Dual CS505-1 vs CS-606

That would be direct drive vs belt drive. I prefer the belt drive because it is simpler electronically. Also depends on what cart is installed and the condition of any two TT's you are comparing. All things being equal though the 606 is probably higher in the food chain than the 505.
 
I'd choose the CS-606 - here's why:

The CS-606 was a more upmarket model with better performance, while the CS-505 was the budget model in the Dual hi-fi (single play) turntable range, in the early-1980’s. From Australian Hi-fi’s Stereo Buyer’s Guide Turntables No.10 (year 1981) the CS-505-1 cost AUD $229, while the CS-606 cost $479, so it was more than twice the price. Because of its direct drive, the 606 has much lower noise (rumble) and wow and flutter (speed variations), and is slightly heavier. The 606’s rumble also occurs at a sub-audible frequency, due to the much lower motor speed.

The CS-606 has a very lightweight (effective mass 5.5g) tonearm, so will handle high compliance cartridges very well, but medium or low compliance cartridges less well. A cartridge with an ideal tracking force of less than 1.75g would be best. It also had an adjustable damping system for the low frequency resonance, based on some mechanism inside the main counterweight, which apparently worked reasonably well, according to reviews of the time. Tonearm/cartridge low frequency resonance is one of the worst deficiencies of analogue reproduction which has a great effect on the quality of audio fidelity and cartridge tracking, so some tonearm or turntable manufacturers developed their own systems of damping it.

The CS-505-1 tonearm is also very low mass, but doesn’t have the adjustable damping, and although the platter has stroboscope markings, you needed to supply your own strobe light, as that wasn’t included in a budget model like the 505-1. No doubt that platter was 'borrowed' from a higher level model, possibly the CS-506, that included a strobe.

Personally, I’d choose the CS-606, if it’s working well, as it has better performance, a better tonearm, and a superior method of platter drive, which doesn’t need periodic maintenance (belt changes). It also has useful extra features, such as an inbuilt stroboscope, a greater range of pitch adjustment, and resonance damping for better sound.
 
I'd choose the CS-606 - here's why:

The CS-606 was a more upmarket model with better performance, while the CS-505 was the budget model in the Dual hi-fi (single play) turntable range, in the early-1980’s. From Australian Hi-fi’s Stereo Buyer’s Guide Turntables No.10 (year 1981) the CS-505-1 cost AUD $229, while the CS-606 cost $479, so it was more than twice the price. Because of its direct drive, the 606 has much lower noise (rumble) and wow and flutter (speed variations), and is slightly heavier. The 606’s rumble also occurs at a sub-audible frequency, due to the much lower motor speed.

The CS-606 has a very lightweight (effective mass 5.5g) tonearm, so will handle high compliance cartridges very well, but medium or low compliance cartridges less well. A cartridge with an ideal tracking force of less than 1.75g would be best. It also had an adjustable damping system for the low frequency resonance, based on some mechanism inside the main counterweight, which apparently worked reasonably well, according to reviews of the time. Tonearm/cartridge low frequency resonance is one of the worst deficiencies of analogue reproduction which has a great effect on the quality of audio fidelity and cartridge tracking, so some tonearm or turntable manufacturers developed their own systems of damping it.

The CS-505-1 tonearm is also very low mass, but doesn’t have the adjustable damping, and although the platter has stroboscope markings, you needed to supply your own strobe light, as that wasn’t included in a budget model like the 505-1. No doubt that platter was 'borrowed' from a higher level model, possibly the CS-506, that included a strobe.

Personally, I’d choose the CS-606, if it’s working well, as it has better performance, a better tonearm, and a superior method of platter drive, which doesn’t need periodic maintenance (belt changes). It also has useful extra features, such as an inbuilt stroboscope, a greater range of pitch adjustment, and resonance damping for better sound.

Just my 2 cents.....

I agree that the 606 is higher in the food chain, but I recently worked on a Dual 604 direct drive with the adjustable damping. In my opinion the extra bells and whistles are diminishing returns in trade for more potential problems. That's why I would lean toward the simpler belt drive, but only if the cart is good quality in the belt drive and only if the condition justifies the choice. Here's the kind of trouble I had.....

My 604 had the dreaded "dangling counterweight" problem. The damping is provided by having the counterweight held on by a spring with a rubber pad. It's supposed to be bouncy and add some kind of damping, but inevitably there is a glued part (The rubber pad) that lets go after years and the weight just squats down and touches the cover and does nothing for the dampening it was designed to do. The direct drive speed is all electronic - no mechanical speed adjustment. By now the electrolytic caps have aged and could be causing problems. If you don't mind doing work and you have the skills then go for the more complicated TT. In terms of wow and flutter, I've never heard a difference in properly working units between belt and direct drive. It's below my threshold of hearing to tell the difference.

So a lot of what I have added is my opinion and is based on my personal experience. YMMV.
 
I own a 606 that I purchased new in 1979. One of the drawbacks is the ULM head shell. It really restricts the cartridge choices that you have. The original Ortofon Dual spec'd low mass cartridge is good. Finding replacement stylus can be expensive. If you want to change over to a half inch cartridge you have to find a half inch cartridge adapter and add a weight to the tone arm. They are available. The big problem that I discovered is that you may need to replace the head shell wires to ones of a larger diameter as the original ones are of a much smaller diameter. I ended changing the wires and in the process having to take the tone arm apart. Big mistake. I am now in the process of getting this turntable evaluated for a repair. If you are fine with the ULM cartridge, the 606 is a very fine machine.
 
I own a 606 that I purchased new in 1979. One of the drawbacks is the ULM head shell. It really restricts the cartridge choices that you have. The original Ortofon Dual spec'd low mass cartridge is good. Finding replacement stylus can be expensive. If you want to change over to a half inch cartridge you have to find a half inch cartridge adapter and add a weight to the tone arm. They are available. The big problem that I discovered is that you may need to replace the head shell wires to ones of a larger diameter as the original ones are of a much smaller diameter. I ended changing the wires and in the process having to take the tone arm apart. Big mistake. I am now in the process of getting this turntable evaluated for a repair. If you are fine with the ULM cartridge, the 606 is a very fine machine.

That's a very good point that I missed on my post. The stock Ortofon cartridges are pretty good. I have recently refurbished a Dual 506 with an Ortofon. I didn't have any trouble finding an aftermarket stylus for it that was affordable. If the table already has a 1/2" cart then it probably has the adapter and then your upgrade options open up. Just know that with the low mass arms you'll want to get a cart that will work with that level of compliance (medium to high). You'll want to compare which cart is in each turntable you are evaluating and include that in the decision. When carts starting getting involved, then it becomes a lot more about what are your goals and preferences.
 
Thanks for your valuable input everyone! I ended up getting the 606 as the seller had fully serviced it (he repairs TTs full time) and it plays great. It has an Audio Technica cartridge (with the adapter, I believe) and a new stylus. However, the cartridge is medium compliance. The seller told me not to worry about spending money on a new one, but knowing that the ULM is best suited for high compliance, what do you think? My budget is tight, however, I don't want to damage any records due to the wrong cartridge being matched up. Grateful for any further advice!

Thanks again. As a first time poster and turntable owner (I've just listened to a roommate's CEC the past several years), this forum was a huge resource for making my decision and finding the right used TT.
 
Good for you! Glad you are happy with your selection.

The medium compliance cart will be fine. Take a listen and see if you like how the current cart sounds.
 
Keep the cartridge especially if you have the adaptor and balance weight. It is a total PITA to go to the ULM and limits your future choices.
 
I've got the 606 and I love it. I have a Grado Red on it and it sounds great. It is the only semi-auto turntable I have and it handy now and then.
I have the standard mount adapter on mine and had to get some tonearm weights off of eBay for it to take the Grado. I did use the ULM when
I first got it, but I definitely prefer the Grado.

IMG_20181011_101744.jpg IMG_20181011_101750.jpg
 
I really like the plinth. Mine has the cheesy plastic vinyl walnut. Did it come with table?
 
Ok. I would have bought that just for the looks. Very pretty. I'd like to know where the plinth came from.
 
I really like the plinth. Mine has the cheesy plastic vinyl walnut. Did it come with table?

No mine came with a wrecked particle board vinyl plinth. I got it for $15 off CL. The Piano black plinth I bought from a seller on eBay in Germany.
I think there is a person or two that makes plinths here in the US. I added new audio and power cables as the originals were rusted. Motor squeaked
so it sat it lube for days upon days and stopped finally. I did find a NOS motor for it so that is sitting on the shelf.
 
No mine came with a wrecked particle board vinyl plinth. I got it for $15 off CL. The Piano black plinth I bought from a seller on eBay in Germany.
I think there is a person or two that makes plinths here in the US. I added new audio and power cables as the originals were rusted. Motor squeaked
so it sat it lube for days upon days and stopped finally. I did find a NOS motor for it so that is sitting on the shelf.

I have never seen one of these. That is a beautiful plinth. Specs are good. Think you were wise going with the Grado. Prefer the half inch mounts. You can play with different carts. Never liked P mounts on Technics. Carts for amateurs. Sorry. To you and the OP enjoy!

Eric
 
Can anyone tell me what the torque of the motor is supposed to be like? I plays fine, but the torque is so low, I can't clean my records on it with my record brush! I have no problem on my PL-540 as it is a beast when it comes to the torque. Any help greatly appreciated...
 
The 505 is belt drive: not as much torque as the direct drive PL-540. The Dual should still be able to handle a dry carbon fiber brush. But if you are trying to use something like a Discwasher wet brush, that won't work. Do that on a countertop or on a trash turntable.
 
The 505 is belt drive: not as much torque as the direct drive PL-540. The Dual should still be able to handle a dry carbon fiber brush. But if you are trying to use something like a Discwasher wet brush, that won't work. Do that on a countertop or on a trash turntable.
Yeah, I noticed, and it is a 606 direct drive. That is why I was questioning it. for now, I just spin the label with my right hand and clean with my left. I love how well the Discwasher D3 system works and I have the vinylstyl system for deep cleaning, you know, the one like the spin clean?
 
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread.
Good choice with the 606, BTW. As long as the spindle bearing is robust, no problem with D3 right on the turntable. I did this with my SL-1200 for years before I got my SpinClean.
Before that I had a cheap plastic p-mount Akai, and I think pushing down too hard on the platter with the brush led to its motor malfunction.
 
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread.
Good choice with the 606, BTW. As long as the spindle bearing is robust, no problem with D3 right on the turntable. I did this with my SL-1200 for years before I got my SpinClean.
Before that I had a cheap plastic p-mount Akai, and I think pushing down too hard on the platter with the brush led to its motor malfunction.
Using the D3 cleaning system, you have to push down pretty hard so the record will spin! I never thought of that, but it won't work any other way. My Pioneer PL-540 has awesome torque and I don't have this issue at all...
 
Back
Top Bottom