|
Post by Loop 7 on Apr 1, 2018 21:55:44 GMT -5
Yesterday, I ended up ordering a turntable made by Pro-Ject. Pro-Ject has such a stellar product line so I predict nothing but rewarding listening.
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Apr 1, 2018 23:57:05 GMT -5
My AR has served me well since my college days. I bought it because I come from a family of large people. When I used to listen to my Old TT, usually on headphones, and someone would walk near my system, the record would often skip. The AR, with its spring-isolated chassis, gave me virtual immunity to this.
If I were going to upgrade, I would consider some of the Merril mods to it (he put out a booklet on it)
I originally had a Bang & Olufsun MMC3 on it (had to add weight to the head shell, because even with the adapter for NON B&O tonearms, it was STILL to light for my tonearm counter-weight.
Moved up to my current Cartridge about six years ago - probably got one of the LAST actual Shure replacement Styli available for it when wifey accidentally tossed the older one (but that’s ANOTHER story...)
Is there better stuff / newer technology out there? You betcha’, but would I hear a significant enough difference to justify the additional moolah? I DOUBT it.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,940
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 2, 2018 1:24:18 GMT -5
I had several AR turntables back when I "did vinyl". The suspension on the AR turntables was remarkably good at isolating from small vibrations (they had problems with springy floors that bounced at low frequencies when you walked). One of their demonstrations was to drive nails into the edge of the base WHILE AN ALBUM WAS PLAYING (the suspension was THAT good). People tended to disparage the simple S-shaped tone arm, and the fact that it didn't include any anti-skating adjustment, but I was always quite pleased with how well it worked. (I started out with a Shure cartridge, but ended up with an Ortofon high-output MC one towards the end of my interest in vinyl.) To be honest, while some of the new cartridges perform better than what was available in the old days, I still don't believe that the performance of vinyl can compare to a good modern digital system. Therefore, while I might keep a turntable around if I had a large collection of vinyl, I wouldn't really consider spending exhorbitant amounts of money to obtain incremental improvements. (You quickly reach a point where you end up spending really impressive amounts of money for really unimpressive improvements.) My AR has served me well since my college days. I bought it because I come from a family of large people. When I used to listen to my Old TT, usually on headphones, and someone would walk near my system, the record would often skip. The AR, with its spring-isolated chassis, gave me virtual immunity to this. If I were going to upgrade, I would consider some of the Merril mods to it (he put out a booklet on it) I originally had a Bang & Olufsun MMC3 on it (had to add weight to the head shell, because even with the adapter for NON B&O tonearms, it was STILL to light for my tonearm counter-weight. Moved up to my current Cartridge about six years ago - probably got one of the LAST actual Shure replacement Styli available for it when wifey accidentally tossed the older one (but that’s ANOTHER story...) Is there better stuff / newer technology out there? You betcha’, but would I hear a significant enough difference to justify the additional moolah? I DOUBT it.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,940
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 2, 2018 1:40:55 GMT -5
I hate to tell you, but CDs and digital files actually have more dynamic range CAPABILITY than vinyl; and it isn't even close. The problem is modern PRODUCTION... (So, as long as you have old vinyl recordings, produced "according to the old ideas of what sounds good" then you'll be fine. However, modern vinyl albums, made from the same masters as the CDs, isn't going to have any better dynamics.... ) Yesterday, I ended up ordering a turntable made by Pro-Ject. Why? Two reasons and neither one is because I was looking for better sound quality. Every time I purchase a CD or a music file, it’s compressed to death and unlistenable. The other reason is I had two of my hard drives fail and they were backups to my main files. And, don’t get me started on the sound quality of a lot of those files. I’ve been trying out some of the streaming services including Tidal HiRes which is really Redbook quality and most of it sounds compressed too. The bottom line is that I’ve had it and want to be able to enjoy my music with the least compression as possible. I’m hoping that making a return to vinyl lp’s will be the answer. It’s been 38 years since I dumped my record player and several boxes of records for a handful of CD’s and I’m not growing younger...
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Apr 2, 2018 6:57:44 GMT -5
I had several AR turntables back when I "did vinyl". The suspension on the AR turntables was remarkably good at isolating from small vibrations (they had problems with springy floors that bounced at low frequencies when you walked). One of their demonstrations was to drive nails into the edge of the base WHILE AN ALBUM WAS PLAYING (the suspension was THAT good). People tended to disparage the simple S-shaped tone arm, and the fact that it didn't include any anti-skating adjustment, but I was always quite pleased with how well it worked. (I started out with a Shure cartridge, but ended up with an Ortofon high-output MC one towards the end of my interest in vinyl.) Yup! Agree (mostly) my AR is one of the more modern series with a Straight tonearm (maybe made by Mission, but AR-labeled). in college, I had a friend who had one of the “classic” AR XB models with the old-style tonearm and big-a$$ headshell that you mentioned. IIRC, he had a mid-scale Ortofon on it. It seemed a bit “primitive”, but STILL managed to SOUND surprisingly good. The Shure V15VMR works better on it than the lighter B&O - it tracks RELIABLY at about 1 gram. (I figured that if it’s good enough for the Sony archives, it’s good enough for me...). On a good record, its output is SURPRISINGLY good. Maybe I’m a bit of a heretic, but I STILL don’t really think it matters which part of the “generator” is attached to the cantilever, as long as it’s a well-executed Design. OTOH - I would bet that with purely objective analysis, it still gets beat hands-down, by a well-recorded CD. (but I don’t always care - spinning some Vinyl still puts a smile on my face and gets my toes a-tappin’)
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 2, 2018 9:06:59 GMT -5
Technology ≠ Turntables
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Apr 2, 2018 13:26:11 GMT -5
Respectfully - I DO NOT think that is the case. There is / WAS A LOT of technology and advanced engineering that went into Turntables and record production. Look at all of the approached to minimizing sources of resonance and isolating the TT from its environment, ways to reduce mass where it's critical, unique ways of driving the platter, and application of exotic materials (although some of it was "snake oil" like other so-called "audiophile" applications of technology) Now, if you meant MODERN Technology ≠ then, maybe I'd be more inclined to agree with you. That being said - MOST of what CAN be done with a TT HAS been done. I think that barring VERY costly applications of technology - we've pretty much seen nearly everything that can be done to improve sound from traditional Vinyl records / LPs. However, just because it ain't "digital" doesn't mean that there is not some SERIOUS engineering that went into it.
|
|
|
Post by Ex_Vintage on Apr 6, 2018 12:34:18 GMT -5
Listening to LPs right now. I think some of you have not heard a good table What is dead is CDs. I am going to stick my neck and say LPs may have sold more than CDs last year Who buys CDs anymore? Not young people. Most people download music (Some) Young people listen to music as background noise and are fine with downloaded MP3 quality. For better quality we can debate CD vs. vinyl forever. The fact is vinyl WILL degrade over time and a CD will not.
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Apr 6, 2018 12:56:44 GMT -5
Re CD's death, I'd suggest that if you thumbed through a BBC Music mag sometime you'd be amazed at how many CD releases of classical music and new labels there are worldwide every month; that mag reviews 60-100 every month. For example, Sony is releasing a 100-CD collection of the complete Columbia recordings of Bernstein, many from original analog tapes. As a person who's listening is comprised of about 70% orchestral music along with a healthy quest for new releases and remasters, I agree. In this overall of a niche genre, compact disc releases seem strong.
|
|
|
Post by 26gary26 on Apr 6, 2018 19:20:41 GMT -5
Just a quick comment I would like to point out that vinyl has survived numerous years of advanced technology such as 4 track tapes, 8 track tapes, cassette tapes, reel to reel tapes, CD's, and digital. I guess we have all benefitted from one or all of these tech advances over the years. And I don't regret any of those purchases. But where are the rest of those mentioned above, most are no longer in existence. Just saying vinyl may not be the best but its long lived. Thanks for your time. Gary
|
|
|
Post by Perpendicular on Apr 7, 2018 0:44:37 GMT -5
I hate to tell you, but CDs and digital files actually have more dynamic range CAPABILITY than vinyl; and it isn't even close. The problem is modern PRODUCTION... (So, as long as you have old vinyl recordings, produced "according to the old ideas of what sounds good" then you'll be fine. However, modern vinyl albums, made from the same masters as the CDs, isn't going to have any better dynamics.... ) Yesterday, I ended up ordering a turntable made by Pro-Ject. Why? Two reasons and neither one is because I was looking for better sound quality. Every time I purchase a CD or a music file, it’s compressed to death and unlistenable. The other reason is I had two of my hard drives fail and they were backups to my main files. And, don’t get me started on the sound quality of a lot of those files. I’ve been trying out some of the streaming services including Tidal HiRes which is really Redbook quality and most of it sounds compressed too. The bottom line is that I’ve had it and want to be able to enjoy my music with the least compression as possible. I’m hoping that making a return to vinyl lp’s will be the answer. It’s been 38 years since I dumped my record player and several boxes of records for a handful of CD’s and I’m not growing younger... Agreed. I have some very good sounding CD’s. Today, I returned my unopened turntable. The more research I did, the more I didn’t want to start spending money buying vinyl since I have no collection and I kept thinking all I had to do to maintain them for the best sound. I gave up! I’ll continue to enjoy my existing CD’s, surround discs and some streaming. I really felt I was going to go vinyl for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
Post by sounder on May 17, 2018 13:24:32 GMT -5
Dumb article. Sapphire is just the tip not the whole cantilever. Sapphire was always considered inferior to diamond and diamond has been manufactured for many years. The equalizer looks very complicated and pricey. The stylus still touched the vinyl. ELP has produced a non contact ( ELP ) laser turntable since 1989. This isn't completely accurate. The cantilever is sapphire. The tip is diamond.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 17, 2018 14:09:16 GMT -5
Dumb article. Sapphire is just the tip not the whole cantilever. Sapphire was always considered inferior to diamond and diamond has been manufactured for many years. The equalizer looks very complicated and pricey. The stylus still touched the vinyl. ELP has produced a non contact ( ELP ) laser turntable since 1989. This isn't completely accurate. The cantilever is sapphire. The tip is diamond. Wrong. The cantilever is usually aluminum, but can be more exotic like boron. The tip is usually diamond. The entire tip can be diamond and crash inserted into a hole in the cantilever. This is called a nude diamond stylus. The diamond to do this is larger and therefore expensive. Industrial diamonds are very small, but can be used if bonded onto some other material called a shank to form the entire tip. The shank material has been metal in the past. Sapphire is the newest material used to make the shank. It's not expensive and the tiny diamond bonds well to it.
|
|
|
Post by sounder on May 17, 2018 14:36:11 GMT -5
This isn't completely accurate. The cantilever is sapphire. The tip is diamond. Wrong. The cantilever is usually aluminum, but can be more exotic like boron. The tip is usually diamond. The entire tip can be diamond and crash inserted into a hole in the cantilever. This is called a nude diamond stylus. The diamond to do this is larger and therefore expensive. Industrial diamonds are very small, but can be used if bonded onto some other material called a shank to form the entire tip. The shank material has been metal in the past. Sapphire is the newest material used to make the shank. It's not expensive and the tiny diamond bonds well to it. So, what's wrong with what I said? The "shank" IS the cantilever. See here: www.sound-smith.com/options-cantilever-and-stylus-shapes second post: "This rebuild features a laser drilled Sapphire cantilever with low mass through mounted Contact Line stylus - super performance option at a reasonable cost."
|
|
|
Post by sounder on May 17, 2018 14:40:33 GMT -5
Further... "The Sapphire cantilever can be an excellent replacement for most cartridges, and is basically the same material as Ruby. Sapphire has been used as the original cantilever material in some of the finest cartridges made."
|
|
|
Post by sounder on May 17, 2018 14:41:07 GMT -5
I guess SoundSmith is wrong, too... perhaps they don't know what they are talking about and I'm not actually quoting an expert in cartridge design.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 17, 2018 15:31:41 GMT -5
I was wrong. Thanks for the link to SoundSmith. Entire cantilevers of ruby or sapphire are indeed made. I have never paid more than a couple of hundred dollars for a cartridge so I was not familiar with ultra expensive high end versions. However the type of construction I described for more reasonably priced cartridges is also accurate. And the shank is the non diamond portion of a hybrid diamond tip. The shank is not the entire cantilever. However, a very expensive ruby or sapphire single crystal cantilever would not have anything less than a nude diamond tip.
|
|
|
Post by sounder on May 22, 2018 10:04:36 GMT -5
I recently bought an expensive cartridge, an AT ART9. It has a boron cantilever, and cost about $1k. I know it sounds like a ridiculous price, and was a lot more than my previous Dynavector 10x5. But, whether it's the cantilever, or the entire design, the performance is spectacular. It's a major upgrade from the Dyna. I don't know about Sapphire, but what I've read is that boron is becoming very hard to source, so Sapphire, being very stiff and light weight may be a good option instead of boron.
So, whether or not you call that a "technology" improvement, IMO there is an improvement and these technical improvements work. In my rig, I note that my system rarely reveals ticks and pops. Before I had the ART9, mated with a Manley Chinook, the level of ticks and pops was much higher. I was noticing on a recent listening session with some friends that there were practically zero background pops. Something is working. Before I got it, I was truly questioning the value. Now that I have it... I'm convinced... and so glad this isn't something I have to replace very often.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 22, 2018 10:34:32 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how you look at it you still literally dragging a needle on a vynil surface and that will have its limitations regardelss of technology.
|
|
|
Post by whitwye on May 22, 2018 12:09:50 GMT -5
Whether your storage is vinyl or CD, there's a stack of technologies, each with their own engineering, between that and your ears. And each can introduce its own varieties of distortion, many of which are too subtle to show up in any of the standard specs. Personally I play guitars (acoustic and electric) and bass (electric), so my threshold for acceptable listening is where I can get a clear sense of the attack and overtones of the players in the recording. For these purposes, the quality of the cartridge and phono stage are more important than the turntable or tonearm, or for CDs the quality of the DAC circuit is all important. Then the quality of the power amp is more essential than the quality of the preamp. Then, speakers. Obviously YMMV.
As for the vinyl vs digital argument, it depends highly on the quality of the sound engineer who mastered it. I have identical recordings on both where one or the other is better. There's no overall winner. There's a lot more bad engineering on old CDs though than on older vinyl. The average level of talent in both musicians and engineers varies over the years; and in the all-vinyl years it was generally higher in both than since. Now the bright kids would rather design video games or run YouTube channels, instead of going into music production.
|
|