Luxman PD-350 vs Kenwood L-07D

mad shadows

Super Member
A friend of mine has the the Luxman PD-350 and has the chance to buy the Kenwood L-07D.
Which is the best of the two turntables?
 
L-07D is a world class turntable. The PD-350 is a very nice table and with the vacuum system would be great, but I don't think of it as a world class unit and I like Luxman gear.
 
At the point of diminishing returns. If one can hear the difference they need the better table. Most don't need the better table. I would think that the tonearm selected for the table would make a bigger difference. Especially if ideally suited to the cartridge. And well both tables need a cartridge in the 4-5 digit range and that first digit needs to at least round up to a 2.
 
Anyone who hasn't experienced the sound of one of Japan's Ultra Direct Drive turntables can't comprehend just how great they are. As the Source component in a vinyl based system the substitution of a sensational turntable in place of even a very good sounding turntable is a big step forward. Many modern turntables up to $10,000 would struggle to equal the level of attainment let alone surpass it.
 
Well since we seem to have this friend in common and I´m not really sure that I agree with the Kenwood being the better of them I would like som arguments more than just saying its better.

Facts:1. When the german magazine did measurments of wow and flutter and also rumble there was no significant diffrence between the PD-310 (PD-350 with 1/3 of its platterweight) and Kenwood L-07D.
2. I have done measurments of the wow and flutter of this exact example of PD-350 and its around 0,035% 2 sigma.
3. The tonearm of this example of PD-350 is a Stax UA-9, I would think that arm is probably as good or better than the Kenwoods and also more versatile.
4. The PD-350 is already fully gone through and recaped etc.

/The guy who sold the PD-350 and now have a L-07D for sale. =)
 
Kenwood for the win, though both are superb. The Kenwood is heavier built, closer to professional grade broadcast level, and has a stronger motor and has aged better as a whole. I love the Luxman turntables very well, the vacuum system has been known for issues on many a PD 350, bonus if working correctly.
 
The Stax UA-9 is a superb arm as has been stated already. Coincidentally it is the same mounting specs as the stock arm on the GT 2000. I would love to have one on hand. The Luxman's vacuum system has been reported over the years to develop problems. Maybe if the owner has gone over the caps, he has also sorted out the vacuum issues. I'm sure he would have. It isn't a bad turntable by any means. Luxman's best efforts, like the GT 2000 were Micro Seiki inspired. That is the touch of magic on many great Japanese turntables. It is no coincidence that Yamaha offered a vacuum mat for the GT 2000 and it could be said that anyone using a GT 2000 without a vacuum hold-down mat, is not hearing what was intended for the turntable.

Someone should do a modern retake on the Audio Technica vacuum hold-down mat.
 
Haven't used a vacuum table regularly, but with the improvements made by a ring weight I can say a vacuum would be a nice upgrade to a table probably eliminating the need for that weight.
 
Call me perverse(lots do) but I'd like to hear what effect the combination of vacuum platter(or mat) plus ring weight would have.
 
Call me perverse(lots do) but I'd like to hear what effect the combination of vacuum platter(or mat) plus ring weight would have.

I know exactly what that combination would have. It would have used up any spare time I have in life. Currently there are 15 steps to play a single record. Add to that the vacuum and the ring weight with its fiddly mounting using the jig and well it will be a while until this record finally gets the needle.
 
I know exactly what that combination would have. It would have used up any spare time I have in life. Currently there are 15 steps to play a single record. Add to that the vacuum and the ring weight with its fiddly mounting using the jig and well it will be a while until this record finally gets the needle.
I understand, but since I have never, in my almost 40 years of hi-fi luvvin used either vacuum hold-down nor a ring weight, if I had both to hand I would try out the combination of the two methods just for the insight as to how they work together.
 
Thinking about it, it seems that the vacuum would be preferable. It sucks a vacuum under the vinyl with a seal at the outer rim, keeping the record from moving.

With a ring weight, you have that tight to the mat rim but the rest of the record can move. Adding a center weight would load down the middle but I still envision the vacuum doing a better job.

Interesting how most tables and mats are so protective of the grooves but this is the part that should be backed up to disallow any movement.
 
The change in sound of my TT using an old Platter Matter on a thin ringing platter improves bottom end clarity and definition, and cleans up the brashness of a hard cymbal hit so it is much more realistic to my ear. Others say it does too much. I do not use a rim clamp or vacuum system, which to me would be an annoyance also..
 
Poorly designed vacuum hold down systems will suck the plasitisizers from a record, SOTA has noted this, and insures a very low vacuum to reduce the likelyhood of damage.
I don't know if Luxman has addressed the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom