Someone I know has installed or intends to install a shield in his Technics SP10 MkII, for the reasons you outline. I don't know how that's worked out, but I may try it on mine, now that you mention it. The only way in which this could be a bad idea is if the shield is not well fastened to the chassis, such that it is allowed to vibrate in tune with the motor/bearing energy.
Belts vs Direct Drive and correcting experiments
I am intrigued by the belt drive vs direct and idler drive debate.
I happen to have an amazon model one - total antithesis of a direct drive deck insofar as it is:
high mass platter
low torque motor - albeit battery powered dc
a 'thin string' as opposed to even a belt.
I am now in the process of restoring an EMT 950.
I know Albert Porter has had great success with the Technics mark 3 - which replaced a walker proscenium in his system.
David Price of Hi fi world had a shoot off between a trio L07d and a new Michell Gyro - the results went something along the lines that the Pace rythm and timing were way better in the trio, and the tonal colourig and image size was better/more pleasant with the trio.
I have had a look at a page dedicated to the trio L07d that says that the image problem tonal colouring problem can be largely addressed by the use of a sheet of copper alloy of sorts to get rid of EMI and another sheet of a cloth like material for RFI interference.
I personally think that the RFI EMI problem may well be a problem with most direct drive decks due to the fact that the motor is directly below the platter. In pursuance of this I am convinced that all direct drives can benefit from such a modification.
With my own EMT 950 - that has both a direct drive motor and a massive steel chassis with an inboard phono stage - I am convinced that such shielding would go a long way. To that end i am thinking about whielding all the electric phono stage parts etc, and also possibly the motor.
I have also discovered a spray on shield that uses an acrylic base that i may well spray onto the steel chassis before i paint it with epoxy paint.
On the belt drive front I am not sure i can do much more with my deck.
I look forward to the discussion on this topic
I happen to have an amazon model one - total antithesis of a direct drive deck insofar as it is:
high mass platter
low torque motor - albeit battery powered dc
a 'thin string' as opposed to even a belt.
I am now in the process of restoring an EMT 950.
I know Albert Porter has had great success with the Technics mark 3 - which replaced a walker proscenium in his system.
David Price of Hi fi world had a shoot off between a trio L07d and a new Michell Gyro - the results went something along the lines that the Pace rythm and timing were way better in the trio, and the tonal colourig and image size was better/more pleasant with the trio.
I have had a look at a page dedicated to the trio L07d that says that the image problem tonal colouring problem can be largely addressed by the use of a sheet of copper alloy of sorts to get rid of EMI and another sheet of a cloth like material for RFI interference.
I personally think that the RFI EMI problem may well be a problem with most direct drive decks due to the fact that the motor is directly below the platter. In pursuance of this I am convinced that all direct drives can benefit from such a modification.
With my own EMT 950 - that has both a direct drive motor and a massive steel chassis with an inboard phono stage - I am convinced that such shielding would go a long way. To that end i am thinking about whielding all the electric phono stage parts etc, and also possibly the motor.
I have also discovered a spray on shield that uses an acrylic base that i may well spray onto the steel chassis before i paint it with epoxy paint.
On the belt drive front I am not sure i can do much more with my deck.
I look forward to the discussion on this topic
9 responses Add your response
