View Full Version : What to do with a TT2?
I was lucky enough to pick up a Heybrook TT2 recently and am pretty impressed so far, it's giving my P3-24 a run for it's money! It only has a Linn K9 on the end of a Basik Plus tonearm, and I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on what I should look to tweak first.
Apparently the Basik Plus won't work well with MC carts, so transferring my Denon DL-160 from the Rega isn't an option. Should I keep the Basik Plus and opt for a good MM cartridge? What would work well? My phono stage is a Trichord Dino.
Or should I look to change the tonearm altogether? I'd be spending around £250 or so for the tonearm, so an Ittok or similar is probably out of reach - I would be looking for something used. I've thought about modded Regas, Jelco or older SME arms; I'd then use the DL160 to start with.
sq225917
12-08-2012, 08:45
Speak to Guy, (Puresound). he used to work for them and purchased all their inventory when they closed. He knows the decks inside out- and His SME V with Koetsu Black sounds stunning on his TT2
Stratmangler
12-08-2012, 08:50
The DL-160 was supplied originally with a metal headshell weight for use on lower mass arms.
The weight fits between the cartridge and the headshell, so it acts as a spacer too.
Sq's advice to contact Guy is spot on; Guy is a great chap, very genuine.
One thing worth knowing is whether your Heybrook is one of the early ones with a welded steel chassis or the later cast aluminium chassis - take the base of and have a look.
Thanks chaps, I posted on another forum and Guy very kindly weighed in with some thoughts, I was just wondering if folks in these parts had any other suggestions. Would love an SME V and Koetsu black but I think I need both of my kidneys for the time being!
I did pop off the base and it looks like mine has the cast aluminium subchassis; the arm board is the longer, earlier version though, and there's no speed control. I may think about an external PSU at some point but it would seem sensible to sort the arm and cart out first.
I've used an MC on a Basik Plus with no problems at all (Goldring Eroica). According to my dealer at the time it would happily accept MCs from further up the range too. I've also tried Nagaoka (MP30) and Ortofon 540 Mk11 MM carts and could recommend either as good match. An A&R E77 was a bit thin sounding but still acceptable. I also tried a K9 but that sounded very thin although fast and fun (with the right recording) with it.
I would be temped to fit a Rega RB300 or 30l - get a new drive belt too
The RB arms will need a new board made up as they're longer than the Linn. The Basik Plus will take suitable MC's but it's too light for many and we've been all round the houses on knackered counterweight inserts already recently for me to bang on yet again..
At the time, the basik Plus was around the £100 - £120 mark and this translates today to £250 to £300, or £600 in Linn money for the rather silly Akito, which promises to be summat it isn't - a serious upper middle priced tonearm - IMO of course.
Seriously, Guy is the main chap to take advice from since we're only bystanders in all honesty. If you can get a new board made up and if your deck has the superior (to me) cast sub-chassis, then the cheapest good arm to go for is the RB301, and get it re-wired professionally later on if desired.. An external decent power supply for the motor is a good idea too.
My first choice would be a Rega. A lot of people are a bit sniffy about them but it's a good solid piece of engineering. Preferably one of the earlier ones without the plastic three-point mounting.
Alternatively, a unipivot like the Mayware would be worth a try, but best of all, an Alphason HR100s or Xenon would be a match made in heaven if you can find one underneath that pile of rocking-horse poo. Wouldn't need to change the armboard either.
You say that "apparently" the DL160 doesn't work in the Basik+. That may be true, but have you tried it? Don't believe everything you read on forums. Find out for yourself. If it sounds good, it is good.
Oh, and if you should by some remote chance come across a genuine Heybrook arm, avoid it like the plague. Some things are rare and desirable. Other things are rare because they're crap!
The Grand Wazoo
12-08-2012, 10:44
.............or £600 in Linn money for the rather silly Akito,
£600 for an Akito Dave? You must be kidding!
I posted something here well over a year ago pointing out exactly what you have done - the price then was about 900 quid but things have moved on a bit from there by now.
Take a look here (http://www.hificorner.co.uk/hifi-separates/turntable-accessories-2/linn-akito.html) if you want to know how to print money through tonearm sales.
..........found that old post. It was in 2008 (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=22676&postcount=46)!!
In 1986 the LVX was £114 while an RB300 was £90.
The Akito, although a little better than the LVX (also made in Japan by the way), it's not by that much. The last time I looked it was just nudging £1000, while the RB300 is £188 today. I tried to find a price for an Akito just now, but I think Linn dealers must be too ashamed to publish this atrocity (and so they should be).
Mr Kipling
12-08-2012, 11:00
£600 for an Akito Dave? You must be kidding!
I posted something here well over a year ago pointing out exactly what you have done - the price then was about 900 quid but things have moved on a bit from there by now.
Take a look here (http://www.hificorner.co.uk/hifi-separates/turntable-accessories-2/linn-akito.html) if you want to know how to print money through tonearm sales.
Have some people lost all reason - OR WHAT! Don't you just wish you could travel back in time.
Yes, you would need a new armboard to use a Rega - I believe Heybrook made them from MDF, so not difficult to do.
I believe Heybrook made them from MDF
Two layers of 9mm birch ply glued together.
Ah, I stand corrected :) - still, not difficult to make either.
Thanks again guys, some really helpful information here.
What seems to be the wisdom floating about is that MC carts can cause "bearing chatter" on some arms, in particular the LVX and Basik+, causing the bearings to deteriorate over time. How far this is true is anyone's guess, but I'd rather not chance it and the consensus is that a modified Rega or one of the newer arms will be a step up from the Basik+ in any case.
I actually have an RB301, it's fitted to my P3-24 at the moment. The problem is that I'm probably going to want to move the P3-24 on in the near future, once the TT2 is sorted out. Not sure if it makes sense to separate the deck and arm, and I am curious about the modified Rega arms like the Technoarm.
So the question now is, would you opt for a standard RB301, a modified arm like the Technoarm, or something else altogether (perhaps a second-hand Jelco or SME) in the £250 price range?
The bearing myth is just marketing fluff, no cartridge produces anything like enough mechanical energy to do any damage to even the poorest quality bearing.
I wouldn't take the 301 off your Rega, as it will be difficult to sell without it.
If I was going to buy a modified Rega arm it would probably be the Techno arm. However, I would probably go for an un modified older RB300 with the tungsten counterweight.
Just by way of an off-the-wall suggestion:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GRACE-G-707-Quadmaster-Stereo-Tonearm-Lead-Arm-Rest-Excellent-/110928122722?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_15&hash=item19d3d4d362#ht_1654wt_932
sq225917
12-08-2012, 13:25
There's no inherent difference in the compliance of MC and MM cartridges, so MC carts should be no more likely to cause chatter than a MM.
Doubly so given that a cantilever would be sheared in half several hundred grams of load before you are likely to do anything to the bearings in a tonearm. A cart causing bearing chatter is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard, much like claiming adding an England flag to your cars aerial will damage your wheel bearings.
The Grace 707 bearings were the things that started the myth about cartridges upsetting the bearings I remember. This arm linked to by Shane above, was designed for low mass/high compliance cartridges and came supplied with a very low capacitance and extremely delicate exit cable specifically for the CD-4 quadrophonic pickups coming along at this time, needing a readable response to 40kHz or so. The fact that Linn apparently bought a job lot cheap (apparently they were at the time ;)), mated it with the ill-matched Supex SD900E and basically stuck two fingers up at the establishment who "knew" these things weren't right, didn't really help in the long term, since the fair tracking ability the average Supex was capable of wasn't fully exploited in this arm and any rough handling of the arm itself caused flats to form in the very fine needle-roller bearings. The 707 I have sounds quite nice with an ADC ZLM though, but the better of my Supexes doesn't, the Techie SL1500 arm sounding far better and tracking very much improved! This 707 has the decoupling mod to the counterweight stub assembly and the bearings aren't bad at all.
Guy would advise, but if the TT2 suspension will cope with a Jelco 750 (it certainly should the straight model with fixed shell, but we're back to Basik Plus-but-better-'cos-it's-new here again), then one of these should fit the Linn arm-hole? and you can mess around with shells and cartridges to your heart's content :lol:
Rare Bird
12-08-2012, 14:13
Hi Dave
I know you like the 'G707' i do, but much prefer the 'G727'...
Can of worms about the bearing issue, clearly... in any case I'm looking to change the arm, so it shouldn't be a problem for me!
The Grace looks nice, but I wouldn't import from Australia. There's a straight Jelco? I thought all the 750s were S-shaped. I've never listened to one, but many seem to regard them highly, particularly on decks like this. They don't seem to come up on the second-hand market too frequently, though.
Perhaps I'll go for a Rega for the time being, then something more exotic. YNWaN, why would you opt for a stock RB300 over something modified?
The TT2 suspension will have no trouble with the Jelco. I've seen TT2s used with Dynavector DV505s and I used mine for many years with a Helius Orion, both of which are in the battleship class.
As an avid fan of Heybrooks TT2, i must say that few turntables comes close on a sound-per-pound value. I bought one some months ago, the elderly version with the welded subchassis, and became so found of it that i bought another. The second one is the newer version with the cast alu framing and the external TPS motor control unit.
I have used them with various Rega RB arms and derivatives with very satisfying results. A little difficult to dress thicker cables though, such as the one on my Origin Live Silver MkIII but once sorted, really good.
I have the newer TT2 now running with a pristine RB-301 which seems like a good match. This will be replaced by a Audio Origami fiddled RB-250 with a TechnoWeight any day now.
The best thing, imo, with the TT2 is that it combines the relaxed and quiet replay of suspended tables with the easy adjustment and fit'n'forget approach of the Rega style tt's.
Regards
/Mike
Structurally, the RB301 should eat any RB250 no matter what's been done to it, since it's had things done to the pipe and the bearings were always in a different league (properly toleranced and hand-matched instead of brass fittings loc-tited together :)), but we'll wait and see what you think :)
freefallrob
13-08-2012, 14:04
I'm running a TT2 at present and also received valuable help and advise from the boffins on here (thanks!), mine was in bits and had to be reassembled (inc. electrical bits eek) but it now sounds lovely, with just a small touch of wow only noticeable on slow piano etc.
It's a welded chassis very early version with the black painted outer platter(;)).
I have had a Linn Basik Plus fitted and now run a standard RB300/Ortofon 2M BLUE on it with a remade arm board (ply). The Rega is FAR better than the Basik plus sound wise.
I use a thin dense foam mat.
One day I may do something with the motor control, off board PSU or something, but I need to upgrade the loudspeakers first me thinks....
Rob.
I bought one some months ago, the elderly version with the welded subchassis, and became so found of it that i bought another. The second one is the newer version with the cast alu framing and the external TPS motor control unit.
I'd be really interested in your take on the difference between them.
Beobloke
13-08-2012, 15:29
but best of all, an Alphason HR100s or Xenon would be a match made in heaven.
Oh, and if you should by some remote chance come across a genuine Heybrook arm, avoid it like the plague. Some things are rare and desirable. Other things are rare because they're crap!
Two interesting, if contradictory, bits of advice. Presumably you're not aware of who designed and made the Heybrook arm?!
Mea Culpa. There were two Heybrook arms. The first dreadful device was a variant of the Helius Scorpio which had all the mechanical integrity of a piece of mature cheddar. The second (which I'd entirely forgotten since I'd left by the time it came along) was built, as you suggest, by Alphason and was probably excellent. Never seen one of those.
Mature cheddar huh? Must have had excellent damping qualities which could be livened up a bit with a good dollop of Branston... :D
Beobloke
13-08-2012, 17:44
Mea Culpa. There were two Heybrook arms. The first dreadful device was a variant of the Helius Scorpio which had all the mechanical integrity of a piece of mature cheddar. The second (which I'd entirely forgotten since I'd left by the time it came along) was built, as you suggest, by Alphason and was probably excellent. Never seen one of those.
Interesting - I didn't know there was an earlier Heybrook arm than the Alphason-designed one. You learn something new every day!
How annoying that I've got an RB301 staring me in the face and yet I can't use it! I'm very, very tempted by the Jelco 750D though. I'm going to have a bit of a hunt behind the sofa and see if any spare pennies come up... if anyone knows of one going please let me know!
Coming back to the TT2 itself, someone mentioned running it with the base board removed to reduce resonance - any truth in this? Also, the lack of adjustable feet is a pain... would a plinth of some sort with adjustable feet make sense?
Looking at some of the discussions on the LP12, there seems to be some sort of black art involved in adjusting the suspension for optimum sound. I may have, perhaps, slightly adjusted one of the springs while trying to level the subchassis :doh: (it was in the manual, I swear!). If I check that the marks on the springs line up with the ones on the subchassis, it should be fine, I hope? How exactly am I meant to do this, since the springs are at the bottom and the nuts are on top?
sq225917
13-08-2012, 18:18
No black art with the TT2. The springs don't wind up quite like they do on the LP12 and the mass is better centred. Press down rough where the centre of gravity is, if it bounces cleanly up and down with a low frequency, between 5-10 cycles a second you have it spot on.
Removing the bass board will help dissipate motor noise.
No black art with the TT2. The springs don't wind up quite like they do on the LP12 and the mass is better centred. Press down rough where the centre of gravity is, if it bounces cleanly up and down with a low frequency, between 5-10 cycles a second you have it spot on.
Removing the bass board will help dissipate motor noise.
Thanks. There's a lot to like about this TT.
If you have a look at this, it will show you the correct orientation of the springs if the red triangles have dropped off the chassis. Be a bit careful if you need to rotate the springs, the rubber spring seats are among the few parts which are pretty nearly impossible to replace. Incidentally, the alignment was the same for both types of chassis. Once you've got that right, adjust for level by turning the bolts with an allen key from above. The springs will not rotate as you turn the bolts unless the bolts and nuts are seriously rusty.
http://www.thepippin.plus.com/TT2/14%20chassis%202.jpg
The next picture shows the best way to dress the arm cable, by running it forward to the P-clip under the arm-board securing nut, then back to the P-clip next to the cable exit on the back of the plinth. Remember that on the alloy-chassis version, only one arm-board stud should have a nut on it. The p-clips should be pulled up good and tight, and the nut tightened down.
http://www.thepippin.plus.com/TT2/15%20under%20armboard%202.jpg
If the springs are correctly oriented and the cable is dressed to minimise interferance with the suspension, then a finger placed on the platter halfway between the spindle and the arm base should induce a vertical bounce with no rotational component. If then the arm-board is level with the edge of the plinth, then you've got it spot-on.
These picture are of one of the very early TT2s which had threaded inserts for adjustable feet, the feet themselves being M6 bolts with plastic covers. This turned out to be a surprisingly bad idea, destroying focus and pace. They were very quickly replaced by rubber feet screwed down with self-tappers. You can see one reason why if you look at what's happened to the piece of wood across the back of the motor cutout. The rubber foot we replaced the rear screw foot with was mounted to one side of the cutout.
Because the plinth of the TT2 is filled with chipboard and has no large resonant cavity, I would be surprised if removing the base-board made much difference. Suck it and see, and then report back!
One of my main aims for the TT2 was to get rid of the mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus surrounding the suspension setup of the LP12. All it took was three M6 bolts, 19mm of MDF and a bit of lateral thinking.
There was an article that did the rounds in the eighties and nineties which wittered on about engineers coming out of university and turning left to go to Linn or right to go to Heybrook. It always made me laugh. Heybrook when I started employed four people, rising to ten when I left, only one of whom had any engineering qualifications, and none had been anywhere near a university. The TT2 was the product of several years of fooling around with bits of old turntables in my bedroom, which I never expected to go into production. When Peter and Stuart suggested it might be a worth doing, we went to a local engineering shop who looked at the basic parts, suggested ways of modifying them for series production and took on the task of providing us with the sub-platter, bearing and (steel) chassis. We found a casting company who could provide them with the raw castings to machine up the platters (and later the cast chassis), got Greaves of Sheffield to build the plinth, bought in lids and felt mats from Linn (who were very encouraging), and there it was. Not bad for a bunch of amateurs, but if anyone out there thinks they can see a way to improve it, give it a try and see if it works. I'd be really interested to know!
Great writeup Shane! This info is greatly appreciated and the knowhow will be put to good use!
Have spent my evening mounting the Audio Origami RB-250 on the older TT2, using a Bens Micro Glider L2. It replaced an Origin Live Silver MkIII and it's a little early to share any impressions, but it sure does sound nice!
The AO cables were easier to dress also as they are less cumbersome!
Wil try and make a proper comparison by switching the armboard between the two later!
Thx!
/Mike
Many thanks, Shane - this is really useful information. I may have some time off to play later this week, I'll let you know my thoughts. The only issue is that going to the K9 from the DL-160 is a bit of a shock, I need to sort the tonearm / cart side of things soon!
The K9 used to be better, back when they were new...................
Very pleased!
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/AOTECHNO.JPG
Sounds beautiful!
No.
Thanks for the unambiguous answer ;)
Why beat around the bush?:)
TT2 for two reasons. One, it had two speeds, and two, far more importantly, TT2 sounds better than TT1 when you say it.
There was a mention of a Heybrook TT1 in a magazine review once, which just goes to prove that you shouldn't believe everything you read in magazines.
Unlikely since the Heybrook name now belongs to some bod in India and seems to be dormant, but never say never...
So, my Jelco 750D tonearm will be arriving shortly.... :)
Anything to bear in mind when mounting the new tonearm? The mounting's the same as the Linn, so I assume it'll just drop in. Hopefully! Will any suspension adjustment be needed? I've also managed to get hold of one of the custom collars for the Jelco arm that were made by Shuggie here, I'm hoping it doesn't raise the arm too much.
Looking forward to having it up and running soon! Will post some pics once it's done - I also want to try and give it a bit of a cosmetic touch-up.
So, my Jelco 750D tonearm will be arriving shortly.... :)
Anything to bear in mind when mounting the new tonearm? The mounting's the same as the Linn, so I assume it'll just drop in. Hopefully! Will any suspension adjustment be needed? I've also managed to get hold of one of the custom collars for the Jelco arm that were made by Shuggie here, I'm hoping it doesn't raise the arm too much.
Looking forward to having it up and running soon! Will post some pics once it's done - I also want to try and give it a bit of a cosmetic touch-up.
If the turntable is currently set up correctly, any change in the weight of the arm will cause the back of the armboard to lift or drop. Adjusting the rear suspension bolt to level the armboard should sort it out.
Is there a standard height from bottom of platter to top plate for suspended decks?
Depends on the deck. In the case of the TT2, if the top surface of the armboard is level with the side of the plinth, then the height is correct. On most decks, you'd expect to see a gap of 2 -5 mm under the platter, but they're all different.
Yes have levelled mine with a heavy record on at about 4 or 5mm.
As long as the suspension allows the sub-chassis some lateral movement in all planes as well as traditional "bounce" (Can't remember how truly piston-like the TT2 is, but the TD125 had some difficulty as does the Gyrodeck I remember), you should be ok.
Shane should confirm, but when tightening the P-clips, it's common for the edges of the cable to be crushed, leaving the center of the cables not fully gripped. With the fig-8 Linn cables this was an issue, but obviously, the fancy cables often used with the Jelco 750 may well be a heck of a lot easier to manage and dress..
Agreed. The cables Linn used were a nightmare for any suspended turntable. If you dress the cable as shown, then the portion that flexes when the chassis moves is straight and interferes less with the movement of the chassis.
I was curious about the recommended height of the platter as the 5mm the manual insist on, seems a little bit high imo.
I have used those 5mm as a point of reference though.
Another issue is that i cant seem to find any references to the correct angle of he motor, when using the external motorcontrol. The belt has tendency to wander about as they spin. I think this is a similar construction to Linn's and would like some furter info on how toadjust this?
Regards Mike
In my experience, the belt should be smooth with no grease or dirt on its surfaces. Rega belts have flashing on from the moulding process and can take an age for this to wear off and the belt to start "rolling" as it runs. It sorts itself out after a few tens of hours and modern Regas have fixed motors in any case..
As to the TT2, I'd suggest cleaning the belt and all driving/driven surfaces with a cleaner (I've used RS switch cleaning solvent but cannot recommend this universally as it may react with the belt compounds). Turn the top platter upside down and after fitting the belt, place the top platter thus. Switch on and watch the belt run. It'll weave up and down until the speed is stable and then should run roughly in the middle of the pulley. I seem to remember the motor can be slightly tilted to get the belt to run correctly, but if it won't, it must be replaced - suppliers of replacement belts?
Your turntable is between twenty five and thirty years old, so it would almost certainly benefit from a new belt. Guy at Puresound has the remaining stock of TT2 spares, including belts, so I'd drop him a PM.
Once you've got the new belt, then as Dave says, the motor plate can be adjusted to get the belt running centrally on the pulley. Make sure the running surfaces of the pulley and sub-platter are clean and free of any rubber residues from the old belt first, then turn the platter upside down, let the motor run for a few minutes to let everything settle down and then look to see where the belt is running on the motor pulley. If the belt the runs high on the pulley, loosen the two front socket head screws on the motor plate by half a turn, then screw down the two grub screws by the same amount to lift the front edge of the motor plate. If it's running low, then undo the two grubscrews by half a turn, then tighten down the two socket head screws by the same amount. Repeat if necessary.
All of this is detailed in the handbook, which can be downloaded from http://www.vinylengine.com/library/heybrook/tt2.shtml if you haven't already got one.
Thanks guys!
It does have a brand new original belt from Pure Sound!
And i have read the manual, but that did not mention the "straight" pulley which is mounted on the TT2's with the TPS external motor control. It does refer to the double speed pulley on my older TT2. However, the older pulley has got a ridge on each of the sections that more or less automatically centers the belt.
So, info on whether to lower the front of the motor when the belt was riding low was exactly what was missing in the manual! :)
Then i suppose the aim is to have the belt riding in the middle of the flat portion of the pulley?
Thanks again!/Mike
Sorry Mike, I didn't twig that yours is the TPS version. I've never had a chance to look at one of those so I don't know what the pulley looks like, but if it has the same arrangement of bolts and grubscrews on the front edge of the motor plate, the principle is the same.
Any chance of a close-up photo of the pulley and motor board?
Absolutely! Sadly it wont be until tomorrow night, but i'll show you with pictures instead!
Regards /Mike
pure sound
17-08-2012, 15:30
The TPS pulley did just have a single crown as the speed change was effected electronically by adjusting the frequency of the supply to the motor. However a manual speed deck that had been subsequently upgraded by the addition of a TPS might still have the original double crowned pulley in which case I'd assume the smaller crown will be used all of the time and should be the same diameter as the TPS pulley given that the TPS also produces 50 Hz for its 33.33 rpm drive.
May I add that the belt must NOT rub on the pulley shoulders, but as centrally as possible.
May I add that the belt must NOT rub on the pulley shoulders, but as centrally as possible.
See my last-but-one post! :)
See my last-but-one post! :)
I did, but that was relevent to original ones. I thought you'd posted that the later model lost the adjustment? My bad if I'm wrong, apologies...
Right, I've hit a bit of a snag. I removed the subplatter to check the bearing and change the oil, but it seems that the bearing is stuck in the well. I've tried dislodging it with the end of a cotton bud but it's not budging.
Is this a common problem? How serious is it and what can I do to rectify it?
pure sound
18-08-2012, 08:02
Not really serious as the ball isn't intended to turn. Provided there isn't a flat worn on it it should be fine as is. Just clean the bearing well out as much as you can, add some new lubricant & re-fit the spindle. Do keep the surface of that inner hub clean & free from oil/grease/fingerprints.
If you do want to take the ball out & clean & reposition it, I'd fit a transit bolt to lock the subchassis in place, remove the arm & turn the whole deck over. Tapping the bearing housing (or the whole deck) from underneath should cause it to fall out.
Okey, now let me show you the differences between the earlier TT2 and its double speed pulley and the later TPS external motor control version with its single "straight" pulley.
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_0001.JPG
Here is the later pulley, which i belive is quite similar to the one on Linn LP12's
The belt though has a tendency to wander on the pulley, making it difficult to adjust susp. to 100%. Correct me if im wrong but the rubber belt will always strive to the "highest" part of the pulley if it is convex in shape like the pulle on the images further down belonging to the early TT2.
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_0002.JPG
This is an extreme picture, but it shows that the belt will almost always be on the verge of the pulley, top or bottom.
Below is the pulley from the early TT2:
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_0003.JPG
This has convex belt surfaces and flanges to prevent wandering. It's quite easy to adjust this one to perfect running.
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_0004.JPG
This last pic shows the belt in a running state, perfectly centered on the pulley.
I can appreciate the desire "not" to use a convex pulley as imperfections in the drivebelt will always create speed variations to a bigger degree that with a straight pulley... At least imo and theories! :lol:
So, what is the best way to make the belt stay on the flat portion of the pulley on the later version of the TT2?
/Mike
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_0002.JPG
This is an extreme picture, but it shows that the belt will almost always be on the verge of the pulley, top or bottom.
Why do you say that this is an extreme picture? The belt is riding in, essentially, the correct position.
Below is the pulley from the early TT2:
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_0003.JPG
This has convex belt surfaces and flanges to prevent wandering. It's quite easy to adjust this one to perfect running.
To be honest, I don't see how one is easier to adjust than the other? A strobe is required for the first, but at least it directly adjusts the speed (by adjusting the effective diameter that the belt sees).
I can appreciate the desire "not" to use a convex pulley as imperfections in the drivebelt will always create speed variations to a bigger degree that with a straight pulley... At least imo and theories! :lol:
No, there is no inherent disadvantage to a crowned drive pulley.
So, what is the best way to make the belt stay on the flat portion of the pulley on the later version of the TT2?
Both the drive pulleys you show are effectively the same thing, crowned pulleys. The only difference is that the first allows the profile of the crown to be altered by tilting the vertical axis of the motor relative to the plane of the belt. The second assumes that this mechanical adjustment will be made electrically. Neither pulley solution is better, or worse, than the other in mechanical terms as both achieve belt centring my the same method, and a crowned pulley is the best solution.
However, if everything is accurately machined to a sufficiently high tolerance and the belt produced similarly, belt wander should not be an issue even on a straight sided pulley (unfortunately this is not always true, even for many 'quality' turntables).
Interesting. It's pretty much the same as the Linn pulley, and I've never understood the logic behind it. It's not possible to get a flat belt to run centrally on a pulley without a crown. It just won't do it. When I was trying to work out the design of the original pulley, I had to pretty much guess the radius of the crown. All the information I could find (there was no internet in those days, remember) came from research done in Victorian times when factory and farm equipment was driven by flat belts, and it was all pretty vague. You don't need much of a crown and in theory the pulley edges aren't needed, but you have to have something. On the Linn-type pulley, the belt just treats the angle between the flat portion of the pulley and the conical part as a crown and runs on that, as shown perfectly in your second picture. (Brilliant photos, by the way!)
What I could never work out was which diameter to use to calculate the speed. In the end, I think we just tried reducing the diameter by degrees until we got it right.
As far as removing the ball from the bearing is concerned, I wouldn't bother. The ball is aclose fit in the bearing. If you take a new bearing with no oil in, the ball takes about 20 seconds to reach the bottom of the bearing. Introduce some oil, and the oil seals the minute gap around the ball almost perfectly. If you try to force the ball in under these circumstances, the air pressure will force the brass plug out of the bottom of the bearing.Iin the same way, it's almost impossible to remove the ball once there is oil in the beaing because air cannot get past the ball. The only way I've ever managed it is to push the ball and the plug out of the bottom together. Not recommended!
There shouldn't really be any need anyway. Cotton buds or a rolled-up soft clotth will be sufficient.
The diameter of the vertical element of the pulley defines the maximum diameter available and should be a few percent greater than the ideal. The angle of the conical element effectively defines the sensitivity of asjustment.
Having the Linn style pulley (probably where the idea came from?) enables easy fine running speed adjustment. Use a non-mains high frequency strobe (avaiable on ebay I think) like the 300Hz Linn one..
At the time, the TT2 sounded slightly different to the Lp12, and of course, anything that sounded different to the LP12 was automatically worse :( I reckon that these days, the TT2 with modern takes on mat and tonearm, may well be a lot better if truth be told, especially the later model with the outboard motor supply, which I don't remember for some reason (probably because their speakers were being changed at around the same time and we weren't as keen on the new models (probably wrongly, but big Linn/Naim dealers were very narrow minded back then).
Well, it won't be 'a lot' better because in real terms it isn't all that different - but, by the same token, it won't sound all that worse either. However, besides just the superficial design, a lot depends on the concentricity of components, accuracy of machining and tolerances achieved.
Thanks Shane and Guy, that's reassuring. I've been doing a bit of cosmetic work to the turntable (repainting the MDF plinth and polishing the veneer), and have just popped on the arm. Hope to have it up and running later today, I'll post my thoughts and some pics.
Interesting. It's pretty much the same as the Linn pulley, and I've never understood the logic behind it. It's not possible to get a flat belt to run centrally on a pulley without a crown. It just won't do it. When I was trying to work out the design of the original pulley, I had to pretty much guess the radius of the crown. All the information I could find (there was no internet in those days, remember) came from research done in Victorian times when factory and farm equipment was driven by flat belts, and it was all pretty vague. You don't need much of a crown and in theory the pulley edges aren't needed, but you have to have something. On the Linn-type pulley, the belt just treats the angle between the flat portion of the pulley and the conical part as a crown and runs on that, as shown perfectly in your second picture. (Brilliant photos, by the way!)
What I could never work out was which diameter to use to calculate the speed. In the end, I think we just tried reducing the diameter by degrees until we got it right.
As far as removing the ball from the bearing is concerned, I wouldn't bother. The ball is aclose fit in the bearing. If you take a new bearing with no oil in, the ball takes about 20 seconds to reach the bottom of the bearing. Introduce some oil, and the oil seals the minute gap around the ball almost perfectly. If you try to force the ball in under these circumstances, the air pressure will force the brass plug out of the bottom of the bearing.Iin the same way, it's almost impossible to remove the ball once there is oil in the beaing because air cannot get past the ball. The only way I've ever managed it is to push the ball and the plug out of the bottom together. Not recommended!
There shouldn't really be any need anyway. Cotton buds or a rolled-up soft clotth will be sufficient.
Why do you say that this is an extreme picture? The belt is riding in, essentially, the correct position.
The belt is normally (when running) riding a bit higher, with the lower part of the belt just touching the conical part of the pulley. :rolleyes:
To be honest, I don't see how one is easier to adjust than the other? A strobe is required for the first, but at least it directly adjusts the speed (by adjusting the effective diameter that the belt sees).
You misunderstood, the speed of the turntables is quite correct, with the modern one steady at 33.3-33.5rpm and the older one a little bit higher and with more variations, typically between 33.5-33.9rpm. Checked with a cheapie from fleabay, but accurate enough imo.
The issue is that i want the drive belt to keep its position on the pulleys to make it easier to adjust suspension. And the crown on the pulley makes the belt self-center up to a certain degree.
No, there is no inherent disadvantage to a crowned drive pulley.
Let me try and explain my theory:
When the belt makes contact with the crowned pulley, the belt will stretch more in belt center, than on the edges based on the different diameters. No rubber belt is 100% homogenous and this will cause variations in resistance and spring force. Thus introducing more variations in speed than with the straight pulley where the diameter ideally shuld be the same for all parts of the belt? :scratch:
Both the drive pulleys you show are effectively the same thing, crowned pulleys. The only difference is that the first allows the profile of the crown to be altered by tilting the vertical axis of the motor relative to the plane of the belt. The second assumes that this mechanical adjustment will be made electrically. Neither pulley solution is better, or worse, than the other in mechanical terms as both achieve belt centring my the same method, and a crowned pulley is the best solution.
I really dont understand what you mean here? Are you referring to adjusting the speed?
However, if everything is accurately machined to a sufficiently high tolerance and the belt produced similarly, belt wander should not be an issue even on a straight sided pulley (unfortunately this is not always true, even for many 'quality' turntables).
Nah, you're right. This is mostly a non-issue, but i would like to eliminate any potential sources of concern. :mental:
:cool: and thanks for your input!
/Mike
Once set up, just run the thing for a few hours, which should sort the belt out (possibly stored for decades folded in some way?)
Now watch the price of old TT2's go through the roof!
The belt is normally (when running) riding a bit higher, with the lower part of the belt just touching the conical part of the pulley. :rolleyes:
Where it specifically rides depends on the exact diameter of the inner platter. There's no need to post a 'rolling your eyes' icon :(, I know what I'm writing about.
You misunderstood, the speed of the turntables is quite correct, with the modern one steady at 33.3-33.5rpm and the older one a little bit higher and with more variations, typically between 33.5-33.9rpm. Checked with a cheapie from fleabay, but accurate enough imo.
The issue is that i want the drive belt to keep its position on the pulleys to make it easier to adjust suspension. And the crown on the pulley makes the belt self-center up to a certain degree.
Well, perhaps I do misunderstand you. Both types of pulley are essentially crowned so both should have a self centering quality (assuming the belt is positioned correctly).
Let me try and explain my theory:
When the belt makes contact with the crowned pulley, the belt will stretch more in belt center, than on the edges based on the different diameters. No rubber belt is 100% homogenous and this will cause variations in resistance and spring force. Thus introducing more variations in speed than with the straight pulley where the diameter ideally shuld be the same for all parts of the belt? :scratch:
Well, it's a theory; however, it's not one I have found to be an issue in practice. Absolute concentricity of the drive pulley and the drive shaft are much bigger issues.
I really dont understand what you mean here? Are you referring to adjusting the speed?
Yes.
Where it specifically rides depends on the exact diameter of the inner platter. There's no need to post a 'rolling your eyes' icon :(, I know what I'm writing about.
Apologies, I was meaning to say that i dont know exactly how to express myself. Not intended to your post in any way!
But you are really saying that the belt position is more or less correct in this image:
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_0002.JPG
It is supposed to ride partly on the conical section?
Regards
/Mike
That's OK.
Yes, That's correct, precisely so. The belt is intended to ride on both surfaces - the transition between the two acting as the crown that helps belt stability. As the motor (and therefore the pulley) is tilted the belt runs more, or less, on the vertical element of the pulley; this effectively alters the diameter of the pulley and so changes the gearing and speed of the platter. If the belt runs entirely (or almost entirely) on the vertical section of the pulley the pulley is either slightly too small or the inner platter is slightly too large (relative to each other) - belt tension may also be too high, as may be bearing drag or friction. Ideally, the belt isn't intended to run pretty much as your picture shows.
If it becomes necessary to replace the motor, would the current 24V Rega DC motor be an option? As I understand it the early Regas used the same AC synchronous motor as the TT2, the new motor is meant to be backward-compatible. This would potentially give the option of adding the TTPSU for speed control... Just a thought!
Well, here she is after a hard day's work...
Slideshow (http://s1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/surayne/Heybrook%20TT2%20restoration/)
Well, here she is after a hard day's work...
Slideshow (http://s1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/surayne/Heybrook%20TT2%20restoration/)
Brilliant! Looks brand new. :)
Well, here she is after a hard day's work...
Slideshow (http://s1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/surayne/Heybrook%20TT2%20restoration/)
Looks a million dollars!
With respect, isn't 'critics corner' the section of the forum in which to raise such issues?
Why? The question is relevant to this thread. Why make everyone fart around looking for the answer somewhere else?
I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't work, and I'd be really interested to hear if it was worthwhile.
Why? The question is relevant to this thread. Why make everyone fart around looking for the answer somewhere else?
I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't work, and I'd be really interested to hear if it was worthwhile.
There has been a bit of confusion I'm afraid, my post was a response to another post that has subsequently been deleted (that post was about rising eBay prices).
If it becomes necessary to replace the motor, would the current 24V Rega DC motor be an option? As I understand it the early Regas used the same AC synchronous motor as the TT2, the new motor is meant to be backward-compatible. This would potentially give the option of adding the TTPSU for speed control... Just a thought!
The old philips motor is still available when scavenging the net. I looked into that while my TPS was being serviced.
Great pics by the way! Now, lets hear bout your impressions!
Regards Mike
Impressions are very, very good. I'm using the same cart as I did on my P3-24 but there is more detail, more depth and width to the soundstage and better imaging. Bass was a little wooly at first but I played about with VTA and it seems to have settled. Speed stability seems spot on, I couldn't pick up any audible wow or flutter.
My other half looked up when I popped on a 180g pressing of Nick Drake's Pink Moon and said "My God, it sounds like he's right in front of me playing!" - what more could you ask for? :)
I did have a little issue with the tonearm lift, it seemed to drop like a stone. I opened it up and popped a few drops of the damping oil into the mechanism and it's much better now. Fiddly little screws though. I've not experimented with damping the arm itself yet, but I'm not sure there's a need with the DL-160.
Mike, I don't need a new motor, but I might be tempted to try a change for the heck of it at some point. The current Rega motor is meant to be quieter and more stable than the older generation, and runs at the same frequency. I assume that I'd have to remove the pulley from the end of the motor on the TT2 and fit it on to the new motor, which might be fun. Finding a place for the PCB and inputs would also be interesting, but possible I'm sure!
Alright then! Great to hear you are satisfied!
As for my own older TT2, it is about to receive a Valhalla powersupply! :stalks:
Have you heard about such an abomination!
I believe, when comparing my two, the power supply/motor makes a big difference in performance.
Regards /Mike
A Valhalla supply that's still working? :eek:
I assume that I'd have to remove the pulley from the end of the motor on the TT2 and fit it on to the new motor, which might be fun.
If you decide to try this out let me know, I think I've got a spare pulley knocking around somewhere which would save you messing around with the existing motor. I recall that trying to pull the pulley off the motor often left you with the pulley and shaft in one hand and the remains of the motor in the other!
Although I've not heard one, I'm told that the TPS makes a big difference. Makes sense really, anything that feeds the motor with a clean sinewave rather than the crap that comes out of a mains socket will reduce motor vibration and clean up the sound. I'd thought of using a Valhalla supply myself (not that I actually have a TT2 at the moment, but this thread's had me searching ebay), but they're a bit pricey. I did see an artical somewhere about a Naim Armageddon clone which I might dig out some time which seemed a lot simpler.
If you decide to try this out let me know, I think I've got a spare pulley knocking around somewhere which would save you messing around with the existing motor. I recall that trying to pull the pulley off the motor often left you with the pulley and shaft in one hand and the remains of the motor in the other!
Although I've not heard one, I'm told that the TPS makes a big difference. Makes sense really, anything that feeds the motor with a clean sinewave rather than the crap that comes out of a mains socket will reduce motor vibration and clean up the sound. I'd thought of using a Valhalla supply myself (not that I actually have a TT2 at the moment, but this thread's had me searching ebay), but they're a bit pricey. I did see an artical somewhere about a Naim Armageddon clone which I might dig out some time which seemed a lot simpler.
Yeeaargh! That doesn't sound particularly pleasant, I'll definitely take you up on that offer if I go down this route, Shane.
From what I can tell from a few days of intense Googling, there are the following options for a PSU upgrade:
1) Naim Armageddon clone. Will probably cost around £100 all in with a decent case, the circuit design looks fairly simple. You won't have speed control though.
2) Valhalla, but it's getting a little old now, so I personally wouldn't go down this route. Around £50-80 I think?
3) The Hercules / MOSE combo. Will give external speed control as well. Cost is around £300.
4) Motor replacement with a Rega 24V version, and use an external Rega TTPSU. Should give external speed control as well as a new, more stable motor and decent regulated, external PSU. Cost is £120 for the motor and £200 for the TTPSU if bought new (I'll probably look for a used older version that tends to go for around £100). The downside to this is of course that installation will probably be more complex.
5) Other external PSUs like the Origin Live, etc. are available but most seem to go for over £400 and I can't see the point, really.
Just to watch out for ease of pulley replacement. Shane and Guy could advise here :)
In my experience, adding a high current mains filter to the stock motor "supply" does a similar job to the Valhalla kit, believe it or not. I'm sure a properly phase-adjusted external supply would be far better again though, as the Lingo used to be (how much for an early Lingo?)
Hello everyone, this is my first post in this forum, the first thing that I use an online translator and I hope you understand me well, also apologizing for it. I'm very interesting thread carefully. I'm trying to perfect my rotation TT2 pulley as shown in the photo, I have not even set to 100%, just mention that you have to completely redesign the suspension. In this way the suspension works in a more natural way. What you say about it?
Hola!
Well, why not? There are some advantages and some disadvantages IMO.
It is not impossible to get a "perfect" bounce in a TT2, somewhat difficult though. The biggest issue i've had is the tone arm cable dressing which was tricky when using RB-301 and OL Silver which both have quite thick and cumbersome cabling.
Your idea gives two main advantages as i see it:
You eliminate the pulling of the drive belt in one direction, which
1. Lessens drag on the bearing
2. Simplifies suspension adjustment
The disadvantages are:
1. Quite small belt contact surface, opens up for speed drifting?
2. Addition of another bearing which will influence by introducing rumble?
I have seen photos of people adding a second motor to their turntables though, in the same position as you suggest. That will also solve the above problems, but introduce others instead such as increased complexity etc. etc.
Good to see some ingenous ideas though!
/Mike
pure sound
20-08-2012, 10:02
Hello everyone, this is my first post in this forum, the first thing that I use an online translator and I hope you understand me well, also apologizing for it. I'm very interesting thread carefully. I'm trying to perfect my rotation TT2 pulley as shown in the photo, I have not even set to 100%, just mention that you have to completely redesign the suspension. In this way the suspension works in a more natural way. What you say about it?
I presume this is a different, longer belt?
Incidentally with regard to the image of the 'TPS' pulley further up the thread. I have a bag of genuine 'TPS' pulleys here and they don't look like that. That does look like a Linn part which would be surprising as I'd have expected the size to be wrong if working with the smaller TT2 inner hub.
The TPS pulleys have a single, curved 'crown' and a flange above & below.
Lovely job restoring that TT2 Surayne.
Not sure about the blue mat though! ;)
I presume this is a different, longer belt?
Mmm...exactly my own thought - that belt is already pretty tight on the TT2 and will be very tight indeed if stretched in that manner.
Incidentally with regard to the image of the 'TPS' pulley further up the thread. I have a bag of genuine 'TPS' pulleys here and they don't look like that. That does look like a Linn part which would be surprising as I'd have expected the size to be wrong if working with the smaller TT2 inner hub.
That doesn't surprise me. As you say, it looks like the Linn pulley - exceedingly so in fact. It seems likely that a Linn motor and associated pulley have been fitted at some time in the past. No doubt this helps explain why correct speed is not achieved with the belt running on the crown.
Lovely job restoring that TT2 Surayne.
Not sure about the blue mat though! ;)
Indeed (on both counts :))
The TPS pulleys have a single, curved 'crown' and a flange above & below.
Guy, could you please measure the diameter of the pulley on the "official" part?
AFAIK this is the motor and pulley this TT2 was shipped with, but as i am not the first owner i cannot say for sure...
And, i have never had an issue with the speed on either of my TT2's. My apologies for being unclear in that case.
The reason for asking questions is that i want the belt to run in a steady position on the pulley, whether its a Linn or Heybrook :D
Reason: Suspension is influenced by belt position.
Regards
/Mike
Hmm.. the belt should run steady with both designs of pulley, irrespective of speed - is this not the case then?
I have both the Linn and Heybrook parts here - will measure them later for you.
pure sound
20-08-2012, 10:56
the 50 Hz twin speed pulley seems to be 16.63 mm in diameter on its 33.33 rpm crown.
I think the bag of TPS pulleys must be up in the loft with the other parts. If I get a chance I'll try to find one later today.
Hmm.. the belt should run steady with both designs of pulley, irrespective of speed - is this not the case then?
...
I wasn't able to get the belt steady running on the TPS pulley at first, as my ambition was to make it run on the flat portion of the pulley...
:brickwall:
But as i have learned from you guys, the belt should be running on the verge of the conical section. And I have also managed to get it to run steady there recently!
So, my problems are solved, thank you all!
However, i was intrigued by Pure Sound Guy's question whether the pulley was the original.
So i measured the pulleys:
TPS, Pulley: 16.6mm
TPS, Platter: 129.99mm
Gearing: 7.830723:1
Old, Pulley 33rpm: 16.9mm (on the highest part)
Old, pulley 45rpm: 22.95mm
Old, Platter: 130.05mm
Gearing: 7.695266:1
Gearing (45rpm): 5.666667:1
The syncronous motors for 110V AC does 250rpm @50Hz which means:
TPS: ~32rpm
Old: ~32.5rpm
Old@45rpm: ~44.1rpm
Anyone got an explanation to why my math is not matching the speed requirements, and also IRL measurements?
Or is it simply the fact that the belt is not running entirely on the widest part of the pulley? :mental:
(which would mean that the pulley has a little bit smaller diameter as far as the belt sees it?)
Best regards/Mike
sq225917
20-08-2012, 11:56
belt effects.
pure sound
20-08-2012, 13:18
Indeed. Try adding the belt thickness (1mm) to each diameter & then calculate your gearing, ie the gearing is based on the sizes following the centre line of the belt.
(stretched slightly over the driving pulley & hub it may actually be slightly less than 1mm).
I suspect that the proper TPS pulley diameter will be the same as the 50Hz 33.33 rpm diameter (ie 16.63mm) but I'll need to dig one out to confirm this.
Ahh, of course! The belt thickness will affect also.
When adding 1mm to both diamters the results are far more accurate, though a little too high.
Thx, now i can sleep again at night.. :lol:
Please get a proper strobe!
Hello again. The belt is 487 mm in diameter. Not the original. I've made an error when measuring the belt I have a little slack. It is of lower quality than the original. With my strobe light I see is a little slow with respect to the original, do you think the belt tension thus influences the speed?
Someone did once bring in a TT2 modifed with an extra pulley similar to yours, and it sounded very good, although not enough so to make it worthwhile tooling up for production. It would work better if you had two belts, one round the sub-platter/motor, and the other round the sub-platter/idler. That way you get the correct contact area for the driving belt. I suspect yours is probably slipping.
Please get a proper strobe!
What difference will that do to my math? ;) :lol:
The figures in my last post are mathematical only. As i stated earlier, i do not have a speed issue, my both TT2's are well within spec concerning real life speed! 33.3-33.4 on the TPS unit while the other one were just a tad faster.
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/TT2_Valhalla.JPG
Not anymore however, the aquired Valhalla arrived today and it was a swift operation to apply the new "Pace Maker". Exactly on speed, with a substantial improvement in SQ!
Now i'll have to decide whether to mount inside or in an external enclosure...
Regards
/Mike
Yes, the blue mat will have to go... I may try an Achromat or a something similar. Apart from the obvious cosmetic improvement, has anyone changed from the standard wool mat and noticed much change in the sound quality?
Mike, glad the Valhalla's working out for you - did you just connect it directly to the motor and bypass the existing board? Doesn't look like you replaced the power switch, isn't that part of the Valhalla package?
Wakefield Turntables
20-08-2012, 20:09
if the TT2 functions anything like a LP12 then the felt mat is supposed to be the way to go (well it was the last time I checked on the linn site about 3 years ago). Information may have changed but if you use the acromat dont forgot to alter your sprung suspension. I have a Alphason solo and had to make a small adjustment when using my acromat on it.
Mike, any chance of some photos of the fitting and connecting process? I'm intrigued!
Surayne, we tried a lot of different mats over the years but never found anything that was a significant improvement over the Linn felt mat. (Yes, we bought in the mats, lids and hinges from our supposed deadly rivals).
do you think the belt tension thus influences the speed?
Yes, it definitely does.
pure sound
20-08-2012, 22:10
I like using a copper mat on mine but at 1.8 Kg it requires a substantial but manageable suspension adjustment. It's also more expensive than a TT2 usually is :(
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh107/pure_sound/tt2.jpg
Thanks YNWaN.
Shane, I had not thought about putting two straps, I'll try and comment on the outcome, this will be when I get back from my vacation. Continue to learn while in this interesting thread.
Thanks
sq225917
21-08-2012, 07:12
If you are going to use a Valhalla putting it in a box makes more sense, they are noisy electrically and this will be picked up by your cart adding a very low level noise to the signal- that said thousands of Linnies put up with it forever without complaining...
But the noise is there, is very real and measurable.
Wow Guy, thats adding quite some heft to the suspended parts. But if it balances out nicely, why not?
The other material I would like to try is a thin cork mat (or thin cork contact spots), besides the standard wool mat.
And regarding the Valhalla, there is another reason for mounting it in an external enclosure, i can go back to original spec without disrupting anything.
Not sure why but without the Valhalla the old TT2 exhibited a notable hum when connected. This disappeared and the background is quite "black".
I'll get some pics taken when mounting the Valhalla properly. The board is on an ESD foam with the motor leads pulled out of the plint on the back left corner. Actually a very simple operation, unsoldered the motor leads from the original PCB, unmounted PCB and original cabling along with the back plate.
Attached 230V AC-leads to the Valhalla, attached the motor leads... Done!
/Mike
You can get cork spots from B&Q and I will be making some more cork mats is a couple of weeks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.