LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  July 2013

ARSCLIST July 2013

Subject:

Re: Turntable Recommendation ?

From:

Roderic G Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Roderic G Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:47:43 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (105 lines)

I wrote previously:
"I've had an Esoteric turntable for a number of years and find it to be quite trustworthy and sturdy as well as producing great sound for the three speeds and types of disks.  The Rek-O-Kut CVS-14 is the current version of it, since it's been sold under various names.  This is one of the major vendors:  

http://www.esotericsound.com/turntable.htm"

I was wrong.  My Esoteric is a 16" capable turntable, so I would guess it's comparable to the CVS-16.


________________________________
 From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?
 

Hi John:

The SL-1600 was less robust and was a fully-auto turntable. The MKII version has a known issue with one of the little belts in the automatic mechanism. I think most of us who transfer grooved disks in a semi-pro or pro environment want fully manual tables and want a very robust build. The SL-1200 models offered all of that. KAB's mods make them excellent for 78 transfers. I really think the fluid damping is key since many 78s you find these days can be warped or were pressed off-center in the first place. The fluid damping stops some of the tonearm jiggle so it can track at a reasonable weight and stay in the groove.

Shai is right about the EMT tables having lower rumble specs. But they cost a fortune and are complex and don't have a reputation of being indestructable like the Technics 1200's. I've found that you can lower the rumble spec on your Technics by first of all making sure you're using the heavier rubber mat (which was standard on at least the MKIV and MKV models) and more importantly using a spindle clamp like what KAB sells. Regarding rumble, it's also worth noting that _many_ "golden era" records had rumble baked in, also audible hum and of course extra hiss from the tube cutting electronics. The baked-in noise was much less in the era after Neumann took over and dominated the lathe market, but Neumann's automation parameters led to either timid (too low overall level) or dynamics-compromised cuts by too many engineers. Some guys figured out how to push the envelope with dynamics, and apparently passed this on to the modern generation of cutters. That
 said, the modern way seems to be use a lower overall level, allowing "safe" headroom for the automation, and then press on super-quiet vinyl. That works, too, but makes the rumble spec on your turntable more important since you need to then playback at a higher overall level. In other words, the s/n onus is now more in the playback stage, as was traditionally the case with European cuts. "Golden Age" American cuts tended to concentrate on maximum overall level while still accomodating dynamics (or not -- ie AM radio singles). The reason was that pressing would inevitably be on noisy vinyl. Even prime-era RCA Indianapolis vinyl is much more noisy than typical British, Dutch or German pressings of that same era. And every other company's US plants produced noisier records than RCA. Columbia massively improved their vinyl by the late 60s, but then were going with paper-thin records so the flimsy problems replaced the noisy problems. I have never heard an
 LP, pre-1970s, from Mercury, Atlantic, Capitol or US Decca/ABC/MCA plants that isn't on relatively noisy vinyl. Mercury's Richmond IN plant was the worst offender, followed by whatever plant Atlantic used.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?


> You're right, Ellis.  It's the CVS-16, not 14.  And I see the not-great wow
> and flutter spec.  I haven't noticed that because I use it only for 78's.
> 
> Looking at the wow and flutter specs for the Technics SL-1600, it says it
> is .025 (the SL-1200 is .01).  Other than this, I wonder why the SL-1200
> models are so preferred over the SL-1600 models?
> 
> Best,
> John Haley
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Milan P. Milovanovic <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Dear David,
>> 
>> just to put some correction here: there are no such thing as Technics "DJ
>> model" turntable. If it is talk about SL-1200 it is model fully developed
>> as part of their Hi-Fi program, and later accepted by DJ community because
>> of its solid, almost indestructible built.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Milan
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Seubert" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:41 PM
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?
>> 
>> 
>>  If you can locate a Technics SL1015 R&B (Radio and Broadcast) you might
>>> consider that as a step up from the Technics DJ models. We bought a used
>>> one last year for a little over $1000. It's three speed and pitch is
>>> adjustable in .1% increments.
>>> 
>>> I had unlimited money, I'd buy an EMT 950.
>>> 
>>> David Seubert
>>> UCSB
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]**GOV <[log in to unmask]>] On
>>> Behalf Of Tom Diamant
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:54 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?
>>> 
>>> The three speed turntable of the Arhoolie Foundation has died and I don't
>>> know if it's repairable.  We're looking for a good replacement.
>>> Here's what we need.
>>> 1. Three speed
>>> 2. Variable pitch
>>> 3. Sturdy (we use it every day, all day long) 4. good specs (low rumble,
>>> low wow & flutter) 5. Although we have yet to have a use for a turntable
>>> that can play 16 inch transcriptions, it perhaps might be something we
>>> would look at.
>>> 6. Not insanely expensive!
>>> 
>>> I'm sure many of you know more about this than I do, so any recommendation
>>> would be appreciated.
>>> Tom Diamant
>>> Arhoolie foundation
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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