Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › TURNTABLE SETUP Questions thread - don't start a new thread, ASK YOUR QUESTION HERE!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TURNTABLE SETUP Questions thread - don't start a new thread, ASK YOUR QUESTION HERE! - Page 82

post #1216 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE View Post

How difficult do you think it would be to disassemble an SL-1500? I might possibly stuff the plinth with dynamat (alternative)

 

Technics decks are a can of worms or Pandora's box - whichever suits your description of a job thought out well but compromised in execution due to cost constraints ( and not only that ) better. 

 

It is not difficult to disassemble it - but putting it all back so that it works as intended with your mods to work as intended is not so easy. I am not familiar

with dynamat ( US "cosa nostra") - if I understand it correctly, it is some bitumenous damping sheet or similar. Something along those lines may actually work well. In any case - get a copy of service manual or at least take photos of each and every section/detail - it will be sooooooooo much more easy once you get to assemmbling it back again.

 

 

I don't know much about the SL1500 but if the plinth is the same as the SL1200, it should not be in need of further damping. The bottom layer of the SL1200 plinth is solid rubber.

post #1217 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

RB300 is mid effective mass arm - abot 11 gram IIRC. Should not be too light for compliance of the DL 110. RB1000, on the other hand, IS a low mass arm - despite they look almost the same save for colour. LOTS of differences between the two.

Any thoughts on the SME arms?
309
IV
V
post #1218 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylab View Post

The DL110 is a significantly better cartridge than the 2M Red.  The DL-110 is a high output moving coil, so any MM phono stage will work. 

 

So I've pretty much decided on a phono stage for the Planar 3 -- the Musical Fidelity V-LPS II seems to be quite good for the price. It's also a bit cheaper than the Cambridge 651P which seems to be on the same level.

 

I'm still not sure about a cartridge though. The DL-110 looks to be very well-regarded, but I'm wondering if there's anything else around $100 that I should look at? Of not, then that's probably the one I'll get.

post #1219 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post


Any thoughts on the SME arms?
309
IV
V

Familiar with V. IV is supposed to be reject V , with slightly reduced performance. No experience with 309 ( is that with a detacheable headshell ? ).

 

SME V must one of if not the most rigid arms out there. Not only on paper, but for real. While working at Benz, I measured quite some carts mounted to V and "other" arms. Invariably, with a good/great/non plus ultra cartridge ( that had inherently channel separation usually only dreamt of ),

SME V menaged to squeeze yet from 5 to 10 dB more channel separation, particularly below say 500 Hz - leading to devastatingly precise bass and localization of instruments in listening test.

 

One gripe with SME is the fact they NEVER provide for any sort of azimuth adjustment, going into great lenghts boasting their arms are "so and so fraction of a degree from dead 90 degree accurate in azimuth" and that decision is backed by the usual claim of higher rigidity, placing the burden of accurate azimuth totally on the cartridge. Regarding the arm rigidity, this may well be true. ( the same comment applies to Rega arms ). BUT - an arm has bearings that govern azimuth precision spaced at say 40-50 mm ( 2 inch ) - and at that relatively large distance it is not that hard to achieve azimuth accuracy claimed by the SME using good machining. Cartridge manufacturers must work with say 0.1 mm stylus - and lots of other components that are FAR smaller than the relatively big tonearm - that means within manufacturing possibilities, there WILL be greater deviations from perfect in cartridges - PERIOD. Since channel separation is extremely vulnerable to azimuth ( anything with channel separation equal to or better than 35 dB will be within 1/3rd of a degree or less from dead 90 degree ) - with real world cartridges, even those costing in 5 figures, having no azimuth fine adjustment on the arm will not be able to align the cart for best possible reproduction.

 

Those who have done more cartridge installatins using measurements ( and consequent listening ) tests will know that. Once you heard a cart adjusted properly for azimuth, you are not likely to be satisfied with anything less.

 

The same sample of SME V is in daily use at Benz since at least 1990 - every cart produced is listened to on this very arm - and it still performs flawlessly. It is a precision product that more than proved its ruggedness and longeivity.

post #1220 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeroicPenguin View Post

 

So I've pretty much decided on a phono stage for the Planar 3 -- the Musical Fidelity V-LPS II seems to be quite good for the price. It's also a bit cheaper than the Cambridge 651P which seems to be on the same level.

 

I'm still not sure about a cartridge though. The DL-110 looks to be very well-regarded, but I'm wondering if there's anything else around $100 that I should look at? Of not, then that's probably the one I'll get.

 

The Ortofon 2M Blue is a good option, but's it's a little over $200. Haven't heard the DL-110, so I can't verify it.

post #1221 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

 

 

I don't know much about the SL1500 but if the plinth is the same as the SL1200, it should not be in need of further damping. The bottom layer of the SL1200 plinth is solid rubber.

Never opened the 1500 - but damping of a stock 1200 leaves lots too much to be desired and is the singular culprit why this thing has not been embraced by the audiophile back in its prime - only recently due to shortage of serious tables for reasonable coin. 

post #1222 of 2868

I thought the Tech 12 was known for being very well damped... ?

post #1223 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipilot227 View Post

I thought the Tech 12 was known for being very well damped... ?

If you can, try to look at any Townsend Rock model - LOTS of current top tables are at least inspired by this design originally developed by the Cranfield University. Tecnics tables, with an odd exception or two, ring like bells compared to this one. Their basic spec for rumble and wow and flutter are still exceptional and although were bettered by the uber super tables, I do not believe it makes sense going for 1 or 2 or 3,78 dB lower rumble measured with Thorens probe - when any real vinyl record will be at least 10 dB noisier. Speed stability of the TURNTABLE PLATTER ( assuming perfect arm/cart with no resonance, that does not exist ) is also pointless to improve upon - as long as normally off-center pressed records are played. Off-center pressing introduces wow at the interval of one revolution and is FAR greater than good, let alone next to perfect speed of Technics tables.

 

For off centerd records, only practical solution for everyday use are Nakamichi tables which I already covered. I would pick a Naka over any current super uber tables that go past 300 K$.

Wish I could afford one of these "old" jewels...but have no idea how well damped they are - never saw one in flesh. Only posted what I think is the best table for playing regular vinyl, given its set of imperfections.


Edited by analogsurviver - 3/26/13 at 3:43am
post #1224 of 2868

Ahh... Today was a good day. 

I've been meaning to get myself a good but affordable all rounder speakers for casual movies, music, and everything in between. Since a few months ago, I've decided to buy a pair from my friend, an Edifier RT1900T.

 

I have a bunch of good but not-my-cup-of-tea vinyl records I got from the previous turntable owner, and he had sold me the whole lot of about 16 records for $50. I put the records up for sale in a whole bundle and got myself a buyer, transaction was made earlier this evening after office hours. Took the money and bought the speakers.

 

Hooked it up with my turntable and speakers, sounds pretty good. Too bad we don't really play music loudly in this house out of respect for each other. One thing I noticed is that I don't really hear the pops as prominently as headphones. Now vinyls sound far from tolerable and very enjoyable instead.

 

 

 

 

I'm going to have to redo the whole desk arrangement now. Only gripe I have with these speakers is that they don't have the bass impact. But the positioning and imaging is good. Don't ask for comparisons, I'm bad at memorizing and comparing sounds.

 

Things are starting to get really messy and unruly.

post #1225 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

Familiar with V. IV is supposed to be reject V , with slightly reduced performance. No experience with 309 ( is that with a detacheable headshell ? ).

 

SME V must one of if not the most rigid arms out there. Not only on paper, but for real. While working at Benz, I measured quite some carts mounted to V and "other" arms. Invariably, with a good/great/non plus ultra cartridge ( that had inherently channel separation usually only dreamt of ),

SME V menaged to squeeze yet from 5 to 10 dB more channel separation, particularly below say 500 Hz - leading to devastatingly precise bass and localization of instruments in listening test.

 

One gripe with SME is the fact they NEVER provide for any sort of azimuth adjustment, going into great lenghts boasting their arms are "so and so fraction of a degree from dead 90 degree accurate in azimuth" and that decision is backed by the usual claim of higher rigidity, placing the burden of accurate azimuth totally on the cartridge. Regarding the arm rigidity, this may well be true. ( the same comment applies to Rega arms ). BUT - an arm has bearings that govern azimuth precision spaced at say 40-50 mm ( 2 inch ) - and at that relatively large distance it is not that hard to achieve azimuth accuracy claimed by the SME using good machining. Cartridge manufacturers must work with say 0.1 mm stylus - and lots of other components that are FAR smaller than the relatively big tonearm - that means within manufacturing possibilities, there WILL be greater deviations from perfect in cartridges - PERIOD. Since channel separation is extremely vulnerable to azimuth ( anything with channel separation equal to or better than 35 dB will be within 1/3rd of a degree or less from dead 90 degree ) - with real world cartridges, even those costing in 5 figures, having no azimuth fine adjustment on the arm will not be able to align the cart for best possible reproduction.

 

Those who have done more cartridge installatins using measurements ( and consequent listening ) tests will know that. Once you heard a cart adjusted properly for azimuth, you are not likely to be satisfied with anything less.

 

The same sample of SME V is in daily use at Benz since at least 1990 - every cart produced is listened to on this very arm - and it still performs flawlessly. It is a precision product that more than proved its ruggedness and longeivity.

 

Thanks!

Any comments on the silicon damping trough supplied with the SME V?

Is it very useful?

post #1226 of 2868
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ View Post

I've managed to accuire a Pioneer PL570. I'm looking to put a new cart on it. My shortlist is...

 

Denon DL 103R

Denon DL 301II

Grado Silver

AT 440 MLa

 

Any recommendations would be very appreciated.

 

 

Not sure if its in your price range but I am using an Ortofon 2M Bronze on my PL-570 which sounds great and works well.  

 
 
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeroicPenguin View Post

 

So I've pretty much decided on a phono stage for the Planar 3 -- the Musical Fidelity V-LPS II seems to be quite good for the price. It's also a bit cheaper than the Cambridge 651P which seems to be on the same level.

 

I'm still not sure about a cartridge though. The DL-110 looks to be very well-regarded, but I'm wondering if there's anything else around $100 that I should look at? Of not, then that's probably the one I'll get.

 

Of the currently available carts in that price range I have heard, the DL-110 is better than the 2M Red or the Shure M97xE, although all three are quite decent sounding.

post #1227 of 2868
No ground yet.... But hnnnnnggggg
post #1228 of 2868
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

 

I don't know much about the SL1500 but if the plinth is the same as the SL1200, it should not be in need of further damping. The bottom layer of the SL1200 plinth is solid rubber.

 

Never opened the 1500 - but damping of a stock 1200 leaves lots too much to be desired and is the singular culprit why this thing has not been embraced by the audiophile back in its prime - only recently due to shortage of serious tables for reasonable coin. 

 

You're right, of course! After a bit more research, the consensus seems to be that the SL1200's "two under layers act more as ballast and shock absorbing mounting cradle" than anything else, and that "technics no doubt did their homework, however I imagine their intended (and actual) market saw their priority as reducing or eliminating the ingress of vibration to the turntable from external influences (DJ decks work in an unfriendly environment in that respect) rather than controlling resonances emanating from the cartridge/disc interaction".

 

I'm betting the fluid damping will improve this, and my res-o-mat decouples rather than absorbs which should also help. But I will discuss the plinth with Kevin at KAB when he gets it in along with a few other things I"m sure. Personally I am thinking that more screws would help with the plinth, and that spray foam would be great for filling in the gaps but since the latter would "preclude access to the electronics, it seems impracticable".

 

Here's a great thread on the subject, where I got the quoted remarks. It discusses the SL1200 "plinth sandwich" in detail, along with many other things SL1200-related:

 

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2996


Edited by grokit - 3/26/13 at 10:28pm
post #1229 of 2868

So who's hype for the new VPI DD table?

post #1230 of 2868

Anyone able to help me out with setting up my 1200 mk2? I am currently running some studio monitors on my computer for music/sound, a pair of Rokit RP6 and the matching sub. They are connected to a small USB interface (Scarlett 2i2) which works great.

What I'm wondering is: would I now just need to get a phono preamp for my TT, then connect out to RCA on the monitors and run it that way? They are connected to the USB interface for my PC using TRS, leaving the RCA inputs free.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › TURNTABLE SETUP Questions thread - don't start a new thread, ASK YOUR QUESTION HERE!