Thorens TD-165 Belt Noise

[tnsilver]

Thanks for that picture. Your speed change assembly looks fine. I've opened up another TD-160 (Mk-II) with a similar assembly to study it.
Mine runs fine so I had to simulate a similar malfunction.

Your issue seems to be with the "S" shaped guiding wire spring:

It is known to happen that this guide spring fails to align the two dents in the "S" part with the vinyl sleeve on that lever and it keeps the speed change assembly from locking to the 33RPM position.
When this happens, before you force the guide lever down to it's final downward 33RPM position, the assembly looks like this:

BAD:

When in fact, it should look like this:

GOOD:

FIX:

To fix this there are two approaches you can take:

• The first involves trying to position the spring back in it's designed location, just in case it escaped, and attempting to bend it a little back or a little forward, until it clears the final gap and the vinyl sleeve is resting inside one of the "S" dents. This requires some playing around with the spring and speed control knob simultaneously and in general - not hard to achieve. It can get tricky b/c that wire spring is tough and you do not want to deform it by bending it too much in either direction. Dave, from Vinyl Nirvana had addressed this exact fix in one of his great TD-16X maintenance videos on the tube.
• The second is a workaround (a 'cheat' if you will) which makes the speed change assembly connection rod perform that little extra push on the belt guide lever to force it to complete the full stroke to 33RPM. It can be done by installing a thick enough rubber washer/spacer at the end of the nylon stopper. My trick is doing it with 2 or 3 winding of solder - which provides better control over the thickness of the solder spacer:
  • This is what it looks like at neutral:
  • 
  • ...and this is what it looks like at 33RPM:
  • 

Once you figure out the exact gap that's missing for the lever to pull back for 33RPM you can fill it in with solder winding. I guess two or three would do it. Once fixed, you could also use a drop of contact cement to keep that solder loop in place and avoid it getting loose and unnecessary rattling.

For a beginner, I'd recommend the second approach which involves less potentially irreversible tweaks.

​

 

[VintageVibe]

Yes, it looks like it. It may explain the TD-150 round 110V motor and the no clutch pulley which could further explain the sub-platter jostling on start-up. It may be one of those rare early 165 'special' with the left over round motors too but the motor azimuth screw definitely looks like it's been played with before. The washer doesn't look stock. The belt is stock and dandy fine and exerts the right tension. The old one was worn loose. It would be a shame ruining it if it rubs on the deck or belt guard. This needs to be addressed. There's no need for talc anywhere with a new belt. The arm is a TP-11 Mk-I (11g eff. mass) - hardly a high mass tonearm. There's also no need to go on AK and quote advise from facebook. If we wanted to hear facebook opinions - we'd go there ourselves.

Tom, I would be interested to know where the 11gr eff mass came from. Analogdept chart indicates the TP 11 mk1 at 16.5gr. https://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_tonearms.htm

 

[tnsilver]

Analogdept chart indicates the TP 11 mk1 at 16.5gr

If that's the case, they're wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. The TP-11 Mk-I does not include the auxiliary fine tune weight of the TP-16 at the back of it's stub, nor the aluminum VTF spring housing or the large aluminum cylinder on which the CW rides - and it's main CW is only ~40g heavier (113g) than the predecessor (76.5g). With the other parameters being identical (armtube and TP-60 headshell) one cannot expect them both to have the same eff. mass of 16.5g. FWIW, Vinyl Engine's tonearm database got it wrong too.

EDIT: The TP-11 Mk-I CW is not heavier per-se, but the total mass at the back of the tonearm lacks all the compounded weights of the TP-16 Mk-I, which gives the TP-11 a lighter mass in the back of the tonearm. In addition, mass distribution along the length is different. The location of the auxiliary fine tune weight of the TP-16 at the very end of the stub - gives it higher inertia due to a greater 'r' radius from the pivot.

TP-11 Mk-I (113g CW):

TP-16 Mk-I (76.5g CW, 23g aluminum cylinder, 17g fine tune weight, add a few g's of the spring housing)

 

[avantbored]

Thanks for that picture. Your speed change assembly looks fine. I've opened up another TD-160 (Mk-II) with a similar assembly to study it.
Mine runs fine so I had to simulate a similar malfunction. [...]

Damn, Tom, thanks for the info. I see that a few project days ahead of me.

As mentioned above, I haven't yet gotten to tune the suspension, so I think I will post a new thread once I start that process, should anything arise. I will keep the notes you made about increasing/decreasing the platter/platform gap close by. But I'll keep my fingers crossed that the belt "settles" into place after I put some more time into it.

Thanks again Tom!!!!!

 

[tnsilver]

This shouldn't be taking you days. It took me 30 seconds to wrap that solder around the nylon stopper for the picture. It's a real quick fix. Take baby steps at the beginning and don't introduce unnecessary changes.

 

[avantbored]

This shouldn't be taking you days. It took me 30 seconds to wrap that solder around the nylon stopper for the picture. It's a real quick fix. Take baby steps at the beginning and don't introduce unnecessary changes.

Ah, yes, but, 1) I don't know how to solder! 2) I don't have a solder.

 

[tnsilver]

There's no soldering to do - it's just solder wire which I've wrapped around the stopper. You can use a length of an old electric wire from a power cord too, solder is just softer. Heck, you could have used a paper clip if it wasn't so stiff.

 

[VintageVibe]

If that's the case, they're wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. The TP-11 Mk-I does not include the auxiliary fine tune weight of the TP-16 at the back of it's stub, nor the aluminum VTF spring housing or the large aluminum cylinder on which the CW rides - and it's main CW is only ~40g heavier (113g) than the predecessor (76.5g). With the other parameters being identical (armtube and TP-60 headshell) one cannot expect them both to have the same eff. mass of 16.5g. FWIW, Vinyl Engine's tonearm database got it wrong too.

EDIT: The TP-11 Mk-I CW is not heavier per-se, but the total mass at the back of the tonearm lacks all the compounded weights of the TP-16 Mk-I, which gives the TP-11 a lighter mass in the back of the tonearm. In addition, mass distribution along the length is different. The location of the auxiliary fine tune weight of the TP-16 at the very end of the stub - gives it higher inertia due to a greater 'r' radius from the pivot.

TP-11 Mk-I (113g CW):

TP-16 Mk-I (76.5g CW, 23g aluminum cylinder, 17g fine tune weight, add a few g's of the spring housing)

Thanks Tom. Any idea if they include the 2.6 gr anti-skate weight as part of the eff mass?

 

[tnsilver]

Hard to tell. As far as I recall they had two anti-skate weights arrive with that tonearm. The small one was 0.6g and the larger 1.4g. I don't think it would make much sense to include one over the other for the eff. mass calculation and it wouldn't make much of a difference even if they included the sum of 2.0g for both. I really don't know b/c I've never seen an official eff. mass figure for the TP-11 Mk-I. It was in essence a cheaper to make TP-16 tonearm variant to go with a cheaper to make TD-160 turntable variant, so it was likely assumed (maybe even claimed, IDK) to have the same eff. mass as before. Years ago, when I was into measuring eff. mass of Thorens tonearms, that assumption turned out wrong.

 

[VintageVibe]

You are spot on regarding the two anti-skate weights, and their combined weight of 2 gr. I just weighed them as one piece.

I certaintly appreciate this new information, but at the same time it's certainly disappointing to discover that the supposed "grail" numbers for both the arm and the weights are wrong. I've been using 103r's for years and have been very happy with them, but iven that the 103r prefers a heavier arm. I did drop a dime (literally) on the TP 60 recently just to experiment, and did perceive that the music was somewhat fuller sounding, but not necessarily better. I also wasn't sure if the added weight was a good move in terms of VTF and extra wear to the stylus.

That being said, I was getting the itch to see what is beyond the 103r while staying with the lower output LOMC's in the .25 - .5 range. I was looking the Hana ML, Shelter 501 mkiii, and Phasemation pp-300. All are 3-4 times more expensive than the 103r. The question is can TP 11 mk1 take advantage of these carts, or are their benefits (and my money) going to be wasted? I welcome your thoughts.

 

[tnsilver]

Look... the TP-11 isn't a bad tonearm but there's no escaping it's an inherently different tonearm than the TP-16 and that it was designed to be cheap to make. On close inspection you'd discover it's different in so many other ways than just eff. mass. Even the alloy of the gimbals frame is different, the vertical bearings, their lock screws, the top lateral bearing and it's lock - all hinting at the inevitable cruel touch of the bean counters. The craftsmanship is gone. This isn't a high end tonearm and it's performance is noticeably degraded in comparison with the TP-16, which was a real masterpiece of engineering and craftsmanship. I really don't think you should pursue the Shelters and Hanas LOMC's for use with this tonearm. It's incapable of offering you any return on investment with these carts. In fact - it's potential is maxed out way before the LOMC's.

With that said - I've heard of a lot of folks who are happy with a plain bog 103 on their TP-16's with 16.5g of effective mass. This hobby is fascinating in the way each individual perceives what sounds good to them and what consists an improvement over previous combinations and one's opinions may vary a lot with experience. So... I'm not telling you it's a bad combination and I'd refrain from saying it can't sound good.

The Denon DL-103 is a magical beast and it can be surprising even when it's ideal requirements aren't satisfied. It is however - an effective mass hog with an extremely none compliant (stiff) cantilever and suspension. It's also a massive cart. Inertia wise - it has a will of it's own and it needs an opposing force to drive it well. By my experience it is doing way better with tonearms having eff. mass in between 19 and 24 grams. It may even be better at above 24g eff. mass - but I wouldn't know. I am using a 103 on a TD-135 with a BTD-12S tonearm (19g eff. mass) and a 103R on my TD-124 with SME 3012 II (early) with auxiliary rider weights and CW at around 20 something grams of eff. mass. It's phenomenal and I cannot possibly imagine using a lesser eff. mass tonearm such as a TP-16 - not to mention the TP-11 with the 103. The DL-103 is really a special case in the phono carts domain. It's hard to judge a tonearm by a 103 alone.

My advise - if you want it - is invest in a better tonearm first.

 

[VintageVibe]

Look... the TP-11 isn't a bad tonearm but there's no escaping it's an inherently different tonearm than the TP-16 and that it was designed to be cheap to make. On close inspection you'd discover it's different in so many other ways than just eff. mass. Even the alloy of the gimbals frame is different, the vertical bearings, their lock screws, the top lateral bearing and it's lock - all hinting at the inevitable cruel touch of the bean counters. The craftsmanship is gone. This isn't a high end tonearm and it's performance is noticeably degraded in comparison with the TP-16, which was a real masterpiece of engineering and craftsmanship. I really don't think you should pursue the Shelters and Hanas LOMC's for use with this tonearm. It's incapable of offering you any return on investment with these carts. In fact - it's potential is maxed out way before the LOMC's.

With that said - I've heard of a lot of folks who are happy with a plain bog 103 on their TP-16's with 16.5g of effective mass. This hobby is fascinating in the way each individual perceives what sounds good to them and what consists an improvement over previous combinations and one's opinions may vary a lot with experience. So... I'm not telling you it's a bad combination and I'd refrain from saying it can't sound good.

The Denon DL-103 is a magical beast and it can be surprising even when it's ideal requirements aren't satisfied. It is however - an effective mass hog with an extremely none compliant (stiff) cantilever and suspension. It's also a massive cart. Inertia wise - it has a will of it's own and it needs an opposing force to drive it well. By my experience it is doing way better with tonearms having eff. mass in between 19 and 24 grams. It may even be better at above 24g eff. mass - but I wouldn't know. I am using a 103 on a TD-135 with a BTD-12S tonearm (19g eff. mass) and a 103R on my TD-124 with SME 3012 II (early) with auxiliary rider weights and CW at around 20 something grams of eff. mass. It's phenomenal and I cannot possibly imagine using a lesser eff. mass tonearm such as a TP-16 - not to mention the TP-11 with the 103. The DL-103 is really a special case in the phono carts domain. It's hard to judge a tonearm by a 103 alone.

My advise - if you want it - is invest in a better tonearm first.

Thank you Tom. Sage advice. I am humbled and appreciative (doffs cap with sweeping bow). So...now you've presented me with another fork in the road. Assuming I stick with the 103r (which I do love), which brands and models of tonearm/s would you recommend that would make the most sense for the 165? Used or new.

 

[tnsilver]

This got way OT not w/o my own fault - how about a dedicated thread?

 

[twiiii]

Try flipping the belt over and see it it runs lower on the pulley.