Brinkmann Bardo


I just replaced a Clearaudio Avantgarde Magnum with a Brinkmann Bardo. Both had the Phantom tonearm II.

Wondering if anyone else has bought this table and what their thoughts are?

My initial impressions are that it grabs your attention and does not let you wander off in thoughts as you listen to music. Maybe a little less open then the Clearaudio, but more grounded and solid as a result.
I definitely like it more than the Balance, which I found to be too "damped" and a bit boring to listen too.

I also felt that changing the arm to the Graham resulted in a more profound change and improvement to the character of the system than the table swap.
dbjain
Are Brinkman serious that it takes 12 seconds for the platter to reach 33.3 rpm's?

That is insane, much slower than a belt drive table. My P3 takes 0.3 seconds.
So you don't turn it off after initial switch off?

How doees this effect real speed stability - a real positive for most of the higher end DD's.

cheers
>>06-16-10: Downunder
Are Brinkman serious that it takes 12 seconds for the platter to reach 33.3 rpm's?
That is insane<<

Shane, perhaps but the Bardo's drive system is a bit different than your P3 so the comparison is apples to oranges. It's like comparing Bardo to my Technics SP-25 which comes to speed almost instantly.

I display the Brinkmann Oasis (model above Bardo) and it's start up time is similiar. It does take a bit of getting used to but in reality given that most album sides are 20+ minutes, 12 seconds is really a pittance. You become accustomed to it quickly and it's a small price to pay for superior performance IMO.

To address your "affect (sp) speed stability" question, the Brinkmann drive systems are incredibly accurate. The motor controllers and heavy platters ensure precise speed- far more accurate than most belt drives.

YMMV

Dealer disclosure
DU, Does it really matter whether you have to wait 12 whole seconds for start-up? I suspect the Brinkmann is a bit sluggish because slotless coreless motors are inherently lower in torque for a given physical size than conventional motors; plus the Brinkmann platter weighs a lot more than the P3 platter. (Possibly Brinkmann felt driven by the marketplace which demands huge thick platters on expensive turntables.) I don't think one could declare any single variant on the direct-drive principle to be the "best" based only on the differences in the approach. Anyway, I like the Bardo a lot on paper and in its price class. And I am glad someone is brave enough to make it.

Wjsmax, You are correct. There are two different motors for the L07D. The symmetrical coil type came later. Now I know why Kenwood made a change. My L07D has the early version motor, the one so shamelessly stolen from Dual. (There is a lot more to an L07D in terms of engineering than just its unusual motor.) But I thought somewhere before your most recent post you were critical of the assymetrical coil design in the Brinkmann, which is what prompted me to comment on the L07D.
Lew, for me, yes it would.

I use my two DD's and really appreciate the ultra quick start up/start down time. With the slow start up time and heavy platter, I gotta wonder how good it is in maintaining the continous bass control and speed stability that these older Japanese DD are known for.
Even with my TW, I switch it off every now and then as it is sometimes a pain clamping on and off with the platter spinning.

Dbjain

You own one of these nice tables, how have you found the slow start up speed in actual daily use ?

The slow start up time of the Bardo was technically intentional by the designer to combat cogging so it's rather unfair to criticize it for what it wants to do; it's a design feature. Here is the reason explained in their, again, white paper, if people bother to read it:

Studios (radio stations in particular) demand quick start-up times – turntables typically have to reach theircorrect speed within half a revolution. For LPs this means 0-33 1/3 rpm within 0.9 seconds. Such acceleration figures can only be achieved through use of high-torque motors and correspondingly tight coupling between the drive and platter. It isn’t a surprise then that for decades idler wheel drive designs were the de facto standard in studio applications.

But idler wheel turntables also had seriously high maintenance costs in order to be up and running 24/7 and to avoid rumble and other sound degrading issues caused by worn out idler wheels to affect the sound negatively. Thus out of necessity, in the late 1960s manufacturers of studio turntables began to look for low(er) cost maintenance alternatives. They came up with direct drive, whereby the platter was placed directly on the motor’s shaft, ie the stator was mounted around the bushing and the shaft was used as the rotor and voila, the goal was achieved; at least in theory.

But start-up times of less than 1 second necessitated high torque motors, which designers achieved by using motors with 32 and more poles. The penalty they paid were heavy cogging effects accompanied by high wow & flutter numbers. The cure was found in quartz locked motors and phase locked regulators; which corrected for any deviations from their preset with an iron fist.

On paper at least, these “corrected” direct drive turntables boasted hitherto unimaginable low wow & flutter numbers down to 0,001%. But the rigorous iron fist regulation prevented the platter from spinning smoothly; instead, the regulation caused the platter to oscillate continuously between speeding up and slowing down. These start/stop motions translated into an unpleasantly rough and hard sound; odd as wow & flutter numbers in the 0,001% range are deemed inaudible.

Once the direct drive technology had gained a foothold in pro audio applications, the benefits of mass production (ie. trickle down effect) made sure that very soon even $100 turntables were equipped with direct drive and advertised as having less than 0.01% wow & flutter. This is precisely where direct drive got its bad rap sheet.

Under closer scrutiny however, this assumption were based on some misunderstandings. For one, in home audio application use, turntables are not really required to reach 33 1/3 rpm in less than a second, thus 32 pole motors and phase locked regulators are not really necessary either.

I have a Kenwood KD-770D that has rather slow start up (approx. 6 seconds) and lower torque, in similar spirit to the Bardo, compare to my other direct-drive tables and it also has the smoothest silky sound and is speed stable that I really have no complaint. Direct-drive does not have to have fast start up but if you can't live without that feature then the Bardo is not a table for you. For me, I certainly appreciate Brinkmann taking on a different approach. I also like its simplicity and rugged construction.
_____