Vintage turntables vs. New Generation - Good value?

Discussion in 'TTVJ Premier Sponsor Forum' started by number9, Feb 1, 2004.
First
 
Back
1 2 3
Page 4 of 6
5 6
Next
 
Last
  1. memepool
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I have yet to see a TT, where the plinth is more or less de-coupled from the platter/motor and arm like the Kenwood and some of the other Japanese DDs.
    .




    [​IMG]

    This is the deck we are talking about right? so are you saying there is a subchassis spider construction isolated from the plinth?

    I thought Trio / Kenwood would utilise some form of experimental composite of pulverised stone/marble and glue like they do on the KD-500/550 and on the L07-D.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    A 'load of joins' - no just the one extra between headshell and arm. The high mass of arms like mine is exactly where it should be at the fulcrum point, which means superb tracking.

    You fail to mention that the one piece arm like the Rega and their copies are far cheaper to manufacture. Unipivots are the complete opposite, that's why they tend to cost more.

    Also there is no reason why modern Rega type arms could'nt be semi-automatic, it would'nt make them sound better but they would be far more functional.




    I'm not the greatest fan of Rega arms but you have to credit them with coming up with the idea of a single casting which was obviously a big financial gamble for a small British specialist company as initially the costs of developing the cast would be high but then of course subsequently they would fall with the benefit of mass production.

    Tonearms that many love to hate like the Linn Ittock or Basic were in fact designed and built in Japan to Linn specs by companies like Denon, Audio Technica and Jelco until Rega and later SME came along with the single casting design., Interesting piece about it here http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/smeiv_e.html

    Most tonearms which don't follow this pattern today like unipivots are still built in the traditional way in low volume by craftsmen in small machine shops. The Japanese mass produce the parts but these still have to be assembled probably by very well trained workers on a production line as in the case of something like the Technics SL1200 tonearm which is basically glued and screwed together often with layers of rubber in between the moving parts.

    It's joints are finely toleranced but the sound will be affected by a modular structure. This is why SME only continue to offer removable headshells on the more basic models. It's a sonic compromise albeit a useful one and the same goes for automatic features.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Belts are the main culprit in time smearing but suspension means that any movement at all and we know that the slightest movement in the platter will be reflected directly onto/into the stylus.

    Why have so many who bought into suspended platter TTs dumped them in favour of no suspension TTs




    I agree that suspended subchassis can cause colouration but the high mass route is more difficult to follow in an average domestic setting unless you have stone ar concrete floors and equally solid walls then isolating your turntable is always going to be difficult. In many ways I feel the leaf sprung suspension invented by Bang and Olufsen and adopted by Thorens is the best suspended subchassis design as it alleviates the need to constantly tweak the suspension.
    I have experimented with different grades of springs and damping on my suspended subchassis decks to tune the suspension which I still find more flexible in my environment. When I get to have a specific room just for my Hi-Fi with a properly solid floor then I will experiment more with high mass plinths.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I don't have any problem finding cartridges and I'm about to buy into the top of the range hybrid Pickering. Some love the Denon 103/R, some don't. This cartridge was really 'worked on' on a different forum - some love it and some hate it. It needs an awful lot of work to give of it's best but I doubt that I would gain anything more than I already get from the Pickering V15 -625E. In fact many say that the Pickering is the MM equivalent of the MC 103.

    I still say that most MCs are too analytical, if that's what you like fine but for me, musicality is far more important. Let's not forget just how much the best of the MCs cost. I would say that for someone getting into vinyl - pay less for the cartridge and buy more vinyl and indeed there are many who simply can't afford the best MCs - you pays yer money and makes yer choice.




    But Pickering don't exist anymore ( or do they? ) which is what I meant. So you have to go with NOS.

    I also am finding modern MC's are a bit in your face in the higher frequencies which could be because I am using a fairly low end one currently, the Dynavector DV20, but it could also be that they aren't as lush as they used to be, because people expect them to sound more akin to digital sources these days, which is bizarre but there you go.
    I'm waiting for my Supex to be retipped. I'd definitely recommend you try one of these if you're looking for musicality as it the most musical cart I've heard short of a Koetsu Rosewood which I can but dream of....
     
  2. ssportclay
    Direct drive turntables have their strengths and weaknesses like any other design.Having used a DD table regularly for over a year,I could probably never go back to a belt drive just for the inconvenience of using one.One of the biggest issues of vintage DD turntables is plinth design.Many things have been learned since then and most of the better DD machines of the 70s badly need to be replinthed.In this respect,they are very much like their older rim drive cousins.Most all of these vintage turntables will benefit from a heavy birch plywood,or birch ply/MDF composite plinth glass bedded to the top plate for maximum contact.When a massive plinth is constructed and attached correctly,there should be few issues when mounting a tonearm to it.The Technics 1200 mk2 that I use has evolved for so long that replinthing is really unnecessary,but I suppose if one were to glass bed one into a massive birch plywood plinth,the bass response wood probably improve a little.
     
  3. Black Stuart
    Memepool,
    yes that's the one and in the flesh it really is a thing of beauty - it has that 'just right' quality, nor can it be said to be in any way dated.

    As you can see in no way is the arm attached to the plinth and yes what you can't see is the alu spider construction underneath. It's also well known that soft touch controls are superior to any other, which is the case wth the KD series.

    Also what you cannot see is the metal box which encases the arm wiring outlet. When I first opened this up I was surprised to see what was used as the interface of arm wiring to phono out wiring - a small piece of tag board fixed to a piece of the HDC, which was itself then screwed to the metal case. This was'nt done for cheapness but this was the best way to eliminate any vibration that might (and I stress might) have entered the leg of the spider. What you also cannot see is that the Tx for the electronics is decoupled from the plinth by rubber grommits between screws and plinth.

    The construction of the Kenwood arm in no way mirrors that of the Technics you described. The bias arrangement is so simple - why did'nt others copy it. As you can see , the headshell is nothing like the flimsy, vibration inducing SME one - why did anyone ever think this was good?

    I don't see the detachable Kenwood headshell as any kind of compromise and as I said before - with a one piece arm/headshell, resonances can and do travel unimpeded in either direction - a good concoction for time smearing.

    Your just plain wrong about semi-automatic functions interfering with the sound. When the arm reaches end of side, all that happens is that this triggers an automatic lift functon which has no contact whatsoever with the arm during playback, this in turn triggers an electronic stop to the motor. How many of us have naffed a stylus when lifting the arm at end of side or when after one or three glasses of wine not only naffed the stylus but dropped the arm so naffing the LP as well. There is simply no reason why all good TTs irrespective of type should not include this function - it makes absolute sense, does'nt it.

    Supex - now your talking but my point holds - if you really want to get a meaningful improvement on MM - you have to pay a lot of money in the first place and if you listen to a lot of music, pay lots again every two years or so. Most cheap MCs simply are'nt worth the money and by cheap I mean ITRO £250($500), there are also issues with frailty with MCs as well - Benny Glass of Aquablue won't be done with them, nor will James Doddington an industry professional who first pointed me towards the KD series. He uses a modified 103, not for financial reasons but simply from preference - he cites it's musicality.

    NOS cartidges - I don't think that Pickering/Stanton have ever stopped making their DJ cartridges which are de riguer for DJs, maybe they have stopped production of their other models, if they have, I will just buy in a supply. When I feel that the XLZ-75000-S is fully run-in I will post an a/b with the V-15 /625E.

    ssportclay - there are not that many DDs from the 70's or 80s' that benefit from re-plinthing and then not by much and I think you'll find that the original Technics SL120/1200 is actually a better TT than later models in many ways. By improving the bass response, do you mean add extra bass to that on the LP. Let me say now I'm not against this per se, I can see where some LPs are a bit bass light, this could be a good thing but what if the LP has had extra bass added in the studio? I think you would be surprised at the extra treble detail that would come through.

    I don't want to add an extra dimenson to this thread because it's a good one, which has'nt been invaded by thread crappers but having always been a heretic - how about tone controls, starting another thread would be best for this topic.

    If you can define what the weaknesses of DDs are we can discuss them. It certainly can't be the brushless DC motors, nor the excellant bearing systems or the symbiosis between the two. Certainly getting rid of the sorbothane/plastic feet is one way to get more detail from any TT, not just DDs.

    CLD - constrained layer damping. Yes a good idea and an absolute must for the Idlers but bolting an arm to one of these plinths will be nullified if you don't have a very good platform to put the whole thing on and you might be surprised at how vibrations and resonances can still travel through heavy objects. Here is where I think sheet lead can be used to great advantage. Not everyone has the skills or the space to build a CLD - why not use stone? You don't have to spend lots of money on this and maybe slate is best of all but since no real shootouts between say slate and granite has been done, it's not a given. I think it's worth checking out at a stonemasons where you live how much that would be - it's the machining that will cost.

    I am about to order 3 x 30mm shelves of 'snake oil stone' - a wonderful honey coloured stone full of irregularities to construct an equipment rack, I intend to use lead washers between each shelf and the tubular steel legs and the internal bolts and probably lead shot within each leg section - any 'ringing' that might occur within the tubular pieces will be stopped dead by the lead. By levelling the whole structure only at floor level using the excellant Soundcare adjustable feet (they can handle 300 kilos per spike) - there will be no need to have adjustment for the TT feet via any kind of screw and/or bolt arrangement.

    The original crappy feet will be replaced by slate that will sit directly on the stone shelf - I'm not looking for extra bass but detail that is lost within the plastic/sorbethane feet.

    Far from looking to replace the very good HDC plinth, I intend to remove it altogether but I won't do this until I have another KD series TT - just in case I screw up.

    If and it's a big IF I decide to try another type of arm it would probably be an air bearing arm and all I have to do is use another of the spider legs to mount it.

    Like many others I think that our equipment should not only reproduce music accurately but that it should look good too.
     
  4. ssportclay
    That Kenwood KD990 is a very nice looking deck.The Trio/Kenwood DD decks of the 70s were actually better plinthed than most of the others so this shouldn't be a concern.Decks like the SP-10,Sony 2250,and most others really need a better plinth.Another issue of direct drives is noise from the motor itself.An external power supply is one way to engineer around it.KABUSA offers a power supply for the Technics 1200.I have one and it really does make a difference.Some people try instead to damp the underside of the platter but obviously the best way is to eliminate the noise from the source to begin with.One criticism of the Technics plinth is that it is actually overdamped.This is the reason I suspect than the bass response may improve by glass bedding one into a massive solid plinth.In other words,the plinth may be damping out bass response to some degree.
     
  5. Black Stuart
    ssportclay,
    I used an original Technics SL120, which came with an SME arm board and a blank one as well until I bought the Kenwood about 18 months ago.

    I did'nt even buy it for myself but for my partner, Angela so she could easily play her 45s. Like many others I had listened to the lies spouted in the British hi-fi press about DDs that was so prevalent in the late 70s' early 80s'.

    One day soon after I bought it in 99, when the weather was too bad to work, I decided to set it up. This either goes sweetly or is a pain. The set-up went sweetly but when I put a side on, I though there must be something terribly wrong - there was. There was no noise - it played silently.

    I had'nt realised that with so much noise coming from the Rega 3 it simply was'nt allowing me to hear so much of what was on the disc.

    From that day on I was converted to DD. Later on I bought another identical DD for myself. I think if you heard an original SL120/1200 you would'nt hear any noise from the motor or maybe you have a problem with your particular deck. The main feature of DDs is the silent running brushless motors. That is the huge difference between DDs and Idlers.

    Your quite right about SP10s etc. Since I had started using the SL120, I had seriously thought about buying an SP10 but when JamesD stated in unequivocal terms that "the KD990 was at least the equal of an SP10" I jumped and bought the Kenwood.

    Yes the Technics may well be over damped, have you thought about changing the damping and where it's used. The underside of the platter would easily accept some bitumen damping material here rather than on the underside of the plinth - just a thought.
     
  6. ssportclay
    The issue with the Technics 1200 mk2 without the KABUSA power supply is not really a problem with noise.The stock Technics 1200 mk2 is dead quiet.The issue is the production of a perfect soundstage.The Von Schweikert VR-1 speakers I use are very revealing of soundstage issues and the KABUSA PS allows the Technics to throw a soundstage more perfect than any source I have ever used. You really have to compare the difference to really understand what I am talking about.I also can't detect any bass issues with the Technics 1200 mk2 in my system.Since some people on line have experienced improved bass performance with rim drives over the Technics 1200 mk2 and criticized the damped plinth,I am drawing theoretical conclusions about the Technics plinth not being perfect.I am also not a fan of damping anything on any turntable to hide noise because damping will ultimately compromise sound performance.Glass bedding a turntable into a solid plinth is a better solution to hide noise.
     
  7. memepool
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    Like many others I had listened to the lies spouted in the British hi-fi press about DDs that was so prevalent in the late 70s' early 80s'.

    .




    You'll be happy to know then that they are atoning for previous sins. In the latest issue of Hi-Fi World they've modded a Vestax with a Rega arm and your friends over at World Audio Designs are selling the pre-cut armboards...[​IMG]


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I don't see the detachable Kenwood headshell as any kind of compromise and as I said before - with a one piece arm/headshell, resonances can and do travel unimpeded in either direction - a good concoction for time smearing.



    I'm not sure what you mean by 'time smearing' in this regard? As I understand this term it to applies to the slight 'soft-focus' of a belt driven system compared to a metronome-like direct drive. The latter can sound slightly mechanical on some music but set against the occasional wow from belt slippage which can be equally annoying, this is just a facet of the system you can either live with or can't.

    With respect to tonearm design I think there are demonstrable colourations introduced by a damped joints between different parts of an arm construction. How well this is dealt with comes down to individual design and manufacture.

    In other words a superbly engineered arm like you find on many of the higher end vintage Japanese DD's will be as good as any high mass arm like the Fidelity Research from this period.

    However this design necessitates very low compliance carts and puts more strain on the suspension and ability to handle warps etc. So much so that very few heavyweight arms like this are really made these days since the single casting technique in alloys like magnesium allows for the same levels of stiffness achievable at much lower mass.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Your just plain wrong about semi-automatic functions interfering with the sound. When the arm reaches end of side, all that happens is that this triggers an automatic lift functon which has no contact whatsoever with the arm during playback, this in turn triggers an electronic stop to the motor. How many of us have naffed a stylus when lifting the arm at end of side or when after one or three glasses of wine not only naffed the stylus but dropped the arm so naffing the LP as well. There is simply no reason why all good TTs irrespective of type should not include this function - it makes absolute sense, does'nt it.



    I own many automatic turntables. I have had several Sony Biotracers which have to be one of the most automated decks ever designed. They use photoelectro electric cells and microprocessor controlled servos to constantly vary VTF and anti skating while tracking so these are perfect at any given point. I also have several Beograms which have fully automated servo controlled parallel tracking tonearms. Loads of fun.

    However all this extra technology doesn't really improve on the sound over any of my simpler decks it just makes these more convenient to use and fun to play with.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Black Stuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Your quite right about SP10s etc. Since I had started using the SL120, I had seriously thought about buying an SP10 but when JamesD stated in unequivocal terms that "the KD990 was at least the equal of an SP10" I jumped and bought the Kenwood.

    Yes the Technics may well be over damped, have you thought about changing the damping and where it's used. The underside of the platter would easily accept some bitumen damping material here rather than on the underside of the plinth - just a thought.




    Many of the plinth designs the Japanese came up with in the 1970s like the obsidian glass plinth for the SP10, layered glass and perspex for the Marantz TT-1000 and composite stone / marble on the Kenwood Trio decks are still widely used today. Not to mention the exoskeletal Micro Seiki's.
    Decks like the SL1200 were more basic but still very well designed and accoustically dead. http://www.isonoe.com/ have put a lot of research into developing isolating feet to decouple the decks from their surrounds which are widely used in clubs in London.
    I think a lot of it comes down to what the decks are sitting on. If you have them mounted on a solid plinth on a stone or concrete floor then there are few vibration issues unless you're running a PA system. Placing them on anything less than a totally solid platform is going to cause feedback as they are not designed for this.
    I don't know what you think is wrong with sorbothane though? I find it's pretty effective at isolation.
     
  8. Black Stuart
    ssportclay,
    Yep have to agree about really good PSUs they most certainly make a difference and I also agree totally about over damping - it can sit on the sound and spoil it. Like I said this is something that the Kenwood engineers paid a lot of attention to, hence de-coupling the mains Tx from the PCB and spider

    Which brings me on to memepools work in London clubs - yes sorbothane would be very good to use in such places but that's a long way from a home environment. I used to use Focal pods and thought they were very good but as my system advanced in terms of detail, for me, all those kinds of products did'nt handle vibration/resonance correctly.

    Energy cannot be destroyed, you can change the structure of it but that's all. So how are we to deal with this unwanted energy. I listened to the very simple argument that it was better to not restrict unwanted energy but to speed it along it's way until it is dissipated ASAP. That way it's effect upon the music is minimal.

    What happens when unwanted energy encounters sorbothane, supposedly it is dissipated as heat within that soft structure but is it. does this energy not cause the sorbothane to wobble as it dissipates this energy. This equates as blurring to me - the very thing I want to avoid if I wish to retain detail in playback.

    Floor driven vibration is best handled I feel by siting the system on a massive structure as I intend to do using 30mm stone shelving - I don't think anyone disaggrees with that.

    Now here's a thing, for all the years that I used a Rega arm, if an LP got stuck, if I was careful I could carefully blow the stylus across whatever was impeding it's progress across the LP. No way can I do that with the Kenwood arm, I tried it once (after a couple of glasses of wine) and scratched a favourite LP. Simply because I had to blow so hard and it was too much.

    I'm not sold on the latest approach to arms at all. MMs are nearly always better at tracking than MCs but could part of the problem be the lower mass arms that are flavour of the month now.

    I doubt if the arm tube on my Kenwood arm weighs any more than the arm tube of the modern design, where it differs is that it has lots of mass/weight only at the fulcrum point. The counter weight in fact has less mass/weight than Regas or other modern one piece arms.

    What happens when a modern low mass arm encounters a warp - it's going to 'kick up' far more than my type of arm, simply because there is less mass at the fulcrum point - what goes up must come down - the heavier c/weight will re-act far more because there is not the mass at the fulcrum point to stop that energy travelling back down the arm to the stylus, if the headshell was de-coupled from the arm it could not then re-enter the cartridge and then onto the stylus, I wonder if any of those companies that make low mass arms have ever made an experimental model to test this point. The SME type skeleton headshell for me is a complete joke, that's why it used to be advocated to cut off the finger lift because it literally vibrates and where does that vibration go, thta's right straight back to the stylus.

    Think of what down hill skiers aim for - to always have contact with the surface = good, the moment you lose contact you lose speed = bad, that's just the same with stylus and vinyl.

    That's why I want to try the Pickering hybrid, it's stylus has more contact with the side walls of the groove, effectively spreading the load = less stylus and vinyl wear. and the coils are more similar to an MC.

    I think there is far more in common between a good unipivot and a good high mass arm.

    You mention a metronome effect with DDs again I can't relate to that at all. There is nothing mechanical about what I hear from my DD. I repeat that the function of any TT is to revolve the platter at a precise speed to enable the arm/cartridge to accurately resolve what is on the LP.

    World Audio Designs has been defunct for a couple of years memepool it's World Designs now and I feel that the relationship between Noel Keywood (HFW) and Peter Comeau (WD)effects what Hi-Fi World says about certain things. It shocked a lot of people when Noel did a complete demolition job on DDs against a Garrard 301. He had a couple of defunct DDs which I had never heard of. He got one working and set it up on a couple of pieces of 2 x 2 wood and then pitched it against a properly plinthed 301- that really was so stupid and he lost a lot of credibility in the process.

    The whole thing re-inforced what I have thought about hi-fi reviews - take them with a huge amout of salt.

    As to semi function TTs yes it does make them easier and make it harder to ruin a stylus or LP - is'nt that all to the good, an absolute star point in their favour. Fully automatic decks I'm not to sure about - all those mechanics built into and around the arms.

    But lets be straight about this - we don't all want the utmost resolution. These fully auto decks are what some people love because it makes them more fool proof, so they lose a little in the playback - if they are happy and enjoying their music, that's great.

    memepool I like that word exoskeletal, that's what I shall do when I have aquired my second Kenwood but JamesD has warned me that it won't make the Kenwood better but different sounding. It will take a lot of work to really smooth off the caste aluminium spider. I have a friend just down the road who is a professional car sprayer and 4-5 coats of brilliant black paint, should make it look very Darth Varder. If I can I will get lead castings made to sit inside these indents, I'm not sure what colour I will paint them but it should look really good.

    It's a shame more vinyl heads are'nt entering this thread, the more input the better.
     
  9. Number9
    For all the superiority of the 4-leg spider design of the KP-9010 or 990 ... I've been following some of the Japanese blogs (as best I can using Babelfish) and the Yamaha GT-2000 (a conventional DD design) is much preffered and commands higher prices.

    The only thing I see that Yamaha has done with the GT-2000 is a more massive player.

    Curiously too, in this month's Stereophile, Micharl Fremer reviews the Grand Prix Audio DD turntable, and gave it a very guarded review. Though overall he liked it, he had reservations.

    I frankly think that there are still a lot of unknowns as to what makes for a good DD turntable, unfortunately, that brain trust resides, almost uniquely in Japan. The UK and US were brainwashed along the way into thinking that ALL DD tables were bad - so little is known. In Japan, uber DD tables never made there way to these shores, so we will never really know how much better they could be than a Linn or Rega.
     
  10. ssportclay
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Number9 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    For all the superiority of the 4-leg spider design of the KP-9010 or 990 ... I've been following some of the Japanese blogs (as best I can using Babelfish) and the Yamaha GT-2000 (a conventional DD design) is much preffered and commands higher prices.

    The only thing I see that Yamaha has done with the GT-2000 is a more massive player.

    Curiously too, in this month's Stereophile, Micharl Fremer reviews the Grand Prix Audio DD turntable, and gave it a very guarded review. Though overall he liked it, he had reservations.

    I frankly think that there are still a lot of unknowns as to what makes for a good DD turntable, unfortunately, that brain trust resides, almost uniquely in Japan. The UK and US were brainwashed along the way into thinking that ALL DD tables were bad - so little is known. In Japan, uber DD tables never made there way to these shores, so we will never really know how much better they could be than a Linn or Rega.




    Teres has a fairly new DD turntable and a new rim drive turntable.They have stopped making belt drive tables altogether.The secret to making a good DD table is to come up with a quiet true running cogless motor which Teres apparently has done.A rim drive system will isolate the platter from the motor without losing much control.A belt drive system will isolate the motor from the platter even more while losing even more control.Lower grade motors obviously make belt drives a more desirable system.
     
  11. kwkarth
    I still have my Sony PSX-70 turntable. IMHO, one of the best DD decks ever produced back in the day. Their approach to the DD turntable was to create a completely cogless motor. They succeeded admirably. Very massive platter, tons of torque, no cogging whatsoever. Smooth as a baby's bottom.

    http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/s...X70/PSX70.html

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    PS-X70
    Direct Drive system
    Fully automatic operation
    BSL motor
    Magnedisc servo control
    X-tal lock
    Die-cast aluminium platter
    Quartz drive strobe light
    Discrete FG servo-controlled tonearm motor
    Litz wire tonearm leads
    Rapid start-up and speed change
    Logic IC controlled function sequencing
    J-shaped carbon fiber tonearm
    Quick-stop electromagnetic braking
    Fine adjustment of speed
    Adjustable VTA
    Gold plated contacts
    4-clamp headshell connector
    Audio muting
    Luminous sensor for tonearm return
    Tonearm safety clutch
    Viscous damped cueing
    Direct-read anti-skating
    Direct-read counterweight
    Zinc alloy tonearm base
    SBMC cabinet
    Feather-touch controls
    Viscous filled height-adjustable feet
    Spare headshell holder
    Removable spring-loaded cover
     
  12. ssportclay
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I still have my Sony PSX-70 turntable. IMHO, one of the best DD decks ever produced back in the day. Their approach to the DD turntable was to create a completely cogless motor. They succeeded admirably. Very massive platter, tons of torque, no cogging whatsoever. Smooth as a baby's bottom.

    http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/s...X70/PSX70.html

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    PS-X70
    Direct Drive system
    Fully automatic operation
    BSL motor
    Magnedisc servo control
    X-tal lock
    Die-cast aluminium platter
    Quartz drive strobe light
    Discrete FG servo-controlled tonearm motor
    Litz wire tonearm leads
    Rapid start-up and speed change
    Logic IC controlled function sequencing
    J-shaped carbon fiber tonearm
    Quick-stop electromagnetic braking
    Fine adjustment of speed
    Adjustable VTA
    Gold plated contacts
    4-clamp headshell connector
    Audio muting
    Luminous sensor for tonearm return
    Tonearm safety clutch
    Viscous damped cueing
    Direct-read anti-skating
    Direct-read counterweight
    Zinc alloy tonearm base
    SBMC cabinet
    Feather-touch controls
    Viscous filled height-adjustable feet
    Spare headshell holder
    Removable spring-loaded cover




    Very nice turntable but not cogless.I believe Teres offers their cogless motor for $1600 for the Garrard rim drive turntables.
     
  13. kwkarth
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Very nice turntable but not cogless.I believe Teres offers their cogless motor for $1600 for the Garrard rim drive turntables.



    Yes, it is cogless. Why do you think it is not? I happen to know that it is indeed cogless. Sony specifically gradually ramps the current up and then down again to the coils creating a constant circular rotating magenetic force that is completely pulseless.
     
  14. Number9
    I think Sony was one of the first to advertise a cogless motor. The X70 had good torque for its time (late '70s) but the later generation Japanese tables upped the ante even more. Check out the torque specs of DD tables like the Yamaha GT-2000, Exclusive (Pioneer) P3A or Technics SP10 Mk3 ... significantly higher.

    What you also see see in later generation DD tables is far better isolation and quieter motors than in the '70s. You started to see turntables with S/N ratios of greater than 90db. Servo mechanisms were more sophisticated (double-servos) and other than Denon, most everyone had gone to DC cogless motors of various ilk.

    As Black Stuart said earlier ... by then ... people had been brainwashed that all DD tables were bad so it was nearly impossible to change the prejudice. Some of the best DD tables were never exported beyond Japan. Shame really.
     
  15. Skylab Contributor
    I am definitely a member of Team Big Vintage Japanese Direct Drive Turntables (wow, there is a mouthful). I use the highly regarded Denon DP59-L, with a thoroughly modern high end MC cartridge, the Benz "Wood" L2. It's a fantastic combo. I had the chance to compare it to the VPI Aries with the same cartridge, and it compared very favorably. Both the VPI and the Denon had their strengths and weaknesses.

    But you can score one of these Denons for $500! The Aries is far more than that.

    So I think there are certain great turntables made from the 80's, which was the peak of turntable sales.

    Here is my baby:

    [​IMG]
     
First
 
Back
1 2 3
Page 4 of 6
5 6
Next
 
Last

Share This Page