things that DONT all sound the same

[kingsxfan]

SergeAuckland wrote:

rockmeister wrote:

Another technically ignorant question needing an answer. I IMAGINE that because Record decks, arms, cartridges and speakers contain mechanical components subject to stres, resonance etc, we have good reason for suspecting that all these (unless designed and made to an identical spec) WILL sound different to each other and further, that good engineering can produce 'better' (SIGH OK, closer to mastertape in replay....accurate if you must) sound. Am I therefore correct in assuming that it is NOT just a matter of time before someone starts a 'do all record decks sound the same' thread?



Please just say yes, so I can sleep at night

There are lots of factors that affect the sound of vinyl replay. The quality and performance of the cartridge, stylus geometry etc have a significant effect. As you suggest, the resonances in the arm , tightness or slackness of bearings etc will also affect the sound, although in my experience these are becoming secondary effects.

What makes the least difference I've found is the turntable itself. There is some difference, especially when it comes to isolation and microphony, so is dependant on mounting and positioning relative to the loudspeakers, walls etc. However, if you listen on headphones so there's no loudspeaker playing, and don't have kids running about bouncing a suspended floor, I suggest you won't hear any difference between turntables with identical arms and cartridges as long as the turntables go round at the right speed and with minimal rumble and wow&flutter.

However, in normal use, when the turntable as a system is played in the audio field from the loudspeakers, yes there will be a difference which will still show up in blind tests due to all the above reasons.

Turntables are about the only thing left worth playing with.......

Sleep well.

S.

Do you seriously believe that statement?

[SergeAuckland]

kingsxfan wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:

rockmeister wrote:

Another technically ignorant question needing an answer. I IMAGINE that because Record decks, arms, cartridges and speakers contain mechanical components subject to stres, resonance etc, we have good reason for suspecting that all these (unless designed and made to an identical spec) WILL sound different to each other and further, that good engineering can produce 'better' (SIGH OK, closer to mastertape in replay....accurate if you must) sound. Am I therefore correct in assuming that it is NOT just a matter of time before someone starts a 'do all record decks sound the same' thread?



Please just say yes, so I can sleep at night

There are lots of factors that affect the sound of vinyl replay. The quality and performance of the cartridge, stylus geometry etc have a significant effect. As you suggest, the resonances in the arm , tightness or slackness of bearings etc will also affect the sound, although in my experience these are becoming secondary effects.

What makes the least difference I've found is the turntable itself. There is some difference, especially when it comes to isolation and microphony, so is dependant on mounting and positioning relative to the loudspeakers, walls etc. However, if you listen on headphones so there's no loudspeaker playing, and don't have kids running about bouncing a suspended floor, I suggest you won't hear any difference between turntables with identical arms and cartridges as long as the turntables go round at the right speed and with minimal rumble and wow&flutter.

However, in normal use, when the turntable as a system is played in the audio field from the loudspeakers, yes there will be a difference which will still show up in blind tests due to all the above reasons.

Turntables are about the only thing left worth playing with.......

Sleep well.

S.

Do you seriously believe that statement?

If you're referring to the final comment about turntables, it was meant jocularly, but if you're referring to the main body of the post, I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't!

S.

[sq225917]

Serge,
No they were blind.

My mate Chris came round, i sat with my little Virgin Atlantic shades on, he swapped the platter over and played the same bit of music from start of the track each time. We did this ten times, some times he swapped, some times he just removed and replaced it. I got 10/10.

My deck at the time was a very heavily modded Rega p5, so it only takes ten seconds to swap the platter and it effects nothing else on the deck.

it does seem awfully like in the lack of knowing what to measure that you refuse to trust your own ears, how sad that must be.

[oldphrt]

sq225917 wrote:

Serge,
No they were blind.

My mate Chris came round, i sat with my little Virgin Atlantic shades on, he swapped the platter over and played the same bit of music from start of the track each time. We did this ten times, some times he swapped, some times he just removed and replaced it. I got 10/10.

My deck at the time was a very heavily modded Rega p5, so it only takes ten seconds to swap the platter and it effects nothing else on the deck.

it does seem awfully like in the lack of knowing what to measure that you refuse to trust your own ears, how sad that must be.

Making up stories is sadder still.

[rockmeister]

surely you are not suggesting that any of these facts might be fabricated?????

[johnniebaby]

rockmeister wrote:

surely you are not suggesting that any of these facts might be fabricated?????

I would imagine he is , as it doesn't fit in with his blinkered view.

[SergeAuckland]

sq225917 wrote:

Serge,
No they were blind.

My mate Chris came round, i sat with my little Virgin Atlantic shades on, he swapped the platter over and played the same bit of music from start of the track each time. We did this ten times, some times he swapped, some times he just removed and replaced it. I got 10/10.

My deck at the time was a very heavily modded Rega p5, so it only takes ten seconds to swap the platter and it effects nothing else on the deck.

it does seem awfully like in the lack of knowing what to measure that you refuse to trust your own ears, how sad that must be.

Interesting result. However as I mentioned before, it would be well worth doingagain with another listener in another system and see if the result is the same. If so, there's definitely something worth investigating.

You're right that in this case, there is a lack of knowledge of what to measure. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for what you say, but as far as I'm aware, no hard facts, no wider-scale tests. I don't trust anything let alone my own senses, only what can be measured, or, as in this case, a test or testsdone withstatistically valid samples and with statistically valid results one way or the other.

Anything else is, in my view, a belief system, and I don't believe in those.

S.

[oldphrt]

johnniebaby wrote:

rockmeister wrote:

surely you are not suggesting that any of these facts might be fabricated?????

I would imagine he is , as it doesn't fit in with his blinkered view.

Blinkered view? Moi?



Being sceptical is good. It saves you from religion, Russ Andrews and Nigerian email scams.

If he had left out that remark about Serge refusing to trust his own ears I wouldn't have commented.

[kingsxfan]

SergeAuckland wrote:

kingsxfan wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:

rockmeister wrote:

Another technically ignorant question needing an answer. I IMAGINE that because Record decks, arms, cartridges and speakers contain mechanical components subject to stres, resonance etc, we have good reason for suspecting that all these (unless designed and made to an identical spec) WILL sound different to each other and further, that good engineering can produce 'better' (SIGH OK, closer to mastertape in replay....accurate if you must) sound. Am I therefore correct in assuming that it is NOT just a matter of time before someone starts a 'do all record decks sound the same' thread?



Please just say yes, so I can sleep at night

There are lots of factors that affect the sound of vinyl replay. The quality and performance of the cartridge, stylus geometry etc have a significant effect. As you suggest, the resonances in the arm , tightness or slackness of bearings etc will also affect the sound, although in my experience these are becoming secondary effects.

What makes the least difference I've found is the turntable itself. There is some difference, especially when it comes to isolation and microphony, so is dependant on mounting and positioning relative to the loudspeakers, walls etc. However, if you listen on headphones so there's no loudspeaker playing, and don't have kids running about bouncing a suspended floor, I suggest you won't hear any difference between turntables with identical arms and cartridges as long as the turntables go round at the right speed and with minimal rumble and wow&flutter.

However, in normal use, when the turntable as a system is played in the audio field from the loudspeakers, yes there will be a difference which will still show up in blind tests due to all the above reasons.

Turntables are about the only thing left worth playing with.......

Sleep well.

S.

Do you seriously believe that statement?

If you're referring to the final comment about turntables, it was meant jocularly, but if you're referring to the main body of the post, I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't!

S.

Well I was referring to the bold text which I've highlighted.

Acoustic feedback is the only issue you remove from the equation when listening through a set of cans. Proper considered design in turntables is all about energy management, therefore a turntable itself will have a measurable effect on the output signal. This is not wholy dependant on just the arm and cartridge.

What you are essentially saying is that there are no gains to be had by someone who uses headphones by using a better platform for their chosen cart and arm.

Putting the same driver and engine onto and intoa different chassis will not give the same results on the track so-to-speak.

This is an extreme example, but if you were to mount a sensitive enough cartridge (i.e. high bandwidth, high resolution etc) into the same arm onto decks that were poles apart in terms of structure, perform a frequency sweep using the same disk and the output/measurements will be different.

I don't have theequipment to back this up, but themechanics and physics will no doubt prove this to be the case if I did.

[SergeAuckland]

kingsxfan wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:

kingsxfan wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:

rockmeister wrote:

Another technically ignorant question needing an answer. I IMAGINE that because Record decks, arms, cartridges and speakers contain mechanical components subject to stres, resonance etc, we have good reason for suspecting that all these (unless designed and made to an identical spec) WILL sound different to each other and further, that good engineering can produce 'better' (SIGH OK, closer to mastertape in replay....accurate if you must) sound. Am I therefore correct in assuming that it is NOT just a matter of time before someone starts a 'do all record decks sound the same' thread?



Please just say yes, so I can sleep at night

There are lots of factors that affect the sound of vinyl replay. The quality and performance of the cartridge, stylus geometry etc have a significant effect. As you suggest, the resonances in the arm , tightness or slackness of bearings etc will also affect the sound, although in my experience these are becoming secondary effects.

What makes the least difference I've found is the turntable itself. There is some difference, especially when it comes to isolation and microphony, so is dependant on mounting and positioning relative to the loudspeakers, walls etc. However, if you listen on headphones so there's no loudspeaker playing, and don't have kids running about bouncing a suspended floor, I suggest you won't hear any difference between turntables with identical arms and cartridges as long as the turntables go round at the right speed and with minimal rumble and wow&flutter.

However, in normal use, when the turntable as a system is played in the audio field from the loudspeakers, yes there will be a difference which will still show up in blind tests due to all the above reasons.

Turntables are about the only thing left worth playing with.......

Sleep well.

S.

Do you seriously believe that statement?

If you're referring to the final comment about turntables, it was meant jocularly, but if you're referring to the main body of the post, I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't!

S.

Well I was referring to the bold text which I've highlighted.

Acoustic feedback is the only issue you remove from the equation when listening through a set of cans. Proper considered design in turntables is all about energy management, therefore a turntable itself will have a measurable effect on the output signal. This is not wholy dependant on just the arm and cartridge.

What you are essentially saying is that there are no gains to be had by someone who uses headphones by using a better platform for their chosen cart and arm.

Putting the same driver and engine onto and intoa different chassis will not give the same results on the track so-to-speak.

This is an extreme example, but if you were to mount a sensitive enough cartridge (i.e. high bandwidth, high resolution etc) into the same arm onto decks that were poles apart in terms of structure, perform a frequency sweep using the same disk and the output/measurements will be different.

I don't have theequipment to back this up, but themechanics and physics will no doubt prove this to be the case if I did.

You could be right but my own tests didn't find that. As previously mentioned, I did the tests in the mid '80s using a Pink Triangle, Michell Gyrodec and Ariston RD11 and/or RD40 turntables, which were what I had available without arms. They were each fitted with either SME or Helios arms and probably Ortofon MM cartridges. I apologise for my vagueness regarding the exact equipment but I am going by memory as I haven't kept the notes I made at the time.

I accept that all three turntables are suspended-subchassis types and so may have a commonality of sound that made them indistiguishable. Different types of turntables (Dual and Revolver) which I also had available came prefitted with arms so weren't usable in these tests.

I have not seen any physics or mathematics that will explain the sonic differences which have been reported, so I cannot comment other than from my own experience.

S.

[YNWAN]

I have performed very few blind, and no double blind tests, so you may not find this a valid contribution. However, I have experimented quite extensively with turntable design in the last 20+ years. My personal experience indicates that what the chassis is made of, and how the record is terminated, does make a sonic difference. In fact, my experience is that literally everything about deck design makes a difference - the specific materials used, how they are joined, what shape they are, their mass etc.

Somebody mentioned earlier the dissipation of vibration from the cartridge, down the arm and into the chassis. Certainly this energy does exist. If one plays a record (amplifier turned off) and uses a stethoscope yo listen to the chassis one can hear every note of the music (well not EVERY note but a lot of the music).

When I last changed experimented with armboard material I conducted a blind test to see if loosening the arm board bolts could be heard and the listener I used had no problem hearing this unsighted. I should add that the arm board is still held in place, in terms of arm to platter geometry, on my deck when the bolts are removed - they only serve to bond the armboard to the chassis.

[kingsxfan]

YNWAN wrote:

I have performed very few blind, and no double blind tests, so you may not find this a valid contribution. However, I have experimented quite extensively with turntable design in the last 20+ years. My personal experience indicates that what the chassis is made of, and how the record is terminated, does make a sonic difference. In fact, my experience is that literally everything about deck design makes a difference - the specific materials used, how they are joined, what shape they are, their mass etc.

Somebody mentioned earlier the dissipation of vibration from the cartridge, down the arm and into the chassis. Certainly this energy does exist. If one plays a record (amplifier turned off) and uses a stethoscope yo listen to the chassis one can hear every note of the music (well not EVERY note but a lot of the music).

When I last changed experimented with armboard material I conducted a blind test to see if loosening the arm board bolts could be heard and the listener I used had no problem hearing this unsighted. I should add that the arm board is still held in place, in terms of arm to platter geometry, on my deck when the bolts are removed - they only serve to bond the armboard to the chassis.

I have read papers on turntable design in the past, the basic premise is that sharpcorners were to be avoided where possible. These store energy which can be reflected through the chassis and cause unwanted distortion or feedback into thecartridge via the platter/bearing etc. Most designs of substance seem to reflect this these days, although there are still traditional designs, but even these appear to have rounded corners.

There are obviously a massive amount of design ideas that have ben executed over the years in terms of managing energy, hence the vast and varied turntables which do tend to sound distinct from each other, even with the same arm and carts.

I think as Serg pointed out earlier, turntables are the bits where you do still get room to tinker and alter the sound more easily, due to the nature of the beast i.e. electromechanical/analogue process in transcription.

All part of the fun if you ask me

[sq225917]

Old phart, if you doubt me perhaps you'd like to come round to my house some time and you can be my platter changing bitch for the day. Then maybe we might be able to prise those blinkers of yours off just enough so you can see the wood for the trees.

[oldphrt]

sq225917 wrote:

Old phart, if you doubt me perhaps you'd like to come round to my house some time and you can be my platter changing bitch for the day. Then maybe we might be able to prise those blinkers of yours off just enough so you can see the wood for the trees.

OK, what's your address?

[YNWAN]

He's in Sheffield Fred - you could pop round to mine (as I only live round the corner) and play a few records, if you like.

[sq225917]

Pop round any time Fred, you are more than welcome, we can test all sorts of myth.

cd-vs-lossless
glass vs acrylic
damping strip around edge of platter.
shiny metal foil, attached to the wall socket plugged into your socks..

[oldphrt]

Sheffield, no sorry chaps, a bit too far from Somerset.
Thanks for the invite anyway.

I'm curious though. If I tried something out and found it was better I would simply leave it in place. I wouldn't bother to invite someone round to test me.

Why did you?

[rockmeister]

love the way you twisted that 100%

wriggle of the day award!

[beeroclock]

Wo wait on a minute oldphrt, it was Serge that insisted on the blind test as the only valid proof, something that I think even you will agree cannot be done alone.

Sq then pointed out that he had done so and you effectively said he was telling porkies. Which by the way I think is bang out of order mate.

Another point I'd like to make is just because Serge did a test some twenty years ago with equipment he himself does not exactly remember and could not hear any differences - does not necessarily mean there weren't any. Why should his ears be any better or more discerning than Sq's. As far a I'm aware there has been no proof shown here of anyone's ability to hear - so this is all rather subjective isn't it.

philip

[oldphrt]

beeroclock wrote:

Wo wait on a minute oldphrt, it was Serge that insisted on the blind test as the only valid proof, something that I think even you will agree cannot be done alone.

Sq then pointed out that he had done so and you effectively said he was telling porkies. Which by the way I think is bang out of order mate.

Another point I'd like to make is just because Serge did a test some twenty years ago with equipment he himself does not exactly remember and could not hear any differences - does not necessarily mean there weren't any. Why should his ears be any better or more discerning than Sq's. As far a I'm aware there has been no proof shown here of anyone's ability to hear - so this is all rather subjective isn't it.

philip

Sq's post reminded me of all the other reinforced by a third party assertions that I've read on hi-fi fora, you know the kind of thing, "I was playing my system using my Russ £2400 mains conditioner and the wife/ lodger/ boyfriend came in and remarked on the massive difference in the sound. Honestly you must have tone deaf cloth ears/no discernment/no brain if you can't hear it"

If he had just said he bought a new platter for the turntable, reckoned it really made a difference and left out the insult at the end that would have been fine and I wouldn't have said anything.