Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

STD 305M

774 views
Skip to first unread message

lostsoul

unread,
Nov 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/24/99
to
I picked up a secondhand STD (Strathclyde Transcription Devices) 305M
turntable the other day - lovely piece of art/engineering. Made in
Howson, Scotland. This one's in perfect nick (with a new belt and Grace
arm) and sounds pretty good to me. Can anyone tell me anything about
these beasts (eg how old, original cost, quality)?


Lex

unread,
Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99
to
lostsoul! Hello there!
The STD 305M dates back to around 1978, at least that's the date on the
issue of Hifi Choice (issue12!) that I have featuring it. Cost then was
around Ł250. Two versions were made, apparently, a dc servo motor powered
variant and one using a synchronous ac motor, presumably the Airpax also
used on the Linn and Rega decks, among others. This version may have been
called the 305D, but memory fades! As with the early Pink Triangles, some
reservations were expressed about 'dynamic wow' on the dc-powered decks,
presumably because, like the Pinks, the motors were high-speed designs that
necessitated small pulleys to gear them down. This gave a rather small
contact area for the belt, which, arguably, led to belt slip and wow. The dc
version featured electronic speed adjustment and 33, 45 and 78rpm speeds. A
cheaper version, the 305S, with a simplified plinth and the synchronous
motor, sold for around Ł170 in the early eighties, and was considered
sonically comparable with the M (or D?). Sound-wise they were initially
considered to be a rival for the ubiquitous Linn, but opinion (or politics!)
seemed to settle on something around the Thorens TD160S standard. The Grace
arm (presumably you have the G707 and not the rarer wooden G714?) was a
class act usually fitted to Linns in those long-ago pre Ittok and Syrinx
days. A nice arm and probably a fair match for the STD. Overall, a
good-looking and sounding combination. What sort of money did it set you
back?
All the best.
Lex.
lostsoul wrote in message ...

lostsoul

unread,
Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99
to
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:59:48 -0000, Lex <l...@blackroom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

> Overall, a good-looking and sounding combination. What sort of money
> did it set you back?

Thanks Lex for that very interesting and informative post. The arm's a
707, unfortunately it's blessed with only a cheap Audio Technica
cartridge but I'm delighted with the overall sound (and the great
records I've picked up on the cheap). 120 quid seems a fair price for a
piece of audio history!?

Cheers.

lostsoul

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:20:27 GMT, Martin Kirlow <fea...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> I didn't see lostsoul's original post so I can't mail him, but...
>
> I've had one of these turntables for many years. Did a swap for my old
> LP12 with lots of cash coming my way. Couldn't tell any difference, but
> that probably says more about my cloth ears than the quality of the
> equipment. I still have the original manual with the inspectors
> signature dated 26-03-79, serial number 001531. That might help lostsoul
> to put an age on his. I can photocopy or scan the manual if you wish,
> though it's only 10 small pages and tells you very little.
> The manual states that it has a 16 pole synchronous motor, so it looks
> like you remembered the wrong way round Lex. :-)
>
> Mine may possibly be for sale if I can be persuaded to part with it. [1]
> Ridiculous [2] offers to Martin at fea...@freeuk.com ;-) It's fitted
> with an original George Hadcock GH228 "D" Type arm. The arm is fitted
> with a Dynavector Ruby Carat cartridge and the whole setup is in
> excellent condition, which isn't surprising considering how little use
> it has had in the last two decades.
>

Hey, Martin. I'm here! The serial no on mine is 002540 so it's a good
bit newer than yours (80/81?). When did they go out of business?

Thanks for your kind offer of a copy the manual. If you really can be
bothered to scan it, I can print it out at my end no problem. (An email
attatchment, shouldn't be too big, should it?). Like I said, only if you
can be bothered with the hassle.

Cheers!
--
lostsoul

0 new messages