|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 14, 2016 7:46:45 GMT
I was recently flicking absent-mindedly through an old (seventies) copy of a Hi-Fi Choice issue on turntables and my eye was caught by a paragraph in the review of an Optonica (Sharp) unit. It said that the deck had to be sitting off-level in order to correctly apply bias to the arm!
I'd call that a fatal flaw, wouldn't you? What were they thinking?!
Which other products had some such crazy oversights in their design? Thoughts please, folks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 9:25:32 GMT
The LP12 sub-chassis was a pain, as the upside down springs always wanted to act like a pendulum. Leave it a few months and it would need resetting.......from underneath. Great idea.
Not wanting to turn this into an anti-LP12 rant but whilst I'm on the subject, the crappy grub screws attaching the armboard were a joke too. Surely a one piece affair was intrinsically better. Maybe if Linn hadn't been so dismissive of genuine innovations by others to right the deck's flaws, I'd feel less likely to criticise.
Personally I don't like the sound of many sprung decks but I'm more bothered by the effects footfall has on them. To me this is a fatal flaw too.
|
|
|
|
Post by zippy on Sept 14, 2016 10:21:53 GMT
Surely part of the fun of owning an LP12 (or many other turntables) was the infinite possibilities for tweaking the setup, including spring adjustment, tonearm adjustment, bearings, mats, etc etc.
Nothing much I can play with on my streaming setup (ok cables and NAS's, but that's not the same)
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Sept 14, 2016 12:08:53 GMT
Didn't the AR turntable have no bias for the arm? That's a bit flawed to me.
More insidious, but probably affecting every one made, the original Roksan Xerxes turntable had a top plate with a long cut in it, rendering it weakened especially when a heavy arm was mounted. The result was sag and the gradual inability to keep it properly aligned.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 14, 2016 13:42:10 GMT
Some people, including at least one ex dealer that I know of, recommend dialling bias completely out.
Who made the TT that went the wrong way round fifty percent of the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Sept 14, 2016 13:52:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Sept 14, 2016 14:50:49 GMT
I'm still in shock, I actually tried to defend the fruitbox LP12 recently, but don't blame AR for the design.
It would appear that AR (and later Systemdek amongst others) kind-of got it right, as the cruciform style cast sub chassis placed the tonearm at the top of the cruciform, with two of the three springs nearer the centre and either side of it, keeping the whole in some form of balance I believe. The aluminium platters were not very massive either, so I suspect the loading on the springs was fairly equal I believe. It was THORENS that messed things around first, with the TD150, moving the spring positions, increasing the platter mass and altering the whole styling to what we know so well. The LP12 in many respects was a blue-printed Thorens 150, but took the platter mass even further and it's this aspect that appears to generate the 'wants to turn upside down all the time' kind of comments, I hope I'm paraphrasing properly here and it certainly goes some way to explaining the set up headaches we often used to have in the bad old days. However, Porsche have almost got the 911 to work these days and apparently you really have to go some to unseat it from the road and I know Linn have worked hard to minimise the issues with the LP12 - imo too late and at far too high a cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Sept 14, 2016 14:53:41 GMT
...also Connoisseur, which is why they had the 'kicker' built-in to the on switch.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Sept 14, 2016 15:20:12 GMT
In addition to a better balance, Dave, the Systemdek allowed the springs to be adjusted from above, if I remember rightly. Unless you were a dealer with a jig you had to balance the bloody LP12 between 2 chairs to work on it.
I am surprised about Andrews comments about footfall. Although most of the time my turntable has been on a solid shelf on a solid wall, I had the PT when I was at Uni and it got perched on some wobbly bits of furniture on suspended floors and I had no issues. OK - it wasn't possible to play real loud, and my speakers were Keesonic Kubs, and I am really reluctant to jinx things when I still haven't got the final set up here ** - but I'm still surprised by the comment
It no longer fails to surprise me how many people couldn't set up a TT properly and listened to them way off - but I would be real real surprised if that applied to Andrew or Dave
** Home cinema being installed as we speak. But I doubt I'll get the system up before I go back to the UK this weekend. Maybe in a couple of weeks...
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Sept 14, 2016 15:33:52 GMT
Sub chassis decks with soft springs are easily disturbed by footfall on suspended floors and I have a TD160 with add-on Super bits to fit to it languishing in the loft because of this - I don't want to use it in the main system (I would have the TD125 back though) and the workroom floor is as near a trampoline as narrow floorboards and joists can safely be...
Prices are ridiculous now, but I would rather like to try an AR XB1 again, or second, a Philips GA 212. The AR, from strangely crude tonearm to flimsy plinth and base-board, performed way out of it's league I remember and bearings were good (not sadly with any of the XB-77's I tried or early 'The Turntables' pre Legend model. The 212 was spoiled by a steel platter, but the suspension worked and again, the arm seemed to transcend the frail production engineering Philips inflicted on so much of their production.
P.S/. Donkey's years since I demo'd and sold Strathearn, but the ideas were good I remember. Execution-wise, best forgotten I think...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Sept 14, 2016 17:23:54 GMT
I was recently flicking absent-mindedly through an old (seventies) copy of a Hi-Fi Choice issue on turntables and my eye was caught by a paragraph in the review of an Optonica (Sharp) unit. It said that the deck had to be sitting off-level in order to correctly apply bias to the arm! I'd call that a fatal flaw, wouldn't you? What were they thinking?! Which other products had some such crazy oversights in their design? Thoughts please, folks. Probably sitting on a table with a dodgy leg. Case closed. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Sept 14, 2016 17:36:53 GMT
Sub chassis decks with soft springs are easily disturbed by footfall on suspended floors and I have a TD160 with add-on Super bits to fit to it languishing in the loft because of this - I don't want to use it in the main system (I would have the TD125 back though) and the workroom floor is as near a trampoline as narrow floorboards and joists can safely be... Prices are ridiculous now, but I would rather like to try an AR XB1 again, or second, a Philips GA 212. The AR, from strangely crude tonearm to flimsy plinth and base-board, performed way out of it's league I remember and bearings were good (not sadly with any of the XB-77's I tried or early 'The Turntables' pre Legend model. The 212 was spoiled by a steel platter, but the suspension worked and again, the arm seemed to transcend the frail production engineering Philips inflicted on so much of their production. P.S/. Donkey's years since I demo'd and sold Strathearn, but the ideas were good I remember. Execution-wise, best forgotten I think... The real weakness with the AR XA1 and more so with the XB 77, was the headshell and the single strand arm wiring. I fitted an ADC LMG headshell to one and rewired it and it made more than a little improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 14, 2016 18:37:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Sept 14, 2016 21:12:52 GMT
Another great, forgotten, deck. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 14, 2016 22:42:26 GMT
I believe this is the correct juncture to commence the discussion of self immolating Class A amplifiers.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Sept 15, 2016 7:49:16 GMT
The early PS Audio P-300 regenerator worked, but it ran so hot you could fry eggs on it. I had the output stage blow on mine, repaired by a strange outfit with a guy with a strange name who insisted that I had caused the failure!
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Sept 15, 2016 8:30:54 GMT
A Chord 2600 integrated amp I owned developed a fault where the remote controlled internal doohickey which rotated the volume knob started slipping, thereby rendering remote control of volume impossible. I spoke to a Chord engineer about it - "Oh yes, that's a common problem" - and they then charged me about £150 to fix their design flaw. Grrrr  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Sept 15, 2016 9:11:08 GMT
Sounds like a perversion to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 16, 2016 4:53:10 GMT
I remember reading that the Audio Innovations Series 500 integrated amp was liable to develop a serious fault and, in the early days, had a return rate of over 100% because some of them were repaired twice. Not quite knowing whether to believe this or not, I later asked Guy Seargent, who confirmed that, yes, it was completely true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Sept 16, 2016 19:05:05 GMT
"Fatally". The original NAD 3020 had an error in the PCB layout which introduced crosstalk between L & R channels. As a result, ambiance and low level detail was aided.
|
|
