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.

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.

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;-)

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.