Your post in the Thorens Section

[Amplifine]

MSM,

I saw one of your old posts in the Thorens section.

http://www.wiredstate.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2617

This is an unrelated question but you mentioned earlier the "old school thorens sound" and later the "Thorens Sound". I recently sold my Project 1.2 and have been in the market for a new deck as you know.

I would like to get your opinion on a few things. As you know I recently parted with my old deck the Project 1.2 and this was part of my adventure back into analog since my Dad passed away and left me his old LP's. I bought the Project because it was an entry level deck with a modern design. Although Thorens does have an almost ubiquitous presence among the audiophiles circles; I remember my dad speaking fondly of his old Thorens only later to replace it with a Luxman; Though always refering to how his old Thorens used to sound.


What is the signature Thorens sound? What are the pros and cons of getting a vintage Thorens over the more modern above entry level decks of the same price? Is the Thorens sensitive to tonearm cartridge matches? What cart/tonearm would you recommend for this deck?

Any Thorens fans out there who care to comment

[conspicuous]

Amplifine,

hi, i've been a thorens td166mkII user since around 1989 so apparently i'm used to its "sound". funny, but i never thought it would become "vintage" when i bought it now that we're in the 2000s.

my only comment is this. i've had it with an old school grado gold cartridge - M1+ - for the last 15 years. i then replaced it with the new grado gold since i figured why change? it was a sound i grew accustomed to. however, i've tried different phonostages with it: QED basic, audio alchemy, dynavector, clearaudio basic, project tube box, project box se (my current), and diy ss box. i've also used a clear audio aurum beta cartridge. everything else about the thorens was stock. so each change made a subtle but noticeable change. but was the sound just a variation to a common sound theme

so i'm not sure anymore what this "thorens sound" is.

perhaps i should retain the grado cartridge and do a turntable roll I WISH then i could compare the sound of clearaudio, vpi, michell, nottingham, etc with this so called thorens sound.

although listening to the clearaudio at a friend's place, i would have to say if thorens has a "vintage" sound, it is a sound i would describe as "warmer" but with no loss of detail or clarity. but isn't this really due to the cart and phonostage

hope my humble opinions were of help. fire away!

cheers!

[Amplifine]

Thanks Conspicuous,

Thanks for your comments. Sometimes when we say Vintage, we merely mean Used. But as you out it "vintage sound"= warmer and perhaps more inviting. I like!

How would you compare the performace of the 3 phono stages ie. Phono Box SE, Tube Box and Clear Audio Basic? In the market for a separate phono stage as well. (I realize that this might be moved)

[conspicuous]

on the warmth spectrum, project tube box was the warmest and the clear audio basic the coolest. but let me clarify. this is how these boxes performed in my system where i have a tono tube preamp and a solid state yamaha integrated amp to which my dyn audience 42s are connected.

the tube box imparted a comfortably fuzzy texture to the sound . however overall it sounded slower but the bass rounder. the phono box se sounded faster in my opinion/perception with the bass tighter but to me still had a warm sound . on the otherhand, the clearaudio basic sounded the most analytical although i found the bass a bit too tight for my personal taste but that might be because of system synergy .

overall i like the project phono box se except that i wished it had a little bit more gain. however, it seems to synergise well with the thorens, the grado cart and the rest of the components in the sound chain.

[m_shoe_maker]

Ah.... my memorable bone-stock Thorens TD166 Mk2, and tricked-out TD165.

Thorens sound How do I go about with this......

Ok... First of all, I have not owned the other famous Thorens type, particularly the TD124 series. The sound I'm about to describe is just about the TD160 series. So maybe, my phrase "Thorens Sound" may just be applicable to the 160s.

Anyway, IMHO, my bone stock 166 sounded MUSICAL. Too mellow..... makapal midrange, rolled off highs, malambot bass - on the wooly side, which gives a perception of a huge soundstage, but not that accurate in imaging, articulation, and separation of instruments and vocals. It was not as ruthless with poor recordings. Good in a sense, but not accurate. Overall, I felt that it was "pleasing" to the ears, and easy to live with, but did not excell in those "audiophile stuff" "reviewers" usually look for.

My tricked-out TD165 was a different story. With all mods on it, bass became tigher / faster, mids cleared-up, but can be said to be lean as compared to the stock, and highs opened up a bit, but not yet as as airy as "modern tables". With these characteristics, IMHO, the table was transforming to be more accurate (poor recordings sound poor, good recording sound good / Garbage-In, Garbage-Out), but not as ruthless as modern state of the art rigs. It was getting there, but still far from it.

If I was to get one as a 2nd or 3rd table again, which shall I choose I'd get a bone stock one, or just have a simple, and cheap Rega arm slapped on. IMHO, what I did to my 165 i.e. spending $$$ (more than the table) on mods just to achieve modern table accuracy was crazy. With the money I spent, I could have just gotten a Rega Planar III, or a Revolver Rebel, or a Music Hall during those days. Well, that's MSM for you - baliw sa front end.

Let's think of it this way........ Would you rather get a Toyota Corolla, then trick it out, or just simply go straight with a higher performance Celica To each his own. Some would prefer to try to do the "improvements" themselves due to pride/ego, or even cash flow problems. MSM was both.

Oh, another analogy - MSM has this thing with analogy. My 165 was like a Ford Model T, slapped with a Honda B16 engine. Sa tingin nyo, bibilis ba Pwede, konti. Pero pano na sa kurbada Pano na sa braking


IMHO, the achilles heel of the 166 and 165 is the arm. Damn thing looked and felt like a high school project. That's the main reason why Thorens came out with its Hot Rod version, the armless TD160. This baby was for the "serious" enthusiast who wanted to get the most out of his/her Thorens table, by choosing his preferred arm.


Conclusion: My Conclusion by the way: The Thorens 165 or 166 or 160 (if you are lucky ) are good tables. But I won't spend $$$ on it. These are competent models that sound musical - not "audiophile" grade, but MUSICAL. If you want something that does not excel, but will never dissapoint whether you put bad recordings or not, get a stock unit. The system is not accurate, and not that great in extracting the fine details, refinement, articulation etc. etc. - but heck, it does not get the audio nasties of bad recordings either.

There are systems that are damn too accurate. These are the types audiophiles / audiofools love. The simple guys may hate these since bad recordings will definitely sound bad. On the other side of the spectrum, there are equipment that are not accurate, but may sound musical. These are the types simple people love. IMHO, my bone stock Thorens TD166 Mk2 is the latter. You can enjoy the simple life with this thing. Maybe we are indeed better off with these types of products .........................

[conspicuous]

nice write up prof. MSM. i guess that's the term i was trying to put across: "musical". yes the thorens td166 mkII stock table is pleasing to the ear. and you're right also in that it shouldn't be tweaked beyond the cartridge. that's why i am keeping mine and think everyday about the newer thorens, or nottinghams, or vpis, or michells, or.... as my second setup ... heheh

[Amplifine]

Actually I'm getting the Thorens Phantasie which is the acrylic version of the TD320 with an Alfason Titanium arm. This one should be a keeper since its Eye candy for me as well What you think? Is it still worth matching this with a high quality P18K+ cart?

[m_shoe_maker]

Ah, the Phantasie. That's a relatively newer model, late 80s ata. I'm pretty much sure that will sound already different as compared to what I had (160 series). I think those were sort of limited production models - instant bragging rights. With its acrylic body, you can even see the insides of the rig - cool.

[audiophileman2002]

Going back to the thread of Amplifine, just a word of caution on vintage Thorens tables. These tables particularly the suspension tables have springs that may have been abused not by use of the previous owners but by transport. You may have to have the springs tuned. There is a company in Germany that does springs and steel pulleys to replace the old springs and plastic pulleys. I believe you can also use Linn springs. The springs are very important as this levels out the playing surface. There are other considerations like the platter bearing, motor bearing and if these are making some noise. Generally, upon getting your hands on tables like these you should have a competent tech to tune up the table, clean platter bearing of old grease/oil and re-lube, clean with Deoxit all electrical connections, including the headshell leads, tonearm/headshell connection, rca plugs, etc. Check the condition of the belt, right belt length and width.
I have a TD125 B MKII. This is a basic 125 MKII without the arm that came from the factory. I've put an SME 3009 II improved. This table has been with me for quite sometime and has travelled with me extensively as I have moved several times here in the US. Last time was a couple of years ago from the West Coast to the East Coast. Even if I took care of packing the table in the original box and putting shims to lessen movement, the springs still get the brunt of the shocks. I've just sent it to a Thorens tune up guy who has replaced the three springs and leveled off the table. Now it is really back in shape. One easy mod which makes a lot of improvement in the sense of a blacker background is the use of an acrylic platter instead of the original rubber mat. It is about $50.00 and I think it is worthwhile.
Going to the question of tonearm / cartridge, in those days most of the Thorens that came out without the original tonearm were mounted with SME. In the former times, the cartridge of choice was the Shure V15 and I think the 3009 was designed with the V15 in consideration. I myself use the V15III for this table. I may in the next few days try the M97Xe. I generally use this table with my vintage gear. I use the VPI with my modern gear.
As for the ones that came with the stock arm, generally I'd say it is safe to use MM type of cartridges and possibly not the heavy MC type.
The 150 and the 160 series goes for about $200 in eBay so you may want to try to source it out from there. There is another source where these tables are cleaned and tuned up and properly running. Check out: http//www.vinylnirvana.com The prices are somewhat higher than eBay prices but you know the condition of what you are getting.
Good luck in your hunt for your next table.

[ichabod]

msm, I'm about to resurrect a freshly kept tt from AR that was never put to use, and wish to know if this falls under your description of "musical but not accurate" or are they "ruthless as modern state of the art rigs."(?) Never bothered to try it really, hence my question in the hope that you may so spare me the effort to go into some dark age ritual like striking stones to light a fire! Please, you're not going to get any arguments from me like SC. I like a sound that's analogue too.

Just to let you know as well that I enjoyed your satire on the rites of the round table.

[m_shoe_maker]

msm, I'm about to resurrect a freshly kept tt from AR that was never put to use, and wish to know if this falls under your description of "musical but not accurate" or are they "ruthless as modern state of the art rigs."(?) Never bothered to try it really, hence my question in the hope that you may so spare me the effort to go into some dark age ritual like striking stones to light a fire! Please, you're not going to get any arguments from me like SC. I like a sound that's analogue too.

Just to let you know as well that I enjoyed your satire on the rites of the round table.

Hmmmm....... I've heard an AR table (bouncy - bouncy spring loaded) before from a shop, but I have yet to own one, and try it for myself in my eqpt. / room, so I really can't make a honest personal judgement on it.

Anyway, from my brief encounter with it, IMHO its sound was in the territory of "musical but not accurate". I THINK most tables during the "HI-FI" (not mass market, not DJ, not Hi-End) era had this musical - mellow, malambing, malambot, makapal sound. Although most tables of this type / era were made of wood, another contributing factor which may have influenced how it sounded were their bouncy - bouncy resonance galore springs. Newer tables try to minimize resonace as it affects sound, but maybe, there are certain types of resonance that would make the sound colored, not accurate, but nonetheless, musical. As an analogy again, baka parang cholesterol ang resonance, not all of it are bad. Meron din good cholesterol.

[m_shoe_maker]

Tama si audiophileman2002. For those old turntables, check those bearings and springs.

Defective or poorly lubed bearings may cause speed stability problems, as well as that nasty audible rumble. Worn out springs will not only cause leveling problems, especially with heavy arms, but also dish out subsonics which your amp will amplify, and deliver your to your speakers. This is when you see your woofer na parang humihinga even though wala namang bass content yung LP being played.

[ichabod]

Gee thanks for that. I've heard some modern sounding tts, and waz kinda surprised why they sounded a bit more CD like. Just my hearing miff. So there's such a thing as good and bad resonance, your analogy well taken. A little too much I guess would be bad. In the right amounts, they can resonate in the same way as a cello, violin, viola, and a double bass. Their being musical you say may seem so. I can only agree. So thorens and ARs have the same or quite the same sound?

[m_shoe_maker]

Gee thanks for that. I've heard some modern sounding tts, and waz kinda surprised why they sounded a bit more CD like.

Yes, they can sound like CD. From what I have experienced, newer TT models are more prone to this problem. I believe that in some cases, its really not entirely the TT's fault. This is the problem when going to the hi-end ladder. Besides the law of diminishing returns, the higher one goes up the analog ladder, the more the equipment becomes picky in system matching.

A common reaction to hi-end TTs, and also some MC carts is that it sounds lean. In some cases its true (mismatched). In some cases, its already due to the perception of the listener. An audiophile who has been listening to that old "musical" turntable, may not be accustomed to the sound of the new TT fitted with an MC. The person might find "malambot at bilog na bass" appealing, but may actually be bass that is bloated, too extended, wooly, therefore a sense of articulation being absent. As for the highs, some people may find new TTs, and some MCs to be to bright and lean. This may be true, but the otherside of the coin is that it is revealing more top end information as well as giving airiness in the sound.


At the end of the day, the audiophile must ask this to himself: "How much musicality, and how much accurateness do I want " Coz accurateness may not always sound "good", especially if one's entire collection is only composed of run of the mill, and mediocre recordings.

So thorens and ARs have the same or quite the same sound?

I'm sure they will have there differences, but most probably have similar traits. One thing I'm sure is that its not gonna sound like a modern day table. But then again, depending on the audiophile, this may be a turn off, or a turn on.

[Killer Mike]

wow! daming smileys

[Amplifine]

What about This Thorens against a Micro Seiki?

[m_shoe_maker]

What about This Thorens against a Micro Seiki?

My old Micro Seiki was only a mid level model. Physically, it looked like an old, and traditional turntable - rectangular with dust cover, with particle board (I think) wood veneer.

My Micro Seiki did not sound like your typical vintage table. It already had this spunk to it, and the bass was already clean, fast, and articulate. I'd say it was already boardering to a modern sounding table, more modern than my tricked out TD165.

IMHO, my bone stock Thorens sounded good with mini monitors as its bottom end was colored. Again, it was not tight and articulate, but given the limitation of mini monitors' bass region, the colored character of the vintage table made me feel that the smallish speaker had more bass extension. When I brought the table to friends' listening rooms fitted with floorstanders, I easily heard the problem. The colored bass was easily amplified by the floorstanders, and the once OK sounding bottom end, as experienced with mini monitors instantly became a muddy, bloated, loose bass blob.

That experience did not happen with my Micro Seiki.

[audiophileman2002]

Here is some information I gathered from someone I know and who fixes Thorens and ARs, sometimes Ariston, and who incidentally also sells turntables after he has fixed / tuned them up.
I quote:
Since I sell a lot of Thorens turntables, another question I get asked a lot is, "How do I rank the Thorens belt-driven tables?" First, I should mention what models I have owned. I have owned, in numerical order: TD-125, 125 MKII, 126 MKII, 145, 145 MKII, 147, 160, 160 MKII, 160 Super, 165, and 166 MKII. For this ranking, I will concentrate just on those models that came with stock arms. (So, I need to eliminate the TD-160 Super, which did not come with stock arm.) Out of all of these models, my personal favorite is the TD-126 MKII. First, it is massive in weight. Second, it offers great flexibility in terms of just dialing in whether you want fully manual or semi-manual. Third, there is electronic speed control. Fourth, it features three logical speeds: 33, 45, and 78. (What were they thinking when they designed the 125 lineup with "16"?) Simply put, I am so astonished by the sound of a stock 126 MKII that I have not even considered upgrading the tonearm. A close second to the 126 MKII are the two 125s. However, I tend to prefer the flexibility of the 126's variable settings. I also prefer the design of the 126's dustcover. The 125 dustcover is very prone to breakage.

Below the tier of these tables is the TD-147. I am surprised how few people know of the 147. It is basically a TD-160 Super with a stock Thorens arm. So, it has an improved platter bearing, factory installed damping, heavier base, and an adjustable dustcover with METAL hinges. It also has auto-shut-off. I love the look of the 147 with the black metal plinth against the rosewood/mahogany wood sides. After the 147, I would rank the 160 and 145 as next in performance. (The 145 is basically a 160 with auto-shut off.) The 160 was my first Thorens, and I have never lost my love for it. This table produces fantastic sound for the money.

I would rank the 165/166MKII at the bottom of my list, but by no means are these awful tables. A well set-up 165/166 is a pleasure to listen to. I would argue that most ears could not discern the difference between a 160 and a 165/166 in a blind test. The essential difference between a 160 and a 165 is a plastic inner platter (rather than metal on the 160) and a motor without a clutch. In addition, the 166 MKII uses some thin mdf on the bottom which damages easily.

So, that is my ranking. Certainly open to argument, but I have lived with each of these tables (in stock form) and that is how I would rate them.
Unquote
Here is also something for Ichabod:
Quote:
In the case of the AR XA/XB line up, I am completely smitten with Shure’s m97xe. It is a spectacular audio value, with street prices around 80 dollars. A well set up “97” on a well tuned XA will astonish most listeners. It is not so much that the sound approaches something like a Thorens TD-126 MKII, but rather, looking at the simplicity of the table, and the somewhat crudeness of the arm, it’s just amazing it can sound THAT good.
Unquote
Both quotes lifted from his website vinylnirvana.com
Hope this gives some ideas to people contemplating on getting Thorens belt driven tables and resurrecting the AR.

[ichabod]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking for the website. The ARs after thorens is not just second fiddle. My AR though sports a Pickering. Have still to look what model, but I've had a Pickering cart before which I did like, better than the shures I was familiar with. More dynamics and highs are out in the open.

Anyway going back to what msm said about "resonance," will modern tts kill enough of the resonances say of a violin or cello which accordingly can make sound less musical?

Because most musical instruments resonate (those made of wood specially) how might a modern turny bring some to life if it cuts those resonances "needed" to sound musical?

I've had a few direct to disk recordings from Sheffield and Mobile Fidelity that I did enjoy in the early days, and they seemed to have sounded more vibrant and dynamic. Lincoln Mayorga's piano sounded richer, livelier, and more piano-like. Is that it? Amanda McBroom's voice had a more natural silkiness and a clarity that seems to buttress the source. All these were played on my run-of-the-mill direct drive Sony table? I sure would like to hear them again on the AR or Thorens some day. How much of those natural "resonances" and "air" I might add could have been missed out by the Sony that's in the AR makes me wonder?

Any more ideas? fire away!

Thanks for that piece of info on the AR audiophileman.

[m_shoe_maker]

Oh, when I mentioned resonance, I meant additional resonance created by the vibrating and bouncing turntable springs during playback. The normal resonance of the musical instrument must already be imbodied in the recording. The turntable must be able to retrieve the original sound (including the musical instrument's resonance in the recording) of the LP, and not create additional turntable resonance during playback.

What I think I experienced with my old turntables was the coloring of the mid bass, all the way to its bottom-end, probably due to resonance of the turntable itself.