I will celebrate the day that the 750 owners quit equating their turntable with the GT 2000.
I peeked up the skirt of a GT-750, and wasn't aroused!
- Thread starter Arkay
- Start date
I will celebrate the day that the 750 owners quit equating their turntable with the GT 2000.
fernarias
Super Member
The design philosophy of higher end turntables is to make them as transparent as possible so that the difference you would hear between a GT 750 and a higher end table is silence. And actually, at this level of performance, a normal human wouldn't be able to hear the difference between a 80db table and a 85db table (perhaps between a 80db and a 95db table, but I don't have a 95db table). What you pay for, at this level, are measurable improvements in specs (that can be consistently measured by third parties) and the assurance that when you listen to a bad recording, that it's actually issues with the recording and not your high performance table (of course, it could be your cartridge).
Superior specs cost money and you can see what areas of design were found to be most important. It seems to be high processing power for speed accuracy (remember 1983 is when 32 bit processing was still two year away), computer balanced heavy platters (the more perfectly balanced the higher the cost and brass cost more than aluminum) and high precision bearings(or magnetic bearings in the case of Victor). Heavy plinth design added less to this equation and you can see this in the Pioneer PL3 vs the PL3a. They have identical plinth but the specs of the PL3a are colossal where as the PL3 is still stuck in the 70s.
So to answer the question posed by this thread, the plinth "cheapness" doesn't matter since it does the job. Replacing the plinth of a precision instrument will probably do more harm than good. There are much better turntables out there and of those, the GT 2000, seems to be very plentiful (at least in Japan). A Kenwood KP 990/9010/1100, would be a better table than a GT 750 but not as good as a GT 2000. If you want the ultimate table, my vote goes to the Pioneer PL3a with the Technics SL-1000mk3D in second place.
Of course, there is a caveat, the electronics of these great tables won't last forever and eventually there won't be any functioning units (at least until the price of rapid prototyping ic comes down to respectable levels and we can come up with the schematics of the problem ic).
Last edited:
directdriver
New Member
One last thing before I leave this thread: I never said I own a 750. I do NOT own a 750. My original comment was a response to the poster's insecure feeling about having a small power transformer (and smaller pcb) inside his turntable. I just wanted to pointed out in my OWN experience with Technics turntables that a bigger transformer does not necessarily translate into better sound. Some motors and designs simply draws more current due to higher torque or whatever and require a bigger transformer. It may or may not be better sound but I just happened to like the smaller table. I don't own a 750 nor 2000 so I have no way of knowing and I never stated that I did. In my own case with Technics turntables, with the exception of the SP10Mk3 I have owned just about all the models, and I prefer the less expensive one (SP-15) over the more expensive one (SP10Mk2). There's no surprise if the 2000 sounds better than the 750 as it's a higher model and cost more and your comments supports that the 2000 is a indeed a superior table.
My biggest mistake is to have mentioned the 2000 at all. Had I not mentioned it, I would have avoided all this back and forth replies. I check this forum or thread only maybe once a year and do not intend to spend my time replying on this topic anymore. Ciao.
My biggest mistake is to have mentioned the 2000 at all. Had I not mentioned it, I would have avoided all this back and forth replies. I check this forum or thread only maybe once a year and do not intend to spend my time replying on this topic anymore. Ciao.
So we now have you backing away from your statement that the 750 should hold its own with the GT 2000. Is it because by your own admission that you wouldn't know?
You most certainly don't and the 750 doesn't. I'm sorry if you don't like being taken to task for making incorrect statements. On the internet these things need to be cleared-up because the misconceptions have a way of acquiring a life of their own. To allow the wrong impression gain a foothold, it has to remain unchallenged.
I'd wager that you have never laid eyes upon either the 750 or the 2000. It is not rudeness or aggression to challenge the reasoning behind a statement. This what is called logical reasoning. Nor has any post that has challenged your statements attacked you personally or vilified you. All of the focus was on the content of your statements and nothing else.
As for letting people get on with talking about the 750, the initial post was from a GT 2000 owner commenting on the relative merits of the two turntables. Hence comparative discussion of the two is quite On Topic,not threadcrapping. I'd call it threadcrapping to offer relative assessments of two turntables one had never seen such as :
"The bottomline is that the 750 may not look as impressive as the 2000 but it should still hold its own"
The bottom line is: You have no idea of what you are talking about.
directdriver
New Member
I apologize in addition to using the the phrase "hold its own." In that I should add in relation to its price, not intended to mean its performance is better than the 2000. English is not my first language. I should have mastered that before commenting. You're right, I have no idea of what I am talking about.
