Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?
Hi all, great combination. I took my TT-101 back in hand two months ago, after the technician failed a couple of years ago. First of all, I eliminated all the wire wrap connections by switching to a practical plug-in plug-in system in order to have the pcb in hand and to be able to work in complete tranquility without fear of tearing some wires. All cables have been coded with the name engraved on the PCB. Then I went to the full recap, replacement of all trimmers (I’m waiting for some from Mouser) re past all the welds (some very bad) put the horrible high voltage connection system with a new pcb into electrical safety. In a few weeks I will apply the missing pieces and try to turn on the turntable. before https://i.postimg.cc/7PFwMWmc/1.jpg after https://i.postimg.cc/8C52VRZM/DSCN6163.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/KYwHSdkh/DSCN6167.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/T1Fwr2hH/P1010327.jpg |
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. The brake is calibrated with the mass of the mat and standard LP on the platter. If the mass of the platter is higher than that it'll move a bit further after pressing stop. |
Great news Chak...🎉 There is a regulation described in the manual for altering the STOP function to match your platter mat +LP. I had my Tech do it for my lightweight Victor Pigskin mat which is far lighter than the standard Victor rubber mat with which the turntable normally arrives. And having the platter 'check' with a slight backwards movement when the STOP button is pressed...is considered normal. You're a lucky man.....but there are no guarantees for the future. You'd be wise to blow-out all the old solder joints and do them all again as I did, if you wish to sleep peacefully. |
Great, so i can experiment first with different mats and clamps to match my current settings. My 1st sample move backward a bit after stop. but my 2nd sample does not move backward or forward after stop, so i assume this is ideal. Anyway it does not bother me much, both are ok. The platter is lightweight compared to others, is it allowed to use heavy mats like Micro Seiki CU-180 (1.8kg) or CU-500 (2.7kg) ? Or much lighter mass are better ? Do you hear any high frequency pulsation coming from the electronics near the disk when the rotation is "on" ? I have it on one sample only, but i barely hear it, anyway it’s there. Is it true that no lubrication needed for 40 y.o. unit ? Thinking about the plinth i’ve been looking at this amazing finishing, i really like it (all my custom racks are same color), why not just paint original Victor plinth like that to refresh it ? It is automotive? I’m gonna use mine with At-616 pneumatic footers under the original Victor plinth. But i hope i can paint the plinth (if i will find who can offer such beautiful finishing), it is probably better than new veneer ? |
You can use the CU-180 but I don't know if there's enough adjustment available for such a weight...? If that doesn't bother you...go for it. I was more concerned with the weight on the bearing 🥴 No pulsation coming from the electronics on either the TT-101 or TT-81. Is it true that no lubrication needed for 40 y.o. unit ?Do you trust the Victor engineers....? I do 🤗 I've never lubricated mine. Just last week there was a soft drone coming from the platter once every revolution so I saw that the outer platter was too close to the fixed surround. I opened it up, turned it upside down to access the control screw in the base and turned it clockwise. If you turn it too much the motor won't turn at all. If you back it off from there a bit....the motor will turn clockwise, stop, turn anticlockwise, stop, turn clockwise etc etc. Back it off a bit from there....... Goldilocks.....😃👍 No more murmur... |
Yeah...nice finish Chak 😃 I decided to try, maybe both methods (new veneer one one plinth and paint on another). What i don't like on original Victor plinth is that veneer surface on arm boards and on the plinth always mismatch. I think it's possible to prepare the original for new veneer (some nice exotic wood) or prepare it for proper automotive paint over the original plinth. |
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. |
Do you trust the Victor engineers....? I recently overhauled the engine of the TT-71 opened to check the pivot and the oil, I was surprised that after 40 years the pivot was perfect and without any signs while the oil was still as new; I wanted to replace the oil only for scruple. The Technics SP10 MK II, on the other hand, always have a bad oil color that must necessarily be replaced and the pivots always have some stripes, I can't understand why. |
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. |
@lewm I also happened to hear the noise of the engine of the TT-101 grumbling when it is running. But turning the plate by hand without power supply, everything was silent ... I think it is only a problem of calibration or a bad power supply of the engine due to some electronic component out of tolerance. |
but i remember this thread too |
Speaking of Victor TT-101 plinths, three armboards CLD construction, threaded inserts for table and armboards. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/6622#&gid=1&pid=2 |
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'. |
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. I didn't understand the whole explanation but it seems a delicate job; didn't you fear to do some damage compromising the result? And the oil did not spill? Under the engine I know this screw cemented by the factory. https://i.postimg.cc/T2Vm0Zj8/A.jpg Wasn't it enough just to adjust the one higher or lower? |
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 |
SAEC's SS-300 mat is aluminum, anodised black and then coated with a very thin ( and very strong ) teflon coating I have the same feelings, it's one of the best mat in my opinion. Here is the one on my Luxman PD-444, it's perfect for almost any turntable, i've been using it on Technics SP-10mkII and SP-20 too, it is also fine for SL1210mkII+ series, Victor TT-101 or Denon DP-80. When i bought NOS sample in the box (with manual) i notices red tool and a small metal piece that allow to tighten up the mat to the spindle with a tiny screw (this is why there is a very small treated hole in the mat near the spindle hole). When you're buying a used sample these parts always missed and i believe a few people seen it. |
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. |
@lewm Did you notice a tiny treated hole near the spindle hole on SAEC mat? Do you know how to use it ? The manufacturer was smart enough to offer this option, you can tighten up the mat to the spindle, but you need additional accessories that you can get with a NOS mat (along with the manual) and a nice box. I realized it only when i bought NOS (unused) mat, a complete set. About NOS SAEC mat: When i bought NOS sample in the box (with manual) i notices red tool and a small metal piece that allow to tighten up the mat to the spindle with a tiny screw (this is why there is a very small treated hole in the mat near the spindle hole). When you’re buying a used sample these parts always missed and i believe a few people seen it. If you like scratched or damaged mats you can always buy them with 50% discount compared to MINT- or NOS. This is RARE mat, it was made 40 years ago. If you think the price difference between a used Technics SP-10 mkIII and a NOS (boxed) Technics SP10 mkIII will be just 10% then you’re living in the different reality. Some vintage stuff is impossible to find in NOS condition. Actually vintage hi-fi gear is highly collectible. And there is a collector’s value of the NOS gear. I wish i could buy everything NOS just adding 10% to the price of the used items, but in reality the price goes up to 50-100% for a NOS records, cartridges, mats, turntables, tubes, whatever vintage |
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. |
Dear @lewm : """
who then became a non-fan of it. """ After several first hand experiences I become no-fan of any metalmat no matters what.Metal is the main enemy for the LP reproduction in a TT platter. It's the worstplace to have any kind of metal in direct touch with the LP surface. Is way resonant and very fast for the transmision of the feedback resonances to the LP surfaces and then to the cartridge stylus tip/cantilever. As any ignorant rookie in those all times I was emotionated with every thing with the SAEC name and I bougth not one but 3 SAEC mats and as I said till I learned and today I have noneof them. Till today the best mat for any TT is the original SOTA mat that is out of production. You can try to find out this mat where you can attest by your self and confirm my statement and I'm sure that you will put on sale that " garbage " SAEC mat that as all SAEC products are really very well manufactured but this is not its problem. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
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. |
Dear @lewm : The Sota mat was started in the market around 1983 as an up-date/grade to its Sota Saphire TT and its material is a blended propietary material. This comes from a Stereophile review of the Star model that is the one witn vacuum hold mechanism not the Sota but the reviewer owned the original saphire: """ This problem was eliminated by a change to the new SOTA mat which was introduced last summer. """ Here a picture of what you must look for: https://www.google.com/search?q=SOTA+Mat&rlz=1C1OKWM_esMX875MX875&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=YYpt9kYM4eSqlM%253A%252CBfV8HD9hUvIVeM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQOG9cznt2amytjKQFeR1pZ-M8kAg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIs9ugxt7nAhVBoZ4KHSPRBxIQ9QEwDHoECAcQCQ#imgrc=YYpt9kYM4eSqlM: Nothing comes close the Sota mat, it burns/make dust the SS-300 in any TT. Is a must to have. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. The picture says: Oracle but it's a Sota one or at least a copy of the original Sota unique mat. |
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. |
@lewm : this is easy. Metal resonates at listen frequency range and the feedback is takes by the cantilever stylus tip and the transducer takes those metal resonances/distortions as groove modulations. Again, metal mat is the worst place to use in a TT mat that one of its main functions is to dampen. That's all, I don't care if you like it or not. I like it in my SP10 in the past till I learned. So what, I like means almost nothing. R. |
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. @lewm interesting, i have 3rd version of BA mat, anyone who can’t find BA1 or BA2 can buy new The Mat from Sakura Systems, its thinner than BA2, probably the best of them. Just 250 bucks within USA. "After some hiatus period, Boston Audio has teamed up with SAKURA SYSTEMS and now proudly introduces "The Mat", the culmination of our experiences through developping Mat 1 & 2. By incorporating different carbon graphite material, we successfully achieved the identical performance of Mat 2 with less thickness (4 mm) and the reduced price." diameter/293mm thickness/4mm weight/454grms P.S. Micro Seiki CU-180 and CU-500 are the mats to dies for if turntable can handle high mass. Today i got my Micro ST-20 gunmetal clamp and it's so nice, much lighter/better than ST-10 Now i have gunmetal under and over the record. |
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. |
Dear @best-groove @lewm : " for me if possible on the spindle you c...."" 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. lewm, about the Cu MS mats I already did it several times in different threads but as you people only say: " I like it ". Yes I now that they like those kind of distortions but that per sé does not means is rigth because is the other way around: wrong. In audio and especially in the analog alternative what we like it does not really matters but what you say do not care: principles or facts or ....... Maybe it’s because I’m a way more quality audiophile/music lover than you and several other gentlemans and that’s all and the origen of disagreements . R. |
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? @lewm I said "probably" because it’s much thinner without any loss in quality. And for those who’re looking for BA mats this is the only one that is NEW for $250, old BA mats are all used (secondhand). Chakster. @uberwalts You’re welcome, i think it’s better to buy latest version, because each one who owned BA-1 claimed BA2 was better, now they have "mk3" with warranty from the Sakura Systems |
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. |
@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. |
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. |
"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. |
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. |
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. |
| Post removed |
