I peeked up the skirt of a GT-750, and wasn't aroused!

[Tim5]

I own a Gt-750 and I must say it a awesome turntable with al of its parts, except the base which was kinda cheap, so I made a complimentary one.

I've used 5 18mm birch wood multiplex plates, machined them using the original base as template.
Also I going to make a separate cabinet for the power supply, and I changed the original transformer 100v with a 220V with a output of 30-35V, works perfect, so there is no need for a step down transformer.

Next step would be, fit the en-longed cables into the base machined tunnels and glue the plates together, make the cabinet for the power supply, veneer it all and reassemble.

So if you don't have the money or want too spend that much on a 2000, you don't have too, the 750 is a good enough table, my bet is you wouldn't here the difference when played under the same conditions.
But then again it is nice to own such....:yes:

 

[theophile]

I don't see anything wrong with a small circuit board as long as it gets the job done.

And if it doesn't get the job done?

Modern direct drive turntables like the Brinkmann Bardo uses a small circuit board too. Sometimes a smaller circuit board also means less servo and simply let platter run on its own inertia, a less iron grip control of its rotation and can result in a much smoother sound.

Sometimes the only virtue that a smaller circuit board achieves, is that it is smaller. Sometimes the only virtue that a bigger circuit board achieves, is that it is bigger. The virtue of a circuit board lies not in its size but what it brings to the functioning of the turntable. If small is good, all is good. If big is good, all is good. If small could have been improved upon or is the weak link in the overall functioning of a turntable, small is bad. If big could have been improved upon or is the weak link in the overall functioning of a turntable, big is bad. Propounding generalisations as if they are axioms benefits nobody and disseminates incomplete conclusions.

The bottomline is that the 750 may not look as impressive as the 2000 but it should still hold its own, at least in my experience with direct drive turntables

Pure supposition.

So based on your experience let's just dismiss the GT 2000? This is evidence that the 750 is its equal? More to the point, it is the 750 which is made to look impressive(i.e an imitation of the GT 2000), but which misses-out in nearly every aspect on the materials, specifications and technology abundant in the GT 2000 series.

Bigger is not always better.

Bigger is not always worse. Smaller is not always better. Smaller is not always worse either. More generalisations, as if that were proof of anything or conclusive in and of itself. Such statements never lead to increased understanding of the factors which differentiate better designs from less able designs. They are meaningless outside of specific contexts.

 

[theophile]

So if you don't have the money or want too spend that much on a 2000, you don't have too, the 750 is a good enough table, my bet is you wouldn't here the difference when played under the same conditions.
But then again it is nice to own such....:yes:

There are number of things that need to be said about the statements made here:

If the 750 is a "good enough turntable", why did you modify it?

No-one has to "spend that much on a GT 2000". One doesn't have to, indeed. Unless they want what a GT 2000 brings to the table( pun intended).

Answer me this: If the difference between the GT 750 and the GT 2000 is, as you put it, "you wouldn't here (sic) the difference when played under the same conditions", then why did the Japanese buy the GT 2000 in the tenfolds of quantity to the number of GT 750s sold? Surely they would have had plenty of opportunity to hear the two turntables played under the same conditions. Somehow despite the assertion that one wouldn't hear the difference, they must have heard something which motivated them to empty their wallets for the higher priced model? Could it be that they heard a difference? Could it be that the difference they heard was a marked superiority? Could it be that the superiority that they heard was sufficient that they wanted that level of performance advantage, even to the point that they had to pay considerably more for it? Could it be that as good as the performance level of the GT 750 might be, the lower price of the 750 was not compensation enough to make up for the missing sonic/musical quality available from the GT 2000, thus for the GT 750 to have been perceived as a stone cold bargain at the price? Surely if either the performance of the GT 750 was indistinguishable from the GT 2000 or the price vs performance ratio of the GT 2000 to GT 750 was sufficient in itself to be a disincentive/incentive, the GT 750 would have sold in numbers equal to the 2000 or vastly outsold it? What the numbers say: Is that despite the lower price of the 750, compared to the GT 2000 people were not inclined to purchase it. The appearance of the two models is not that different. Could it be that the GT 2000 sounds sufficiently better? That it was the better choice and well worth the premium price? Could that explain why the 750 sold only a small percentage of the numbers that the GT 2000 sold in Japan?


Could My reasoning be faulty? Of course. I'd wager that it is closer to the truth than off the mark.

 

[Tim5]

There are number of things that need to be said about the statements made here:

If the 750 is a "good enough turntable", why did you modify it?

Because I can, it only cost me a few, and it makes me feel better.

Answer me this: If the difference between the GT 750 and the GT 2000 is, as you put it, "you wouldn't here (sic) the difference when played under the same conditions", then why did the Japanese buy the GT 2000 in the tenfolds of quantity to the number of GT 750s sold?

That's what humans do, buy what they been told is the best or what they think it is, surely the 2000 has to be better because it costs twice as much.

Probably the 2000 is the better turntable here, when measured with all kinds of equipment, better S/N, wow and flutter.......

But ask yourself, is the more expensive one always the better one.

 

[theophile]

But ask yourself, is the more expensive one always the better one.

The more expensive one is definitely not always the better one. By the same token, neither is the less expensive one always the better one. To use that as any indication of virtue is senseless.

Better engineering would be a more dependable guide. With over 30 years having passed since the introduction of the GT 2000 and 27 years since the introduction of the GT 750, there has been plenty of time for comparisons to be made. There is not one word of anyone in Japan liking the 750 as much as or in preference to the 2000.

The Japanese are aware that for a handful of hundred dollars more than the current price of a second-hand GT 750, they can get a GT 2000. The Japanese have had 27 years to discuss the benefits of the two turntables. Somehow that hasn't translated into any increased demand for the 750. The GT 2000 sells very well on the second-hand market even 3 decades after it was introduced.

It's just a flash in the pan. Someone must be telling them what is best. They must like the GT 2000 because it costs twice as much. More expensive isn't always better. Why don't they understand?

 

[Tim5]

Someone must be telling them what is best.

That is a opinion, just like mine.

I do also use a Sony PS-8750, I play the GT-750 with MM, the Sony with MC, perhaps you could tell me which is the better turntable, because I can make up my mind....

My intention wasn't too discuss which is the better one, just share mine.

 

[theophile]

Someone must be telling them what is best. They must like the GT 2000 because it costs twice as much.

That's what humans do, buy what they been told is the best or what they think it is, surely the 2000 has to be better because it costs twice as much.

I was paraphrasing your own words.

So if you don't have the money or want too spend that much on a 2000, you don't have too, the 750 is a good enough table, my bet is you wouldn't here the difference when played under the same conditions.

My intention wasn't too discuss which is the better one, just share mine.

Your intention appears to be to equate the performance of the GT 750 as if were on an equal platform with the GT 2000.

 

[Tim5]

Your intention appears to be to equate the performance of the GT 750 as if were on an equal platform with the GT 2000.

Probably the 2000 is the better turntable here, when measured with all kinds of equipment, better S/N, wow and flutter.......

It seems to me you only pick my words that benefit yours.

 

[theophile]

It seems to me you only pick my words that benefit yours.

If your words work against your stance, you will have to look to their author to exorcise any angst. It is he who has made the statements that are coming back to haunt you.

 

[Tim5]

If your words work against your stance, you will have to look to their author to exorcise any angst. It is he who has made the statements that are coming back to haunt you.

The only thing haunting me, is you theophile

Please keep in mind this is a discussion forum.

The GT-2000 must be a superb turntable, I believe that for sure, but that does not mean the GT-750 is a lot less, or just less, even after consideration off the advantages the 2000 has, you've pointed out before.

The only mayor difference that is directly audioble (hearable) in my opinion is the base, that's way I improved mine.
The arm is very very similar, not per se better or worse ( friction only 7mg vert. hor.), optional are YSA-1 and YSA-2.
Both motors drive the platter with quartz controlled speed, both silent enough GT-750 S/N: 82dB and W&F: 0.006% and GT-2000 S/N: 85dB and W&F: 0.005% DIN B, so no mayor difference here.
I'm aware there are other factors that may count, but that's just guessing, and up to this moment do not convince me to get rid of my 750.

Options for the 750 are following:
YAL-1, YDS-1, YSA-1, YSA-2 and YDS-3, quite a few options to choose from (source: http://www.microsofttranslator.com/...//audio-heritage.jp/YAMAHA/player/gt-750.html)

Price:
I paid about USD 585,- including shipping, within Germany.
If I would like to buy a 2000 now, lets say @ http://www.hifido.co.jp, I need to pay about USD 1490,- + USD 500,- shipping makes a total USD 1990,-
quite tremendous difference in my case, but that could change entirely if would buy the 750 also @ HiFi-Do, about USD 873,- + USD 500 makes a total USD 1373, that would make me want to save up en buy the 2000.

That's all :thmbsp:

 

[theophile]

By all means enjoy your GT 750. But don't confuse the fact that since the 750 and the 2000 are similar in appearance, that they are similar in performance.

There is more to the 2000 than the plinth.

750 in 2000 plinth would be an improvement but it wouldn't be a 2000.

The things that really separate the 2000 and the 750 have been well documented in this thread. The Japanese, who have had 27 years to compare the real world differences between the two models haven't had one word to say about the 750 being as good as the 2000. I dunno about anyone else, but I'd expect that a turntable which was 50% of the price of the 2000 with 100% of the performance, would generate a lot of discussion about that. The reality is: There hasn't been any such discussion. The 750 instead sold only a fraction of the twice the 750 priced GT 2000.

I'd tend to believe the numbers over someone who leaps to multiple generalisations and suppositions about the relative merits of the two turntables to bolster their point (if indeed there is one there in the first place).

 

[illini]

With the same cart/stylus, do the GT 750 and 2000 sound different? If so, how?

 

[theophile]

With the same cart/stylus, do the GT 750 and 2000 sound different? If so, how?

You'll need to ask someone in Japan.

 

[Tim5]

I'd tend to believe the numbers over someone who leaps to multiple generalisations and suppositions about the relative merits of the two turntables to bolster their point (if indeed there is one there in the first place).

What bothers me, is the fact, that you rule out the possibilities, kind of a generalisation to.

But still, I perfectly understand why you disagree with me, the possibility is big that I'm wrong.

My conclusion is, if you want the best Yamaha turntable, you don't want to experiment, your wallet is deep enough buy the 2000 en success is kinda guaranteed, if not make your own decision.

 

[theophile]

What bothers me, is the fact, that you rule out the possibilities, kind of a generalisation to.

It might be possible to drop a brick and that the brick might fly over your head after dropping it: If it was during a Category 5 hurricane then dropping a brick might cause it to fly over your head. That would not make the statement that dropping a brick will cause it to fall, a generalisation.

The reality of the situation vis a vis the relative merits of the two turntables the GT 750 and the GT 2000 is that the GT 750 possesses none of the factors which define the GT 2000 as great from stock but capable of much more than that. Those factors are the motor control electronics that the GT2000 possess but the GT 750 does not. The Motor that the GT 2000 possess but the GT 750 does not. The 40 pound capable bearing that the GT 2000 possesses but the GT 750 does not. The gunmetal platter that the GT 2000 is capable of utilising but the GT 750 is not capable of using. Last but not least The YOP-1 out board power supply which further enhances the capability of the GT 2000 which the GT 2000 was designed to utilise but the GT 750 was not designed to utilise.

That is the reality of the situation. No amount of clutching at straws and talk of possibilities can make that reality go away. It is no generalisation to say that the GT 750 cannot utilise the factors which the enable the GT 2000 to be the great turntable that it is.

 

[directdriver]

They are meaningless outside of specific contexts.

It's all about context, isn't it? I was discussing (this is a discussion forum, isn't it?) things pertinent to the topic at hand. Nobody, nobody, not me, said the 750 is better than the 2000. All I said is that the 750 can hold its own without apology and one can enjoy its merit due to its different technology and moderate price. But NOT better than the 2000. That's all. I just wanted to share some pictures with the DIYers and perhaps can encourage some experimentation and enjoy the hobby. You like your 2000. Fine, enjoy it.

 

[muzy]

It might be possible to drop a brick and that the brick might fly over your head after dropping it: If it was during a Category 5 hurricane then dropping a brick might cause it to fly over your head. That would not make the statement that dropping a brick will cause it to fall, a generalization.
Fixed ^^^

What makes me wonder is why would it not be possible to drop a brick?
I suppose if there were no bricks to pick then there could be no bricks to drop.
But if we were to use prepicked bricks then we could proceed. And I strongly rec-amend some PPE if these bricks will be flying.....but bricks can't really fly. Can they?:scratch2:
Glen

 

[davidro]

It's all about context, isn't it? I was discussing (this is a discussion forum, isn't it?) things pertinent to the topic at hand. Nobody, nobody, not me, said the 750 is better than the 2000. All I said is that the 750 can hold its own without apology and one can enjoy its merit due to its different technology and moderate price. But NOT better than the 2000. That's all. I just wanted to share some pictures with the DIYers and perhaps can encourage some experimentation and enjoy the hobby. You like your 2000. Fine, enjoy it.

thansk for ur pics and views on my table

 

[theophile]

It's all about context, isn't it? I was discussing (this is a discussion forum, isn't it?) things pertinent to the topic at hand.

Yes you were discussing, discussing using generalisations which don't hold water.

Nobody, nobody, not me, said the 750 is better than the 2000. All I said is that the 750 can hold its own without apology and one can enjoy its merit due to its different technology and moderate price. But NOT better than the 2000. That's all.

When one uses the term 'hold it's own' about any subject in isolation it has a different connotation to using the term 'hold it's own' in comparison . Used in isolation the term discusses the ability of the subject matter on its own terms. Used in comparison (ie when you have mentioned both the 750 and the 2000) the term infers that they are on par. The 750 does not hold its own in comparison to the 2000. Thus in the context of the comparative ability of the 750 to the 2000, the 750 does not 'hold its own'. As you acknowledge the 750 is not better than the 2000. What you cannot bring your self to accept is that it is not as good as the 2000. Nor does the 750 hold its own in comparison to the 2000.

The generalisations don't hold their own. Nor do the comparisons.

I just wanted to share some pictures with the DIYers and perhaps can encourage some experimentation and enjoy the hobby. You like your 2000. Fine, enjoy it.

Encourage experimentation to your heart's content, just don't expect others to accept non-applicable generalisations to provide either proof or explanation of your assertions. You like your 750. Fine, enjoy it. No amount of wishful thinking can overcome the fact that it lacks the sophistication and facilities of the 2000. They just aren't there.

 

[directdriver]

Let's jut move on and just let people talk about the 750 without mentioning 2000, ok? No more mentioning of the 2000 from this point on, at least not from me anymore. If you have ideas to help people improve the performance of any turntable, feel free to share. Thank you.