Why is HFW so biased against vintage cartridges?

[Barry]

Hello Dave (hifi_dave)

The belt drives an idler which in turn, drives the platter. So it's a bit of both principles. The idea being that the motor noise is not transmitted directly to the platter.

Yes, I understand that - it's the question of torque transfer via a belt that concerns me.

Hello Dave (DSJR)

The 124 belt is also not very flexible and is wide, so most of the motor torque is properly transmitted to the idler pulley. It was a broadcast grade deck designed in the fifties for 5-10 gramme tracking forces, so no worries about loss of torque, unless the drive has seized up with age and dry lubrication. IIRC (subject to a rummage around in HiFi dave's mag archives ), the two phase drive spread the driven noise around rather than a major 50Hz/100Hz drone that can afflict 301's and 401's. vertically driven Lenco's transmit their drive noise out of phase, so are perfect for mono and 78's...

The belt does not seem to be any less flexible or wider than that used on the much maligned Linn LP12. I would imagine that the greatest transmission of torque would be via a toothed belt - has anybody used this? Are there good reasons why not?

I have used all my decks (with the exception of the Garrard SP25) with cartridges tracking between 1.5 - 3.0g.

It was only the Papst motor, fitted to the very last TD124/IIs, that was a two-phase design. Would tend to agree with you about the 'spreading' of motor noise. The motor on the EMT 927 and 930 turntables are massive three-phase designs.

Hello Steve,

well as an engineer my understanding is that a heavier belt run a high speed is less likely to 'give' than a light belt run at low speed, the speed is important, as I believe the effects of torque on the belt is less at higher speeds as it is diluted.. don't know if that makes sense..?

well that's my view..

I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I cannot really comment, but your arguments are plausable. However, that said, the belt used in the 124 seems to be no heavier than that used in the LP12. In fact, being of a similar width and thickness but much shorter than the LP12 belt, the belt used in the 124 ought to be lighter.

Thanks Guys for all your replies. Apologies if I'm coming across as a stubborn cuss, it's just that I have puzzled about the belt/idler combination of the 124 for about 36 years (that's when I bought my first)!

Oh and yes Neil, I would agree with you that the Oracle range of TTs are lovely to behold. I do, however, think that the lines of the die-cast chassis of the TD124 are equally beautiful - in a classic way of course!

Finally apologies to Marco for the hi-jacking of his thread.

Regards

[SPS]

Hi Steve

Which version of the oracle Delphi did you have ?

The Mk1,2 and 3 were certainly a bit delicate ("slightly lighter sound") as was the Mk4 unless you put the Turbo PSU on it and a SME 4 or 5 arm. I ran mine with an Eminent technology mk2 arm and VDH 10 cart but using a SME 5 arm adds a lot more weight and scale to things. I must say however that I quite like the delicateness of the Oracle mk4 presentation. As the models changed each version had more weight and scale and no doubt the newish Mk5 has taken a further step up the weight and scale ladder. There is IMHO a magic to the sound/presentation that I love and I would not ever part with mine.

I haven't heard a Garrard 301, 401 or a Thorens so I don't know how they differ to the Oracle sound wise, but in the looks department (I know audio Jewelery ) the Oracle Delphi Mk4 is the IMHO best looking TT ever.



Regards D S D L

mines the mk 2,
the sound as always its a matter of opinion, and that is dictated by the rest of your replay system and our own tastes..

[Marco]

Finally apologies to Marco for the hi-jacking of his thread

No, no we don't mind a bit of thread drift here on AOS

Marco.