2. analog
  3. 1317949815

Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

I have just acquired a 32 year old JVC/Victor TT-101 DD turntable after having its lesser brother, the TT-81 for the last year.
TT-101
This is one of the great DD designs made at a time when the giant Japanese electronics companies like Technics, Denon, JVC/Victor and Pioneer could pour millions of dollars into 'flagship' models to 'enhance' their lower range models which often sold in the millions.
Because of their complexity however.......if they malfunction.....parts are 'unobtanium'....and they often cannot be repaired.
halcro
fleib
1,124 posts
 
Thuchan,
Contemplating a DD non-suspended table, I disagree with Dover. In this case mass/weight is used to insure the platter is not a moving target, and the mounting surface for both arm pod and platter is potentially a superior "closed loop" system. You're simply using the mounting surface to close the loop. Using a plinth or subchassis to insure stable arm/platter relationship is convenient but might have greater potential for degradation.

In practice, I think good results are more dependent on implementation with either approach, and I wonder about a cantilevered armboard. Seems like a bad idea.
Regards,
lewm
13,540 posts
 
Dear Thuchan, Dover and I are occasionally at odds, whereas I almost always agree with Fleib. However, in this instance, I disagree with Fleib, and I could not have stated the case any better than did Dover in his initial response. Obviously, a rigid relationship between the tonearm pivot and the platter bearing is a sine qua non for a suspended table, but it is also for me a "must" even in the absence of a suspension, and Dover said why. Like Totem said, this subject has been discussed ad nauseam. By now, those who will ever be convinced one way or the other have been convinced, or not.

I do think that a massive arm pod, such as the ones built by Halcro, linked rigidly to a massive cylindrical plinth (rather than standing on its own) would be a great way to go. Best of both worlds, you could say. Or, you could make the shelf part of the system by bolting the arm pod AND the plinth to a suitable shelf material.
thuchan
1,009 posts
 
Fleib,
why do you think a cantilevered approach is a bad thing in this case? cantilever armboards can work very well when implemented properly!

For example the Micro Seiki engineers were really ahead of their time and they did know why they used 30mm knobs to fix the armboards and 20mm high armboards of a matching material. When properly fixed to a well working MS table even I (and I bring about 100 kg on the scale) can stand on the armboard without bending - in case there is enough counter weight on the table 😂.

The technological ideas and impact they put into this lead to a worldwide success of their tables and still do, many try copying them but it seems to me the copy cats do not reach the original also regarding rebuild armboards. Maybe this is the reason why some audiophiles complain about cantilevered armboard approaches, no?

Would you propose using separate armpods free floating around the 101? or do you have other ideas? Thanks.
fleib
1,124 posts
 
Lewm,
There's another side of this coin. A rigid coupling of the arm pivot and main bearing, has greater potential to degrade. DD motor vibrations will be more easily transmitted to the arm.

A strict relationship between arm and platter can be maintained with high mass pod and platter structure, mass coupled to, or rigidly fixed to the mounting surface. In this case pivot to main bearing distance is not compromised. With either approach success depends on implementation.
Regards,
fleib
1,124 posts
 
Dover,
Your "rules" apply to belt drive tables and seem inappropriate here. How is a DD motor mounted on a separate platform? Using a plinth or subchassis does not necessarily maintain mounting distance better than separate pods.
Regards,
More to discover