[Grbluen]

I don't think that there would a capstan available off the shelf. It would have to be based on my turntable, specifically the outer diameter of my platter. I just need to find better equipment or a shop that would fabricate it for me.

Grb

[Grbluen]

Yes i suspected it was delrin , its too soft hence it wont true up , there is a certain hardeness  required the one you have is too soft, i do  recall different levels of hardness with delrin for machining ...


Regards

Thanks for the heads up. I think I'll try aluminum or brass.
Grb

[Grbluen]

Grb,
I don't know much about fabricating capstans, but I saw that Premotec makes some motors designed for turntables.  Couldn't you buy a capstan the appropriate size?   If you increase platter mass you might need the extra torque, depending on how much mass. 

I saw a few companies like Newark Electronics that sell these motors, but I didn't find capstans.
neo

Neo, I'm pretty sure that I'm ok with the torque. The motor will never start the platter without a nudge, but I anticipated that. It's the wobble that I can't stand. LOL

GRB

[neobop]

Wobble?  That's often caused by the platter seating askew on the spindle.  It could also be the main bearing attachment to the plinth.
Do you have an acrylic platter?  I think they're more likely to have problems at the spindle attachment.  Does the Scout have a conventional or inverted bearing?
I think it's conventional, but I never fixed a Scout.  I saw this on a couple of HW-19.   We usually sent them to VPI, but sometimes the problem was obvious.  You might see the platter or bearing isn't seated right.  Sometimes you can tell by putting a light object on top of the platter edge and another near the spindle.  Spin the platter and observe, level with the platter.  If the bearing is tilted on the plinth it will have to be reseated, but more likely it's the platter seating.  I don't think it's likely that the bearing has to be replaced. 

Not sure if this is a separate issue.  I think it's unlikely that an out of round pulley would cause wobble.  More likely wow and flutter.
neo

[Grbluen]

Neo, I'm sorry, I've been speaking of wobble of the capstan. The platter is fine.

[neobop]

No problem.  Why don't you machine one out of aluminum and put a rough finish on it so the belt won't slip?
I'd think many machine shops could accommodate you if the job is big enough for them to bother.  You might have to order a thousand.   

Did you see the plinth Sonny made (on the new thread)?   Maybe he could advise you. 
neo

[Grbluen]

I'll probably try brass or aluminum. There is an outfit here in Detroit that allows access to all kinds of equipment, but the membership cost is pretty high! I think I saw the thread on the new plinth. I'm pretty sure that I'm close to maxing out the Scout. I'd like to try a setup plinth. I'm thinking it would be nice to have a plinth with a cutaway to allow a closer view of the stylus. I have a couple of dreams ahead of that one

[neobop]

Interesting that the top models were Boron rather than Beryllium.... (were they tubes rather than rods?)

On the subject of the AT22 to AT25, although they were all eliptical, their upmarket signet twins had ML's at the top of the line...

The AT22-25 and TK9/10 were a generation earlier, they were more expensive to make due to having true torroidal construction... all the rest of the VM series have always used para-torroidal design - so the earlier generation were magnetically superior - but the difference may have been very minor.

The shorter cantilever on the ATML series made a bigger difference I think, than the torroidal structure on the earlier series...

Seems to me the ATML180 is up there as one of the all time greats.

My own measurements of the TK9 show a noticeable midrange trough (not  a bad one, but not the best I have seen either) - which is caused (I think) by a combination of magnetic losses and cantilever flex losses - the low inductance is reflected in the high end rise to a resonance beyond the audio range (cannot recall right now the frequency - would have to look up my measurements).

The higher inductance of the ATML allows it to achieve a flatter frequency response at the high end - would love to get my hands on one to measure - and see what the midrange trough looks like... I have a feeling it will/would do better than the earlier series or the AT150 - mostly due to the shorter cantilever.

In the Stantering family, the D7500 stylus shows a 3db trough when fitted to a high inductance body, and a 1db trough when fitted to a low inductance body... so magnetic differences can be quite substantial (and get worse as signal rises - the test tracks are at -20db) - the trade off is the flatter overall frequency response with reduced high end rise.... But given the greater importance of the midrange, the XLZ body ends up sounding better than the high inductance XSV... although on the chart, the XSV looks better/flatter.

Regarding boron vs. beryllium:  AT stopped using beryllium sometime around 1982 or 3.  Prior to that I think all high end ATs had beryllium rods.  The TK9 had tapered beryllium.  The ML150 was obviously produced prior to that change and the 170/180, after.   I had a TK10ML II and the cantilever was boron.  I bought that new in the mid '80s.  I think the original 10ML was beryllium.  AFAIK AT never used a tube cantilever other than aluminum or possibly titanium.

Beryllium is less rigid than boron so in that respect it sounds more like tapered aluminum.  It's also lighter than boron so resonance is higher than the audio band.  A downside of beryllium - it's brittle, more so than boron and breaks easier (as we found out).   I think beryllium is the ideal material for most AT carts.  It's less analytical sounding than boron, but the difference seems slightly more than minor.  Sometimes when listening and comparing, it's hard to separate perceptions from expectations.  I'm pretty sure about this one.
neo

[neobop]

I was reading a review of the Transfiguration Proteus, a $6K MC.  Gee, it sounds swell.  Wish I had one, and while we're at it Ill take an Atlas, an Anna, and a DRT XV-1t.   

http://www.stereophile.com/content/transfiguration-proteus-mc-phono-cartridge

I must say, Mikey's good with those comparative descriptions, but I wonder how that might change with a different phono stage an especially SUT.  More importantly, I wonder if my record collection is worthy of such extravagance.  I'm afraid this thought is inspired by a recent purchase of a Sonny Rollins reissue, a new Spanish OJC (Original Jazz Classics) pressing - 180g.  It's noisy.  I wonder if the noise will subside with subsequent plays, like some modern Blue Notes that were horrible and went to barely acceptable.  I guess it takes around $50/per to get a good copy these days.  Sad.  Have to spend more time at used record bins.  I'm not looking forward to replaying the Sonny Rollins.  I'm afraid the noise is there to stay and Rollins was never a favorite of mine anyway.  I would have passes on this record if it was in a bin.  I guess I'll know better next time, but I digress.

This is from the review:
Then I looked at the specs. The Proteus has a claimed internal impedance of 1 ohm! Not as low as the 0.4 ohm of Dr. Kubo's Haniwa HCTR01-6T, which is close to a short circuit, but otherwise as low as I've seen. Ultra-low impedance and inductance produce less phase shift, which improves transient performance, while the coil's lower mass should improve overall speed and mechanical responsiveness.

I wonder how Mikey's misunderstanding of phase and transient response affects his perception of these carts.  Does he really think low impedance and inductance means less phase shift?  Even though he doesn't know what he's talking about, I think he reports what he hears, and he does say, "The cantilever is of 0.3mm-diameter solid boron, to which is affixed a PA (3x30µm) stylus of solid diamond."   

Why can't these Stereophile clowns buy a couple of test records and give even a cursory test report?  It won't tell us much about transient response, but high frequency resonance would give us an idea of phase.  I think a frequency response graph might scare off perspective sales - read advertisers.
neo

[dlaloum]

Mikey Fremer is not really a test and measurement kind of guy... (my own analysis of him)

With regards to the noisy record, are we talking vinyl roar or pop/click type noise?

The first is friction related - which is why it can improve with time as the needle "polishes" the groove, the second is cleaning related...

For friction related vinyl roar, there are alternate solutions:
1) GruvGlide (processed tallow as a lubricant - it works, and can be cleaned off easily)
2) Last treatment/preservative (Fomblin synthetic lubricant, but in very low concentration, used as per instructions it will not reduce vinyl roar, but used in much higher amounts, I would conjecture that it should)
3) Armorall (this and similar automotive vinyl treatments have been shown to reduce vinyl roar by 20db !!! - Jury is out with regards to long term impact, but quite a few well respected audiophiles use this)
4) Wet Playing (done correctly this is water acting as a lubricant, measured noise reduction is also circa 20db - there are however risks to the "guts" of cartridges, especially risky with megabuck MC's - but used with MM's this is less an issue as the stylus is replaceable. If done correctly, there is very little water used, and very little risk to cartridge/stylus, but it is finicky - also if water used is not high quality purified, then there will be deposits form the water that need cleaning out)

I have briefly explored the LAST formulation (patent is published) - there is a good reason that so little Fomblin is used in it - the stuff is seriously expensive!
In the back of my mind I continue to have a nagging thought that there might be alternative synthetic lubricants with similar results on vinyl to Fomblin, and without the high cost.... every so often I spend some time doing further research on that.

ArmorAll is the simplest easiest, cheapest and perhaps the obvious answer - the only question is long term impact.

I suggest you try Gruv Glide - it does the friction reduction job well and can easily be cleaned off (if desired) - if you use too much of it, the excess will collect on the needle - also easily cleaned off.

Another interesting side effect of some of these products, is that the lubricant can gradually creep under dirt that is firmly stuck on, gradually releasing it (another reason why Gruv Glide can bring up small wads of rubbish under the needle).

Gusten on AK is using an ArmorAll like product (European brand) - and thought that the needle was collecting excess treatment - but on inspecting the wad under the microscope he found it to be dust/garbage.... in other words the lubricant was releasing firmly stuck on dirt, up to 10 plays after the treatment....

So there you go - a few thoughts.... as you know I am currently focused on vinyl cleaning and treatments...

bye for now

David

[neobop]

As I reread my last post I was wondering why I'm so tough on Mikey.  Some other reviewers are worse with technical matters and most of what he said seems intuitively correct.   I guess it's because he is one of the few I read sometimes, who seems to be able to describe in words those differences I've heard on the same equipment, not that I've kept up with the megabuck review items.  Other reviewers copy his descriptors.  I guess I'm personally embarrassed to give credence to someone on a subjective level who writes such technical garbage.  Maybe I'm jealous of his toys.

The noise on these new popularly priced pressings is transient - click and pop scratch types.  Imperfect cleaning might have something to do with it, but it only seems to go away with repeated plays.  Years ago this was attributed to not de-burring the stampers in the pressing plant.  You would think a burr on the stamper would cause a pit in the vinyl, but the vinyl is soft when it's pressed and the pit tends to fill in while leaving a tiny raised bump.
Disclaimer: I never worked in a pressing plant and if this description is inaccurate, please contribute.

David,
Interesting post.  Thanks.  More on this later.
neo

[a.wayne]

I have in the past, complained(stereophile) about the lack  of measurements in regards to TT's and cartridges, it does seem many are willing to plunk down thousands on a cartridge without caring if it meets manufacturers specs or not, business as usual ....

As to noisy vinyl , Neo are you saying some of these new wonder presses and re-issues are noisy compared to old used presses, considering the low volume done today , sad ...

Regards 

[neobop]

A Wayne,
I think record pressing today is like regaining a lost technology.  Back in the day records were it.  Your only alternative was tape.  Records were pressed in the millions, literally, and certain procedures were automatic.  That's not to say defects weren't plentiful, but with so many copies available it didn't seem as disappointing.  It was more easily rectified. 

Some defects like warps are usually caused by removing the record from the press before it cools sufficiently.  This wasn't uncommon in the past.  They had to meet production schedules.  The sort of noise I got on the few relatively inexpensive LPs I've bought recently, seems to vanish on subsequent playing.  That's why I suspect the stampers weren't de-burred properly.
One of the $12 Blue Notes I spoke of had white goo on the surface, only noticeable after I picked up the stylus during play because the SQ was so bad.  I already cleaned the record with Pure II and this never happened before using the same cleaner.  Was this mold release? 

I use a combination of regular RCM type cleaning and Wayner's dry vac super suction.  I think I'll get a ultrasonic cleaner some day, but I don't think it will knock off those little bumps like a stylus does.  On the other hand, most of these records are replacements and while the cheaper ones don't match the SQ of my former collection, they're not that bad and it's nice to have a copy.  The more expensive copies are generally close or even better and it's good that records are being pressed once again.
neo

[neobop]

I played the Sonny Rollins (Spanish OJC) again last night.  All the noise was gone, quiet as a mouse (almost).   I guess the noise could have been from imperfect cleaning, but I don't think so.  The OJC sounds excellent.  The SQ seems every bit as good as those issued in the '80s, which is very good.  The only thing that visually denotes this pressing is the bar code on the back cover.  OJC is highly recommended in general, popular price, original cover and liner notes, and good SQ. 

I was getting frustrated, to the extent that I said Rollins was never my favorite anyway.  That was sour grapes.  While Rollins isn't my very favorite sax player, he is one of the most influential and readily listenable players.  I have over a dozen Sonny Rollins albums and I bought this as a duplicate, something I almost never do.  This copy is mono.  I have a Prestige copy from the '70s (I think) in stereo, to compare.  It doesn't say electronically rechanneled stereo like some Columbia records, but I'm not sure.  The recording is from the '50s.  It might have been remastered and issued in stereo. 

I want to get a mono cart to see how much difference there is.  I also have a bunch of other mono records.  Now I'm trying to figure out which cart.  AT has a Mono3 LP  HOMC that's supposed to be true mono.  I think this goes for a little over $100 at Amazon.  The DL 102 seems to get much love.  It has a higher output and vertical compliance with no vertical output.  I guess that's true with any mono cart.  Recommendations anyone? 

I like to think it's all about the music and that's what I try to base record selection on.  But it's about enjoyment.  That's why we do all this in the first place.  No need to preach to the choir.
neo

[Halcro]

Hi Neobop,
I've just installed my first mono cartridge...the AT33MONO which may be more than you wish to spend....but is a LOMC true mono and not a HOMC like the AT33LP.
With only about 6 hours on it so far.....the differences this cartridge makes over a 'mono' button on the phonostage or preamp are significant..not so much with the Beatles mono set (perhaps because they were cut with stereo heads).....but with all my other mono recordings, I sit in disbelief..

[S Clark]

I've had the Denon 102 for several years.  It offers a warm and much more musical option than my stereo cartridges.  An added bonus is that it plays old mono LPs much quieter.

[neobop]

Hi Halcro,
"With only about 6 hours on it so far.....the differences this cartridge makes over a 'mono' button on the phonostage or preamp are significant..not so much with the Beatles mono set (perhaps because they were cut with stereo heads).....but with all my other mono recordings, I sit in disbelief.."

Pertinent comment.  Right now I have one preamp with a mono switch and for the other room I have an AT-12E with the phony Precept stylus, and the channels strapped.  Outside of impedance considerations they're effectively the same type of summed mono.  There's still vertical output mixed in. 
I almost never use the 12E. I don't use it for stereo so it requires set-up. 

I saw the 33MONO listed.  I think it has the same .65mil stylus as the MONO3LP.   How do you load it?  Specifically, 100 to 275 ohms?

I have mostly "modern" jazz reissues, pressed in the '70s and '80s.  Some are Japanese and I'm not sure if they will be better with a cart with more advanced tip like the Ortofon Cadenza Mono (fine line).   In other words, pressed with a stereo cutter like the Beatles mono?  Cadenza is around $1K.  They also have a Quintet Mono (elliptical) - $525. 

I'll have to think about it awhile.  There are also preamp considerations.
neo

P.S. Nice photo.  3 armed Denon?





 

[neobop]

Hi S Clark,
I remember you mentioned your 102 on an old mono thread.  With 2 output pins there's no doubt it's true mono.  Is the polarity marked?

It has a hefty output (3mV) for a HOMC.  Do you load it at 47K ?  Do the instructions say > 1000 ohms? 

AFAIK, this is another broadcast classic for heavy arms, but all the mono carts seem to be heavy trackers.  Do you have old pressings (before 1960) or mostly newer pressings?
neo

[S Clark]

Is the polarity marked?...
It has a hefty output (3mV) for a HOMC.  Do you load it at 47K ?  Do the instructions say > 1000 ohms?... 
AFAIK, this is another broadcast classic for heavy arms, but all the mono carts seem to be heavy trackers.  Do you have old pressings (before 1960) or mostly newer pressings?

I happened to have a used 102 that is sitting on the shelf, so I took a quick look at it.  No +- markings.  I'm using it on an old Syntec 220 tonearm.  Definitely old broadcast stuff... heavy.  I'm tracking at just under three grams.  I'm not sure how it's loaded  .  IIRC, I had Boris make a Vista pre for it, and he seemed familiar with the cartridge, so I left it to him.  I'd bet it's at 47K.  Instructions???? What are those? Actually what came with it is in Chinese.
Most of my mono listening is jazz LPs pressed from 1954-1966, so it's old stuff.  If you'd like to try a 102, let me know and I'll send my extra to you. 
Scott

[Halcro]

Hi Halcro,
"With only about 6 hours on it so far.....the differences this cartridge makes over a 'mono' button on the phonostage or preamp are significant..not so much with the Beatles mono set (perhaps because they were cut with stereo heads).....but with all my other mono recordings, I sit in disbelief.."

Pertinent comment.  Right now I have one preamp with a mono switch and for the other room I have an AT-12E with the phony Precept stylus, and the channels strapped.  Outside of impedance considerations they're effectively the same type of summed mono.  There's still vertical output mixed in. 
I almost never use the 12E. I don't use it for stereo so it requires set-up. 

I saw the 33MONO listed.  I think it has the same .65mil stylus as the MONO3LP.   How do you load it?  Specifically, 100 to 275 ohms?

I have mostly "modern" jazz reissues, pressed in the '70s and '80s.  Some are Japanese and I'm not sure if they will be better with a cart with more advanced tip like the Ortofon Cadenza Mono (fine line).   In other words, pressed with a stereo cutter like the Beatles mono?  Cadenza is around $1K.  They also have a Quintet Mono (elliptical) - $525. 

I'll have to think about it awhile.  There are also preamp considerations.
neo

P.S. Nice photo.  3 armed Denon?

Hi Neobop,
Victor TT-101 actually....
Fully nuded in custom stainless steel cradle with 25lb custom cast bronze arm-pods....
AT33Mono is less than $400 and is loaded at 220 Ohms. Ortofon Cadenza Mono is over $1,000 but should be even better...