Turntable advice

Wonder how this sounds, this looks like its mongrelled from TNT parts.
https://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/ele/5552935228.html

 

I'd actually love it if DACs were separated into USB/Clocker stage, DAC-ish stage and output stage. I also think we'd advance digital a lot more if that happened. Unfortunately, lots of DAC manufacturers make money on their everything else, but not on the DAC design, which is just a chip they bought.

 

That Nottingham table is very nice! A great setup for sure. There is one for sale locally I've heard that sounded great, just a ways out of my budget ballpark.

Just wondering about comments on dynamic range... Shouldn't redbook theoretically and realistically have more dynamic range available? I've been under the impression that the DR from 16 bits is more than an analog rig is capable of producing... Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps it's the presentation of the analog setup which affords itself to a more dynamic sound? Just wondering.

I don't really hear constrained dynamic range on digital... I do hear compressed mastering, but the format itself seems to have plenty of range available for well mastered material eg. classical recordings.

 

DCS seems to be ahead of the game with the the 3 box (dac/resampler/clocker) Vivaldi. (Only $75,000... )

 

Ok, so you're speaking of different mastering for the vinyl release. I also appreciate this, although a lot of the indie artists I enjoy don't have the budget to have their material remastered for vinyl. Wish they'd all just release their material with the dynamics intact.

 

I feel like the days of distinct vinyl masters are diminishing now that many are pressed from digital files. If I get new vinyl these days, it's either because I know it's been recorded, mastered, and pressed on an all analog chain or I just like the album enough to have it in my collection and I don't worry about the source.

 

You can't use DR values to compare digital and vinyl records. If you take a digital file, say DR of 5, and press it to vinyl, then play back that vinyl and record it for DR analysis, the DR will be higher. This is an inherent issue with analog systems that the creator of the DR analysis software has acknowledged. If the DR values for LPs were correct, you'd be right that there is a trend towards higher dynamic range on vinyl than on digital. But those values aren't correct, and we don't even know the margin of error because it's random.

I find it difficult to believe that vinyl has a higher effective dynamic range because if you go to the Loudness Wars database, and set it to sort for highest max DR, you'll find CDs and downloads with values in the mid-30s. The highest value I find for vinyl in that database is 22, but as we know, that's actually artificially boosted, which means it's likely 20 or below.

We can agree that many popular modern albums are dynamically compressed on CD, and may be less compressed on vinyl. Certain artists like Jack White and Nick Cave have flat out said they make higher DR masterings for vinyl. But Jack White also makes AAA vinyl recordings and gives a crap about the medium. Most albums released on vinyl today are sourced from digital, so any effective limitations on the digital files would also apply to the vinyl.

If you listen to a lot of classical, you should quickly be able to identify the higher DR range of CD and digital files. It's not just theoretical.

 

I'd say there were many reasons that classical enthusiasts flocked to CD, but the increased dynamic range and lower noise floor were definitely big factors.

There are good and great classic vinyl records out there, but the most dynamic classical recordings do show the limitations of vinyl as a medium.

Don't get me wrong though, I prefer vinyl over digital in most cases. It sounds more like real music coming from vinyl, even with the limitations. I just wanted to correct the idea that vinyl has more effective dynamic range than digital. I agree that many vinyl records have less compressed masterings than their digital counterparts, especially on albums released when analog was the only mode of transmission.

 

Its somewhere in L.A., too, if you were curious. It has the same acrylic slab (though clear, so I'm unsure if the density is different) Tnt feet, an acrylic TNT jr platter, and some motor I cant quite make out, lol. LIke a super Tnt Jr. depending on the bearing.

 

About that dynamic range thing... I don't think you are missing anything on vinyl. Even with hugely dynamic recordings like the Living Stereo Scheherazade I don't hear any difference. Keep in mind the noise floor of the typical quiet listening space is what; 30dBFS RMS at best? Add 70-75dBFS to that and you are at ear damaging levels.

Lower noise floor yes digital has that and it is definitely one the strengths of the medium. Especially for classical I think it makes a difference as the imperfections of vinyl can become very intrusive against what is often a very quiet background. I have a few dollar bin classical records and yeah, I only listen to my needledrops because ClickRepair is saving the day... Modern re-issues on clean vinyl such as the AP Living Stereo re-issues are killer though. For other genres it doesn't matter.

 

There is a lot of other stuff out there suitable for tweaking an analog setup though. From mats that you might place inside your phono stage or motor, linear tonearms, laser turntables, mechanical suspensions, furniture / stands for vibration absorption and isolation, attaching a second tonearm, etc. I knew someone whose husband cut a hole into the floor so the turntable assembly was standing on top of the foundation, rather than the floor. (Isolation and ground circuit layout would still apply as that's a generic EE topic rather than a DAC topic.)

I agree less of a mystery though since it's a lot easier to understand and translate (most of) those into their mechanical impact. Some products are possibly questionable though, like cleaning fluid formulas or the de-staticizer products (in how they work and how quickly, and not that static is bad).

There's still quite open debate on VTA though. Do you calibrate for 180g or 200g records and then use a mat of proper thickness when playing thinner records? Or does it really not make a difference as some people argue after doing the math? Are audible differences in VTA mostly due to the possible influence on other factors and not VTA directly? I'm not really sure about this myself but so far I don't bother trying to get VTA perfect.

 

VTA on my deck definitely changes VTF, in the range or +-.1-3grams, I always check my VTF after making a VTA adjustment.

 

I took the platter off, it doesn't seem to be the problem. I think it's the rubber mat. I took it off and cleaned it and it isn't as wobbly now.

The cart is an AT433e. Is that decent? I was thinking of just getting a replacement stylus for it.

Found this: http://www.lpgear.com/product/ATSAT0433E.html

 

VTA and VTF are definitely very tightly dependent I would set up an arm and cartridge for the thickness of records you MOSTLY play. If you have mostly 180g records, setup for that.

Another small "trick" is to setup for around 150g records or so. That way, slightly thicker records will only kinda "warm" up the sound a bit due to higher tracking force. Slightly thinner records will be a little more open. If there is a particular record that bothers you that is thin, get a really thin mat to buffer the height of the record a bit.

Its all about how YOU want to hear your music. It is all adjustable...

 

Sorry about the noob question, but for those with summit-fi setups, does the crackle/popping noise go away?

I'm listening to a new record that I wiped down with a microfiber cloth (will be investing in a brush and other stuff soon) and a new cartridge and there's the occasional crackling (not too annoying, but definitely present). I read that it could be the new cartridge, but wanted to hear what others have to say.