As I said previously, I know of the Esoteric 16" turntable used successfully for radio
transcriptions. In those cases, it was not a big deal to use DSP to remove the considerable rumble
(which may well have come in large part from the source cut). If I had a music laquer or very
high-fidelity transcription disk, I'd probably send it to someone with a higher-quality playback
system. A well-working Technics SP-15 mounted properly in a custom rig with an SME 16" tonearm seems
to be excellent, based on the results a fellow listmember has demonstrated using such a system.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roderic G Stephens" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?
>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:
> I was wrong. My Esoteric is a 16" capable turntable, so I would guess it's comparable to the
> 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?
>> 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,
>>> ----- 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
>>>> -----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