• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Automatic vs. Manual TT's

JohnVF said:
People are saying they don't hear the difference between tables of the same series that are manual and automatic, and then extrapolating that knowledge to apply to ALL turntables. It doesn't work like that. It is at the extremes where big differences are going to be heard. Comparing the PL-550 to a PL-570 is not going to show you the differences between manual and automatics. Compare a Garrard 301 in an 80lb solid plinth to a changer, or even the PL-570. Its a different story.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but this is precisely why I started this thread...because there *are* those folks who will poo poo any automatic machine and instead say, "Well, that's no good, you need to get a manual one...automatic turntables are bad". Well, maybe not that point-blank, but it's inferred.

So really, it all comes down to build quality. A turd is a turd, be it automatic, manual, changer or whatever combination you want to come up with. It so happens that the most expensive and esoteric turntables over the ages *assume* that the owner is looking for a manual experience, and for that particular market, it's probably a dead-on assumption. But to merely blanket-state that automatic or semi-automatic turntables are inferior isn't accurate...in fact, it's quite off-base. For in the end, what one who'd say this really means to say is that a $200 turntable is inferior to a $1500 one. Or a $75 changer is inferior to a $200 turntable. It really doesn't have much to do with the actual mechanisms, so much as it does the quality of the build and the intended market. As long as the machine's inner workings aren't making a racket from stylus drop to the end groove, it's all good.

I purposely picked two extremely similar machines to illustrate this point. (and my $ figures are in 1977 dollars, not today's)
 
Sansui Louie said:
Ahhh, but this is precisely why I started this thread...because there *are* those folks who will poo poo any automatic machine and instead say, "Well, that's no good, you need to get a manual one...automatic turntables are bad". Well, maybe not that point-blank, but it's inferred.

So really, it all comes down to build quality. A turd is a turd, be it automatic, manual, changer or whatever combination you want to come up with. It so happens that the most expensive and esoteric turntables over the ages *assume* that the owner is looking for a manual experience, and for that particular market, it's probably a dead-on assumption. But to merely blanket-state that automatic or semi-automatic turntables are inferior isn't accurate...in fact, it's quite off-base. For in the end, what one who'd say this really means to say is that a $200 turntable is inferior to a $1500 one. Or a $75 changer is inferior to a $200 turntable. It really doesn't have much to do with the actual mechanisms, so much as it does the quality of the build and the intended market. As long as the machine's inner workings aren't making a racket from stylus drop to the end groove, it's all good.

I purposely picked two extremely similar machines to illustrate this point. (and my $ figures are in 1977 dollars, not today's)
Click to expand...

I disagree that the turntable manufacturers are picking manual because they think the market wants that. Both the market and the manufacturers realize that the best way to have as little compromise in the system, is to not have a lot of extraneous stuff going on. Many users want choice of tonearm, too, which means- manual. Users want the best suspension, the most solid plinths, and the least resonance/vibration. All of those things point to manual. I'm not saying you can't make a great automatic table- there are certainly some out there. Its just not the best path if you're looking for no compromise. What counts as 'no difference' to somebody might be a lot of difference in sound to somebody else.

As I said I use an automatic, the LT-30. I can actually cue a track MUCH faster on my manual tables. I really don't see the point in it, and neither does the market. Very little benefit, for a potential compromise.

All this is, as seen in the posts, is yet another swipe at 'audiophilia'. They're all stupid because they spend more money and get "less". When actually, they get a product with better performance.

If the world was reversed and all 'high end audiophiles' were into automatic tables, the same exact people would line up and call them stupid for choosing the option with more complexity over solid, simple, proven physics.
 
No, that's not at all what I'm saying, John. I'm saying that apples should be compared to apples, and oranges should be compared to oranges.

At a certain price point, back in the 70's and 80's, the target market might want one OR the other. At a higher price point, and certainly today amidst CD's and mp3's, the turntablist is not looking for convenience but absolute performance. Those wanting the very best, with the littlest obstruction or possible obstruction to fidelity would want a manual...you are correct there. Today, there's not much market for an auto or semi-auto. In the day, there was. And, with vinyl's popularity at the time, that even stretched into some of the top of the line offerings from mid-line mfg's like Pioneer. But to blanket-state that one should get a manual over an auto could, within the Pioneer lineage, steer a person towards a PL-12D over a PL-570. Or, closer in line, a PL-512 over a PL-518. Which, of course, wouldn't be a valid piece of advice.

As I stated before, this is a matter of quality of build, not how arm movement and cueing are handled. The rest is marketing and price points. It is not a swipe at audiophilia, but an attempt to clarify and correct some misconceptions that, left unchecked, undermine audiophilia and lead people to poke fun of it's contradictions, snobberies and absurdities.
 
Sansui Louie said:
No, that's not at all what I'm saying, John. I'm saying that apples should be compared to apples, and oranges should be compared to oranges.

At a certain price point, back in the 70's and 80's, the target market might want one OR the other. At a higher price point, and certainly today amidst CD's and mp3's, the turntablist is not looking for convenience but absolute performance. Those wanting the very best, with the littlest obstruction or possible obstruction to fidelity would want a manual...you are correct there. Today, there's not much market for an auto or semi-auto. In the day, there was. And, with vinyl's popularity at the time, that even stretched into some of the top of the line offerings from mid-line mfg's like Pioneer. But to blanket-state that one should get a manual over an auto could, within the Pioneer lineage, steer a person towards a PL-12D over a PL-570. Or, closer in line, a PL-512 over a PL-518. Which, of course, wouldn't be a valid piece of advice.

As I stated before, this is a matter of quality of build, not how arm movement and cueing are handled. The rest is marketing and price points. It is not a swipe at audiophilia, but an attempt to clarify and correct some misconceptions that, left unchecked, undermine audiophilia and lead people to poke fun of it's contradictions, snobberies and absurdities.
Click to expand...

I guess I was referring to the response to the query not your particular question. Its certainly a valid question/comparison. I wish my PL-630 was all put back together, and my PL-570 not buried, in its box, in the closet- as I'd like to compare them to something else here. They're both nice turntables, and 'enough' to any but the most picky, especially the 630- which is a fine table. Its actually the auto function on mine that isn't working, as I need a belt for the arm lift. It works sometimes. Its pretty neat to push a button and watch the arm swing across and set down, and pick up at the end. I still don't honestly see the point- but get the supposed convenience. But that's another topic. When comparing apples to apples- I had a 550 and now have a 570- I think the 570 is actually the better table, even though its auto. Possibly the longer arm? Certainly some things trump others.

Sorry if I got a bit hot headed- I just get tired of things like this being taken as another opportunity to point out that 'audiophiles' don't know anything, and that is the tone I was getting from some of the responses. Certainly they/we chase after some things to the point of silly obsession for sometimes no reward...
 
JohnVF said:
I guess I was referring to the response to the query not your particular question. Its certainly a valid question/comparison. I wish my PL-630 was all put back together, and my PL-570 not buried, in its box, in the closet- as I'd like to compare them to something else here. They're both nice turntables, and 'enough' to any but the most picky, especially the 630- which is a fine table. Its actually the auto function on mine that isn't working, as I need a belt for the arm lift. It works sometimes. Its pretty neat to push a button and watch the arm swing across and set down, and pick up at the end. I still don't honestly see the point- but get the supposed convenience. But that's another topic. When comparing apples to apples- I had a 550 and now have a 570- I think the 570 is actually the better table, even though its auto. Possibly the longer arm? Certainly some things trump others.

Sorry if I got a bit hot headed- I just get tired of things like this being taken as another opportunity to point out that 'audiophiles' don't know anything, and that is the tone I was getting from some of the responses. Certainly they/we chase after some things to the point of silly obsession for sometimes no reward...
Click to expand...

Not my intent at all, John. More the opposite...clear the air, set the record straight. And I would agree with your observation...my 570 does seem to sound better than my 550. Unfortunately, it's 200 miles from here, at my cabin. I need to do a little table swapping next time I'm up there...I have a nice old Sanyo which would be perfect for there...
 
With a manual table, every dollar invested that goes towards engineering is put towards sound reproduction. With automatic tables, some (engineering) money is also put towards the automatic features and there is the potential for compromise. Also, while not directly related to sound reproduction, sometimes the auto features can fail and scratch irreplaceable vinyl in the process. If a record gets scratched with a manual table, it's almost always due to operator error...

That said, I have "fallen asleep" a couple of times only to wake up half an hour later to realize that a very expensive (to me) cartridge has been bouncing off the leadout groove for x minutes. On those nights, I wondered why I didn't spend some of my booze money on an automatic table for such occasions.
 
PickyEars81 said:
..

That said, I have "fallen asleep" a couple of times only to wake up half an hour later to realize that a very expensive (to me) cartridge has been bouncing off the leadout groove for x minutes. On those nights, I wondered why I didn't spend some of my booze money on an automatic table for such occasions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's that! LOL
 
I gotta have an automatic (semi at the very least!!) for that same reason Louie. I can barely hear the mechanical workings of my 721 when it cycles and it sounds great. I can hear my 1219 when it cycles and it sounds a little better than the 721.
Manual TT's are fine but just not for me. I can't babysit my TT as I'm always moving around doing something and I don't think AT-20Sa's are getting any cheaper!
 
H/K T-60...best of both worlds. It's basically a manual belt-drive table with an auto end lift.
 
I can still cue a record quicker and more accurate than any automatic mechanism made, even the Thorens changer I love and the Miracord.
 
Sam Cogley said:
H/K T-60...best of both worlds. It's basically a manual belt-drive table with an auto end lift.
Click to expand...

I had a Sansui that had a funky solenoid operated mech that worked similarly...also a belt drive. I think 2050C was the model no. Had a very 'German' look-feel.

Lost that one in the supposed move off-grid. Along with an AU-999, TU-777, SD-5050 and a pair of SP-2500's. It became electric and 6 foot deer fencing for a 60x60 garden that now sits grown over and abandoned. Grrrrr.
 
Sansui Louie said:
I own a couple of Pioneer PL-550's (Manual) and PL-570's (fully automatic version of the 550).

I've often heard that automatic turntables are inferior to manual ones, but I'll be damned if I can hear a difference. Perhaps, going up the ladder of high end, they cease to *make* an automatic counterpart, in which case at a certain point only manual turntables are an option...but I can't find a sonic reason why the 550 should be preferred over the 570.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...




I always prefer manuals over semi or full auto's. But not because of any perceived "difference" in the sound quality. It's more about the ritual of playing vinyl and handling and manipulating the turntable.
 
My JVC QL-Y7 I believe is semi-automatic so I guess that falls in the middle? :scratch2:

The Benjamin-ELAC Miracord (getting tomorrow) I believe is both automatic and manual so I guess they cancel each other leaving that falling in the middle?
:scratch2:

I don't know - I don't get it - go figure :screwy:
 
KentTeffeteller said:
I can still cue a record quicker and more accurate than any automatic mechanism made, even the Thorens changer I love and the Miracord.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, right now I'm using an automatic for the first time in probably 9+ years. It's cool, but I can use my manual TT to start a record in a fraction of the time an automatic takes. That said, it's nice to have the arm return after the record is done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom