Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

Hiho, In some magazine or on the internet, I saw a photo of the Bardo motor with its coils exposed. It is striking how much the whole construction resembles either one of the L07D motors you showed in your photos. Makes you wonder whether Brinkmann intentionally took a page from that book.

Reference to "12 pole" in the description of the Monaco motor should tell us that it is a 12-pole motor, not coreless, if I my understanding of the jargon is correct. But I read in one of the original reviews that the motor is a very advanced modern space age design specifically aimed at eliminating cogging. I also read on the NVS website that they have eschewed the use of a servo system; I hope I am re-stating it correctly, but as I recall they make the motor operate against a specified drag, in order to keep speed stable. Much like the eddy current brake used in the Garrard 301/401.

On Technics. My early impression of my SP10 Mk3 suggests it lives up to the hype.

Has anyone here (hello, Shane) been listening to an Exclusive P3? I'd like to get a better feel for that thing.

Lewm, I think the Bardo and L07D both took a page from the granddaddy of coreless motor, EDS-1000 from Dual 701.

Brinkmann Bardo stator coils

Kenwood L07D stator coils

Dual 701 stator coils

Lewm: "On Technics. My early impression of my SP10 Mk3 suggests it lives up to the hype."

That's good to know but unfortunately I can't afford it. I heard all the models below the Mk3 and let's just say I have moved on. I'll say this: when it comes to bass dynamics and tightness, the SP10mk2 reigns supreme so I suppose the Mk3 is even better? I do miss playing my punk records on the Technics though.

______

Way cool! Did not know about the Dual. Perhaps I should have gone to R�MAF after all to hunt down each of the modern DD's that we know so little about.

I take it you were dissatisfied with your Mk2 on other grounds besides "bass dynamics and tightness", One big diff between my Mk2 and Mk3 is that I made a better more sophisticated plinth for the Mk3. The Mk2 was all slate. The Mk3 plinth is equal parts slate and cherry wood and weighs around 90 lbs. I found that the addition of the stiff hardwood dampens the slate, whereas the slate is very good for channeling energy away from the Mk3 chassis. Anyway, the Mk3 plinth is very neutral. The Mk3 itself imparts a little more energy than the Mk2 and has very low coloration, if any. However, I thought the Mk2 in slate was very fine and could have lived with it. I firmly believe there is such a thing as "good enough". After good enough, the rest is a hobby.

The closest to the Dual 701 motor design is the later version of the Kenwood L07D motor because, like the Dual, it has two layers of coils except Kenwood made them in star shape to avoid patent infringement. Compare to the older version I think I would prefer the later one because the magnetic field is symmetrical, hence, I assume, more balanced rotation. If people who own both of them, I would like to hear about the sonic difference. Which version do you have, Lewm?

Lewm: "I firmly believe there is such a thing as "good enough". After good enough, the rest is a hobby."

Great quote!

_______

Far as I know, the motor with the symmetrically arranged coils is indicative of a second generation L07D. There are photos of such a tt on the LO7D website hosted by Howard Stern, who serviced both of my L07Ds. But in real life, I have never seen a second generation LO7D for sale or known one to be in the hands of an end-user. (It differs from the first generation type in other ways besides the motor structure; the tonearm rest and the adjustable support feet were also built differently, and there may be some differences in the electronics, or not.) I suppose if you canvas the LO7D email group, you might find one. Last year there might have been one for sale on the Hifido website. Which is a long-winded way of saying that my L07D(s) (both of them) are the much more common first generation type with the assymetrical coils. There has to be a reason why Kenwood chose to build it that way, but I cannot imagine it. Do you think it was to avoid infringing on Dual's patent? Note that the Bardo coils are not symmetrically placed around the spindle, either.