[pne]

playing off the vinyl thread in this forum, I would like to ask for advice regarding vintage turntables. It seems like there is no reason for older turntables to sound any bit inferior, given that vinyl is a pretty old medium and there haven't been many technological advances in the last decade(am I right?) I would like to know what to look for when buying a used vintage turntable, what models to look for, and problems I may have to deal with. Right now I own a dual direct drive TT that I hope to replace or restore.

Last but not least, specifically what role do the major parts of a turntable have in contributing to or coloring the sound? I've been told direct drives or idler wheel drives like my dual can suffer from rumble transfered from the motor. What about platter mass, tonearm, cartridges, etc?

Also if anyone has links to articles on the net/ good reads for newbies it would be incredibly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[NightWoundsTime]

There was a thread recently dealing with the myths of belt drive vs DD or idler. It was suggested that the belt drive preference was a result of successful marketing from some company or another. Apparently their literature championed the belt drive and it became the selling point which then caught on to all the new tables.

That said, belt drive is much easier to repair usually. As far as the possible motor noise, just use your ears. The noise probably comes through on some very cheap tables but if you're dealing with audiophile vintage gear, a direct drive should be well built enough to dampen the mechanics.

Can't be much more help than that but I found the whole concept involving why belt drive is more respected these days interesting.

 

[Jeff Wong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pne "...It seems like there is no reason for older turntables to sound any bit inferior, given that vinyl is a pretty old medium and there haven't been many technological advances in the last decade(am I right?)..."

I think there have been quite a number of advances in turntable design, and would contend that many of the designs today are far superior to earlier models. One need look no further than the evolution of the Linn LP12 over the years for proof.

There are a number of reviews on Stereophile's website that will give you an idea of the variety of advancements in design:

http://www.stereophile.com/turntables/

Many of these tables are outside the budget you have in mind, but the reviews will give you an idea of what's out there.

As far as selecting used decks, there's some sound advice here:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/guide/sources_e.html

There are a number of older decks listed here with 1 sentence distillations of their performance here:

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/bgturntables.html

There's a nice description of various drives here, although I can't say I necessarily agree with their ultimate assessment:

http://www.kabusa.com/ttdrive.htm

 

[Tom L]

OK, here is a bit of turntable history. Back in the 1970s audiophiles believed that as long as a turntable had low rumble, wow, and flutter, it couldn't have any influence on the sound of a system. Many audiophiles had high-end direct drive turntables like the Panasonic SP-10. (This was before the introduction of CDs, of course.) Then The Absolute Sound published several reviews by John Nork of the Linn LP 12 over a period of two years, culminating in a review in the winter 1979 issue in which he and editor Harry Pearson agreed that the Linn sounded significantly better than any other turntable of the era. They carefully ruled out factors like differences in cartridge, arm, cartridge alignment, or acoustic feedback. After that, direct drive turntables fell out of favor with serious audiophiles (and of course the general public stopped buying turntables once CDs became popular). Since that time both manufacturers and reviewers have listened to the "sound" of turntables, and there has been a greater emphasis on improved suspension systems and on isolating the motor from the rest of the turntable.

 

[bigshot]

Late 1979 was right around the time when the "hoodoo" started creeping into audiophilia. Digital recording was on the horizon, and analogue manufacturers had to do something to save their shrinking market share. They created publicity campaigns distributed through carefully veiled advertorials in various stereo magazines trying to discredit measurable quality benchmarks and replace them with purely subjective ones. Some of the early articles on "why digital isn't as good as analogue" are downright laughable.

There has always been a certain fetishistic aspect among high end audio enthusiasts... they will find a particular component they like and even if the item is discontinued, they will scour the world for a replacement if theirs goes bad. So the high end turntable manufacturers had to come up with a reason why audiophiles should replace their existing turntables... You know the rest of the history.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Conspiracy theories aside i have actually been reading a lot of Hi-Fi press from this period recently. Hi-Fi Choice was the best respected magazine in the UK at around this time with the current publisher of HiFi World (most respected UK mag today) among it's reviewers.

As has been alluded to above ( check Jeff Wong's links to Linn Stereophile interview) this was the period when Hi-Fi magazines began to publish more than just figures on Rumble and Wow/ Flutter and began (what some would call the malaise of) subjective sound quality reviews.

Checking over these old reviews of turntables in Hi-Fi Choice their methods include all the spectroscopes and technical figures and also a double blind test whereby they listen to the kit without knowing what it is and then in full view and average out the results to attempt to balance for reviewers bias towards certain brands.

Going on the figures alone:

Linn Sondek (top of the range belt drive costing 374 UKP for motorboard / plinth)
Rumble -80db
Wow / Flutter 0.06%

Technics SP15 (top of the range direct drive motorboard costing 315 UKP)
Rumble -78db
Wow / Flutter 0.05%

Thorens TD166 (budget-mid priced semi automatic belt drive with integrated arm 115UKP)
Rumble -72db
Wow / Flutter 0.08%

JVC LF71 ( mid priced fully automatic Direct drive with integrated arm / cart cost 160UKP)
Rumble -77db
Wow / Flutter less than 0.5%

At the more affordable end of the scale the pretty average JVC direct drive seems to be a bit of a bargain easily bettering the rather disappointing results for the Thorens belt drive.

Which brings us to this whole subjective reveiwer point. HFC rated the belt drive Thorens much more highly than the direct drive JVC, which is a result born out I am sure by anybody who has heard either of these side by side.

The reasons for this though are not simply that direct drive is worse than belt drive. How can the lab gear be wrong?

Going onto the top of the line gear the Linn obviously should be quieter in operation than the Technics but be slightly more smudged due to worse speed stability.

HFC did indeed rate the Technics as worse than the Linn but the reason was that they reveiwed it with a Technics plinth / tonearm and cart. They didn't criticise the exceptional motorboard rather the vibrations caused by the lid being bolted onto the heavy solid wooden plinth and suchlike.

What the Linn and the Thorens had over the japanese direct drive decks was suspended subchasis plinths which afforded much better acoustic isolation and made them sound better despite their inferior speed stability.

Fast forward to the present and with hindsight one can see why Linn set the world afire with the revelation that the plinth / motorboard had a sound which affected how the rest of the turntable set-up sounded.

Although it was by no means their innovation as Thorens, Ariston and Acoustic Research all built decks like this before Linn even existed, Linn were the first ones to shout about it and make journalists sit through subjective demo's where they proved that an expensive arm and cheap cart sounded better on their LP12 than a cheap arm and an expensive cart. In short that the motorboard / plinth synergy was a more important factor in how the whole set sounded than arm or cart.

Another reason why the LP12 came off best in so many of these tests in the 80's was the price. At the time of this review the LP12/Basik arm and cart cost 448UKP whereas the Technics SP15 / EPA500 with matching plinth was 650UKP. Other top of the line Japanese direct drive decks like the Marantz TT1000 with it's experimental laminate plinth cost 1000UKP so the Linn was pretty good value.


From a modern perspective though the whole market has changed from being the main music carrier to a niche for audiophiles as CD has taken over.

Another thing that surprised me reading old magazines is that they said pretty much exactly the same thing about CD when it arrived back in the early 80's as magazines do today. That it was far superior to the JVC direct drives of this world but not upto the Linn LP12's, so that even when the price of CD players dropped below 350UKP in the late 80's vinyl was still a better bet.

Going back to turntables many magazines have begun to reappraise the various technologies now that the dust has settled so to speak.

Hi-Fi World ran a test recently where they put a rebuild Garrard 401 idler drive from the 1960's up against the latest 1500UKP decks by Acoustic Small, Michell, OL, Nottingham Analogue and Roksan. The Garrard beat them all.

Of course this is a restored Garrard which in real terms would have cost about 4 x more when it was originally sold and has had 600UKP worth of servicing and a modern plinth etc.

The moral of all this is that you can find old decks like the Lenco L75/8, rebuild them and fit modern arms making them outperform the current crop of Music Hall / Rega P3 type decks.

However you need to get into sourcing your own plinth system and mounting tonearms, which is something that a lot of people arn't interested in doing, in order to get the best out them. Which of course was what you were going to have to do if you bought a motorboard like the Garrard 301/401 or Technics SP10/15 back in the day. Which is where Linn came into the picture...

 

[Alwayswantmore]

Hi pne,

I sold stereo equipment from 1974 – 1980. In those days I owed a Thorens TD-125, a Thorens TD-166, along with several B&O tables. I also sold and set up a number of Linn LP-12s. While I agree with most of what has already been presented, I’ll add a few notes from my recollection of those years...

[Edit: I am not 100% sure on the model number when I stated TD-166. It may have been 145 or some other number...I do not recall??? Of the two Thorens I owned, the TD-125 was the better. I think that the actual number was TD-125 MkII.]

There were three types of drive systems...

In 1974 (in the US), Dual and Garrard were kings of multi-disk changers. They used indirect “idler” drive systems with integrated tonearms. If you want the best sound, IMHO steer clear of these products in that they were built for convenience not ultimate SQ.

In the mid to late 70s, direct drive was the big rage, with Techniques being one of the leaders for the mass-market (and yes, the Panasonic SP-10 was a notable high-end offering). Most DD tables were single play, and most had integrated tonearms. DD’s had excellent specifications. But the isolation for these types of tables was extremely poor. While I no longer own a turntable, it is apparent that over time belt drive did again reclaim the leadership role.

Then there was belt drive, and as noted above, Thorens and Linn were notable players. Of the tables I worked with, the LP-12 was by far the best, and it is the one that I wish I would have bought and kept over the years.

More thoughs...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWoundsTime There was a thread recently dealing with the myths of belt drive vs DD or idler. It was suggested that the belt drive preference was a result of successful marketing from some company or another. Apparently their literature championed the belt drive and it became the selling point which then caught on to all the new tables.

IMHO, direct drive did the marketing blitz with better specifications. Beltdrive made its comeback on sonic merits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom L OK, here is a bit of turntable history. Back in the 1970s audiophiles believed that as long as a turntable had low rumble, wow, and flutter, it couldn't have any influence on the sound of a system. Many audiophiles had high-end direct drive turntables like the Panasonic SP-10. (This was before the introduction of CDs, of course.) Then The Absolute Sound published several reviews by John Nork of the Linn LP 12 over a period of two years, culminating in a review in the winter 1979 issue in which he and editor Harry Pearson agreed that the Linn sounded significantly better than any other turntable of the era. They carefully ruled out factors like differences in cartridge, arm, cartridge alignment, or acoustic feedback. After that, direct drive turntables fell out of favor with serious audiophiles (and of course the general public stopped buying turntables once CDs became popular). Since that time both manufacturers and reviewers have listened to the "sound" of turntables, and there has been a greater emphasis on improved suspension systems and on isolating the motor from the rest of the turntable.

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Late 1979 was right around the time when the "hoodoo" started creeping into audiophilia. Digital recording was on the horizon, and analogue manufacturers had to do something to save their shrinking market share. They created publicity campaigns distributed through carefully veiled advertorials in various stereo magazines trying to discredit measurable quality benchmarks and replace them with purely subjective ones. Some of the early articles on "why digital isn't as good as analogue" are downright laughable.

Do not agree. When I bought my first CD player in the late 80s I still owned the TD-166. Even a layperson (like my friends) could tell that the analog source sounded better when compared to the CD (clicks and pops aside).

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool What the Linn and the Thorens had over the japanese direct drive decks was suspended subchasis plinths which afforded much better acoustic isolation and made them sound better despite their inferior speed stability. Fast forward to the present and with hindsight one can see why Linn set the world afire with the revelation that the plinth / motorboard had a sound which affected how the rest of the turntable set-up sounded.

I agree.

Final thought: Much has been said about drive systems and isolation (suspended subchasie plinths), but the tonearm and cartridge are also major players in what you hear (as is the phono preamp). My knowledge is too dated to offer any advice on current offerings in this area.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool At the more affordable end of the scale the pretty average JVC direct drive seems to be a bit of a bargain easily bettering the rather disappointing results for the Thorens belt drive.

If you know the difference between -78db and -72db and what .05% and .08% actually sounds like, you realize that it doesn't make a lick of difference. It's not a battle of numbers... the numbers are supposed to represent sound, and they're supposed to express to the reader the *degree* of variation from the "true sound". Numbers can be split for each angel dancing on the head of a pin, and flowery words can be thought up to describe the unmeasurable... but that doesn't make it sound any different.

The baby that was thrown out with the bathwater in the early 80s was common sense.

See ya
Steve

 

[adhoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If you know the difference between -78db and -72db and what .05% and .08% actually sounds like, you realize that it doesn't make a lick of difference. It's not a battle of numbers... the numbers are supposed to represent sound, and they're supposed to express to the reader the *degree* of variation from the "true sound". Numbers can be split for each angel dancing on the head of a pin, and flowery words can be thought up to describe the unmeasurable... but that doesn't make it sound any different. The baby that was thrown out with the bathwater in the early 80s was common sense. See ya Steve

actually in that group of tts listed above, i can see only one correlation - between price and perceived sq.

 

[Alwayswantmore]

Over the past 30 years I have pretty much gotten to the point where I all but ignore specs. Specifications are obtained under static loads / conditions. Music is not static. Plus, so much of what matters in good SQ can not be readily measured.

You can use specs as a starting point. But then go with your ears, or the ears of other trustworthy individuals.

 

[fewtch]

Thanks guys (particularly those who were around back in the day -- I was there, but was a teenager with no money to spend). This stuff really fascinates me.

It's a bit depressing to contemplate the overall picture of the audio world these days, but at the same time things are better sonically (and at lower prices) than ever before, IMO. I do agree that common sense is lacking all too often in the world of audiophilia, although it's all in good fun really.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch It's a bit depressing to contemplate the overall picture of the audio world these days, but at the same time things are better sonically (and at lower prices) than ever before, IMO.

That's perfectly true. Price has very little correlation to quality, except with speakers.

See ya
Steve

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot That's perfectly true. Price has very little correlation to quality, except with speakers. See ya Steve

Not sure if I'd agree with "very little," but certainly the difference between high-end and mid-fi (as well as between 'entry level' and 'ultra high end') has decreased since the 70s and 80s. Not sure this is such a good thing for the audio "hobby" in itself, but it's good for the ears

.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If you know the difference between -78db and -72db and what .05% and .08% actually sounds like, you realize that it doesn't make a lick of difference.

So at first you said subjective reviews were where the "hoodoo" crept in and now you are saying that the specs don't mean anything either? you can't have it both ways Steve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pne It seems like there is no reason for older turntables to sound any bit inferior, given that vinyl is a pretty old medium and there haven't been many technological advances in the last decade(am I right?) I would like to know what to look for when buying a used vintage turntable, what models to look for, and problems I may have to deal with. Right now I own a dual direct drive TT that I hope to replace or restore.

There havn't been that many advances since the 1980's really. Tonearms have improved. The Rega RB250 tonearm which came out in 1981 was a watershead design in that it offered huge rigidity and a very high performance at a ridiculously affordable price. It still costs 124UKP today which means in real terms it's way cheaper than the 80 or so UKP it cost 25 years ago.

Rigidity became the name of the game from then on and all the rubber washers and extraneous joint's were banished which tightens up the sound no end. So the tonearm is the most important upgrade you need to make to bring a vintage deck upto modern spec.

Cartridges have also continued to improve but gone up in price spectacularly as have most turntables as the market has become a low volume specialist one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pne Last but not least, specifically what role do the major parts of a turntable have in contributing to or coloring the sound? I've been told direct drives or idler wheel drives like my dual can suffer from rumble transfered from the motor. What about platter mass, tonearm, cartridges, etc?

The thing older turntables generally offer over newer cheaper ones is superior build quality, and although all the new fangled composite materials used in the latest decks these days are more acoustically inert than ye olde wood and steel a top design from the 1960's like the Garrard 301/401 or Lenco 88/99 can equal anything you can buy today into 5 figures and beyond if serviced, mounted in a modern plinth and fitted with a modern tonearm.

Don't be put off by this debate about direct drive vs belt drive versus idler drive. All are capable of top class results in a well set up well engineered motorboard as the figures above show.

The Technics SL-1200/1210 can be a spectacular performer if you change the arm. Check out the Origin Live modification http://www.tonearm.co.uk/dj-technics-arm.htm
But on the whole anything lightweight molded in plastic like most cheaper Japanese direct drives should be avoided.

Any deck with an arm you can't remove should be avoided unless it's such high quality that it's worth it to find someone to build you a bespoke tonearm mount to clamp on the side somehow.


The main thing to look for is old high end decks which are very well made of heavy materials and can be tweaked up.


Suspended subcassis decks like the cheaper Ariston, Acoustic Research, Thorens etc can also be tweaked by replacing the plinths with heavier wood filled with lead shot or such-like.

Read here about Lenco which are eminently tweakable to see the kind of things people are doing to vintage decks.
http://www.btinternet.com/%7Ea.d.ric...enco_land.html

 

[Jeff Wong]

memepool - I think of turntables as having made great advances in the last 20 years, but, I'm thinking of "turntable" as the umbrella description of the entire rig including the other parts necessary for a working front end. From a more technical and correct standpoint regarding just the base and platter (where you're coming from, and I suppose rightly so) there probably have been fewer advances in that time, although platters and plinths have made some progress; tonearms and cartridges have definitely made greater strides in improvement.