Last edited:
My Garrard Lab 80 Obsession
- Thread starter gillsev
- Start date
Thanks! Had forgotten about those. Wish there were something similar for the SL ones too. Pity Sams seems to have stopped making their manuals before those turned up.
I find it odd that a maker as big as Garrard with so complex machinery shouldn't have provided their service folks with better documentation. Especially since the machinery seems to require quite a bit of tuning and adjustments to run properly. Or did the Garrard repair folks receive some sort of education without written docs?
A status report on the Sychro-Lab motor mounts: I think I'm finally done with the development part of the job for the new design. In short: The top cap is now 0.1 mm lower and a smidgeon wider, and the bottom tip (which holds the pillars) has a more precise shape for a better grip. And I've also had to add one more type of silicone to my stock, so I can make the softer grommets a bit harder than before. I'd expect these to finally do the trick.
Now I'll have to make a new set of moulds for these, and in about one week I can start churning them out. Of course @TechEd58 will get the first set with my apologies in due time.
One possibly interesting find from the measurement bench: I think the original grommets have two basic ways of aging. The first of course is by the rubber hardening, but I found out that one of the original sets I tested had lost part of their grip on the pillars from the motor. Because of this, the spacers didn't have any play between the E-clip and the top of the rubber grommet. Those grommets were the worst of the lot, because the only remaining isolation was the thin and hard rubber top of the grommet. A harder original set which still held the pillars at the correct height was much quieter. And my newest set was a bit (3-5 dB) quieter than the better old ones.
So, the first thing to check if you think you may need new grommets for a Synchro-Lab should be the play on the spacers under the motor mount E-clips. If there isn't any, they certainly should be replaced. If there is, new ones should be better, but possibly not dramatically so.
Unfortunately, I haven't received any new reports on the Lab 80 mounts, apart from the first ones working as expected.
Now I'll have to make a new set of moulds for these, and in about one week I can start churning them out. Of course @TechEd58 will get the first set with my apologies in due time.
One possibly interesting find from the measurement bench: I think the original grommets have two basic ways of aging. The first of course is by the rubber hardening, but I found out that one of the original sets I tested had lost part of their grip on the pillars from the motor. Because of this, the spacers didn't have any play between the E-clip and the top of the rubber grommet. Those grommets were the worst of the lot, because the only remaining isolation was the thin and hard rubber top of the grommet. A harder original set which still held the pillars at the correct height was much quieter. And my newest set was a bit (3-5 dB) quieter than the better old ones.
So, the first thing to check if you think you may need new grommets for a Synchro-Lab should be the play on the spacers under the motor mount E-clips. If there isn't any, they certainly should be replaced. If there is, new ones should be better, but possibly not dramatically so.
Unfortunately, I haven't received any new reports on the Lab 80 mounts, apart from the first ones working as expected.
I may have to do a closer look at my Mark 1. I hooked it up the other day and it had a whole lot more rumble and noise than I remember, and certainly more than it should have. Have a couple things to check bit it may be related to those motor mounts. The mounts in both of mine are original so I suspect neither are in top shape.
A spontaneous unscheduled auto-surgery by x-acto-knife when cleaning up the bench after work on the new moulds will cause a small additional delay... The hand surgeon I met afterwards thought that the damaged nerve in my left index finger may heal by itself in due time.
In other news, I just remembered another often overlooked tidbit about the Synchro-Lab motor mounts. A fellow garrardista pointed out in a private conversation that the spacers above the rubber mounts in fact aren't all alike. I just measured the ones on my Zero 100, and lo and behold: two of them are 0.8 mm thick, and one is 0.9. This of course isn't mentioned in the service manuals, so we don't know how they are supposed to be positioned. Considering what I wrote before about the increased rumble from the spacers touching the top part of the rubber, I think it could be worth placing the thinner ones at the positions with the tightest fit.
But I fail to see the point of making the spacers in different thicknesses in the first place, when they are supposed to stand proud of the rubbers. Perhaps I should see if I could source even thinner spacers to ship with my grommets, to reduce the pressure a bit more?
In other news, I just remembered another often overlooked tidbit about the Synchro-Lab motor mounts. A fellow garrardista pointed out in a private conversation that the spacers above the rubber mounts in fact aren't all alike. I just measured the ones on my Zero 100, and lo and behold: two of them are 0.8 mm thick, and one is 0.9. This of course isn't mentioned in the service manuals, so we don't know how they are supposed to be positioned. Considering what I wrote before about the increased rumble from the spacers touching the top part of the rubber, I think it could be worth placing the thinner ones at the positions with the tightest fit.
But I fail to see the point of making the spacers in different thicknesses in the first place, when they are supposed to stand proud of the rubbers. Perhaps I should see if I could source even thinner spacers to ship with my grommets, to reduce the pressure a bit more?
...While at the spacers/washers: I suppose their thickness should be chosen for a sweet spot between minimal pressure against the top of the rubber grommets vs. best support against a sagging motor.
Metal washers in these dimensions are not easy to source. Best I could do in a quick search would be ones made in POM, in 0.5 mm thickness. This would reduce both the support and the rumble a bit, through more air between the spacer and the grommet, and a softer spacer. Possibly I'll get me a bag of those in the future, just to try them out.
Anyway, the placement of the different spacers should be checked when working on the SL motors - a thick spacer in a narrow place will increase the rumble. Perhaps somebody with an unmolested SL machine could measure the spacers so we could know their original positions?
Metal washers in these dimensions are not easy to source. Best I could do in a quick search would be ones made in POM, in 0.5 mm thickness. This would reduce both the support and the rumble a bit, through more air between the spacer and the grommet, and a softer spacer. Possibly I'll get me a bag of those in the future, just to try them out.
Anyway, the placement of the different spacers should be checked when working on the SL motors - a thick spacer in a narrow place will increase the rumble. Perhaps somebody with an unmolested SL machine could measure the spacers so we could know their original positions?
Are they different part numbers for the mounts? If not I'd have to say they probably started life the same size and distorted over time from weight or force or whatever.
shim washers may be what you are after. Not sure the dimensions on that post but you can get them pretty thin and stack them as required. McMaster has them in 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 and 1.0mm, I'm sure other vendors have this as well.
shim washers may be what you are after. Not sure the dimensions on that post but you can get them pretty thin and stack them as required. McMaster has them in 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 and 1.0mm, I'm sure other vendors have this as well.
The washers I've got aren't disfigured in any way, so I can't see how one of them could have shrunk exactly 0,1 mm over its entire area. I've never seen them specced separately in any service manual I've seen, only as sets of 3. The rubber grommets mostly have separate part numbers for the softer and harder ones.
My best guess would be that they were dimensioned to provide a slight support for the pillars, but loose enough to reduce the transmission of the motor vibrations into the top parts of the grommets. If they were individually chosen for each position at assembly that could explain the lack of documentation. These were the happy times before lean production, after all, and the Garrard service manuals certainly weren't the most comprehensive ones ever written.
And if they were intentionally so chosen to have such a snug, but not tight, fit replacing them with thinner ones might become a problem; at least for transport security, but also for the stability of the motor position. But it could be worth testing.
The snag with the shim washers I've found so far is the outer diameter - the ones with a 5 mm ID seldom come with the >12 mm OD one would like. Stacking them might give room for rattle.
OK, I have installed the new SL-95B grommets fabricated by @tothmes . Here are three pictures:
1) the new grommets sans clips, showing how they grab the SynchroLab II motor
2) An underside view of same. Note the red line I've added. You can see two of the grommets. The harder one is more clearly visible. I've added a red line to note that gap there. This will be worth keeping an eye on as I use my in-service SL-95B with these new grommets. Does this gap cause any sort of pull-down effect (which was the problem with the first set of grommets). I'm not saying it will and I don't think it will (because of the hardness of the new grommets). However, I think it is something to watch
3) The grommets properly installed with washers and c-clips.
Thanks very much again to @tothmes for going to the trouble of making these new and much improved grommets. I will report back if/when I see anything that merits comment or discussion
Here is picture #1: the new grommets sans clips::
Here is picture #2: An underside view of the grommets sans clips. Note the red line; see discussion above:
Here is picture #3: The grommets properly installed with washers and c-clips.
1) the new grommets sans clips, showing how they grab the SynchroLab II motor
2) An underside view of same. Note the red line I've added. You can see two of the grommets. The harder one is more clearly visible. I've added a red line to note that gap there. This will be worth keeping an eye on as I use my in-service SL-95B with these new grommets. Does this gap cause any sort of pull-down effect (which was the problem with the first set of grommets). I'm not saying it will and I don't think it will (because of the hardness of the new grommets). However, I think it is something to watch
3) The grommets properly installed with washers and c-clips.
Thanks very much again to @tothmes for going to the trouble of making these new and much improved grommets. I will report back if/when I see anything that merits comment or discussion
Here is picture #1: the new grommets sans clips::
Here is picture #2: An underside view of the grommets sans clips. Note the red line; see discussion above:
Here is picture #3: The grommets properly installed with washers and c-clips.
Thank you for this! Hope I won't bore you all with a bit more of grommet tech, but anyhow:
I keep on nagging about these parts being some of the most difficult to make I've come across, so aptly illustrated by @TechEd58's photos.
The gist of the problem is that only Garrard could have come up with a motor mount design hanging in its rubber grommets. Apart from the requirements for a very good grip at the bottom end, it leaves very little space for the top part of the grommet before the spacers and E-clips get so close to the rubber it shont-circuits the damping of it all. What Garrard did was to use two pretty hard rubbers for them, so the grommets wouldn't get pulled down through their holes. This of course instead worsened the damping.
What I try to do is to use softer materials, and instead compensate by making the top end a bit wider. But as can be seen in the photos, that makes for a bit of sag in them. Silicones have a very good form stability, so I don't expect the sag to increase for any foreseeable time. But if the sag should show up to be a problem, perhaps with other motors, I could possibly compensate for that at the bottom end of the grommets, lifting up the motor some tenths of a mm. I didn't want to do that now, instead preferring to keep as much as possible of the original dimensions. From what I gather from feedback so far, I think the new version should be OK.
As may be clear by now, I do want the parts I make to do what is expected from them. So I'm thankful for any feedback about them - perhaps even more so when they point out possible problems.
I keep on nagging about these parts being some of the most difficult to make I've come across, so aptly illustrated by @TechEd58's photos.
The gist of the problem is that only Garrard could have come up with a motor mount design hanging in its rubber grommets. Apart from the requirements for a very good grip at the bottom end, it leaves very little space for the top part of the grommet before the spacers and E-clips get so close to the rubber it shont-circuits the damping of it all. What Garrard did was to use two pretty hard rubbers for them, so the grommets wouldn't get pulled down through their holes. This of course instead worsened the damping.
What I try to do is to use softer materials, and instead compensate by making the top end a bit wider. But as can be seen in the photos, that makes for a bit of sag in them. Silicones have a very good form stability, so I don't expect the sag to increase for any foreseeable time. But if the sag should show up to be a problem, perhaps with other motors, I could possibly compensate for that at the bottom end of the grommets, lifting up the motor some tenths of a mm. I didn't want to do that now, instead preferring to keep as much as possible of the original dimensions. From what I gather from feedback so far, I think the new version should be OK.
As may be clear by now, I do want the parts I make to do what is expected from them. So I'm thankful for any feedback about them - perhaps even more so when they point out possible problems.
Hello. I've read through this fascinating thread a couple times and have not found an answer to my LAB 80 (series I) challenge. Doesn't mean it's not here, as I would no be surprised that I just missed it. Here's my situation:
Picked up a very good condition LAB 80 from my local Goodwill for $30 (score!)
The typical mechanics were gummed up - the idler and motor needed some attention. I've now got the platter spinning accurately at both 33 and 45 rpm.
My problem is that the tonearm starts to skip and distort sound about 2 min into the first track (also when I move to later tracks as well) No matter what cartridge/stylus combination (I have many - including vintage Shure combinations) this occurs regardless of the anti-skate positioning and tracking force.
The tonearm is not being impacted by the cables or set down lever mechanism. It seems to move freely with no noticeable "hitches" in its lateral movent.
The auto features are not working and I have disconnecting much of it as I have tried to troubleshoot - no real change.
I have not removed the tonearm or lubricated it in any way.
Any thoughts on what might be causing these symptoms?
I would appreciate any guidance!
Picked up a very good condition LAB 80 from my local Goodwill for $30 (score!)
The typical mechanics were gummed up - the idler and motor needed some attention. I've now got the platter spinning accurately at both 33 and 45 rpm.
My problem is that the tonearm starts to skip and distort sound about 2 min into the first track (also when I move to later tracks as well) No matter what cartridge/stylus combination (I have many - including vintage Shure combinations) this occurs regardless of the anti-skate positioning and tracking force.
The tonearm is not being impacted by the cables or set down lever mechanism. It seems to move freely with no noticeable "hitches" in its lateral movent.
The auto features are not working and I have disconnecting much of it as I have tried to troubleshoot - no real change.
I have not removed the tonearm or lubricated it in any way.
Any thoughts on what might be causing these symptoms?
I would appreciate any guidance!
HamboneF18
Super Member
Set the arm for zero balance point. Parallel to platter. Move the arm gently by using gentle pushes toward the spindle. See if it stops abruptly anywhere in its horizontal motion.
Then increase the arm counterweight so the stylus is just barely above the platter, and try again.
I suspect you have arm friction, either the pivot bearings, or under the chassis, since your auto functions aren’t working correctly.
Then increase the arm counterweight so the stylus is just barely above the platter, and try again.
I suspect you have arm friction, either the pivot bearings, or under the chassis, since your auto functions aren’t working correctly.
Last edited:
Make sure the arm lifting bar at the back of the arm isn't causing the arm to drag. There is a small hook that it pulls down on and if that isn't adjusted quite right the arm tracks funny on the record but not above it. Its a metal loop behind the pivot and below the counterweight so a bit hard to see.
Thanks for the response. The hook is completely clear of the lifting bar when the arm is in the down position.