2. analog
  3. 152392-104877

Turntable cost:benefit

I read the new Garrard 301 review in the current "Stereophile" with great interest, especially as my father owned one which he jettisoned decades ago...most unfortunately. Anyway, appealing as the re-issue is, the cost is punitive, as noted by the author.

With that preamble, I'm interested in forum members' thoughts on the cost:benefit ratio of a high priced turntable for a modest vinyl collection. In my case, that's around 800 LPs. Another reason I'm curious is that I have a friend who simply "decided to get into vinyl" and bought a ~$15k turntable plus a comparably priced tonearm + cartridge. He owned zero vinyl at the time of the purchase. Now I think he has about 20 "audiophile" pressings to enjoy on that TT.

To answer my own question, I can't justify a turntable at that price level for my own vinyl collection. Actually, I can't really summon up a compelling argument for such a purchase. Plus, I'm quite content with my  VPI HW-19 Mk 2 (though a better cartridge would be attractive).

Assuming disposable funds are not the absolute deciding factor and other components in your system are good enough to support a high end TT, what size record collection do readers think justifies a turntable costing over some arbitrary (say around $3000 for the purposes of argument) threshold? Is that even a consideration?
kacomess

Showing 2 responses by edgewear

edgewear
543 posts
 
I guess it’s easy to make fun of people with - say - a $25k turntable (actually modest by today’s standards) and a few dozen ’audiophile’ reissues to play. It’s even more pathetic when you realize that many of those so called audiophile pressings don’t really sound very good at all. It’s money wasted.

At the other extreme there’s the so called ’serious’ record collectors crowd, who spend their days hunting down very expensive original pressings from the golden analog age and play them on some mediocre record player. This is money wasted as well. Those pressings deliver the best possible sound quality, but you will need the highest quality level turntable (and rest of the system, obviously) to bring that out.

So the only sensible cost/benefit ratio should be found in a well considered balance of the quality of the source material and the playback equipment. Makes sense?

edgewear
543 posts
 
With vinyl records you have the same diminishing returns. Hyper capitalism has spoiled the record collectors market as well and first pressings are now trophies for the rich: $1000+ for ’original’ blue notes anyone?

But when you do a little homework you will discover that the sound quality on those records is determined by the metal work (lacquers and stampers), which was often the same with second and third pressings. This means you can get more or less the same sound quality for a fraction of the price of an ’original’. This applies to just about every record label worth collecting.

So in my opinion this is what the smart audiophile record collector with limited funds should do: buy a turntable in the ’sweet spot’ of the price range (around $10-12k for a complete record player is about right, considerably less if you dare to go used) and play 2nd or 3rd pressings from the analog age, manufactured a few years after the first pressing. Obviously these are always previously owned, so condition is everything and access to a good record vacuum cleaner is a necessity. And don’t waste your time and money on modern 'audiophile' reissues.....


More to discover