|
|
Post by 405x5 on Nov 15, 2021 13:17:04 GMT -5
…..And also back then (although today I fully embrace modern technology) …..I had all tubes, amplifier, preamplifier and tuner ALL on separate chassis! Paranoid about making sure all those tubes were fully up to snuff. Back in 69 S.S. was rather tentative Why not have both ! Nah!…..(I use the stove to cook dinner) |
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Nov 22, 2021 16:53:00 GMT -5
I finally bit the bullet and bought a JICO stylus for my Shure M91E cartridge. It was too difficult trying to get accurate info about replacement stylus quality, the JICO reputation made it a no-brainer. I did find a new original Shure stylus on eBay, but got outbid.
I'm installing it on another headshell and doing alinement procedures, needed a break to give my eyes a rest. I forgot how much I hated installing new cartridges- check, recheck, re-adjust, etc, it's a pita when the eyes are not what they once were. lol.
I give Fluance a thumbs up for installing & aligning the original cartridge dead-nuts.
I have an ADC cartridge that I quit working on because it's shorter than Ortofon OM 10 and I needed to adjust the tonearm drop height. The Shure is about the same height as the ADC. I bought some generic silver headshell wires and found connectors are too long, never gave it a thought.
Waiting for Black Friday sales to buy a preamp- down to Schiit Mani, Cambridge Alva Solo or XPS-1. Any opinions on the preamps with a Shure cartridge?
|
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Nov 26, 2021 9:53:04 GMT -5
Black Friday sales- bought the Emotiva XPS-1, why wouldn't I ?!
|
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 3, 2022 15:49:22 GMT -5
I finally got the Shure mounted & aligned over the weekend. Dialed in at 1 gram tracking force.
My system is totally different than when it was purchased (1970s) in purpose and equipment (of course), so I can't compare it now. But the detail is better than I remember, I heard parts of songs with minute details I don't remember hearing before. All LPs are old originals of the day but there is a problem with them- DIRTY. Spun about 6 LPs and whoa, why did I ever quit listening? Dirt, tired of cleaning them. I've cleaned them before with dish soap & water, so I used Dawn in luke-warm water then rinsed with R.O. water to insure no minerals left behind. Then used my original Discwasher & fluid, also found my wife's AT stylus cleaner (a bonus).
The difference between the M91E original Ortofon OM10 is night & day and my wife summed it up, "yuk". lol There was a vail removed when played; even my mid-range ADC sounded better.
The JICO is the same size as original 0.2 x 0.7 mil elliptical. I don't recall stylus up-grades, we usually bought exact replacements. But the detail and clarity is really good and if the stylus takes the M91E up a few notches, I'm satisfied. Looking forward for the stylus to break-in fully. Don't know how much the XPA-1 preamp is helping, but like what I hear so far. I hate to admit it, but the Cambridge integrated sounded better than the XMC & XPA w same speakers.
Doubt if I will be a vinyl "enthusiast" again, but like the sound.
edit- The soundstage & imaging is pretty good also
|
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 3, 2022 16:01:48 GMT -5
  Anyone still have their original Dark Side Of The Moon bumper-stickers & wall poster? |
|
|
|
Post by Soup on Jan 3, 2022 17:18:57 GMT -5
Classic Album Sunday is a, well, I do not know what to call it. Folks get together to listen to a classic album on Sundays. There is some organization on a higher level, (https://classicalbumsundays.com/) and some folks just set aside the time and do it. The model we came up with is using the choir room (nice acoustics and a pair of big high efficiency horns) and invite a bunch of folks over. There are light refreshments and a print out of the lyrics and credits for the lp being attended to. We introduce the album, play a track from the record before as a warm up, and listen to side one without interruption. Then we discuss a bit before jumping into side 2. Then more snacks and discussion. This is held in an evangelical setting so lots of discussion of world view and spirituality. It is held in Nashville so lots of discussion of guitar tone and recording tricks. Takes a little less than 90 minutes, and a great opportunity for music lovers, musicians, and audiophiles to hang out and talk tunes and Jesus and such. First was Rubber Soul, then What's Going On, Jolene, Kind Of Blue, we try to keep things rotating and inclusive. Plenty of classic music to enjoy. 5th Sunday of the month we are thinking of letting folks bring in their own music for supportive only feedback. Rather than move my Rega every week, we are using high res files. MUCH easier and pretty much just as good. Trey sounds like a blast...enjoy the music. |
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 3, 2022 20:20:15 GMT -5
Cost and Joys of Vinyl (mainstream, not high end)
Turntable: $200-$2000
Cartridge- $50-$600
Replacement stylus every 600-800 plays:$20- $500
Preamp: $15-$1200
Disc cleaner: $20-$500
Cleaning Fluid- $15-$25 bottle
DYI Sonic cleaner modification (toothbrush)- $50
LP Records- $18-$1,000 (no multi-sets) How many plays without exhibiting degradation?
Total cost to play LPs: $388- $5775, not counting the time & effort for maintenance.
Compact disc cost
CD player: $50-$1,500
CD Disc: $4.00- $40 (no multi-sets)
Almost no maintenance, disc last 25+ years
Total cost to play CDs- $54-$1540
That's why I quit playing vinyl. To start back from scratch about $500 (without the need for cleaners) to play the 400 or so LPs we have and half of them we no longer enjoy. It's hobby and only use disposable cash.
I use to pay $5-$15 per (good) seats for a top name artist's concert (Elton John- front middle section, second row, seats 1 & 2, $6.50 each). Now $50 nose bleed section and $500 for a good seat. The times, they are a changing.
|
|
|
|
Post by mauriceminor on Jan 4, 2022 0:39:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 4, 2022 13:40:04 GMT -5
Not sure my system has required a new stylus every 600 plays, and even my best loved and most played records still sound awesome. I have used Regas, so my vinyl had that going for it. But I can agree that it is fiddly.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 4, 2022 15:31:48 GMT -5
……People get lost in records for ONE main reason, I believe. It is the tactile experience of the whole thing. Not the expense or the inconvenience (to them it is not). Not the fidelity, or lack there of and all the care, etc.
The music pops in your head, that you’ll get to as soon as you can and then you “get ready”! All that extra effort goes towards that sweet spot moment and then it’s all worth it….if only for a few precious minutes before you have to do something.
As much as I would never return to that exercise, when the digital realm burps, I get a faint sense of longing for the old days.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 4, 2022 16:14:47 GMT -5
Why choose formats when you can have both?
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 4, 2022 17:16:47 GMT -5
Why choose formats when you can have both? Why have both when you can dump the shellac as I did 27 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 4, 2022 18:51:26 GMT -5
Shellac? I suppose that reveals your vintage…  |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 4, 2022 19:03:53 GMT -5
Shellac? I suppose that reveals your vintage…  Yep, he’s three days younger than dirt! 🤣😂🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 4, 2022 19:30:02 GMT -5
Shellac? I suppose that reveals your vintage… Yep, he’s three days younger than dirt! 🤣😂🤣 Love that word shellac. I use it as a metaphor often for “vinyl” which is today’s Nouveau riche term for records. Why can’t they just say I play records, instead of I’m into vinyl? I need to bone up on the materials that comprise a Blu-ray Disc so I can tell them what I’m into 🤔 🧐 |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 4, 2022 19:33:29 GMT -5
Yep, he’s three days younger than dirt! 🤣😂🤣 Love that word shellac. I use it as a metaphor often for “vinyl” which is today’s Nouveau riche term for records. Why can’t they just say I play records, instead of I’m into vinyl? I need to bone up on the materials that comprise a Blu-ray Disc so I can tell them what I’m into 🤔 🧐 I actually have a bunch of shellac and nothing to play them on unless I send one of my TT off to be restored. Not ready for that just yet. Enjoy the music! 🎶❤️🎶❤️ |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 4, 2022 19:40:30 GMT -5
Love that word shellac. I use it as a metaphor often for “vinyl” which is today’s Nouveau riche term for records. Why can’t they just say I play records, instead of I’m into vinyl? I need to bone up on the materials that comprise a Blu-ray Disc so I can tell them what I’m into 🤔 🧐 I actually have a bunch of shellac and nothing to play them on unless I send one of my TT off to be restored. Not ready for that just yet. Enjoy the music! 🎶❤️🎶❤️ My dad had a BOGEN presto that was infinitely adjustable up to 78 for playing that antique stuff along with the special extra head with the “ big needle” cartridge. When the drive wheel wore you could hear the rumble a mile away. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 5, 2022 11:28:09 GMT -5
There are indeed differences between belt drive and direct drive - but they are different, and more complex, than you seem to think. And a few of your assertions are incorrect...
In early examples of both, good quality belt drive designs typically had LOWER wow, flutter, and rumble than similarly priced direct drive designs. They also tended to have more precise speed accuracy and far better isolation from external vibrations. (One early belt drive turntable manufacturer actually had a demonstration where nails were driven into the base of the turntable while a record was playing)
In fact, back in the 1970's and 1980's, belt drive turntables were widely accepted to perform better than direct drive models. (Don't forget that, in the early days, both were in the process of replacing earlier idler-wheel models... )
Direct drive turntables were preferred by many customers because they tended to be simpler to set up and use (and had those pretty strobes)... You could also use a record cleaning brush without worrying about bouncing the needle right off the record...
And they also had no belts or pulleys to adjust or maintain over time.
Direct drive turntables were preferred by DJs because they spun up quickly, were far less delicate, and you could do things like "scratching" and "manual cueing" with them. (Many direct drive turntables also allowed you to manually adjust the speed to adjust the play time on a song - or to match the tuning on an album to a specific instrument.)
However, for audiophile applications, belt drive designs were the clear winner. Notice that most modern high-end turntables are in fact belt drive. (Because, however good the motor is, the belt adds yet another layer of filtering between the motor and the platter, to further reduce speed variations, and filter out motor noise.)
There are further considerations if you're talking about restoring a vintage turntable. Belts almost always deteriorate over time - and so need to be periodically replaced (but replacements are available if you know where to look). (And a belt drive turntable with a weak or stiff belt is likely to perform very poorly - if at all.)
In contrast, direct drive models are simpler, and have fewer moving parts, so there's less to go wrong with them. (If you get an old direct drive turntable, and it spins at the right speed, then it's probably OK... but, if you get one with a bad motor, then it's probably a goner.)
The reason that direct drive TTs from the past were superior to belt drive is that they had better wow & flutter, less rumble and if they were a well built unit would last for decades. But I agree that a good tone arm and cartridge are as, if not more, important. |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jan 5, 2022 14:46:12 GMT -5
There are indeed differences between belt drive and direct drive - but they are different, and more complex, than you seem to think. And a few of your assertions are incorrect...
In early examples of both, good quality belt drive designs typically had LOWER wow, flutter, and rumble than similarly priced direct drive designs. They also tended to have more precise speed accuracy and far better isolation from external vibrations. (One early belt drive turntable manufacturer actually had a demonstration where nails were driven into the base of the turntable while a record was playing)
In fact, back in the 1970's and 1980's, belt drive turntables were widely accepted to perform better than direct drive models. (Don't forget that, in the early days, both were in the process of replacing earlier idler-wheel models... )
Direct drive turntables were preferred by many customers because they tended to be simpler to set up and use (and had those pretty strobes)... You could also use a record cleaning brush without worrying about bouncing the needle right off the record...
And they also had no belts or pulleys to adjust or maintain over time.
Direct drive turntables were preferred by DJs because they spun up quickly, were far less delicate, and you could do things like "scratching" and "manual cueing" with them. (Many direct drive turntables also allowed you to manually adjust the speed to adjust the play time on a song - or to match the tuning on an album to a specific instrument.)
However, for audiophile applications, belt drive designs were the clear winner. Notice that most modern high-end turntables are in fact belt drive. (Because, however good the motor is, the belt adds yet another layer of filtering between the motor and the platter, to further reduce speed variations, and filter out motor noise.)
There are further considerations if you're talking about restoring a vintage turntable. Belts almost always deteriorate over time - and so need to be periodically replaced (but replacements are available if you know where to look). (And a belt drive turntable with a weak or stiff belt is likely to perform very poorly - if at all.)
In contrast, direct drive models are simpler, and have fewer moving parts, so there's less to go wrong with them. (If you get an old direct drive turntable, and it spins at the right speed, then it's probably OK... but, if you get one with a bad motor, then it's probably a goner.)
The reason that direct drive TTs from the past were superior to belt drive is that they had better wow & flutter, less rumble and if they were a well built unit would last for decades. But I agree that a good tone arm and cartridge are as, if not more, important. I've always been a 'specs' guy and IIRC back in the day the Sansui 838 and Technics 1200 beat any belt drive (in w&f and rumble) at the time. Maybe not today's belt drive. My 838 still runs flawlessly and I got my son a nice used Technics SL-D2 that performs very well. I agree that once the motors have an issue you are screwed.
Sansui SR-838 Specifications
Type: two-speed, quartz-servo, direct-drive, manual turntable
Motor: 20-pole, 30-slot DC brushless type with built-in frequency generator
Drive system: direct spindle drive, quartz servo controlled
Platter: 318mm, 1.7kg, aluminum die-cast
Wow and flutter: less than 0.025% WRMS
Rumble: better than -75dB
Signal to noise ratio: better than 64dB
Speeds: 33 and 45rpm
Fine speed adjustment: +-2.5%
Tonearm: statically balanced, s-shaped, resonance-free MCF tonearm with two point pivot support and vertical stylus alignment device
Effective length: 230mm
Overhang: 16.1mm
Offset angle: 22.5 degrees
Cartridge weight range: 4 to 11g (11 to 20.5g with sub-weight)
Dimensions: 490 x 167 x 390mm
Weight: 12.8kg
SL-1200 MkII Specifications:
Type: manual turntable
Drive method: direct drive
Motor: brushless DC motor
Control method: servo (mk1), quartz (mk2)
Platter: 330mm 1.75kg (mk1), 332mm 2kg (mk2)
Speeds: 33.33 and 45rpm
Wow and flutter: 0.03% WRMS (mk1), 0.025% WRMS (mk2)
Rumble: -70dB (mk1), -78dB (mk2)
Tonearm: universal
Effective length: 220mm (mk1), 230mm (mk2)
Overhang: 14mm (mk1), 15mm (mk2)
Effective mass: 12g (mk2)
Stylus pressure range: 0 to 4g (mk1), 0 to 2.5g (mk2)
Dimensions: 453 x 366 x 180mm (mk1), 453 x 360 x 162mm (mk2)
Weight: 10kg (mk1), 12.5kg (mk2)
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 5, 2022 17:23:53 GMT -5
Unfortunately it is difficult to compare turntable specifications because there are quite a few different ways of measuring them and nobody can seem to agree which one to use. The original AR-Xb, of the vintage of the one I had, had a specified wow and flutter of 0.03% combined... and a rumble spec of -73 dB "weighted". It was also guaranteed to meet NAB specs (which, to be fair, weren't all that stringent, but very few turntables were guaranteed to meet them).
There were various versions over several years - with slightly different specifications - so you will see a variety of similar numbers for different models and variations. (The AR-Xa and AR-Xb were incredibly popular - in part because, while they offered excellent performance, they were also very cheap... by the standards of the day.)
Also note that, while direct drive turntables use a strobe to compare the speed of the platter to the line frequency for verification... The AR-Xb uses a hysteresis synchronous motor that was driven directly by the line frequency... So there was nothing to compare or check... because it was simply "correct" (but also non-adjustable).
The latest version of the Technics SL-1200 claims to beat the wow and flutter specs on the AR (with a spec of 0.025%) but I couldn't find a rumble spec for it. There are so many different ways of measuring rumble that it's impossible to compare that directly anyway (and most modern turntables tend not to specify it at all). The SL-1200 was always a nice turntable... And they actually gained popularity during the decline of vinyl with consumers because of their reliability and popularity with DJs... (Thanks to the solid suspension, and quick spin up, you can actually hold the platter, place the needle on the surface, then let go of the platter, to "drop cue" a specific part of a song.) (You could also "scratch" with them... which is an excellent way to ruin both a record and your stylus...  )
On the old AR, and many other belt-drive turntables, the entire platter and arm subassembly was floated on soft foam-damped springs... This made them almost totally immune to any sort of vibration originating in whatever they sat on... However it also made them extremely sensitive to slow rocking motions of the sort you get when walking across a wooden floor near them. (You could bang on them with a hammer, if they were sitting on a shelf or stand on a cement floor, but you had to be very careful while walking if you had a wooden floor.) The Technics, and many other direct drive models, relied on "isolation feet". These are much more immune to slow movements, and offer some isolation from vibration, but aren't nearly as good against vibrations as a fully floated suspension.
Now, to be fair, the AR-Xb had a very nice heavy machined aluminum platter, with a really nice steel/bronze/ball main bearing, but a relatively poor S-shaped tone-arm... And, while the head-shell was removable, it was made of plastic, and was in fact pretty cheesy...
At various times I've also owned a Dual turntable, a Thorens, and a Rega... all of which were belt drive.
All of them were much more well made than my original AR-Xb... (The Thorens was downright gorgeous.)
And all had far better arms...
But none was as quiet in terms of motor noise and rumble... which was just plain nonexistent on the AR.
In any case, just for the record, I have now long since given up on vinyl entirely... and I now MUCH prefer good quality digital audio sources... (No rumble or motor noise, no wow and flutter, no record or stylus wear, no constant cleaning required, and NO TICKS, POPS, OR SURFACE NOISE - which always drove me crazy.)
 There are indeed differences between belt drive and direct drive - but they are different, and more complex, than you seem to think. And a few of your assertions are incorrect...
In early examples of both, good quality belt drive designs typically had LOWER wow, flutter, and rumble than similarly priced direct drive designs. They also tended to have more precise speed accuracy and far better isolation from external vibrations. (One early belt drive turntable manufacturer actually had a demonstration where nails were driven into the base of the turntable while a record was playing)
In fact, back in the 1970's and 1980's, belt drive turntables were widely accepted to perform better than direct drive models. (Don't forget that, in the early days, both were in the process of replacing earlier idler-wheel models... )
Direct drive turntables were preferred by many customers because they tended to be simpler to set up and use (and had those pretty strobes)... You could also use a record cleaning brush without worrying about bouncing the needle right off the record...
And they also had no belts or pulleys to adjust or maintain over time.
Direct drive turntables were preferred by DJs because they spun up quickly, were far less delicate, and you could do things like "scratching" and "manual cueing" with them. (Many direct drive turntables also allowed you to manually adjust the speed to adjust the play time on a song - or to match the tuning on an album to a specific instrument.)
However, for audiophile applications, belt drive designs were the clear winner. Notice that most modern high-end turntables are in fact belt drive. (Because, however good the motor is, the belt adds yet another layer of filtering between the motor and the platter, to further reduce speed variations, and filter out motor noise.)
There are further considerations if you're talking about restoring a vintage turntable. Belts almost always deteriorate over time - and so need to be periodically replaced (but replacements are available if you know where to look). (And a belt drive turntable with a weak or stiff belt is likely to perform very poorly - if at all.)
In contrast, direct drive models are simpler, and have fewer moving parts, so there's less to go wrong with them. (If you get an old direct drive turntable, and it spins at the right speed, then it's probably OK... but, if you get one with a bad motor, then it's probably a goner.)
I've always been a 'specs' guy and IIRC back in the day the Sansui 838 and Technics 1200 beat any belt drive (in w&f and rumble) at the time. Maybe not today's belt drive. My 838 still runs flawlessly and I got my son a nice used Technics SL-D2 that performs very well. I agree that once the motors have an issue you are screwed. |
|
)
