Or a good idea, depending on the manufacturer.
Yes some of them even came with their own oil, and a hole you should pour oil periodically (i.e. every year).
Stylus change is something that is mentioned on cartridge manuals.
I agree with this part.
The filters can be implemented digitally but still they are facing the following task:
"filter down everything from 20KHz(or 22Khz) onwards without harming the signal from 20Hz to 20KHz."
an impossible (or almost impossible?) task.
And not just the DAC filter (reconstruction filter) has this task, the ADC filter (antialias filter) has to do the same. Or, perform the A/D step at a higher sampling rate. But to downsample to 44KHz, filtering will be needed too.
This is what many people have said, makes sense. If higher frequencies interfere with lower frequencies, then it does not matter of those higher frequencies are inaudible.
I am getting back: Technics system 1981 to 1986, Sony turntable and mini hi fi System 1988 to 1991, and my own York all in one with turntable from 1991 to 1994, I bought that at a church sale for about $40. I even used a wind up gramaphone in the 1970s, I still remember that solid iron needle, that was something else.
I just listened to my EZCap 613 recorded mp3 track, compared to several uploads of the same song on YouTube, the speed is spot on, manually adjusted, sound is fluid and pleasant, and there is even some detail. I can only imagine what a decent turntable can do.
Thanks for the clarification. As for the image you sent, the motor in the Audio-Technica looks the same as the one in my EZCap 613 USB turntable device, that sells for $34 or so! What about the wow and flutter that Audio-Technica quotes:
Another revelation: I am measuring the same on my 'toy player'. The more expensive models do not fare much better.
The TEAC is much better:
| Wow and flutter | 0.1% or less |
Shipping from Japan is better, seems like a good deal, given that an Audio Technica will cost $200 including the shipping. (Ebay)
I will just have to wait for the repaired Sony or JVC. Meanwhile order some records.
Last edited:
If you're intent on buying something, a Technics direct drive made around 1980-1985 would be my choice. Check the specs, compare to SL-1200, for instance.
https://vintagetechnics.audio/turntables.php
https://vintagetechnics.audio/turntables.php
Yes, that seems the best choice. The only thing is, what if it stops working? That will be my final system I guess, we are hoping to move this year so it is all tentative. That said, the ones shipped from Japan seem to be a good bet, with free returns no less.
All of the Technics are said to have wow and flutter 0.045. Percent? They really should specify percent. 0.045 works out to 4.5%
All of the Technics are said to have wow and flutter 0.045. Percent? They really should specify percent. 0.045 works out to 4.5%
Something about CD vs. vinyl dynamics:
Vinyl has "infinite" resolution, meaning the recorded signal amplitude is not granular. Of course, low level signal is buried in record surface noise. That is around -60 to -65dB referenced to absolute peak level. Human hearing can perceive a signal below noise, so this is not a hard limit.
On the other hand, on the CD media, the lowest recordable amplitude change is 1 bit, that is -96 dB. That does not mean you can record a -96dB signal, neither is the dynamics 96dB. For example, at -60dB (referred to the absolute peak) the audio signal is represented on 6 bits only, so it has heavy quantization distortion.
The instanteous amplitude of real music is represented between 0 an 16 bits, the resolution and quantization distortion varies accordingly.
This is one reason why a CD system might measure good (with max level 1kHz pure sine) but sounds inferior to a good analog system on real music.
Vinyl has "infinite" resolution, meaning the recorded signal amplitude is not granular. Of course, low level signal is buried in record surface noise. That is around -60 to -65dB referenced to absolute peak level. Human hearing can perceive a signal below noise, so this is not a hard limit.
On the other hand, on the CD media, the lowest recordable amplitude change is 1 bit, that is -96 dB. That does not mean you can record a -96dB signal, neither is the dynamics 96dB. For example, at -60dB (referred to the absolute peak) the audio signal is represented on 6 bits only, so it has heavy quantization distortion.
The instanteous amplitude of real music is represented between 0 an 16 bits, the resolution and quantization distortion varies accordingly.
This is one reason why a CD system might measure good (with max level 1kHz pure sine) but sounds inferior to a good analog system on real music.
I have compared digital playback to vinyl this way: When you shave a beard with a razor, there is (hopefully) constant contact between the skin being shaved and the razor. An electric razor however only samples portions at a time, and in my experience misses plenty, making me go over the same surface more than once. The faster that the electric razor runs and the more blades that it uses, may increase the chance of getting every hair in one pass.
The specs won't tell you at all how good a turntable sounds or how mechanically sound it is.
Percent.
You can have two turntables with identical W&F figures but one of them can sound different in terms of speed stability, because a single W&F figure doesn't tell you the whole story. Also W&F is also dependent on the cartridge and tonearm.
There are some things that are not fully correct here.
1. Vinyl has not infinite resolution, because it is limited in bandwidth and s/n.
2. Vinyl record noise can't be reduced to only one figure, because it depends on frequency. It can be VERY low (more than 80dB low) at high frequencies, for example. It also depends on the quality of the record and the pressing. And it also depends on the cutting level, some records are cut louder.
3. At -60dB a CD recording in theory is represented by 6 bits and in theory it will have huge, horrible-sounding quanitzation distortion. However in practice, dithering is introduced, either at downsampling or at the A/D stage. Dithering reduces this distortion via adding random noise. You lose S/N ratio but reduce (elliminate??) quantization distortion.
Now, if there is a metric of "how much do you reduce this distortion" vs "how much noise do you add", I have not clue.
Well, it can tell you something about speed stability and own noise. As for the Technics tts, these are old specs and we can add a lot of experience by many users over decades, we know how they perform. My personal experience and opinion is that you get a lot for little money for the mentioned tts. I've owned a few and still have one in active duty.
@BasicHIFI1 : all belt drives are "wow and flutter 0.045", all direct drives are better, look again. The prices tells you how Technics ranked them. Personally I prefer direct drives from Technics
.If you're not very aware of its history and importance, you would do well to find out more. Then you'll know why it keeps getting mentioned. It is indeed solid, and extremely reliable. If you're still fairly open to looking at various options, an SL1200 should be one of the models on your list. For many people, it's one of the first that they consider, and justifiably so. But there are alternatives from Technics that would serve you well too.
Yes, so the ultimate test is the listening test?
Also, how heavy does a platter have to be to make wow and flutter below 0.20 percent? What I mean is, with the standard motor in the Audio Technica for example, the 'servo motor' that is commonly used in the Crosley, it may be possible to reduce wow and flutter down to very low levels by making the platter very heavy for example, I have seen turntables on YouTube that take two persons to lift. Maybe a 20 kg platter. In that case can the manufacturer not need to have precise motor speed control? I have not really seen any information on this.
Two very shocking facts (to me) uncovered so far:
I had my heart set on the good-looking Audio-Technica, which comes highly recommended by some reviewers, to be fair. It looks great (but underneath I see molded plastic).
The other shocker is the analysis of CDs and vinyl on the Thriller album. I use Audacity so I can immediately spot the compression and brick wall limiting in the audio file, when it is loaded into Audacity. Just looking at it makes me sick.
That´s just it..... They mostly just keep running forever. The SL_1200/1210 are unbeatble on the 2.-hand market. Only (standard) fault on these
after 10 years or more, is the pitch sliding potentiometer, which can result in all kinds of strange speed behaviour, but these are plenty
available as original parts (still). I know of one in or around the neighbourhood, who uses a SL-1210 with a Ortofon MC Anna Diamond,
which is an approx. 10.000 $ cartridge (20-30 x the price of the used deck) and is super satisfied. JFYI
I was referring to the above site. Those wow and flutter specs are great.
There used to be a saying 'they don't make 'em like they used to' . Looks like it still applies.
I am going through my audio files now, comparing the CD tracks transferred to either .ogg or sometimes just copied over as .wav. Some tracks are fine, some are compressed within the same CD. One of the songs had this red on playback level. Sometimes the songs are from different albums and versions.
On the right is another one from a 1998 CD album, also in the red. The right most track is "Rocket Man" by Elton John, "Released: 17 April 1972
Recorded: 16 January 1972" - Wikipedia
On the right is another one from a 1998 CD album, also in the red. The right most track is "Rocket Man" by Elton John, "Released: 17 April 1972
Recorded: 16 January 1972" - Wikipedia
The left image is the audio plot from from a vinyl record I got converted to .wav professionally. I have the album, and the scratches on the recording tell me it was off the actual record. Sounds good, though. The next one is a Tom Coster's "From Me To You" converted from casette tape. Sounded great, but the haircut effect worries me now. Sounds smoother than mp3 or compressed CD.
Attachments
Having converted many LPs and cassettes to WAV and CD, I think the left images would sound better, with more light and shade. If you used Audacity's 'normalise' function, the light and shade (i.e. the relative loudness of the components of the music) should stay the same, but the track would sound louder, as if you'd just turned up the volume on the stereo.
The wave forms on the right hand side seem to have lost the light and shade of the left hand side, my guess is that they would sound louder but wouldn't have the light and shade. If I see that sort of wave form on something I've recorded through whatever source, I usually find it sounds loud but lifeless.
Geoff
The wave forms on the right hand side seem to have lost the light and shade of the left hand side, my guess is that they would sound louder but wouldn't have the light and shade. If I see that sort of wave form on something I've recorded through whatever source, I usually find it sounds loud but lifeless.
Geoff