I have ordered a Pioneer PLX-1000 direct drive turntable.....
- Thread starter WaynerN
- Start date
- Status
JP
7480 74111110101115
Yes, I've read that too. Unless I misread it, their measurements were comparing modulated to unmodulated grooves, not a blank surface as Wayner uses.
tnsilver
Stereo Puppy
As far as I can tell, it refers to the rumble measurements right under the W&F specs. I don't see a reason for W&F to be affected by noise. Do you suppose this line was actually 'lifted' from the Technics SM but, by mistake, from the wrong context? That would be really weird...
boreas
"If it sounds good, it IS good." E.K.E.
It isn't.
Certainly, it's very similar and that can't be an accident but we have to remember that this is a "pro audio" turntable, in effect a tool of the trade so it can be considered a plus if its control layout is all but identical to the turntable(s) most DJs are used to.
It doesn't.
As I mentioned before, the Grado Hum Database contains reports of problems with some SL-12XX turntables. So, I think it's fair to say that Grados cause problems with some 1200s and, really, that's all we can say relative to the PLX-1000.
John
JP
7480 74111110101115
There's an asterisk at the end of the 0.01% WRMS line, which is what the note refers too. Electrical noise, record noise floor, record eccentricity, and perhaps more importantly as I've recently read in an AES paper, the resonance of the arm/cartridge system influence the measurement of flutter.
When I get my FL-180A at the end of the week I'll start doing some experiments, as I've a table Technics spec'd at 0.015% JIS C5521.
Here's the SL-M3:
Attachments
tnsilver
Stereo Puppy
You are right, I just noticed the asterisk on the first W&F measurement saying 0.01% WRMS. Excuse me for still being kinda suspicious and flummoxed by the exact bad grammar, that appears to had been copied straight out of the Technics manual, right into the Pioneer DJ site, stating the exact same parameters as the 'competition' in the most relaxed measurement method of W&F, in contradiction to the official site's publications, that are in synch with the mfgr. For some reason it just doesn't encourage too much confidence in the released data. Does it?
BTW, good luck with the Kenny. It will be interesting to see if you can verify the Technics specs and how the Kenny is in comparison.
Keep us posted please.
BTW, good luck with the Kenny. It will be interesting to see if you can verify the Technics specs and how the Kenny is in comparison.
Keep us posted please.
neobop
Well-Known Member
Wayner,
You're still offended? Some further explanation for your sensibilities:
A couple of days ago you posted this:
Just to refresh your memory, in March you posted this:
"I have finished 1 LP while I have been typing this, Thomas Dolby's "The Aliens Ate My Buick" and I felt the sound stage and musical content was as the Technics, but I will do some heavy duty listening later."
And this:
"BTW, yeah, its certainly the top of the heap for a $700 table. I would not waste my money on an AT-LP120 when you can have this one, unfortunately, it a bit more, but I think its worth it."
Change your mind or just wanted to point out shortcomings?
Previously you said:
"Of all the tables that I have (or have had) the Technics SL1200MKII is a very dynamic, emotional music machine. It needs to have a couple of tweaks done to it, it needs to have the right cartridge paired with it and it will produce an enormous sound stage. I also have the Technics SL-Q2 and it is not in the same presence as the 1200. All of course, IMHO."
I realize time was limited, but you didn't give the Pioneer anywhere near the same consideration. You wouldn't even try another headshell. That's why I said what I said.
neo
You're still offended? Some further explanation for your sensibilities:
A couple of days ago you posted this:
Just to refresh your memory, in March you posted this:
"I have finished 1 LP while I have been typing this, Thomas Dolby's "The Aliens Ate My Buick" and I felt the sound stage and musical content was as the Technics, but I will do some heavy duty listening later."
And this:
"BTW, yeah, its certainly the top of the heap for a $700 table. I would not waste my money on an AT-LP120 when you can have this one, unfortunately, it a bit more, but I think its worth it."
Change your mind or just wanted to point out shortcomings?
Previously you said:
"Of all the tables that I have (or have had) the Technics SL1200MKII is a very dynamic, emotional music machine. It needs to have a couple of tweaks done to it, it needs to have the right cartridge paired with it and it will produce an enormous sound stage. I also have the Technics SL-Q2 and it is not in the same presence as the 1200. All of course, IMHO."
I realize time was limited, but you didn't give the Pioneer anywhere near the same consideration. You wouldn't even try another headshell. That's why I said what I said.
neo
muovimies
Super Member
The whole spec wars thing was a bit ridiculous back in the day because the shifting standards and reaching a point where the specs didn't have anything to do with real world record playback anymore. For example Thorens TD-160 had 0.06% w&f spec in Europe (DIN), but according to the audio-heritage.jp site the JIS spec was 0.03% - makes one wonder if they came up with the JIS standards originally to make Japanese tables look superior to foreign competition... in any case the weighing seems a lot more forgiving than DIN for example.
gusten
Addicted Member
Personally I haven´t found any difference in skating force worth mentioning between unmodulated grooves, test tones and different music. I consider it to be about the same for all practical purposes.
As for W&F using a test record it will be very difficult to have a lower figure than 0,04% as test records inherently normally aren´t better.
And as been mentioned W&F are complex as the results also are depending on tonearm resonance and record warps. If we would get a figure of e.g. o,07% we have to look at possible causes for that figure, there is no certainty it will depend on platter speed variations.
As for W&F using a test record it will be very difficult to have a lower figure than 0,04% as test records inherently normally aren´t better.
And as been mentioned W&F are complex as the results also are depending on tonearm resonance and record warps. If we would get a figure of e.g. o,07% we have to look at possible causes for that figure, there is no certainty it will depend on platter speed variations.
I'd be a little suspicious of the hum database. Hum can come from a number of things in the HIFi setup, so attributing everything to the turntable when the cartridge is unshielded may not give an accurate picture unless all other likely causes are checked first.
WaynerN
Addicted Member
Lets take a look at some facts about using the blank disc to set anti-skate:
1. I have records that I had bought as a teenager that show no signs of inner or outer groove wall damage, physically speaking, and no evidence of damage is heard when the record is played and many of the records have been played hundreds of times.
2. My DIY, calibrated VU meters show even channel distribution thru the entire side of the LP.
3. Viewing the stylus behavior in the record groove offers no signs of alignment problems. The cantilever is centered and "square to the world" as it travels the record grooves.
4. I examine my stylus about 3 to 4 times a year. The stylus wear is symmetrical.
5. Listening to music in my near field environment, the sound stage is centered, deep and wide.
There simply is no evidence that using a blank disc over-compensates for the skating effect. I have decades of proof.
1. I have records that I had bought as a teenager that show no signs of inner or outer groove wall damage, physically speaking, and no evidence of damage is heard when the record is played and many of the records have been played hundreds of times.
2. My DIY, calibrated VU meters show even channel distribution thru the entire side of the LP.
3. Viewing the stylus behavior in the record groove offers no signs of alignment problems. The cantilever is centered and "square to the world" as it travels the record grooves.
4. I examine my stylus about 3 to 4 times a year. The stylus wear is symmetrical.
5. Listening to music in my near field environment, the sound stage is centered, deep and wide.
There simply is no evidence that using a blank disc over-compensates for the skating effect. I have decades of proof.
Last edited:
Garven
Active Member
I have. When I've compared the results of setting my antiskate with a test records to the point where there is no longer any distortion and then tried a blank record, the arm never remains in one place but always pulls to one side. Granted, the Pro-Ject "three notches" approach doesn't offer the range of adjustment a spring/dial does, but it does tell me the test record approach is probably the better one.
Garven
Active Member
Wayner, seriously, these are not "facts about using the blank disc to set anti-skate" they're your personal observations. You seem to take great pride in reminding us over and over again that you're "in engineering" so surely you must see that you recounting your personal observations does not make for "facts." I can say the moon looks like it's made out of swiss cheese. It doesn't make it so! Unless you actually measured the forces and provided numeric comparisons, these are not facts.
Of course, maybe Harry Weisfeld is right and antiskate is irrelevant.
Garven
Active Member
Indeed. Lack of consistency has been my main issue with this whole endeavor as well. first the antiskate was not right, but still usable. Then it wasn't any good at all. Now it's just inadequate. Then this morning while checking for something else in the thread I noticed the following contradiction:
On March 5, Wayner stated he was barely able to get his Technics into an IEC Baerwald:
This first statement mirrors what I often see around the net, that some folks are able to barely achieve a Baerwald with the stock Technics headshell. It's easier for those who attempt a DIN version than an IEC, but depending on the cartridge, it's doable.
Yet now in September, he says he has his Technics in a Löfgren B alignment, which by its nature requires a longer overhang than IEC Baerwald, a.k.a Löfgren A) :
And in fact, he says you can use any alignment you want!
What happened from March to September, did his headshells expand over the summer?
gusten
Addicted Member
That is not what I meant. I meant measuring the actual friction force provided by the grooves. I didn´t mention any blank record. I see no particular difference in friction force if it´s an umodulated groove, a groove with sine tones or a groove with nornal music.
gusten
Addicted Member
It sure isn´t irrelevant for the stylus, as the inner radius will have a much higher normal force.
Edit: As for the blank record setting. It can of course vary from stylus tip to stylus tip, that is a problem. But for most tips it´s probably rather OK, but the friction force provided by a 'good' tip will be lower than if the tip is in a groove, as then the normal forces will be higher.
Last edited:
Too many people in this thread are just enjoying fussing instead of educating in my most humble opinion.
I've owned the Pioneer and now own its competitor.
My vote is for the AT-LP1240 hands down if anyone is looking for a new SL1200 clone. The PLX1000 is over priced and comes from the factory with problems which the 1240 does not.
I've owned the Pioneer and now own its competitor.
My vote is for the AT-LP1240 hands down if anyone is looking for a new SL1200 clone. The PLX1000 is over priced and comes from the factory with problems which the 1240 does not.
iLUVanalog
Addicted Member
Garven...do you have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to offer with your comments, or are you just here to disagree with anything/everything from anybody/everybody?...this isn't the Hoffman forum.
Last edited:
- Status