So What Are The Definitive Qualities...

PapaBear

Active Member
...that create the "hard" boundaries between "acceptable" turntables and "entry level" ones? Specifically excluded from this discussion are the garbage consumer tables like Crosley.

For instance: I had a Pioneer PL-15. My kids broke it. I replaced it with a Technics SL-220 in 1979 that was still working flawlessly in 1994. I got to listen to 's top-drawer rig a couple of weeks ago. Aside from his gear being much more impressive and my records not being in as pristine condition as his, I can hear no significant difference between what his table rendered and mine -- a lowly Technics belt that was part of an early 1990s rack (albeit with an AT cart).

So, what *are* the quantifiers that make my table "pedestrian" and, say, the old Pio I had, not?
 

That doesn't answer the question. By its definition, my SL-BD27 (and the rest of the Technics belts of the 80s and 90s) is anything but the quaint, pitiable, pedestrian, table that it has been decreed countless times here and elsewhere.

Some dudes on another site routinely insist that the "price of entry" is a table that costs no less than $10K. I called bullshit on that, and got kicked out for not being "a real audiophile" ("I paid more for a pair of interconnects than what all your gear is worth!").

Not that I expect a rack table that retailed for ~$175 new to be making guys hard. But, for a table that generates sound that is no different to the naked ear (not testing equipment) from one that cost many multiples more, just what is the damn hoopla about? I mean, Jim's table sure looks a hell of a lot cooler than mine...but DSOTM sounded more or less the same on my far less sophisticated rig.

Given the dramatically different acoustic profiles of his space and mine, that mine sounds that good in the first place really makes me wonder why, other than the nostalgia of older tables or the super coolness of MoMA-worthy designs, should I (or anyone) feel unworthy and unclean for not having the latter?
 
I don't think there is a hard boundary between entry level and acceptable. There is a soft boundary at best.

Some entry level tables provide acceptable or even very good performance for a given budget and some entry level tables do not.
 
The cartridge has a great deal to do with the sound of any TT. It's sort of like anything else. You want better? Then everything has to be better.
 
That doesn't answer the question. By its definition, my SL-BD27 (and the rest of the Technics belts of the 80s and 90s) is anything but the quaint, pitiable, pedestrian, table that it has been decreed countless times here and elsewhere.

Some dudes on another site routinely insist that the "price of entry" is a table that costs no less than $10K. I called bullshit on that, and got kicked out for not being "a real audiophile" ("I paid more for a pair of interconnects than what all your gear is worth!").

Not that I expect a rack table that retailed for ~$175 new to be making guys hard. But, for a table that generates sound that is no different to the naked ear (not testing equipment) from one that cost many multiples more, just what is the damn hoopla about? I mean, Jim's table sure looks a hell of a lot cooler than mine...but DSOTM sounded more or less the same on my far less sophisticated rig.

Given the dramatically different acoustic profiles of his space and mine, that mine sounds that good in the first place really makes me wonder why, other than the nostalgia of older tables or the super coolness of MoMA-worthy designs, should I (or anyone) feel unworthy and unclean for not having the latter?

Why do you care what these other people say? If you can't hear a difference, but others say they can, there are at least two possibilities: (1) you just can't hear the difference, in which case there's no reason for you to pay money to buy something that doesn't sound any different to you, or (2) you can't hear a difference because there's no significant difference to be heard. In either case, the bottom line is the same: there's no reason for you to pay for stuff that doesn't sound significantly different to you . . . unless you really want to.

For my own part, about 13 or 14 years ago I bought a Music Hall MMF-5 (about $500 at the time), which replaced a Technics SLB-200 that had a Grado p-mount cartridge (which cost about $40). I'm quite sure there was a noticeable improvement, but it's also the case that the Music Hall came with a pretty nice Goldring 1012GX cartridge that was supposed to sell for about $400 or so all on its own. So all of the improvement might very well have been due to the better cartridge for all I know. If I were to now spend $5000 on yet another turntable would it be that much better than what I've got now? I don't know, and I don't really care; I'm not going to do that, and I'm pretty happy with what I've got now.

Be happy with what you've got; and if you don't like it, try something else -- maybe just a better cartridge. Don't worry about what someone else has got; only a moron would feel unworthy or unclean because he thinks his turntable isn't cool enough.
 
I can't say where the boundary line is exactly, but to me you've moved up into the decent range when the table/cart can do these things when set up well in a good system:

Give a decent sense of sound stage, not just L-R placement of instruments. In other words a sense of the recording space in some depth.

Sort out the string section of a large orchestra.

Place percussion instruments accurately, such as a high hat cymbal.

I'd of course like more than that, but if we have that much happening then we've moved from entry level to acceptable in my mind.
 
If you cant hear the difference between your lowly belt drive "rack" table and another AK members top draw rig something is wrong somewhere. The difference should be as clear as a bell.
 
I agree when discussing such extremes, but it gets a lot more cloudy when trying to articulate the differences between, say, a Pioneer PL-12D and a Music Hall MMF-5.

I've come to the conclusion that the better the turntable, the less effect it has on the sound. Great tables get just about completely "out of the way". Lesser tables have more of an effect. I think some of the variables at work in this ability are:

  • quality of tonearm bearings...the better they are, the less friction and therefore the more freely the tonearm tracks
  • tonearm resonance...the ability to reject or minimize resonance which would otherwise affect the signal
  • tonearm rigidity/absence of torsional effects
  • isolation from motor noise and feedback
I'm sure there are others that those with more expertise can identify and explain. And as has been so often said, the quality of the other components in the chain (cartridge, phono amp or phono section, power amp, speakers) must be of roughly equivalent quality to maximize performance. A great turntable will sound better than a "barely acceptable" one, even in a very modest system. But in a system in which the other components are more closely matched to it, it will sound MUCH better than its entry-level cousin.

That DOESN'T mean the entry-level TT sounds bad...just that the great one sounds better. And, I will add that I strongly believe that once you get beyond the $1000-1500 price point, the curve representing the ratio of performance and incremental investment flattens considerably...both in an absolute sense and especially as compared to the much steeper angle between a reasonable entry level unit ($250 or so) and the $1500 price point. In other words, as with most things, you can buy a lot more performance for relatively little early on the price/performance curve, but as you move up that curve the relationship shifts to "spend successively more for each successively smaller increment of improved performance".

Note that I'm referring to new prices here...used pricing is a different story, and much harder to frame given its variability.

Just my opinion, of course.
 
Last edited:
If you cant hear the difference between your lowly belt drive "rack" table and another AK members top draw rig something is wrong somewhere. The difference should be as clear as a bell.

It sure would be interesting to be in the same room with the OP's lowly rack table and the other AK members table both set up and listen to the discussion where the OP and ehoove debate how they sound the same.:scratch2:

I have half a dozen tables all currently in operation and every one of them sounds quite different from each other.
 
What others think won't stop me from being a proud parent when it comes to my rig, or recommending the same components to others. I was ridiculed and insulted elsewhere for daring to recommend my little table or one of its siblings over several of the usual suspect more costly ones that make many pants get a bit more snug. I asked those guys why, considering the specs are as good or better than the classic tables we adore.

No one could come up with anything that actually makes any difference to more than 99% of vinyl lovers. Aside from an upgraded cartridge, the last generations of tables (1980s-90s) from the top tier brands are all pretty much the same specs, materials, and build quality, and will track and treat records pretty much the same. Even many of the most beloved 70s tables frequently don't measure up to the criteria that have been floated in various arguments. So, clearly coolness counts more than actual value.

I was just curious if the gang here could provide any greater enlightenment that I was somehow oblivious to. It would seem not.
 
...that create the "hard" boundaries between "acceptable" turntables and "entry level" ones? Specifically excluded from this discussion are the garbage consumer tables like Crosley...
...So, what *are* the quantifiers that make my table "pedestrian" and, say, the old Pio I had, not?

Materials, engineering, and taste.

I'll address taste first. Everyone's taste is different. I love the look of the 1600/1700/1800 MKII tables, but others prefer the dials of the original versions of those models. The aesthetics might feel insignificant to some, but if the turntable is something that you look at a lot, you might put a high premium on how it looks. You don't have to, but it's certainly something that some folks put value in. In fact, I dare say we ALL value it to some degree, just some folks more than others.

Engineering plays a critical part in the durability of the table. Playing nice out of the box is relatively easy. But wear-and-tear are serious issues that good engineering will take into account. A good table should be durable with reasonable maintenance (this last pair of words will vary from person-to-person). This is why I think the Technics tables of old are so widely-liked. It's not just how they sounded then or how they sound now, it's a confidence in their reliability to play consistently well, so long as you're not throwing the deck down a flight of stairs.

Materials come in last, and rely a bit on both of the previous two. Materials affect engineering choices because of weight, cost, and durability over time. They also have an effect in how we see the table. Back when it was new, plastic was a space-age material of the future, but it's quickly become synonymous in many people's minds with cheapness. There are good reasons for this, though high-quality plastics can be just as good as steel from an engineering standpoint, assuming the right plastic is picked for the right job. So, a lot of "nice" turntables use materials that will appeal to higher sensibilities, like high-polished steel or titanium or glass. Are they inherently better? It depends on the situation, but you might have different feelings based on the materials.

You'll notice that none of these things necessarily affects how well the table plays. I think a lot of relatively inexpensive systems can sound almost as good as incredibly costly systems. Of course, when one is paying that much, you're NOT just paying for sound quality. You're paying for aesthetics as well, and one hopes you're getting some long-term reliability, too. Some might disagree with me (and that's fine), but I believe that a lot of the perceived improvements that come with spending gobs of money don't have a huge effect on sound quality. Certainly, whatever benefits there are, as you pay more you're fighting the law of diminishing returns. The question is, where do YOU hear the difference, and how much do aesthetics matter to YOU? Everyone's answer is going to be different and where you fall along those lines will make a difference in how you feel about your gear.

But don't fret about getting involved in the numbers games. If the music makes you happy, that's really all that matters.
 
Last edited:
What others think won't stop me from being a proud parent when it comes to my rig, or recommending the same components to others. I was ridiculed and insulted elsewhere for daring to recommend my little table or one of its siblings over several of the usual suspect more costly ones that make many pants get a bit more snug. I asked those guys why, considering the specs are as good or better than the classic tables we adore.

No one could come up with anything that actually makes any difference to more than 99% of vinyl lovers. Aside from an upgraded cartridge, the last generations of tables (1980s-90s) from the top tier brands are all pretty much the same specs, materials, and build quality, and will track and treat records pretty much the same. Even many of the most beloved 70s tables frequently don't measure up to the criteria that have been floated in various arguments. So, clearly coolness counts more than actual value.

I was just curious if the gang here could provide any greater enlightenment that I was somehow oblivious to. It would seem not.


Hmmm. You were provided with some good information about both subjective and objective variables. And honestly, it is hard to imagine how you would not hear a material difference between your table and, for example, my modified AR equipped with a Magnepan Unitrac arm. Even very casual listeners can quite easily tell the difference between it and a Pioneer PL-9 running the same cartridge (and thru the same system). While I've not had the pleasure of hearing ehoove's tables, based on looking at his system page I suspect that at least one of them might offer just as noticeable an improvement over my AR.

If you truly cannot hear the difference, count yourself lucky...you will never be tempted to spend more for better gear.

By the way, I think you meant 1%, not 99%.
 
Last edited:
1] The primary quality is that it abides by the saying, "First, do no harm"... so it doesn't hurt your records. Kind of goes without saying, but a lot of people have goofed with inferior stuff and messed up some portion of their collection. In general, the better equipment is going to have a better stylus, better mounting, better tracking, better anti-skating, etc... the list of better things has the side effect of doing the least harm to the records.

2] The degree to which the mechanical implementation of all those better things is manageable by the user; on some systems it is easy and on others you pretty much need to "know a guy" or take a course in how to keep those things aligned and working right.
Personally, I would never consider something esoteric... platters weighing more than one's amp, vacuum systems to clamp the records, or any kind of pressured air to float something, etc.

3] Ease of operation, which is tricky now days because we are used to pushing a button and everything happens. Even the simplest turntables require some manipulation, and some of the very expensive designs require some extensive preparation and waiting before you get around to the manipulation part...
 
Hmmm. You were provided with some good information about both subjective and objective variables. And honestly, it is hard to imagine how you would not hear a material difference between your table and, for example, my modified AR equipped with a Magnepan Unitrac arm. Even very casual listeners can quite easily tell the difference between it and a Pioneer PL-9 running the same cartridge (and thru the same system). While I've not had the pleasure of hearing ehoove's tables, based on looking at his system page I suspect that at least one of them might offer just as noticeable an improvement over my AR.

If you truly cannot hear the difference, count yourself lucky...you will never be tempted to spend more for better gear.

By the way, I think you meant 1%, not 99%.
And this is where the snobbery of the "my fuhfuhfuh is infinitely better because it was more expensive; and if you say you can't hear it there is something wrong with you...which proves your puny, inexpensive thing is junk. Your hearing sucks and your momma dresses you funny."

His stage was a bit deeper with correspondingly amore explicit differentiation. The explosion a bit more explosion-y. Those were due to his amps and speakers being way more potent than my receiver and speakers. The rest sounded almost note for note the same. Switching the cart to the stock one resulted in a lot of loss in both program content and stage.

And, I can easily tell arms apart under extremely controlled conditions...not so much in the typical home environment. There doesn't have to be "something wrong" if a costlier rig sounds the same as a more humble one. The insistence that "ordinary" gear can't equal performance in conventional, run of the mill settings, is just condescension and self-aggrandizing.
 
What others think won't stop me from being a proud parent when it comes to my rig, or recommending the same components to others. I was ridiculed and insulted elsewhere for daring to recommend my little table or one of its siblings over several of the usual suspect more costly ones that make many pants get a bit more snug. I asked those guys why, considering the specs are as good or better than the classic tables we adore.

No one could come up with anything that actually makes any difference to more than 99% of vinyl lovers. Aside from an upgraded cartridge, the last generations of tables (1980s-90s) from the top tier brands are all pretty much the same specs, materials, and build quality, and will track and treat records pretty much the same. Even many of the most beloved 70s tables frequently don't measure up to the criteria that have been floated in various arguments. So, clearly coolness counts more than actual value.

I was just curious if the gang here could provide any greater enlightenment that I was somehow oblivious to. It would seem not.

I once tried dialing in speaker placement using a Ry Cooder album and my old Dual turntable. No matter what I did, I couldn't get rid of "one note bass" on a particular track. When I played the same track on a different table, it was immediately obvious that my one note bass was the kick drum playing in time with the bass guitar. The lesser table couldn't resolve the two instruments as separate sounds, but the better gear could.

The interesting thing is that both tables played enjoyable, recognizable music. They were more or less the same in that regard. One table gave me more of the sounds I like to hear and I called it "better", but I am sure that someone who likes different sounds than me would make a different choice.

I suspect that if you could listen to your table and another back to back that you might be able to hear some differences. Whether those differences are significant to you is a personal choice and one of the things that makes this hobby fun and enriching.
 
What others think won't stop me from being a proud parent when it comes to my rig, or recommending the same components to others. I was ridiculed and insulted elsewhere for daring to recommend my little table or one of its siblings over several of the usual suspect more costly ones that make many pants get a bit more snug. I asked those guys why, considering the specs are as good or better than the classic tables we adore.

No one could come up with anything that actually makes any difference to more than 99% of vinyl lovers. Aside from an upgraded cartridge, the last generations of tables (1980s-90s) from the top tier brands are all pretty much the same specs, materials, and build quality, and will track and treat records pretty much the same. Even many of the most beloved 70s tables frequently don't measure up to the criteria that have been floated in various arguments. So, clearly coolness counts more than actual value.

I was just curious if the gang here could provide any greater enlightenment that I was somehow oblivious to. It would seem not.
Strange conclusions based on a comparison relying on memory, and inaccurate. If you look closely at the top tier brands, whichever ones you think they may be, you'll see a big variety of materials in use and mechanics - suspended, fixed, off board motor, power supply etc. Same goes for arms and cartridges.

The reason is there are differences, which you can here in an appropriate system. In other words,, expensive deck = expensive system, above all the speakers. Were you to try a Brinkmann, say, in your system or a new LP12 with all the trimmings, and compared them to you Technics, you might hear a faint difference. However, to conclude that therefore all turntables were all roughly the same would be wrong. Had your system comprised the top level Martin Logans, you'd be gobsmacked.

That's obviously an extreme example, but it does serve as a reminder that the turntable is only one part. I think people tend to forget that, whatever you spend on a turntable - and I'm talking new prices here - you should spend on the speakers, if not more. To be honest, coming from a CD-only system I already had a good amp and speakers, which meant that the first couple of turntables I tried, a Hanpin DD, some Pro-jects and the Basik Linn, were not in the hunt compared to the CD, or digital by then as I'd also started the mac/dac solution.

You're probably right that for 99% of vinyl lovers the music is the name of the game. It may also be true that many, probably the majority, have good all round systems and therefore are quite happy. However this, and I suspect the other forum, isn't aimed at them, and indeed why would they post? Here is more about extracting the best quality from whatever your system is, and posters are as much turntable lovers as vinyl lovers.

If you're happy with your system, then fine, but, other than the odd technical question, there won't be much to interest you here. I'd suggest, though, buying/borrowing some really expensive headphones and listening to your table compared with, say, a VPI with an MC cartridge. You'll then hopefully understand what the fuss is about.
 
I don't think there is a hard boundary between entry level and acceptable. There is a soft boundary at best.

Some entry level tables provide acceptable or even very good performance for a given budget and some entry level tables do not.

I misread the OPs point. I thought you were comparing entry level systems, some of which sounded better than others. If you cannot hear the difference between entry and obviously better and more expensive systems that is another issue altogether.

Sometimes I think you might have to spend more time listening to the better sound to learn the nuances of what makes it better. Sometimes they can be pointed out and described. Some people hear those nuances more readily than others.
 
Last edited:
From the tone of the posts I read, I don't get the impression that the OP is really looking for an answer. But rather that this is a venue to clue us in on the "secret" of good sound... and that those who spent more money have obviously been duped and are ignorant. It is just another variation of the tried and true story of people who have more money than common sense. At least that is how it pears to this simple pig.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
I have spent decades "chasing the dragon"--starting out as a poor high school, then college student on that kind of budget. As life and my income moved on, I moved up the "food chain" in audio gear--to the point of attaining such a "resolving" system (that I was so proud of btw) I found myself no longer listening to a lot of the music that I used to love. It almost became more of a "showpiece" than a truly functional system--it played great with a great recording, but made a lot of my classic rock/blues favorites practically unlistenable.

I have since "dialed it back", sold that uber system and moved on to something that I can truly enjoy all of the music on. My current rig is no slouch by any means and I am happy with it--but you're not going to see it on the cover of Stereophool magazine anytime soon.

My advice to anyone building-up or re-thinking a system is to keep an even playing field amongst the components. Investing $10K in a TT on a system comprised of a $200 receiver and thrift store speakers is not going to sound $10K "better" than a $200 table/cart.

Buy what you need and can afford--life happens, we all have budgets, and listen to the music, not the gear. All that matters is that the music comes to life and it sounds good to YOU.
 
Back
Top Bottom