Denon dp 80 vs yamaha gt 2000

[theophile]

Other than the AKers who own a GT 2000, very few here have seen let alone heard one. Seeing a photo of a turntable one has never heard and making a comment that the popularity likely has to do with appearance is thread crapping. Putting the argument for appearance being the reason they were popular ahead over sound quality, without ever hearing the sound, is trolling. The Japanese had the chance to compare first hand the GTs to other TOTL DDs. The Japanese word of mouth reputation elevated the GT 2000 to being the best selling TOTL DD in Japan. To insinuate the greatness of that which one hasn't heard to be due to looks is baseless unless there is evidence that is the case. No evidence? Then it is at best speculation, at worst thread crapping.

There are now and will be those in the future who would like to refer to this thread to know the answer to the question posed by the OP. That is not served by ill informed incorrect suggestions. I don't take the route of reporting to mods. I'd rather challenge the poster to prove their comment. So how many on this thread have heard a GT 2000?

Looks are subjective. Thus I don't challenge anyone who think it looks good or bad according to their opinion. They have a right to think whatever they want. When they start down the road that the thread was taking then baseless idle internet noise is being put forward with zero regard for the question at hand. So: If one thinks it looks good: Fine. If one thinks it looks ugly: Fine. If one says that its looks explain its reputation, popularity, sales without citing evidence, that is trolling.

Look back through this thread, see the instance where I mention a feature of the GT 2000 that confuses a poster(ie he was ignorant of it's existence). Later that same poster suggests that GT 2000 feature of which he was ignorant might make a paperweight or an ashtray. Blatant threadcrapping. Blatant trolling. No way does his input in this thread advance the understanding sought by the OP. I hope Totem that you have something to say to him also rather than just to me.

 

[Pio1980]

WTF does this thing use for a thrust bearing to support that mass? Certainly not a Kingsbury oil film bearing, as in large scale Francis hydraulic generator turbine rotors.

http://audio-heritage.jp/YAMAHA/player/gt-2000x.html

 

[theophile]

You should reinstate your post totem.

 

[jblnut]

I would say that so far majick47 is in the best position to comment on this topic, as he's heard my GT2000 a few times and he owns a DP-75. I'd also agree that once you get to a certain level, difference in the cartridge (and to a lesser extent the phono pre) will outweigh differences in the table.

I'd also say be careful buying multiple tables just to compare them. I did that hoping I'd be able to pick a winner, but never did. The one real risk that I will highlight is age of circuits and repair-ability. If my VPI tanks, it's a simple motor I can replace myself. If something goes wrong in the GT's motor drive board, I am SOL until I find a good tech or a parts unit, or both.

jblnut

 

[Pio1980]

More here.
http://www.thevintageknob.org/yamaha-GT-2000x.html

 

[theophile]

http://audio-heritage.jp/YAMAHA/player/gt-2000x.html

This clouds the issue. There are many who incorrectly assume that because the 2000x had a uprated bearing spindle and housing, the 40 pound platter was only meant for that turntable. The GT 2000 was released in 1982. The 40 pound optional platter for the GT 2000 was released in 1982. The GT 2000x, with the uprated spindle and bearing housing was released in 1985. The 40 pound platter was able to be used on all of the GT 2000 models. Not just the GT 2000x.

 

[nailer]

Look back through this thread, see the instance where I mention a feature of the GT 2000 that confuses a poster(ie he was ignorant of it's existence). Later that same poster suggests that GT 2000 feature of which he was ignorant might make a paperweight or an ashtray. Blatant threadcrapping. Blatant trolling. No way does his input in this thread advance the understanding sought by the OP. I hope Totem that you have something to say to him also rather than just to me.

I was indeed confused because I didn't see what it had to do with the OP ? and I was well aware of the heavy platter option being an fan of Arkady's GT-2000 thread. Regarding my suggestion of uses for the heavy platter without a table, I thought they were funny. Lighten up dude.

I stand by my recommendation in post #5. Which pretty much acknowledges both are comparable tables.

 

[theophile]

I would say that so far majick47 is in the best position to comment on this topic, as he's heard my GT2000 a few times and he owns a DP-75. I'd also agree that once you get to a certain level, difference in the cartridge (and to a lesser extent the phono pre) will outweigh differences in the table.

I'd also say be careful buying multiple tables just to compare them. I did that hoping I'd be able to pick a winner, but never did. The one real risk that I will highlight is age of circuits and repair-ability. If my VPI tanks, it's a simple motor I can replace myself. If something goes wrong in the GT's motor drive board, I am SOL until I find a good tech or a parts unit, or both.

jblnut

Anyone who buys either a GT 2000 or a Denon DP 80/DP 75 is getting themselves an awesome Direct drive turntable. Neither purchaser has bought anything close to a dud. Quite the opposite. All will bring great joy to their respective owners. All who listen to them are winners.

 

[theophile]

The first post you mention has been deleted and I was indeed confused because I didn't see what it had to do with the OP ? and I was well aware of the heavy platter option being an fan of Arkady's GT-2000 thread. Regarding my suggestion of uses for the heavy platter without a table, I thought they were funny. Lighten up dude.

I stand by my recommendation in post #5. Which pretty much acknowledges that both are excellent tables.

I do things differently. I don't delete my posts, where they are in contention. I stand by what I post. If I have been wrong, I apologise and own my error. Nor do I tell the person to lighten up. The internet allows one to edit away one's trolling and take the context out of a discussion. Others obviously use deletion and editing when they don't want to take responsibility for threadcrapping.

 

[Pio1980]

This clouds the issue. There are many who incorrectly assume that because the 2000x had a uprated bearing spindle and housing, the 40 pound platter was only meant for that turntable. The GT 2000 was released in 1982. The 40 pound optional platter for the GT 2000 was released in 1982. The GT 2000x, with the uprated spindle and bearing housing was released in 1985. The 40 pound platter was able to be used on all of the GT 2000 models. Not just the GT 2000x.

My reservation on the thrust bearing still holds as that platter weighs around twice as much as many better to upper end ready to play turntables by itself.

 

[nailer]

My reservation on the thrust bearing still holds as that platter weighs around twice as much as many better to upper end ready to play turntables by itself.

The bearing was probably designed with the optional platter in mind.

 

[nailer]

I do things differently. I don't delete my posts, where they are in contention. I stand by what I post. If I have been wrong, I apologise and own my error. Nor do I tell the person to lighten up. The internet allows one to edit away one's trolling and take the context out of a discussion. Others obviously use deletion and editing when they don't want to take responsibility for threadcrapping.

I actually thought it was deleted because I only looked for it on page two because I thought I had posted it there, right below your platter picture post. You will notice that it never was deleted which is why I edited my post to delete my error about the post being deleted. Talk about threadcrapping!

Curious how envy plays in all of this though.

 

[Pio1980]

I had an AT vacuum platter from Lou Souther, just like the Yamaha option briefly on my 55-K, but left it off for several reasons, including concern for the thrust bearing.

 

[Pio1980]

The bearing was probably designed with the optional platter in mind.

The later bearing, probably. The early bearing looks inadequate to me.

 

[majick47]

I'm sure there is a treasure trove of info re the Yanaha, Denon, JVC, Technics, Sony etc top tier direct drive tables but unfortunately it's in Japanese publications and unless you have access and fluent in Japanese it's about impossible to gain much knowledge from there. I believe Theophile might of been referring to Travis who used to live in Japan and posted on Audio Asylum. My impression is that the Denon "flying saucer" style tables were first intended to be for the "professional" market, recording and broadcast, best described as an "industrial" appearance, secondly they were marketed for the consumer/audiophile. Yamaha tables were designed solely for the consumer/audiophile market. For many AK members the nod would have to go to the GT-2000 it being turn key coming in a dedicated factory plinth with a factory tonearm and available factory upgrades to the basic table. On the other hand the Denon DP-80 is only a motor unit and will rely on a wise choice of plinths and tonearms to achieve the best results. When you get to this level the differences can be so small that they are almost unrecognizable. I'd pick one or the other and be very happy even if the choice came down to looks/appearance, a second table of this class sitting idle would be a shame.

 

[theophile]

My reservation on the thrust bearing still holds as that platter weighs around twice as much as many better to upper end ready to play turntables by itself.

35 years of GT 2000s used with that platter should have shown-up problems. Surely. Doesn't it speak, that not only are there no reports of problems but that the demand to purchase the 40 pound platter for use on GT 2000s has pushed the price of that platter up and up and up? Does it make sense that an aftermarket industry in Japan manufactures 37 pound stainless steel platters for the GT 2000 if the bearing cannot cope with this weight?

Surely commonsense tells one that the increased demand for heavy platters for all of the GT 2000 series is being generated by word of mouth testimony. Surely commonsense tells one that the heavy platter must enhance the sound of the GT 2000. Surely commonsense must tell one that if the heavy platter option is now worth 3 or 4 times what is was worth when it was first released 35 years ago, it must be worth it? Some try to suggest that the reason for the price increase is the rarity of the heavy platter. If that was the correct explanation; then why haven't ALL of the other equally rare GT 2000 options similarly increased in value?

What does commonsense suggest?

 

[jblnut]

Common sense is not so common in the audio world, and we all acknowledge that to some degree. In fact audio is filled (some would say polluted) with "upgrades" so much so that many of us simply cannot be happy with our systems because we lack the "upgrades" that others say are so necessary for audio nirvana. It's a real problem, it's been around a long time, and who's to say that Yamaha aren't themselves somewhat guilty of this with the GT-2000 parts catalog we've been discussing.

Personally, I think the GT-2000 is a tremendous table as it sits. I hear no obvious sound coloration and I detect no speed instability that warrants a separate outboard power supply or $3000 40lb "gunmetal' platter. Could someone with an uber-resolving system detect differences and would they indeed be "upgrades" (better, not just different) ?

Hey - shout out to the world how much more amazing the GT would be by spending another 2x what you spent on the table, for upgrades. Maybe you're right. I'm just going to invoke my own common sense and acknowledge what ( I and others have realized) is a pretty spectacular sounding table. It ain't broke, and I'm not fixing it.

"Don't Overthink It"

jblnut

PS - the same goes for VPI and all of the "upgrades" that have been offered and made to the Classic since I bought mine. I am not picking on Theo or Yamaha here...it's an industry wide problem.

 

[Pio1980]

35 years of GT 2000s used with that platter should have shown-up problems. Surely. Doesn't it speak, that not only are there no reports of problems but that the demand to purchase the 40 pound platter for use on GT 2000s has pushed the price of that platter up and up and up? Does it make sense that an aftermarket industry in Japan manufactures 37 pound stainless steel platters for the GT 2000 if the bearing cannot cope with this weight?

Surely commonsense tells one that the increased demand for heavy platters for all of the GT 2000 series is being generated by word of mouth testimony. Surely commonsense tells one that the heavy platter must enhance the sound of the GT 2000. Surely commonsense must tell one that if the heavy platter option is now worth 3 or 4 times what is was worth when it was first released 35 years ago, it must be worth it? Some try to suggest that the reason for the price increase is the rarity of the heavy platter. If that was the correct explanation; then why haven't ALL of the other equally rare GT 2000 options similarly increased in value?

What does commonsense suggest?

Common sense suggests anecdotal evidence.
Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd need proof by technical inspection after prolonged use with/ without the heavy platters.
The 'X' bearing is clearly superior and should have been standard on all versions. My reservation is the durability of the thrust ball and plate under the lateral sleeve bearing under load. Whatever lubricant is used is permanently squeezed out of the contact point under load, unless some provision is made to restore it regardless of the size of the interfacing elements. The actual contact interface is quite small, requiring non-galling and/ or self lubricating materials absent regular lube restoration, depending on loading.
Had I designed this with the heavy platter as an option, I would have strongly considered providing an oil film planar Kingsbury bearing between the platter and the baseplate to carry the loading away from the spindle thrust bearing directly to the base to ensure the life of the spindle thrust bearing, given the open budgeting.

 

[theophile]

35 years of use with no complaints suggests that you are looking for a problem which doesn't exist. Where is the evidence of a problem?

 

[nailer]

I'm sure there is a treasure trove of info re the Yanaha, Denon, JVC, Technics, Sony etc top tier direct drive tables but unfortunately it's in Japanese publications and unless you have access and fluent in Japanese it's about impossible to gain much knowledge from there. I believe Theophile might of been referring to Travis who used to live in Japan and posted on Audio Asylum. My impression is that the Denon "flying saucer" style tables were first intended to be for the "professional" market, recording and broadcast, best described as an "industrial" appearance, secondly they were marketed for the consumer/audiophile. Yamaha tables were designed solely for the consumer/audiophile market. For many AK members the nod would have to go to the GT-2000 it being turn key coming in a dedicated factory plinth with a factory tonearm and available factory upgrades to the basic table. On the other hand the Denon DP-80 is only a motor unit and will rely on a wise choice of plinths and tonearms to achieve the best results. When you get to this level the differences can be so small that they are almost unrecognizable. I'd pick one or the other and be very happy even if the choice came down to looks/appearance, a second table of this class sitting idle would be a shame.

Excellent post.

The bottom line for me is that quite few excellent direct drives were made back in the day. My first DD, a Denon DP-755 with a Grace 707, had a very good motor unit. When I purchased my last direct drive, unless I win the lottery and get a VPI, I went with the SP10MKII over the Yamaha because I like tonearms. The JVC-101 was the other motor unit I was considering.