direct drive tt's?


It is very hard for someone who grew up in the cd era to know much about turntables, and what to look for and what to avoid. No area dealers have analog set-ups I can listen to, and I am the only person I know who even listens to records. So I thought I'd post here to gain a little knowledge hopefully.

I found a early 70's Miida direct drive turntable in the trash a few months ago. Model number 3115 I believe. The thing was in fine condition, very clean, and ran much quieter than the Thorens 140 belt-drive tt that I was using, so out went the Thorens and in went the Miida. But what I want to know is, what are the shortcomings of dd turntables? What kind of tweaks might be worth experimenting with to get the maximum out of the tt, or are such turntables not worth even fiddling with? What cartidges would be worth thinking about for such a tt, and for the quality of records I play (my collection is mostly from thrift stores and yard sales, but I do have a nitty gritty to clean my finds, and I also have some valuable records I certainly do NOT want to do harm to)? Is it possible or worthwhile to upgrade the tonearm on such a table?

Any advice and information would be welcomed. As I say, its hard to know much about vinyl playback and its subtleties when all you have ever seen are cd's and digital gear.

btw, I run the ol' retro-looking miida into BAT electronics and Snell loudspeakers.

thanks :)
pcanis
pcanis
I DON´T SCRATCH RECORDS.

The modified 1200 is undisputably THE turntable to have in the under $1000 category. If you want significally better performance, get a VPI with flywheel and a Graham tonearm with some fancy MC. Really.
I like classical on record more than CD. Very different experience. I have both DD and BD TT, they all give better result to classical on records. Listening to violin is a quick evidence. Dynamic range is a big difference for orchestra. I doubt your speaker may not have the capability to show off symphony or your TT may be the cause. For rock music, less dynamic, you are probably hearing the smooth sound from your TT and amps. But whole system(including room) is not showing dynamic range enough. I have some record and CD on the same recording, LP always win in sweet high, dynamic range, and soundstage except bass and that "Bili Bili Fufu" noise from record.
(used oracle vs Sony ES + P3 DAC (hey! not bad sound for digital)) I would complain about bass of TT but not in your case!? set up is different.

I do like Sumiko blue point special (sweet high/bass shy) and grado (nice med).

I don't buy new pop records, my digital is well good enough.
For classical, I can stand that "bili bili" to get my dynamic range and sweet sound from classical music.
I am buying more and more classical records than CD's.
Actually, after my TT, I start to realize that Angel, Decca and DG have world class recording team back to ~1960. And they have a gold years up to ~80 before CD start to take over the market. Reasonable CD sound can be achieved at lower price, that's when lots of small studio came out. But hey!, I respect those engineers in those big company at that time, recordings are great even in today's technology!
A few random thoughts: I have owned a Goldmund Studio table which utilized a Pabst direct drive motor and was very happy with the sound and would recommend it to someone seeking an excellent table at a bargain price. A friend recently purchased a Studio with a Dave Shreve modified Rabco arm for $1000. I owned a Linn LP-12 prior to the Goldmund and chose to sell it inorder to purchase the Goldmund. Either drive method can produce superb results, each has its own set of problems which must be solved. My current table is a belt drive Rockport, the newest Rockports are direct drive. With respect to my TT, I find that the sound is sensitive to A/C filtration and to the material from which the drive belt is made and the tensioning of the belt. Having said this I admit that most direct drive TT's, particularly those low cost models from Japan, have problems in the implementation of the drive exactly along those lines stated by Jimbo3.
I am frankly stunned at how cheep used P3's with what by all accounts is a superb arm (rb300) go for. I am leaning toward keeping an eye pealed for one of those.

As for the miida, yes, I am happy with it, and felt somewhat reassured when I had notieced it had, for example, no auto-lift at the end of the record. I am guessing here, but wouldn't it only be intended "audiophile" players that would have been missing this "feature" back in the early 70's? Plus, it weighs around 30 pounds or, which too is reassuring. The attached output cables are also very thick, suggesting at least an intention for this to be a "serious" deck for that time.

My focus now is going to be on isolation, then on a new table. From the posts here, and reading up on some "upgrade" oriented posts in the archives, I've seen that really, objective number one should always be to get the table itself all straightened out. So, no fiddling with new carts or pre-amps YET ;)

How can the P3 be so good a player for so cheap? Is it because of that arm, which I have heard is just simply one of those "pure gems" of the hi-fi world?

One feature I do sometimes think about as a goal would be easily chageable headshells or tonearms. The reason for this is I have heard recently (the wonderful MF in stereophile, a tweaker with taste imo) that mono records benefit from a mono cartridge, and I would like to be able to switch out carts for when I pull out one of my many 40's or 50's era lp's. I am guessing headshells would be the easiest route for that kind of strategy.

Well, during this horrible time of tragedy it is a welcome relief to turn to things of beauty to recharge the spirit, and thats what music does for me. Listen on all!

pcanis
Pcarris-

To answer your question on the price of Rega tables and arms, Rega had figured out a design and manufacturing process that lent itself to relatively inexpensive production. They gave it a reasonable price and making good money being the highest-volume maker of quality arms. If you take a close look at their tables, they are quite simple, yet very effective as they generally compromised in favor of sound quality. (e.g.- The platter is a little slow to get to speed, but the motor is quiet and well-isolated for a table in this price range.)

Detachable headshells are fraught with problems- another set of contacts, extra weight, inconsistant alignment, lack of stiffness, etc- and are not tpically found on better tables. It's probably splitting hairs to have both a mono and stereo cartridge at this price point. Cartridges are one of the worst hi-fi investments from a purely financial standpoint- why double up on $$$ in that area?. If one were to go to that extent, one could almost justify getting a second table optimized for mono and a THIRD table (a Technics 1200) just for 'scratching'. (Heh, heh, heh.)

Sounds like your Miida was indeed intended to be a better piece. If it does not have a suspension system, try setting the table on brass cones and set the cones on a thick piece of acrylic. In my experience, unsuspended tables generally don't like to sit directly on squishy surfaces. Does anybody else share that experience?

A note of caution- a high-end dealer told me that Grado's tendency to hum is pronounced on Rega tables, although I don't know that first-hand. If the spirit moves you, you can get to Origin's site through .

Regards
Jim