Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

I have no doubt that Lewm is right regarding the vintage Technics and Denons. But the Victors may present a different proposition since there weren't as many made and it's unclear, to me at least, that subsequent JVC/Victor tables can be cannibalized for parts in the way that the later Technics can. Either way, buying a DD presents a risk that buying an idler doesn't: the latter's parts can be machined brand new should the need arise. Having said that, Thalmann is THE MAN and I'd have faith that he can fix what ails any DD turntable.

But perhaps we shouldn't let Mr. Cheuk in on it since he'd likely raise his prices on these stellar pieces. :)

Couldn't't sleep last night Hal? :)

Heh heh :^)

Wow, looks like an electronic pizza with the works....:-)

A good description Rockitman!
Thanks for all the responses.
Lew.....does the SP10MkIII look as complex inside as the TT-101?
What occurred to me is that all that electronic complexity is probably a late 70s attempt at a 'computer'?
Today, it all could be accomplished by one tiny chip? That's probably how the new DD NVS turntable does it?
Why wouldn't other manufacturers revert to computer controlled DD I wonder? Kinda like emulating the success of the great Japanese ones of the past?

Hi Halcro. The bottom cover on the JVC is rather flimsy. I owned QL7 and QL-A7 before so I know they are not very rigid. I noticed you placed 3 footers right below that bottom cover. I know you like the nude style and no-plinth approach. Would it be better to have maybe some cylindrical footers, literally almost foot long, that support the chassis where the motor is directly mounted on? This way it can still qualified as "nude" and you eliminate that wobbly sheet metal and adds rigidity. Might be worth a try. I sold all my QL-7s so I can't experiment anymore. But I would like to know what you think.

I am a JVC fan but I came to the conclusion that I only like the ones that use coreless motor and QL-7 and QL-8 use core motor but the 101 is coreless and it's their top of the line and I am salivating here.... I would love to hear it compare to, say, a Kenwood L-07D, another coreless masterpiece.

Have fun!

_____

Yes you are !

You're right Hiho about the flimsy bottom cover to both the TT-81 and TT-101 and when I tried to support the TT on the three spikes positioned inboard of the edges.......the table was able to be rocked by grabbing the outer edges and twisting.
However when I moved the cones so that their centerlines coincided with the centreline of the vertical edge of the cover (in other words.....the cones half protruded from the bottom edge)......I could induce no movement whatsoever. No wracking, no twisting......utter stability :^)
I think both you and Lew are correct about the advantages of core-less motors which both the TT-81 and TT-101 share.
The interesting thing was that the 81 and 101 share everything in terms of construction, motor, platter etc and the only ostensible difference is in speed detection and correction with the TT-101 having double bi-directional monitoring and correction.
When I slid the 101 into the same place as the 81..... The difference in sound was astonishing?
If you click my 'Systems' page you can read a treatise I posted there by Peter Moncreif who maintains that accurate instantaneous speed control is the fundamental role of the TT.
So it would be interesting to know what the speed detection and correction abilities of the Kenwood and the SP10 are? Perhaps that's where the heavy platter and high torque motor of the Technics come to the fore?
Regards
Henry