|
Post by MartinT on Oct 2, 2016 16:34:52 GMT
When I was searching for a quality deck in the late 1980s, I had it down to the usual three suspects (sadly, I was influenced by the hi-fi press as much as anyone). I quickly eliminated the LP12 as being highly coloured and compared the Pink Triangle with the Roksan Xerxes. I loved the PT's transparency but missed deep bass (which has always been important to me) and didn't like the build quality. I ended up buying the Roksan as it sounded good with an SME IV and had a little more bass weight. It turned out to be a bad purchase because of the atrocious 'sagging top-plate' design.
I should have bought a Technics SP-10, if only I'd known then what I know now.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 2, 2016 17:22:11 GMT
That all makes good sense Martin. As I noted earlier I think all of us focus on different aspects. The PT "clarity" has been important for me (ESL's and all the bits). I don't think the build quality of my PT Mods would excite you much, but the bass performance might be more interesting. Hard to say exactly how it would compare - although Sue accused me of doing so, I am NOT using the sub-woofer and so there is a limit to how far the ESL's extend. But rich tuneful precise very engaging and extended bass now - almost to the point where I share Sue's qualms about excessive, which is plain silly (the Dynavector is not exactly shy in that department, so maybe that accounts a bit) OK - motor on the sub-chassis - another can of worms Clearly the basic problem is that the original design used the suspension to isolate the motor from the sub-chassis and with it the signal plane of the record. Not so much the suspension isolating the motor directly , but the motor waste energy goes into the mass sink that is the plinth structure (and in the PT is dissipated in the much maligned hardboard base). The belt itself obviously isolates the platter from the waste energy at the pulley / motor shaft, but the energy from the motor body needs to be isolated from the sub-chassis / record surface. Arthur had the answer - K Drive, but I wanted to experiment with a "non-funk packaged" solution, and he indulged me a bit. I was happy with the motor and linear power supply adapted control electronics I had,and so we dabbled with motor cradles We also experimented with motor position - the early idea being to use a bracket to put the motor at the 7 0'clock position The bracket above fitted around the new bearing and allowed the motor to be mounted at 7 o'clock. This was intended to overcome the Anni problem of having to remove the rear suspension rail to fit the motor close to the centre of mass and minimise modifications to the suspension. The vectors could be fitted direct to the sub-chassis. However, this didn't work - requiring too much mass at the arm board to balance the arrangement. The new version of the propeller vector and motor plate isolates the vector pulleys as well as the motor from the sub-chassis. In effect it is a sub-sub-chassis mounted on foam sticky pads as isolation However, this solution only really works if there is VERY little noise from the motor. The easiest way to keep the motor noise from the sub-chassis was to have no noise from the motor in the first place. Arthur's patience went - he had K Drive - it delivered what we needed, he was offering it to me, and why was I buggering about looking for other solutions. So that's where we are for now. Foam pads offer enough isolation of the motor / vector sub-chassis from the arm platter sub-chassis, given the motor used is so free of noise it is impossible to tell whether it is running or not with your eyes shut when you hold it in your hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 22:59:06 GMT
When I was searching for a quality deck in the late 1980s, I had it down to the usual three suspects (sadly, I was influenced by the hi-fi press as much as anyone). I quickly eliminated the LP12 as being highly coloured and compared the Pink Triangle with the Roksan Xerxes. I loved the PT's transparency but missed deep bass (which has always been important to me) and didn't like the build quality. I ended up buying the Roksan as it sounded good with an SME IV and had a little more bass weight. It turned out to be a bad purchase because of the atrocious 'sagging top-plate' design. I should have bought a Technics SP-10, if only I'd known then what I know now. I already had my Michell 'Focus one' at the time but Magazines put signals out about a new deck. I personally never went down the 'LP12' route i was drawn to Logic 'DM-101'/Syrinx 'PU-2', ok i did buy one 'LP12' I did however buy a Mk.1 PT but like a lot of decks i kept buying [because i could not help myself] i sold on within a couple months..
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Oct 3, 2016 5:42:23 GMT
I had a Michell Syncro at the time, Andr'e. The only thing that spoiled it was the Helius arm. I could have bought, say, an AT arm (or a PU-2) and got plenty of mileage more out of it. The Roksan & SME IV were expensive, but the SME was a good arm and sounded (to my ears) better than an SME V. I never could explain that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 7:55:03 GMT
I am intrigued by this thread, having dealt with a few dealers who did dabble with PT over the years it was a two headed coin. Most loved the sound but couldn't live poor quality of the product, break downs (Interesting lid arrangements!) and delivery times.
Very much a British trait of a cottage industry just needing a cash injection, better QA and a solid dose of marketing.
As for the sound I found it entertaining engaging though as Martin commented it lack some lower frequency presence.
Is there a PT resurgence on the horizon I wonder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 15:42:54 GMT
Whilst I did find the PT1 a bit flimsy and maybe "home brew" , the Export and several LPTs ive had were very tidy indeed. The LPT GTI was very slick. My mate had a transport that was a bit like the PT1 but none of the PT products I've had or known of have broken down.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 3, 2016 15:47:36 GMT
I'm glad this thread has interested some people. I have been interested to check what I thought PT philosophy was compared with some of the modifications and other experiments, and to also explore "how far can we take the idea"
If there is to be a resurgence of interest in PT it won't be because of build quality on this deck - very much a Pink Triangle prototyping "breadboard".
Part of the "quest" was to look at which aspects of the Anniversary were for "reference quality" and which were more about addressing build quality and finish. In all the comments on this thread, it is interesting that nobody has referred to Anniversary in their turntable comparisons. It was the earlier incarnation of this project, and much less "biscuit tin" construction as well as having the refinement of the motor on the sub-chassis. It too had improved bass, although arguably with a very "analogue" flavour.
The key differences here between this project and Anni are
Different motor control electronics No trilaminate sub-chassis (motor damping by sticky pads on the sub-sub-chassis) No flying lead (yet) Sub-sub-chassis mounted vector pulley arrangement No cosmetics (mirror top-plate, mdf plinth insert) Different rear suspension mount (just a build convenience) Latest "spin" bearing
But the core features - quality DC motor allowing sub-chassis mount of motor, and better bearing coupling, are common
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 4, 2016 10:13:58 GMT
Whilst I did find the PT1 a bit flimsy and maybe "home brew" , the Export and several LPTs ive had were very tidy indeed. The LPT GTI was very slick. My mate had a transport that was a bit like the PT1 but none of the PT products I've had or known of have broken down. I think you're right Andrew, but I get shot down in flames if I say anything like that, so I don't bother any more. Quality control was not good enough, and the other supply problems Flux'd refers to are fair criticism, but to listen to some forum comment you would think a PT could hardly play 2 LP's without disintegrating. They were never Rolex watch build, but actually, once eventually supplied working, were more than fit for purpose, and there are a lot out there in working nick. My own deck was 25 years old and running fine - although with the benefit of hindsight maybe the bearing was tired. I'm not really sure whether the new spin design is inherently better (as AK claims) or whether my original bearing was past its best, but changing the bearing not only firmed up the bass (different mounting arrangement) but also lifted another veil on the clarity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 10:16:35 GMT
I had a Michell Syncro at the time, Andr'e. The only thing that spoiled it was the Helius arm. I could have bought, say, an AT arm (or a PU-2) and got plenty of mileage more out of it. The Roksan & SME IV were expensive, but the SME was a good arm and sounded (to my ears) better than an SME V. I never could explain that one. Yeh i know you was fond of that Helius The 'Syncro' was a basically the entry level model that replaced the 'Focus One' & at the same time a move away from the design that carried on from the 'Hydraulics'.. I bought a New 'Syncro' Mk.1 when it came out & later a Mk.2.. You can tell them apart, the Mk.1 has a plinth & lid with rounded corners, Mk.2 is Square edged.. Generally came with 'RB250' but 5mm Black Acrylic Arm boards could be had. Ok Pinky back on track as they say.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 4, 2016 10:17:19 GMT
I had a Michell Syncro at the time, Andr'e. The only thing that spoiled it was the Helius arm. I could have bought, say, an AT arm (or a PU-2) and got plenty of mileage more out of it. The Roksan & SME IV were expensive, but the SME was a good arm and sounded (to my ears) better than an SME V. I never could explain that one. I liked the SME arms and both , particularly the V, were "standard fit" on Anniversary's. I also liked the Helius Orion - including on Anni, and with the Technics EPC 205 was my setup of choice - but as much out of nostalgia as a careful evaluation of the relative merits of the arms. I find the V a bit soft now, and coloured, compared with the arms I have been using recently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 10:20:54 GMT
Right: im gonna say something that Pinky may not like & other may think im crazy for but out of all the PT's ive had the most enjoyable sounding was my old LPT with GTI power supply/Speed change. I fitted a Mayware 'Formula 4' to it. It sounded great.
For anyone who is interested. If you flip over a 'LPT' top board you will see the MDF is machined out to SME pattern, all you need is a profile cutter with bearing guide & you can cut back the Acrylic laminate to the pattern in Professional fashion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 10:22:09 GMT
I had a Michell Syncro at the time, Andr'e. The only thing that spoiled it was the Helius arm. I could have bought, say, an AT arm (or a PU-2) and got plenty of mileage more out of it. The Roksan & SME IV were expensive, but the SME was a good arm and sounded (to my ears) better than an SME V. I never could explain that one. I liked the SME arms and both , particularly the V, were "standard fit" on Anniversary's. I also liked the Helius Orion - including on Anni, and with the Technics EPC 205 was my setup of choice - but as much out of nostalgia as a careful evaluation of the relative merits of the arms. I find the V a bit soft now, and coloured, compared with the arms I have been using recently. I know Art is a big fan of the Technics Cart the last time i spoke to him, If i remember he bought mine..
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 4, 2016 13:15:54 GMT
Glad you liked the LPT Andre - it was a deck I hardly know. I had maybe 1 or 2 years at PT on the payroll, and at various times was more or less of a groupie / hanger-on, but the LPT era was in more of an inter-regnum. I know it has a magic secret (although I didn't know about the armboard cutout), and I know AK thinks it better with a DC motor - and every time I have compared a DC motor I prefer one - in which case Stevec's recent sale was a bargain for whoever picked it up. I think it only took Rega fit arms as standard.
As you will have gathered - I remain fond of the true sprung designs - and even though I didn't walk away with one - I remember particularly the Anniversary turntable and how it could perform. Shortly after I left PT my major marriage crisis struck, and I probably didn't play a record for 10 years - and accordingly had no interest in "bagging" an Anniversary - something I started to regret as I met Sue, found she was interested in music, tried to make the old bangers play a tune or two, and got gradually sucked back into HiFi kicking and screaming. Not helped by the bastards producing new vinyl to buy again!!
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Oct 4, 2016 14:11:40 GMT
I also liked the Helius Orion - including on Anni, and with the Technics EPC 205 was my setup of choice - but as much out of nostalgia as a careful evaluation of the relative merits of the arms. I find the V a bit soft now, and coloured, compared with the arms I have been using recently. The Orion looks much better built than the Aureus that I had. I agree that the SME IV / V have fallen behind a bit. There are a number of arms that sound better: my Dynavector, the Triplanar and Continuum Cobra are three that come to mind that I've heard. I also rather liked the Audio Note arm that I heard on Hugo's Thorens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 14:52:26 GMT
Orion is a nice arm if you can find a reliable one. It had a track record of poor reliability. The arm cables in Helius arms have a habit of detaching too. I've had a few Helius arms and most have given me problems of some sort.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 4, 2016 15:52:19 GMT
Yes - Orion was prone to reliability issues, although again I had one on a deck in pretty much constant use at the factory for more than 2 years, and had no issues. If I could find a working original U205 with original stylus in good condition I'd be tempted to persuade AK to dust off the Orion on his shelf for a nostalgic listen (probably the one I was using when at PT)
But I am not into a "Wednesday record player" - I grew up in the days when a record player was what you had to use to play music you had bought, you had one of them, and it was what you used - not something you had a fleet of. And so I am just looking for one solution and find the modern arms the best solution. If I were looking for a used bargain, and could find an Orion in good nick, I know it to be lovely on a PT or Anni.
I am trying ever so ever so hard to ignore the FX3 on the basis of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" - it would cost me a fortune in curtains, duvet covers, and "girlies weekend breaks" with her mates - (even at mates rates for the arm) - and I am very happy with things just as they are. However, I don't really like springs for anti-skate or tracking force (tracking force avoidable on the FXR I guess), and the low slung counter-weight wouldn't foul the lid when I shut it, the variable effective mass is more elegant than my current headshell weight, and it did sound rather nice at the factory, even on the dodgy system there...
How did we get onto arms???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 17:22:43 GMT
Thinks of it this way: Your FXR will sell in a heartbeat and it will likely provide many years of happiness to its new owner as they rediscover their vinyl. It's sale should nicely offset the cost of the FX3 too. I highly doubt you will look back and regret the money spent. It's more likely that the regret will come if you look back and realise it was another "one that got away"
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 4, 2016 18:29:36 GMT
Excellent point well made Andrew. If you'd care to come and make it to Mrs pinkie in person, I'd be happy to open a bottle, even rustle up a little something to eat.
Back to the plot, I had a chance for a brief further proper listen and 2 tired clichés disturbed my peace 1) I want to play all my records again to hear them anew 2) it takes me back to early PT days (and early cd days) where you become aware of poor recording techniques
It's hard to describe the newness (and a little hard to account for it given the number of times I've concluded in the past that I had opened the last door.) New instruments that were not so obviously banjo and harp before. Space around the instruments but gaps in time not voids in space. Like things start and stop quicker leaving individual moments of silence local to the instrument in question. Maybe that's the best (preliminary stab) at describing the improvement. Lots of pockets of silence in a mix which blends naturally rather than have separate sound booths around each performer. That sort of space around the instruments. And a mellow calm to the detail at all frequencies.
There - that's all you're getting from me. I hate trying to describe how something sounds. I'm enjoying listening to the music very much indeed.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Oct 5, 2016 5:14:18 GMT
I am not into a "Wednesday record player" - I grew up in the days when a record player was what you had to use to play music you had bought, you had one of them, and it was what you used - not something you had a fleet of I hear that and agree with you. I don't want two of anything, just one system which is the best I can make it.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Oct 5, 2016 10:40:25 GMT
Some thoughts on bass
Last night playing Adele to Sue at not ear splitting levels the amp tripped. That could be a one off - but it was doing it regularly with the home cinema when the Quads were fed too much bass and crowbar protected. When I listen to Jazz, acoustic, and classical music I have all the bass I can imagine. Rich and deep and tuneful (and Sue is complaining excessive) It is not deep extended low frequency - because the Quads roll off at 60Hz like falling off a cliff It sounds the same - more to the point -feels the same as a live performance (I particularly remember thinking at La Boheme at the RAH that the growling bass of the double basses sounded growling and low like my HiFi but didn't knock the wind out of me) When we have the sub woofer in for the home cinema, the bass it produces and we feel is helicopter blades, and explosions, not music I have several LP's that come with the CD "free". Again, accepting the limitations of the Quads, the bass sounds the same. The PT (particularly now) is not light
Is this need for bass - "HiFi" bass? I have been to not a few houses where systems can pump low frequencies at volume, and do so - but I never encounter that same bass in a live setting (Except maybe reggae discos or stadium rock)
Certainly from my point of view, I have always sought the system to reproduce the live, classical, acoustic sets which I am familiar with as their first "fidelity".
In "normal" music - certainly purely acoustic live music terms - this system (Quads included) lacks no bass. Clearly it is not however, a stadium PA.
|
|