Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot II

"As I have repeatedly written since the beginning, in adopting the belt-drive they threw the baby (music: PRaT, SLAM, bass, gestalt) out with the bathwater (noise), and ignored the evidence of their senses, i.e. that with the [purely theoretical] banishment of the noise, they had lost the musical POWER. They lied to themselves, convincing themselves there had been no price, no losses. And, as I have written repeatedly, since the music is paramount, even if there had been a noise issue, it is a better choice to live with the noise and embrace the greater musicality, than to make great sacrifices in musicality in order to reduce noise."

The preceding is taken from my post a few back, nowhere did I write these early idlers were superior in every respect. This unplanned putting words/thoughts in my mouth/on the page paints me as an unthinking idler-wheel fanatic who must be pacified: I was and am very precise in putting out my thoughts and the facts. I am an extremely rational and logical man, which explains my constant posts as to the proper understanding of - and corruption - of scientific methods/ideals/empiricism. Was I not right about the idler, those who have tried it? Did I exaggerate one iota its effectiveness as a system, does the evidence not bear me out? It is evidence, testing, comparison and logic which leads me to write what I write, not blind fanaticism, my writings depend on finding, gathering and reporting the evidence and the ensuing conclusions. Now this type of discussion is very important and provides me with a platform on which to further explain which is very useful to me, and I don't want to dampen enthusiasm, so please continue, but with due regard to what I actually write, and have written ;-). To get back to the point, what I wrote above for all to see/read was that "They lied to themselves, convincing themselves THERE HAD BEEN NO PRICE, NO LOSSES."

To elaborate further, the industry and the press and by extension the general audio population believed (at least claimed) there had been no price WHATSOEVER, that the belt-drive was clearly superior in every way and an ACROSS-THE-BOARD improvement. The press and industry never once indicated there had been any loss, that belt-drives gave anything up at all, which explains the state of affairs when I arrived on the scene, where any open mention of idlers as serious equipment brought on a vicious game of Pile on the Heretical Rabbit (check the archives on various forums). Even comparison between a high-end belt-drive and a cheap little idler record-changer like a Dual or Garrard SP-25 CLEARLY shows enormous bass power, PRaT and gestalt - which is to say musicality - in the comparison. Detail and such audiophile niceties is incidental and not germane to this discussion, since nowhere did mention these in the context of the rise of the belt-drive. Once again, from what I already wrote: "in adopting the belt-drive they threw the baby (music: PRaT, SLAM, bass, gestalt) out with the bathwater (noise), and ignored the evidence of their senses, i.e. that with the [purely theoretical] banishment of the noise, they had lost the musical POWER".

This, once again, is an issue of musicality, not of audiophile niceties (though once properly set-up it is clear that idler-wheel drives are superior in EVERY area): again from what I clearly wrote: "it is a better choice to live with the noise and embrace the greater musicality, than to make great sacrifices in musicality in order to reduce noise." Musicality is what is important and what I stress beyond all other things, and it is here that the deception (self- and otherwise) was made.

Now it would be greatly interesting to somehow find all the published and germane material from the rise of the belt-drive and analyse it (this is in fact my "official" profession/education/training) - quite a lot was posted back in the old thread - and some day someone should do this. For instance, the Lenco was dismissed due to the nefarious Vertical Rumble Theory. According to this, the idler was the WORST of the three system, and the WORST of all idlers were the Lencos (which is to day the Lencos were considered the WORST turntables in the world, bottom of the heap of audio fertilizer/failures), this is the truth of the matter and provides the missing context for this discussion overall.

The Lenco, it was theorized, was incredibly noisy and rumbly due to its vertical wheel, the rumble thus generated was "in-phase" with the cartridge, as opposed to the horizontal rim-drive of the Garrard, which being horizontal and not vertical produced rumble at a 90-degree angle to the platter and so was not so serious. Now anyone who hears a properly-functioning Garrard or Lenco knows there is no audible rumble from either machine: the Lenco on bricks with no plinth whatsoever does not produce audible rumble (unless one is determines to maximize the problem somehow). So what had happened? The reviewer/review in question had forgotten to loosen the motor transit screws, the theory was then developed and put out to explain the extreme level of noise, and it was so reported, spread about and accepted, eventually to become the first Dogma I faced in the very beginning of the Da Thread. See as follows:

02-11-04: Rich121
Any developments? This forum has gotten very quite. I posted about this project on other sites...boy.. alot of negative feedback about this turntable!!!

Richard

"02-15-04: Rich121
My question before, as to why the hight mass was because, the motor is directly coupled to the platter, any vibration, any non-linear movement of the idler wheel equates to rummble. You cannot remove that no matter how massive you make the plinth, it goes directly to the platter.
When rumble is caused on the platter in this design, since the idler wheel is mounted on the bottom of the platter, instead of at the outer edges (like Garrard), the rumble is out of phase (you can check for this by pushing your mono button on your pre-amp, if you hear less with mono switched on, then, you have this rumble problem).
Also, I have been told by many, that from their experience, that you need to stay with a less expensive (not as revealing) cartridge, as, the rumble is definately picked up. If in the one I build, this becomes true, I will be very dissappointed. The one i'm building will have a brand new idler wheel, so as to not have any flat spots caused by the wheel sitting against the platter while not in use. I would like to use as good a cartridge as I can afford, but, I'm not sure about whether it would be worth the risk."

02-20-04: Rich121
Did you not read the posts? They basically repeated what I said in this thread earlier.... These are Lenco owners who posted... I'm talking about the posts on AA that Musicus53 reported. Obviosly, you did a search of AA to dig up the few positive posts, why don't you tell the truth, about the overwealming negative posts? That are from Lenco owners. Most every one that still owns a Lenco, says that it is only useable for old 78's because of the rumble (which you claim is not there!, Which you claim can be eliminated with a massive plinth...) What it amounts to, is your claiming that it will (plinth) defy physics and magically divert the rumble from the platter, to the plinth!!! What a joke!!!! The plinth is not even directly connected to the motor/idler wheel/platter.... it is connected to the plate, then the plate is connected to the motor, motor to idler wheel, to platter WHICH IS WHERE THE RUMBLE ENDS UP!!!

END OF SEGMENT. It is clear from these postings what the atmosphere was back then at the begining of Da Thread, 2004, much as many would deny me and erase the very vicious and aggressive battles I fought (with my deniers as well) across a variety of forums before idler-wheelers could freely experiment and post without fear of attack/humiliation/implication. This atmosphere was generated by the Belt-Drive Consortium, and having for years suffered condescension, insult and personal attack due to my sticking to the idler-wheel system in preference to the belt-drive system, I determined to shove the idler up their collective asses as far as it could possibly go (which doesn't mean that I didn't firmly believe, due to evidence AND logic, that it wasn't de facto the superior system). Which, I am happy to say, has been shoved waaaayyyyy waaayyy up there, with the help of all those who had the courage (especially in the beginning in the face of a lot of opposition) to go ahead and try it and report on it, and continue to do so :-). So thanks to all those who continue to post and to spread the word, kudos to you all!!

And now for a little bit of history, and more context, from the First Posters, those who accepted the Challenge, which proves the Anti-Idler Pro-Belt atmosphere only 3 years ago, my how time flies:

02-12-04: Dickson
Hi,

I have been intrigued with this "Lenco" project from the first post by Johnnantais. I used to believe that a TT should only be belt drive. I guess this was what was preached from when I was a teenager. Thus all other types of TT's should sound bad, but I never checked this out myself. Thus about 3 months back I started to look for a Direct Drive TT. I now have the table but have not set this up yet. A friend talks of outstanding bass due to the speed stability.

Now I have purchased a Lenco GL75 on Evil Bay and am highly enthusiastic about setting this up. Just waiting for instructions and more details from Master Johnnantais.

02-16-04: Musicus53
John,
I stumbled onto this thread a few days ago and already have my "feelers" out for a Lenco L75 to start the project with (no luck yet). I was about to drop some serious scratch on a Teres (which would probably create more than a little stress in the "marital bliss" department), and would therefore love to give this a shot before doing so. And you're right, it sounds like fun! Since I've always owned belt drive tables (Ariston then VPI, etc.), I'm not familiar with Lencos other than in name. At the risk of betraying my DIY inexperience, do you think I would be able to install a Teres (or VPI, etc.) platter as a possible upgrade, or do the mechanics/bearing of the table make this impossible?
Don

02-19-04: Musicus53
Hi, John

I just wanted to let you know that your fame (or in this case, infamy) is rapidly spreading since you've now a subject in the Vinyl Asylum! I thought the post about you was actually laughable, but I had to repond (as "Vinyldork"). I just hope a "deprogrammer" doesn't kidnap me now and convince me that Lencos are crap before I get to do the project! Some great links from bornin and I'm looking forward to the pics.

Don

02-20-04: Bornin50
Hi John

Respect dude - don't let the doubters get you down! The Swiss beauty gets the stage she's been waiting for.

Cool!

02-21-04: [email protected]
Johnnantais, in response to your 02-20-04 posting: I´m the guy who wrote the VA post you quoted entirely without mentioning your source. I just fooled around with my L78 i just used for 78s and reported my findings at this point. Indeed, with the standard plinth and arm. Not very nice of you to accuse me of suffering from the Dogma that´s obviously becoming an obsession for you. But i´m a good sport and i take up the challenge! I´ve been fooling around with Thorens TT for ± 2 years, stuffing them with damping materials, building heavy plinths etc. I´m already mailing with Tjoeb about the Decca arm(I´m living in the Netherlands, they´re round the corner!). And i´m going to make a plinth, MDF, birch multiply, we´ll see. One question, do you keep the original springs? With the foam inside?

Greetings from Holland, Freek.

03-07-04: Munkienl
Hi all,

again a little update, i got my L78 out of the plinth now. Thanks Willbewill for the template and the pictures, way to go! I will be keeping the original armlift, you can adjust it with the knob on top, i´m going to glue a piece of rubber or whatever on it to get it up to the correct height. I found an alternative for doing the sanding/painting routine for a week, self-adhesive plastic with a convincing maple wood pattern, 4 euro per roll at my local DIY. they had several wood patterns and even Johnnantais´beloved white marble!
I´ve been listening to the L78/Decca/Stanton 681EEE in the original plinth on a very humble system, 1980s Yamaha amp, little Mission 2 way monitors, cheap cables. Even in this humble system the bass is incredible as well as the speed and dynamics. If the heavy plinth really takes care of the rumble we´re in business!
Tomorrow i´ll have the guys at DIY saw 4 slabs of 22 mm MDF out for me. I´ll keep you posted.

Greetings, Freek.

END OF SEGMENTS. The last post emphasizes what I've been saying in this post, that even with almost no work and without a decent tonearm (though the Deccas are very musical, which is another issue) Freek could hear the bass, boogie factor and dynamics of the idler-wheel system, in comparison to his beloved Thorens TD-125/SME 3009/VdH MC combo. He is not speaking of audiophile niceties but instead of MUSICALITY, precisely what I have been writing all along.

Anyway, I gotta run, I'm sure you're all relieved, I'll be back at a later date to elaborate on this, including the question of whether idlers were ever given a fair shake when the belt-drive took over. Thanks for the opportunity of a discussion, much appreciated, keep it up!!

Thanks for the full reply and the history. For those of us who have come into this thread more recently, and now don't have access to the early years of the conversation, this is really interesting background.

You and some of the other early pioneers of the idler wheel revival obviously had to put up with more in the way of dogmatic rejection and personal attack than I realized. But as I said in what was probably my first post here months ago, "Reality bats last." That means you get the last laugh. Bob

I'm baA-Aack! So, to get back to Ivor Tiefenbrun and the Linn, Bob (please excuse my earlier vehemence), let's resort to logic and evidence. What he brought to the party in particular was his philosophy of source first, with which I completely agree (within reason): Garbage In, Garbage Out as they say (this applies to the computer models so often resorted to in science as well). However, did he ever pit his Linn against a properly set-up idler-wheel drive (likely this would have been a Garrard 301 or 401)?

Idlers were already on the way out by 1974, already losing ground to the belt-drives due to bad press and economics (increased profits) for reasons mentioned above. 1974 was the year in which Tiefenbrun introduced the Linn, which was chronologically far behind the Thorens belt-drives and the ARs (each having its claim to be the first to issue a belt-drive, which, it turns out, was actally invented by....Lenco!!! :-)), not to mention the Aristons which legend has it gave Ivor the idea for the Linn in the first place (the story being that Ariston approached his father with a view to having him do the metalwork for their turntable, the deal fell through for some reason, and Ivor adopted the design). So we have to ask: were any serious comparisons ever done between properly set-up idler-wheel drives (and with decent tonearm) during this time and fairly reported, or did the belt-drive designers simply assume that battle was over and the belt-drive "proven" superior, and the reporters and industry go along and promote this view?

And from a practical point of view, place yourself in Ivor's place: and along comes Ariston with its copy of a Thorens TD-150, and you see an opportunity to get into turntable manufacture (don't forget my background is originally high-end and classic belt-drives). A belt-drive requires only very basic metal-work (a lathe, a folded metal subchassis, springs, a motor an an elastic band). So would Ivor even have any interest at all in producing an idler-wheel drive with its much more complex mechanisms, far more demanding metal work and specialized-for-record-playing motors? Since it was an impossibility to take idler production on, and they were on their way out anyway due to bad press and economic reasons, then likely Tiefenbrun never did do this comparison, or even thought it necessary. Which brings me back to an earlier statement: "It was the duty of the belt-drive designers (being experts, and this is true of all scholars and, indeed, Thinking Men on any subject) to think to reinvestigate the Fundamental Assumption of their craft (once the Assumption had been, like Perfect Sound Forever, trumpeted and accepted): that the belt-drive was superior. They didn't, and today we are saddled with $100K machines, an admission if ever there was one that the system is deeply flawed (else why the necessity for such extremes?)."

Now let's turn to another possibility and consider the reports of another early participant of the original thread:

"This evening is the first chance I have had to play with the beastie. I found (it took me a little while) the Origin Live modified Rega 250 that I bought two years ago intending to mount on an Empire 208 if I ever found one. I didn't.
I also found my little used Denon 103D. An hour later we were ready to go. No plinth. I precariously balanced the Goldring on two lead shot filled plwood boxes that I made ages ago to set a pair of Carver Amazing speakers on. The speakers are long gone, but the heavy little boxes thankfully remain. Albert I don't know what TT you had before the Goldring, but my expectations were certainly not high since I have a heavily modified Linn LP 12 with an Ittok arm and Koetsu Black cartridge. I have to say that the Goldring with the lesser cartridge (the Denon 103D at $225, while a very impressive cartridge is no match for the $1,500 Koetsu), unravelled the music and separated instruments better than the Linn with the Koetsu. At first I thought that was hearing over-simplification of passages, but when I started hearing things in the foreground that were either distant on the Linn or very subdued, I knew this was not the case. Separation of lead and backing vocals and clear enunciation of words seemed better on the Goldring. I think I have to switch the Ittok and Koetsu to the Goldring to be completely fair. But then I think that there would be an even greater bias towards the Goldring."

"I continue to be impressed by this TT - even without a plinth - which I know will improve everything. It's subtle for the most part and reveals everything with a very light touch, never screaming "look at all this detail". But when there are massive dynamic swings it is scary. For the ultimate test of just how scary, play "No Pasaran" from Joe Jackson's 1987 LP "Will Power". It will make you leap out of your pants. Also even in it's plinthless state it sails through those classic 'test' tracks like "Sad Old Red" by Simply Red and "Ride Across The River" by Dire Straits - both tough tests of the ability of a system to reproduce bass that stops and starts on a dime with no overhang."

"I am a long time Linnie. I have own LP 12's for 28 years. My current Linn has an Origin Live DC motor and a Cetech carbon fibre subchassis. On a whim I bought a GL 75 and put an Origin Live modded Rega 250 and my beloved Koetsu Black on it. Holy shit, better bass, much better leading-edge dynamics and pretty remarkable imaging. This is all without a plinth. I'm just resting this beast on two lead-filled boxes. I am about to make a decent plinth and see where it goes."

"I STILL haven't built a plinth for my GL 75, OL Rega, Koetsu Black. But I'm playing it all the time. And I get more impressed with every LP. I should mention that I went from thin, model train oil to Mobil 1 grease and then a combination of the last two. My last choice seems to be the best. When I eventually get around to building the plinth it will be on this site. Just listened to Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" and Little Feat "The Last Record Album". I'm hearing things that were not there AT ALL on the Linn. Buggeration. Is that possible ?"

END OF SEGMENT. So let's consider the context here: a Lenco with no plinth at all, precariously balanced, with a Rega tonearm simply plopped into the original hole, STOMPS a fully-tricked latest-edition Linn LP12. Now no one would say the latest Linns aren't a TREMENDOUS improvement over the original Linns, so we have to come to some conclusion. And, the conclusion is this: either a proper and fair showdown was never done between the belt-drives of the day, or it was and they lied. At some point, somebody, somewhere, lied, or at the very least misdirected. By this last I mean they focused entirely on the noise issue by which the idler-wheel drive was discredited and character-assassinated, and simply failed to mention the fact idlers had in fact more dynamics, better bass and better timing and attack than belt-drives. If they focused solely on the noise issue, as I wrote up above, and ignored/pretended there was no loss, then this is negligence and prejudice. If they lied, then it is quite simply a crime (like the introduction of CD ;-).

Perhaps the world just works this way, and a newer system which allows greater profits wins every time. But, being an Idealist, I say this then provides us the perfect arena in which to re-examine the way our western Consumer Society works (and re-introduce the concept of job satisfaction, pride and fulfillment in knowing you are contributing to a quality product), about the concept and Myth of Progress on which our Consumer Society depends, and how we might begin to rethink our attitudes to both quality and integrity.

So, to get back to my original thought: "As I have repeatedly written since the beginning, in adopting the belt-drive they threw the baby (music: PRaT, SLAM, bass, gestalt) out with the bathwater (noise), and ignored the evidence of their senses, i.e. that with the [purely theoretical] banishment of the noise, they had lost the musical POWER. They lied to themselves, convincing themselves there had been no price, no losses." Since the evidence shows that idler-wheel drives ARE superior in terms of PRaT, slam and bass (after all, it was a cheap little Garrard SP-25 which converted me, with original tonearm, and I get e-mails all the time from fellows who remember how powerful their father's idler-based system sounded in their youth), if not, in their original form, better at high frequencies, silence and detail, then many did indeed deceive themselves and convince themselves there was no comparative loss, and in the process deceived others. The same happened just a while back, no?, when Compact Disc was touted even by owners of good belt-drives as superior in every way, shape and form to their record players. Even Digitophiles will today admit LPs have a warmth and listenability today's much better digital players lack, but they didn't back then when the fight was fresh and on.

So, thanks Bob and Richard for a chance to air out these old arguments, it's good to dust them off and air them out occasionally, and better, due to your promptings and excellent questions, delve into them further, this is much of the reason I had started the original thread (not just to ram point A up certain persons' asses ;-)), as a chance to re-examine and analyze what had happened. But, before we could get to this stage, we had to prove that something HAD in fact happened, i.e. that idler-wheel drives were in fact incredible machines, and, according to me anyway, quite simply the best LP-spinning system we have yet devised.

My own limited experience parallels what you're saying, Jean. When I "upgraded" (I thought) from a beat up old Rek-O-Kut to a VPI HW-19 Jr., I was disturbed to find the VPI wasn't as good in just the areas you emphasize - PRaT, SLAM, bass, and gestalt. I had to spend a couple of $k more upgrading the table, arm and cartridge to turn the VPI into the better sounding machine, and even then the Rek-O-Kut beat the VPI in sheer dynamism. And then just recently I've had the experience of transfered my Koetsu Rosewood Signature from a VPI Mk.IV to the Giant Lenco. It was like going from John Denver to Pavorati! I've heard (maybe here in the thread)that Koetsus were made for idler wheel drives in the sense that Sugano listened with and "tuned" his cartridges using a Garrard turntable. Now I believe it.

You're getting into some heavy reflections in your analysis of how things went so wrong: the duty to validate Fundamental Assumptions, the need for a deep reexamination of how our Western consumer society works, the nature of progress. Those are reflections I completely agree with that apply far beyond the realm of audio. For example, the most basic assumption of most economists today is that economic progress means increasing GNP. GNP (slightly oversimplified!) is essentially the rate of flow from resource extraction through product production to the garbage dump. This is completely wrong. The object isn't to maximize the rate of flow, it's to maximize stock quality - the quality of goods and services and the quality of life. To the extent that that can be done with REDUCED flow rates by making quality things that last longer, using energy and materials more efficiently, etc., the better. And any society that narrowly maximizes on short-term profit to the exclusion of non-economic values like honesty, integrity, and fairness is blundering down a self-destructive path. So the idler wheel story is a case example of the bigger story that we need to see. But, Oh My, this is getting far too far afield from building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot!
Bob

Well I have to admit – I did it !! I helped the idler drive tts die. But in my defence I’ll say you had to be there ………it was a different time ………

Since the 50s I had listened to records on a typical British radiogram, cheap idler drive tt, full range speaker and valve amplifier. Through the 60s this kept me alive, playing Kinks and Who 45s at full blast, teenage rage satisfied. But it rumbled like a train.

Time passes, and when it comes to buying a hifi the last thing I wanted was something old or looked it. The early 70s saw the hifi industry go mass market. Adverts for hi-tec Japanese products filled the magazines, old fashioned looking British and European gear just could not compete. One or two like Quad and SME survived because of reputation and high quality. But Japanese tts had SME-alike arms, looked great and were affordable, what’s not to like?

In 1974 I was given a Garrard 301 with valve amp in an old cabinet that my brother in law had found at the local dump. It moved around the garage for a while, then one day I tried it out into a pa speaker using the Leak arm and cartridge that it came with. I didn’t finish an lp side because the cartridge was hopping around a lot, but one section of the disc played ok. I later reported during one of those late night hifi conversations that the bass was like concrete, hard and unyielding! I knew the 301 would never get to the lounge :) so when a friend said 301s fetched good money in Japan and he knew a guy that exported them. ?? £70 was a lot of money in 1975 when you’re setting up home, so bye bye 301.

I snagged a second hand TD150, fitted an SME 3009 and thought I’d never need another tt. Problem was at parties when we would listen to the old 60s 45s they didn’t have the same bite I remembered. I figured it was an age thing.

When the Sondek came out in 74 it did not cause that much of a stir. The doo doo didn’t hit the fan until an article came out in 76, one of the reviewers had been Linn-napped for a weekend, and forced to listen to records until he got it. (BTW rumble figures from back then could be quoted in several different ways, the Linn was definitely quieter than a stock L75.) It’s as well to remember that in 76 the Linn wasn’t being compared to idler drives because there weren’t any to compare it to. I know a few still existed, but a stock 75, while it has something, couldn’t hope to be in the same ball-park as a Linn/Grace/Supex. It won’t even work with a decent cartridge for goodness sakes. No dealers would have an EMT on hand to use, and the SP25 would have self destructed at the thought of it, after the crowd stopped laughing.

The manufacturers weren’t conning us about idler drives, they were conning us about direct drives. And these are what the Linn found easy to beat. The Linn bearing was the jewel in the crown then, and still is.

Linn were fighting the same war that is being waged today, and we should thank them for that. If the vinyl high end had not existed in 1985, then vinyl would have disappeared completely by now. It’s not their fault they didn’t know about idlers, no-one did, or more importantly wanted to! The unfortunate result of Linn winning the war then, is that today the collective conscious as regards vinyl has a belt drive bias. Again you can’t blame people for that, we all signed up for it, and having paid our dues we think it must be right.

So having stated that the new (direct drive) technology was a mirage, and belt drive done right is where it’s at, they did all they could do. Think about it and you’ll see that the flag has been kept flying, long enough for us to re-look at an even older technology.

Like it or not, if they hadn’t done that we would not be having this conversation.

PS I like playing my 60s 45s on a Lenco.