One turntable with two arms, or two turntables with one each - which would you prefer?
Which would you prefer, if budget allowed: one turntable with two tonearms or two turntables with one each? What would your decision criteria be?
And the corollary: one phono preamp with multiple inputs or two phono preamps?
Assume a fixed budget, but for the purposes of this question, the budget is up to the responder. Admittedly for this type of setup, there will be a sizeable investment once all components of the chain are factored in.
I'm curious to hear how people would decide for themselves the answer to this question. Or maybe you've already made this decision - what do you like about your decision or what would you differently next time?
Cheers.
It would have been much cheaper if this device was still made: http://www.time-step.com/distribution/SME%20Dual%20Arm.html I ended up with a second Model 10, for the same sound. I'm very content with the Model 10, but I did need the ability to run two cartridges as I try to spin out the life of my Deccas. |
I tried to cheap out - one table, one arm, and multiple head shells with different cartridges. Problem was there was too much adjustment in fine tuning each set up when you changed head shell/cartridge. Next came a turntable and two tone arms. A much more elegant and much more simple to operate and still get good results. Problem was that limited options for turntables which you could set up for two arms Ultimately the best and easiest to set up and manage was using two tables. One was quartz locked with a MM cartridge, the other was a belt driven with a MC cartridge. I used only one preamp which allowed two turntables and had impedance selection controls to match cartridge selection (A now old ARC). If I were to do this again today I would do the two tables first if for no other reason than for the reduction of angst involved in getting the best SQ out of a multipurpose set up involving only one table. So I guess I would look in a mirror and ask myself ’how much do I really want the best SQ or am I willing to sacrifice a bit of SQ for the convenience of use, or for sure, the expense. Big bunch of tradeoff’s. Your call. |
Absolutely without question one turntable with two arms. As you said at the same investment level. Turn table performance improves phenomenally with cost (assuming yo are doing your research). Two tts at half the price at almost any cost level are not going to sound as good. And phonostages even more so! Until I reached the ~ $8K level every Phonostage hindered the output my turntable. It is really easy to get a TT that exceeds the capability of your phono stage.
I have been listening to turntables for well over fifty years. And began my pursuit (very inexpensively at first) of the high end over 40 years ago. I am sure I have owned nearly a dozen highly rated phono stages of all cost levels and until I bought my first Audio Research Phono stage 30 years ago, they were of different brands. |
I've one turntable with 2 arms (and another turntable with one arm.) Initially, I didn't really use the second arm much but thanks to a generous gift from @tomic601, I now have two phono stages and switch between arms all the time. Turntable 1 > 12" arm 1 > phono amp 1 Turntable 1 > 9" arm 2 > phono amp 2 Agree with @ghdprentice that one good table is best. |
One turntable with two tonearms is what I currently use. I absolutely agree with @ghdprentice on his comments about the need to invest in a quality phonostage. |
I went to 1 TT with 3 arms, I don’t have room for two TT’s, and 1 SUT with 3 inputs to 1 Phono Stage, and PASS for MM thru the SUT to that favorite MM Phono Stage. I’m gonna assume two arms means you will get into MC cartridge. And 1 arm could be fixed cartridge, but the second should be removable headshell so a variety of cartridges, i.e. MONO, MM, Elliptical. Advanced Stylus could be acquired over time. MC Low Output means a SUT to get up to MM signal strength. SUT with PASS for MM. SUT with two selectable inputs; out of SUT to single Phono Stage. ....................... My Fidelity Research FRT-4 SUT has 3 selectable inputs, PASS, and 4 optional x-factors/impedances this one is over-priced, but shows it’s features, they often show up for around $700.
Entre ET-100 has 3 inputs, PASS, and 3 optional x-factors/impedances, usually cost a bit less that the FRT-4.
Note: FRT-4 has internally connected output cable with old simple connectors Entre ET-100, rca jacks: you can use your own output cable, better connectors, I may modify my FRT-4 one day.
|
This 7 layer JVC Victor CL-P2 Plinth is what I have. https://yahoo.aleado.com/lot?auctionID=c1062117063#enlargeimg Two Removable Arm-boards, normally 2 arms. It fits JVC Spinners: TT61, 71, 81, 101 (don’t go there). I chose TT81.
Three Arms: 1. rear 9" Removable headshell, various cartridges, MM, MC, ellip, shibata, ML ...; Arm has VTA on the fly for easy cartridge height changes. 2. right side can be long (mine is 12.5"), best MC cartridge, fixed.. 3. Then I found a compact Mission arm with a short counterweight section and ’squeezed’ it in, for MONO ready to go. https://www.vinylengine.com/library/mission/774lc.shtml
the mission arm is made by Jelco, there is a Jelco matching model, and you do not need the mounting plate, just mount the round base ring, 3 screws. |
https://www.kuzma.si/stabi-r-world-premiere-munchen-2018.html Kuzma Stabi R can accept up to 4 arms |
In Use, things evolve: I have a lot of Jazz LP's, many Mono LP's. There is nothing as easy as having a Mono cartridge ready (mounted, aligned, azimuth/overhang/vta/tracking/anti-skate) all set to go, play some Oscar Peterson Stereo, up comes a mono LP, switch arms, select arm C on the SUT, change the Mode on the preamp to Mono (or just a single speaker), then back to arm A or B for Stereo. Original Idea: I had 2 arms, mono in the back. I was selling LP's, giving them a farewell listen. I realized I was wearing out my MC Stylus when I could have been using a MM with a replaceable stylus. That's when I added the 3rd arm, left side backwards for Mono, rear for MM or MC (mine and friends cartridges we listen to); right long arm favorite MC, fixed. |
Thanks everyone. It's cool to read everyone's take on the question. I don't know how to answer the question for myself - yet, at least. The reason I'd be interested in having a second setup is that I love the idea of having setups optimized for different sonic signatures, but don't really want to deal with resetting vta, vtf, etc. every time I change cartridges. As I've thought about it off and on throughout the day, and read others' responses, I've honed in on a couple questions I need to answer for myself: do I really need a mono cart (same situation here @dogberry) and/or do I want both a suspended and non-suspended table for variety? I've only ever lived with non-suspended tables and am curious about suspended tables, lately. In any case, I fully agree on the importance of a good phono stage. I'd be inclined to go with a single phono stage with multiple inputs, and get variety from table/tonearm/cartridge combos. @noromance, I checked out your system. Great solution for vinyl storage! I'm getting too old to crawl around on the floor trying to read spines. |
I prefer having 2 turntables and two arms over one TT 2 arms. Why, because when I had multiple arms on one turntable I wiped out my Koetsu reaching over the back of the TT to lower the arm. On the second TT I have a tonearm with headshell so it is easy to swap cartridges. My main TT is my reference which I like to keep with best arm & cartridge.
|
@lewm … “I think that makes me —- crazy”. 👍👍👍👍. I mean, it’s OK… most folks think the amount of money I put into my system is crazy… although… three or more hours of listening a day… and the enjoyment I get, seems well worth it. If having many TT and cartridges makes you happy. |
@dover Now that's the solution! |
Interesting topic! I have a related question for anyone who has mounted more than one arm on a TT.
One of my friends is using a Transrotor TT which is capable of accepting 2 arms. He claims that just mounting a second arm would degrade the sound quality of the first arm. Another friend with a Micro 3000 also claims the weight of the second and third arm would affect the sound quality of the first arm. I am curious of how could that happen, maybe due to the change of weight distribution or the resonance point?
Any member has similar experience? |
IMHO a silly question, unless you are rolling in money. The best way to go is, one of the best turntables you can afford and one of the best arms you can afford with one of the best cartridges you can afford. Do not buy two fair set ups at the expense of one excellent one. If you have to spend some time setting up cartridges, so be it. You are cheap labor. There are usually limits in terms of space so, two arms on one turntable is the most space effective and also the above argument still holds, one great table vs two not so great tables. |
@thekong I don't have a multi-armed TT, but it sure seems like the unused arms could pick up airborne vibrations and transmit them to the plinth. I always wondered why this is rarely, if ever, discussed. |
@noromance Brian, you are very kind. Hopefully you are enjoying the warm glow of tubes in great health. Perhaps i shall return in some depth…after close of fishing….. perhaps…. Jim |
wmorrow I've seen Steve at VAS change his beloved Uni-Pivot arms on his VPI. It seems easy, until .... change arm: pull out mini-din connector from the VPI junction box: that mini-din connector now dangling from delicate tonearm wires. Simply lift arm up, put down in safe location. Pick up spare arm from safe location, with alternate cartridge pre-mounted, pre-aligned. Place on the arm base spike, plug in it's mini-din connector. NOW, cartridge body height might be different, reset VTA as you mentioned. Cartridge weight likely different, it's recommended tracking force probably different, and thus anti-skate should be re-adjusted. VPI arms used to skip anti-skate, they said "put a twist in the wire" from tonearm to junction box (oh that's precise), then they started making aftermarket anti-skate devices, VPI now offers them
I have changed arms on my friend's Technics B500 base, no delicate wires involved. Changing a headshell with pre-aligned cartridge, then the same VTA/Tracking Force/Anti-Skate is needed. Second or 3rd arms, very carefully aligned, ready to go is much preferred if alternate cartridges are used. A true Mono cartridge DOES make a difference, slight or a lot, varies |
One tt with two arms is perhaps more economical. One platter, one motor, one motor controller, one footprint, etc. And this scenario also allows for a mono and stereo cartridge, both with precise positioning/tuning. (Single arms with multiple headshells and bayonet mounting, or multiple unipivot wands do not offer this.) Not to mention compliance matching limitations between cartridge and tonearm choices. My Brinkmann Balance achieves this nicely. But I also have an AVID Acutus SP that I just can’t seem to part with. I love the ease of set up, that it will hold its set up, virtually forever, and it’s still punches way above its class imho. And just love the way it looks, a beautiful industrial design. So this second turntable and third tonearm offers the opportunity for experimenting with other cartridge ideas while maintaining a rock solid mono and stereo set up with no fuss. All of this runs through a Aesthetix Rhea Signature phonostage that accommodates the three separate inputs. Again, one piece allowing multiple functionality. It’s nice to have choices. But to each their own. It’s all good. |
As a professional audio reviewer, I have had to set up three different systems to best match what ever component comes in for review, depending on price point and specifications. I have three turntables, all VPI: VPI HW40, VPI HRX and VPI Aries 2. The latter two have three arms with different cartridges (two are mono-only). The reason I have been with this brand for more than 20 years is that their tables are easy to set up, not fussy, and just plain work--an important consideration on a day to day basis. As for the Dullgrin's basic question, I would recommend that those coming to LP playback for the first time, focus on getting the best turntable/arm/cartridge for their money. Fortunately, there are now many reasonably priced tables and cartridges that yield excellent performance. While reading reviews of such equipment is a good place to start, the ideal would be to go to a bricks-and-mortar store and check out these components yourself with assistance from a knowledgeable salesperson. |
I have a VPI 19-4 modded for 78 rpm play and a VPI TNT VI for LPs. It is just easier to switch from one table to the other since the 78 player requires an equalization preamp whereas the LP play is RIAA flat in my system with a separate phono pre-amp. I'm sure I could obtain better 78 rpm play with a better table and arm but it sounds great the way it is. Plus, I already owned the VPI 19 from 1982. |
When considering producing a TT that will support a Tonearm/Tonearms of choice. There is the likelihood that a Custom Design Plinth will be selected for the role. The additional consideration will be the material selected to be used to produce the Plinth. There are many options from a Singular Material through to a Composite, and then there is the Quantity of Tiers of materials and the configuration of the Tiers used to produce the structure. Each Custom-Built Plinth can have an impact on the SQ, for the better or worse, also one Plinth Design has the capability to allow a certain Tonearm Type to perform for the better and another Tonearm Design can be negatively affected. It is basically down to how a Tonearm mechanically couples with energies transferred through the Plinth. Alternatively, there is the option to use a Standalone Pod/ Pods to mount Tonearm/ Tonearms on. My experience has been to limit myself to the use of One Tonearm only. This has been the practice for many years with fixed headshell designs. Today, I use a Tonearm with a detachable headshell, which has made the ease of experiencing Cartridges much simpler to achieve. Additionally, as I am involved in a social activity with HiFi, the Cart’ mounted on a Detachable Headshell is an easy and secure transport to a home with a similar mount method on a used Tonearm. As for a Multi Input Phonostage I had the option of this when I had my Valve Phon’ built, the builder had a Phon’ of almost identical design to my one, with a Four Input Option. I chose not to go for this method, as I am happy to use different owned Phon’s, to add a something different to a presentation. I feel today this has been the better choice for myself. I have been a user of Bespoke Plinth on various TT, I prefer a design that rigidly couples the Tonearm to the Plinth, on my own designs, no Base Plates are used. My first Bespoke Plinth has been produced from Slabs of Granite, that the final configuration added up to being a 9 Stone Granite Plinth, which was used to mount a Garrard 401 with a SME IV. This after many years usage was swapped for a PTP Solid 9 with a Audiomod’s Series Five Micrometer, mounted on a Lamination of Corian, which is a Composite Stone, again quite a heavy assembly. I have used lighter Plinths, where Lead Metal is used with Plywood/Chipboard on Laminate Plinths. The most recent plinth material learnt off and one that is to be used, which is another lightweight design, is Densified Wood. This is a material that has been able to make a very good impression when used with the same TT and Tonearm I am using. I had first moved over to Light Weight Plinth Designs using a compressed 1-inch Plywood Board as Plinth, with a weight of approx’ 900Kg per m3. It is reported that the Plywood that has an increased compression has a useful Damping Factor and has good dissipation properties, all scientific explanation can be found at Qualia Labs web page. The introduction to an alternative 1-Inch Plywood Board Material and one that has made the most positive impression, is from a material that is approx’ 1400Kg per m3. This is probably the densest of the Densified Wood to be found today. For myself, the experiences of past have evolved to the preferred order, which is to have one Tonearm, with easy to exchange Cartridge Options, hence a removable headshell. The rigidity of the Coupling of the Headshell is of importance, and a loose bog-standard connection can create a SQ issue. The TT and Tonearm interface is as important a consideration as the other coupling connections being made but is the one that will most likely be the hardest to acquire valuable direction on. Note: many TT > Tonearm Couplings are produced using a Material that can have changing properties throughout the seasons, to the point where an interfaces critical dimension point is compromised. Materials that are stable and influence the maintaining of the Set-Up Geometry are desirable. Phon’s are easy to exchange and having the option to have increased experiences of a Phon’ is an attractor, one Input suffices for my needs. I have worked with and sought out demonstrations of others work using different Plinth Materials and configurations for a structure for many years. Recent learning has shown there is a material available, that is able to make a very positive impression and to myself has become an attractor. I have experience of seeing others migrate to densified wood plinths; some who have been quite set in their commitment to their earlier plinth designs in use, their curiosity about this material and introducing it to their set up, proved to be a correct choice. I have been demonstrated a Densified Wood in use as a Plinth on various occasions. On one occasion, with same Model TT’s. One with Densified Wood as a Plinth and the other using a Marine Plywood. The result being the Densified Wood has left a very positive impression, which has been encouraging to the point I have acquired my own material. It has been used as a Sub Plinth to date, which has also proven to create a positive impression. The owner of the Marine Plywood Plinth referred to now has a Densified Wood Plinth and is without doubt the improvement has been very noticeable. I have a Plinth produced from this material but am not at present able to use it on my system.
|
Learning is ''function of time''. Only Kantians possess knowledge a priori.. I first learned that Kuzma Stabi Reference is ''the TT to own''. The same was the case with ASR Basis Exlusive. The later with two idendical but separate phono-pres. The afterwards dilemma was: ''what now?'' I wrote to Vidmantas the owner/desigener by Reed with the question about possiility for an second arm ON an TT with ''only one''. He ''invented'' for me an armpod + 12 '' tonearm. |
One turntable with one arm. But my arm is the Simon Yorke Aeroarm that is an air-bearing parallel tracker. Alternative moving carriages (arms) can each be ptr-set up with a cartridge and swapped out in a couple of minutes - only need to slide the carriage on the bearing rod and disconnect and reconnect air-line and signal plug. Best of both worlds, and parallel tracking too. State of the art for ultra low-mass MC carts up to 10g such as vdH Colibri and Ortofon A95, both 6g. |
@pindac I had no problem with my VPI 19-4 for vibration relief-it has springs and rubber feet. I almost gave back my VPI TNT VI because it's feet are next to worthless for isolation, even sitting on a heavy steel stand with 50/50 sand/shot filling. I immediately purchased the Townshend seismic sink and placed the VPI on top of a 1.25" thick HDF board. I used a large weight to balance the table. It's works great for 16 years now. If I could afford to, I would replace it with a Kronos Sparta table. |
I have looked into Kuzma Design TT's, and the discoveries made are in keeping with the Design and Materials for a Bearing Assembly of which I am an advocate. The Kuzma selection of materials is also similar when compared to selections that other Third-Party Bearing producers are offering as an upgrade for Vintage TT's. From my experience these types of materials when in use are able to bring a new presentation that is a noticeable improvement. I have discussed this in previous posts and see no point to elaborate in the Subject. From my end, if an intention is to make a change to a Set Up, with the intention to achieve an improved performance from a Vinyl Source, keeping the focus closer to home, and looking into how an interfaces can be improved, can prove to be quite valuable. I have the pleasure of being regularly demonstrated a Standalone Pod Mounted Glanz 12 Inch arm, with a Miyajima Cart', used on a SP10R on regular occasion, it never fails to impress. Isolation that functions as a support, has little to do with maintaining the critical geometry between Tonearm and Bearing Spindle. I am not aware where there are claims that the Spring Suspension has the additional function of managing energies transferred through a Plinth as a result of the TT's operation. A Spring Support needs to be adequate as a support to ensure a Platter can maintain a Level Set Up and needs to be effective at reducing the ambient energies that are able to be transferred into the system during operation. In general, the energies needing to be dealt with are not known, as the methods required to accurately measure the presence, is not in use with the average TT user. The familiarization with different materials and assemblies for a Plinth Construction is the only method I have adopted and used to make my own assessment. Most materials chosen as a Plinth Material have poor Damping Properties and inefficient dissipation. It is not possible to ensure an individual that if they adopted a Plinth Material that does have desirable damping properties and efficient dissipation, that they will perceive it as an improved experience. It is an individual's preference for a certain type of SQ that will dictate this. I am now feeling confident that after having experienced a reasonable quantity of Plinth Construction, that the use of Densified Wood Material as a Plinth is the best method for myself.
|
