Lenco L75 or Ariston Audio RD11s or Thorens TD125 mk2?
- Thread starter vintagegroov
- Start date
timmy.timmy
Well-Known Member
Fair enough and most obliged for you correcting me. So indeed these EMT "mushrooms" rubber initially aimed for TD125's only. Yet I remembrer reading that some preferred them on their TD150, TD14x & TD16x. And I respect those who prefer them that way or with the suspension tighten to the max and/or even removed. But sound description subjective qualifications must be lengthy. So to say that it sounds better with better bass is far from enough for me and my experience of it. So when it comes to extended description of the change, it's the whole sound and frequency spectrum that must be "analyzed" with more scrutiny.
Not to "doubt" EMT's expertise and commercial approach to the customers, but I have come to truly understand that the "universal" upgrade device just does not exist. The combinations of every elements and components in the phono gear chain is only interacting well, better or worse depending on them and on one's ear preference, sensibility and ability to hear the music it reproduces. So I am weary of such "absolute" statements. And I am not implying that EMT shouts such statements, that I don't know. I am "targeting" those knowitall audio geeks that can't understand that not everyone is listening to STEREO LP's in the first place...
Very true. Some die hard DJ's still use Garrard 301's to DJ out; R-E-S-P-E-C-T ! Where I fell out of love of my second hand SL-1200 some 17 years ago when all the hipster's jive allowed the SL-1200 resurrection at "crazy prices", recently I had the opportunity to DJ out on a pair of SL-1200's 'GR'. I added the extra counterweight for my heavy headshell and MONO-fied Shure carts and it's true; I still find them "easy" to set and adjust. And even easy to "toy" with afterward. But their sonic signature even if acceptable is rather 'linear' to bore I find. Rather "flat" and too "dampened". BTW some Techies fans do admit that the tonearm is the weaker part of the SL-1200.
Just like the TP16 tonearm is generally considered a fair performer for it's price...
Once I DJ'ed out on a pair of Lenco's '70' and yes, they where fun to DJ with. On the 'oldies' circles, they where favored to the SL-1200's for a while I remember. Easy to fix, tweak and if they where semi-automatic, easy to by-pass that operation mode. Slip-mats purpose was to hold the cued-in record in position while the platter was revolving for a quick start. And speed pitch was also a "bonus". They were floating around for little money. With time and comparison, I have come to understand that the "dampened" sound became the norm for Joe Public and the industry consumerist's ear education "orientation" and "implementation".
IMHO the digital playback didn't help there. A bit like the school's "history" cursus. If one is gullible enough to take anything in those history books for 'face value', the politically correct corruption will have achieve it's goal. To be suspicious is not a good moral position evidently. To be defiant is not necessary but to be critical and not lazy is a must. Just like in one's quest for the "right" phono set-up. A pocket full of money in a high-end phono shop to purchase a phono set-up in one go won't do the trick in my experience. For one to trust it's ear is the way to evolve, learn and achieve happiness in music sessions.
That I can totally believe. A sturdy turntable is no luxury to DJ with. And as mentioned; the playback requirements are very different in a discotheque or at a gig than at "home". So those "smaller" or more "delicate" sonic improvements we try to find home can prove to be a handicap in broadcast or to DJ out. So the loss, improvements or changes, depending on who is commenting them, those EMT mushrooms bring can prove in the balance to be more beneficial than problematics in such playback conditions.
I must be of that "rarer" kind, as when I'll move in my music basement/room (any time soon) that is fully isolated and dampened, I will install there a pair of massive inspired DIY Klipsch 'La Scala' speakers built by an audio in experiment enthusiast. Even though I love my Right Fidelity phono set-up as it is today, I know and understand that I will need more power in that configuration. That dampened walls and low ceiling will "eat" a lot of highs and this basement/room is also twice bigger than the "office" I am installed in now.
No harm done. And in return, I am sorry as well to have "interpreted" your words with other comments I have come to assimilated yours with. Only once have I heard a TD125 (originally revised) with a SME3009 'Improved' S2 and it sounded rather good I remember. But I still can't say in comparison if I'd prefer it's sonic signature to my tweaked TD160 as it is today. Personally I prefer the humble and simplistic 'face' of my TD160 for my 'DJ like' use. My external PSU & Tacho combo surely outperforms the inner PCB built one of the TD125's.
Ah ! The problematics of this wonderful yet potentially vicious modern technology that is the internet given to almost every house hold in the Western world where all are required to "comment" at all time underlines the sole "human" limit to constantly analyse his comments like those he reads at times. Too much communication kills the communication. Caution is mandatory but it is only self afflicted... Or not ! Where the individual character, humor of the day, level of education, culture and/or sub-culture transcend the screen.
I DO ! My TD160 was lend to me first with a SME3009 'Improved' SII and it had been severely tweaked by it's previous owners... So the day that the tweak bug caught me, I went for the "personalized" way as it was nothing as it was originally. The fact that it's a "humble" turntable, not that "highly" regarded to be "sacred" by any means, it allowed me to convert it far enough without feeling guilty of "perverting" it's original essence. I would be much more "conservative" with a Garrard 301 for example. That I do not contemplate to acquire anymore as my tweaked Thorens and converted SME is now my 'Buggy' dragster racing turntable !
All of that as I explained before only to achieve to have a better groove retrieval from my "old" 45rpm's collection that I enjoy comparatively much more today than ever before. With depth, focus, dimension with a BIG and WIDE soundstage presentation in true MONO ! Without my passion for my music and original record collection, my quest in the right fitting phono gear for me and my records would simply be dropped out. Sorry Y'all if I went a bit lengthy with these replies but 'waj4all' reply was too inviting... Cheers 2 U !
bimasta
Addicted Member
I was DJ for awhile waaaay back in 1966-7 at a club in New York called Steve Paul's The Scene — everyone called it The Scene, but Steve was an egomaniac: had to see his name there.
The turntables were Bogen, and worked fine. Quick start, rock-steady beat, punchy bass, easy to use even in the near-dark — mostly 45s, so no track-cueing needed.
The 1200s didn't exist yet. Neither did Direct Drive, as far as I recall.
Sorry to use your quote, timmy-timmy, and delete 99% of it, but I just want to make that one point
bimasta
Addicted Member
By "roller bearings" do you mean ball-race? If so, I'm surprised it's not used more; as you say, "it reduces the contact area between bearing sleeve and shaft" dramatically. Also, the space between sleeve and shaft can be a permanent oil-bath, not just an unreliable thin film — that oil also damps any "noise" the bearing might still make, thought I doubt it's much at 2 revs per second, and any such noise would "sink" into the massive platter anyway. Given the weight of the platter, however, have you considered angled "thrust" bearings?
timmy.timmy
Well-Known Member
So you mean like a "selector's" way of DJ-ing ? I never use head phones nor mix and even less scratch my records when I DJ. Since I do know well my records, I cue them by the eye and play them from start to finish. Risking the little blank after the fade-out (crucial in soul music as it's the most intense part most of the time) and I truly enjoy better playing with such rudimentary tools than with tech-pro gear.
Perfectly OK with me. That's the way to use this site as well. In my belief at least. I do the same and hope it is not infringing this site's guide lines...
bimasta
Addicted Member
I don't know what ""selector's" way of DJ-ing" means. DJ-ing wasn't an Art then, or even a "thing" — very different from the DJ-ing I've seen at Raves where the music was Techno/House/Ambient. At the club it was Motown, James Brown, Wilson Pickett. The only purpose of 2 TTs was nonstop music, to keep the dancers going. The club was one block from Broadway and 20 theaters, most of them staging musicals. Soon as the curtain went down, the dancers dropped the choreography, stripped off the costumes, put on their costumes and ran to the club to do their own freestyle. Dozens of professional dancers hit the floor within 10-15 minutes and cut loose, showing their stuff and lining up the night's bedmate. Sensational to watch and the 2 Bogens (and me) were just engines to feed them the beats.
Chops54
Active Member
The roller bearings I'm referring to here consist of a cup with a single large ball bearing sitting in it. I've incorporated one into each stainless steel foot fitted to the lower platform. It may be my imagination but with these in place the turntable sounds just that bit better focused. I'm not into foo at all and there isn't much in my system that shouldn't be there so I was surprised when I realised these bearings have been in my system for over a decade!
Regarding the turntable's main or platter bearing, I think ball race bearings are a bad idea here. They make too much noise I'm afraid. The good old sleeve bearing with an oil film does a much better job and a single point contact against a suitable thrust pad takes some beating. The next step forward is to reduce the contact area between sleeve and shaft ( without reducing the bearing's ability to hold the shaft steady in the vertical axis ) and also to reduce the pressure on the thrust pad. I think I have the answer to the first one but I have to finish making the bearing and then it will need running for some length of time. The other is tried and tested magnetic levitation but there are two schools of thought here. One is for complete separation of the shaft from the thrust pad and the other is to use magnetic lift to substantially reduce the load on the thrust pad.As I've not been able to properly listen to a turntable with partial magnetic lift I shall have to build my own. I've already made a start modifying a Lenco GL78 bearing so I can adjust the thrust pad as required. When this deck is finished I shall include it in my main system and take it from there.
Agreeing here with pretty-much everything you say.
Neither would I dispute your assessment of the quality of a TD-160. I’d seen somewhere where it was said that at least some versions of the 160 were equipped with the same quality bearing as that of the 125. So the only real advantage of the 125 would be its massive chassis. Still, in my experience with my own 145 (the auto-return version of the 160) I can see why a modified 160 would be rated so highly by those with hands-on experience of it.
Also, let’s not forget that a version of this ‘table was equipped with an SME 309 with an acrylic outer-platter early in this millennium and sold for around five-grand – equaling or outperforming other TTs in that price-range.
Incidentally, I don’t care if such remarks are seen as adulation, as I appreciate great gear (whether DIY or factory-produced) and I happen to believe that a high-quality Thorens TT (such as a 160 or 125 – especially when properly modified) ranks among the best TTs anyone can buy for less (much less) than five-grand.
I certainly don’t blame you for the pride of ownership you display – a well-sorted 160 absolutely deserves it.
Cheers,
bimasta
Addicted Member
So "roller bearing" means a single ball isolating the TT to a single-point contact at each "foot"? Or do I misunderstand again? If so, a very sound idea. And as you note, some of these "tweaks" may be imagination, but add them all up and they can be quite significant.
Imaginative and ambitious. Question: is your rejection of ball races based on experience, yours or others? Such a turntable was launched in UK 20-25 years ago, reviewed in HFN, and as I recall the Rumble and W&F specs were very impressive. It failed commercially, maybe too radical, or flawed in other areas, and alas I don't remember the name. I don't remember if they had the "oil bath" or I added that idea to my old dim memory: I used it in the lateral bearing on a tonearm I was making, sadly not finished. Yet.
"Reducing the contact area between sleeve and shaft", as you know, is achieved on some TTs either by a) removing metal (reducing the outer diameter of the shaft) slightly in the middle so it doesn't even touch the sleeve, leaving full contact only at top and bottom; or conversely b) doing the same to I.D. of the sleeve. The former is of course easier.
I had an old Empire 208 with a deep (about 1mm) spiral-groove ascending the shaft, theoretically moving oil constantly to the top. I was skeptical, but tested it: removed all oil so everything was dry; added a bit to the well; reinserted the dry shaft and turned it only 2 rotations — and the "dry" shaft was fully oil coated all the way up! It really worked.
I've no experience with mag-lev, never even owned one. Your concern about the pressure of the single-point on the thrust pad is well placed, especially with the massive platter you envision. It's serious tonnage, when the tiny contact area is considered. Are there any materials that can withstand it for long, without some counterforce, such as magnetism?
I have some questions about your tonearm design you mentioned in post #98, but it's nearing bedtime, so later. I made one arm forever ago and it turned out extremely well, and started a second, my unfinished symphony mentioned above. But I've no desire to commercialize so I'm not protective of my "genius ideas." It's natural to have some reluctance to share too much, but you've been quite candid so far, so I don't feel that I've trespassed yet. I'd love to see detail photos. It's beautiful, Form meets Function, with nothing extraneous — if anything on a tonearm can rattle, it will rattle, and it seems yours has nothing that can.
I have two arms with the vertical bearings on one side only — the Odyssey, and Linn's Ittok (I think, I haven't taken it apart), and used to have the Mission arm designed by John Bicht (who also designed the remarkable Versa). The Mission used only one ball race on one side yet had no detectable play: no need to double-up for stability, and only half the 'stiction'.
The current 'Vinyl Renaissance' seems to abound with new thinking about old approaches — now that "cost no object" designs can succeed, albeit in small numbers — and DIY brings the cost waaaay down, if one has access to precision tools. My workshop is the kitchen table and electric drill, so not much sophistication in that area.
Thanks for your patience, and bye for now.
Last edited:
Chops54
Active Member
I'm doing a bit of decorating atm and just having a quick breather so I'll take some time to answer a few questions.
From the top, yes a single ball bearing at each foot. Due to the cup, the ball bearing has a certain amount of freedom but sits still in the bottom of the cup in normal use. If I push the deck it will rock on the bal bearings but return to rest pretty quickly. I think the idea is that energy is transformed into movement and lost as heat or something like that.
Moving on to ball races I think it depends where they're used. I can't remember that turntable that used them but I'll do some digging. It might have been the one and only deck from Musical Fidelity but there is another I can see in my minds eye but I can't place it. What went through my mind in my last post was using a ball race as the thrust bearing. Most autochangers were like this and I never heard one that was absolutely quiet. In a proper transcription turntable I still feel that a pair of good sleeve bearings will outperform a pair of ball races.
I have an Empire 208 in storage waiting for some attention and I also have a pair of Pagoda Dunlop Systemdeks with spiral grooved shafts and yes they do work well. I've always been surprised that my later 598 has just a plain shaft.
As soon as I get a moment I'll post some pics of my own arm. I made it with just a drill press, a hacksaw and a file. I bought the aluminium and the brass in the diameter I wanted and just polished them up a bit. No machining at all so anyone could make their own quite easily.
From the top, yes a single ball bearing at each foot. Due to the cup, the ball bearing has a certain amount of freedom but sits still in the bottom of the cup in normal use. If I push the deck it will rock on the bal bearings but return to rest pretty quickly. I think the idea is that energy is transformed into movement and lost as heat or something like that.
Moving on to ball races I think it depends where they're used. I can't remember that turntable that used them but I'll do some digging. It might have been the one and only deck from Musical Fidelity but there is another I can see in my minds eye but I can't place it. What went through my mind in my last post was using a ball race as the thrust bearing. Most autochangers were like this and I never heard one that was absolutely quiet. In a proper transcription turntable I still feel that a pair of good sleeve bearings will outperform a pair of ball races.
I have an Empire 208 in storage waiting for some attention and I also have a pair of Pagoda Dunlop Systemdeks with spiral grooved shafts and yes they do work well. I've always been surprised that my later 598 has just a plain shaft.
As soon as I get a moment I'll post some pics of my own arm. I made it with just a drill press, a hacksaw and a file. I bought the aluminium and the brass in the diameter I wanted and just polished them up a bit. No machining at all so anyone could make their own quite easily.
K.A.B
Member
I have read the whole thread that was very interesting when you compare both Lenco and Thorens TD125 I have both but I will not tell which one i prefer.
I am a big fan of Thorens record player since 1982 when I bought my first used TD150 then I have owned several different models I have renovated basically all of their different models I also fix to others who own a Thorens.
Instead, I will talk about TD125, Td125 was a replacement for TD124 and would use the same suspension the famous "mushrooms" but when the work was about to complete in the development, Linn started selling their turntables and got a great response which made Thorens change there mind and choose to put springs there instead. When the EMT chose to make 928, the whole concept Thorens abstained and EMT made a TD125 on steorides.
I am doing my TD 125 mk1 which will be like Thorens had imagined from the beginning with mushrooms, I have had to manufacture parts that EMT uses in the cups because the mushrooms should be at the right height.
Regards
Anders
I am a big fan of Thorens record player since 1982 when I bought my first used TD150 then I have owned several different models I have renovated basically all of their different models I also fix to others who own a Thorens.
Instead, I will talk about TD125, Td125 was a replacement for TD124 and would use the same suspension the famous "mushrooms" but when the work was about to complete in the development, Linn started selling their turntables and got a great response which made Thorens change there mind and choose to put springs there instead. When the EMT chose to make 928, the whole concept Thorens abstained and EMT made a TD125 on steorides.
I am doing my TD 125 mk1 which will be like Thorens had imagined from the beginning with mushrooms, I have had to manufacture parts that EMT uses in the cups because the mushrooms should be at the right height.
Regards
Anders
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Because, Lenco is idler drive. The arm in good stock order is decent, but not best. Plinth systems with idler drives need special attention, and also older idler turntables, need fettling, mechanical overhaul, and general attention to function their best. Not plug and play, but not too complex. Many a Lenco owner does change the arm out for something like a Linn arm, or a Jelco. Just educating you on what's involved. And it's simple enough to be do it yourself friendly. Lenco Heaven is a great site to explore further. And lots of good information and tips.
cairns4me
Active Member
Hi there Sachin...hey I must google for details about the Schroeder clone tonearm. What an absolutely terrific level of beautiful workmanship you present...but I MUST look into your tonearm as I said. Cheers mate for now, Laurie.Lenco L75, make a new layred plinth, template available on Lencoheaven, and change the stock tonearm. It's a very simple machine to work.
Here is my Lenco with custom plinth and DIY Schroeder clone tonearm.
Regards
Sachin
timmy.timmy
Well-Known Member
Hi Anders, as far as i understood the AT XA turntable featuring the suspended sub platter on springs design was introduced on the market in 1961, the Thorens TD150 in 1965 and the Linn Sondek LP12 in 1972... Cheers, Tim
K.A.B
Member
I use both turntables they have their advantages depending on the music I listen to.
It is always a debate who was the first with springs, it is important if you are an historian
I am more interested in the technology and how to make improvements. Thorens saw Linn as his biggest competitor in Europe, which is why they changed to springs.Someone has mentioned about changing the tonearm if you do not want to improve the existing one, you can always switch to a new one because there are several that are of high quality that improve the sound quality of the record player
I'm going to share one of my best tricks when it comes to Thorens springs. You remove the suspension then cut a small piece of the neoprene that fits inside the spring it must be so large that when it is inside the spring it must bend so that it lies against the spring. This little trick improves bass in the music but also makes the turntable silent as it silences the sound of the springs as they move the neoprene I use is 2mm in thickness. This certainly works on other record players but I have only used this on Thorens.
tnsilver
Stereo Puppy
Sounds a lot like what Thorens did on the TD-160 with the sponges inside the springs for damping. Question is, why you need to silence an already silent spring? In my experience what rattles inside an old TD-125 is the stopper washers on both sides of the sub-chassis and the main deck, when the gray rubber cushion washers rot away. Get the suspension right and you don't need to futz around with silencing anything. Mechanically, this is the most successful turntable I've ever had. There's nearly nothing that need improving (not including the electronics).
timmy.timmy
Well-Known Member
It is always a debate who was the first with springs, it is important if you are an historian
Although I don't see how dates could be "debatable" really, to set the records straight can help to have a meaningful exchange in peace. And for the "new" comers on here seeking the information, for them to get the right one from first hand, should make their introduction more serene. Historians for the most have always been and still are the "legitimated" spreaders of their version of history.
Too many times I've read that Thorens copied Linn for example. Where after some criss-crossing of all the informations on the matter I could find I deduced that it is actually the other way around. Brits have the right too prefer their Linn or find them better sounding and finished, but that is another matter. Yet I've never read the presentation of this chronology the right way around. Touching a 'Taboo' ?
Like you in the end I am also mostly interested in getting the best out of my phono gear. It all started for me the day I decided to venture into tweaking to improve and convert my SME tonearm and Thorens turntable on a tight budget at first. Both tonearm and turntable I discovered to be very evolutive and actually well as simply designed. Truly learned to love and respect them both for that. Since I was a novice then I had to browse a lot on the net in order to learn the basis and what I needed to do to get my tweaks right. That lead me to read on those turntables and their pros & cons, differences, preferences, myths and histories.
The AR 'XA', dating from 1961 and the Thorens TD150, dating from 1965, whose sub-chassis structure is very similar to the 'XA' is also fitted with springs. Indicating that Thorens where heavily influenced by the AR 'XA' built. The first Linn turntable only appeared in 1972 though. Influenced strongly by the TD150 design at first then quickly after by the new then TD160 with it's single piece cast sub chassis and single point bearing spindle. Just like the "universal" headshell connector was falsely credited the SME connector as they where fitted with them but designed by Ortofon actually. The press made up that false indication. It remained...
As for the springs on my TD160 'E' Thorens turntable, it's one of the last tweak I went into. My initial suspension got challenged due to the additional effective mass both on my tonearm and platter. So first tried to fiddle with them but then decided to replace them with RD150 longer springs that did the trick. While at it got rid off the foam in the springs but kept the rubber washers. The 'bass' enhancement some have described by tightening the suspension or by replacing the springs with the 'mushrooms' I do not like. Always preferring to improve than to change how it's build to work.
Chops54
Active Member
I believe Thorens were first with the single point bearing though it was Linn that took out the patent as if it was theirs. I remember the adverts showing a shiny pointed bearing shaft and telling us how superior the Sondek was. I actually prefer the TD125 mkI with its ball bearing at the point of contact. Also the TD125 with its cast subchassis ( not the TD160 ) predates the Keel by quite a few years. Thorens were definitely ahead of the game.
The Thorens model history is documented here
http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_history.htm
The very original TD125 dates to 68 with a captive ball on the shaft tip. "Later production models replaced this with a solid steel conical shaped tip to carry the vertical thrust load". Don't know when this change was made.
The TD125 mk2 dates to 72.
The original twin button Castle built Ariston RD11 was launched in September 1971. The Linn LP12 was first sold in mid 73.
http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_history.htm
The very original TD125 dates to 68 with a captive ball on the shaft tip. "Later production models replaced this with a solid steel conical shaped tip to carry the vertical thrust load". Don't know when this change was made.
The TD125 mk2 dates to 72.
The original twin button Castle built Ariston RD11 was launched in September 1971. The Linn LP12 was first sold in mid 73.