Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[MattHooper]

Not really. R&D stopped over 30 years ago. This is all a quick cash grab and most products are crap,

Wondering how you know this. Do you mean all the super cheap turntables for sale (e.g. Crosley etc) or are the many "high end/audiophile" turntables also "crap?"

 

[JP]

The Namiki and Gyger stylii with laser cut ridge profiles came after 1984…

MicroLines were on the market in 1984. I don' know what year they were introduced, but the ML160 was released in Sept 1984 and was claimed to be 'one of the first to use MicroLine'. But yes, that was one of the last meaningful advances., 39 years ago.

 

[MattHooper]

Matt I think I get what you are saying, even though perhaps we disagree on other matters.

Good to hear.

In essence you will hear a high quality reproduction of a low quality source, and yes most would say it is LOW sound quality. But...........

Bingo!

If we are using the term "Sound quality" we are talking about sound, which is what we are actually hearing. And then we assign a measure of "quality" to that sound.
This has to be separate from the concept of technical accuracy, because technical accuracy itself does not discriminate between differences in sound quality (e.g. of recordings).

..........you are talking recording "Source" quality, that can widely vary, and I think the overall topic is more towards reproduction ability or at the least, the overall ability of a specific media (vinyl in this case) to reproduce signals with high accuracy/fidelity overall.

This arose out of a disagreement that began over the goal of an audiophile. Sal sees the goal as seeking the strictest accuracy possible, I argued a different bigger tent concept - not all audiophiles are buying (or seeking) strict neutrality. It would be pretty strange to say all those guys with stacks of The Absolute Sound, and who have spent obsessive amounts of time and money putting together esoteric systems, aren't audiophiles. Or if an audiophile had Amir's set up...except he chose a tube amp, well then he's not an audiophile. That brings on a strange and petty gate-keeping that few audio enthusiasts will actually survive.

This is one reason I say it makes more sense to think of audiophiles as being enthusiastic about audio gear and sound quality. They don't just care about the music - they have an above average focus on the sound quality of the listening experience, as well as on the audio gear, typically leading to a hobby-level pursuit of their goals.

You don't need SOTA level gear or perfect neutrality in every link of your chain to produce what many people would recognize as "amazing sound quality."

And the point about "sound quality" being necessarily separate from "accuracy" is relevant in any case we are talking about sound and sound gear. It's a principled distinction, which applies whether you are creating sound, or reproducing sound.

If you are in the studio listening via an accurate system, you can evaluate whether the recording you are working with is "poor" sound quality or not. Same with owning an accurate system at home, and evaluating a recording at home. Likewise, in the studio, if a dialogue/vocal track is identified as substandard, a bit too thin with exaggerated sibilance, you can make it sound better, more natural...INCREASE it's sound quality via DISTORTING the sound, using an EQ. The exact same principle applies in the home system: if you are listening to a vocal track with the same "poor sound quality characteristics" and adjust the sound via an EQ in your set up, you can get "better" sound. You are deviating from accuracy - distorting the recording using EQ - but ending up with what most would see as "Better Sound Quality."

The fact you can manipulate sound, either in the studio or at home, to improve the sound quality only makes sense when you understand sound quality and accuracy are not the same thing.

And it allows for the fact that some distortion in playback can, in some circumstances, produce what some may find to be more pleasant or "better sound quality." Of course there is subjectivity involved, but that's the nature of qualitiative assesment. (And it doesn't mean, therefore, that there can't be significant convergence on aspects we tend to think of as "poor" or "good" sound quality).

 

[USER]

Wondering how you know this.

Specs and measurements, and, just as important, the lack thereof. Just like anything else on here. Turntables, phono preamps, and cartridges are engineered products. There are no mysteries.

 

[pseudoid]

Mar 24, 2023

link

 

[MattHooper]

Specs and measurements, and, just as important, the lack thereof. Just like anything else on here. Turntables, phono preamps, and cartridges are engineered products. There are no mysteries.

I'm still wondering if you are talking about all available turntables - in which case we'd be talking about reams of cheapo turntables being sold to vinyl newbies and teenagers.

Or if you are talking about the audiophile turntable market.

If the latter, where are you getting the measurements for most of the available turntables are "crap." It seems to me very, very few of the available high end turntables have been measured comprehensively.

 

[meracus]

I have a nice clearaudio with twin plinths and large acrylic case
It’s only there for decorative purposes … it looks good

 

[MattHooper]

View attachment 303396I have a nice clearaudio with twin plinths and large acrylic case
It’s only there for decorative purposes … it looks good

Oh man, Clear audio makes some beautiful stuff. Love the look of your set-up !!!!!!

And there's that wonderful Devialet remote! I wanted something like that for so long I had one custom built! ( I needed it to work with my gear).

As for the acrylic case, yes it does look nice. I actually looked in to having an acrylic case made for my set up, just figuring "of course I'd want to protect my
spankin' new turntable from dust getting on the platter." It turned out I just didn't need it. A place mat serves to cover the platter, keeping it from getting dusty.

But the acrylic cover does lend a museum-like "don't you dare f*cking touch this, can't you see how valuable it is?" vibe

 

[USER]

I'm still wondering if you are talking about all available turntables - in which case we'd be talking about reams of cheapo turntables being sold to vinyl newbies and teenagers.

Or if you are talking about the audiophile turntable market.

If the latter, where are you getting the measurements for most of the available turntables are "crap." It seems to me very, very few of the available high end turntables have been measured comprehensively.

I am generously defining crap as anything that performs worse than a middle class product from the late 1970s, which generally includes both the low and high end. This I think would be fair with any other audio product. I don't understand your starting position, which can be read as stating that we should expect high end turntables with no specs or any history of acknowledging proper measurement protocols to be SOTA and we must prove it otherwise as if these companies have any standing with people that really know this stuff. Starting from the marketer's position is odd to me.

Here's a $2800 Clearaudio Concept. Certainly does the job in the way, say a 70dB SINAD DAC would, but this would not be considered high end in 1979. Certainly you could do much better for $666 then or more with pre-pandemic money equivalent.

Good luck finding out the effective mass of the tonearm. Before I sold this I contacted them and they don't even know. That's a sign that it isn't a serious turntable. Now, I would not ever judge someone if they bought it and loved it even for the looks. I could care less, but to me there is also beauty in great engineering. Luckily there are people that measure their turntables, including fancy ones, and share the info with others.

 

[MudFlap]

View attachment 303396I have a nice clearaudio with twin plinths and large acrylic case
It’s only there for decorative purposes … it looks good

It Moved.

.

 

[MattHooper]

I am generously defining crap as anything that performs worse than a middle class product from the late 1970s, which generally includes both the low and high end. This I think would be fair with any other audio product. I don't understand your starting position, which can be read as stating that we should expect high end turntables with no specs or any history of acknowledging proper measurement protocols to be SOTA and we must prove it otherwise as if these companies have any standing with people that really know this stuff. Starting from the marketer's position is odd to me.

That's not at all my position. I don't know if there are modern turntables with excellent objective measurements.

I'm using the standard "he who makes a positive claim bears the burden of proof."

The fact I mentioned that it seems a vanishingly small portion of the available high end turntables seem to have been measured indicates I don't see I could neither support nor deny the proposition there isn't excellent performance to be found in some modern turntables. Since you claimed most were crap, I therefore wondered how you determined this, as it seems like a pretty big claim.

Here's a $2800 Clearaudio Concept. Certainly does the job in the way, say a 70dB SINAD DAC would, but this would not be considered high end in 1979.

View attachment 303407

Good luck finding out the effective mass of the tonearm. Before I sold this I contacted them and they don't even know. That's a sign that it isn't a serious turntable. Now, I would not ever judge someone if they bought it and loved it even for the looks. I could care less, but to me there is also beauty in great engineering. Luckily there are people that measure their turntables, including fancy ones, and share the info with others.

Thanks, I appreciate this example. Though it is only one example. Maybe you know of many, many more, but I would still wonder if it's a large enough sample to determine most modern turntables are crap.

BTW, given this clearaudio's position among today's high end turntables, I would hope given it's asking price that it was a solid performer. You seem to indicate "not bad" but not SOTA. I'm curious how the better turntables measured in the 70's. And then we have the issue of whether enough of the *claimed* SOTA turntables today have been measured, to draw the conclusion they aren't excellent performers.

 

[USER]

That's not at all my position. I don't know if there are modern turntables with excellent objective measurements.

I'm using the standard "he who makes a positive claim bears the burden of proof."

The fact I mentioned that it seems a vanishingly small portion of the available high end turntables seem to have been measured indicates I don't see I could neither support nor deny the proposition there isn't excellent performance to be found in some modern turntables. Since you claimed most were crap, I therefore wondered how you determined this, as it seems like a pretty big claim.




Thanks, I appreciate this example. Though it is only one example. Maybe you know of many, many more, but I would still wonder if it's a large enough sample to determine most modern turntables are crap.

BTW, given this clearaudio's position among today's high end turntables, I would hope given it's asking price that it was a solid performer. You seem to indicate "not bad" but not SOTA. I'm curious how the better turntables measured in the 70's. And then we have the issue of whether enough of the *claimed* SOTA turntables today have been measured, to draw the conclusion they aren't excellent performers.

I more see it as me saying the companies have the burden of proof, especially when it should be pretty easy for them to provide it. Their claims are often wilder than this one as are those of their customers. But the broad specs sometimes provided are often enough to discount the claims. It's not like there are luminaries behind many of these companies. I'll take Sony's engineering team from the 1980s over anyone today. Back then R&D was backed by the biggest companies in the world. Incredible money and manpower. What compares to that today?

Here's a wonderful example of a lower-tier turntable performing well on this spec. 1980, close enough. I can corroborate as mine performs extremely well too. Even today. There is a modest amount of measurements on this site. I recommend you check them out as they are super informative and fun to read.

Fun with vinyl measurements

33rruert2 The phone app has an error deviation, 33.4 gives stationary strobe lines (33.336 with stylus in groove. Cannot hear any wow in music , but can on test record tone, depends on record centering also of course ok.. ;-) (2sigma?) a recent revision of rpm and wow on android seems to have...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[meracus]

When I compare records I have to streaming files … it’s just cleaner on files , I play an LP or 2 from time to time … there’s a sense of occasion and ritual … not a major deal breaker … i would enjoy both … it’s just that i stopped buying LP a long while .. and access to music is far far easier on file
( I have 500-600 ECM )
Never really got into the elitism of drilling rig tables … it looks rather daft to me … I would rather get an epic car for the money

 

[computer-audiophile]

There's no reason why modern audiophile flagship turntables cannot be fully automatic.

I would not buy because I am a purist, respectively minimalist.

 

[drmevo]

Never really got into the elitism of drilling rig tables

That is awesome...haven't heard that one before. They are not my bag, either, even if I had the spare cash laying around. They just look totally gaudy, to me.

 

[meracus]

Yes … more cucumber in the trousers than true engineering … some looked like a lift shaft mechanism ( Munich this year ) , some looked cool

 

[USER]

View attachment 303428Yes … more cucumber in the trousers than true engineering … some looked like a lift shaft mechanism ( Munich this year ) , some looked cool View attachment 303429

The second one is lovely, but that tonearm has me extremely worried. For those interested, the specs.

Technical specifications

Turntable
Airbearing design.
Vacuum hold down, or clamp.
Accept up to 4 tonearms. All tonearm designs, radial – and linear tracking.
Output for an airbearing tonearm.
Plinth:
Black coated die cast aluminium.
Platter/Bearing:
Aluminium platter floats on air. 3mm acrillic mat.
Centred by hard anodized spindle/hardwearing low friction polymer bearing.
Platter weight:
11.8 kg.
Feet:
Adjustable feet. Aluminium/ceraball construction.
Dimensions
365 x 480 x 190mm (D x W x H)
Total weight:
38.0 kg.
Motorbase:
Tacho motor with high precision feedback control system.
33 & 45
Belt driven
Airsupply:
Silent, clean, dry and smooth airflow. Replaceable filter.
Easy accessible dust filter, for easy cleaning and replacement.
Dimensions:
465 x 225 x 235mm. (D x W x H)
Weight:
18,2 kg.

Does "The musical flow is really extraordinary – not necessarily measurable but audiable" allow me to pass some judgement?

OK, I'll try to be more fair. The closest thing to a spec I found was "We measured 0.0027% speed variation!" That's great and I think if measured on a perfect test record it would come to about 3,159Hz. You won't hear that. It must have taken them a lot of work to get there. But, sorry, I still want something more beautiful!!!!

 

[computer-audiophile]

I see it as pointless overkill and therefore as a bad design.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I would not buy because I am a purist, respectively minimalist.

Where do you draw the line for minimal And why? I’m just curious. I love my full auto.

 

[levimax]

I would not buy because I am a purist, respectively minimalist.

I would never buy anything but an automatic TT (auto-return at the very least). Falling asleep or walking away and forgetting about the record is a good way to wear out an expensive stylus / cart.