Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot II


“For those who want the moon but can't afford it or those who can afford it but like to have fun and work with their hands, I'm willing to give out a recipe for a true high-end 'table which is easy to do, and fun to make as sky's the limit on design/creativity! The cost of materials, including 'table, is roughly $200 (depending, more or less), and add to that a Rega tonearm. The results are astonishing. I'll even tell/show you how to make chipboard look like marble and fool and impress all your friends. If there's interest I'll get on with this project, if not, I'll just continue making them in my basement. The next one I make will have a Corian top and have a zebra stripe pattern! Fun! Any takers?”

The Lead in “Da Thread” as posted by Johnnantais - 2-01-04

Let the saga continue. Sail on, oh ships of Lenco!
mario_b
I have a couple of Lenco platters, one has ridges around the rim inside and the other doesn't. No way you could design a "universal" Lenco motor using rim drive, you'd have to drive the underside of the platter.

But the other question about the Garrard motor, when the original motor is off the rim drive wheel is moved away from the platter to prevent a flat spot - that's one of the functions of the linkage.. The Lenco doesn't have that problem because the wheel is metal with just a thin rubber coating. How does the Verus motor prevent flat spotting if it is rigidly mounted on the Garrard?
Chris, Since you have already stimulated responses from some Lenco-lytes, let me add another possible bone of contention: "We" tend to think that the Lenco drive system, where the underside of the platter is in contact with the idler drive system, not the inner rim of the platter, may have some inherent superiority over conventional rim drive. (This may be correct thinking or it may not be; I'd be interested in your comments.) Rightly or wrongly you might have a hard time converting "us" to rim drive for that reason. Now, if you can conceive and execute an idler drive system that is quieter and utilizes a motor that is superior to that of the Lenco, you may have something. As I suggested earlier, there may be a way to mount your drive wheel in a vertical orientation such that it can directly contact the underside of a Lenco platter. There are attendant problems related to how to maintain the proper and constant pressure against the platter in such a set-up, but not unsolvable ones.
A combination of the platter and bearing of the Bogen B60/61 and the flat chassis plate from a B55, will provide a suitable outer rim for the low height Verus. In the first instance for testing the application this is the Lenco(stein) to use. What makes a Lenco vertical drive good is the clever application of the spring mounted motor and superb idler wheel, but rim drive is working fine for other platters and will work as well on a Lenco.

The Verus will allow us to audition platters and bearings in a way not possible before. This has far reaching possibilities, I hope Chris is ready!

Regards
Hi Chris,

It’s an honor for many of us to have you post to this, the 2nd iteration of the “Home Despot” idler discussions, as well as your consideration of the possible candidacy of the Lenco as a platform for the Verus motor.

After reading the Teres promotional material about this motor and drive system, a couple of questions have occurred to me that I hope you can elaborate on. At first blush, they may seem to be “challenging”, but be assured that the purpose is one of inquiry into the discipline of what drives a record, and drives us all in this pursuit.

Unlike a true idler, the tire of which can take wear without affecting the speed relationship between motor and platter, the Verus motor’s direct drive wheel will have a direct effect on speed as it wears (quite correctable, no doubt). Should Verus owners hang onto those stroboscope discs, which they are encouraged to discard in promotional literature, for just such an event? Is there a way to recalibrate the “speed lock” for anticipated wear?

Secondly, is a general question on the area of variable torque. Coming from a camp where hard-cranking, big idlers are often the “quest”, it seems curious that Teres would put engineering effort into a low-torque optional adjustment. The promotional material leads one to believe that this option allows for a smoothness in listening playback. Is this smoothness, in fact, the “wow” of imprecise speed?

Many thanks for your continuing contributions here.

All best,
Mario
Boy, lots going on in just a few days!! I've been off-line over the weekend enjoying the last "summer" weekend (temperatures in the mid-twenties Celsius when they are ordinarily 10 degrees cooler), hiking the provincial parks and watching the amazing Perseid meteor shower (we're talking fire-balls with smoke trails).

BIG Kudos to Teres for so bravely turning their backs on the belt. As my Vintage Guru would say, FINALLY, the industry is waking up, the charge led by Teres! I confess I never thought I'd see the day when the War for the Idler-Wheel/Wheel/against the Belt would actually lead to a change in the industry, so I'm caught entirely by surprise, having adjusted to eternally being consigned to a rebellious fringe element.

That said, Teres is a commercial company, and it's wise to take pronouncements with a grain of salt, and to separate advertising from truth and facts. I refer here to the following lines: "An idler setup suffers from cogging effects but to my ears it's a better compromise than the smearing you get from the greatly increased isolation resulting from a belt. But it is a still a compromise." Now, there is a LARGE difference between a large idler-wheel drive simply bolted to a plinth, and one which has been Direct Coupled to a large high-mass plinth. Furthermore, as I am all too aware of right now (working on a bunch of TD-124s by coincidence), rubber mushrooms, rubber gaskets and so on act like springs (not to mention actual springs), allowing the very powerful motors in these old idlers to actually move the 'table, leading to the claimed speed instabilities and cloudiness.

Now Direct Coupling to a giant plinth not only improves speed stability, but it also drastically reduces noise, drawing away and eliminating everything from the 'table's own noises (motor included of course) to simple surface noise. I would love to hear the effect of the Verus motor on a Giant Direct Coupled Garrard, perhaps one will show up in my area. Looking more specifically at the motors, these old induction motors are brushless like the Verus, and are essentially cogless, once one gets rid of the suspension which amplifies various motor energies, as they spin at an average 1500-1800 RPM, eliminating/smoothing out their own speed imperfections. Being coupled securely via a rubber wheel rather than a belt, the platters themselves act as flywheels to the motors (this design philosophy being expressed most of all on the Lencos), regulating and smoothing out speed imperfections in purely analogue fashion with no need for electronics. The trick is Direct Coupling to a Giant plinth.

Finally, there is more to this whole issue than mere silence, there is the issue of the amount of torque. These old idlers have MASSIVE torque, and the question is: does the Verus provide an across-the-board improvement with no sacrifices in transient speed (a function of torque as well as speed stability), dynamics (ditto) and bass reach, SLAM and detail? I am especially aware of this facet of idler design, as European Lenco motors do function in NA (but not the reverse) and are actually quieter than the NA variety (can hold it in your hand and feel/hear nothing). But their torque is significantly less, as is the SLAM, transient speed and PRaT. So, how much of the perceived improvement to the Garrards is simple silence (addressed by Direct Coupling to a Giant plinth) and “smoothness”, with PraT, SLAM and transient speed being ignored; and how much is across-the-board improvement? I hope to hear a Verus soon, and perform yet more experiments!! Be very interesting to see how the horizontal orientation of the motor works out if a Lenco version is released. FINALLY, the Lenco gets some serious consideration, and thanks for that!

Hi Lew, I found the article on the Garrard 501, and the main improvement is indeed to the motor, which, given the current discussion, is crucial and fundamental. If the magnetic cushion removes the noise while retaining the torque, then this indeed is a very large step. Loricraft have also resorted to electronics to further control motor speed, who knows how much this contributes? I'd love to hear one of these as well.

On the issue of direct drives, it is well-known what I think of quartz-locking and how this too leads to a form of audible cogging (dryness and dynamic constriction): I find the servo-controlled variety thus much more musical and fluid. The Sony 2250 has an absolutely superb main bearing (makes me think of the Roksan’s superb bearing), and extracts astonishing amounts of information (this tested with a smaller plinth, simply bolted). So I will be rebuilding this into a Giant Plinth and going the Direct Coupling route, and testing out a power conditioner to see how this affects the servo-controlled speed stability.

Have fun all, WHAT developments, and thanks again to Teres/Chris for waking up (as my guru would put it), smelling the roses, and stepping forward, and most of all for joining us on our journey here on Da Thread and posting!!!