How did this happen? Covid Times, I upgraded eveything).
I listen to a lot of Jazz, both Stereo and Mono.
After learning here the advantages of a true mono cartridge, I wanted a second tonearm for a MONO cartridge ‘ready to go’. Got big plinth made for 2 arms, JVC VICTOR PL-2. Stereo cartridge on right, Mono cartridge rear.
Then I resurrected a MM Cartridge (new stylus from Jico). Squeezed an 'illegitimate' third tonearm on.
Right long arm is MC (fixed/difficult adjustments);
Rear Arm is MM (removable headshell/easy and quick adjustments of Tracking Force, Anti-Skate and VTA).
Advantage, not too deep like my JVC PL-2, wider solution
Lots more technology going on than meets the eye. Track system with 'locking' plates for arm mount and location. Unique motor lifts weight of platter force on bearing. Two 1/4" plates in plinth, built in a/b box for choosing side or rear arm, thus only 1 cable out to preamp or phono stage.
I helped a member here find/buy/set it up.
We got two Micro Seiki Arms, right side short, rear long
After I squeezed my 3rd arm on the 2 arm Plinth, I found out about the very rare CL-P3.
Eventually, excitedly I found one in Hong Kong.
Sooooo close to buying it, then luckily I asked seller to measure the distance to the far corner of the main right side board. He send me a photo with a ruler from spindle to corner.
Turns out, it was less than the CL-P2 distance and would NOT fit my 12.5" long arm.
In order to keep the plinth smaller, they changed the shape of the tonearm boards, cutting a curve to move in closer to the TT81. In just enough that my arm would not fit. Left armboard also has the curved arm board to keep plinth smaller.
I just found a CL-P3 for sale, showed it to a friend I met here, he bought it. He will pick arms that fit.
Luckily I bought a $150. 3 yr square trade warranty, I had to have the fabric covered litz tonearm wire replaced by VAS. (early design wore the fabric insulation off when pivoting, design fixed now) Full reimbursement from Square Trade.
Dynavector XV/Triplanar + Ikeda Kai/Ikeda on Dr. Feikert TT. The low compliance arm/cartridge are preferred for musical jazz; medium compliance for audiophile vocal (e.g., Harry Bellafonte). My gold standard for comparisons of sound stage, dynamics, and detail is a Revox open RTR.
Interestingly, the JVC CL-P3 3 arm Plinth my friend bought is the JVC Base, however someone put the DENON nameplate (identical to yours) in the center of the front. We think someone put a Denon Spinner in a JVC Base, just a suposition, he only bought the base. I gotta wonder if the cutout fits either brand’s spinners.
Underside of the Denon. It has a recessed skirt concealing part of the legs, less view of wires/light below
Here’s the underside of JVC’s 7 layer plinth (4 some kind of composite like Denon, 3 thin layers of special compound between those thicker layers). Flat bottom, no skirt.
Why not share the subject as an across forum venture.
The 3 x Standalone Pods do seemingly offer the concept that anybody can experience Multi-Arms in use without having to spend too much on the additional Arm Support Method.
The TT owner with a leaning toward multi-TA's put into service as a method to extend on experiences, need not be too concerned for their TT's Plinth being able to receive additional arms, if the Standalone Pod is a mounting method put to use, or investigated to be tried out.
Some might suggest concerns are required for convection and the TT arm Pod colliding 😂, not in a TT users lifetime will that hilarious hypothesis occur.
That's gotta be a nice combo. I had and loved an SME 3009II, got repair parts from SME in 1973. I wrote them with parts needed. I expected a letter saying 'send $_____. They sent me the parts with a typed invoice, trusted me to pay, class act. Different world then. Steve at VAS made me sell it to him.
My friend just bought a used 9" Moerch. He's the one who bought the JVC 3 arm plinth with the Denon Nameplate. He's going to select and add a new veneer, so it will be a while until I help him install it, and hear it.
Here’s my JVC spinner ’type’ with custom black marble base and pods. I’d hate to pay for it. No dust cover? All that precision, open to dust mites? Or my forced air system, nooooo.
Mine is a TT81, the last ’sensible’ one. That is Halcro’s (Henry) TT101. I read all about it, a VERY LONG thread here, the nightmare he went thru getting it properly overhauled. TT101 is vacuum hold down type. Pretty sure Lewm had/has a TT101.
Here’s Halcro’s Video proving all 3 arms could play without effecting the speed one bit. Happily I have more room to operate my rear arm, as easy as the right side. Left arm backwards, is a mind twist.
My friends compare cartridges, theirs, mine, stereo/mono: changing the rear arm’s headshell, playing 2 or 3 arms simultaneously, simply select which arm on my 3 arm SUT. Easy to demonstrate the benefit of playing a Mono LP with a true Mono Cartridge vs a Stereo Cartridge via preamp’s mono ’mode’.
Punishment: I compare TT101 to anyone who buys a Jag XJS with a V12 jammed under the hood, instead of a superb Straight Slant 6. btw, the 6 beats the 12 off the line, V12 only wins at top speed.
I admire other people’s ’arms on pods’ arrangements. A lot of wonderful designs simply ignore dust covers. You need to have a designated place for the dust cover to go while listening, some custom ones are giants.
I prefer the arm mounts factory made and attached to the TT itself, essentially easy to buy, setup, mount most arms ’normally’. I prefer DD, AND a removable factory dust cover.
Elliot, You're skating on thin ice. The TT101 is a fine turntable. I have been using mine for several years since JP Jones repaired its problem, with no issues whatsoever. The difference between a TT101 and a TT81 is nowhere near like the difference between a 6-cylinder Jag E type and a 12-cylinder version. I've driven both; you are correct in saying the 12-cylinder is a dog, front heavy and sluggish. Funnily, they are very collectible nevertheless. I am not going to say the TT101 is superior to the TT81, because I have never heard a TT81, but the former was JVC's top of the line for a reason, notwithstanding the very limited production TT801, which is the model you're thinking of that had vacuum hold down. TT101 does not have vacuum. Halcro and Thuchan, two well heeled, "retired" contributors to this forum, both also own TT101s, or at least they did when last they posted here.
thanks for the clarifications, yeah, JP Jones, in that very long discussion I think he had several cracks at some people's TT101's before they got 'right'.
I'm glad yours is doing great. My TT81 also. Sometimes I think, if I had JP Jones check mine out, some things might not be 'right' within, yet it starts like a dual motor Tesla, keeps perfect speed, stops on a dime. Dead quiet operation.
I still get tempted to buy a spare TT71 or TT81 when they come up separately at a good price. If my TT81 died, like my mx110z tube tuner/preamp, I wouldn't waste any time considering options, just get another asap!
Same thing with the xa5400 SACD player people here advised me to buy, fix or replace.
IOW, I'm soooo happy with the changes I made since joining Audiogon, I dare say, 'I'm DONE'. Hah.
The 801 with vacuum pump. I notice it had a hinged dust cover, I prefer lift-off.
That one is new to me💡, even though I do not see myself attempting it during a upcoming 2 x TA Demo.
Using these Super Polished Styli, is one of the more recent advertised methods, I am of the view it is one of the last frontiers with the present technologies available to reduce friction/drag within the groove.
I am an advocate of Good Quality Interference Fit Head Shells, being used in the same material, for carrying out comparisons of Cart's. A lot can be learned using this method, and I am very pleased to have been party to demo's using this very method, when comparing different Cart's.
I am very familiar with a modified SME Bayonet Type Headshell, that is produced to be a Interference Fit. When compared to the Typical Design used on same TA>TT. The outcome for me has been the Typical Design SME Bayonet is very wanting and unattractive in comparison to the Modified Version.
My knowledge stopped at ’the headshell come’s off’. Do you have a link to a preferred removable headshell?
Removable/Fixed Cartridge: I always consider, the SME removable headshell was present all the while they made their superior reputation. Insisting on fixed cartridges (on the arms of so many of todays turntables) seems an un-necessary limitation. Best headshells/fittings provide easy azimuth adjustment, burying shims 6 feet deep.
Same thing with today’s ’missing’ features: balance, tone controls, tape loops, ’loudness’. All the great stuff made their reputations with a LOT of features, I’ve tried the ’simplicity’ ’straight wire with gain’ thing, gimme the features, modern ’defeatable’ a nice feature. Lack of a BALANCE control seems absurd, and remote balance is a wonderful thing I don’t want to live without. Defeatable if desired.
Same thing regarding LEVEL controls on speakers, to adjust output for ’best’ in that space, in that particular location in that space (often less than ideal). What difference if an owner get’s it ’wrong’ with his choice, his settings, in his space/location (or the wifey’s location), it sounds best to him. Perhaps needed adjustments for his individual hearing variations, and diminishing of highs while aging. Controls, simple tripod mics, CD test tones ought to be provided as standard. Consider the sophisticated adjustments provided for video systems.
Without level controls, there is no way my friends would prefer listening here. Without level controls, there is no way my AR-2ax’s would sound soooo good, best than I ever had in my office. I’ve got one wall close left, open space right side, adjustments imperative.
Most of the time I forget I can play 2 (or 3) arms at the same time, simply play one, lift it, switch SUT input, lower the other arm/cartridge. Of course, perfection is lost by having different tonearm wires and cables for each arm, two OEM din, main arm my choice of Ortofon, thru VPI junction box I might add. one re-wired using VAS's chosen wire and solder
For more careful comparisons, a volume match is important, I mess about, make a temporary pencil mark at my amp’s volume control, not measured, just sounds about right to the two of us.
Re a hinged dust cover: they can be “lifted off”, which is the first thing I did with the covers for the TT101 and Denon DP80. The hinges come apart via a spade/slot joint. You can use the cover either way or not at all.
The TT801 has a greater reputation for unreliability than does the TT101, possibly owing to its greater use of ICs which were needed to create internal space for the vacuum plumbing.
There is not a Link as such, the design is Bespoke Made.
If you do look across the years of SME Designs since their 30xx Models were released.
The insertable removeable Headshells used on the 30xx range, (the design mimicked by many Brands), as a design, are inserted into an additional connected fastened into the Wand. Once seated the removable part is tightened in place by a Threaded Ferrule. I won't say too much on this as a design for a role where two parts are connected to the end of the Wand, especially where a rigid coupling being in place is the ideal.
This earlier design from SME was not transferred over to the Companies M2 xx Design. This design used for M2 xx, is robust and has a mounting method that has the Wand as the internal, with the Headshell clamping down onto the sleeve that is concealing the Wand and serving as a means to increase the OD over a proportion of the length of the Wand. This still remains a Two Part Connection for the Headshell, but has the design incorporated to enable a rigid clamping of the Headshell to the Sleeve. I am giving the benefit of any doubt to the Sleeve and suggest it is a very tightly coupled part, and an adequately tight clamp fastening will finish the connection nicely.
The later of the SME Removable Headshell Designs was with a increased substance and designed to directly couple onto a Tapered Wand.
I don't see the Headshell Connection used for the SME 309, IV and V having any potential to not be rigidly coupled, as long as the Clamp Fastening is adequately tightened.
For the two later designs of removable Headshell, my gut has always been toward using a Torque Setting at the time of securing the Headshell, as this would give a consistency to the mechanical interface.
In relation to my earlier post. I was given demo's from the same TA. Encountering it evolve from a version of the SME Bayonet Headshell, to a Bespoke Interference Fit Design. I made the impression this made known earlier and it was very impressive.
An additional experience I had at a later date, was when the same TA, was using PC Triple C Wand Wire. This Wire Type is the same Wire used by SAEC in their TORT TA.
I am a advocate of a particular wire type, which is PC Triple C.
It has been experienced in use in my own system and others over time.
I was always looking for a diameter to suit Wand Wire but finding it with a sheath was not easy.
I learnt the PC Triple C Wire is in use in a SAEC TA, and this was very encouraging.
In the end after many investigations a suitable sheathed wire was discovered, with an ideal OD.
I was demo'd this Wire, used on the very familiar to myself TA and System. The experience proved to be something very special. SAEC has got it correct I am sure, and my encouraging a friend to investigate and produce a version was the best call I have been instrumental in encouraging to be realised for a very long time.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.