What Carl says... I second! Except when he writes that a good TT cannot improve the quality of music -- well maybe not, but it sure can improve the quality of performance! The TTs at Sony were Rockports. On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I didn't intend to brag to the list about my cool record player, as that > note was intended just for Tom. But I would like folks to understand that > there is a benefit to the seeming overkill of high-end players, at least to > some point of diminishing returns. It's true that expensive record players > manage to reveal more imperfections in the average LP or 45, but a good one > will also make the music sound better (better sound, not quality of > music!). > Hard to describe but obvious when heard. > > Typically, more micro-dynamic detail gets uncovered, so the music sounds > bigger, more expressive and alive. Loud impulses become cleaner and sharper > because there is less of the energy lost by absorption in flexing of the > tonearm structure and its mounting. A decrease in such resonances will also > make small details apparent and timbres more clear as a bunch of complex > sympathetic vibrations are not superimposed on the music. BTW, it is those > vibrations that make valid the idea of a turntable having a "sound" - a > timbral coloration that overlays everything played on it. > > What is most surprising about a good high-end record player is how much > quieter the background noise becomes. A reasonable explanation can be > imagined: any steady-state vibration (surface noise, lathe rumble) will > excite resonances in the tonearm, platter, and plinth structure/materials, > adding to the amplitude of that unwanted part of the signal. Preventing or > suppressing those resonances will decrease the noise relative to the music > vibrations, allowing the music to stand out in greater relief, with > subjectively lower background noise. > > When I read here of the efforts of people trying with software to minimize > noise from LP transfers, I wonder how much easier they would have it with a > better turntable system that itself would generate less noise of this sort. > I can play garage sale records, dusted with a carbon-fiber brush but not > yet > cleaned on my VPI machine, usually without any of the stereotypical crackle > people expect to hear as the sound of records. Not to say there aren't > relatively inexpensive overachievers. Sadly, too few on today's market. > > One of the nice things about microgroove is that you can keep getting more > and more from it as the playback gets more refined. Are those Living Stereo > SACDs better than vintage/Classic pressings? Yes, I'm sure they win on > points - Das Lied von der Erde is completely transformed, so a big grateful > hug to Mark Donahue. Yet there is some magical historicism to the LP > experience that is worthwhile, if only for the connection it provides to > the > old ways, aspects of the producer's original intent, or to our personal > memories of those musical discoveries. Or that, absent good remastering, > it's still the best way to hear many recordings (i.e. Motown, whose CD > reissues have been unauthentic in my experience). > > BTW, maybe someone can comment about the beautiful record player that was > at > Sony studios NYC - I can't remember the make. Forssell? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:37 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] High-end turntable > > Hi Carl: > > You are right about the Philips with floor vibrations. Cheapo feet are the > reason. I use an old IBM > typewriter pad that used to sit under the Selectric typewriters so they > wouldn't vibrate a desk. > Plus it's on top of a heavy file cabinet sitting on a concrete slab, > nowhere > near any woofers. The > touch-sensitive buttons were a koolio feature in the early 80's (along with > big hair and > "Flashdance"), but they get very insensitive over time. I now have to blow > on my fingertips before > operating them or they won't sense any touch. I'm not dead, but I do have > dry hands and fingers. My > mother (the original owner) had the same problem with those buttons. At her > house, the turntable was > in a cabinet that had cement under it and the speakers were in a different > room, so no vibration > feedback problems. > > In the case of both the Philips and the Technics servo systems, there's > plenty of feedback to make > speed accuracy and pitch accuracy if the system is functioning. One system > that could get tripped up > was Denon, which had two tape heads and a magnetic ring inside the platter > as its system. That's > only about one data point per second (2x 33 1/3 per minute), and some > people > can hear the system > adjust speed on tracking-challenge stuff like fff to ppp on a good > classical > recording. I saw that > tape-head and fixed magnet system used in one other place -- on AutoTec > tape > decks, that's how > motion-sensing was done. Ampex used a light source, strobe wheel and > light-detector on the AG-440C. > I was taught old-school about tape spooling, and don't trust any motion > sensing system. I always > "rock and roll" to a dead stop, then hit stop. Diverging ... > > Anyway, as I've said numerous times, there is only so much "perfection" > you're going to eek out of > the _vast_ majority of LP records. Even a modest modern system (due to > low-noise phono preamps and > the general availability of decently compliant cartridges) will reveal how > much rumble and hum and > hiss is baked into the "golden era" records. Listen on headphones and it > all > hangs out. The early > Westrex stereo cutters were tough beasts to wrangle, and the old lathes > were > rumbling to varying > degrees of audibility. Plus the old tape machines had relatively high noise > floors, old tapes > hissed, etc. The problem with most "audiophile" records is that the content > sucks and isn't worth > hearing, performance-wise and/or recording-wise. Some reissue LPs of more > recent vintage are > wonderful exceptions to that admittedly blanket statement. > > -- Tom Fine > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carl" <[log in to unmask]> > To: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:11 PM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] High-end turntable > > > > Pardon the imprecise language, professor. I mean to say the best playback > of LP I have yet heard. > > :) > > > > You mean the Philips model that used touch-sensitive buttons? I had one > of > those around 1978. It > > was good, but the suspension was very sensitive to footfalls. Speed is > not > the only thing that's > > important, but it should be right. The original Rega Planar 3s ran fast! > (Purposely?) On how many > > TTs can you hear the pitch go up after a loud passage? You're right about > the Slovak stuff - > > they're toys. I'd rather have what I think you've got - Technics? But > then > it would be fun to put > > yours next to a mid-range Rega, and compare them for overall tunage. The > Technics would probably > > win for value, but of course, that's a very personal evaluation. > > > > Small things mean a lot with this black magic stuff, and they cost. The > tonearm is important and > > so is the way it interacts with the rest of the structure. The fewer you > sell, the more expensive > > each is, forming a commercial feedback loop. I know from working in > high-end retail, that nobody > > actually pays $170,000 or $35,000 for one of these things, unless the > buyer's favorite charity is > > his audio dealer. On the Clearaudio, the customer could demand a 25% > discount and the dealer would > > still make $15,000. No dealer would say no, right? > > > > Now, the question of value, .... that machine looks absurd. Clearaudio's > normal stuff pales in > > comparison to SME's workmanship, but their stuff generally is better than > VPI or others at below > > 8k (my buddy is a dealer for those makes and others). The SME's price > makes some sense given the > > scope of the market, inherent quality, and the performance you get. > Seriously. I have owned (of > > the good ones) Thorens, Luxman, Oracle, Micro Seiki, VPI, Nottingham, and > now for some years the > > modest little SME 10. They're all good, all different, and there is a > hierarchy of reproduction > > quality that, to me, is worthwhile. > > > > In high-end audio, high cost also is its own priority. It is sometimes > money for nothing and when > > it is shysterism, that's wrong. I'm okay with your populist sentiment, > Tom. I've spent most of > > life on a shoestring and right now Micky and I are literally below > poverty > income - only partially > > by choice. So far, it has made sense to me to have a better TT than a > car. > Hope that doesn't > > change! >