martin clark
pinko bodger
Somewhere I have an article on modifying the Connoisseur in a copy of 'Audio Conversons' Magazine, c 1988. I'll scan it if I can find it - it goes well off into the deep end of bodgeneering, thoroughly entertaining stuff.
Sugden Connoisseur - lost classic?
- Thread starter kasperhauser
- Start date
- Status
soundhaspriorty
Banned
I would dearly love to read that! I've done a few small mods in the past, but so far, the only mod I ever read that was specifically intended for the Connoisseur, was to place it on condoms filled with vegetable oil. Not sure if it was ribbed or plain....
soundhaspriorty
Banned
Actually, I have a P3, with a Reson Reca attached to it. It is, as you would say, "shite", when you compare it to a real deck, like the BD2. I also have a Thorens TD150, a Roksan Xerxes, and a couple of other tables. My fave is the Connoisseur. Parts fit fine, isolation from footfalls is great, but most importantly, questions of how good the bearing, motor anchor, arm, and all that stuff is meaningless in light of the fact that it sounds great. Does it sound great in terms of detail? No, the Rega will kill it for detail. Refinement? No, it can sound crude next to a Rega or Thorens, never mind the Xerxes. The Connie seems to have a character of not being extended in the highs or lows. But so what, its all about the music, and this thing knows how to play music, where the Rega will leave you saying "Yup, everyting is in its right place and it sounds like an expensive table but... why am I so bored right now?". The Connoisseur's magic is in the midrange, where most music lies.
I thank my stars that most people either dont know how to set up a Connoisseur BD2 properly or don't know what music is supposed to sound like, because that's how I got 3 BD2's for a song... people giving away these little jewels....
martin clark
pinko bodger
Quite - I might dig out some more for a laugh
Robert
Tapehead
Nooooo way my friend.
These were budget decks built down to a price, not up to an acceptable standard. They sold for £70 - less than the Rega decks and were in competition with the likes of the old Sansui SR222 and Dual CS505.
They measured poorly, with high rumble, poor acoustic breakthrough, resonant arms and sloppy main bearings.
I have a full technical review if anyone is interested.
There is a tendency of late to praise averything on the basis of it being from the golden days of vinyl, but there was plenty of poor kit around that really should remain in the dusty old pages of 70s magazines.
soundhaspriorty
Banned
Yes, I'm aware of where the Connoisseur's place in history lies. I'm aware that they were sold at a budget price, I'm aware that people in general don't think highly of them, probably because of all sorts of prejudices like that. I'm aware the headshell just plugs in and is made of plastic, and not particularly well coupled to the rest of the SAU2 arm. I'm aware the motor is idiosynchratic and may not always want to start up on you, and require coaxing a bit. I'm also aware that technical reviews and specifications do NOT tell the story here.
The BD2/BD1 (same table, different plinth) are a brilliant design with equally brilliant thinking behind it, not to be compared with the Sansui's and Duals of the day. Or even Rega, which is nothing more than a slab of medite with a poor motor design, and a good arm. But the point is, if you look beyond design and technical specifications and actually compare a well set-up Connoisseur BD2 to other tables, competing or 10 times its price, you may find that the Connie, unlike many other budget or high end turntables, knows how to make music!
I am not going by decades old history and romance of having a Connoisseur in my bedroom in the 70's and associating it with my first girlfriend. No, I only heard about the Connoisseur on an audio forum a couple of years ago, when someone had went on about how much "PRATT" his old Connie had, especially when compared to his Rega's and high end Thorens models, and whatever else he had. So even though I already owned a Roksan Xerxes (which I never accused of of having too much "PRATT"), I bought a BD2 off eBay, just out of curiousity's sake, because it was so cheap. And the guy was right. This unassuming deck had something special about it, mostly found in its midrange (since it doesn't have too much above and beyond that). For one thing, it had more lucid mids than decks 20 times its price.
A few days ago, I was setting up my P2/RB250/Reson Reca to perfection, and -still- wondering how I could get it to sound more musical. Then I compared it to one of my BD2's which had a 20 year old cheap Shure cartridge on it, and the BD2 was absolutely effortless in making music, unlike the Rega (which beat the Connie on most other terms of course). Despite not having been used in a year's time, and thus not recently set up. After proper tuning (not as easy as it sounds), I have had moments with a BD2 where it produced a sound so musical on my records that I haven't heard anything like it since, not on the Xerxes, not on my $3K worth of digital equipment. After playing around with 3 different BD2's, I can state for certain it isn't an accident, the BD2 has something special that most other audio equipment, never mind just analog replay equipment, only aspires to. You just got to get beyond the prejudices and the technical specs, and give some proper love to a BD2/BD1. It will love you back.
The BD2/BD1 (same table, different plinth) are a brilliant design with equally brilliant thinking behind it, not to be compared with the Sansui's and Duals of the day. Or even Rega, which is nothing more than a slab of medite with a poor motor design, and a good arm. But the point is, if you look beyond design and technical specifications and actually compare a well set-up Connoisseur BD2 to other tables, competing or 10 times its price, you may find that the Connie, unlike many other budget or high end turntables, knows how to make music!
I am not going by decades old history and romance of having a Connoisseur in my bedroom in the 70's and associating it with my first girlfriend. No, I only heard about the Connoisseur on an audio forum a couple of years ago, when someone had went on about how much "PRATT" his old Connie had, especially when compared to his Rega's and high end Thorens models, and whatever else he had. So even though I already owned a Roksan Xerxes (which I never accused of of having too much "PRATT"), I bought a BD2 off eBay, just out of curiousity's sake, because it was so cheap. And the guy was right. This unassuming deck had something special about it, mostly found in its midrange (since it doesn't have too much above and beyond that). For one thing, it had more lucid mids than decks 20 times its price.
A few days ago, I was setting up my P2/RB250/Reson Reca to perfection, and -still- wondering how I could get it to sound more musical. Then I compared it to one of my BD2's which had a 20 year old cheap Shure cartridge on it, and the BD2 was absolutely effortless in making music, unlike the Rega (which beat the Connie on most other terms of course). Despite not having been used in a year's time, and thus not recently set up. After proper tuning (not as easy as it sounds), I have had moments with a BD2 where it produced a sound so musical on my records that I haven't heard anything like it since, not on the Xerxes, not on my $3K worth of digital equipment. After playing around with 3 different BD2's, I can state for certain it isn't an accident, the BD2 has something special that most other audio equipment, never mind just analog replay equipment, only aspires to. You just got to get beyond the prejudices and the technical specs, and give some proper love to a BD2/BD1. It will love you back.
eguth
pfm Member
I worked on the Connesseur BD1 turntable for 19 years (off & on) before I wrote the Audio Conversions article that has been scanned.
Some of the comments posted leave me cryogenetically gastroflabbered.
The BD2 is a much -inferior TT compared to the modified BD1. Anyone going by the test reports on the BD2 is in for a shock if they modify the BD1.
The BD2 should not be used except during childbirth or when camping out in a tent.
Vibration isolation of the modified BD1 tested using my 'meniscus test' (water in a can as described in the AC article) is greatly superior to a well- known highly- rated upmarked TT tested in exactly the same way. There is no audible rumble whatsoever using my subwoofer (more below).
Given a good enough TT, plinth and arm- (please not the BD2!)- then the cartridge is more important than the TT. I say this after some 51 years of playing about with hi fi and being subjected to a lot of lo fi parading under the wrong name.
My modified BD1 AC articles were intended for poor audiophiles wanting to build a hi end TT for peanuts. Where are you?
After the modified BD1 in my system I use modified mosfet monobloks that go up to 100KHz, a modified valve amp for the mid and a modified subwoofer that goes down flat to 22 Hz; tri- amped, star-wired and specially grounded. You have to get within 10 inches or so of the drivers (at normal listening -level volume setting with no record playing but the TT spinning) before you hear any hum at all- and then it is very soft and coming mostly from the MC transformer and preamp. Any nasties in the BD1 would come flying home with a vengeance if they were there.
Comments posted indicating that the BD1 is a "midrange turntable" create much hysterical laughter in me. The laughter starts in my belly, goes up to 100KHz then down to 22Hz before falling off rapidly.
An architect friend designed and built a perforated aluminium and mahogony version of my modified BD1 plinth and motor box. It is the most beautiful TT I have ever seen. It makes mine look like a Neanderthal Man having a nightmare.
The modified BD1 is not the best in the world. I am always interesting in learning from others on how to improve it further.
Eric
Some of the comments posted leave me cryogenetically gastroflabbered.
The BD2 is a much -inferior TT compared to the modified BD1. Anyone going by the test reports on the BD2 is in for a shock if they modify the BD1.
The BD2 should not be used except during childbirth or when camping out in a tent.
Vibration isolation of the modified BD1 tested using my 'meniscus test' (water in a can as described in the AC article) is greatly superior to a well- known highly- rated upmarked TT tested in exactly the same way. There is no audible rumble whatsoever using my subwoofer (more below).
Given a good enough TT, plinth and arm- (please not the BD2!)- then the cartridge is more important than the TT. I say this after some 51 years of playing about with hi fi and being subjected to a lot of lo fi parading under the wrong name.
My modified BD1 AC articles were intended for poor audiophiles wanting to build a hi end TT for peanuts. Where are you?
After the modified BD1 in my system I use modified mosfet monobloks that go up to 100KHz, a modified valve amp for the mid and a modified subwoofer that goes down flat to 22 Hz; tri- amped, star-wired and specially grounded. You have to get within 10 inches or so of the drivers (at normal listening -level volume setting with no record playing but the TT spinning) before you hear any hum at all- and then it is very soft and coming mostly from the MC transformer and preamp. Any nasties in the BD1 would come flying home with a vengeance if they were there.
Comments posted indicating that the BD1 is a "midrange turntable" create much hysterical laughter in me. The laughter starts in my belly, goes up to 100KHz then down to 22Hz before falling off rapidly.
An architect friend designed and built a perforated aluminium and mahogony version of my modified BD1 plinth and motor box. It is the most beautiful TT I have ever seen. It makes mine look like a Neanderthal Man having a nightmare.
The modified BD1 is not the best in the world. I am always interesting in learning from others on how to improve it further.
Eric
eguth
pfm Member
FOR THOSE NEW TO THIS THREAD THERE IS AN INDEX ON PAGE 30. It lists topics up to and including page 30 only.
PigletsDad: thanks for confirming my dementation, and also your kind remarks about the AC article. Eric
Beobloke
pfm Member
Well i realise that i'm a bit late to this topic (been on hols you know!) but as far as the BD1/BD2 goes, my vote goes to big shiny turd.
I have owned/repaired/serviced 4 and their main features seem to be -
(1) Pathetic motor that vibrates loads
(2) Pathetic little rubber mounting spider that supports said motor. At least until it perishes and the motor drops out which, belive me, WILL happen!
(3) Amusing little rubber lump on the on/off switch that flicks the platter as you turn it to 'on' in order to ensure the platter spins in the right direction - without it, it's pot luck which way it goes round! I've never figured out why Strathearn were roundly castigated for their turntables occasionally rotating the wrong way, but no-one ever complains when a BD1/2 does it!
(4) On some variants, a mechanical speed change to move the belt to the correct step on the motor pulley (theory). Usually it just makes the belt fall off.
(5) Even when overcoming all these obstacles, i never found the sound much to write home about and do not believe the deck is a worthy partner for the SAU2 arm, which on it's own isn't bad.
As you may have gathered, despite being a turntable fanatic who currently owns 19, i cannot find anything worthwhile about these decks. If i ever find one again at my local dump/car boot sale/nearby skip, i will happily walk on past it without a second glance.
I have owned/repaired/serviced 4 and their main features seem to be -
(1) Pathetic motor that vibrates loads
(2) Pathetic little rubber mounting spider that supports said motor. At least until it perishes and the motor drops out which, belive me, WILL happen!
(3) Amusing little rubber lump on the on/off switch that flicks the platter as you turn it to 'on' in order to ensure the platter spins in the right direction - without it, it's pot luck which way it goes round! I've never figured out why Strathearn were roundly castigated for their turntables occasionally rotating the wrong way, but no-one ever complains when a BD1/2 does it!
(4) On some variants, a mechanical speed change to move the belt to the correct step on the motor pulley (theory). Usually it just makes the belt fall off.
(5) Even when overcoming all these obstacles, i never found the sound much to write home about and do not believe the deck is a worthy partner for the SAU2 arm, which on it's own isn't bad.
As you may have gathered, despite being a turntable fanatic who currently owns 19, i cannot find anything worthwhile about these decks. If i ever find one again at my local dump/car boot sale/nearby skip, i will happily walk on past it without a second glance.
soundhaspriorty
Banned
Wonderful article, amazing work, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if your manically modded BD1 can trounce a Linn Sondek, if not better. Now about the BD2.... I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as I stated and as I always understood it, the BD2 -is- a BD1, only with a Connoisseur plinth (and the SAU2 arm). So if all other parts are the same, it would seem there's nothing stopping one from doing the same mods to a BD2, you just have to cast off the BD2's plinth (and you can always change the arm on the BD2 if you don't like it). So while I think the BD1/BD2 are certainly comparable in sound quality (if the plinth is removed from the equasion), I agree your tricked out BD1 is not comparable to either a stock BD1 or stock BD2. I think Sugden himself would have been very proud of how far you took his modest design, because he put the BD1 out for the express purpose of people taking a basically good design and improving upon it how they see fit.
eguth
pfm Member
Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12
Wonderful article, amazing work, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if your manically modded BD1 can trounce a Linn Sondek, if not better. Now about the BD2.... I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as I stated and as I always understood it, the BD2 -is- a BD1, only with a Connoisseur plinth (and the SAU2 arm). So if all other parts are the same, it would seem there's nothing stopping one from doing the same mods to a BD2, you just have to cast off the BD2's plinth (and you can always change the arm on the BD2 if you don't like it). So while I think the BD1/BD2 are certainly comparable in sound quality (if the plinth is removed from the equation), I agree your tricked out BD1 is not comparable to either a stock BD1 or stock BD2. I think Sugden himself would have been very proud of how far you took his modest design, because he put the BD1 out for the express purpose of people taking a basically good design and improving upon it how they see fit.
Soundhaspriority
Thanks for your praise of my AC article. There are amendments I would now make to the article but as no one so far as I know is now working on a BD1 using my mods I’ll keep amendments on ice.
I haven’t seen a BD2 for decades and never owned one. However, from what I recollect, you are correct in saying that it is a BD1 on a plinth fitted with an arm. The BD1 came, I seem to recall, in kit form just as a turntable (only) bunch of parts, and one had to assemble this DIY. Not so the BD2. It was, I think, factory built. The only caveat to this is that I can’t remember whether the BD2 uses the same small platform as the BD1 or whether it has a larger platform machined to take the SAU2 arm. If the latter, then it should not be used for mods unless, of course, you can cut off enough of the platform so as to allow you to make a better arm mount than a piece of steel allows- and also to facilitate any change of arm.
In my article I mention that the NEW BD1 motor MUST be used if you are to obtain the performance of which I speak. It is a better motor than the one first manufactured by Sugden for the BD1. I think these NEW motors are probably still available from T&G. In addition, the article gives various mods I make to the MOTOR AND MOTOR MOUNTING ARRANGEMENTS. These improve matters further. There is no vibration from the motor affecting the modified BD1 plinth. Of this I am absolutely certain. The meniscus test proves vibration to be at levels below, I should think, the majority of upmarket TTs- if it can be shown that there is any at all. It is below levels measurable by my ‘meniscus test’. Perhaps extremely accurate and sensitive test instruments could measure SOME motor vibration carried over to the plinth via the long belt, but I suggest that this is academic. Using my ‘stethoscope test’ you can, indeed, hear the belt slapping into the grooves in the side of the platter. But not even my (supersonic) hearing can hear any belt slap with my ear 1 inch or less away from the groove in the platter without using a stethoscope. All this talk of academic amounts of vibration affecting the sound reminds me of a chap I once knew who was concerned about the amount of time it takes after the motor is turned off for the TT platter to come to rest, after you remove the belt, shut the motor off and give the platter a spin with your hand. He berated the BD1 in this respect. I timed it- just for fun. It takes quite a while- but not nearly as long to come to rest as did the air bearing platter this chap was on about. I seem to remember that the air bearing platter took a phenomenal amount of time before it stopped. Whether that makes it a produce better sound I don’t know. From a commonsense point of view, however, it seems to me that parameters of performance are important – up to a point. After that, improvements in performance are academic and make no difference to the sound. As a general principle, I accept that performance up to- call it point 6, say, may be far enough to reach the academic stage in system A, but in system B, that uses a better cartridge, or better preamp you may need performance up to point 13 beyond which there is no benefit from a further improvement.
As far as my modified BD1 ‘beating’ any other TT is concerned I would not make such claims. What would I say to someone who, in a side by side comparison of mine with an unmodded BD2 fitted with a cheap MM cartridge declaring that the BD2 sounds better and is therefore a better TT? I’d say he is entitled to his opinion and his is just as correct as yours or mine: only I would also have to say that I don’t agree. We are talking here of subjective findings. There is no absolute standard for subjective findings. ‘Right and wrong’ just don’t apply. If, on the other hand, he produces test results that show TT ‘A’ measures better than TT ‘B’, I would say that yes, on paper it is a better TT. But it may sound worse, in the opinion of some, or the fact that it tests better make not mean that the sound produced using it is any better.
Arnold Sugden would probably not be as ‘proud’ of my mods as you imagine. He would more likely have wanted me castrated. I once sent one of my very early BD1 experiments up to Sugdens. I can’t remember why. I think it was for some minor repair. In typically wonderfully blunt Yorkshire manner, the letter I got back was far from complimentary. I remember only one phrase from it: “the thing you sent us looks like a Christmas tree!”
Eric
Posts: 12
Wonderful article, amazing work, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if your manically modded BD1 can trounce a Linn Sondek, if not better. Now about the BD2.... I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as I stated and as I always understood it, the BD2 -is- a BD1, only with a Connoisseur plinth (and the SAU2 arm). So if all other parts are the same, it would seem there's nothing stopping one from doing the same mods to a BD2, you just have to cast off the BD2's plinth (and you can always change the arm on the BD2 if you don't like it). So while I think the BD1/BD2 are certainly comparable in sound quality (if the plinth is removed from the equation), I agree your tricked out BD1 is not comparable to either a stock BD1 or stock BD2. I think Sugden himself would have been very proud of how far you took his modest design, because he put the BD1 out for the express purpose of people taking a basically good design and improving upon it how they see fit.
Soundhaspriority
Thanks for your praise of my AC article. There are amendments I would now make to the article but as no one so far as I know is now working on a BD1 using my mods I’ll keep amendments on ice.
I haven’t seen a BD2 for decades and never owned one. However, from what I recollect, you are correct in saying that it is a BD1 on a plinth fitted with an arm. The BD1 came, I seem to recall, in kit form just as a turntable (only) bunch of parts, and one had to assemble this DIY. Not so the BD2. It was, I think, factory built. The only caveat to this is that I can’t remember whether the BD2 uses the same small platform as the BD1 or whether it has a larger platform machined to take the SAU2 arm. If the latter, then it should not be used for mods unless, of course, you can cut off enough of the platform so as to allow you to make a better arm mount than a piece of steel allows- and also to facilitate any change of arm.
In my article I mention that the NEW BD1 motor MUST be used if you are to obtain the performance of which I speak. It is a better motor than the one first manufactured by Sugden for the BD1. I think these NEW motors are probably still available from T&G. In addition, the article gives various mods I make to the MOTOR AND MOTOR MOUNTING ARRANGEMENTS. These improve matters further. There is no vibration from the motor affecting the modified BD1 plinth. Of this I am absolutely certain. The meniscus test proves vibration to be at levels below, I should think, the majority of upmarket TTs- if it can be shown that there is any at all. It is below levels measurable by my ‘meniscus test’. Perhaps extremely accurate and sensitive test instruments could measure SOME motor vibration carried over to the plinth via the long belt, but I suggest that this is academic. Using my ‘stethoscope test’ you can, indeed, hear the belt slapping into the grooves in the side of the platter. But not even my (supersonic) hearing can hear any belt slap with my ear 1 inch or less away from the groove in the platter without using a stethoscope. All this talk of academic amounts of vibration affecting the sound reminds me of a chap I once knew who was concerned about the amount of time it takes after the motor is turned off for the TT platter to come to rest, after you remove the belt, shut the motor off and give the platter a spin with your hand. He berated the BD1 in this respect. I timed it- just for fun. It takes quite a while- but not nearly as long to come to rest as did the air bearing platter this chap was on about. I seem to remember that the air bearing platter took a phenomenal amount of time before it stopped. Whether that makes it a produce better sound I don’t know. From a commonsense point of view, however, it seems to me that parameters of performance are important – up to a point. After that, improvements in performance are academic and make no difference to the sound. As a general principle, I accept that performance up to- call it point 6, say, may be far enough to reach the academic stage in system A, but in system B, that uses a better cartridge, or better preamp you may need performance up to point 13 beyond which there is no benefit from a further improvement.
As far as my modified BD1 ‘beating’ any other TT is concerned I would not make such claims. What would I say to someone who, in a side by side comparison of mine with an unmodded BD2 fitted with a cheap MM cartridge declaring that the BD2 sounds better and is therefore a better TT? I’d say he is entitled to his opinion and his is just as correct as yours or mine: only I would also have to say that I don’t agree. We are talking here of subjective findings. There is no absolute standard for subjective findings. ‘Right and wrong’ just don’t apply. If, on the other hand, he produces test results that show TT ‘A’ measures better than TT ‘B’, I would say that yes, on paper it is a better TT. But it may sound worse, in the opinion of some, or the fact that it tests better make not mean that the sound produced using it is any better.
Arnold Sugden would probably not be as ‘proud’ of my mods as you imagine. He would more likely have wanted me castrated. I once sent one of my very early BD1 experiments up to Sugdens. I can’t remember why. I think it was for some minor repair. In typically wonderfully blunt Yorkshire manner, the letter I got back was far from complimentary. I remember only one phrase from it: “the thing you sent us looks like a Christmas tree!”
Eric
soundhaspriorty
Banned
Eric: Looking at a photo of a BD1, I can see there are differences in the platform. It appears to be a 2 piece affair with the BD1 platform, where the BD2 is a single plate, machined as you say, to take the SAU2 arm. So I suppose its not as customizable as the BD1, which makes sense, really (the BD1 was sold as a kit for constructing your own tt on the cheap, the BD2 was a bit more pricey for those who didn't wish to do so). I dont see cutting off a third of the BD2 platform as making any sense, because I believe one of the springs is within the last third of the platform (unless you plan to redesign the suspension system as well). I agree you're better off getting a BD1 if one plans to do your mods, but I don't think there's any appreciable difference between the two tables, if we're talking about unmodded BD1/BD2 with both sporting the same plinth and SAU2 arm.
Apparently, the SAU2 arm is the best part of the BD2 from what I've read of people who've tried it on other decks (though I don't know what other arm it would compare to). But having an integrated metal top platform (no separate arm plate), the BD2 was not designed to take any other arm than the SAU2, it appears. I don't imagine it easily would, since you're drilling through metal and can't easily change the platform if you mess up or wish to change arms any further. So if you don't like the SAU2, you're better off with a BD1.
As for the motors and all, I did recently purchase new motors, mountings, springs etc from T&G, so yes they are still available, but I don't yet know if the motor's or anything is any different from the original. IOW, I'm not sure if you have to specify you want a "new type motor", or if they only carry the newer designs.
I recall a dealer once demonstrating to me a Mapleknoll, or some such tt with an air bearing platter, and he made a point of asking me to spin the platter in order to demonstrate how long it would take for it to come to a stop... which indeed, was a long time. Except likewise, I never quite understood why this mattered and what it had to do with how the thing sounded.
I don't even begin to know what makes the BD2 so special. All I know is I've had "transcendental moments" with this thing (during the few minutes at one point where I tuned it to perfection, or something approaching that). I believe its the very same phenomenon Linnies talk about when they say you've never really heard an LP12 until you've heard it set up to perfection. I remember that blissful degree of musicality years later, yet I can't say I've ever experienced it from my other tt's I've had or have, such as the Xerxes, the Axis, the P2, the TD150, the Revolver, etc. (If I had to guess why the other tt's can't produce the same effect, I'd say it must have something to do with the particular resonance of the suspension system). Few believe that having seen or heard of a BD2, but my POV is there's 2 reasons for this: they've not actually heard the BD2, or have never heard it properly set up. Even when not set up to perfection, its clear from 3 BD2's that I own, the BD2 has something special about it, that produces more "PRAT" than many other designs. So while it remains flawed, sonically, its still more fun to listen to than, say, very expensive high end digital replay systems.
Realizing the BD2 is not your Connoisseur of choice, I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how to improve its sound, nevertheless? I did many small and perhaps obvious things many years ago, such as doing away with the motor pulley cover, the speed change mechanism, the baseboard, using Linn oil for the bearing and playing around with the position of the motor in relation to the rubber band that anchors it. More recently, I tried applying modelling clay to the subchassis, under where the platter resides, to dampen it. I didn't think that was an improvement, and later removed it.
p.s. Perhaps the Xmas tree remark from Sugden was meant to be complimentary? Perhaps he equates all things good and wonderful with "Christmas"? ;-)
Apparently, the SAU2 arm is the best part of the BD2 from what I've read of people who've tried it on other decks (though I don't know what other arm it would compare to). But having an integrated metal top platform (no separate arm plate), the BD2 was not designed to take any other arm than the SAU2, it appears. I don't imagine it easily would, since you're drilling through metal and can't easily change the platform if you mess up or wish to change arms any further. So if you don't like the SAU2, you're better off with a BD1.
As for the motors and all, I did recently purchase new motors, mountings, springs etc from T&G, so yes they are still available, but I don't yet know if the motor's or anything is any different from the original. IOW, I'm not sure if you have to specify you want a "new type motor", or if they only carry the newer designs.
I recall a dealer once demonstrating to me a Mapleknoll, or some such tt with an air bearing platter, and he made a point of asking me to spin the platter in order to demonstrate how long it would take for it to come to a stop... which indeed, was a long time. Except likewise, I never quite understood why this mattered and what it had to do with how the thing sounded.
I don't even begin to know what makes the BD2 so special. All I know is I've had "transcendental moments" with this thing (during the few minutes at one point where I tuned it to perfection, or something approaching that). I believe its the very same phenomenon Linnies talk about when they say you've never really heard an LP12 until you've heard it set up to perfection. I remember that blissful degree of musicality years later, yet I can't say I've ever experienced it from my other tt's I've had or have, such as the Xerxes, the Axis, the P2, the TD150, the Revolver, etc. (If I had to guess why the other tt's can't produce the same effect, I'd say it must have something to do with the particular resonance of the suspension system). Few believe that having seen or heard of a BD2, but my POV is there's 2 reasons for this: they've not actually heard the BD2, or have never heard it properly set up. Even when not set up to perfection, its clear from 3 BD2's that I own, the BD2 has something special about it, that produces more "PRAT" than many other designs. So while it remains flawed, sonically, its still more fun to listen to than, say, very expensive high end digital replay systems.
Realizing the BD2 is not your Connoisseur of choice, I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how to improve its sound, nevertheless? I did many small and perhaps obvious things many years ago, such as doing away with the motor pulley cover, the speed change mechanism, the baseboard, using Linn oil for the bearing and playing around with the position of the motor in relation to the rubber band that anchors it. More recently, I tried applying modelling clay to the subchassis, under where the platter resides, to dampen it. I didn't think that was an improvement, and later removed it.
p.s. Perhaps the Xmas tree remark from Sugden was meant to be complimentary? Perhaps he equates all things good and wonderful with "Christmas"? ;-)
eguth
pfm Member
Soundhaspriority
Modifying the BD2 is not my idea of how to go about things.
I suggest, if you are adamant about using your BD2:
1) purchase the new BD1 motor MOUNTING KIT from T&G. Did you also buy an improved pulley? Do both! The new mounting kit is a great improvement on the old (original) rubber band mount. Check with T&G that they have sold you the NEW motor. They are very helpful. They probably have stocked only the NEW motor for the past 20 years or so; then
2) follow my AC article’s method for modifying the NEW MOUNTING KIT; and
3) dismantle all parts of the BD2. That is, remove the platform from its plinth, then remove all the components on the platform. Make a new PLATFORM copying the BD1 platform. This should be, ideally, the same thickness and machined out with the holes as per the BD1 platform, save (perhaps) omitting the motor mounting holes (omit these if you are going for my wall- mounted motor mod). You may be able to buy a BD1 platform by itself, from T&G. If so, go for it- or alternatively buy a second hand BD1 and use only the platform from it. I made a platform out of plywood. It was second- best compared to Sugden’s.
4) After doing 1-3 (above) it’s up to you what you do next. I would say scrap the BD2 plinth, and go for all my modifications as set out in the article. But then I would say that wouldn’t I?
My general ‘off the cuff’ reaction to what you have done so far- things such as Lynn motor oil- is that of a ‘Doubting Thomas’.
We are far apart on our views about the BD2, and especially about the SAU2 arm. Your views are as valid as mine. I wouldn’t dream of using an SAU2 arm with any cartridge I would find acceptable. I would expect a major upgrade if you get (or make) a better arm.
I have to say, also, that apart from the sound of them I don’t like suspended chassis TTs: any of them. I find them a pain to use. Far too fiddly for my liking. I far prefer my solid chassis. There are no problems I have encountered using it. And it doesn’t wobble do the rock and roll or go ‘off’. I can only suggest that you scrap the springs and go for a solid chassis design.
Perhaps my article and all the mods seem a daunting prospect to some. But I can assure you the mods are not difficult to do. Time consuming, yes, but fun and a great pleasure when you hear the end result.
I might add that I do not own a CD player and never have done. I have only two sources: vinyl and tuner. It doesn’t surprise me to hear you say that you prefer the SAU2 arm on your BD2 to a digital playback system. I myself have heard some CD players that I regard as better sounding than my vinyl setup- so I am not excessively prejudiced against digital in principle.
Best
Eric
Modifying the BD2 is not my idea of how to go about things.
I suggest, if you are adamant about using your BD2:
1) purchase the new BD1 motor MOUNTING KIT from T&G. Did you also buy an improved pulley? Do both! The new mounting kit is a great improvement on the old (original) rubber band mount. Check with T&G that they have sold you the NEW motor. They are very helpful. They probably have stocked only the NEW motor for the past 20 years or so; then
2) follow my AC article’s method for modifying the NEW MOUNTING KIT; and
3) dismantle all parts of the BD2. That is, remove the platform from its plinth, then remove all the components on the platform. Make a new PLATFORM copying the BD1 platform. This should be, ideally, the same thickness and machined out with the holes as per the BD1 platform, save (perhaps) omitting the motor mounting holes (omit these if you are going for my wall- mounted motor mod). You may be able to buy a BD1 platform by itself, from T&G. If so, go for it- or alternatively buy a second hand BD1 and use only the platform from it. I made a platform out of plywood. It was second- best compared to Sugden’s.
4) After doing 1-3 (above) it’s up to you what you do next. I would say scrap the BD2 plinth, and go for all my modifications as set out in the article. But then I would say that wouldn’t I?
My general ‘off the cuff’ reaction to what you have done so far- things such as Lynn motor oil- is that of a ‘Doubting Thomas’.
We are far apart on our views about the BD2, and especially about the SAU2 arm. Your views are as valid as mine. I wouldn’t dream of using an SAU2 arm with any cartridge I would find acceptable. I would expect a major upgrade if you get (or make) a better arm.
I have to say, also, that apart from the sound of them I don’t like suspended chassis TTs: any of them. I find them a pain to use. Far too fiddly for my liking. I far prefer my solid chassis. There are no problems I have encountered using it. And it doesn’t wobble do the rock and roll or go ‘off’. I can only suggest that you scrap the springs and go for a solid chassis design.
Perhaps my article and all the mods seem a daunting prospect to some. But I can assure you the mods are not difficult to do. Time consuming, yes, but fun and a great pleasure when you hear the end result.
I might add that I do not own a CD player and never have done. I have only two sources: vinyl and tuner. It doesn’t surprise me to hear you say that you prefer the SAU2 arm on your BD2 to a digital playback system. I myself have heard some CD players that I regard as better sounding than my vinyl setup- so I am not excessively prejudiced against digital in principle.
Best
Eric
Hello
Interesting & Entertaining Read above ... I've had a BD1 since 1974 & it is still playing & I enjoy its company.
Some years ago I renewed the cradle but not the motor .. Can anyone give me the contact / phone no for Technical & General please (Or any other company that may be able to help in getting bits & pieces)
Interesting & Entertaining Read above ... I've had a BD1 since 1974 & it is still playing & I enjoy its company.
Some years ago I renewed the cradle but not the motor .. Can anyone give me the contact / phone no for Technical & General please (Or any other company that may be able to help in getting bits & pieces)
- Status