Hypothetical. . Rega RP6 vs. Technics SL-1210MK2 vs. Marantz TT-15S1

[grottyash]

ODS, flaws in your reasoning: if I tested two turntables with the same high compliance cartridge, but one in a low mass arm and the other in a high mass arm, would that be a valid test for 'objectivists'? It certainly isn't a fair one. At least the two cartridges I used were probably from the same manufacturer and with similar characteristics and similer price.

As to being 'blinded' - how many turntable tests have you ever read where this has occurred. Sighted is flawed, yes, but it is the norm.

You have an argument certainly to the points I've addressed above, but digital recording?? That's a guaranteed way to muck up any comparisons!

Besides, I was more interested in the HFN/PlatterSpeed comparisons anyway.

 

[grottyash]

Yes I know that most reviews are not really reviews, we must understand the importance of them in the context of how they were done.
gusten

Then logically you can never compare any turntable with another. You have to accept compromise.

 

[ODS123]

Too difficult to change cartridges quickly and remember the sound. Also, the AT 120E probably comes from the same stable as the base Clearaudio model. Unfortunately you'll find nearly every review, pro or otherwise, is like that. At least my reference system was the same.

It's also difficult for me to play my records and not know the music!

Though time consuming, one "much better" way of conducting this comparison is to make .wav file recordings of each, then play both back using shuffle. However, care would need to be taken to make sure that each is recorded at the exact same level so that the music is precisely the same volume in each recording.

My hunch: ..Owing to the Clearaudio's "audiophile" pedigree, you had a predisposition to preferring that table. I suspect that in a properly devised blinded test you, the big differences you noticed would largely disappear. As for the buzzing of the Technics, that IMHO, indicates there is something wrong with it. ..I have a brand new SL1200mk2 and there is not one bit of "buzzing". .Curious to know what would cause this.

 

[gusten]

Then logically you can never compare any turntable with another. You have to accept compromise.

Of course you can compare TTs, it´s no problem, there doesn´t have to be any compromise at all. But it´s a lot of work.
gusten

 

[grottyash]

Ah. The buzzing indicates imperfect tracking. Maybe that isn't the best word to describe the sound.

Wav files - no. That brings in too many other factors.

 

[grottyash]

Of course you can compare TTs, it´s no problem, there doesn´t have to be any compromise at all. But it´s a lot of work.
gusten

How? Bound to be compromises - is it ever valid to compare a turntable sold with arm A with another turntable sold with arm B?

Besides, as I mentioned, it was the tests that interested me more.

 

[ODS123]

Ah. The buzzing indicates imperfect tracking. Maybe that isn't the best word to describe the sound.

Wav files - no. That brings in too many other factors.

..The point of using .wav files is to eliminate the biggest factor of all: expectation-bias.

It's surprising to me that you would think comparing two tables w/ different cartridges is in anyway relevant. Moreover, one of the cartridges (on the technics) appears to be malfunctioning, hence the buzzing.

 

[grottyash]

Have you ever tried the HFN test record? I think you're misunderstanding the test.

Tracking/anti-skate go from tracks 6-9, with 9 being virtually unplayable. The buzzing is an expected result as it denotes the limit for that arm/cartridge combination. normally you'd expect to hear it around track 8, which was the case with the Technics. It isn't a bad result, just not as good as the Clearaudio.

 

[gusten]

Have you ever tried the HFN test record? I think you're misunderstanding the test.

Tracking/anti-skate go from tracks 6-9, with 9 being virtually unplayable. The buzzing is an expected result as it denotes the limit for that arm/cartridge combination. normally you'd expect to hear it around track 8, which was the case with the Technics. It isn't a bad result, just not as good as the Clearaudio.

Tracking in that test is a measure of needle quality and cantilever damping.
gusten

 

[grottyash]

I'll have to read the instructions when I get back home, can't comment now.

 

[JohnVF]

ODS, flaws in your reasoning: if I tested two turntables with the same high compliance cartridge, but one in a low mass arm and the other in a high mass arm, would that be a valid test for 'objectivists'? It certainly isn't a fair one. At least the two cartridges I used were probably from the same manufacturer and with similar characteristics and similer price.

As to being 'blinded' - how many turntable tests have you ever read where this has occurred. Sighted is flawed, yes, but it is the norm.

You have an argument certainly to the points I've addressed above, but digital recording?? That's a guaranteed way to muck up any comparisons!

Besides, I was more interested in the HFN/PlatterSpeed comparisons anyway.

Welcome to the world of blinded tests demanded by those who never do them. And you're absolutely right about carts. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need to use the same cart, because the same cartridge will perform very differently on different mass arms.

Not to mention how easy it is to just get a feel for the sound of a table by...you know, listening to it.

Some people live to turn the hobby into a chore. Its turn turntables for god's sake. Anybody is free to say whatever they want about any comparison they make.

By the way, if the Technics had come out ahead I'd bet money they wouldn't have demanded you do blind tests to prove it. Odd, that.

 

[ODS123]

Welcome to the world of blinded tests demanded by those who never do them.

Not true. ..I conducted a blinded test to gauge the impact that my KAB Damper had on my TT's performance. ..And I posted before/ after .wav files here on AK so that others may compare for themselves.

By the way, if the Technics had come out ahead I'd bet money they wouldn't have demanded you do blind tests to prove it. Odd, that.

also not true. ..I have offered similar criticisms about the superlative, and of course unsubstantiated, claims people have made about much of the gear that I own, including McIntosh, NAD, Bryston, Peachtree, etc... Feel free to search my posts here or in other forums.

Its turn turntables for god's sake. Anybody is free to say whatever they want about any comparison they make.

Yes it is just audio, I agree on that point. ..Nothing worth dying over. ..Thankfully, I don't see anyone doing that here. ..And yes, people can say whatever they want. ..Including those who respond to posts such as grottyash

 

[fiddlefye]

The least effort that must be done if comparing TTs is to use the same cartridge. It´s not possible to extrapolate what is heard to the TT if using different ones.
Another important thing is that what TT is playing must not be known to the listener.
gusten

I'm not sure one can ever really do things this way. maybe if one had two tables with the same arm and interchangeable heads, but even then the amount of time taked to rebalance etc. would be long enough to make accurate recollection challenging.

Testing a TT (from a listening standpoint at least) always involves listening to the combination of a table, arm and cartridge. The same cartridge might be well suited to one table and not as much or not at all to another. There is no other way to manage things that I can think of. So, out together combinations that one believes work well together and are not essentially dissimilar and remember that is is the total combination one is comparing. Even comparing apples and oranges can be very worthwhile if those are the candidates at hand. Why not?

 

[JohnVF]

Not true. ..I conducted a blinded test to gauge the impact that my KAB Damper had on my TT's performance. ..And I posted before/ after .wav files here on AK so that others may compare for themselves.



also not true. ..I have offered similar criticisms about the superlative, and of course unsubstantiated, claims people have made about much of the gear that I own, including McIntosh, NAD, Bryston, Peachtree, etc... Feel free to search my posts here or in other forums.




Yes it is just audio, I agree on that point. ..Nothing worth dying over. ..Thankfully, I don't see anyone doing that here. ..And yes, people can say whatever they want. ..Including those who respond to posts such as grottyash

What's the quality of the ADC you're using and how do you know that its not the limiting factor in any comparison? Also, considering most will be playing through their computer's sound card and possibly into headphones on a system who's headphone driving capability may be severely compromised w/o a headphone amp or frequency compromised if using earbuds or computer speakers...you've introduced your own cornucopia of variables in the name of "control".

99% of people in this hobby make sighted comparisons and live with it. I'm not against anybody wanting to do their own ABX tests. But to demand them of somebody making their own observations as if its some rule or hobby-wide norm is disingenuous.

 

[ODS123]

What's the quality of the ADC you're using and how do you know that its not the limiting factor in any comparison?

I use the ADC in my Macbook pro and Vinyl Studio software. No reason to believe this process isn't sonically transparent. .it's x's and 0's.

To test this process I have carefully compared .wav files of analog recordings directly w/ the analog original playing on the TT. ..Basically playing them simultaneously and toggling back and forth b/w the Turntable and the digital recording - no differences detected whatsoever. I've also created ADC recordings using CD's as the source. ..I play the CD, and record it's analog signal from the "Line Out" on my amp. ..During simultaneous play back the .wav file and cd were utterly indistinguishable from each other.

99% of people in this hobby make sighted comparisons and live with it. I'm not against anybody wanting to do their own ABX tests. But to demand them of somebody making their own observations as if its some rule or hobby-wide norm is disingenuous.

These demands are only made after somebody makes assertions about X being better than Z. ..You may find objectivist criticisms to be old and tiring, but they may indeed be informative to those lurking who are new to this hobby. And you're correct that ABX tests are not a hobby-wide norm. ..But what is normative in this hobby is appallingly unscientific. ..Just browse the Mapleshade catalog and you'll see what I mean.

 

[gusten]

Welcome to the world of blinded tests demanded by those who never do them. And you're absolutely right about carts. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need to use the same cart, because the same cartridge will perform very differently on different mass arms.

Not to mention how easy it is to just get a feel for the sound of a table by...you know, listening to it.

Some people live to turn the hobby into a chore. Its turn turntables for god's sake. Anybody is free to say whatever they want about any comparison they make.

By the way, if the Technics had come out ahead I'd bet money they wouldn't have demanded you do blind tests to prove it. Odd, that.

My points must only be seen as a remark on drawing conclusions of different TTs when using different cartridges, it´s not really possible.

As for blindtesting, I have done many of these. If developing e.g. a new bearing, how on earth would it be possible to hear an objective difference if not doing blindtests. I hope You don´t imply that listening, and knowing which you are listening to is good enough.
gusten

 

[Greyson]

Also, considering most will be playing through their computer's sound card and possibly into headphones on a system who's headphone driving capability may be severely compromised w/o a headphone amp or frequency compromised if using earbuds or computer speakers...you've introduced your own cornucopia of variables in the name of "control".

Well, to this, i'll offer the same arguement I used to justify my blind comparison between a Technics 1200 and a Super OEM table. The goal of the test is not to perfectly reproduce what is heard through someones home system when they spin a record, the goal is to discern a difference between two testing groups.

Lets say I accept that there is a degree of degradation when digitizing an analog signal and playing it back through someones computer. Both of the samples are experiencing the same degradation and being reproduced on the same medium, therefore, differences between those two groups (if there are any) should still be apparent, unless those differences are so insignifigant as to be lost in whatever degradation has occured in the digitizing process.

However, that's my objective opinion on the subject of blind testing, I personally think all the turntables in this thread are excellent and do not want to argue about a brand in particular. These are just my experiences.

 

[JohnVF]

I use the ADC in my Macbook pro and Vinyl Studio software. No reason to believe this process isn't sonically transparent. .it's x's and 0's.

Yes, indistinguishable on your system, with your gear. An entirely subjective assumption. You don't know what's in the system that could be homogenizing the sound, its limited by your system. On a more revealing system that differences could be quite apparent.

And the above comment exposes a lot. Just for the sake of argument, how do you suppose those 1s and 0s get to be the exact 1s and 0s that they are? Also, why do studios use $10,000+ EMM Labs, Apogee, and Pacific Microsonics ADCs? You can go out and buy even an Apogee Duet and realize just how important the quality of the ADC is. If you think all digital sounds the same, I don't have an answer for that. Just go out and listen more or get a more revealing system.

 

[JohnVF]

Well, to this, i'll offer the same arguement I used to justify my blind comparison between a Technics 1200 and a Super OEM table. The goal of the test is not to perfectly reproduce what is heard through someones home system when they spin a record, the goal is to discern a difference between two testing groups.

Lets say I accept that there is a degree of degradation when digitizing an analog signal and playing it back through someones computer. Both of the samples are experiencing the same degradation and being reproduced on the same medium, therefore, differences between those two groups (if there are any) should still be apparent, unless those differences are so insignifigant as to be lost in whatever degradation has occured in the digitizing process.

However, that's my objective opinion on the subject of blind testing, I personally think all the turntables in this thread are excellent and do not want to argue about a brand in particular. These are just my experiences.

You don't know that the degradation isn't homogenizing the samples being compared. I could run two Reel to Reel decks through my guitar flanger and you couldn't tell the difference between them. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference, even though they're both undergoing the same degradation. That's obviously an extreme example but cheap ADCs are terrible at conveying some of the minute details we're talking about with one preference in vinyl playback over another. I do home recording..best improvement I ever made was getting a decent pro-sumer ADC (Apogee Duet II).

 

[ODS123]

You don't know that the degradation isn't homogenizing the samples being compared. I could run two Reel to Reel decks through my guitar flanger and you couldn't tell the difference between them. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference, even though they're both undergoing the same degradation. That's obviously an extreme example but cheap ADCs are terrible at conveying some of the minute details we're talking about with one preference in vinyl playback over another. I do home recording..best improvement I ever made was getting a decent pro-sumer ADC (Apogee Duet II).

The advantage of pricey DAC's and ADC's have, to my satisfaction, been debunked elsewhere. I'll leave it to you to research this if you care to. If you believe that present-day CD players sound different from one another, I fear that we will never be in accord on any of this. ..which is fine of course

..Seems to me like you're saying that because a PERFECT test is elusive that NO efforts should be made to compare in an impartial and objective way. ..To basically let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

My hunch is that someone who reads grottyash's post and gusten's and my responses will probably find far more fault with grottyash's comparison methodology than they do with mine. My attempts at eliminating expectation-bias may be less than perfect, but grottyash's are completely unabashedly non-existent.