LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2012

ARSCLIST August 2012

Subject:

Re: Stanton Turntables

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:06:38 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (177 lines)

Hi Roger:

I usually don't bother responding to ignorant blanket statements, but since I've seen one of those 
Crosley things in person, I can tell you for sure that the "Stanton" (and Music Hall and Numark, all 
similar things) is of vastly superior design and build quality. The Crosley has a "tonearm" that 
almost hangs in space and seems to be made of solid plastic like a toy. I'm not even sure it has a 
magnetic cartridge. The "tonearm" also acts as an on/off switch. It doesn't track as heavy as I bet 
your old 60's console record-wrecker (changer) does, but it has no tracking weight set or anti-skate 
mechanism that I could see.

Meanwhile the "Stanton"/Music Hall/Numark turntables are all reasonably close knockoffs of the 
Technics 1200 series. They have a similar S-shaped tonarm with a knockoff gimbel pivot, 
spring-loaded anti-skate system and adjustable/stable counterweight. They also accept standard 
Technics-style screw-in headshells and the alignment length is the same as Technics so a handy 
Technics alignment gauge works for any of these turntables (plus the "Stanton" 150 model, I'm 
betting). As I clearly stated, it's not a Technics, but it's a pretty good knockoff for the price, 
especially since Technics has now exited the turntable market.

Also, I did not specifically criticize you for loving an old console stereo, but I sure won't loan 
you any of my records to play on it! What's it got, one of those Garrard puck-drive monsters that 
can't hold speed (especially when the puck is 50+ years worn out), slams records on top of other 
records and then grinds down the grooves at 3+ grams tracking weight? The _only_ 1961 vintage 
turntables I'd ever let my records near are the light-tracking non-changer models like the Thorens, 
which were a whole other cut of price and class compared to the console stereos.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stanton Turntables


Geez a Stanton USB turntable.Not much better than a Crosley in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo6y2S-MTpo

And you criticized me for loving my 1961 Magnavox Imperial console.Which,while not a Concert 
Grand,mops the floor with most component turntable systems of the last forty odd years or so.

Roger




________________________________
 From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stanton Turntables

Hi Martin:

Mine is a T.92USB, and the built-in preamp and USB generator are definitely not very good. I take 
the straight output from the tonearm (it's available via a switch on the back -- one way routes the 
tonearm to the RCA jacks directly, the other way routes to the built-in preamp board, which then 
outputs to the USB and the RCA jacks). Agree that switching tonearm-level audio is NOT good 
practice, but this thing doesn't buzz or hum, it runs as quiet as the preamp (I use a Cambridge 
Audio preamp with a Stanton 681EEE cartridge to listen to LPs, swap in a Stanton 500 with 78 needle 
for wide-grooves -- so again nothing too audiophillic about any of this but it works fine for my 
needs).

I would say the overall build quality of this thing is not up to Technics, but it's not terrible. I 
think it's more rumbly (as measured by me) basically because the tonearm isn't quite Technics 
quality and therefore might resonate or otherwise transfer more motor rumble, and the isolation 
isn't as good as Technics. However, for listening enjoyment in the workshop (with near-field 
Wharfedale speakers) and definitely as a handy way to preview records from the library shelves in 
the same room, it's very handy. I bought it as B-stock from ZZSounds in NJ, so it wasn't very 
costly.

The 150 model seems to be a better unit overall. ZZSounds seems to have it in stock, including a 
resealed one for even less money:
http://www.zzounds.com/item--STAST150HP
I can't tell from the photo if this unit has a cue-lifter, but otherwise the tonearm looks more 
solidly Technics-like than the T.92's.

One thing I did that cut the rumble down considerably was replace the crapola felt "slip-mat" that 
came with the unit. I swapped in a real-deal Technics heavy rubber mat, and I also use the KAB 
clamp. Between the two measures, it does not produce audible rumble on the smaller speakers but 
looking at a frequency spectrum shows there is rumble present, although not at terrible levels. 
Higher rumble levels than a Technics playing the same records (especially at 78RPM) but nothing like 
an old puck-drive broadcast TT from the 60's.

As for torque and startup, the T.92 is plenty peppy, and I assume the ST.150 is the same or moreso.

One thing I recommend is look at similar (obviously made by the same Chinese outsourcer) turntables 
from Numark, Music Hall, and I think others. In fact I think I just saw a version of this from 
Pro-Ject and/or Rega, but I can't remember where.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Fisher" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:39 AM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Stanton Turntables


> Hey Tom,
>
> Which Stanton turntable model do you have and what do you mean by "more-rumbly"? I've been 
> considering a Stanton ST.150 (the one with the S tonearm) for some special project work but can't 
> find a retailer who carries them in my area to test drive one. I've already got a Techniques 1200 
> modded for 78 by KAB which I'm quite happy with. The major considerations for the Stanton are the 
> boosted torque and expanded speed deviation.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Martin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 8:13 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Styli
>
> The "Stanton" turntables of recent vintage were clearly outsourced from a Chinese supplier. I say 
> this because similar versions of their Technics 1200 knockoffs are sold by Numark, Music Hall and 
> others. I bought a "Stanton" version of that turntable a year or so ago and like it very much in 
> my workshop/library room. It behaves like a more-rumbly 1200 but has the advantage of built-in 
> 78RPM.
>
> Good to know about the end of "Stanton" catrdiges (which I would bet have been outsourced in 
> recent years), so I'll buy up a couple extra stylii for my Stanton 500.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Seubert" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Styli
>
>
> Coincidentally I just talked to both Full Compass and Esoteric Sound this morning about Stanton
> cartridges. I was told that Stanton is technically still an operating division of Gibson, but that
> it is very difficult to get anything from them. I also was told they shuttered the factory, so 
> that
> may explain the long lead times (aka forever) in securing stock. Their product is still listed as
> available on websites like Full Compass since it's technically still being made. Esoteric does 
> have
> Stanton product in stock, Full Compass was all special order.
>
> I like Shure better anyway so I'm not really crying over this, but it's always nice to have 
> options.
>
> David Seubert
> UCSB
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Breneman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 1:28:35 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Styli
>
>
> From: Kevin P. Mostyn <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>> I recently tried to order some more custom styli from Expert Stylus for a
>> Stanton 500 but was informed that Stanton has essentially left the phono
>> cartridge business, at least for now and perhaps forever, due to their
>> purchase by Gibson Guitars. Expert suggested that I turn to Shure or
>> Ortofon. Ortofon is out of my price range, so I'm looking at Shure. I know
>> that some U.S. dealers still have Expert-Tipped Stanton styli available but
>> I would like to find a long term solution.
>
> Interesting. I just checked Broadcast Supply's web site and they
> list four Stanton cartridges available, the 500V3, 520V3, 505V3,
> and 680V3MP4. Also 78 styli for their 500, 600 and 800-series
> cartridges. Also several Stanton turntables. Nothing in their
> closeout area.
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager