2020 update : JC Verdier La Platine

ledoux1238

I think that If i felt that i needed to improve the stock motor i would look seriously at the Galibier as it is now in production. You could always fo for the Dereneville!!!!!! The motor of choice on WTBF. (said tongue in cheek). I tried the TW motor and there was little difference to the stock motor.

I think that i bought the last Callas kit and I am not sure that they will be made, and yes i am aware of what the kit is supposed to do. I will install it one of these days just to see. I have not heard of anyone commentating on the 'improvement' it brings. 

I can not think of any turntable that has been in continuous production for so long and not been 'improved' by the manufacturer. Its principles have benn copied and adapted by many.Linn have consistently been 'adding value' to their product over the years. With the advances in materials science and technology Verdier could have made the VP a more effective package. Their nouvelle platine has  had some development work done by auditorium23 with Verdier's involvement and blessing, but with a restriction that it should not be sold outside of Germany.

Peter

Peter,

My apologies for this late reply. I have been looking into motor options, SOTA, Galibier, Derenville, and GT Tron. Graham Tricker wrote that his motors are no longer available, except for some aluminium motor housings. On the Galibier web-site the motor from the previous generation, The Lecacy 2001-2013, was sited as very similar to the La Platine motor. However, the Verdier motor itself  is high torque, low inertia, different from that employed by Thom Mackris. Both the Galibier and Derenville motors use electronic controls housed within the motor pod while SOTA incorporates the Roadrunner servo control. 

In re-reading earlier posts on this thread, there are plenty of advocates of synergy between the stock motor and the platter / plinth assembly. I am back on the fence ( again ! ) regarding replacing the motor. I'll work a bit more to untap the potentials of the stock motor. 

I missed this thread the first time around. Since we added more content to our drive system update page, we’ve unsurprisingly been fielding quite a few questions about Verdiers.

I caught a couple of comments above (one by @lewm) which is exactly what I advise folks to do. Remove as much compliance as you can from the system. In this case, it means footers and any other form of suspension.

If you have any sort of lossy link between the motor pod and the platter, you might as well be using a rubber belt. We’re way past rubber belts, aren’t we <grin>

I’m fairly confident that you’ll like the trade-off that locking everything down will yield (trading isolation for speed coupling) - whether it be suspension, aftermarket squishy footers, or anything else.

If you do it right, you’ll not only hear better pitch stability, but the harmonic content will be more rich (bowed cello, woodwinds, etc.), your upper frequencies be more pure, note attack and delineation of complex musical lines will suddenly make musical sense. In short, it’s mo’ better.

This is next level of speed stability (beyond simple wow & flutter). It addresses distortion products and the improved attributes noted above are your reward.

I’ve repaired a few Verdier drive systems over the years, and I like Ron Ploger’s motor mount fix. I prefer to take it one step further. Ron correctly advocates tightening up the isolation system in the motor mounts. I found eliminating it completely to be better yet.

On the Galibier web-site the motor from the previous generation, The Lecacy 2001-2013, was sited as very similar to the La Platine motor. However, the Verdier motor itself is high torque, low inertia, different from that employed by Thom Mackris. Both the Galibier and Derenville motors use electronic controls housed within the motor pod

Hi @ledoux1238 ...

Regarding our pre-2014 **drive system**, I was surprised (upon repairing my first Verdier) to see that he was using the **identical 3-pin regulator circuit** (an LM338T) that we implemented.

In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been. We pulled the circuit off the regulator’s datasheet, and obviously JC found his way there as well. That’s why they publish those circuits, so you can use them ;-)

Of course, our ergonomics (switching arrangement) differed, and we used battery power vs. rectified AC, but you knew that. Our motor was indeed lower torque than the Philips/Primotec. So, in total, the two **drive systems** are/were very similar.

Here’s a link to that drive system timeline that was mentioned: https://galibierdesign.com/drive-system-timeline/

... Thom @ Galibier Design

Thom, thanks for your input. The new website info on the motor is very informative. I have a question:  The new generation motor is improved, it seems to me, on three fronts: better electronic circuitry, better power supply, and higher torque motor. How would your motor compare to a servo motor from SOTA / Roadrunner?

With regard to Issues on the plinth and its suspension, I believe we should treat the granito and MDF plinths really as two separate categories. @ct0517 has commented that the granito plinth and suspension work in tandem with optimal resonant qualities. As prior discussions by @perart1 has indicated there is a  clear resonance advantage of the ‘terrazzo ‘ plinth. However,  defeating the suspension on the MDF plinth is a way to address the resonance ‘defects’ inherent in the wooden base. I hope to get some confirmation on the particular point: that defeating the suspension really only works on the MDF plinths. And that is the one I own.

Hi @ledoux1238,

I hesitate to comment on other manufacturers’ products, unless the discussion is general in nature (design approaches, etc. and not better/worse). In the case of the SOTA, I’ve never played with it.

You have an excellent point about the two Verdier bases. Anytime a spring (resonant frequency) is a factor, it means that mass is a consideration (as well as the characteristics of the materials), so yes, Granito vs. MDF would indeed behave differently for all of these reasons.

My comment about locking down all suspension related to the resonant loop comprised of the motor drive, the "belt", and the base/platter. Subtle relative movements between the drive components can affect speed stability on the "micro" level I described earlier.

In this sense, any suspension in the loop, whether it be some "squishy" footers under the drive system, or springs under the turntable base/platter will have similar effects to that of a rubber belt.

The good news is that suspension under a fairly massive base like that of the Verdier is likely to have a smaller effect than that of a rubber belt due to the platter/base assembly being high mass, and "jiggling" quite a bit less (much less so than for example, a Linn turntable).

You may well find this to be continuum - that a bit of compliance will be the best compromise in your system. In general, I fall into the camp that less (suspension) is more.

Some of this has to do with musical values - your perceptual framework and what in a musical performance your attention is drawn to, and we’re all different in this regard. I tend to listen to a lot of rhythmically complex music with interleaving musical lines, so dynamic behavior is important to me.

My take is that when the urge to experiment strikes (and we all know that it occurs frequently with Verdier owners <grin>) that you play with taking as many "springs" out of your drive system as possible - as long as it’s reversible.

... Thom @ Galibier Design