Jump to content

Could it be worthless to spend on highend turntables?


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Zed Zed said:

 

Exactly it. The question is the problem. It's fun to discuss, but it's meaningless and there is no 'answer'. You might prefer whisky, I might prefer wine. Does that make one of us 'wrong'? Narrowing it down, you might prefer a nice Californian red and I might prefer a good Australian red. Who's 'right'? Answer: it's the wrong question. :) 

Hi @Zed Zed always enjoy reading your replies/responses...always thoughtful...

I tend to feel that their is always a more appropriate way to go about discussing ones preferences and the reasoning/attachments in forming them whether conscious or unconscious...or I would really like to think so without the resorting to sniddery/snobbery retorts...(not saying you do!)...

In my world...audio or whatever...their is always room for the experienced teacher/guru/technician if I could actually find them who is respectful of my passions and considerate/tactful with their suggested advice....so you like wine?!? what variety?!? country?!? I see...have you tried Port/Tawny?!? or this variety...its spanish and very similar in taste to what you have told/described to me that you like...Scottish or Irish single malt whiskey as opposed to blended. You may learn summit new/different that could possibly expand your world/horizons and/or empty/decrease the size of your wallet!...or like the old adage...you can lead a horse to water but you canna make it drink... and/or you can stay within your own safe/liked hi-fi preferences. What's right or wrong in my book only leads to opinions...many of them...the wrong question is the either/or...the right question seems to bring up only more questions...my two cent worth...

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 443
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Interesting topic for debate........   From a very personal view, I moved from a $3k turntable to a +$30k  TT in one shot without changing anything else (even the cart).  The difference was

I don't think it was a troll type question by the OP @gumptown, but rather I feel he may have been trying to justify to himself not spending much money on a vinyl rig. In the past, I've got into more

Over the (too) many decades I have been involved with music reproduction systems (note, I did not say 'hifi' systems) I have, at different stages of my audio journey, been a subjectivist, an objectivi

25 minutes ago, tripitaka said:

To build further on Blah Blah's point, I still believe we all doing the same thing and that the differences (which should be celebrated, not argued about) are just in how we connect with the music and which aspects make us individually perceive it as seeming more 'real'.

 

Peace😀

Salient point...

Up there with...the question itself is the problem... 😆

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Zed Zed said:

 

Absolutely. I listen to my music on vinyl, on CD and (hi-res) streamed. I enjoy all three. Sometimes, the music sounds better to me on vinyl. Sometimes in digital form. Sometimes vice-versa. I love the 'process' of vinyl - the setting up of the TT, the fussing with the record before lowering the stylus. I like mechanical things. They give me a bit of a buzz when they work beautifully, whether it's a TT, a wristwatch, a V8 engine or whatever. Someone can tell me all day long how digital is 'superior' -- I might even agree with them. But it won't change the pleasure I get from listening to music on vinyl. Same the other way around too. I have a great Quartz watch -- it keeps way better time than my old Omega Speedmaster mechanical watch. Does it make it a 'better' watch? Do I enjoy one more than the other? No -- they are both amazing. Just different. Someone says "which is the best?", they are asking the wrong question. They don't get it.

 

 


Hello Zed, 

 

What I find intriguing is how often this old chestnut raises its head around here. It is amazing how passionate and defensive some can get over whether digital or analogue produces the best music experience.

I’m fortunate to be able to listen to music all day if I want to and I do at times have some very long sessions, but ultimately, I’m the only one who needs to be pleased with what I’m hearing and that should be the case for the majority of members here too and for those contributing to this thread.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Like 6
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tripitaka said:

To build further on Blah Blah's point, I still believe we all doing the same thing and that the differences (which should be celebrated, not argued about) are just in how we connect with the music and which aspects make us individually perceive it as seeming more 'real'.

 

Peace😀

 

I agree with your post. However it does post a challenge to the so called science-type as they have a preference for things that are objectively/universally true - for example experimental results that are replicable by others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why even respond to a trolling question that, to me anyway, was meant to stir up various mindsets from pro vinyl to the anti vinyl lobby as well the entry level gear owners versus high end gear owners. 
 

Whether the OP purposely wrote the title and original comment with this in mind or not in some ways isn’t important, us taking the bait and continuing the never ending argument never settles anything apart from sowing divide.
 

Surely we are all mature enough to agree to disagree and ignore these types of provocative pointless debates that only ever cause divide and never reach a conclusion?

 

cheers,

Terry
 

 

Edited by TerryO
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TerryO said:

Whether the OP purposely wrote the title and original comment with this in mind or not in some ways isn’t important, us taking the bait and continuing the never ending argument never settles anything apart from sowing divide.

 

The OP's question was actually not about the "never ending argument" of whether vinyl  sounds more pleasing (or "better") than digital. The OP's query was about whether throwing extra money at vinyl is worthwhile, i.e. whether a "high end" vinyl setup sounds significantly different to a basic, good quality vinyl setup.

 

To answer that question you'd have to consider the different elements of a turntable setup, e.g. the tone arm, the cartridge and stylus, and perhaps the phono preamplifier. You'd need to explore  how much each of these  influences the final sound; and in particular how much difference a high end version of that element tends to make in influencing the sound compared with merely a good basic quality version of that element. 

 

I have made the point that because some of these differences could be quite subtle, it could help to record different setups with a good quality ADC. That would facilitate later A B comparisons (by listening and/or measuring) where just one particular element in the setup was made different as between the  A and B recording sessions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, TerryO said:

Why even respond to a trolling question that, to me anyway, was meant to stir up various mindsets from pro vinyl to the anti vinyl lobby as well the entry level gear owners versus high end gear owners. 
 

Whether the OP purposely wrote the title and original comment with this in mind or not in some ways isn’t important, us taking the bait and continuing the never ending argument never settles anything apart from sowing divide.

 

I don't think it was a troll type question by the OP @gumptown, but rather I feel he may have been trying to justify to himself not spending much money on a vinyl rig. In the past, I've got into more strife than Speed Gordon in these types of threads, so I very deliberately stayed away from contributing to this one.

 

Anyhow, I've already gone against my better judgement, so I'll say this...............I've owned standalone turntables since 1970 and I would like to think that each subsequent upgrade was an improvement, albeit a big jump in performance, or perhaps just a little hop instead. Many years ago I owned a Rega Planar 3 which was a bog standard deck with an RB300 arm and fitted with a stock standard Denon DL 103 cartridge. That rig had no right sounding as good as it did and it saw off many highly rated and far more expensive turntables while I had it. It was a hard turntable to move on from, but move on I did, but in reality, I could easily still be happy today listening to that Rega deck. Continuing to chase those small increments in improvement was the first real experience I had with diminishing returns with audio equipment. 

 

My subsequent upgrades in turntables, tonearms, cartridges and phono stages all resulted in improvements in sonics, but many of these improvements/upgrades were expensive and in terms of how much improvement was achieved for considerably more dollars spent, could be measured in very small increments indeed. If you have the wherewithal and the desire to pursue those small degrees of improvement, I can't see any problem with doing that, so long as you are aware how deep that rabbit hole goes.:lol:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Like 6
  • Love 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, then enjoy debating the never ending debate. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a broader way to look at it is "All formats have some serious flaws".  These flaws can be mitigated to varying degrees by spending more money or time on models or tweaks that address these flaws.  The level to which you can/need to reach is dictated by your ears, system, your interest in improvement, and most likely your wallet.  I think this can be applied to the TT question or any other component in an audio system.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TerryO said:

Fair enough, then enjoy debating the never ending debate. 

 

Hello Terry, I assume your post is directed at me, so I also hope you didn't misunderstand my post. O.o I had avoided addressing the OP's question, so my post was an attempt at doing that rather than buying into your never ending debate thingy! As I said previously here, these threads tend to get me into strife because I will make tongue in cheek comments like, my ears aren't painted on, so it's pretty easy to say that analogue is far superior to digital!:lol:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, frednork said:

Perhaps a broader way to look at it is "All formats have some serious flaws".  These flaws can be mitigated to varying degrees by spending more money or time on models or tweaks that address these flaws.  The level to which you can/need to reach is dictated by your ears, system, your interest in improvement, and most likely your wallet.  I think this can be applied to the TT question or any other component in an audio system.

 

Very true, but our OP was being pretty specific, wasn't he?

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2021 at 6:52 PM, gumptown said:

 

The test isn't supposed to prove anything. It's just an  interesting experiment. The unexpected result indicates that the topic may be worthy of further consideration.

 

If the Roksan had whooped the technics we could probably comfortably say "expensive turntables are an improvement over cheapies" because the result is confirming our expectations. The result was contrary to expectations it's worth thinking about further, rather than outright dismissing the suggestion that hifi-fi tables aren't audibly better than mid-fi tables.

 

Yes, this applies to other experiments looking\searching for differences as well.
It goes something like this:

 

We walked into a forest looking for a unicorn, but we didn't find one.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a unicorn in the forest.

And it doesn't mean there isn't a unicorn in other forests.

It means we did not find a unicorn in this forest.

 

As opposed to:

 

I walked into a forest by myself and found a unicorn.

Then End.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cheekyboy said:

 

Very true, but our OP was being pretty specific, wasn't he?

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

 

Well I think he answers his own question for himself in the 1st post. There is a large subjective element to this in the word "worthless:" so a large variation of answers  are valid for a large variation of people.   Regardless of whether you think the reasons are fair enough or not it is up to him to determine what is worthless. And I have no interest in changing his mind and not sure why others would either.

Edited by frednork
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And also, just to be highly predictable. The archimago test is very poorly thought through and to be highly doubted as showing anything of use.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, frednork said:

 

Well I think he answers his own question for himself in the 1st post. There is a large subjective element to this in the word "worthless:" so a large variation of answers  are valid for a large variation of people.   Regardless of whether you think the reasons are fair enough or not it is up to him to determine what is worthless. And I have no interest in changing his mind and not sure why others would either.

 

Hello frednork,

 

I didn't comment on whether I thought the reasons  are fair enough or not and frankly, I really couldn't care less. This old argument has been going around for decades on forums like this and I think the OP @gumptown was looking for affirmation from others that he need not spend a whole lot of money on a vinyl rig, which is exactly what I said to Terry, @TerryO but I think he unfortunately misunderstood that fairly simple comment as well.

 

I think I summed up my thoughts in the last sentence I wrote in a previous post which read, "If you have the wherewithal and the desire to pursue those small degrees of improvement, I can't see any problem with doing that, so long as you are aware how deep that rabbit hole goes.:lol:"

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

Hello frednork,

 

I didn't comment on whether I thought the reasons  are fair enough or not and frankly, I really couldn't care less. This old argument has been going around for decades on forums like this and I think the OP @gumptown was looking for affirmation from others that he need not spend a whole lot of money on a vinyl rig, which is exactly what I said to Terry, @TerryO but I think he misunderstood that fairly simple comment as well.

 

Sorry if I came off implying that you specifically were accepting / not accepting reasons. Was meant as a broader comment to do with any topic about the worth of some improvement. they all go a similar way....

 

10 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

I think I summed up my thoughts in the last sentence I wrote in a previous post which read, "If you have the wherewithal and the desire to pursue those small degrees of improvement, I can't see any problem with doing that, so long as you are aware how deep that rabbit hole goes.:lol:"

I suspect we are in agreement then!! Written word can be tough to figure out where someone is coming from sometimes.

 

Edited by frednork
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frednork said:

 

I suspect we are in agreement then!! Written word can be tough to figure out where someone is coming from sometimes.

 

 

I think we are in agreement too.................no offence meant or taken.:thumb:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cheekyboy said:

I didn't comment on whether I thought the reasons  are fair enough or not and frankly, I really couldn't care less. This old argument has been going around for decades on forums like this and I think the OP @gumptown was looking for affirmation from others that he need not spend a whole lot of money on a vinyl rig

 

6 hours ago, TerryO said:

Why even respond to a trolling question that, to me anyway, was meant to stir up various mindsets from pro vinyl to the anti vinyl lobby as well the entry level gear owners versus high end gear owners. 
 

Whether the OP purposely wrote the title and original comment with this in mind or not in some ways isn’t important, us taking the bait and continuing the never ending argument never settles anything apart from sowing divide.
 

Surely we are all mature enough to agree to disagree and ignore these types of provocative pointless debates that only ever cause divide and never reach a conclusion?

 

cheers,

Terry
 

 

I couldn't agree more, a pretty much pointless debate not really worth partaking in.

I'd personally much rather go and spin up a record and listen to some really good music !! 

 

Although having said that I did just stumble upon this video and thought it would make a nice addition to this thread so couldn't resist !! 😎 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Martykt
  • Love 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2021 at 9:42 AM, gumptown said:

The original purpose of the thread was not to compare vinyl to digital/streaming etc- it was to question whether there's any audible difference between a solid mid-fi table vs a super hi-fi table

 

Archimigo's test is an unfortunate distraction .   Apart from anything else, most people I have come across prefer the sound of a MC cartridge over MM. MC was on the Technics. And Roksan is not top-end. 

 

Putting that aside,  there are some turntables from boutique manufacturers that I have heard that I would be struggling to pick  significant differences between.   And I suggest that there are  some expensive turntables that would not necessarily sound  better to  everyone  than cheaper turntables. As an upgrade path I would be suggesting is arm/ cartridge/phono  before a new turntable , providing the existing one is adequate.

 

And when it comes to affordable vinyl rigs,  I have  steered family and friends away from expensive purchases and and toward Vintage turntables like Sony Biotracer PS-X600,  JVC's QL-Y7 with active tonearm  and Technics SL 1300/1400MK2. All these sound better than the the technics SL-1200 which was built as a rugged, portable DJ machine. The active tonearms on the Sony and JVC work  very well. Apart from being fully automatic ( with non-intrusive automation)  they seem to handle a range of cartridges well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Martykt said:

 

I couldn't agree more, a pretty much pointless debate not really worth partaking in.

I'd personally much rather go and spin up a record and listen to some really good music !! 

 

Although having said that I did just stumble upon this video and thought it would make a nice addition to this thread so couldn't resist !! 😎 

 

 

 

 

 

Haven't had a look at the You Tube video yet, but that is one gorgeous looking 301!:thumb:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, frednork said:

And also, just to be highly predictable. The archimago test is very poorly thought through and to be highly doubted as showing anything of use.

 

Sadly true, but it still might be the best available for informing this issue. Also, just to be predictable, I ask are you aware of anything better? Hopefully, by now, everyone knows not to answer 'sighted listening' if they have just finished dismissing a blind test for methodological flaws! :)

 

Look at the few posts above this one. They completely rely on sighted listening and here-say, and try to drag the thread back into a place where they are comfortable. We know where that ends.

 

The OP asks the right question. He shows what evidence he knows of. So it's not great. So, what evidence is better?

 

cheers

Grant

Edited by Grant Slack
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

 

Sadly true, but it still might be the best available for informing this issue. Also, just to be predictable, I ask are you aware of anything better? Hopefully, by now, everyone knows not to answer 'sighted listening' if they have just finished dismissing a blind test for methodological flaws! :)

 

Look at the few posts above this one. They completely rely on sighted listening and here-say, and try to drag the thread back into a place where they are comfortable. We know where that ends.

 

The OP asks the right question. He shows what evidence he knows of. So it's not great. So, what evidence is better?

 

cheers

Grant

The problem is that the info provided by Archimago is not worth considering as a good objective source. And in the absence of anything better, sighted is all that is left. I am aware of your very strong views on sighted listening ( ie it's "broken" ) ,but are they really justified?  It seems odd that it is perfectly suitable and has evolved for every other aspect of our lives and we somehow muddle through but for this activity it is entirely useless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frednork said:

I am aware of your very strong views on sighted listening ( ie it's "broken" ) ,but are they really justified? 

 

Absolutely.  In scientific circles, everyone would agree, and any suggestion that sighted listening is NOT broken would be laughed out of the room.  Sorry to be brutal, but I actually mentioned these discussions to a group of people I know, over dinner, 6 people, 6 tertiary qualifications, 5 in science, 2 phds,  and they had a nice good chuckle over it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aussievintage said:

 

Absolutely.  In scientific circles, everyone would agree, and any suggestion that sighted listening is NOT broken would be laughed out of the room.  Sorry to be brutal, but I actually mentioned these discussions to a group of people I know, over dinner, 6 people, 6 tertiary qualifications, 5 in science, 2 phds,  and they had a nice good chuckle over it.

Hmmmm, as well understood as sensory blind testing? I might do some digging methinks

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tripitaka said:

To build further on Blah Blah's point, I still believe we all doing the same thing and that the differences (which should be celebrated, not argued about)

 

This so often missed or ignored. It is the differences between us all, not the similarities, which make life what it is. Imagine a world where everyone was the same, liked the same things, held the same views and so on . . . 

 

If you love vinyl, you love vinyl. If you love Tidal, you love Tidal. If you love tubes, you love tubes. If you love big phat SS amps that weight 400 pounds and dim the lights when they switch on, you (you get the idea :)). Most important thing of all (for me anyways) is do we love the music?  And do we love how it makes us feel? If the answer is 'yes!' what does it matter if it's tubes or SS, vinyl or Tidal etc?

 

Talking of Tidal and the other streaming services, I came late to them (mostly due to a blind spot about streaming quality) but Tidal has introduced me to so many artists I would never have otherwise come across. To me, it doesn't matter if the SQ is slightly inferior to CD or vinyl (I am not saying it is BTW) - the fact that I have a whole world of music at my fingertips -- for a few dollars a month -- outweighs any considerations of comparative SQ. Often, I will buy (on vinyl or, gasp, CD) music I especially like which I first heard on Tidal. Win-win.

 

11 hours ago, tripitaka said:

 

are just in how we connect with the music and which aspects make us individually perceive it as seeming more 'real'.

 

Peace😀

 

And this, of course, is where tubes just annihilate solid state . . . *

 

* OMG. Just kiddin' Please, please, don't let's have that debate as well!! :) :) 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BLAH BLAH said:

Hi @Zed Zed always enjoy reading your replies/responses...always thoughtful...

I tend to feel that their is always a more appropriate way to go about discussing ones preferences and the reasoning/attachments in forming them whether conscious or unconscious...or I would really like to think so without the resorting to sniddery/snobbery retorts...(not saying you do!)...

In my world...audio or whatever...their is always room for the experienced teacher/guru/technician if I could actually find them who is respectful of my passions and considerate/tactful with their suggested advice....so you like wine?!? what variety?!? country?!? I see...have you tried Port/Tawny?!? or this variety...its spanish and very similar in taste to what you have told/described to me that you like...Scottish or Irish single malt whiskey as opposed to blended. You may learn summit new/different that could possibly expand your world/horizons and/or empty/decrease the size of your wallet!...or like the old adage...you can lead a horse to water but you canna make it drink... and/or you can stay within your own safe/liked hi-fi preferences. What's right or wrong in my book only leads to opinions...many of them...the wrong question is the either/or...the right question seems to bring up only more questions...my two cent worth...

 

 

 

+1. That approach is so much more fruitful (no pun intended). Embracing the views of others leads us to discover new things about ourselves. More people in the world should try it!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TP1 said:

 

Archimigo's test is an unfortunate distraction . 

 

Haha, this reminded me of the Ronald Reagan quote: “Facts are stupid things”.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cheekyboy said:


Hello Zed, 

 

What I find intriguing is how often this old chestnut raises its head around here. It is amazing how passionate and defensive some can get over whether digital or analogue produces the best music experience.

I’m fortunate to be able to listen to music all day if I want to and I do at times have some very long sessions, but ultimately, I’m the only one who needs to be pleased with what I’m hearing and that should be the case for the majority of members here too and for those contributing to this thread.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

 

Spot on IMO.  Why do others get so wound up about what I am hearing! But it's an interesting debate - more akin to philosophy than audio gear etc, so long as everyone remains respectful of the views of others, which is what I usually find here on SNA to be fair.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aussievintage said:

 

Absolutely.  In scientific circles, everyone would agree, and any suggestion that sighted listening is NOT broken would be laughed out of the room.  Sorry to be brutal, but I actually mentioned these discussions to a group of people I know, over dinner, 6 people, 6 tertiary qualifications, 5 in science, 2 phds,  and they had a nice good chuckle over it.

 

The problem is science communication. It is not helpful to say sighted listening is 'broken', as it would cause people to view it as negative, a form of put-down or attack, and therefore react defensively against it. IMO it would be better to phrase it as 'sighted listening is unreliable', and have a friendly discussion of what reliability entails. As the old saying goes "even a broken clock is correct twice a day".  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When It's as bad as the Archimago test, sighted listening is looking like a pretty damn good alternative :lol:

  • Love 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LHC said:

 

I agree with your post. However it does post a challenge to the so called science-type as they have a preference for things that are objectively/universally true - for example experimental results that are replicable by others. 

 

True. I am a believer in scientific method too. But you can analyse, scientifically, different aspects of music and music reproduction until the cows come home. Here, for example, is a very good analysis of harmonics and forms part of an article which discusses the differences between SS amps and tube amps in this regard:

 

2021-05-14_11-30-50.thumb.png.bf81082489c132df9774199d1d1a428d.png

The article is here: https://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/d.pl?audio/faq/tubeprimer.html

 

The question is, does understanding any of that make a difference to what you think of the chord progressions John Coltrane uses, and does anyone need to understand music theory to enjoy ZZ Top? It's true there is significant science behind music and musical reproduction systems, but the joy is that we don't need to understand any of it in order to enjoy the way music makes us feel. If you dig it, you're good!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cheekyboy said:

 

I don't think it was a troll type question by the OP @gumptown, but rather I feel he may have been trying to justify to himself not spending much money on a vinyl rig. In the past, I've got into more strife than Speed Gordon in these types of threads, so I very deliberately stayed away from contributing to this one.

 

Anyhow, I've already gone against my better judgement, so I'll say this...............I've owned standalone turntables since 1970 and I would like to think that each subsequent upgrade was an improvement, albeit a big jump in performance, or perhaps just a little hop instead. Many years ago I owned a Rega Planar 3 which was a bog standard deck with an RB300 arm and fitted with a stock standard Denon DL 103 cartridge. That rig had no right sounding as good as it did and it saw off many highly rated and far more expensive turntables while I had it. It was a hard turntable to move on from, but move on I did, but in reality, I could easily still be happy today listening to that Rega deck. Continuing to chase those small increments in improvement was the first real experience I had with diminishing returns with audio equipment. 

 

My subsequent upgrades in turntables, tonearms, cartridges and phono stages all resulted in improvements in sonics, but many of these improvements/upgrades were expensive and in terms of how much improvement was achieved for considerably more dollars spent, could be measured in very small increments indeed. If you have the wherewithal and the desire to pursue those small degrees of improvement, I can't see any problem with doing that, so long as you are aware how deep that rabbit hole goes.:lol:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

 

We have had similar journeys :) And come to the same conclusions! :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cheekyboy said:

 

Haven't had a look at the You Tube video yet, but that is one gorgeous looking 301!:thumb:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

 

Isn't it!  Sometimes, aesthetics are massively important. It is easy to imagine two pairs of speakers, identical in every way but one: one pair is finished in vinyl and the other is veneered exquisitely with a rare wood and polished to a perfect, immaculate finish (much like that TT). One pair will cost many times the other pair. Some will prefer the cheaper pair, some the more beautiful pair. Both are right because both are addressing their priorities. My own system, for example, sits right in view in our living room. I (and Mrs Zed) wanted something which sounds fabulous, but we also have to pay attention to how it looks. Neither of us wants to sit in front of an 'overly technical-looking' rig, no matter how it sounds. So we had to compromise to some extent. We are both happy with the sound and the appearance. That 301 might not sound any better than a bog-standard unit, but jeez, it looks totally, totally gorgeous. I'd be delighted to pay thousands of $$$s more for it, if I could afford it, all the whole acknowledging that it might sound no better at all than a common or garden unit.

 

This is what we look at every evening. Some might like, some might not. Does it matter?  Nope.

 

2021-05-14_12-02-15.thumb.png.f02155f09c51d79cdb828b367d1001ba.png

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zed Zed said:

 

Isn't it!  Sometimes, aesthetics are massively important. It is easy to imagine two pairs of speakers, identical in every way but one: one pair is finished in vinyl and the other is veneered exquisitely with a rare wood and polished to a perfect, immaculate finish (much like that TT). One pair will cost many times the other pair. Some will prefer the cheaper pair, some the more beautiful pair. Both are right because both are addressing their priorities. My own system, for example, sits right in view in our living room. I (and Mrs Zed) wanted something which sounds fabulous, but we also have to pay attention to how it looks. Neither of us wants to sit in front of an 'overly technical-looking' rig, no matter how it sounds. So we had to compromise to some extent. We are both happy with the sound and the appearance. That 301 might not sound any better than a bog-standard unit, but jeez, it looks totally, totally gorgeous. I'd be delighted to pay thousands of $$$s more for it, if I could afford it, all the whole acknowledging that it might sound no better at all than a common or garden unit.

 

This is what we look at every evening. Some might like, some might not. Does it matter?  Nope.

 

2021-05-14_12-02-15.thumb.png.f02155f09c51d79cdb828b367d1001ba.png

 

 

Gotta say this post makes a lot of sense, it's true that we stare at our equipment for a pretty good % of our lives - I had never really thought of it in those terms 🙏

 

So now that I really think about it, if someone just straight-up told me they paid 10x price purely for the aesthetic then I would shake their hand and say 'well done'. And I'm one of the sciency types remember 👍👍

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I caught an episode of Carpool Karaoke once on Youtube. The guest was none less than Paul McCartney, and he was showing host James Corden around Liverpool, and some of the hallowed sites of Beatles history.

 

One of the venues they visited was a house where Sir Paul used to live as a teenager. As he showed Corden around, he made special mention of “the bog”, a small toilet room, as you can probably guess. Paul reminisced how he spent hours every day in that room playing his guitar. He reckons that the guitar sounded best in there, with all the untamed reverb and echo.

 

I think vinyl aficionados may take a similar liking to the added reverb that comes from mechanical feedback of the room sound into the cartridge. I don’t think there is anything anyone could say against it, as far as subjective enjoyment is concerned. Despite all the added noise and distortion of the primitive playback mechanics, it likely provides the embellishment that leads them to conclude the superiority of vinyl. 

 

This is just wild speculation on my part, of course, and unlike Archimago, I have no experiment to substantiate or disprove it. I wonder whether headphonistas love vinyl proportionately as much as speaker listeners. EDIT: On reflection, they might, if not more so. One of the limitations of vinyl playback is channel cross-talk – a boo-boo with speaker playback but a boon with headphones. END EDIT

 

On an unrelated point, more in response to the art loving slant this thread has taken – this isn’t just about music. Accurate sound reproduction goes way beyond music. Spoken word and nature recordings come to mind. I don’t disagree with the preference based choice of equipment at all, everybody is the master of their own castle. However, I believe some of us are discussing HiFi here, and those two operative letters mean fidelity, the somewhat (more than not) objective ability to adhere to the original. I’m not saying that High Fidelity is more worthwhile than High Embellishment (for lack of a better term), just that it is a different goal.

 

 

 

Edited by Steffen
cross-talk
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have a confession to make: all wine tastes like horse's piss to me, and it doesn't matter whether it costs $5 or $150 a bottle. Therefore, I don't waste my money buying expensive grog.

 

Similarly, if I couldn't hear the difference between a $10,000 and a $100,000 turntable, logic dictates that I would be wasting my money buying the latter if the only criterion is sound.

 

However, if it is about impressing my mates who might have better hearing than me, then the $100,000 turntable could be a good investment.

Edited by thethrowback
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like the turn which this thread has taken, towards honesty, as it seems to me.

We love music, each in our own way.

We respond to realness, according to our own perception.

We recognise physical beauty, based on our own standards.

Of course I'm pissed (and my own hifi happens to be sounding sublime tonight hehe 🙂 ) but all I can see are reasons to celebrate everyone's divergent views. 

Peace.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, thethrowback said:

I have a confession to make: all wine tastes like horse's piss to me, and it doesn't matter whether it costs $5 or $150 a bottle. Therefore, I don't waste my money buying expensive grog.

 

Similarly, if I couldn't hear the difference between a $10,000 or a $100,000 turntable, logic dictates that I would be wasting my money buying the latter if the only criterium is sound.

 

However, if it is about impressing my mates who might have better hearing than me, then the $100,000 turntable could be a good investment.

 

Just slightly (ha!) off topic but I'd be happy to unpack the wine issue with you sometime 🙂

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tripitaka said:

 

Just slightly (ha!) off topic but I'd be happy to unpack the wine issue with you sometime 🙂

 

Bloody typical. When there is an unpacking of wine, it is usually far away from Sydney…

  • Love 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...