese or Asian marketplace and yes......JVC/Victor is not so highly prized there whereas the Yamaha 750GT/1000GT are so numerous I'd swear they were still producing them. And the prices they pay for a 2000GT or 2000L seem ridiculous....especially as I've not read any particularly glowing reports of these decks from international audiophiles? Can someone who has a Yamaha 2000GT please contribute? I'm interested....
After two weeks or so with my functioning TT101, I would say that the TT101 is right up there with the best of them, and I do own two of the best of them (SP10 Mk3 and Kenwood L07D) for comparison. Â Arguably, the Denon DP80 would be a third, but I don't use it. Â By scuttlebutt only, I think of the GT2000 as second tier, but that's a completely unfair assessment based on gossip. Â I wouldn't put much stock in TVK, either. The write-ups in TVK are probably not done by someone who listens to the turntables. Â (GT2000 is the turntable; 2000GT is the collectible car made by Toyota, I think. But it could be the other way around.)Â Does the GT2000 have a coreless motor? Â What sort of servo does it use? How is the platter made and what does it weigh? Â (It does appear to have an over-size platter with mass disposed to the edge, a nice design.) These are things I would consider in deciding between the TT101 and the GT2000, absent the chance to compare them in a single audio system. Â (Coreless motor is to be preferred, in my opinion.) Â The one I've got to try is the Pioneer Exclusive P3, but every time I have the chance to buy one, I cannot justify the purchase what with the excess of turntables already in my stable. Â Then there's the Luxman, which Dave G owns.
lewn Regarding the GT 2000 IÂ have never had the chance to hear one although a year or so back there was one for sale that I did consider purchasing. On another forum the GT 2000 is held in high regard but with no direct comparisons to the tables that have been discussed here Lo7D, TT101, SP10MK3 . The only other thing to mention is the Blog originally posted by J Carr from the Victor engineer who was originally tasked to work on the GT2000, and then many years later in retirement made a point of searching out one to purchase. I do believe the GT2000 uses a coreless motor and Bi Directional speed control. The blog link was originally posted here by J Carr some time ago.
fleib The Sony TTS-8000 and PS-X9 have a great reputation.
You would not have to twist my arm much to take either one. I ended up with the very first DD Sony produced a TTS -2250 drive only, which was at its introduction marketed against the original SP-10 . From that point on I have always appreciated the Sony's in the subsequent series.
I think the Kenny 9010 has a metal chassis, same or similar to the Canadian 990?? Yes, coreless motor and nice performer, but you might want to keep or rebuild the plinth. I have a 770d - straight arm version with removable headshell like a Graham Robin. It has end of record arm lift. I'm not sure about the 9010 as to arm and auto functions.Â
I've found that modifying the plinth can be a substantial improvement. For less than TOTL DDs, bracing the plinth and adding mass can make all the difference.
BTW, I think the entire Sony PS-X series of tables has BSL motors. Some of these tables can be modified for very high performance.
Totem, I will let JP comment if he sees fit, but "Bi-directional servo" was apparently mostly a marketing gimmick, used by both Victor and Yamaha. The servo on the TT101 was well designed, according to JP, but really not different from or any more "bi-directional" than that used in the SP10 Mk3, for one example. Â
I think I remember now why I was a bit down on the GT2000; I once saw some photos showing stress fractures in the tonearm, around the pivot point, arising from the fact that some key parts of it are actually made of plastic. But if it has a coreless motor.... Â Also, it appears to have a high mass platter. Â There's a version called the GT2000X, which sports a large apparently metal brace around the plinth. I think it was an accessory which could be purchased as an option. Â Anyone here know about that? Â The GT2000X looked hot and cool! (Both good things.)
The Sony PSX9 seems to have a built-in phono stage. Â Is that correct? Â I wondered how it would otherwise differ from a TTS8000 or 8750.
Most Yamaha DD tables use JVC coreless motors. I took a looksie at the motors of Yammy tables I owned before (PX-2, PX-3, YP-D4) and they all use JVC coreless motors. And judging by the pictures I saw of the GT-2000, the motor appears to be JVC coreless. The GT-2000 uses the motor similar to the JVC QL-A75, with a different arm of course. The GT-2000X uses a more stout fatter bearing than the GT-2000.
I never owned a GT-2000 so I don’t know the sonic difference compare to a JVC. But from the other Yamaha tables with JVC motors, they do have that fluidity in the sound. I can see one advantage of the GT-2000 is the extra wide platter. Perhaps the QL-A70 is JVC’s answer to that with also an extra wide platter.
Quite honestly I see enough of the guts of these tables, they are all just variations of the same theme. The attention to details makes the difference, I think. Using a quality motor, you’re winning half of the battle, which I can’t always say that about some sacred cow belt-driver with a toy motor.
Great info again hiho, but it only begs the question initially asked....why do the Japanese place more value on turntables made by a company like Yamaha which used the brain-power and production-power of JVC/Victor at the same time as almost ignoring the quality of the Victor products?
Henry, I don't think your premise, in the above question, is necessarily correct. Â GT2000s are not that expensive in Tokyo. Â I don't know how the values compare to that of a TT101, but it's probably very close. In my opinion, both products are "sleepers", in terms of bang for the buck. Â That said, I could be incorrect in my idea of relative values based on recent sales. I check Hi-fi-do and Top Class once in a while. GT2000s "seem" to be less rare than TT101s. Â I've seen many for sale in Tokyo and almost no TT101s. Â GT2000X is quite rare, based only on my observations over the last 5-6 years and several visits to Tokyo audio salons, whilst visiting our son who lives there. Interesting to note thanks to Hiho that the differences between GT2000 and GT2000X are much more than just adding a metal brace to the plinth. Â Does the heftier bearing indicate also a more massive platter and also perhaps a more torque-y motor?
Can you clarify one thing: Is that Thuchan's plinth? Â Cutting that shape out of slate is no mean feat.
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.Â
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.Â
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
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....
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.Â
I just checked Hifido; there are indeed "mountains" of GT750s and GT1000s for sale, and no GT2000. There's a P3 for ~$5500US.
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...Â
Henry & Lewm: The going price of TT101 indeed is on the low side. Â 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.Â
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...Â
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
