OK, I said it...


Just got the new turntable running this morning. Installed the Kontrapunkt B on the Rega P9; a most nerve wracking job. Well I can't find a crow and I am not yet ready to eat some, but here are my very preliminary findings based on listening to one side of two albums (one brand new, Art Blakey's "Indestructible"), one that's been on hand for a while, (Dire Straits "Communiqué"):

my greatest peeve, surface noise: way less, but still a bother on softer cuts or portions of pieces where the volume is low;
soundstage: quite incredible;
layering of instruments: quite incredible;
natural tone of the instruments: stunning;
treble: well the cymbals are back the way I like them; sharp attack and decay when hit near the centre, sharp attack and shimmering decay when hit nearer the edge;
bass: not the subwoofer-type of bass, but the overtones are more present, that is an acoustic bass has that plummy quality.

Well I am not a "convert", in the sense at looking at the experience as crossing a threshold from where you never go back. I still think that digital is better at doing silence, which is so necessary in music, and, in letting the sound of soft music come out without the anxiety of tick and pops.

So far, I have not listened to enough music to have a real hard opinion about the merits of better analog equipment. Suffice it to say that in answer to the post wondering if any progress has been made in the last twenty years, I would have to say quite a lot. This is based on a very quick, very subjective appreciation at the moment. What is the table's, what is the arm's, what is the cartridge's contribution in all this: very hard to say, and will never be known since I have no intention of playing mix and match.

Am still using the Sumiko Phono Box for the time being. The next move is a new phono section. Is there another level yet to be achieved with that upgrade? I while back I would have been extremely sceptical, now I hope there is. What bugs me, is to have to make another leap of faith.

Well, I will keep you posted. Good day.
pbb

Showing 2 responses by sean

Pbb: I'd like to second, third and fourth the above comments. Kudo's to you for having the guts to give this a try. I know that it had to be "difficult" for you to do this given some of your past comments, but i'm glad to see that you were up to the task. Not only that, i'm proud of you in the fact that you were honest enough to make some of the statements that you did even though you have previously bashed those that "worship at the temple of analogue". It takes a big person to own up / correct themselves when all the world is watching.

Given that you had a hard time with cartridge set-up, my guess is that you may still have some work to do there based on your comments. This is not to say that you did something wrong but more that you probably can dial things in a little better as you get used to working with the gear a little more.

On top of this, cabling and phono stages can make a world of a difference. You have to remember that you are dealing with microscopic amounts of voltage here, so anything that ever could effect signal transfer in a system will be far more noticeable under these conditions. Finding a good phono stage is almost like a revelation. I am lucky in the fact that the line stages that i like also happen to have phenomenally good phono stages too.

Since my "record cleaning routine" is rather involved and pricy, i'll have to defer to some of the other folks as to what works well i.e. bang for the buck approach. I really do think that thoroughly cleaning a record makes a very noticeable difference in a beneficial way. As such, i would recommend that you investigate this for yourself and do so as soon as possible. Don't forget that your stylus will need cleaning on a regular basis, especially if you aren't "going gonzo" on the records with a VPI, Nitty Gritty, etc... type machine. Obviously, used records are bound to be much worse than brand new ones in terms of contaminants to both the grooves and the stylus.

Other than that, please do keep us posted. I love to hear about people "re-discovering" the joys of vinyl. As you may have seen me say before, you don't need to spend a lot of money to have an enjoyable analogue system. You just need to be willing to put in a little elbow grease and TLC : ) Sean
>
Viridian: The Stanton 881S also uses a "brush" or "dynamic stabilizer". Not only is it more linear than the Shure in terms of frequency response when properly loaded, it will out-track it with less distortion. Shure's typically have a problem with high amplitude recordings i.e. the louder the recordings, the more distortion they produce. If one listens to chamber music, the Shure will work quite well for them. If one listens to music with big amplitude changes, they will notice the sound getting grungier as the passages become more intense in amplitude. This is a non-linear distortion since it does not appear until the cantilever is required to make larger vertical excursions.

For sake of clarity, I have both a Stanton 881S, 881S MK II and a Shure V15VxMR. I recently sold two V15 Type IV's with spare styli. After doing direct comparisons, both my Brother and my Father chose Stanton's over the VxMR, so that's what i set them up with in their TT's. As such, i'm well familiar with the products that i'm commenting on.

As mentioned, the Shure's are not "bad" cartridges and are quite universal in tonearm matching, but they can be bettered if one is willing to puth forth the effort in dialing in the arm / cartridge / phono stage loading. This is exactly why Kevin at KAB Electroacoustics is working with Stanton rather than Shure in developing the "ultimate" cartridge for his highly modified 1200's. Not only are the Stanton's less money, they are better, more consistent performers. Sean
>