Upper Level Vintage DD Strenghts and Weaknesses


All of these tables have been discussed in some form or another here over the years. I have read quite a few threads on them, but its a bit difficult to nail this point down.

Basically I am looking for a non-suspended table to install a Dynavector DV505 arm on, and these tables can fit the bill.

The most widely available is a Denon DP 75 or DP 80 in a Denon plinth, and they are perhaps the most affordable also. Are there any of their plinths that are desirable, or are they just a veneered stack of MDF or plywood?

While more expensive I can find a Sony TTS8000 in a Resinamic plinth although shipping from HK is expensive. There is one thread I came across here where a member who restores tables says two of the three TTS8000 he has done had play in the spindle assembly which looked to be wear in the brass bushings of the motor. That does make me pause in concern.

The JVC TT101 is not only difficult to find, its apparently a bit of a bear to get serviced, so its not high on the list.

The Technics SP 10 MK II I have owned, and its a nice table but to be honest I had a Denon DP75 that I felt actually sounded better. Also the models that are out there are either abused or have a premium price tag attached to them. Also I don’t need instant torque, and I think the bi-servo designs might offer better speed control.

As I write this the Denon and Sony seem to be at the top of the list, unless there is another I should be looking at.
neonknight
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.
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.
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. 

Where you’ve been in the 70’s?

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