The coreless motor with the magnets on the underside of the subplatter is very much like the design of the motor in the Kenwood L07D. The SP10 Mk3 also has its huge magnet structure fixed to the underside of the platter, though the stator is not coreless. So the "magnetic drive system" is not so novel, but it's probably excellent. |
DU, Does it really matter whether you have to wait 12 whole seconds for start-up? I suspect the Brinkmann is a bit sluggish because slotless coreless motors are inherently lower in torque for a given physical size than conventional motors; plus the Brinkmann platter weighs a lot more than the P3 platter. (Possibly Brinkmann felt driven by the marketplace which demands huge thick platters on expensive turntables.) I don't think one could declare any single variant on the direct-drive principle to be the "best" based only on the differences in the approach. Anyway, I like the Bardo a lot on paper and in its price class. And I am glad someone is brave enough to make it.
Wjsmax, You are correct. There are two different motors for the L07D. The symmetrical coil type came later. Now I know why Kenwood made a change. My L07D has the early version motor, the one so shamelessly stolen from Dual. (There is a lot more to an L07D in terms of engineering than just its unusual motor.) But I thought somewhere before your most recent post you were critical of the assymetrical coil design in the Brinkmann, which is what prompted me to comment on the L07D. |
Dear Wjsamx, The Kenwood L07D slotless, coreless motor also uses assymetrical placement of the coils of wire that form the stator. In addition, the rotor (magnet) in the L07D motor is parallel to the horizontal plane of the platter, as in the Bardo. I believe there is a sound reason for the assymetric coiling, although I have been puzzling on it since I took apart the motor of my L07D. (Photos of the coils in an L07D can be seen on the L07D Lovers site.) But it is a bit presumptuous to state that the similar arrangement in the Brinkmann is going to result in undesireable "non-uniform pushing and braking", unless you are an engineer and can back it up. To me the assymetry is so obvious that it must be deliberately done for a good, i.e., beneficial reason. Also, the Brinkmann motor is much more like that of the L07D than it is like those of the Technics SP10 Mk2 or Mk3. In the Mk3, the stator/rotor interaction occurs in the vertical plane, and of course the multi-pole stator has a core. |
Hiho, That stuff could have come directly from literature on the Kenwood L07D. The speed control works the same way, using "proportional regulation". There are an optional platter ring and central weight to add mass to the L07D platter. When those are in use, you have to "tell" the power supply, and it alters the speed correction algorithm accordingly. Speed stability depends in part upon platter mass, rather than on super-high torque, in contrast to the Technics dd turntables. There is nothing new under the sun. The Bardo looks to be a great turntable. What does it cost?
"power is transferred without any contact" - that could be said of any direct-drive turntable wherein the magnet (or rotor) is part of the platter and the stator is mounted around the bearing assembly. |
Lets not pick on Shane. He is justifiably infatuated with one of the best dd turntables of all time and surely one that is in the hunt for THE best. My only point is that there is more than one way to skin the cat. I have not (yet) heard a P3 in my system, but the L07D blows away my SP10 Mk2, and I will soon be able to say how it fairs against my SP10 Mk3. The similarity in approach between the L07D and the Bardo leads me to believe the latter must be superb as well, given the skill of manufacture and quality level exhibited by all other Brinkmann products. BTW, I have not measured, but I would estimate that it takes about 3 seconds for the L07D to reach 33 without the peripheral platter ring and record weight and about 5 seconds with them installed. But then, the L07D platter even with the augmentation is probably lower mass than that of the Bardo. I usually spend the time considering the meaning of life. I do agree that the Brinkmann "white paper" is very unfair to the vintage decks. |
But the Bardo-user will be that much closer to knowing the meaning of life. |
Wjsmax, I agree with your assessment of the potential of the Artemis table. This is the first bit of fresh thinking re belt drive to have hit the market in a long time, and besides being "fresh", it is also "good" thinking about how to reduce "belt creep". (You can use a tape as a substitute for most any belt, but its how they arrange the drive system that is so innovative.) It has received very little attention from the audio press, probably because it is not flashy. No chrome, no smoked acrylic, no revolving balls of metal. Please let us know what you think of it.
Nevertheless, I don't see how you can dump on the Bardo unless you've heard that one as well. |
Downunder, you guys should get together to compare the P3 with the GP Monaco. I would love to hear about that comparison, notwithstanding the difference in tonearms that is inevitable. |
Dear Wjsamx, That has to be the most well controlled and precise comparison of two turntables that I have ever read about. If only audiophile publications would ever do as good a job. In the end, your opinion is subjective, but at least YOU know that the differences you heard must arise from differences in the two turntables.
Someone asked about the differences between the Bardo and the GP Monaco. The Monaco has an incredibly elaborate motor control system and uses a very expensive motor, but beyond that you probably can find the info on the GP website. One question would be whether the Monaco motor is coreless, etc. Obviously, the two tables differ in platter mass and construction and in overall mass. I would expect them to sound different. |
