Provoking thought: is a Thorens TD-160 really that better than a TD-165?

[p.robustini]

The main differences between a Thorens TD-160 and a TD-165 are the zinc vs. resin subplatter and the TP-16 vs. TP-11 tonearm. Also the TD-160 sports a better motor with clutch.

Subplatter: many (or maybe some) TD-165s have a 10 mm shaft like the TD-160. Ok, mass matters when it comes to rotational stability, but also the shaft's thickness does. And doesn't a zinc platter resonate much more than a resin one?

Tonearm: both have same effective mass (I'm talking about MKIs) and headshell. The counterweights and antiskating systems are different. But how much is a magnetic AS system reliable? After 40+ years how can I be shure it still exerts the same amount of AS force? Don't many high-end toneams use the threaded weight system as the TP-11? I'm thinking about Origin Live arms for example...

 

[ddarch]

Another significant difference is the material Thorens used on the top of the TD-165. Of all their models, these scarred the easiest, with no kind of fix. I think Thorens discovered that for themselves and never used the same material again.

I don't have testing equipment, but I thought part of the theory behind the two platter system was the parts cancelled each other out...individually they ring, but together they are pretty dead.

Working on both of these models all the time, I can say with certainty, it's much easier to get a smooth start-up with a 160 over a 165...due mainly to the motor but also the lighter platter/weaker springs on the 165.

D

PS Later models of the 165 had vinyl veneer on the plinths. All TD-160 had euro-walnut veneer...real wood.

 

[p.robustini]

Another significant difference is the material Thorens used on the top of the TD-165. Of all their models, these scarred the easiest, with no kind of fix. I think Thorens discovered that for themselves and never used the same material again.

I don't have testing equipment, but I thought part of the theory behind the two platter system was the parts cancelled each other out...individually they ring, but together they are pretty dead.

Working on both of these models all the time, I can say with certainty, it's much easier to get a smooth start-up with a 160 over a 165...due mainly to the motor but also the lighter platter/weaker springs on the 165.

D

PS Later models of the 165 had vinyl veneer on the plinths. All TD-160 had euro-walnut veneer...real wood.

Thanks a lot, Dave! Interesting point about the motor-platter-springs interaction.
Yes, I knew about the better top plate material of the TD-160 from your famous video comparison.
I've also noticed the better wood in the TD-160's plinth. Probably my system does not really highlight the sonic differences. I'll keep on listening with more attention...

 

[Multiplex]

My TD-165 has wood veneer, not vinyl. Also, mine has a 10mm bearing. I have never noticed it being rough at startup, but because it has no clutch, I usually give it a little helping nudge. I doubt this is necessary, but it makes me feel better. It is very quiet, so I don't know how much difference I would hear with a zinc sub platter... I'm guessing not much. I think that the biggest difference is the TP-11 tonearm's inferior AS system. I lucked into a steal of a deal on my TD-165, and for the difference I'd have to pay to get a 160, it would no way be worth it to me.

 

[p.robustini]

My TD-165 has wood veneer, not vinyl. Also, mine has a 10mm bearing. I have never noticed it being rough at startup, but because it has no clutch, I usually give it a little helping nudge. I doubt this is necessary, but it makes me feel better. It is very quiet, so I don't know how much difference I would hear with a zinc sub platter... I'm guessing not much. I think that the biggest difference is the TP-11 tonearm's inferior AS system. I lucked into a steal of a deal on my TD-165, and for the difference I'd have to pay to get a 160, it would no way be worth it to me.

My TD-165 has vinyl veneer and 10 mm shaft...
I got the TT for free many years ago and I recenlty bought a TD-160 for at least the price I'd be able to sell the TD-165 for!
Still I'm wondering... ;-)

 

[bobins08]

Another significant difference is the material Thorens used on the top of the TD-165. Of all their models, these scarred the easiest, with no kind of fix. I think Thorens discovered that for themselves and never used the same material again.

I don't have testing equipment, but I thought part of the theory behind the two platter system was the parts cancelled each other out...individually they ring, but together they are pretty dead.

Working on both of these models all the time, I can say with certainty, it's much easier to get a smooth start-up with a 160 over a 165...due mainly to the motor but also the lighter platter/weaker springs on the 165.

D

PS Later models of the 165 had vinyl veneer on the plinths. All TD-160 had euro-walnut veneer...real wood.

^ Voice of experience here.

Both are good tables. 160 has the more robust build. All things being equal I would pick the 160.

 

[tnsilver]

As far as I can tell there's almost nothing smart about any alleged design thoughts regarding the TD-165. For all intents and purposes this is just a cheaper to make TD-160. Almost everything about it is obviously cheaper (some of it on the border of 'flimsy'). The plinth is stapled instead of glued, the under knob assemblies are plastic, the knobs on the common models are simple black molded plastic, the motor doesn't have a pulley (albeit it's probably the same motor). The tonearm is the way cheaper later TP-11 (later versions use the TP-11 Mk-II IsoTrack tonearm) and lacks the magnetic anti-skate of the TP-16. It shares the gimbals and head-shell but if you take a closer look you may be able to spot the bearings are different and are not as precisely machined and the metal alloy of the gimbals seems to be different too. The TP-11 is more up-to-date with lighter effective mass specs but is not as fine as the classic TP-16 which is a true work of art.

As far as I could tell the springs on the TD-165 are identical to the TD-160. Note, there are a few variations of this TT. The one pictured at the VE library is a later model. If I recall correctly, the belly contents of the TD-165 are slightly different too. I think it does not include the plastic cover (box) of the tonearm wiring central tab (or may not have one at all).

The resin sub-platter is an exception to the rule. There may have been some design thoughts behind it. It's obviously cheaper to manufacture but it probably resonates less. The models I've encountered carry a 10mm bearing so at least Thorens didn't skimp on that. However, there is at least one thread here on AK blaming the resin sub-platter for messing up the grounding scheme of the old TD-160 and being responsible for a hum - under certain conditions. I'm not sure about that.

Having said that... I got to level with you and tell you I can't notice a sonic difference between a TD-160 or a TD-165. Good luck with that.

 

[p.robustini]

Tnsilver, you distroyed all my suppositions! ;-)
I provoked quite a reaction!
Anyway, right after I posted this thread, I came across another one here on AK where I learned the spring VTF system of the TP-16 allows for a dynamic setting. I didn't know that. That makes the TP-16 quite superior...

 

[Multiplex]

Mine has the "plastic box" to cover the wiring, too. There must be quite a few versions of the TD-165 out there...

Sure there are some obvious differences in build quality, but at the end of the day how does it sound? I wonder if a TD-160 and 165 (one of the 10mm bearing models like mine) were fitted with the same cartridge, both set up optimally, and played through the same preamp/amp/speaker system, could you hear any difference?

 

[p.robustini]

No Sir. I covered that. Denon DL-110, same setup, no difference. Quite remarkable actually. Those Swiss (or was it German?) bean counters were sure cheap but they obviously knew what they were doing.

I'm doing the comparison too, and I started this thread just because I wanted feedback on the subject (me not hearing much difference)

 

[ddarch]

I am not surprised there isn't a discenible sonic difference. I think both arms are capable. And they keep speed well, once started. (BTW, the motor IS different in the 165...more similar to the TD-150 than the TD-160.)

The overall difference is in design, build quality, and aesthetics. Same could be said of the TD-166 MKII series which came after the 165.

Dave

 

[p.robustini]

What a gallery!

 

[gadget73]

Would be interesting to take a stock TD-160 and swap the sub-platter with a 165 that used the same size bearing just to see if that part alone shows sonic differences, and what those differences are.

 

[Multiplex]

Nice collection, Tnsilver. Did you polish those platter rims to get that glossy reflective appearance?

Another interesting anomaly regarding my TD-165, is that it doesn't have the aluminum rail on the front of the plinth as most do. Might this have to do with the era of manufacture?

 

[ddarch]

Nice collection, Tnsilver. Did you polish those platter rims to get that glossy reflective appearance?

Another interesting anomaly regarding my TD-165, is that it doesn't have the aluminum rail on the front of the plinth as most do. Might this have to do with the era of manufacture?

The rail had to do with style of cover used...late in production they switched from the side hinges to rear hinges. The rear hinge did not utilize that rail as a rest (as the side hinged cover did.)

 

[taineasy]

The main differences between a Thorens TD-160 and a TD-165 are the zinc vs. resin subplatter and the TP-16 vs. TP-11 tonearm. Also the TD-160 sports a better motor with clutch.

Subplatter: many (or maybe some) TD-165s have a 10 mm shaft like the TD-160. Ok, mass matters when it comes to rotational stability, but also the shaft's thickness does. And doesn't a zinc platter resonate much more than a resin one?

Tonearm: both have same effective mass (I'm talking about MKIs) and headshell. The counterweights and antiskating systems are different. But how much is a magnetic AS system reliable? After 40+ years how can I be shure it still exerts the same amount of AS force? Don't many high-end toneams use the threaded weight system as the TP-11? I'm thinking about Origin Live arms for example...

I have a TD-160 and TD-165 (10mm bearing) and the difference is inaudible to me. My 160 has a Shure M95ED with Jico SAS and the 165 has a Shure V15 III with a mint original type stylus.