The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:27 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:54 pm 
Offline
Victor II
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 am
Posts: 391
Location: Victoria. Australia
What a great outcome.
I'd love to hear the 301 through an acoustic EMG setup.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
Victor III
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:57 am
Posts: 595
Location: Hampshire, England.
Many thanks Chunny and I am having great fun re-converting. I have used a Garrard 10B spring-driven motor which, from the geometry, was what it had originally. The conduit, blanking flange, tonearm rest and deck-boards are new as is the EMG name-plate and soundbox instruction label. I also like to include a deck-board lifting button to facilitate motor servicing. I have had to restructure the hacked-about wooden case. There is a lot more to do but it will make a fine base unit in due course.

To incorporate a Garrard 301 (high-level turntable) into an EMG acoustic system, it would ideally be necessary to drop the level of the deck-board/record height in relation to the tonearm bearing height, if it were to be a permanent arrangement, although the disc would just play having twisted the soundbox to compensate for the very different tracking. A normal platter with disc circulates at about ¾" above the deck-board, whereas using the 301 would result in about 1 ⅝". I am not sure what would be gained from such an operation, apart from being interesting, as a good spring-driven motor is pretty powerful and quiet isn't it ? I might try it for fun at some stage ! Do you think the 301 would make a discernible difference ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:31 am 
Offline
Victor III
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:03 am
Posts: 790
Location: Dover, UK
emgcr wrote:
To incorporate a Garrard 301 (high-level turntable) into an EMG acoustic system, it would ideally be necessary to drop the level of the deck-board/record height in relation to the tonearm bearing height, if it were to be a permanent arrangement, although the disc would just play having twisted the soundbox to compensate for the very different tracking. A normal platter with disc circulates at about ¾" above the deck-board, whereas using the 301 would result in about 1 ⅝". I am not sure what would be gained from such an operation, apart from being interesting, as a good spring-driven motor is pretty powerful and quiet isn't it ? I might try it for fun at some stage ! Do you think the 301 would make a discernible difference ?

Evidently the late Douglas Fitzpatrick thought so! ;)
BCN thorn needles made to the original 1920s specifications
www.burmesecolourneedles.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:04 pm 
Offline
Victor II
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 am
Posts: 391
Location: Victoria. Australia
Quote:
Do you think the 301 would make a discernible difference ?
. Absolutely.
Might be worth rigging up a temporary setup to drop the 301 to the appropriate height.
The 301 is a schedule 1 grease bearing unit. Looks lovely and as long as the idle wheel is true, it should be a dream setup. I would also suggest using a counterweight to reduce the weight on the soundbox. Definitely worth a try.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:33 pm 
Offline
Victor III
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:57 am
Posts: 595
Location: Hampshire, England.
Well, here are some thoughts following a couple of days experimenting with the mechanical demands and acoustic results of a record played by a Garrard 10B spring-driven motor versus a Garrard 301 electric transcription motor. In both cases every other detail is identical---same EMG two spring soundbox, same Burmese colour thorn needle with corresponding newly sharpened projection, same overlap of 0.550 inches in an EMG Mk Xb base unit with EMG Mk IX 22 inch diameter horn. I hope I will be forgiven for not using an Oversize horn which I cannot physically manage to continually mount/dismount on my own these days !

I have learned the following along the way :

1. The great height of the 301 turntable above the deck-board produces many challenges.

2. It is impossible to close the lid of an EMG base unit when the record is being played.

3. The angle of the needle is considerably altered.

4. A record can, in fact, be played but the tolerances are extremely tight and the half-round screw head below the bulge on the tonearm swinging joint clears the disc by less than ⅛" (approx' 3mm) ! Little room for error or a slightly warped record. Not ideal !

5. A Mk IX base unit cannot be utilised as the tonearm bearing is central to the case and the correct tracking distance cannot therefore be achieved due to lack of case length.

6. A Mk X base unit has the happy advantage of having the tonearm bearing somewhat to the side at approximately one o’clock.

7. It is not possible to mount the 301 motor and turntable spindle centrally in the case as tracking is severely compromised.

8. Correct tracking demands a distance of eleven inches between tonearm bearing centre and motor spindle centre.

9. It is possible to mount the 301 motor very much to the left of centre to achieve good tracking but unfortunately it is also necessary to cut into the rear deck-board to the extent of a lateral line lying behind the extremity of the tonearm bearing flange.

10. Point 9 does not present a problem for the current experiment as the 301 motor was mounted on top of the deck-board in the usual way and the back of the motor is able to oversail the rear deck-board. However, if the motor level were to be dropped, a front deck-board of awkward shape would result.

11. Handling clearances for the easy and safe use of the soundbox within the case are very tight and undesirable. Inadvertent damage may result to diaphragm or record---particularly in respect of a twelve inch disc.

12. Although the experiment demonstrates that it is possible to achieve a working gramophone with a 301 motor in an EMG case, it also clearly shows that an improved design is called for if a sensible permanent solution is to be achieved.

13. There is just enough depth in an EMG base unit to allow use of a 301 motor if the front deck-board were to be lowered by perhaps up to one inch if solidly mounted. There may, additionally, just be enough room for spring mounting---as yet unquantified. In the event of spring loading being possible to achieve within the given space, the inside structure of the case would have to be redesigned to give good clearance horizontally all around the deck-board.

14. The great debate is, of course, whether all such work would be worthwhile ! Does the use of a 301 motor achieve a discernible difference when compared to the 10B equivalent ? The listener must decide.....................I have to say I cannot tell the difference. Spring-mounting might improve on the 301 performance but, in my opinion, not by much in an acoustic set-up :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMLhO7YDLLM Garrard 10B spring-driven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGQDetpy-DQ Garrard 301 electric transcription motor.


Attachments:
018.JPG
018.JPG [ 2.88 MiB | Viewed 102 times ]
016.JPG
016.JPG [ 2.17 MiB | Viewed 102 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:35 pm 
Offline
Victor IV
User avatar
Buyer of broken things
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:10 pm
Posts: 1155
Location: North Shields, UK
I love watching the videos of your experiments with EMG's, that Mk 9 horn is reproducing the low voice very well!

Although something doesn't feel right about a modern turntable being used in a gramophone they are very nice turntables, I was going to get one to replace my two separate hifi turntables (one for lp's, one dedicated to 78), someday I probably will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:12 pm 
Offline
Victor II
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 am
Posts: 391
Location: Victoria. Australia
Hi Graham,
It would be good If you could find a way of lowering the 301 to what it should be. Suspension may well be the way to go. I believe the motor in an EMG acoustic setup can make a significant difference. Surely any spring motor replaced by a good electric motor will be an improvement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:01 am 
Offline
Victor III
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:57 am
Posts: 595
Location: Hampshire, England.
chunnybh wrote:
Surely any spring motor replaced by a good electric motor will be an improvement.


Thanks Chunny. That is an interesting statement and I wonder if it is true by definition ? Are you able to hear a difference between these two recordings ? Your ears are younger than mine !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:50 am 
Offline
Victor II
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 am
Posts: 391
Location: Victoria. Australia
Hi Graham,
Comparing the two videos, my ears tell me the 10a sounds a lot better. A clearer mid-range and overall a clearer fuller sound. But that has more to do with the setup on the 10a being as close to perfect as possible. I do believe if the 301 was setup correctly, that it would outperform the spring motor.
Perhaps I was overstepping the mark when I said "any spring motor replaced by a good electric motor will be an improvement".
Of course on an electrical setup with an ultra light pickup, it's a lot easier to gauge the performance of a motor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unusual alliance of Garrard and EMG
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:28 pm 
Offline
Victor I
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 125
Hi Graham,
Your thoroughness and attention to detail give me an ulcer just thinking about it! Thanks for it all!
I have to say, after repeated listening and to-ing and fro-ing between both and between various parts of within each individual recording, that I actually prefer the sound of the first video to the second! I'm only using the actual aural evidence that comes to my ears through the headphones from the laptop and excluding all other predilections or supposed superiority or inferiority. Maybe You Tube has a part to play in this? Anyway, the first recording to me sounds slightly softer and mellower and fuller in overall musical sound than the second.

There is a very tiny lowering of pitch as the first recording progresses - so small that I can't really find evidence for it when I go searching, but I can still hear it. This is not to be heard on the second recording. And I may not have even found this if I wasn't listening very critically because of the raison d'etre of the uploads. However, in spite of this, I still prefer the overall effect of the first - that is the Garrard 10b - upload.

Just my opinion of course, even if it doesn't change with repeated listening.
Again I thank you for the thoroughness and energy that you've put into this as into everything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gramophone-georg and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.