Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?
Ddriveman, The DP80 is a very nice machine especially when retrofitted into a GrooveMaster plinth, which can easily be customized to accommodate two arms, it'll be a large machine especially if you want to use 2 ea. 12" arms. Because of the size of the platter I'd recommend at least 10" arms, the DP6000 and the DP80 have larger platters than the DP3000 and DP2000, which is why I supply the DP6 and the DP8 with 10" arms and the DP3 and the DP2 with 9" arms. As far as a comparison between the Technics SP10 Mk2 compared to the DP80 I would state they are about even as far as performance, the SP10MK3 is in a different league altogether. Now if I could just get a hold of a DP100 :-) I did a full restore of the Denon DN308 a number of years ago - that was a fantastic machine but rather large, below a link to a picture of this machine. The motor for comparison is about the size of a gallon paint can. http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/one-mother-of-a-turntable.180085/ This now resides with a fellow audiophile, kftool, whom has his system listed here on Audiogon. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/723 Good Listening Peter |
When I owned "only" the SP10 Mk2A and the Denon DP80, both in very similar slate plinths, I gave a slight edge to the DP80 and eventually sold the Mk2A. But I agree, the Mk3 surpasses both by a considerable margin. Prior to applying the Krebs mod to my Mk3, I would have said that the L07D was slightly preferred, not that I could hear anything wrong with the Mk3. The two were just different flavors of goodness. The Krebs mod seems to make the Mk3 sound as fluid and open as the L07D with slightly more "drive" than the L07D. JP, can you amplify on your cryptic comment about the effect of a heavy platter mat? "Drive gain"? I was thinking last night that I wished I could modify my statement that a heavy mat might mess up the servo mechanism. Obviously it's also about the motor and its torque. I thought that the original designers had to match platter inertia with torque and servo action, a triumvirate of factors. Also, you guys, my concern about a heavy platter mat was not about bearing wear. It was about the possible effect of a very heavy mat on speed accuracy and constancy. See above. I'd give the CU-180 a try on the TT101, based on Halcro's comment, but pigskin too. |
lewm Okay, but I’m more than rusty on root locus and complex conjugates. :) My very hasty research this morning indicates rotational mass isn’t going to have an affect on the PLL if the drive is compensated. It may not have a meaningful effect regardless. Increasing the rotational mass means a given correction to be performed in the same amount of time will require more energy. If not the reaction time will be slow. Note the sync position timing for the MK2A and MK3 are the same, yet the MK3 platter is just over 3x heavier. Most of that mass is inboard but it’s still a significant difference. I think this is one of the reasons these DDs can be so polarizing - there’s no way to tell how different techs are calibrating them without measuring one first-hand, thusly no way to really know that they’re performing the same. A MK3 can be dialed back so far the motor will actually overshoot and bounce off phase lock 2-3 times before settling, or set over-critically such that the drive MOSFETs will self-destruct in seconds. I’ve mentioned I’ve seen these running in belt-drive emulation mode before - that’s wasn't a joke. I haven’t measured a MK3 or MK2A with additional platter mass. On the MKII the W&F measurements were negligible, but I don’t think that’s a spectacular measurement for how a drive system reacts to real-world conditions anyway; more of a steady-state baseline. The TT-101 at a block level is really no different than an SP-10 aside from what it takes to drive their coreless motor, so I wouldn’t expect a little extra mass is going to have a broad affect on what you hear. The motor will not be as critically controlled, though depending on the mass that may be negligible, or actually preferable. |
