Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Peter Larsen Peter Larsen is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 498
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default turntable nightmare

Nice rant. Now -

What turntable?
What cartridge?
What amplifier?
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mike Coatham Mike Coatham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Ron Ron is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mark D. Zacharias Mark D. Zacharias is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Ron Ron is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Ron Ron is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Ron Ron is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Ron Ron is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Karl Uppiano Karl Uppiano is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Direct Drive Turntable Myths Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 42 December 7th 05 05:26 PM
TURNTABLE anyone? Ken Drescher Marketplace 0 August 16th 04 04:17 AM
Need a working TURNTABLE? Ken Drescher Marketplace 0 June 17th 04 01:58 PM
*** ANNUAL TURNTABLE EVENT *** Ken Drescher Marketplace 3 December 22nd 03 02:33 AM
>>>>> TURNTABLE BONAZA <<<<< Ken Drescher Marketplace 11 September 20th 03 12:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"