Don't get me wrong, I see it just like you. I am bringing it up because lately on these forums I have read a lot of people claiming superiority of old decks, old arms, old cartridge just as if time passed for nothing.
Then you get somebody who has everything vintage and then because his cartridge is not working anymore, he was forced to try something new and found it to be better...and it was simply a low end Dynavector
I feel a lot of people are just stuck at the romance of old stuff, or simply can afford new stuff. I believe that some of the few selected vintage audio stuff, still performs certainly good but not up to new hi-end stuff!
I agree, evolution is everywhere ... I have never heard old riaa amps sound as good as the ones I am used to now, and the latest new carts are better than the old ones .... it is normal.
Not at all;it's something to bear in mind for the future projects should I have a similar problem.
As always, generalisations are dangerous Stefano. A lot of the new stuff is really bad - some time ago i opened a thread about a famous German turntable maker and the main bearings they produce. Apparently they wear out as fast as a decent stylus
Otoh, i cannot see myself ever using a vintage arm. I have owned the entire old SME range and several Ortofons and they are all - IMO only - terrible. Musical may be one way of calling it, but for some people MP3s are also musical.
Then again, once you go modern and really high end, the differences between good digital and good analogue become almost trivial. So, what's the point?
I wasn't trying to generalize...not everything is good, that is as given!
I said hi-end in my vocabulary doesn't include everything
But...yes...people obsessed with vintage should IMO give a real/honest try to new things that are worth their money! The only thing...ain't going to be cheap...and maybe that is why a lot if people live their dreams that a $500 Lenco better a $10K or even more good sounding TT! Same goes for the rest of the gears.
You are not wrong. The retail price of good-quality vinyl playback equipment has outstripped inflation, and many of us "audio cheapskates" look at cheaply built turntables selling for >$500, and find that they compare poorly against used tables selling for a lot less. Of course, many of those old, used tables need some TLC, mods, and upgrades to perform at their best -- but we are DIYers! For us that is a plus. Anybody with enough coin in their pocket can go buy the latest and greatest, but those of us who love to build things take more pleasure in restoring and modifying old gear.
I don't think any of us cheapskates think a $500 Lenco (if there was such a thing, what's the going rate for a good Lenco these days?) is better than a $10K modern TT (really? is that the bar now, ten grand?), but I think we all agree that a $500 (or more) Lenco or Thorens can, with a little attention, out-perform new gear selling for the same price or more. Plus we get the fun of messing with it, which one is disinclined to do to a new item costing the same amount.
Anyway, I have spent some time and money this past year restoring and improving an old Thorens TD 160. I'm not done yet, a few things to do before it s where I want it. But I think it already outperforms a lot of modern turntables that cost a lot more than I have paid so far, and it has given me a lot of pleasure (rebuilding it and listening to it). But no, I don't think it outperforms the best of today's gear, or even the best gear of 30 years ago (I think an Oracle would be a lot better, but that's from a different era than the Thorens and costs a lot more).
Of course, I never claimed my gear is "high end" -- but if I owned "high end" gear, I wouldn't be hanging around here and building stuff.
I don't think any of us cheapskates think a $500 Lenco (if there was such a thing, what's the going rate for a good Lenco these days?) is better than a $10K modern TT (really? is that the bar now, ten grand?), but I think we all agree that a $500 (or more) Lenco or Thorens can, with a little attention, out-perform new gear selling for the same price or more. Plus we get the fun of messing with it, which one is disinclined to do to a new item costing the same amount.
Anyway, I have spent some time and money this past year restoring and improving an old Thorens TD 160. I'm not done yet, a few things to do before it s where I want it. But I think it already outperforms a lot of modern turntables that cost a lot more than I have paid so far, and it has given me a lot of pleasure (rebuilding it and listening to it). But no, I don't think it outperforms the best of today's gear, or even the best gear of 30 years ago (I think an Oracle would be a lot better, but that's from a different era than the Thorens and costs a lot more).
Of course, I never claimed my gear is "high end" -- but if I owned "high end" gear, I wouldn't be hanging around here and building stuff.
Back on topic: Salas, I am wondering about the two coupling caps in the folded boards (C3 and C4). One sometimes finds good deals on good quality capacitors, but not always in the value one is looking for. So is there any down-side to using larger value caps in those positions (assuming they physically fit and are good quality)? Like if I found a nice cap I could use at C3, which is supposed to be 0.1uF, but the cap I found is around 0.22uF. Other than good things (lower high-pass frequency, less phase shift in the audio band), will it have other FR effects? Will increasing the value of C3 (or C4) add an audible bass bump, or would that just be an insignificant change?
With turntables more infrasonic FR is not a good thing. Its looking for problems. They got the majority of resonance modes below 20Hz. Some discs add some of their own too.
0.047uF for large speakers and light construction TTs is safe. 0.1uF is roof value IMHO, better suited to less susceptible TTs and better controlled woofers or medium size boxes.
I have tried with higher values and my experience is they bloat the bass. Maybe with bookshelf speakers more value will not be noticeable or even be a bit synergistic but I haven't tested.
0.047uF for large speakers and light construction TTs is safe. 0.1uF is roof value IMHO, better suited to less susceptible TTs and better controlled woofers or medium size boxes.
I have tried with higher values and my experience is they bloat the bass. Maybe with bookshelf speakers more value will not be noticeable or even be a bit synergistic but I haven't tested.
I totally agree with you and you got the right perspective.
Unfortunately many lenco, technics owner don't think like you and they feel there almost nothing else.
However I do agree that a properly restored thrones or lenco will definitely perform way beyond their paid price!!
Thanks Salas, that is useful information. I will make my decisions with that in mind.
RCruz, I know this is off topic but, what is better than denon 103 for same price? I will purchase new mc cart to pair with salas simplistic. I have idler drive with heavy mc tonearm. Can you share your experience with me on carts as I have little exp.
Regards
Bix bacon
Regards
Bix bacon
Surely RC will be giving his opinion. But here are some supplementary thoughts and info.
The DL-103R variation is worth getting over the plain 103 IMHO. Better treble. Even less colored across the spectrum if custom bodied in wood. Around 200R load, 63dB gain.
Same loading and gain for Audio Technica LOMC AT33PTG/II. For more neutral tone & resolution. Denon is leaning towards "warm".
Dynavector 10X5 and Benz Micro MC Silver will give a modern upbeat result. But not rough. Better suited to non classical records.
They will also require less gain being HMC simplifying the phono build and upping the SNR. Around 3K load, 43dB gain.
The arm's moving mass will need to be factored in for the expected resonance frequency with each cartridge's mass and compliance. A serious factor for choosing best.
The 103/103R have compliance of 13 for such calc while the way they are quoted at 100Hz is misleading for the purpose.
Some interesting website with recordings of cartridges replay: Hi-Fi Cartridge Reviews
The DL-103R variation is worth getting over the plain 103 IMHO. Better treble. Even less colored across the spectrum if custom bodied in wood. Around 200R load, 63dB gain.
Same loading and gain for Audio Technica LOMC AT33PTG/II. For more neutral tone & resolution. Denon is leaning towards "warm".
Dynavector 10X5 and Benz Micro MC Silver will give a modern upbeat result. But not rough. Better suited to non classical records.
They will also require less gain being HMC simplifying the phono build and upping the SNR. Around 3K load, 43dB gain.
The arm's moving mass will need to be factored in for the expected resonance frequency with each cartridge's mass and compliance. A serious factor for choosing best.
The 103/103R have compliance of 13 for such calc while the way they are quoted at 100Hz is misleading for the purpose.
Some interesting website with recordings of cartridges replay: Hi-Fi Cartridge Reviews
I saw those, don't they look great! Christmas present maybe. Thanks Salas.
That's Duc ('lovetube') of Golden Age Audio. He has also made some incredibly beautiful shells out of some highly coloured & figured wood ("Snake Eye"?) - I'll try and post a pic later, when I get home from work.
Regards,
Andy
They add mass beyond optimizing the resonance profile VS the plastic shell. This must be taken into account regarding the arm's effective mass. The 103 series is pro weight luckily.
I would go for ebony only. Best density. He has some striped varieties that look stunning.
The lateral compliance dominates when I run FFT on records "silent" tracks and it calcs at about 13cu if I got my masses right. Still the FFT bins are not that many down there around 10Hz when the CPU is a sluggish type on a small notebook hence the resolution must be kept average to run acceptably fast. So it could be 13cu +/- 0.5
The 103 is not that peculiar with rake angle, that one can be nailed with a couple of tries, still it listens to bias easily. I usually get it right when set for half a gram less than VTF or a just a bit closer.
I would go for ebony only. Best density. He has some striped varieties that look stunning.
The lateral compliance dominates when I run FFT on records "silent" tracks and it calcs at about 13cu if I got my masses right. Still the FFT bins are not that many down there around 10Hz when the CPU is a sluggish type on a small notebook hence the resolution must be kept average to run acceptably fast. So it could be 13cu +/- 0.5
The 103 is not that peculiar with rake angle, that one can be nailed with a couple of tries, still it listens to bias easily. I usually get it right when set for half a gram less than VTF or a just a bit closer.
Sorry I could not answer sooner but a system crash kept me away form the net for a while.
The 103r is really hard to beat for the price... a very musical cart with upgraded high freq response relative to the 103.
Quite forgiving in terms of vta, it responds well to vtf adjustments.
Much better than the lowish cost benz silver mc and sounding much bigger than the stock boboli.
IMO only bettered by expensive carts like the benz ACE red.
The 103r is a very good partner for the simplistic.
The syntec 220 arm is designed for high compliance carts but I have used the 103 with a SME3009 series III improved with splendid results.... just add a small portion of bluetack to the headshell if you need more mass.
Last edited:
Interestingly this guy came up with similar choices as my own regarding cart loading.