Tone Arm Lift for Project Carbon EVO

highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
:D
I remember Wookie didn't like the Nitty Gritty. I am looking at the Vevor ultrasonic cleaner that others in the forum mentioned. I think TLS Guy mentioned the Pro-Ject cleaners but they are 3 or 4 times the price. I currently use a brush and also have a carbon fibre brush and anti-static gun which is ok for newish albums but I have a quite a few albums from my father and wife that could use a deep cleaning.
I found it interesting that the Nitty Gritty was so loud it could result in hearing loss- seriously. What a POS. I see that they start at $664.99 and the liquid has to be applied manually. I doubt they would let anyone look under the hood- if you checked out the photo, you would see wire nuts and all of the wires are red. Nice.

I'm amazed that so many of the small, narrow record cleaning brushes are EXACTLY the same as the ones that were available for about five bucks at places like Musicland/Pickwick Records, Galaxy Of Sound and any other discount record store. The AudioQuest anti static brush is the same as it was 40 years ago, with an added handle. ZeroStat is the same, other than a new shell and ownership- it's now $99.95. This is the version I remember, but they changed it after I left the first stereo store- Discwasher sold it at the time.

1670518456039.png


Or, someone could do this....

 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
:D
I remember Wookie didn't like the Nitty Gritty. I am looking at the Vevor ultrasonic cleaner that others in the forum mentioned. I think TLS Guy mentioned the Pro-Ject cleaners but they are 3 or 4 times the price. I currently use a brush and also have a carbon fibre brush and anti-static gun which is ok for newish albums but I have a quite a few albums from my father and wife that could use a deep cleaning.
I use the Cecil E. Watts Dust Bugs, and always dry. Those have really protected my collection. Never use fluids.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
I found it interesting that the Nitty Gritty was so loud it could result in hearing loss- seriously. What a POS. I see that they start at $664.99 and the liquid has to be applied manually. I doubt they would let anyone look under the hood- if you checked out the photo, you would see wire nuts and all of the wires are red. Nice.

I'm amazed that so many of the small, narrow record cleaning brushes are EXACTLY the same as the ones that were available for about five bucks at places like Musicland/Pickwick Records, Galaxy Of Sound and any other discount record store. The AudioQuest anti static brush is the same as it was 40 years ago, with an added handle. ZeroStat is the same, other than a new shell and ownership- it's now $99.95. This is the version I remember, but they changed it after I left the first stereo store- Discwasher sold it at the time.

View attachment 58964

Or, someone could do this....

I've had the anti-static gun for many years but still not convinced that it does that much. :D I did watch a YouTube vid where the youtuber had the means to measure the static build up on vinyl. His tests inferred that the carbon brushes were best used with the record in hand. Once on the platter most of the static dissipates any way so carbon brushes and anti-static guns don't do much once the record is on the mat.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
I use the Cecil E. Watts Dust Bugs, and always dry. Those have really protected my collection. Never use fluids.
That could work nicely for a good part of my collection. The roller and brush looks to be more effective than the single brush on the Tru-Sweep. You're starting with vinyl that is already in pretty pristine condition. I'm more concerned about some well used records that may have been left out in the open for longer periods than my anal-retentive self would have permitted. :D
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
That could work nicely for a good part of my collection. The roller and brush looks to be more effective than the single brush on the Tru-Sweep. You're starting with vinyl that is already in pretty pristine condition. I'm more concerned about some well used records that may have been left out in the open for longer periods than my anal-retentive self would have permitted. :D
The Cecil E. Watts Dust Bug first came on the market at the end of 1956, just before my tenth birthday. I was an early adopter, and all my records have been played with the Dust Bug for 66 years. So only my mono LP collection was ever played without the Dust Bug. I see a lot of my pictures have made it onto Pinterest.

This picture has a lot of audio history in one picture. In addition to the Dust Bug, there is a Garrard 301, a Decca H4E head on a Decca pro arm, a Decca brush, and an Auriol lift that I mentioned in this post. That arm does have a lift though, but the Auriol can drop at any speed you want, depending on how fast you let the air release, which is determined by how far anticlockwise you turn that big black knob.



The thing is that If I played you that rig, you would never guess how ancient it is. But it actually sounds better then the majority of turntables made last week. It feeds to the system via a Quad 22 tube preamp, from 1966.

I do credit the Dust Bug for keeping my collection is pristine condition. I have always used it dry. I never used Cecil's antistatic fluid on the brush.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
The Cecil E. Watts Dust Bug first came on the market at the end of 1956, just before my tenth birthday. I was an early adopter, and all my records have been played with the Dust Bug for 66 years. So only my mono LP collection was ever played without the Dust Bug. I see a lot of my pictures have made it onto Pinterest.

This picture has a lot of audio history in one picture. In addition to the Dust Bug, there is a Garrard 301, a Decca H4E head on a Decca pro arm, a Decca brush, and an Auriol lift that I mentioned in this post. That arm does have a lift though, but the Auriol can drop at any speed you want, depending on how fast you let the air release, which is determined by how far anticlockwise you turn that big black knob.



The thing is that If I played you that rig, you would never guess how ancient it is. But it actually sounds better then the majority of turntables made last week. It feeds to the system via a Quad 22 tube preamp, from 1966.

I do credit the Dust Bug for keeping my collection is pristine condition. I have always used it dry. I never used Cecil's antistatic fluid on the brush.
I don't know if you enjoy some of these subjective reviews on YouTube, but I happened to watch this top ten of iconic turntables and the Garrard 301 was first on the list. You may recognize some of the others as well. A few of these are before my time. I am more familiar with some of the Thorens and Denon models of the 80's. I was surprised that some of the ones mentioned used idle wheels. My father's Dual used an idle wheel but I thought that was for cheaper models and that belt drive would have been more common.

The list in the video consists of:
00:00 Introduction
02:48 Garrard 301
04:55 Thorens TD-160
07:43 Acoustic Research XA
11:41 Lenco L75
13:42 Pioneer PL-12D
15:51 Transcriptors Hydraulic Reference
17:10 Technics SL-1200
19:17 Linn Sondek (LP-12)
23:30 Rega P3
25:55 Brinkmann Taurus
27:10 The big reveal (Rega P10)
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I don't know if you enjoy some of these subjective reviews on YouTube, but I happened to watch this top ten of iconic turntables and the Garrard 301 was first on the list. You may recognize some of the others as well. A few of these are before my time. I am more familiar with some of the Thorens and Denon models of the 80's. I was surprised that some of the ones mentioned used idle wheels. My father's Dual used an idle wheel but I thought that was for cheaper models and that belt drive would have been more common.

The list in the video consists of:
00:00 Introduction
02:48 Garrard 301
04:55 Thorens TD-160
07:43 Acoustic Research XA
11:41 Lenco L75
13:42 Pioneer PL-12D
15:51 Transcriptors Hydraulic Reference
17:10 Technics SL-1200
19:17 Linn Sondek (LP-12)
23:30 Rega P3
25:55 Brinkmann Taurus
27:10 The big reveal (Rega P10)
Back then turntables used idler wheels, or were variants of the old electric drive with gimbal governor, like the old spring driven mechanical turntables.

The other issue is that most had 78, 45 and 33 and1/3 RPM records in their collections. So three speed was mandatory after the introduction of the 45 RPM discs.

In addition as 78 RPM was not completely standard, so some degree of speed control was required.

The other issue is that the synchronous motor has not been invented. I think the Swiss Papst motors came out mid to late sixties. There was no servo speed regulation either, that had to wait for Herr Willi Studer and the servo electronic speed control on the Studer/Revox tape machines. This was eventually adopted by Thorens with the introduction of the 125 series.



The Garrard 301is a superbly designed and built idler wheel turntable, with an eddy brake on top of the huge induction motor for fine speed control. They are dead silent with no rumble audible and full deserve their iconic reputation. I bought mine after arriving in Manitoba in 1970. At that time they were thought old fashioned. I found one in a bin in American Hi-Fi in Winnipeg and the other in a parts bin in a firm that kitted out studio and radio stations. It had come out of a radio station. I paid only a few dollars for each of them. Since they were built for North America they were for 60 CPS and not 50 cps.

I think the first turntable to use a belt drive and synchronous motor was the Thorens TD 150. I bought mine in March 1965, at an audio dealer in Rochester. I bought it less PU arm and plinth for 13 pounds and nineteen shillings GBP in March 1965. It has a very low serial number. I had to swap the Papst synchronous motor from the original 50 cps for a 60 cps one on leaving the UK. It is belt drive, and two speed, 33 and 1/3 and 45 RPM. There is no fine speed adjustment. I mounted a Decca arm and ffss Mk II head, which was later converted to my 78 RPM head when I bought the H4E in 1971. For most of its life it has had the SME III arm which it still has. There is no doubt that the Thorens TD 150 was a trend setting turntable. The TD 160 by the way, is virtually identical to the TD 150, only the trim is different, the mechanism and drive are identical. So I essentially have turntables 1 and 2 on the bi reveal!

Here is my Thorens TD 150 with SME series III arm and Shure V 15 xmr. Note the disc light is on, the red light of the tape 1 monitor loop is also alight on the Quad 44 preamp. This is because a dbx encoded LP is being played and dbx II decoder is engaged through that tape loop.



This is my only turntable with electronic speed control, the Thorens TD 125 MK 11. I did not buy that one new. I bought it cheap on eBay non working
, and restored it.



That is the only table I have ever bought with a plinth!

So that is a bit of a walk through my personal turntable history. I do buy and keep equipment for the long haul. I avoid junk and look after it. Then this hobby is budget friendly.

So, in this home you can find some truly iconic items.



Just to complete my turntable story, I found our old Connoisseur turntable when I cleared out the Old Parsonage after my mother's death. This turntable was purchased in 1952 when I was five, and so predates the Garrard 301. It is two speed 33 and 78 rpm. The arm is one of my father's home built unipivot arms.
I have to give Arthur Sugden as lot of credit for that design. Essentially Garrard ran with that and turned it into the Iconic and excellent. Although that was far from a bad turntable, but it did have some just audible rumble. There was no fine speed control. It originally came with an arm with slide on and off 78 and 33 heads. LP tracking force was 10 GM! That turntable arm and and cartridge were the mainstay of discs reproduction over the BBC and they bought lost of them prior to the 301.

I don't know if you are interested in an old man's ramblings, but that is some of our audio past recounted while I can still remember it.
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Ninja
I found it interesting that the Nitty Gritty was so loud it could result in hearing loss- seriously. What a POS. I see that they start at $664.99 and the liquid has to be applied manually. I doubt they would let anyone look under the hood- if you checked out the photo, you would see wire nuts and all of the wires are red. Nice.

I'm amazed that so many of the small, narrow record cleaning brushes are EXACTLY the same as the ones that were available for about five bucks at places like Musicland/Pickwick Records, Galaxy Of Sound and any other discount record store. The AudioQuest anti static brush is the same as it was 40 years ago, with an added handle. ZeroStat is the same, other than a new shell and ownership- it's now $99.95. This is the version I remember, but they changed it after I left the first stereo store- Discwasher sold it at the time.

View attachment 58964

Or, someone could do this....

I have one of those AQ anti static brushes that I purchased in 2015. Works fine but I sure do miss my old Discwasher mostly for the nostalgia.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
@TLS Guy I do enjoy the history on these pieces so thank you for taking the time to write about them.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
@TLS Guy I do enjoy the history on these pieces so thank you for taking the time to write about them.
I am glad these ramblings are of interest to you. There is quite a bit of history of that early era that I fear has forever disappeared. I think this is because a lot of photographs are lost or have never been digitized. Also at the time you never think it is worth photographing or at least not wasting precious film and flash bulbs. Back then there are a very definite cost to photography, so you took photographs sparingly.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I am glad these ramblings are of interest to you. There is quite a bit of history of that early era that I fear has forever disappeared. I think this is because a lot of photographs are lost or have never been digitized. Also at the time you never think it is worth photographing or at least not wasting precious film and flash bulbs. Back then there are a very definite cost to photography, so you took photographs sparingly.
Not only is there a cost to photogrphy, there's the waiting for results unless someone develops their own film and it's not always easy to digitize old film, especially when it's not 35mm or the scanner isn't the drum or flat bed type. It's interesting to see that film cameras are beginning to sell again and film is more available.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
I'm also surprised that film cameras are seeing a resurgence, especially after Nikon announced that they will cease production of SLRs. While my Canon DSLR with a decent lense still produces better photos than the Samsung Galaxy S7 I used to own, now that I have a Pixel phone I don't use the SLR any more. The latest iPhone, Pixel and Galaxy will match or outperform consumer DSLRs unless you need a telephoto or specialty lense.

Back to turntables again :) the Thorens that I tried had a terribly sensitive plinth. It sat on springs and would bounce around if the case was bumped. I felt they were way over rated. Loved the direct drive Denon DP series from the '80s though.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top