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.
Denon dp 80 vs yamaha gt 2000
- Thread starter filipealm
- Start date
jblnut
Don't Overthink It
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.
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.
Last edited:
Pio1980
AK Member
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.
Last edited:
nailer
audionerd
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.
Pio1980
AK Member
The evidence would be visual inspection of the spindles and thrust plates. The motor torque, fb speed control, and platter mass and momentum could cover thrust bearing wear or galling in use, unless the sleeve bearing galls and seizes from long term lack of lubrication, which isnt likely.
Pio1980
AK Member
I haven't actively researched the deterioration of G-2000 spindle thrust bearings, so, no. I dont know of specific disassembly and inspection suggestions on these or other direct drive motor spindle bearings, specifically the load bearing thrust ball and plate area, but it seems a good idea to do so periodically to check condition of bearings and lubricant.
Pio1980
AK Member
Interesting! I've seen that with many older exa himples of various turntables.
I do wonder tho what the design service life was estimated. I suspect much of what we treasure and use still is way beyond the ecpected service life, most of the crappy stuff in constant use went years ago.
Even so, as far down the road as we are with the remaining older good stuff, a disassembly, inspection and relubing might be prudent for prolonged reliable service.
Last edited:
Pio1980
AK Member
Fwiw, here's a couple threads on thrust bearing inspection on an SP10-Mk-II.
https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=vinyl&m=1028061
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/bearing-wear-on-an-sp-10-mk-ii-pics.471515/
https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=vinyl&m=1028061
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/bearing-wear-on-an-sp-10-mk-ii-pics.471515/
Last edited:
fiddlefye
Addicted Member
V
Very interesting reading, those.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
I do not own a GT 2000 or any of its variants, so I cannot comment on how that particular table does sound. I do own A DP 75, which is the US imported version of the DP 80 minus the pitch controls. From people who own them, the are considered to be on the same level. I also own a SP 10 MK II.
The comments I have are this. I do not think holding the Japanese hobbyist up as some infallible arbiter on analog performance is a good idea. We did that with the British audiophile and hi fi press, and this brought us the perceived dominance of the LP 12. Secondly, while the GT 2000 is not cheap when new, as an integrated package it is less expensive than buying a DP 80, SAEC arm, and a plinth. The consideration of value to the Japanese audiophile may have influenced its popularity and sale numbers. In short, it was a great deal.
Now when you have a piece that is as popular as the basic 2000 was in Japan, is that what most audiophiles want to own? From what I have observed of human nature, people who prize their audio equipment want it to be distinctive and perhaps even rare. So the upgrades to the stock table have an interested audience, and I doubt the Japanese audiophile is significantly different than their world wide brethren. Then comes the discussion of value, diminishing returns, and what incremental improvements are worth. These concepts are bandied around here on a weekly basis, and there is no reason that the GT 2000 should be immune to these same equations. Exactly what does one get when they buy some of these upgrades, such as the high mass platter: improved performance, exclusivity, or a combination of both? What I do know is that when I put a high mass platter on my SP 10, I hated the end result, and returned to the stock platter. And this movement of putting a high mass platter on the SP 10 MK II originated in Japan. See what I mean about the dangers of thinking the Japanese hobbyist is infallible?
So what does this post mean? What am I trying to say? Not much. Other than that sometimes we create solutions to problems that do not need solving. That certain revered groups are given an aura of superiority that may or may not be appropriate. That all of us desire to be distinctive, and even unique. One way be can do that is by owning treasures that others do not. As I think about it, its going to be extremely difficult to do a side by side comparison of a GT 2000 and a DP 80, unless the owner is willing to obtain a second matching Yamaha arm to make this comparison fair. To be even more "fair" the DP 80 would also need a plinth built in the same manner as the GT 2000, along with the Yamaha arm. Otherwise the comparison is of two similar analog "systems" but they are not close enough to make definitive declarations that the drive unit, platter, bearing, logic control, resonance control, or design of one unit is inherently superior to the other.
Here is an idea. Why don't we just buy the turntables we enjoy, that give us satisfaction in listening to music, and spin our favorite records. I have owned several types of turntables over the last few years, making an exploration of some well regarded tables. I found excellent examples of idler drives, belt drives, and direct drives. I have to admit I prefer these two direct drives to the others I have owned. Also, that one day I may try an uber belt drive, if I feel compelled to do so. But what I do know is that I can find genuine enjoyment in all types of better quality turntables. There is joy to be had in owning a GT 2000, SP 10, DP 80, SOTA, Oracle, Linn LP 12, VPI, Merrill, Townshend, Well Tempered, Vyoyd, Transrotor, and many many others. Turntables are distinctive, buy the one that suits you the best.
Regards
Mister Pig
The comments I have are this. I do not think holding the Japanese hobbyist up as some infallible arbiter on analog performance is a good idea. We did that with the British audiophile and hi fi press, and this brought us the perceived dominance of the LP 12. Secondly, while the GT 2000 is not cheap when new, as an integrated package it is less expensive than buying a DP 80, SAEC arm, and a plinth. The consideration of value to the Japanese audiophile may have influenced its popularity and sale numbers. In short, it was a great deal.
Now when you have a piece that is as popular as the basic 2000 was in Japan, is that what most audiophiles want to own? From what I have observed of human nature, people who prize their audio equipment want it to be distinctive and perhaps even rare. So the upgrades to the stock table have an interested audience, and I doubt the Japanese audiophile is significantly different than their world wide brethren. Then comes the discussion of value, diminishing returns, and what incremental improvements are worth. These concepts are bandied around here on a weekly basis, and there is no reason that the GT 2000 should be immune to these same equations. Exactly what does one get when they buy some of these upgrades, such as the high mass platter: improved performance, exclusivity, or a combination of both? What I do know is that when I put a high mass platter on my SP 10, I hated the end result, and returned to the stock platter. And this movement of putting a high mass platter on the SP 10 MK II originated in Japan. See what I mean about the dangers of thinking the Japanese hobbyist is infallible?
So what does this post mean? What am I trying to say? Not much. Other than that sometimes we create solutions to problems that do not need solving. That certain revered groups are given an aura of superiority that may or may not be appropriate. That all of us desire to be distinctive, and even unique. One way be can do that is by owning treasures that others do not. As I think about it, its going to be extremely difficult to do a side by side comparison of a GT 2000 and a DP 80, unless the owner is willing to obtain a second matching Yamaha arm to make this comparison fair. To be even more "fair" the DP 80 would also need a plinth built in the same manner as the GT 2000, along with the Yamaha arm. Otherwise the comparison is of two similar analog "systems" but they are not close enough to make definitive declarations that the drive unit, platter, bearing, logic control, resonance control, or design of one unit is inherently superior to the other.
Here is an idea. Why don't we just buy the turntables we enjoy, that give us satisfaction in listening to music, and spin our favorite records. I have owned several types of turntables over the last few years, making an exploration of some well regarded tables. I found excellent examples of idler drives, belt drives, and direct drives. I have to admit I prefer these two direct drives to the others I have owned. Also, that one day I may try an uber belt drive, if I feel compelled to do so. But what I do know is that I can find genuine enjoyment in all types of better quality turntables. There is joy to be had in owning a GT 2000, SP 10, DP 80, SOTA, Oracle, Linn LP 12, VPI, Merrill, Townshend, Well Tempered, Vyoyd, Transrotor, and many many others. Turntables are distinctive, buy the one that suits you the best.
Regards
Mister Pig
muovimies
Super Member
I think there's more significant differences between DP-75 & DP-80 than the pitch controls. For one thing, I think only the DP-80 uses the 3-phase motor. Also you could buy about one and a half DP-75 for the price of one DP-80
If the performance was very close indeed, I'd imagine the DP-75 sold better by far. That ~30,000jpy difference I believe bought you a decent tonearm back then. As for the rest of your post, well put.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
I think there's more significant differences between DP-75 & DP-80 than the pitch controls. For one thing, I think only the DP-80 uses the 3-phase motor. Also you could buy about one and a half DP-75 for the price of one DP-80
As for the rest of your post, well put.
That is another point that is hard to resolve. From info that has been passed on from folks who service these, their perspective is that the 80 has no significant improvement in SQ over the 75. Although there is some discussion regarding improved torque on the 80, and that it comes up to speed incrementally quicker. And sometimes we create solutions to problems that do not exist....I happen to have a $4K cartridge on my DP 75, and it performs pretty well, it appears the table can support that level of cartridge. But I cannot say from my own experience that a 80 and 75 are equal. Perhaps you can weigh in on that with some comparative experience? Sure the price difference is significant, but engineers have never been known to overbuild things for their flagship piece, have they? These days I find that there is less and less that I am sure of beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ask me these questions ten years ago, and I would say advances in resonance control and materials engineering would have meant the modern belt drive table is a superior turntable over an 80's era direct drive. With recently acquired experience, I could not make those same statements.
Regards
Mister Pig
Last edited:
muovimies
Super Member
I don't know, maybe you misunderstood something in my post or I wasn't clear, but at no point did I mean to imply the difference in price between the models would mean significant differences in SQ as well. Just pointing there's more differences between them than one having pitch controls and other not. I have no experience with either table, only what I have read over the internet (I was at one point contemplating getting either DP-75 or DP-80 shipped from Japan, and actually got as far as making a "test run" with a DP-3000 which is plentiful in Japan and sells for peanuts, though shipping is very expensive...) - and what I have read over the internet is mostly the same what you already said, there's not much if anything between them in terms of SQ.
EDIT: read my original post again, I think my syntax was not correct and I ended up saying something I didn't mean. Replace "was" with "is" and maybe it makes more sense...
Onvinyl
New Member
This is a bit OT, but I did make comparisons. Few years ago I got a Garrard 401, got it made a modern resonance optimized plinth, polished the motor spindle a dozen times and fitted a spindle bearing from ATA and replaced the idler wheel. It finally bested my equally modded Thorens TD125MKII. I had a Denon DP3000 at that time, as well in a custom made plinth made of modern materials. 401 was better. Than I got a Sony TTS4000 in an diy plinth (not by me). It has all the slam of the 401 and more detail refinement (when choosing an appropriate arm, a SAEC 407/23 w Supex Cart could clearly show the diffs). Without the Analog Tube Audio bearing on the 401 it would have no chance at all. I sold the 401 and the Denon.
Then came the GT-2000. It had more authority, body of instruments and better long term speed stability. The very top end was smoother with the sony. I blame that on the tonearm, I could not fit the SAEC on the yamaha.
That all is highly subjective I know, but I‘m hearing music subjectivly...
Onvinyl
[What is ‚body of instruments‘? I‘m a drummer and I not only hear music, but feel it (I also have visual impressions when I hear music, so different sources do look different with eyes closed). With good analog the presence of the musical instruments is (much) stronger than wiht digitall, the strrongest with reel to reel mastertape copies. Unfrtly, I don‘t have any...]
Then came the GT-2000. It had more authority, body of instruments and better long term speed stability. The very top end was smoother with the sony. I blame that on the tonearm, I could not fit the SAEC on the yamaha.
That all is highly subjective I know, but I‘m hearing music subjectivly...
Onvinyl
[What is ‚body of instruments‘? I‘m a drummer and I not only hear music, but feel it (I also have visual impressions when I hear music, so different sources do look different with eyes closed). With good analog the presence of the musical instruments is (much) stronger than wiht digitall, the strrongest with reel to reel mastertape copies. Unfrtly, I don‘t have any...]
nailer
audionerd
Don't we all pretty much do this? I have since 1974 when I bought my first turntable.
Excellent post. My only quibble is that I'm thinking well designed plinths have significantly less sonic impact than well designed motor units.
Last edited:
Pio1980
AK Member
Both, imo with a direct drive unit.
Last edited:
