Anyone familiar with the Sony PS-2251 turntable
John Klane
As far as I can tell, this was Sony's first direct drive table and it
appears to be built to a very high standard. Does anyone have
first-hand experience with this table? And please, no "all
direct-drive turntables are junk, buy a Rega (or other cottage
industry table)" replies. I've heard it all before and simply
disagree.
Joseph Vogt
Technics SP-10 MK II which is better, but I'd have no hesitation
purchasing a 2251 for a decent price.
"John Klane" <johnk_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:133a3ac5.01080...@posting.google.com...
John Klane
time and torque, that an SP-10 Mk II is better. Do you have any
experience with the Sony tonearm? It appears to be pretty decent:
four-point gimbal bearings, long stylus-to-pivot distance, height
adustable, etc. BTW, what would you reckon to be a decent price?
"Joseph Vogt" <jv...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<XSkb7.23692$bm5.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>...
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Thanks for the input. I'm am curious in what ways, other than start-up
>time and torque, that an SP-10 Mk II is better. Do you have any
>experience with the Sony tonearm? It appears to be pretty decent:
>four-point gimbal bearings, long stylus-to-pivot distance, height
>adustable, etc. BTW, what would you reckon to be a decent price?
If it's the PUA-237 (or 239), it was Sony's response to SME and still
a dandy arm.
Kal
John Klane
they would put their best tonearm on the unit. Would that be a
PUA-237/9? As I said earlier, the arm appears to be very nicely made
and well thought out. Curiously, the original Sony headshell, while
very well made (e.g.-cast, not stamped)offers only a fixed cartridge
mounting position (i.e.-it has only two screwholes, not slots) and the
arm is not adjustable at the pivot end, as is an SME. I wonder what
they had in mind here? A partcular Sony cartridge, perhaps? I plan to
buy a 'slotted' headshell if i acquire the table, unless someone has
another suggestion. Thanks for your help.
Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in message news:<l2ctmt4qf7mrvg1o9...@4ax.com>...
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>The 2251 is so impressively designed and built that I would assume
>they would put their best tonearm on the unit. Would that be a
>PUA-237/9? As I said earlier, the arm appears to be very nicely made
>and well thought out. Curiously, the original Sony headshell, while
>very well made (e.g.-cast, not stamped)offers only a fixed cartridge
>mounting position (i.e.-it has only two screwholes, not slots) and the
>arm is not adjustable at the pivot end, as is an SME. I wonder what
>they had in mind here? A partcular Sony cartridge, perhaps? I plan to
>buy a 'slotted' headshell if i acquire the table, unless someone has
>another suggestion.
I will take a look at the instructions for the arm when I get home. I
am sure it is dealt with.
Kal (who prefers 2 fixed screwholes to the slots, anyway)
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>The 2251 is so impressively designed and built that I would assume
>they would put their best tonearm on the unit. Would that be a
>PUA-237/9? As I said earlier, the arm appears to be very nicely made
>and well thought out. Curiously, the original Sony headshell, while
>very well made (e.g.-cast, not stamped)offers only a fixed cartridge
>mounting position (i.e.-it has only two screwholes, not slots) and the
>arm is not adjustable at the pivot end, as is an SME. I wonder what
>they had in mind here? A partcular Sony cartridge, perhaps? I plan to
>buy a 'slotted' headshell if i acquire the table, unless someone has
>another suggestion. Thanks for your help.
Here's the poop.
1. The original Sony headshell is not cast. I switched to a Sumiko.
2. The overhang is adjustable by loosening a central screw on the
underside of the shell. This permits you to slide the shell with
respect to the coupling. Full instructions in manual.
Kal
John Klane
Well, the Sony shell on this table appears to be cast, it is certainly
not stamped. I found the screw you refer to a couple of hours ago,
when I got the table home (I decided to buy it based on comments here
and elsewhere). It was really tight, but I eventually got it loosened
w/o damage, so cartridge alignment is now possible. What do you see as
the advantage of the Sumiko shell? Also, I have been told that the
PUA-237/9 uses a string+weight anti-skate scheme. This one uses a
spring and dial. Might this be a PUA-286? BTW, I take it you have a
manual for a PUA-237/9?
Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in message news:<075umtglilnu9ldh2...@4ax.com>...
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Hi Kal, thanks for your help.
>Well, the Sony shell on this table appears to be cast, it is certainly
>not stamped.
I'd like to see it as all the ones I've seen so far have been pressed
with a cast coupling.
>I found the screw you refer to a couple of hours ago,
>when I got the table home (I decided to buy it based on comments here
>and elsewhere). It was really tight, but I eventually got it loosened
>w/o damage, so cartridge alignment is now possible.
Yes. Do you need the exact instructions? I bought a copy of the
manual from Sony a while back (at a ridiculous price) and it seems
difficult to set up without it.
>What do you see as
>the advantage of the Sumiko shell?
Absolute rigidity. Since I use an SME-type sliding base (my own
construction) with it, I do not need the adjustment in the headshell.
> Also, I have been told that the
>PUA-237/9 uses a string+weight anti-skate scheme. This one uses a
>spring and dial. Might this be a PUA-286?
I was mistaken about the longer model (which I would like to lay myt
hands on) but the longer one is PUA-286 and the shorter is PUA-237.
Both use a spring and dial.
>BTW, I take it you have a manual for a PUA-237/9?
I have the manual for the PUA-237/286.
Kal
Joseph Vogt
resistance
to feedback. I did not have the Sony arm. I used an SME 3009 and later an
Infinity Black Widow with high compliance cartridges.
"John Klane" <johnk_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:133a3ac5.01080...@posting.google.com...
John Klane
> On 6 Aug 2001 17:30:41 -0700, johnk_...@yahoo.com (John Klane)
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Kal, thanks for your help.
> >Well, the Sony shell on this table appears to be cast, it is certainly
> >not stamped.
>
> I'd like to see it as all the ones I've seen so far have been pressed
> with a cast coupling.
>
certainly appears to be a casting, with a pressed finger lift attached
via two very small screws.
> >I found the screw you refer to a couple of hours ago,
> >when I got the table home (I decided to buy it based on comments here
> >and elsewhere). It was really tight, but I eventually got it loosened
> >w/o damage, so cartridge alignment is now possible.
>
> Yes. Do you need the exact instructions? I bought a copy of the
> manual from Sony a while back (at a ridiculous price) and it seems
> difficult to set up without it.
>
Exact instructions would be a benefit. Perhaps we can work something
out via private email?
> >What do you see as
> >the advantage of the Sumiko shell?
>
> Absolute rigidity. Since I use an SME-type sliding base (my own
> construction) with it, I do not need the adjustment in the headshell.
>
This raises an interesting point. AFAIK, one designs a tonearm's
geometry with a specific stylus-to-pivot distance in mind. Making the
adjustment to compensate for different cartridge dimensions (stylus
tip to mounting holes) via slots in the headshell, or an 'adjustable'
headshell (as in this case), or via an adjustable length arm (AR
XA)allows the stylus-to-pivot distance to be maintained. However, it
seems to me that making the adjustment by moving the pivot point of
the arm relative to the platter spindle does not achieve the same end.
Am I missing something here?
> > Also, I have been told that the
> >PUA-237/9 uses a string+weight anti-skate scheme. This one uses a
> >spring and dial. Might this be a PUA-286?
>
> I was mistaken about the longer model (which I would like to lay myt
> hands on) but the longer one is PUA-286 and the shorter is PUA-237.
> Both use a spring and dial.
>
So I am guessing, based on the ~9.5" stylus to pivot dimension that
this is a PUA-237(?)and that a PUA-286 is Sony's answer to a SME
3012(?).
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Exact instructions would be a benefit. Perhaps we can work something
>out via private email?
OK.
>This raises an interesting point. AFAIK, one designs a tonearm's
>geometry with a specific stylus-to-pivot distance in mind. Making the
>adjustment to compensate for different cartridge dimensions (stylus
>tip to mounting holes) via slots in the headshell, or an 'adjustable'
>headshell (as in this case), or via an adjustable length arm (AR
>XA)allows the stylus-to-pivot distance to be maintained. However, it
>seems to me that making the adjustment by moving the pivot point of
>the arm relative to the platter spindle does not achieve the same end.
>Am I missing something here?
The exact opposite. Changing the position in the headshell or
changing the arm length will, de facto, change the stylus-to-pivot
dimension, something not affected by moving the pivot.
>So I am guessing, based on the ~9.5" stylus to pivot dimension that
>this is a PUA-237(?)and that a PUA-286 is Sony's answer to a SME
>3012(?).
Yup.
Kal
John Klane
>
> >This raises an interesting point. AFAIK, one designs a tonearm's
> >geometry with a specific stylus-to-pivot distance in mind. Making the
> >adjustment to compensate for different cartridge dimensions (stylus
> >tip to mounting holes) via slots in the headshell, or an 'adjustable'
> >headshell (as in this case), or via an adjustable length arm (AR
> >XA)allows the stylus-to-pivot distance to be maintained. However, it
> >seems to me that making the adjustment by moving the pivot point of
> >the arm relative to the platter spindle does not achieve the same end.
> >Am I missing something here?
>
> The exact opposite. Changing the position in the headshell or
> changing the arm length will, de facto, change the stylus-to-pivot
> dimension, something not affected by moving the pivot.
>
>
cartridge when working out the stylus-to-pivot distance amd geometry
of the arm. When someone uses a different cartridge with a different
dimension of the mounting screws to stylus tip, the stylus-to-pivot
distance will be different and no amount of moving the tonearm's pivot
point fore or aft _ relative to the platter spindle_ will change that
dimension. OTOH, moving the cartridge fore or aft _relative to the
pivot point_ will allow the original stylus-to-pivot distance to be
'restored'. Or so it seems to me-any comments from others?
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Hmm...let's say that the designer of a tonearm used a specific
>cartridge when working out the stylus-to-pivot distance amd geometry
>of the arm. When someone uses a different cartridge with a different
>dimension of the mounting screws to stylus tip, the stylus-to-pivot
>distance will be different and no amount of moving the tonearm's pivot
>point fore or aft _ relative to the platter spindle_ will change that
>dimension. OTOH, moving the cartridge fore or aft _relative to the
>pivot point_ will allow the original stylus-to-pivot distance to be
>'restored'.
Also true. However, that presumes that the drilling and mounting of
the arm (and positioning of the pivot) is perfectly accurate. In
practice, all the fixings are interactive. If the arm/shell defines
exactly where the stylus tip should be placed, then the pivot must be
moved to get the correct overhang. OTOH, if the pivot is placed
perfectly accurately, you can adjust overhang with positioning in the
headshell.
>Or so it seems to me-any comments from others?
My feeling is that I am more confident in placing the pivot where it
belongs with a sliding base than with a power drill. Non-standard
stylus-to-mounting cartridges demand more in the setup.
Kal