I've a feeling they may use the same tip on all of them now though I'd need to check this.Quote:
Originally Posted by i_should_coco
Printable View
I've a feeling they may use the same tip on all of them now though I'd need to check this.Quote:
Originally Posted by i_should_coco
The website's not really to be trusted - it says the Ltd. has Alnico magnets! :lol:
I finally finished the battery/charger supply.:)
Like Focal? :ner:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
:lolsign: :lol:
Guy, it's *precisely* because of this "richness of tone" that I like cartridges such as the DL-103. To my ears, this simply isn't on offer from most modern designs, which sound thin and tonally 'bleached' in comparison.Quote:
Many guitarists still seek out alnico magnets for their speaker cabs to get a particular richness of tone.
And before the Lyra, Ortofon or AT boys start, by "richness of tone" I don't mean warm, soft or woolly - just a sumptuous sense of depth and convincing harmonic structure which one relates to the sound of real voices and instruments.
Alnicos (and electro-magnets) rule!! :gig:
Marco.
But I get that from my Ortofon KB and Rondo plus more! :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
We'll have to do a comparison then, Neal. Bring your PL-71 or Lenco round, fitted with your KB or Rondo and we'll have a play :cool:
Marco.
You got it Marco! Should be fun. I've been getting on with the PL-71 this eve with the 103R and its good...very good especially since I've sorted out the PSU and phono cable...I plan to go to Owston later in the year so would be a good time to get together then...North Wales would be a bit too much of a stretch for me...
It is about tone, yeah. The only compression driver I've heard that come close to the Vitavox S2 (which is astonishing) in terms of sheer tone is the TAD TD-2002. Now these drivers are 50 years apart and differ substantially in materials and construction, the only common characteristic they share is an AlNiCo magnet. Yet theyhave a similarity of tone. Coincidence? Probably. :)
The big brother of the 2002, the TD-4003 does not appear to share the same tonality - it's close, but doesn't quite reach the same depth. That uses a neodymium magnet.
Hi Folks,
I've been meaning to offer a few thoughts on this since the moment Alnico magnets were mentioned but thing have conspired against me!
Now I find I've been pipped by someone's post:
It's not just speakers that guitarists like to use alnico in, but also pickups.Quote:
Many guitarists still seek out alnico magnets for their speaker cabs to get a particular richness of tone.
I just wondered if this preference between old & new might lie somewhere in musical taste. For example, if you like a certain type of rock music from a certain age, you'll be addicted to the sound of alnico because it was used in all the classic guitars & speakers that your favoured musicians preferred.
For example:
Celestion alnico speakers were used in Vox & Marshall gear.
Fane alnico speakers were a fixture in Hiwatt and Orange cabs in the late '60s and early '70s.
Jensen alnicos went into vintage Fender amps.
The guitars all had pickups made with alnico too, so the effect that it had on the sound is completely and deeply ingrained, both in the music & in our brains.
Think of the bands who used this gear!
Nowadays some people are going to extraordinary lengths to recreate the tone (that word again) of this classic gear. Read this taken from the Seymour Duncan website:
http://www.seymourduncan.com/products/antiquity/
Antiquity™: The '50s Series
The '50s marked the birth of rock 'n' roll and Antiquity pickups capture the tone of the era. Each Antiquity pickup is hand-crafted in Santa Barbara from the same materials and the same production techniques as the originals. I hand wind each single coil pickup using a "scatter wind" process that captures the original winding patterns in a way no machine can duplicate. The bobbins are carefully aged and impregnated with fine dust particles, the Alnico II magnets are ever-so-slightly demagnetized, and the wire and insulation are treated to duplicate the tempering of years of use. Of course, all of this is done in order to accurately replicate that unmistakable vintage tone of the early pickups in a way that could never be done with a mass production process.
Not only are they trying to replicate old models, but they want them to sound like the old ones did when they were about 10 years old - hence the dusty wire and the demagnetising process!!
Awesome, Chris, and most interesting! :smoking:
...which is *precisely* why I use DL-103s, M3Ds, SUTs as opposed to active MC stages, classic CDPs & DACs, valve pre/power amps, and vintage Tannoys.Quote:
Of course, all of this is done in order to accurately replicate that unmistakable vintage tone of the early pickups in a way that could never be done with a mass production process.
Like I've said many times in this thread and elsewhere, it's all about tone and timbre - it is precisely a lack of "richness of tone" that most modern equipment suffers from. I'm not just talking about cartridges here, but right the way across the board from sources to speakers.
*However*, with all this talk about "richness of tone", there is one very important thing to bear in mind, and it is this:
When I'm discussing "richness of tone", I don't mean it in terms of imbuing the sound with romantic coloration to create some cosy, rose-tinted, fluffy rendition of recorded music that I can wallow in whilst admiring my pipe and slippers - no siree - I'm talking about the difference between instruments and voices sounding 'real', with proper depth and 'body' to them, and an anaemic 'processed' sounding cardboard cut-out of such in comparison.
Let me put it another way and introduce an alternative form of terminology to the discussion: 'FLAVOUR'. Well-designed, properly engineered and 'sorted' vintage equipment, such as has been mentioned on this thread, has more 'flavour' than most modern equipment I've heard - but, in the right way.
It's rather like the difference between growing your own fruit, and picking an apple straight from the tree and eating it, sampling how it tastes, and savouring the depth and intensity of flavour it has compared to the tasteless ones (in comparison) you buy in a supermarket - and so consequently the supermarket apple is less 'real'. It lacks flavour compared to one straight from the tree; in effect, something has been lost in the process between nature creating the apple and us eating it.
This for me is very similar to when comparing the best vintage equipment to its modern counterpart; just as the supermarket apple has lost a significant percentage of its 'goodness' and flavour, and therefore it has become less 'real' than it was originally when picked and eaten from the tree, so is music less 'real' when reproduced on many types of modern equipment...
Something has been lost in the design, component selection/implementation, and voicing process by the manufacturer, and that 'something', my friends, is natural flavour, which manifests itself as the 'vintage tone' we've been discussing. And it cannot easily be measured. This 'flavour', in my opinion, is fundamental to how real voices and instruments sound when heard, un-amplified, live. Without it, we're only hearing a watered-down version of the music, which lacks the depth and intensity of 'flavour' of the real thing.
In terms of my own system and choice of components, as in all the best recipes (I see assembling a musically satisfying hi-fi system as essentially a 'recipe') I seek to bring out the most natural 'flavour' from the music. I feel it's no coincidence that the best systems I've heard mix and match old and new technologies, simply because neither single approach gets is absolutely right. Getting the most natural 'flavour' from music is thus best served by cherry-picking the highest quality vintage gear and mixing it with a soupçon of carefully selected modern kit to stand the best chance of obtaining this fundamental 'flavour'. This is not coloration: it's the difference between real and processed. When listening to music, I want to taste the 'real', richly flavoured, 'organic' apple - not the watery flavoured second-class citizen from the supermarket...
Marco.
Hi Pete,Quote:
Originally Posted by i_should_coco
Yes indeed, for those who wish to experience music in a real way, though absolutely not for everyone I would agree.
Flavors again Pete
Though I did find this lurking 'Mr C's room also sounded good, and he was using Focals!'
We you hung over by any chance :eyebrows:
Hi Guys,
Just to add my two penn'orth: -
As Marco so rightly says, this trend does not just apply to hi-fi, it applies to many aspects of modern life and modern products. One of the few things that Sue and I disagree about (and 'always' have done, but no violence involved :lolsign: ), is 'Form' versus 'Function' as I term it.
By and large I care more about the 'performance' of almost anything (function) rather than what it looks like (form), whereas Sue's priority, by and large, is what it looks like.
So, loads of 'black boxes' and speakers reaching from floor to ceiling wouldn't concern me if it gave me audio Nirvana, whereas Sue would prefer no 'black boxes' or speakers, and music which came out of the ether and sounds like it emanated from a single £5 computer stereo speaker. Apart from that we get on fine !!
Cheers,
Sounds good, Neil. We can certainly have a play at Owston, but if you can't make it to mine, I'd like to hear your PL-71 in its home environment where you've optimised it, to get a proper handle on what all the fuss is about with this particular vintage T/T.Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG
So would you be up for me coming down with the Techy and us having our own little mini bake-off? :cool:
Marco.
P.S I wonder what's happened to Adam? I thought he'd have returned by now to teach me the error of my ways! :scratch:
Hi Guys,
If this Owston get-together is open to all, for the benefit of the unitiated can someone advise which Owston is it happening at - there is one near Doncaster and one in Leicestershire.
Thanks in anticipation,
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyTD
donny... its us audio talk lot again...Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC
Thanks SPS, :)
I intended to go to whichever it was but now I might now even walk there! ;)
Well, perhaps not.
See you there.
Just teasing, matey. :) Your stuff did indeed sound great at Heathrow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
Hi Pete,
Could you do me a big favour, matey?
I'd be obliged if you would post a little review of your T/T bake-off at RD's (by starting a separate thread), as this is of significant interest to people here, too. It doesn't matter if it's simply a cut & paste job from what you wrote on pfm, or you can add other bits in if you wish.
Cheers, dude! :cool:
Marco.
Done! See here:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...3754#post53754
Cheers, Pete. Much appreciated! I'll get to that later - just off to listen to some choons :gig:
Marco.
Adam's busy reviewing turntables for the next issue of HFW! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
LOL. Good to see you back.
Are they boring ones with belts in, or 'proper' T/Ts? :eyebrows:
;)
Marco.
Proper turntables have belts :ner:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Hehehehe... Aye, of course they do! :lol:
Marco.
of course they do..Quote:
Originally Posted by griffo104
well may be just the better ones ...
Yes, but the belt in yours is mainly just for 'decoration' ;)
Marco.
decoration eh... without it does not spin very fast..Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
cheers
Indeed. But without the idler mechanism it would be, as we say in Glasgow, PISH! :lol:
;)
Marco.
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
Hello Dave (hifi_dave)
Yes, I understand that - it's the question of torque transfer via a belt that concerns me. :scratch:Quote:
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.
Hello Dave (DSJR)
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? :confused:Quote:
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...
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,
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. :confused:Quote:
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..
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! :smoking:
Finally apologies to Marco for the hi-jacking of his thread. :doh:
Regards
mines the mk 2,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L
the sound as always its a matter of opinion, and that is dictated by the rest of your replay system and our own tastes..
No, no we don't mind a bit of thread drift here on AOS :eyebrows:Quote:
Finally apologies to Marco for the hi-jacking of his thread :doh:
Marco.