Turntable blind testing

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Okay, I’m aware of a blind test between a ridiculously expensive turntable and one costing $78 (or it cost that in the ‘60s - a very odd way to describe it, but there you go). But I’m interested in something more up to date, and I’m frankly perplexed at the lack of such testing here at ASR, though I appreciate it may be implicit, and hidden away somewhere.

My current guess is that in players costing $1,000 or more, you’re unlikely to hear much difference. I own an entry level Audio-Technica, and I suspect this can be bettered.

So has anyone actually blind tested (controlled ABX) different turntables to see what the truth is?

Is $1,000+ really just bragging rights territory? What are the genuine stepping stones between $100/$150 and $1,000?

The blind test I mentioned earlier, it’s been doing the rounds for years, but I can’t find anything more recent, based on real-world 21st century models.

What’s going on? And can anyone point me to genuine, unbiased blind tests?

Thank you.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Hard to seperate the turntable effect, but i analysed the difference here.
extract the sound file and mak your own blind test...

Balles kladdebok

Denne var nyttig..for RC last av sekundær vikling på MC trafo. https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=8200 info om Menno Vandeveen MC step up https://mennovanderveen.nl/images/onderzoek-ontwikkeling/publicaties/mc-10-en.pdf

www.hifisentralen.no

Certainly no effect on the frequency response measurement..but the patter design mage a big difference in the arm resonance/behaviour

'

 

[popej]

It is difficult to prepare an ABX test with devices, were there is a problem with synchronizing playback. See:

ABX Double Blind Test Results: Phono Cartridges

 

[Jim Taylor]

I’m frankly perplexed at the lack of such testing here at ASR

You really shouldn't be perplexed by the lack of such testing here. Nothing personal, it's just that vinyl is, relatively speaking, a niche interest, and ASR is concerned with the general audio majority.

Are you surprised that there aren't tests on flathead engines? Yet there are new flathead engines currently being produced. https://d-motor.eu/lf39

Are you surprised that steam cars aren't being produced? There are, of course, good reasons. https://bigthink.com/the-past/steam-cars/ Yet there is currently experimentation into steam vehicles. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026761-600-steam-power-takes-to-the-road-again/

So yes, there is interest in archaic technology. Some people are involved in archaic technology. Some people even enjoy archaic technology.

But it's not the thrust of the modern technological world. Like vinyl, these things (and others) are niche interests.

 

[sergeauckland]

I did just that a few years ago with my then three turntables.

AEG TRS9000 with AT33 cartridge using AEG's integral phono stage
EMT948 with TSD15 cartridge using EMT's integral phono stage
Garrard 401/SME3009/Shure V15V into a Hafler preamp phono stage

All three were set up to give 0dBu out from 5cm/sec @ 1kHz test record.

I used two pressings of the same LP to compare two out of the three turntables, alternating the turntables and pressings.

Switching was done at random by others, using three identical inputs of my Meridian pre-amp, in my preferred AA, AB, BA, BB format, the test being whether I could tell whether the test was same/different. I couldn't reliably hear differences that weren't the differences just between the two pressings, as for example, TTA playing Pressing 1 sounded different to TTA Playing pressing 2, but TTA, B or C sounded the same when playing Pressing 1 or 2.

I have since sold the Garrard 401, but still regularly use the AEG and EMT playing side 1 on the AEG, side 2 on the EMT.

I've concluded that in my system, with the way the three (now 2) turntables are mounted, and the RIAA accuracy, noise and distortion of the phono stages, there's not enough difference to identify.

S.

 

[Vincent Kars]

So yes, there is interest in archaic technology.

Sure, the electric car had its heyday between 1890 and 1910.
You can still buy them...

 

[DSJR]

I did many hundreds of admittedly sighted turntable demos back in my day, usually swapping styli over from one deck to another and taking great pains to set the decks being compared up as best as I could.

The test referred to in the OP used the totally undervalued AR deck of old, which really is an excellent vintage machine if th emotor and bearing are okay and IF the quirky but incredibly clever tonearm is set up right (most modders ripped the thing off and often fitted inferior or in my book unsuited arms instead - same happens in Europe with early 70s Lenco decks as they're plentiful and were cheap to buy once upon a time).

I suppose I have to say as an ex-Linn dealer, that in its heyday, before 'digital' all but took over in the early 90s, the Scottish turntable that started it all, had become very 'characterful' in its music reproduction qualities when fitted with fairly massy fixed-headshell tonearms and 'differences' were easy to hear. One man's bass colouration and clouding-of-image was another listener's warmth, 'musicality/tunefulness' and homogenising of the music (for want of a better description).

Vinyl as a medium has been transformed in recent 'digital' times with inexpensive pickups which are far more capable than those of old compare the Sumiko Pearl (a relic from the 70s) to say, a 2M Red/OM10 or the popular AT VM95ML, which works so well at the lower cost end. We also know better now, how to site a solid-plinth deck, and this will also help bass quality I feel. One of the cheaper decks I'm sure, can 'sound' great with a stylus upgrade...

So much more to add but drifting way off topic and I've said it all before in other threads. Vinyl here on this site, is regarded as a niche or even mid-fi format I believe. the latest 'oligarch' version of the London W1 dealership I cut my audiophool teeth on has mega-buck turntable confections for sale, all bling and perspex and costing many thousands (tens of thousands) of UK pounds. I often wonder how much different they'd be in comparison with a properly installed turntable from a cutting lathe, fitted with a good sensible tonearm and neutral pickup with maybe a Shibata stylus?

 

[jcarys]

I can't tell from the original post if you're just interested in the topic or if you are personally looking to buy a turntable (at $1K or other options).

But the reason you don't see blind test of turntables is that they are fundamentally not like digital devices. On a turntable you can replace the tonearm and the cartridge, which can significantly alter the sound. Hardcore folks also may modify the plinth or the surface the turntable sits on. This is an adjustable instrument.

Digital devices obviously have options to adjust PEQ or other processing, but if a reviewer includes what options were used, any other reviewer or listener should get the same response.

So if you're shopping for yourself, I would say the same rule applies as it does to speakers, you have to audition lots of options with your ears. Again, unlike digital devices, turntables are largely mechanical, so enhancements in materials and design can be expensive, so they do tend to improve at higher prices. Only you can decide where the value cutoff is for you.

 

[Mort]

ASR is concerned with the general audio majority.

Are we? I think we are concerned with audio objectivism, which is unfortunately a niche approach among the 'general audio majority.'

ASR feels more niche than vinyl in general. I understand why the op is perplexed.

 

[Purité Audio]

I offered TT comparisons for a time ( hardly anyone took up the offer though) direct drive asked on Technics versus hugely expensive Grand prix Audio ‘Monaco’, same DV arms same cartridges two identical phono stages, I also compared two identical TTs with the same arm but different DV cartridges XV-iT XV1-s , there were slight differences between the carts, as you would expect, but between the turntables nothing I could discern again as you would expect.
The two TTS based on the Techincs had solid wooden plinths, I came down one morning and one had literally split into two pieces, manufacturer turned to veneer after that.
Keith

 

[waofner]

I did it recently: not blind but dB matched switching between stream and turntable.

phono stage: Rega Aria to 192kHz AD to Topping D50III to Adam Audio S3V

Rega RP 10 +RB2000 + Apheta 3 (new) damn close to stream, maybe no difference to me;
Thorens TD2001 + TP90 + Benz Mikro ACE SL (NOS) very close to stream, a little bit "softer"- brings in the "magic" of Vinyl to me
Thorens TD320II + TP90 + Orthofon Cadenza bronce (80hrs) totally crap(soft,dull,etc.) - sent it to a specialist to replace cantilever(boron) and diamond(MicroRidge). Is now playing close to Benz Micro

yes, i did interchange TD2001 and TD320 for Benz and Orthofon

 

[Jim Taylor]

Are we? I think we are concerned with audio objectivism, which is unfortunately a niche approach among the 'general audio majority.'

ASR feels more niche than vinyl in general. I understand why the op is perplexed.

Hmmmmmm ..... I see your point, but I was approaching the subject from a different angle. Autosound, wireless earbuds, phone storage and IEMs, systems, computer audio and streaming plus lower costs of all audio equipment seem to be the interests of the vast majority of people nowadays. Those things are not "archaic", but utilize the latest objective technology. After all, that's where the discretionary funds seem to be going , and that's what I meant by "general audio majority".

Even @Vincent Kars point about electric cars is slightly skewed. Electric cars have become a viable force in the marketplace chiefly because of advances in battery technology. If the technology from the early 20th century was all that we had, electric cars would be a distant memory.
Has vinyl technology (and the paraphernalia associated with it) made advances similar to electric cars? If they have, I don't see it.

I fully understand about ASR's support of audio objectivism. I also understand that particular facet being regarded by some as a niche. I have complained about that, long and hard, in the past. But the vast majority of people I've met spend their money at Walmart (for example) or online. I believe that neither ASR nor the subjectivist sites can match their sheer numbers nor the power of their collective market influence.
So yes, because of that, I agree that there is some validity to the viewpoint that sites dedicated to objectivism are a "niche" approach. From what I see, vinyl is even more so.

Do you think my opinion is unwarranted?

 

[DVDdoug]

I've never blind tested.

I don't think you need to spend $1000 USD on a turntable. If I was buying a turntable I'd seriously consider the AT-LP120. It seems solidly built, it's direct drive so there are no belts or pullies to wear out, and it comes ready-to-play with a cartridge and preamp, plus USB for digitizing.

But from the analog days, the only time I heard a difference from (a non-broken) the turntable itself, it was a cheap plastic record player with rumble-mechanical noise being picked-up. I never heard a difference from a "proper turntable". I still have the 2nd turntable that I ever bought (for the past few decades only used to occasionally digitize a record that's not available digitally).

I only heard wow or speed problems when the belt or drive wheel was slipping. I never heard flutter from a turntable but I've heard it from broken tape players.

On the other hand, I upgraded the cartridge several times.*

I'm "pretty sure" I heard frequency response differences from different cartridges but in those days I'd never heard of blind listening tests. Of course, frequency response can also be affected by the load capacitance. And it can be tweaked with EQ/tone controls.

And different preamps had more or less noise.

It is difficult to prepare an ABX test with devices, were there is a problem with synchronizing playback.

Synchronization and fast switching isn't a requirement for ABX. It does make it easier to more-reliably hear a difference, but the ABX test is still valid if you take a pause to switch the cartridge and record to a different turntable (or take a pause and do nothing). If you can hear a difference with the pause you are reliably hearing a difference. And if you can only hear a difference quick-switching it's probably not worth paying more for the one that "sounds better".

Blind listening tests are hard to find, period. They are time consuming and most "audiophiles" don't believe that blind listening tests are valid.



* In hindsight, upgrading (or always wanting to upgrade) the cartridge was foolish. The REAL problem was the records, which I knew because there were a few good-sounding ones. And I had tone controls and an equalizer but I was reading hi-fi magazines and I felt like I was cheating or my system was inadequate if I had to EQ.

​

 

[Mr. Widget]

You really shouldn't be perplexed by the lack of such testing here. Nothing personal, it's just that vinyl is, relatively speaking, a niche interest, and ASR is concerned with the general audio majority.

Are you surprised that there aren't tests on flathead engines? Yet there are new flathead engines currently being produced. https://d-motor.eu/lf39

Are you surprised that steam cars aren't being produced? There are, of course, good reasons. https://bigthink.com/the-past/steam-cars/ Yet there is currently experimentation into steam vehicles. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026761-600-steam-power-takes-to-the-road-again/

So yes, there is interest in archaic technology. Some people are involved in archaic technology. Some people even enjoy archaic technology.

But it's not the thrust of the modern technological world. Like vinyl, these things (and others) are niche interests.

That's just silly. Sure vinyl playback is objectively inferior to digital on virtually every level, but that doesn't mean it isn't a popular playback medium. Outside of fringe groups you won't find a lot of steam engines these days.

Intuitively I have to believe the diminishing returns in turntable technology and quality is hit at a fairly reasonable cost, I think it would be interesting to objectively verify and document at what point turntables become jewelry.

 

[JeffS7444]

It might be interesting to devise a standardized way of digitally recording the output of various turntable/arm/cartridge combos in order to facilitate easy ABX comparisons. But this is one instance where multiple people can precisely follow the same guidelines but wind up with somewhat different results, because turntables are also affected by their surroundings.

Would love to check out Audio Technica's latest LP120 variant, to see if they're made any significant improvements to the tonearm since the LP120USB: That turntable uses a chrome-plated brass arm tube, so it's kind of mass-y.

 

[Mort]

From what I see, vinyl is even more so.

You may be right. I certainly don't have the numbers in front of me. It'd be interesting, albeit useless, to know!

 

[popej]

If you can hear a difference with the pause you are reliably hearing a difference. And if you can only hear a difference quick-switching it's probably not worth paying more for the one that "sounds better".

That's true. Fast switching is the most sensitive metod, but not always needed.
I think that in case of turntable, one can use PCABX method. The method involves digital recording of the signal and then comparing recordings with ABX program on PC. One can process recordings to get the same volume and time.

 

[DVDdoug]

I think that in case of turntable, one can use PCABX method. The method involves digital recording of the signal and then comparing recordings with ABX program on PC. One can process recordings to get the same volume and time.

I agree. That's a much more practical (and easier) way to do it. And if you're just comparing/evaluating the turntable I would use the same cartridge in both turntables. As well as eliminating the cartridge as a variable that would automatically give you level matching.

But you have to be a "rational-scientific audiophile". A lot of audiophools think digital is flawed.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

Not what you're asking for, but FWIW, here's my $.02:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...arbon-evo-vs-audio-technica-lp-120xusb.67766/

Bottom line is that the differences are subtle at best. As a side note, I'll add that I'm pleasantly surprised at how good some of my old vinyl records sound - if the performance and the recording quality were good and the disc was still in good shape they sound quite good, so I'm not going to dis someone for listening to vinyl. OTOH, some of the records are pretty beat, and have all the usual vinyl flaws unmistakably present.

My take is that it requires only a small extra effort to digitize a vinyl record over simply listening to it, and the digital version will sound exactly like the original (or better if you use some dsp to remove clicks and pops), so just transfer them to your pc and take advantage of all the advantages of the convenience of digital.

Now, if I were hired to professionally transfer and master vinyl records for digital storage I'd be paying closer attention and taking more care than I am with just making copies for my own use.

 

[DVDdoug]

Now, if I were hired to professionally transfer and master vinyl records for digital storage I'd be paying closer attention and taking more care than I am with just making copies for my own use.

I've spent hours, or most of a weekend cleaning-up a digitized record. But I wouldn't be willing to pay someone for all those hours.