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.
128x128halcro
Dover,

"with the DJ market in mind". I trust you were referring to radio station DJs, which were a market for early Technics DD tables, not dance club scratch/mobil DJs. I've read many false assertions the Technics SL-1200s were designed for dance club DJs. I believe the SP-10 and SL-1200 series were designed in the '70s, a time before dance club DJs evolved.

I don't mean to sound picky here but I hate to see the DJ misrepresentation continued for any newbie readers here who may not be familiar with DD design and development.
Lew
The rubber grommets look original.
I will PM you a pic of the stator to compare with yours.
Inserted in the centre of the grommets is a small metal tube stand off to prevent the grommet from being crushed when the bolt is tightened.
There are also a couple of nylon? stand offs to prevent the rotor from contacting the stator windings when the platter isn't in place ( partial mag lev feature)
Anyway, slight stator rotation is permitted by this arrangement and if original it is an interesting design decision.
Lew,
When Lurne was working under contract for Goldmund I imagine there were constraints. The T5 linear arm wasn't held in the highest regard and the DD suspensions were problematic with any arm substitution. Many users including myself defeated the suspension. The Studio came with alternate springs, but most users were clueless about how to substitute.

This is the first I've read of problems with speed stability. These are quartz locked with a JVC motor. Perhaps you're referring to the earlier Pabst motor, but the ones I've heard didn't seem to have speed problems if everything was functional. The Reference was servo controlled belt drive.

Lurne is probably the most copied TT designer in audio. Not sure which Audiomeca you're referring to, but take a look at this design including the suspension:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/belladonna2_e.html

Regards,
Fleib,
Many years ago my friend took his bog standard L07D over to Richardkrebs who at that time had a heavily modified Goldmund Studio. Despite the Goldmund having had many power supply and other modifications and an ET2/Monster Alpha cartridge and the L07D a cheap moving magnet - the L07D highlighted significant speed problems in the Goldmund, particularly in timing and coherency. The Goldmund by comparison sounded like it was lurching around and struggling to get over the line. This is what I believe prompted Richardkrebs to dump the Goldmund for the SP10mk3 that he now runs. I believe that Goldmund had the JVC motor.

I have heard the Krebs modified SP10mkII and to my ears it is similar to the Goldmund Studio, well down in performance compared to the L07D and SP10Mk3, again in loss of timing and coherency. I think it is significant that both the L07D and SP10mk3 utilised higher mass platters than their earlier DD's to assist with speed stability.

And yes by DJ I meant radio stations and the need for quick and accurate queuing.

One further thing to be aware of - out of the five people I know with L07D's, only one has had no "apparent" problems - quartz locking not working properly, hum, noise being the most common issues. So when we audition some of these decks today it is possible that we were not hearing them optimally as they were designed simply due to ageing and drift in components.

Lewm I have heard both the L07D and SP10mk3 with and without the Krebs tweak and agree with your summation, the proviso being that the TT's have been serviced thoroughly and are performing to spec. Bear in mind though that the SP10 requires a lot of work to get it sounding ok - new plinth, mats etc.
Dover,
Can't say I accept your anecdote about the Studio as being typical of performance. I've heard a few and your description of "lurching around" suggests a malfunction or improper set up. I no longer own a Goldmund so I have nothing to defend, as audiofools typically do. The Studio isn't an easy table to set up. Your description suggests lateral movement from the suspension and/or platter wobble. If the table had the T3 arm that could have been a source of the problem. I didn't use their arm. I had a Zeta.

The DJ comment was Pryso's. Actually, the 1200 came out in the early '70s and was a consumer deck as were all with the SL designation. It was adopted by both the broadcast industry as a cheap backup deck, and mostly by the dance music DJ's. This was a time before digital and using a record player at a dance was typical.

Technics was aware of their sales and the use of the 1200. They redesigned the deck in the late 70's specifically for DJ use. Still light enough for portability, yet ruggedized and practically shockproof. The SP25 and 1200MKII are the same deck. The SP25 is for console mounting or in a separate plinth and the 1200 is a DJ deck. That's the way it is. How do people think the 1200 got the way it is, by coincidence?
Regards,