Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot II

I have finally done it: I have made the Garrard 301 (grease-bearing) the equal of the Mighty Glass-Reinforced Direct Coupled Giant Lenco!! More than once I was ready to throw in the towel and either declare defeat, or actually try a low-mass approach in the thought that perhaps the Metaphysicians (who said high-mass destroyed Garrard-PRaT and that birch-ply was the only material for Garrards) were right!!

But logically, what works for the Lencos should work for the Garrards, as what more than anything made the Lencos (and other idler-wheel drives) Supreme (in a world of ball-less belt-drives and antiseptic DDs) was de facto, in practice, actually playing a record, speed stability. High mass further improves speed stability by nailing the Lenco to the planet (and the higher the mass the bigger the nails), and also, via Direct Coupling, by reducing the background noise to an empty inky blackness. PRaT, which is Pace, Rhythm and Timing, and gestalt (all of the musicams coming across as One, as they should, rather than the vivisection practiced by many belt-drives), are all a function of speed stability. If the platter revolves at a precise and perfect 33.33 RPM while playing the record, then the PRaT and gestalt should also be perfect (assuming a perfect tonearm and cartridge in this respect and so on...). High mass storing energy and releasing it over time to damage timing was a myth put forward by the belt-drive camp to explain why high-mass BELT-DRIVES were often poor at PRaT. The real reason was that high-mass belt-drives have high-mass platters, and high-mass platters cause the belts, which always react, to react slower due to momentum, at a lower frequency, where timing resides (1-2-3-4; 1-t-t-t-two-3-4...).

So given all this, then the Garrard should have responded in the same way to the same recipe as the Lenco (even to the extent of sounding incredible with a birch-ply/MDF CLD recipe, which I still find to be the most neutral recipe, truthful, dynamic and extended at both frequency extremes, if not romantic like Amazonian Kerfafala-wood, or African Gnu-lumber), and finally, it did. It is now, as well as the Lenco, a Destroyer Of Worlds. I learned in the process that the Garrard HATES rubber mats (in fact, rubber anywhere at all), and responds incredibly well to Spotmats (which the Lenco hates). Different design and metals in the two platters, as well as different main bearings, and pretty well everything else, excepting the idler-wheel systems they share (and even so with differences) explain their different reactions to different mats.

Are there sonic differences between the two? It's hard to say, but if pressed at this early stage I would say the Garrard sounds BIGGER, like a widescreen cinema, as in everything is processed through a fish-eye lens to bring the midrange forward. But in addition to this, the soundstage seems bigger too, with shortened depth next to the Lenco, which in its turn is more lazer-focused and precise and perhaps a wee bit less dramatic, though this depends on the recording I think (some types of/recordings of bass come across with more impact via the Lenco, others via the Garrard). But this could be the mats, or something else. More comparisons in the months ahead, hopefully I will be able to do a comparison of same tonearm/cartridge into same phono stage to nail things down. But in the meantime, I am happy to report the Garrard will be sharing playing time with the Lenco in my system, and I couldn't be more pleased, especially as it was the humble Garrard SP-25 which convinced me long ago that the idler-wheel system was quite simply the superior system, and once I discovered that there was such a thing as a bigger Garrard, and most especially the fabulous Beasts the Garrards 301 and 401, I began to dream of finding one and owning one, but one never came up back then, and instead I found a Lenco. Idler-Wheels rule!!!

So tonight I am once again captured by my stereo system which won't let me go, even to the extent that Kraftwerk held me rivetted to the seat, breathless, waiting for the next electronic flourish to slam across the soundstage against a pulsating and DEEP electronic bass foundation. Viva la Idler-Wheel!!

Bravo, Jean. "Declare defeat" made me think Eclair Eclat. I think I must have a talent for this naming thing :)

So, any other Garrard Jean-o-tips except the mat? What about feet?

BTW: Will we ever get off of page three?

Mike

Wow Jean, that certainly is a beauty! This is your best yet. Looks totally professional with an upscale bearing that screams “out of my way!” The red mat takes this ancient and plops it square in the 21st century. The tonearm looks like it can cut as well as retrieve. You, and this project have traveled quite a way upstream from the Home Despot store and faux marble, though lumberyards and finish are still our touchstones. In answering your own challenge made a while back, you’ve certainly honored our Garrard ancestors with that gorgeous and stately turntable.

Thanks for the compliments all, you know what they say, "practice makes perfect!" As an aside, I deliberately showcased my amateur/slap-dash efforts in order to entice those with no experience to give the Lenco Challenge a go and join in the fun and report in with their creations, a PR tactic which was effective. Had I either built beautiful plinths or had them done and THEN posted them in the beginning, the original thread would have died in its infancy. I leave these original (and FUN!...I had so much fun substituting inventiveness for experience, good tools and talent and look back on those days of simple jigsaw, pencil, Home Despot and clamps with nostalgia!!) plinths up in my gallery and continue to urge neophytes who have never approached a tool to join in the fun, report in, and showcase their efforts: there are NO self-made plinths which are not admirable, and aesthetics does not affect sound quality a whit!

Anyway, the Garrard plinth is still unfinished, and is in fact my Prototype plinth which I'll use as a platform for future Garrard experiments. Now I know I can push the Garrard into Destroyer Lenco territory, I've already got plans for a very funky/cool/modern/fun Garrard plinth (inventiveness with cheap materials), and for two tonearms minimum of course!

I was a HELL of a battle to get the Garrard to perform up to the heights we've pushed the Lencos to so far (I was indeed ready to declare defeat), which I'm certain will displease certain Garrard snobs (the lower components of human nature will always guarantee some will find a way to keep their lead over their neighbours, even if they have to invent it by denying reality, as they most often do) who want to continue to believe the Lencos don't rate so they can continue to feel superior by the simple expedient of owning a Garrard. Nevertheless, most of those who have compared Lencos to Garrards (and if we count only those who don't have an ego-axe to grind then ALL whose testimony is then trustworthy) in their own systems have greatly preferred the Lencos, which are a more highly-evolved/elegant implementation of the idler-wheel technology. In the end, what works for the Lencos works for the Garrards, though given their different construction (the Garrards are much better-built, just not better designed) different solutions must be found to implement the principles. In order to get the Garrard up to the unbelievable heights of a Lenco taken to extremes, attention must be paid to every single detail (as with the Lencos), including taking apart and restoring the motor, cleaning and re-lubing all linkages, making sure the wheel is up to snuff. Fall behind in a single aspect, and the Garrard will not match the Lenco (which proves the Garrard is in no way inherently sonically superior to/more effective than the Lenco).

For feet I use the same technique as I do for the Lenco: large carriage bolts which with their rounded heads approximate Tiptoes. The T-nuts are hammered into the inside of the plinth so that when torqued down (after levelling) with two wrenches (one to hold the bolts in place, the other to REALLY torque down the locking nut against the large washer which goes between the nut and the Lenco plinth), the marriage/effectiveness is supreme, the solidity incredible. This results in a great increase in detail/focus/dynamics and bass tightness/slam. Again, what works for the Lenco works for the Garrard, and as for any high-end turntable at all, be it belt-drive or not, suspended or not, a good platform MUST be found to maximize the performance. That done, I still have not found footers to match what I get from my carriage bolts. Of course, there are those who don't like the aesthetics, or prefer real Tiptoes, or who have special circumstances (cannot mount on a stand of sufficient integrity) and so on, and so must find their own way.

Now the Lencos don't mind a neoprene rubber gasket at all, but to the Garrard, this is anathema. Ditto rubber mats: the Lencos LOVES them, the Garrard HATES them. Now those who don't have an ultra Lenco and are using a Garrard with rubber mat are not aware of the sonically-destructive effect of rubber on Garrards. But with a Lenco as Reference, it is all too clear. I found a Spotmat sent to me long ago by Willbewill (thanks Malcolm!) finally found its natural home on my Garrard!!

So finally, when I attended to every little detail, securely and effectively coupled the Garrard to the usual Giant CLD plinth, removed every vestige of rubber, absolutely torqued-down the bolts/footers, put an identical marble/acrylic platform under the Garrard, removed the rubber mat and replaced it with the Spotmat, THEN the Garrard was precisely in the same league as the Lenco. The moral of the story being, don't assume the Garrard is superior due to a longer history of recognition, snob appeal or better build quality: the Lenco has only recently been recognized and is not as substantial (except for the platter, which is very evidently a better and better-built design) and has no snob-appeal, but it addresses problems by sheer elegance and clarity, where the Garrard resorts to Baroque brute force to achieve the same level of performance. Those who continue to champion a low-mass approach will get excellent sound because the idler-wheel system is superior, NOT because the low-mass approach is better (an idler mounted to a pile of fertilizer will sound better than most belt-drives at whatever price). The high-mass approach is more difficult to get right, but once done right is vastly superior, and at some future Idler Festival, the low-massers will find their asses getting firmly kicked by the monsters. Too bad, as my back would LOVE for the low-mass approach to be better, and maybe some day some wunder-material will be found to do just that.

If I fight so hard to have these various approaches recognized, it's because I want to be certain the idlers have every chance of unequivocally crushing their belt-drive "competitors", for lack of a better word ;-), and do the Amazing and Unthinkable: together force the industry which saddled us with an inferior system to recant! Now THAT would be exciting, would it not?!? Btw, this is not and never was an ego issue (those who have levelled this accusation periodically since the very beginning do us all a disservice, muddy the waters due to their own ego inadequacies, and consign us all to a bizarre, ineffective and meaningless fringe element to further their own spite, and I am deeply embarrassed to have to acknowledge this problem at all), this is a matter of Ideals (I am an Idealist, with a capital "I"), of the strictures of Science faithfully followed (i.e the empirical and verifiable truth, no room for political correctness, one does not compromise with experimental results/the evidence), and always was.

One other problem I never expected to be such a large one: Political Correctness. It is currently fashionable to go about believing that no one system is superior to another, and those claiming to have THE answer must be motivated, again, by ego. And so people volunteer to belong to a kooky and quiet fringe element rather than participate in a larger and meaningful battle. But in discussing drive systems we are in the realm of science and engineering, and here we are very definitely in the realm of THE answer. No one but a dunce would pretend that steam-powered engines are more effective than, or as effective as, a combustion engine. The combustion engine is quite simply superior (in terms of performance/effectiveness/power), which is why it dominates the world today. Similarly, there IS a superior way to play a record, and that is the way that most effectively guarantees as close to perfect speed stability in real-world conditions, actually playing a record (and with perfect speed stability comes everything else: bass, SLAM, detail, imaging, gestalt, DYNAMICS, transient response). Hearing an idler-wheel drive next to a belt-drive, one CLEARLY hears the superior speed stability, which shows that the measurements published mean diddly-squat (and that therefore the tests used to achieve the measurements are ineffective/meaningless). Remember, we have come a long long way, and what appeared to be impossible in the begining is now within our grasp (if only we continue and honestly and without fear report in!), the recognition of the idler-drive system, THE system throughout many decades and into the '60s', as the superior system all along!!

Last night I was invited to the audio abode of a serious collector of vintage euqipment, and among the many experiences there, he played old 78s on a Rek-o-Kut Rondine (which despite serious noise emanating from the hockey puck/idler-wheel and traveling across the room was not audible in mono at all) via a vintage tube/Quad ESL57 system, and this turned out to the THE clearest and most audiophile PRESENT and detailed sound of all!! And what struck me apart from the excellent sound quality was the recognizable absolute speed stability and SLAM of the old Rondine/system (I laughed out loud when I heard it!), in many ways, due to the idler system and the fact than in mono no rumble is audible (only in stereo is this picked up), the sound enjoyed by those music lovers of the '40s and '50s was superior to that enjoyed by audiophiles today (excepting those who have returned to the idler-wheel fold). There's life even in those extremely noisy idlers of the distant past, provided they are used for mono recordings and 78s!

The Garrard is a stunning performer, as is the Lenco, and even the rumbly Rek-o-Kuts in mono!, which proves (and will I hope in future) just how incredibly potent and successful in every area of audiophile interest an LP spun on an idler-wheel turntable is, and so Vive la Idler-Wheel!!!!