While I have seen a fair bit of talk about Technics, Denon and Pioneer tables, I don't see much about Kenwood tables. I asked about a 5070 the other day, and got very limited responses. I am just wondering why Kenwood seems to get so little respect. I see a ton of 2055's around, and it looks like Kenwood did some real interesting work with materials to control resonances. In the mid to late 70's I think Kenwood was one of the most innovative audio companies in a very innovative era. They produced some gear that was really amazing. I just can't see them wimping our when it came to turntables.
Any thoughts?

They were perfectly good, but they get lost in the crowd.

I'm not sure.
I believe there were some questions regarding the speed control on these tables. I do agree the choice of materials was/is innovative.

I've picked up a KD 500 myself and have been tinkering with it to get it up to snuff. Using an RB 250 type arem. So far it is pretty promising: Speed has been steady and very little motor noise associated with it. Background is very quiet. Maybe not as much Oomph as my Thorens, but a pretty nice deck.

Heavy sucker!

I believe the 500/550, 600/650, and 900 series are some of their better thought of tables.

Paul

I did a quicky Google search on the TT you mentioned, and found almost nothing. Even Vinyl Engine has limited Kenwood pics. Go figure. Gonna start doing some more research on them

...almost everybody got to composite materials from 1974/75 onward! Sony was the first to use 'em on a large scale (Carbocon, SBMC and more) but everybody went for them at about the same time or a little later...

Bar the KD-500/550, Kenwood didn't advertise anything that could compete (even looks/size-wise) with the upper-end offerings of other brands such as Sony's PS-8750/TTS-8000 ('75) and PS-X7 ('77), JVC's big "TT" drives (TT-101, TT-81, TT-71 etc), Yamaha's YP-D10/9/8 ('77/78) or the big Pioneer (PL-C590, PL-630 etc)
They got to that a little later (too late?) with the L-07D (and how!) and the KP series (KP-1000/KD-990) later in the early/mid 1980s which are well regarded but unfortunately pretty rare.

Maybe Kenwood didn't try beating market-wise Denon and Technics (unlike Sony) and judged mid and lower-end good enough to remain sort of present on that market segment. The KD-500/550 being an exception and the L-07D being THE exception :)

I did a quicky Google search on the TT you mentioned, and found almost nothing. Even Vinyl Engine has limited Kenwood pics. Go figure. Gonna start doing some more research on them

Yeah, there's not a TON of info out there. Kind of uncharted waters to an extent. Here's some info:

http://www.thevintageknob.org/KENWOOD/KD500/KD500.html

Paul

There are a couple of reasons why Kenwoods get overlooked. Up to the KD 500 and the other bathtub models, Kenwoods were weren't particularly distinctive -- most of the models from most manufacturers were very similar (since, apparently, most of them were sctually built by CEC). The Pioneer PL 12D, and to a lesser extent, the Sansui SR 222, seem to have stood out, but I suspect this was partly a result of being there first.
When Kenwood came out with the KD 500, it was distinctive and early. Direct drive was the coming thing it was thought, and it had the merit of addressing a real issue for direct drives -- acoustic interference or feedback -- and being available without an arm, which meant that audiophiles were more likely to look at it. It got an excellent review in TAS, and even the armed version was pretty well recieved.
But there was a problem, which is that mass loading doesn't negate vibration, it merely spreads it out, so while you don't have feedback, you do have constant release of low level interference. The reviewer for TAS had used the table in a different room than his speakers were in, but when the table was used by others, they were bothered by interference and the review was disowned. And there was another problem, which is that some people found that the platter didn't keep absolute speed under heavy tracking forces (moving coils) and high groove modulation -- apparently the platter was lighter than it needed to be, especially if you replaced Kenwood's heavy rubber mat with something lighter.
This all lead to a loss of appeal to the high end which was going in the direction of belt driven suspended suchasis tables with moving coil cartridges. And the weight of the tables meant shipping was more expensive, and the sorts of specs that the general public took seriously didn't really show up the merits of the tables.
And then along came CDs.
I have a KD 500. I like it. It sounds good, is reliable and very convenient. I don't play music all that loudly and the table is far from the speakers. I've never heard any interference. And I use a heavy mat, so I don't have speed problems. More important, for a while I replaced it with a Sonographe, which though it took me time to realise that the reviewers could be wrong, was such a disappointment -- terrible pitch stability, and dreadfully built -- that it gave me a new respect for the Kenwood.
I am not using it right now since I have a big Micro Seiki, but I popped it in a month or two ago, and was quite impressed.
The public's enthusiasms are unfair, but be happy that it depresses prices.

There are a couple of reasons why Kenwoods get overlooked. Up to the KD 500 and the other bathtub models, Kenwoods were weren't particularly distinctive -- most of the models from most manufacturers were very similar (since, apparently, most of them were sctually built by CEC). The Pioneer PL 12D, and to a lesser extent, the Sansui SR 222, seem to have stood out, but I suspect this was partly a result of being there first.
When Kenwood came out with the KD 500, it was distinctive and early. Direct drive was the coming thing it was thought, and it had the merit of addressing a real issue for direct drives -- acoustic interference or feedback -- and being available without an arm, which meant that audiophiles were more likely to look at it. It got an excellent review in TAS, and even the armed version was pretty well recieved.
But there was a problem, which is that mass loading doesn't negate vibration, it merely spreads it out, so while you don't have feedback, you do have constant release of low level interference. The reviewer for TAS had used the table in a different room than his speakers were in, but when the table was used by others, they were bothered by interference and the review was disowned. And there was another problem, which is that some people found that the platter didn't keep absolute speed under heavy tracking forces (moving coils) and high groove modulation -- apparently the platter was lighter than it needed to be, especially if you replaced Kenwood's heavy rubber mat with something lighter.
This all lead to a loss of appeal to the high end which was going in the direction of belt driven suspended suchasis tables with moving coil cartridges. And the weight of the tables meant shipping was more expensive, and the sorts of specs that the general public took seriously didn't really show up the merits of the tables.
And then along came CDs.
I have a KD 500. I like it. It sounds good, is reliable and very convenient. I don't play music all that loudly and the table is far from the speakers. I've never heard any interference. And I use a heavy mat, so I don't have speed problems. More important, for a while I replaced it with a Sonographe, which though it took me time to realise that the reviewers could be wrong, was such a disappointment -- terrible pitch stability, and dreadfully built -- that it gave me a new respect for the Kenwood.
I am not using it right now since I have a big Micro Seiki, but I popped it in a month or two ago, and was quite impressed.
The public's enthusiasms are unfair, but be happy that it depresses prices.

Nat,

Excellent post :tresbon:

Thank you!
Paul

I was selling Kenwood when the KD-500 was available and we sold the Phillips and Luxman tables a bunch. Kenwoods were not that popular in the store, maybe because belt drive was the thing and for direct drive, we had the Luxman line.

I had a KD-500 with a Mayware Formula 4 III and let it go years ago and don't remember how. A friend still has a KD-500 with the ∞Black Widow. I liked that table.

I agree with Nat in that the Kenwood tables were just another table, nothing distinguishing them so they seem overlooked.

I recently acquired a KD-30555 (belt drive, marble base) which is an excellent table - rock solid speed and very nice sounding. I don't have a lot to compare it to, but definitely the best TT I've ever owned. And you gotta love those cosmetics.

I've wound up, through the vagaries of Craigslist and thrift shops, with an almost entirely vintage Kenwood system and I'm very pleased with the overall sound and performance of the gear. And the fact that prices haven't gone apesh*t crazy like they have with Marantz and Sansui means I can keep experimenting with new toys.

One of the first TT's I picked up when I decided to start playing records again was a Kenwood KD-5066. Nice styling, as full featured as I would ever need, even has a level built into the base. Good sounding table, I put it up on the bay last year with a minimum of $50.00 to try and show I was willing to get rid of stuff to upgrade, didn't get a bid, and I'm damned glad. I still swap it in to make some casette recordings for the old car. :D