What Makes a Great Sounding Turntable?

js1138

Super Member
I'm starting this in Thinking Out Loud because I suspect it could be controversial.

From my rather narrow, scientific point of view, a turntable's only function is to spin a record with consistent speed and without introducing any noise of it's own. Tone arms need to be free of friction and low in effective mass, without resonating.

these are all measurable attributes, and when I was younger, they were measured in reviews and proudly displayed in advertising. Unlike many people here, LPs were the only source of music in my youth. From 1963 to about 1988, they and FM were my only source of music.

So I paid attention to specs and reviews, and coveted many of the turntables that people here talk about.

But all this measuring is gone from current comment, and people talk about the "sound" of a device whose only function is to introduce no sound.

What's up? Why is there no discussion of the measurable attributes of a device that is among the simplest and most easily measured in the hobby?

You say arm resonance is important? Very well. Measure it and report your findings. Same with Wow, flutter, speed accuracy and consistency. And Rumble. What frequencies and amplitudes.
 
But all this measuring is gone from current comment, and people talk about the "sound" of a device whose only function is to introduce no sound.

What's up? Why is there no discussion of the measurable attributes of a device that is among the simplest and most easily measured in the hobby?

Well, no measurements here really but the advertising copy for Avid turntables shows pretty clearly that they at least are concerned with proper turntable design.

http://www.avidhifi.co.uk/design_acutus.htm

I also wouldn't say discussion of measurable attributes is absent from the various forums on the 'Net. Certainly, all the attention paid to proper TT setup and arm cartridge matching can attest to this.

Jeff
 
For me, I just don't care any more : ) There might be some problem that will catch my attention and I'll fix that.

My $25 Sony is doing fine. I often have a old Garrrard on my shopping list along with a changer
 
I also wouldn't say discussion of measurable attributes is absent from the various forums on the 'Net. Certainly, all the attention paid to proper TT setup and arm cartridge matching can attest to this.

Not really. There is no objective measurement of the difference made by various tweaks. That used to be common. Not that I doubt that overhang is important, but decent TTs come with gauges.

But when the numbers for high-end TTs are published, they are seldom as good as those for DJ turntables. Take a look at the KAB website under myths.
 
Yet another attempt to say "things today suck" by making a straw-man argument. There are plenty of specs out there on todays turntables.

VPI Classic.

Wow and flutter: Less than .02 %
Rumble: Greater than 80db down.
Speed accuracy: Within .1%
Platter runout: +/- .001"

But you want to know why people don't talk about these specs much? Because the sound of a turntable has a LOT more to do with many things besides getting the platter to turn at the right speed. And many people who have been around more than a few turntables have realized that a lot of highly spec'd gear, turntables or otherwise, doesn't sound that great.

So we judge things based on their end-use. As in, we listen to them. Because a lot of turntables have great specs and whether you like one or not can be a matter of personal taste after that.

Besides this, if you don't think there is discussion about measurable attributes...look at the countless threads on the speed stability of Rega turntables. Or those who plug the SL-1200 as being as good as anything based not on listening but on specs. Its ALL OVER the internet.

Arm resonance? You can hear the results of it. Same with all of the other specs. If something is, on paper, too low for you to hear congratulations. You'll save a lot of money in this hobby convincing yourself with numbers that you can't hear things that are readily audible.

By and large the days of specs have passed because the majority of people failed to see a correlation between specs and the best sounding gear. Its not that specs don't matter- its that a lot of gear specs well, and you still have to listen to it to hear if it sounds good. Specs are great if you're building something. Listening? They're a good place to start and a terrible place to end.
 
Last edited:
Not really. There is no objective measurement of the difference made by various tweaks. That used to be common. Not that I doubt that overhang is important, but decent TTs come with gauges.

"Tweaks"? I was talking about proper TT setup or matching a cartridge to an arm. Please have a look at the cartridgedb. Lots of objective measurements there for these critical TT aspects.

I've had a number of "decent" TTs over the years and not one of them has come with a gauge for measuring proper overhang. Perhaps your definition of "decent" is different from mine?

Jeff
 
By and large the days of specs have passed because the majority of people failed to see a correlation between specs and the best sounding gear. Its not that specs don't matter- its that a lot of gear specs well, and you still have to listen to it to hear if it sounds good. Specs are great if you're building something. Listening? They're a good place to start and a terrible place to end.

Great post John.
 
... I've had a number of "decent" TTs over the years and not one of them has come with a gauge for measuring proper overhang. Perhaps your definition of "decent" is different from mine?

Jeff

Overhang gauges were quite common on the better mass-market and entry-level audiophile turntables of the 1970s. Some measured the distance from the headshell plug or cartridge carrier connector to the stylus tip; Technics, Thorens, Garrard and Dual were proponents of this approach. Others were separate devices that measured the arm and shell as a unit, such as AR's plastic arrow that slipped over the spindle, pointed toward the pivot and had a dimple that the stylus would sit in when the overhang was correctly set. Still others were built-in, such as the pull-up gizmo I've seen on numerous Pioneers that had a curved track that the stylus would sit in if the overhang was right.

It's unfortunate that the overhang gauges were usually the second thing that the owner of a new turntable would discard (the leftover cartridge mounting hardware was the first item to go). Many of those gauges were easy to use and quite accurate.
 
Last edited:
I've had a number of "decent" TTs over the years and not one of them has come with a gauge for measuring proper overhang.

Two that I've owned are the AR XA, which cost about $60, a Technics 1200. It's difficult for me to imagine paying more and not getting an essential setup device.

I admit that a simple device does not allow for changing out the arm. So my comment would only apply to TT manufacturers that supply arms.

But come to think of it Apple supplies about ten different iPod adapters with their docks. I see no reason a high end TT manufacturer couldn't supply a dozen gauges to cover the best selling arms.

As for the "sound" of a turntable, I'd like to see a rationale other than voodoo that accounts for the "sound" of a turntable that spins at a constant speed without introducing rumble.

And I'd like to see actual measurements of arm resonance.

I just don't believe in unfounded and undocumented opinions when they conflict with reason. People buy water at high prices if it's called homeopathic medicine.
 
Last edited:
But all this measuring is gone from current comment, and people talk about the "sound" of a device whose only function is to introduce no sound.

To add to what I said above...just because something's function is to not introduce sound (or, sound of its own), does not mean that it accomplishes that. And that is where much of the discussion comes from. A suspended turntable will sound different than a non-suspended turntable. Where's the spec on that? A gigantic heavy platter, 30 pounds or so of it, or a powerful motor driving an idler wheel, will sound different than a lightweight platter driven by a belt, even though they both may be rotating the plater (via specs) at the right speed. So where is the spec that explains why this flywheel affect, or torque, or inertia, sounds better to a lot of people? Its certainly not in the speed spec, as the affect it has on leading edge transients would be averaged out over that spec. But according to the spec, it doesn't matter. Many will argue that, instead, the spec doesn't matter.

Its why there are other 'specs' today, that aren't called specs. . You'll see listings for how much platters weight, for example, because many people have found that that is important to the sound. My turntable weighs in total about 60/65lbs. By your specs that shouldn't matter, but it matters a great deal because the design of the turntable is for vibration to be mass-damped. The relation of the motor/platter/arm pivot is important in how vibration dissipates in this design, but there's no spec for it. The tracking of the stylus in the groove is affected by the use of a unipivot, and how accurately the arm can be adjusted in every plain. No spec for that, either.
 
Well, the spec thing was important at one time. You could readily hear the rumble, for example.

I was fairly caught-up in the spec game from 1965- 1985, and, I felt they were useful. On the other hand, there was also the element of hype. 500 watts of music power.

This was overboard with speakers and each marketing "inovation". It almost seems that people today are more willing to buy into the latest spec. If you lay awake at night fretting over your tweeters, something is wrong.
 
As for the "sound" of a turntable, I'd like to see a rationale other than voodoo that accounts for the "sound" of a turntable that spins at a constant speed without introducing rumble.

And I'd like to see actual measurements of arm resonance.

I just don't believe in unfounded and undocumented opinions when they conflict with reason. People buy water at high prices if it's called homeopathic medicine.

What exactly have you heard? I'm not trying to be a snob by asking this, but your question leads me to one conclusion. You've never heard a really great turntable. Because when you actually hear a turntable that really does introduce almost no sound of its own, you will realize why specs are absolutely useless beyond a certain threshold (that many turntables meet). They simply don't convey enough information. Were they more complete in the story they told, they would probably be talked about a lot more. But they aren't.

Or, more bluntly: You don't need to document the patently obvious.
 
You came here trying to be scientific and logical. What's wrong with you?

I fear I'm starting to sound like a bully in this thread but saying you're objective and scientific doesn't necessarily make one so.

If you hear something that is obviously different, beyond any reasonable doubt, and there is no spec to back it up, that is NOT voodoo. What that says is that you should come up with a different measurement. Science is not always out to disprove. It should also be used to explain observation. And there is a mountain, maybe a whole range of mountains, worth of anecdotal evidence that suggests there are things happening not covered by the very basic specs of speed (averaged over time) and rumble/wow/flutter.

We are dealing with microscopic movement here. The information trying to be retrieved is absolutely minuscule. The specs being talked about here are blunt and broad. I don't see how anybody that is truly scientific, who truly understands the forces at work, would think that these very basic, blunt-stroke specs, would tell you how well that information is going to be retrieved at the microscopic level that they work in. Its like trying to measure a pinhead with a yardstick.
 
Please define, with examples, "a really great turntable".

A lot of that depends on what listening levels you need. A vacuum table can have merits at any listening level, so you have to mix and match. A heaphone only geek many not see a need for a laser sculpted granite table ?

I fully agree that the intangables do make the biggest difference, however. And you can do wonders with a crappy table if you work it out.
 
Please define, with examples, "a really great turntable".

A turntable that tries, and accomplishes to an audible degree, to not be heard in the final sound. And beyond that, flavor it to your taste, as no turntable really does this and the smallest differences in retrieval of the information in the groove will affect what you hear.

I'd give you specs but they apparently don't exist. I can say with absolute confidence: you'll know it when you hear it.

Tables I've heard that do this:
Sota Star Sapphire.
VPI Classic.
Feikert Analog "Twin" with Kuzma arm.
Kuzma Stabi (with Kuzma arm).
Linn Sondek

etc...I'm sure there are others. I'd love to hear a Garrard 301 in a big layered plinth.

And yet they all still, subtly, sound different....
 
Well, the spec thing was important at one time. You could readily hear the rumble, for example. ...

The spec thing is still important today, IMO. Rumble is not the issue it once was, but wow and flutter are making a comeback. Many entry-level audiophile turntables by such firms as Pro-Ject, Music Hall and Rega have flutter levels that are clearly audible given the right kind of music and a listener who's more sensitive than average to speed instability. I wish more of today's manufacturers would publish the specs that were so common in the past. These specs don't tell the whole story, but they can be useful in eliminating turntables that can't deliver the goods from one's list of audition candidates.
 
The spec thing is still important today, IMO. Rumble is not the issue it once was, but wow and flutter are making a comeback. Many entry-level audiophile turntables by such firms as Pro-Ject, Music Hall and Rega have flutter levels that are clearly audible given the right kind of music and a listener who's more sensitive than average to speed instability. I wish more of today's manufacturers would publish the specs that were so common in the past. These specs don't tell the whole story, but they can be useful in eliminating turntables that can't deliver the goods from one's list of audition candidates.

I agree with this...I'm not saying specs shouldn't be considered, and though I don't typically enter the fray on the tables in question, I've heard those variations and wouldn't buy one of those tables (which also begs the question..do you need the spec if you can point it out easily by ear?). But you can have two turntables with nearly identical specs that sound very different. Which says to me that they're a good starting point and little else. Weed out the ones that don't make the grade, then start listening...
 
Back
Top Bottom