Interceptor
pfm Member
Happy with my TD280 Mk 2 - or at least I was until I sold the 2M Black cartride and Huei phono stage that I upgraded it with (and never listened to).
Cart Vs Arm/TT
- Thread starter matt j
- Start date
I've lived in booth worlds. Shite turntable with fancy MC cart and superb deck with cheap MM. The latter easily beats the former with a large margin. And, well, TD150 is a great deck.
It was a design by Verdier I was refering to in my post above as the shite one (ERA). ERA wasn't 'the original' either, at that time it was advertised as am improvement of the classic AR, I've had an original AR to, ERA was a clear UNimprovement in every way. Stay clear of anything from that man, is my suggestion!
You are demonstrating that if a turntable is well designed then good budget models perform pretty much the same as prestige ones. A sprung sub-chassis pays a significant usability price in terms of bouncing due to footfalls but what is gained is vibration isolation >10 Hz or so. For a low cost turntable it is almost certainly the most appropriate design approach in terms of technical performance so long as the user is prepared to accept the bouncing, slow speed changes, low tech,... which many are not. It is also likely to perform better technically than many prestige turntables which tend to concentrate these days more on features that hook into the marketing rather than anything to do with technical performance.
You are also demonstrating that the cartridge+arm dominates what we hear if the turntable is doing a competent job. This is to be expected because the mechanical design of a cartridge is challenging involving many significant compromises that are inevitably going to be audible. The tonearm also involves significant compromises because it needs to be both rigid so that the cartridge can correctly follow the grooves while also moving freely to track record imperfections and follow the groove inwards. The reaction force to the stylus motion vibrates the cartridge+tonearm significantly and handling this in a reasonable manner is challenging. Handling it well isn't an option unless the cartridge is optical.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
TD150's are my weapon of choice. I have two and the one I use in my system is in a Trio/Kenwood "mock marble" plinth and with an Audio Technica AT1005 MkII arm.
So long as the TT and arm are reasonably good then go for it on the cart front! If money was no object etc I would not hesitate to put say a £2k cart in my TD150/AT1005
So long as the TT and arm are reasonably good then go for it on the cart front! If money was no object etc I would not hesitate to put say a £2k cart in my TD150/AT1005
Well, there, finally a use for the terrible KD500! My brother actually traded his TD150 for a KD500 many years ago. Result? Suddenly all LP's sounded bad and it took half a year or so and he had completely stopped playing records
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Well, there, finally a use for the terrible KD500! My brother actually traded his TD150 for a KD500 many years ago. Result? Suddenly all LP's sounded bad and it took half a year or so and he had completely stopped playing records
KD2055 actually
It was awful as standard yes.
Tony L
Administrator
The bits that are important are sufficiently engineered and the design is solid. As an ex-LP12 owner/current TD-124 owner I was genuinely shocked by just how flimsy a TD-150 is! One was included in the absurd bargain system ‘buy it now’ that got me my first pair of Monitor Golds so I got to strip one down as I cleaned it up to sell on. A genius bit of design/marketing by Thorens as it was quieter than a 124 (the key selling point at the time) and must have cost them a fifteenth as much to make! I guess the TD-125 was the 124 replacement, and that does have a bit more to it engineering wise than the 150, but whether it is a better deck sonically I don’t know. The 150 (and the AR XA which inspired it) are very clever designs and capable of superb results. The Linn really is only a TD-150 with a better build quality. The design is almost identical.
Yes I was surprised how rickety it is, especially the arm I think that is the weak point on the one I have, but considering that it's amazed me how close it has got to a much better built deck and much better arm. Certainly asks more questions than it answers.
Tony L
Administrator
I never got to experience the Thorens arm, the one I had briefly was fitted with a 3009. There were a couple of different versions IIRC.
I doubt the arm is in anything but "just about operational" condition, given how much play there is in everything.
PS. That picture flatters it.
Bias weight and was missing, to be honest I can't tell it doesn't have any. Possibly. Function of the rattly arm. No other issues, this will be swapped about with the other one I have to make a deck for my mum, the remaining bits will be made into a deck for me with a spare Hadcock arm I have and probably a better plinth and ancillaries.
Ha! I'm not too worried, but yes I have read they're a challenge. I didn't find the Nima too difficult.
The deck for my mum will get the standard arm and the better cosmetic bits, mine will have the better mechanical parts and the better arm plus whatever bits it needs to make it half decent, just a bit of fun really.
The deck for my mum will get the standard arm and the better cosmetic bits, mine will have the better mechanical parts and the better arm plus whatever bits it needs to make it half decent, just a bit of fun really.