"Mosin had posted something about a new concept about the idler's assembly or something like that. Mosin ...?...If you read this, can you tell us more about it?" ...As1715
Well,
At the outset of this project around two years ago, I e-mailed Jean with a few bizarre ideas. Then, I made some changes, so I e-mailed him again to tell him that I would retain the "Soul of a Lenco" with enough left that an observer could tell what it was. That was a thousand changes ago. Now, it is finished to the point that I have made a trial run to check its operation. All that remains to be done is the finish, and that is driving me nuts. Only recently did I come to realize that a Steinway is worth every cent simply because piano black is extremely labor intensive. Once that is finished, the turntable will be completed.
That, and the final ingredient which is the idler assembly. I saw a jpeg of it from my friend, InDaGroove, last night. He is a wonderful machinist who made a Schroeder Reference clone that some of you may have seen over at Vinyl Asylum. Anyway, I presented him with an alternate design for the Lenco idler, but he had a better idea, so I scrapped mine. Instead, I went about refining his idea, and it will probably be finished in a day or two. All I will say now is that it is one of those obvious ideas of the "Why didn't I think of that?" variety. I must reluctantly give credit to him for it, but hey, I am supervisor of the project, right? ;) You'll see it soon. I promise that there has never been an idler like it on any make of turntable ever. Best of all, it will be noise free. It is different for sure, but it weighs approximately the same as the standard aluminum Lenco idler. ( The overall weight of the turntable is approximately fifty pounds.) InDaGroove didn't know what an idler turntable was until I explained the mechanism to him. It just goes to show that sometimes a pair of fresh eyes are good to have. I lucked out, and found the perfect pair.
The rest of the turntable does retain the Lenco's soul, but one cannot tell simply by looking at it. It is a single speed design that can be fine tuned, and the linkage has been radically changed, as has the one remaining control. The topplate is history, and VTA issues are a thing of the past, as are resonance issues associated with the top plate. Ringing of the platter has also been corrected. Only idler magic remains, and virtually everything that typically applies to past Lenco modding is not implemented. It is that radical. It does have a single whimsical touch because nothing should take itself that seriously, not even a Lenco.
Hopefully, you guys will see it in a few weeks, maybe in as few as two.
My next project is underway. It is a string driven Rek-O-Kut that employs the Papst Aussenlaufer motor. This three phase design will have precision OCXO control, and each phase of power will be regenerated by stereo channels. A frequency PCB will feed the amps which power the motor. Imagine three very small PS Audio Power Plants with variable speed control. It will be interesting to see how this one rates against the Lenco. Expansive design isn't the order of the day with it, aside from the power supply, so maybe we will be able to find out in a reasonable timeframe. Mark Kelly is designing the circuitry now, and early tests have been successful. |
Jean,
A GE flip-down uses what is necessary, too. What it lacks is innovation. zynax did a heavy table years ago, and others also employed direct coupling years ago. Rhetoric is one thing, but where do we go from here? Do we bother trying new ideas, or do we stay with the tried and true, but tired ones? Should we proceed with those areas that can stand significant improvement? I respectfully submit to you that we take the latter course with no holds barred because there is always room for innovation and improvement.
As an aside, I am so convinced of merit of my idler idea that I have applied for a patent on it.
mosin |
jlin,
I am really happy that you found that piece of the thread because 4yanx did come up with some wonderful ideas, and he needs to be recognized for them at the outset of this new thread. Anyone who wants to start a Lenco project would certainly be remiss if they didn't at the very least review what he has contributed to the Lenco's continuing advancement. Kudos to you!
mosin |
Dave,
That is certainly true. I suppose what we are saying is simply that we should use what has been learned to its maximum effect, and think outside the box, so that new ideas can be brought to light that will make the Lenco an even better turntable than we already know it can be. Whatever refinements can be made, should be made. I know that we all agree that innovation is key to progress. From what I see so far, the new thread seems to be going in that direction, and that's a good thing. The recap of the old one's history is nice, too.
mosin |
"Has anyone filled in the center-top of the platter aside from the mumetal mod?"
Yes, I have. In fact, I have very seriously modified the top of the platter with great success. It did require modifying the spindle itself, however.
-mosin |
Hello again,
Mine is Delrin plate, but my entire approach to the project was different in that I scrapped most of the Lenco, and designed in the potential to scrap all of it. My view is that the one superior feature of the Lenco is the fact that the idler wheel rides on the underside of the platter, rather than the rim. This opens a myriad of possibilities, including the replacement of the entire platter itself. Also, Lenco's implementation takes stress off the bearing assembly, and opens it to endless possibilities, as well. That one feature is worth the price of admission. The stock motor, etc., are ancillary, and trivial by comparison.
It is the fundamental idea of how the idler engages the platter that makes the Lenco different. In many other respects, it is inferior to some others, but they don't measure up when it comes to the engagement idea. What a point of departure it is for one who is willing to swim in uncharted waters!
-mosin |
Gentlemen,
Andre Hanekom put a Garrard 301 inside a radically custom plinth fifteen years ago, and many people in the Far East have been making "monster plinths" for decades. The idea is not at all a new one, nor is direct coupling, etc. What is new is the proliferation of idler project photos on the Internet from various sources. Most of the ones that would entice a manufacturer to consider an idler option to his current lineup are those expensive Garrards exhibited by those who consider cost not to be an object. While it is true that Lenco building was partly responsible for idler interest, Lenco builders cannot lay claim to the current state of affairs regarding decisions made by manufacturers, in spite of all the hype and hoopla propagated about the Lenco's merits by certain individuals. Dropping an old turntable inside a huge block of wood sounds like a great idea, but it is not the panacea some would have you believe. It would be nice if turntable design was that easy, but that simply isn't the case.
Regards, |
Jean,
Ever since I sent you an e-mail a couple of years ago that mentioned the use of direct coupling in my DIY project, you just keep using the phrase. Is that a soundbite, or what? The idea is old as the hills, and gunmakers have used it in reference to stock bedding for an eternity, yet you lay claim to it by beating the words into the ground. Most every turntable out there is direct coupled. The Rek-O-Kut is by default, so it isn't some recent discovery among turntable manufacturers, either. Why don't you consider giving it a rest?
Regards, |
"Funny, I’ve been through “Da” original “Thread” twice now, and I could find no place where you claimed to be the originator or inventor of any scientific principles as applied to the Lenco build. Certainly, there was a justifiable pride in application and development, but how that transforms in other minds as self-promotion is a mystery to me."
Mario B.
"When I started the original thread, I wanted the design as simple as it could be in order to gather fellow experimenters, and in the process discovered myself that it was not necessary to remove the motor. In fact, I discovered mass and Direct Coupling (the two go together) make a FAR larger difference to the sound, and make such acrobatics as split plinths moot (as the annihilation of the low-mass two-tier Cain & Cain plinth by my single high-mass plinth makes clear). In addition, the least difference in the geometry of the motor relative to the workings will be detrimental to the sound. Nevertheless, until I started the original thread, I had listened to my two-tier Lenco for close on 12 years. Of course, everyone is free to design as they wish, it's your baby, and the Lenco will not disappoint, as its essential ingredients will remain, all tied to its amazing speed stability (which, however, improves by Direct Coupling to a high mass)."
J. Nantais
The above is not from the original thread, but this thread. The timeline for construction techniques was changed, so that the originator of those techniques would appear to be Nantais. Those were not his discoveries, yet he lays claim to any technique posted by others.
|
|
"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."
Gentlemen,
Whoever said that was certainly right, and it begs the question, why? Why adapt a motor that cost the better part of $2000 on a turntable that is essentially a stamping with a platter that is not particularly friendly to the idea of that particular motor? Add to that a 10mm spindle with a reasonably unsophisticated bearing arrangement, and the commonplace practice of removing a corner, so that a decent tonearm will fit. Then, consider the holes left by unnecessary linkage that one would want to remove after the motor modification. Somehow, fitting the Verus seems like a exercise in futility to me, not because the motor doesn't have merit, but more because the candidate for the transplant just isn't the best choice. Suddenly, you have a different turntable that has no remnant of a Lenco signature, and you have spent more than $2000 for a result that lacks sophistication in many ways. All this talk of severe change is not to say that the Lenco cannot be made into a very fine sounding turntable because it has been many times, but making a drive concept change would require a total re-think of the design, even more than it did with the black turntable that I built. That turntable started as a Lenco, but few people consider it to be one anymore because it contains few original parts, and even those have been radically modified. This is no different in that regard, except mine does retain the "soul" of a Lenco which is why I linked it to this thread. It is a true idler, and its wheel is employed in the same fashion as a Lenco.
Mine was a case where one thing lead to another, but this proposal departs from that due to the fact that one knows going in that such changes are necessary to achieve the desired results. Speaking of desired results, what are they? It seems to me that adding a Verus would change the signature of the Lenco to the point that it no longer exists, so why not choose a better match at the outset? That logical choice would be to buy a Teres turntable, wouldn't it? You would have a more friendly bearing arrangement, and no unnecessary components to plan around. The same goes for doing it with a Garrard, or any other existing idler, doesn't it? Then again, what signature sound are you looking for, and are you married to any particular brand, or even still, are you married to any particular drive concept? I submit that if you are not, we are posting in the wrong thread.
I suppose it all comes down to the issue of the signature of a turntable based on the model, and whether you want an idler driven turntable, or something altogether different.
...just food for thought
-mosin |
"But while we have you here Mosin, what would do (have you done) to redesign the Lenco bearing while keeping the original spindle and platter sleeve?"
Mario,
Although I did modify the bearing and spindle in the first turntable, I would not do it again. Rather, I would scrap them entirely (which I have done in this second turntable). In the first, I potted the bearing housing with an epoxy to prevent seepage of lubricant (making it quieter overall in the process), and I placed a hard stainless thrust pad over the existing one. Also, I replaced the steel ball with one of equal size, but made from silicon nitride. Next, I extended the length of the spindle, so I could layer the stock platter with a non-compliant Delrin top. Detail was increased an incredible amount. These modifications, however, changed the signature of the turntable measurably, and that goes to the crux of the entire issue because although I have a much better sounding turntable, is it a Lenco? The votes aren't in on that, yet.
Regards,
Win
.
|
"Well, I have the water jet. All I am missing is the CNC and $300,000 to prove you wrong. LOL"
I figured I had better put that in my post just to cover myself. ;) |
"the whole issue of torque vs inertia" ...is an interesting topic in itself.
I thought about inertia and mass with respect to the idler turntable for a very long time. It doesn't require a motor which has more torque, so traditional ones will be able to accomplish the task. To do it does require a new platter, however. There is a way to do it that has never been built in an idler design before, but it requires a new look at the idler altogether because previous designs were not configured in a way that made it feasible.
That said, I am very near the end of a project that attempts to accomplish the goal of added inertia without associated noise while maintaining the traditional idler concept. It is different, but I really believe that I may have pulled it off. We'll see soon.
Regards,
mosin |
"Mosin, that's a teaser and no mistake! :) Backstage Pass has a successor?"
Colin,
Indeed it does. This is my most ambitious project ever, and I hope it works as expected. I tried my very best to break new ground on this one, and the big question is whether the ground is firm enough to stand on. I believe it is, but I will know for certain when the needle hits the groove, won't I? In any event, this is a fun hobby because we not only enjoy ourselves, but we learn things. I have learned a lot with this one.
I'll share what I found out with you guys in a month or so, but the turntable is a study in mass, inertia, isolation, friction, materials, speed control, assembly technique and a couple of other areas. Some of it may prove useful to you guys.
Regards,
mosin |
"Hxt1, No need to apologize here for what you may have written on the LL forum. The tete a tete between the Welsh and Pennsylvania slate deck makers on the Vinyl Asylum was pretty hostile and revealed two fairly closed minds. I am sure you slate-ers can all just get along."
The problem between this pair of slate providers, as I see it, is that one of them accuses the other of selling inferior slate which I assure you is untrue. He even goes so far as to feature a photograph that he borrowed from a roofing seller's website to supposedly demonstrate the inferior nature of his competitor's product. The truth is that the photograph is unfounded for a variety of reasons. For one, its origin is unknown, and if it is indeed of a Pennsylvania slate roof, its age cannot be established. In any event, it is not evidence because it may be from a Tri-State area where acid rain took a particularly harsh toll, and the fact is that there are scores of roofs in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York that have survived over one hundred years, not to mention neighborhood sidewalks which would be a more fair comparison. But then, we aren't building roofs or sidewalks, are we? No, we are making turntables which see only indoor use, so the entire point is moot. What we are left with is the sonic quality of various types of slate, and no one has ever demonstrated a difference one way or the other. One would probably be safe in presuming the heavier plinth to be more effective, and perhaps the one of softer stone. Why would the softer variety be better? Well, if you consider slate as a constrained layer material, which it is, then resonances would travel through those layers slower and more diffused than in the harder variety, but probably not enough to make a difference. In the end, it may come down to sheer mass and design. So why is either so expensive? That may be a simple economic reason. Water jet time is very expensive (that is how those plinths are cut), some samples of slate crack and are wasted, and some sellers pay extra for selected clear grained slate. It's a case where one should carefully scrutinize the product, and go with his best judgment, in my opinion.
Regards,
mosin |
Hello again,
"Is slate better then combo of MDF, ply baltic birch ???"
There is absolutely no contest. Slate has properties none of those materials can match. Wood can be used to make a very nice plinth material, but slate has it beat.
"What I do know is that making plinth for Lenco or any other turntable from slate can and probably is pain in the A$$ to execute successfully and effectively."
True, but worth the trouble.
Using slate is a simple case of careful planning, and proficiency with tools. It is definitely not a material for those who do "get by" work, however. Still, I believe it can be handled by most who possess rudimentary skills, and have a few decent tools at their disposal. A $300,000 water jet CNC and a crew to run it does help. ;)
mosin
|
Lew,
To give a bit of background, I'll take you back several years. My first e-mail to Jean expressed an interest in building a turntable from cement or machine grout. I abandoned that project shortly after, but the idea always stuck in my mind. Later, when slate hit the scene, I remembered the idea, and looked for similarities. There were many, and working with slate appeared at first glance to be easier. Shortly after that, I started my current project which makes heavy use of slate.
What I have learned, so far:
1) If you combine plinth materials, (I haven't) be sure to study which one should go where. I say this because slate is astonishingly effective, and it should be used in those areas that generate the most noise and vibration.
2) Building with slate isn't an easy road to travel. If your project is complex, there are so many issues to be aware of that it boggles the mind. Is it flat enough? What glue should be used? The list goes on. Also, using slate is a lot harder and slower to work than wood or acrylic. Still, it can be done with normal tools, unless you require extremely precise cutouts in your design.
3) Most mistakes are expensive ones. A small error can quickly take you past the point of no return, so be very methodical in your approach.
4) Slate is the most effective constrained layer material that I have ever used. I mounted a motor directly on the surface, and could not hear it with a Litman pediatric stethoscope from less than a centimeter away. It is very impressive in that regard, but not dead like lead.
5) Soft slate works great. If you happen to lightly chip it, it is easier to fix than some harder material.
6) It's pretty, too. ;)
Regards,
mosin |
"Oh Lew, I believe Jean's use of use of acrylic is not aboard any of his plinths, but is used in conjunction with marble as an "underfoot" base."
Guys,
My last turntable used acrylic over wood, and it is quite effective.
mosin |
"There are all sorts of problems with slate - marriage of surfaces - "
True, but it is possible, as you will soon see for yourselves.
"Lenco-to-slate (regardless of the CLD nature of slate, it is still stone and so hard, which means metal slapping against stone as no surface is perfect) and slate-to-plinth - the inability to Direct Couple"
Again, possible...just a different discipline, but not as different as one might imagine. However, it doesn't nail easily. ;)
"The traditional recipe, i.e. wood, still represents the best real-world solution."
Wood is probably the easy way. Still, there are merits to slate that wood cannot begin to imitate. Think of slate as the ultimate constrained layer because it is that. It isn't a project DIY material for the faint hearted or rank beginners, though. It has the curious property of becoming an advanced project which requires extensive planning.
. |
Lew,
A few points... First, the cost is inline due to the reasons I stated earlier. Second, the meaning of "well coupled to the platter bearing" is different from what everyone has come to accept. The reason is because the constrained layer nature of slate is so efficient that sounds actually change when they travel through it. They don't go far with thick slate, so the coupling becames sheerly a mechanical one. If the mount won't allow the tonearm to become misaligned, it has done its job because there are none of the resonance coupling issues that exist with wood and other materials. It really is that different. That said, Weiss will make one however you like because slate can be cut in virtually any way you can imagine...for a price. I don't know about the other guy, though.
mosin |
Harv,
If you use the Dutch aftermarket plinth, why couldn't you just glue it down with a thin layer of J-B Weld or other good epoxy? It is flat, and I believe that the interface would be adequate to maintain all the sonic qualities without detriment. By the way, I have glued metal to slate and it bonds very well.
mosin |
Mario,
Talking about outside the box ideas is my forte. Thanks for reminding me about how the thread started, though. Bear in mind that we are talking about DIY things, so I see the discussion of slate to be appropriate, and just because someone embarks upon an expansive project doesn't mean that nothing is to be discovered by those who are not so inclined. Nothing is created from a vacuum; things all start someplace, and sometimes that someplace is an esoteric one. You can do almost anything on the cheap, if you set your mind to it.
That said...
I'll take it line by line.
"The issue is not whether or not slate has internal resonances, but whether or not slate can draw away and kill noise from the 'table as effectively as a wooden plinth, and even if so, without recourse to extremely expensive/time-consuming procedures."
I placed a Litman pediatric stethoscope directly on slate within one centimeter of a mounted motor, and heard no noise. Try that with wood.
"Slate may have no internal resonances (I'll find out), but it is the metal of the top-plate - regular or Reinderspeter - vibrating against the slate, a hard surface - which will cause noise/resonances in the metal itself, without being drawn away, to cause problems."
Everything in the physical world has resonances of some sort. Whether one would hear noise from a top plate would depend entirely upon the construction techniques used, or lack thereof. Wood is much more problematic in that regard, as many know.
"There are no perfect surfaces. Imagine metal hitting wood: you get a dull thud. Imagine metal hitting stone: it sets up a high-frequency ringing."
How is relevant in any context applicable to turntable construction? It isn't. "Direct Coupling" should handle that hurdle, right? LOL
"Which is why I referred earlier to the ceramic ball phenomenon: an extremely hard material (harder than metal), which seemed like a good idea, but which in the end fabricated the illusion of increased detail rather than its reality (the metal-to-ceramic created a disparate-material barrier which filtered out the bass frequencies in order to unnaturally highlight midrange and high frequencies)."
This is totally application dependent, and apples and oranges when used in a discussion about slate. There is no correlation at all. Further, it simply is not true. What it may do is emphasize the inadequacies of a given platter, or other component, or not. More likely is that the surfaces are incompatible due to lack of research of the builder. Ceramics are designed to run on certain surfaces, but not all. Google is your friend on this point.
mosin |
"The reveal at last.
No response needed.
You're your own undoing in this one, Mosin."
Actually, I believe not. I fail to see why some people blindly follow something they see on the Internet without even vaguely considering the possibility that it might be wrong. The fact is that many people are capable of thinking for themselves, and they use the Internet as a point of departure when it comes to such endeavors as building turntables. Those people are open to possibilities, and their work shows it. Others merely copycat something they have seen. Our hobby is filled with both types. Fortunately, the earnest ones prevail, and some of them are very creative. We advance audio by taking new directions inspite of those who would keep us stagnant. Innovation is the key to advancement, not the status quo.
I submit that we carefully consider everything we read.
mosin |
Thanks Dave,
I already have. I was just making an observation that many have made before. That's all.
mosin |
Willbewill,
I agree with you. There are lots of ways to accomplish what we are trying to do. Let's say you have found a perfectly neutral material, assuming you can define neutral. If neutral means that the material imparts no sound of its own, then you need mechanical components that will stand up to very close scrutiny because every audible flaw will surface. That takes you to a higher plane which is to replace flawed components with corrected ones. If you don't, then you need a plinth that imparts some color, so that subtle inconsistencies in the components will be masked, so the final sound is pleasing. It's a catch-22, at best.
I am reminded of what a well-known industry insider once told me. "...there are almost no true professionals in home audio, regardless of the stature, size of their businesses, or supposed qualifications..." So, we learn what we can, and go from there.
Regards,
mosin
. |
.
Jean,
I have sworn off the thread, but please don't take too much credit for anything I have done, or am doing. You did not start me on my journey of turntable building. I have explored many avenues, including string drives, etc., and yes, the Lenco avenue. What turntable maker wouldn't look into the past to see what came before? Fresh designs shouldn't emulate the past, however, because doing that would be the antithesis of fresh. Still, nothing new is created in a vacuum. In the e-mail I sent you, I merely pointed out that my turntable is in no way related to a Lenco, aside from being an idler, because in the end, I chose an entirely different path. That e-mail was necessary only to correct a misconception that can be read into certain posts here, and that is all. The Lenco wasn't even the first idler that I explored, nor was it the last. It is true that certain aspects of the Lenco interest me, but there is no panacea offered by it, as far as I am concerned. In any event, I cannot see how that would offend you, or seem "crowing", as you say. In fact, you should be thrilled, so please don't make future references to me at all. It is appropriate, as we are obviously on different planes when it comes to turntable design.
Unless my name is mentioned again, I will post no more. I have other things to occupy my time.
Regards,
Win
_______ |
I was asked on another forum to make a comparison between a commonly found commercial turntable and a Lenco tweaked by a marketeer, or a DIY Lenco. My response was that a turntable built by an enthusiast always trumps one built by a marketeer who only considers price points and profit margins. Everyone here knows that Jean and I have been at odds many times, but at the end of the day, I believe we are both about the music. That said, a lot of people in the audio business are not. Jean is, and I'm happy he he has found a reviewer who agrees. It's always nice when you are recognized by those who share your vision.
Win |
Glen,
Any differences between Jean and I can be found by reading this thread.
As far as my pricing goes, consider my costs. I don't redo an existing turntable. Rather, it is a new design that uses a lot of exotic materials, involves a lot of time to make, requires travel and the help of specialized vendors. It's expensive, but I make no apologies because I'm trying to break new ground. Hopefully, something will come of it that will apply to more affordable turntables. Meanwhile, I continue down this path...seven years and counting.
Just so you know, I haven't made any money. Still, it's a passion. |
09-06-06: Fishwinker
I've got the speed sorted now (thanks 4yanx) - I'd connected the speed lever control to the idler control arm at a very different point on the slide plate to that which it had originally been fixed. Obvious really - feel rather foolish now!
Still can't get rid of the vibration (it's not a bent cone/rotor as far as I can see), but it seems to have reduced slightly over the last couple of days. Maybe it'll bed itself in and sort itself out, but I'm not sure. Hi Fishwinker, What is vibrating? The motor, or the idler itself? -mosin |
"It would seem that expansiveness on the DIY level also would lend to a give-and-take sharing of information. Instead we have two posts from you which “take on” Jean "line by line" as you say."
Actually, there are more than two posts. What I find offensive isn't so much the lack of fine detail by some posters, like me, but wrong details given by some in an empirical way. I have tried to provide some useful information, but I admit that I do not share every step of what I do with everyone. Of course, the more astute reader picks up on the erroneous, too. I simply point it out. We are told a lot by one who sells "wooden" plinths for a grand a pop, and we are to believe there is no agenda that dismisses other options? Is that fair?
"The palpable tenor of which is clearly not to share and gain, but to imperiously “red pencil” someone who you’re out for."
1. domineering in a haughty manner; dictatorial; overbearing: an imperious manner; an imperious person.
2. urgent; imperative: imperious need.
Which meaning? I am only pointing out mistakes when I see them, and I am gunning for no one, so I select the second meaning because I hate to see the new DIY'er waste effort going down a path when he could have more for the same time spent, and I am happy to help anyone in any way that I can.
"How long are you going to carry this Mosin?"
I will be finished when the air becomes clear of misinformation.
"Is it worth the load?"
Indeed, it is.
mosin |
