stereo turntables in DD use.

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

I always wondered what ever happened to ADC. I did some research and found out that they were bought out by BSR. In fact, the Accutrac 4000 was made by BSR in England from parts made in Asia. The motor was made by Mashusita, which also used it in their own Technics turntables.

The specs on the Accutrac were pretty good actually. It was a direct drive turntable rather than belt driven. It had a Wow & Flutter of only 0.03% and a Rumble spec of 70/50. Strangely enough those are also the specs of the Dual 701, one of the best Dual's ever.

I think what hindered the Accutrac was the fact that you could only use one type of cartridge, an ADC cartridge made for the Accutrac. It had a light and reflection sensor built into it so it could "see" the blank spaces between record tracks.

Personally, I thought it had way too much plastic on it. But with the remote control it must have been nice to use.

The link is to a video of one of these units in operation.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...57728196557555
 
Gray...

What about"gray"brand turntables-kinda remember seeing this brand in late-1950s
HiFi magazines,as i recall they were a lot like an empire turntable including a
papst type outside rotor motor and belt drive.
 
This is a GREAT thread! I didnt know so many people still use their tables and enjoy them. I was among the few that had a linear tracking TT for a few minutes. It was an old Pioneer PLL-910 or may PL-90. Seems there was a "9" in the model but really dont rememebr for sure. It was a belt drive and the the whole lid lifted up with the tone-arm in it, kinda like some of the Technics models shown in this thread. I do also remember a Technics model that played vetically. I passed the chance to have one of these. My most facinatting model was an old PL7FS (i think) It was a Pioneer front loading belt drive TT. The drawer would slide out to let you put the record on and then you could either close it and play it or leave it open to manualy control it. I dont have any of my older models anymore:(

I currently am spinning with a Technics SL-1210M5G. Totally manual, totally pro, the lid doesnt even attact to the table.

super32++2-12-2012-20-35-21.jpg
 
oops

Almost forgot, I was connected to an early 2000's Yamaha amp. It just kicked the bucket so i decided to upgrade (or down grade as some would say) to a new Pioneer Elite SC-55. Its connected to a pair of Boston Accoustics VR975.

Im also currently using an Ortofan X1MC cartridge in my TT. Its getting to be time for a new one.
 
I have a Ortofon X3MC that I used for a few hours in a Dual CS528. The arm was way too light for the cartridge and it really sounded screechy. MC cartridges like to have some mass in the tonearm. Dual ULM tonearms are much to light for MC's.

You know you can have that X1MC retipped. Did you like the way it sounded?
 
[Ortofon X3MC] really sounded screechy.

I haven't had much MC experience, but, going by my memory of things I've heard said, there could be a couple of other issues at work, too:
-the cartridge might have benefited by more break in time. This is important for MC cartridges, I've been told. In fact, I've been warned that if I ever move to a MC, I should expect hours and hours of painful listening with at least some MC cartridges.
-the cartridge is, I think, high output moving coil, and that might be part of the problem. (Although I'm under the impression the Ortofon designs might be better behaved here than, say, a 1st generation Sumiko Bluepoint.)

Although I'd say, at a distance, I wouldn't expect a MC to work well on low mass Dual arm.

But one never knows without trying. I have an old Dual lying around. I can't remember the model off the top of my head, but it was one of the cheap semi-automatic models. It came with an Ortofon MC installed, and when I saw it, I thought that it was probably the dumbest idea ever. I honestly didn't think the arm would be suitable. I'm not sure about the mass, but I assume it's lowish. Plus I can't imagine the arm bearings are particularly great. And I'm pretty sure the cartridge is probably "too good" for the turntable.

The turntable was dirt cheap, and I got it to play with. Since it's used, with no known history, I only played records I didn't care about. Mostly older, worn. I didn't have the chance for exhaustive tests, but what little I heard surprised me. The cartridge seemed to track OK, and I didn't hear anything really "wrong." More listening might have brought up other problems...but doing as well as it did was more than I expected.
 
I just thought of another "joy" of moving coil cartridges: the tendency of places selling cartridges to push buyers into buying a moving coil design. I'm not sure how much of a problem it is, but when I went shopping about 10 years ago, it was a real problem. I recall at least half the dealers had some pet moving coil design they were pushing at "only X dollars!" This became tiresome, since I was looking for a good budget solution. Plus, the turntable I had then had a cheap arm that was originally decreed to be "moving magnet only" in the 80s, and, by indications I was hearing on the Internet, was probably still happiest being moving magnet only today.

But moving coil is "audiophile approved" and any practical considerations seem to get forgotten.

That said, someday I'd like to have a moving coil cartridge to play with. But only if the system can support it properly.
 
I still have the Ortofon X3MC cartridge. I just stored it away. I've been thinking about installing it in the 701 to see how it sounds. The 701 tonearm is heavier than the later model Dual ULM tonearms. It may sound ok. And yes, the X2MC cartridge is a High Output MC. Right now the cartridge may have 15 hours on it.
It was about $230.00 brand new. I bought it around 1997 or so.

I'm currently using a Pickering XSV/3000 cartridge in my 701. It's the best cartridge I've ever heard. I had my first in 1977 and it really provides a very clear sound. It's a MM cartridge. It has a Stereohedron stylus which actually eliminates a lot of the crackle & static on records. I recently bought a NOS one on Ebay for about $150 and installed it on my Kyocera PL-701. The sound is just amazing. Has to be one of the best cartridges ever built.
On the Dual CS528, I found the Ortofon OM20 Super sounds the best.

Dual made surprisingly good products. Their tonearm bearings were pretty solid.
But without the history of your Dual, who knows who could have screwed with them over time? Did you know that between 1965 and 1991 Dual sold over 27 MILLION turntables in the USA alone? And at one time they were exporting turntables to people in 87 countries around the world?

There are still tons of Dual turntables around. With most used ones the only things that need to be done is to clean it, relubricate it and make some minor adjustments and they'll last another 30 years or so. And they are gentle on your records too.
 
I have had little Dual experience, but I know they've got a lot of praise and good reviews years back. I can recall when the CS 5000 was highly reviewed, and highly praised at one local shop. And the CS 505 was supposed to have been a hugely popular choice among those who wanted something good, but had a next to zero budget.

The only gripe I have with Dual, based on my limited experience of 2 models, is the way the arm lift/cue lever works: forward to lift, back to lower. This feels to me the opposite of what it should be. I have visions of momentarily forgetting how Dual works, and someday destroying a cartridge as a result. Although this wouldn't, of course, be an issue if this approach were what I was used to.

I checked the model number on the Dual that has the Ortofon MC cartridge. It was a CS 431. As far as I can tell, the arm seems to be OK. But the turntable is clearly a budget model, and I don't really any expect budget turntable to cope with a moving coil cartridge. I've always heard that moving coil cartridges are more demanding on the arm than moving magnet cartridges. (Although I imagine there are exceptions to this rule of thumb.)
 
It's just a different philosophy. Moving Coil(MC) cartridges actually prefer some weight to the tonearm to dampen vibrations. Dual's philosophy was to utilize low mass, lightweight tonearms to reduce record wear. So there is a mismatch there.

MC cartridges depend on low output to give a clearer sound while MM(moving magnet) cartridges have higher output to conform with most amplifier input requirements. If your amp doesn't have a MC input you'll usually have to buy a phono preamp to get the proper volume out of a MC cartridge.

Plus on a MC cartridge you can't replace the stylus when it wears out. You usually send it back to the manufacturer for retipping. This cost is normally about 70-80% of the original cartridge cost.

I just stick with the MM cartridges as they are less fussy.
 
I'm under the impression that at least some moving coil cartridges have wanted more than just more mass, but have been more demanding of the arm as a whole than a typical moving magnet cartridge. I can recall hearing stories of people who bought the expensive moving coil cartridge for use on an expensive arm. And later bought an even more expensive arm to make the cartridge happy. I have even heard stories about the basic tracking ability of some high end cartridges noticeably improving with moving from Expensive Arm to Even More Expensive Arm.

Then the low output of many moving coil cartridges is another area of fun. The day I picked up that Dual CS431, there was another person looking at it. In many ways, I'd have been thrilled if he'd bought it--that would have removed the temptation for me to buy it! But I could tell that the cartridge was almost certainly low output, and I pointed that fact out, and explained what that meant. (Plus the fact that the stylus was NOT replaceable). He totally lost interest, and I was left to cave into temptation...which was, of course, what happened.

I am not sure how hard it is supporting a low output cartridge at the amplifier end. But it does seem like it can add problems--particularly if one is thinking in terms of affordable amplifiers. It's probably a lot easier making a decent moving magnet input than it is making a good low output moving coil input.

As for me, I have stuck with moving magnet or moving iron cartridges ever since getting a decent turntable. (Excepting the Dual CS 431, of course.) At one time, years and years back, I think I did think "someday" of having some sort of moving coil setup. But I've never had the budget or the right equipment. And there are real virtues to moving magnet and moving iron cartridges--like a more affordable price, and usually (but not always) a user replaceable stylus that may run 1/2 the price of the cartridge vs. 2/3 or more. Then I have heard some who have experience with a wider range of cartridges than I have who feel that moving magnet designs are more musically right. While this is subjective, it has interested me.
 
Moving Coil Cartridges

It is interesting to read comments about these types of cartridges.
I have been used moving coil carts for many years, the reason for this is they all exhibit an openness and sweetness that very few moving magnetic cartridges can approach.

Maybe I can shed some light on the use of them.
The main problem with moving coil cartridges is that they generate a lot of mechanical energy compared to a moving magnet cartridge, this being because the comparatively heavy coils are mounted on the end of the stylus cantilever as apposed to a moving magnet cartridge which has the lighter magnet mounted on the end of the stylus cantilever.

The best sort of arms for M/C carts are highly rigid medium mass ones (one piece casting types are popular), arms like SME 3009s Dual etc whilst they are low mass and well engineered in certain areas they are not mechanically rigid enough and therefore are quite resonant in themselves so when you mount a M/C cart with its own high mechanical resonance output in a low mass and low rigidity arm you end up with a not too happy combination, the cartridge will excite the lose bits on the tone arm which in turn will resonate at various frequencies colouring the sound and can indeed affect the tracking abilities of the M/C cartridge.

Where as the good old high compliance M/M cartridge injects very little vibration into to the tone arm so issues such as rigidity are not such an issue (bring on the SME 3009 Dual arm type arms) :-)

Achieving good sound particularly with analogue equipment is a series of trade offs some times the most basic equipment when partnered with the right gear can produce sweet music and not just sound, technical specs tell us very little about how the unit will sound, in theory digital should be perfect but as has been seen it is far from it and brings its own problems

Right that’s my experience of moving coil carts
I hope this helps
Gary
 
Gary:

Thanks for contributing to the MC vs MM discussion. That was some excellent advice and explanation of the differences of requirements between the two. With more and more young people entering vinyl for the first time, you have posted some very valuable information.

Some pre-amplifiers had built in phono cartridge type selection. The pre-amp would have an input or a button for MC or MM. My SAE P101 has that. I have seen it on a lot of other brands too.

On my Dual Reference website I see a common question quite often. Somebody buys a turntable, plugs it in and the sound is very soft. They want to know what is wrong. Usually the problem is they have a home theater preamp or receiver and they have just plugged the turntable (with a MC cartridge) into a Aux input. Those inputs are for high output devices like CD players, DVD's etc. The fix is to purchase a phono preamp for their turntable. They cost anywhere from $19.95 up to as much as your budget will allow.

For those who may be interested, there is a guy in Canada on Ebay that is selling a bunch of brand new SAE 1000 MC cartridges. These were very popular (and very expensive) back in 1980. They are said to outperform some $1,000 cartridges. So far feedback on these has been amazing. Plus he is selling them for only $199.00.
Some people who bought them are already flipping them.
See the link:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...l1313&_nkw=SAE+1000&_sacat=See-All-Categories
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
I've seen plenty of MC inputs, and have known of many more. Even on budget products--NAD had MC inputs on many products. While NAD was never KMart priced, they have made high quality audio equipment normal people might actually be able to afford.

The MM/MC switch may be either on the front or the back panel.

Another option are the "high output" moving coil cartridges which can connect to a regular moving magnet input. I remember dealers who were trying to sell me on the MC cartridge idea often pushed high output MC designs. How good a choice a high output MC might be is something that's probably debatable. I've heard some who happily use them, and would never even consider a MM. I've heard others who say that a lot of the virtues of the MC go out as the output rises, and so if one can't support a low output MC, one might as well just go MM.
 
That's pretty much the same conclusion that I have arrived at. By the time you start changing tonearms, buying new armboards for the new tonearms, tweaking the turntable with the latest tweaks you have spent a good chunk of change.

And in the audio business there seems to be a point of diminishing returns. So if you get a big increase in sound after spending say $400.00 on an upgrade, then to get the next big increase in sound that is of the same magnitude you may end up spending $!k more. It's a vicious circle.
 
I recently last month got a hold of one Garrard & nine BSR changer turntables,some standalone & others with stereo receivers. Re-lubed them & used a mixture of Pine Sol & water to clean them.
 
BSR changers

i once found a BSR changer that had a 4 pole motor(~1500 rpm)instead of the usuall
2pole~3000 rpm,there might be "premium"BSR turntables used in certain stereos.
The turntable with the 4-pole motor was damaged,so i took the motor and a few other
parts and junked the rest-don't remember any other details except it was a wheel
drive.
 
BSR did make some nice turntables that were belt drive. They were the BSR Quants series turntables. They were quite a few steps above the Soundesign styled BSR's. They pop up on Ebay from time to time.

mathewhebailey0:

How did they turn out after you cleaned them? What model Garrard was that? Garrard did make some highly desirable turntables at one time.

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages...0919,544780898&formats=0,0,0,0,0,0,0&format=0
 
I've heard stories of "upscale" BSR models. I have a vague sense I might even have seen them in Goodwill...but I can't remember for sure.

My first stereo turntable was a BSR changer in one of those all-in-one systems of the early 80s. It was pretty cheap--it seems to me that platter might have been entirely plastic.

Garrard was interesting--they made both mass market changers and high end turntables. The best models (301 and 401) are quite desirable now.

The original Garrard is long gone, but it still sort of lives on. A British company makes a "modern" Garrard. The price is, I imagine, pretty high--probably into the the thousands of dollars. And no, it can't automatically change records--it's based on the 301/401 heritage which were single play.

http://garrard501.com/garrard501.html
 
BSR

seems BSR turntables were in most cheaper stereos from around 1970 to 1982 or '83
-changed very little during that time period-i have a 1970 sony stereo with a BSR
and the turntable is virtually identical to a 1981 BSR turntable i have.the platter
indeed plastic and transmits rumble pretty good LOL.I recently junked a beat up
cheapie console stereo from 1976-it had the usual type BSR,was in decent shape
so i kept the turntable.Some people would see the "made in great britain"on the
BSR turntable and think the whole stereo was made in great britain...

Anyone remember the "thundering colossis"BSR speakers advertized in certain
magazines around 1986?With a 15"woofer they were big,but looked kinda cheapie in
the ads...
 
Yep...

Hehe,those are the ones-with the tan-colored cones on the woofer and midrange.
Years ago,at the dump,i found remains of one of these freshly smooshed by the tire
of a front-loader,revealed tiny magnets on the asian-looking woofer and midrange
and appeared to be little damping material in the (thin)MDF cabinets-probably
sounded boomy...
 
I don't remember the BSR speakers off the top of my head, but I do recall the DAK ads in magazines. When I was young enough, it seemed like they had all sorts of things no one could possibly be expected to live without. Although I did a good job living without--I never got anything from them. And I wonder what my perception of DAK products would be now. Somehow, for example, I can't see myself owning a pair of those BSR speakers, except, maybe, as a novelty item.
 
Those Thunderwoofers were terrible. It was like a big woofer and a small 4 inch "midrange" stuffed in a cheap box. DAK sold a ton of them.

They are remembered in audio circles as one of the biggest pieces of crap ever foisted upon people who listen to music.

DAK also bought up the old SAE company. They made a good product, but were expensive. SAE developed the SAE TWO line which was more reasonably priced. All the equipment was made in Los Angeles. But then DAK bought out SAE and moved the product construction to Korea and had the pieces re-engineered to be some of the cheapest crap out there. They didn't sell a whole bunch of the SAE TWO line.
 
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall that DAK was also big on graphic equalizers, which is a product I'd be inclined to avoid now. I won't go as far as the hardened audiophile in saying that if your recording needs help, you should be listening to a better recording. But I will say my experience with tone control gizmos has left me with the feeling that at best they don't do much good, and at worst they create more problems than they solve. (I'm sure there are exceptions. But this is my experience with equipment I've actually used.)

I can't remember if it was DAK or a competitor, but I recall a couple of other products now that I wonder about. As best as I can remember:
-One was a TV tuner that would connect to a computer monitor, and supposedly make a better TV than a regular TV. The idea being that computer monitors had been resolution, etc. Although what probably wasn't mentioned was that one would be stuck with the same limited broadcast signal.
-The other was blank European VHS tapes. The idea, as I recall, was that Europe had a better standard for VHS to support the better TV system (although I'm sure it was probably still pretty limited as VHS was), and so the European tapes would magically make better (even if slightly?) recordings on US VCRs.
 
Yes, DAK sold BSR eq units.

I've used EQ units before with my systems. I have a TOL ADC unit that is quite good. I used it with my last Phase Linear system. But since I have switched over to SAE equipment, I no longer needed it. In fact my SAE P101 preamp has no tone controls whatsoever on it. It has a volume control and that's it. So if I wanted control over music tone, I needed to use the SAE E101 Parametric EQ unit.

A parametric equalizer is much better than a graphic eq because it gives you better control over individual frequencies. It lets you change the music to exactly how you want to hear it. However, I have frequently found that if I turn off the EQ unit and just let the music play I am actually quite close to the original flat response of the system itself.

Back to DAK. I have heard that Drew Kaplan started DAK industries while he was still in college, out of his dorm room and made a bunch of money. I always used to love reading his descriptions of the items sold. He personally wrote them.
One thing he did hit on before it became very popular was the Bread Machine. He was selling those at least two years before it became the "have to have" item for the rest of the world.
I've visited the new DAK website before. From what I understand, he's doing ok again.

Man, he sold 100,000 of those Thunderwoofers.....
 

Similar threads

C
Dual turntables.
2
Replies
53
Views
306
ovrphil
ovrphil
C
phonograph motors.
Replies
3
Views
38
tolivac
T
C
home stereo tape machines
Replies
14
Views
122
cfz2882
C
B
More on Disposals (for disposal lovers only)
Replies
19
Views
138
tolivac
T

Latest posts

Back
Top