Platter Upgrade for Garrard 301

But if one owns such an TT as an Rockport and is still not fully satisfied then,I am afraid,I have no answer......

you are not the first to question why i am traveling down this road....but 'not fully satisfied' with the Rockport is not the answer to the question. curiosity and wanting to be involved with a fun direction is most of it. after i have fully experienced what the Technics and Garrard and such have to offer then we will see what i do long term. it's all good. i have also dived into RTR decks, but again not because the Rockport did not satisfy.

it's a hobby, and it's fun. all these machines hopefully bring us closer to the magic of music in some way.

I feel the same way as Mike. This is a fun adventure that does not really cost much in the long run. Of course, I don't have a Rockport or anything comparable to fall back on. What got me going was the surprising sonics of my Lenco L75 in a custom designed CLD plinth. Holy cow! I figured if the Lenco, my first sample of a vintage tt, sounds so good, I ought to do some further investigation. Nandric, if you can bring yourself to make a dispassionate assessment, you too will be surprised at the music that can be made by these nostalgia-provoking pieces of gear. (I think all this is off-topic; sorry.) Two years ago, I thought those who tinkered with idlers and DD tables were interesting troglodytes.

Mike,Logene,e.a. I feel very uncomfortable with semantical
issues because my English is the worst of my languages.
Despite of this I will underline that 'worning' is not
the same as 'allowing' (I was desperate for an more adequate expression but alas).
So I refered to P.Lurne an phisicist who is longer then
30 years in TT development. The so-called 'context' was
the complexity of design and manufacturing of the platter
(the bearing of course included). I.e. not something one
does in hes garage in hes leisure time.
But it is,it seems to me,an totaly onother issue if my
'worning' (in technical sense) is interpreted as some kind
of 'not allowing' my forum-fellows the pleasure of chasing
whatever they like.I.e thy 'adventure'.
I see our forum also as a 'place' for exchange of information. So I am sorry to see that nobody refers to
Lurne (qua context) but I know of course that all in this
forum is 'voluntary'.

Cheers

Nandric, I get it (finally), you are a big fan of Pierre Lurne' (hope I've spelled it correctly) and his turntable designs, which I think are suspended, belt-drive types. That's fine. In this case, the question of what upgrades work best for the Garrard 301/401 probably does not really interest you. As for me, I hope you will forgive me for saying so, but I heard some of his very early commercial products (probably 10 to 20 years ago) and did not like them at all, as compared to the belt-driven competition at that time. His products are probably a lot better developed by now, so my memory of their sonics is probably irrelevant. But in this thread we are talking about Garrard idler drives.

Lewm,I am glad that at list somebody 'get it' regarding
Pierre Lurne (you spelled it correctly). But I have no
idea how you 'get' the conclusion. I was explicite with my
reference to the platter and the bearing design (aka the
complexity) and so far I know even an Gerrard 301 needs
one. I even stated that the platter is 'the most important part' of an TT.I deed not mention 'belt' or other drive types.
I am a big fan of Lurne but I discovered dat Kuzma is even
better so I sold the Meca J1 and bought an Kuzma Stabi Reference. What your experience with Lurnes turntables was Ican't comment on unless you experinced Audiomeca J1.
Cheers