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,
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,
Fleib, My gross impression of the Audiomeca that I heard on many separate occasions was that it suffered from what I now think of as an ill of belt-drive, maybe a stretchy belt or maybe its bouncy suspension. Some in those days used a compliant belt and mounted the motor on the stationary chassis whilst the platter was suspended, a great set up for speed variation as the platter suspension responded to the environment. However, this may be unfair criticism, since I do not know how the motor was mounted in the Audiomeca. Anyway, the sound was "woolly", for want of a better word.

Dover, My Mk3 is mounted in a ~100-lb slate and cherry wood plinth, and I have implemented a massive bearing damper much like that used by Albert Porter in his Panzerholz plinths. Of course, the L07D plinth I've left alone, apart from updates to the feet.
Hi Lewm

Great to hear your LO7D is up, running and sounding so good. That you prefer it slightly to the technics Mk3 is also interresting.

Me, still using the Pioneer Exclusive P3 most of the time and its sounding absolutely superb.

cheers
An update on the lead under-mat project. I've determined the lead sheet I'm using is not completely flat. This is made from flashing for roofing. I don't know about other types of lead sheet.
I think casting a lead mat is the way to go, but I haven't started that project. A 2mm lead mat should weigh about 1Kg so weight might not be prohibitive? Combined with a 3mm top mat close to the mechanical impedance of a record, might yield great results.

Regards,
Downunder, As the Krebs mod breaks in, the Mk3 pulls slightly ahead of the L07D. By the way, my L07D has never been a problem as far as getting it up and running. My lamenting has been in relation to the TT101. I've had two L07Ds and no problems with either one.