[jaddie]

Quote:

High-end or good vinyl setups were mentioned a couple of pages back.
 
Would the Pro-Ject Xtension 10 Evolution (€ 3000) qualify as high-end or at least as good?
 
Some measurements:

 
Bearing rumble, DIN B-weighted, into 47 kohm: -68 dB where 0 dB = 53 mVrms at 1 kHz
Wow and flutter: 0.09%
 
If we compare this to digital that's worse than ancient digital tech with ENOB below 13 bits.
 
That is without a preamp. I guess a high-end preamp isn't much cheaper is it? Maybe € 2k?
If designed properly it shouldn't add much distortion and noise (yeah, some high-end preamps are actually not designed properly).
 
 
Now this might sound outrageous, but a € 40 sansa clip can directly drive headphones, store gigabytes of lossless (if you wish) tracks, has less noise, no wow/flutter (jitter components down about -120 dB), higher dynamic range, lower crosstalk ...

 
You don't have to spend that kind of money to get comparable performance in terms of rumble and wow/flutter.  In fact, you can probably do that well for 1/10 that much, but in hunting down turntable specs, which I admit to not having done in...um...a little while, I'm impressed by the lack of them.  Turntable manufacturers not specifying the only thing they bring to the table...ok, sorry, that was bad...rumble and wow.  Wow.  That's not exactly full disclosure.  I found one (VPI) that, if they spec rumble, it's a figure like "-80dB!", no reference specified, no weighting curve mentioned, but you know darn well there is one for that figure to be true.  
 
Haven't bothered to look at specs for preamps, but I'll bet they're not quoted much either.  We used to see everything spec'ed. 

 

[xnor]

Well I guess companies prefer to dishonestly sell less compressed versions as more expensive "hi-res" digital files when they could just be released as CD versions as well.
Else, how would they justify a less compressed version on CD costing more than the "normal" (squished) CD version? If anything they should be cheaper!

 

[xnor]

Quote:

You don't have to spend that kind of money to get comparable performance in terms of rumble and wow/flutter. 

I know. I was just tackling the "a good turntable setup sounds so much better" claim.
 
 
Quote:

In fact, you can probably do that well for 1/10 that much, but in hunting down turntable specs, which I admit to not having done in...um...a little while, I'm impressed by the lack of them.  Turntable manufacturers not specifying the only thing they bring to the table...ok, sorry, that was bad...rumble and wow.

Funny. I also did quick searches for THD vs. frequency and didn't find anything. It would really be interesting to also see measurements for IMD, crosstalk, frequency response etc. if that is even possible to measure accurately.
 
 
Quote:

Wow.  That's not exactly full disclosure.  I found one (VPI) that, if they spec rumble, it's a figure like "-80dB!", no reference specified, no weighting curve mentioned, but you know darn well there is one for that figure to be true.  
 
Haven't bothered to look at specs for preamps, but I'll bet they're not quoted much either.  We used to see everything spec'ed.

It's not only the specs, but also the measurements done by reviewers that are lacking. Besides what I posted there's usually only a speed accuracy measurement.

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

Well I guess companies prefer to dishonestly sell less compressed versions as more expensive "hi-res" digital files when they could just be released as CD versions as well.
Else, how would they justify a less compressed version on CD costing more than the "normal" (squished) CD version? If anything they should be cheaper!

 
See, my problem here is that I'm not sure that the hi-res one is less loudness compressed... Or have I missed something? Are some companies offering less loudness compressed versions as downloads???

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Funny. I also did quick searches for THD vs. frequency and didn't find anything. It would really be interesting to also see measurements for IMD, crosstalk, frequency response etc. if that is even possible to measure accurately.

Oooh! You DON'T want to see those numbers!!!  You can get pretty decent accuracy, but the test records are very hard to find.  And keep in mind you're only looking at half the system...the play half. 
 
I did these tests years ago.  IMD...yikes!!!  Crosstalk was bad too, but not as big a problem, I think I was happy to see it in the high 30s low 40s area, mid band.  THD was hard to do without an spectrum analyzer, conventional auto-null THD analyzers kept getting bumped out of the null by surface noise.  My stuff back then was a Tek AA-501 and a Tek 5L4N, an STR-100 and a boxcar load of patience. 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

See, my problem here is that I'm not sure that the hi-res one is less loudness compressed... Or have I missed something? Are some companies offering less loudness compressed versions as downloads???

Might be the case for some files. Others are probably identical (down to 15/16 bits anyway).
Linn records posted some 44.1/16 and 96/24 files for comparison two years or so ago in the "24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded" thread. The files had visibly different waveforms. Later the guy from linn admitted the files were mastered differently (less dynamic compression for the 96/24 files among possibly other damaging modifications done to the 44.1/16 file). A couple days after that I couldn't find the comparison online anymore..
 
Quote:

Oooh! You DON'T want to see those numbers!!!  You can get pretty decent accuracy, but the test records are very hard to find.  And keep in mind you're only looking at half the system...the play half. 
 
I did these tests years ago.  IMD...yikes!!!  Crosstalk was bad too, but not as big a problem, I think I was happy to see it in the high 30s low 40s area, mid band.  THD was hard to do without an spectrum analyzer, conventional auto-null THD analyzers kept getting bumped out of the null by surface noise.  My stuff back then was a Tek AA-501 and a Tek 5L4N, an STR-100 and a boxcar load of patience. 

I DO want to see those numbers!

 

[ultrabike]

I don't really have a turntable with me currently (practical reasons - including space and curious little ones handses) and listen to music mostly through my laptop (+ Total BitHead sometimes), Yammy Receiver, and Sansa Zip. However, this looks interesting:
 
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable-database.php
 
Most stuff seems to have rumble in the order of -78 to -70 dB. Fisher which is what my father used to have seems to go south (EDIT: I meant to say north in noise level, and south performance-wize) of -70 dB (he later bought a Gradiente turntable and currently has a low end Sony - I failed to convince him to get an Audio-Technica LP120 since he does have large collection of LPs and $ is a consideration.) Modern day Grace Digital (Target stuff) seems about -50 dB.
 
Some old Technics reportedly hit -92 dB though. However, according to the database, the venerable SL-1200 mk2 gets -78 dB which might be on the high side of current commercially available stuff.
 
They also seem to have some IMD numbers there (as a function of tone arm height... I think):
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=21446
 
And some here for a Shure V15Vx as a function of antiskate settings... I think:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=22590

 

[jaddie]

 
I DO want to see those numbers!

 
Sorry, I don't have them any more.  Will it suffice to say the actual vinyl system, recording and playback, was at least one if not more orders of magnitude worse in every measurement than any other part of the system except the speakers?  I know, hearsay and heresy.  But we can do it again. I can test, got a fresh-ish STR100, and gear, if somebody wanted to send me a unit.   

 

[xnor]

Quote:

I don't really have a turntable with me currently (practical reasons - including space and curious little ones handses) and listen to music mostly through my laptop (+ Total BitHead sometimes), Yammy Receiver, and Sansa Zip. However, this looks interesting:
 
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable-database.php
 
Most stuff seems to have rumble in the order of -78 to -70 dB. Fisher which is what my father used to have seems to go south of -70 dB (he later bought a Gradiente turntable and currently has a low end Sony - I failed to convince him to get an Audio-Technica LP120 since he does have large collection of LPs and $ is a consideration.) Modern day Grace Digital (Target stuff) seems about -50 dB.
 
Some old Technics reportedly hit -92 dB though. However, according to the database, the venerable SL-1200 mk2 gets -78 dB which might be on the high side of current commercially available stuff.
 
They also seem to have some IMD numbers there (as a function of tone arm height... I think):
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=21446
 
And some here for a Shure V15Vx as a function of antiskate settings... I think:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=22590

 

 
That database is based on specs though, not measurements, isn't it?
 
edit: for example clearaudio ovation specs say -92 dB when measurement show -69 dB, so I wouldn't dare to say most stuff is south of -70 dB.
edit2: specs of the pro-ject posted above are also optimistic with -73 dB (vs -68 dB measured)

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

That database is based on specs though, not measurements, isn't it?

 
Probably a mix. I don't see Grace Digital Audio advertizing -35 dB of rumble from their Vinylwriter Pico

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable-database.php?make=Grace+Digital+Audio&mdl=&sort=2&drive=any&ascdesc=ASC&motor=any&search=search&control=any&auto=any&changer=any
 
Those numbers look quite a bit on the low end though. Like 8 bits of ENOB... Then again it seems it was real cheap and not particularly well regarded.
 
Seems to have gone for ~$80 (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Grace-Digital-GDI-VW00-Vinylwriter-Pico-Turntable/3347024/product.html) and might be discontinued.

 

[weirddub]

Take a seat baby!

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

edit: for example clearaudio ovation specs say -92 dB when measurement show -69 dB, so I wouldn't dare to say most stuff is south of -70 dB.
edit2: specs of the pro-ject posted above are also optimistic with -73 dB (vs -68 dB measured)

 
Oops, my bad. I meant to say north

. Which means south performance-wize.

 

[jaddie]

The -35dB has to be an unweighted measurement.  There were several efforts to standardize rumble weighting filters, one came from CBS (Ben Bauer) in the late 60s, then there was the [size=small]IEC 98 (1984), all of which is related.  They were trying to peak the rumble measurement at a point where it would be most easily heard then minimize the extreme LF spectrum where it's not easily heard.  [/size]
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/IEC_98_(1984)_Rumble_Weighting_curves.svg
 
Problem was, people didn't stick to standards, so rumble measurements are all over the place.  Frankly, 78dB is "good enough" because below that there are things besides the table that contribute and it all goes out of control, impossible to confirm or repeat. It's not easy to cut a groove better than 80dB rumble, weighted, anyway.  They had the same issues standardizing wow weighting, there were more than one weighting filter, and people would just publish the number without saying which filter was used.  It was a problem comparing belt drive to direct drive.

 

[jaddie]

Oops, sorry the Grace Digital is kinda junky, could be weighted after all!

 

[ultrabike]

Even unweighted, -35 dB sounds horrible.