Post A Photograph Of Your Turntable - Page 80

Rega P5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyson 

 

 

 

Nice ensemble. I really like the record bin as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent One 

 

Nice ensemble. I really like the record bin as well.

+1, that's a nice touch.  I've been looking for something like that for my "on-deck" records.

It's made by a company called Glorious located in Germany, making it a bit tricky to get here in the states. The feet came from a busted ES amp, the standard unit does not have them. 

There is also this option, made by "AtomNation" and located in the U.S, though the design is taller and more expensive.

http://lpbin.com/bine.html

Thanks for the info Greyson, that's great!

Very nice Technics BTW.  Is that a 1210?  I still have three 1200-M3D's that serve me well after many years.  I think my favorite cart on that deck is the Audio Technica AT150MLX, how does the Ortofon pair?

Here are my dual 1200's (sorry for bad phone pic) with American DJ (Ortofon) Banana cartridges for mixing, Denon DL110 and DL160 for no-cue mixing or casual listening.

My other 1200 is my KAB modded former main deck, now relegated to bedroom duty.  Added the Isonoe footers, fluid damper and rewired the tonearm with Cardas cable to good effect.

I won't stop until I have a table in every room...maybe a Playskool portable for the kitchen?

Once my wallet recovers, I may pick up an SL-1200 to see what the hype is all about. Prices look like they've started to drop again, finally. I had one direct-drive deck, the Pioneer PL-518, but I found the rumble to be too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab 

The better Denon DD TT's are good choices for ultra-quiet. DP-57M, 59L, 60L, 62L, and 72L are outstanding decks.

I've always wanted one of these decks but wondered about the performance, the looks of Denon decks are top notch IMO.  Might have to start checking around a little bit, d'oh!

Yeah, it's a 1210-Mk2. I rather like the Ortofon Red, i'm using an Ortofon headshell too. I went through a few carts before settling on this one, and i'm quite pleased with its performance. I think the Blue would be a very marginal upgrade even though there's a lot of users who like that model, but personally, you'd have to step up to a Brown or Black to really do better than the Red.

As for the prices on these, there have always been deals to find, but don't expect to get a new one unless you want to pay a substantial premium.  

New Avid table coming out real soon, if not already.  The Ingenium.

Under $2k with two arms.

A couple of pics of my Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference turntable.

The more observant of you will notice...   ...there is no arm :)

This is because I am preparing it for sale on eBay and will sell it without arm.

In fact I have used two arms with this turntable, originally the SME 2009 Series II and later SME 2009 Series III.

This is the second of these turntables owned by me. The first one I purchased in the late 70s. In the 80s I sold that but found myself missing it, so I purchased this one second-hand in the late 80s. In fact I think this particular turntable was made in or around 1973.

I have listened to a vast amount of music on this turntable over the years however I stopped using it in about 2003/4 because I listen to CDs entirely after that time.

The greatest thing about this turntable is the speed consistency.

I think that to get good sound from records, first you must have the record spinning at the right speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p a t r i c k 

A couple of pics of my Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference turntable.

 

 

 

 

 

The more observant of you will notice...   ...there is no arm :)

 

This is because I am preparing it for sale on eBay and will sell it without arm.

 

In fact I have used two arms with this turntable, originally the SME 2009 Series II and later SME 2009 Series III.

 

This is the second of these turntables owned by me. The first one I purchased in the late 70s. In the 80s I sold that but found myself missing it, so I purchased this one second-hand in the late 80s. In fact I think this particular turntable was made in or around 1973.

 

I have listened to a vast amount of music on this turntable over the years however I stopped using it in about 2003/4 because I listen to CDs entirely after that time.

 

The greatest thing about this turntable is the speed consistency.

 

I think that to get good sound from records, first you must have the record spinning at the right speed.

Hydraulic Ref is a perhaps the most ingeniously made-to-run-at-correct-speed deck in history. It has many flaws/drawbacks when compared to recent decks - but speed stability is hard to equal, let alone beat with practically any other deck in existance. Before you do not-so-clever- thing for the second time, please reconsider - a Transcriptors fitted with http://www.ebay.de/itm/SRM-TECH-UNIVERSAL-ACRYLIC-PLATTER-TRANSCRIPTORS-/330850848423?pt=Turntable_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4d083f4ea7 and any decent arm ( if you are a true Transcriptors fan, I suggest the Focus Arm ). By getting rid of the 9 dot point LP support and getting a full surface acrylic LP  support with the platter from link you can have the unmistakable looks of a Transcriptors and performance of more modern decks united. Add 4 Sorbothane supports to its feet to improve somewhat poor feedback and  you get a very decent sounding TT visually almost unchanged from the original. It will not outplay top decks of today, but will hold its own against any.  Seeing that platter spinning and the strobe of the hydraulic speed adjustment lit from the below through hydraulic fluid with that orange bulb is one of my lasting memories of the truly classic HIFI since my teens. There is nothing out there that can compare to that hydraulic speed adjustment - simple, ingenious, precisely executed, built to last - flawless.

Doubt if I could bring myself to selling it if I ever possesed one. There are many better bangs for the buck out there, yet Hydraulic will always have its unique appeal. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver 

Hydraulic Ref is a perhaps the most ingeniously made-to-run-at-correct-speed deck in history. It has many flaws/drawbacks when compared to recent decks - but speed stability is hard to equal, let alone beat with practically any other deck in existance. Before you do not-so-clever- thing for the second time, please reconsider - a Transcriptors fitted with http://www.ebay.de/itm/SRM-TECH-UNIVERSAL-ACRYLIC-PLATTER-TRANSCRIPTORS-/330850848423?pt=Turntable_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4d083f4ea7 and any decent arm ( if you are a true Transcriptors fan, I suggest the Focus Arm ). By getting rid of the 9 dot point LP support and getting a full surface acrylic LP  support with the platter from link you can have the unmistakable looks of a Transcriptors and performance of more modern decks united. Add 4 Sorbothane supports to its feet to improve somewhat poor feedback and  you get a very decent sounding TT visually almost unchanged from the original. It will not outplay top decks of today, but will hold its own against any.  Seeing that platter spinning and the strobe of the hydraulic speed adjustment lit from the below through hydraulic fluid with that orange bulb is one of my lasting memories of the truly classic HIFI since my teens. There is nothing out there that can compare to that hydraulic speed adjustment - simple, ingenious, precisely executed, built to last - flawless.

 

Doubt if I could bring myself to selling it if I ever possesed one. There are many better bangs for the buck out there, yet Hydraulic will always have its unique appeal. 

Thank you for your comments analogsurviver

I will add for the benefit of anyone that is considering using one of these turntables that if you use an acrylic mat with this turntable you will encounter a problem in that the spindle for the hole in the middle of the record will no longer protrude. In fact Michell engineering used to make extended spindles and I had one, I may still have it in fact. For a period I used a glass mat with this turntable (glass mats were de rigueur before acrylic became the thing) but to be honest I prefer the sound of the turntable without any mat.

There can be a problem with very thin records. LPs in the 80s were often very thin indeed. The solution is simple. You keep one very thin 80s record you don't like to be used as a mat. Then when you wish to play one of the very thin 80s records you do like, you put the one you don't like on the turntable first and then the one you wish to play on top of that :) This tip is also useful on any turntableif you have set VTA for quite thick LPs and then you wish to play a very thin LP.

I remember the focus arm but I have my doubts as to whether it will easily go on the Hydraulic Reference turntable. That arm was designed for the Michell Focus turntable and the arm pillar is not very high, the Hydraulic Ref platter is very high and needs an arm with a lengthy pillar. In fact the SME arms require use of risers to lift the plate up.

Transcriptors did make an arm for the turntable at the time which was the Hydraulic Arm. It wasn't Hydraulic however :) Like the Focus arm this was a unipivot but structurally rather weak. With any of those Transcriptor or Michell arms of that time they must be used with very high compliance moving magnet cartridges.

There arm I think works best on this turntable is indeed the SME 3009 and personally I prefer the (much maligned) Series III over the Series II, however with the Series III a high compliance moving magnet cartridge must be used. I used an Ortofon in the later years and I like it very much indeed. The cartridge I used in the late 70s was the Shure V15 III, but personally I preferred the Ortofons I used later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p a t r i c k 

 

Thank you for your comments analogsurviver

 

I will add for the benefit of anyone that is considering using one of these turntables that if you use an acrylic mat with this turntable you will encounter a problem in that the spindle for the hole in the middle of the record will no longer protrude. In fact Michell engineering used to make extended spindles and I had one, I may still have it in fact. For a period I used a glass mat with this turntable (glass mats were de rigueur before acrylic became the thing) but to be honest I prefer the sound of the turntable without any mat.

 

There can be a problem with very thin records. LPs in the 80s were often very thin indeed. The solution is simple. You keep one very thin 80s record you don't like to be used as a mat. Then when you wish to play one of the very thin 80s records you do like, you put the one you don't like on the turntable first and then the one you wish to play on top of that :) This tip is also useful on any turntableif you have set VTA for quite thick LPs and then you wish to play a very thin LP.

 

I remember the focus arm but I have my doubts as to whether it will easily go on the Hydraulic Reference turntable. That arm was designed for the Michell Focus turntable and the arm pillar is not very high, the Hydraulic Ref platter is very high and needs an arm with a lengthy pillar. In fact the SME arms require use of risers to lift the plate up.

 

Transcriptors did make an arm for the turntable at the time which was the Hydraulic Arm. It wasn't Hydraulic however :) Like the Focus arm this was a unipivot but structurally rather weak. With any of those Transcriptor or Michell arms of that time they must be used with very high compliance moving magnet cartridges.

 

There arm I think works best on this turntable is indeed the SME 3009 and personally I prefer the (much maligned) Series III over the Series II, however with the Series III a high compliance moving magnet cartridge must be used. I used an Ortofon in the later years and I like it very much indeed. The cartridge I used in the late 70s was the Shure V15 III, but personally I preferred the Ortofons I used later.

Thank you patrick for sharing the experience. I believe it should prove very useful for any present or future prospective users of Transcriptors turntables.

Regarding mat link - they offer extension spindles with the purchase of the mat (please see description in link ) for a very reasonable price.

SME III is perhaps the most maligned arm in history - it appeared right at the MC moving coil cartridge boom and admittedly did not and does not perform as well with low compliance MCs quite as well as its rivals meant specifically for the low compliance carts. It is one of the most adaptable/adjustable arms around.  It is unbelievably resonance free for such a light structure - it is THE lightest effective mass pick up with standard 9 inch effective lenght in the world. It went to the practicaL extreme - allowing to balance a phono cartridge of ZERO mass - just in case any manufacturer would come up with anything really approaching it. The standard production lowest cartridge mass in widespread use is Ortofon OM (Super) series with 2.3 gram mass without its additional weight/mass - an OM40 Super on SME III is a divine sounding combo provided it is adjusted correctly - and, most importantly, is still available new.

With judicious use of its counterweight system, one can appreciably increase its effective mass for use with low(er) compliance cartridges -

do not be fooled into thinking it can not be made sounding at least acceptable with these. Still, I would not advise using extremely low compliance carts with it. But when a truly high class good MM comes along, there is very few arms that can match or exceed it in that context. One excelent that does spring to mind is the original John Bicht designed Mission 774 - IF the 2-3 gram additional effective mass it has over III is NOT a problem ( with high compliance carts and usual 6-8 gram mass , it usually IS a problem ! ). Should any one get lucky enough to score  a Shure Ultra 500 in good condition, with its high compliance and somewhat porky body - there is hardly a more suitable pivoted arm for it than the SME III.

SME V or, to a slightly lesser degree, SME IV ( along with many others) are better than III with low compliance carts - with high compliance designs, tables turn. Should any one be lucky enough to score an Ortofon MC 2000 in good condition or wealthy enough to get a VdH Colibri XGP with high compliance, SME III should not be left off the shortest list of pick up arm candidates to partner them with.

Both III and 774 should be possible to mount to the Hydraulic without any problems. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver 

SME III is perhaps the most maligned arm in history - it appeared right at the MC moving coil cartridge boom and admittedly did not and does not perform as well with low compliance MCs quite as well as its rivals meant specifically for the low compliance carts. It is one of the most adaptable/adjustable arms around.  It is unbelievably resonance free for such a light structure - it is THE lightest effective mass pick up with standard 9 inch effective lenght in the world. It went to the practicaL extreme - allowing to balance a phono cartridge of ZERO mass - just in case any manufacturer would come up with anything really approaching it. The standard production lowest cartridge mass in widespread use is Ortofon OM (Super) series with 2.3 gram mass without its additional weight/mass - an OM40 Super on SME III is a divine sounding combo provided it is adjusted correctly - and, most importantly, is still available new.

I entirely agree with you about the SME 3009 Series III. When people are putting together turntables I have suggested this arm along with an OM40 as being ideal.

I remember well when the SME 3009 Series III arrived on the market. It seemed extremely exotic and I remember thinking, surely nobody would pay the price for that arm. However after a year I bought one myself :)

The 3009 Series III fulfilled the ideal at the time of low mass, adjustability and low resonance (as you have described). However the wind changed very rapidly, and high compliance moving magnet cartridges were out and low compliance moving coils were in.

As you mention the 3009 III is not good with low compliance cartridges at all. It can be adjusted to accommodate, but a much more rigid arm is required for these.

I will add a few things to your comments.

Using the 3009 III with the Ortofon greatly reduces the influence of the mat on the sound. With a high compliance cartridge the signal waves in the sides of the grooves in the record can move it around with much less force required and so there is consequently reduced energy coming back into the record.

It is the use of moving coil low compliance cartridges which, I think, has led to the changes in turntable design since the days of the Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference.

Transcriptors themselves were, of course great advocates of moving magnet high compliance cartridges and David Gammon warned against the use of moving coil cartridges with his designs.

David Gammon went on to design several turntables after the Hydraulic Reference.

The best design for use today, I believe, is the Transcriptor Skeleton. Used with the 3009 Series III and the Ortofon this is really a superb turntable.

Transcriptors sold an arm for use with the Skeleton called the "Vestigal Arm" which had the bearings for vertical axis movement behind the headshell. This was only to be used with the very highest compliance cartridges and you would set it to extremely low tracking weights, such as 0.1 grammes or less.

The other significant turntable was the Transcriptor Transcriber which was also built around the use of high compliance MM cartridges. This turntable was a parallel tracker in which the platter moved and the "arm" stayed still, attached to the lid of the turntable.

The Transcriber was the last turntable built by Transcriptors, personally I think that they were finished off by the change in fashion away from high compliance cartridges towards moving coils. Moving coil cartridges were very much the "go to" thing, and you could not use them with Transcriptor turntables.