-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Anyone had like a $800 turntable and upgraded to a $2,000 plus turntable and notice much difference?
- Thread starter Revelation Sound
- Start date
Tom C
Major Contributor
Kind of surprising how much discussion a question like this generates. The OP poses a basic consumer question: will I get anything worthwhile for my money if I spend more?
I’m not an expert. And I haven’t spent nearly as much time and effort on vinyl as some others here. But I’ll add my small data point.
I had stayed away from hifi for years because of high cost. I had an education to pay for, then a family, it just wasn’t a priority. So when in my later years I decided to wade back into the waters, I tried to start with what I thought I knew and understood. I got a VPI Classic 4, AT ART-100, McIntosh C2500 (tube phono and preamp in one unit), McIntosh MC275 x 2 (each operated in monoblock) and Tannoy Definition DC10A. The speakers I bought used, and the preamp was on closeout. Found a dealer who discounted the price of the turntable, so didn’t pay full retail for any of it, but still cost over $30,000 by the time I was done. Expected stunning results, but the reality was less than stunning. Couple years later, wanted to see how good a system I could put together for less money. Went with Technics SL1200 GR (it had just been re-issued), Ortofon Black 2M Mono SE (the special edition mono cart released to commemorate the Beatles mono box set) Graham Slee Jazz Club phono, Schiit Vidar, and Kef LS50 (the originals). What was stunning about that was how much better that sounded, for about $4,000 all told. An order of magnitude lower in cost. The reasons for that difference are manifold, but the less expensive turntable did not sound worse. Expensive lesson.
Found ASR along the way, which really opened my eyes, so now I don’t fret about vinyl too much. Still fun, but not high in importance. And certainly not worth untold gobs of $$$$. That Technics is a sweet turntable.
I’m not an expert. And I haven’t spent nearly as much time and effort on vinyl as some others here. But I’ll add my small data point.
I had stayed away from hifi for years because of high cost. I had an education to pay for, then a family, it just wasn’t a priority. So when in my later years I decided to wade back into the waters, I tried to start with what I thought I knew and understood. I got a VPI Classic 4, AT ART-100, McIntosh C2500 (tube phono and preamp in one unit), McIntosh MC275 x 2 (each operated in monoblock) and Tannoy Definition DC10A. The speakers I bought used, and the preamp was on closeout. Found a dealer who discounted the price of the turntable, so didn’t pay full retail for any of it, but still cost over $30,000 by the time I was done. Expected stunning results, but the reality was less than stunning. Couple years later, wanted to see how good a system I could put together for less money. Went with Technics SL1200 GR (it had just been re-issued), Ortofon Black 2M Mono SE (the special edition mono cart released to commemorate the Beatles mono box set) Graham Slee Jazz Club phono, Schiit Vidar, and Kef LS50 (the originals). What was stunning about that was how much better that sounded, for about $4,000 all told. An order of magnitude lower in cost. The reasons for that difference are manifold, but the less expensive turntable did not sound worse. Expensive lesson.
Found ASR along the way, which really opened my eyes, so now I don’t fret about vinyl too much. Still fun, but not high in importance. And certainly not worth untold gobs of $$$$. That Technics is a sweet turntable.
JP
Major Contributor
"but ime arms with removable headshell assemblies and all its inherited variances..."
Sure doesn't sound like it. Not to be pedantic, but I can only go by what you actually write.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,369
- Likes
- 3,558
To return to the OP's original inquiry, I'd say that aside from one or two turntables which seemed to have pitch accuracy issues, most of the differences that I noted when progressing from my first TT (Technics SL-D1 direct drive) had more to do with isolation from the environment, and more generous use of costly and attractive materials. But switching from a Radio Shack-branded Shure M97 to a Dynavector Ruby cartridge - now there was a memorable improvement! So were the half-speed mastered Mobile Fidelity LPs.
Linear vs pivoted tonearms: I've owned a couple of linear trackers (Technics SL5, Eminent Technology) and like the idea, but they cannot fix inner groove distortion caused by lower linear velocities baked into the record itself. And in case anyone's wondering, yes there were audiophile microgroove 78 rpm records! I have one, and aside from being a mono recording, and pressed badly off-center, it sounds wonderful.
Linear vs pivoted tonearms: I've owned a couple of linear trackers (Technics SL5, Eminent Technology) and like the idea, but they cannot fix inner groove distortion caused by lower linear velocities baked into the record itself. And in case anyone's wondering, yes there were audiophile microgroove 78 rpm records! I have one, and aside from being a mono recording, and pressed badly off-center, it sounds wonderful.
Robin L
Master Contributor
The Technics SL-D1 turntable happened to be the last turntable I regularly used. Had a Shure M44 cartridge with the DJ "7" stylus tracking at 2.5 grams. Tracked almost anything, had very good speed stability. Found it at an AMVETS with a cracked dust cover for $50. Most of my turntables were AR XAs, one of those 'tables where acoustic isolation is a thing, footfalls can knock the stylus out of the groove thanks to the oscillations of the suspended subchassis. My best turntable was a Linn Sondek LP-12 that was very well set up. That set me back $1000 in 1998. It had the same sort of suspended subchassis as the AR, but heavier in build and less prone to acoustic breakthrough. I also had a very nice Strathclyde 305-M, also a suspended subchassis deck with a SME III arm that I literally wore out over 20 years. That turntable was given to me, so I suppose that was my most cost-effective turntable I've owned. In terms of net results, the Technics was the best buy, as it could play more worn LPs with less distortion, in part because of the heavy-ish tracking, in part because of the large conical stylus of the M44-7 riding above the worn part of the groove. I was playing a lot of $1 records at the time, so no place for an expensive stylus. Of course, the M44-7 is no longer cheap.
Last edited:
Thermionics
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
- Messages
- 71
- Likes
- 95
Which Technics arm? They have had quite a few over the 50+ years of their existence.
Robin L
Master Contributor
The arm for the SL-D1 was about average for its time, certainly better than some Pioneer and Sansui 'tables I've owned. My understanding is the arms for the most recent Technics 'tables have tightened up the tolerances. I have also owned the Grace 707 arm, a good choice for cartridges that are supposed to track around 1 gram, but a lot harder to set up than the bayonet mount tonearms with removable headshells like the Technics.Which Technics arm? They have had quite a few over the 50+ years of their existence.
My end of the love affair with turntables ended when I had a JVC VL-5 unit and took it into get tuned & get a cartridge for it. I even purchased a Rolls Phono Preamp for it.
I picked it up and he said that the turntable was a "Little fast"... A Little?
I played a few records and then it just sat their looking nice on the shelf. I gave it away after spending close to $900 just to get a "Quality Vintage machine".
Not doing that ever again. I gave away almost all my Vinyl after that. Stuff from the 1930's up to current day for less then a $100 bucks.
The best turntable I had? Was this one:
Not only did it keep speed, but it was flawless on playback. After my bum luck with the "SO MUCH BETTER JVC VL-5"..... I gave it up.
Maybe its just me. But its just a lot of work to keep up with vinyl. they're fun at parties but that's about it. and don't get me started about record cleaning yeah I did the part where you put it in the washing machine. But it was a typo. It was dishwasher. Google translate was not that good at the time.
I picked it up and he said that the turntable was a "Little fast"... A Little?
I played a few records and then it just sat their looking nice on the shelf. I gave it away after spending close to $900 just to get a "Quality Vintage machine".
Not doing that ever again. I gave away almost all my Vinyl after that. Stuff from the 1930's up to current day for less then a $100 bucks.
The best turntable I had? Was this one:
JVC L-E33
Not only did it keep speed, but it was flawless on playback. After my bum luck with the "SO MUCH BETTER JVC VL-5"..... I gave it up.
Maybe its just me. But its just a lot of work to keep up with vinyl. they're fun at parties but that's about it. and don't get me started about record cleaning yeah I did the part where you put it in the washing machine. But it was a typo. It was dishwasher. Google translate was not that good at the time.
To be fair, designing a DD motor is a complex affair requiring specialised engineering know how.... unlike BD's! And with BD's almost all manufacturers, buy off the shelf motors in any case! - so how is it different?! - actually, do ANY of the BD makers make their own motors?
TBone
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
- Likes
- 348
Not aware of any ... but maybe some ultra expensive esoteric design may
... if i was building a direct drive table, the technics motor would b my choice without reservation.
They invented the DD genre, perfected the motors, and still supply motors for the lathes...
Who else is making quality DD drives? VPI, Brinkmann, anything else out there?
More direct answers relative to the OP and my previous responses...
"Anyone had like a $800 turntable and upgraded to a $2,000 plus turntable and notice much difference?"
I doubled the MSRP between the Pioneer to the VPI and found marginal real-world differences. Both were vastly better than the hand-me-down Garrard SL-95B record changer I was using previously. The Garrard was a older mid-market model with significant rim drive noise and poor speed control, both likely exacerbated by age. Both the VPI and Pioneer could benefit from increased arm damping from a higher-end tonearm, but turntables with tonearms of that quality could double cost again.
The silent groove rumble for a $600 Pro-Ject Debut Carbon EVO was measured at -69.1dB whereas the $1500 MoFi StudioDeck+ was –67.2dB. Hum and noise was -58.7 dB for the Pro-Ject and -58.0 for the MoFi. These suggest roughly comparable S/N performance without regard to the tonearm, although the speed control on the MoFi is more precise.
If you used the same cartridge and phono amp, I am wondering how much of a difference would you notice between a mid level turntable and a higher end turntable. I would think part of the difference would be less vibrations?
Given the example above, probably not a lot of difference unless there was a compliance-matching problem with a tonearm. Isolation in a turntable can be a factor, but likely less of one between these price points than might be assumed.
"Anyone had like a $800 turntable and upgraded to a $2,000 plus turntable and notice much difference?"
I doubled the MSRP between the Pioneer to the VPI and found marginal real-world differences. Both were vastly better than the hand-me-down Garrard SL-95B record changer I was using previously. The Garrard was a older mid-market model with significant rim drive noise and poor speed control, both likely exacerbated by age. Both the VPI and Pioneer could benefit from increased arm damping from a higher-end tonearm, but turntables with tonearms of that quality could double cost again.
The silent groove rumble for a $600 Pro-Ject Debut Carbon EVO was measured at -69.1dB whereas the $1500 MoFi StudioDeck+ was –67.2dB. Hum and noise was -58.7 dB for the Pro-Ject and -58.0 for the MoFi. These suggest roughly comparable S/N performance without regard to the tonearm, although the speed control on the MoFi is more precise.
If you used the same cartridge and phono amp, I am wondering how much of a difference would you notice between a mid level turntable and a higher end turntable. I would think part of the difference would be less vibrations?
Given the example above, probably not a lot of difference unless there was a compliance-matching problem with a tonearm. Isolation in a turntable can be a factor, but likely less of one between these price points than might be assumed.
Last edited:
Robin L
Master Contributor
That parameter I'm pointing to [one of the most meaningful measurements of a turntable] is speed constancy. All turntables will be worse than a bog-standard digital playback chain in this regard and nothing is going to fix that. If one is concerned with pitch, pitch being one of the essential characteristics of music, all turntables and LPs will be less good than a digital source, full stop.
TBone
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
- Likes
- 348
... not what u stated, you claimed compared to "average" digital, whatever that means in a day when good digital is nothing more than a $150 commodity ... again nobody is arguing digital superiority, thats a given, speed variations, warts et all ... we r discussing the levels of mass compression within the average software of each format that ultimately defines ones appreciation for any medium. discussing digital advantages in comparison to analog is such old news, yet u keep revisiting the topic as if its relevant ...
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,342
- Likes
- 12,315
I can't give any definitive answer to your question. Others here are more knowledgeable.
But FWIW:
I "upgraded" my turntable, but I also upgraded the arm and cartridge too. I had an old Micro Seiki DD-40 Turntable with an Ortofon MC 20 Cartridge, and the (apparently) well-regarded MA-505 Dynamic Balance Tonearm.
I thought it sounded excellent and I enjoyed going back and forth between playing my digital music and vinyl. The sound was definitely on the side of the "slightly romantic or nostalgic" - that sort of vinyl warmth, records had a fair amount of noise, there was a very slight "fuzz" to the tone relative to digital, and complex passages in a track tended to start sounding congested.
Being an audio-nut, I sold the Micro Seiki and bought a (second hand) Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable - an over-built thing from Germany's oldest turntable manufacturer (1971 to the present). I've supplied a photo.
It came with an Acoustic Solid arm and a Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge. The cartridge - something like $4,500 CAD when new! - was thrown in to the deal. How can I refuse?
I have no friggin' idea how any of these measure, so this opinion is worth what you paid for it.
But I sure had a "wow" reaction when I first started spinning my usual records. First the general background noise, the record "hiss" between tracks and in quiet parts - seemed to have significantly dropped down, to the point I barely noticed it. It felt like lots of my vinyl now sounded new. Second, the clarity was amazing. There was no "fuzz" to the sound (so long as the record wasn't in bad condition). The sense of resolution, of hearing the faintest details no matter how quiet, subjectively started to match listening to my ripped CDs. And the sound remained beautifully clean and clear no matter how many instruments were added to the mix. Basically...it was sort of like making my records get closer to my digital source, though still with a certain vinyl signature that I liked.
I continue to be amazed by the sound from records I buy. I was listening to an electronic album from the 80's last night and no matter how subtle or quiet a sound, or how faint a tiny pool of reverb on a distant synth note, it was just clear, clear, clear.
I also built an isolation platform for the bugger. Constrained layer damping and on spring-based pods. I have no idea if this affects sound quality - I presume it does not. However, it certainly helped mitigate significant structural born vibrations getting to the turntable, e.g. from my tall son who would sometimes skip a record just by stomping past the thing on our sprung wood floors. Now it doesn't flinch (mostly due to the springs).
It is possible to own a $800 turntable and purchase a $2000 turntable that is an upgrade. It’s also possible for it to make ni difference or be worse. A perfect turntable would spin at the perfect speed without variation, perfectly isolate the cartridge from room noise, have no vibration (rumble) from the platter bearing, hold the cartridge in perfect alignment, and not allow the stylus to vibrate anything but the coils/magnet/iron at the other end of the cantilever.
Cheaper turntable tend to have more bearing noise, more speed variation, less damping of room noise, chattery tonearm pivot bearings, platters that damp less of the record vibration, and tonearms that sing along with the cartridge. As you go up the quality( not necessarily price) ladder, all of these things become better controlled. They can all affect the sound.
Cheaper turntable tend to have more bearing noise, more speed variation, less damping of room noise, chattery tonearm pivot bearings, platters that damp less of the record vibration, and tonearms that sing along with the cartridge. As you go up the quality( not necessarily price) ladder, all of these things become better controlled. They can all affect the sound.
Why would one care about better playing of defective vinyl in the first place? Many still think Linn is top of the heap in any case.....the whole thing with vinyl is so fraught with issues it's just hard to keep it in mind as a go-to source.Except I know it is objectively better. Better isolation, better response to warped records, more consistent FR/distortion across record (based on test record). The Oracle Delphi really is a great piece of kit, and frankly, it is Audio\Engineering porn, so yes, looking at it does excite pleasure centers. W.R.T. objectively better, it replaced a Linn, the original snake oil
It’s not a go to source for me. It‘s a wayback source. Magnetic tape deteriorates over time. Magnetic tape recording for record mastering didn‘t start until the mid 1940’s. Tapes from the 40’s and 50’ deteriorated even more rapidly than more recent formulations. If you can find a clean rarely played record of music recorded from that era, it will sound drastically better than a digital transfer done when the tape was 30 to 40 years old.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,342
- Likes
- 12,315
(I'm presuming you mean by "defective vinyl in the first place" that vinyl is inherently "defective" - a strongly compromised source)
This has been answered many times here but...
A lot of people get pleasure out of the various conceptual and tactile aspects of collecting and playing records, and out of owning turntables.
IF you are one of those people, and find yourself playing lots of records and you ALSO enjoy good sound, then it makes sense to start maximizing the potential of vinyl playback too.
As I've mentioned, I find records on my turntable to sound, generally speaking, as mind-blowing as my digital music. So for me I don't find I'm "slumming it" sonically when spinning records and, adding in the other factors that make playing records satisfying, I feel like I'm getting more out of the experience when playing records than playing my digital content. (Not that I don't absolutely love lots of the stuff I have on digital too).
This has been answered many times here but...
A lot of people get pleasure out of the various conceptual and tactile aspects of collecting and playing records, and out of owning turntables.
IF you are one of those people, and find yourself playing lots of records and you ALSO enjoy good sound, then it makes sense to start maximizing the potential of vinyl playback too.
As I've mentioned, I find records on my turntable to sound, generally speaking, as mind-blowing as my digital music. So for me I don't find I'm "slumming it" sonically when spinning records and, adding in the other factors that make playing records satisfying, I feel like I'm getting more out of the experience when playing records than playing my digital content. (Not that I don't absolutely love lots of the stuff I have on digital too).
All depends on what you mean by “quality”. I have a Pioneer PLX-1000 with a likely Taiwan-sourced drive motor, but I find it performs very well for my needs. The are lots of Hanpin direct drives out there, mostly for DJs. The VPI and Brinkmann drives are bespoke compared to the masses produced by Technics.
Similar threads
