| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Analog Playback» Ultimate Turntable (185 posts, 10 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 8 of 10 (185 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 6 7 8 9 10 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Michael Fremer Continuums…..  Pre-manufactured box speaker...  Audio News Forum     54  418525  01-21-2006
  »  New  The Foolishness of Analog People..  Late to the discussion but cannot resist...  Analog Playback Forum     56  392302  01-30-2006
  »  New   A longer turntable belt...  SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...  Analog Playback Forum     60  356827  02-02-2006
  »  New  My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..  My analog setup update....  Analog Playback Forum     9  81305  04-04-2006
  »  New  Micro Seiki SZ-1T..  I guess it's my own fault....  Analog Playback Forum     2  24521  06-10-2008
  »  New  Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...  Will not work...  Analog Playback Forum     14  70383  11-26-2008
  »  New  Active Tonearm Monitoring System...  The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...  Analog Playback Forum     2  24076  07-14-2009
  »  New  The HoroMusic turnable...  And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...  Analog Playback Forum     6  45948  08-05-2009
  »  New  Audio Note new turntable and inflation..  When I see the crap like this thing…...  Analog Playback Forum     13  98978  01-03-2010
  »  New  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?..  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  11872  03-13-2010
  »  New  A turntable platter as a turbine?..  A turntable platter as a turbine?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  9418  10-27-2010
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 141
Post ID: 20781
Reply to: 20777
A Few Points
fiogf49gjkf0d
1- Romy, a $200 microscope was shit 30 years ago when I bought mine and is still a piece of shit today. Manufacturing 5-10 SX-8000 type tables a year is inexpensive, its when you go to 50-100 units a year, AF1 market, that cost of operations escalate significantly. Depending on the product the overhead costs in this category have to be amortized over 1000+ units/year not affect final pricing, not going to happen with AF1. You can't and shouldn't define cost vs value based on your wishes, the marketplace should be the judge. Of course that's if you believe in free markets. I don't know anyone who's paid anywhere close to the msrp flying around here.
2- rowuk, musical instruments and playback equipment have nothing in common. The musical instrument is an extension of the musician, the quality of the performance is dependent on the person actively manipulating it creating the performance. The best playback equipment are designed to get out of the way and create nothing. The average Joe sitting in the audience doesn't have to nor is he capable of distinguishing between quality or price of the instrument. Its the musician who should understand and appreciate the differences between instruments! Did you pay $13k for nothing? Final cost of a tt or your musical instrument is dependent on a lot of variables, how do you decide if or what is seriously wrong?
3- The very first true ultra high end REFERENCE quality turntable was the EMT 927 and arguably up to now it still remains as THE REFERENCE STANDARD. For the past 60 years there have been a number of different designs claiming Reference standards but imo only a handful deserve that title and only a couple of which could be called REFERENCE. Given the numerous number of tt manufacturers and turntables made compared to so few true REFERENCE tts, from where I'm sitting all this conjecture regarding design parameters, imo is nothing but mental masturbation!
david


05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 224
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 142
Post ID: 20782
Reply to: 20780
Platter evolution
fiogf49gjkf0d
If we look generally at stability from bridges to optical measurement benches, mass has one function - tune resonance or place it outside of the desired passband. Other methods are chosen when we want to convert energy to heat.

Do we know what a "lighter honeycomb" platter sounds like with the rigidity, and resonance optimization of a heavier unit (it is possible)? Can we say that we need the mass to "ground" the record? Where is that optimum resonance? Can we with confidence say that motors and energy transmission (rubber band, arimide fiber, idler wheel) are such shit that only mass can smooth them out? Is that what we are really hearing or is it an easy story to tell? Does the compliance of the cartridge play a role in the optimum mass tuning? Is the problem airborne vibration?

This is what I am talking about when I ask about "content". I have seen all sorts of stability pseudoarguments that could have merit when we are grinding lenses for the next telescope project. Sure, more stabile is always "better" - but how does that relate to Sound? If we simply keep adding mass, what happens to the Sound vs the environmental effects. What are we hearing that is supposedly "so" different?

I guess that part of my thoughts come from the fact that I have heard enough EMT (928/930), Thorens TD125, Linn Sondek LP12, even the top Dual CS series TTs that really sounded great in appropriate systems. Bass extension, contour, space around the instruments, stability of pitch, sense of pitch all were/are of great measure. Perhaps in another category? I am not sure where the differences could be because I am sure that a set up optimized around an LP12 will perhaps NOT be optimal with a very massive deck. I used a Revox 700 for playback of 38cm half track original tapes (popular in the 60s in Germany) and was able to compare the sound between the record and "tape master dub".

I am not saying that the AF1 is NOT a statement, I simply have not seen/heard what I consider valid arguments for better Sound at any price. If the achievement is just "more of what we suspected all along", then the tales to be told can indeed be very subjective/suggestive. The AF2, 3, 4 can weigh twice as much and the price linearly adjusted.

A turntable remains a highly resonant creature regardless. The cantilever, the record itself, the susceptibility to environmental conditions ALL change the groove to something sonically very individual. It is NEVER a copy of the original. Perhaps well set up systems can compensate sins to get a balanced "sound". If I want reference, then there are more reliable and consistent ways to get there (without the TT). Change the room temperature 5-10° and then check your playback characteristics........... Reference? Hardly. The disc changes its "hardness" and the cantilever suspension its "compliance". Maybe the goal of advanced record playback should NOT be playback, rather emotion........... In this respect a TT IS a musical instrument with tweakable response - not consistent reference playback.

Mental stroking is more prevalent when "magic through monumental" becomes the argument.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 143
Post ID: 20783
Reply to: 20781
A Few Points as well.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 dkarmeli wrote:
You can't and shouldn't define cost vs value based on your wishes, the marketplace should be the judge. Of course that's if you believe in free markets.

Well, you unwillingly are revealing the biggest secret of any civilized person: a sense of value is based only upon owner wished and nothing else. I have been practicing audio sine 8 years old and I wish I learned it sooner. David, please do not hallucinate about the existing of marketplace or rule of market in high end audio. Among all people you should know better. There is no market pricing in audio. There is only mental abuse and financial extortion in psychologically disturbed people in high end audio – that is how the prices are formed in high end. Your new TT is a great example. It cost $100K – for all intended purpose a high price. In 10 years let say 50 of them will be sold. Now, how many people among the 50 owner would realize or even understand the true sonic potential of this TT? You know that I very seldom ask question if I do not know the answers….
 dkarmeli wrote:
The best playback equipment are designed to get out of the way and create nothing.
Unfortunately it is juts bumper sticker comment and has nothing to do with applied audio.
 dkarmeli wrote:
…from where I'm sitting all this conjecture regarding design parameters, imo is nothing but mental masturbation!
It is juts your opinion but you are not interested in the subject of design parameters. The whole point of this thread is the design characteristic of hypothetically an ultimate turntable. You put yourself in some kind of special siting position but the fact that you “buy” TTs does not make you a valuable judge to evaluate conjectures regarding design parameters. You know well that there is a very big gap between making something from scratch and just using something.



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 144
Post ID: 20785
Reply to: 20783
Some more points
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:

David, please do not hallucinate about the existing of marketplace or rule of market in high end audio. Among all people you should know better. There is no market pricing in audio. There is only mental abuse and financial extortion in psychologically disturbed people in high end audio – that is how the prices are formed in high end. Your new TT is a great example. It cost $100K – for all intended purpose a high price. In 10 years let say 50 of them will be sold. Now, how many people among the 50 owner would realize or even understand the true sonic potential of this TT? You know that I very seldom ask question if I do not know the answers…. 

It depends on the product and the company, not all are thieves! 
As of now they are selling 50 - 60 units/year and cheaper AF2 will also be available shortly.
You seem to be obsessed with the $100k price, as I mentioned above that's not the street price. $100k is there to keep it the same as the European msrp. Do the math and see how you get there;
Factory cost and margin + International Wholesaler margin + shipping, import duty & vat + distributor margin + retail margin + weak obama dollar = $100k.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 dkarmeli wrote:
The best playback equipment are designed to get out of the way and create nothing.
Unfortunately it is juts bumper sticker comment and has nothing to do with applied audio.

If you say so…
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 dkarmeli wrote:
…from where I'm sitting all this conjecture regarding design parameters, imo is nothing but mental masturbation!
It is juts your opinion but you are not interested in the subject of design parameters. The whole point of this thread is the design characteristic of hypothetically an ultimate turntable. You put yourself in some kind of special siting position but the fact that you “buy” TTs does not make you a valuable judge to evaluate conjectures regarding design parameters. You know well that there is a very big gap between making something from scratch and just using something.

Please don't stop on my behalf, continue masturbating!
david
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 145
Post ID: 20786
Reply to: 20785
You understand what you want to understand
fiogf49gjkf0d
 dkarmeli wrote:

It depends on the product and the company, not all are thieves!
As of now they are selling 50 - 60 units/year and cheaper AF2 will also be available shortly.
You seem to be obsessed with the $100k price, as I mentioned above that's not the street price. $100k is there to keep it the same as the European msrp. Do the math and see how you get there;
Factory cost and margin + International Wholesaler margin + shipping, import duty & vat + distributor margin + retail margin + weak obama dollar = $100k.

Actually I am not obsessed with absolute price of this TT. I presume that the street price is very reasonably, particularly in comparing to many other near $100k TT that offer in fact very medical performance. I think you have miss my point all together. Regardless how much the TT actually costs: $10K , $40K or $60K the price is what we are willing to pay for it not what it "cost to make" and the price for the items like TT could and shall not be explained by "complexity of design" and "precision of making". There is nothing complex of precise in TTs for contemporary production technologies.  7 years back Leica lenses were polished by tips of fingers by pregnant women  and they use unique Australian sand to boil glass. Today that "uniqueness" does not exist and contemporary precision machining is just a basic norm. For sure there is uniqueness in today making but  it not among our turntables. uniqueness in TT is that other TT might sound like shit but this one might sound different, however it would not be because the "complexity of design" or "precision of making", the characteristics that you use to justify pricing.

You understand what you want to understand, the very same taking goes to your bitching about the "weak obama dollar". You are perfectly within your rights to hate Obama but you are blin that your favorite Bush crashed the dollar.
 
http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=USD&c2=JPY&days=3650
 
Not everything is perception, David, some perception has to be bind to reality....


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 146
Post ID: 20787
Reply to: 20786
Facts
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 dkarmeli wrote:

It depends on the product and the company, not all are thieves!
As of now they are selling 50 - 60 units/year and cheaper AF2 will also be available shortly.
You seem to be obsessed with the $100k price, as I mentioned above that's not the street price. $100k is there to keep it the same as the European msrp. Do the math and see how you get there;
Factory cost and margin + International Wholesaler margin + shipping, import duty & vat + distributor margin + retail margin + weak obama dollar = $100k.

Actually I am not obsessed with absolute price of this TT. I presume that the street price is very reasonably, particularly in comparing to many other near $100k TT that offer in fact very medical performance. I think you have miss my point all together. Regardless how much the TT actually costs: $10K , $40K or $60K the price is what we are willing to pay for it not what it "cost to make" and the price for the items like TT could and shall not be explained by "complexity of design" and "precision of making". There is nothing complex of precise in TTs for contemporary production technologies. 
 
We've been discussing the price of AF1 all this time and why it costs what it does, nothing to do with what one is willing to pay for it. 
 Romy the Cat wrote:
7 years back Leica lenses were polished by tips of fingers by pregnant women  and they use unique Australian sand to boil glass. Today that "uniqueness" does not exist and contemporary precision machining is just a basic norm. For sure there is uniqueness in today making but  it not among our turntables. uniqueness in TT is that other TT might sound like shit but this one might sound different, however it would not be because the "complexity of design" or "precision of making", the characteristics that you use to justify pricing.
 
If there's nothing to it why have there not been so very few true high end turntables in past 60 years since the EMT 927? Still today, we both know how shit almost all the turntables out there sound. In the case of AF1 I justify the street price based on production costs.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
You understand what you want to understand, the very same taking goes to your bitching about the "weak obama dollar". You are perfectly within your rights to hate Obama but you are blin that your favorite Bush crashed the dollar.
 
http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=USD&c2=JPY&days=3650
 
Not everything is perception, David, some perception has to be bind to reality....

The price was based on 2012 exchange rates, check them out! Yen has weakened since then but not Euro. Bush was not my favorite and my there's nothing blind about my disdain for BO, its with both eyes open. You're right, one of us is blind to reality; and its not me.
This is just a little brief simple article on the dollar and the debt, I won't even try to get into all the other things that are going wrong today...
http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/p/dollar_collapse.htm
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 147
Post ID: 20788
Reply to: 20786
Where Platter Mass Goes to Die
fiogf49gjkf0d
FYI, All, the platter mass discussion launches on page 2 of this thread. Maybe re-reading the thread will spark additional thoughts on these and other previously-discussed matters. At present, we seem to be going in circles.

David, looking at modern, Kansei engineering and manufacturing processes, how does current TT R&D and manufacturing draw on current SOTA methods, methodology and materials, really, given finite analyses, end to end, on the entire process? It appears to me that the biggest problems here are limited information sharing and resource pooling, along with a very small and relatively "volatile" market (ie, no "drivers"). Sure, this does "justify" current pricing. But it is equally "true" to say a TT could/should cost less, IF TTs were made like... potato chips. To date, it looks like the only TTs to benefit from anything even approaching up-to-date protocols are the "mass market" tables, where the aim is not all that high in the first place.

I agree with Romy that it certainly appears that all the pieces and parts are already "out there", just waiting to be put together. And I can't shake the idea that everything needed for the job has been around since the 60s, if not the 50s. By saying this, I don't mean to exclude more recent "developments". But I do mean to re-assert that current "technology", per se, is not the problem.


Paul S
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 224
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 148
Post ID: 20789
Reply to: 20788
I am getting dizzy
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Going in circles is bad for your health. Just like every other thread on expensive gear, the name calling starts where the good reason stops.

Regardless of how we calculate, 100K is artificial because there are people willing to pay it. It has NOTHING to do with superior or new technology. There is no reason for a turntable to cost as much as a Ferrari or Porsche. Those cars weigh more, have more engineering, horsepower and cost of construction and definitely can't be called "shit".

So maybe now that we have put the price into perspective, why not finally try to figure out what makes this thing supposedly so hot........

I found this for 25 grand (Euros). 
http://www.tw-acustic.de/de/laufwerke/raven-black-night

Seems to be a great deal. Even has a battery for the 3 motors to eliminate those contaminated electrons. It will hold 4 tonearms and got some great reviews here in Germany. I know that the guy from Cessaro uses it.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 149
Post ID: 20790
Reply to: 20787
I wish you were able to stop to be "owner"
fiogf49gjkf0d
 dkarmeli wrote:
We've been discussing the price of AF1 all this time and why it costs what it does, nothing to do with what one is willing to pay for it.
Actually I am not " discussing the price of AF1 all this time". The conversation about the general price of TTs started long time before your AF1 become even a subject. I think 10 years ago I wrote in an article "A Foolishness of analog people" where I postulated that $3000 worth Micro RX5000 is sane and reasonable balance between cost, value and performance. I did express doubts that reportedly better TTs, or objectively more expensive  TTs in fact over perform RX5000, or at least the level of potential over performance is realized by the system owners. If that proverbial RX5000 cost $3000 10 years back with all complexity of super duper precision manufacturing then how much shall it cost now? The answer is the same $3000. It is not a conversation about adjusted inflation but about the fact that for $3000 is perfectly possible to get a performance level for TT that would be VERY hard to beat, if the objective is not an intellectual masturbation but the actual result.
 
BTW, I do not against TT, or any other pieces of audio, because they cost a lot of money.
I own plenty of super expensive things that I do feel add to sonic result that I'm getting some benefits and I completely voluntary bought them. However, I also admit that I paid just because I wanted to do it and because there are plenty people like men not because the cost of the items presume some kind of quality. I do not say that when I pay for something a huge amount of money then I am fool. I however insist that there is nothing truly "unique" in many items I own and there is no reason for them to cost as they are.
 


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 150
Post ID: 20791
Reply to: 20789
Looks that way...
fiogf49gjkf0d
 rowuk wrote:
 Going in circles is bad for your health. Just like every other thread on expensive gear, the name calling starts where the good reason stops.

Regardless of how we calculate, 100K is artificial because there are people willing to pay it. It has NOTHING to do with superior or new technology. There is no reason for a turntable to cost as much as a Ferrari or Porsche. Those cars weigh more, have more engineering, horsepower and cost of construction and definitely can't be called "shit".

So maybe now that we have put the price into perspective, why not finally try to figure out what makes this thing supposedly so hot........

I found this for 25 grand (Euros). 
http://www.tw-acustic.de/de/laufwerke/raven-black-night

Seems to be a great deal. Even has a battery for the 3 motors to eliminate those contaminated electrons. It will hold 4 tonearms and got some great reviews here in Germany. I know that the guy from Cessaro uses it.

You'd think that by now there should be plenty of super duper tables out there for a very reasonable sum, but that's not the case. The Raven is a good table but still in USD, it costs quite a bit and sonically just on a par with a 30 year old RX-5000. Everything looks easy and simple specially something like a tt that's been around forever and its relatively low tech, until you try to take it to the next level. A simple thing like a spring has been around for centuries, the next logical step was to improve its long term reliability but nobody did. I have two patents on a simple, stupid spring. I sold the usage rights to one of the largest manufacturers in the US with full disclosure. There's no technology here, just basic tooling and yet couldn't it reproduce it properly. If something is special and beyond other competitors then there's something more than meets the eye.
david
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 151
Post ID: 20792
Reply to: 20790
Nothing to do with ownership, just a market perspective.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 dkarmeli wrote:
We've been discussing the price of AF1 all this time and why it costs what it does, nothing to do with what one is willing to pay for it.
Actually I am not " discussing the price of AF1 all this time". The conversation about the general price of TTs started long time before your AF1 become even a subject. I think 10 years ago I wrote in an article "A Foolishness of analog people" where I postulated that $3000 worth Micro RX5000 is sane and reasonable balance between cost, value and performance. I did express doubts that reportedly better TTs, or objectively more expensive  TTs in fact over perform RX5000, or at least the level of potential over performance is realized by the system owners. If that proverbial RX5000 cost $3000 10 years back with all complexity of super duper precision manufacturing then how much shall it cost now? The answer is the same $3000. It is not a conversation about adjusted inflation but about the fact that for $3000 is perfectly possible to get a performance level for TT that would be VERY hard to beat, if the objective is not an intellectual masturbation but the actual result.  

I just got into this thread form the AF1 comments, didn't realize that it was general discussion. You can't retail the RX-5000 for $3000! Maybe you can sell a few direct but your overhead will change the minute you increase volume and that's without going through the normal distribution chains and selling only domestically. You'll go bust selling the RX-5000 for 3k, even factory direct.
 
 Romy the Cat wrote:
BTW, I do not against TT, or any other pieces of audio, because they cost a lot of money.
I own plenty of super expensive things that I do feel add to sonic result that I'm getting some benefits and I completely voluntary bought them. However, I also admit that I paid just because I wanted to do it and because there are plenty people like men not because the cost of the items presume some kind of quality. I do not say that when I pay for something a huge amount of money then I am fool. I however insist that there is nothing truly "unique" in many items I own and there is no reason for them to cost as they are.
 

Unique or not apparently you bought them because there was no competing product for less at the time of purchase. I don't see anything wrong with that specially when some of those things actually appreciate over the years. That nothing special 3k RX-5000 is now 10k!
david
05-07-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
steverino
Posts 299
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #: 152
Post ID: 20793
Reply to: 20789
Around and around depends on lack of comparisons
fiogf49gjkf0d
A lot of assertions are made about this being better or that being the same. In the absence of assessment (and I don't even mean DBT tests, just pooling of expert judgments) this game never stops. There is not a standardized system that can be used to plug in a component although with a little thought 3 or 4 systems could be built around the 4 main speaker types : dynamic floor, dynamic monitor, horn and panel, plus maybe headphones as a 5th category. At least that way there would be a reasonably controlled way to assess a component across the available systems and rank each against other TTs.

It seems clear that much current TT design is upgrading with modern parts as is done with many tube amps without changing the basic design. The only true innovation was the laser turntable which unfortunately supported Alexander and his swordcut through the knot. I mean that sometimes a stylus just plowing through the groove solves many practical issues. Yes sometimes someone comes up with a clever way to reaarrange the same components or mixes and matches better. We could say that Rossini was able to take the old musical formulas and improve them or rejigger them just enough to create something better. That's great and deserves praise. Similarly a TT or tube design that tweaks things a bit better is fine and should be rewarded in the market place. If the market wants to spend 100k on some tweaked TT compared to 3k on the non tweaked version that is the prerogative of the fools with the money (and we are all fools with money in one way or another). But to preserve sanity and the language we should distinguish innovations from tweaks despite the universal PR campaign designed to confuse the two (in all walks of life needless to say).
05-08-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 153
Post ID: 20796
Reply to: 20792
Oh, David, come on, do not bullshit a bullshitter.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Oh, David, come on! Can you for a second to stop to be a pretentious been counter and look at the picture from slightly more elevated perspective? I am glad that you do not worship the expensive parts, unique design, and precession of construction of RX5000. That IS a very simple TT and that IS very cheap TT.

How much today industries sell a pair of let say hi-end SS monoblocks? $20K-$60K and it looks like we all accepted it as some kind of standard: Levinson, Lamm, Spectrlal and many others. They we have a company like Parasound Halo. The full body 200W monoblocks with all high end bells and whistles, expensive construction and price tag I believe $3000 for the pair, at least it was before the industry leeches started to bleed the Parasound. They made the Halo in China and removed from production all drooling about “expensive parts, unique design, and precession of construction”, thus the price is very reasonable.  Do not get me wrong - Parasound Halo sound like horrible shit but it is not because they cost less than scrap metal of equivalent mass but it has nothing to do with the cost of the unit and the army of the idiots out there who by own identity deserve very ugly sound welcomed and bout that Parasound devise very aggressively. For all intended purpose, as a product, it was a very successful venture.

The very same goes with let say a TT like RX5000. If the same Parasound would take it to China then it would be $1500 turntable as there is absolutely nothing in there that cost a lot. Pay attention I am not taking about RX5000 specifically but I do insist that RX5000 is better sounding and more stable in sound then 99% of TT out there. Arguably it might beat even heavier TT as RX5000 use grounded bearing. So if you project the price of TT;s pout there though the eyes of RX5000 then it is easy to see that the prices of the TT out there are very irrelevant.

There is another, even more important factor. The level of performance of $3000 worth RX5000 is much higher than most of other associated analog components out there. At the time I was using RX5000 I had Lamm phonostage that I would say is comparable to many other high-end  phonostage. So, that Lamm phonostage was incredible garbage, that not even near raised to the pushy level of RX5000. So, why in that time I would need anything better than cheap $60 worth DJ turntable if my phonostage at that time did not allow me to realized even a fraction of what TT was able to do? Considering that many people out there run improperly setup cartridges, badly sounding tonearm or impotently sounding phonostage then why would people even need $3000 turntable. The fancy turntable in 99.9999% of all case is just a fantasy of self-esteem, the Maserati car owned by a  quadriplegic person.

If you make any show in Vegas again then make it funny. Put in  back room a DJ turntable for $60 from Best Buy and run the signal to the "demo room". Explain to them that this is your ultra-expensive prototype of 500 pounds of steel metal platter is spinning in a bath of boiling mercury and you can't show it to them because the exhaust not finished year and vapor of mercury  is very toxic. I very much assure you that not of the "professional audio reviewers" and non from the army of the "analog connoisseur" would be able to tell you any difference. So, your justifications for $30K, $60K, $160K turntables from my perspective is ridicules.

It is not I believe that people should not buy $160K turntables, Sure they might, and I might be one of those people, I have no problem with it. However, do not insult my intelligence claiming that it necessary or has any relation to the actual sound that a person is getting out of his HiFi.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-08-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 224
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 154
Post ID: 20797
Reply to: 20796
Just let it go
fiogf49gjkf0d
Can we get back into the "ultimate" turntable instead of the deviation of the AF1 that this guy sees as his personal solution. There still has not bee one gram of evidence showing how this deck should be better than anything else. Even ignoring the price entirely, there is only one personal "feeling". No reports about the "Sound", no comparative measurements. Just one guy that claims to have bought one to demonstrate a system.

One guys hard-on is not the reason that I like coming here - especially if he doesn't/can't document anything.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
05-08-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 155
Post ID: 20798
Reply to: 20796
Bean counting?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Oh, David, come on! Can you for a second to stop to be a pretentious been counter and look at the picture from slightly more elevated perspective? I am glad that you do not worship the expensive parts, unique design, and precession of construction of RX5000. That IS a very simple TT and that IS very cheap TT.

How much today industries sell a pair of let say hi-end SS monoblocks? $20K-$60K and it looks like we all accepted it as some kind of standard: Levinson, Lamm, Spectrlal and many others. They we have a company like Parasound Halo. The full body 200W monoblocks with all high end bells and whistles, expensive construction and price tag I believe $3000 for the pair, at least it was before the industry leeches started to bleed the Parasound. They made the Halo in China and removed from production all drooling about “expensive parts, unique design, and precession of construction”, thus the price is very reasonable.  Do not get me wrong - Parasound Halo sound like horrible shit but it is not because they cost less than scrap metal of equivalent mass but it has nothing to do with the cost of the unit and the army of the idiots out there who by own identity deserve very ugly sound welcomed and bout that Parasound devise very aggressively. For all intended purpose, as a product, it was a very successful venture.

The very same goes with let say a TT like RX5000. If the same Parasound would take it to China then it would be $1500 turntable as there is absolutely nothing in there that cost a lot. Pay attention I am not taking about RX5000 specifically but I do insist that RX5000 is better sounding and more stable in sound then 99% of TT out there. Arguably it might beat even heavier TT as RX5000 use grounded bearing. So if you project the price of TT;s pout there though the eyes of RX5000 then it is easy to see that the prices of the TT out there are very irrelevant.

There is another, even more important factor. The level of performance of $3000 worth RX5000 is much higher than most of other associated analog components out there. At the time I was using RX5000 I had Lamm phonostage that I would say is comparable to many other high-end  phonostage. So, that Lamm phonostage was incredible garbage, that not even near raised to the pushy level of RX5000. So, why in that time I would need anything better than cheap $60 worth DJ turntable if my phonostage at that time did not allow me to realized even a fraction of what TT was able to do? Considering that many people out there run improperly setup cartridges, badly sounding tonearm or impotently sounding phonostage then why would people even need $3000 turntable. The fancy turntable in 99.9999% of all case is just a fantasy of self-esteem, the Maserati car owned by a  quadriplegic person.

If you make any show in Vegas again then make it funny. Put in  back room a DJ turntable for $60 from Best Buy and run the signal to the "demo room". Explain to them that this is your ultra-expensive prototype of 500 pounds of steel metal platter is spinning in a bath of boiling mercury and you can't show it to them because the exhaust not finished year and vapor of mercury  is very toxic. I very much assure you that not of the "professional audio reviewers" and non from the army of the "analog connoisseur" would be able to tell you any difference. So, your justifications for $30K, $60K, $160K turntables from my perspective is ridicules.

It is not I believe that people should not buy $160K turntables, Sure they might, and I might be one of those people, I have no problem with it. However, do not insult my intelligence claiming that it necessary or has any relation to the actual sound that a person is getting out of his HiFi.

The Cat

Not sure what you're going on about. If you're talking about the "RX-5000", a real business with a real and real business plan then the "RX-5000"  for $3k  as a product isn't viable. You can't run and sustain a business without bean counting, specially in manufacturing. You'll know that if you did what I've been doing for the past 30+ years.  
Yeah, sure a hypothetical RX-5000 "Type" product at $3k retail with a theoretical business model is possible in always possible! Assuming that we agree on the performance level of the RX-5000, I don't see it as probable.
As for the rest of your post, its a rant and nothing for me to address. I even agree with some of it but what I don't get is why cant the quadriplegic own a Maserati? Who knows he might get his dick sucked for that Maserati!
david
05-08-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 156
Post ID: 20799
Reply to: 20797
What's up wuki?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 rowuk wrote:
Can we get back into the "ultimate" turntable instead of the deviation of the AF1 that this guy sees as his personal solution. 

Didn't know that I had a problem for the AF1 to be its solution.


 rowuk wrote:
There still has not bee one gram of evidence showing how this deck should be better than anything else. Even ignoring the price entirely, there is only one personal "feeling". No reports about the "Sound", no comparative measurements. Just one guy that claims to have bought one to demonstrate a system.

One guys hard-on is not the reason that I like coming here - especially if he doesn't/can't document anything.

I leave all that to you and your expert hands, document away wuki. I'm certain that you're going to come with some incredibly valuable data like the one regarding your horns and the audience. You blame them for not being able to distinguish between the two when it could also be your incompetence to make to make use of the better horn!
david
PS. No hard on for any audio gear!
05-09-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 224
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 157
Post ID: 20800
Reply to: 20799
Wuki is a systems analyst and can sort this situation just fine
fiogf49gjkf0d
I guess there are many types that come here to GoodSoundClub. Some to "brag", some to "share", some to "police", some just to learn.


I guess if your turntable is so important to you, then you could at least tell us how it is sonically "better" than the "lesser" tables mentioned here.


As far as my horns go, it fits perfectly. It is not the "job" of the audience to "hear" what trumpet I am using or what it costs. They pay admission for RESULTS at their seats in the hall. It is my job to make sure those RESULTS match the expectations. That is why I have many instruments.The same applies here, the difference being no one has talked about any real results. Only the supposed cost of the business case is getting any attention. If I spent 100K on a turntable, I wouldn't post about it here. There are much better sites where they can appreciate the true value of such decisions;-)

*********************************************************************
Still, my ultimate table needs pitch control. There are enough records in my collection that obviously were cut at speeds other than exactly 33 1/3RPM. I would also consider some centering device for the spindle to be important as I also use a tangential arm among others. A barcode or QR code reader for record deemphasis (and maybe learned spindle centering?) would also be cool. Serious static dissipation would also be great for those times of year where rotating plastic resists all other attempts to reduce/eliminate it (Ionizers/antennas/biased record mats?). Active damping of subsonics (electronic?) would also be something that I would like to play with. Battery driven motors would also be an interesting thing to evaluate in an attempt to minimize the effects of AC garbage.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
05-09-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 158
Post ID: 20801
Reply to: 20800
I use pitch to control pitch.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 rowuk wrote:
Still, my ultimate table needs pitch control. There are enough records in my collection that obviously were cut at speeds other than exactly 33 1/3RPM.

Hm, I do not think if it is the case. During the 78s era there were not standards and anyone cut records with any imaginary speed. I think that when industry switched to 33 RPM they have already an agreement of what would be a conventional speed.

I do think however that  pitch control is an important tool not to adjust the speed but adjust ...pitch. many more or less contemporary orchestras or performers tune to A at 440Hz, or even highest as it become "fashionable" lately. I personally prefer much lower A and I do feel that the people who create publicity around 332Hz do have point. Do they have point of not but I do like it lower and I frequently slower TT does, particularly what I am listening Bach's solo works. I wish I had it on my CD player. I even spoke with my engineers asking if it possible to slow the clock from 44.1 to lower rate....

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-09-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 159
Post ID: 20802
Reply to: 20800
Wrong analysis, analyst Wuki!
fiogf49gjkf0d
 rowuk wrote:
I guess there are many types that come here to GoodSoundClub. Some to "brag", some to "share", some to "police", some just to learn.

I guess if your turntable is so important to you, then you could at least tell us how it is sonically "better" than the "lesser" tables mentioned here.
 Its only gear, it has a function and that's the only importance it has for me. Its not my table either, I didn't design nor build it and have no vested interest or desire to prove anything.  Only reason for my initial response was an automated email from this site, all I said was not to dismiss it outright because of some bias against the price and/or reviewer.  

 rowuk wrote:
As far as my horns go, it fits perfectly. It is not the "job" of the audience to "hear" what trumpet I am using or what it costs. They pay admission for RESULTS at their seats in the hall. It is my job to make sure those RESULTS match the expectations.

Glad to see that we agree on something but that was my argument to your words; 
 rowuk wrote:
I laugh my ass off. I would love to play two different trumpets for these special people - one for 600€ and one for $13.000. I own them both (and many more in between) and use them for different situations. Those golden ears seem to fail in the concert hall every time.

Great musicians know how use the unique sound of their instrument distinguishable from others, Hendrix vs Les Paul for example.
 rowuk wrote:
 Only the supposed cost of the business case is getting any attention. If I spent 100K on a turntable, I wouldn't post about it here. There are much better sites where they can appreciate the true value of such decisions;-)

I see what you mean about some wanting to police!
*********************************************************************
 rowuk wrote:
Still, my ultimate table needs pitch control. There are enough records in my collection that obviously were cut at speeds other than exactly 33 1/3RPM. I would also consider some centering device for the spindle to be important as I also use a tangential arm among others. A barcode or QR code reader for record deemphasis (and maybe learned spindle centering?) would also be cool. Serious static dissipation would also be great for those times of year where rotating plastic resists all other attempts to reduce/eliminate it (Ionizers/antennas/biased record mats?). Active damping of subsonics (electronic?) would also be something that I would like to play with. Battery driven motors would also be an interesting thing to evaluate in an attempt to minimize the effects of AC garbage.

AF1 has pitch control!
david
05-09-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 224
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 160
Post ID: 20803
Reply to: 20802
Still no word about sonics?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 rowuk wrote:
I laugh my ass off. I would love to play two different trumpets for these special people - one for 600€ and one for $13.000. I own them both (and many more in between) and use them for different situations. Those golden ears seem to fail in the concert hall every time.

I am referring to those "special golden ears", not my audience. I also can play Mahler on an american piston trumpet or a german rotary trumpet. The "golden Ears" often don't hear it. People tuned into Sound do.

We asked simple questions about the sound, not the "minimalist functions". You don't seem to have anything to say.

The price is a very good reason to ignore it - not because it is expensive rather because it is artificial. It is focussed at a specific target market where sound is often not the primary goal, rather the confidence that at that price no one can criticize. It is true in many aspects of "luxury" listening and the lack of applied quality is ignored there as well.

Good luck. 

I am back in this thread when good sound is the issue again.



Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Page 8 of 10 (185 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 6 7 8 9 10 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Michael Fremer Continuums…..  Pre-manufactured box speaker...  Audio News Forum     54  418525  01-21-2006
  »  New  The Foolishness of Analog People..  Late to the discussion but cannot resist...  Analog Playback Forum     56  392302  01-30-2006
  »  New   A longer turntable belt...  SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...  Analog Playback Forum     60  356827  02-02-2006
  »  New  My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..  My analog setup update....  Analog Playback Forum     9  81305  04-04-2006
  »  New  Micro Seiki SZ-1T..  I guess it's my own fault....  Analog Playback Forum     2  24521  06-10-2008
  »  New  Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...  Will not work...  Analog Playback Forum     14  70383  11-26-2008
  »  New  Active Tonearm Monitoring System...  The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...  Analog Playback Forum     2  24076  07-14-2009
  »  New  The HoroMusic turnable...  And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...  Analog Playback Forum     6  45948  08-05-2009
  »  New  Audio Note new turntable and inflation..  When I see the crap like this thing…...  Analog Playback Forum     13  98978  01-03-2010
  »  New  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?..  How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  11872  03-13-2010
  »  New  A turntable platter as a turbine?..  A turntable platter as a turbine?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  9418  10-27-2010
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts