Orpheus Silex - worthwhile project?

[Dustin]

I acquired this today . . . .

If you guys have also caused me to also acquire upgradeitus, there's gonna be trouble OK . .

Orpheus Silex_top

Obviously the plinth isn't much value apart from possibly as a template for a new one.

Orpheus Silex_Bottom

Notice the rubber suspension bushes are pretty shagged.

Orpheus Silex_Motor

Motor bushes have also seen better days.

Orpheus Silex_suspension

This pic is of another TT with (I think) the spring upgrade instead of the rubber bushes. Please excuse this pic (phone camera).

. . . . NOW what?

Cheers,

Gavin

Edited October 13, 2009 by Dustin

[Dustin]

Further to the above . . here's some of my outline thoughts on all this.

I'm looking to replace my ancient Dual 601 belt drive / Shure V-15 III with something better.

I've considered some modern decent TT's but always seemed to come back to these old ones. I liked the idea of a Gerrard or Commonwealth and then fell across these Orpheus Silex. I agree it's probably a face only a mother could love . . a bit quirky looking, but I kinda like it.

While not as desirable as the first two, nevertheless it does appear to have the basic structural and design necessities in terms of providing a stable platform for spinning a vinyl record at a constant speed . . hopefully.

Because I'm also a tightwad, it seems a pretty economical alternative methinks. In many ways, it makes justifying a reasonable arm and cartridge somewhat easier.

I'm undecided as to what arm to go for. Maybe something 'of the era' is appropriate, but I'm not a stickler and have the impression that later technology has seen advancement in arms . . . possibly a rather too generalised comment?

Maybe go the whole hog and construct a DIY Schroeder tone-arm? . . easy . . buy a couple of neodyme magnets and a foot of 1/4 inch dowel and away you go?

Apparently Frank Schroeder has a Orpheus Silex, so that might say something.

Actually, suggestions are welcome on any of this stuff.

Cartridge and Phono? . . I've not much idea really.

Yes, it'll need a plinth.

I'll have to figure out that duff suspension.

(But my son and I raced a 1/10 scale nitromethane fuelled radio controlled car revving to 44.5 K RPM so I reckon I can probably handle something doing only 33 1/3.)

If going with a modern arm, should I paint the chassis? . . oh, I dunno . . I have a rather sublime burgundy in mind though it's not very original of course? . . Sacrilege?

Cheers,

Gavin

[jaspert]

You couldn't help yourself at Hifi Exchange.

Worthwhile project? Only one way to find out.

For tonearm, with the strong A$ you can consider landing a new 12 inch Jelco 750L for $700 from US (search ebay) and match it with a Denon 103 or 103R. I'm using this combo on my Garrard 301.

For a few hundred dollars more, there's another 12 inch arm with a more vintage look by Thomas Schick. Good for Denon 103R and Ortofon SPU.

Non issue if you decide to do a DIY Schroeder.

[Dustin]

You couldn't help yourself at Hifi Exchange.

Hahaha . . was it that obvious!

Normally I'm pretty good at resisting an impulse buy, but hey . .

Anyway, I introduced myself to David . . and just blamed everything on you.

Seriously though . . thanks for the pointers.

David seems like a very decent guy and gave me the cooks tour of the establishment. A lot of esoteric and interesting stuff there. David also introduced me to another guy (Richard?) who has three of 'em.

There were two Orpheus (Orphei?) there and he thought the first one had a better bearing. We discovered that one had been drowned in oil and after oiling the second one, it was just as good.

I chose the second one mainly because it was more original underneath. The first one had springs and stuff instead of the very perished rubber mountings on the second. I figured it was a better place to start.

Anyone have an idea what the spindle bearing clearance spec might be?

The top and bottom bushes are quite widely spaced, so I'm not really expecting any issue there. I'll measure the platter run-out to confirm but I don't know what an appropriate run-out figure might be?

I plugged it in and turned it on this afternoon . . nout. There was a wire disconnected and after a hasty soldering job it ran fine.

The platter spins easily and seems to go on for ever. I'll need to do something at least temporary before I install the belt. I just want to check speed stability.

Tonearm:

The Jelco 750L seems like a new product? Anyone tried one? Any comparisons with the Schick?

I understand the basics of less tracking error but is it worthwhile going for a 12" arm?

Does the extra weight inherent in a longer arm limit cartridge choice?

Cartridge:

OK, I was prepared to be scared pantless while Googling some ballpark pricing for the Denon 103R.

It's possible I might just have become numb or have resigned myself to the inevitable . .

But actually, if I can get this deck to a dead quiet state and the speed stability is good, then the all up cost isn't actually too bad. However I do wonder if this might be a lot better than my ears could justify.

[13D3]

Further to the above . . here's some of my outline thoughts on all this.

I'm looking to replace my ancient Dual 601 belt drive / Shure V-15 III with something better.

I've considered some modern decent TT's but always seemed to come back to these old ones. I liked the idea of a Garrard or Commonwealth and then fell across these Orpheus Silex. I agree it's probably a face only a mother could love . . a bit quirky looking, but I kinda like it.

While not as desirable as the first two, nevertheless it does appear to have the basic structural and design necessities in terms of providing a stable platform for spinning a vinyl record at a constant speed . . hopefully.

I actually have four wheel drive turntables : a Garrard 301 grease bearing, and a wheel and belt Thorens TD124 MkII, both in us; and an old Braun and Dual, that I don't actually use.

I also have a Linn LP 12 with DC motor, but the Garrard and the Thorens are so much more musical that I rarely listen to it. Indeed, I had been toying with the idea of replacing the Linn with an Orpheus Silex, when one appeared recently on ebay (being sold by John of Hifi Exchange). I couldn't resist as it appeared to be a good example of this turntable, with all the parts including the arm bracket.

I liked the idea that the Orpheus is wheel and belt driven like the Thorens, but suspended almost like the Linn. When I saw that Frank Schroeder or Thomas Schick had managed to build a beautiful plinth and reports are that the result was very sweet sounding, I thought I couldn't really go wrong.http://tinyurl.com/yzvpfp5"]tinyurl.com/yzvpfp5

I knew that the machine on ebay did not have the special Orpheus tonearm platform (like a helicopter landing zone),

http://grapevine.com.au/%7Eclubmack/silexarmmount.JPG

but John kindly said he would send me one, if one came in.

Unfortunately, when the Orpheus arrived it was also missing the arm bracket, but I am hoping that John will soon find one for me considering that it was pictured on the advert.

I know some of you may place the tonearm directly on the plinth, rather than suspend it with the platter, but the whole point of the design seems to be the suspension of all the components involved in tracking the the groove information. Indeed, the Schroeder tonearm in the Schick/Scroeder Orpheus example above, does seem to be attached to the Orpheus suspended tonearm bracket, inspite of the use of a high-mass maxiplank style plinth. Would you agree with this way of isolating the tonearm, or prefer to place it directly on a sturdy maxi-plank plinth?

It seems from what you all say here, that the Hifi Exchange is a wonderful vintage audio browsing area, and that they are also very competent, so I am hoping that they will soon find me this component, so that I can go ahead with my project.

I am also a little surprised by the degree of motor noise that the Orpheus produces, when not in its plinth. I don't know whether that is usual, perhaps it is necessary to strip down the motor and thoroughly clean it.

Has that been your experience?

Over on vinyl engine several owners did mention motor noise, and one was even considering using a DC motor, but in more recent posts they seem very happy with their turntable, once they replaced the suspension rubbers. Nevertheless I feel it would be better to manage to supress the noise rather than isolating it.

I notice that the platter is far from a perfect circle (when compared to the Thorens or the Garrard), and I wonder whether that might introduce some instability and wobble. Have you also noticed this irregularity, or is this specific to my sample.

Just as you do Gavin, I have questions (and also suggestions) in relation to the tonearm question, but I will come back to that later.

Regards

Anthony

http://www.theanalogdept.com/anthony_hind.htm

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Have the cartridge rebuilt or replace it with a better one. That's your upgrade right there. The 601 is a fine TT.

[jaspert]

Hahaha . . was it that obvious!

Normally I'm pretty good at resisting an impulse buy, but hey . .

Anyway, I introduced myself to David . . and just blamed everything on you.

Seriously though . . thanks for the pointers.

David seems like a very decent guy and gave me the cooks tour of the establishment. A lot of esoteric and interesting stuff there. David also introduced me to another guy (Richard?) who has three of 'em.

There were two Orpheus (Orphei?) there and he thought the first one had a better bearing. We discovered that one had been drowned in oil and after oiling the second one, it was just as good.

I chose the second one mainly because it was more original underneath. The first one had springs and stuff instead of the very perished rubber mountings on the second. I figured it was a better place to start.

Anyone have an idea what the spindle bearing clearance spec might be?

The top and bottom bushes are quite widely spaced, so I'm not really expecting any issue there. I'll measure the platter run-out to confirm but I don't know what an appropriate run-out figure might be?

I plugged it in and turned it on this afternoon . . nout. There was a wire disconnected and after a hasty soldering job it ran fine.

The platter spins easily and seems to go on for ever. I'll need to do something at least temporary before I install the belt. I just want to check speed stability.

Tonearm:

The Jelco 750L seems like a new product? Anyone tried one? Any comparisons with the Schick?

I understand the basics of less tracking error but is it worthwhile going for a 12" arm?

Does the extra weight inherent in a longer arm limit cartridge choice?

Cartridge:

OK, I was prepared to be scared pantless while Googling some ballpark pricing for the Denon 103R.

It's possible I might just have become numb or have resigned myself to the inevitable . .

But actually, if I can get this deck to a dead quiet state and the speed stability is good, then the all up cost isn't actually too bad. However I do wonder if this might be a lot better than my ears could justify.

Gavin,

Sorry i missed this earlier. Yeah agree about David being a great guy to deal with when i got some vintage speakers from them.

I can't tell you more about the Orpheus Silex as i don't have one but i have to admit i really like the look of this one with the nice plinth found in the earlier post. Frank Schroeder's perhaps.

Now I do have a Jelco 750 L and Thomas Schick 12 inch arm on my Garrard 301 and Commonwealth 12D3 respectively. I got them mainly because i wanted to try some 12 inch arm and i like the simple vintage look of the Schick. Plus i know i'm going to use them with modified Denon 103/103R (low compliance cart) and Ortofon SPU where the heavier mass of the longer arms is beneficial.

With the current exchange rate, landing a Denon 103R and Jelco 750L won't be that $$.

I hope you can get your Silex into a good mechanical shape and have fun exploring its potential. I might be tempted to have a go in the future too.

[13D3]

You couldn't help yourself at Hifi Exchange.:o

Worthwhile project? Only one way to find out.

For tonearm, with the strong A$ you can consider landing a new 12 inch Jelco 750L for $700 from US (search ebay) and match it with a Denon 103 or 103R. I'm using this combo on my Garrard 301.

For a few hundred dollars more, there's another 12 inch arm with a more vintage look by Thomas Schick. Good for Denon 103R and Ortofon SPU.

Non issue if you decide to do a DIY Schroeder.

I do have a Schroeder "clone" on my Garrard 301, although it has different working principles, the magnets pull rather than push, and there is no string pivot (so to call it a clone would be an exaggeration). It functions very well with a Denon 103, if you set the magnets very carefully, so as to "earth" unwanted vibrations.

However, on the same turntable I have an SME 3012 which is softer and silkier. You can see the magnet arm to the right, and the Sme to the left:

I am not sure which I prefer soundwise, but I certainly would prefer a tonearm with interchangeable headshell, if I only had one arm; it allows so much easier cartridge comparison.

It is true that the long SME is becoming overpriced, but much more modest arms, such as the Ortofon 9" (which is actually 10" with an SME type headshell) can sound very good in spite of its very rustic bearings.

You can see one, here, on my Thorens TD124 mkII.

I hasten to say that the plinths are home-made, and if not beautiful, are far superior to the maxi-plinth that I previously had for my Garrard.

This is partly due to the very old dry wood used (oak panelling from a demolished hotel), and partly because of the open structure that does not encourage vibration amplification.

Nevertheless, I was considering reusing the maxi-plank plinth for my Orpheus project, and had thought that I might use the Orpheus mainly for mono. I have a Clement mono cartridge with SME stereo adaptor, and I thought I could use it with a ROK S160 tonearm; I also thought I could use my Denon 102 on a Gray clone. I even made a mock-up, by "glueing" photos together including my plinth, and this would be roughly the result:

However, I learnt that the ROK (which is a useful 11") is not SME compatible, so I would not be able to use my Clement. But now, because of the weight of the Clement, I will have to think of some other broadcast tonearm, Audiotechnica, Denon, Grace (any suggestions?), or go for the Thomas Schick arm. I don't really want a sceond SME, which would be difficult to place on the deck.

Nevertheless, the ROK is one to consider, if you are going to stay with the Denon 103, or even heavier cartridges.

All this, if I can reduce the motor noise on the Orpheus, and the irregular shape of the platter does not cause dramatic wobble. There is no point in investing in another tonearm, if the turntable is not up to the job.

Regards

Anthony

[13D3]

I had been toying with the idea of replacing the Linn with an Orpheus Silex, when one appeared recently on ebay (being sold by John of Hifi Exchange). I couldn't resist as it appeared to be a good example of this turntable, with all the parts including the arm bracket.

I knew that the machine on ebay did not have the special Orpheus tonearm platform (like a helicopter landing zone), but

unfortunately, when it arrived it was also missing the arm bracket, but I am hoping that John will soon find one for me considering that it was pictured on the advert.

Well here is the advertised Orpheus:

You can observe the tonearm socket and bracket to the right rear of the TT.

However, on the one received, there is no such bracket. Here you can see from above and below:

It is true that had I been in Australia, I would have known that the picture was not the actual turntable, sa there was an invitation to come and preview it.

"Johns HiFi Exchange

"Nice vintage Australian Made Orpheus Silex transcription turntable. Has 33, 45 & 79 speeds. Nice vintage hammertone enamel finish. Working order, no play in bearing. We would suggest replacing the mount rubbers sometime soon though. Shipping would cost A$30 within Australia and $90 to $130 for international.

Theseis available in our store for display so please come in and have a look....or just drop by for a chat and a coffee...no excuse is really needed! "

It sounds really cosy, but perhaps there could have been an explanation for international customers, that the photo was not the actual machine.

What now bothers me, is that the subchassis, on the machine sent to me, does not even have the structuire on to which the bracket should be bolted.

Here are two photos showing the piece which is missing on my Orpheus.

This piece seems to be an extension of the subchassis itself, which is absent on the one sent to me.

If this is so, even if John sends me the bracket I would not be able to bolt it on. Perhaps, I am mistaken, if any of you can tell me I would be very grateful.

It seems that some hifi outlets drop their inferior products into the "bay", I do hope this has not been the case, here. You do all seem to think that Hifi Exchange is a friendly serious antique audio supply, so I am still trying to remain hopeful. I hope I will soon receive a reply from John.

Regards

Anthony

[Dustin]

. . When I saw that Frank Schroeder or Thomas Schick had managed to build a beautiful plinth and reports are that the result was very sweet sounding, I thought I couldn't really go wrong. http://tinyurl.com/yzvpfp5"]tinyurl.com/yzvpfp5

Hello Anthony,

The above link appears broken ? ?

Can you fix?

I know some of you may place the tonearm directly on the plinth, rather than suspend it with the platter, but the whole point of the design seems to be the suspension of all the components involved in tracking the the groove information. Indeed, the Schroeder tonearm in the Schick/Scroeder Orpheus example above, does seem to be attached to the Orpheus suspended tonearm bracket, inspite of the use of a high-mass maxiplank style plinth. Would you agree with this way of isolating the tonearm, or prefer to place it directly on a sturdy maxi-plank plinth?

Yes, I've wondered about the intent behind the design. I wish I could find a service manual somewhere.

The idea of mounting the tone arm on that spider and therefore maintaining relationship with the platter seems fair enough in some ways. The niggle I have is that they suggest the suspension on the spider is to allow for final and precise levelling of the TT. It's possible the manufacturer was looking to accommodate the possibility of rudimentary and unpredictable mounting systems found in radio stations and figured they might not want to rely on a flimsy plinth for stability. I'm guessing here.

With that in mind, a heavy plinth may also meet the needs just fine . . dunno.

I still might utilise their original idea, though, and beef up the structure.

I am also a little surprised by the degree of motor noise that the Orpheus produces, when not in its plinth. I don't know whether that is usual, perhaps it is necessary to strip down the motor and thoroughly clean it.

Has that been your experience?

Did you also run yours upside down like I did? Yeah . . that's noisy.

I've only run my motor for a short time and I guess it was more or less what I expected in terms of noise. I didn't think it was too noisy, given it's size. The motor has those open ends so I suspect some noise is inevitable. It's never going to be as quiet as the typical small motors that run like a Swiss watch, I guess. I just figure after it's buried under that massive platter in a heavy plinth, there's not going to be much sound getting out.

I notice that the platter is far from a perfect circle (when compared to the Thorens or the Garrard), and I wonder whether that might introduce some instability and wobble. Have you also noticed this irregularity, or is this specific to my sample.

Hmmm . . far from a perfect circle?

Could you expand on that, please?

[Dustin]

Have the cartridge rebuilt or replace it with a better one. That's your upgrade right there. The 601 is a fine TT.

Hi there Zaphod.

Appreciate your thoughts and info . . Now you tell me . .

Hello Jaspert,

Yes I've seen that pic and the caption says it belongs to Frank Schroeder apparently.

Would you care to comment on the Jelco 750 L and Thomas Schick arms?

The A$ was at .92 something today . . and these arms will be ten percent cheaper by Melbourne Cup day at the rate things are going.

I hope you can get your Silex into a good mechanical shape and have fun exploring its potential. I might be tempted to have a go in the future too.

. . and I thought you were still in the dog house from the last TT. You must tell me your secret. :o

Well here is the advertised Orpheus:

Hi Anthony,

The pics of the advertised TT appears to be different from the one you received. Is that correct?

I agree . . yours doesn't seem to even have the cast in lug for attaching that bracket. That's odd . .

Where in the world are you exactly.

Cheers,

Gavin

[13D3]

Hello Anthony,

The above link appears broken ? ?

Can you fix?

Yes, I've wondered about the intent behind the design. I wish I could find a service manual somewhere.

The idea of mounting the tone arm on that spider and therefore maintaining relationship with the platter seems fair enough in some ways. The niggle I have is that they suggest the suspension on the spider is to allow for final and precise levelling of the TT. It's possible the manufacturer was looking to accommodate the possibility of rudimentary and unpredictable mounting systems found in radio stations and figured they might not want to rely on a flimsy plinth for stability. I'm guessing here.

With that in mind, a heavy plinth may also meet the needs just fine . . dunno.

I still might utilise their original idea, though, and beef up the structure.

Did you also run yours upside down like I did? Yeah . . that's noisy.

I've only run my motor for a short time and I guess it was more or less what I expected in terms of noise. I didn't think it was too noisy, given it's size. The motor has those open ends so I suspect some noise is inevitable. It's never going to be as quiet as the typical small motors that run like a Swiss watch, I guess. I just figure after it's buried under that massive platter in a heavy plinth, there's not going to be much sound getting out.

Hmmm . . far from a perfect circle?

Could you expand on that, please?

To begin by the last and work back: when the platter turns, looking from above, you can see that the circumference is not regular. It is not a perfect circle. Thus I suppose the weight will not be evenly distributed. On my Thorens, there is a mild variation, but nothing like this.

The engine noise is much stronger than either the Garrard or the Thorens, or for that matter the Dual or the Braun. I suspect that the engine bearing is worn, or needs a serious clean. Perhaps it can be reduced. I tried it in all positions, and it is true that the noise is less when the TT is horizontal, the right way up. You can feel the hum on the cast frame, this is almost inexistant on the Garrard or the Thorens. I did hear an old Thorens that was worn out that made a similar noise.

Perhaps this is usual with this TT, but over on Vinyl Engine one post speaks of a completely silent motor.

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=148866

"Mine is in good condition cosmetically & still has the original rubber platter disc, it is a little slow to get to speed but once there, it doesnt falter at all and is very quiet. "

also

"It is interesting, The motor drives the big idler wheel which in turn drives the belt! The platter is also huge at about 1 inch thick!

Its very quiet!

Rusty"

I do notice one attempt at replacing the motor, which could imply that all machines are not so quiet (this is often the case with MkI TD124s):

http://www.analogclinic.co.kr/menu/album/data/silexorpheus12_resize.JPGogclinic.co.kr/menu/album/data/silexorpheus12_resize.JPG

The problem with a heavy plinth, is how to get at the drive wheel to clean it, or change the belt, and the motor to oil it. It does not seem as easy access as the TD124, or the Garrard 301. Certainly, you can't change the belt from above. Thus you have to have some way of unbolting the chassis from the heavy plinth.

It could be possible to insert a small plinth (just about the size of the Orpheus) inside a bigger heavier one, and just bolt this small plinth on to the heavier one, on which the arm could rest.

Have any of you found replacement belts?

I am not sure which link is broken?

Finally it seems that the Orpheus I have received is missing the lug onto which the bracket can be bolted, as shown here on your turntable:

This piece is just not there, so the bracket can not be added. I have been sold a faulty unit, not as described on ebay.

Thanks for any advice or help,

regards

Anthony

[wixy]

I've had a similar experience with hifiexhange, it seems that they are not always up front and honest about particular details of the products they advertise. I'd recommend always inspecting an item they advertise in-store before purchasing.

[Dustin]

. . when the platter turns, looking from above, you can see that the circumference is not regular. It is not a perfect circle.

This may just be an optical illusion? ?

You could check it by mounting the spider in a vice, and with with the platter on it's spindle. Record the run out in two planes with a dial gauge. Even without a dial gauge you could gain a pretty good idea if there's anything drastically wrong using the same method and a simple fixed pointer.

One curiosity springs to mind, though.

The underside of your platter appears to have some circular piece bolted or riveted in the centre. What is that?

Im wondering if it might have some bearing on a platter out-of-round situation.

The engine noise is much stronger than either the Garrard or the Thorens, or for that matter the Dual or the Braun. I suspect that the engine bearing is worn, or needs a serious clean. Perhaps it can be reduced.

Comment on the motor noise via the net might be a bit tricky, unfortunately. I've not really heard a Garrard or Thorens motor out of it's normal installed position.

The Orpheus motor bearings may well be worn. In fact I think it's prudent to expect to replace both the motor and platter spindle bearings. Who knows how many gazzilion miles any of these vintage TT's have done. They probably didn't see a lot of idle time in a radio station of the day.

I'm expecting the motor bearings (haven't looked yet) to be self aligning or fixed bronze bushes. There's no way to 'reduce' these bearings as far as I'm aware. They're very simple and cheap technology. It won't be difficult to replace them.

The problem with a heavy plinth, is how to get at the drive wheel to clean it, or change the belt, and the motor to oil it.

Well, mine is in pieces at the moment and I haven't contemplated the situation. Off the top of my head, I think it may be easiest to just tip the whole TT up onto it's rear face. That should give sufficient access to everything underneath . . I'm guessing.

Have any of you found replacement belts?

I have some info but haven't followed up yet. It's just an 'O' ring apparently.

I am not sure which link is broken?

This one below. I get a 404 Not Found:

http://www.analogclinic.co.kr/menu/a...s12_resize.JPG

This piece is just not there, so the bracket can not be added. I have been sold a faulty unit, not as described on ebay.

Personally, I'd just get on the phone to them and see what they have to say.

If that fails, eBay have a dispute resolution system I believe.

Cheers, Gavin

[13D3]

Hi Anthony,

The pics of the advertised TT appears to be different from the one you received. Is that correct?

I agree . . yours doesn't seem to even have the cast in lug for attaching that bracket. That's odd . .

Where in the world are you exactly.

Cheers,

Gavin

I forgot to say, Gavin, that I am English, but living in France.

I have just been thinking that it might be useful to try to add all the links I can find that include discussion or photos of the Orpheus. I will do that here, and others can add any other links they can find. I hope that may prove useful, but there are not many.

Of course many articles on other weel-driven TTs can apply to the Orpheus, such as this one here about the Garrard:

http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~quiddity/audio/garrard301.html

Orpheus Manual

http://www.vinylengine.com/library/orpheus/silex.shtml

Rusty66's Orpheus project:

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=148866

Orpheus Photos

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/album_cat.php?cat_id=56

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/album_showpage.php?pic_id=4226

Potsy Replacing worn rubber bits on Orpheus

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11197&highlight=potsy

Potsy Vibration mounts for Orpheus

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21304&highlight=&sid=0ada79c5c07437f03635feb78592c706

Potsy Allbalance tonearm on Orpheus:

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11490&highlight=&sid=0ada79c5c07437f03635feb78592c706

thilaseen, purchase of a Silex

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=222752

Orpheus replaced by Linn

http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48019385/m/686100014/p/3

(in my case I am hoping to do the contrary).

Photos, including an Orpheus motor change:

http://www.analogclinic.co.kr/menu/menu%5B10%5D.html

Thomas Schick:

http://www.thomas-schick.com/ETF05.htm

A few owners:

http://www.vinylengine.com/user/johnnno97

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=56234

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=25141

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=23435

A super Orpheus by Common Wealth at Oswald Mills Audio:

http://oswaldsmillaudio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=123.0

http://homepage.mac.com/braddles/PhotoAlbum1.html

http://content.foto.mail.ru/mail/rrmusic2001/2/i-8.jpg

http://foto.mail.ru/mail/rrmusic2001/2/i-9.jpg

http://foto.mail.ru/mail/rrmusic2001/2/i-10.jpg

http://www.melaudia.net/etf06galerie-1807.php

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7408&sid=9198162973eabc68135f0e6191d8e806

Regards

Anthony

[Dustin]

I've made a small start with this refurbishment and so far . . .

Idler arm assembly:

This was making some rattling noise so I pulled it apart to investigate. I've put a micrometer on the shaft and couldn't determine any wear but there were some witness marks indicating some polishing in the middle section of the shaft. I figured any wear would be at either end of the shaft but it all looked pretty good. Maybe there was some anomaly in the middle of the idler wheel that's left this polishing on the shaft . . dunno.

Just to be sure, I rotated the shaft so as to present the non-polished side of the shaft to the thrust loaded side. I reckon that'll be OK.

The idler wheel is retained on the shaft by an E-clip but I found the clip was rotating with the idler wheel. This is not the usual function of an E-clip as they are intended to fit snugly in the machined groove on the shaft . . and not rotate.

I replaced the E-clip with an R-clip (seen in the pic) for now as I didn't have one the correct size and it fits fine after a little grinding. It doesn't rotate with the idler wheel. If it looks like interfering with belt assembly, I'll find a correct sized E-clip.

I also noted a Teflon washer at the lower end of the shaft and have read somewhere that this should be inspected periodically. I don't have a manual and noted that during normal operation, the idler wheel will tend to climb the conical drive spindle on the motor . . that appears to be normal and as one would expect except that it rattles that bloody E-clip in my case.

I deduced from what appears to be this normal function that the Teflon washer is pointless on the lower end of the shaft and I feel it should be on the top end, so I moved it there. It is now backed up by a ground steel washer for support. The lower point is only contacted when the turntable isn't running anyway, so I've just used a thin brass washer where the Teflon one used to be. Oh, yes . . I also faced off the top of the idler wheel where it contacts the Teflon washer.

I reassembled everything and set the end float of the Idler wheel to 10 thou . . should be OK.

For lubricant, I used an engine assembly lube which contains moly and graphite and is a sort of a thin grease . . or a thick oil, depending on how you look at it. It seems this might be a little too thick but it does run smoothly with no noise now.

The rubber drive 'tyre' seems to be flexible and OK, so I've left it for now.

There was some small black gunky lumpy bits in the drive belt groove and I suspect they were a mixture of rubber, black paint from the platter and who knows what else. They cleaned off easily enough, so I'll consider that part to be OK.

The conical drive spindle appears to have some light wear grooves . . probably from years of spinning vinyl and I considered skimming, say . . 5 thou or so off in order to clean it up. Having had second thoughts, I can't see that it'll actually make a difference and I figure once the correct speed is set . . that's it.

I gave the platter an initial buffing in order to see if it might look a bit better than the daggy flat black paint that was getting into the idler pulley. It looks like it might come up OK with a bit more work and a polish. There will only be about 6 mm showing above the base at the end of the day, anyway.

I've made some cursory measurements of the platter spindle and bearings . . which I can't find right now . . danmmit.

It seems the shaft is an odd size, so finding a stock bronze bush might be difficult. I'll probably have to machine some up.

I haven't really got the equipment to measure the spindle clearance precisely, but it's likely to be somewhere near 3 - 5 thou. I've no idea what the stock measurement is supposed to be, but given the engineering of the day, I'll guess it's closer to 2 thou. In any event, I expect to be able to get the clearance well under that and with the help of some suitable lubricant (probably a grease) it should be fine.

That's it for now.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Dustin
grammar

[13D3]

I've made a small start with this refurbishment and so far . . .

Idler arm assembly:

This was making some rattling noise so I pulled it apart to investigate. I've put a micrometer on the shaft and couldn't determine any wear but there were some witness marks indicating some polishing in the middle section of the shaft. I figured any wear would be at either end of the shaft but it all looked pretty good. Maybe there was some anomaly in the middle of the idler wheel that's left this polishing on the shaft . . dunno.

Just to be sure, I rotated the shaft so as to present the non-polished side of the shaft to the thrust loaded side. I reckon that'll be OK.

The idler wheel is retained on the shaft by an E-clip but I found the clip was rotating with the idler wheel. This is not the usual function of an E-clip as they are intended to fit snugly in the machined groove on the shaft . . and not rotate.

I replaced the E-clip with an R-clip (seen in the pic) for now as I didn't have one the correct size and it fits fine after a little grinding. It doesn't rotate with the idler wheel. If it looks like interfering with belt assembly, I'll find a correct sized E-clip.

Gavin,

I have not removed the E-clip yet, but I notice that it can rotate, or not, according to how you set it. Perhaps, a little grease, between it and the wheel might help.

In my case, the Idler was "churring" very badly. I just oiled it, and there was no improvement. I then applied Zerox rubber driving wheel restorer to it. I put some on a paper cleaner, and allowed the wheel to turn against it. This was given to me by a Zerox repair-person.

A dark rubber mark appeared on the paper, and I felt the rubber soften.

Following this the "churring" was much reduced. It might be even better to have the driving wheel rubber rebuilt, by one of those companies that do this. A search with "Turntable Idler Wheel Rebuilding Services" wil come up with a few.

I may do that myself, although the Zerox treatment described above completely restored my Garrard idler wheel. I believe Antique Electronic Supply may also have a similar rubber restorer.

I also noted a Teflon washer at the lower end of the shaft and have read somewhere that this should be inspected periodically. I don't have a manual and noted that during normal operation, the idler wheel will tend to climb the conical drive spindle on the motor . . that appears to be normal and as one would expect except that it rattles that bloody E-clip in my case.

I deduced from what appears to be this normal function that the Teflon washer is pointless on the lower end of the shaft and I feel it should be on the top end, so I moved it there. It is now backed up by a ground steel washer for support. The lower point is only contacted when the turntable isn't running anyway, so I've just used a thin brass washer where the Teflon one used to be. Oh, yes . . I also faced off the top of the idler wheel where it contacts the Teflon washer.

I reassembled everything and set the end float of the Idler wheel to 10 thou . . should be OK.

I have not yet removed the E-clip. I will do so in a few days time.

If I understand you correctly, I should find a Teflon washer, at the lower end. I would expect a bronze bearing holder.

My Idler does not move up or down, it only churred until the Zerox treatment.

For lubricant, I used an engine assembly lube which contains moly and graphite and is a sort of a thin grease . . or a thick oil, depending on how you look at it. It seems this might be a little too thick but it does run smoothly with no noise now.

I had some Analog tube bearing oil that I used. I also have some Titan Audio Ti-103 which is supposed to be excellent, but I did not want to waste it if the motor needed changing. For some other uses, I try synthetic Hydrocarbon Microgel Grease (space technology grease).

The rubber drive 'tyre' seems to be flexible and OK, so I've left it for now.

There was some small black gunky lumpy bits in the drive belt groove and I suspect they were a mixture of rubber, black paint from the platter and who knows what else. They cleaned off easily enough, so I'll consider that part to be OK.

Mine needed serious attention, as stated above.

The conical drive spindle appears to have some light wear grooves . . probably from years of spinning vinyl and I considered skimming, say . . 5 thou or so off in order to clean it up. Having had second thoughts, I can't see that it'll actually make a difference and I figure once the correct speed is set . . that's it.

There could be slight minor grooving, but I don't think it is relevant, and I don't have the skills.

I've made some cursory measurements of the platter spindle and bearings . . which I can't find right now . . danmmit.

It seems the shaft is an odd size, so finding a stock bronze bush might be difficult. I'll probably have to machine some up.

I haven't really got the equipment to measure the spindle clearance precisely, but it's likely to be somewhere near 3 - 5 thou. I've no idea what the stock measurement is supposed to be, but given the engineering of the day, I'll guess it's closer to 2 thou. In any event, I expect to be able to get the clearance well under that and with the help of some suitable lubricant (probably a grease) it should be fine.

I don't have the skills for changing the main bearing bushes, but it looks quite a tight fit.

For the moment, I just oiled the top and bottom of the motor spindle, and heard a difference, or rather heard less, than before.

This could mean that the bearing oild had dried in the bearing housing. Adding new oil will have helped, but I should probably open it up, and clean it out, clean or replace the felts, and possibly clean the phosphor bronze bearings, if there are any. If there is a ball-bearing, I could change it for a ceramic one.

I am not sure how the Orpheus motor bearings compare with those of the TD124. I certainly could not make new bearings, but that could be easy for a competent metalworker, if I judge by what is done for the TD124.

There are several companies that sell all the components for redoing the motor bearing on the TD124 (particularly the Mark1, that often has motor noise problems.

In fact I bought a set of these components, for my Mark II, but for the moment, it is going too well, for me to bother.

These include phosphor bronze bearings, new felts, new ceramic ball-bearing, and possibly a ring of Teflon.

I think, one thing to work on would be the various rubber damping pieces that hold the assembly to the chassis. These don't look up to the job. There are some ideas here:

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11197&highlight=potsy

There is a man making this sort of thing for Thorens TD124s, perhaps he could do the same for an Orpheus, if that could be worth his while.

I will just end with a photo of the motor, as this can allow comparison:

Now here you can see the oil, syringe, and Zerox restorer, in the bottle marked poison:

Just one question Gavin: the buffed up platter looks superb, but it will never be seen once the machine is going. Do you not think the slightly rough black surface is there to help the belt pull on it, or are my mechanics completely wrong.

Regards

Anthony

[13D3]

I've had a similar experience with hifiexhange, it seems that they are not always up front and honest about particular details of the products they advertise. I'd recommend always inspecting an item they advertise in-store before purchasing.

I live in France ...

John has contacted me. He obviously wants to put things right.

He says he has found me an arm bracket, but I don't know how that can be fitted to the subchassis without the relevant stub and lug.

I will wait and see. My machine seems rather different from everyone elses.

Perhaps it will be a collector's item; meanwhile can I actually get it to play music?

Regards

Anthony

[Dr Good Vibe]

Got to love a good syringe.

Now here you can see the oil, syringe, and Zerox restorer, in the bottle marked poison:

[Dustin]

I have not removed the E-clip yet, but I notice that it can rotate, or not, according to how you set it. Perhaps, a little grease, between it and the wheel might help.

Nah . . the purpose of an E-clip is to retain the wheel on the shaft . . that''s all.

If it turns (and then only sometimes?) it takes on the role of a thrust washer . . which it will do badly. Much better to have the clip tight and allow the Teflon washer to do its intended job as thrust washer.

In my case, the Idler was "churring" very badly.

(SNIP)

Following this the "churring" was much reduced. It might be even better to have the driving wheel rubber rebuilt, by one of those companies that do this. A search with "Turntable Idler Wheel Rebuilding Services" wil come up with a few.

I may do that myself, although the Zerox treatment described above completely restored my Garrard idler wheel. I believe Antique Electronic Supply may also have a similar rubber restorer.

The rubber treatment and / or restoration sounds interesting.

I'm not able to add much to this because I actually haven't run my TT fully assembled . . the various suspensions weren't in any condition to allow anything very meaningful to come of that. Just a note though; the Orpheus idler wheel has a kind of lip shaped rubber section. I haven't looked closely at a Gerrard, but I suspect it's more of a wider based tyre arrangement as it's the main drive directly onto the rim, yeah? My thinking is that a replacement tyre for the Orpheus may be more complex.

Lastly re the "churring", is it possible the idler wheel needs to be in firmer contact with the motor spindle? . . maybe a weak spring problem. I'm guessing a bit here.

If I understand you correctly, I should find a Teflon washer, at the lower end. I would expect a bronze bearing holder.

Yes, that's where you'll find the white Teflon washer, I expect. The shaft runs directly in the alloy idler wheel. There is no bronze bushing.

I'd suggest the order of assembly from the top is: E-clip (tight) > flat washer > Teflon washer > idler wheel > flat washer (any type).

My Idler does not move up or down, it only churred until the Zerox treatment.

The idler wheel may be binding from insufficient clearance. I've allowed ~10 thou vertical movement of the idler wheel. It's not critical and only governs the distance the Idler will rise when the motor is engaged. As a rough guide, the thickness of a business card will be more than enough.

I had some Analog tube bearing oil . . (snip) . . Titan Audio Ti-103 . . (snip) . . Hydrocarbon Microgel Grease (space technology grease).

I'm unfamiliar with any of these products but would expect that any decent oil or grease produced in the last twenty years will be all ample for this rather simple machine.

I don't have the skills for changing the main bearing bushes, but it looks quite a tight fit.

Can't really comment on your platter spindle / bush fit of course but I have had some further thoughts on the matter.

As an experiment, I've used automotive moly wheel bearing grease to fill the platter spindle bushes to examine the effect.

I found the platter spins (apparently?) silently but with some viscous drag as might be expected.

I then filled it with some engine assembly lube . . the previously described lighter grease.

In this case the platter again spins (apparently?) silently but with much less drag . . also pretty much as expected.

As a side note, the viscosity of these two lubricants make it impossible to remove the spindle without loosening the lower adjustment assembly . . the hydraulic lock is too great.

It occurs to me that the spindle / bush clearance might not present a problem at all if the lubricant is properly selected.

Why? . . because there are only two significant loads involved. The radial load imposed by the belt and the axial load (gravity) imposed on the ball bearing at the base of the spindle shaft. Notice too that the belt will apply that load between the upper and the lower bushes, so I guess someone thought about this stuff.

If all that is sufficient lateral dampening, then I'll presume the axial load on the ball bearing would be similarly assisted.

The only other load is the two or three grams as a result of the stylus on the record and I can't see that overcoming the shear strength of any lubricant.

Thoughts? . . happy enough to be educated by any real engineers out there.

For the moment, I just oiled the top and bottom of the motor spindle, and heard a difference, or rather heard less, than before.

This could mean that the bearing oild had dried in the bearing housing. Adding new oil will have helped, but I should probably open it up . . .

Yep . . I haven't dismantled my motor yet, but given the motor spins much faster than the platter, for instance, the bush clearances will be more critical.

I also haven't measured the motor shaft but I expect it'll be easy enough to find replacement bushes.

I think, one thing to work on would be the various rubber damping pieces that hold the assembly to the chassis. These don't look up to the job. There are some ideas here:

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11197&highlight=potsy

Thanks for the link. There is also another link somewhere illustrating use of some Sorbothane bushes by someone.

I figured Sorbothane was worth an experiment and have some on the way from the US. Sorbothane Australia have been taken over recently and aren't able to supply any moulded products till January.

Got to love a good syringe.

Always happy to see the good Dr 'inject' a little humour into a rather sombre subject . .

Edited October 27, 2009 by Dustin

[Dr Good Vibe]

Dustin, if you have a problem getting a syringe I've got some lab plastic ones that will load just the same and much safer if children around. Great project, somewhere in the surgery I have a couple in pieces might help to know in case.

[Dustin]

The Sorbothane stuff I purchased from the US arrived today . . rather strange feeling material.

I got two sets of 1 1/4" dia. feet . . one set of 30 shore and one of 50 shore. I also bought a piece of 3.2 mm sheet with a view to possibly being able to fashion the motor isolation bushes . . not quite sure how I'll do that bit yet.

I stole the Sorbothane idea from 'potsy' on Vinylengine. Here's the link:

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21304&highlight=&sid=0ada79c5c07437f03635feb78592c706

[13D3]

The rubber treatment and / or restoration sounds interesting.

I'm not able to add much to this because I actually haven't run my TT fully assembled . . the various suspensions weren't in any condition to allow anything very meaningful to come of that. Just a note though; the Orpheus idler wheel has a kind of lip shaped rubber section. I haven't looked closely at a Gerrard, but I suspect it's more of a wider based tyre arrangement as it's the main drive directly onto the rim, yeah? My thinking is that a replacement tyre for the Orpheus may be more complex.

Lastly re the "churring", is it possible the idler wheel needs to be in firmer contact with the motor spindle? . . maybe a weak spring problem. I'm guessing a bit here.

Well mine was in bad condition too, but with the motor outside the turntable, I could clearly hear noise, and thought that any reduction of that noise should be beneficial. It is true that some noise may return when the motor "feels" the platter load.

Yes, the Garrard "tyre" has a rectangular cross-section. I don't know how these companies rebuild the rubber shape, but it should be possible to make them the way this was done originally, unless that skill has been lost.

I initially checked whether the churring could be due to a slack spring; but applying gentle pressure gave no improvement (which does not mean that the spring should not be changed).

I noticed how irregular and brittle the driving wheel had become, and remembered that the Zerox solution was made exactly for that sort of situation. These old photocopiers (1980s) had rubber drivers, and these underwent very high heat that "cooked" the rubber. The result was a very noisy machine, for which this treatment was developed.

I was very lucky that a couple of applications of this severely reduced the churring. Renewing the rubber would of course be even better.

Yes, that's where you'll find the white Teflon washer, I expect. The shaft runs directly in the alloy idler wheel. There is no bronze bushing.

I'd suggest the order of assembly from the top is: E-clip (tight) > flat washer > Teflon washer > idler wheel > flat washer (any type).

The idler wheel may be binding from insufficient clearance. I've allowed ~10 thou vertical movement of the idler wheel. It's not critical and only governs the distance the Idler will rise when the motor is engaged. As a rough guide, the thickness of a business card will be more than enough.

I agree that it is well worth checking that there is no cogging of the wheel bearing. I will take it apart, and possibly polishing the bearing could help. I have found that application of MAAS polish to my Garrard main platter bearing made a visible difference to the bearing surface, and an improvement in sound. This polish is not at all aggressive, as it is even used for polishing gold.

I'm unfamiliar with any of these products but would expect that any decent oil or grease produced in the last twenty years will be all ample for this rather simple machine.

You are probably right, but I had the Analog Tube Bearing oil from Analog Tube, when I bought their Kokomo bronze and ceramic ball-bearing mod for my Garrard. As my 301 is a Grease bearing model, I had not used the oil. Instead I bought the Microgel grease from Riffaud Epure designs.

According to Pierre Riiffaud (a French Garrard specialist) there are huge pressures on the platter-bearing when it sits on a ball-bearing, as the contact area is very small. He claims to have found that surrounding the ball-bearing with Microgel grease, relieves the thrust pressure.

He advocates this both for grease and oild bearing Garrards, but suggests that in the case of the oil-bearing one, oil should be added above the grease level. I don't know whether he is right, but I will probably do the same with my Orpheus.

I understand that some consider the Garrard bearing inferior both to that of the TD124 and the Orpheus, because of the absence of the ball bearing.

No doubt the friction will probably be greater with a standard Garrard bearing, as it is shown here, from Slate Audio photos

http://www.slatedeck.com/turntables/Garrard%20Grease%20Oil%20Bearings.html

Introducing a ball-bearing via the Kokomo mod brought better focus on instruments, and a more structured soundsatge between the speakers.

As the Orpheus already has a ball-bearing between the spindle and the thrust pad (as shown by your photo) I am hoping for a quality at least near to that of the Kokomoed Garrard :

Nevertheless, I will surround the ball-bearing with this grease to be on the safe-side, and possibly change it for a silicon nitride ball-bearing (as in the

Kokomo). These are very light, but very hard, and incredibly slippery, very difficult to hold in the hands actually.

Can't really comment on your platter spindle / bush fit of course but I have had some further thoughts on the matter.

As an experiment, I've used automotive moly wheel bearing grease to fill the platter spindle bushes to examine the effect.

I found the platter spins (apparently?) silently but with some viscous drag as might be expected.

I then filled it with some engine assembly lube . . the previously described lighter grease.

In this case the platter again spins (apparently?) silently but with much less drag . . also pretty much as expected.

As a side note, the viscosity of these two lubricants make it impossible to remove the spindle without loosening the lower adjustment assembly . . the hydraulic lock is too great.

I noticed it was quite hard to remove the spindle from the bearing housing, even though there is no oil or grease in it as yet. This presumably indicates a tight fit with little wear. I am rather hoping that there is at least one thing right with the Orpheus I received (even if it was not the one advertized (I now think there were at least three different models: a Mark 1 (bronze), a Mark IIa, and MArkIIb both silver, of which more later).

It occurs to me that the spindle / bush clearance might not present a problem at all if the lubricant is properly selected.

Why? . . because there are only two significant loads involved. The radial load imposed by the belt and the axial load (gravity) imposed on the ball bearing at the base of the spindle shaft. Notice too that the belt will apply that load between the upper and the lower bushes, so I guess someone thought about this stuff.

Several companies sell oil for Linns in two qualities according to bearing wear, so they seem to agree with you.

However, "drag" can apparently be used to stabilize the rotation (as claimed for the Grease bearing of the Garrard). This is surely a complex issue, as applying breaks on a car give too much drag resulting in judder; but presumably some drag can smooth out speed variation.

Similarly, while some Garrard engineers advize dropping the voltage so that the magnetic break is no longer necessary, others consider that a magnetic break can help stabilze rotation. Apparently "La Platine" Verdier deliberately introduces this magnetic drag principle.

Yep . . I haven't dismantled my motor yet, but given the motor spins much faster than the platter, for instance, the bush clearances will be more critical.

I also haven't measured the motor shaft but I expect it'll be easy enough to find replacement bushes.

Do they look worn? Is it necessary, considering what you say about oil or grease choice that can compensate for wear?

Thanks for the link. There is also another link somewhere illustrating use of some Sorbothane bushes by someone.

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21304&highlight=&sid=0ada79c5c07437f03635feb78592c706

Photo by Potsy linked to that site:

Search for "4 SORBOTHANE 1 1/4 inch VIBRATION ISOLATION FEET 50D" by dang-good-stuff.

However, I have a slight doubt, in that when I put sorbothane under a CD player, I found the sound became unfocussed, and I preferred ball-bearing feet.

The original rubber, must have been less squashy. I wonder whether there might be some rubber door-stops or isolation feet that might do the trick.

Potsy on Vinyl Engine told me the following:

" The motor is suspended separately from the chassis, so is the turntable; BTW, they came up with this design before Linn. The rubber isolators perish over time, you'll eventually have to come up with some replacements. I just have some solid rubber spacers in mine, works fine. It's possible to use springs in the t/table assembly, but you'll need something heavier than the Linn/Thorens type, the platter is pretty heavy. Springs shouldn't be too heavy (ie. too stiff) or the resonances will creep up into the audible bands & mess things up. I believe a nice 'bounce' of about 2-3 Hz is best?"

I wonder how he came up with the "2-3 Hz" and whether Sorbothane, rubber, or a spring is best to achieve it.

Meanwhile, I am trying a couple of different products that might renew the rubber, including Armoral, which it is claims restores rubber, and a few drops of the Zerox solution (I don't have much left, and prefer to use it for driving wheels).

Don't try using Armoral on the driving wheel, it will slip.

Always happy to see the good Dr 'inject' a little humour into a rather sombre subject . .

I got my syringe from a retired model steam engine restorer, all analogue addicts need one

Regards

Anthony

[Dustin]

Yes, the Garrard "tyre" has a rectangular cross-section. I don't know how these companies rebuild the rubber shape, but it should be possible to make them the way this was done originally, unless that skill has been lost.

I reckon the Garrard tyre may be somewhat easier to re-manufacture because it's a simple square section. The Orpheus on the other hand, has that more delicate 'lip' shaped section. I don't know how one might machine / shape that.

I initially checked whether the churring could be due to a slack spring . . . .

Dunno why I'm thinking about possible spring problems. I just noticed I didn't even get a spring with my TT . . .

According to Pierre Riiffaud (a French Garrard specialist) there are huge pressures on the platter-bearing when it sits on a ball-bearing, as the contact area is very small.

I doubt this a big problem. The platter weighs . . hmmm . . maybe 3 kg? . . and it's a static load.

I've used ceramic ball races in the previously mentioned radio controlled racing car. Ceramic balls do offer some advantages in that application. They are lighter and therefor accelerate easier. They also are more stable at higher temperatures and better tolerate poor lubrication . . and we did that all the time in search of more power. The only feature that may be of interest is they're supposedly more 'round', so there's may be something in that.

That better roundness might manifest itself as a reduction in rumble if we are maintaining the Orpheus design and coupling the arm to the spider. This is purely speculation of course. Maybe a Teflon washer under the ball might help damp rumble too . . provided there is any rumble in the first place, of course.

Do they look worn? Is it necessary, considering what you say about oil or grease choice that can compensate for wear?

The bearing application is different, yes. With the platter spindle, the lubricant is held captive in a vertical tube; a reservoir so to speak . . with a maximum shaft speed is 78 RPM.

The motor relies purely on the oil at the bearing surfaces and has no reservoir like the platter spindle . . and it'll be spinning a fair bit faster.

I wonder how he came up with the "2-3 Hz" and whether Sorbothane, rubber, or a spring is best to achieve it.

No idea how he came up with that 2-3 Hz. I figured he was trying to convey a rough idea but didn't think he actually measured it.

So what's the best material?

Well if that grey spongy stuff is the original material, then we can probably deduce there wasn't a lot dampening happening.

Some guys appear to say that rubber is OK but it looks rather too solid to me . . hard to know exactly.

So I figure Sorbothane must be a better idea and if needed it's possible to hollow out the hemispherical feet to reduce the dampening.

I think the springs idea rather misses the point.

Cheers,

Gavin

[13D3]

Well here is the advertised Orpheus:

You can observe the tonearm socket and bracket to the right rear of the TT.

However, on the one received, there is no such bracket. Here you can see from above and below:

It is true that had I been in Australia, I would have known that the picture was not the actual turntable, sa there was an invitation to come and preview it.

"Johns HiFi Exchange

Regards

Anthony

Well just now I saw that the Hifi exchange has an additional Orpheus for sale, and it is exactly like the one advertised on ebay, but not sent to me.

You can see it at

http://hifiexchange.com.au/index.php?route=product/product&path=37_51&product_id=70

And here it is.

You will notice the arm holder at the back, and the whicte writing on the turntable mat.

This has only just appeared on their site. Can it be a conicidence? Someone obviously sent out the wrong machine.

I have heard nothing else from John, I am not a little peeved.

Anthony