Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

[dvv]

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin

Re Turntables:

AR invented the subchassis design while Thorens invented direct drive in the '30s but never implemented it except very much later on on two or three models which were re-badged EMT tables.
Goldmund/Lenco invented belt drive but equally didn't implement it, sticking with idler wheels.
The Linn LP12 was a bolt-for-bolt copy of a Thorens deleted the year before Linn started selling theirs. Pretty much all Linn parts except the arm board were directly exchangeable with the deleted Thorens but unlike Linn they used better springs which allowed the use of the heavy Dynavector arm.

Thank you.

This is very first time I see history told as it was, for some reason, most Brits want Linn to be an absolute exception to every rule. The fact that it is a very good TT indeed is not even in dispute, but the "fact" that they invented the system is very much in dispute.

[dvv]

Originally Posted by SY

Lenco seems to have a bit of cult about it these days. The Lenco guys I know are adamant that tables like mine (VPI) or John's (Linn) are junk, incapable of properly reproducing music. Their setups do sound quite good, better than I would expect from a rim drive, but I haven't been able to do a side by side comparison, and I suspect that the objective flaws of a rim drive might become more evident in that kind of listening test. But who knows, maybe they're right and the rest of us are wrong.

I don't think so. I have had an idler wheel driven TT (Dual 1019, sold like hot cakes in its day) and I can confirm that it is noisier than an equivalently priced belt drive. Direct drive came later on, and is with us with a very sketchy reputation - while some were very good, giving the best of belt drives a run for their money, some were rather horrible.

My own Dual CS 604 was a good one, but the one after it, CS 606, is best left forgotten.

[dvv]

Nige, if you can, and if you already haven't, do try a Dual 701 or 721. These used Hall effect generators instead of classic electric motors, and if there's one thing nobody can blame them for, it must be a complete audible lack of wow and flutter, let alone any speed deviation.

Despite Dual's promo, I suggest you use a standard weight cartridge rather than the Ortofon LM series, in my view, it does better with that.

[nigel pearson]

I had a CS Dual 704 to use ( my hairdresser Phil had it the last I remember , his girlfriend was Radiohead's PR lady , I had no idea at the time who they were ) . I bought my dad a CS510 on the strength of it , still in use today . When Dual stopped being imported buy Farnell UK I was asked what progress Dual had to make to succeed . I suspect I created the Dual CS 505 ( a cheaper 510 ) . If not other people were saying the same things which I suspect would be true . I have always been a turntable obsessive . ADC wanted me to work at Birmingham . ADC/ BSR was the world largest producer of turntables ( ever , not Garrard ) . What I proposed would have caused union problems , completely new designs . What did come along was Project which is exactly what I suggested to BSR . I think if my information is correct that Project still make 100 000 units a year . More fantastically Dual still have facilities to do similar . Many of us think Vinyl like motorcycles is not dead yet . Peacefrog are doing Vinyl because it's the only way to make money . It carries a premium . That's wrong of me to say that and it only part of the truth . A nice part all the same . The Empire Troubadour was loaned to me by the Dual importer . I liked it but felt it to be a bit unfinished as a design . I think it was better than most in many ways . The Linn Basik LVV arm was an ADC arm . ADC is a story worth telling also . How did I become Dual's condifident ? I swapped the rep 6 Empire Cartidges for a Decca London . To be honest I didn't want the 6 Empire cartridges and took years to loose them ( they were very nice , however not trendy ) .

[nigel pearson]

Garrard 201 . 1930 . Worlds first commersial direct-drive sold in commercial quantities . Thoren's made auto-changers under license from Garrard . Having played with a 201 I feel it to be superior in many ways to a 301 . Hum would be problem as the coils are so close to the stylus . I have access to a 201 which will get a big acyclic platter one day . It is one with 331/3 made circa 1953 . I also have an older one I can use ( pre 39 ) .

I have read the internal memo for the 301 ( circa 1953 ) . Mr Mortimer used glass as a reference to compare bearing surfaces to . As far as I know 301 was the worlds first transcription turntable . It was for mono use and needed revising later . If I am right about being the first he had no one to copy .

Villchur very rightly objected to the 301 ( vertical vibration ) . 401 was better . 501 which was my baby has - 79dB rumble ( -72 dB unweighted ) . Alas 401 was not a profitable turntable ( company flagship ) . Had they have asked Mr Durney to sort it out I am sure -82 dB would be possible ( I am told we did do one once that was , I never saw the tests ) .

History of Garrard

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ga...w=1252&bih=849

http://www.soundfountain.com/beltdri...turntable.html

[DF96]

Originally Posted by dvv

for some reason, most Brits want Linn to be an absolute exception to every rule.

Maybe most Brit audio journalists? I always thought Linn was overhyped, but then I have a Thorens TD160S. There was a time when it seemed that the only game in town, if you believed the magazines, was Linn + Naim. I guess it made writing easier for them, if they didn't have to hear or think.

[nigel pearson]

Funnier than you think what you just said . When very young I was told by Paul Benson at a Hi Fi show ( Hi Fi Answers ) to ask a man close by if he was about to have fight . No he wasn't and he invited me to his factory at Caslemilk Glasgow . He was astonished when I turned up . Linn park was next to the factory . I still know that man . He taught me how to listen .

That is true what you said DF96 and you are right that the British hi fi press was a bit mesmerized .

LP12 is a very well made TD150 .

TD160 is said to be the work of Charles Trehorn . When I asked modern Thoren's staff they never have heard of him . He was the British importers technical man . He certainly did the TD160 S . If not the importers told stories .

My son uses TD166 Denon DL 110

[Pano]

Did a bit of measuring on the tube amp last night. Looks like a good bit of ringing even on a purely resistive load. However, even a good DAC output has some ringing on a square wave, so sorting that from the amp ringing is the trick. Maybe use a function generator, instead of a DAC output.

I'm a bit suspicious of my test rig, so will continue to poke at it.

[SY]

Not analogous. The ringing on a CD-produced square wave is a function of the antialiasing/anti-imaging. The ringing on a tube amp is incipient instability.

[benb]

Originally Posted by nigel pearson

Technics has high frequency dynamic wow problems to my ears . Not enough pole pieces per revolution .

I haven't actually looked at the design myself, but I've read where Technics uses square wave drive, which would surely account for a lot of that. The "advantage" with Technics seems to be cheap variable-speed drive circuitry.