Garrard 301 restoration project

[Wakefield Turntables]

I'm having a little experiment to see if the best bits of the 401 can be transplanted over to the 301 to improve the decks performance. It looks like after talking to a few garrard gurus that pros and cons exist for doing various mods, buts that the fun of tweaking.

[DarrenHW]

I do remember reading somewhere about the potential advantage of a hybrid 301/401, IIRC the later 401 motors were considered one of the better motors but the difference's were thought to be quite small? (That is not in anyway meant in anyway to discredit the validity of your experiments ) I think I also remember reading that the 401 should have been technically superior but let down by poor execution due to cost cutting. I have 2 x 401's, one 1965, one 1966 approximately 6 months apart, the casting on the 1965 motor housing is far superior to the 1966, the finish on the 1965 platter is better and it's a tighter fit on the spindle although this may be a consequence of how it was treated in the 49 years before I bought it, it does show a reduction in manufacturing quality over a very small time frame.

[Wakefield Turntables]

I do remember reading somewhere about the potential advantage of a hybrid 301/401, IIRC the later 401 motors were considered one of the better motors but the difference's were thought to be quite small? (That is not in anyway meant in anyway to discredit the validity of your experiments ) I think I also remember reading that the 401 should have been technically superior but let down by poor execution due to cost cutting. I have 2 x 401's, one 1965, one 1966 approximately 6 months apart, the casting on the 1965 motor housing is far superior to the 1966, the finish on the 1965 platter is better and it's a tighter fit on the spindle although this may be a consequence of how it was treated in the 49 years before I bought it, it does show a reduction in manufacturing quality over a very small time frame.

Can't fault any of your observations, Darren. What you say is pretty much what the Garrard guru's say. It really is horses for courses. The 401 is supposed to have more torque and be better screened againt EMI. I wonder if I could get better torque from the 301 motor by simply using the new speed controller I'm having made up. This would certainly negate the need of me transplanting the 401 motor into the 301. I can't do anything about the cast quality of my 301 but I could apply a cross brace to the 301's casing to increase it's stiffness which may fetch it upto the 401's level of quality? The tolerance of certain parts has been discussed and this is certainly the way that some of the Garrard guru's go. I think the external PSU + speed controller, detachment of the motor and seperate arm pod for tonearm's are the best way to go. I don't think I'm going to be dicking around with dampening pads or any crap like that. What do you intend doing with your 401?

[DarrenHW]

I have seen threads where people have braced the chassis, I've not looked into this but I did put a shim with a blu tack "damper" between the base of the spindle and the lower plinth. I only tried this as a quick and easy experiment but found it reduced noise and improved bass, (the choice of "damper" did have an effect on the bass, I tried sorbathane, felt, neoprene and cork but overall preferred blu tack) I don't see why further improvements couldn't be achieved with better bracing. Detaching the motor could only be a good thing as far as I'm concerned and will be something I look into when finalising the plinth design.

My 401 is on the back burner at the moment but I only have modest plans for it. I need to source another idler (I have 2 401's but only 1 idler) when I have I'll have it redressed and install new bearings, this will complete the service as all other springs and bushes have been replaced. I do intend to look at the wiring, nothing revolutionary, just really re-routing maybe fixing the wiring to the lower plinth instead of suspending it off the motor and chassis. I'm still interested in the PSU, but have no plan to progress with this in the near future. One area I would like to investigate is having a copper top plate bonded to the platter with the hope that it would act as an electrical shield? This is just something I'm mulling over, I guess the material and machining cost would be £2-300 and it would mean sacrificing a platter if the results were negative.

How's your search for a 401 coming on?

[A.Grail]

The Rubato 3mm copper platter mat is an interesting item when used in conjunction with a thin silicone mat (Used to damp the ringing platter with the Rubato on top)
Pure sound made these mats and also the Tenuto (Gun metal mat) with a very interesting profile which really does allow the record to sit down correctly.
In terms of 401 motors whilst the Plessey cut backs effected the 401 from fairly early on in it's production the very last type 401 motors however probably run quietest. All 401 motors have less torque than 301 motors. The Grease bearing motors all have considerably more torque. These motors 301 however are cast ally as opposed to cast iron in the case of the 401 and do vibrate more in addition the 401 motor bushes are of better design. Much of this can be managed by the removal of the motor from the chassis and supported instead by the plinth. In terms of chassis stiffness the 401 chassis is A) a better casting B) Thicker and C) braced with cast 'ribs'. Again much of this can be overcome with the addition of a 'P' or H shaped bracing to the top of the 301 chassis along with a brace to the bottom of the 301 bearing. Personally I prefer these methods as they are A)Reversible and B) retain the integrity and heritage of the 301.
Here's a few pics of the Tenuto:

I understand they will be made available again soon

[DarrenHW]

Good looking mat and a far more reversible solution than modifying a platter. Have you use one of these Matt, if so would be good to hear your thoughts. My interest in copper is in it's application as a shield, there's a whole load of juice floating around under the platter of a 301/401 I feel that shielding the cartridge from this would be a positive move?

[A.Grail]

Hi Darren,
I did for a long time use the Rubato, certainly the 301's switching being directly under the platter was noted by Garrard who introduced a mumetal screening cover on later 301's...I digress. Here is a review of the Rubato which perhaps indicates a little of what it does:

Here are a few pics of the Rubato



My personal preference is for the Gun Metal Tenuto, this mat has a 1m drop from the run in to run aout grove area of the mat enabling the record to sit' correctly. THe Gun metal itself is an interesting material in this application and combined with the unique profile and mass leads to a notable improvement (IMHO) to the sound.
Here are a few pics of some of our 301s with Rubatos and Tenutos

[DarrenHW]

Thanks Matt,

...I did for a long time use the Rubato...

This does raise the question of what you replaced it with?

[A.Grail]

The Gun metal Tenuto mat pictured - N.B: Both the Rubato and the Tenuto made by Pure Sound

[DarrenHW]

With your knowledge of Garrard's that's high praise indeed .