Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less
turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. Perhaps you just do not like the sound of the Ortofon. Did you try mounting your old pickup in the new turntable? |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:Vz5ch.45$4p2.14@trndny07... analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. Perhaps you just do not like the sound of the Ortofon. Did you try mounting your old pickup in the new turntable? By old pickup I presume you mean the one that came with the 2ndhand turntable as the new cheapie I have cannot have the cartridge removed, anyhow the audiotechnica cartridge sounded just as bad as the ortofon, whatever is causing the problem is bigger than any differences in cartridge i think. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote in message ... "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:Vz5ch.45$4p2.14@trndny07... analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Not necessarily, but without knowing the specifics of the vintage turntable and your "new" one, it's hard to say. I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus Ok, so it sounded bad with the original pickup, and the Ortofon. I'm guessing your "new" turntable has either a ceramic cartridge, or it has a built-in preamp and a magnetic cartridge. If your main amplifier does not have a phono preamplifier with RIAA equalization, it will sound very tinny and weak when running with a magnetic cartridge. If that is the case, you will need to purchase an external preamp e.g., http://www.crutchfield.com/S-7mdjbGO...=121BT26# Tab. I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. A phono stylus has to be pretty grossly out of alignment to sound as badly as you describe. I think it would be visually obvious to you. I think you need an RIAA equalized phono preamp. Perhaps you just do not like the sound of the Ortofon. Did you try mounting your old pickup in the new turntable? By old pickup I presume you mean the one that came with the 2ndhand turntable as the new cheapie I have cannot have the cartridge removed, anyhow the audiotechnica cartridge sounded just as bad as the ortofon, whatever is causing the problem is bigger than any differences in cartridge i think. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:Yq8ch.138$ne3.1@trndny03... analogman wrote in message ... "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:Vz5ch.45$4p2.14@trndny07... analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Not necessarily, but without knowing the specifics of the vintage turntable and your "new" one, it's hard to say. I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus Ok, so it sounded bad with the original pickup, and the Ortofon. I'm guessing your "new" turntable has either a ceramic cartridge, or it has a built-in preamp and a magnetic cartridge. If your main amplifier does not have a phono preamplifier with RIAA equalization, it will sound very tinny and weak when running with a magnetic cartridge. If that is the case, you will need to purchase an external preamp e.g., http://www.crutchfield.com/S-7mdjbGO...=121BT26# Tab. My amp has a phono preamp and equalizer, it works fine with the "new" turntable when I disable the turntables builtin preamp so I doubt there is anything wrong there. I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. A phono stylus has to be pretty grossly out of alignment to sound as badly as you describe. I think it would be visually obvious to you. I think you need an RIAA equalized phono preamp. I don't know about the riaa bit but my amp does have and a phono equalizer, you have to push a button to turn it on, the amp is a top pioneer model from 1989. Perhaps you just do not like the sound of the Ortofon. Did you try mounting your old pickup in the new turntable? By old pickup I presume you mean the one that came with the 2ndhand turntable as the new cheapie I have cannot have the cartridge removed, anyhow the audiotechnica cartridge sounded just as bad as the ortofon, whatever is causing the problem is bigger than any differences in cartridge i think. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
This should be pretty straightforward, and I would expect the legacy
turntable to sound better, if it is better. The most noticeable quality difference would probably be less rumble. The fact that it sounds as lousy as you describe indicates to me a serious wiring error or internal fault. Some turntables had a muting switch that was activated by the cue lever and/or automatic shutoff (if any). If that isn't working... I'm really fishing here, and I'm running out of ideas. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote:
Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, Which is a ???? I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable I'd get a Rega, new or second hand, or a second hand jap direct drive with a "not too heavy" tone arm, but it is not fun when speed adjustment pots start to fail .... which turntable did you get, what tonearm is on it, what ortofon cartridge did you fit. 1 was this assumption wrong? You later that it does not sound very well, so yes, it could be wrong. ... now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. It is surprisingly difficult sometimes to get analog technology to work after a few years of being digitally dumbified .... however either something simple is wrong or the "new" turntable is somehow badly broken, badly as in major issues with the tone arm or wiring. Adjustment errors need to be excluded prior to saying that it is plain broken. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here First some fact on the actual equipment involved please, it makes no sense that it should about the basic sound of the cartridge, something must be seriously wrong. What can be wrong is tonarm and cartridge adjustment and wiring of cartrigde. Every once in a while a link to sites where an adjustment protractor can be downloaded is - or was occasionally posted in this newsgroup. Try searching google groups for that post. You ask a good and interesting question and provide no facts that allow an analysis of the setup and anybody that might have equipment specific knowhow to help you, it is kinda like saying: my car can not go faster than 35 miles pr. hour, what is wrong with it? The first question to ask in any troubleshooting is always: "did it ever work?", it is point one in any trouble analysis tree to ask that. With second hand equipment one should sometimes also ask (oneself): "just why was it for sale ....", something almost always comes up - it may not be critical, but things that are parted with are parted with for a reason. Did the turntable work at the sellers place? Peter Larsen |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Nice rant. Now -
What turntable? What cartridge? What amplifier? |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. It would be useful to know the make & model of the 'old' t/table as well as the new one. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Graham |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore
wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) Silly me. I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things. Graham |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) Silly me. I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things. Graham Not much has changed in record playing technology since the 1970s. It might be easier and more affordable to find a decent turntable of that vintage. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Karl Uppiano wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Laurence Payne wrote: Eeyore wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) Silly me. I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things. Graham Not much has changed in record playing technology since the 1970s. It might be easier and more affordable to find a decent turntable of that vintage. Crystal referenced motors are 2 a penny now. That's one thing that's changed. Graham |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Eeyore wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) Silly me. I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things. Graham Not ALL technology is leaps and bounds above others just because of the yr/decade it was built. Cars are certainaly a good example of something that has come a long way when comparing decades, but I don't think the same can be said about a lot of audio gear. There are a lot of amps, tuners, speakers, etc from the 70's and 80's that are just as good, if not better in a lot of cases, then the junk that is being mass produced today. For example, I have a Marantz 1090 integrated amp (from the 70's) that is only 45 WPC that will blow away any of the junk that you can buy these days with twice the "watts". Hell, it will almost keep up with the amp I'm using on my main system, a B&K power amp that is 105 WPC. Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic principal is the same. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. The first things that come to my mind a 1) Vertical tracking angle way too high.(which causes anemic lows and midrange, and spitty, overemphasized highs). This is especially possible if the new cartridge has a narrow radius elliptical stylus or (especially) a line contact stylus. 2) Phono cartridge loading way off (perhaps you are using a MC input for a MM cartridge?) Or the capacitance of the older arm/phono preamp is way too low for the cartridge (causing it to "peak" and oscillate?) 3) Low output moving coil into standard 47k mm input (but I don't think the Ortofons have a MC so this is unlikely). If any of the terms used above are unfamiliar to you, I suggest you search out and find a book on high-end audio that covers turntable set up, or buy Michael Fremers new DVD-V on turntable setup, or do enough Google-seraching to find good online references to same. Good luck. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) Cheap modern gear is BAD. Quality high-end modern gear (even at a couple of hundred dollars such as the Rega P2) is GOOD. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote in message ... I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, So true. now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Correction, the cover art may not be as good, but every thing else is better. MrT. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Some people would say a 70's Mercedes/(pick other quality make of your choice) was better than a 2006 Hyundai/Daiwoo/(pick budget crappy of your choice) etc. It all depends on the specifics and the condition. But if you buy a 30 YO Mercedes Benz, you might not be able to make it drive like new if you are not a mechanic, or not prepared to spend big bucks. It seems the OP has a similar problem. MrT. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Ron" wrote in message oups.com... Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic principal is the same. Bad example, they have lost 2 shuttles and 14 Astronauts after all, so not exactly the pinnacle of engineering perfection :-( MrT. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message u... "Ron" wrote in message oups.com... Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic principal is the same. Bad example, they have lost 2 shuttles and 14 Astronauts after all, so not exactly the pinnacle of engineering perfection :-( MrT. I'm not so sure it's a problem with engineering. I think it's a problem with management. As Richard Feynman pointed out, the Challenger flew when the weather was too cold for the o-rings, despite strenuous engineering advice to the contrary. Space flight is a risky business. Columbia burned up on re-entry in part because flight management at NASA became complacent about "foam shedding" from the main hydrogen tank. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message newsNvch.379$R_1.234@trndny08... I'm not so sure it's a problem with engineering. I think it's a problem with management. As Richard Feynman pointed out, the Challenger flew when the weather was too cold for the o-rings, despite strenuous engineering advice to the contrary. Space flight is a risky business. Columbia burned up on re-entry in part because flight management at NASA became complacent about "foam shedding" from the main hydrogen tank. Seems to me the poor O-ring sealing, foam shedding, and fragile heat tiles are all engineering problems. (partly caused by lack of money maybe, but everything is built to a budget). You can only be complacent about a problem where one already exists. MrT. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:43:45 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote: Not much has changed in record playing technology since the 1970s. It might be easier and more affordable to find a decent turntable of that vintage. Yeah. I suspect there's a factor here which hasn't surfaced yet. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Ron" wrote in message
oups.com For example, I have a Marantz 1090 integrated amp (from the 70's) that is only 45 WPC that will blow away any of the junk that you can buy these days with twice the "watts". What does "blow away" mean? If we checked out your 1090 on the bench, would it meet original spec or say have many of the electrolytic caps lost their value and are they now acting as high pass filters acting at say 100 Hz? Hell, it will almost keep up with the amp I'm using on my main system, a B&K power amp that is 105 WPC. Under ideal conditions there should be no audible difference between a good 45 wpc amp and a 105 wpc amp, given that both are kept out of clipping which is usually pretty managable. 105 watts is only 3 and a scosh dB more than 45 watts, and 3 dB is not all that much louder. So even if we ran the 105 watt amp just under clipping, it would not be that much louder than the smaller amp. Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic principal is the same. When you're talking complexity on the level of the Space Shuttle, there are major prices being paid in terms of increased maintenance, and loss of function, when you compare 60s technology and Y2K technology. It is your tax dollars at work! Trouble is, the up front costs for a major update is more than anybody wants to step up to. On a more practical level, compare a 500 Hp street racer from the 60s (say, my friend's souped-up 428 1968 Cougar) to a 500 Hp street racer from today (say the new SVU Mustang 500). No comparison. The 428 is just barely drivable on the street, and a constand maintenace job, while the SVU Mustang drives mild when you want it to drive mild, and still nails the 60s Cougar on either the road course or the drag strip and runs optimally for 10,000s of miles without a tune-up. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) Silly me. I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things. Graham The OP's modern piece of plastic junk is not a good example of modern technology. It is not so much a turntable as a "record player". There are some good modern turntables, yes, but not at the 100.00 price point that the OP mentioned, not even close. Could be the OP's stylus just picked up a ball of fuzz playing the first one or 2 records...the issue of cleaning etc was not addressed, IIRC. Recommend a mid-70's to mid-80's direct drive and a Grado Prestige black cartridge. Best to have it installed and aligned by someone knowledgeable to help eliminate this variable. Obviously, the magnetic preamp, whether a small add-on, or from an integrated amp/receiver, should be in order, and of course the output to be recorded must go to the Line In of the sound card, and not the Mic input (common mistake - this info for the OP, not for the regulars here...) Mark Z. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Mr.T wrote: "Ron" wrote in message oups.com... Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic principal is the same. Bad example, they have lost 2 shuttles and 14 Astronauts after all, so not exactly the pinnacle of engineering perfection :-( MrT. The example is something that is being used in the yr 2006, but is still using technology from the 60's. In other words, space travel hasn't evolved as quickly as the automobile has in the same time period. I guess what I wrote wasn't clear in that fact. BTW, no need to remind me about what has happened with those 2 shuttles, I live in Fl close enough to the Cape the see them lift-off. Speaking of which, there is one taking off this wk. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Arny Krueger wrote: "Ron" wrote in message oups.com For example, I have a Marantz 1090 integrated amp (from the 70's) that is only 45 WPC that will blow away any of the junk that you can buy these days with twice the "watts". What does "blow away" mean? It means if you go to Best Buy or Circuit City and buy a 45 WPC (or higher) amp or receiver it will in no way sound as good as my Marantz. Especially in the bass department. I'll ever go as far to say that a modern Adcom 45 WPC amp will not outperform my Marantz. Probably just as good, but not better. If we checked out your 1090 on the bench, would it meet original spec or say have many of the electrolytic caps lost their value and are they now acting as high pass filters acting at say 100 Hz? Hell if I know. I do know that it sounds great, so why are you bringing up bench tests? It is 30 yrs old after all. I have about 8 amps and receivers that I collected over the yrs and the Marantz is by far the better amp sound wise, except for my B&K. Lets pretend that the Marantz is brand new, from 1977 (or when ever it was made) and we are comparing it to the "junk" that is being mass produced these days, it will "blow them away". OK? Hell, it will almost keep up with the amp I'm using on my main system, a B&K power amp that is 105 WPC. Under ideal conditions there should be no audible difference between a good 45 wpc amp and a 105 wpc amp, given that both are kept out of clipping which is usually pretty managable. 105 watts is only 3 and a scosh dB more than 45 watts, and 3 dB is not all that much louder. So even if we ran the 105 watt amp just under clipping, it would not be that much louder than the smaller amp. I meant that it can be driven harder w/o clipping than lets say a 75 WPC Yamaha receiver that I own that is about 10 yrs old. It can be driven harder w/o clipping compared to a Kenwood integrated amp that I own that was built in the late 80's that is 55 WPC. It can be driven harder w/o clipping than the Yamaha receiver that I own that is 85 WPC and about 8 yrs old, Etc. The 75 WPC Yam won't even run my low impedance speakers for long w/o shutting off, were the Marantz has no problem at all. And the bass is much stronger on the Marantz when running all 4 flat. So in turn, yes, the Marantz is louder than the 3 examples that I just gave you. I'm sure dynamic headroom as something to do with it. What ever the other factors are that make it out perform the 3 that I just mentioned, well, I have no idea because I don't build them, I just listen to them. So basically you are saying that ALL amps sound the same? They why buy Krell when you can get the same performance from a Pioneer or Onkyo? And why buy amps with more power if it makes no difference? I've heard this argument before, and I disagree. So do most reviewers that test amps under "ideal" conditions blindfolded. Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic principal is the same. When you're talking complexity on the level of the Space Shuttle, there are major prices being paid in terms of increased maintenance, and loss of function, when you compare 60s technology and Y2K technology. It is your tax dollars at work! Trouble is, the up front costs for a major update is more than anybody wants to step up to. Apparently, that didn't come across the way I meant it to. Space travel has not evolved as quickly as the auto has in the same time period. Meaning, that it might as well have been built in the 60's, because the only real technology that has evolved in space travel since the 60's is the computers that they use to fly the thing. On a more practical level, compare a 500 Hp street racer from the 60s (say, my friend's souped-up 428 1968 Cougar) to a 500 Hp street racer from today (say the new SVU Mustang 500). No comparison. The 428 is just barely drivable on the street, and a constand maintenace job, while the SVU Mustang drives mild when you want it to drive mild, and still nails the 60s Cougar on either the road course or the drag strip and runs optimally for 10,000s of miles without a tune-up. I agree. That is why I used autos in my original post (that you snipped) as a piece of technology that has greatly improved over the yrs. Not all audio gear as made those kind of leaps in the same time period when we are talking strictly about 2 channel/stereo performance. The best car radio/stereo/cassette that I ever owned was the original Pioneer Supertuner back in the early 80's (underdash with the round dial). I haven't had a radio in any car since that would pull in weak signals like that thing would. And that includes a Pioneer Supertuner III that I bought some yrs later, a couple of Yamahas, a couple of Alpines, a couple of Sonys, a JVC, etc. I can't remember them all, I've had a LOT of different car stereos over the yrs but NONE of them had a tuner like that Pioneer. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message u... "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message newsNvch.379$R_1.234@trndny08... I'm not so sure it's a problem with engineering. I think it's a problem with management. As Richard Feynman pointed out, the Challenger flew when the weather was too cold for the o-rings, despite strenuous engineering advice to the contrary. Space flight is a risky business. Columbia burned up on re-entry in part because flight management at NASA became complacent about "foam shedding" from the main hydrogen tank. Seems to me the poor O-ring sealing, foam shedding, and fragile heat tiles are all engineering problems. (partly caused by lack of money maybe, but everything is built to a budget). You can only be complacent about a problem where one already exists. True, but engineers are paid to provide solutions and give advice. Most of the time, we are given conflicting requirements, including cost and schedule. It is all a trade-off. We have to find the best solution within the given constraints. Space flight has a vary narrow solution space within very tight constraints. In the case of the o-rings, the engineers' advice was "don't fly". Flight management ignored that advice with predictable results. I'd say that was good engineering and poor management. In the case of the heat shield tiles, there simply aren't many solutions that fulfill the requirements to be heat resistant, lightweight, and rugged. As long as nothing hits them on take-off, they work just fine. So the only big problem is falling ice and foam. When the engineers say "we need to solve that" or "we're running too close to the wire" and management says fly anyway, that's a management problem. Risk management. Do we have the best engineered spacecraft possible? Probably not. Is it poorly engineered? I don't think so. We could probably do better today, based on what we've learned from version one. It truly is rocket science, after all. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
[snipped all]
I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to do with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more. Back in the 70s, there were several popular stereo audio magazines, a stereo shop in every mall, and there was a high demand for quality two-channel gear. Now, the magazines are gone, and the stores are closed. For the same $$, mfrs. now have to provide six or seven audio channels to six or seven speakers using a bunch of DSP logic. The quality is spread a lot thinner. Most people today really only care that the sound will play loud, with big assplosions, and go round and round their head. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Karl Uppiano wrote: snip I know we are getting WAY OT here, and I don't what to do that to the OP's post so, I just wanna ask you one question, and I will read you response and let this thread get back to normal. In the case of the o-rings, the engineers' advice was "don't fly". Flight management ignored that advice with predictable results. I'd say that was good engineering and poor management. Are you familiar with the "cover-up" between NASA and Morton Thiokol's big-wigs? What a shame that the "peons" advice wasn't taken and the whole thing could have been avoided!!! Also, according to NASA, everyone on the Challenger was killed the minute that it blew up, but I've seen footage (and damn it I can't remember where) that clearly showed the crew cabin flying through the sky and landing in the ocean. I know it's a streatch, but there "might" have been crew members still alive in the CC and could have been rescued. But NASA NEVER admitted to that happening. Very sad when ppl have to "cover-up" things just to cover their own asses. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Karl Uppiano wrote: [snipped all] I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to do with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more. Back in the 70s, there were several popular stereo audio magazines, a stereo shop in every mall, and there was a high demand for quality two-channel gear. And ppl seemed to care what it sounded like ! Graham |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
Karl Uppiano wrote: [snipped all] I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to do with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more. Back in the 70s, there were several popular stereo audio magazines, a stereo shop in every mall, and there was a high demand for quality two-channel gear. Now, the magazines are gone, and the stores are closed. For the same $$, mfrs. now have to provide six or seven audio channels to six or seven speakers using a bunch of DSP logic. The quality is spread a lot thinner. Most people today really only care that the sound will play loud, with big assplosions, and go round and round their head. Well put! Like I said, my Marantz 1090 is a very fine amp, and matched up with my "old" Klipsch Heresys from 1980, it sounds awesome. Back then they built things to sound good with vinyl, add a CD player to this old gear and it puts out sound that was never thought possible in the 70's and early 80's. BTW, I miss my Stereo Review and Audio magazines that I was subscribed to for YRS. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Ron" wrote in message ups.com... Karl Uppiano wrote: [snipped all] I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to do with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more. Back in the 70s, there were several popular stereo audio magazines, a stereo shop in every mall, and there was a high demand for quality two-channel gear. Now, the magazines are gone, and the stores are closed. For the same $$, mfrs. now have to provide six or seven audio channels to six or seven speakers using a bunch of DSP logic. The quality is spread a lot thinner. Most people today really only care that the sound will play loud, with big assplosions, and go round and round their head. Well put! Like I said, my Marantz 1090 is a very fine amp, and matched up with my "old" Klipsch Heresys from 1980, it sounds awesome. Back then they built things to sound good with vinyl, add a CD player to this old gear and it puts out sound that was never thought possible in the 70's and early 80's. BTW, I miss my Stereo Review and Audio magazines that I was subscribed to for YRS. I miss Audio. In one issue (April I think), they reviewed Edison's prototype hand-crank phonograph, complete with frequency response charts and square wave response. The one spec that really cracked me up: Wow & Flutter: Improves with practice |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Ron" wrote in message ups.com... Karl Uppiano wrote: snip I know we are getting WAY OT here, and I don't what to do that to the OP's post so, I just wanna ask you one question, and I will read you response and let this thread get back to normal. In the case of the o-rings, the engineers' advice was "don't fly". Flight management ignored that advice with predictable results. I'd say that was good engineering and poor management. Are you familiar with the "cover-up" between NASA and Morton Thiokol's big-wigs? What a shame that the "peons" advice wasn't taken and the whole thing could have been avoided!!! Also, according to NASA, everyone on the Challenger was killed the minute that it blew up, but I've seen footage (and damn it I can't remember where) that clearly showed the crew cabin flying through the sky and landing in the ocean. I know it's a streatch, but there "might" have been crew members still alive in the CC and could have been rescued. But NASA NEVER admitted to that happening. Very sad when ppl have to "cover-up" things just to cover their own asses. I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I did run across this article (warning: not politically correct: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4448) while researching my remarks here. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message t... Eeyore wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? Of course it's wrong. Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ? Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do try to keep up :-) Silly me. I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things. Graham The OP's modern piece of plastic junk is not a good example of modern technology. It is not so much a turntable as a "record player". There are some good modern turntables, yes, but not at the 100.00 price point that the OP mentioned, not even close. Thanks, I knew someone would understand why I did not mention the exact models, a very cheap modern turntable and an also ran turntable from the 80's or maybe late 70's are hardly going to be widely recognised by model name, i would be very luck indeed if someone knew the exact models, that said I could have described the old turntable a little more, it is a direct drive quartz locked pll model and also I should have included a currency reference with the value of the new player which is actually more at the US $60 - $70 mark. Could be the OP's stylus just picked up a ball of fuzz playing the first one or 2 records...the issue of cleaning etc was not addressed, IIRC. No this is not the issue but thanks. Recommend a mid-70's to mid-80's direct drive and a Grado Prestige black cartridge. Best to have it installed and aligned by someone knowledgeable to help eliminate this variable. Obviously, the magnetic preamp, whether a small add-on, or from an integrated amp/receiver, should be in order, and of course the output to be recorded must go to the Line In of the sound card, and not the Mic input (common mistake - this info for the OP, not for the regulars here...) Mark Z. I had no intention of connecting this to a soundcard it is to use to play my records on my 1989 pioneer reference amp which has mm and mc phono inputs with equalization. I am pretty sure I have aligned it properly except for vta which I don't know how to do as my tonearm does not appear to be adjustable in this way although I could be wrong on this, were most tonearms adjustable for vta on run of the mill turntables? |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. The first things that come to my mind a 1) Vertical tracking angle way too high.(which causes anemic lows and midrange, and spitty, overemphasized highs). This is especially possible if the new cartridge has a narrow radius elliptical stylus or (especially) a line contact stylus. Thanks a lot, i reakon you are probably on the money with the vta, this is the one thing I have not been able to adjust, I am pretty confident I have done everything else right but I see no way to adjust vta, it does not look like my tonearm can be adjusted for this but I maybe wrong, I get the impression from my research that run of the mill tables from the 80's did not have any adjustment for vta but I could not find any definite indication of this. Does tracking angle too high mean the tonearm has to be lowered? This vta thing seems like a major stumbling block for non-experts, is it just a lottory for most whether the cartridge you choose gives you the correct vta. 2) Phono cartridge loading way off (perhaps you are using a MC input for a MM cartridge?) Or the capacitance of the older arm/phono preamp is way too low for the cartridge (causing it to "peak" and oscillate?) I am using the right input and amp settings but I have no idea what the capacitance of cartridge or amp is and can see no way of finding out. My amp is a pioneer a-717 by the way http://translate.google.com/translat...Fa%2D717%2Ehtm 3) Low output moving coil into standard 47k mm input (but I don't think the Ortofons have a MC so this is unlikely). This is the new cartridge i am using http://www.styli.co.nz/stylus-830.html If any of the terms used above are unfamiliar to you, I suggest you search out and find a book on high-end audio that covers turntable set up, or buy Michael Fremers new DVD-V on turntable setup, or do enough Google-seraching to find good online references to same. Good luck. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. The first things that come to my mind a 1) Vertical tracking angle way too high.(which causes anemic lows and midrange, and spitty, overemphasized highs). This is especially possible if the new cartridge has a narrow radius elliptical stylus or (especially) a line contact stylus. Thanks a lot, i reakon you are probably on the money with the vta, this is the one thing I have not been able to adjust, I am pretty confident I have done everything else right but I see no way to adjust vta, it does not look like my tonearm can be adjusted for this but I maybe wrong, I get the impression from my research that run of the mill tables from the 80's did not have any adjustment for vta but I could not find any definite indication of this. Does tracking angle too high mean the tonearm has to be lowered? This vta thing seems like a major stumbling block for non-experts, is it just a lottory for most whether the cartridge you choose gives you the correct vta. 2) Phono cartridge loading way off (perhaps you are using a MC input for a MM cartridge?) Or the capacitance of the older arm/phono preamp is way too low for the cartridge (causing it to "peak" and oscillate?) I am using the right input and amp settings but I have no idea what the capacitance of cartridge or amp is and can see no way of finding out. My amp is a pioneer a-717 by the way http://translate.google.com/translat...Fa%2D717%2Ehtm 3) Low output moving coil into standard 47k mm input (but I don't think the Ortofons have a MC so this is unlikely). This is the new cartridge i am using http://www.styli.co.nz/stylus-830.html If any of the terms used above are unfamiliar to you, I suggest you search out and find a book on high-end audio that covers turntable set up, or buy Michael Fremers new DVD-V on turntable setup, or do enough Google-seraching to find good online references to same. Good luck. The other thing is that the cartridge that came with this 2ndhand turntable was using to metal spacers on the headshell which i assume would be the same as lowering the tonearm so maybe the previous owner had the same issue and if so 2 spacers was not enough as the old cartridge sounded just as bad as the new hence why I bought a new cartridge so i could eliminate this as the cause. Here is a picture of my tonearm http://www.pbase.com/kiwianalog/image/71156353 |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
analogman wrote in message ... analogman wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... analogman wrote in message ... Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current turntable, was this assumption wrong? I ask because despite checking and setting up the tracking weight, cartridge alignment(using special protractor), checking that the arm looked level with record when playing, checking the wiring of the headshell and cartridge was correct, checking the phonostage of my amp was working properly which I could do with my new $100 cheapie as it had option for using with and without preamp and finally buying a brand new ortofon cartridge and stylus I could not improve the sound from it's original harsh and empty sound, it sounded terrible compared to my $100 cheapie, the sound like i said was very harsh rather than the nice warm turntable sound that I love, the frequency response did not seem right, I think the midband was lacking and the high frequencies were too high and harsh, the base was probably lacking a bit too but I think the mid to low band was what was giving the sound an empty feel. Anyhow after spending $180 on an upgrade and many hours and much effort I am ready to give up, I don't have the time to become an expert which is what it seems I would need to be to get this thing sorted, I presume the stylus is somehow not sitting correctly in the record but I have done all the adjustments that can be done on this player, if the arm needs to be raised or lowered then I am out of luck because I think that cannot be done with this turntable, I'm totally fed up with it all to be honest, this is not a game for parttimers, now i know why cd rules, the sound maynot be as good but everything else is better. Anyhow if anyone has any suggestions as to what the hell is going on here then I would like to hear, I have all but given up but if someone suggest something new I will give it a try, within reason. By the way changing tracking weight etc.. seems to have no great affect, whatever my problem is it is too big to notice changes in tracking weight. The first things that come to my mind a 1) Vertical tracking angle way too high.(which causes anemic lows and midrange, and spitty, overemphasized highs). This is especially possible if the new cartridge has a narrow radius elliptical stylus or (especially) a line contact stylus. Thanks a lot, i reakon you are probably on the money with the vta, this is the one thing I have not been able to adjust, I am pretty confident I have done everything else right but I see no way to adjust vta, it does not look like my tonearm can be adjusted for this but I maybe wrong, I get the impression from my research that run of the mill tables from the 80's did not have any adjustment for vta but I could not find any definite indication of this. Does tracking angle too high mean the tonearm has to be lowered? This vta thing seems like a major stumbling block for non-experts, is it just a lottory for most whether the cartridge you choose gives you the correct vta. 2) Phono cartridge loading way off (perhaps you are using a MC input for a MM cartridge?) Or the capacitance of the older arm/phono preamp is way too low for the cartridge (causing it to "peak" and oscillate?) I am using the right input and amp settings but I have no idea what the capacitance of cartridge or amp is and can see no way of finding out. My amp is a pioneer a-717 by the way http://translate.google.com/translat...Fa%2D717%2Ehtm 3) Low output moving coil into standard 47k mm input (but I don't think the Ortofons have a MC so this is unlikely). This is the new cartridge i am using http://www.styli.co.nz/stylus-830.html If any of the terms used above are unfamiliar to you, I suggest you search out and find a book on high-end audio that covers turntable set up, or buy Michael Fremers new DVD-V on turntable setup, or do enough Google-seraching to find good online references to same. Good luck. The other thing is that the cartridge that came with this 2ndhand turntable was using to metal spacers on the headshell which i assume would be the same as lowering the tonearm so maybe the previous owner had the same issue and if so 2 spacers was not enough as the old cartridge sounded just as bad as the new hence why I bought a new cartridge so i could eliminate this as the cause. Here is a picture of my tonearm http://www.pbase.com/kiwianalog/image/71156353 If the top of the stylus bracket is parallel with the plane of the record, the VTA is probably close enough. As I mentioned earlier, the stylus would have to be pretty grossly out of alignment to sound as bad as you describe. I believe it would be obvious by eyeballing it. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:36:42 +1300, analogman wrote:
Thanks, I knew someone would understand why I did not mention the exact models, a very cheap modern turntable and an also ran turntable from the 80's or maybe late 70's are hardly going to be widely recognised by model name, Try us. We asked nicely, after all. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
turntable nightmare
"Ron" wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Ron" wrote in message oups.com For example, I have a Marantz 1090 integrated amp (from the 70's) that is only 45 WPC that will blow away any of the junk that you can buy these days with twice the "watts". What does "blow away" mean? It means if you go to Best Buy or Circuit City and buy a 45 WPC (or higher) amp or receiver it will in no way sound as good as my Marantz. Especially in the bass department. I'll ever go as far to say that a modern Adcom 45 WPC amp will not outperform my Marantz. Probably just as good, but not better. Sounds like amp chauvenism to me. IOW I hear strong strains of "It is the best amp because its my amp and I say so!" If we checked out your 1090 on the bench, would it meet original spec or say have many of the electrolytic caps lost their value and are they now acting as high pass filters acting at say 100 Hz? Hell if I know. The chances that a circa-70s amp needs recapping is pretty good. I do know that it sounds great, so why are you bringing up bench tests? Well, you've made a number of far-reaching claims. Are you willing to stand behind them, or is this all about you bragging about some questionable POS that you happen to own? For example, its clear from the specs given on this site that the 1090 was no great shakes as an amplifier. http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/1090.html For example its output at 4 ohms is pretty much the same, This means that it probably had a power supply with relatively poor regulation. The 1090 looks like one of those amps that rolls pretty much over and dies when the speaker's impedance drops below 8 ohms. It is 30 yrs old after all. Strange that you'd put it in that light given all of your recent world-beating claims about it. I have about 8 amps and receivers that I collected over the yrs and the Marantz is by far the better amp sound wise, except for my B&K. Lets pretend that the Marantz is brand new, from 1977 (or when ever it was made) and we are comparing it to the "junk" that is being mass produced these days, it will "blow them away". OK? The comparison seems to lack any modern refinements. Hell, it will almost keep up with the amp I'm using on my main system, a B&K power amp that is 105 WPC. Under ideal conditions there should be no audible difference between a good 45 wpc amp and a 105 wpc amp, given that both are kept out of clipping which is usually pretty managable. 105 watts is only 3 and a scosh dB more than 45 watts, and 3 dB is not all that much louder. So even if we ran the 105 watt amp just under clipping, it would not be that much louder than the smaller amp. I meant that it can be driven harder w/o clipping than lets say a 75 WPC Yamaha receiver that I own that is about 10 yrs old. Based on what kind of impartial testing? It can be driven harder w/o clipping compared to a Kenwood integrated amp that I own that was built in the late 80's that is 55 WPC. Based on what kind of impartial testing? It can be driven harder w/o clipping than the Yamaha receiver that I own that is 85 WPC and about 8 yrs old, Etc. Based on what kind of impartial testing? The 75 WPC Yam won't even run my low impedance speakers for long w/o shutting off, were the Marantz has no problem at all. And the bass is much stronger on the Marantz when running all 4 flat. Based on what kind of impartial testing? So in turn, yes, the Marantz is louder than the 3 examples that I just gave you. I'm sure dynamic headroom as something to do with it. What ever the other factors are that make it out perform the 3 that I just mentioned, well, I have no idea because I don't build them, I just listen to them. Apparently, with your rose-colored glasses on, while sipping on a big glass of nostalgia. So basically you are saying that ALL amps sound the same? Not at all. I'm saying that there's a fair chance that this amp, which Marantz thought so highly of that they discontinued the next year (1978), may not be the world-beating masterpiece that you think it is. Especially true after running almost 30 years without service or checkout. They why buy Krell when you can get the same performance from a Pioneer or Onkyo? Says who? And why buy amps with more power if it makes no difference? The point you seemed to have overlooked is that to get an amp that really sounds louder, it needs a lot more power. I've heard this argument before, and I disagree. So do most reviewers that test amps under "ideal" conditions blindfolded. Disagree all you wish, but it takes more than bragging and posturing to make a convincing set of claims. Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic principal is the same. When you're talking complexity on the level of the Space Shuttle, there are major prices being paid in terms of increased maintenance, and loss of function, when you compare 60s technology and Y2K technology. It is your tax dollars at work! Trouble is, the up front costs for a major update is more than anybody wants to step up to. Apparently, that didn't come across the way I meant it to. Space travel has not evolved as quickly as the auto has in the same time period. Meaning, that it might as well have been built in the 60's, because the only real technology that has evolved in space travel since the 60's is the computers that they use to fly the thing. I don't know about that. Wanna play compare and contrast NASA's shuttle with latest-greatest space shuttle designs like this one: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero..._flight_2.html On a more practical level, compare a 500 Hp street racer from the 60s (say, my friend's souped-up 428 1968 Cougar) to a 500 Hp street racer from today (say the new SVU Mustang 500). No comparison. The 428 is just barely drivable on the street, and a constand maintenace job, while the SVU Mustang drives mild when you want it to drive mild, and still nails the 60s Cougar on either the road course or the drag strip and runs optimally for 10,000s of miles without a tune-up. I agree. That is why I used autos in my original post (that you snipped) as a piece of technology that has greatly improved over the yrs. Not all audio gear as made those kind of leaps in the same time period when we are talking strictly about 2 channel/stereo performance. Audio gear has made appreciable progress since 1979 - example: digital audio. If you look at the price/performance of power amps, that's changed a lot since 1979 as well. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
More Direct Drive Turntable Myths | Audio Opinions | |||
TURNTABLE anyone? | Marketplace | |||
Need a working TURNTABLE? | Marketplace | |||
*** ANNUAL TURNTABLE EVENT *** | Marketplace | |||
>>>>> TURNTABLE BONAZA <<<<< | Marketplace |