advertisement


Sugden Connoisseur - lost classic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Eric
My colleague Ian in the Listening & Viewing Service has passed on your enquriy regarding the interview with Arnold Sugden recorded for Oral History of Recorded Sound in 1985 (catalogue reference C90/91/01).
In answer to your questions:
1) There are not any access restrictions on the interview. The interview is available to those in UK Higher Education institutions via the Archival Sound Recordings (http://sounds.bl.uk) website (known as ASR) and available to everyone (with a BL Reader Pass) on-site at the British Library. As this interview has been digitised and made available via ASR the interview is also accessed through this website when listening on-site. To make things a little clearer between the Sound Archive catalogue (http://cadensa.bl.uk) and ASR I have added links from the interview's Sound Archive catalogue entry (search the catalogue for C90/91/01).
However, of course access is for private research only. Any use of the interview in publication or broadcast, would need to be cleared by curators at the British Library.
2) I'm afraid I can't shed too much light on this missing 4th tape. The original recording is listed as being one reel on the catalogue; the interview was digitised in 2006 for the Archival Sound Recordings project but there are only three digitised files from the original reel. I think that the error is actually in the metadata on ASR - it should read 1 of 3, 2 of 3 etc. I will amend this as soon as possible.
I hope this helps.
With best wishes

Elspeth
Elspeth Millar
Archive Assistant, Oral History & National Life Stories
The British Library
96 Euston Road
London NW1 2DB
020 7412 7404
[email protected]
www.bl.uk/oralhistory
 
FOR THOSE NEW TO THIS THREAD THERE IS AN INDEX ON PAGE 30. It lists topics up to and including page 30 only.
 
Dear Eric
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Only those who are in UK Higher Education can access the recording from their own computer at home (they have what is called an 'Athens' login). Everyone else will need to register for a BL Reader Pass and listen on-site at the Library.
best,
Elspeth

Elspeth
Elspeth Millar
Archive Assistant, Oral History & National Life Stories
The British Library
96 Euston Road
London NW1 2DB
020 7412 7404
[email protected]
www.bl.uk/oralhistory
 
In undertaking a bit of research about the Connoisseur Craftsman III I happened upon an interesting review in the March 1963 issue of Hifi News.

Most interesting was the fact that they concluded that the Craftsman II "could not be faulted" on rumble, and "following the various measurements and tests, the turntable was given normal use for several weeks. No deficiencies of any sort came to light, and the absolutely silent background was a delight during many hours of listening"

They sum up: "Readers will have realised by now that this is a turntable unit in the highest category which we can recommend for use in the most advanced installations."

So, judging from this piece they put the Craftsman III right up there with the Thorens TD124 and Garrard 301, and indeed, comparing against the 301 review, the implication is that it was considered superior to the latter at least, in a number of areas. Interesting...
 
Reviews are available on Vinyl Engine archives for anyone interested
BD2 & Craftsmen etc

The interview recordings with Sugden are real gems - shame the interviewer isn't named.
 
So, judging from this piece they put the Craftsman III right up there with the Thorens TD124 and Garrard 301, and indeed, comparing against the 301 review, the implication is that it was considered superior to the latter at least, in a number of areas. Interesting...[/QUOTE]

Hi Mignun. Can you let us know what were the criticisms of the 301 were? I have not read the 301 review and am curious.

I have a Craftsman III and a 401. I had intended to service the 401 and use it. It runs OK but the motor is noisy and there is some play in the plater bearing, though the steal bearing shaft is in good condition I need to get new bushes, the motor needs to be striped, `new idler and bearing. The whole process seem exorbitantly expensive.

On the other hand the Craftsman worked straight away with a little fiddling. O course I have no idea of hours of use of either the 401 or Craftsman. The nylon bearings works fine, they are silent and adjustable apart from the motor. The problem is that the weight of the motor stator (which is a lovely chunk balanced cobalt steal) apples a fair amount of pressure on the nylon bottom bearing and as polymers have uneven hardness there is ridged wear on the 45° edge needle point. This causes a slight hum as I'm guessing either the stator is not running 100% centred or the stator it is vibrating up and down as it spins. I'm sure I could get this reground and polished to sort this problem but if might also need to be rebalanced after that. The hum is really not very loud but it is there.

The good news is that Sugden seemed to make everything adjustable and this means any change caused by regrinding can be adjusted for.

Anyone know a good place for me to get this regrinding done? I have not asked any local engineering workshops yet.

The 401 reminds me of a Volvo and the Craftsman reminds me of a Lotus.

In all Connoisseur idlers (apart from the 78 only one above) the idler is also held on rubber bearings to reduce transferred vibration. It is not in the 401.

The 1st (78, 33 speed and then 45 was added) Connoisseur idler was the only British “transcription” turntable around for a couple of years before the 301. The above 78 is possible the 1st British idler (spindle driven worm gears before).

In the 1966 Hi-Fi year book the Craftsman was £19, Goldring G99 £18, 401 £27, TD124 £34. So it was cheaper than the 401.

I have quite a bit of info about Sugden and Connoisseur and will be righting up a post about AR Sugden and stereo at some point. I had hoped to make all the source material available to download but have be rightly been persuaded by eguth that this is not a good idea (due to copyright infringement). But I will contact the publishers HiFi news and High Fidelity to see if I can reproduce them.
 
6158692828_182bd656dd.jpg
[/url]
Still0033 by TobyO3, on Flickr[img/]

This is photo of a worn stator bearing

6158150923_f6d6529c8a.jpg
[/url]
Still0034 by TobyO3, on Flickr[img/]

closer in

6158150955_6afb2db9cf.jpg
[/url]
Still0038 by TobyO3, on Flickr [img/]

This is a platter bearing and as can been seen there is more wear, but as the rotation of the plater is slow and has more weight on it it does not seem to cause any problems IOW no rumble (though my speakers which have reasonable LF and a resonance of 28hz). The bearing in this photo is from an earlier idler model (also nylon bearings).
 
tobyo said:
]

Hi Mignun. Can you let us know what were the criticisms of the 301 were? I have not read the 301 review and am curious.

I have only just looked at this thread so if I am repeating someting already posted, apologies.
I remember reading a review in Hi Fi News on the 401 in which it said that a big advantage of the 401 over the 301 was the reduction of hum from the motor. I do remember that there was much talk of hum problems with the 301 when used with susceptible pickups such as the Decca FFSS. The down side was that the 401 speed was less stable than the 301 with mains voltage variation, apparently. Was all a very long time ago though.
Click to expand...
 
I have seen a couple of references to the low level of cartridge hum from Connoisseur turntables. I have not had any problems from this type of hum, even with a Grado which apparently love to hum (it did for a bit then I found my earthing fault). DL103 is silent though.

Didn't know it was a 301 problem.

My 401 sounds like a tractor. Will get the 401 working one day, lots of hassle though. They are such a crazy price I'm tempted just to sell it and put the cash towards better preamp for the quad IIs.
 
Have had Craftsman III, 301, 401, TD124 II, and BD1, all many years ago, the BD1 and TD 124 II remain. I never got on with the Craftsman, probably due to a flimsy plinth. My uncle had it before and in a better plinth it seemed fine. The 301 and 401, same sort of problem, poor plinths. But my brother ran a 301 in a heavy plinth for decades, absolutely fine.

Apart from having to "re-hang" the BD1 motor every few years and a very occasional new belt, its been good.
 
The HFNRR criticised the speed variation on their review 301, although later 301 units they tried when looking at the new 401 were better here (and ironically the new 401 worse, so go figure). Main criticism was sensitivity to external hum fields, something that was greatly improved with the 401. They criticised the TD-124 for motor noise, of all things, although conceded that it didn't seem to break through into the playback. But it's nitpicking and let's not forget this was a long time ago, and probably doesn't tell us a great deal about how these units perform today. Since then, much more is understood in getting these decks to perform at the highest level especailly with regard to optimising their plinths. Ironically, the deck that may hold the most untapped potential is the Craftsman III, mainly because it has lived in the shadow of the other two for so long and is, I guess, a much rarer bird. I'm keen to find out whether it's a good 'un or a pile of pooh, as declared by one well-known current reviewer who posts regularly across hifi forums. So far, the Craftsman has done well. It's very nicely made, very quiet and the controls are super smooth and precise in use.

As for prices, according to the HFNRR reviews, the Garrard 301 is priced at £19+tax (10/58), the Thorens TD-124 at £38+tax (06/59), the Craftsman III at £22 (03/63), and the £33 (12/65). I have rounded up figures to the nearest £.

I'm going to make up a new top plate for my Loricraft plinth so I can compare Garrard 401 against Craftsman III, like for like. Both are in superb condition, but the latter could probably do with a lubrication service before I run it in anger, just in case.
 
In a brief moment of weakness I've just won a BD2. I realize it's the "wrong" Connoisseur, but the fun has to start somewhere. First job is replacing the apparently perished motor mounts. Reminds me of an old Ford Escort I once had...
 
chiba said:
In a brief moment of weakness I've just won a BD2. I realize it's the "wrong" Connoisseur, but the fun has to start somewhere. First job is replacing the apparently perished motor mounts. Reminds me of an old Ford Escort I once had...
Click to expand...

I made a new brushed aluminium top plate for my BD2 and fitted the Acos Lustre (later models just called Lustre) arm. I think this was mentioned a while ago on Pinkfish.

It looked very nice and worked really well. My friend still has it in use decades later.
 
In my experience, hum from a Connoisseur BD1 only becomes audible if you are using a very low output MC cartridge- i.e. below 2mV output. That said, I have not used an unmodified BD1 with a Decca London- though I have used a Decca London on my modified BD1 and there were no hum problems. My modified BD1 has its motor mounted on the wall far away from the plinth. There is a world of difference between an unmodified and a modified BD1.

Rumble
I remain sceptical about claims that any idler drive TT is as free from rumble as a belt drive. Some test results do say otherwise, but I doubt whether these always reflect the listening experience. And testing methods may influence the results. You only have to read the first Hi Fi News BD1 review (ref. earlier) to see that the ‘rumble free’ character was noted.

My ears tell me that it is necessary, in many listening rooms, to have substantial bass boost to get realistic reproduction and when you do boost the bass you get rumble from the idler drives. There is a proviso: that proviso is that the bass woofer or subwoofer goes low enough to make the rumble audible. Using an idler drive with, say, a Lowther Acousta is not likely to result in any audible hum with bass boost: it just doesn’t go low enough.

Chiba
chiba said:
In a brief moment of weakness I've just won a BD2. I realize it's the "wrong" Connoisseur, but the fun has to start somewhere. First job is replacing the apparently perished motor mounts. Reminds me of an old Ford Escort I once had...
Click to expand...

I would suggest you will make better progress by purchasing a new motor mount kit with the upgraded suspension and then, if you want to guild the lily, making a modified suspension as I did (see thread INDEX on p.30).
 
Radfordman said:
I made a new brushed aluminium top plate for my BD2 and fitted the Acos Lustre (later models just called Lustre) arm. I think this was mentioned a while ago on Pinkfish.

It looked very nice and worked really well. My friend still has it in use decades later.
Click to expand...

How thick aluminium? Did you keep the suspension?

I've pretty much read the entire thread now, but haven't spotted any mention of solidly mounting the BD2 into a plinth, discarding the sprung suspension. This, to me, looks like it'd be a step closer to the BD1, short of cleaving the thing in twain.
 
eguth said:
I would suggest you will make better progress by purchasing a new motor mount kit with the upgraded suspension and then, if you want to guild the lily, making a modified suspension as I did (see thread INDEX on p.30).
Click to expand...

I've emailed Technical & General already, but no response yet (I hear they're closed Mondays).
 
Chiba
"...I've pretty much read the entire thread now, but haven't spotted any mention of solidly mounting the BD2 into a plinth, discarding the sprung suspension. This, to me, looks like it'd be a step closer to the BD1, short of cleaving the thing in twain..."

If you mount the BD2 on a solid plinth without more you will be asking for trouble: poor isolation, possibly rumble, increased motor noise and more.

The limiting factor for the BD2 (compared to the BD1) is that you are tied down to an arm on the platform. Unless you modify the platform you are also tied down to one arm, and an arm that is not as good as you can get nowadays. This restricts performance with the better cartridges.

Better to slice the platform in two and convert it into a BD1. Then discard the ‘armboard’ piece and get a better arm mounted on a better armboard and the whole kiboottle onto a better plinth.
 
INTERVIEW WITH ARNOLD SUGDEN
________________________________________
ARNOLD SUGDEN INTERVIEW No. 2- (Notes taken by me from the British Library SECOND INTERVIEW TAPE recorded 1985).

The Legal and Ethical Usage provisions of the British Library permit non-- commercial use of the materials for research and learning. I have confirmed that posting my notes here is permitted.

The following interview was recorded at Arnold Sugden’s home in Bradford, Yorks, in 1985. The interviewer’s name is not disclosed. I can say, however, that he is male, and obviously very well informed about audio history.
__________________________________________________ ______

At Manchester Cathedral- tried new ways of recording.

STEREO DEVELOPMENTS- early-mid 1950s.
Recorded live music. Carried on separately from his firm.

Took a small chapel and made it into a recording studio. Carried on after work at the factory into the small hours of the mornings.

Produced amplifiers. We were the only firm producing everything from pickups to speakers. Produced almost everything ourselves. Employed others to design amps. Mono 5 & 10W amps were produced early 1949-50.

Gilbert Briggs was a close friend. I recorded live and played back to the audience with Brigg’s speakers.

Gramophone companies were preparing for tape. I set out to use disk. In 1956 I demod stereo at the Waldorf hotel. In 1957 at the Russell Hotel. Interest in stereo records was there. I was approached by EMI Dr. Dutton. I took my recordings to Major Clark. RCA of America sent a Director over. Columbia Records- Dr. Garbo- I got to meet them in the Savoy Hotel. EMI & RCA wanted 2 cutter heads.

I was working long hours- had a nervous breakdown. I was out of commission for 12 months.

First acetate, then sample pressings at Russell Hotel. This was at hill & dale and lateral. I assumed ordering more records would continue for some time. I never used 2 cartridges (Cook in America did this).

Blumlein. I got a patent agent. Shock to find out patents taken out- Blumlein had been forestalled by a full decade by Williamson of Minnesota.

STEREO AMPS
Domestic amp was 12W (6wpc). Basic design- PX25 push pull. Massive. Big sound noise. I did not contact Decca Arthur Haddy contacted me to congratulate me.

EMI asked for cutter heads to cut hill and dale lateral. I wanted to avoid a fiasco- parallel running- 45/33

I already had 2 12” records ready for distribution. 45/45 was decided on in a convention in the U.S.

LATE 1950s
I was employing circa 50 people. Factory in Helmesley, N. Yorkshire purchased to duplicate Brighouse output. Then built a 10,000 sq. ft. factory in addition- with automated machinery. We produced everything we wanted We were self- contained- except castings for turntables. 3000 castings per month for BD2/BD3. Spares: any shop could supply spares for all models- all spares interchangeable.

Exported 75% to U.S., Canada, S. Africa (v. good market), Australia, N. Zealand, Sweden, France (did not do well there). Garrard were our main competitors with 301/401. After that a lot of firms sprung up.

I ceased to make amps- not enough space. Cartridges, arms. motors- metal and metal working. We went up to 100 employees in 1969-70.

Japanese companies- we could not compete with them.

LATE 1970s
Things began to get difficult. I did not have the same energy and drive. I could see recession on the horizon. We closed down and brought in a receiver/manager to continue with another firm- but it went sour.

We had a viable firm and a good overseas market,

Yes there is still a place for the small manufacturer putting out a specialised product. Smaller market.

I never had 1 hour lost due to a strike or work dispute. We called ourselves by Christian names. We were a family.
 
eguth said:
Chiba
"...I've pretty much read the entire thread now, but haven't spotted any mention of solidly mounting the BD2 into a plinth, discarding the sprung suspension. This, to me, looks like it'd be a step closer to the BD1, short of cleaving the thing in twain..."

If you mount the BD2 on a solid plinth without more you will be asking for trouble: poor isolation, possibly rumble, increased motor noise and more.

The limiting factor for the BD2 (compared to the BD1) is that you are tied down to an arm on the platform. Unless you modify the platform you are also tied down to one arm, and an arm that is not as good as you can get nowadays. This restricts performance with the better cartridges.

Better to slice the platform in two and convert it into a BD1. Then discard the ‘armboard’ piece and get a better arm mounted on a better armboard and the whole kiboottle onto a better plinth.
Click to expand...

Well the BD2 suspension & springs I have needs an overhaul - so effectively I use the BD2 top plate packed up off the plinth on each of the 4 corners - currently a mix of foam, felt & gel pads, but I have used layers of cork tile.
ie direct mounted

It works well enough.

The BD1 is mounted direct to the plinth as is the arm board - what degree of decoupling of the arm depends on the arm mount method - I don't see that there is a huge difference between the BD1 & BD2. The top plate of the BD2 would be stiffer because of its rounded edges & the central well indent for the bearing. The BD1 is basically a flat plate screwed to the plinth. Both use the same motor mount suspension.

The advantage of the BD1 is that you can use any arm. The BD2 is designed for only the SAU2 arm which is shorter than any other at 199mm mount distance, so your choices are nil unless you want to drill more holes or elongate the arm hole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top