advertisement


new Rega Ania Pro MC cartridge

matt j said:
I'm pretty sure the technology to play back master tapes hasn't improved since the 60s, so clearly the artist could hear exactly what they'd rec
Click to expand...

Yes, but what was put onto vinyl was tailored to sound right on the vinyl replay systems of the day.

It's interesting that you mention analog tape. There has been a return to analog tape among some recording engineers as they feel it captures something about the soul of the music digital fails to. My so sold a studio reel to reel machine to a studio in London a few years ago. I'm not saying I agree with that idea, but it's interesting.

I don't know where they get the tape from...
 
It is all relative really.

My paternal Grandfather enjoyed the sound of The Burmese Colour Needle Co. 'Medium Tone' cactus needles, whereas, my dear old Dad preferred the BCN 'Loud Tone'. This, back in the day when one had to change one's preferred needle after every record side (and, therefore, know from direct experience which of the many choices suited one better).

Neither of them got on with the sound of steel needles, however, having one last through circa 50 record sides was a nice convenience.
Robert said:
No cartridge over say £200 should carry an elliptical stylus in 2020.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and someone should tell Nagaoka that, boron rod or no, 0.4 x 0.7mil at £639. RRP is really taking the piss!

And don't get me started on bonded tips at over £100!
 
Arguably, the tables and cartridges in the late 70s were more sophisticated than purely mechanical decks we have today.

My Sony PS-B80 is auto-balance, fully servo controlled, including arm motion and damping in both planes.

Best cartridges of that time sported boron PIPE cantilevers, technology that is unavailable today at any price.
 
DimitryZ said:
Arguably, the tables and cartridges in the late 70s were more sophisticated than purely mechanical decks we have today.
Click to expand...

Sophisticated perhaps wasn't the best choice of word. Advanced? My point being that the very revealing turntables Hi-Fi buyers have available today didn't exist. You can look at the best tonearms available in the seventies and see how they've developed. Same with turntables. Surely there is little doubt that we're getting more information off a record than ever before?

To be honest, it doesn't really matter as even back then, few people were listening to music on broadcast quality turntables.
 
Mr Pig said:
Sophisticated perhaps wasn't the best choice of word. Advanced? My point being that the very revealing turntables Hi-Fi buyers have available today didn't exist. You can look at the best tonearms available in the seventies and see how they've developed. Same with turntables. Surely there is little doubt that we're getting more information off a record than ever before?
Click to expand...

Eh? Something like a Radford STA15 and a pair of big Tannoys with a Garrard 301 in front of it is no less resolving that anything you can buy brand new today, some of the new stuff may sound a bit different but better how? what miracles have happened in the Hi-Fi world in the last 50 years that things suddenly so much better?

The only difference really is in cartridges and stylus possibly.

You're right, there probably weren't many people with a top of the line turntable, but I bet that still works out at thousands more than currently own one!
 
hmm. I bought a new P8 last week with an Apheta 2 which added £700 to the cost. I now see the P8 is now available with the Ania Pro at +£650 or Apheta 3 at +£900.

I think I'd rather have the Apheta 2 than Ania Pro for the extra £50 but wonder if they are pretty much the same thing in different bodies. I might have stumped up the extra for the Apheta 3, 'though probably would have just bought the P8 and stuck on my old AT33 PTG/II for now.
 
Mr Pig said:
Sophisticated perhaps wasn't the best choice of word. Advanced? My point being that the very revealing turntables Hi-Fi buyers have available today didn't exist. You can look at the best tonearms available in the seventies and see how they've developed. Same with turntables. Surely there is little doubt that we're getting more information off a record than ever before?

To be honest, it doesn't really matter as even back then, few people were listening to music on broadcast quality turntables.
Click to expand...
My Elac Miracord with TOTL Stanton was exceptional in detail retrieval.
 
matt j said:
Something like a Radford STA15 and a pair of big Tannoys with a Garrard 301 in front of it is no less resolving that anything you can buy brand new today...
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if that were true. I've heard the Garrard, I like it but I reckon it's in the same sort of bracket as the Pink, Roksan or Linn from the eighties. Gona be quite a few decks on the market today that are more revealing than that. And what arm would be on that 301? Pick an arm from the seventies that was as good as some of the arms today?
 
Mr Pig said:
I'd be surprised if that were true. I've heard the Garrard, I like it but I reckon it's in the same sort of bracket as the Pink, Roksan or Linn from the eighties. Gona be quite a few decks on the market today that are more revealing than that. And what arm would be on that 301? Pick an arm from the seventies that was as good as some of the arms today?
Click to expand...

Fidelity Research FR-64FX and some other japanese tonearms ...
 
Craig B said:
Fidelity Research started business in 1964.
Click to expand...

So what? SME were founded in the forties but is that when they made their best arms? Hardly.

Are you guys really saying that all of the developments and advances in turntable technology have been futile as the stuff made in the sixties was as good as it can get? Just to be clear here?
 
Mr Pig said:
So what? SME were founded in the forties but is that when they made their best arms? Hardly.

Are you guys really saying that all of the developments and advances in turntable technology have been futile as the stuff made in the sixties was as good as it can get? Just to be clear here?
Click to expand...
A top of the line table from Sony, Yamaha and others from the 70s, tipped with the best cartridges available at the time are highly competitive with anything made today.

Keep in mind that these companies had teams of well educated and experienced engineers and essentially unlimited budgets compared to skeleton staffing in modern audiophile companies. Mechanical requirements for high fidelity playback were well understood, materials and bearing quality were widely available and computers and control systems were both available and increasingly sophisticated. This was after the Apollo program, not some dark ages.

The kind of technologies incorporated into the best decks of that time - auto record centering, two plane active electronic arm damping and auto cart balance - are wildly out of reach of modern audiophile table makers. That's why great majority of today's tables are refinements of the 1950's-1960's technology.
 
DimitryZ said:
Keep in mind that these companies had teams of well educated and experienced engineers and essentially unlimited budgets compared to skeleton staffing in modern audiophile companies. Mechanical requirements for high fidelity playback were well understood...
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say but question the last part quoted. Small, specialist companies were able to make turntables which sounded better than equivalently priced Japanese decks precisely because they did a better job of figuring out what actually mattered. True, they couldn't compete with Japanese industrial might but they didn't have to. A good record player turned out to be a simple thing with good engineering in the right places.

But the bit I really question is "understood". Over the ensuing decades turntable manufacturers have studied the energy management requirements of turntables in a way and with methods which were not available in the seventies. Refinement of old technology, absolutely. Aren't most things? Modern cars are a refinement of older cars. Doesn't mean the old cars perform as well does it?
 
Mr Pig said:
I agree with most of what you say but question the last part quoted. Small, specialist companies were able to make turntables which sounded better than equivalently priced Japanese decks precisely because they did a better job of figuring out what actually mattered. True, they couldn't compete with Japanese industrial might but they didn't have to. A good record player turned out to be a simple thing with good engineering in the right places.

But the bit I really question is "understood". Over the ensuing decades turntable manufacturers have studied the energy management requirements of turntables in a way and with methods which were not available in the seventies. Refinement of old technology, absolutely. Aren't most things? Modern cars are a refinement of older cars. Doesn't mean the old cars perform as well does it?
Click to expand...
I work in a large company producing complex things that require large teams to work together, so I am sceptical of the lone genius approach to complex engineering.

Turntables are simple devices, but solutions to their design challenges may not be. The cartridge/arm resonance is a typical case in point. Most audiphile decks today simply leave it alone. Some attempt to bravely control it with a rudimentary damping system - a trough filled with oil or a passive damper built into the tonearm - that is the only technology that today's table makers can realistically offer.

The elegant solution is active electric damping - Biotracer, in Sony's implementation. It requires a computer servo control, coils/magnets and precision electro-mechanical manufacturing that our celebrated brands are incapable of - and this is 30 years after it was in mass production.

The other example is the most stiff/light cantilever material. In the 80's, boron PIPE was mass produced by vapor deposition - none of today's cart makers can even dream of doing this.

Modern tables and carts are indeed excellent - but their choice of engineering solutions is severely limited by their actual design/manufacturing capabilities, which are a shadow of what was available 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, what companies were even able to manufacture direct drive turntables back in the 70’s and 80’s?
The whole “belt is better than DD” affair was just a marketing ploy, an excuse for not being able to produce affordable DD decks in Europe.
I believe only Dual and ReVox made one.
 
DimitryZ said:
Arguably, the tables and cartridges in the late 70s were more sophisticated than purely mechanical decks we have today.

My Sony PS-B80 is auto-balance, fully servo controlled, including arm motion and damping in both planes.

Best cartridges of that time sported boron PIPE cantilevers, technology that is unavailable today at any price.
Click to expand...


Superb table,
Keith
 
chartz said:
Seriously, what companies were even able to manufacture direct drive turntables back in the 70’s and 80’s?
The whole “belt is better than DD” affair was just a marketing ploy, an excuse for not being able to produce affordable DD decks in Europe.
I believe only Dual and ReVox made one.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all serious hifi companies had DD tables by mid or late 70s.

Remember, man went to the moon in the 60s :)
 
I meant in Europe... Linn, Thorens, Rega, Ariston, Michell et al didn’t have the industrial ability to produce DD’s. Belt drives are cheap and cheerful, and profit inducing. They always were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top