KAB modded Technics 1210

Hey Lind, if you like herbie's stuff, check out this link for the technics:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1192235918

Seems things have gone full circle (no not of Wilson-Benesch fame!), as I remember a time when anyone who owned a Technics was treated like a pariah for having a direct drive turntable. I remember giving mine away to my brother-in-law when I bought a harmon-kardon T-60. I remember when the word was that the motor vibrations would inevitably be transmitted to the platter. I remember that if it wasn't a Linn or a clone thereof sitting in your room you were not an audiophile. Great to see that the Technics is alive and kicking.

11-10-07: Pbb
Seems things have gone full circle (no not of Wilson-Benesch fame!), as I remember a time when anyone who owned a Technics was treated like a pariah for having a direct drive turntable.

Yep, it seems that in some ways, the high end never learns, and is all too eager to diss this or that design philosophy as invalid and circle the wagons.

I remember when no self-respecting "audiophile" speaker was ported. Now they almost all are. I remember (yes, I'm old) when some of the best home speakers were horns. Then when dome radiators came in, horns were no good. Then Avant Garde of Germany reintroduced horns with a new level of fit and finish, and guess what? Horns do dynamic range with ease where most other designs struggle. Metal domes (alumnum? titanium? beryllium?), fabric domes, poly cones, treated paper cones--they've all had their day.

How about when we couldn't wait to ditch tubes for the higher power, lower distortion, and operating stability of solid state? Or toss out analog ganged tuners for frequency synthesizer tuners?

Or when you HAD to have an S- or J-shaped tonearm with detachable universal headshell (the early Linns and Regas had 'em). Then they had to be straight with integral headshell? Or it had to be suspended belt drive; wait, no, mass-loaded belt drive?

More than any other design philosophy, however, it's the belt drive that the high end identified with and clung to as a mark of enlightenment and superiority. I think two reasons for this are that the sonically superior turntables that distinguished themselves early on were the AR and the Linn, but the REAL reason for their noticeably better sound was the vibration control and isolation afforded by the suspended design, not the belt drive per se; but the belt drive got the credit. The second reason was that anybody with access to cheap little electric motors, a machine shop, and rubber bands could put out a belt drive turntable. If you went with direct drive, you had to deal with Matsushita or JVC for the motor and drive mechanism, which was politically incorrect--selling out to the mid-fi of mega-corporations.

Michael Fremer gave the Monaco Grand Prix got a *pretty good* review, but consider this: It was the first high end turntable of its kind. How good and how affordable would high end direct drive turntables be today if high end manufacturers had been sourcing motors and spindles from Matsushita and applying their high-end philosophies to integrate them with better vibration control, isolation, and tonearms for the last 30 years?

At this point, we would have a $1K-$1.5K turntable equivalent to today's $3K-$5K products, and decidedly better than what's available at $2500.

BTW, Mr. Linisfarne, how well do the Isonoe footers keep vibration OUT of the turntable? For example, if you are playing a record and tap on your turntable shelf, can you hear it through the speakers?

Johnnyb53-No, you do NOT hear the tap. The Isonoe feet seem to do their job very well. I've got the TT on an Audio Tech (Italian) stand, no longer made, as I understand it. I've use it under Linn, Rega and Nottingham tables with stellar results. I've carried this stand with me from house to apartment to house for 30 years and I'm certain it too contributes to my great results.