Turntable Enthusiasts

[Yohansen]

You definitely have a lot to learn. Bass response has nothing to do with a turntable platter.

No offense, but I notice the difference with the blue stylus. Are you audiophile? I am an alecrromechanical assembler and R&D process technician. I worked with Fishman... I know what I’m talking about. Audio testing and inspecting is my life!!!

 

[TLS Guy]

Hi TLS, I have heard that the acrylic platter is reducing static and improves bass response, also it does something good to the dumpening.

You may have heard it, but I expect its bunk for the most part.

I will say that I think vintage turntables are much better in the main than most modern offerings.

Too many modern turntables have platters that ring like bells. The drive belt it outside the turntable, where it picks up all sorts of contamination, including finger grease. That is a stupid design for a start. Many pick up arms have glaring defects.

I will say that an acrylic turntable has high mass and would be non resonant which are big pluses.

Some turntables have ferrous metal turntables which is a total disaster as the magnets in the cartridge are attracted to the turntable. That is a major crime.

Good vintage turntables, and some modern ones, have massive non ferrous turntables, that are totally dead and non resonant. Ideally an arm and cartridge should be designed as a unit. Only the Decca ffss heads and arms were designed that way. This makes it possible to tightly control the resonance, which does have an impact on bass reproduction. The vintage SME series III arms were designed to perform optimally with the Shure V series cartridges. In addition damping of the arm was provided, which definitely does improve bass and reproduction all round. Also the later versions of those cartridges conducted the static away through the damper.

Getting really good LP reproduction is difficult, and requires a careful balancing of the shortcomings of the medium. I do think on the whole these were handled better in times past than now.

Really a vintage rig like this properly set up is superb.

This is my Thorens TD 125 MK II. I bought it non working and restored it, so I just about stole it. The arm is an SME series 3 and the cartridge a Shure V 15 xmr. This is now NLA so a good substitute is the Ortofon 2M Black.

That rig is in our family room.

My main turntable case in in the AV room. These pictures were in our former residence, it is now moved to out new AV room. These turntables I have had for most of my life.

Garrard 301, with Decca ffss H2E and professional arm.

It also shows a rare Auriol lift that I restored.

Thorens TD 150 I bought as a teenager, now has SME series III and Shure V 15 xmr.

Garrard 301 with SME series II improved arm and Shure V 15 xmr cartridge.

I can assure you there is nothing wrong with the bass of any of them, or a need to change anything from original except the damper to the series II arm, as that was a later option.

In other respects everything is in original working condition.

 

[3db]

You may have heard it, but I expect its bunk for the most part.

I will say that I think vintage turntables are much better in the main than most modern offerings.

Too many modern turntables have platters that ring like bells. The drive belt it outside the turntable, where it picks up all sorts of contamination, including finger grease. That is a stupid design for a start. Many pick up arms have glaring defects.

I will say that an acrylic turntable has high mass and would be non resonant which are big pluses.

Some turntables have ferrous metal turntables which is a total disaster as the magnets in the cartridge are attracted to the turntable. That is a major crime.

Good vintage turntables, and some modern ones, have massive non ferrous turntables, that are totally dead and non resonant. Ideally an arm and cartridge should be designed as a unit. Only the Decca ffss heads and arms were designed that way. This makes it possible to tightly control the resonance, which does have an impact on bass reproduction. The vintage SME series III arms were designed to perform optimally with the Shure V series cartridges. In addition damping of the arm was provided, which definitely does improve bass and reproduction all round. Also the later versions of those cartridges conducted the static away through the damper.

Getting really good LP reproduction is difficult, and requires a careful balancing of the shortcomings of the medium. I do think on the whole these were handled better in times past than now.

Really a vintage rig like this properly set up is superb.

This is my Thorens TD 125 MK II. I bought it non working and restored it, so I just about stole it. The arm is an SME series 3 and the cartridge a Shure V 15 xmr. This is now NLA so a good substitute is the Ortofon 2M Black.

That rig is in our family room.

My main turntable case in in the AV room. These pictures were in our former residence, it is now moved to out new AV room. These turntables I have had for most of my life.

Garrard 301, with Decca ffss H2E and professional arm.

It also shows a rare Auriol lift that I restored.

Thorens TD 150 I bought as a teenager, now has SME series III and Shure V 15 xmr.

Garrard 301 with SME series II improved arm and Shure V 15 xmr cartridge.

I can assure you there is nothing wrong with the bass of any of them, or a need to change anything from original except the damper to the series II arm, as that was a later option.

In other respects everything is in original working condition.

My ProJect has the graphite arm, acrylic platter and keeps the belt hidden under the platter.

 

[davidscott]

You may have heard it, but I expect its bunk for the most part.

I will say that I think vintage turntables are much better in the main than most modern offerings.

Too many modern turntables have platters that ring like bells. The drive belt it outside the turntable, where it picks up all sorts of contamination, including finger grease. That is a stupid design for a start. Many pick up arms have glaring defects.

I will say that an acrylic turntable has high mass and would be non resonant which are big pluses.

Some turntables have ferrous metal turntables which is a total disaster as the magnets in the cartridge are attracted to the turntable. That is a major crime.

Good vintage turntables, and some modern ones, have massive non ferrous turntables, that are totally dead and non resonant. Ideally an arm and cartridge should be designed as a unit. Only the Decca ffss heads and arms were designed that way. This makes it possible to tightly control the resonance, which does have an impact on bass reproduction. The vintage SME series III arms were designed to perform optimally with the Shure V series cartridges. In addition damping of the arm was provided, which definitely does improve bass and reproduction all round. Also the later versions of those cartridges conducted the static away through the damper.

Getting really good LP reproduction is difficult, and requires a careful balancing of the shortcomings of the medium. I do think on the whole these were handled better in times past than now.

Really a vintage rig like this properly set up is superb.

This is my Thorens TD 125 MK II. I bought it non working and restored it, so I just about stole it. The arm is an SME series 3 and the cartridge a Shure V 15 xmr. This is now NLA so a good substitute is the Ortofon 2M Black.

That rig is in our family room.

My main turntable case in in the AV room. These pictures were in our former residence, it is now moved to out new AV room. These turntables I have had for most of my life.

Garrard 301, with Decca ffss H2E and professional arm.

It also shows a rare Auriol lift that I restored.

Thorens TD 150 I bought as a teenager, now has SME series III and Shure V 15 xmr.

Garrard 301 with SME series II improved arm and Shure V 15 xmr cartridge.

I can assure you there is nothing wrong with the bass of any of them, or a need to change anything from original except the damper to the series II arm, as that was a later option.

In other respects everything is in original working condition.

That is some seriously nice analog equipment. I had some Shure carts (type 3 and 4) back in the day and they did sound sweet on their respective tables. (Technics and later Duel)

 

[Mikado463]

My analog set up consists of a VPI Aries3 with their 25lb 'super platter', an acrylic /stainless / acrylic sandwhich. Combined with the perf ring the whole TT weighs in at around 65-70 lbs.

 

[TLS Guy]

My analog set up consists of a VPI Aries3 with their 25lb 'super platter', an acrylic /stainless / acrylic sandwhich. Combined with the perf ring the whole TT weighs in at around 65-70 lbs.

So this is the turntable you have.

Yes, the turntable is massive. It looks like a good arm design. I note the arm is damped, which I think all should be, but few are. Making a turntable without damping is like making a car without shocks!

As I said, I don't like exposed belts, especially if there is no electronic speed changing and you have to finger the belt. What cartridge are you using?

I see the picture disappears when I press post and back when I press edit for some reason.

 

[Mikado463]

So this is the turntable you have.

Yes, the turntable is massive. It looks like a good arm design. I note the arm is damped, which I think all should be, but few are. Making a turntable without damping is like making a car without shocks!

As I said, I don't like exposed belts, especially if there is no electronic speed changing and you have to finger the belt. What cartridge are you using?

I see the picture disappears when I press post and back when I press edit for some reason.

Doc, attached is pic of my TT set up. In the background you can see the SDS unit which assures rock steady RPM's. My current cartridge is a Benz Micro 'Gullwing'. I too had my share of Shure's back in the day, fell in love with the Grace F9e in the eighties, had a Dynavector fling in the nineties and have been a Benz Micro guy since the Millennium ...........

 

[TLS Guy]

Doc, attached is pic of my TT set up. In the background you can see the SDS unit which assures rock steady RPM's. My current cartridge is a Benz Micro 'Gullwing'. I too had my share of Shure's back in the day, fell in love with the Grace F9e in the eighties, had a Dynavector fling in the nineties and have been a Benz Micro guy since the Millennium ...........

View attachment 36289View attachment 36290

Nice! I got over my flirt with MCs years ago. The big problem for me is that I like a cartridge that will perform best with most discs, just not the best cut ones. The FR of the Shure cartridges is excellent. However it is their compliance and trackability that makes me stick with the Shure cartridges.

 

[Mikado463]

For those interested Audiokarma has a very good discussion thread relating to all things TT especially vintage interests .........

Turntables

Analog at its finest. Its all about spinning vinyl.

audiokarma.org