Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?
Fast_Mick, I think the Kenny 9010 has a metal chassis, same or similar to the Canadian 990?? Yes, coreless motor and nice performer, but you might want to keep or rebuild the plinth. I have a 770d - straight arm version with removable headshell like a Graham Robin. It has end of record arm lift. I'm not sure about the 9010 as to arm and auto functions. I've found that modifying the plinth can be a substantial improvement. For less than TOTL DDs, bracing the plinth and adding mass can make all the difference. BTW, I think the entire Sony PS-X series of tables has BSL motors. Some of these tables can be modified for very high performance. Regards, |
Totem, I will let JP comment if he sees fit, but "Bi-directional servo" was apparently mostly a marketing gimmick, used by both Victor and Yamaha. The servo on the TT101 was well designed, according to JP, but really not different from or any more "bi-directional" than that used in the SP10 Mk3, for one example. I think I remember now why I was a bit down on the GT2000; I once saw some photos showing stress fractures in the tonearm, around the pivot point, arising from the fact that some key parts of it are actually made of plastic. But if it has a coreless motor.... Also, it appears to have a high mass platter. There's a version called the GT2000X, which sports a large apparently metal brace around the plinth. I think it was an accessory which could be purchased as an option. Anyone here know about that? The GT2000X looked hot and cool! (Both good things.) The Sony PSX9 seems to have a built-in phono stage. Is that correct? I wondered how it would otherwise differ from a TTS8000 or 8750. |
Most Yamaha DD tables use JVC coreless motors. I took a looksie at the motors of Yammy tables I owned before (PX-2, PX-3, YP-D4) and they all use JVC coreless motors. And judging by the pictures I saw of the GT-2000, the motor appears to be JVC coreless. The GT-2000 uses the motor similar to the JVC QL-A75, with a different arm of course. The GT-2000X uses a more stout fatter bearing than the GT-2000. Some pictures of GT-2000 guts: http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/hakoniwa712/44630587.html http://blogs.c.yimg.jp/res/blog-ed-36/hakoniwa712/folder/1502328/40/41843040/img_0?1220603098 GT-2000X vs GT-2000 bearing http://knisi2001.web.fc2.com/gt-2000x-shaft.jpg Underbelly http://www.hi-fi.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=1076934.jpg More guts picture http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8PhUZUCMAAWehU.jpg Some clever armboard idea to use a different arm. http://yahoo.aleado.com/lot?auctionID=k203770319 http://auctions.c.yimg.jp/images.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/image/ra122/users/4/6/6/8/lexcoupe430-img600x4... http://auctions.c.yimg.jp/images.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/image/ra118/users/4/6/6/8/lexcoupe430-img600x4... with FR tonearm http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonzaemon/audio/img/FR64-2.jpg with SAEC arm http://auctions.c.yimg.jp/images.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/image/ra099/users/4/6/6/8/lexcoupe430-img600x4... I never owned a GT-2000 so I don’t know the sonic difference compare to a JVC. But from the other Yamaha tables with JVC motors, they do have that fluidity in the sound. I can see one advantage of the GT-2000 is the extra wide platter. Perhaps the QL-A70 is JVC’s answer to that with also an extra wide platter. Quite honestly I see enough of the guts of these tables, they are all just variations of the same theme. The attention to details makes the difference, I think. Using a quality motor, you’re winning half of the battle, which I can’t always say that about some sacred cow belt-driver with a toy motor. Happy DD listening! |
