do turntables sound the same

[Rasher]

Really?
Yes, all Notts TTs are to my knowledge massy, and I guess the degree of mass comes down to the money you spend. I suppose I should have said floaty and non-floaty. The WT is massy as it is of very dense layers in the chassis and is non-suspended in the Linn/Thorens sense of the word.
The WT has an incredible grip on low stuff and sounds very capable with the low frequencies which surprised me with an arm dangling in a couple of threads. There is no floppiness in the bass, it really does bass like I haven't heard on my Notts. The Notts does presentation like it wants you to listen to it, whereas the WT is more...err...well tempered I guess, and there are differences, but I felt that they were on the same team. They seem to want to get all the information out and give it to you, whereas I feel a bouncy suspended deck wants to put a bit of its own character in there and make decisions for you. Like a LP12 has the traction control on and a massy deck doesn't have it fitted.

I'm not suggesting that they sound the same, just that they approach things the same way sonically - which I guess is inevitable if suspension makes such a fundamental difference, which it seems to do. In my experience, which I agree is limited, it seems that massy decks play music with sharper edges.
The WT puts musicians here and over there, whereas the Notts can go 3d and still make them play together, but it hasn't got that effortless bass.
My ears of course different to anyone elses, and my preferences are very different to other people.

No, I'm not suggesting that turntables sound the same, and if similar, only that they fall into categories.

 

[Gaius]

Wow, still going this one, I think I said on the first page, no, turntables don't sound the
same (really).

Fair enough though to split them into, floaty/non floaty/high mass.

Those groups sound different.

So, where are we on this thread?

 

[MVV]

Wow, still going this one, I think I said on the first page, no, turntables don't sound the
same (really).

Fair enough though to split them into, floaty/non floaty/high mass.

Those groups sound different.

So, where are we on this thread?

Just shooting the breeze as usual

 

[Gaius]

Alrighty!

 

[F1eng]

I think Serge is out on his own this time.
I don't know anyone who thinks all TT s sound the same, other than Serge, who thinks that once you've accounted for speed stability and noise they might.

To Serge, as a school project back in the 1980s I successfully recorded the sound of ringing arm tubes with nothing more sensitive than a modified dynamic mic element and a cassette deck. The 'shout' this introduced to vocals (using a Syrinx PU2) was very obvious audibly and observable purely via the decks peak meters during recording.

Or just swap a soft felt mat for a soft rubber one - the change in sound is quite dramatic due to the change in the way the record is damped.

Cartridges are incredibly sensitive and they will react audibly to whatever they are bolted to.

Absolutely. I worked for Garrard in the mid 70s. There we had one of the first ever laser measuring systems. It is astonishing how small changes effect the dynamics of what is simply a distributed mass multi mode resonating system, and to say the cartridge does not pick this up is just wrong, the modification of the cartridge output because of arm modes is easily seen on the cartridge output.
There is no such thing as rigid, and even if you make a pickup arm as stiff as you can with a practical shape the first resonance is unlikely to be above 1000 Hz (and quite a few popular arms it is nearer 200 Hz). This means at least the 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th harmonics are -all- in the audible frequency range and some will be excited, depending on how the arm is mounted, where it is mounted, the type of turntable chassis, since this can be feeding energy into the arm too. I have seen quite big peaks on cartridge outputs from this. I remember the cartridge output results from the removable headshell SME 3009 Mk2 being visibly different depending how tight the fixing collar was turned.
One thing all new engineers had to do to learn how sensitive a record player is was a standard rumble test on the lab bench. The cartridge could pick up a car driving by on the road outside the factory, four floors down across the car park. It was sitting on an oak bench which probably weighed 300 lbs.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that any turntable sited in the listening room is not adding something to the cartridge output. All that can vary is the amount of the addition in both frequency and amplitude.

A non suspended turntable is probably re-picking up the bass at about -20dB and adding it to the cartridge signal, giving the impression of more bass from such a turntable, which lots of people like.
Higher frequency resonances add a dynamic sense to the output of the turntable by exagerating transients. I suspect this is where the Linn reputation for PRaT comes from.

Overall all one can do as a turntable designer is either to reduce these effects as much as you can and/or tune them to sound nice rather than nasty. In the end it is like adding a bit of reverb to the output, which is what recording engineers have probably already done to make it sound nicer so a bit more may be nicer still.

I would say that all record players sound different and the turntable, arm, cartridge, and the method and position of the mounting all have a measureable and probably audible effect. Just tightening bolts more or less in a bolted structure makes a measureable difference to the damping and hence its dynamic response and the output of any transducer mounted on it.

 

[sergeauckland]

Absolutely. I worked for Garrard in the mid 70s. There we had one of the first ever laser measuring systems. It is astonishing how small changes effect the dynamics of what is simply a distributed mass multi mode resonating system, and to say the cartridge does not pick this up is just wrong, the modification of the cartridge output because of arm modes is easily seen on the cartridge output.
There is no such thing as rigid, and even if you make a pickup arm as stiff as you can with a practical shape the first resonance is unlikely to be above 1000 Hz (and quite a few popular arms it is nearer 200 Hz). This means at least the 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th harmonics are -all- in the audible frequency range and some will be excited, depending on how the arm is mounted, where it is mounted, the type of turntable chassis, since this can be feeding energy into the arm too. I have seen quite big peaks on cartridge outputs from this. I remember the cartridge output results from the removable headshell SME 3009 Mk2 being visibly different depending how tight the fixing collar was turned.
One thing all new engineers had to do to learn how sensitive a record player is was a standard rumble test on the lab bench. The cartridge could pick up a car driving by on the road outside the factory, four floors down across the car park. It was sitting on an oak bench which probably weighed 300 lbs.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that any turntable sited in the listening room is not adding something to the cartridge output. All that can vary is the amount of the addition in both frequency and amplitude.

A non suspended turntable is probably re-picking up the bass at about -20dB and adding it to the cartridge signal, giving the impression of more bass from such a turntable, which lots of people like.
Higher frequency resonances add a dynamic sense to the output of the turntable by exagerating transients. I suspect this is where the Linn reputation for PRaT comes from.

Overall all one can do as a turntable designer is either to reduce these effects as much as you can and/or tune them to sound nice rather than nasty. In the end it is like adding a bit of reverb to the output, which is what recording engineers have probably already done to make it sound nicer so a bit more may be nicer still.

I would say that all record players sound different and the turntable, arm, cartridge, and the method and position of the mounting all have a measureable and probably audible effect. Just tightening bolts more or less in a bolted structure makes a measureable difference to the damping and hence its dynamic response and the output of any transducer mounted on it.

Thanks for the excellent explanation of why turntables could or should sound different. It makes sense.

I would, however, be very interested in any plots that show how these factors are actually working in practice. For example, the very reasonable idea that all turntables pick up sound from the loudspeakers they're feeding, and so this colours the sound. Any idea of how far below the signal level this is? It will obviously depend on the turntable and the mounting and the location, but it would be interesting to see some graphs.

Similarly, the arm resonances affecting the cartridge's frequency response. How much variation is there between a cartridge in a, say, SME 3009 and the same cartridge in a SME V or Linn Ittok. That's something that I've not seen, so have no idea how different it could be.

S.

 

[F1eng]

Serge, with all due respect, I doubt that you've ever considered optimising the very first, and arguably most important source; the electricity supply to one's kit.

Many people (yes, MANY) , have acted upon it and have never looked back. The supply from a domestic ring mains through switched sockets can never be as good as a well installed dedicated radial circuit system in my book. Obvious benefits are less interference, but lower impedance values play a big part, I'm reliably informed.

Conversely, I'd say that the fact that I can detect mains supply improvements means that my kit is reflecting that improvement and is therefore operating very well indeed.

I think a piece of electronic equipment should be designed to be capable of performing correctly regardless of how noisy the mains is. If it is not I see that as a weakness.
About 15 years ago I was auditioning kit and one thing which made a difference was a mains filter made by Goldmund called the AC Curator. They also thought their kit should be immune to noisy mains and started including the filtering into the mains input of all their kit. The power amps grew about 75mm in length to accomodate it. Once they had updated all their products to include the filters they discontinued the AC Curator.
I suppose any manufacturer who hasn't sussed this and dealt with it in their design will have products susceptible to varying with mains quality.

 

[F1eng]

Thanks for the excellent explanation of why turntables could or should sound different. It makes sense.

I would, however, be very interested in any plots that show how these factors are actually working in practice. For example, the very reasonable idea that all turntables pick up sound from the loudspeakers they're feeding, and so this colours the sound. Any idea of how far below the signal level this is? It will obviously depend on the turntable and the mounting and the location, but it would be interesting to see some graphs.

Similarly, the arm resonances affecting the cartridge's frequency response. How much variation is there between a cartridge in a, say, SME 3009 and the same cartridge in a SME V or Linn Ittok. That's something that I've not seen, so have no idea how different it could be.

S.

It was a long time ago, and the measurement kit was much more expensive then so far fewer people had access to it!
Of course the SME 3009 mk2 was the latest and considered best arm around at the time, that is why Garrard measured it. It was beautifully made but acoustically not too good. There were peaks on the cartridge output from resonances IIRC of around 3dB. Pretty poor and worse in this respect than any of the production arms made by Garrard. it certainly looked the business but it was not very good at its job. Garrard would never have released an arm this resonant however nice it looked. None of the other arms you mentioned had been made yet.
Most of the arms we were measuring were prototypes of production designs, and the objective was good performance and inexpensive manufacture.
We used a frequency sweep record and the measurement was the output of the cartidge (which is all that matters really)
Certainly it is true that all a turntable needs to do is turn the record steadily at the right speed, the problem is to stop it doing lots of other things as well.
I don't think it is possible to make these inaudible. As I wrote, the bass pickup of a non-suspended turntable is likely to be only 20dB or so down, so audible, but most people like a bit more bass!

FWIW the only arm I have seen recently which looks like it deals with all the issues properly and is well thought through and engineered is the Funk FXR, that is what I would buy if I was in the market for an arm today.
Turntables are more difficult. I would not give house room to a non-suspended deck, given what I learned at Garrard, but the higher modes are very complicated and hard to predict without a full distributed mass FE analysis.

Update.
The Well Tempered turntable/arm seems to me to be the product intelligently dealing with the issues and well designed from most standpoints. It would need to go on an isolating platform though.
Most decks seem to be designed nowadays to look sexy and the amount of pseudo technical bullshit in the marketing propaganda is astonishing.

 

[Robert]

A non suspended turntable is probably re-picking up the bass at about -20dB and adding it to the cartridge signal, giving the impression of more bass from such a turntable, which lots of people like.
Higher frequency resonances add a dynamic sense to the output of the turntable by exagerating transients. I suspect this is where the Linn reputation for PRaT comes from.

Overall all one can do as a turntable designer is either to reduce these effects as much as you can and/or tune them to sound nice rather than nasty. In the end it is like adding a bit of reverb to the output, which is what recording engineers have probably already done to make it sound nicer so a bit more may be nicer still.

I did some testing for this myself about a year ago and have the recordings somewhere. I might write them up into a complete piece soon.

The pickup at LF from the TT is very interesting to examine and to test this I carried out the following experiment which anyone can do at home:

- Place the stylus onto a stationary record and connect the output of your phono stage to a recorder - PC line input is perfectly fine.
- Now play some music through your system via another source at both a normal listening level and then at the loudest you'd likely ever listen. Record the output from the phono stage while this is happening.

Play back the recording and note two things:

- Note the level of sound recorded for it will indicate how susceptible the TT is to feedback. This is useful as you can then change the position of the deck within the listening room and compare the results. Obviously you are looking for lowest output.

- Listen to the nature of the sound recorded. This is fascinating and will give you many clues about the signature the TT is potentially imposing onto the normal output. When I did this with the very light, stiff plinthed Rega P9 I got a pretty clean recorded facsimile of the actual in room sound (obviously missing HF).
Trying the same thing with other TTs gives very different results, and in particular those containing many undamped thin metal parts and springs can produce a smeared and phasey output by comparison, though sometimes lower in level. As you rightly say, it's a case of balancing a range of factors to give the chosen result for there is no perfection.

Whats fascinating is that you can relate this in many cases to the design goals behind a particular TT. For example, the results above from the Rega support the philosophy behind the low mass, stiff, non-suspended concept. It trades potentially higher capture of sound within the room for cleaner handling of that signal once it enters the chain. Others show lower overall susceptibility to pickup but perhaps present that signature as a more dissonant overlay to the main output.

It's all good stuff.

 

[TLS]

hi all, just wondered if turntables sond different, i find that my thorens 124 with sme 3009 sounds better than my technics sl110 with the same arm, regards, peter.

I had a few turntables and I find there is a difference in sound as there is a difference in sound with arms. However, the cartridge and the phono preamplifier have a lot more influence.

 

[pure sound]

Whats fascinating is that you can relate this in many cases to the design goals behind a particular TT. For example, the results above from the Rega support the philosophy behind the low mass, stiff, non-suspended concept. It trades potentially higher capture of sound within the room for cleaner handling of that signal once it enters the chain. Others show lower overall susceptibility to pickup but perhaps present that signature as a more dissonant overlay to the main output.

It's all good stuff.

And that's before you smother it all with motor noise!

 

[Robert]

And that's before you smother it all with motor noise!

Yes absolutely.

Plus surface noise which is absent during the test.

 

[Rasher]

Turntables are more difficult. I would not give house room to a non-suspended deck, given what I learned at Garrard, but the higher modes are very complicated and hard to predict without a full distributed mass FE analysis.

It must in some ways be a curse to understand turntables from a technical standpoint.
My Notts Ace Space & Ace arm has no isolation and I have it in two granite slabs on a Sound Org table. I would love you to hear it if you ever find yourself in Brighton.
I totally respect your views, and I know nothing at all, but I'd like to surprise you just the same.

 

[sq225917]

Rob, 2nd source playback and capture test is a great indication of how well isolated your deck actually is. I've done it many times and am always surprised by just how much 'noise' reaches the deck through the air as well as through the floor. Which I why I favour a relatively heavy, none suspended deck, on a suspended platform.

 

[Werner]

I would, however, be very interested in any plots that show how these factors are actually working in practice.

You'll find some here http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2225, but you'll have to register.

Yes, it is an ancient review, from when people were still serious about issues like these, but from before the arrival of affordable and powerful measurement gear.

As for figures of acoustic breakthrough: years ago I tried this with ESL-63 close to GyroDec, my usual listening levels (not very loud), and got -50 to -60dB, IIRC, and I really have no idea anymore about the spectral distribution, only the notion that the Gyro isolation worked very very well. But I already knew that from the time we lived in-line with one of Brussels airport's runways. A cargo 747 at 200m altitude makes for a good test.


BTW, there is an apocryphal (to me) German review of the LP-12, 80s time, where it was auditioned in the room (and sound field), and then again removed to another room (isolated). The listeners preferred the in-room performance. The isolated Linn lost its majic ;-)

 

[Werner]

It must in some ways be a curse to understand turntables from a technical standpoint.

Yes!!!

No matter what you do, true fidelity stays out of reach.

 

[kabayiri]

...
I would, however, be very interested in any plots that show how these factors are actually working in practice. For example, the very reasonable idea that all turntables pick up sound from the loudspeakers they're feeding, and so this colours the sound. Any idea of how far below the signal level this is? It will obviously depend on the turntable and the mounting and the location, but it would be interesting to see some graphs.
...

There is a guy on VE who is interested in plinth materials used for record decks. I can provide a link to his site but I don't want to breach any rules.

He runs tests and presents the graphs for different materials and different constructions. In terms of resonance control thicker is not always better! Rega, for example, have a very specific view on plinths which minimise the storage of energy.

I personally have always been interested in control systems and s-plane analysis. The behaviour and control of signals in a turntable could be modelled in the s-plane, but there are so many factors at play every experiment would be at best an approximation of the real world effect.

If we accept that speakers sound different depending on the constuction of their casing, can't we also extend this logic to turntable plinths?

 

[Theo]

Rob, 2nd source playback and capture test is a great indication of how well isolated your deck actually is. I've done it many times and am always surprised by just how much 'noise' reaches the deck through the air as well as through the floor. Which I why I favour a relatively heavy, none suspended deck, on a suspended platform.

My findings also, though mainly through much trial and error.

I also like the way this thread has developed, and become usefully informative

 

[Mr Pig]

It is astonishing how small changes effect the dynamics of what is simply a distributed mass multi mode resonating system...

Thank you for the lovely post, very interesting.

Thanks for the excellent explanation of why turntables could or should sound different.

So does this mean that you will now be able to hear the differences between turntables?

If we accept that speakers sound different depending on the construction of their casing, can't we also extend this logic to turntable plinths?

Absolutely. I have heard a lot of people say that even the type of wood an LP12 plinth is made of effects the sound, I beleive that. I have found turntables to be incredibly sensitive to even very small changes.

 

[James]

Absolutely. I have heard a lot of people say that even the type of wood an LP12 plinth is made of effects the sound, I beleive that. I have found turntables to be incredibly sensitive to even very small changes.

Black Ash sounds best.