Hi there...
I need some advice or tech support...what is so good on Garrard 301 turntable mechanisms? Even very old pieces of this type of turntable's have high prices on market. Will be possible to recreate some of design details in homebrew turntable? ....
I need some advice or tech support...what is so good on Garrard 301 turntable mechanisms? Even very old pieces of this type of turntable's have high prices on market. Will be possible to recreate some of design details in homebrew turntable? ....
Those vintage Garrards - the 301 and 401 models for some reason seem to attract the "high end purists" for some ungodly reason.
I'm sure they are decent, and once was TOTL for them, but my reality says that they're not all they are cracked up to be.
The "new" version may be different, improved, but I haven't had the chance to actually see one.
These "high end" turntables are so hyped up, nevertheless, a lot of other "less precious" machines do exactly the same thing - they rotate a record at the correct speed silently, and in some cases even better.
It's all about status of owning a "high end masterpiece" machine, nothing more, or beneficial to good musical enjoyment.
I'm sure they are decent, and once was TOTL for them, but my reality says that they're not all they are cracked up to be.
The "new" version may be different, improved, but I haven't had the chance to actually see one.
These "high end" turntables are so hyped up, nevertheless, a lot of other "less precious" machines do exactly the same thing - they rotate a record at the correct speed silently, and in some cases even better.
It's all about status of owning a "high end masterpiece" machine, nothing more, or beneficial to good musical enjoyment.
If someone buys a 60+ years old turntable for 2000+ $ he will hear the Music of the Spheres.
It even needs not to be a Garrard.
I assume you mean that a person has super-natural hearing and believes they can hear things that others can not.
You could not pay me to use an idler wheel turntable. Not that I have used a turntable since the mid 1980s when I switched from my Kenwood KD650 direct drive TT to CDs.
The TT of choice when I was growing up was the Thorens belt drive (TD-124?), although my high school had an Empire belt drive, if I recall correctly (outfitted with an SME tonearm). IMO, buy a classic/vintage belt drive TT instead of any idler wheel TT if you can also find replacement belts.
The TT of choice when I was growing up was the Thorens belt drive (TD-124?), although my high school had an Empire belt drive, if I recall correctly (outfitted with an SME tonearm). IMO, buy a classic/vintage belt drive TT instead of any idler wheel TT if you can also find replacement belts.
Considering the 301 was issued in 1954 as a mono turntable, its specs on rumble are very good.
Users of Garrard 301 idler drive turntables value them for their timing - something that you, wiseoldtech, will appreciate.
Member Nigel Pearson, who designed motors for Garrard turntables, has commented that in the old days Garrard wow and flutter tests were carried out by trained women, by ear, using a set of 78s that would show up imperfections. He said marching music was used, and thought perhaps this is why Garrards such as the 301 have such great timing quality.
Last edited:
I've owned quite an assortment of turntables over the years, as well as having serviced literally hundreds for customers in the shop I worked at.
My experiences over that time have been honed due to build quality, as well as performance.
And price level, brands, don't always align with the above.
My main focus is on reliability, speed stability (incl. W+F), how silent it is (rumble) along with tonearm behavior.
And interestingly enough, I've found some so-called "budget" turntables have quite superior specs in those departments.
My own turntable, a Kenwood direct-drive linear-tracker, is dead silent in operation - all you ever hear is the music and what's on the record.
And while it's not considered "high end" by audiophiles, it has gained some very nice reviews, which back up my own fondness for it.
Who would ever think it was a worthy machine capable of pleasing picky ears?
Of course, the "picky" audio community is intent on having glamour and gliitz, and the self-needed reward of owning something visually stunning and having a fancy name attached.
As for me, I just want to simply play my records and enjoy my music, and I certainly do.
I do miss that Dual 1229 with the Shure V15 TypeII that was stolen from my old apartment back in 1983.
I purchased it new from the audio salon that I worked at in 1974.
That unit was a wonderful machine, and my 20-something ears knew its capabilities well - it was flawless.
I do have a Dual 1215 in immaculate condition sitting in a closet that reminds me of my old Dual, and pretty much captures that same feeling though.
My experiences over that time have been honed due to build quality, as well as performance.
And price level, brands, don't always align with the above.
My main focus is on reliability, speed stability (incl. W+F), how silent it is (rumble) along with tonearm behavior.
And interestingly enough, I've found some so-called "budget" turntables have quite superior specs in those departments.
My own turntable, a Kenwood direct-drive linear-tracker, is dead silent in operation - all you ever hear is the music and what's on the record.
And while it's not considered "high end" by audiophiles, it has gained some very nice reviews, which back up my own fondness for it.
Who would ever think it was a worthy machine capable of pleasing picky ears?
Of course, the "picky" audio community is intent on having glamour and gliitz, and the self-needed reward of owning something visually stunning and having a fancy name attached.
As for me, I just want to simply play my records and enjoy my music, and I certainly do.
I do miss that Dual 1229 with the Shure V15 TypeII that was stolen from my old apartment back in 1983.
I purchased it new from the audio salon that I worked at in 1974.
That unit was a wonderful machine, and my 20-something ears knew its capabilities well - it was flawless.
I do have a Dual 1215 in immaculate condition sitting in a closet that reminds me of my old Dual, and pretty much captures that same feeling though.
The motor for the Garrard and Dual turntables - asynchronous AC as I recall - were absolutely marvelous and entirely dependent on the accuracy of the frequency in the AC lines - something very carefully controlled by the electric companies here in the US. No argument from this old-timer on that score. My problem with idler wheel TTs is that the rubber on the idler would eventually harden and transmit ever-increasing amounts of rumble to the platter. In addition, at least the Garrard, Dual and Elac TTs made in the 60s were stamped steel with not much mass. They would ring like a bell when struck even with their thin vinyl rubber mats (which would also harden over time). The bearings were not the best, either: even with a clean and newly-oiled bearing (with whale oil, natch) they would stop rotating in a relatively short time. A far cry from rotating the bearing of even an old AR turntable (which I owned, with a terrible arm, BTW).
I definitely understand the desire and longing to have something old but in good working order. The design aesthetic, the details which were created by people who had good art and humanities educations and used their education and talent to create beautiful-looking pieces: I honor that vision and commitment. Great tube equipment from the 50s and 60s fall into that category. Looking a the photos of the Garrard 301 and 401, they have it! I think that is why they command the prices that they do; not so much for their audio performance.
I definitely understand the desire and longing to have something old but in good working order. The design aesthetic, the details which were created by people who had good art and humanities educations and used their education and talent to create beautiful-looking pieces: I honor that vision and commitment. Great tube equipment from the 50s and 60s fall into that category. Looking a the photos of the Garrard 301 and 401, they have it! I think that is why they command the prices that they do; not so much for their audio performance.
If you don't know what you're talking about don't preach it outloud!
The first effect of eddy currents are to damp the motor speed irregularities...and only then to regulate general speed.How do you think they came up with the ideea of placing a magnet on top of the rotor to transform a N shadow poles asyncronous motor into an infinite pole syncronous motor that you see in Garrard zero 100 and SP4? Garrard invented all the technology used in Dual's sm860-5 motors, Dual just perfected it. I talk about it because I have a zero -100 and a sp4 and three sm860-5 motors and a dual 1219 and a dual 701...and yes mister wiseold...i did changed the regulator in dual 701 and nothing bad happened because I know what I'm doing and I also read for 5 years almost everything I could on garrard 301.
If you don't belive me it's a simple test that you can do to any turntable that has an unstable speed.Just get a hard disk drive magnet and put it closer to the platter watching the strobe.See what happens then and only then speak!
I might be the only guy who built a constant V/F frequency converter based on lm3886 and step up transformer to regulate Dual 1219 speed using only one mechanical position of the speed switch appreciating what garrard 301 obtained by using magnetic regulation instead of those cluncky switches that make the idler slip in every possible position on the motor shaft.
The first effect of eddy currents are to damp the motor speed irregularities...and only then to regulate general speed.How do you think they came up with the ideea of placing a magnet on top of the rotor to transform a N shadow poles asyncronous motor into an infinite pole syncronous motor that you see in Garrard zero 100 and SP4? Garrard invented all the technology used in Dual's sm860-5 motors, Dual just perfected it. I talk about it because I have a zero -100 and a sp4 and three sm860-5 motors and a dual 1219 and a dual 701...and yes mister wiseold...i did changed the regulator in dual 701 and nothing bad happened because I know what I'm doing and I also read for 5 years almost everything I could on garrard 301.
If you don't belive me it's a simple test that you can do to any turntable that has an unstable speed.Just get a hard disk drive magnet and put it closer to the platter watching the strobe.See what happens then and only then speak!
I might be the only guy who built a constant V/F frequency converter based on lm3886 and step up transformer to regulate Dual 1219 speed using only one mechanical position of the speed switch appreciating what garrard 301 obtained by using magnetic regulation instead of those cluncky switches that make the idler slip in every possible position on the motor shaft.
Last edited:
Idlers can and do sometimes deteriorate.
However, belts on the belt drive machines also deteriorate.
It's like all automobiles - you must change the tires on occasion.
Rubber, neoprene, naturally have a certain life expectancy, and that depends on the formula used in manufacture.
Dual, seems to hold up well though, my 1970 1215's idler is still "like new".
In fact the whole unit looks and works like a "fresh-out-of-the-box" machine.
I find that amazing! - even the main platter bearing is flawless.
So it's not a general bad point of idler drives, and they don't deserve a put-down in many cases.
Of course, maintaining any unit is the right thing to do, sadly most are neglected.
And I agree, the older stuff had impressive style.
One of my early turntables was the AR, and I hated it - sold it off quick.
Thorens - I don't like the "bouncy" sensitive design, or those Philips bouncies either.
Yes. belts also deteriorate. A bit easer to find new belts though. The difficulty in finding replacement belt is why my first pos mentioned the need to make sure that replacement belts are available for any belt-drive TT one is thinking of acquiring
I also sold the AR off rather quickly. The arm was terrible. The "bouncy" is often needed, but luckily I did not so that is why is bought my "poor man's audiophile TT," the Kenwood 650. Still have it boxed up. as I recall, the Empire TT was not a bouncy type and its platter was very impressive in its mass. Nothing then like hearing vinyl through an Empire TT, SME arm and Shure V15 or Ortofon, into a Mac tube pre and Dynamo ST70, into Wharfedale speakers with sand-filled cabinet walls. That is the system in my high school band room, and many of us students were audiophiles.
That Kenwood KD-650 is a fine turntable for sure.
Even for today's super-picky audiophiles, because of its great specs.
My lowly Kenwood DD linear tracker has specs similar.
Because how many TT's these days can brag they have 0.025 W/F ?
Not too many.
Even for today's super-picky audiophiles, because of its great specs.
My lowly Kenwood DD linear tracker has specs similar.
Because how many TT's these days can brag they have 0.025 W/F ?
Not too many.
Wow and flutter can be measured separately. For example, the figures for the Garrard 301 were quoted as:
Wow (Variations in speed below 20Hz): Less than 0.1% RMS
Flutter (Variations in speed above 20Hz): Less than 0.05%
By way of comparison, the independent test figures for my Technics SL-QX200 are 0.1% (0.2-6Hz) and 0.06% (6-300Hz).
It's a quartz referenced DD with an aluminium chassis, not plastic. And its spring-suspended subchassis is not the sort that bounces around!
Attachments
Last edited:
Indeed, Technics made nice turntables through the years.
However, that model SL-QX200, while having good specs, is one I'm not too fond of.
The reason being, it's vertical tonearm pivot design/orientation is not my favorite type.
Notice, when you lift the arm up, the cartridge azimuth tilts slightly to one side.
Granted, a warped record may only cause the arm to lift and lower a few millimeters, but that results in the stylus tilting in the groove - a horror to some purists.
The better pivot design in my opinion is to angle the vertical pivot to match the angle of the tonearm head/cartridge, so that any vertical lift doesn't change azimuth, as in the 1200 series models.
My goodness, wiseold, you must have a sharpness of eyesight incommensurate with your age!
The independent test results for the SL-QX200 state that the "arm's geometric alignment was outstanding", and that's good enough for me!
I'm afraid my ageing eyesight doesn't allow me to see a difference* in the SL-QX200's "vertical tonearm pivot design/orientation" compared to the 1200 series - see attachments.
The obvious difference is the straight tonearm configuration of the SL-QX200 compared to the S-shaped tonearm of the 1200.
*EDIT: I do see a difference in design, but can't comment on the "angle of the vertical pivot" - perhaps you could explain it to me further.
Attachments
Last edited:
Sure.My goodness, wiseold, you must have a sharpness of eyesight incommensurate with your age!
The obvious difference is the straight tonearm configuration of the SL-QX200 compared to the S-shaped tonearm of the 1200.
*EDIT: I do see a difference in design, but can't comment on the "angle of the vertical pivot" - perhaps you could explain it to me further.
Look at this drawing, notice the pivot angle at the gimble, and how it is at the same 90 degree setting as the tonearm head?
This is for a straight tonearm, as well as S-shaped.
So any up-down movment of the tonearm would not affect the azimuth/tilt angle of the stylus.
Thanks, I get the angle thing now! 😎
I've been looking into it:
My SL-QX200 has a tonearm vertical pivot axis perpendicular to the tonearm shaft, but the S-shaped arm of the Technics SL-1200 has the vertical pivot perpendicular to the offset angle.
The pivot angle is essential to maintaining perpendicular azimuth when using an extra mat (or no mat at all).
There is more azimuth tilt in the warped record surface itself than there is from the vertical pivot orientation of the arm tracking that warp. The relative azimuth tilt will of course depend on the profile of the warp and the arm pivot design but, on average, the azimuth tilt introduced by pivot orientation helps compensate for some of the azimuth tilt in the record surface. So, the azimuth tilt that results from pivot orientation can actually be beneficial.
