Thorens TD-170 vs. TD-190 for 78rpm and some 33 rpm and even 45 rpm use

[Nimrod]

It's not easy to find a 78 rpm compatible stereo these days. The only
two models I have found are the Thorens TD-170 and TD-190 turntables.
Their website is completely uninformative and there are no
ePinions.com reviews that are any help either.

Is there any compelling reasong to choose one over the other?

I'm not sure if this is a high end audio question exactly but I am
looking to get a turntable for my stereo. It's not a high-end system
that I have but it has Bose speakers and a Kenwood amplifier from back
in the days when phono inputs were still included on the amps.

I'm looking to listen to and dub some 78 records I inherited from my
dad onto mini-disc and also to listen to and collect a few LPs and 45s
that aren't available on CD.

Any advice or wisdom from experience is welcome.

Thanks,
Bob Johnston

[Stephen McElroy]

In article >,
(Nimrod) wrote:

> It's not easy to find a 78 rpm compatible stereo these days. The only
> two models I have found are the Thorens TD-170 and TD-190 turntables.
> Their website is completely uninformative and there are no
> ePinions.com reviews that are any help either.
>
> Is there any compelling reasong to choose one over the other?
>
> I'm not sure if this is a high end audio question exactly but I am
> looking to get a turntable for my stereo. It's not a high-end system
> that I have but it has Bose speakers and a Kenwood amplifier from back
> in the days when phono inputs were still included on the amps.
>
> I'm looking to listen to and dub some 78 records I inherited from my
> dad onto mini-disc and also to listen to and collect a few LPs and 45s
> that aren't available on CD.
>
> Any advice or wisdom from experience is welcome.

http://www.rega.co.uk/html/planar78.htm

[Joseph Oberlander]

Nimrod wrote:
> It's not easy to find a 78 rpm compatible stereo these days. The only
> two models I have found are the Thorens TD-170 and TD-190 turntables.
> Their website is completely uninformative and there are no
> ePinions.com reviews that are any help either.
>
> Is there any compelling reasong to choose one over the other?
>
> I'm not sure if this is a high end audio question exactly but I am
> looking to get a turntable for my stereo. It's not a high-end system
> that I have but it has Bose speakers and a Kenwood amplifier from back
> in the days when phono inputs were still included on the amps.

For a system like that, I'd get a nice condition used Thorens or Dual
turntable that has a 78RPM mode. Get a 78rpm specific cartridge
for it and use it for only 78s.

The other records - get a nicer, more modern turntable.

[Fill X]

Bob, as a side note, you may well already know this but 78rpm records have many
different eq curves and run and many different speeds depending on where and
when they were made. Just thought I'd mention this if you are planning on doing
transfers.

P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Nimrod]

I had heard that but I don't know much about it yet. I suppose the
hobby could get a little involved after a while.

One complaint I heard about the Thorens while doing a google search
was that while playing some 78s the tone arm picks up prematurely. I
guess the physical width of the tracking area vaires too.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:06:27 GMT, (Fill X) wrote:

>Bob, as a side note, you may well already know this but 78rpm records have many
>different eq curves and run and many different speeds depending on where and
>when they were made. Just thought I'd mention this if you are planning on doing
>transfers.
>
>P h i l i p
>
>______________________________
>
>"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"
>
> - Dorothy Parker

[Bart Tijmensen]

It depends on the age of these old records. If they're all from I believe
1930 or later, playing them at 78 rpm would do fine. Although I believe the
were actually recorded at 78,25 rpm.

If you have older material, from the era of acoustic recording, these
differences become bigger. On acoustic recordings the speed can vary from 72
to 80 rpm.

And of course there's the difference between vertically and laterally cut
recordings. What the exact difference is, I don't know. Also some records
have to be played from the center to the edge (like a cd), instead of the
usual from edge to center.

More info about this subject can be found on www.esotericsound.com. They
also carry a line of record players modified for playing historical
recordings.

Bart

"Fill X" > schreef in bericht
. net...
> Bob, as a side note, you may well already know this but 78rpm records have
many
> different eq curves and run and many different speeds depending on where
and
> when they were made. Just thought I'd mention this if you are planning on
doing
> transfers.
>
> P h i l i p
>
> ______________________________
>
> "I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"
>
> - Dorothy Parker
>

[Fill X]

>It depends on the age of these old records. If they're all from I believe
>1930 or later, playing them at 78 rpm would do fine. Although I believe the
>were actually recorded at 78,25 rpm.
>

78.49 was a common one too. I think we were into the 50's before all labels
came to settle on the same standard even if many did though. There are at least
40 known eq curves.

>If you have older material, from the era of acoustic recording, these
>differences become bigger. On acoustic recordings the speed can vary from 72
>to 80 rpm.
>

right, victors were really fast, about 80 if i recall.

>More info about this subject can be found on www.esotericsound.com. They
>also carry a line of record players modified for playing historical
>recordings.
yes, it's a good place to purchase a cheap eq box for most of the curves you
run into. It's not as good as the poper preamp, but a re-eq box is a hell of a
lot better than playing these records with the wrong curve. It's no wonder so
many people think 78's all sound horrible.

P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker