[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I cant argue about the artistic merit of such classic performances, but I just dont like the old mono recordings I have owned, after stereo they sound very flat, call me prejudiced by all means.

I won't call you prejudiced, but there are a good many examples of extremely good sonic performance from old mono pressings; the Everest Hi-Fi's come to mind - I have an early copy of Copland's Billy The Kid that is just stunning, with amazing soundstage. The later-era mono recordings on better jazz labels exhibit this as well - Columbia, Blue Note, Impulse!, and others. Have you heard a mono copy of Something Else? Wow.

The other aspect is that in recent years our commited analog friends like Jonathan Carr and Joe Grado have brought us true mono cartridges. (Denon also with the DL102) I don't have much experience with these, but the ones I have heard suggest they are very worthwhile if you have enough monos and want to hear them at their best. (though again, having to run two arms/two cartridges full-time just adds to my hypothesis that vinyl is not ever going to be simple for the masses!)

 

[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Amazon list the SL1200 MK 2 for 449USD, Needledoctor have the OL1 and Rega RB250's for under 300, and an armboard from Soundsupports on Ebay or OL is under 50-70, which leaves 150-200 to play with. Goldring Carts are overpriced in the states although the new Ortofon 2Ms are meant to be good.

Interesting. I thought the 1200 was going for more money than that (I happened to notice the SL1200Mk5G on Pricejapan.com for $744, thus my confusion...must be a better model?). As I said, I've never heard a 1200 in a "hi-fi" context...I'm a bit skeptical, but I've seen enough surprise performers to know that ruling it out might be foolish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you'll find the AT is probably the best compliance match as it's now an updated version. HOMC Denon's like the 160 are a possiblilty but I wouldn't go for a 103 on a Rega Arm.

Thanks for mentioning that, the AT I had was 7-8 years ago, and it was definitely a very compliant cantilever. As for the Rega arms, they really do strike an excellent compromise between price and performance - and I've never had an issue running both the DL103 and DL103D in the RB300. This combination sounds very good, to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif (snip) Classic Thorens tables certainly benefit from a more modern tonearm, I'd be the first to agree with you there, but dismissing these as 'vintage' in the same breath as recommending the Denon 103, is a bit of a leap of faith

I don't find the 103 to be vintage-sounding at all - it's an old design, but has a very flat frequency response, even if it's not fully 'wideband' by Lyra Kelikon standards. It's a little bit rolled off on the top end, but not enough to be troubling. The midrange is stellar, yet unexaggerated. And the LF's are very deep, coherent and "modern" IMO.

No comment on the Lenco or Axis suggestions, except to say that I've tried that route with the Ariston and never got there. I managed to 'get there' with the Oracle II, but it was paired with an expensive arm and cartridge... (a $1275 luckout that I later sold off in pieces for over $2900!).

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif The other aspect is that in recent years our commited analog friends like Jonathan Carr and Joe Grado have brought us true mono cartridges.

The advantage of a mono cart is for playback for listening, not digital transcription. When the channels are summed in the cartridge, it cancels out a lot of the out of phase noise. You can do pretty much the same thing by putting jumpers on the pins on the back of the cartridge to sum the channels.

I find for digital transcription, my click and pop removal software works a LOT better in stereo than in mono.

It's easy to swap cartridges in and out if you have removable headshells.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The advantage of a mono cart is for playback for listening, not digital transcription. When the channels are summed in the cartridge, it cancels out a lot of the out of phase noise. You can do pretty much the same thing by putting jumpers on the pins on the back of the cartridge to sum the channels.

It's also the shape and width of the stylus though.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree with the latter part of your comments, but not the first assertion....you'll have to show us how that's done.

Dual 1228 at ebay $80. Phono preamp or 70s receiver at ebay $50. Pretty darn good cartridge of your choice $70.

That setup would give most music fans plenty of enjoyment. If the cart on the turntable is still in good condition, or just needs a new stylus, you can get away even cheaper.

The benefit of this particular turntable is that for a couple hundred dollars more, you could get a Grado 3.5 mil DJ cartridge mounted on a separate Dual headshell and be able to play 78s too.

Or you could shop around and find a really good deal on a used Thorens or Technics. They're not very expensive compared to new turntables either.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's also the shape and width of the stylus though.

Are you talking about a cartridge designed for the old style "coarse groove" LPs? That's a pretty specialized area. I only have a dozen or so of those early records myself, and my regular stylus plays them fine. I've never seen the need to get a stylus just for those.

See ya
Steve

 

[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The advantage of a mono cart is for playback for listening, not digital transcription. When the channels are summed in the cartridge, it cancels out a lot of the out of phase noise. You can do pretty much the same thing by putting jumpers on the pins on the back of the cartridge to sum the channels.

Not so. A "true" modern mono cartridge will not only be made with modern techniques and materials, it will also have the right (original) mono stylus profile. So you are tracking the mono groove correctly with an otherwise-modern unit. This is considered to make a bigger difference than the channel summing aspect.

 

[Zanth]

There is no reason one has to spend guarantuan amounts of money in order to get an awesome vinyl experience.

Vintage Thorens TD160 or 166, a decent arm and a Grado Silver will set someone back maybe 200-300 on the used market and this thing ROCKS. Takes on CD players well into the 1500 range.

That said, no doubt it would seem that there is more bang for the buck at the upper echelons of analogue than there is in digital. Personally I find that there is a very steep drop off in gains in the digital realm unless one hits the very best, whereas with incrementals with vinyl, things go much better, one feels they really are getting improvements.

My CD collection is 2-3x the size of my vinyl collection. My digital collection is 100x the size of my CD collection. I would say that because of convenience my iPod get the most use, then my CD player (as of late) but that if I had a preference, I would be vinyl only.

 

[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would say that because of convenience my iPod get the most use, then my CD player (as of late) but that if I had a preference, I would be vinyl only.

I can relate....same story for me.

I'm 100% pro-vinyl, and I hope and pray every day that someday my kids will inherit all my stuff and will still find great hardware and software support. (but I plan to live a long time, so who knows)

OTOH, I find my commitment to the vinyl ritual waxes and wanes, dependent on available time and some other factors. It is ultimately enjoyable for me, I just don't take it to the level of 'extreme obsession' anymore.

 

[Ice Max]

clearly, MP3 blows vinyl out of the water

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not so. A "true" modern mono cartridge will not only be made with modern techniques and materials, it will also have the right (original) mono stylus profile.

I've come across two groove shapes on 50s mono recordings... what collectors call "coarsegroove", which were only in production for a year or so, and the standard mono groove, that is completely compatible with the size and shape of a typical stereo stylus. (I'm not as up on 45s... they may have been coarsegroove longer than LPs to cater to the jukebox trade.) Different shapes of stylii can be used to access different parts of the groove, but size is the main difference between coarsegroove and standard, not shape.

If you want to use the same sort of shape they used back in the day, that would be conical / spherical. Elliptical tips came along later. Elliptical are better at ducking under groove wear. Conical are better at minimizing the impact of out of phase damage so digital declickers can operate cleaner and more efficiently. I use a standard size conical on my coarsegrooves and it works fine. I use stereo because I always capture and post process through a declicker. It's conceivable that a slightly smaller than standard size elliptical might dig the gutter of a coarsegroove. I don't know because I don't use that kind of tip.

See ya
Steve

 

[Herandu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice Max /img/forum/go_quote.gif clearly, MP3 blows vinyl out of the water

Where did you read that fable?

 

[truant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where did you read that fable?

Maybe he has never listened a decent vinyl setup.

 

[jp11801]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed /img/forum/go_quote.gif Damn, I forgot. Vinyl verges on magical in that regard, it laughs at physics.

You may want to try listening to it sometime rather than reading about it. I find I am able to judge the merits of an audio device after I have listened to it rather that read or hypothisied about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Digital music releases have also generally improved significantly in sound quality. And all this is the basis for my original post.

Funny I have found many digital releases lacking , in the rock and jazz areas in particular. Maybe in classical it gets a decent chance but often I look for older issues on cd rather than the dreaded remastered. Many modern recording do not sound good at all to my ears, I sure could spout off dozens of audiophile releases that are good but I am talking about rock releases, they tend to be hot mastered. I can only listen in the car or ipod to those

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, but how long are you going to have a flawless record for? After a few rotations, the needle will have etched away microscopic amounts of vinyl. The fact that vinyl degrades after each play doesn't make it feasible for longevity or audiophile listening sessions. But yes, that first play of a record can blow a CD out of the water with a killer turntable rig.

On a high end level, i would say digital is on par with the best record rigs.

Below that, i still would give the notch to vinyl. Cheap cdplayers or a cheap record player; record player will easally sound better.