Woodsong Garrard 301, Artisan Fidelity 301, Shindo 301, SME 301, or etc.?

@pcosta 

I think with your question we must distinguish the differences between "restorers" and one who modifies to potentially make better. Do all those fall into the same category?
Woodsong appears to offer plinths and I don't know if he does anything to the 301 like new platter and bearing. We know Artisan Fidelity mods the 301 to a highly expensive level, then we have to ask is it still a 301?

You make a very important point which is completely lost in most discussions. I dont believe anyone offers an optimum reincarnation of the Garrard 301's. 

For example in my rebuild I have revisited fundamentals under the chassis that none of the premium rebuilders offer - 

1. I have punched out and replaced all the rivets/washers connecting the control levers under the chassis with nylon bushes and telon washers to eliminate noise from metal to metal contact and rattly levers. None of the rebuilders do this. In fact you would think with 3D printing it is now possible to remove all the metal under the chassis.

2. I have decoupled the power switching from the on/off lever so that when you change a record, the idler disengages but the motor continues running. Given that the motors take a while to stabilise it seems crazy to me that no one else has thought about this simple mod. It also eliminates having a 110/230 volts switch and wiring under your low output moving coil. None of the rebuilders do this.

These are just 2 examples. There are a myriad of other possible mods under the chassis that rebuilders have never thought of.

For me the rebuilders change the chassis/bearing/platter and build a plinth, but they faithfully replicate the motor/control systems of yore along with their inherit faults.

And then there are the thoughtless mods - like the aftermarket bearing "upgrades". Most people denigrate the original flat bottom spindle and thrust pad. However changing that profile to a ball and thrustpad actually destabilises the platter and spindle. Think about it - is it easier to stand on a flat surface or balance on a ball. The ball produces hifi but affects bottom end coherency compared to the original design.

I could go on and on. There are more tinkerers out there than engineers.

@bukanona
Yes the CTC rod is a good compromise - less friction and inherently more stability than a ball. Good luck with the motor switching mod, as you say it is not hard.

@jperry 

would love to hear a 301 with all of the mods made by @dover 

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
My 301 is not my main reference table, but it handily disposed of a Platine Verdier which I had as a second turntable ( for 78's and mucking around with arms/cartridges etc ). It wiped the Verdier and a Micro Seiki for timing and coherence and digs just as deep in terms of resolution.

Your 301 looks great. Audio Grail, Woodsong, & Artisan Fidelity all do beautiful work. The most important thing they do is actually the motor rebuild - it is not possible to relube the bottom bearing in the motor without dismantling it. After I rebuilt my motor with new bushes and truing everything up, not only was the noise reduced considerably, but it actually runs much cooler.

I run a Fidelity Research FR64S/B60 on it which seems very synergistic so I'm assuming your Ikeda would be great. Most of my audio visitors are shocked by my 301 ( in a good way ) when they hear it. 

@scar972 

I have also replinthed and tweaked a 401 for one of my listening buddies - starting with an Audio Grail 401 I built a custom plinth from engineered stone, did the power switch mod, and a few other tweaks - 11kg brass platter and new bearing, artisan fidelity idler wheel.

On that we've run a Helius Omega, Moersch DP8 and now a Kuzma 4Point11. The Kuzma 4Point is producing excellent results on the 401 with Kuzma CAR50 & Van Den Hul Colibri.

So thus far my 2 favourite arms for the Garrards are the FR64S & Kuzma 4Point. ( I also have Naim Aro/Dynavector 501/Eminent Technology ET2 and a few others kicking around for comparison ).

Chris Harban advised me not to switch to a much heavier platter.
That the 301 motor was not designed to move that much weight.

@mglik

Yes I agree with Chris on this. The 301 motor is not as powerful as the later 401 and in my experience the timing and coherence of the bass deteriorates with heavier platters on the 301.

On my 301 after trying heavier platters & bearings I stuck with the original platter.

The original 301 platter is slightly concave and you cant use metal or rigid mats on a concave surface. So i had the top surface of my original 301 platter very carefully precision machined flat and rebalanced. You have to be very careful and need a precision engineer, else you can lose too much meat off the platter and it becomes more resonant.

In terms of mats I have the following in my collection -
Final Audio 4.8kg copper
Micro Seiki 1.8kg copper
Goldmund methaclyate
Sumiko Compositions barium lead/methacrelate
SAEC SS300
Seisin Engineering ADS3005sp mk2.

I also have a collection of weights & clamps from Final Audio, Goldmund, Audiocraft and others.

With the original 301 platter machined flat, I prefer the SAEC & Seisin mats with no clamp or weight. both mats are not heavy and improve the sound without upsetting the balance.

You might want to talk to Chris about how to get a level surface platter - it might be better to buy an aftermarket platter from CTC to get a platter with a level surface - and then machine it down if necessary to match the original plattters weight.

@scar972 
Very nice system you have - its great to get to a happy place. When I had a shop I met a lot of audiophiles who were never happy - always looking for something different. To me the Garrards embody that goal of forget about the gear and enjoy the music. They are a bargain really - the only requirement is that they are well sorted and there are plenty of options and spares to go. 

@ferrari275

Dover

And then there are the thoughtless mods - like the aftermarket bearing "upgrades". Most people denigrate the original flat bottom spindle and thrust pad. However changing that profile to a ball and thrustpad actually destabilises the platter and spindle. Think about it - is it easier to stand on a flat surface or balance on a ball. The ball produces hifi but affects bottom end coherency compared to the original design.

I could go on and on. There are more tinkerers out there than engineers.

Perhaps there is a valid reason why every truly high end turntable manufacturer since the early 1970’s abandoned the flat bottomed bearing thrust pad design?..... With all due respect, this posters rationale makes absolutely zero sense from my perspective. 

You have answered your own question, unwittingly.
The Garrard 301 was manufactured in the 50's and 60's.

I'll give you a clue -
Do you think the piston tolerances from a 1950's Ferrari are the same as a current production Ferrari.

You own an Artisan Fidelity Statement 301 - there is a reason they dispensed with the old Garrard T bearing ( T for topple ) and replaced it in its entirety with an inverted bearing.