You are most definitely welcome Mario, and I forgot to thank Munkienl/Freek for the material in Jim's first and brilliant posting: thank you Freek! He was here (on the old thread) from the very beginning (along with Willbewill and a few others who have now vanished) and after having read me use him as a case study in someone who could hear some Lenco strengths (bass) but dismissed it due to the general consensus at the time over on VA - which STILL largely (a few honorable exceptions) dismisses the Lenco, sound unheard (the EXACT same prejudice I was fighting in the very first days) - as not a serious 'table. Reading Da Thread (then a new pipsqueak) and catching my reference to him (I did not name him to protect his identity but he recognized his posting, another loss with the deletion of Da Thread), he bravely took up the Lenco Challenge. He was then running a Thorens TD-125/SME 3009/Van den Hul combination if I recall, which he loved, and displayed the very quality I was hoping to address: don't dismiss claims (that idler-wheel-drive drives was a categorically superior system to belt-drive, and the Lenco proved it) due to prejudice, but test to find out the truth of the matter.
Many could still learn this lesson (just go sift through the VA postings), such as those who continue to dismiss and criticize the Lenco sound-unheard, due to the same old problem I had (and still have) with belt-drivers: since I own 'table A, then it HAS to be better than 'table B (blind prejudice knee-jerk reaction), except if 'table B is MUCH more expensive, or has a tremendous following, which assuages my ego. Ah, the good old days when only an intrepid few were willing to test my claims for the Lenco and the whole world was against us, and we could FEEL the momentum gaining as they first tried it with the then-cheap Decca International tonearm (25 euros!!) which I had been forced to track down.
I had remembered from my days in Helsinki from an old issue of Hi Fi News & Record Reviews that some company in Europe has tripped over a stash of these and were selling them for 25 euros. This was the trick to get people to try any better tonearm at all on the Lenco (they weren't yet willing to invest any serious money, even to the extent of a Rega), and as the reports came in of Lenco convert after Lenco convert due to the Lenco/Decca pairing, I finally got them to mount Rega tonearms (though I consider the Deccas musically superior to the Regas, the Regas are definitely more neutral and extract much more information, especially with MCs which also boost their musicality), which on the Lencos undergo a transformation into true gobsmacking detail-, dynamics-, bass-, highs- and imaging-Meisters!! With the addition of the Regas to the Lencos, the ball truly got rolling and more and more - still intrepid, adventurous, and rational (empirical evidence counts vs prejudice) with a sense of fun (roll your own, make discoveries) and adventure - joined in, came up with ideas, shared their experiences, to create together (the resources and time of the many is superior to that of the few) the now-ruling Giant Direct Coupled Lenco.
It's time once again to remind everyone of my rationale then, and my own internal thinking which led me not only by comparison (the very early primitive Lenco - not a patch on its current version - wiped the floor with every belt-drive I tested it against before I ever started Da Thread) but by logic to believe idlers were superior to belts in drive systems. To wit, given the Law of Diminishing Returns, one truly high-end turntable - which meant belt-drive back then - should not CRUSH another turntable, but instead, according to the price-tag/seriousness of the design (amount of materials, engineering), offer only certain refinements over the lesser turntable. But here was the Lenco (even set up balanced on bricks with no plinth with a Rega popped into the original arm-hole) CRUSHING highly-regarded belt-drives (at the time I was running a Maplenoll Ariadne and an Audiomeca, and had pit it against Linns and etc). My logic was as follows, and it applies every bit now as well as we are STILL in the same old fight (criticism without experience of the aural reality): the humble Lenco with all its faults (as indeed this is the HEART of the matter which so many have forgotten, or never knew due to the enormity of the now-deceased thread), its cheaper construction (as compared with the classically well-built Garrard 301/401 and the Thorens TD-124 and of course EMTs, AND of course the high-end belt-drives it was being pitted against), its so-so main bearing, its relatively unspectacular platter (as compared with many of the belt-drive monsters) CRUSHED belt-drives (of course the belt-drivers refused to acknowledge the possibility I was speaking truth, which is why I sneakily seduced many into joining me in the experiment by presenting them with a fun project - hence the title - in order to begin to accumulate my evidence). WHY??!!?? It couldn't be because of its build quality.
To overcome all the minuses there HAD to be a BIG plus, and that plus HAD to be the drive system, nothing else, since THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE. Hold in your minds the immortal words of Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, former Chief Research Engineer, H.H. Scott: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing." This embodies the Spirit of the scientific process I was always going on about in Da Late, Lamented Thread: experience/experiment trumps theories, the end (this, in a nutshell, is science, and we are all qualified to judge for ourselves given enough information). Not complicated, but increasingly in the scientific community - and among the general population of course - prejudice/belief/theory trumps results, which are swept under the carpet to favour the favoured theory (which, for instance, is why the belt-drive ruled so long).
Now, at the time I believed - due to its inferior construction - that if the Lenco was this good (and it was) then the much-better-built Garrard must REALLY be something else, which would only go to show how much superior the idler-wheel system was to the belt/tape/string drives! Now, I had discovered the whole idler-wheel principle when, just-moved to Helsinki with my new Finnish girl-friend, I was putting together a good little budget system (NAD 3020i/Boston A40 MKII), and picked up a turntable cheap at a flea market for two bucks. It was a Garrard SP25. It was non-functional and so I opened it up to repair it, and I was amazed at the Baroque complexities of the underlying mechanisms (an auto-changer with hundreds of springs, widgets, levers) and puzzled by the wheel and motor arrangement, which I had never heard of (the black-out on idler info was that effective back then). So, being practical, and knowing I could never repair whatever was wrong with it, not understanding it one whit, I simplified the task: I simply removed everything which did not have to do with driving the platter directly, all the automatic mechanisms linked to the tonearm, and cleaned and re-lubed it. It worked. So, curious, I soldered a better cable to it and bought a decent cartridge for it (a superb Glanz). I could not believe the sound which was emanating from that system (even the little SP25s when modded retrieve an astonishing amount of information and have astonishing dynamics and bass), and immediately understood that this drive system was better than the belt-drive system (due to the above rationale, and because I already owned a legendary Maplenoll and an Audiomeca), and I grew angry. Why had I never heard of this system??! Was belt-drive not touted as the best of all systems??!! Now aware of "idler-wheel drive" (I even had to look up the term by sifting through countless magazines in Helsinki libraries, before the internet), I began to dig for information. I found, eventually, the Garrard 301/401s, which a few small companies were restoring and re-plinthing in the back pages of British magazines.
There being no internet, and my living in Finland, it was impossible for me to find any Garrards, and so I married the internal drive system of an SP-25 to the platter of a Connoisseur BD2 in a two-level plinth similar to the Cain & Cain plinths being made today, and even with separate acrylic armboard (I'll try to dig up a photo) to be able to hear what a more serious version could sound like. It was glorious. Finally, one day, again in a flea market, I tripped over a large idler-wheel drive (it was evident to me), with Lenco badge. I thought to myself, “It isn't a Garrard, but it is a heavier/better idler, let's play with that!” I bought it, had my Rega tonearm and Kiseki cartridge sent to me from Canada (this is all in '92-'93), and set it up on metal stilts (no plinth at all), and heard SUCH UTTER PERFECTION (against a context of belt-drives) that I was once again overwhelmed, and once again angered. I knew that this system had been unfairly assassinated by a concerted effort of the press and industry (as the LP very nearly was by the Digital Parade). A friend who was by now wealthy heard it (“The hairs are going up on my arms!!”), and invested in its development, as he was toying with the idea of manufacturing. So I researched the issues and came up with the "Lenco L75 Prototype rebuild 1992" as it appears under my "system" on Audiogon. The plinth approximated the open architecture of the Oracles (and the brief Meitner) by being solid and in two tiers to dissipate noise into the atmosphere and not store energy, the top-plinth was extremely low-mass (a single small layer of Finnish birch-ply) not to store energy and was isolated from the lower by lossy silicone grommets not to communicate the mass of the massive lower plinth on which the motor - in order to minimize/eliminate noise/vibration - was mounted, as I had cut off the motor mounts on the top-plate, and made new ones on the lower massive plinth in the same orientation as the upper (as it had to be), thus using only three of the springs on which the motor sits, and some rubber shims on the new towers to hold it in place. This was to be the Prototype of the new turntable which was to be manufactured out of brass and white marble (I was in love with Greece back then as now). But, this was the time when all companies were ceasing production of both turntables (Thorens for instance) and cartridges (Shure), and it looked like the analog thing was finally going to be Dead. My backer backed out, I got on with my life (drifting around the world back then enjoying life, Lenco in mothballs), and didn't return to Canada until years later. I had my Lenco shipped to Canada, where it was my main source, made some for friends, but never forgot my anger at a lying system (press, industry, scientists/engineers/experts). Then, one day, in my new work, I was forced to get on the 'Net which I had resisted, and tripped over Audiogon, being new to the whole concept of internet forums.
I first tried to gather any other idler-wheel fans out there - FLOP - and then, seeing there was absolutely no interest, devised my sneaky "Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot" to gather followers and amass a body of evidence. In order to make the project/plan work, it was necessary for me to simplify the plans (a single plinth) in order to make the project simple and so encourage people - amateurs and woodworkers alike - to give it a try and have some fun, and make some discoveries (that idler-wheel drive was superior to belt-drive) and report on it, and so add to the body of evidence/proof. From this sprang the various Lenco websites which dot the internet today, and battles (often vicious and personal) waged across the forums led to others discovering idler-wheels (rather than the select few enjoying hem but keeping their heads low) and eventually open discussions with no more attacks (kind of ;-)).
Here, there was a delicate balancing act: I HAD to keep the design simple on Da Thread, because if any newbies had come onto the thread in the middle of discussions of oil-baths and secret chambers and metal-work, they would not have given the project a second thought and the whole thing would have died in its infancy, Da Thread and the project - to have idlers recognized as the truly great system it is (not that it wouldn't perhaps have done so eventually, but the thread was growing and gaining steam already) - disappearing like all the others into obscurity. But Da Thread was a learning experience for me as for the participants, because, in the course of simplifying the design down to one plinth and the Lenco simply bolted to it, I discovered that rumble and motor-noise was after all not an issue, and that after all it was not necessary to go to the enormous lengths I did on the Prototype (I was worried about this for a long time) to produce a quiet and incredibly DYNAMIC and refined Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove. I learned to respect and admire the Lenco as it had been designed, the more so the more the design evolved: it is ELEGANT and, after all, ranks with the best in the world, due to the implementation of the design.
Another issue is that of over-damping: with too much effort directed to eliminating the non-existent (inaudible) noise issue, the baby (DYNAMICS, BASS, and PraT out the yin-yang, which is the character of the idler-wheel drive system, while stunning detail, frequency extension and imaging is the quality) risks being thrown out with the bathwater, and everyone coming to the erroneous conclusion it is the idler-wheel drive system which is at fault. Then there is the common sense aspect: how can one even know about the success of these innovations in the absence of the experience of the “normal” reality (i.e. Lenco in simple heavy plinth, or even on bricks with a better tonearm)?? One MUST have context for any such experimentation to have meaning, or to be even directed in the right direction. In the case of the Lencos/Idler-wheel drives, the context is belt-drives (most of us have that context) and DDs, both of which I experienced to a serious degree. In other words, if you compare it to nothing, then your judgments are meaningless, and you are committing the very same error I spoke about at the beginning and which I fought against so bitterly: you are placing theory/prejudice (all in your head) ahead of the facts/empirical reality (experience of the simple Lenco). This is what Freek and those others who participated over time understood so well.
Anyway, these are the various balls I had to juggle over time, and over time I learned many things, prompted by issues and ideas to various experiments. I have now come to the Giant Direct Coupled Lenco and also learned that various weaknesses of the Lenco can be made to work to its advantage: if the Lenco, like the Garrard 301/401 and Thorens TD-124 and various others had the superior cast and ribbed top-plate, the Direct Coupling – which is a BIG step on the evolutionary ladder – could not be implemented nearly so effectively. Those who try high-mass on these other “superior” cast idlers come to conclusions which are apples to oranges, and so meaningless. From this, if I were to design a new idler-wheel drive, I would make the top-plate better, yes, by greater thickness and so more structural rigidity, BUT, I would make it flat and not ribbed to allow for effective Direct Coupling - which, incidentally, proves that a high-mass which is an effective neutral sink for noise, like a CLD wooden plinth (I would steer clear of sand and lead-shot as too damaging to the life and dynamics, from endless similar experiments on my Maplenoll), is an extremely effective way to go, as there are no musical penalties ( PraT and dynamics out the *ss) and a HUGE improvement in detail, imaging, frequency extension and bass, dynamics and speed.
As to the problematic motor, I direct everyone again to Recklinghausen - "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing." - it is in itself, by its actual results (actually listening to records), proven quite a bit better than theory (examination and knowledge devoid of listening tests) suggests. Yes it’s a “mere” shaded-pole motor, but results argue it is not so “mere”. It has hidden springs and structure designed to eliminate noise (Dr. Lenco’s genius at work). It is mounted horizontally and not vertically thus resulting in less stress on the main bearing and more speed stability (i.e. the platter is not pushed to one side introducing instabilities like rim-drives and belt-drives). And the Lenco engineers/Dr. Lenco did indeed understand motor issues, as this type of motor had an advantage, as explained in the Lenco company literature: “The 4-pole constant-velocity motor limits changes in turntable speed to less than 1% for up to 13% change in line voltage. Rumble and hum are negligible. Maximum wow and flutter is 0.2%.” Now, I am not saying it can’t be improved on, everything can, what I am saying, is that given the results (its track record so far, AND it has been deemed superior to the “vastly-superior”, according to these criteria , top-of-the-line idler and DD EMTs, by someone who actually owns rebuilt an replinthed Lencos, Garrards 301/401s, Thorens TD-124s), not too much can be made of its “weaknesses” (again Recklinghausen) to dismiss – in the absence of experience – the Greatness of the totality (again Recklinghausen).
This is why the Lenco is a work of genius: ELEGANCE. Where EMTs, Garrards and Thorenses are better-built and use “better” motors, the Lenco simply uses what is necessary. As some have pointed out, the towers from which the motor is suspended are cheap tacked-on affairs. Yes, but given that the Lenco motor is hanging from and isolated by springs, a stronger arrangement is not necessary (as simply mounting the Lenco on bricks and attaching a Rega tonearm demonstrates). The motor cannot be divorced from the flywheel-platter, as the idler-wheel makes of the whole an EXTREMELY effective system: the platter has much of its mass concentrated on the rim (as opposed, at least, to the Thorens and the Garrards) and is balanced, which due to its very secure coupling (idler-wheel) regulates the motor speed as the superb motor (spinning gat 1800 rpm and balanced to produce pretty well spot-on speed all on its own via simple momentum) regulates in its turn via torque (wheel) the platter, to create an extremely refined and yet powerful end result. The main bearing certainly doesn’t look like much (though it is very nice and obviously made of very high-quality steel) compared to both these other vintage offerings and modern high-end turntables, but given the horizontal mounting of the motor and less stress (proven by the fact that almost all Lenco main bearings are still in superb condition still) more is not truly necessary. The Lenco motor’s sloping spindle means, also, that such tricks as the magnetic brake on the Garrard, which is often criticized for introducing stresses, is not necessary: the Lenco motor simply spins at full-tilt all the time, open and free, and the wheel is simply slid along length of the sloping motor spindle to achieve perfect and accurate speed .
Again, I am not against improving the idler-wheel system (as I have often been charged with doing), but I am warning against being TOO dismissive of the Lenco design, especially in the absence of experience(as postings dismissing the Lenco as a good budget project over on VA so often do), the Lenco being far more than the totality of its parts. It is a finely-judged common-sense real-world design (producible back in the day at a common-sense price, as it would be today), and a brilliant contender for The Best, due to the elegance of its design, and quality of its parts aside, it is likely the most highly-evolved idler-wheel drive ever built.
Now why do I write this HUGE posting now (and I apologize)? Because, with the disappearance of the original thread and the consequent amazing resource it represented, I feel the Audio Gods are sending me a message, and I am thinking it is time to direct my energies elsewhere (certain business opportunities, and a book I was working on which was interrupted when my life was hijacked by Da Thread). The original thread was a screaming success and all I had wanted to achieve with it has been achieved (idler-wheel postings are a growing percentage of all postings and the idler-wheel revolution I had first tried to initiate is well underway), and now, human nature being what it is, internecine fighting will begin between various idler-wheel groups. Low-mass, high-mass, this way that way, it’s all music to my ears as the idler-wheel Greatness is now being heard, whatever the implementation, which was my aim. I will continue monitoring activities in order to protect my baby (so don’t think, Anyone, I will calmly let you get away with anything, I’ll be watching), but I think I will make my presence less felt and let all the experienced idler-wheel drivers take over much of the thread, at least for now, while I set other things in order and get the ball rolling elsewhere. Of course, I will continue to build and experiment and seek to improve the Lenco and other idler-wheel drives, and will post once my Rek-o-Kut and Garrard projects are done. In the meantime, it is fitting that Mario initiated this new thread, a testament and proof that some were paying attention and willing to test the reality against their theories. And once again, I will stress what should be a Mantra for the industry and the world, and remind everyone that theories are worthless until tested, and that the result , whatever it is (like growing intestinal disorders following the release and marketing of genetically-modified foods and continuing application of antibiotics in feed) trumps the theory: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing."
Many could still learn this lesson (just go sift through the VA postings), such as those who continue to dismiss and criticize the Lenco sound-unheard, due to the same old problem I had (and still have) with belt-drivers: since I own 'table A, then it HAS to be better than 'table B (blind prejudice knee-jerk reaction), except if 'table B is MUCH more expensive, or has a tremendous following, which assuages my ego. Ah, the good old days when only an intrepid few were willing to test my claims for the Lenco and the whole world was against us, and we could FEEL the momentum gaining as they first tried it with the then-cheap Decca International tonearm (25 euros!!) which I had been forced to track down.
I had remembered from my days in Helsinki from an old issue of Hi Fi News & Record Reviews that some company in Europe has tripped over a stash of these and were selling them for 25 euros. This was the trick to get people to try any better tonearm at all on the Lenco (they weren't yet willing to invest any serious money, even to the extent of a Rega), and as the reports came in of Lenco convert after Lenco convert due to the Lenco/Decca pairing, I finally got them to mount Rega tonearms (though I consider the Deccas musically superior to the Regas, the Regas are definitely more neutral and extract much more information, especially with MCs which also boost their musicality), which on the Lencos undergo a transformation into true gobsmacking detail-, dynamics-, bass-, highs- and imaging-Meisters!! With the addition of the Regas to the Lencos, the ball truly got rolling and more and more - still intrepid, adventurous, and rational (empirical evidence counts vs prejudice) with a sense of fun (roll your own, make discoveries) and adventure - joined in, came up with ideas, shared their experiences, to create together (the resources and time of the many is superior to that of the few) the now-ruling Giant Direct Coupled Lenco.
It's time once again to remind everyone of my rationale then, and my own internal thinking which led me not only by comparison (the very early primitive Lenco - not a patch on its current version - wiped the floor with every belt-drive I tested it against before I ever started Da Thread) but by logic to believe idlers were superior to belts in drive systems. To wit, given the Law of Diminishing Returns, one truly high-end turntable - which meant belt-drive back then - should not CRUSH another turntable, but instead, according to the price-tag/seriousness of the design (amount of materials, engineering), offer only certain refinements over the lesser turntable. But here was the Lenco (even set up balanced on bricks with no plinth with a Rega popped into the original arm-hole) CRUSHING highly-regarded belt-drives (at the time I was running a Maplenoll Ariadne and an Audiomeca, and had pit it against Linns and etc). My logic was as follows, and it applies every bit now as well as we are STILL in the same old fight (criticism without experience of the aural reality): the humble Lenco with all its faults (as indeed this is the HEART of the matter which so many have forgotten, or never knew due to the enormity of the now-deceased thread), its cheaper construction (as compared with the classically well-built Garrard 301/401 and the Thorens TD-124 and of course EMTs, AND of course the high-end belt-drives it was being pitted against), its so-so main bearing, its relatively unspectacular platter (as compared with many of the belt-drive monsters) CRUSHED belt-drives (of course the belt-drivers refused to acknowledge the possibility I was speaking truth, which is why I sneakily seduced many into joining me in the experiment by presenting them with a fun project - hence the title - in order to begin to accumulate my evidence). WHY??!!?? It couldn't be because of its build quality.
To overcome all the minuses there HAD to be a BIG plus, and that plus HAD to be the drive system, nothing else, since THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE. Hold in your minds the immortal words of Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, former Chief Research Engineer, H.H. Scott: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing." This embodies the Spirit of the scientific process I was always going on about in Da Late, Lamented Thread: experience/experiment trumps theories, the end (this, in a nutshell, is science, and we are all qualified to judge for ourselves given enough information). Not complicated, but increasingly in the scientific community - and among the general population of course - prejudice/belief/theory trumps results, which are swept under the carpet to favour the favoured theory (which, for instance, is why the belt-drive ruled so long).
Now, at the time I believed - due to its inferior construction - that if the Lenco was this good (and it was) then the much-better-built Garrard must REALLY be something else, which would only go to show how much superior the idler-wheel system was to the belt/tape/string drives! Now, I had discovered the whole idler-wheel principle when, just-moved to Helsinki with my new Finnish girl-friend, I was putting together a good little budget system (NAD 3020i/Boston A40 MKII), and picked up a turntable cheap at a flea market for two bucks. It was a Garrard SP25. It was non-functional and so I opened it up to repair it, and I was amazed at the Baroque complexities of the underlying mechanisms (an auto-changer with hundreds of springs, widgets, levers) and puzzled by the wheel and motor arrangement, which I had never heard of (the black-out on idler info was that effective back then). So, being practical, and knowing I could never repair whatever was wrong with it, not understanding it one whit, I simplified the task: I simply removed everything which did not have to do with driving the platter directly, all the automatic mechanisms linked to the tonearm, and cleaned and re-lubed it. It worked. So, curious, I soldered a better cable to it and bought a decent cartridge for it (a superb Glanz). I could not believe the sound which was emanating from that system (even the little SP25s when modded retrieve an astonishing amount of information and have astonishing dynamics and bass), and immediately understood that this drive system was better than the belt-drive system (due to the above rationale, and because I already owned a legendary Maplenoll and an Audiomeca), and I grew angry. Why had I never heard of this system??! Was belt-drive not touted as the best of all systems??!! Now aware of "idler-wheel drive" (I even had to look up the term by sifting through countless magazines in Helsinki libraries, before the internet), I began to dig for information. I found, eventually, the Garrard 301/401s, which a few small companies were restoring and re-plinthing in the back pages of British magazines.
There being no internet, and my living in Finland, it was impossible for me to find any Garrards, and so I married the internal drive system of an SP-25 to the platter of a Connoisseur BD2 in a two-level plinth similar to the Cain & Cain plinths being made today, and even with separate acrylic armboard (I'll try to dig up a photo) to be able to hear what a more serious version could sound like. It was glorious. Finally, one day, again in a flea market, I tripped over a large idler-wheel drive (it was evident to me), with Lenco badge. I thought to myself, “It isn't a Garrard, but it is a heavier/better idler, let's play with that!” I bought it, had my Rega tonearm and Kiseki cartridge sent to me from Canada (this is all in '92-'93), and set it up on metal stilts (no plinth at all), and heard SUCH UTTER PERFECTION (against a context of belt-drives) that I was once again overwhelmed, and once again angered. I knew that this system had been unfairly assassinated by a concerted effort of the press and industry (as the LP very nearly was by the Digital Parade). A friend who was by now wealthy heard it (“The hairs are going up on my arms!!”), and invested in its development, as he was toying with the idea of manufacturing. So I researched the issues and came up with the "Lenco L75 Prototype rebuild 1992" as it appears under my "system" on Audiogon. The plinth approximated the open architecture of the Oracles (and the brief Meitner) by being solid and in two tiers to dissipate noise into the atmosphere and not store energy, the top-plinth was extremely low-mass (a single small layer of Finnish birch-ply) not to store energy and was isolated from the lower by lossy silicone grommets not to communicate the mass of the massive lower plinth on which the motor - in order to minimize/eliminate noise/vibration - was mounted, as I had cut off the motor mounts on the top-plate, and made new ones on the lower massive plinth in the same orientation as the upper (as it had to be), thus using only three of the springs on which the motor sits, and some rubber shims on the new towers to hold it in place. This was to be the Prototype of the new turntable which was to be manufactured out of brass and white marble (I was in love with Greece back then as now). But, this was the time when all companies were ceasing production of both turntables (Thorens for instance) and cartridges (Shure), and it looked like the analog thing was finally going to be Dead. My backer backed out, I got on with my life (drifting around the world back then enjoying life, Lenco in mothballs), and didn't return to Canada until years later. I had my Lenco shipped to Canada, where it was my main source, made some for friends, but never forgot my anger at a lying system (press, industry, scientists/engineers/experts). Then, one day, in my new work, I was forced to get on the 'Net which I had resisted, and tripped over Audiogon, being new to the whole concept of internet forums.
I first tried to gather any other idler-wheel fans out there - FLOP - and then, seeing there was absolutely no interest, devised my sneaky "Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot" to gather followers and amass a body of evidence. In order to make the project/plan work, it was necessary for me to simplify the plans (a single plinth) in order to make the project simple and so encourage people - amateurs and woodworkers alike - to give it a try and have some fun, and make some discoveries (that idler-wheel drive was superior to belt-drive) and report on it, and so add to the body of evidence/proof. From this sprang the various Lenco websites which dot the internet today, and battles (often vicious and personal) waged across the forums led to others discovering idler-wheels (rather than the select few enjoying hem but keeping their heads low) and eventually open discussions with no more attacks (kind of ;-)).
Here, there was a delicate balancing act: I HAD to keep the design simple on Da Thread, because if any newbies had come onto the thread in the middle of discussions of oil-baths and secret chambers and metal-work, they would not have given the project a second thought and the whole thing would have died in its infancy, Da Thread and the project - to have idlers recognized as the truly great system it is (not that it wouldn't perhaps have done so eventually, but the thread was growing and gaining steam already) - disappearing like all the others into obscurity. But Da Thread was a learning experience for me as for the participants, because, in the course of simplifying the design down to one plinth and the Lenco simply bolted to it, I discovered that rumble and motor-noise was after all not an issue, and that after all it was not necessary to go to the enormous lengths I did on the Prototype (I was worried about this for a long time) to produce a quiet and incredibly DYNAMIC and refined Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove. I learned to respect and admire the Lenco as it had been designed, the more so the more the design evolved: it is ELEGANT and, after all, ranks with the best in the world, due to the implementation of the design.
Another issue is that of over-damping: with too much effort directed to eliminating the non-existent (inaudible) noise issue, the baby (DYNAMICS, BASS, and PraT out the yin-yang, which is the character of the idler-wheel drive system, while stunning detail, frequency extension and imaging is the quality) risks being thrown out with the bathwater, and everyone coming to the erroneous conclusion it is the idler-wheel drive system which is at fault. Then there is the common sense aspect: how can one even know about the success of these innovations in the absence of the experience of the “normal” reality (i.e. Lenco in simple heavy plinth, or even on bricks with a better tonearm)?? One MUST have context for any such experimentation to have meaning, or to be even directed in the right direction. In the case of the Lencos/Idler-wheel drives, the context is belt-drives (most of us have that context) and DDs, both of which I experienced to a serious degree. In other words, if you compare it to nothing, then your judgments are meaningless, and you are committing the very same error I spoke about at the beginning and which I fought against so bitterly: you are placing theory/prejudice (all in your head) ahead of the facts/empirical reality (experience of the simple Lenco). This is what Freek and those others who participated over time understood so well.
Anyway, these are the various balls I had to juggle over time, and over time I learned many things, prompted by issues and ideas to various experiments. I have now come to the Giant Direct Coupled Lenco and also learned that various weaknesses of the Lenco can be made to work to its advantage: if the Lenco, like the Garrard 301/401 and Thorens TD-124 and various others had the superior cast and ribbed top-plate, the Direct Coupling – which is a BIG step on the evolutionary ladder – could not be implemented nearly so effectively. Those who try high-mass on these other “superior” cast idlers come to conclusions which are apples to oranges, and so meaningless. From this, if I were to design a new idler-wheel drive, I would make the top-plate better, yes, by greater thickness and so more structural rigidity, BUT, I would make it flat and not ribbed to allow for effective Direct Coupling - which, incidentally, proves that a high-mass which is an effective neutral sink for noise, like a CLD wooden plinth (I would steer clear of sand and lead-shot as too damaging to the life and dynamics, from endless similar experiments on my Maplenoll), is an extremely effective way to go, as there are no musical penalties ( PraT and dynamics out the *ss) and a HUGE improvement in detail, imaging, frequency extension and bass, dynamics and speed.
As to the problematic motor, I direct everyone again to Recklinghausen - "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing." - it is in itself, by its actual results (actually listening to records), proven quite a bit better than theory (examination and knowledge devoid of listening tests) suggests. Yes it’s a “mere” shaded-pole motor, but results argue it is not so “mere”. It has hidden springs and structure designed to eliminate noise (Dr. Lenco’s genius at work). It is mounted horizontally and not vertically thus resulting in less stress on the main bearing and more speed stability (i.e. the platter is not pushed to one side introducing instabilities like rim-drives and belt-drives). And the Lenco engineers/Dr. Lenco did indeed understand motor issues, as this type of motor had an advantage, as explained in the Lenco company literature: “The 4-pole constant-velocity motor limits changes in turntable speed to less than 1% for up to 13% change in line voltage. Rumble and hum are negligible. Maximum wow and flutter is 0.2%.” Now, I am not saying it can’t be improved on, everything can, what I am saying, is that given the results (its track record so far, AND it has been deemed superior to the “vastly-superior”, according to these criteria , top-of-the-line idler and DD EMTs, by someone who actually owns rebuilt an replinthed Lencos, Garrards 301/401s, Thorens TD-124s), not too much can be made of its “weaknesses” (again Recklinghausen) to dismiss – in the absence of experience – the Greatness of the totality (again Recklinghausen).
This is why the Lenco is a work of genius: ELEGANCE. Where EMTs, Garrards and Thorenses are better-built and use “better” motors, the Lenco simply uses what is necessary. As some have pointed out, the towers from which the motor is suspended are cheap tacked-on affairs. Yes, but given that the Lenco motor is hanging from and isolated by springs, a stronger arrangement is not necessary (as simply mounting the Lenco on bricks and attaching a Rega tonearm demonstrates). The motor cannot be divorced from the flywheel-platter, as the idler-wheel makes of the whole an EXTREMELY effective system: the platter has much of its mass concentrated on the rim (as opposed, at least, to the Thorens and the Garrards) and is balanced, which due to its very secure coupling (idler-wheel) regulates the motor speed as the superb motor (spinning gat 1800 rpm and balanced to produce pretty well spot-on speed all on its own via simple momentum) regulates in its turn via torque (wheel) the platter, to create an extremely refined and yet powerful end result. The main bearing certainly doesn’t look like much (though it is very nice and obviously made of very high-quality steel) compared to both these other vintage offerings and modern high-end turntables, but given the horizontal mounting of the motor and less stress (proven by the fact that almost all Lenco main bearings are still in superb condition still) more is not truly necessary. The Lenco motor’s sloping spindle means, also, that such tricks as the magnetic brake on the Garrard, which is often criticized for introducing stresses, is not necessary: the Lenco motor simply spins at full-tilt all the time, open and free, and the wheel is simply slid along length of the sloping motor spindle to achieve perfect and accurate speed .
Again, I am not against improving the idler-wheel system (as I have often been charged with doing), but I am warning against being TOO dismissive of the Lenco design, especially in the absence of experience(as postings dismissing the Lenco as a good budget project over on VA so often do), the Lenco being far more than the totality of its parts. It is a finely-judged common-sense real-world design (producible back in the day at a common-sense price, as it would be today), and a brilliant contender for The Best, due to the elegance of its design, and quality of its parts aside, it is likely the most highly-evolved idler-wheel drive ever built.
Now why do I write this HUGE posting now (and I apologize)? Because, with the disappearance of the original thread and the consequent amazing resource it represented, I feel the Audio Gods are sending me a message, and I am thinking it is time to direct my energies elsewhere (certain business opportunities, and a book I was working on which was interrupted when my life was hijacked by Da Thread). The original thread was a screaming success and all I had wanted to achieve with it has been achieved (idler-wheel postings are a growing percentage of all postings and the idler-wheel revolution I had first tried to initiate is well underway), and now, human nature being what it is, internecine fighting will begin between various idler-wheel groups. Low-mass, high-mass, this way that way, it’s all music to my ears as the idler-wheel Greatness is now being heard, whatever the implementation, which was my aim. I will continue monitoring activities in order to protect my baby (so don’t think, Anyone, I will calmly let you get away with anything, I’ll be watching), but I think I will make my presence less felt and let all the experienced idler-wheel drivers take over much of the thread, at least for now, while I set other things in order and get the ball rolling elsewhere. Of course, I will continue to build and experiment and seek to improve the Lenco and other idler-wheel drives, and will post once my Rek-o-Kut and Garrard projects are done. In the meantime, it is fitting that Mario initiated this new thread, a testament and proof that some were paying attention and willing to test the reality against their theories. And once again, I will stress what should be a Mantra for the industry and the world, and remind everyone that theories are worthless until tested, and that the result , whatever it is (like growing intestinal disorders following the release and marketing of genetically-modified foods and continuing application of antibiotics in feed) trumps the theory: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing."