| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Analog Playback» Ultimate Turntable (221 posts, 11 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 7 of 12 (221 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 5 6 7 8 9 » ... Last »
   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  591543  01-21-2006
  »  New  The Foolishness of Analog People..  Late to the discussion but cannot resist...  Analog Playback Forum     56  560070  01-30-2006
  »  New   A longer turntable belt...  SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...  Analog Playback Forum     60  498556  02-02-2006
  »  New  My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..  My analog setup update....  Analog Playback Forum     9  115177  04-04-2006
  »  New  Micro Seiki SZ-1T..  I guess it's my own fault....  Analog Playback Forum     2  35393  06-10-2008
  »  New  Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...  JA Michell Hydraulic Reference...  Analog Playback Forum     15  113719  11-26-2008
  »  New  Active Tonearm Monitoring System...  The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...  Analog Playback Forum     2  36000  07-14-2009
  »  New  The HoroMusic turnable...  And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...  Analog Playback Forum     6  65154  08-05-2009
  »  New  Audio Note new turntable and inflation..  Audio Note Ginga Turntable...  Analog Playback Forum     14  150028  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  17902  03-13-2010
  »  New  A turntable platter as a turbine?..  A turntable platter as a turbine?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  15874  10-27-2010
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 121
Post ID: 20758
Reply to: 20757
Ockham's Ultimate TT
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Paul S wrote:
Of course the idea of "minimal" needs context and a priori determinants, like any idea at all, and I don't see that the Regas belong in this particular discussion, at least at this particular point. OTOH, the Continuum is another good illustration of a techno tail wagging a functional dog, which , IMO, is the first thing one ought to wonder about when presented with something like the AF1. You say the AF1 deserves all the praise, and it's a good value in Yen, so I ass-u-me you've heard it several times, in several systems, and under a range of conditions, in order to isolate its characteristics, including tests on the platter, which you've called "inert". But another aspect of my post was triggered by the "review" itself, which I found to reflect an overawed ingenuousness that goes beyond awarding merit and smacks of the unctuous fawning that plagues the genre, regardless of actual merit in terms of application. I realize that this type of "review" typically has the opposite of the intended effect on me, mea culpa, so please pardon my barely restrained sarcasm on this score, and sorry it stains my perception of the product, despite I know better than to be influenced like this, one way or the other.

Not to throw a wrench or spill oil on the causeway, but another (typical) big issue with the giant, complex gear is that one seldom gets a chance to hear it at its best, whatever that may be, for so many reasons that their consideration would spawn several sub-threads were we to get into it [yet again]. Actually, we have already widely discussed these issues at GSC, and the threads are cataloged here, if you care to look.

Best regards,
Paul S

I have an AF1, look at the attachment in previous post. 
There's nothing complex about this table, actually the opposite is true. Unlike the Continuum the AF1 comes from a long pedigree of fine established tables. Its an evolution of the Micro Seiki SZ-1t. I understand your justified bias regarding reviews, but this is one of those rare cases where the reviewer does know what he's talking about.
david
PS. Ockham's Ultimate TT would be the The American Sound.
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 526
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 122
Post ID: 20759
Reply to: 20758
Dealer Promotion on Audio Forums
fiogf49gjkf0d
 dkarmeli wrote:
I have an AF1. I understand your justified bias regarding reviews, but this is one of those rare cases where the reviewer does know what he's talking about.
David, I hope you understand Paul's recalcitrance. We've all been around the block more than a few times. When a dealer such as yourself comes on an audio site and promotes a product he sells, you tend to take that with a grain of salt...

Adrian
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 123
Post ID: 20760
Reply to: 20759
Dealer Promotion on Audio Forums
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
 dkarmeli wrote:
I have an AF1. I understand your justified bias regarding reviews, but this is one of those rare cases where the reviewer does know what he's talking about.
David, I hope you understand Paul's recalcitrance. We've all been around the block more than a few times. When a dealer such as yourself comes on an audio site and promotes a product he sells, you tend to take that with a grain of salt...

Adrian

Adrian,
As I mentioned above I'm not a TechDas dealer nor do I sell any other tables at this time. I have no affiliation, business or personal relationship with Bob Graham, the importer or TechDas. You rarely see me posting on this site, my comments are based on hands on experience with AF1 and other ultra high end tables, no ulterior motive besides sharing. It would be a shame for people to pass on this wonderful table because of biased speculation. 
david
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 124
Post ID: 20761
Reply to: 20760
Vesting/Vested
fiogf49gjkf0d
David, I did take your initial post in this thread as an "owner post". Like I said, (and I hope I can leave it at that), it "LOOKS" like a nice TT, all right; but there are also the usual reasons to wonder if it might be a well-packaged Robb Report thing. I'm sure you understand without my listing the indicators.

Best regards,
Paul S
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 125
Post ID: 20762
Reply to: 20761
Vesting/Vested
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Paul S wrote:
David, I did take your initial post in this thread as an "owner post". Like I said, (and I hope I can leave it at that), it "LOOKS" like a nice TT, all right; but there are also the usual reasons to wonder if it might be a well-packaged Robb Report thing. I'm sure you understand without my listing the indicators.

Best regards,
Paul S

Whatever!
david
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 126
Post ID: 20763
Reply to: 20762
A complicated subject
fiogf49gjkf0d
I need to note that MicroTTs, American Sound and a few other TTs with very heavy palter are complicated subjects.  From one perspective a heavy platter is the key. I remember years back a few years Lechintsky published mathematical equivalents of TT with all time of drives. According to his concussions (that in my view was biased toward to his own madness) if TT has platter the mass of which has the torque from motor and mass of belt/motor become negligible then all calculation and all theories are goes to toilet and TT acts as “perfect” TT, at least from rotational  perspective. Sure, the heavier mass of planter is unbeatable argument and it is why the American Sound reportedly sounds “better”. (I do not have my own experience to confirm it which would be not a statement about the given TT but about the theories of high palter mass)

Still, there is gimmick on here. High mass is presumably good but how to use that high mass, or what bearing to use? It is no problem with horizontal bearing; with the moment of inertia those types of TTs have the horizontal bearing is irrelevant. The vertical bearing is the bitch however.  You can’t spread vertical bearing across multiple bearing as the relationship of bearing and total mass will make the bearing not negligible. So we need to put all the mass atop one ball. That itself is perfectly manageable task but as you putt let say 120 pounds atop of a few fraction of mm surface the question is how long will it live even with best materials and best lubrication.

The answer looks like reasonable: use air or magnets and they ended are very good solution. Still I have a feeling that air or magnet suspended TT do not sound as good as in very lower bass as they could because they have no “reference to ground”.  The reasonable answer would be to have a heavy platter with conventional bearing that would take care of let say 10% of platter mass and the rest to be handled by air. No one makes the TT like this unfortunately.

About the new Micro TT, I do think that this is essentially the Micro 8000 with contemporary face lift and it shall sound like Micro 8000. It might be a little better or little worse, no one knows and frankly no one would/should care. I do not know the price of this TT, It looks like $95K in Poland and I anticipate $30-$40K street price in Japan.  Considering the crap that the idiots sell to each other for no leas then $100K and that sound like $160 used Thorens turntable I would put my bet to new Micro.  I still feel that the price is very exuberant and might be tolerable ONLY in High End audio lunacy. The price of High End audio TT shall be no more than $5K and it is the best of them. A TT as a functional entity has no higher value and if you look at engendering efforts to make such of devise and pretend that it would be done in any other industry then it would not cost more than $5K.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 127
Post ID: 20764
Reply to: 20763
A complicated subject
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:


About the new Micro TT, I do think that this is essentially the Micro 8000 with contemporary face lift and it shall sound like Micro 8000. It might be a little better or little worse, no one knows and frankly no one would/should care. 

You're right, this is what's available today.


 Romy the Cat wrote:
The price of High End audio TT shall be no more than $5K and it is the best of them. A TT as a functional entity has no higher value and if you look at engendering efforts to make such of devise and pretend that it would be done in any other industry then it would not cost more than $5K.

You can't even get the parts made for $5k in bulk no less retail price of the finished TT. Maybe if you machined something basic like your SX-8000 without vacuum, then the $5k cost would be realistic but not as a business model.
david 
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 128
Post ID: 20765
Reply to: 20764
TT price.
fiogf49gjkf0d
David, you are thinking like a basement TT maker, which is all todays TT makers in one way or another. The reality is that no one need TTs and the makers happy to make and to sell 5 turntables a year. For sure it is expensive and difficult to make. The reality is that the level of engineering solutions and expense of implementation of our TTs for today industrial force is lobule. Your let say snow blower that cost $2.5K is way more sophisticated engineering devise. If let say LG would decide to make Micro-like TT than it will be sold in Best Buy with price tag of $2K, the table of Clearaudio reference would be sold for $199.95, but two and get third free. Let with all out love to our turntables do not forget that they are VERY simple engendering devises. We in HiFi are willing to pay a lot for our TT as industry idiotic propaganda convince us that our TTs are some kind of marvels of human endeavor that possess the secretive masonic properties. The reality is that TT is very simple engineering devise and with proper no paranoia approach it shell cost as any equitable engineering devise. A mechanical watch that you were costs $200 and it shows time very fine. You might convince yourself that this watch worth to you $200K and it will be fine, the problem that it will not show time more accurate. You know well that many High-End mega bucks TT in fact sounds no better than 8-truck tape. Those TT that in fact so sound well sound good not because they are expensive but because they made differently, this “difference” is not in cost and it might be in many instances be accomplished by very moderate means.

BTW, be advised that I am very critical when people talk seriously and confidently about high flying TT and my observation is that analog is very tricky subject and many people juts do not need any high flying TT as their rest of playback do not take advantage of the margins where the high flying TT “presumably” operate.



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 129
Post ID: 20766
Reply to: 20765
Costs
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
David, you are thinking like a basement TT maker, which is all todays TT makers in one way or another. The reality is that no one need TTs and the makers happy to make and to sell 5 turntables a year. For sure it is expensive and difficult to make. The reality is that the level of engineering solutions and expense of implementation of our TTs for today industrial force is lobule. Your let say snow blower that cost $2.5K is way more sophisticated engineering devise. If let say LG would decide to make Micro-like TT than it will be sold in Best Buy with price tag of $2K, the table of Clearaudio reference would be sold for $199.95, but two and get third free. Let with all out love to our turntables do not forget that they are VERY simple engendering devises. We in HiFi are willing to pay a lot for our TT as industry idiotic propaganda convince us that our TTs are some kind of marvels of human endeavor that possess the secretive masonic properties. The reality is that TT is very simple engineering devise and with proper no paranoia approach it shell cost as any equitable engineering devise. A mechanical watch that you were costs $200 and it shows time very fine. You might convince yourself that this watch worth to you $200K and it will be fine, the problem that it will not show time more accurate. You know well that many High-End mega bucks TT in fact sounds no better than 8-truck tape. Those TT that in fact so sound well sound good not because they are expensive but because they made differently, this “difference” is not in cost and it might be in many instances be accomplished by very moderate means.

BTW, be advised that I am very critical when people talk seriously and confidently about high flying TT and my observation is that analog is very tricky subject and many people juts do not need any high flying TT as their rest of playback do not take advantage of the margins where the high flying TT “presumably” operate.

Sure, $100k is high but the TechDas or older Micros, EMTs aren't appliances. They're precision instruments that were designed and engineered for a particular function and act as a reference standard. I'm actually surprised given your own experience that you're suggesting this. If what you say was true and so easy to make we would have seen a lot more quality products around. There's just so much you can in a mass manufacturing situation. What you fail to recognize is the overhead that a company like LG has, there's no way that an engineering dept dedicated to high end audio isn't going to cost them an arm and a leg. You're also neglecting the cost of money for upfront investment in any kind of volume situation. 
I was a manufacturer for most of my working life and there were always some clients with the same arguments. I used to give them a bag of materials and sent them off to make it by themselves, with a guarantee that I would buy at least a 1000 of that item if they could make or have it made the same quality product for the price they offered me. They didn't have to spend the money to come with the idea and design something from scratch, just copy it for those prices!
Forget everything else your figures don't even cover the cost of raw metal!
david
05-04-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #: 130
Post ID: 20767
Reply to: 20766
Your Micro SX-8000
fiogf49gjkf0d
Can I buy your Micro SX-8000 for $5K? After all its 30 years old easy to make for a few hundred bucks.
david
Actually let me offer you $10k for something that old and shouldn't be sold for more than $2k in Best Buy.
05-05-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 131
Post ID: 20768
Reply to: 20766
I have a slightly diferent view.
fiogf49gjkf0d
David, I think you a bit overly glorify the notion of "precision instruments" that we all are a bit taken in high-end audio. If you go to a good hobby shop and by a microscope for 200 dollars, or lawn mower for $300, or a kitchen juicer  for $300 then you will get a devise that will be orders of magnitude build to a more precise specification then TTs ever seen. With  civilized production discipline the "precision" that TT is made is not a problem at all, if appropriate engineering recourses be put into it. The cost of material and our exaltation about the  materials is truly laughable. It for sure "explain" the cost if case of 5 turntables are made and sold a year but it does so only for the people who wiling subscribe the explanation. Yes, the Micro turntables topology  is expensive and this why it might cost a few thousand dollars, the rest TTs shall cost a few hundred dollars.

Think about musical instruments. How much cost to make and sell a viola or trumpet for instance? Virtually nothing and this is why you will see zillion chip violas or trumpets for $300. Yeas, there are some instilments that cost millions but pay attention - it is not because it was more expensive to make them and no one justify their price because the "cost of raw metals" and "precision of making". The very same in TT and in fact it has to be the same in any other aspect of audio: the cost shall be determined by an ability to deliver an advanced result. Since high End audio industry has no "definition of  success" and after the years of selling crap to consummates the stupid industry did not developed even simplistic result assessment methodology then there is absolutely no  reasons, in my view, to justify a TT cost in the way how we would do it for viola or trumpet. The "cost of raw metals" and "precision of making" has absolutely no relation to an ability of TT to be or not to be more engaging in a musical message of a performance.  We think that we do, but I am not sure that our thinking is accurate.

The TT that would welcome would be very different then what you envision as "ultimate". it would be light and literally $20 worth TT that would deliver somehow a phenomenal sound. That TT might cost a lot, in the very same way how a very cheaply made musical instrument might deliver a stunning sound and to be very valid for a given particular player. Do not think that I am so naive about the musical instruments pricing, in many instances  they have as much BS as we have in audio and they also sell crappie sounding instruments for very high price. However, the good thing about them that they do not BS each other with neither "cost of raw metals" nor with "precision of making".

Rgs, Me


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-05-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 132
Post ID: 20769
Reply to: 20768
On the Face of It
fiogf49gjkf0d
On the face of it, the AF1 represents a "finished high-end product". Clearly, it is well thought out and presented in this way, and this closing/finishing effort was not cheap. And the reasons for this are well understood, because only in this way can anyone reasonably hope to design, build, store, market, ship and service the thing to/for its most-likely customers, who (obviously) have to be in the first place those with the money to buy it. The big question in finalizing a design like this is not so much rote performance, rather, how to best recover the costs accrued in getting the product to the point of sale and hopefully make a few bucks for everyone's time and effort, as well, during the product's life cycle.

The basic elements of a TT are elementary rather than arcane. Too bad weight, in and of itself, is a liability in commerce. And fallout from the "weight issue" affects TTs right down to R&D, where people are +/- forced into "designing around" weight, UNLESS they are aiming their product WAY up market. If you look again at the REGA and imagine heavier, more inert construction and appropriate bearings and drive system, you might actually wind up with something good. Though the Spiral Groove SG1 is meant first to be a "product" competing at a "price point", and it is not cheap in its final, "marketable" form, this might be another +/- "minimal" design to think about in the context of this thread. Likewise, the simple core of the VPI HRX, including the rim weight in lieu of a vacuum.

Paul S
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
steverino
Posts 351
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #: 133
Post ID: 20770
Reply to: 20768
High end not high tech yet
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
David, I think you a bit overly glorify the notion of "precision instruments" that we all are a bit taken in high-end audio. If you go to a good hobby shop and by a microscope for 200 dollars, or lawn mower for $300, or a kitchen juicer  for $300 then you will get a devise that will be orders of magnitude build to a more precise specification then TTs ever seen. With  civilized production discipline the "precision" that TT is made is not a problem at all, if appropriate engineering recourses be put into it. ..... Do not think that I am so naive about the musical instruments pricing, in many instances  they have as much BS as we have in audio and they also sell crappie sounding instruments for very high price. However, the good thing about them that they do not BS each other with neither "cost of raw metals" nor with "precision of making".

Rgs, Me


Boy what a great post. The halls of the high end shook a little and they didn't know why. The problem with all these different construction materials and forms is that there is never a systematic correlation with audio reproduction. You would need to keep the other components the same to test them all but that would inevitably favor some TT designs over the others. Thus TT makers can bloviate how the carbon fiber this or acrylic that makes all the difference. I think Paul is correct that weight itself might well be the decisive factor. This would suggest that we don't need to buy a heavy turntable since we can rest it on a heavy non vibrating stand or pedestal. Simply using better construction methods has rescued the old idler drive designs which indicates that high end TT design has never become high tech, no matter how complicated the design. Of course I'm not sure that if we banished all vibration that the result would that pleasing either given the nature of recordings and mic'ing.
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 526
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 134
Post ID: 20771
Reply to: 20770
Bloviation about turntables
fiogf49gjkf0d
 steverino wrote:
You would need to keep the other components the same to test them all but that would inevitably favor some TT designs over the others...
Spot on. Loads of hype, a bit shy on the experimental proof. It starts out with a good idea, maybe even a valid idea, but then the marketing takes over to fuel sales. At these prices it has to...
 steverino wrote:
Of course I'm not sure that if we banished all vibration that the result would that pleasing either given the nature of recordings and mic'ing.
I think the general consensus is that it is "too dead" without vibration, necessitating an "injection channel" or something along those lines. WinkThe goal perhaps needs to be replicating the conditions of the cutting head on the master disc, which is full of its own vibrations...

Adrian
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 135
Post ID: 20772
Reply to: 20771
To understand me correctly how I feel
fiogf49gjkf0d
I would like to note that my disagreement with David about his and other justification of TT high price does not imply that some of high price TT are very good performers, and it is highly possible that the new Micro AF1 is a very good sounding TT, in fact it would be a big surprise if it would not be. What I was taking was not the nature of turntables but rather our relationship with turntables or our completely voluntary subscription that "better" designed tenable produce some kind of advantageous empirical benefit for our listening experience.

A few weeks back I was reading at some kind of site, I do not remember where, a review about a new German turntable with price tag of $45K. It looks like lucid TT of mid class. The $45K was the price before some whore of Mike Framer stature take it to distribute worldwide and jack the price to $125K. However, the point us that it was absolutely gloving review with worshiping how much this TT sound better then anything that the reviewer have tried before and of cause the reviewer attributed the  superb sonic performances of the TT to materials, precision and other casual suspects. I do not question the reviewer's concussions but I very much question the reviewer judgment and sanity. It was a guy with relatively large room, I would say 600 sq foot approximately with  a single pair of 2A3 driving back-loaded single yellow driver speaker. I honestly feel that it is ridicules to observe the performance of a good TT in context of this installation. I do not say that the guy would not be able to knowledge difference but I do insist that the difference that he would even register will not have any beneficial value from the perspective of listening experience.

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
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 136
Post ID: 20776
Reply to: 20770
Heavy Stand vs. Heavy Platter/TT
fiogf49gjkf0d
Steve, I do like the high-tech air mattress platforms, but I do not think they take the place of a heavy TT, especially the platter. Also, I agree with Romy about a "reference to ground". We have already talked (up the thread ?) about how heavy the platter needs to be before the accruing benefits become inaudible, and the general consensus was, pretty heavy. My own experience has borne this out to the extent that I gave up on the light TTs long ago. Setting aside the weight issues (a very loaded notion...), if nothing else, I think it is actually easier to produce an "acceptable" TT if it's heavier.

Although the methodology to test all this could probably be whipped up fairly quickly by a competent engineer, it seems the "TT Industry" would rather not do this, and each "manufacturer" in turn keeps trying instead to pull a proprietary rabbit out of a "name" designer hat. How funny would it be if a repeatable TT design/testing protocol popped up, like it has in most "manufacturing" quarters (eg., ASTM, etc., etc.)? How would anyone subsequently distinguish their proprietary designs? OTOH, at least at this point, it does look like there is just no setting aside the weight issues.


Best regards,
Paul S
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 438
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 137
Post ID: 20777
Reply to: 20767
What makes a turntable worth "the price"?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Don't we always go through this same discussion regardless if it is an amplifier, speaker, turntable, DAC (wine, cigars, frying pans)? Don't the arguments keep repeating themselves? Don't we all agree that IF a turntable NEEDS to cost 125K that something else is seriously wrong (unless your goal is to brag that yours is bigger, heavier and thus out of sonic context - even better)? Yes those that can hear the grass grow are truly cursed!

Turntables bother me a lot as computer harddrive technology has brought "chatter free" ball bearings as well as motor technology down to ridiculously low prices. That alone should bring wow and flutter down to "jitter" proportions. Modern machining has brought piece to piece consistency up to extremely high standards - at very interesting prices. There are almost infinite low cost ways to get essentially perfectly smooth motor rotation at any desired RPM. Hell we can even use tube regulators to improve the flavor of the electrons going to the motor.

I also am not ready to give up on "lower mass" TTs. Most of the time the speaker setup is so abominable that the TT is several orders of magnitude "less" problematic anyway.

This entire discussion with the AF1 has not brought one bit of "reason" why it should do better SONICALLY than many others in a less than EXTREMELY optimised playback situation - of which there are VERY few. None of the discussion puts those advantages into a playback SYSTEM context either. I seem to remember in the good old days when there were 50 fine turntables to choose from, that there actually were very convincing arguments for low and high mass TTs.

So, at the end of the day, let those that need to spend $125K do so. Let them exactly like every reviewer, publish the "arguments" that have no defined connection to Sound in Context. Basically we have exactly the SAME problem arguing against "overkill". Let's also not forget that that 125K TT needs a 50K stand, an 80K tonearm, at least a 10K cartridge - to play what? Records with a magnitude greater problem with centricity, wow/flutter from the cutting lathe, non documented EQ, non standard thickness and great diversity in the vinyl mix. We haven't even begun to talk about airborne vibrations that "attack" the resonant cartridge.

I get great enjoyment reading about all of the wonderful stuff these TTs allegedly perform. Actually, that is not quite right, 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. The difference is that the trumpet is SUPPOSED to be resonant. The beauty of TTs is that they too as a system have resonant issues that the "audiophile" can individually address - thus raising their personal Tweakrating. As long as there is no "measure" of Tweaquality, Tweakability is primarily in the lucrative subjective, suggestive zone for those "paying for a service that they have no chance of comparing". I am not saying that there is no difference, but how do we determine what "gets more out of the groove" really means? How can we, without having a vast "earned" knowledge of what the recording engineer did, what equipment he use - QUANTIFY what we hear in respect to the entire audio system? At what point do our TTtweaks actually compensate for problems elsewhere? Do we "solidify" the bass with mass in the TT and arm? Do we need additional help from the phono corrector to get the "proper" balance from a particular record? At what point does one mans air and sparkle become anothers earache?

I really wish that high enders would really look at Romy documentation and think about that before posting here. I would much prefer to learn something rather than getting repeated confirmation about activity in the stratosphere. Context and content would be WONDERFUL especially when one does get to play with a state of the financial art piece of equipment.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 138
Post ID: 20778
Reply to: 20777
Context/Content
fiogf49gjkf0d
Robin, I'm sure you noticed that the AF1 "reviewer" used the usual "audiophile" recordings, and - presumably - the usual audiophile criteria and the usual audiophile ancillary equipment and settings for evaluating the AF1. Of course, we at GSC know better, and so try to use more evolved methodology to arrive at more pertinent results. This does striate the discussion; but I always assume I am talking to peers when I reel off my thoughts on the matters, supposing that others can somehow establish a relevant context, each for him/her self, in order to glean something useful (and maybe even a laugh) from even the usual vested posts.

A recent session with another high end system made it clear (again) to me: other factors allowing, a well-done heavy platter allows for - if nothing else - musically expressive and deeply relevant LF; and I'm not sure any other approach does this.

Best regards,
Paul S
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
steverino
Posts 351
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #: 139
Post ID: 20779
Reply to: 20776
Fluttering in the breeze
fiogf49gjkf0d
Paul,

  I searched for the discussion on platter weight optimality but couldn't find it. Anyway I assume people know I was referring to a one person lift turntable on a stand, not a one finger lift. Assuming a platter weight in the 25 pound range and a turntable around 50 pounds, the point I was making is that we don't know much about the tradeoffs of doing one thing or the other. Romy is right that this is not a manufacturing state of the art question nor does it require pure platinum turntables (not to give anyone ideas). There is the question of the electrical motor, the AC that feeds the motor, the way that the platter is driven, acoustic feedback etc etc. But to say that XXX platter weight is required is putting the cart before the horse IMO.  Amplifiers like boat anchors were being built and then the Gain Card came along and people are now making ultra small amps. These things go in cycles indicating that something is being lost at the same time an advance (or desired change) is made in some area. When something is truly better such as analog tape compared to cylinders you don't see the cycles.
05-06-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 140
Post ID: 20780
Reply to: 20779
Pole Star
fiogf49gjkf0d
Although one's sonic references might "evolve" over time, the broad notion of Music and the Sound of Music driving equipment design remains rather constant. Platter weight, like everything else, is ultimately subject to this overarching notion. Of course it remains to order (and re-order) the bits and pieces, and order itself can't hurt this process.

As for the bits and pieces, and the "heavy" platters in particular, we (GSC) realize they don't exist in a vacuum (although they might yet employ one...). Meanwhile, we won't be duped by the "inverted hi-end" logic.

Best regards,
Paul S
Page 7 of 12 (221 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 5 6 7 8 9 » ... Last »
   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  591543  01-21-2006
  »  New  The Foolishness of Analog People..  Late to the discussion but cannot resist...  Analog Playback Forum     56  560070  01-30-2006
  »  New   A longer turntable belt...  SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...  Analog Playback Forum     60  498556  02-02-2006
  »  New  My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..  My analog setup update....  Analog Playback Forum     9  115177  04-04-2006
  »  New  Micro Seiki SZ-1T..  I guess it's my own fault....  Analog Playback Forum     2  35393  06-10-2008
  »  New  Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...  JA Michell Hydraulic Reference...  Analog Playback Forum     15  113719  11-26-2008
  »  New  Active Tonearm Monitoring System...  The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...  Analog Playback Forum     2  36000  07-14-2009
  »  New  The HoroMusic turnable...  And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...  Analog Playback Forum     6  65154  08-05-2009
  »  New  Audio Note new turntable and inflation..  Audio Note Ginga Turntable...  Analog Playback Forum     14  150028  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  17902  03-13-2010
  »  New  A turntable platter as a turbine?..  A turntable platter as a turbine?...  Analog Playback Forum     0  15874  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