Only the manufacturer can tell you how much additional weight is acceptable. It is not so much the case that the weight would strain the motor's capacity to spin at the proper speed--significant extra torque would only be needed at startup even with a massive weight; it it the extra load on the bearing that would be of concern. That extra weight could shorten the life of bearing or increase the amount of vibration (noise) generated by the bearing.
If you are concerned about the weight, you should look into clamps. They don't weight as much and can do a better job of pressing the record tightly to the platter surface. In particular, reflex clamps do a good job. These clamps grip the spindle, and as you turn the knob on top, they apply increasing amount of downward pressure on the record label area. To work as intended, a reflex clamp also needs a washer or o-ring around the spindle to actually raise the record up a little bit so that when downward force is applied beyond the washer or o-ring, the record is slightly bent; this bend causes a much larger area of the record being pushed into contact with the platter.
Ideally, clamping and added weight is applied in conjunction with the design of the platter/mat. The shape of the surface matters, and not all systems are designed to work best when the record is held in more forceful contact with the platter/mat. Like everything in audio, one has to take trial and error risks; nothing is a universally positive tweak.
|
@larry
+1 Excellent response. I couldn't have said it better.
|
Assuming that this is a low cost experiment find (or make) a center weight that comes in @ under 8 ounces (this is quite low as far as record weights go and I have been succesfully using such for 20+ years on a belt drive Thorens TD125II).
Aside from the motor "added weight" can also hasten wear to the main platter bearing, which was my main concern when experimenting with much lighter record weights years ago.
I made the weight I still use today from an old/small Mapleshade brass cone footer centered and mounted to a 45 RPM Thorens record insert and the combo came in @ just under 8 ounces.
The lighter weight works well with the various platter mats I use and it definitely improves sound quality on LP's of all ages and thicknesses.
Been years since I searched for <8 ounce record weights, but they were around/available 15+ years ago.
DeKay
|
I have used record weights on both my VPI HW40 and Technics SL1200GAE without trouble. However I have also found a KAB record clamp to work as well or better for a lot less money and frankly prefer it.
|
I think it's one of the snake oils. I never found any benefit in clamps or weights.
|
Well whether there is any benefit to weighting or clamping is definitely record dependent. For perfectly flat records, I agree that there is little or no benefit and in fact a weight can actually dampen or choke the sound a bit. A clamp has no deleterious affect on the sound that I have been able to detect, however. On records that are not perfectly flat, a weight or a clamp helps to bring the record more firmly into contact with the platter and that does two things: It makes it easier for the arm/cartridge to track the grooves, and it dampens resonances in the record itself. So saying they are snake oil is over stating the case.
|
Search Amazon for "record weight"and pick one 8 ounces or less.
I was surprised to find so many listings and just purchased a 5.5 ounce unit for $10 as I've yet to go that low in weight.
If you observe a SQ improvement with a lighter weight then further experiment from there if you wish.
How many here have experimented with 8 ounce (or less) record weights?
DeKay
|
In general Making a motor work harder can only shorten its life.
It’s never a positive thing in that regard for sure.
Each case is unique. The benefits need to outweigh the disadvantages. Unless a table is explicitly designed and guaranteed to handle a certain amount of increased load beyond normal I would always proceed with caution.
On the positive side, adding weight near the center spindle is less problematic than if added further from center.
|
Heavy center weight and outer ring is my ritual. I never do without on my VPI Classic. I remember emailing someone at pro-ject about using a heavy center weight on their debut TT and he said NO, not can do, motor won't handle it. Always reference to manufacturer. If heavy center weight is not an option, simply use a clamp. I do that on my second TT, Pioneer PLX-1000.
|
I would recommend the “Serene Stabiliser” from Stack Audio. It will provide what you’re looking for and minimal weight. Much better than a typical clamp.
|
|
Aside from trying to reduce the effects of a warp, record weights and outer rings are attempts to change the sound to tune it to one's preference. It the weight more effectively couples the record to the platter/mat such that internal vibrations in the record itself are transferred more effectively to the platter and better damped (the usual intention of such weights) that MAY improve the sound, or it may make it subjectively worse; it really depends on what the rest of the system sounds like and what you are looking for in the sound.
I have Basis Debut table with a vacuum clamping system. This is pretty much the ultimate way to couple a record to the platter to dissipate vibration in the vinyl that will feed back to the stylus. If you place the stylus down on a record that is not spinning at tap the record surface with the back of a pen near the stylus, you can barely hear sound coming from the speakers. If you do that with other tables you will hear much more of that vibrational energy being fed to the cartridge. So, this is definitely a good thing? Not necessarily. Some people find this degree of damping to be excessive and subjectively "dead" sounding. It really is system and personal taste dependent. I've played my table with the vacuum off, and sometimes, I prefer the sound that way.
|
Hope the responses take a load off your mind. Like someone else said, it’s not the motor but the bearing that might be negatively affected over time. And of course it depends on how much weight. I was surprised at some of the conservative responses, because some guys talk about weights up to 1 kg (2.2 lbs) with aplomb. I think of it in relation to the weight of the platter that the bearing was designed to support. If the platter weighs 10 lbs (4-5 kg), then a 250g weight will probably do no harm. Or even a bit more. And clamps are good; I use the SOTA reflex.
|
I think your Denon motor/bearing, like my JVC TT81 is substantial enough to handle extra weight. I use the Audio Technica AT618a.
The Luxman and others use a ’reduced weight’ motor/bearing design, and you would not want much weight, these rubber holders for reel to reel players also fit TT spindles
new rubber holder, press on spindle, $10
|
I own an AT618A that I purchased in Tokyo on one of our visits. (Sometimes I just buy stuff I don't really need only because I am there and it costs less.) It weighs 600g, or more than a pound. I use it only on my SP10 Mk3, which has a 21 lb platter, on the basis that the record weight is only about 5% of the platter weight for which the bearing was designed and therefore should not hurt the bearing. But I certainly would not say the 618A is too heavy for a TT81, etc. I use a 250g weight on my TT101. The AT618A really does seem to get more out of the SP10 Mk3 than the SOTA reflex clamp, for example. That is a purely subjective off the cuff judgement. I do like it.
|
I just weighed the screw-on clamp from one of the SMEs, 355g (12.5oz). A tiny fraction of the weight of the platter (which I can't weigh: it swamps kitchen scales, bathroom scales are inaccurate and I no longer own a set of baby scales!)
|
Hello Aggie88,
I’ve been using an Audio-technica AT 618 weight on my vintage Denon DP 51F since I purchased that TT new in 1982. The AT 618 weighs 600g/(21 ozs). I did contact Denon to ask if the AT 618 weight would be detrimental to that TT performance/life. The tech that I spoke with indicated it would not be an issue and added that it would be an effective addition to the DP 51F. She added that weights under 700 grams would be fine. That addition occurred in 82, about 4 months after I had purchased that TT. BTW my Vintage Denon is still spinning vinyl flawlessly. Only change was when I replaced the TT’s rca interconnects about 15 years ago. There are various TT weights on the market now. I haven’t had a need to shop for one in since 82. Hope that this post is helpful.
Enjoy the music.
|
Ps. Out of curiosity I checked to see if the AT618 was still available. Low and behind Audio-technica continues to make them as the “AT618a” currently. Just search the audio-technica website for AT618a.
|
Thanks everyone for the info. It’s especially good to hear the comments from the Denon technician. I’ve owned quite a few turntables over the years (Sony linear tracking, Ariston, Thorens, Music Hall, Fluance, etc) but the Denon DP-59L is my favorite. I purchased it about 6 years ago recapped and restored from a guy in Dallas who sources the TT’s through a friend in Japan.
|
Regarding the Technics SP10 MK3, I seem to recall hearing about a commercial which showed a man standing on the platter while it was spinning. Was I dreaming?
|
I have an SP-10MKIII. Technics claims: The inertia moment of the 10kg platter is of 1,1 ton/cm2... The platter has a 1,5cm copper alloy core (inner platter), supported by a diecast aluminium outer platter.
1,1 ton/cm2 is, BTW, the equivalent of 1000 tonearms all tracking at 2g.
|
I have a Three Metals for Platter Mats, Duraluminium - Gun Metal - Stainless Steel
I have Two non OEM metals as Platters - Gun Metal and Stainless Steel.
Record Weights owned can be used at more than 1Kg.
Certain configurations must be getting up to 14+Kg
The most recent design on the table will end up with another 3Kg+ of Acetal added to a Platter.
As I make it a personal thing, about the quality of the Platter Bearing. In relation to the sacrificial parts selected for the bearing being brought into the modern era. Where materials selected are modern materials and the parts selected are undergoing a machining that is as tight a tolerance as achievable. A Specialist Design for the Lubrication at critical interfaces is also put in place when one is gh adopting this methodology.
A Bearing undergone a overhaul on a owned TT, which is designated to be in regular use is not overlooked, there is always the intention to have periodical inspections.
This approach to having a Bearing Inspection periodically undertaken is quite different to how many many TT's from recent era's of production to Vintage era's of production are being looked after.
Keeping the Objective Focused only on a Denon DP-59L.
The 59L is a 40ish Year Old Model, which it can be assumed, in its usage life has undergone a total rotations of ?????? when the Bearing was at its optimal and has undergone ???????? rotations since the Bearing began to be non-optimal and has been progressing in the journey to being non-optimal through deterioration.
There are conditions that are known to be present as a result of excessive use of a non-optimised Platter Bearing, of which a few are totally not wanted to be occurring within a Bearing Housing.
If a TT user does not know the condition of the Inner of Platter Bearing Housing on the TT being regularly used and the TT owner is considering adding additional items at another Interface under the guise an improvement can be found.
Keeping this to Weight added at the Spindle or Perimeter or a Clamp attached to a Spindle. I'm not seeing how looking into how a Source Medium is to undergo a change for the design for it to be in contact with the Platter through the adoption of using additional ancillaries is going to compensate for unknown off underlying issues at another critical mechanical interface for the TT's function.
The only way for a Stylus in a Groove to not receive an unwanted transfer of energy from a Platter Bearing Housing, which will be an energy received and sent on as a adulterated signal to be further amplified. Is to have a Bearing Housing that is having the mechanical interface within optimised for their functions, and sending energies that are much much less in their destructive capability.
|
I thought the subject was record weights, not platters, and the assumption in considering what limits to place on record weights is that the platter bearing is in good functional condition according to the design parameters of the maker of the TT, whatever those may be. Of course no one would argue that the latter is of primary importance from the get-go. But most of us are not going to be replacing the OEM bearing with a custom made aftermarket one, unless the OEM bearing is found to be defective due to wear. The main way we have of detecting bearing wear is bearing noise. If there is audible noise which one may perceive as a kind of rumble, of course the bearing has to be serviced. I guess you are saying that the bearing of a vintage TT is per se worn to the extent that it is suboptimal, just on the basis of its long term of service, whether one perceives "rumble" or not. For the Denon DP80, and probably for the DP59L, Denon in their sales literature and owners manual stipulated that the bearing would "never" need service. I think they actually used the word "never". But I also think they did not contemplate a 40-50 year lifespan for their products. Let's also keep in mind that we are talking about a bearing that turns at the very slow rate of 33 rpm, most of the time; this is not the engine of a Formula 1 car.
|
