All of these tables have been discussed in some form or another here over the years. I have read quite a few threads on them, but its a bit difficult to nail this point down.
Basically I am looking for a non-suspended table to install a Dynavector DV505 arm on, and these tables can fit the bill.
The most widely available is a Denon DP 75 or DP 80 in a Denon plinth, and they are perhaps the most affordable also. Are there any of their plinths that are desirable, or are they just a veneered stack of MDF or plywood?
While more expensive I can find a Sony TTS8000 in a Resinamic plinth although shipping from HK is expensive. There is one thread I came across here where a member who restores tables says two of the three TTS8000 he has done had play in the spindle assembly which looked to be wear in the brass bushings of the motor. That does make me pause in concern.
The JVC TT101 is not only difficult to find, its apparently a bit of a bear to get serviced, so its not high on the list.
The Technics SP 10 MK II I have owned, and its a nice table but to be honest I had a Denon DP75 that I felt actually sounded better. Also the models that are out there are either abused or have a premium price tag attached to them. Also I don’t need instant torque, and I think the bi-servo designs might offer better speed control.
As I write this the Denon and Sony seem to be at the top of the list, unless there is another I should be looking at.
I have an SP10mk2 which is nice. I have been wanting to hear the Sony as well. I have been wishing to come across a Denon DN308 system for a long time. Oh and I had a TT81 which I had to learn the hard way about difficult service but it and the 101 are wonderful when they work ;) I sell the very good STST direct drive tables also so I am *into* DD... I would find out how costly the Sony restore / repairs are on average and factor that in
The following is a timeline for my Journey with TT's and how being a user has shaped my owner ship and the most used designs.
I have used a Garrard 401, that was in a 9 Stone Weight Granite Plinth. This TT/Plinth is now sold on to a friend and I get to hear it occassionally.
The use of the 401, was on the back burner for a period of time as the new owner went heavily into working with Lenco GL 75's and other Idler Drives from this Brand. I have heard these projects as works in progress and completed works in many Build Guises and Plinth Designs using different materials to achieve the end product.
I myself own a PTP Solid 9 with a Purpose Produced Speed Controller this model is a variant of a Lenco GL75.
I keep an Idler Drive close by as I have very much enjoyed the TT as a design since the 90's I probably use a Idler Drive for about 10 Hours per year as a guestimate. I have been instrumental in introducing TT minded folk to Idler Drives and converting their thoughts that have produced new owner users. Especially ones who was comparing the Idler Drive Design to a Belt Drive Design.
I also own a few belt drive TT's that date back to being owned and used in the 90's but these do not really produce much as a stimulation to encourage being used, and I may have used one Model as a 'guestimate' for approx' 30 Hours in the past 10 Years. I don't get too excited about these type of drives.
I own a DP-80, TTS-8000, Aurex SR-510 , and a SP10-MkII.
Firstly for the OP, Thank You for Pointing out the Platter Bearing Housing/Spindle and Platter /Spindle issues. I own two TTS 8000's and the Sideways Movement of the Spindle in the housing is known to me. When the Speed is measured on a Stand Alone Strobe, the fluctuation in speed is seen and a eccentric rotation is being produced. Further Investigation has shown that there is also unwanted movement on the Platters Centre Bush to Spindle contact. When this is present it is not only a record ward that should be of a concern, think of the plate spinner and a plate not given a rotation. These are issues that can be addressed and in the UK are being addressed for some TTS-8000 Owners and this same support has recently been offered to German Nationality TTS-8000 owners who have not been in denial of the condition. When a Platter Spindle on a TTS-8000 is removed from the Housing a Scribe has been witnessed engraved into the interference fitted ball at the Spindles Base. More Grinding to be audibly noticed and another part in need of being serviced. All that said, the TTS-8000 has been a great TT for me it has made me be fully aware of the pitfalls of buying Vintage, and the measures required to overcome the discoveries being made. It is because of this that I requested a support from a Engineer and the design to resolve the defects and work produced is being requested by others, as a result of this endevour.
The Aurex SR-510 has a lot going for it, I got into it as it is reported in other places as having a very good Sound Quality, even comparable to Microsieki DD's from similar vintage. It has a proper lump of Copper for the Motor and was a Top of the Range Model when Vinyl was in a wane. A lot can be achieved from this Model and potentially the lesser Model the SR-410.
The SP10 Mk II that I own does it for me, it Blows my Socks Off. It has been fully stripped and rebuilt with a attention on the Platter Bearing as well. I heard a very similar refurbished model at a Turntable Bake Off and the TT just worked it ws a show stopper. A Friend heard mine and now owns more than one, and had had one produced to the same Spec as mine. Another friend heard mine and the other friends and now owns a SP10R. Another Friend has been getting a SP10 MKII refurbished as well. There are dedicated threads to this TT on many forums. It will not bow down to any TT when treated correctly and the learning being made known about this TT is still producing methods to Transform it to elevated levels above the level of refurbishment that I am familiar with. My latest endevour for the SP10 MkII is to have a Phosphor Bronze Platter Produced and a matching Periphery Ring. I can only see myself creating the best for the SP10, the other TT's will be given fair lore to compete, but I can't see them ever taking the Title off the MkII.
I really like Vintage TT's, but I really really really like my SP10 MkII.
The original Denon plinth for DP-80 is perfect, all you need is AT-616 Pneumatic insulators (under any plinth, actually), stock feet is garbage. Ask me if you can’t AT-616 them (4 of them designed for weight under 60kg).
Another limiting factor with a TTS-8000 is the Platter. There are today Japanese Vintage DD TT's with Platters produced from a few differnet metals, but the USP of the Non Standard Platters is the weight. This as a design has been created in Japan by the Manufactures of DD TT's Today if investigated, there is an overspill of this method being produced from small scale artisan services. A SR-510, DP-80 and SP10 can all have a direct platter exchange, if a alternative approach is desired, then a Part is sourced or produced.
The TTS-8000 can't really have a New Platter as a direct exchange, any methods to add weight to the Platter will need to keep the OEM Platter incorporated into the design. The spindle might need attention as well to allow for certain methods to be used.
The Engineer working on the Phosphor Bronze Platter, is looking into a method to enable one platter to be used on all of my DD TT's but is aware the SP10 method is the priority and should not be compromised for the sake of the others.
To me, it’s a visual preference, I like the JVC spinner look more than someone else who prefers the Denon look.
A few Pioneer semi-automatic wood base tempted me, but I went for TT81 in JVC 7 layer 2 arm-board Plinth. Had I known, and where I ended up (3rd arm squeezed in) I might have gone for the rare and bigger plinth with 3 removable arm-boards.
The 7 layer plinths of either Denon or JVC-Victor are terrific, and the real wood veneers are very nice. Some vintage TT’s are wood looking vinyl. No functional difference IF it has the 7 layer construction, just if you care (I like real wood).
I researched, decided the TT81 was the one for me, (actually a TT71 is also quartz locked, I just came across TT81). I typically try for a level below the top, i.e. the more advanced 101 or 801, even if I won the lottery, would give me nothing audibly different, potential problems, decided not to go there.
That Sony (I read about it, I forget, metalized plastic?) deck, even if technically/measurably better on a test bench, didn’t appeal to me, it would reduce the pleasure each and every time I glanced at it. Someone else, it’s the greatest. But then it seems you get a potential bearing problem with their TT’s which I would likely not have been aware of. .............................
I agree with chakster, add a layer of isolation under any TT, I went for a variation of these below the factory adjustable leveling feet
So far the front runner is going to be a Denon DP80 and possibly a DP75. If I did the DP80 it comes in the Denon DK300 plinth, and that one looks to be pretty well made. This is the one I am considering, although I don't know the tone arm packaged with it.
There is another one of these tables with an Audiocraft AC3000 attached in the same plinth and its $400 more. I might see if they will swap arms and I pay the additional monies as that arm is a good buy even though I don't need it for this project.
The other option is here on Audiogon and that is a DP75 in a VPI plinth. I have owned that combination before, and to be honest the plinth is pretty primitive. Its redeeming feature is that massive top plate. The springs are problematic and no way to tune them. But its an attractive combo, but does not have an arm board. Its drilled for the 401 arm, but the mounting base to the Dynavector DV505 should cover that hole.
Now if I did buy a DP80 this is my end goal of table. Perhaps not the electrical modifications the person has made, but the plinth is the appearance I want to go for. I suppose I can reuse the DK300 plinth and put another Denon table in there for resale with the less expensive arm if I go that way. But this way the DK300 plinth can be a stand in and allow me to play the table while one like this is built.
It’s top quality and heavy plinth, DP-80 is a killer DD, you just need a decent lightweight mat (I use modern Graphite mat on my DP-80).
If you never tried original Denon plinth you have no idea what is it, it’s better than you can expect! Do not try to make Denon look like Micro Seiki with that ugly plinth for 3 tonearms.
Just respect the aesthetic of Denon, it’s proper engineering from plinth to turntables, tonearms and cartridges.
Most of the vintage Japanese DD turntables were sold with thick floppy rubber mats. Most sound better with replacement modern mats of one kind or another. This is just a common observation borne of a common experience. It’s not evidence of a design flaw. I agree that the DP80 or DP75 is best bang for the buck. However beware of examples that were built for 100V AC in japan and then subjected to 120V in the US. Such abuse can have damaged the single IC in the control circuit. 100V models are absolutely fine otherwise but you need a step down transformer. The OEM plinth is also ok; I had a slate plinth with an isolating suspension made for mine.
A Platter Mat is a interface on a TT. It will produce different outcomes to a presentation in differing environments. It is also part of the Construction Tiers, if an individual is looking to use Sub Plinths and Footers along with other materials to give the Stylus > Tonearm an environment that is able to create a Sound that is unique to the producer of the construction methods and their preferences for a particular presentaion.
One Individuals ’Can’t Live Without Mat’ will more than likely be Three other Individuals ’Hot Poker End’ and trying to them to touch it more than once will be fun.
Additionally the Person who is sharing their experiences and their preferences for a particular mat type, they are 'Wed To' , also is 'Wed To' another Footer, which is to be used in place of the Manufacturers orignal selection for a design. I will assume when these 'Wed To' methods of support are used within the Individuals listening space a presentation is achieved that offers a much enjoyed satisfaction.
An individual that is making a Vinyl Source their main source for music replays and is willing to a spend time listening to TT’s they have placed onto a Short List, and if possible listen to them in a created environment for the setting up of the TT. That allows a presentation to be produced that suits the listeners unique preferences, will ensure they are having a great time. If a selecton of construction materials are available to be trialed for the TT Support, the trying out of various permutations of materials being used under the Stylus, might just change ones perception of a TT’s capabilities. Especially if a not so popular choice of model, that is quite different from the regularly made known choices, proves to be capable of thoroughly impressing.
Following finding such a discovery of what is a impressive TT and what is proving satisfying as a supporting method. Then a play with, Stylus Weight, VTA and even using the different equations for the Maximum - Minimum Radius Setting Up Protractor methods that are commonly referred to, might just bring the whole arrangement to a place, that is percieved for the for the better, and much more than at any time had been imagined.
So how can Denon have proper engineering in all aspects and then not do the mat right? Seem to be contradicting yourself here.
Where you’ve been in the 70’s ? Look at the cables, speaker terminals whatever when you got vintage equipment.. Over 40 years it wasn’t so important, rubber mat was a standard mat by default from many manufacturers including top Denon, Victor and Technics. Stock feet under those plinth for Denon, Victor, Technics is garbage. But even in the 70’s some manufacturers made separate mats, feet etc or upgrade for those who willing to spend more. DP-80 platter is has its unique structure, you can search audiogon, heavy mats are not recommended for this particular platter structure.
Agree 100% with everything that Elliott said. I have the same plinth with a TT71 motor drive, Victor 7045 tonearm and a Audio Technica ATP-12T tonearm in the rear position. It's a dream to use.For belt drive I recently received a Acoustic Solid, Solid Edition TT with a Audio Oragami PU7 tonearm, still setting that beast up and for a long term project I'm rebuilding a Russco Studio Pro Model B idler drive, tonearm to be determined.
A Technics SP10R I was listening to on the weekend Past was on Gaia IsoAcoustic Footers and the Quad ESL's were on IsoAcoustic Pods.
The Owner went this route after trialling various feet following a experience with my AT 616 and SoidTech 'Feet of Silence' that were loaned for a trial in the system.
As soon as JP sends my flying saucer I'll put it in my Victor TT 101 original plinth with new teak veneer. I've got a set of the Russians AT-616's for the feet.
@knollbrent, what Victor plinth are you using? Elliott and I have the CL2P with two tonearm boards. Elliott managed to mount a third arm on his as well.
If the AT-616 Footer is produced in an era when Japanese Vintage TT's were in their Prime, and Yet to be superseded by cheaper Mass Produce Belt Drive TT's. The AT-616 should be a ideal footer to a Person that is maintianing a Source in a System from that is True to the 70's/80's.
There are Individuals who have Vintage TT's ( Motor Type not so important, that have Vintage Tonearms with Vintage Wiring remaining and Cartridges from the same Era) To remain loyal to the authenticity is not a incorrect practice it is a choice that ceates a satisfaction to the user.
I have numerous options to hand as footers, in most cases the only real differences that offer thje WOW! impression is when the correct choice is made under a TT, thst offers a presentation that realy suits the end user.
I own AT-616, and have then in my Design for a Construction used as a Isolation Support. The TT' Base and Cabinet Speakers are both using them. The Speakers are seated on the AT-616 and the Sub Plinths for the TT are Supported by AT-616.
For a direct contact with a TT Plinth, in my system the AT-616 have been superseded and are replaced with SolidTech 'Feet of Silence'. The 'FOS' have the most uniquitous capabilities, all loans of these have made extremely valued impressions.
To the point where after follow up investigations by individuals that have loaned the 'FOS' the choice of Footer settled on has been a IsoAcoutics GAIA. As said in a previous post, another friend who has a bespoke produced Rack, was so impressed with the 'FOS' he produced his own design to be used in conjunction with the Rack. I am yet to see and hear the outcome of the project.
It is not so much about the Footer, it is about the impression a Footer makes on a end user, not all will require a particular Model or Design to feel impressed and satisfied with their choice. As important as the Footer in direct contact with the TT Plinth is what is underneath the Footer as a Support. A Footers performance will vastly improve when given an environment to allow it to offer its best properties.
The AT-616 are better (in my opinion) because you don’t have to screw them in something, you can’t do that with Gaya
In my opinion one of the advantages of the Gaia is the possibility of being able to screw them, in fact I used them in the Technics SH10B3 obsidian base to replace the original feet; the screw has the same pitch and there is no need to change anything. Applied on the SH10b3 aesthetically they are a show but the improvement of the sound compared to the original feet is audible. I prefer feet that screw rather than place the equipment on feet that cannot be fixed, just a carelessness by accidentally hitting the electronics and it could slip, damaging its own edge and the support surface of the furniture.
AT616 made for weight up to 60kg and with such weight nothing can slide on rubber surface of those feet. I don't have SH10B3, but a fellow audiophile in UK is happy with AT616 under his SH10B3, personally I bought them for user under Victor TT-101 and Denon DP-80 plinth.
For even better results always sit on AT616 feet during listening sessions, as well. Two of them will provide ample support for most audiophile butts. AT616, there IS no substitute.
@billwojo the plinth that came with the drive, two arm boards. From Elliot's virtual system photo, it appears to be the same. I put a new teak veneer on mine. Waiting on drive from JP. Should be soon.
As said previously, the Types of Footer under discussion are not only referred to for the improvements thay are making when used with a TT Support or as a Cabinet Speaker Support.
A friend is using IsoAcoutic Pods under their Electostatic Loudspeakers. They are veru greatful to my introducing them to, and loaning the AT-616 and the Feet of Silence. As this triggerd their research into the available options to mimic the impressions that were left from the loan period.
I've said this before, but I do not see the benefit of using spongy or springy feet under any loudspeaker. I see only negative consequences, because some of the amplifier power delivered to drive the speaker diaphragm will then be used up in rocking the speaker back and forth. That would result in a loss of speaker efficiency but also in an increase in distortion and possibly a high frequency roll-off. For that reason, I believe speakers should be firmly anchored.
What is a "Townshend Podium"? Is it based on an inner tube (i.e., compressed air in a bladder)? If so, that might not be as deleterious as some other footers actual using springs or rubbery compounds. My objection is based on theory; I have never tried it and don’t intend to as the speakers in both of my systems are physically huge. (Please don’t jump on me for advising against something I have not myself tried. It is just anyone’s natural tendency not to do something that seems like a bad idea.) Also, if bass frequencies are relegated to an outboard woofer or subwoofer (as for one of my two systems), then the negative effects of a springy suspension on the main speaker would be ameliorated, I would think. Finally, any negative effects that I describe might in some cases be below the level of detection, unless one compares a very rigid support with the springy type of support. Problem is that many speakers are not well supported by their solid feet to begin with, so replacing inadequate solid footers with wobbly feet is not that detectable at the listening seat. But I just cannot get my mind around the idea that speaker designers spend so much effort rigidly mounting drivers in very thick and robust cabinets, stiffening them and touting non-resonant materials, etc. How then can it be a good idea to stand the speakers on a deliberately unstable base (in the lateral plane)? How could you not be dissipating amplifier energy in moving the speaker back and forth? On the other hand, if one likes the net effect, that is all that counts. I certainly am not upset either way.
Townsend is talking about vibration coming from the earth up into the speakers. He expects the speaker enclosure to be 'solid enough' that it doesn't move, but let's not shake it (the enclosure).
That's what I need to prevent happening up to my TT from my springy floors, vibration any fool can feel.
So I use Isoblocks below the plinth that let the shake calm down by the time I walk away and the 1st track's content begins. Once the plinth is stable, it doesn't hurt to put it on something soft, thus I recommend it.
If you look at my system, photo of speaker face down with back removed, my speakers are on 3 hard caster wheels, and are angled up (see the block of wood above the 2 front wheels), thus the tops are slanted. This projects the tweeters directly at seated ear level, and prevents reflections parallel to the floor or ceiling. Toe-in prevents parallel side wall reflections. And slanted front effects time alignment if you think it matters.
Now look at the 1st photo, all the pretty things sitting on the slanted speaker tops. Vibrate/slide? Nope.
The 15" woofer weighs 37lbs, a monster magnet, the two horns are heavy.
Zero vibration, nothing moves just the cones, the air, far better than you would expect without computer designed internal bracing of any kind.
I ordered softer wheels based on Townsend's 'theory' (probably measurable, thus no longer theory). The wheel's axels were 'loose', no good, put my original ones back on.
I think you can make a mess of things trying to fix some infinitesimal ....
I'm seeing references being made on conjecture as to the effect a Suspension Support/ Footer can offer to a Device, which is suggesting the use of one is to be detrimental to a performance. It would be a much more Valid statement if the claimes were supported by I have used the types of Support/Footer being discussed and during my usage I did not detect any of the merits they are receiving from other users.
Experiences of individuals who have used the Support/Footers are being reported on within this Thread. Where the evidence of having used the Support is perceived as a 'actual' occurrence has been noticed, and one for the betterment of the device being supported.
Hands on experience is a Great Tool to be used in conjunction with the weapons in a Armoury.
"Townsend is talking about vibration coming from the earth up into the speakers."
"That's what I need to prevent happening up to my TT from my springy floors, vibration any fool can feel."
I hope max isn't suggesting it is the planet vibrating (mass of 5.972 × 10^24 kg); I know he has had some strange ideas. Assuming not, the remedy is not to use rooms with 'springy floors' for listening. You can never make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. All you will do is build up the boing. Boing floors; boing footers, your speakers will be rolling around. The simple and best solution is to connect speakers directly to concrete floor laid on the ground, as @lewm so rightly says. Best for turntables and amps too.
If you are a flat dweller it can be tough.
Vibration from the Earth ? Go to any professional studio and see how the main monitors mounted. Look at Rey Audio for example. The monitors are installed in the wall or placed on a wooden stands (on the floor). There are NO esoteric anti-vibration platforms anywhere.
The OP has made it known there is a Short List for the Vintage DD. Also the OP made a reference to specific Plinth Materials. The selection of Footers for a Plinth when matched correctly is a Marriage made in HiFi Heaven. A Good Couple will get through the Test of Time and last out for many anniversaries. No different to my Partner of 37 Years, she is my Cornerstone.
I see only negative consequences, because some of the amplifier power delivered to drive the speaker diaphragm will then be used up in rocking the speaker back and forth.
Do you think it is better to use hard feet like the Combak Harmonix in ebony? They work but they cost too much.
I would not spend big bucks on feet for speakers, but I would have any speaker, particularly if it is expected to reproduce deep bass, well and stably mounted on the floor. I recognize that sometimes there is a risk of acoustic coupling that can be undesireable, when the drivers get too close to the floor. In that case, I would raise the speaker but still have it on a rigid stand of some sort. But none of this requires ebony or Combak products. For example, one of my systems uses Sound Labs 845PX, with a heavily modified crossover. I added 80 lbs of weight on top of the back plate at the rear of the active panel, for each speaker, which sits on the OEM very ordinary feet that SL provides. The added mass very audibly deepened and cleaned up the bass response. I even considered bracing the whole 8-foot tall panel by running a piece of steel from the top of the speaker to anchor on the floor behind the back plate, but I never went that far.
I watched interview with Dynaudio engineer and this guy explained very well than speaker cabinet should NOT move with the woofers. I think suspended stands are horrible for lightweight speakers.
@pindac, using the word ’cornerstone’ like this in relation to turntable footers is tricky. For stability you’ll need 4.......
Anyway, while upper vintage turntables (DD or otherwise) are still competitive, in most cases their designers didn’t spend too much thought on plinths and footers. There are exceptions like Pioneer P3, where the wood veneer plinth is more like a skirt over some very elaborate suspension. But in most cases the footers just have some type of resilient material to absorb external vibrations, including the earth’s plate movement as some seem to believe.
My appartment has wooden floors and in such a case these resilient footers are totally inadequate to absorb foot falls and other floor borne vibrations. Wall mounting is the only way to go. When you have eliminated the floor as a source of vibrations you don’t need resilient footers and you can change to mass loading the table.
Consequently, my tables are all wall mounted and have their original footers replaced with non resilient ones. In every case the sonic improvement (in terms of tighter bass response, cleaner highs, dynamics, etc.) was as obvious as can be. I use Finite Elemente Cerabase Compact footers, but I’m sure there are plenty of alternatives that will give the same result.
A friend who has been a Mentor for a proportion of my Journey in HiFi in relation to Turntables, has their own TT Mounted on a Wall Mounted Steel Framed Shelf. A Sub Plinth is also used and Two Types of Footer used between The Plinth, Sub Plinth and Wall Shelf. When I am in my friends environment I can not imagine a better method to mount the TT.
In my own environment I have tried a Steel Framed Wall Shelf as a Basic Support and also with various Sub Plinth Construction Methods. I have also used Rack Mounting on the Racks Top Shelf.
The Best I have achieved is the Consruction I have in use to sit the Rack On and the Construction I use on Top of the Rack.
The Sound Quality that is being produced in my listening environment, is the most satisfying I have achieved over many years of working with the permutations of materials used in the constructions used as a Support.
The Next Stop really has to be Trialing with Plinth Materials.
I am at present using a Compressed Plywood that is approx' 800Kg a Cubic Metre (1764 lb per 1.3 Cubic Yard)
The Next Trial is going to be with a Compressed Plywood that is approx' 1400Kg a Cubic Metre ( 3087 lb per 1.3 Cubic Yard )
There is quite a lot of information availble where the merits of coupling a Japanese Vintage DD TT, to a Densified Wood Plinth are made known.
Luxman PD-444 is suspended on its adjustable feet, placed on top of the heavy metal custom made rack in my system. Wooden floor with parquet on top was made in 1957.
And thanks god I don't have to think about plinth, because nearly all my DD turntables from Technics, Denon, Victor can be used in different plinths (original or custom). When you have an option to change plinth it can be an endless quests for entire life!
Where you @neonknight with your vintage top end tt search. A few on this thread have some of the best vintage tables ever made. I've got a thread on best vintage dd tables from the 70 and 80's.
I've settled for a Particular Plinth Material for Four Years on my 'Go To' Japanese Vintage DD TT.
I have moved on from the Mass Design Plinths, the Granite Monolith is no longer with me. I still have a Laminated Corian Plinth on a Idler Drive and a Lead Loaded Plinth on anoother model of a Vintage Japanese DD TT.
The Densified Wood is the next material of interest. I have heard it used on Three TT's used as a 20mm (3/4") and a 30mm ( 1'1/4") Thick Material. I have boards of it in a 75mm ( 3") Material, but those who know this product will inform that 75mm is a excessive thickness, it can be cut to produce a less thick board.
The Plan now is actually to produce Two Plinths from the same Densified Wood Materials. One Plinth will be used to support the TT Motor and Chassis as a Standard Mounting Method, and the other will be used to support the TT Motor only in a Design known as the Kaneta.
Each Design when produced will have the same Tonearm in use and the trials between the Two Designs will be undertaken using a selection of Cartridges.
If all goes to plan, each TT will have a modified Platter Bearing using the latest technologies to modernise it and a stiffening to produce less flex to the Bearing Housing will be used.
A Phosphor Bronze Platter is being produced to Work on Each TT. This is to be trialled against the OEM Platter and a Lamination of another material added to the OEM Platter.
A Bespoke Phosphor Bronze Periphery Ring is to be produced to be used for the trials as well.
Trials of this type have been undertaken in another Country, between the SP10 MKII 'OEM', MKII Kaneta and SP10R. The reports have been extremely positive and measurements are recorded and used to show how different materials are interfacing.
These reports are being taken as 'worthy of consideration' by myself and a friend, with the result being the investigations are a worthwhile endeavour and the efforts to get this opportunity to a fruition and share in the experince has started.
Another timely experince to be undertaken is the recent report from another Engineer Friend, who has very recently declared that their Brand New Design Tonearm is almost ready to be made available for Beta Trials. It would be great to use this New Tonearm Design with the New Plinth TT's and another local friends SP10R, especially as the New Design Tonearm can be compared with my Bespoke Redesigned and Rebuilt Audio Technica AT-1010 (PMAT-1010) and the Glanz 12" Arm on the SP10R. Swapping the Cartridge, so that all the Cartridges used in comparisons are a match, will be a unavailable on the Glanz Arm and this option, will, I assume not be available, as the Miyajima Cartridge on the Glanz was set up by a TT Specialist with a Software.
The Autumn Months are looking like there will be a very interesting set of experiences to be undertaken.
it is right to report the experiences of all but I think it is essential to listen to more music and less attention to bullshit; life is too short to spend all your free time looking for an ideal plinth.
it is right to report the experiences of all but I think it is essential to listen to more music and less attention to bullshit; life is too short to spend all your free time looking for an ideal plinth.
Exactly. Or to pay attention to seismic activity of the earth pretending your plinth can protect your cartridge when there is an aliens invasion while you're listening to your favorite LP.
The OP has made it known in their first Post that there is an interest to receive information about Vintage Japanese DD TT’s from a particular era, and has helped that era be dialled in on by making various Models known that have been experienced, or are Short Listed to be experienced.
There is a Clear Comprehensive Inquiry asking about options on Plinth Materials, to which the Thread has supplied invaluable information to be assessed, with the added information on Sub Plinth Support, I am thinking these are (Bonus Points) to an inquiry, especially the AT-616 suggestion.
There was also references made to complications that are known with certain Brands TT Models, be it a Difficult to achieve support with Servicing, a cost associated with a pristine model, or a blatant defective condition known to develop on a Branded Model.
The OP has had confirmation offered on a concern about the blatant defective condition, but has not been guided on how to overcome the other concerns. Maybe there is still somebody to contribute to this.
The Request for information in relation to TT’s and Plinths is to my mind quite broad, and this has been met with a invaluable offering from the forum members.
The OP’s rigidness on their choice of Tonearm has also been respected, and they have been left to not have to be confronted with the suggestions of using a different Tonearm. I hope this is a satisfactory outcome for the OP.
It is totally OK on a Forum to make an inquiry, it is not really possible to control the feedback offered, but as long as the information being made available has a relation to the request for information, all offerings from others will have a value to some degree.
Two Forum Members have recently chosen to make their thoughts on the information being offered to support the OP’s original inquiry Public.
One Forum Member for approx Five Years, and who as a Thread Creator in that time, has produced 'Five Threads' that are inquiries. Recommends the OP’s inquiry on Plinth Materials and the other members contributions on the Plinth Material, is in their words giving ’bulls**t attention and is a waste of time. I am not convinced this is a worthwhile analogy myself.
Their encouragement to listen to Music is very welcome.
The other Forum Member who has been a Forum Member for approx Ten Years and Six Months, and who as a Thread Creator in that Time, has produced 32 Threads, of which 24 Threads are inquiries. Of which some of these inquiries are extremely closely related to the content of the OP’s inquiry on this Thread.
This members has shown what appears to be a support for the recommendation of the above Forum Member. I do agree that trying to detect Siesmic Activity whilst listening to a System would be a wasteful undertaking and is a good guidance to offer.
Additionally and ’hats of to this person’ for their humour, they have some how found a way to mock their usage of 16 x AT-616 as a method to protect their HiFi equipment from the effects of a Alien Invasion and a little activity within the Lithosphere. Long Threads can do with a little interval that has a element of Humour.
So i guess I do owe folks an update. I decided to pass on the Sony TTS8000 due to reported bearing issues. I was pretty well set on getting a Denon DP80 in a DK300 plinth from Unisound, however I could not get them to package the arm I wanted with it. There is one table with the DK300 plinth a bit damaged on the front veneer but it had the Audiocraft AC3000 on it. The second table has a nice plinth but what looks to be a lower end Denon arm of some sort. I had asked if I could have the AC3000 moved to the other plinth as they both were the same finish, and its a matter of moving arm boards. They declined, and I can understand why, but I thought I would ask.
In the meantime I decided to take a different tack. On Audiogon there is a
Scheu Analog Das Laufwerk No.2 table for sale in Warsaw, but the shipping costs that were listed in the ad were not horrible. Its also a shop demo so it comes with factory warranty. I hit the buy now button, but am waiting for the seller to put together the shipping cost and arrange payment process, its due to be a wire transfer. They are a 17 year member of Audiogon and verified dealer, so while I am a bit apprehensive, this is a known seller. So the Scheu would be my first choice, but as the ad read shipping was supposed to be $300 USD to the US, and if I am given a number that is significantly different then I am going to end the transaction as that is not what was represented in the ad. I should have a firm number tomorrow, so we will have a resolution soon.
Option #2 is going to be the DP80 in the DK 300 plinth with the lower Denon arm. The arm will get repurposed for another project, maybe even sold off. Or perhaps put on the sideline for awhile and eventually reunited with the plinth and a different drive unit, if I ever get a custom plinth built for the DP80. i could source something like a DP75 drive unit to make a complete table again and find it a new home. But heck I might just love the DK 300 the way it is, perhaps have it re-veneered and call it good.
Everything is kind of fluid now, the next few days should see a resolution.
For the heck of it I picked up an interesting vintage MC to use as a casual cartridge on the Dynavector. Picked up an Ortofon MC200. Has a fine line stylus, boron cantilever, samarium cobalt ring magnet, and Ortofons WRD damping system. Output is low, but the Esoteric E-03 phono stage has enough gain to handle it. I will use if for casual vinyl listening till it wears out and then send it off to a retipper I want to try. Be a good test mule for me to see what i get back.
The desision to decline the TTS 8000 if there is not access to somebody to assist with some of the known issues will leave you with one less hurdle to climb over, if a purchase did show the known conditions that can develop. A Spindle Housing Bush is not a Direct Exchange with a Off the Shelf Bush Part. The ID is 11mm and OD 16mm. A of the Shelf Bush with a close match will be ID 11.11mm. The Platter connection to the Spindle will need a complete rethink as to how to overcome the unsuitable coupling and wobble that can be detected on certain Models. A Worn Bush can be explained with a few descriptions, but the Platter connection to the Spindle seems to be born from Machining Tolerance issues, as it is not realy exposed to any wear during usage.
It looks like your First Choice of TT is a complete Curve Ball to the original inquiry, and looks like a nice piece of kit. It is a New Model to myself and I am liking the aesthetics of the design.
The DP80 as a Second Choice is a product with many followers much of the previuous post will be related to this model, as it is a DD.
Additional Information might need to be supplied to assist with getting the best support set up under theFirst Choice that is a Belt Drive.
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.
