advertisement


Thorens TD-124/II restoration / upgrade

I’d leave them separate assuming you have a good preamp earth and the chassis is grounded. It also makes life easier as you can so easily remove the whole arm/armboard assembly from above! Just three screws and its off!

PS Pay attention to the tension of the three armboard screws too, they just want to be nudged-up until they stop IMO, definitely not ‘tight’. Definitely one to set by ear.

So does this advice take note of the unearthed main cable I just discovered?
 
So does this advice take note of the unearthed main cable I just discovered?

You need to fix that! Temporarily strap it to the screening can, but you need to replace the mains lead with a proper three-core one ASAP. It would not pass a PAT test at present.

6544150091_18fc2bab22_c.jpg


You can take the mains earth to any chassis point, I did it this way, but really any bolt will do. The little strap wire goes from the mains earth to the motor case-bolt. I later redid it with a thinner 3 Amp lead for neatness/better isolation.
 
I’ll get it fixed, can’t be having this silly old wiring ideas.

Ok Tony that looks quite simple to do, but for now I’ll just link the chassis grounding point to the arm screening can with an extra wire I have here?
 
Ok, I’ve attached a ground lead from chassis to screening can now, and another will go from screening can to SUT/preamp. Time to screw in the armboard…
 
After all that, the M2-9R and Swissonor board are finally attached, the deck is now levelled again and ready for the arm/cart set up:

1UgM26c.jpg
 
A serious question - never been a fan of the sound of Thorens decks but could be I got something wrong so it makes me wonder what you find superior at 124 no matter if I or II vs properly set 401, given all the surroundings are the same or comparable (arms, pickup)?

Thanks
 
A serious question - never been a fan of the sound of Thorens decks but could be I got something wrong so it makes me wonder what you find superior at 124 no matter if I or II vs properly set 401, given all the surroundings are the same or comparable (arms, pickup)?

Very hard to answer as I doubt many if any will have heard both in identical surroundings, plus I am far from convinced the same plinth thinking suits both equally. I’d also go as far as arguing there are two TD-124s (before you get to any third party stuff), the one with the original heavy ferrous iron platter, and the one with the lighter alloy one. I am a fan of the former and to be honest never really got on with my 124 until I swapped the alloy one out. That is the point the real ease, solidity and rock solid pitch arrived for me. It is the point I felt it really competed with the 301.

The thing I like about mine is for me it sits in the middle ground between say a Linn and a Garrard. It is a nicely refined and detailed deck, but it also has that idler rock-solid pitch, timing, ease etc. It gets right out the way and doesn’t draw attention to itself. It is a very good deck indeed. It only took me seconds to know I much preferred it to to a SL1200G, and that’s a pretty decent bar for a 55 year old deck to jump.

There are many negatives though, they are quite demanding to work on and I’d really only recommend them to folk who have good mechanical aptitude. I enjoy this stuff so it doesn’t put me off. The boutique industry that has built up around these decks will get you a decent starting point at an arguably absurd cost (several charge £1000+ for a service) but by the nature of the deck it will need some ongoing maintenance.

Another thing to bare in mind with my findings is I don’t seem to be a fan of high mass anywhere in audio, so my idea of an ideal Garrard installation is something similar to a Loricraft plinth with suspended top plate and the 301 on its rubber washers, and the 124 in a low-mass plinth like mine or Nagraboy’s using the rubber mushrooms. Mass does something to timing and dynamics I just don’t seem to like, and I’ll trade noise floor to keep what I do like. As such I use these decks in a different way to much current orthodoxy.
 
And here it is! Unbelievably, although it was my first time setting up an arm/cart from scratch, I seem to have done it with no major problems and it’s sounding great!

It all needs to warm up properly and bed in but I’m already enjoying a bold and colourful sound. The SUT (bottom right, in the dark) is the Mini Nano by French manufacturer Sculpture A and is 1:26 gain, especially built for SPUs, and sourced from Ammonite Audio along with the SPU #1S.

tkl6aS5.jpg
 
And here it is! Unbelievably, although it was my first time setting up an arm/cart from scratch, I seem to have done it with no major problems and it’s sounding great!

It all needs to warm up properly and bed in but I’m already enjoying a bold and colourful sound. The SUT (bottom right, in the dark) is the Mini Nano by French manufacturer Sculpture A and is 1:26 gain, especially built for SPUs, and sourced from Ammonite Audio along with the SPU #1S.

Looks totally superb!
 
If I had a 124, that is exactly the plinth I would want - small form, looks designed to fit with perfection.
 
If I had a 124, that is exactly the plinth I would want - small form, looks designed to fit with perfection.

It's a really nice plinth, very well made. I was thinking of going for a solid layered plinth due to reading about rumble, but this plinth is a normal frame style plinth and I don’t feel there’s any big issue with rumble going on.
 
If I had a 124, that is exactly the plinth I would want - small form, looks designed to fit with perfection.
Interestingly, that is a style copy of the Ortofon ST-104, a plinth made specifically for TD 124. IIRC, there was a version made for TD 134/TD 135/TD 184 as well.

Ortofon-ST-104-plinth.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, that is a style copy of the Ortofon ST-104, a plinth made specifically for TD 124. IIRC, there was a version made for TD 134/TD 135/TD 184 as well.
st_104rs.jpg

Yes, I saw many a 124 with that style of plinth and they just look right, IMO.
 
Very hard to answer as I doubt many if any will have heard both in identical surroundings, plus I am far from convinced the same plinth thinking suits both equally. I’d also go as far as arguing there are two TD-124s (before you get to any third party stuff), the one with the original heavy ferrous iron platter, and the one with the lighter alloy one. I am a fan of the former and to be honest never really got on with my 124 until I swapped the alloy one out. That is the point the real ease, solidity and rock solid pitch arrived for me. It is the point I felt it really competed with the 301.

The thing I like about mine is for me it sits in the middle ground between say a Linn and a Garrard. It is a nicely refined and detailed deck, but it also has that idler rock-solid pitch, timing, ease etc. It gets right out the way and doesn’t draw attention to itself. It is a very good deck indeed. It only took me seconds to know I much preferred it to to a SL1200G, and that’s a pretty decent bar for a 55 year old deck to jump.

There are many negatives though, they are quite demanding to work on and I’d really only recommend them to folk who have good mechanical aptitude. I enjoy this stuff so it doesn’t put me off. The boutique industry that has built up around these decks will get you a decent starting point at an arguably absurd cost (several charge £1000+ for a service) but by the nature of the deck it will need some ongoing maintenance.

Another thing to bare in mind with my findings is I don’t seem to be a fan of high mass anywhere in audio, so my idea of an ideal Garrard installation is something similar to a Loricraft plinth with suspended top plate and the 301 on its rubber washers, and the 124 in a low-mass plinth like mine or Nagraboy’s using the rubber mushrooms. Mass does something to timing and dynamics I just don’t seem to like, and I’ll trade noise floor to keep what I do like. As such I use these decks in a different way to much current orthodoxy.


thanks for a detailed answer. when i wrote "identical surroundings" i rather meant similar or comparable arms, cartridges and the rest of the system - and plinths optimized for maximum performance. i am sure that the plinth for 124 spotted here will be fully unsuitable for 301/401 and yes, i agree that the squash balls based plinth works well with garrards (and i've always thought of it as an agricultural solution, before i heard a properly executed one - now have it myself on 401). i yet have to find a 124 to hear what it can do, i do love idlers of course, although for me it's hard to image than anything can beat what i'm having now (301 in martin bastin and 401 in a loricraft type plinths). they made me sell my kuzma decks, before i also had fully tweaked 1200 and no competition really, except for a convenience of use. once you get idlers implemented properly you get rid of distortion, get clarity, resolution, solidity, pace and scale i've had no chance to hear before in such a seducing way. given a popularity i guess lots of this can be achieved with 124 too + such a compact plinth/motor/arm package is hard to beat. my 401 with solid wenge plinth sized for SME 3012 is ridiculously big and heavy.
 
given a popularity i guess lots of this can be achieved with 124 too + such a compact plinth/motor/arm package is hard to beat.

Logically/theoretically the 124 does possibly have some advantages over the Garrard. The (iron) platter is a fair bit heavier so it has very good rotational mass, the chassis is a much more rigid and braced casting, plus the arm is mounted directly to it. The Garrard has a better motor, the 124 may have a better main bearing, though that is up for debate. I don’t think this translates to ‘a win’ either way, but they certainly play in the same general ballpark.

I say ‘possibly’ as it is hard to entirely break free from the Linn/Haymarket press/BADA ‘closed-loop’ brainwashing of the 1980s. A Garrard set up the way I personally think it sounds best has the chassis very loosely bolted to a Loricraft type decoupled plinth using Garrard’s supplied rubber/fibre washers and the 3009 or 3012 also using its rubber washers, i.e. miles away from this Linn/flat-earth thinking (which to my understanding of physics is not rigid either despite all the marketing guff!).

Over the past 40+ years I’ve learnt a lot about turntable design, certainly enough to question various ideologies held as absolutes in some quarters, though not enough to be in anyway certain of anything. Just enough to be genuinely curious and reject BS/groupthink. There are many legitimate yet contrary approaches to building a turntable and to my mind the TD-124 is an interesting one that has stood the test of time. When correctly assembled it is a very inert and solid structure but not especially high mass beyond the heavy iron sub-platter. The rotational mass is also ‘split’ being a sub and top platter, so effectively behaves like a broken bell rather than the usual high-mass assembly one tends to see on modern high-end decks.

PS The one deck I would really like to spend a few years exploring is the EMT 930. If I had an absolutely unlimited turntable budget that’s what I’d bring home. I suspect it is the only turntable I could see myself replacing the 124 with, though the price a really good clean one commands these days is excessive.
 
To be honest, I hate 930 on many levels. I used to work in broadcasting and spent many years with either 930 or 950. 930 was the most awkward deck to work with (ergonomics, logistics) and I've also never got with the sound completely - not involving enough for my taste, somehow dry in a way of early digital. But I've never had a chance to hear a properly restored unit, all my experience is based on 10+ years in Radio Belgrade with hardly any maintenance unless it's truly broken. I much prefered SP10 though it wouldn't either be my first pro deck of choice for home, esp not over Garrards.

This is of course a highly personal opinion, I don't intend it's relevant.
 
Interesting. I got some of that with the one I heard, but put it down to it being a pretty tatty example and with a cart (an EMT spherical) that I’d not choose myself. It obviously mistracked to my ears. The thing it got right was an amazingly solid pitch and timing, but from a ‘hi-fi’ perspective I thought it pretty disappointing. I’m far from convinced I’d want to buy into a closed front-end (single-brand deck, arm, phono stage, cartridge), but I thought the mechanical engineering (motor, bearing, sub-platter etc) was superb and one could clearly see where the money went.
 
Absolutely, no contest - it makes most of the analog front end engineering from the late 80s on absolute rubbish. It truly is a military device.
 
Nagraboy, being a fellow 124 owner I am very interested in your thoughts on the M2 arm. Im still using the SME 3009 mkii unimproved that was originally sold with the deck in the late 1960's. You have made a good few changes to the deck so isolating the improvement the M2 brings might be tough, nevertheless your thoughts would be appreciated.
Since buying mine a couple of years ago I have replaced the motor isolation rubbers for the springs and clips from Hanze, popped it into a new plinth and swapped the zamac platter for an original iron one. It sounds great but the arm is probably the weak link.
 


advertisement


Back
Top