Upper Level Vintage DD Strenghts and Weaknesses

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. 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 .... 

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.

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.

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.  

@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. 

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.

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.  

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.

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.             

@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.

BillWojo

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. 

There are currently modern feet that do the job exceptionally and cost less than an old and rare set of AT 616
They are called Gaia Isoacoustics.

I don’t care, because I have 4 sets of AT-616 (16 of them).
I use some of them under my Tannoy System 15 (look at the right corner on this image)

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

Also I don't want to put my equipment on something like the sky-scrapper (too high). 

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.  

all you need is AT-616 Pneumatic insulators

There are currently modern feet that do the job exceptionally and cost less than an old and rare set of AT 616
They are called Gaia Isoacoustics.

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.

BillWojo

Where you’ve been in the 70’s?

Well in the 70s I was between the age of 4 and 14

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. 

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.

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.

@chakster 

"It’s top quality and heavy plinth, DP-80 is a killer DD, you just need a decent lightweight mat" 

then

" Just respect the aesthetic of Denon, it’s proper engineering from plinth to turntables, tonearms and cartridges."

So how can Denon have proper engineering in all aspects and then not do the mat right? Seem to be contradicting yourself here. 

Eh I will do what works for me on the plinth. You may not care for the aesthetics, but not everyone has to like the same things. You do you. 

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.

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. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/154156555932

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. 

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lisaa94c-denon-dp-75-with-vpi-plinth-oak-turntables


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. 

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/how-to-transform-a-past-master-to-an-object-of-desire.1034/

Vintage DD, Quartz Locked, YEAH!

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

https://www.amazon.com/Turntable-Equipment-Tuneful-Cables-Audiophile/dp/B076DGD3X2/ref=sr_1_16?dchil...

I was going to conceal them with a skirt, but Donna likes the light coming thru under the TT so maybe I will go for something more attractive.

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.   

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).

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.   

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