Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot II

It's nearly Christmas all, so Merry Christmas in case I go missing again!! Up here it's constant snowstorms and sub-zero tempertaures, the snowbanks are piling high. Slow internet and intermittent access means I post less. Though my workshop is out here I'm currently almost devoid of a soundroom, so Lenco-inspired rants have slowed down considerably as well.

Mario, that is one beautiful creation, as always!!! I've just picked one of my own Reinderspeter top-plates from being professionally coated (in cream) so I can soon report on it's own benefits vs my own Reference Lenco. Just so those watching don't get the wrong idea: it's not that the Lenco NEEDS extensive modification in order to become perhaps the top-performing LP-spinner on the planet, all it needs is restoration and adjustment, and Direct Coupling to a neutral high mass. Pouring marine-grade glass-epoxy into the hollows of the top-plate go a LONG way to eliminating the weakness of the top-plate along with, of course, the Direct Coupling itself. Of course, Reinderspeter's top-plate eliminates any of the tricks, while making Direct Coupling more complete. Anyway, had the review happened, I had built an "original" Lenco with no modifications other than restotration and the Giant plinth in order to make the point of how truly Mighty the original Lenco is!! There will be other opportunities.

To reiterate the Lenco's inherent Mightiness ;-), my exposure to the Giant Lenco vs the 11,000-euro EMT 930 - and that of the two EMT 930 owners - was shock and surpise, as the EMT sounded like the original Master Tape, and the two fellows who own the EMT in fact make master tapes of professional musicians as a hobby!! I gulped a Mighty Gulp, but using the RS-A1 on both 'tables to ensure a level playing field, the Lenco comfortably outperformed the EMT, which itself would likely embarrass every belt-drive and DD on the planet (the EMT idler-wheel drives are considered superior to the DDs). As well, no belt-drive yet has even come close to the Lenco's performance, and the Giant Direct Coupled Garrard 301 (oil bearing) itself utterly embarrassed a Massive Plattered PLatine Verdier (and the Garrard was plunked down on no platform and into an inferior phono stage with inferior cartridge, effectively with one hand tied behind its back), which was subsequently sold. In turn, the Garrards do NOT outperform the Lencos, though they can be brought up to Lenco levels by Direct Coupling to a high mass, and careful and painstaking restoration and readjustment.

The issue is TORQUE, and as with mass, it seems almost that there is no such thing as too much torque in order to deal with the VERY serious problem of stylus force drag, the braking action caused by the friction of the stylus in the groove. A European motored Lenco has a dead-silent/vibationless motor when used in NA, and seems from this point of view superior to the NA motors. But though they are dead silent, one can hear a loss of energy: of SLAM, of transient speed, impact and definition, and so on. Audiophile judgments are often not to be trusted, as they will constantly and year after year throw the baby (i.e. PRaT, SLAM, jusicality, musical excitement, etc.) out with the bathwater (noise), which explains the large number of muiscally-uninvolving electronics, speakers, and sources. They then declare that PRaT is an illusion, in order to avoid facing the musical consequences, and end up in a never-ending change of equipment. The secret to preserving the TORQUE and eliminating noise is simple: Direct Couple it to a high neutral mass. This improves the speed stability vastly, so that any cogging effects are eliminated and, more importantly, the motor ceases to actually move the 'table around and so muddy the speed stability by relative motion. Once done, the Lenco does not need a whole host of items replaced and immproved on in order to make it the Best on the Planet. But, of course, it can be even further improved by those who want to improve things ever further.

Does the Lenco even have a sound? I've pondered this often: it has state of the art detail retrieval, imaging, transient speed and definition, bass, highs, in fact, EVERYTHING. If it does have a sound it's that mesmerizing and POWERFUL liquid flow of the Amazon in Full Flood: unstoppable underground POWER on tap, lying behind the music, always there in reserve, while the perfect timing and transients, and astounding SLAM allied to delicacy and fluidity continue unabated. Is this a colouration? Perhaps, or perhaps this IS the true sound of music. Either way, it's very hard to stop listening and being astounded by a Giant Direct Coupled Lenco.

Moving on to the Sony 2250, I compared my Oracle Delphi MKIV, equipped with a SME V/Dynavector XX-1, to the Sony equipped with a Morch UP-4/Ortofon Jubilee, so the stack was, according to economics and reputation, stacked in favour of the Delphi. In the event, the Sony utterly outclassed the Oracle (which has just been returned from the factory), in every conceivable way. Not only that, but using a Monster power conditioner, the Sony's bass improved along with detail and a sense of fluidity. It even has great musicality and PRaT. So the Sony is a Contender in the True High End 'Table sweepstakes, provided, as always, it is Direct Coupled to a high mass. Fun to use too due to those great pinao-key controls. But, using the RS-A1/Denon combo, it is clearly inferior to the Lenco in equivalent plinth, though there will be further tests.

Anyway, have fun all, time to get back to work, and start shovelling!!

A Happy New Year to you all from Canada!! I have recently had some very interesting experiences with regards to both DDs and Idlers, and the effects and importance of Direct Coupling, having had the opportunity to compare the servo-controlled Sony 2250 - which according to common wisdom is an OK DD until one gets to the serious/classic Technics SP10 MKII (which is to DDs as the Garrards are to idlers according to the common wisdom) - and the Technics SP-10 MKII. Results have a bearing as well on the Lencos and their motors.

Both DDs were set up on plinths of equivalent mass and construction. While the Sony can be Direct Coupled, having, like the Garrard 301s, holes for bolts to pass through, the Technics SP-10 MKII sports integral bolts which must be tightened to the plinth from underneath. Construction of the Technics, as well, means that unlike the Lencos holes cannot be drilled through the bottom to achieve Direct Coupling.

The Sony is servo-controlled, which according to the accepted understanding (i.e. press and industry promoted this view to the point where it was accepted wisdom; same process as led to the hegemony of the Belt-Drive) is inferior to quartz-locking, as servo-control leads to endless hunt-and-seek as it endlessly responds to speed variations caused by stylus force drag, thus seriously affecting overall speed stability. Quartz-locking provides an independent reference (the regular pulsing of the quartz crystal), not responding to speed variations brought on by stylus force drag (interesting that while both idlers and DDs were built to combat stylus force drag, belt-drive was not until much later in its history, or via a very few Japanese manufacturers and Thorens with their massive models, via the use of massive platters), and so was deemed and pronounced the superior system. As with belt-drives, I had accepted this as true as well, though I had accepted the superiority of the belt and so never investigated this further until after I had discovered the Idlers.

After I had already been seduced by the Idlers and started the original Home Despot thread, I investigated the DD system via Technics' SP10 MKII, as the only "threat" to the Idler, the Technics being pretty well THE DD to have (as with the Garrards for the idlers). I built one into a truly massive Giant plinth, and found that despite great neutrality, information-retrieval and bass detail, reach and control, it could not match the Lenco for fluidity, PRaT or musicality, while not being able to beat it in the aforementioned audiophile areas. And this was in the days before Giant plinths and Direct Coupling (which yield HUGELY better results). The Technics also had a characteristic "dry" sound which is reminiscent of digital artefacts. While these experiments were going on, I tripped over as Technics SL-1100, Technics' first DD (in fact, the first DD ever built and marketed I believe), and servo-controlled. It came with a removable armboard as standard, mounted with a Grace 707. Now, by this time I had pretty well dismissed DD as dry and unmusical overall (compared with both Idlers AND Belt-Drives), so imagine my suprise when I plugged it in and found it to be both fluid and musical!! When, eventually, a Sony 2250 motor unit ('table/chassis same as the Garrards designed to be built into a plinth with separate tonearm) came my way, a servo-controlled unit, I jumped on it to test it out, as I had come to the conclusion that quartz-locking was the problem, which was audible to human ears via a sort of sampling ratio (the quartz pulsing), resulting in both dryness and a constriction/reduction of the dynamics.

The Sony 2250 has going for it heavy and superb construction, ESPECIALLY the main bearing which is superior to the Technics. But its platter is lighter than that on the Technics, it has less torque than the Tehnics, and its construction, while excellent, is not as heavy as the Technics. The Technics, in addition to this, has a large and hefty separate power supply/quartz-locking reference. It would seem on the surface of it to be the superior machine, even by idler standards (i.e. more torque). To even the playing field, I plugged the Sony into a Monster power conditioner. I was shocked to hear by just how much the Direct Coupled Sony 2250 outclassed the Technics when I switched the handy-dandy RS-A1/Denon DL-103"E" combo from one to the next, playing the same source material. I had thought that due to the Technics' various advantages, it would outclass the Sony in strict audiophile terms (detail, imaging, etc.) while the Sony would take it for fluidity, PRat and musicality. But switching the tonearm fror one to the next was, first of all, like doubling the volume control on the preamp, dynamics were HUGELY superior to the Technics! In addition to this, bass was deeper on the Sony, detail was VASTLY superior, as was clarity and transient speed. On first audition, using an "a capella" tune, the Technics seemed to be telling the truth. But switching to songs with instruments, the truth of the Sony's superiority became evident. The digital/"neutral" sound of the Technics, as with digital media, was mistaken for truth. But music should be first and foremost musical, and this type of neutrality (flatness/lack of colour) is in fact a severe colouration. Some, however, are seduced by this sort of bogus "truth". Music is NOT cold and analytical, as so many audiophiles seem to believe it should be but, in its natural state, musical and rivetting.

Finally, I mounted the RS-A1/Denon combo on the Giant Direct Coupled Lenco, and the gap between it and the Sony was as significant as the gap between the Sony and the Technics. But, the Sony has PRaT, musicality, fluidity and extreme detail (just not as extreme as the Lenco) and, given a better power filter (a frequency regenerator which does not rely on quartz-locking, if such a beast exists) and a better platter (you can't mess around with platter mass with DDs, as the mass of the platter is carefully calculated into the drive due to the extreme slow revolution of the motor, 33 1/3 RPM at 33 1/3, and 45 RPM at 45). The solution for the Sony is then, the Boston Audio Mat 1, which being made of graphite should not weigh much, but add much-needed solidity to the platter. Who knows how good the Sony would then be? I hope to answer this question eventually. But I will say this: in standard trim but with a power supply/filter/regenrator, I will challenge all Technics SP-10 MKII and EMT DD owners, as I did the Lenco vs belt-drives, and go around crushing these fabled machines, and lay to rest another suspect Dogma :-). I throw down the gauntlet ;-)!! I have every confidence that a Giant Direct Coupled Sony 2250 will outperform an EMT DD. Hopefully chances for these shootouts will materialize.

So what happened with the rise of quartz-locking in the case of the DD? Well, precisely the same process as occured with the rise of the Belt-Drive vs the Idler, a program of misinformation and the acceptance of the judgment of "experts" by the general population, in contradiction to their actual auditory experience. As with the idler which had superior PRaT, gestalt, dynamics and overall musicality to that achievable by belt-drives, the press and industry simply declared all these sonic/musical attributes as subjective and thus illusory, and so removed them as issues. In addition, the rising Belt-Drive Hegemony saw the DD as a threat (to profits as well as belt-drives are MUCH cheaper to manufacture), and came up with the criticism of the servo-control system in order to nip it in the bud. The industry (Technics) responded with the quartz-locking system, which with the appropriate measurement system yielded very impressive measurements indeed, and damn all that subjective stuff. It became the standard, and the opposition of the belt-drivers (fluidity/musicality) vs the DD-ers (analytical/"truth"/control) was born, the Idler for the moment releagted to a simple footnote in history.

One more lesson to be learned: though the Technics has far more torque than the Sony, the Sony STILL beat it by a very significant margin, meaning that torque only takes you so far. Of course, the Tehnics' torque is contantly reined in and so defeated by its own quartz-locking mechanism, and the Sony's ability to be Direct Coupled makes more effective use of what torque the Sony does have (i.e,. Direct Coupling to a high mass goes a LONG way to stabilizing whatever motor system is used). Extrapolating with respect to the Lenco's own Mighty sonic results, we see that the Lenco motor is FAR better than it is generally considered to be, as its fluidity and audiophile performance is still vastly superior to that of even the Sony (so far), while having considerably more torque.

Digesting all these results, the most effective DD should in fact resort to no cuircuitry/correction whatsoever, apart from clean electric power, and rely instead, as with the Idlers/Lenco, on pure mommentum/mass of the platter to even out the motor's imperfections (a delicate balancing act) in order to achieve perfect - i.e. FLUID - speed stability. THIS machine (torque and build of a Technics SP-10 MKII and main bearing of a Sony) might challenge the Mighty Idlers!!

Recently I Direct Coupled a quartz0locked Technics SP-25 (it can be Direct Coupled, but has a lighter platter and less torque and lighter construction) to a high-mass plinth and achieved far more musical results than from the bolted but heavier SP-10 MKII, so soon I will compare the two to see how much Direct Coupling increases overall musicality.

For the moment anyway, the Idler is at the Top of the Analogue Heap, Vive la Idler, Viive la Lenco!! Enjoy your respective projects/experiments all!!

Hi Jean and Happy New Year to you!
Interesting that your DD dabbling mirrored some of my own recently, albeit that mine was an example much lower in the ocean strata – but certainly no bottom feeder to my ears – the Pioneer PL-518 (1977). This semi-auto (auto-return) is servo-controlled (18 pole/24 slot) and comes in at a bit over 20 lbs. – no small part of that heft coming from 2” of a solid particleboard plinth into which there is a high degree of direct coupling (sub-platter, armboard etc.). The sprung suspension is designed into the footing and can easily be changed out for solid footing to a marble + rubber/cork/rubber isolators type of sub-plinth arrangement if desired.
After picking this TT up at our municipal Re-Use center for $10, I was able to free up the linkage very quickly, but could only overcome the nascent EMI hum coming off both motor and neon strobe light by incorporating the Astatic MF-200 flux cartridge that Grant steered me towards.
The Pioneer was part of holiday audio “makeover” for a family member that wanted to “get into vinyl” (not everyone can get a Lenco – especially starting out). A pair of large Advents that I refoamed and competent little Technics receiver rounded out the package. But by far, the unexpected little gem of this roped together ensemble was that Pioneer DD which was quite musical and delivered some thumping bass.
Seems I followed up on your qualified DD recommendation telepathically, and as in so many times before heartily agree with your appraisal and reasoning.
By the way, many thanks for the compliment on my Interstate Lenco build.

All best,
Mario

Jean, What about the Denon DP80 and the earlier DP6000? One can defeat their speed correction mechanism easily and try them both ways. Plus I think they compete with any that you mentioned as regards quality of construction and thoughtful design. (The DP80 has the DP100 type split platter to isolate platter from motor.) But would any of these tables run at anywhere near a stable and correct speed without the correction systems they employ? I dunno but don't think so.

Jean - I have been itching to ask a question regarding tonearms.

As I still sometimes read the old thread (dull afternoons at work) your raves about certain older tonearms remain fresh in my mind.

Now that you have the Dynavector and the RS-A1 to sport your Denon, are you still using the likes of the MAS, 1005II, Mayware, etc.? What about MM in general?

Nervous in high compliance-ville,

Mike