Trying to understand the turntable/vinyl world...

[DSJR]

Our local cheapo supermarket at Christmas for two years running has had a Dual deck (Technics lookalike, not the German made models) for ninety quid or so with cartridge (AT 3600L - easily ipgradeable stylus with a DN251E elliptical that Dual used to market and Wm Thakker at least have replacements for I believe - mines the Thakker EPO-E but not sure if they're doing it now). No spare funds to waste on sich a thing but I've been damned curious to see if it actually does a half decent job. It's likely that other makers will put their badges on the same deck as suggest ed at the end of the review. Oh, much of the feedback issues with the flimsy case can be minimised by removing the lid when playing (we always insisted on this with Rega decks and this happilly carries across to practically all solid-plinth models with attached hinged lids! Conclusion is that it's actually ok and won't carve your expensive cut-from-digital-masters vinyl re-issues which cost an arm and a leg...

 

[EJ3]

I disagree. I've bought a £15 DVD player which was as good as anything needs to be, to play CDs, and I even bought a very cheap (£5) portable CD player which although quite nasty mechanically, again played CDs as well as they need to be. If you want something that will last 10 years + of daily use, then I accept that won't be a £5-£15 player, but as far as sound quality goes, even these cheap players are Good Enough.

That can't be said for any cheap record player of the Crosley variety, which won't sound even adequate, and the cartridge and stylus will do nothing for record wear.

S.

You and I have very different philosophies. If I have bothered to buy something, I will spend enough that it will not be mechanically (or otherwise nasty) and I will expect it to last. I know that usually, if I buy on the low end, this is unlikely to be true. But, as proven here many times, the most expensive is not the answer either. The trick is to find something at a reasonable price for a reasonable amount of quality. Once, I commissioned a trailer to be built (by a reputable trailer builder) for general hauling of yard equipment, debris, etc. I designed it to be easily rebuildable (which cost extra money to do but will save money over the succeeding years). The trailer builder called me a few days later, saying "I can save you some money on this build". I asked "How?" And listened. Everything he stated would decrease the longevity and/or decrease the ease of rebuilding the trailer. I asked him if he could build the trailer as designed. He said "Yes, but it is over kill". I said "You can build it as designed or I will find someone else who will and they will get the money". He built it. 40 years later, I have partially rebuilt it once. I think of all the time and aggravation that I have saved by not having to replace the trailer every other year.
I bought an in-expensive CD player from the military exchange while I was in Saipan to give as a birthday gift. It lasted 91 days. 1 day past warranty.
I went and got a 15% more expensive one and it is still going these 7 years later.
I never buy the cheapest item of something that I can find. For me: it's too aggravating in the long run.
You may not get what you pay for but it is unlikely that you will get what you don't pay for.

 

[rdenney]

You have to define your use cases. If your intention is to play a record from your collection from time to time for the sake of nostalgia, and the records you have are all somewhat the worse for wear from having survived the years, then there's not much point in building an expensive capability unless you simply want to. I agree with others that an entry-level table is fine, and the VM95 is probably about as good a cartridge as exists at moderately low price points.

The alternative is a used Technics direct-drive turntable from three or four decades ago, with the same new cartridge. A Grado cartridge is also not a terrible choice at a lower price point. It's not that hard to get that setup going for well under $500, but doing noticeably better will require somewhat of a jump in cash outlay. My current rig is a Thorens TD-166II (the cheapest model back in the 70's of a high-quality brand), carefully restored (by me) and with an Audio Technica AT440MLa cartridge (which is a bit bright, reportedly, which I can fix with EQ if I could hear stuff that high, which I can't). With the nicer dust cover that I bought, the corrections I made to previous owner mistakes, and with quite a bit of mechanical ability to restore it and set it up properly, I'm able to get very good results for maybe $800 all in. From that point, prices increase exponentially relative to outcomes.

That gives you four potential levels of investment: What you have with a good cartridge, a better used table with a good cartridge, a high-quality used table bought cheaply--which means a lot of restoration effort--with a good cartridge, or higher-end well beyond your budget.

Speaking of budget, in 1976 I bought a Technics turntable with a serviceable cartridge for about a hundred dollars. It was their cheapest model, but was still decent compared to the "record players" that many teenagers owned at that time. If the inflation calculator I just googled is anywhere near correct, that $100 turntable in 1976 would be priced at over $480 now to command the same purchasing power from a buyer. But remember that turntables of the 70's were mass-production items, because vinyl was the only affordable way to listen to commercially produced music with good quality. And that was during a time when listening to music was done at home, not using fancy earbuds attached to a cell phone. So, there was a boom in sales during that era that meant a lot of marketplace competition and younger buyers with fewer resources.

Nowadays, buyers are generally older and with greater means, and those buying vinyl playback equipment comprise a niche market of much smaller dimensions. Prices are therefore higher, no matter what production costs might be. Cost and price are unconnected, with the sole exception that the price has to be higher than the cost to make it a going business proposition for the manufacturer. Price is driven by the market, and the market is willing to pay more, in general. That makes the availability of units like the AT120 a blessing, to be honest.

Rick "the great is the enemy of the good" Denney

 

[Leiker535]

Nowadays, buyers are generally older and with greater means, and those buying vinyl playback equipment comprise a niche market of much smaller dimensions. Prices are therefore higher, no matter what production costs might be. Cost and price are unconnected, with the sole exception that the price has to be higher than the cost to make it a going business proposition for the manufacturer. Price is driven by the market, and the market is willing to pay more, in general. That makes the availability of units like the AT120 a blessing, to be honest.

I agree with you on most points, but I think you overstate the vinyl market as audiophile. Most young people buying into the vinyl boom (and I know this because I amthat demographics age and have seen my friends going into it) aren't buying AT120s or vintage-to-be-restored technics and pioneers, they buy Crosleys and nice looking tables that costs less but perfom laughably worse.

That makes the point some people here are missing too. You don't need to get a high-end turntable to get good sound. And while TTs do require more technical finesse than CD players and streaming (really, good streaming can be had for cents on a smartphones DAC), the AT120 and its competitors aren't the bottom end snobs make them out to be. The AT120 is much closer to a working SL1200 than it is to a crosley.

 

[EJ3]

You have to define your use cases. If your intention is to play a record from your collection from time to time for the sake of nostalgia, and the records you have are all somewhat the worse for wear from having survived the years, then there's not much point in building an expensive capability unless you simply want to. I agree with others that an entry-level table is fine, and the VM95 is probably about as good a cartridge as exists at moderately low price points.

The alternative is a used Technics direct-drive turntable from three or four decades ago, with the same new cartridge. A Grado cartridge is also not a terrible choice at a lower price point. It's not that hard to get that setup going for well under $500, but doing noticeably better will require somewhat of a jump in cash outlay. My current rig is a Thorens TD-166II (the cheapest model back in the 70's of a high-quality brand), carefully restored (by me) and with an Audio Technica AT440MLa cartridge (which is a bit bright, reportedly, which I can fix with EQ if I could hear stuff that high, which I can't). With the nicer dust cover that I bought, the corrections I made to previous owner mistakes, and with quite a bit of mechanical ability to restore it and set it up properly, I'm able to get very good results for maybe $800 all in. From that point, prices increase exponentially relative to outcomes.

That gives you four potential levels of investment: What you have with a good cartridge, a better used table with a good cartridge, a high-quality used table bought cheaply--which means a lot of restoration effort--with a good cartridge, or higher-end well beyond your budget.

Speaking of budget, in 1976 I bought a Technics turntable with a serviceable cartridge for about a hundred dollars. It was their cheapest model, but was still decent compared to the "record players" that many teenagers owned at that time. If the inflation calculator I just googled is anywhere near correct, that $100 turntable in 1976 would be priced at over $480 now to command the same purchasing power from a buyer. But remember that turntables of the 70's were mass-production items, because vinyl was the only affordable way to listen to commercially produced music with good quality. And that was during a time when listening to music was done at home, not using fancy earbuds attached to a cell phone. So, there was a boom in sales during that era that meant a lot of marketplace competition and younger buyers with fewer resources.

Nowadays, buyers are generally older and with greater means, and those buying vinyl playback equipment comprise a niche market of much smaller dimensions. Prices are therefore higher, no matter what production costs might be. Cost and price are unconnected, with the sole exception that the price has to be higher than the cost to make it a going business proposition for the manufacturer. Price is driven by the market, and the market is willing to pay more, in general. That makes the availability of units like the AT120 a blessing, to be honest.

Rick "the great is the enemy of the good" Denney

Most of my records (since 1974) were recorded (clean, play, clean, play-record done) to a quality cassette deck (broadcast quality or better high end Technics, JVC or Kenwood [for which the mechanical parts are still mostly available] from my DUAL 1229 with a SHURE V-15 (1970's to now with still some NOS cartridges & styli on hand [redone when I got my first APT/Homan Preamp in 1977] {I now own 2, both modded & refurbished, like twins}). (No changes to the Tom Holman designed circuits). After I got my (new)1984 Technics SL-M3 with a SHURE ULTRA 300 cartridge (& still have some NOS cartridges and styli on hand), the recordings were done again. There is very little wear on my LP's or styli (which have been changed whenever wear of the diamond was noted). I have also recorded to archive my collection to my SONY RCD-W500 (which can record 44.1 20 bit bit perfect) CD type media. I cannot ever recall selling any of my stereo gear, I think that I still have every piece I ever bought. But I did not change things every year or even every few years. As you can see, it was many years before I stepped up from the 1229 to the SL-M3. I am the kind of person that (these days) when I have bought something & find that I really like it, I buy a second one.
As a consequence, I now own 5 NAD 2200 PE's & 2 NAD 2100's (my main system is tri-amped, a secondary system and additional things to play with). I have 2 condo's, a house, a 2012 Lexus (30K miles) & a 2000 Nissan truck (187K miles). Only owned by the taxman & me. I don't have much cash money but I have a place to live & vehicles to travel in when I retire in about 5 years. (At least as long as I can afford food, power & taxes).

 

[rdenney]

Most of my records (since 1974) were recorded (clean, play, clean, play-record done) to a quality cassette deck (broadcast quality or better high end Technics, JVC or Kenwood [for which the mechanical parts are still mostly available] from my DUAL 1229 with a SHURE V-15 (1970's to now with still some NOS cartridges & styli on hand [redone when I got my first APT/Homan Preamp in 1977] {I now own 2, both modded & refurbished, like twins}). (No changes to the Tom Holman designed circuits). After I got my (new)1984 Technics SL-M3 with a SHURE ULTRA 300 cartridge (& still have some NOS cartridges and styli on hand), the recordings were done again. There is very little wear on my LP's or styli (which have been changed whenever wear of the diamond was noted). I have also recorded to archive my collection to my SONY RCD-W500 (which can record 44.1 20 bit bit perfect) CD type media. I cannot ever recall selling any of my stereo gear, I think that I still have every piece I ever bought. But I did not change things every year or even every few years. As you can see, it was many years before I stepped up from the 1229 to the SL-M3. I am the kind of person that (these days) when I have bought something & find that I really like it, I buy a second one.
As a consequence, I now own 5 NAD 2200 PE's & 2 NAD 2100's (my main system is tri-amped, a secondary system and additional things to play with). I have 2 condo's, a house, a 2012 Lexus (30K miles) & a 2000 Nissan truck (187K miles). Only owned by the taxman & me. I don't have much cash money but I have a place to live & vehicles to travel in when I retire in about 5 years. (At least as long as I can afford food, power & taxes).

With all due respect, I was responding to the OP, who has several hundred albums from the vinyl era.

Rick "who still has the Technics table, Kenwood amp, Kenwood tuner, and Advent speakers he bought in 1976" Denney

 

[sergeauckland]

You and I have very different philosophies. If I have bothered to buy something, I will spend enough that it will not be mechanically (or otherwise nasty) and I will expect it to last. I know that usually, if I buy on the low end, this is unlikely to be true. But, as proven here many times, the most expensive is not the answer either. The trick is to find something at a reasonable price for a reasonable amount of quality. Once, I commissioned a trailer to be built (by a reputable trailer builder) for general hauling of yard equipment, debris, etc. I designed it to be easily rebuildable (which cost extra money to do but will save money over the succeeding years). The trailer builder called me a few days later, saying "I can save you some money on this build". I asked "How?" And listened. Everything he stated would decrease the longevity and/or decrease the ease of rebuilding the trailer. I asked him if he could build the trailer as designed. He said "Yes, but it is over kill". I said "You can build it as designed or I will find someone else who will and they will get the money". He built it. 40 years later, I have partially rebuilt it once. I think of all the time and aggravation that I have saved by not having to replace the trailer every other year.
I bought an in-expensive CD player from the military exchange while I was in Saipan to give as a birthday gift. It lasted 91 days. 1 day past warranty.
I went and got a 15% more expensive one and it is still going these 7 years later.
I never buy the cheapest item of something that I can find. For me: it's too aggravating in the long run.
You may not get what you pay for but it is unlikely that you will get what you don't pay for.

We're not so different. I never buy cheap, but I do buy adequate. In other words, I specify carefully what I need the item to do, and buy what meets that spec. That has never been the cheapest. The examples I gave above were in the case of the DVD player, bought because I needed something for a one-off event, for the portable CD player, because I couldn't believe anything that cheap would work, but it did surprisingly well, if not for long. My point was that something electronic, even stupidly cheap, will work adequately sonically. Mechanical items like turntables, and indeed tape machines are altogether another thing. Cheap only works for mass / automatically produced items, not something that has to be hand assembled precisely.

S

 

[skymusic20]

You have to define your use cases. If your intention is to play a record from your collection from time to time for the sake of nostalgia, and the records you have are all somewhat the worse for wear from having survived the years, then there's not much point in building an expensive capability unless you simply want to. I agree with others that an entry-level table is fine, and the VM95 is probably about as good a cartridge as exists at moderately low price points.

The alternative is a used Technics direct-drive turntable from three or four decades ago, with the same new cartridge. A Grado cartridge is also not a terrible choice at a lower price point. It's not that hard to get that setup going for well under $500, but doing noticeably better will require somewhat of a jump in cash outlay. My current rig is a Thorens TD-166II (the cheapest model back in the 70's of a high-quality brand), carefully restored (by me) and with an Audio Technica AT440MLa cartridge (which is a bit bright, reportedly, which I can fix with EQ if I could hear stuff that high, which I can't). With the nicer dust cover that I bought, the corrections I made to previous owner mistakes, and with quite a bit of mechanical ability to restore it and set it up properly, I'm able to get very good results for maybe $800 all in. From that point, prices increase exponentially relative to outcomes.

That gives you four potential levels of investment: What you have with a good cartridge, a better used table with a good cartridge, a high-quality used table bought cheaply--which means a lot of restoration effort--with a good cartridge, or higher-end well beyond your budget.

Speaking of budget, in 1976 I bought a Technics turntable with a serviceable cartridge for about a hundred dollars. It was their cheapest model, but was still decent compared to the "record players" that many teenagers owned at that time. If the inflation calculator I just googled is anywhere near correct, that $100 turntable in 1976 would be priced at over $480 now to command the same purchasing power from a buyer. But remember that turntables of the 70's were mass-production items, because vinyl was the only affordable way to listen to commercially produced music with good quality. And that was during a time when listening to music was done at home, not using fancy earbuds attached to a cell phone. So, there was a boom in sales during that era that meant a lot of marketplace competition and younger buyers with fewer resources.

Nowadays, buyers are generally older and with greater means, and those buying vinyl playback equipment comprise a niche market of much smaller dimensions. Prices are therefore higher, no matter what production costs might be. Cost and price are unconnected, with the sole exception that the price has to be higher than the cost to make it a going business proposition for the manufacturer. Price is driven by the market, and the market is willing to pay more, in general. That makes the availability of units like the AT120 a blessing, to be honest.

Rick "the great is the enemy of the good" Denney

I agree with what you said.

I believe my LP records are nowhere near as in good shape as the ones that belong to older and more knowledgeable music lovers or audiophiles.
Don't get me wrong, Im careful about all my stuff (car, clothes, shoes, etc), specially electronics and so.
About one third of my records were bought (mostly new) when I was a kid/teenager back in the 80s and it is safe to say that I was not so careful as I am today. Besides, some friends (kids/teenagers) borrowed some records from me at that time and only Gods know how they treated my records...
The rest I have bought used in brick and mortar stores and others online (discogs, ebay, etc, etc).
Many I have bought in garage sales and these are the ones that are in worst shape.

The classical music LPs I inherited (thanks) from mom and dad bought new in the 60s before I was born.

I don't own any recently made LP record. I don't own any modern reissues. They are very expensive.

I would say a cheap AT LP120x is good enough for my records.
Technics or Dual or Thorens might be better but probably overkill for a relatively small and not-in-so-good-shape collection.

 

[dlaloum]

A plastic box CD player will in all probability be as good as it needs to be, i.e. as transparent as any expensive player, with the clear exception of perceived build quality.
A turntable needs a very accurate bearing, or rumble and possibly wow will be audible. It needs a silent-running motor, effectively isolated, or again rumble will occur. The turntable itself needs to be accurately machined or wow and flutter become audible.

The arm needs to have very low friction bearings, without any perceptible play. The arm tube needs to be sufficiently rigid to support the cartridge, which is a seismic sensor, properly, but ideally also with some damping to broaden any high Q resonances. The cartridge needs to have very low tip mass, and very accurate orientation of the two generators to avoid excessive crosstalk. The stylus should have a line-contact profile and accurate alignment to avoid both crosstalk and reduce distortion.
The whole turntable system needs to be well isolated, or positive feedback can occur.

All of those can be achieved, but at a considerable cost of production, made worse by the relatively low quantities in which turntables are sold. With very large production quantities, it should be possible to automate much of the mechanical machining effort, but not with current quantities, so production and assembly will be largely precision manual labour.

CD players can be made very cheaply, especially if the transport mechanism is based on a computer optical disc mechanism, although even those now are becoming more rare as fewer computers offer optical drives.

S.

Many of us grew up with music from record players that looked like this (!).

Low Friction Bearings?
Precise engineering?

LOL

the High Fidelity hobby developed from and around those who sought out something a bit better...

Ultimately Vinyl has always had its "record player" majority, and its OCD HiFi aficionados.

 

[skymusic20]

Many of us grew up with music from record players that looked like this (!).

Low Friction Bearings?
Precise engineering?

LOL

the High Fidelity hobby developed from and around those who sought out something a bit better...

Ultimately Vinyl has always had its "record player" majority, and its OCD HiFi aficionados.

Ha, I think you are right.

Back in the days when turntables were the only (or main) device to listen to music....

Are we going to believe people only owned Technics/Thorens/Dual and the like?

I guess most people had whatever was mass produced.

Back in those days maybe people who owned High Fidelity turntables were a tiny minority....

 

[dlaloum]

Ha, I think you are right.

Back in the days when turntables were the only (or main) device to listen to music....

Are we going to believe people only owned Technics/Thorens/Dual and the like?

I guess most people had whatever was mass produced.

Back in those days maybe people who owned High Fidelity turntables were a tiny minority....

My Grandparents has a huge Radio console, about 2m long with the record player/radio in the middle and speakers in the base....

Mum had a briefcase like unit (like the image I posted) - which was our main record player until I was around 9... when my grandparents passed on the big console.... and that became our main record player until I purchased my own "Turntable" in my late teens, and joined the HiFi fraternity...

Yes, most people in the 50's, 60's, and 70's had "record players" not "turntables" - the late 70's and early 80's moved people to component systems, HiFi (often by label rather than performance) - and finally digital.

 

[Robin L]

File-based playback of Redbook standard recordings played back on a decent [by no means costly] DAC has more musically going on than any LPs I've owned/played on any turntables I've owned/used. I've heard LPs played back on equipment that was, in musically importantly ways, as close to SOTA as possible at the time. Because of other elements in that person's system, that is the best audio reproduction I have heard coming from any medium. However, I'm sure that certain records would show up the flaws of that system compared to what can be done now, twenty years later, with SOTA digital.

 

[EJ3]

File-based playback of Redbook standard recordings played back on a decent [by no means costly] DAC has more musically going on than any LPs I've owned/played on any turntables I've owned/used. I've heard LPs played back on equipment that was, in musically importantly ways, as close to SOTA as possible at the time. Because of other elements in that person's system, that is the best audio reproduction I have heard coming from any medium. However, I'm sure that certain records would show up the flaws of that system compared to what can be done now, twenty years later, with SOTA digital.

There is the fact (certaily for my mother) that most of her records are Salzburg, Austrian dialect folk music, German folk music & even South American native folk music, I have records from 1927 to now. Some of mine are in the Gullah language of what many whites & blacks spoke on the barrier islands of the South in the USA. And as you got toward New Orleans, then Cajun (and many other dialects in between. A fair portion of what I have is sung in these styles by the people that lived them. Most of it I have not found on CD or via digital. Since 50% of what I listen to (my mother was a folk singer) is this sort of thing that isn't found in the current digital files (maybe some at the Smithsonian) then streaming is mostly useless to me. It is my goal to digitize a lot of it. But I am not there yet.

 

[dlaloum]

File-based playback of Redbook standard recordings played back on a decent [by no means costly] DAC has more musically going on than any LPs I've owned/played on any turntables I've owned/used. I've heard LPs played back on equipment that was, in musically importantly ways, as close to SOTA as possible at the time. Because of other elements in that person's system, that is the best audio reproduction I have heard coming from any medium. However, I'm sure that certain records would show up the flaws of that system compared to what can be done now, twenty years later, with SOTA digital.

The self evident.... (except it is not obvious to many!)

There is the fact (certaily for my mother) that most of her records are Salzburg, Austrian dialect folk music, German folk music & even South American native folk music, I have records from 1927 to now. Some of mine are in the Gullah language of what may whites & blacks spoke on the barrier islands of the South in the USA. And as you got toward New Orleans, then Cajun (and many other dialects in between. A fair portion of what I have is sung in these styles by the people that lived them. Most of it I have not found on CD or via digital. Since 50% of what I listen to (my mother was a folk singer) is this sort of thing that isn't found in the current digital files (maybe some at the Smithsonian) then streaming is mostly useless to me. It is my goal to digitize a lot of it. But I am not there yet.

I have a similar small collection of "Algerian" Malouf music, which was the native Andalousian-Berber-Arabic blend of the Atlas mountains...

This simply does not exist in digital ... there are a few people out there working to digitise some of these recordings from the 1920's to the 1950's...

There are also complexities around reproducing some of the older recordings, due to differing equalisations, and the need for specialised needles etc....

 

[Robin L]

There is the fact (certaily for my mother) that most of her records are Salzburg, Austrian dialect folk music, German folk music & even South American native folk music, I have records from 1927 to now. Some of mine are in the Gullah language of what may whites & blacks spoke on the barrier islands of the South in the USA. And as you got toward New Orleans, then Cajun (and many other dialects in between. A fair portion of what I have is sung in these styles by the people that lived them. Most of it I have not found on CD or via digital. Since 50% of what I listen to (my mother was a folk singer) is this sort of thing that isn't found in the current digital files (maybe some at the Smithsonian) then streaming is mostly useless to me. It is my goal to digitize a lot of it. But I am not there yet.

Very interesting. I can see why someone like you would continue to need a turntable for a long time. I had to unload LPs and LP playing gear on account of moving to a much smaller place. I'll still ripping CD's I intend to give away, on account of space. I really don't mind, most of what I listen to either got transferred to digital or was created as digital. And I'm spending more and more time playing guitar than listening to recordings anyway. But you're a person who would benefit from the best playback gear, considering your circumstances.

 

[EJ3]

The self evident.... (except it is not obvious to many!)

I have a similar small collection of "Algerian" Malouf music, which was the native Andalousian-Berber-Arabic blend of the Atlas mountains...

This simply does not exist in digital ... there are a few people out there working to digitise some of these recordings from the 1920's to the 1950's...

There are also complexities around reproducing some of the older recordings, due to differing equalizations, and the need for specialised needles etc....

Yes, it is now easier to get the equalizations (running things through a computer, some phono preamps have them built in, etc), BUT the styluses (styli?) are more difficult.

 

[EJ3]

Very interesting. I can see why someone like you would continue to need a turntable for a long time. I had to unload LPs and LP playing gear on account of moving to a much smaller place. I'll still ripping CD's I intend to give away, on account of space. I really don't mind, most of what I listen to either got transferred to digital or was created as digital. And I'm spending more and more time playing guitar than listening to recordings anyway. But you're a person who would benefit from the best playback gear, considering your circumstances.

Yes. Hopefully late next year I will be able to get set up to digitize most of these things. A 1958 home that we are moving into in July will take a lot of renovation. After that, perhaps...

 

[Robin L]

Thanks, you know, AT LP120x comes with an elliptical stylus.
Just tried a conical one. The thing is conical stylus seems to work better for records that are in poor shape. Elliptical is more revealing. I gues Microlinear is even more revealing but then you need to have your records in prefect condition...
Will consider microlinear, seems like a good try...

If you haven't tried this already, look for a local record cleaning service using an ultrasonic cleaning machine. Tower District Records in Fresno California has such a service. I've used various cleaning machines and tools. Ultrasonic cleaning, in my experience, does the most thorough job of removing gunk from old records. It doesn't always remove all the dirt and deposits on LPs, but it gets closer than anything else I've tried.

 

[JeffS7444]

Most young people buying into the vinyl boom (and I know this because I amthat demographics age and have seen my friends going into it) aren't buying AT120s or vintage-to-be-restored technics and pioneers, they buy Crosleys and nice looking tables that costs less but perfom laughably worse.

Wait a minute, you mean that younger people are actually playing their records?
https://www.whathifi.com/news/48-people-who-buy-vinyl-dont-listen-to-records
I figure that Crosley-type portables are probably fine if you fit them with a proper diamond stylus, and perfectly OK for people who don't want a full-blown hifi system. Hifi turntables are kind of a pain in the butt: Ever tried to store a Linn Sondek sideways when you weren't using it?

 

[EJ3]

If you haven't tried this already, look for a local record cleaning service using an ultrasonic cleaning machine. Tower District Records in Fresno California has such a service. I've used various cleaning machines and tools. Ultrasonic cleaning, in my experience, does the most thorough job of removing gunk from old records. It doesn't always remove all the dirt and deposits on LPs, but it gets closer than anything else I've tried.

Thank you for this idea. We have a pretty good RECORD/CD/CASSETTE store (Monster Music) here that has a record cleaning machine (I don't know that it is ultra sonic or not). In the late 70's & 80's there was at least one audio club in this area (Charleston, SC [more or less affiliated with the now defunct Read Brother's Stereo store) that had a record cleaning machine that was free to use for the members (dues paid for the machine, members who used it donated toward the supplies). The group had everything that a recording studio might have. Sometimes members were on the local PBS station with various 1/2 hour or hour long shows playing different styles of music, some of them would get involved with recording the local 60 piece community band of the local symphony for local releases etc. It was a very vibrant time for audio, video & photography types of arts around here. Now there is the Spoleto Festival & Piccolo Spoleto & apparently no amateur's allowed (although, many times the local amateur's were better than the hired guns. Don't know what happened during the many years that I was gone but only flower clubs & nature watchers seem to have clubs anymore (and people that go to galleries to see what other people have done).