advertisement


new Rega Ania Pro MC cartridge

Mr Pig said:
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...

Pretty much, we're well into the realm of diminishing returns here. It's not like Moore's law with CPUs, that every two years processing power doubles. The amount of R&D and engineering quality a large 60s/70s electrical company can throw at something, dwarfs anything a man-in-his-shed can get close to.

I think there's a lot of romanticism around certain Hi-Fi kit- that some bloke made a turntable in his shed and took on the might of Sony/Technics/Garrard etc. seems to play to a lot of people's mind set.
 
matt j said:
Pretty much, we're well into the realm of diminishing returns here. It's not like Moore's law with CPUs, that every two years processing power doubles. The amount of R&D and engineering quality a large 60s/70s electrical company can throw at something, dwarfs anything a man-in-his-shed can get close to.

I think there's a lot of romanticism around certain Hi-Fi kit- that some bloke made a turntable in his shed and took on the might of Sony/Technics/Garrard etc. seems to play to a lot of people's mind set.
Click to expand...
Even Moore's law has shown to be too optimistic in the last 10 years, at least on the commercial side.

Power advances in mainstream CPUs have slowed considerably.
 
Oh yes I know, I was using it as an example from back in the 60s/70s. CPUs are way past this point now with traditional transistors, the only way it could continue is if they develop a new process altogether.
 
Only Technics these days produce really interesting turntables that would cost a fortune if they were manufactured in Europe or in the US.
Think double or triple perhaps. And they would be labelled high end, cost-no-object items.
You have to be lucid here.
Look at the price of the current Thorens TD1600. Preposterous, no less, for what’s in it (no technology at all, just old recipes: an elastic and a basic and cheap motor).
 
DimitryZ said:
Remember, man went to the moon in the 60s :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, so I keep hearing but what does that mean? Are you saying that when the Germans..sorry, Americans went to the moon, that was it? Put away your slide rules and lab coats, technological advancement has peaked? Nothing got better after that?

If so, that's rubbish. It was a big achievement which pushed the tech available at the time but development didn't stop. Your phone has one million times more computer power than the Apollo computer and NASA went on to build the Shuttle, a nifty bit of kit that makes the Saturn V look like a bottle rocket.

Name a single area of technology that has not developed since the sixties? Are cars better? Are televisions better? Are telecommunications better? Are airplanes better? Are washing machines better?

Yet you are arguing that the only exception is the turntable? Which the Japanese perfected decades ago? That despite all of the research into them since, despite the new technologies which have enabled manufacturers to study the physics of these machines like never before, modern turntables are no better and can never be? Is that what you are saying?
 
Mr Pig said:
Yeah, so I keep hearing but what does that mean? Are you saying that when the Germans..sorry, Americans went to the moon, that was it? Put away your slide rules and lab coats, technological advancement has peaked? Nothing got better after that?

If so, that's rubbish. It was a big achievement which pushed the tech available at the time but development didn't stop. Your phone has one million times more computer power than the Apollo computer and NASA went on to build the Shuttle, a nifty bit of kit that makes the Saturn V look like a bottle rocket.

Name a single area of technology that has not developed since the sixties? Are cars better? Are televisions better? Are telecommunications better? Are airplanes better? Are washing machines better?

Yet you are arguing that the only exception is the turntable? Which the Japanese perfected decades ago? That despite all of the research into them since, despite the new technologies which have enabled manufacturers to study the physics of these machines like never before, modern turntables are no better and can never be? Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...
My point was that in the 70s, overall mechanical and electrical technology was adequate to apply high technology solutions to LP playback.

The technology that WAS used at that time in top turntables by best manufacturers was WAY ahead of rudimentary mechanical designs (albeit well executed) that current audiophile manufacturers use today, with very rare exceptions. The one I am familiar with is the Rega synthetic motor power supply that reduces vibration with a custom wave form.

A turntable engineer from the 1950s would be very familiar with the designs of top modern decks. He would be stunned by the likes of Sony PS-b80.

I find, through direct comparison, that the big Sony is at least as good as a Rega P9. These two are both excellent sonically...Sony, of course is about 5 times more convenient :)
 
Last edited:
DimitryZ said:
The technology that WAS used at that time in top turntables by best manufacturers was WAY ahead of rudimentary mechanical designs (albeit well executed) that current audiophile manufacturers use today, with very rare exceptions. The one I am familiar with is the Rega synthetic motor power supply that reduces vibration with a custom wave form.
Click to expand...

But hang on. A good turntable is well executed rudimentary mechanical design! It's the progress in the understanding of precisely that we see in today's top turntables. You cite the Rega power supply as an exception but it isn't. The rest of the turntable is just as advanced compared to vintage decks.

The super-hard ceramic platter, impossible to make in the sixties. The one piece arm casting, impossible to make in the sixties. The very idea of making the deck as rigid as possible yet as light as possible wasn't even thought of as the physics weren't well enough understood. The 'rubber' used in the drive belts, didn't exist in the sixties. Not only was the power supply you mention impossible to make in the sixties but motor behavior wasn't well enough understood to realise such a thing would be of benefit!

I totally agree that Japanese manufacturing power was formidable but did they have the insight to know what to do with it? In many ways, I don't think they did.
 
Mr Pig said:
But hang on. A good turntable is well executed rudimentary mechanical design! It's the progress in the understanding of precisely that we see in today's top turntables. You cite the Rega power supply as an exception but it isn't. The rest of the turntable is just as advanced compared to vintage decks.

The super-hard ceramic platter, impossible to make in the sixties. The one piece arm casting, impossible to make in the sixties. The very idea of making the deck as rigid as possible yet as light as possible wasn't even thought of as the physics weren't well enough understood. The 'rubber' used in the drive belts, didn't exist in the sixties. Not only was the power supply you mention impossible to make in the sixties but motor behavior wasn't well enough understood to realise such a thing would be of benefit!

I totally agree that Japanese manufacturing power was formidable but did they have the insight to know what to do with it? In many ways, I don't think they did.
Click to expand...
I spent decades thinking along the same lines. That super-smart knowledge about vibration, energy dissipation, rigidity and such simply eluded 70s and 80s design teams, until - Linn and Rega came along.

But then I realized that all of those advances we tout today are simply applications of basic engineering principles, something every graduate learned in college since at least 1950s.

So, it is far more likely, that modern companies, having a severely limited set of thechnologies that they could actually execute, chose to iterate and improve the very basic table designs from the 50s. And they did a good job, finding solutions along the way as you note. Which supports the idea that one can reach excellence via different paths.

What it doesn't show, as I have found out, is that modern approach is better.
 
Mr Pig said:
But hang on. A good turntable is well executed rudimentary mechanical design! It's the progress in the understanding of precisely that we see in today's top turntables. You cite the Rega power supply as an exception but it isn't. The rest of the turntable is just as advanced compared to vintage decks.

The super-hard ceramic platter, impossible to make in the sixties. The one piece arm casting, impossible to make in the sixties. The very idea of making the deck as rigid as possible yet as light as possible wasn't even thought of as the physics weren't well enough understood. The 'rubber' used in the drive belts, didn't exist in the sixties. Not only was the power supply you mention impossible to make in the sixties but motor behavior wasn't well enough understood to realise such a thing would be of benefit!
Click to expand...

But does any of it make a massive difference? I preferred my old TD160 to a brand new P8, there was no lack of detail or things missing when using the Thorens, so what has all that supposed technological advancement bought us?

With the other things you mention like cars, appliances, televisions etc. the massive leaps were there to be made, not so much with spinning a record I think.
 
DimitryZ said:
I spent decades thinking along the same lines. That super-smart knowledge about vibration, energy dissipation, rigidity and such simply eluded 70s and 80s design teams, until - Linn and Rega came along.

But then I realized that all of those advances we tout today are simply applications of basic engineering principles, something every graduate learned in college since at least 1950s.

So, it is far more likely, that modern companies, having a severely limited set of technologies that they could actually execute, chose to iterate and improve the very basic table designs from the 50s. And they did a good job, finding solutions along the way as you note. Which supports the idea that one can reach excellence via different paths.

What it doesn't show, as I have found out, is that modern approach is better.
Click to expand...

I agree that British manufacturers didn't have a rat's chance of building the same kind of turntables the Japanese could make but I don't think that's the whole story.

For example the LP12 came out in 1973 and the Sony you mention in 1978, so which one is 'modern'? Both Linn and Rega almost certainly could now build a Japanese style highly automated turntable if they wanted to. Just look at the other electronics they make and with modern integrated circuits it would be much easier to implement. They don't do it because they don't want to, not because they can't.

Rega work with hi-tech outside companies to improve the things which will impact on performance. The ceramic platter for instance. Their top motor power supplies make it clear that they are perfectly happy to employ electronic hammer to crack a mechanical nut but having the arm automatically move to the start of the record is of no sonic benefit, so they don't do it. If they thought a direct drive turntable would be better, I think they could build one, but they haven't. It isn't any more complicated than other things they have done.

But they believed that their simpler is better philosophy gave a better sound and I think they've been proven right. The Planar 3 and other 'basic' turntables wiped out their Japanese competitors because they sounded better. I'm not talking about your crazy expensive Sony, I'm talking about turntables that cost the same as the British ones.

A P10 isn't struggling with 'severely limited technologies', Rega have built what they wanted to. And, if you could send one back in time, not one of your Japanese behemoths would be able to copy it let alone come up with the ideas on their own.
 
Mr Pig said:
I agree that British manufacturers didn't have a rat's chance of building the same kind of turntables the Japanese could make but I don't think that's the whole story.

For example the LP12 came out in 1973 and the Sony you mention in 1978, so which one is 'modern'? Both Linn and Rega almost certainly could now build a Japanese style highly automated turntable if they wanted to. Just look at the other electronics they make and with modern integrated circuits it would be much easier to implement. They don't do it because they don't want to, not because they can't.

Rega work with hi-tech outside companies to improve the things which will impact on performance. The ceramic platter for instance. Their top motor power supplies make it clear that they are perfectly happy to employ electronic hammer to crack a mechanical nut but having the arm automatically move to the start of the record is of no sonic benefit, so they don't do it. If they thought a direct drive turntable would be better, I think they could build one, but they haven't. It isn't any more complicated than other things they have done.

But they believed that their simpler is better philosophy gave a better sound and I think they've been proven right. The Planar 3 and other 'basic' turntables wiped out their Japanese competitors because they sounded better. I'm not talking about your crazy expensive Sony, I'm talking about turntables that cost the same as the British ones.

A P10 isn't struggling with 'severely limited technologies', Rega have built what they wanted to. And, if you could send one back in time, not one of your Japanese behemoths would be able to copy it let alone come up with the ideas on their own.
Click to expand...
Again, P10 and Sony PS-b80 are sonically competitive.

When both Linn and Rega started, they were severely limited in electro-mechanical technologies they could successfully execute. Once a design path is chosen, it is very difficult for small manufacturers, who rely on following and customer expectations, to change direction. Besides, a deck of Sony or Mitsubishi complexity built in small numbers today would make the Niad look cheap.

I own and like a P9 and a P8. I find that the snobbish and disdainful attitudes that modern audiophiles express toward Japanese hifi technologies from the past entirely incorrect and undeserved.
 
Last edited:
DimitryZ said:
I find that the snobbish and disdainful attitudes that modern audiophiles express toward Japanese hifi technologies from the past entirely incorrect and undeserved.
Click to expand...

No snobbery here in fact my first TT was a Sansuii SR-222 (circa 1977), after that I did go British (Rega, Linn, Rega, Rega, Rega). All belt drive (even the Sansuii :oops:).
 
DimitryZ said:
I find that the snobbish and disdainful attitudes that modern audiophiles express toward Japanese hifi technologies from the past entirely incorrect and undeserved.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're inventing that. I didn't even mention Japanese turntables, you did. I was talking old versus new. If you trawl through my other posts you'll find me defending Japanese turntables and saying they got a raw deal at the time from the UK Hi-Fi press and shops. You'll find me expressing support for the reintroduction of the SL1200 nd if I was a snob I'd probably still have the LP12 and Naim amps, but I don't.

You say these complex Japanese decks couldn't be made cost effectively today but haven't Panasonic done exactly that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top