AudiogoN
Search Buy Sell Learn MyPage
 Learn > Forums > Analog > 1268083138  Start New Thread | Log In | Bookmark This

  Goldmund Studio

Hi Folks:

Would appreciate any description about how the sound of the Studio companes to tt's made today. If anyone can describe what the sonic differences would be with the same cartridge, that would also be very helpful.

Thanks as always.

D.H.
Danhirsh  (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

03-08-10
  Responses
03-09-10: Schipo
The Goldmund is very competitive in todays market. The Table has a much larger footprint then most of its kind. The three point dial in suspension is easy to setup. The arm 3,3b and the 3f arm are along with its servo can be annoying to adjust but with a little patience and time the whole package is a charm. The table older ones with there wood base are somewhat less desirable and the newer ones made of all metapolymer much more.the early production of the Goldmund Studio turntables used a motor made by Pabst in Germany which was discontinued so this may pose a problem down the road.But a full blown Goldmund with its own arm or one of your chosing is a very good and in many words a world beater compared to offerings of today.
Schipo  (Threads | Answers | This Thread)


03-09-10: Vusi_khumalo
I have a Studio with an SME V arm and DV XV-1s and also a SME 30/2 with a Graham Phanton arm also with a XV-1s. Short answer, I listen to the Studio 90% of the time. Why? Most of my vinyl is Jazz from the 50s-70s and I find the Studio tranports me better to that era than the SME does. I'd say the SME is more accurate and the Studio more musical. It's somehow more enjoyable to do a 4hr listening session after work with it than the SME. The Studio does come to about 98% of the SMEs speed stability, SME makes time stand still! SME makes normal pressings sound slightly more "audiophile", maybe makes music from a blacker background. I remember reading a comment about the SME being dark, I guess that's what I hear, with the Studio being a bit more lively. Because I never complain about things like soundstage, dynamics, focus with the Studio I assume that it's because the SME doesn't do these that much better the Studio? I believe the Studio cost lots of money then as was in the top 5 of the best tables so it shouldn't be surprising that I even give it a slight edge for musicality over a current production SME.
Vusi_khumalo  (Threads | Answers | This Thread)


03-09-10: Nsgarch
The Pabst motor is a deal breaker. Besides rendering your TT a total loss if it quits, it's impossible to keep the speed accurately adjusted. The quartz-controlled JVC motor is repairable/replaceable and still one of the best DD motors out there (besides the Technics.)

Both the Studio and the Studietto need to be brought into the 21st century by removing the springs and replacing them with sorbothane pucks. The performance takes an astounding quantum leap, especially blacker background and more and tighter bass. To say nothing of improved ease of use!!

The mod is easy to make. Take off the top section (motor board, platter, arm) remove the springs, remove the big knurled height adnustment knobs, turn them over and put them back. Set a flat or domed sorbothane puck on top of each of the (now flat surface of) the knurled knobs, replace the top board, adjust to level as before, and you're in for a real treat!!

Unfortunately these tables came out just before the CD era, and their reputation was further contaminated by a flood of cheaply made DD TT's. Don't be fooled! I wouldn't be surprised if Goldmund brought them back in some new version now that vinyl, and especially DD TT's are making such a big comeback.;--) (I've had mine for 20 years BTW!)
.

Nsgarch  (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)


03-10-10: Satch
Sorry Nsgarch, don't agree on the spring/sorbothane issue. I've did some extensive testing (I must have the measurements somewhere...) and springs are the better solution, just like Pierre Lurné designed them. Now I have to admit I did all measurements with the Studietto on top of a turntable shelf mounted on a concrete wall And concrete floors), so there might be differences with other placement.
There are also different springs (red and blue colors), which differ in 'springiness' (is that a word?). I have three of both, and different combinations yield different results. I stopped fooling around however when I figured it sounded good enough.

Anyway: the Studio and Studietto can still cut it today, although as Schipo already mentions, the lineair arm adjustment (especially VTA) can be a PITA. And try to get one with the JVC motor. It won't sound better, but that motor is repairable/replaceble.

Satch  (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)


03-10-10: Nsgarch
Satch, sorry, my TT is mounted the same as yours -- TT shelf into conc. block wall, on constrained layer damping platform.

I've assisted with three of these mods, mine, plus another Studietto here in town, and remotely, a Studio restoration in Australia. (I have also read very favorable reports from others who happened upon this upgrade quite on their own.)

Anyway, all three of us are amazed by the results! The springs truly suck, and I'm sure if M. Lurné had access to sorbothane he would have used it ;--) BTW, we use sorbothane of three different durometers (hardnesses) providing the same effect as the three different spring rates (K), and all three of out units are fitted with the Goldmund thread-on cones as specified.

So, not knowing exactly what you did, or didn't do, what materials you used, and how you measured/heard the results differently than we did, I really can't say why your attempt was so unsuccessful? I'd be happy to assist you if you like, however.

Nsgarch  (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)


  Post your response
Subject


Your response

No html, but you may use markup tags


Username
Members only

Password