Numbers behind belt drive and direct drive.

[flavio81]

I have found subjective terminology quite reliable.--more reliable in fact than measurement when trying to understand how something is actually going to perform and if I might like it. As most people know, equipment that measures the same, rarely (if ever) sounds the same from model to model or manufacturer to manufacturer.

So from this perspective, I'd argue that subjective "wine tasting" type information is much more useful and reliable than only reading measurements when it comes to choosing audio equipment. After all, I buy it to listen to, not to run my test equipment with.

There is a problem when we say "measurements". If when you're saying "Measurements" you mean the "wow, flutter, rumble" measurements done in the classical way (or even worse, as quoted by the manufacturers) then they are almost meaningless (unless the figures are not so great... Rega RP1/Pro-ject budget turntables anyone?)

But once upon a time, some magazines did make meaningful measurements such as platter/tonearm resonance spectrums, flutter spectrum, rumble spectrum, hum level, real-life distortion results, etc. And then, afterwards, yes, it is good to read a description of the subjective sound quality, IF the reviewer uses meaningful terms and not stupid babble such as:

"great toe-tapping potential"
"better pace"
"better rhythm"
"better timing"
"using record X, the sustain of piano notes were longer on this turntable versus the same record played on turntable Y "

Personally, i HATE all-subjective reviews. You CAN objectively measure sound quality. But the typical wow/flutter/rumble DIN/IEC/JIS measurement doesn't tell you very much about sound quality. Unless flutter goes near and over 0.1% in which case you can be assured piano notes will sound very unnatural.

As AK forumer Zilch said: "More data, less wank." when referring to speaker reviews. It's very different to see simple speaker specs (such as frequency response) versus seeing polar dispersion graphs and a cumulative spectrum decay ("waterfall") display done independently by someone like Zilch. Now those are VERY meaningful and relevant to sound quality. Speakers that sound well measure well when the meaningful measurements are done. It's just the same with a turntable because it's just a machine, a transducer. Sadly it's a transducer that is too often misunderstood.

More data... les wank! RIP Zilch.

 

[JohnVF]

If you could objectively measure sound quality, there would be a lot of number-pushers with better turntables.

 

[flavio81]

If you could objectively measure sound quality, there would be a lot of number-pushers with better turntables.

Please read above, "number-pushing" is meaningless when you're... just number-pushing!!

The classic turntables with great sound quality that have passed the test of time were built by technicians on laboratories using lab instruments. Because they knew what to look for, what to measure, and how and when to use your ear. Turntables such as the EMT 927 or EMT 950 or Garrard 301/401 were made using solid engineering principles, not by non-technical audiophiles sitting around drinking wine around a table. Those engineers didn't write nonsense on audiophile magazines but instead wrote very interesting technical papers on AES (audio engineering society).

The problem is that the typical audiophile doesn't want to spend the extra effort to understand how these machines actually work in depth.

Thus they have to rely on subjective magazine reviews. That would be OK if they were trustable, but to me they're not so trustable, unless they are really independent like the Boston Audio Society. Or like AudioKarma

But my point is that there is no magic here, vinyl playback is well understood and well documented.

 

[Dr Tinear]

I would think, then, that the idea of using specs to weed out what you look into would be the key, though. So you wouldn't look into a subjective review of a lower end Rega, but might look at one of a VPI, as they tend to have very good W&F specs.

The problem with this approach is that it breaks down when the manufacturer declines to provide specs. You won't find a wow and flutter spec or a rumble spec at the Rega Web site, and I had no success finding them at the Linn Web site either. Music Hall publishes specs, but the intrepid shopper needs to download the owners' manuals to get them; they're not shown on the main product pages at the Web site. I submit that the prevalence of subjective reviewing has made it more acceptable for manufacturers to omit performance specs from their print or online sales literature, which makes it more difficult for equipment shoppers to use specs to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[wlmill]

After my experience, I do not trust reviews of turntables. I have to listen to the turntable for myself and make a determination based on what I hear. Yesterday I said I would have tried another turntable from the manufacturer. After thinking about it, with a 0.1% or above wow and flutter spec, I probably still would have heard the wow and flutter. I would have evaluated another table because I was willing to give the manufaccturer the benifit of the doubt. He was not willing to listen to what I had to say, so I will not be purchasing one of his tables again.

 

[gusten]

Please read above, "number-pushing" is meaningless when you're... just number-pushing!!

The classic turntables with great sound quality that have passed the test of time were built by technicians on laboratories using lab instruments. Because they knew what to look for, what to measure, and how and when to use your ear. Turntables such as the EMT 927 or EMT 950 or Garrard 301/401 were made using solid engineering principles, not by non-technical audiophiles sitting around drinking wine around a table. Those engineers didn't write nonsense on audiophile magazines but instead wrote very interesting technical papers on AES (audio engineering society).

The problem is that the typical audiophile doesn't want to spend the extra effort to understand how these machines actually work in depth.

Thus they have to rely on subjective magazine reviews. That would be OK if they were trustable, but to me they're not so trustable, unless they are really independent like the Boston Audio Society. Or like AudioKarma

But my point is that there is no magic here, vinyl playback is well understood and well documented.

I agree, but it´s not really possible to understand how most of the mechanics work without a rather high education in physics. This is not a demand to be placed on a normal listener. It can also not be decided what input to believe and not to believe.
gusten

 

[kirk57]

Please read above, "number-pushing" is meaningless when you're... just number-pushing!!

The classic turntables with great sound quality that have passed the test of time were built by technicians on laboratories using lab instruments. Because they knew what to look for, what to measure, and how and when to use your ear. Turntables such as the EMT 927 or EMT 950 or Garrard 301/401 were made using solid engineering principles, not by non-technical audiophiles sitting around drinking wine around a table. Those engineers didn't write nonsense on audiophile magazines but instead wrote very interesting technical papers on AES (audio engineering society).

The problem is that the typical audiophile doesn't want to spend the extra effort to understand how these machines actually work in depth.

Thus they have to rely on subjective magazine reviews. That would be OK if they were trustable, but to me they're not so trustable, unless they are really independent like the Boston Audio Society. Or like AudioKarma

But my point is that there is no magic here, vinyl playback is well understood and well documented.

I wouldn't call it magic, rather intangibles. And there are clearly such at work when 2 turntables with identical specs sound different.

 

[BrocLuno]

There are some issues that have not been addressed. The idea of a std test record is viable and many specs were generated with such. And, often the test indicated which cartridge and stylus was used, but sometimes not

The issue is drag. The stylus shape and the tracking force contribute to drag. That drag can, and does, vary with frequency. We have stylus shapes and cantilever suspensions that were generally not available back in the day. There are no specs being published to my knowledge that take modern styli into account and derive the specs for a TT.

This is where synergy comes into play. Say you get a decent SL1200. We know it's a good drive system (among many others) with a nice mid-mass arm. Now you start to kit it up with some cartridges so you can get an idea of what this table will sound like in your system? These newer carts will act slightly different than some of their forefathers - the AT440MLa come to mind. It has different resolution to the AT14 (pick a variant) which proceeded it. But, it might have been the AT14 that was used in the original test. Do you think the results are still 100% valid?

I don't. I think they are a loosely relevant guideline. I also think there are MFG tolerances. Which table got tested? The best they built that month, or a random sample off the line like yours? Not everything conforms at all times

Bottom line- I think there is room for both specs and subjective reviews. Then it's up to your ears. This is, in part, what AK Fests are for

 

[gusten]

I wouldn't call it magic, rather intangibles. And there are clearly such at work when 2 turntables with identical specs sound different.

If You by specs mean mostly not published ones, sometimes published, in either case it´s just by far insufficient. If we measure more I´m sure the cause of difference will show up.
gusten

 

[Dr Tinear]

... The classic turntables with great sound quality that have passed the test of time were built by technicians on laboratories using lab instruments. Because they knew what to look for, what to measure, and how and when to use your ear. Turntables such as the EMT 927 or EMT 950 or Garrard 301/401 were made using solid engineering principles, not by non-technical audiophiles sitting around drinking wine around a table. Those engineers didn't write nonsense on audiophile magazines but instead wrote very interesting technical papers on AES (audio engineering society).

Edgar Villchur's 1962 Audio article on the AR turntable is also interesting and is easier for the audio layman to understand than the typical AES monograph. Villchur's article reveals a product development approach solidly grounded in theory and validated with measurements. I submit that the AR's lasting popularity, some fifty years after its introduction, is largely due to Villchur's data-driven approach to engineering his turntable.

 

[kirk57]

Edgar Villchur's 1962 Audio article on the AR turntable is also interesting and is easier for the audio layman to understand than the typical AES monograph. Villchur's article reveals a product development approach solidly grounded in theory and validated with measurements. I submit that the AR's lasting popularity, some fifty years after its introduction, is largely due to Villchur's data-driven approach to engineering his turntable.

It's also because the turntable sounded great. Others have been less successful, theory and all.

 

[Dr Tinear]

It's also because the turntable sounded great. Others have been less successful, theory and all.

The AR turntable sounded great because its designer understood the subtleties that affect sound quality and addressed them in his design. He validated the design with extensive measurements and listening tests. Other designers either failed to understand these subtleties or were less successful than Villchur was in addressing them in their product designs.

Here's a link to a downloadable .pdf of the 1962 Audio article, in case anyone's interested in reading what Edgar Villchur had to say about his turntable: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=5597.

 

[Brett a]

The problem is that the typical audiophile doesn't want to spend the extra effort to understand how these machines actually work in depth.

I think changing the word "want" to "need" would make that a more truthful statement. (See? No problem!)

There's no requirement to understand how a turntable works in order to enjoy one at a very high level. You don't need to know whether a car has multi-link or trailing-arm suspension in order to be a very skilled driver. (for instance)

The fact that people don't understand turntables as well as some isn't a problem in and of its self. I have a lot of respect for people who shop (or even build) with their ears. --nothing wrong with that IMO.

My experience with subjective reviews is less positive than yours, Brett. My ears are more sensitive than average to speed instability (wow and flutter) and speed inaccuracy (pitch error), and the classical music that makes up most of my playlists is better at revealing speed problems than most other musical genres are.

I think that describes you as a rather unique consumer (as i assume was your intent).

It does seem (to me anyway) that W&F and pitch instability are not often commented on in professional reviews. Mostly I see comments about the noise floor (s/n ratio) and overall character of the 'table's presentation among things like build quality and company history.

I've never really thought about it like this before, but I may be more sensitive to w and flutter and pitch instability too. I had to sell me Rega Planar 2 for this very reason. But when I posted sound samples, I'm not sure anyone could hear it. The Well Tempered, I replaced it with, like Rega, does not publish specs for my model. Yet it hasn't given me any indication of the drive speed being off. I bought it simply becasue it has overwhelmingly positive and thoroughly non-controversial public regard. And I continue to be very impressed with the performance for the money.

 

[JohnVF]

The problem with this approach is that it breaks down when the manufacturer declines to provide specs. You won't find a wow and flutter spec or a rumble spec at the Rega Web site, and I had no success finding them at the Linn Web site either. Music Hall publishes specs, but the intrepid shopper needs to download the owners' manuals to get them; they're not shown on the main product pages at the Web site. I submit that the prevalence of subjective reviewing has made it more acceptable for manufacturers to omit performance specs from their print or online sales literature, which makes it more difficult for equipment shoppers to use specs to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Its a bit of a chicken and egg thing, regarding specs and 'wine tasting' reviews. Historically speaking, the latter came about because of most specification's inability to predict what was going to really sound good. If Rega doesn't publish specs and you need to know them, the solution is simple- don't purchase a Rega. I don't get the idea that you ever seriously considered one anyway, nor should you have if you're that susceptible to W&F.

The problem with subjective reviews is that you really need to find somebody who knows what they're talking about. Just like specs, the worth of any given reviewer is hit or miss. I'll trust Art Dudley over Stephen Mejias at stereophile, because Art tends to like the kind of gear that I also like, historically speaking, and he's heard more gear than I'll hear in my lifetime.

 

[wlmill]

I never said I purchased a Rega. In my case I couldn't find any good vintage turntables in my area at the time and I was becoming very impatient. I should have done more research, but I didn't. I couldn't find the specs on the box. The specs were hidden in the users manual. It was a bad experience and I have learned a lot from it.

 

[flavio81]

There's no requirement to understand how a turntable works in order to enjoy one at a very high level. You don't need to know whether a car has multi-link or trailing-arm suspension in order to be a very skilled driver. (for instance)

We are going off topic but let me comment that most of the best Formula 1 drivers were very skilled technically and knew very well about the car internals: Niki Lauda (3x champ), Alain Prost (4x champ), and Nelson Piquet (3x champ) being particularly inclined to the technical side, the latter being a former mechanic!

I have a lot of respect for people who shop (or even build) with their ears. --nothing wrong with that IMO

Yes, i agree with you, and i applaud such consumer, because he uses HIS/her ears.

I've never really thought about it like this before, but I may be more sensitive to w and flutter and pitch instability too.

I'm gonna post some test tones so everybody can test themselves.

 

[kirk57]

The AR turntable sounded great because its designer understood the subtleties that affect sound quality and addressed them in his design. He validated the design with extensive measurements and listening tests. Other designers either failed to understand these subtleties or were less successful than Villchur was in addressing them in their product designs.Here's a link to a downloadable .pdf of the 1962 Audio article, in case anyone's interested in reading what Edgar Villchur had to say about his turntable: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=5597.

Yeah I'd agree with that. I assume you've seen this interview with EV?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOlAua3tBSw

The last few sentences are quite amusing...

 

[flavio81]

Test tones courtesy of Dave Cawley from Sound Hi-Fi, some of them i requested to him:

Use your ears and determine how sensitive are you to flutter on the standarized 3150Hz test tone.

http://www.soundhifi.com/tones.html

Tones of interest:

"3.15Khz no modulation at all" (no flutter)

"3.15Khz modulated by 6.66667Hz at 0.1% "
0.1% being the minimum acceptable flutter figure for a turntable

"3.15Khz modulated by 6.66667Hz at 0.05% "
0.05% usually claimed as "inaudible".

NOTE: Better to use headphones for critical listening of these files.

 

[marcmorin]

Yeah I'd agree with that. I assume you've seen this interview with EV?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOlAua3tBSw

The last few sentences are quite amusing...

which then raises the question of a manufacturer who does build to "soundstage".........what is being added?

EV achieved addition by subtraction.

 

[kirk57]

which then raises the question of a manufacturer who does build to "soundstage".........what is being added?

EV achieved addition by subtraction.

I don't know of any manufacturer that claims to do that, do you?