Post A Photograph Of Your Turntable - Page 85

I'd like to know what you people think of this

I think this guy is a dick...and somewhat right. I'll always recommend a nice used table (I actually wish I'd kept my PL518) over most new ones at the (general) price point he was looking at. 

This is also going to cause people to say 'Yeah well I judge by listening not by numbers'.

The other thing to consider (since he feels the need to mention it all the time) is that these specs are also ~30 years old. Who's to say things haven't just gotten more accurate?

Either way, the Technics 1200s are impressive tables. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE 

I'd like to know what you people think of this

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorbidToaster 

I think this guy is a dick...and somewhat right. I'll always recommend a nice used table (I actually wish I'd kept my PL518) over most new ones at the (general) price point he was looking at. 

 

This is also going to cause people to say 'Yeah well I judge by listening not by numbers'.

 

The other thing to consider (since he feels the need to mention it all the time) is that these specs are also ~30 years old. Who's to say things haven't just gotten more accurate?

 

Either way, the Technics 1200s are impressive tables. :D

 

You mention the old Pioneer PL-518... I have always wondered if old vintage turntables were worth it? Especially considering that these tables were made when most audio equipment was geared solely for audio purposes (i.e. no receivers with video or surround sound support).

I had a perfect PL518 a few months ago and I let it go. It's one of the few things I regret audio wise. At the time I had no LPs and it needed a new cart. I sold it to fund my HD800s...

I really wish I still had it. I think it's a great table. It'd be my choice if I went for a vintage table right now. They can be had fairly cheap in perfect working order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destroysall 

You mention the old Pioneer PL-518... I have always wondered if old vintage turntables were worth it? Especially considering that these tables were made when most audio equipment was geared solely for audio purposes (i.e. no receivers with video or surround sound support).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorbidToaster 

I had a perfect PL518 a few months ago and I let it go. It's one of the few things I regret audio wise. At the time I had no LPs and it needed a new cart. I sold it to fund my HD800s...

 

I really wish I still had it. I think it's a great table. It'd be my choice if I went for a vintage table right now. They can be had fairly cheap in perfect working order.

 

Did a quick search on the PL518 and many who owned it, including you, regret selling it. Makes me want one. Might be a good way for me to enter into the vinyl world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destroysall 

You mention the old Pioneer PL-518... I have always wondered if old vintage turntables were worth it? Especially considering that these tables were made when most audio equipment was geared solely for audio purposes (i.e. no receivers with video or surround sound support).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorbidToaster 

I had a perfect PL518 a few months ago and I let it go. It's one of the few things I regret audio wise. At the time I had no LPs and it needed a new cart. I sold it to fund my HD800s...

 

I really wish I still had it. I think it's a great table. It'd be my choice if I went for a vintage table right now. They can be had fairly cheap in perfect working order.

 

I have bought an sold two 518's. Another one recently fell into my lap, and I'm going to hold onto it. It definitely makes a good second table, if nothing else. Hard to go wrong with one of these. The one I currently own is in the best physical condition of the three, but all three were mechanically sound. There's really not a whole lot that can break on those tables.

Prices have regrettably risen with demand, but you should still be able to get one in good shape under $200. At that price, it's definitely worth it.

That said, my Rega P2 beats it hands down, but at more than twice the price, it had better! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by calipilot227 

 

Prices have regrettably risen with demand, but you should still be able to get one in good shape under $200. At that price, it's definitely worth it.

That's it, I will definitely keep an eye out for this turntable. Thanks guys!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE 

I'd like to know what you people think of this

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE 

I'd like to know what you people think of this

 

Well, although the author of this video certainly did prove his point, he either is not aware of the methods used by Technics and others in the 70/80s to arrive at such great looking numbers - or is not aware of the currentr policy in specification for say Thorens - or was actually knowingly trying to mislead. 

The point is simple - you can not put wow and flutter in a single number, no matter which perfectly specified standard you might chose to describe it. You can not specify the wow and flutter of any turntable in isolation - you only can specify it as record player, in conjunction with the actual pick up arm and cartridge. How these affect performance of even the nonexistant perfect turntable, you can read here http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/TT_Design/MechanicalResonances.pdf I KNOW i POSTED THIS LINK SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY, BUT IT REALLY DOES SHOW tHE oRIGINAL sIN OF VINYL PLAYBACK. You have three arms, three cartridges, 9 combinations, and you get 9 different measured performances for the same turntable ! That is why modern day manufacturers do not spec at all or spec at least one order of magnitude worse than back in the 70s. Because the figures by Pro-Ject are approx right for "average" combination of actual TT/arm/cartridge combo in real life - not the intristic performance of the "revolving disc", which in itself may well be much better.

For the real apprecition of wow, flutter, rumble, you need a spectrum analyzer - for the actual record player combination. Technics did achieve unheard of precision for speed - using optical methods for measuring any devition. No way this can be achieved with real test record - no matter how much care and attention has been put into its production, it must go through usual process - and is most definitely not perfect. One extremely important point when measuring wow and flutter is record centering - if the record is off cener ( do you perhaps own ONE that is not ? ), it will be so much worse than top TT it is supposed to measure as to make it completely useless. That is why Nakamichi designed a TT that can find the true center of any record and adjust its speed TO BE CORRECT EXACTLY AT THE POINT OF STYLUS - which is all that is really needed. Here the YT vidz on Naka TTs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5O7ssQB4Y8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUgOUftRSjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlG5bN1jahs

The same/similar limitatios to the test record as for wow & flutter measurements apply for the rumble measurement - a single figure withot specifying the arm and cartridge is meaningless. And the rumble even best vinyl is capable of is about 10-20 dB worse than best turntables are actually capable of - that is why Thorens developed Thorens Rumpelmesskoppler ( Rumble Measuring Probe ) 

http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_history.htm

I own and use Rumpelmesskoppler - and believe me, it is not picnic when it confirms there is actually something wrong with the main TT bearing, meaning an expensive replacement is in order. FAR better than ANY test record.

As you can see, there is much more to the real turntable performance that it is possible to squeeze into a single number.

I promised to post a picture a while ago - and here it is. I t is a story about a turntable that strayed far away from its home.

that is absolutely all that is written on it - NOTHING more, even if and when you disassemble the thing.

The thing arrived one day through an acquaintance of a friend - couple of years ago. It had a headshell and a cartridge. There was no belt on this TT.

I thought it was an Acoustic Research 11 - nope. Audio Research, known manufacturer of (tube) audio electronics also did not produce it. The belt required is LARGE - in fact, it is the largest belt possible without actually running on the outside of the platter rim.

I searched far and wide, and finally determined its manufacturer, or better said, its seller : Audio Reflex from Canada. Through many forums, I finally found a picture of something reasonably similar, obviously a later model : http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/115762-ags_audio_reflex_mr_112_turntable/ Even that info of model number etc did not yield any useable info on the belt required - all that was listed as a belt for Audio Reflex turntables was simply too small. Finally, it dawned to me to search for " 285 mm diameter belt" - yes it really is that large diameter on the platter ! - which led me to http://www.donberg.co.uk/warehs/groupab.htm (actually to their outlet in Ireland ) and there I finally got my belt http://www.donberg.co.uk/catalogue/audio_spares/audio_belts/araf_331.html . They were very friendly and supplied very fast - if you need a belt and do not want to pay markup artists that sell most probably similar if not the same belts at much higher prices strictly by make/model without specifying  lenght/diameter , you should perhaps bookmark that link.

I knew it is not over yet, when I received the package with belt(s). My worst fear was confirmed upon mounting the belt and switcing the AR-11 on . It did run too slow. In North America, mains frequency is 60 Hz and in Europe it is 50 Hz - with synchronous motor as fitted to the AR-11, this means pulley change. Which in so old model so far away from its home market means getting someone to make a custom pulley - or scrap the TT. Now I know it is possible to use any PSUs for AC sinchronous motor driven belt drive turntables -  built for North America's 60 Hz mains AND 240 V AC - next to mossion impossible in any commercially available product. Or I could design one from scratch. 

I opted for the most guerilla McGyver approach instead - I simply recalculated the ratios and let approx calculated lenght of PTFE teflon tape ( used for sealing etc ) to wind itself upon the existing pulley. In photo above, you can see the brass original pulley partly covered with multiple turns of the thinnest teflon tape I could find - wound on the pulley diameter for 33 1/3 RPM. Below is the same photo, but belt on the 45 RPM diameter of the pulley :

Believe it or not, I was able to make the thing run with less than a 0.1 % error in speed at 33 1/3 RPM, and know I can do better than that with this teflon McGyver mod - eventually making it OK both for 33 1/3 and 45 RPM. Granted, not as good as properly machined pulley, but it can be made surprisingly smooth and compared to the vibration inherent in synchronous motor, should not result in appreciably worse performance - once you allow for all the stuff mentioned in my previous post just above.

The greatest downfall of this table is its arm - no antiskating, no VTA, the whole arm pipe swiwel around 10 degrees in the joint with part that carries bearings, etc - but it nevertheless does sound quite decent indeed !  I tried several carts/headshells, and the sheer solidity of the sound, no doubt due to very decent main bearing, made me to start toying with an idea to either mount another decent arm ( difficult without visible change to the plinth ) or just use the platter, main bearing and motor and build a TT from scratch around these parts. Here a shot "below the hood" showing its workings :

Here the pic of the platter, showing its 285 mm diameter where belt rides :

Allegedly built by CEC in Japan - hats off, they don't make them that solid anymore !

Question: Are there significant differences in phono preamps? I have a TCC TC-750 preamp that while nice, I don't think it really gives the oomph in the low-end. Of course maybe it's my speakers 35hz wall.... Anyways what I'm asking is if I were to spend the money on a.... I don't know maybe a Pro-Ject Phono Box or a Music Hall 1.2 MM, will I get a significantly better sound? Right now when I play records they sound good but I'm not blown away. Record collecting currently is just habitual and an investment per se. But I want to ENJOY records as well.

Also, what is the difference between a phono preamp and a phono stage?

Just showing off my new phono pre.  It's a hagerman bugle that I cased up myself, if you want to see pictures of the internals, read what's going on, and see the back you can look at my post in the diy builds thread:  http://www.head-fi.org/t/85561/post-pics-of-your-builds/8880#post_9088477

I forced myself to finish up this build this week, since with next friday's pay check I'm finally buying an SL1200 mkII, so excited, bring on the blizzards!

Maiden voyage for the pre was Carlos Santana and Mahavishnu John McLaughlin "Love, Devotion, Surrender."  It's sounding pretty good in my room right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gib48189 


Thanks for the YT links. It is interesting to see 3 variations of the Transciber. One with a gold platter, one with the audio cables hooked through a connector, and one like the model I have. Silver platter and the audio cables passed through the bottom plate. I did take a look at the Ortofon site, the stylus is on back order or thry no longer have it in stock.

I always found the Transcriber turntable to be very nice to use. You just hold open the glass lid with the fingers of the right hand and use the button on the control unit on the left to shift the platter along until the stylus is positioned where you want, then gently close the lid. Sound comes out.

I never owned one but they were being manufactured in Ireland when I was living in Ireland and so the Hi Fi shops had them. I did know one guy who owned one and it was lovely :)