 |
 |
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: > > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >