nailer
audionerd
Not a copy then. Pio1980 got it right in 125.
What do YOU consider to be the best TT ever built??
- Thread starter BASF_01
- Start date
Not a copy then. Pio1980 got it right in 125.
That is bullshit, as you know. The Ariston was based on the Thorens TD 150, not any AR. Also, the bearings were better than any produced at that time, and are a Linn patent.
ARs are budget turntables. Linn are in the top five of best turntables ever produced. They revolutionised turntables, which few other companies did. That's why you can still buy them, while AR and other marques are dead.
Get real. You rebuild AR turntables to a much higher level, so you must know how lacking the originals were.
No, they weren't. Check you facts before commenting please.
marcmorin
RIP 1953-2020
3 point sprung suspension on the Thorens........correct? Mitch Cotter designed the system, AR brought it to the masses. And, that was before the Thorens table.
Beobloke
Super Member
I'm sorry, they really didn't. They may have revolutionised the way people think about turntables and their position in the replay chain, but that's about it.
Superampman
AK Member
My post #72 is absolutely correct. My favorite pastime in the late 70's was frequenting the high end shops in Calgary. There was never any argument among sales reps on which table was the best. Only how close this or that came to it. Then, the new boy on the block was the first Oracle table, the Alexandria which I bought with FR-14 and Dynavector Ruby instead of the Linn just because it was so revolutionary. Strangely though, when I googled the history, I can't find anything on it. This is not the Alexandria you'll find on the net. It looks exactly like the Delphi, it's predecessor. The difference being the upgrade push button two speed motor on the Delphi vs. the two tiered pulley on the Alexandria. Weird that Oracle doesn't even list history on it. I bought it in 1978.
nailer
audionerd
Linn's marketing was indeed brilliant. The LP-12 not so much. Not saying it's not an excellent table. After all, it's based on an American design.
tubewade
Super Member
In those days (late 1970s) there were a couple of times I heard record playback that left me speechless that something could be THAT good. The first was a Sota Sapphire. When I heard it I realised my Pioneer at home was a low shelf deck, even though I thought it was pretty good before that. Shortly afterward I heard a Sondek and it was another such experience and I thought it was maybe even better than the Sota. A little time later I heard another Sota and concluded that it probably was as good as the Linn. I couldn't say which was really better, not being able to enjoy them side by side, but it didn't matter. They were both far better,sounding, orders of magnitude better, than any of the Pioneer, Technics, Yamaha, Sony and other mid-shelf stuff I was used to. Some of us brought our Pioneers and Technics into the Linn store to compare and it was no contest. The Linn with the Basik cartridge sounded far more real and engaging than anything we could come up with.
Have I heard every turntable? No. Do I think there are other turntables that are as good as the Sota and the Linn? Yes, but I haven't heard them all and compared them directly.. What I do know is these two turntables were the ones that presented music in such a way that it forever changed my perspective on what was possible in audio playback. The capabilities of these two should not be underestimated.
Have I heard every turntable? No. Do I think there are other turntables that are as good as the Sota and the Linn? Yes, but I haven't heard them all and compared them directly.. What I do know is these two turntables were the ones that presented music in such a way that it forever changed my perspective on what was possible in audio playback. The capabilities of these two should not be underestimated.
I am astonished that an "entry-level" Linn costs $4320.
Available used for much less, though.
Old Guy8
Cliff & Cleo
Having worked 30 yrs. in manufacturing, cost of labor, pensions, overhead puts a burden on costs. Varies where manufactured. Possibly Linn can't manufacture for less, without moving manufacturing. Near mint used Linn Valhalla LP12's with Basik arms in around $1k range. Yes, expensive.
SOTA handed Linn their lunch and there is clear evidence of it over and over and over
SOTA Star Sapphire turntable Anthony H. Cordesman, May 1986
The competition at the top has been pretty stiff in recent years. The Entec Granite ($6000), Goldmund Studio ($2900), Goldmund Reference ($14,900), Micro Seiki SX-5000 II ($5000), Oracle Delphi Mk.II ($1250), and VPI HW-19 Mark II ($885) are all superb turntables. Any of them would grace any system to the point where even the most demanding audiophile (though not divinity) could live happily with the result for years.
Nevertheless, if I were going to invest in my last turntable, I would currently invest in the SOTA Star Sapphire with the acrylic Supermat ($1600), and the SOTA Electronic Flywheel ($300) or VPI Powerline Conditioner ($300).
The key to the SOTA's success seems to be the combination of vacuum clamping with the kind of hard plastic surface/metal-filled turntable platter pioneered by Goldmund, and now used in different combinations by both SOTA and VPI. The result is superior to all the competition in its ability to couple the largest number of records to the platter in a manner that produces the best possible combination of detail, transparency, freedom from noise, and natural musicality. The damping of the record seems nearly perfect, without any loss of life and dynamics, or any noticeable addition of coloration—problems that emerge to a slight degree in the regular Star Sapphire, and to a significant degree in the regular SOTA Sapphire without its Supermat and an appropriate clamp.
Further, the SOTA Star Sapphire does a better job of keeping the record flat all over its surface. The VPI, Oracle, and Goldmund never permit you to set up as consistent a cartridge azimuth adjustment with as wide a range of records as does the SOTA Star Sapphire; clampless designs like the Linn and Pink Triangle don't even come close. With today's stylus designs and straightline tonearms, this superior geometry seems to result in notably more transparent sound.
As for overall sound character, the SOTA Star Sapphire and VPI HW-19 II both have excellent bass, equal to the best high-mass Japanese designs and to the most expensive Goldmunds. The VPI may be slightly better than the SOTA in terms of its resolution of deep bass, but the SOTA Star Sapphire experiences no loss of low bass, as do the Oracle Delphi and virtually all British suspension turntables.
Further, the various SOTA models remain freer of acoustic breakthrough problems under real-world installation conditions than any other turntables I know of—at any price. This is critical in many listening rooms, particularly where the turntable must be in the same room as full-range speakers. The VPI, Oracles, and Goldmunds are also quite good in terms of acoustic breakthrough, but never quite as good in difficult rooms. Most British turntables—including the Linn and Pink Triangle—simply don't come close.
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/...hony-h-cordesman-may-1986#EZUBDVHCqlseFFRW.99
SOTA Star Sapphire turntable
Sound Quality
A Sumiko MDC-800 tonearm and Talisman S cartridge were used for evaluating the Star. The rest of the system included the Dayton Wright MG-l0 Mk.2 speakers, the BEL 2002 amplifier, and the Dayton Wright head-amp and preamp. For this review the Star was compared with the standard SOTA turntable. Since the standard SOTA has not been reviewed in Stereophile, a few words are in order. I acquired one in the fall of 1982. The superiority of the SOTA over the Linn and Thorens 'tables I had previously used was apparent after only a short listening session. The SOTA had a cleaner, more detailed midrange, tighter and more extended bass, and far less harshness or glassiness in the high frequencies. Most important, the SOTA had significantly less coloration than the other 'tables. Particularly noticeable was the absence of the upper bass/lower midrange hump which plagues the Linn. The only immediately apparent anomaly was a mild hardness in the upper midrange which occasionally made the music sound overexcited. This problem was eliminated by a change to the new SOTA mat which was introduced last summer.
The SOTA was also a more convenient and practical turntable. Lack of isolation from vibration was a constant problem with the Thorens and an occasional problem with the Linn. Placement is critical with both 'tables; sound quality could vary significantly depending upon location and sturdiness of support. The SOTA was virtually unaffected by placement. It could be located anywhere in the listening room and on any piece of furniture strong enough to support its 50 lb weight. The additional advantages of automatic speed selection and adjustable pitch soon became appreciated conveniences. Even better, the SOTA required no further adjustment once it was set up.
Overall Quality
We come now to the final evaluation: Is the Star worth its extra cost? On the basis of sound quality alone, I have no doubt that the Star is well worth its asking price when used in a state-of-the-art system. The improvements over the sound of the standard SOTA are subtle, but they become more and more obvious with extended listening. It is clearly better-sounding than any of the British 'tables I have heard. The Star is a reference-quality turntable; I consider it state-of-the-art, In view of the cost of other premium turntables, the Star's price certainly seems reasonable and must be considered as offering excellent value for the money
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/turntables/284sotastar/index.html#K3fsFQah46gpbjX0.99
Sorry Linn owners, just enjoy your fine deck and leave your fallacies as best ever to your self. I don't go running around thinking or saying a SOTA Star is the best....because it isn't it's just another fine table.
SOTA Star Sapphire turntable Anthony H. Cordesman, May 1986
The competition at the top has been pretty stiff in recent years. The Entec Granite ($6000), Goldmund Studio ($2900), Goldmund Reference ($14,900), Micro Seiki SX-5000 II ($5000), Oracle Delphi Mk.II ($1250), and VPI HW-19 Mark II ($885) are all superb turntables. Any of them would grace any system to the point where even the most demanding audiophile (though not divinity) could live happily with the result for years.
Nevertheless, if I were going to invest in my last turntable, I would currently invest in the SOTA Star Sapphire with the acrylic Supermat ($1600), and the SOTA Electronic Flywheel ($300) or VPI Powerline Conditioner ($300).
The key to the SOTA's success seems to be the combination of vacuum clamping with the kind of hard plastic surface/metal-filled turntable platter pioneered by Goldmund, and now used in different combinations by both SOTA and VPI. The result is superior to all the competition in its ability to couple the largest number of records to the platter in a manner that produces the best possible combination of detail, transparency, freedom from noise, and natural musicality. The damping of the record seems nearly perfect, without any loss of life and dynamics, or any noticeable addition of coloration—problems that emerge to a slight degree in the regular Star Sapphire, and to a significant degree in the regular SOTA Sapphire without its Supermat and an appropriate clamp.
Further, the SOTA Star Sapphire does a better job of keeping the record flat all over its surface. The VPI, Oracle, and Goldmund never permit you to set up as consistent a cartridge azimuth adjustment with as wide a range of records as does the SOTA Star Sapphire; clampless designs like the Linn and Pink Triangle don't even come close. With today's stylus designs and straightline tonearms, this superior geometry seems to result in notably more transparent sound.
As for overall sound character, the SOTA Star Sapphire and VPI HW-19 II both have excellent bass, equal to the best high-mass Japanese designs and to the most expensive Goldmunds. The VPI may be slightly better than the SOTA in terms of its resolution of deep bass, but the SOTA Star Sapphire experiences no loss of low bass, as do the Oracle Delphi and virtually all British suspension turntables.
Further, the various SOTA models remain freer of acoustic breakthrough problems under real-world installation conditions than any other turntables I know of—at any price. This is critical in many listening rooms, particularly where the turntable must be in the same room as full-range speakers. The VPI, Oracles, and Goldmunds are also quite good in terms of acoustic breakthrough, but never quite as good in difficult rooms. Most British turntables—including the Linn and Pink Triangle—simply don't come close.
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/...hony-h-cordesman-may-1986#EZUBDVHCqlseFFRW.99
SOTA Star Sapphire turntable
Sound Quality
A Sumiko MDC-800 tonearm and Talisman S cartridge were used for evaluating the Star. The rest of the system included the Dayton Wright MG-l0 Mk.2 speakers, the BEL 2002 amplifier, and the Dayton Wright head-amp and preamp. For this review the Star was compared with the standard SOTA turntable. Since the standard SOTA has not been reviewed in Stereophile, a few words are in order. I acquired one in the fall of 1982. The superiority of the SOTA over the Linn and Thorens 'tables I had previously used was apparent after only a short listening session. The SOTA had a cleaner, more detailed midrange, tighter and more extended bass, and far less harshness or glassiness in the high frequencies. Most important, the SOTA had significantly less coloration than the other 'tables. Particularly noticeable was the absence of the upper bass/lower midrange hump which plagues the Linn. The only immediately apparent anomaly was a mild hardness in the upper midrange which occasionally made the music sound overexcited. This problem was eliminated by a change to the new SOTA mat which was introduced last summer.
The SOTA was also a more convenient and practical turntable. Lack of isolation from vibration was a constant problem with the Thorens and an occasional problem with the Linn. Placement is critical with both 'tables; sound quality could vary significantly depending upon location and sturdiness of support. The SOTA was virtually unaffected by placement. It could be located anywhere in the listening room and on any piece of furniture strong enough to support its 50 lb weight. The additional advantages of automatic speed selection and adjustable pitch soon became appreciated conveniences. Even better, the SOTA required no further adjustment once it was set up.
Overall Quality
We come now to the final evaluation: Is the Star worth its extra cost? On the basis of sound quality alone, I have no doubt that the Star is well worth its asking price when used in a state-of-the-art system. The improvements over the sound of the standard SOTA are subtle, but they become more and more obvious with extended listening. It is clearly better-sounding than any of the British 'tables I have heard. The Star is a reference-quality turntable; I consider it state-of-the-art, In view of the cost of other premium turntables, the Star's price certainly seems reasonable and must be considered as offering excellent value for the money
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/turntables/284sotastar/index.html#K3fsFQah46gpbjX0.99
Sorry Linn owners, just enjoy your fine deck and leave your fallacies as best ever to your self. I don't go running around thinking or saying a SOTA Star is the best....because it isn't it's just another fine table.
Last edited:
.
ateal
Super Member
Wow. Why does every thread end up in a pissing contest of my gear sounds better than yours or my opinion is superior to yours. Most of the people commenting negatively on certain turntables have no idea what they even sound like (prime example being this thread + the thread about the Yamaha GT750 which no one has ever heard apart from me and a couple of others), I am seriously thinking of quitting this web site due to this constant BS and snobbery.
I have just spent a fantastic day at the high end audio show Newport Beach, which is actually not in Newport Beach but in my home town of Irvine California, and what this show taught me was that anything can sound great with the right amplification, cables, speakers and room treatment. There were turntables from Linn, Rega, Clearaudio, VPI, Denon, Technics, brinkmann, Lenco, acoustic signature, luxman + so many exotic ones I have never heard of before. Not one of the turntables sounded better than the other, despite a myriad of cartridges used. Reason for this is because they all had different downstream components, room sizes, room treatments, records and quality of records.
I don't care how super fantastic or expensive your turntable is or what exotic cartridge you have fitted on it. If you don't have great "complimentary" amplification, great "complimentary" speakers and decent listening room conditions, it will not be performing as good as a much more modest turntable with those complimentary down stream components. One example is a fellow AK'r who has a Hanpin AT something or other that I once went over to listen to. He had it fitted with a Denon 103r in an aluminum pulse body, going though very expensive Naim amplification and some wonderful Spendor speakers in a very nice listening space. The sound was breathtaking and easily as enjoyable as what I have heard today.
Sorry to rant but I have spent the day listening to equipment from the ridiculously expensive to the more modest and I can categoricaly state that more money or technology does not equate to better quality. Mainly due to all the variables I have mentioned, but also due to personal tastes.
I have just spent a fantastic day at the high end audio show Newport Beach, which is actually not in Newport Beach but in my home town of Irvine California, and what this show taught me was that anything can sound great with the right amplification, cables, speakers and room treatment. There were turntables from Linn, Rega, Clearaudio, VPI, Denon, Technics, brinkmann, Lenco, acoustic signature, luxman + so many exotic ones I have never heard of before. Not one of the turntables sounded better than the other, despite a myriad of cartridges used. Reason for this is because they all had different downstream components, room sizes, room treatments, records and quality of records.
I don't care how super fantastic or expensive your turntable is or what exotic cartridge you have fitted on it. If you don't have great "complimentary" amplification, great "complimentary" speakers and decent listening room conditions, it will not be performing as good as a much more modest turntable with those complimentary down stream components. One example is a fellow AK'r who has a Hanpin AT something or other that I once went over to listen to. He had it fitted with a Denon 103r in an aluminum pulse body, going though very expensive Naim amplification and some wonderful Spendor speakers in a very nice listening space. The sound was breathtaking and easily as enjoyable as what I have heard today.
Sorry to rant but I have spent the day listening to equipment from the ridiculously expensive to the more modest and I can categoricaly state that more money or technology does not equate to better quality. Mainly due to all the variables I have mentioned, but also due to personal tastes.
Last edited:
