U-turn Orbit “Theory”

Discussion in 'Vinyl Nutjob World: Turntable and Related Gear' started by recstar24, Sep 15, 2022.

  1. recstar24

    recstar24 Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Chicago
    https://uturnaudio.com/pages/introducing-orbit-theory?mc_cid=023c375b8b&mc_eid=d21f2733ad

    Just popped up in my inbox. The basic u turn orbit was my first real TT, but i moved on and have been happy in the world of technics direct drive. Basically appears to be a redesigned orbit - magnesium single piece constructed tonearm, better motor, better belt and platter. $1000 is real money but it appears competitive with the rest of the stuff that’s out there.
     
  2. Merrick

    Merrick A lidless ear

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2016
    Likes Received:
    12,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I think everything will come down to how that arm sounds. Generally single piece arms tend to produce a clearer signal, unless of course they are made like shit.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agreed, ditto, +1 Agreed, ditto, +1 x 1
    • List
  3. Walderstorn

    Walderstorn Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Europe
    Does look very good. Would like to know how it sounds.
     
  4. k4rstar

    k4rstar Britney fan club president

    Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    For the same price can now get a Pro-ject debut pro which to me looks superior in almost every way to the new Orbit

    to break it down:
    platter: die-cast aluminum on the pro-ject vs acrylic block on the Orbit

    I don't like the tone of acrylic platters at all, I find they sound pale, especially if the record is interfaced directly with them. most importantly, the Pro-ject is sub-platter driven while the Orbit has the belt going around the platter itself. the Pro-ject system is superior imo. One can also later upgrade the sub-platter to an aluminum one if desired.

    arm: I would be inclined towards the Pro-ject arm because I am not a fan of undamped unipivots. The Orbit arm has no azimuth or VTA adjustment so you will not get the most out of any cartridge beyond entry-level stuff.

    included cartridge: OEM modified 'Pick-it' 2M on the pro-ject vs 2M blue on the Orbit

    the same thing, but it seems that some distribution regions of the Pro-ject get a Sumiko cartridge instead of the 2M Blue which I would greatly prefer.

    motor: hard to say much because neither show the motor up close. the motor on the Pro-ject is in a suspended pod, on the Orbit it's bolted into the plinth. I think the suspended pod is better way to go.

    speed control: the same mechanism on both, a quartz-controlled error correction. the Pro-ject has 78rpm but I don't think anyone will play 78s on it as the arm does not have a removable headshell. you would need a cartridge body which has easily swappable 78 stylii,

    feet: aluminum and rubber on both. The pro-ject feet look more impressive. the Orbit feet kind of look like aliexpress specials.

    plinth: MDF on the project vs. solid wood on the Orbit. win for Orbit

    the Orbit is compelling because you get free US shipping and no question returns. sound quality will largely come down to the quality of the motor, main bearing and tonearm bearings, and I would definitely expect the Pro-ject to win in those departments. cool product though.

    there are different schools of thought on this. it's complicated and depends on your cartridge. many cartridges will actually sound quite dull coupled into a rigid one-piece arm like a Rega. but you can introduce mechanical breaks using washers and wood, metal or felt spacers.
     
  5. wbass

    wbass Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    London, UK
    Agree about Pro-Ject offerings being compelling at $1k. That would also get you a Technics 1500C.
     
  6. HotRatSalad

    HotRatSalad Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    May 4, 2018
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    NH
    Seems so expensive... I don't know about these days but I got a cherry MK5 for $400 a few years ago.
     
    • Agreed, ditto, +1 Agreed, ditto, +1 x 1
    • List
  7. lehmanhill

    lehmanhill Almost "Made"

    Contributor
    Joined:
    May 3, 2018
    Likes Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Home of Jiffy Mix
    Just curious. Why do you feel a sub platter drive is better?
     
  8. k4rstar

    k4rstar Britney fan club president

    Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Inertia and flywheel effect. the platters in both players probably weigh approximately the same. in this case, perimeter drive will offer better long-term speed stability (wow caused by belt stretch) and the sub platter drive will offer better short-term speed stability (flutter caused by motor variations, even when electronically regulated). This is due to the higher drive ratio in a sub platter system creating a flywheel effect in the lightweight platter, once it comes up to speed.

    it should be noted that short-term speed instability is perceived as intermodulation distortion and destroys the fabric of music, whereas long-term instability is more of an annoyance.

    In high-end turntables with heavy platters and big motors, belt stretch becomes more of an issue, sub-platter drive becomes less feasible, and perimeter drive is obviously favoured.

    To add a bit of turntable history:

    In general, I don't like turntables with heavy platters. the best LP reproduction I have heard has come from vintage tables with relatively light platters. Also in general, I think that high drive ratios are a good thing, mechanically speaking. The earliest turntables used extremely powerful, high RPM motors which required a large step-down only achievable through gears; not only to get the desired operational speed but also to minimize the effect of motor vibration on the rest of the system.

    As we 'progressed' over the next decades, the role of gears was replaced idler wheels, then belts, and finally nothing at all (direct drive with a 1:1 drive ratio). My sonic preference also happens to be in that order.

    Read more here: https://cheaptubeaudio.blogspot.com/2021/05/a-brief-summary-of-turntable-drive.html

    The progression from gears to wheels was largely due to economics. The progression from wheels to belts was due to the advent of counterweights in tonearm design, which due to the effect of 'dumbbell' resonance, are much more susceptible to picking up motor rumble. See the decision from Thorens to move from a belt/idler system (TD124) to a belt/sub-platter system (TD125) in the 1960s as counterweighted tonearms became the absolute norm.
     

Share This Page