• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Lenco L75 or Ariston Audio RD11s or Thorens TD125 mk2?

You begin "But no", yet I think you're agreeing with me? Anyway, SOTA also 'hangs' the suspension, and this diagram illustrates the big difference from Thorens and others: Stability.

View attachment 1468399

Me to we agree I believe. Thanks for sharing those enlightening scientific technical diagrams. And yes, that's the whole ow deal we get from those Thorens "suspension" design. So if the drawbacks of such a feature are minimal or rarely occurring and can be easily corrected and if one finds that the advantages are overtaking the drawbacks, it makes it a "good" contender.

To have a "hanging" on springs sub-chassis instead of "sprung" on that could be adjustable would imply a much more complex mechanism that should also hold on the pre-set adjustment through use and time. Such a system would prove a rather tricky component to manufacture and even to adjust if ever. Those original TD suspensions do suit me enough anyway.

Now through time and tweaking a lot in and on my Thorens TD160 'E' model turntable I have learn to appreciate it's de-coupled design. Before the replacement of the original springs for longer TD150 ones, I had barely no more springingness to adjust and compensate the unevenly distributed mass enhancement I brought on the sub-chassis (platter and tonearm).

In the end I tried to level better the sub-chassis to reach a point where I had barely no springingness and it muffled my sound. Definitely I got more bass but lost my wide frequency spectrum "open" "airy" sound that I truly can't do without anymore. Through my tweaks I have learn to not damp (muffle) what doesn't need to be and not what don't benefit from it or worse...
 

A long story short... One day I was lend this combo; a Thorens TD160 'E' and SME3009 in order to fit on my newly acquired Denon DL-102 cartridge on. Convinced that it was much better I went onto the acquisition of that combo. After a while I decided to read and try to understand better what I had and could improve it some. On a tight budget, I couldn't afford in one go to either buy all in all another heavier mass tonearm nor buy the "mass enhancement" kit out there.

So first bought a used SME headshell connector and did that conversion and add some thermo girdle into the arm/wand tube for dampener and mass enhancement. Then did bought a Chinese heavier mass counterweight. Then enhanced the headshell mass. Finally went for a long and heavier mass counterweight. That forced me to purchase a heavier rider weight and anti-skate weight as well. Then got to hang a led plumery ring on the headshell connector and reached my goal.

These tweaks in conversion where done one by one, with time to evaluate individually each tweak's impact on sound playback and performance and if problematic corrected or reverted. This on a period lasting over 3 years and a half. The time to do it all on a tight budget, selling the spare parts I had to fund my next tweak and/or pass it on to a new home instead of the bin. Did the some mass enhancement also on my Thorens turntable while at it. Almost finished looks as it performs for my use; wonderfully !
 

No, as I said 'longer'. By memory those NOS 'original' TD150 springs I was offered have 9 'loops' and were 'higher' by half a centimeter or so. Where my TD160 had 8 'loops' and where shorter. Before acquiring those TD150 springs, I got original NOS Linn springs and these where indeed stiffer. But too stiff for me. It "muffled" my sound a tad too much for me and showed too little bounce. So I sold them on back directly and put on back the TD160 before acquiring those perfect matching TD150 springs. A last mass addition on the sub chassis front will be done later to even the mass distribution and the springs tension.
 
How did you convert the 3009 'Imp' to "heavy mass"?

Well done, a sensible approach. I made similar changes to mine, to make it suitable for low-compliance cartridges. First, a much heavier headshell — it's a far better platform for LOMCs than the tinny SME. This of course requires a heavier c'wt in back to balance it — you bought a different c'wt, I do it by adding weight to the old one. These changes make the whole arm heavier, and this increases the load on the knife-edge bearing, which makes it firmer, a good thing.

I'd like to get a longer way-rod as you did (the Improved is very short) and heavier rider, but so far I haven't spent a penny on this project, and I'd like to keep it that way. All the parts I've used were things I already had in the drawer/box/closet, and I took the h'shell connector from different arm (not SME).

Another trick I sometimes use is to reverse the wayrod/rider-weight so it points to the rear, not front. This moves a lot of mass to behind the pivot, useful for heavier cartridges and h'shells.

Next step will be to re-wire it straight-through from cartridge to preamp. This eliminates plug and solder connections for a more direct signal path — it's a very noticeable improvement with very low-output carts (0.1–.4mV).

If you can send a pic of your arm, I'd like to see it!

Apologies to others, if we're diverting this thread...
 
I had a very enjoyable evening this week listening to some vinyl from beginning to end on this new setup.

But that Lenco and Sansui look like they could use a neighbour...I'll be adding a TEAC A-3340S reel to reel deck in the coming weeks. Vinyl is great, but I've been envisioning a R2R as part of my HiFi vintage audio pursuit for some time now. Glad I could make it a reality.
 
How did you convert the 3009 'Imp' to "heavy mass"?

Well done, a sensible approach. I made similar changes to mine, to make it suitable for low-compliance cartridges. First, a much heavier headshell — it's a far better platform for LOMCs than the tinny SME. This of course requires a heavier c'wt in back to balance it — you bought a different c'wt, I do it by adding weight to the old one. These changes make the whole arm heavier, and this increases the load on the knife-edge bearing, which makes it firmer, a good thing.


So very true. Not only have I matched my Denon DL-102 cartridge low low compliance (no manufacturer's compliance specs given) to my SME3009 converted into heavy heavy effective mass to make it much more "precise", it also solidly improved the knife edge bearing sonic signature and gave even more "body" to my playback sound.

I'd like to get a longer way-rod as you did (the Improved is very short) and heavier rider, but so far I haven't spent a penny on this project, and I'd like to keep it that way. All the parts I've used were things I already had in the drawer/box/closet, and I took the h'shell connector from different arm (not SME).

Yes, longer indeed but hence I've even set my overhang that far since I play mainly 7" records. Since my styluses are nude large conical it's not a critical factor as far as I am concerned. And I have no issues playing 12" BTW. So I sold on my original plinth and dust cover to have a tailor plinth made a a woodcraft friend of mine with pieces of beechwood I still had from a dismantled stair from my home. And for dust cover I bought one of these drop and pick-up "leaf" of acrylic cut and bent to size that rest on the platter and go above the tonearm to rest back on the plinth next to it. So the "overflowing" headshell and counterweight are actually no issue for my dust cover.

Another trick I sometimes use is to reverse the wayrod/rider-weight so it points to the rear, not front. This moves a lot of mass to behind the pivot, useful for heavier cartridges and h'shells.

Smart*****

Next step will be to re-wire it straight-through from cartridge to preamp. This eliminates plug and solder connections for a more direct signal path — it's a very noticeable improvement with very low-output carts (0.1–.4mV).

Understand and I know, but then each manipulation on the turntable and/or phono stage becomes a work of extra carefulness that I couldn't see myself doing at any time in "emergency" if necessary like...

If you can send a pic of your arm, I'd like to see it!

Apologies to others, if we're diverting this thread...
Yes sorry. But SME's and Thorens are that classic and most logical de-coupled combo match.
Capture d’écran 2019-04-06 à 14.10.48.png
 
Best bass I ever heard from a Thorens was after removing the suspension.
Been thinking about rubber-mounts miself. Concerned as to whether the 125 might lose its great abilities with the fades of notes and general low-level detail-resolution. Wasn't aware that some folks mount the 125's chassis so solidly on wood-blocks.

Curious as to whether the same concerns about detail-resolution wouldn't also be relevant.

Any thoughts?
 
@waj4all It was so long ago that I did it, it isn't as clear in memory as it was in reality. I thought the "solid" 125 was better in every respect, and others agreed, some of whom were total cynics — "You think you're smarter than Thorens?!" — until they heard it.

There was a lot of (for lack of a better word) "separatist" analysis, focusing on Bass/Highs/Image/Ambience/Staging/Detail et al, whereas I try to listen (for lack of a better word) more "holistically", for an overall impression and a sense of (for lack of a better word) musical "experience".

You ask about detail-retrieval. Firstly, the cartridges were identical Grace F9E MM (provided by the distributor, who was also part of the jury), and while it's a truly great cartridge, it's not a detail-freak like some MCs with microfine styli.

BTW, if you're reasonably handy, and not daunted by a modest challenge, you can try it yourself. It's not terrible difficult, and easily reversible.
 
@waj4all
BTW, if you're reasonably handy, and not daunted by a modest challenge, you can try it yourself. It's not terrible difficult, and easily reversible.

Yup!!!

Thanks for the headz-up. Will try it eventually - likely during the same experiments with the 124's rubber-grommets which I also intend to try. Been hearing great things about the latter. And now your remarks about even more solid mounting is very encouriging.

Thanks again for sharing.
 
You're welcome — and I mean that in two senses: I just noticed you're relatively new to AK...
Much obliged, Bimasta. Not so 'new' though, since my first post here was in 2013, I think (Re; Magnavox 93-Series amp; Increasing the Gain?). But I guess the "new-member" description in my avatar is applicable because of the fact that I post so rarely (with this being my 22nd post). So I'm happy to accept the welcome of a 'super-member.' Thanks!

Great thread, BTW - all about great TTs, for sure!
 
Last edited:
amazing question.

Ha, ha! 'Amazing' is right.

But, as tnsilver illustrated, it's an alternative suggested by Thorens itself (for certain applications; such as disco use, broadcast, and the like). It's also THE alternative used by EMT in their improved version - the 928 - widely considered to be the 'ultimate' factory-modded 125.

There's a school of thought (famously championed by highendaudio.com) which posits that this is the best way to mount a TT (for the best in bass and dynamics, in particular) and that all suspended TTs which are conducive to this option (like the VPI HW-19, for example) should be converted to this format if the very best performance is the goal.

Personally, I won't be sure there's no downside to that option (outside of a 'negligible' theoretical increase in rumble) 'til I try it, but I'm willing to experiment with this concept.

Total solid-mounting (devoid of even the compliance of rubber-grommets or pucks) is a road less travelled by users of 125s, but there's really no reason to consider it any less viable than rubber-mounting.

If I recall correctly, the now-famous Lenco 75 is originally a suspended TT, but the mod of solid-mounting has been so widely accepted for its obvious benefits that this fact is literally forgotten. And, for the same reasons why some have asked why this mod for the Lenco wasn't thought of and used more widely before recent times, perhaps the same may be said of the 125 in times to come (especially in retrospective contemplation of the quality of an EMT 928).

Amazing? Yes!

Just a thought - or two!
 
Last edited:
... But, as tnsilver illustrated, it's an alternative suggested by Thorens itself for certain applications; such as disco use, broadcast, and the like...

So Thorens addresses this "option" for some use in "extreme" conditions where the suspension will prove to be problematic. So it is not proposed as a universal "upgrade" tweak for each of their suspended TD's turntables. And indeed there are "better" sturdy/rigid cabinet/chassis suited turntables out there for such a 'discotheque' DJ job. This I know... Where for 'broadcast' use the suspension of such turntable is not problematic I understand. Or is it ?

There's a school of thought (famously championed by highendaudio.com) which posits that this is the best way to mount a TT (for the best in bass and dynamics, in particular) and that all suspended TTs which are conducive to this option (like the VPI HW-19, for example) should be converted to this format if the very best performance is the goal.

Yes; 'school of thought' or 'trend' are still vivid in the audio world. Yet they should be 'humble' to know that in the audio world there is no such thing as a universal "improvement" or "better". On my Thorens to eliminate the suspension proved to be just "bad" sounding in comparison. Lost my beloved typical "airy" sound of my TD160 and the depth achieved through the higher frequencies. If more "bassy" sounding, it also sounded "muffled" to these ears.

Personally, I won't be sure there's no downside to that option (outside of a 'negligible' theoretical increase in rumble) 'til I try it, but I'm willing to experiment with this concept...

...Just a thought - or two!

Gave my side of the story here above. And I totally understand those for who it turned out to be an improvement. So even if admittedly there less "isolation" from the motor 'vibrations' through the chassis, it turned out to be another 'downside' in my case. And 'school of thought' and/or 'trend' in the audio world today is also to 'dampen' everything. That will 'impact' the sound inevitably. And some might actually 'prefer' that...
 
It wasn't a scientific experiment, just a fun project, so we didn't "test" for rumble. But we didn't hear any increase in rumble, and that was the first thing we were listening for, because it's so obvious: it's the main purpose of a sprung suspension. It was probably there but sub-audible — and the 15" Janis subwoofer would have made it obvious. If it were problematic, one could isolate the motor to reduce it, while keeping the "solid" structure. Other TTs do this effectively — I had a ROK and Empire which decouple it with compliant rubber motor mounts.

We could have tested, one of my friends was a pro with all the gear, and he did use instruments to check some of my other 125 mods.

BTW, "rumble" is used as a kind of all-in-one term for extraneous noise, which has different causes; different causes need different remedies —

• Bearing noise — this is inherent in all platters which turn around a bearing
• Motor noise — this was the purpose of belt-drive, and one reason why it replaced idlers, cost being another; springs were a later addition to further address motor noise
• Environmental noise — caused by woofers, footfalls, subway trains passing under the house etc

@timmy.timmy You write "Yes; 'school of thought' or 'trend' are still vivid in the audio world. Yet they should be 'humble' to know that in the audio world there is no such thing as a universal "improvement" or "better". On my Thorens TD-160 to eliminate the suspension proved to be just "bad" sounding in comparison."

I discussed this in my first description (#43) — "It would probably be very different with a TD-150 or -160-series, or a Linn for that matter, with their lightweight subchassis." The 125/6 is well-suited "because the top plate is so thick and massive."

So clearly it's not for all Thorens or all sprung TTs — unless one changes the subchassis: a lot of work.

I'm curious how you went about your experiment, timmy.timmy...
 
There are suspended Empires too and the cast skeletal subchassis hangs off the springs rather than sitting on them. This does make for a somewhat deeper turntable though and probably the reason other manufacturers opt to sit the subchassis on top of the springs. I have an Empire 598 in my office and it really is a well built thing. I read a review years ago which said the bearing shaft would do justice to a lift.
 
There are suspended Empires too and the cast skeletal subchassis hangs off the springs rather than sitting on them. This does make for a somewhat deeper turntable though and probably the reason other manufacturers opt to sit the subchassis on top of the springs. I have an Empire 598 in my office and it really is a well built thing. I read a review years ago which said the bearing shaft would do justice to a lift.

Were the Empires among the early tables to use a hung suspension?
 
It wasn't a scientific experiment, just a fun project, so we didn't "test" for rumble. But we didn't hear any increase in rumble, and that was the first thing we were listening for, because it's so obvious: it's the main purpose of a sprung suspension. It was probably there but sub-audible...
...BTW, "rumble" is used as a kind of all-in-one term for extraneous noise, which has different causes; different causes need different remedies —

Yes, same here; I couldn't hear any 'rumble'/'vibrations' pollution through my speakers, but I've asked some who did test and could measure the difference. Hence that if the initial main purpose of such 'suspension' design was to reduce motor 'rumble' transmission, for me it's 'sonic signature' is what I love best about my Thorens TD160 'E' originally and now fully tweaked for real improvement performance.

@timmy.timmy You write "Yes; 'school of thought' or 'trend' are still vivid in the audio world. Yet they should be 'humble' to know that in the audio world there is no such thing as a universal "improvement" or "better". On my Thorens TD-160 to eliminate the suspension proved to be just "bad" sounding in comparison."

I discussed this in my first description (#43) — "It would probably be very different with a TD-150 or -160-series, or a Linn for that matter, with their lightweight subchassis." The 125/6 is well-suited "because the top plate is so thick and massive."

So clearly it's not for all Thorens or all sprung TTs — unless one changes the subchassis: a lot of work.

I'm curious how you went about your experiment, timmy.timmy...

There you are absolutely right to remind and correct me; we are initially talking of TD125's and the other TD14x, 150 & 16x are not to be so simplistically compared to. Somehow I seem to keep on forgetting... So in order to remain specific to my 'experience' on such matter I should insist that it's only 'my own experience' on similar gear but not the same design. My own experience as described in my post #46.
 
@timmy.timmy

Wow!!!

Where do I begin?

Perhaps it's best just to start by first pointing out that - while it was an officially endorsed alternative for the 125 - defeating the suspension was never ever officially recommended for the lighter suspended Thorens models such as the 150 and your own 160 (not as far as I'm aware).

As I understand it, it's not a "universal" option suitable to all suspended TTs. For instance, it never once occurred to me to do this with my former Linn or TD-145, as I'd never heard of this being a viable option for these (or even an Oracle, Gyro-Dec, or SME, for that matter). And this is why I'd emphasized certain words - such as; ...suspended TTs which are conducive to this option - in italics, in my previous post.

You also mentioned, "On my Thorens to eliminate the suspension proved to be just "bad" sounding in comparison. Lost my beloved typical "airy" sound of my TD160 and the depth achieved through the higher frequencies..." And you'll also see where I'd raised a similar concern regarding detail-resolution, et-al, in a previous post. So I too have taken this into consideration - and neither would I be willing to sacrifice even one iota of the 125's outstanding abilities in these regards (especially at low-mids). But the legendary quality of the rubber-mounted EMT-928 version suggests that this might not be a problem, as it's hardly likely that EMT would employ a strategy which would compromise the quality in any way detrimental in their quest to offer a line of various TTs which are still regarded as some of the best-sounding TTs ever made.

Incidentally, the tendency to under-rate TTs utilized in discos is a bit misguided, IMO, because some very good TTs have been put to such use. The Lenco 75 was once a serious contender in that regard - and today modded versions are heralded as Class A. The SL1200 Techie has been modded mainly with better arms and the like by the likes of Funk-Firm, Time-Step, and Inspire to be rated among the better TTs available on this particular planet. In fact, I once encountered a thread where a poster claimed that his girlfriend was an accomplished DJ who'd bought his SME V to pair with another on her own SL1200s (if I understand his posts correctly).

The rubber-mounted TD-125 was also regarded as the ultimate for discos which put a premium on ultimate sound-quality, and one of the most famous DJs (Mancuso, I believe) used a pair of these with the highly-rated Black-Widow arms and top-of-the-line Shures in a system deliberately featuring Klipschorns - all in the interest of high-quality sound. Most audiophile high-end home systems today still do not achieve that level of quality. (Others had done similar - including little-me, in my day - and I think at least one from the current generation has adopted the 125 and continues to use it to this day). Moreover, the rubber-mounted EMT 928 versions of the 125 were really developed for broadcast use (not disco) and only turned out to be their least 'common' model because of the fact that belt-drive is inherently unable to achieve the quick start-up required for wide-spread acceptance in the broadcast field (causing it to be used in specialized areas - such as in the broadcast of Jazz, if I'm not mistaken - outside of the general broadcast field where all other DD and ID models from EMT dominated).

I'm not suggesting for a minute that defeating the suspension is the best thing for all Thorens users - never even hinted at any such thing. I'd simply mentioned that it's an option I'm considering for my own 125 unit. If you misunderstood that then I'm sorry if I was not as clear as I could have been.

Nevertheless, it's great to see you're as passionate about your 160 as some of us others are with the units we have.

Continue to enjoy the music.

Cheers.



PS
It was the famous Larry Levan of the infamous Paradise-Garage Disco that made the Thorens-125/Black-Widow famous. (David Mancuso used 125s too, at some stage, but he'd started out with A-Rs in "The Loft" and included Technics SP-10s with Koetsus, at one stage).The Thorens-125/Black-Widow combo was a feature of all the clubs designed by the highly-rated Richard Long, including the Garage, Zanzibar, and Studio 54 - the greatest disco of them all. At least one of these clubs also utilized a version of the Jensen Imperial speaker-system (rated by some as superior and more 'bassy' than even the Klipschorn) and these were sub-woofed.

Personally, I was never really into the disco life-style, but I was always drawn to the music and to some of the best gear they used.

For those with similar views, these links might be interesting: https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/thorens-125-dj-favourite.493257/
https://audiosex.pro/threads/solved...-used-at-studio-54-and-paradise-garage.38848/

The point here is that - while some are truly awful - the best disco systems were and are better than what most of us dream of using at home, so it's ridiculous to under-rate or disparage them, in gerneral terms, as many of us do. Some of those involved in disco are more passionate about sound-quality than many audiophiles can even claim to be.

Here's a quote from "The Loft's" David Mancuso;
"Getting into high end audio I realized how much nuance there was in the record
and also that the record should stand on its own. I don't want to interfere with what
the artist intended or the integrity of the recording cause that's the artist's message
so I play the record from the beginning to the very end. Occasionally, if I had one of
those DJ friendly records where it starts off going boom-boom-boom for thirty
seconds or more I would time it to begin a little later... In order to get Class-A sound,
you had to get rid of the mixer. So what happens is you find a way to keep the flow
going so there's no space unless you intended it to be that way.
"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom