So, the Thorens 124 - the best of both worlds or the worse? Discuss! :)
Printable View
So, the Thorens 124 - the best of both worlds or the worse? Discuss! :)
well the belt runs very fast and the idler does the low speed stuffQuote:
Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt
i have quite a few decks, inc oracal delphi/lp12/ 401/301.lenco's and quite a few more,, had it next to marco's
and quite a few other good decks...
...i'm keeping it as my main deck...
i sold the first one i owned about 10 years ago and regretted it after a week or so..
Not quite the answer I was expecting! I think I understand the pros and cons of direct drive, belt drive and rim or idler drive, but a mixture of two techniques?Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS
Coincidentially all the tuntables I have used, from the humble Garrard SP25 and Collaro 2020, through to the EMT930 have used a rim drive. I happen to use three Thorens TD124/II decks. These also use idler wheel drive, but have a belt between the motor and the stepped speed change pulley. I cannot, as yet, make up my mind if the use of a belt confers any advantage.
sorry Barrie, i dodn't realise you are well versed in 124's,Quote:
Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt
i judge the deck by its overall sound, the fact that the belt runs faster than a normal belt drive deck impaires some advantages in its operation over belt drive only..
but its the sum of parts that makes the deck..
what can i say.. i like the sound.. till i hear something better..?
Sorry to this obvious here,
however the original question have you come to any conclusions at yet guys?
Thanks SPS. I hadn't thought about the relative speed of the belt in the 124, compare with those of conventional belt drive designs. Critics of belt drives complain of the lack of torque a belt can transmit, wouldn't the same criticism apply to the 124?Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS
Regarding the 'sound' of the 124, the only comparison I have made is with an EMT930 and a Linn Sondek. Comparison with the Linn was made many years ago, when a friend of mine left his gear with me whilst he was working in Nigeria on contract. I was (and still am) using the Thorens and was able to compare the two. I did notice some small differences, but nothing like the 'chalk and cheese' contrast that Linn would have had you believe at the time. I saw, or heard, no reason at all why I should replace my Thorens, so didn't. In fact I have gone in the opposite direction and acquired two more!
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.
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 transmitt their drive noise out of phase, so are perfect for mono and 78's...
well my mind is made up.. mine replaced the delphi, which was in regular useQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
i think it has a more 'solid' sound, level of bass are identical with same arm and cart.. yet the thorens seem more balanced in my view whilst the delphi has a very slightly lighter sound..
also the bass levels are identical to the best 401/301 i have heard dispite the hype around 301/401 in this department, and seemingly without the need for fancy heavy plinths..
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 belive the effects of torque on the belt is less at higher speeds as it is diluted.. dont know if that makes sense..?Quote:
Thanks SPS. I hadn't thought about the relative speed of the belt in the 124, compare with those of conventional belt drive designs. Critics of belt drives complain of the lack of torque a belt can transmit, wouldn't the same criticism apply to the 124?
well that's my view..
cheers
steve
Hi SteveQuote:
Originally Posted by SPS
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 :doh:;)) the Oracle Delphi Mk4 is the IMHO best looking TT ever.
Regards D S D L