DIY TT

Dear @holmz  :  " I did find a Luxman PD555..."

The 555 and the Toshiba 510 are both way inferior units against the Denon DP80/75 that outperforms it. The " atracttive " in the 555 is its vacuum hold down LP mechanism but you can have it in the Denons with after market devices.

In the other side and other than its excellent motors the double platter used is a characteristic that makes a difference for the better, Denon knew for sure the advantages of its overall TTs designs.

If I remember @lewm  mounted his Denon in a custom made plinth of slate and he was and is really satisfied with. He owns other great vintage TTs and owns a top audio system. As always with custom made plinths the critical issue is that be well damped for external and internal resonances/vibrations.

Anyway, you have options and if you like the 555 go a head it does not needs a custom plinth.

R.

Pindac, you mention this: "three Denon DP80's, of which one has the Gunmetal Platter."  I am at a loss to understand how a DP80 can accommodate a gunmetal platter, which presumably would have much higher mass than the original, but most of all, how do you incorporate the tape liner that is needed for the motor and servo to monitor platter speed?  Are you saying the gunmetal platter was an option offered by Denon?  If so, I learn something new and amazing every day.  I never heard of it, and I would not have thought it possible, if the gunmetal platter is high in mass, like the old Micro Seiki types. 

As regards Raul mentioning my slate plinth for the DP80, I made an engineering drawing for a waterjet company to program their computer, and I supplied them with a blank slate slab.  They cut the hole for the Denon chassis and we even were able to reproduce the 3 holes for the screw fasteners.  I would be happy to supply that template to anyone, if I can find it.  In addition to procuring the slate slab, you'd need to engage a competent and willing waterjet company.  The one I used is in York, PA.

I have to listen to a TT to judge how it impacts on me and leaves a impression.

As I really enjoy the music and the pleasure of sharing in moments with LP's, especially the ones owned for numerous years, along with those purchased to offer a helping hand to upcoming artists. 

When taking part in such moments I don't use the time for analytically dissecting the equipment and deciding if one is outperforming the other, that is not where I am at.

If the equipment in use is making a good first impression, it can remain in use until such a time a different flavour is sought. That could even prove to be a period of listening to a CD.

Some Vinyl users attempt to indulge in a different flavour by having options on Tonearms and Cartridges, along with other means to create the experience, I do this with TT's and Phonostages, I am Cartridge and Tonearm Loyal and have throughout my experience used a range of Tonearms that I do not really wish to experience any longer.

The appreciation in value is quite nice though, the Grand Children will enjoy the trinkets when inherited.

Periodically I do have my version of being analytical, especially when trialling materials and creating new interfaces.

The outcome of the trials undertaken and experiences encountered, is that I have developed a preference for a light weight plinth structure and no longer create massy plinth structures. The selection of Granite  Slate, and Stone Composite I accumulated does not have a future use as a TT Plinth. The Materials are to found in my system as parts of a Sub Plinth Structure for mounting Speakers and Power Amps.

The TT's that have been demonstrated and used with lighter materials has proved to get my attention and approval, I have made the transition to the lightweight plinth material in an assured manner.  

One other benefit of having TT's mounted onto lightweight materials when compared to stone, is the ease of handling.                                                                Taking a Stone Plinth TT to another system to be demonstrated as part of a social gathering can create quite a few concerns, it is a very fit young mans sport.

I don't hesitate to offer a TT mounted in a Light Weight Plinth Material to be taken along for a demonstration. 

Certain of the owned Materials designated to be used for Plinth Materials is also proving to be a excellent material to be incorporated into a Sub Plinth Structure.

Making a Plinth capable of mounting Two Tonearms, will add a noticeable mass if Stone is the Selected Material, and potentially create a Weight that is difficult to control, if the Tone arm is increasing in Wand Length. 

There are Board Materials that are designed with properties that are very stable and will not change in a detrimental way in any environment encountered.

There are TT's that demand a high retail price that have Plinth and Chassis produced from Board that is quite unstable and can absorb moisture and warp.

If a careful consideration is given for a board material type, it will not add too much of a noticeable weight increase, if cut to a dimension that will enable the Second Tonearm to be mounted, even if going beyond the usual 9" and 12" Arm configuration.

There are Plenty of TT's that can be considered and Numerous Plinth Materials and designs for these that can be considered, looks like this venture will gather a few followers.

If your confidence grows and a want develops to work with the mechanical interfaces on the TT, I'm sure this extension of the interest will be met with some useful guidance. 

Thanks @pindac I guess I have a couple of questions:

1. Is it worthwhile to have a 12” and a 9:” arm?
2. For instance, I have only a single MONO LP, and will not be using a mono cartridge.
3. I’ve been looking at a few 12” arms, none of which will fit on the current (old) TT.
   1. e.g. Star 12”
   2. A friend had an Origin-Live, and is vocal about his troubles.
   3. The SAT arm looked good, but that 32k Euro was 10dB higher than I would like.

If I select a plinth material that needs a water jet I’ll reach out.
I have been considering something like a Corian/metal and constrained dampening layer sandwich.

As for the 12" Arm I referred to it, as there are commonly seen configurations using a arm of this length on a Two Tonearm Plinth Design.

I am not an owner of  12" Arm but do listen to them. I have listened to the SME V/12" on quite a few occasions prior to Coved, there is a Glanz 12" Model I regularly encounter with a Miyajima Cartridge.

Again I have never detected at any time a difference that is perceivable as a separation between a 9" in use and a 12" in use.

The enjoyment factor during the replays is parity for me when both length arms are in use. 

Another friend who extremely analytical as a listener and in their Mechanical / Electronic Engineering approach, is assisting with rethink designs for a known Tonearm Producer and is the assembler and Tuner of the Brands Top of Range Models, along with being the EE, for the Brands next range of Phonostages.      This friend has recently gone to using a 12" version of a rethought out design for the one in use,  and this has now elevated itself,  as the main used Tonearm in my friends system. I am yet to receive a demonstration of this new addition to their system. 

The individuals I regularly speak to, who produce their own versions of Tonearms and are much more technically minded than myself, have not convinced me during my inquiries, a 12" Model will be a significant improvement. I am not convinced these individuals will be offering a option on a 12" design for their creations.

Again others might feel much more support for the design is merited and be more encouraging in the idea of choosing the length as a model. 

 CLD is a heavily debated method and has quite a few methods regularly seen that is not exactly CLD.

If you want to be guided to good CLD Construction advice supported with measurements for the works created, let me know and I will PM information on how to access it.