Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?


I have just acquired a 32 year old JVC/Victor TT-101 DD turntable after having its lesser brother, the TT-81 for the last year.
TT-101
This is one of the great DD designs made at a time when the giant Japanese electronics companies like Technics, Denon, JVC/Victor and Pioneer could pour millions of dollars into 'flagship' models to 'enhance' their lower range models which often sold in the millions.
Because of their complexity however.......if they malfunction.....parts are 'unobtanium'....and they often cannot be repaired.
128x128halcro
Fleib,
why do you think a cantilevered approach is a bad thing in this case? cantilever armboards can work very well when implemented properly!

For example the Micro Seiki engineers were really ahead of their time and they did know why they used 30mm knobs to fix the armboards and 20mm high armboards of a matching material. When properly fixed to a well working MS table even I (and I bring about 100 kg on the scale) can stand on the armboard without bending - in case there is enough counter weight on the table 😂.

The technological ideas and impact they put into this lead to a worldwide success of their tables and still do, many try copying them but it seems to me the copy cats do not reach the original also regarding rebuild armboards. Maybe this is the reason why some audiophiles complain about cantilevered armboard approaches, no?

Would you propose using separate armpods free floating around the 101? or do you have other ideas? Thanks.
Lewm,
There's another side of this coin. A rigid coupling of the arm pivot and main bearing, has greater potential to degrade. DD motor vibrations will be more easily transmitted to the arm.

A strict relationship between arm and platter can be maintained with high mass pod and platter structure, mass coupled to, or rigidly fixed to the mounting surface. In this case pivot to main bearing distance is not compromised. With either approach success depends on implementation.
Regards,
Dover,
Your "rules" apply to belt drive tables and seem inappropriate here. How is a DD motor mounted on a separate platform? Using a plinth or subchassis does not necessarily maintain mounting distance better than separate pods.
Regards,
Thuchan,
I was thinking a cantilevered armboard would have greater potential to resonate, but maybe that too would depend on execution.

Free floating pods? I think the pods would have to be coupled in some way. If by free floating you mean mass coupled, that would be possible, but difficult to execute. If you eliminate the plinth/subchassis, then the mounting surface becomes the means of closing the loop. Pods could also be rigidly coupled.
Regards,
Dear Lewm,
that seems to be a brilliant idea: why not building a massive slate plinth, let the 101 sink in the middle and Henry`s pods at three other holes having rigid contact with the slate plinth. will draw a draft.