advertisement


german rebranded Logic DM101??

Looks like a late DM-101 to me with the electronic speed control (that IIRC LesW designed). What the hell is the puck thing clamped near the headshell of the PU3?
 
When I owned a PU3 I’d have appreciated something like that to hold on to keep the bloody arm tube still whilst tightening it up!
 
Yep that's a Logic DM101 alright. A superb TT. The electronic speed control is VERY unreliable though... if easy to fix... I had to repair my mates about 2-3 times a year until I made him a new external speed controller/PSU from boards I got from Doug Hewitt.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Yep that's a Logic DM101 alright. A superb TT. The electronic speed control is VERY unreliable though... if easy to fix... I had to repair my mates about 2-3 times a year until I made him a new external speed controller/PSU from boards I got from Doug Hewitt.
Click to expand...

A potentially superb deck compromised by an inadequate suspension.
The whole thing teetering on a giant central spring and held in place by tiny outrigger stabilizers.
With many arms, the subchassis would tilt as the position of the heavy counterweight shifted during play, and if you played a less than even thickness LP you could watch the suchassis 'walk' up and down.

I didn't keep mine (with a PU2 Gold) too long!
 
Robert said:
A potentially superb deck compromised by an inadequate suspension.
The whole thing teetering on a giant central spring and held in place by tiny outrigger stabilizers.
With many arms, the subchassis would tilt as the position of the heavy counterweight shifted during play, and if you played a less than even thickness LP you could watch the suchassis 'walk' up and down.

I didn't keep mine (with a PU2 Gold) too long!
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one! I consider it an excellent suspension system and never had any issues with it other than the extremely unreliable electronic speed controller. I've not seen the situation you describe occur even slightly. I've set up DM101's maybe 4 times I reckon and all went well each time.
I would take a DM101 over an LP12 or PT all day long!
 
Arkless Electronics said:
We'll have to disagree on that one! I consider it an excellent suspension system and never had any issues with it other than the extremely unreliable electronic speed controller. I've not seen the situation you describe occur even slightly. I've set up DM101's maybe 4 times I reckon and all went well each time.
I would take a DM101 over an LP12 or PT all day long!
Click to expand...

Attempting to balance about 5kg of moving mass atop a single central spring is just plain daft!

It sounded different to the LP12 of the day and had a number of benefits, just not that suspension.
 
I reckon a lot of good turntable manufacturers fell by the wayside because they couldn't cope with the Linn publicity machine, though I have no direct experience of the Logic TBH
 
Robert said:
Attempting to balance about 5kg of moving mass atop a single central spring is just plain daft!
Click to expand...

XtnUn1U.gif
 
Robert said:
Attempting to balance about 5kg of moving mass atop a single central spring is just plain daft!

It sounded different to the LP12 of the day and had a number of benefits, just not that suspension.
Click to expand...

The 'mass spring' was optional and only arrived later in the turntables development. I also seem to recall it making sense more in some contexts than others, i.e. with especially heavy tonearms. Two friends had DM-101s for a while, one had a Syrinx PU2 and no mass spring, the other an FR64S with the mass spring and I think a heavier weight on the other side of the chassis to balance it out. Logic used to advertise/dem the 101 with a FR64S, so I guess the mass spring was designed for that very heavy arm. Neither had electronic speed control, so were fairly early I guess. Both worked well, a good turntable IMHO aside from the poor quality paint that seemed to fall off and it was all but impossible to switch the belt position on the pulley to play 45s (both just dropped straight down to 33 again)!
 
I liked the Logic too, although mine was an early one without the central spring. Mine also had a reluctance to keep the belt in the right place for 45rpm!
 
Never had any speed change issues with mine at all. Logic machined the inner platter so the belt tension was the same whether the belt was on the upper or lower part of the motor pulley.
 
Tony L said:
The 'mass spring' was optional and only arrived later in the turntables development. I also seem to recall it making sense more in some contexts than others, i.e. with especially heavy tonearms. Two friends had DM-101s for a while, one had a Syrinx PU2 and no mass spring, the other an FR64S with the mass spring and I think a heavier weight on the other side of the chassis to balance it out. Logic used to advertise/dem the 101 with a FR64S, so I guess the mass spring was designed for that very heavy arm. Neither had electronic speed control, so were fairly early I guess. Both worked well, a good turntable IMHO aside from the poor quality paint that seemed to fall off and it was all but impossible to switch the belt position on the pulley to play 45s (both just dropped straight down to 33 again)!
Click to expand...

I'm sure the version without the centre spring was a different kettle of fish.
But on the later version you could clearly observe the sub-chassis tilt by several mm as the arm counterweight changed position.
If you had an LP which was thicker on one half, not too unusual, you could observe the sub-chassis walk up and down.

The former was of course very arm dependant - those with long counterweight stubs and heavy counterweights mounted away from the pivot suffered the most, like the Syrinx.
Others like the SME III were fine.

Its only shining quality was the bearing, plus the rigid and relatively massive sub-chassis. Michell beat it on both grounds though with the Gyro, and had a far more intelligent suspension design.
 
matt j said:
XtnUn1U.gif
Click to expand...

Haha exactly :)

Now imagine what would happen if young Zebedee tried that while holding a house brick at arms length ;)

This idea clearly came from the 'I know lets do something wildly different to get attention even if it doesn't work' school of engineering.
 
It never did this with the Mission 774 fitted to my pals deck...
Even with the spring I'd love one... or a Xerxes of course.... or a Townshend Rock... my fave TT's:)
 
Robert said:
If you had an LP which thicker on one half, not too unusual, you could observe the sub-chassis walk up and down.
Click to expand...

In fairness you can observe that with any suspended deck that has its centre of gravity too high due to being balanced on springs rather than suspended below them, e.g. LP12 etc. I never thought to look at the counterweight thing with the Logic, or for that matter the LP12. All I know is I did like the Logic, it was a good deck in its time and because of the dominance of the Linn could be had very cheap ex-dem (which is how my friends got them). Obviously if I knew then what I know now I’d have bought a 301 or 124 for £50 rather than any of them (like a mug I bought a bloody Xerxes!). Of the ‘70s or 80s high-end UK decks I look back the most fondly on LP12, but the Logic was a decent contender IMO. If it did shift whilst playing I never heard it in pitch instability, but in fairness I have a far better ear now than I had then.
 
can anyone think of any decks that attempted in a decent way to deal with the centre of gravity height issue? i'm thinking oracle delphi and the michell gyro ...
 
I won one of these in a hi-fi mag competition way back when along with a Meridian set up.
Early days as it took months to eventually come with a Datum arm and their new mc cartridge.
Arrived the day before Christmas, brief listen, pub, disco, etc. Came home the day after Boxing Day to the cantilever
at right angles to the cartridge body. Remember taking an axe upstairs to wake my house mate of the night shift.
Happily I did not kill him, however he could not understand all the fuss about a needle till I told him the replacement cartridge
would be 140 quid. Never the same atmosphere after that as it was never replaced.
Sold my original Pagoda Systemdek with a Mission 774 for peanuts to buy a new cartridge.
Bad move. The Logic was nice enough, it did 'wallow' a bit when spinning, not enough to hear but wasn't till years
later when I had another Systemdek, realised I was missing the wide soundstage and possibly just a coloured sound
that made music much more inviting and believeable.
Before that Systemdek, I picked up a lost cause Xerxes, refurbished it and it kept me happy for a long time.
Sold the pristine Logic to a work colleague for peanuts and have never seen him or the cash for over 30 years,
hope he's still enjoying it.
Went through countless LP 12s after selling the Xerxes, none ever stayed long bar a Fully Vectored one which was sublime.
Cash crisis it went at a loss, leaving me with my Oracle which skinned me $500 and a d.i.y Lenco or two.
Had another original Systemdek and can't believe I sold it again, Italians obviously know what vinyl should sound like. I bought my original after
countless dems against LP 12s through the same system, lights out, feet up, some enhancements and the aforesaid kept me happy for 18 years and countless cartridges, the Vectored Linn I would loved to have kept, apart from a Pink Link thing with a PU 2 that a dealer had butchered that I restored, none of the other LP 12s lasted very long. Every incarnation made them sound more like cd's, I got that from a Pioneer CD recorder which cost 90 quid but was a total pfaff.
Thankfully, vinyl is now something I treat myself to once in a Blue Moon as I doubt my non existent pension will stretch to another Koetsu. But by Christ I enjoy it 'sparingly'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top