Technics SL 1210GR2 Turntable

[morillon]

Yes, you must first calibrate the application

It is worth noting that the drive in the turntable is not binary, so the measurement result may differ each time. It would be downright abnormal if we obtained a 100% identical result each time. Each element, and there are many of them, of the drive is also made within a specific tolerance, from-to, plus wear of these elements. Plus a measurement error resulting from a different positioning of the smartphone, a measurement error of the smartphone itself.
I would start to worry when the discrepancy between the results is very large.....

we must not exaggerate either.. under constant conditions, the differences are not very significant even on a non-DD, if a turntable is precisely correctly produced..
moreover those read, are anticipated somewhere, precisely in our observations of wf
our efforts are made precisely for that...

 

[Timmy]

I would start to worry when the discrepancy between the results is very large.....

I had different results with the different apps. When staying with one app only, the results deviation was quite moderate.

 

[Quando]

things can get a bit complicated..for example, on my "downgrade" LP ( ;-)
just an AC motor without a frequency regulator) I have to precisely follow the frequency of my current and choose a time "50.00 Hz" to take the measurement

Man has long ago invented technical solutions so that the influence of the supply frequency does not affect the engine speed, and yet turntables are still produced in which the turntable speed depends on the frequency of the engine supply current.

 

[morillon]

Man has long ago invented technical solutions so that the influence of the supply frequency does not affect the engine speed, and yet turntables are still produced in which the turntable speed depends on the frequency of the engine supply current.

just that it seems, in these proportions of variations, not to affect listening for a large majority of people.. ,( maybe you yourself)
(announced at +-0.1%, +- 0.05hz max, , slow variations, in my country *).... that's all...
would not have existed so much otherwise...
(Vinyl is a great field for the "experimental" spirit, but also the field, in the end, of compromise, and which has "fed" decades of music lovers "without all that" ;-) )
*in practice, in my case 33.31=<x<=33.35..but to be honest, for me this is "the acceptable limit" ( and correct wf 0.03rms).." plus", I would have brought out a another "regulate" turntable...

 

[Quando]

just that it seems, in these proportions of variations, not to affect listening for a large majority of people.. ,( maybe you yourself)
(announced at +-0.1%, +- 0.05hz max, , slow variations, in my country *).... that's all...
would not have existed so much otherwise...
(Vinyl is a great field for the "experimental" spirit, but also the field, in the end, of compromise, and which has "fed" decades of music lovers "without all that" ;-) )
*in practice, in my case 33.31=<x<=33.35..but to be honest, for me this is "the acceptable limit" ( and correct wf 0.03rms).." plus", I would have brought out a another "regulate" turntable...

Vinyl was a terrible source of sound for classical music. In the case of such music, you can hear very well all the imperfections associated with vinyl records and gramophones.
In the group of listeners of such music, definitely more people have better hearing than in the case of other types of music.

It was also too uncomfortable, some operas last very long
So the CD was invented, with digital sound

 

[J.M. Noble]

I had different results with the different apps. When staying with one app only, the results deviation was quite moderate.

I had the same result on two different apps yesterday, using my iPhone 13 Mini: both said my SL-1500C was about 0.6% fast, which seemed unlikely. That's over half an extra revolution every three minutes! The common factor was the gyro in my phone, of course.

To check the apps, I put a marker on the outer edge of the platter and shot video of it passing by the power switch for a little over 3 minutes. The precision of this method is limited by the 29.9fps framerate (and slow shutter speed due to low light which blurred my marker a bit), but I came up with a figure of 0.011% slow, which is negligible. 120fps and strong lighting would give very accurate results with 1.67 degrees per frame (around 3/16" at the perimeter of the record) resolution--or 0.0046% without interpolation. I trust the video camera's timebase a lot more than a gyro.

As for wow, I've never heard it on this turntable--and I listened for it. My previous Rega belt drive RP-1 was both noticeably fast and visibly (with printed stroboscope pattern) & audibly (sustained piano notes, etc) inconsistent.

I expect all the properly functioning direct drive turntables at this level have solved speed, speed consistency, and rumble issues beyond most mortals' power to detect them.

 

[mike70]

Why would you record an mp3 at 128kbps to begin with? You still strapped for storage space?

?????

i think you don't get the point, maybe I can explain it more ... the format is the container of the music, but in the best possible container you can put a bad quality recording.

More clear now? Because you use a CD it doesn't mean every unit will be the best quality. It's s case to case, because digital mastering for streaming and portable devices (as an example) can screwed it all.

 

[Quando]

?????

i think you don't get the point, maybe I can explain it more ... the format is the container of the music, but in the best possible container you can put a bad quality recording.

More clear now? Because you use a CD it doesn't mean every unit will be the best quality. It's s case to case, because digital mastering for streaming and portable devices (as an example) can screwed it all.

Discussing vinyl records vs CDs, for the 10001st time, makes as much sense as discussing the harmfulness of smoking cigarettes. It's obvious that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health, but some people still smoke cigarettes. It's the same with vinyl records, it's obvious that they play poorly, but some people still want to listen to them. Period.

 

[mike70]

Discussing vinyl records vs CDs, for the 10001st time, makes as much sense as discussing the harmfulness of smoking cigarettes. It's obvious that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health, but some people still smoke cigarettes. It's the same with vinyl records, it's obvious that they play poorly, but some people still want to listen to them. Period.

I'm not discussing, I'm pointing some particular points about it ... if you read with care what I posted you will see it, I'm not defending or atacking nothing. We need high level thinking.
And let me say vinyl can sound really great, if you listen to a decent analog system.

Impractical / expensive/ inferior ... yes / yes / yes ... but, what noise floor do you have in your room? what thd are in your speakers? what DR is in your recordings? ... and I can continue ...

We're talking about science/data and REALITY. In a theoretically way? Vinyl sucks.
But recordings / room acoustics/speakers also sucks. So, in the REAL world, vinyl CAN be enough for a great listening experience.

 

[undeakyetonde]

No, records can have the same digital source mix in high resolution, but then you need to master for vinyl and for red book / streaming ... and many, many CDs are compressed and destroyed to sound good in cell phones with plastic earbuds.

So, many releases really sound better in vinyl. The limitations in the format itself doesn't allows the "damage" they can do in CDs, with very high compression and much more limited DR.

A Ferrari with bad fuel ...

What are examples of "many releases"? Are there industry statistics? First hand testimonies from mastering engineers? Is this really a widespread practice?

To me it remains an unproven myth. Whenever I take any needledrop of a record released in past 10 years, eyeballing EQ (cancelling EQ from preamp + cartridge) gets me the same sound as digital release. That includes both major (e.g. Metallica) and indie artists.

 

[mike70]

What are examples of "many releases"? Are there industry statistics? First hand testimonies from mastering engineers? Is this really a widespread practice?

To me it remains an unproven myth. Whenever I take any needledrop of a record released in past 10 years, eyeballing EQ (cancelling EQ from preamp + cartridge) gets me the same sound as digital release. That includes both major (e.g. Metallica) and indie artists.

Kind of blue, Abbey road (and Beatles in general), led zeppelin ii, ... but, I will stop here, I think is going off topic. For those who understand my point and can take something valuable from my opinion (sometimes only the curiosity worth it), ok ... in other way, is ok too.

 

[undeakyetonde]

Kind of blue, Abbey road (and Beatles in general), led zeppelin ii, ... but, I will stop here, I think is going off topic. For those who understand my point and can take something valuable from my opinion (sometimes only the curiosity worth it), ok ... in other way, is ok too.

This is not many by any measure. The world is much larger than a handful of classic albums recorded 40+ years ago. Also, what all of these have in common is that they had numerous non-compressed digital releases over the last 40 years. Just buy an old CD if you don't like the new one.

Loudness normalisation on streaming services largely destroyed the (artificial) need to needlessly compress everything to be LOUD. If compressed sound is a deliberate artistic choice, then there is little reason not to put the same compressed mix on records. Otherwise, the overly compressed sound is a mastering error, and whoever did that does not care about 'dynamics' and is also unlikely to make a separate mix for vinyl.

Your point is simply retranslating the audiophile myth about 'dynamics' of vinyl records. There is still very little evidence of people recording new music and making different masters for different media. Maybe they do sometimes but it is not enough to say "many releases"

 

[Quando]

I'm not discussing, I'm pointing some particular points about it ... if you read with care what I posted you will see it, I'm not defending or atacking nothing. We need high level thinking.
And let me say vinyl can sound really great, if you listen to a decent analog system.

Impractical / expensive/ inferior ... yes / yes / yes ... but, what noise floor do you have in your room? what thd are in your speakers? what DR is in your recordings? ... and I can continue ...

We're talking about science/data and REALITY. In a theoretically way? Vinyl sucks.
But recordings / room acoustics/speakers also sucks. So, in the REAL world, vinyl CAN be enough for a great listening experience.

When you add up all the imperfections of the vinyl record and the gramophone, it's basically a miracle that it plays acceptably, which doesn't mean it plays very well. It plays like it plays, some like it, others don't.

 

[J.M. Noble]

What are examples of "many releases"? Are there industry statistics? First hand testimonies from mastering engineers? Is this really a widespread practice?

To me it remains an unproven myth. Whenever I take any needledrop of a record released in past 10 years, eyeballing EQ (cancelling EQ from preamp + cartridge) gets me the same sound as digital release. That includes both major (e.g. Metallica) and indie artists.

Compare dynamic range, crest factor, etc and then tell me they are the "same sound".

The mastering differences are easily audible, and since we're discussing studio productions it's goofy to talk about "fidelity" because all of these things are artistic choices. Trent Reznor has publicly discussed the mastering differences between vinyl, CD, and streaming releases of the same album, to mention just one artist. He's far from alone in this: mastering engineers spend a lot of time tailoring their work for different media.

 

[J.M. Noble]

When you add up all the imperfections of the vinyl record and the gramophone, it's basically a miracle that it plays acceptably, which doesn't mean it plays very well. It plays like it plays, some like it, others don't.

You're leaving out the human factor.

Digital allows things like the "loudness wars" to happen, which the physics of vinyl playback won't accommodate. I have owned some really harsh sounding CDs that sound OK or better than OK on analog formats. Vinyl keeps mastering engineers honest. I suppose you need to spend some time around the sausage factory of music production to appreciate why chasing after "fidelity" in popular music is nonsense.

If we're limiting ourselves to direct-to-disc/file stereo recordings of classical or jazz groups with no use of compression etc., then sure: hi-res digital is the non plus ultra.

 

[undeakyetonde]

Compare dynamic range, crest factor, etc and then tell me they are the "same sound".

If you are talking about the "DR meter": try taking a digitally limited recording, mono out the bass and maybe lowpass at 20 Hz. You will see DR rising by a couple of points, as well as the crest factor. Both take peak value into account, and applying any kind of processing will change peaks, and push them beyond level set by digital limiter

You can get a bit more of perceived dynamic range because of distortions from vinyl playback, that is true

If they sound the same then dynamic range is the same

... Trent Reznor ... He's far from alone in this: mastering engineers spend a lot of time tailoring their work for different media.

So, we have at least one person. Better than nothing I guess.

All of my CDs that didn't get a million of re-releases and re-masterings have exactly the same waveforms as their streaming versions. I find it hard to believe that anybody except handful of people make different mixes for CD and streamings. And mastering for vinyl (if the engineer even cares) is about working around its limitations rather than about dynamics or audio quality or whatever.

 

[Quando]

You're leaving out the human factor.

Digital allows things like the "loudness wars" to happen, which the physics of vinyl playback won't accommodate. I have owned some really harsh sounding CDs that sound OK or better than OK on analog formats. Vinyl keeps mastering engineers honest. I supposed you need to spend some time around the sausage factory of music production to appreciate why chasing after "fidelity" in popular music is nonsense.

If we're limiting ourselves to direct-to-disc/file stereo recordings of classical or jazz groups with no use of compression etc., then sure: hi-res digital is the non plus ultra.

If you think you like the sound of a vinyl record better, then listen to a vinyl record. I prefer the sound of a CD. I consider vinyl to be harmful to the quality of sound.

 

[J.M. Noble]

If you are talking about the "DR meter": try taking a digitally limited recording, mono out the bass and maybe lowpass at 20 Hz. You will see DR rising by a couple of points, as well as the crest factor. Both take peak value into account, and applying any kind of processing will change peaks, and push them beyond level set by digital limiter

You can get a bit more of perceived dynamic range because of distortions from vinyl playback, that is true

If they sound the same then dynamic range is the same


So, we have at least one person. Better than nothing I guess.

All of my CDs that didn't get a million of re-releases and re-masterings have exactly the same waveforms as their streaming versions. I find it hard to believe that anybody except handful of people make different mixes for CD and streamings. And mastering for vinyl (if the engineer even cares) is about working around its limitations rather than about dynamics or audio quality or whatever.

You find it hard to believe because you're not involved in music production or delivery. I own a TC Electronic Clarity M Stereo, for instance, which is made specifically to provide LUFS (and other) metering so mixing and mastering engineers can tailor releases for the various platforms. Why go to the trouble? Because the platforms have loudness guidelines and exceeding them has commercial consequences. The same is true of not making a mix loud enough, which creates the quiet-track-on-the-jukebox problem.

I was dealing with these issues in 1999-2003 when I was director of R&D for an online+meatspace media venture, and I'm also a a recording artist (who needs to record more) and live sound engineer. But you do you.

 

[J.M. Noble]

If you think you like the sound of a vinyl record better, then listen to a vinyl record. I prefer the sound of a CD. I consider vinyl to be harmful to the quality of sound.

De gustibus non est disputandum, yes indeed.

Just leave "fidelity" arguments out of it for produced music and you're on solid ground.

 

[Quando]

Just leave "fidelity" arguments out of it for produced music and you're on solid ground.

Yes, vinyl plays well enough to make them want to buy it. An additional medium is an additional source of income, for the same music.

If there is a customer, there is supply, and if there is no customer, we will sell them a fairy tale about the superiority of vinyl records and surely some people will believe it.

Old marketing tricks.

CDs on the secondary market, in larger packages, cost 1-3 Euro
This is the time for a CD, they have never been so cheap