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

mglik

Chris at Woodsong does a complete rebuild including new platter.
In addition to highly developed plinths. Mine was $11K. Artisan Fidelity seems to go to a higher, but not necessarily better, level.
They are a few thousand more but Chris says that they farm out much accounting for the extra cost. Chris does everything himself and does an excellent job. I am thrilled with mine.

Some truth here and a little misinformation.  An artist woodworker (albeit a good one!) who restores turntables and apparently began tinkering with machining small parts a few years ago cannot be compared to Artisan Fidelity.  They both have different ideologies.  With Woodsong, and I really do like his work, I even borrowed one of their Classic 301's from a friend a few years ago for use in a second home for almost 6 months. Nice, hand cut veneer, furniture type finish and good quality product. This was before my Dobbins tables arrived during my exploratory period of vintage analog front ends. :)  Flash forward a spell, prior to purchasing my final vintage based analog front end(s), when researching, I discovered that AF partners with iso 9001/9100 machining facilities and privately contracts Rose Hulman engineering consultants to aid in designing their parts for the Garrard 301 Statement and others.  What a person then begins to understand is why these products are expensive to manufacture domestically in limited quantities.  From my understanding, the rest of their team is comprised of a small group of local specialist tradesmen.  Personally, I was seeking someone able to take these vintage machines into the 21st century by way of playback and no compromise engineering while retaining the heart and soul if you will of the original design without modern homogenization.  In the end, the musical satisfaction is top priority and from my perspective and I am very satisfied, to put it mildly.  In reality, two different companies with similar goals, contrasting methods and different philosophies at "play", no pun intended...  All really depends upon your personal system goals and expectations.  In the end, all are solid choices.

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.

mglik
Chris Harban advised me not to switch to a much heavier platter.
That the 301 motor was not designed to move that much weight.
Although it does seem like a heavier platter would add thrust and a stronger tone. And the available heavy copper or brass platters are $1-2K. Does anyone have experience changing from a lighter to heavier platter?

Politely put, this plinth builders opinion on this topic should be taken with a the smallest grain of salt. My personal experience listening to Garrard 301’s over the years has proven the opposite holds true. Many parts of the ancient 1950’s design can be upgraded and improved upon, including the resonant main platter and bearing. Try listening first with either a pure Copper, Gunmetal platter mat or a Stainless steel platter mat and you will hear improvements immediately. Incremental audible upgrades can be accomplished substituting better designed and engineered parts further down the road. Years ago, I first used a stock 301 years ago in a second home, just to see if I liked the idler characteristics (I did!) and now own a completely no-holds-barred Garrard 301 based turntable with a heavy platter in the primary system and the results are astonishing, the comparison is not even close. Bear in mind, not all aftermarket platter and bearing solutions are created equally.

fsonicsmith

Of course the 301 motor was not designed for a heavy platter. That is inarguable. But what does that mean? Is Chris Harban stating that the motor will be damaged by being asked to turn a 25 lb solid brass platter? The Shindo 301 solid brass platter has been used for many years by many 301 fans with no reported failures though it does require a heavy duty after market bearing, preferably solid brass as well. Manually spinning the platter at the same time one engages the power lever helps alleviate start-up stress on the motor.
Again, I agree that the sound changes depending upon which platter one chooses. The descriptors for those changes in sound are subject to debate. I agree that common sense dictates that the OEM platter is the "easiest" for the motor to spin. There is not a motor known to mankind that won’t eventually need servicing.
It seems several people above are implying their particular implementation (plinth, platter, accessories such as bearings and idler wheels, tonearm, mat) are the best. News flash; there is no best and there is no optimum. It is all like making a pot of chili in a chili cook off. All subject to the variations in taste among the judges.

A wise post, agreed and the plethora of data submitted by users over the years should be self evident. The assertions made by the aforementioned woodworker regarding platters are his opinion and that is fine but it is simply not true, in my personal experience and in the opinion of many other knowledgeable audio enthusiasts.

Does anyone have experience changing from a lighter to heavier platter?

I have a CTC supplied PAC aluminum platter on one of my AudioGrail 401s. I have done a few AB comparisons and the heavier platter beats the original hands down. Bigger soundstage, better bass, cleaner highs, blacker background, and more stable image.

@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.