I am sorry, I do not remember Was your pair originally from Japan or from England and what decade were they manufactured? It’s fine if you don’t want to share photographs but that would tell me how old they were.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I am sorry, I do not remember Was your pair originally from Japan or from England and what decade were they manufactured? It’s fine if you don’t want to share photographs but that would tell me how old they were.
Peter …Are you going senile ?we have had this conversation before , There are NO photographs , either to share by choice or otherwise ( which at that time would have been on FILM were any to have been taken at all ) Why are you babbling on about Japan !!! Original UK manufactured CN-191 were not exactly common on the UK second hand market back in the 1980’s , however not exactly rare either , as they were considered old fashioned in form and function by then .
Last edited:
It’s fine. I was just trying to see if you knew if yours were from the 60s 70s or 80s. It matters because of the people putting them together and the cabinet materials and design. I had not remembered that yours were from England and not Japan. Thank you for that. It’s nice to discuss these speakers with someone else who has actually owned them. What amplifiers did you use?
Good morning Peter,
If I remember correctly, you also had your Grand Cru upgraded to the Elite? Do you feel yours is leaner now as an Elite than when it was a Grand Cru? The reason I'm asking is that with some more hours on my Elite (also upgraded from Grand Cru to Elite) I kind of feel it has a tad more leanness than as Grand Cru. However this might be as a result from having it mounted in the Bergmann Odin (first time trying it in that arm), but since you mentioned the same thing I got curious.
If I remember correctly, you also had your Grand Cru upgraded to the Elite? Do you feel yours is leaner now as an Elite than when it was a Grand Cru? The reason I'm asking is that with some more hours on my Elite (also upgraded from Grand Cru to Elite) I kind of feel it has a tad more leanness than as Grand Cru. However this might be as a result from having it mounted in the Bergmann Odin (first time trying it in that arm), but since you mentioned the same thing I got curious.
You might even get differences in two Grand Crus, or two elites, or two master signatures.
At Audioquattr I preferred the Master Sig over the GC, I forget if it was elite or just GC, on the 3012r. It is tough to say if that is a sample to sample variation or a model to model variation.
Hello Crosswind. I have four Colibris, one old XPP, one Grand Cru, one modified GC to Elite level, and one GC Elite. The three latter cartridges all sound slightly different. I can not now say that there are significant differences as they are all at different levels of break in. One has the metal mounting screw inserts, the others do not. The boxes mention slightly different output levels, but they are all low, between 0.25 and 0.3mV. I think in very general terms, the Grand Cru is slightly leaner than was my Master Signature. The Grand Cru and Elite are about the same, but the Elite increases even more the resolution and dynamics, especially with the lower output. I think this is because of the different suspension and fewer windings.
I agree with Bonzo that there is slight sample to sample variation, and even the various model designations sound similar, but slightly different. It is very hard to describe. What I can say is that they are all present very high levels of resolution and dynamics. This for me is what sets them apart. They do sound lean in my current system which is much more neutral than my old system. I do appreciate the ability for me to alter the horn output of my speakers so that I can adjust the tonal balance of the end result.
The most important thing I have found with these cartridges is the system matching and cartridge/arm set up. These are critical for best results.
EDIT: I should add that my cartridges exhibit no stridence or excessive (unnatural) sibilance as observed by some others in some systems. I never had those issues. I suspect that goes back to matching and proper set up.
Last edited:
A slight leanness also enhances the resolution in the highs, some people like it in their speakers too, makes it easier to integrate bass when there is less of it. In my system the cartridge results in speed in bass and great tone on drums. Lean/bright recordings are better played with my Benz cartridges. 
A slight leanness also enhances the resolution in the highs, some people like it in their speakers too, makes it easier to integrate bass when there is less of it. In my system the cartridge results in speed in bass and great tone on drums. Lean/bright recordings are better played with my Benz cartridges.
As I understand it, the pre Master Signature models had a more natural tonal balance, especially with the Stradivarius finish. I never owned one of these, unfortunately. The Master Signature introduced the higher 1.1 mV output and I had two of these, but in hindsight, I found they were slightly aggressive sounding. They presented great ambiance and spatial information and were very dynamic. I prefer the lower output and GC models for their nuance and extreme resolution. They retain the dynamics.
Looking back, my impressions are a bit clouded from the switch from the SME V-12 arm to the SME 3012R, and from my SS/cone to SET/horn systems. Lots of changes during these van den Hul cartridge comparisons. Once I made the switch, I did sell my AirTight Supreme and my MSL Signature Gold, both of which sounded great in my old system. The new system is more suited to the Colibris.
Thank you for the thorough description Peter. Very interesting to read. I’m still under break in and have only played 25 LP sides on my Elite and, as I wrote, it’s mounted in a new arm for me so I can’t draw any conclusions just yet, but appreciating the thoughts and experience from someone with multiple samples. However, it does sound somewhat leaner in my system over the GC. Perhaps that will change. Again, thank you.
I learned a lot from my experiments a year ago with elastic belt to non elastic belt to dental floss to different non stretch threads. They all changed the sound I heard. I prefer the thin, strong special thread that ddk sent me. I concluded that the connection between motor pulley and platter is critical to the sound. The less influence the motor has on the platter, the better, at least in my case with a very high mass platter with very low rotational friction.
To further this observation and increase my knowledge on the subject, I recent embarked on a series of experiments with thread tension and thread length. I observe changes in speed, both in terms of absolute speed accuracy (33.333RPM) and in speed consistency (+/- 00.002RPM), with very small changes in motor position. This is because a slight change in position (distance between motor pulley and platter) changes the tension of the thread. With any change in thread tension, I observe a change in speed. To compensate, I adjust the speed control on the motor to reach the right combination of speed and tension.
The looser the tread, the better the sound, at least in my application. My conclusion is that even though the motor is isolated from the turntable base and platter, some small resonance travels along the tread to reach the platter. In my case, the platter will free spin for 30 minutes before stopping, so very minimal influence from the motor is necessary to maintain constant and consistent speed. The RoadRunner tachometer readout is to three places. It is measured only once per revolution, but there is no control on the motor based on this readout. I can see exactly how much changes in thread tension affect speed. And it is audible.
Encouraged by what I heard with lower thread tension, I decided to adjust the length of the thread. My separate motor unit makes it easy to move the driving pulley and alter its distance from the platter. Thread length, as well as its tension, affects its resonant frequency, and thus the influence of the motor on the platter. This is audible. My thread is now loose and long and after some adjustments to the tension and motor speed, I have accurate and consistent speed again.
Even though the motor unit itself is isolated and sits on a massive steel plate which itself is isolated from the separate and differently isolated steel plate the turntable bass sits on, the further distance seems to reduce the noise from the motor reaching the platter through the supporting rack. The steel plate supporting the phono stage further damps the heavy top shelf of the rack. The loose, long thread, also reduces the motor's noise and influence further by reducing the resonances travel along its length.
The resulting sound is more natural, especially in the bass. This then affects higher frequencies in terms of clarity. The sound opens up, and with the lower noise, I hear more information. I am really pretty surprised at how much of a difference this makes.
I ran into an interesting thing though as I moved the motor away from the platter. The thread angle changed, resulting in the thread rubbing against two of the arm posts. I wondered if this affected the sound because of the friction against the steel posts and angle change. The tension was loose and the thread was thin, but I moved the motor and rotated the turntable so that the thread no longer rubbed against the arm posts. Sure enough, this was audible too. In the photo below you can just see how the turntable is rotated and that I moved the motor to the front of the top shelf so the thread would have a clear path.
Yesterday, I replaced the cheap sewing thread I tried for the longer thread length with the reinforced thread ddk sent me. I had been using this thread when the motor was next to the turntable. ddk tried many different threads and settled on one. It is larger in diameter and soft but very strong with grip. I can run it looser than the sewing thread to maintain the same speed.
The result is that the sound opens up even more. It is more relaxed and natural sounding. Timbre is improved. One hears more of the individual notes. Overall clarity is also better. This is one more incremental step toward a more realistic listening experience.
Conclusions for my high mass/thread drive turntable design:
1. I prefer thread to stretch and non stretch belts. Thread type is audible.
2. The looser the thread, the better, as long as there is no slippage and speed accuracy and stability are maintained.
3. A longer thread sounds better than a shorter one as long as speed is maintained.
4. A clear, unobstructed path for the thread with contact only between motor pulley and platter is audible.
5. Separating the motor unit from the turntable base reduces noise migrating to the platter and/or armboard. Separate platforms are better but a stable relationship and support between the two is important.
6. The goal is to minimize the influence of the motor on the platter and arm by careful placement and the type of connection between the two.
To further this observation and increase my knowledge on the subject, I recent embarked on a series of experiments with thread tension and thread length. I observe changes in speed, both in terms of absolute speed accuracy (33.333RPM) and in speed consistency (+/- 00.002RPM), with very small changes in motor position. This is because a slight change in position (distance between motor pulley and platter) changes the tension of the thread. With any change in thread tension, I observe a change in speed. To compensate, I adjust the speed control on the motor to reach the right combination of speed and tension.
The looser the tread, the better the sound, at least in my application. My conclusion is that even though the motor is isolated from the turntable base and platter, some small resonance travels along the tread to reach the platter. In my case, the platter will free spin for 30 minutes before stopping, so very minimal influence from the motor is necessary to maintain constant and consistent speed. The RoadRunner tachometer readout is to three places. It is measured only once per revolution, but there is no control on the motor based on this readout. I can see exactly how much changes in thread tension affect speed. And it is audible.
Encouraged by what I heard with lower thread tension, I decided to adjust the length of the thread. My separate motor unit makes it easy to move the driving pulley and alter its distance from the platter. Thread length, as well as its tension, affects its resonant frequency, and thus the influence of the motor on the platter. This is audible. My thread is now loose and long and after some adjustments to the tension and motor speed, I have accurate and consistent speed again.
Even though the motor unit itself is isolated and sits on a massive steel plate which itself is isolated from the separate and differently isolated steel plate the turntable bass sits on, the further distance seems to reduce the noise from the motor reaching the platter through the supporting rack. The steel plate supporting the phono stage further damps the heavy top shelf of the rack. The loose, long thread, also reduces the motor's noise and influence further by reducing the resonances travel along its length.
The resulting sound is more natural, especially in the bass. This then affects higher frequencies in terms of clarity. The sound opens up, and with the lower noise, I hear more information. I am really pretty surprised at how much of a difference this makes.
I ran into an interesting thing though as I moved the motor away from the platter. The thread angle changed, resulting in the thread rubbing against two of the arm posts. I wondered if this affected the sound because of the friction against the steel posts and angle change. The tension was loose and the thread was thin, but I moved the motor and rotated the turntable so that the thread no longer rubbed against the arm posts. Sure enough, this was audible too. In the photo below you can just see how the turntable is rotated and that I moved the motor to the front of the top shelf so the thread would have a clear path.
Yesterday, I replaced the cheap sewing thread I tried for the longer thread length with the reinforced thread ddk sent me. I had been using this thread when the motor was next to the turntable. ddk tried many different threads and settled on one. It is larger in diameter and soft but very strong with grip. I can run it looser than the sewing thread to maintain the same speed.
The result is that the sound opens up even more. It is more relaxed and natural sounding. Timbre is improved. One hears more of the individual notes. Overall clarity is also better. This is one more incremental step toward a more realistic listening experience.
Conclusions for my high mass/thread drive turntable design:
1. I prefer thread to stretch and non stretch belts. Thread type is audible.
2. The looser the thread, the better, as long as there is no slippage and speed accuracy and stability are maintained.
3. A longer thread sounds better than a shorter one as long as speed is maintained.
4. A clear, unobstructed path for the thread with contact only between motor pulley and platter is audible.
5. Separating the motor unit from the turntable base reduces noise migrating to the platter and/or armboard. Separate platforms are better but a stable relationship and support between the two is important.
6. The goal is to minimize the influence of the motor on the platter and arm by careful placement and the type of connection between the two.
Attachments
Last edited:
This is exactly why there is a following for vintage turntables that have a powerful drive: the Lenco, Garrard 301, Empire 208, Thorens TD124 and Technics SP10.
There's no fiddling about getting this right.
The Empire for example has a very high torque motor which is also a flywheel. You can hold the platter still and cycle the motor on and off, and if you release the platter at that point it will begin to spin. It should be no surprise that Empire had some of the best wow and flutter figures in the industry until Technics came along.
With a radial tracking arm, as the speed varies, the tracking force between the left and right channels varies as the tone arm oscillates over the groove due to skating forces which vary with the platter speed. The pitch variation isn't audible but the shimmer in the sound stage is. When you get the platter more speed stable you reduce the shimmer so you hear improvement. This is why the Technics SP10MkIII had such an ardent following as it is the most speed stable turntable ever made. It had such a power drive that it could be used for LP mastering where the cutter head is weighing in at 60 grams or so.
You deposited this identical post yesterday in an entirely disparate thread … why do you feel the need for this unnecessary repetition
Because the pictures are nice , peter can show them twice , i dont see an issue
However we re all waiting for your pictures
Ralph, yes there is a following for those vintage turntables because they were accessible and affordable. My thread tension and length experiments are not about fiddling to get this right. And those turntables have nothing to do with very high mass, high inertia thread drive types driven by very accurate high torque motors. The speed of my turntable has always been accurate and consistent. The turntable always sounded right.
This is about fine-tuning to make the listening experience more natural. It is also about learning and sharing results with others who have high mass thread drive turntables. The sound was excellent before, now it’s just a bit better. Many of us work on our systems to improve them. This is not unlike choosing to fine tune speaker placement. How far does want to take it? It is about optimizing a certain set of conditions for more convincing sound.
I lived with a Technics SP 10 Mk3 in my system for a few days. It had a highly regarded custom plinth and we did some speed measurements. It is indeed very speed accurate and consistent. But there is more to turntable design. Good speed is necessary but not sufficient. My friend who owns that turntable has it now in storage and listens only to his big Micro Seiki SX 8000 II.
In the end, there are many different approaches to turntable design. We make our choices based on criteria most important to us.
Last edited:
On the Airforce One the slacker the belt the better . Never tried it with anything but the supplied techdas belt
Hi Gardener, it is worth experimenting. My Micro Seiki had a narrower range of belt tension than does my American Sound. The motor is quite different, the platter is more massive, and the bearing has less friction, so there is more room to experiment.
I suspect your TechDAS Air Force One has a narrower range like my old Micro Seiki. Too loose and bass might start to sound a bit muddy. Transients get soft. The overall sound might also become a bit homogenized. You will hear it when you go to loose. You might want to give thread a try.
Thanks as always . Your journey has been a great help to me over the years . Loved the micro seiki you had
Similar threads
