The TD160S had a separate arm board, supplied blank if necessary, and no arm lift. You chose your own arm, usually a 3009 of course. S for "Super".Hi.
Can someone give me heads up on the various options on these decks?
Is there a top plate without the cueing knob to accommodate a SME 3009, which has its own lift.
Any help much appreciated.
Jon
I think it was the second version, with a different bearing (no captive steel ball) on the bottom of the platter spindle. The earliest model of 160 used the same bearing as the 150 (with captive steel ball). I think the spindle was a slightly reduced diameter too. (No doubt the claim would have been "reduced friction", which is likely true but a 150 has very little friction anyway - if you slip off the belt then the platter should spin freely for at least a couple of minutes from 33rpm, mine would go 100+ turns.)There was a TD160B, I think this was a cheaper version. Not sure why it was cheaper.
The TD160S had a separate arm board, supplied blank if necessary, and no arm lift. You chose your own arm, usually a 3009 of course. S for "Super".
The standard TD160 came with a Thorens arm, model escapes me, but different from that used on the TD150 Mk 2 (golf ball) arm.
There was a TD160B, I think this was a cheaper version. Not sure why it was cheaper.
I don't recall any option to order TD-160 Super with tonearm from Thorens.The TD160 Super came in different versions. With Thorens' own arm and cueing knob but also armless without the knob.
There was also TD160 S (MkIV and MkV) - which should not be confused with the Super which is more substantially built.
https://www.theanalogdept.com/index.html
http://www.analogue-classics.com/html/thorens___overview.html
Interesting, never clapped eyes on one of these before.From a quick Google search:
Also look in the Analogue-Classics link -scroll down to TD160 Super and you see the TP16 MkIII tonearm option.
The 165, which was a considerably cheapened 160, had this as part of its catalogue of crapness. Shame, the 160 was a very nice deck. The 165 wasn't. The 166 followed, I don't know whether this was a return to the quality of the 160 or maintained the cheapness of the 165. The reviewers of the time didn't much like it, ISTR, the Rega 2 was much preferred. For what that's worth.At some point they stopped machining the platter hub from solid cast zinc too, using a composite plastic/fibre thing instead. - .