From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

OTOH I think many inovations over the years have improved the sound
from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early days
of LPs.

I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were introduced. To say
that the sound quality of playback equipment improved since then is a gross
understatement. IMO, the rate of improvement was fairly decent until the
early 70s.


What was SOTA in the early seventies? The AR table? What cartridge? What arm?
That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then the Goldmund
Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by the Versa Dynamics 2.0.
IMO a pretty noticable improvement. Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a
noticable improvement over the one before it. These tables all pretty much all
kill the old AR tables. Am I overlooking something from the early seventies
that competes with these more modern tables?


There was then a long dry spell in significant improvements of front-end
quality until CDs came out.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

OTOH I think many innovations over the years have improved the sound
from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early
days of LPs.

I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were
introduced. To say that the sound quality of playback equipment
improved since then is a gross understatement. IMO, the rate of
improvement was fairly decent until the early 70s.

What was SOTA in the early seventies?

There was no agreement. I still had the TD-125 I bought in the late 60s all
through the 70s and into the 80s. While there were new models, most if not
of its innovations and refinements had been picked up by others.

The AR table?

Not hardly. It was a child of the 60s, and by the 70s it was clearly
obsolete. I bought my first one around 1965. Its arm was falling behind
cartridge technology by 1969.

What cartridge?

Again, it depended who and what you believed. Shure was flogging the V-15
series quite successfully. I had several. The ADC XLM was impressing some
people. I had one. MC cartridges were becoming more popular.

What arm?

Again, who to believe, what to believe? I had a 3009II, but it was not the
latest-greatest any more.

That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then
the Goldmund Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by
the Versa Dynamics 2.0. IMO a pretty noticeable improvement.

In what sense?

Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a noticeable improvement over the
one before it.

In what sense?

These tables all pretty much all kill the old AR tables.

The AR turntable was always a value play, not a SOTA play. It was a rehash
of earlier technology. Weathers did a clock-motor lightweight turntable in
the late 50s. Empire had done a turntable with a soft damped suspension and
hidden separate platform for the table and arm (598) a few years earlier.
The AR arm was never all that good - it had friction problems.

The charm of the AR TT was its price, which initially started at just over
$50, which was also the street price of Garrard's second-most-expensive
changer. You could have a Garrard AT-6 or a AR TT for about the same money.
The Garrard rumbled, had a stiff, undamped suspension and tinny chassis, and
was actually a cheaper model with fancier arm, turntable overlay, and trim.

Dual was still finding their niche. The first changer they exported was a
sight to see. Quirky is an understatement. The cartridge retracted and the
tone arm rode over the turntable on little wheels looking for the edge of
the record. If it didn't find the edge of the record it presumed the record
was 12". It had only a 10" TT platter. Due to the mechanical complexity it
was not the most reliable thing.

The competitive Miracord changers looked great but rumbled, fluttered and
had questionable tone arms.

Empire sold a lot of massive turntables for far higher prices, but their
massive tonearms were not well-suited for high-compliance cartridges.

Phillips had a neat-looking turntable in the late 60s called the GA-312 that
was sort of a low-priced mass-produced clone of the TD-125. There was also
the Lenco turntable that looked cool, but had a high-friction arm.

People were still buying Rek-O-Kut turntables which hadn't changed much
since the 50s. Arms by ESL and B&O were seen around. Japanese arms were not
being imported in large volumes until the early 70s. ADC did not come out
with the Pritchard arm until then. I replaced my AR with a TD-125 in the
late 60s and I was very happy with the combination for over 10 years.

Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
with these more modern tables?

I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125. The
only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's
introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to
flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application.
The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control,
low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s.

As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate
miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items. The
big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after
frequency response curves showing that there were resonances in the best
earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated?

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/6/2004 4:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

OTOH I think many innovations over the years have improved the sound
from the table/arm/cartridge part of LP playback since the early
days of LPs.

I remember listening to LPs about 4 years after they were
introduced. To say that the sound quality of playback equipment
improved since then is a gross understatement. IMO, the rate of
improvement was fairly decent until the early 70s.

What was SOTA in the early seventies?

There was no agreement. I still had the TD-125 I bought in the late 60s all
through the 70s and into the 80s. While there were new models, most if not
of its innovations and refinements had been picked up by others.

The AR table?

Not hardly. It was a child of the 60s, and by the 70s it was clearly
obsolete. I bought my first one around 1965. Its arm was falling behind
cartridge technology by 1969.

What cartridge?

Again, it depended who and what you believed. Shure was flogging the V-15
series quite successfully. I had several. The ADC XLM was impressing some
people. I had one. MC cartridges were becoming more popular.

What arm?

Again, who to believe, what to believe? I had a 3009II, but it was not the
latest-greatest any more.

That is way before my time. I got into it around 83. Then
the Goldmund Reference was state of the art. That was superceded by
the Versa Dynamics 2.0. IMO a pretty noticeable improvement.

In what sense?


The major technical difference between the two table/arm systems was the use of
low tolarance high preasure bearings and a vacuum clamp in the Versa. They
already shared advancements in damped sprung suspensions tuned to a very low
frequency along with inovations use of materials to create plinths and platters
that were both very stiff and dead. The sonic difference between the two IME
was a noticable reduction in colorations that I thought were inherent in the
medium. Groove noise was reduced, Loud passages became uncongested and
efforless. The dynamics were better. So much of the typical vinyl colorations
were reduced to the point of apparent removal in comparison to the Goldmund or
any other table I had heard.



Then the Rockport then the Forsell. Each a noticeable improvement over the
one before it.

In what sense?

From the Versa to the Rockport the big technical differences were the
suspension,the Rockport settled on an active pneumatic suspension, and the
drive system, The Rockport pretty much rethought the whole idea of driving a
platter. The drive system in the Rockport is very sophisticated and very
inovative. The Rockport took the use of materials for the purpose of creating a
system that maximized stiffness and vibrational inertness to higher levels as
well. The audible improvement was one of further refinement of all the things
the Versa did well along with the elimination of the brightness that could be
heard with the Versa. That was the Versa's one distinguishable audible problem.

From the Rockport to the Forsell, I am at a loss to talk about technical
"improvements." On paper the Forsell looks inferior to me. But in a direct head
to head comparison the Forsell took the Rockport to the cleaners. The Forsell
had the same reduction of colorations associated with vinyl playback that the
Rockport had but it was richer, warmer, livelier and simply more realistic and
beautiful sounding than the Rockport. Why? I dunno. The one thing it did not do
as well as the Rockport was handle loud complex passages as effortlessly. I
found that a suspension system took care of this one problem quite effectively.



These tables all pretty much all kill the old AR tables.

The AR turntable was always a value play, not a SOTA play. It was a rehash
of earlier technology. Weathers did a clock-motor lightweight turntable in
the late 50s. Empire had done a turntable with a soft damped suspension and
hidden separate platform for the table and arm (598) a few years earlier.
The AR arm was never all that good - it had friction problems.

The charm of the AR TT was its price, which initially started at just over
$50, which was also the street price of Garrard's second-most-expensive
changer. You could have a Garrard AT-6 or a AR TT for about the same money.
The Garrard rumbled, had a stiff, undamped suspension and tinny chassis, and
was actually a cheaper model with fancier arm, turntable overlay, and trim.

Dual was still finding their niche. The first changer they exported was a
sight to see. Quirky is an understatement. The cartridge retracted and the
tone arm rode over the turntable on little wheels looking for the edge of
the record. If it didn't find the edge of the record it presumed the record
was 12". It had only a 10" TT platter. Due to the mechanical complexity it
was not the most reliable thing.

The competitive Miracord changers looked great but rumbled, fluttered and
had questionable tone arms.

Empire sold a lot of massive turntables for far higher prices, but their
massive tonearms were not well-suited for high-compliance cartridges.

Phillips had a neat-looking turntable in the late 60s called the GA-312 that
was sort of a low-priced mass-produced clone of the TD-125. There was also
the Lenco turntable that looked cool, but had a high-friction arm.

People were still buying Rek-O-Kut turntables which hadn't changed much
since the 50s. Arms by ESL and B&O were seen around. Japanese arms were not
being imported in large volumes until the early 70s. ADC did not come out
with the Pritchard arm until then. I replaced my AR with a TD-125 in the
late 60s and I was very happy with the combination for over 10 years.


Well. thank you for the history lesson. When I got into hifi I never really
paid much attention to the older equipment.


Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
with these more modern tables?

I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens TD-125.

That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a table I
would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for comparisons. I
think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.

The
only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the TD-125's
introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped records to try to
flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything like broad application.
The soft but well-damped suspension, belt drive, electronic speed control,
low rumble, low flutter and wow, were all there in the late 60s.


I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance. I think
suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonances is also a
substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter isolation is also
pretty big. But the proof is in the listening.


As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago. Appropriate
miniature low-friction bearings were and are off-the-shelf items.

Low friction compared to an air bearing?

The
big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published before-and-after
frequency response curves showing that there were resonances in the best
earlier designs that the big-tube design eliminated?








How about compared to the modern arms?

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
with these more modern tables?

I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens
TD-125.

That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a
table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for
comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.

The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the
same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and
away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching
and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison.

The
only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the
TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped
records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything
like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt
drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow,
were all there in the late 60s.

I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance.

They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they
introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as
it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up
the mass of tone arms.

I think
suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's
is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter
isolation is also pretty big.

But the proof is in the listening.

Agreed.

The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured
effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the
listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring
but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary
artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine
his heart away, without fear of false positives.

As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago.
Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are
off-the-shelf items.

Low friction compared to an air bearing?

Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus
pressure due to the mass, not just friction.

The
big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published
before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were
resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design
eliminated?

How about compared to the modern arms?

That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large
tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies
intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world?

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 2:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
with these more modern tables?

I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens
TD-125.

That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a
table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for
comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.

The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the
same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and
away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching
and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison.

The Forsell allows for very precise speed adjustments. I cannot speak for any
of the Thorens tables. Level matching is a bit tricky. I suppose recording some
test tones would be the best way.



The
only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the
TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped
records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything
like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt
drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow,
were all there in the late 60s.

I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance.

They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they
introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as
it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up
the mass of tone arms.

Agreed. Air bearing tone arms are not simple to design well.



I think
suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's
is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter
isolation is also pretty big.

But the proof is in the listening.

Agreed.

The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured
effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the
listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring
but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary
artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine
his heart away, without fear of false positives.

A fair subjective test would one in which the listener does not know what the
sources are. But I must say, even in sighted listening comparisons my ears were
not always in agreement with my expectations or my biases.



As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago.
Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are
off-the-shelf items.

Low friction compared to an air bearing?

Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus
pressure due to the mass, not just friction.

The
big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published
before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were
resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design
eliminated?

How about compared to the modern arms?

That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large
tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies
intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world?








My arm uses a pretty thin tube made of laminated carbon fiber. I like what I
hear.

Scott Wheeler wrote:


From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 2:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/7/2004 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Am I overlooking something from the early seventies that competes
with these more modern tables?

I see no unbiased evidence that in practice any modern turntable
outperforms the better turntables of the late 60s, say a Thorens
TD-125.

That would make for an interesting test. If I had access to such a
table I would happily make a CD-R with it and my with my Forsell for
comparisons. I think the improvement would prove to be quite dramatic.

The most important thing would be to get the two turntables running at the
same speed. You can fix even speed in the digital domain, but it's far and
away the iffiest of the available adjustments. Other than that time matching
and level matching are easy enough to get a tight comparison.

The Forsell allows for very precise speed adjustments. I cannot speak for any
of the Thorens tables. Level matching is a bit tricky. I suppose recording
some
test tones would be the best way.


As far as trying to compare 2 turntables running at exactly the same speed,
there are also several electronic speed controllers, made by both VPI and
Walker, that can be used in tandem with most AC synchronous motors and that
have a range of adjustments. While definitely not SOTA, I use a VPI PLC (power
line conditioner/electronic speed controller) on my Aries, and while I haven't
conducted any measurements, it definitely sounds better *with* the appropriate
speed "dialed in" (approximately) than when leaving it to chance and/or the
vagaries of the current feeding the table. Of course, VPI makes a newer, more
sophisticated electronic controller, the SDS, that is reported to provide even
greater subjective improvements in the experience of most listeners.




The
only technological advance in turntables I am aware of since the
TD-125's introduction in the late 60s, relates to clamping warped
records to try to flatten them out. And that feature lacks anything
like broad application. The soft but well-damped suspension, belt
drive, electronic speed control, low rumble, low flutter and wow,
were all there in the late 60s.

I think air bearings are a substantial technological advance.

They sound like a great idea, but like straight line tonearms, they
introduce their own quirks to the system. The air is not perfectly silent as
it flows. Air bearings generally have to have large areas which drives up
the mass of tone arms.

Agreed. Air bearing tone arms are not simple to design well.



Also agreed. I had an Eminent Technology 2.5 air-bearing linear tracking arm
for a while, and it performed quite well. But it was quite massive, and the
pump was fairly noisy, so there are some tradeoffs sometimes involved. The ET,
at least (still in production) also requires a relatively sturdy platform and
is not hard to mount on VPI's, but would be more problematic perhaps on a
spring suspension turntable or one providing a less stable platform.



I think
suspension systems have advanced substantially as well. That is easily
measured. I think the use of materials to reduce internal resonance's
is also a substantial advancement. The improvement in motor/platter
isolation is also pretty big.

But the proof is in the listening.

Agreed.

The proof can be refined and analyzed by means of measuring. I've measured
effects related to turntables and other components and then gone back to the
listening test, and asked myself if I can hear that thing that I'm measuring
but didn't notice yet. If the listening test is a DBT any imaginary
artifacts wash out in the statistics. Therefore, the listener can imagine
his heart away, without fear of false positives.

A fair subjective test would one in which the listener does not know what the
sources are. But I must say, even in sighted listening comparisons my ears
were
not always in agreement with my expectations or my biases.



As far as arms go, the geometry problem was solved decades ago.
Appropriate miniature low-friction bearings were and are
off-the-shelf items.

Low friction compared to an air bearing?

Low enough. When the arm moves around there are also changes in stylus
pressure due to the mass, not just friction.

The
big-tube designs look cool, but which vendor has published
before-and-after frequency response curves showing that there were
resonance's in the best earlier designs that the big-tube design
eliminated?

How about compared to the modern arms?

That's what I mean - there seems to be a trend for modern arms to use large
tubes and tapered tubes for the main part of the arm. Looks cool, satisfies
intuitive engineering, but what does it do in the real world?








My arm uses a pretty thin tube made of laminated carbon fiber. I like what I
hear.











Bruce J. Richman