Thorens TT 160 MKII upgrades
- Thread starter John P
- Start date
neiljadman
Senior Member
John, just about everything you need to know can be founds here: http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_dept_.htm
It's a great place to start out.
Enjoy - but be warned - it's a progressive sickness!
It's a great place to start out.
Enjoy - but be warned - it's a progressive sickness!
RustyB
Registered Ginga
Briefly, great deck but the arms suck.
Grace 707, Regas work well. Length of the Rega requires some cutting away of the subchassis to get correct alignment. RB250 on TD160 >>fast, dynamic sounding deck.
Belts readily available (try eBay); make sure you get the correct length, because, believe it or not, there are two for that deck.
A more solid plinth than the lightweight chipboard original also a good idea.
Felt mat, remove the foam damping from the springs.
Grace 707, Regas work well. Length of the Rega requires some cutting away of the subchassis to get correct alignment. RB250 on TD160 >>fast, dynamic sounding deck.
Belts readily available (try eBay); make sure you get the correct length, because, believe it or not, there are two for that deck.
A more solid plinth than the lightweight chipboard original also a good idea.
Felt mat, remove the foam damping from the springs.
OK Serious Question from one who has never experienced the sound from a Thorens TD160 (Mk1 probably) other than its original format ...........so can someone please explain to me how the arms suck ??
What is to be gained from different arms ? & what attributes do they have ?
What is to be gained from different arms ? & what attributes do they have ?
with comments like that You'd think it doesn't stand a chance of working at all ... Floppy headshell eh ? your definition of "floppy" must be different from mine by a long shot
neiljadman
Senior Member
Added to which, the headshell itself is very light and not the most rigid construction.
I've had several 150 & 160 series turntables and all were improved dramatically with the substitution of a better arm.
My very first real turntable back in the 70s was a 150 originally in stock form, later upgraded with a Linn plinth and a Hadcock arm- worked particularly well.
I've had several 150 & 160 series turntables and all were improved dramatically with the substitution of a better arm.
My very first real turntable back in the 70s was a 150 originally in stock form, later upgraded with a Linn plinth and a Hadcock arm- worked particularly well.
Well Floppy to me simply means something has no rigidity at all
In the case of my thorens headshell I can agree it is not the most rigid, but neither can it be described as floppy.
dunno about other models or marks, but the headshell is a tight fit into the arm & is then further clamped with a threaded collar. Seems pretty rigid to me & I have no particular complaints about the design or its performance except for the metric screws & spacers which in my opinion are the weak design elements.
In the case of my thorens headshell I can agree it is not the most rigid, but neither can it be described as floppy.
dunno about other models or marks, but the headshell is a tight fit into the arm & is then further clamped with a threaded collar. Seems pretty rigid to me & I have no particular complaints about the design or its performance except for the metric screws & spacers which in my opinion are the weak design elements.
neiljadman
Senior Member
Even on the SME 3009, most will tell you that the fixed headshell version is better than the removable - if a little less convenient. You take your chooice.
But it just seems pretty logical that a permanently bonded headshell should be more rigid than any breakable joint.
But it just seems pretty logical that a permanently bonded headshell should be more rigid than any breakable joint.