3 New UBER Decks - Is this Turntable's SwanSong? 🦢

has anyone used the platter speed app in question on…wait for it…a production record cutting lathe ?

I'm sure all three turntables sound wonderful although the OMA makes me squint when I look at it. Mark Dohmann's Helix is a much better value.
@grooves, You have reviewed the Helix and own one of Mark's tables. How do you think it compares?

Noromance,

it is a separate building too, everything isolated from the rest of the house. See: some 15 years ago
best
E.

sensesundertime

If any method is the "best" method, then the penultimate implementations of that method should all approach being the same.

Why would that be? Sometimes, the second-best approach uses a completely different technique. Or, perhaps, you’re trying to impress by using the word "penultimate" without knowing what it means.

Contrast that with digital where when the goal is an accurate implementation ...

What makes you think accuracy is not the goal of analog?

... $10,000 implementations cannot be reliably differentiated from a few $100 dollar implementation when you can’t tell what is playing ...

Do you have any documentation of that, or are you simply repeating someone else’s claim?

Dear @sensesundertime : ""  It should be self evident that when 3, $250k (approx) turntables sound different, even to somewhat causal listeners, that turntable and vinyl long ago had their swan song and they are nothing but flawed but lovable relics.  ".

Not exactly  but you are rigth. I like the analog alternative and I like too the digital one. So I know for sure its main differences.

The analog alternative is far away to be not only perfect but near perfect and yes is flawed/imperfect alternative and even that I like it.

It's so imperfect that not only those 3 TTs " sounds "/performs different but you can't find out two TT that " sounds " the same. So what?

Yes, digital is accurated and puts all nearer to the recording: good and again: so what?

I like both.

R.

Why is it that these digital vs analog arguments are so prevalent? IMHO, there is room for both formats. Each one has its own benefits and detriments. No wrong, no right. BUT I am very pleased that both are available. IME, Analog sounds better, but it depends on a number of variables.

It’s hard pill to swallow, one that I did long ago but which many audiophiles may never. You may love your turntable sound but recognize you love the flaws. It’s okay.

In reality you don't have to buy even a $10k turntable to enjoy analog records, do not try to justify a $300k turntable made for a small niche of people, it has nothing to do with a real world of music lovers, record collectors, audio enthusiasts.

Most of the greatest records were made a long time before digital was invented. You can enjoy all of them in digital format (we do, actually), but it will never be an original format, those records made in analog over 45 years ago. If you're ok to replace original (analog) with digital copy from the analog then you can do the same with art for example? Just make a digital copy to pretend you own something unique, but It's only an illusion.  
There is a different philosophy behind record collection, you can't replace it with digital illusion (except for music made in digital format from the start).

You post is like saying: "I'm smart, I listen to a perfect digital. You are fools, but it's ok if you're listening to a faulty media formats - old analog records". 

Who cares? 

In fact, each time I read a statement like this I'm sure a poster does not understand why vinyl is a long life media format. Definitely not because of the small group of people who can buy $300k turntables, not even because of the audiophiles in general.  

 

Huh? You've got it wrong. Digital is flawed. It's the one sampling and imposing hash noise into the chain. The best of vinyl recordings best anything digital. That is why we do this. Half my collection is pre 1970 recordings. I listen to digital too. It's great. But my best sounds are from analog records.

Nothing made pre 1970 was a technical state of the art recording. Good music but the equipment added so much to the music that was not there.

State of the art recordings made even in the late '50s, and every studio engineer will tell you the same. 

The source for audiophile re-issues made by Analog Production today are old master tapes from the '50s for example. And those tapes are excellent. What they can do with their pimped up pressing plant today on UHQR, flat profile etc., is amazing, but for premium prices! 

Most of the best quality records (classical and jazz) were recorded
from 1956 to 1964.
After that transistor equipment and Dolby started used in studios that caused significant sound quality drop.
   

You know nothing about it, stick to your digital and stop to brainwash our minds. Nobody forces you to buy vinyl (or turntables).  

Dear @senseundertime : "" The microphones, the pre-amps, the tape machines, the cutting lathes, all were seriously flawed and left music behind that will never be recovered. ""

Yes, " left music behind..." that’s part of the whole analog imperfection and that " left music behind.. "" it’s not only in the recording proccess but is followed by the playing proccess at our home places.

I think that all of us know what happened and still happens in the analog imperfect world but the issue is that normally analog lovers are a lot " touchy " and even they feel an " offense " with words and facts as the ones you posted here. I was exactly the same way till I understand the whole recording/play proccess. Yes the analog alternative could be a nigthmare but even that its kind of sound is " appealing " to us in way different ways and yes analog produce its own jitter on playback.

I accepted years ago that today digital alternative puts us nearer to the recording and been a digital technology always is in advancing so maybe the best of digital is forthcoming when analog true developments stopped years ago.

Btw, " Vinyl sales were up... ". Yes but not with really all analog new recordings but mainly ( 90%+ ) re-issues in different " formats " and almost all the few new recordings were recorded digital then transfered to LPs and sounds really good.

All those is a reality but again: so what? for whatever reasons we still like that flawed alternative and this is the important subject. Don’t you think?

R.

Dear @alexberger : """  One my friend prefere EMT948 and Yamaha GT2000 over Kenwood L-07D..""

Sorry, I forgot : Not easy to make evaluations for your friend when all those TTs comes with a different dedicated tonearm.

R.

Everything made by man is flawed, by how much and how should be the debate. Personally, for those doing the creating I think it stirs the creative juices and market forces to compete and improve. For those of us w open minds, ears and near constant exposure to LP, high speed tape, and digital done well, primacy is not tge discussion point - relative merits / weakness and how to address ARE.

Carry on, my Revox needs an EQ tweak….

Looks like " sensesundertime" left the house and deleted all posts from their profile which is a shame.

noromance

Looks like " sensesundertime" left the house and deleted all posts from their profile which is a shame

Perhaps he was a victim of his own posts. Many of his "facts" were confused and he was struggling to keep up.

"A man's got to know his limits."

Every analog step adds distortion. Every digital step does not. Everyone is use to mastering for digital now and there are much better utilization of anti aliasing filters. Digital may have had a rough start but everyone now has the hang of it. 

What will happen to pure analog reproduction? If I were a betting man I would give it at most another 50 years. It may have some limited uses sort of like propeller driver aircraft.

@rauliruegas , Since our last discussion I have been playing close attention to the centricity of records. It is very disappointing. They also do vary form one side to the other, a lot!  Even such vaunted labels as Analog Production are not well centered. 
I did some research and found this. Go to 8:40   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_GBlzcaWlo
0.2 mm tolerance? My back side. Many records are pressed off by three times as much anyway. I am sure you have seen that. As you see in the video it is due either to operator error or faulty machine calibration which by default is operator error. Every run of records (about 1000) is QCed by pulling a sample and playing it. The QC techs are obviously not paying attention to this. 

Take a test record and with a pointed knife cut away 0.2 mm from one side of the hole and play a 1000 Hz test tone. The tone will wander up and and down. It is painfully obvious to any serious listener. 
I started playing records without looking at the centricity then writing down yes or no next to the title. Yes for concentric, no for out. After 10 records I put them back on the table and gauged their centricity. Picking out continuous notes I was right 8 out of 10 times. I encourage everyone to do this. The only way this will stop is if enough of us complain. There is no excuse not to stay within 0.2 mm. The tech looks at the run out groove under high magnification ( the video shows this!) Either he is off or the Machine is off. Take your pick. Having an accurate turntable does not mean a lot in the face of this type of error. The wow far exceeds the spec of any modern turntable. To gauge centricity draw a black line on a small piece of white paper and place it on the turntable's plinth. Move it around until the line visually lines up with the tip of the finger lift. Then you can watch the tip  of the finger lift float back and forth in relation to the line (reference point) 

What an eye opener!!!

Last night I was in a classical mood. Three European classical pressings from the late 70's were right on the money, dead accurate. Compare that to three modern Blue Note pressings, all off. One was so bad I sent it back.

 Lewm9 wrote

But “best speed stability, etc” and “accurate reproduction of the master” are two different criteria. One is scientifically measurable and the other is inescapably a subjective judgement. However to reach the latter goal wouldn’t you want to have reached the first goal (absolute speed stability) along the way?

The man (lewm9) is correct – how could it be otherwise. If K3 was say 75% less accurate (a wobbly jelly) could it approach “accurate reproduction of the master.”  Don’t think so.

Another poster wrote:  every DD I have heard sounds thin, lacking body, are grainy or have a grey wash through the sound, possibly due to error correction servos.

Seemingly these DDs were not good examples of the technology ie made to a price, as the majority of  cutting lathes were/are DIRECT DRIVE.

If you are going to bash DD you have to throw out the DD cutting lathes and drive them with a rubber band.

Another poster wrote:  every DD I have heard sounds thin, lacking body, are grainy or have a grey wash through the sound, possibly due to error correction servos.

Seemingly these DDs were not good examples of the technology ie made to a price, as the majority of  cutting lathes were/are DIRECT DRIVE.

If you are going to bash DD you have to throw out the DD cutting lathes and drive them with a rubber band.

What you fail to understand is that most cutting lathes have a 70-80lb flywheel and significantly more drive power than most domestic direct drives. - even the Kenwood, Technics & Victor. The dynamics of a cutting lathe and its requirements are quite different to the dynamics of replaying a record.

And you appear unable to comprehend that critiquing specific examples of direct drive does not mean that direct drive is in of itself a bad thing.

 

"you fail to understand"  Presumptuous.

"cutting lathes have a 70-80lb flywheel and significantly more drive power than most domestic direct drives".   

Correct - the process is controlled by the DIRECT DRIVE motor.

'The dynamics of a cutting lathe and its requirements are quite different to the dynamics of replaying a record'.

It is the same signal - the lathe requires much higher torque to cut the disk – replay is a smaller load – proportionally how much different I don’t know.

"does not mean direct drive is in of itself a bad thing"

What do you mean?

Do you mean direct drive can be good? 

Or in K3's case a stunningly spectacular achievement: Michael Fremer tells us so, despite your take down of the man. He is a terrifically fit 74 - his apparent age likely isn't much different to you. Michael reports K3 is a cartridge differentiation champ eg "an utterly natural, transparent, and convincing presentation via the Anna D with airy flute roundness, sparkling, effervescent percussion, and zero overhang." 

"blows the chrome doors off the Caliburn" ... Michael Fremer.

My Thorens TD 124mkII, not even working at a full 100% is giving me readings of +- 0.04% speed variations. Wow 0.03. I’m confident i’ll be lowering those numbers even Further with a few mods. 1500 rpm 4 pole motor = no cogging. Same with lencos and Garrards. I suspect the EMT would measure even better because of it’s massive 16 inch platter. Also forget about noise. That problem has been solved years ago with high mass plinths and vibration transfer.

With regards to speed stability only 3 tables I believe take the crown.

Rockport Sirius III

Grand Prix Audio TTs

Wave Kinetics Reference

All in the 0.000~% (according to their measurements of course)

The OMA, Techdas and SAT measure measure rather poorly tbh