cbf@allegra.UUCP (10/03/83)
During my mostly-ignored survey of mid-price turntables, someone pointed out to me that the old AR turntable was staging a comeback. As far as I know, it is a belt-driven model whose tonearm and platter are completely isolated from its base, hence from external disturbances and acoustic feedback. I was wondering whether anyone had any experiences with either the old model or the new version. I am particularly interested in its tracking ability. In my never-ending quest for the ideal mid-price TT, I seem to have run into a give-and-take situation between good isolation and good tonearm behavior. Is there a compromise shy of high-end? --Charles (decvax!allegra!cbf)
shacklet@ittral.UUCP (Cliff Shackelton) (10/04/83)
I used to have an AR turntable, about 10 years ago. The only problem I had with it was the lubrication in the vertical arm bearing dried out and stiffened up. There were only sleeve type bearings in this unit, nothing esoteric like ball or jeweled bearing surfaces. The original oil was a tacky high viscosity goo to provide a measure of damping for the arm, I replaced it with a more modern silicone based product with good results. I added an outboard Benjimin Miracord cuing device to raise and lower the arm, (I don't think this is available any more), and eventually replaced the belt and platter cushion. There is no provision for anti skate on the old model. I had a Stanton 681 EE cartridge mounted in the shell(I still have it and like very much). I don't recall where the arm resonance was but remember that I did have a nasty acoustic feedback problem with a cartridge with a more compliant stylus. Anyway, I beleive the fellow I sold it to is still using it. I still have my AR amplifier and after replacing some of the dried out aluminum coupling caps with tantalum ones, still sounds good. C. Shackelton ITT Telecom
jeff@tesla.UUCP (Jeff Frey) (10/04/83)
I had an AR turntable in the sixties. It had the best performance/price ratio available then, because it was simple and had no unnecessary frills. The turntable and arm were mounted together on a structure isolated from the main box, thus reducing acoustic feedback. The tone arm was a simple S-shaped tube with a plastic head shell. By today's standards, the arm was a little primitive; no anti-skate, the plastic headshell was too massive, and the s-shape is inferior to the straight-line. But the table itself was virtually rumble-free as a result of its belt drive from a 24-pole motor. Speed constancy was obtained by relying on the inertial mass of the turntable. I don't remember what the wow/flutter figures were. When I had to get a turntable in the seventies, I looked for something that had a better arm than the AR, and a no-drag automatic stop mechanism. I didn't want or need an automatic arm return (who does, really?). The table that I came up with was the Philips 212, also a belt-driven model with a subchassis for arm and platter, a photocell-driven shutoff, servo speed control, straight-line arm, and anti-skate. The only drawback was the anti skate, which was spring-controlled and therefore not constant as a function of track radius, but what do you expect for $125 or so? I have been very pleased with this unit for the past eight years, through a succession of Shure cartridges tracking down to 1.25 grams and, since I now have a CD player, don't really see the need to replace it until it absolutely dies of old age. Jeff