Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

Lewm: "Someone else suggested that Exclusive P3 and P3a did NOT have a coreless motor. My information says they both DID."

It does not look like the traditional pancake style coreless motor. Judging by this picture in this webpage, it might be a linear motor, which has magnets on both side of the coils like maglev train, with a cylindrically shaped stator with coreless coils, it might be a coreless motors after all. In that picture, the top motor is just an illustration what a traditional motor looks like and the bottom motor is the EM-03 motor P3 uses. It's a novel way to making the stator much like the ThinGap motor used in the VPI Direct table.

Lewm: "Denon tt's were said to have an "induction motor". That would be hard to do with a servo-controlled DD turntable; so far as I know the Denon DP80 has a 3-phase synchronous motor."

DP-80 does not use induction motor but earlier models, pre-1975, some models used magnet-less induction motors. Chronology is the key here.

_______

Regards Lewm:

Retrieved from JVC literature:

Both the TT81 and 101 utilize a servo system operating in both positive and negative directions. A disc with either (dependent on model) 180 or 90 slits is opposed to a circuit board with the corresponding number of printed-coil elements. A phase comparator circuit reconciles the signal from a quartz frequency generator with the one built into the motor.

If my math is correct, for the TT101 at 33.3 RPM, speed is sampled and corrected every 0.003 seconds. This second "negative" servo system is absent in the TT71.

Speed deviation for the 101 & 81 is given as 0.002%
Drift stated as 0.00004%/hr.for the 101 & 81. 0.0002%/hr. for the 71.

From this source:

http://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/player/p3-e.html

"Linear torque scheme of a slotless and a coreless structure by Quartz PLL is adopted as a phone motor and a bearing structure. Furthermore, by the conventional measuring method, the impossible rotation performance of 0.001% of less (---) rotation unevenness 0.003% (WRMS, the FG method) a rotational frequency precision is realized."

http://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/player/p10-e.html

"Rotation unevenness, 0.007% (WRMS, the FG method) 0.015% (WRMS, the Japanese-Industrial-Standard record method)."

http://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/player/pl-70lii-e.html

"Rotational frequency deflection 0.002% or less. Time drift : 0.00008%/h."

Again relating to the OP (and I'd not wish to put it to the test) by all references Pioneer is committed to service components bearing the "eXclusive" badge.

Apparently my "IIRC" function is somewhat out of phase. Apologies were offered in advance. In view of maintaining accurate information your comments are entirely appropriate.

Peace,

Throw away those specs. The real units don't meet them. They are pure craziness. they are about as good as amplifier specs of the day.

Wow! I am overwhelmed. But nowhere in your many quotations do I see the words "eddy current", so is it fair to guess that you agree with me? Also, and I have no dog in this fight, nor is it a fight, I had been led to believe from my own internet reading that the TT81 differs from the TT101 principally in the fact that it does not employ a "bidirectional" servo (Victor's parlance). But I always could be wrong. I believe I got that idea from Vintage Knob. (Where else?) The main reason I targeted the TT101 when I needed another tt like I need another... (name anything useless to have two of), was that coreless motor. I think it is key to what I like about the L07D, wanted to know whether that is a general property of coreless motors or some other magic of the L07D.

The earlier Denons with induction motors: did they employ servo feedback as well? It is hard to imagine how that would work well. Did DP6000 use induction motor?

I have more than five times the expense invested in my TT-101 over the TT-81....and would love to say that the performance difference is worth the cost....?
Unfortunately (or fortunately)...that is not the case and I can honestly say that I can hear no differences between them.

Thanks for the honesty, Halcro; in the same situation, I probably couldn't bear to write those same sentences.

...according to the JVC flyer that timeltel linked to, there is no "significant difference" between the ql8 and the ql10, except the digital counter. So, you may be on to something in your comparative assessment?

It does seem odd though to cram all the added circuitry of the 101 just for the sake of the readout. And to expect people to pay nearly $1k more for it in 1977. That was the going entry fee for digital, I guess.