Differences between tables may be huge. I progressed from cheap Sanyo to Yamaha PX-3, then to Micro DQX-500, and ended with Kenwood KD-750.
PX-3 is servo linear tracker, so I thought getting rid of tracking error and need for anti-skating adjustment would improve sound. After a lot of debugging and adjustment, the PX-3 was a major step-up from the Sanyo.
Then I got the Micro Seiki for cheap in non-working condition. Although the exotic look was the major attraction, DQX outperformed PX-3 sound wise.
The Kenwood was an eye-opener. With this table, I realized how inferior my previous tables were. It is just perfect, I am so happy with it that I am not looking for a table upgrade, focusing instead on amplification and speakers.
My initial assumption was that all properly designed and built tables should sound the same, with refinements to be sought in cartridges. Experience showed that this assumption was wrong.
I used same top-of-the-line Stanton, Shure, ADC, AT, Ortofon MM cartridges, for all of which I have a lifetime supply of OEM styli. I know arm adjustments well.
PX-3 is servo linear tracker, so I thought getting rid of tracking error and need for anti-skating adjustment would improve sound. After a lot of debugging and adjustment, the PX-3 was a major step-up from the Sanyo.
Then I got the Micro Seiki for cheap in non-working condition. Although the exotic look was the major attraction, DQX outperformed PX-3 sound wise.
The Kenwood was an eye-opener. With this table, I realized how inferior my previous tables were. It is just perfect, I am so happy with it that I am not looking for a table upgrade, focusing instead on amplification and speakers.
My initial assumption was that all properly designed and built tables should sound the same, with refinements to be sought in cartridges. Experience showed that this assumption was wrong.
I used same top-of-the-line Stanton, Shure, ADC, AT, Ortofon MM cartridges, for all of which I have a lifetime supply of OEM styli. I know arm adjustments well.
Adason hit the nail on the head. Cartridge/alignment/VTA/AS/Azimuth/overhang/tracking weight. These combined could easily be the biggest variable in comparison. There is no accurate comparison unless these parameters are duplicated exactly from one to another, all other functional variables being equal. Slight variation in any can easily result in a change in sq.
And price actually has little bearing on how well that machine plays a record.
The uppity audiophiles always tout the "high end" turntables - nothing less can satisfy them.
That's of course, in reality, a laugh.
With all the machines that I have had on my service bench, and presonally owned at home, I can attest to that fact.
Plus, a blind listening test to visiting self-proclaimed 'audio snobs' further amplified my findings.
When they saw what I played the record on, they were shocked when it wasn't some "high end" machine.
The uppity audiophiles always tout the "high end" turntables - nothing less can satisfy them.
That's of course, in reality, a laugh.
With all the machines that I have had on my service bench, and presonally owned at home, I can attest to that fact.
Plus, a blind listening test to visiting self-proclaimed 'audio snobs' further amplified my findings.
When they saw what I played the record on, they were shocked when it wasn't some "high end" machine.
Actually you can come very close with the proper use of gauges. Can I get it perfect? No, and neither can anyone else. My post was trying to convey the idea that with identical tables and electronics I would also be using the same cartridge and cartridge head thus elimination of any error that might be a result of a slightly misaligned cartridge. Given the fact that there are standard tolerances in manufacturing the possibility of getting two identical turntables with exactly the same tolerances would be slim to none. Therefore those with what I call "Golden Ears" would claim to hear differences between two identical turntables in my humble opinion.
Having said the above one would naturally make the assumption that when comparing two identical tables one would have taken the time to set the balance, tracking weight, on both along with the anti-skating.
Last time I knew I was entitled to my opinion and unfortunately It may not agree with others here. Do I think there are people capable of hearing a .0005 difference in a tolerance of two identical turntables that are setup the same? No. It is my feeling that if the listener believes there is going to be a difference he/she convinces themselves there is an audible difference.
I watched a YouTube video last week that discussed the difference between MM and MC cartridges.
That goes a long way towards understanding why different turntables / arms / cartridges sound very different.
Ultimately it is all down to having an extremely low mass stylus assembly that has VERY LOW inertia so that it can respond to the grooves in the record accurately - that is best achieved by an MC cartridge.
The turntable has to turn at an accurate speed.
The turntable (as the source) and the cartridge (as the pick up) must both be isolated from any external vibrations.
Any vibrations that ultimately reach the cartridge will be amplified along with the information on the LP.
That goes a long way towards understanding why different turntables / arms / cartridges sound very different.
Ultimately it is all down to having an extremely low mass stylus assembly that has VERY LOW inertia so that it can respond to the grooves in the record accurately - that is best achieved by an MC cartridge.
The turntable has to turn at an accurate speed.
The turntable (as the source) and the cartridge (as the pick up) must both be isolated from any external vibrations.
Any vibrations that ultimately reach the cartridge will be amplified along with the information on the LP.
Last edited:
Its a vicious circle. Speed needs to be accurate but then again you have line voltage variations and some will argue they can hear a fraction of a revolution in speed change and others cannot tell a difference if its minor.
Some say MC are superior to MM cartridges and depending on the video or article one reads the information may differ. Yet, it might appear that MC stylus is possibly superior in how it manages the record groove. Others say MM cartridges are as good as MC cartridges until you start talking MC cartridges in the $1k plus range.
I personally cannot hear a 1/8th of an RPM difference in speed or for that matter the differentiation from right on to slightly slower or faster in a minute of time. Sure you can see it on a tachometer that is capable of a three place readout and see the slight change which your mind immediately assumes can cause a audio change.
Isolation is a must. I can remember my first turntable that was marked as a lab special that I could hear the wow,flutter, and rumble on. Is it possible that my integrated amp at the time wasn't capable of transforming the 2mv of signal from the phono cartridge and I was inputting noise because I had to almost max the amplifier section in order to obtain a decent signal?
A lot of factors go into a decent sounding vinyl setup..again my opinion.
There is a HUGE difference in MM and MC phono amps. You need to spend many $$'s to fully appreciate a good MC cartridge.
I run a Pass Pearl 2 MC amp which is stunning.
The very low output of an MC is a real issue and poor RIAA amps will make noise.
Last edited:
Indeed, "perception" comes into the game here.
While it's true that quality differences can actually be heard, it's only up to a point.
And that point is naturally limited by human hearing. - take note that everyone has some differences from others in that case - we're born with them, we age differently, and like DNA, they're ours only.
Sure, we tend to gravitate to admiring and wanting better quality, this goes for everything, cars, music, material things, etc., - it's a human trait, dependent on one's own ways of thinking, along with their own justified levels of importance.
But there is a definite point of "obsession" about things that teeters on the brink of "diminishing returns", and at that point, money and status becomes more involved.
Myself, I often call myself "picky", yet I'm settled and comfortable with being reasonable about things.
I don't need some $40,000 turntable to really enjoy listening to a record, nor does most of the human population for that matter.
Although, I find it amusing whenever I see those machines with a humongous 300 pound platter, spinning on air bearings, and using vacuum suction to hold the LP down - indeed, they're the work of some radical artist catering to the nutbags with endless disposable income.
Hey, go for it, impress your friends I say....
This keeps getting trotted out, but it's still wrong. Firstly there is no reason why MC should have lower inertia than MM (and the numbers back that up) and secondly modern cartridges are so much higher in effective mass than the best of the early 80s it suggests it doesn't matter that much anyway.
(There are one or two people on here who still run flyweight technics cartridges from that golden era but most of us missed the boat on that so will never know anyway).
Every change is audible in a top notch audio system. Every small or minor change in the system will be audible. And everything can fall in or out of tune, if its wrongly designed.
To have a system, what is capable of loading the music with energy and still give it its own signature is very rare. Most of the analog players sound is dominated by plastic, or acrylic or any combination of it. Often those are more show objects than true music machines. Most people have no clue of the sonic signature of every different material. They see an acrylic player and think it must sound the same as the plastic or the metal machine or the stone mass machine. But all sound different. Its the materials being used that give a player a sound signature and let him swing or not. But what should swing in plastic or acryl or metal or stone? Nothing. Those are dead machines. Music will never come to life with them.
For me, it must be idler driven. I had belt driven, ultra thin Singer sewing wire driven high mass low torque machines and cheap plastic machines. And I stayed with idler rim driven players. Just because they are able to load so much energy into the music, the bass is granite rock hard and forcefull, they have good drive, they can have a balanced tone and so on. And I have to say, a good MM is not easy to beat on the cheap scale, but when it comes to higher quality an MC system is unbeatable. I like to run heavy MC systems on long and stiff tone arms. Good combination with an idler drive.
Most have never heard a real good player system in their life, but if one can only listen to it once, he will not be the same listener than before because this music come to real life and you can hear the players and their contribution like in real life, better than in most life concerts. Thats such a thrill, and so rare.
Btw, the first testing on the question: Can sound record players different? I read in a german audio magazine in the 1970s (Audio Exclusiv). So you must be rather lazy or late to come up with the same question some good 50 years later...it has all been discussed to death, measured to extremes and published many decades ago.
To have a system, what is capable of loading the music with energy and still give it its own signature is very rare. Most of the analog players sound is dominated by plastic, or acrylic or any combination of it. Often those are more show objects than true music machines. Most people have no clue of the sonic signature of every different material. They see an acrylic player and think it must sound the same as the plastic or the metal machine or the stone mass machine. But all sound different. Its the materials being used that give a player a sound signature and let him swing or not. But what should swing in plastic or acryl or metal or stone? Nothing. Those are dead machines. Music will never come to life with them.
For me, it must be idler driven. I had belt driven, ultra thin Singer sewing wire driven high mass low torque machines and cheap plastic machines. And I stayed with idler rim driven players. Just because they are able to load so much energy into the music, the bass is granite rock hard and forcefull, they have good drive, they can have a balanced tone and so on. And I have to say, a good MM is not easy to beat on the cheap scale, but when it comes to higher quality an MC system is unbeatable. I like to run heavy MC systems on long and stiff tone arms. Good combination with an idler drive.
Most have never heard a real good player system in their life, but if one can only listen to it once, he will not be the same listener than before because this music come to real life and you can hear the players and their contribution like in real life, better than in most life concerts. Thats such a thrill, and so rare.
Btw, the first testing on the question: Can sound record players different? I read in a german audio magazine in the 1970s (Audio Exclusiv). So you must be rather lazy or late to come up with the same question some good 50 years later...it has all been discussed to death, measured to extremes and published many decades ago.
Attachments
Last edited:
Like so many on this forum, I have owned and do own many turntables, tonearms, cartridges and preamps. Do they sound different? Of course, that's why I own them. I reject the grading of components, MC vs MM, belt drive vs. DD, solid state vs tubes. To me they are building blocks looking for the best dance partners to work with to fill my life with sound. I love to experiment with all the parts to find the perfect "river dance" where the sound has never sounded so good.
That is what I love about vinyl, I can make changes, easily, economically, which makes the sound better.
Everyone always asks me which sounds "best", to me, they ALL do, that's why I own them.
That is what I love about vinyl, I can make changes, easily, economically, which makes the sound better.
Everyone always asks me which sounds "best", to me, they ALL do, that's why I own them.
I believe that the weakest link in the vinyl playback is not table, or arm, or cartridge, but the record itself. The vast majority of vinyl records (I listen mostly to classical) just suck, and no turntable or cartridge can fix that. Really exceptional discs, like Belock Everest, Eterna, or Shaded Dogs are needed to fully appreciate a good system. I hate the mainstream classical labels like DG, Columbia, EMI/Angel.