Look what the cat dragged in (two Garrards)

[sonddek]

Success!

Looks like very competent workmanship to me.

I'm building a plinth out of ply.

I've opened cleaned and oiled the bearing of one of the decks, cleaned up the idler wheel and pulleys, cleaned everywhere and it appears to be working beautifully. Can't wait to get it in a plinth, get a 2009 mounted and hear it at last.

 

[Rasher]

Amazing to think that possibly no-one has seen inside that tin for half a century, or thereabouts.

 

[graham55]

Amazing to think that these might be the most valuable parts of the treasure trove!

What might be needed to bring them up to spec, and how much might they be worth afterwards?

 

[sonddek]

Amazing to think that possibly no-one has seen inside that tin for half a century, or thereabouts.

Yes, I squeezed the box all the way around which produced a slight cracking sound. Time alone had sealed it because it wasn't dirty. It was like Raiders of the Lost Ark. But I could smell the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP.

 

[sonddek]

Here are the beginnings of my first plinth. I wanted a plinth which is sympathetic to the ugly but cute 50's style of the deck itself, and not too heavy looking. There's a lot of sanding and painting left to do, but I should at least be able to hear it soon.

 

[ian r]

Good work - thats a lot of cutting how did you do it .... PVA for glue? ?-)

 

[sonddek]

I used a tenpence to trace around the original motor board, and then cut that as a template for the first ply layer. It's cut out with an electric jigsaw. There's plenty of tidying up needed. I haven't glued the layers together yet, but yes I do have some spare PVA sitting around somewhere by chance ;-) I intend to screw each layer into the one above it as I glue, with countersunk screws, for a good tight fit. However, I must make sure that all the cutting is correct before gluing.

The proposed position of the arm fixing is chosen on aesthetic rather than functional grounds, as you can see. I wanted the arm base to be flush with right edge of the motor unit. Obviously, with nothing under the arm, it will look better while a record is playing, but that's how it should be!

 

[Tony L]

The proposed position of the arm fixing is chosen on aesthetic rather than functional grounds, as you can see. I wanted the arm base to be flush with right edge of the motor unit. Obviously, with nothing under the arm, it will look better while a record is playing, but that's how it should be!

I'd rotate the arm cut a few degrees so the slot is pointing at the main bearing, it will give you more adjustment, and may also make it easier for arm-lead exit (depending on whether your SMEs are side or downward exit).

 

[sonddek]

I'd rotate the arm cut a few degrees so the slot is pointing at the main bearing, it will give you more adjustment, and may also make it easier for arm-lead exit (depending on whether your SMEs are side or downward exit).

I can see that's the right thing to do, but it seems to me that it contributes to the slightly jerry-built look that many otherwise exquisite Garrard/SME decks have:

The 3009 can look like it was bolted on as an afterthought, and I think the angle of the mount only enhances the feeling that it came from another deck.

 

[sonddek]

I'd rotate the arm cut a few degrees so the slot is pointing at the main bearing, it will give you more adjustment, and may also make it easier for arm-lead exit (depending on whether your SMEs are side or downward exit).

...and they are downward exit, although I'm contemplating cutting out layers 1, 2 and 3 so that other arm plates can also be mounted.

 

[Tony L]

The 3009 can look like it was bolted on as an afterthought, and I think the angle of the mount only enhances the feeling that it came from another deck.

To my mind it's not the angle that makes it look like an afterthought, but the fact many use really naff DIY risers for it. Use a proper SME P1 spacer and it looks beautiful IMO:

It's all about getting the fit and finish right. This angle is correct, it's how you should mount a SME.

 

[sonddek]

To my mind it's not the angle that makes it look like an afterthought, but the fact many use really naff DIY risers for it. Use a proper SME P1 spacer and it looks beautiful IMO:

It's all about getting the fit and finish right. This angle is correct, it's how you should mount a SME.

Yes, I have one of those risers. I know your angle's correct, in that it provides the greatest degree of adjustability, but I still think it looks ugly, simply because the lines of the riser/mount don't follow any other lines on the deck. I'm prepared to sacrifice some arm-length adjustability, in which the 3009 seems over-endowed, in order to get a cleaner look. I know it's wrong, but sometimes one just can't help oneself.

Your photograph does quite a good job of hiding the jarring aesthetic that we're discussing. Good angle! ;-)

 

[Tony L]

It's funny how we see this differently - to my eyes SME arms just look wrong unless the base is at the correct example, and I've been going through this with my 124 at the moment:

Here it is with a proper 1960s SME Perspex armboard with angled cut. I think it looks beautiful.

Here it is as it is now with a Stereo Lab board that has the cut straight, which to me looks all wrong! I much prefer the proper SME board aesthetically, but the Stereo Lab one is more solid and the screws don't hang down beneath and foul the plinth. I'll probably go for a Shopper board at some point which is the thickness of the Stereo Lab, but angled correctly.

PS apologies for cluttering up your fine thread with so many pictures of my kit. I'm not too bothered what angle you mount your SME, I just want to see it finished and know what you think of the sound! Good luck with it - it should sound superb.

 

[sonddek]

Not clutter at all, but discussion of very important questions on how best to build a Garrard/3009 plinth! I think the perspex armboard looks much sexier, but I like the straight (wrong) alignment of the mount on the other one. It just looks tidier, and more as though the arm is an integrated design with the deck. I don't really care about the function because when arm length is right, it's right, and no further adjustments are necessary. In fact, I'm quite happy with the arrangements of my other arms, which have no ability to slide in the mount at all, and simply rely on a small amount of cartridge displacement. In a way, the adjustible-length mount is a hack arising from the designer's promiscuous intentions. I guess I just imagine a deck set up and playing music, rather than constantly hosting new cartridges and headshells.

 

[ian r]

 

[sonddek]

I knew I was right! ;-)

Gentlemen, we have lift-off:

It sounds bloody good already and I haven't even glued the plinth together or re-built the arm. It is very tuneful, with bass notes very solid. Sounds like it holds a tune with the very best. It must have very low wow under duress. Way beyond any Sondek I've heard in that regard.

 

[ian r]

hooray

 

[sonddek]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me about these step-up transformers and in general.

I accidentally plugged the Jorgen Schous into the MC inputs on my Uphorik. To my surprise, it was very quiet, and since I am now only using a passive volume control, too quiet. However, it did sound exquisite. Then I plugged them into the MM input, as I suppose is meant. Volume is more sensible now, but it seems like some of the exquisiteness is lost. Why is the output quieter when sent through the MC stage? Is my Uphorik doing something automatic and sensible with the wrong output, or is this an expected result?

Are step-ups purely to enable MC input to MM stages, or do people prefer them to an MC stage? If so, why, and what are they supposed to bring to the party?

Of course, shortly, when I've sorted the wiring, my curiosity is going to lead me to a/b the Schous+MM input against direct MC input. What differences, if any, do think I'll hear?

Sorry for all the questions, but this is new ground for me.

 

[Rasher]

I presume you didn't notice which input it was wired into originally?

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me about these step-up transformers and in general.

I accidentally plugged the Jorgen Schous into the MC inputs on my Uphorik. To my surprise, it was very quiet, and since I am now only using a passive volume control, too quiet. However, it did sound exquisite. Then I plugged them into the MM input, as I suppose is meant. Volume is more sensible now, but it seems like some of the exquisiteness is lost. Why is the output quieter when sent through the MC stage? Is my Uphorik doing something automatic and sensible with the wrong output, or is this an expected result?

Are step-ups purely to enable MC input to MM stages, or do people prefer them to an MC stage? If so, why, and what are they supposed to bring to the party?

Of course, shortly, when I've sorted the wiring, my curiosity is going to lead me to a/b the Schous+MM input against direct MC input. What differences, if any, do think I'll hear?

Sorry for all the questions, but this is new ground for me.

A MC step up transformer matches impedance as well as voltage level.
Typical output of a MC 0.3 mV but 5 mV for MM... BUT MC has low output impedance whereas MM has high output impedance therefore if you connect a MM to the typically 100 Ohm input impedance of a MC stage it won't have the current to drive it and the voltage will therefore drop to a low level....