Yeah cleeds, my argument was more of an intellectual (though by that I don’t mean smart!) or theoretical one for justifying the case of choosing a table based on the differing musical abilities of various models. I had a friend (R.I.P.) who had perfect pitch, and was very bothered by music played back too fast or slow. Other listeners without pp wouldn’t be bothered by a table not playing back at the exact correct speed, or records mastered incorrectly. As long as a listener stays with cartridges having about the same compliance and mass, no problem with the original arm. But that does not change the fact that if you have an arm of high moving mass, you better not want or use a high compliance cartridge, or visa versa. In that sense, the arm limits the choice of cartridge; change cartridge types, and you may need a different arm. I would much rather have my cartridge choice dictate my arm than visa versa. |
bdp24
" ...
Who picks his arm first, then his cartridge? Or his amp first, then for a speaker it works well with? A knucklehead.
"
As a practical matter, I think many audiophiles choose their arm first, and then the cartridge. After all, for many of us, we'll buy a fine pickup arm and use it for years and years and years, as phono cartridges wear out and come and go. That's certainly what I've done. IIRC, I'm on my fourth cartridge with my present arm. And I agree with Ralph. If you buy a proper turntable/pickup arm/cartridge/phono preamp combo, it'll be fine with any kind of music. I have exactly one phono system, and it sounds great - from Bach to rock, as they used to say. |
"Should" not depend on style of music is right, theoretically. But in practice, since all turntables have failings in different ways, ways that are related to certain aspects of music and/or sound, it may be advisable to find a table that least harms music in ways most important to oneself or to the music one most listens to. For instance, just as an intellectual exercise: organ music is better served by a table great at reproducing low frequencies than one weak in that regard, whereas music without a lot of deep bass but with long-held piano noted needs a table with the lowest wow & flutter, a failing less harmful to the organ music with no long-held notes. The table that provides great bass could be weak in regards to wow & flutter, making it fine for the organ lover, not so good for the piano lover. Of course we all want a table with no musical or sonic failings; how many of us has one? But, really, how many of us has the luxury of any such choice? The cartridge is normally the first part the LP player chosen, for the same reason the loudspeaker is at the other end: it's a transducer, far more variable in sound characteristics than the other parts (uh, right?). Who picks his arm first, then his cartridge? Or his amp first, then for a speaker it works well with? A knucklehead. Cartridge chosen, an arm appropriate for the cartridge is next. Then, lastly, the table. Owners of Oracle Delphi's learned why that table was not the best choice for the ET air-bearing arm: the mass of the arm tube was too great for the table's suspension, changing the level of the table as it moved across the LP. The VPI HW-19, on the other hand, was a good match for the arm. |
inna1,906 posts03-24-2016 6:34pmAtma-Sphere is wrong, once again. But if he wants to convince some of us he should try and prove what he says.
Next thing he might say is that amp is an amp, and if it's good it's equally good for everything. Then he will move to speakers. And after that to guitars. Martin guitar would not be best for flamenco or the kind of music that John McLaughlin used to play. John himself said it, I am just repeating it.
There is a lot of art in designing good equipment, not only "stupid" science. But a lot of science too.
I agree with Ralph. Turntable or ANY kind of home audio playback equipment should not depend on style of music. The musical instruments however are different. Martin guitar isn't definitely for heavy metal simply because heavy metal bands don't use acoustic guitars at all. Also you will less-likely see Stradivarius violin used in folk or rock bands either. At the same time there's nothing wrong in playing Bach on Technics SL1200 turntable via some vintage receiver and vintage Advent or Celestion speakers. Any system that can reproduce solo piano played clear is able to play any sophisticated and loud rock or metal. |
I am not a musician or audio expert. I have listened to Zep II on several different decks over the years. First cheap thrift store record players from the 70s, 80s direct drive, then an early project table, then a scout and currently a VPI prime.
I actually enjoyed the music on all these TT. I don’t agree that this record does not have good resolution. I would say everything in general on Zep II has gotten better with the nicer record players. While it’s not some audiophile recording and some of the swirling of guitars sounds contrived in general I don’t think its a bad recording. I personnel would not try to tailor a record player to one genre of music.
Get the best record player, phono state, and cart you can afford and enjoy. I don’t think better resolution, soundstage, image and better dynamics is going to make any 60s- 70s music sound worst. Many people will tell you it can revel flaws in the recording. While I think this is true its more honest and still sounds better to me than having a very thick veil closed in presentation which hides much that is in the grooves. I would say this is a much bigger problem then truly hearing whats on the record. That being said you don’t have to spend a fortune to have fun listening to music I can listen to this era of music on my car radio and enjoy it.
IMO
|
m-db: Did someone say all ’60s rock sounds bad on vinyl? I hope not, since some of the stuff I treasure most came from that era-both musically and sonically. I will agree that the Zep stuff isn’t very well recorded, though, much as I loved the early records (and listen to a few tracks on their later ones).
N.B. I guess you could read the OP's thread title and OP that way- I read it differently, not as a blanket indictment. |
David Lindley is a national treasure and I've seen him live many times…seeing him again in mid April. |
If you're going to blanket "Rock from the sixties-The sound quality isn't that great," then why even consider a dedicated or particular turntable/cartridge?
Wax/vinyl media then and now is uniquely conceived, produced, and manufactured. I've found that there are more examples of well recorded and manufactured pressings from the fifties and sixties that benefit greatly from contemporary cleaning and playback equipment than not. Even modern dedicated 78 RPM and monaural cartridges can add new dimension to many older recordings.
Consider radio back then which usually managed better sound than one could usually muster at home. High wattage AM still used those slipper felt matted cast plinthed decks with gated speed selector idler drives while the dawn of FM multiplex required much more sophisticated engineered electronics and typically Thorens and eventually pairs of the venerable SP10. Both of which are still in reasonable supply and would be my suggestion for your search and still provide an above average level of performance.
|
There have been great number of excellent recommendations in this forum. I will throw my hat into the ring with no bias or pontification.
Yamaha GT-2000l turntable (external power supply) with SAEC SX-308 tone arm with Vintage (1977) Stanton 681EEES (NOS Sterhedron stylus) Cart. FYI: Manley Chinook pre-amp, Prima Luna Dialoge HP and Sonus Faber Olympia III speakers |
Nothing is "The Best". Any decent turntable that will turn and allow a good arm and cartridge will suffice, but try to isolate it as well as possible. Mine i in the next room with my electronics. A mirror makes the CD remote work from afar. |
Quick aside, not to derail thread: Great stuff, Wolf. I got off the Rock 'n Roll Merry-go-round about ’72, went back to college, got my degrees and went in new direction. Great ride, fun while it lasted; but happy I jumped off. Best, Rob |
I’m from Honolulu where I worked as a musician from 1967 to 1986. I moved to the Right Coast, still play here and there, and mix live concerts as an insanely esthetically rewarding sideline (highly recommended). The name Wolf Garcia is the result of my borrowing the last names of two people in my office (owned a banking business) when doing a show in 1998 or something…I kept the name for show biz stuff because I found it to be fun. |
The same turntable that works with Mahler, Brahms, etc.
|
td160- and attention to the pressings, which vary considerably in what is emphasized. |
The sound quality isn’t great, so rather than something super revealing,
something that is very musical, and can also convey the magic. Sort of
the Decca cartridge equivalent of turntables. I am guessing less
Caliburn and Techdas, more Linn, Roksan, Denon, EMT 927, Rega, even .
Original post quoted above. Actually, to deliver the raw energy with more force it is hard to beat a healthy idler deck. Choose arms and cartridges to compliment your individual taste. This discussion has veered off-course somewhat while musicians speak of the differences between electrified instruments. And it is worth the discussion. The point: we're playing records here, not making them. No way can the recording of it capture the live event so that it is anywhere close to the same as being there. Not the scale of it. But you can play the record in the privacy of your own listening room. In that venue (listening room) and for playing rock records, I'll choose an idler deck like a healthy TD124. Choose tonearm and cartridge that best synergize with the deck to reproduce rock. -Steve |
As impressive a roster as any. Those shows in that era covered a huge range of different types and styles of music, and I don't think the audiences were all that different- you could hear soul or boogie one night and go psychedelic the next. |
Raymonda, Wolf,
Not trying to unmask anyone; but I did play or substituted in certain bands below from the Boston Tea Party or Fillmore East. So maybe an old geezer like me /Wolf were on the same stage at the same time. My stage name back then and my real name is not the same. Ironic if it happened, which I would find amusing. Also, saw most of these groups. Lothar and the Hand People used one of the first quasi synthizer, the Condor Electric Modulator.. I first learned about it at Berklee College of Music in Boston.
Atmastphere and Wolf are right with comments on this thread.
My time was mostly '68-’70. Here you go: Boston Tea Party play dates circa 1967/70:
Boston Tea Party
53 Berkeley Street, Boston, MA
1967
January 1967
20 The Lost (Opening Night)
21 The Lost
27 - 28 The Lost / The Hallucinations
February 1967
3 - 4 The Lost / Catharsis
7 - 9 Film Makers Cinematique
10 - 12 Chambers Brothers/ The Hallucinations
17 - 18 Beacon Street Union / The Hallucinations
24 - 25 Cloud / Bagatelle
26 Baroque Concert (Afternoon)
March 1967
3 - 4 The Hallucinations / Eden's Children / Bagatelle
10 - 11 Lothar & The Hand People / The Orphans
17 - 18 Lothar & The Hand People / The Hallucinations
24 - 25 Bagatelle / The Growth
31 Ill Wind / Bagatelle
April 1967
1 Ill Wind / Bagatelle
14 - 15 Lothar & The Hand People / Front Page
21 - 22 Lothar & The Hand People / The Hallucinations
28 - 29 David Blue & The American Patrol / Ill Wind
May 1967
5 - 6 The Orphans / David Blue & The American Patrol
12 - 13 Lords & Ladies / Orleans
16 - 18 Film Makers Cinematique / Peyote Queen
19 - 20 Beacon Street Union / Children of Paradise
26 - 27 Velvet Underground / The Ferris Wheel
June 1967
2 - 3 The Hallucinations / Jeremy Steig
9 - 10 Velvet Underground / Beacon Street Union
16 - 17 Ill Wind / The Hallucinations
23 - 24 Grass Menagerie / Beacon Street Union
30 - Jul 1 Lothar & The Hand People / The Shakers
July 1967
7 - 8 The Ragamuffins / The Street Choir
14 - 15 Peanut Butter Conspiracy / 90th Congress
21 - 22 Free Spirits / Shakers
28 - 29 The Paupers / Bagatelle
August 1967
2 Seeds / Cheetah
4 - 5 Peanut Butter Conspiracy / Bagatelle
11 - 12 Velvet Underground
18 - 19 The Hallucinations / Ultimate Spinach
25 - 26 Country Joe & The Fish
September 1967
1 - 2 Catharsis / Mushroom
8 - 9 Canned Heat / 90th Congress
15 - 16 The Wildflower / Bagatelle
22 - 23 The Mushroom / The Hallucinations
29 - 30 Children of Paradise / Beacon Street Union
October 1967
6 - 7 Canned Heat / Ultimate Spinach
13 - 14 The Luvs / The Grass Menagerie
20 - 21 Pluph / Cloud
27 Bagatelle / The Sidewinders
28 The Hallucinations / The Sidewinders
November 1967
3 - 4 Bagatelle / Mandrake Memorial
10 - 11 Sun Ra Arkestra
17 - 18 Butter / Bo Grumpus / Salvation
24 - 25 Ultimate Spinach / Baul Singers & Dancers
December 1967
1 - 2 Kaleidoscope / Chain Reaction
8 - 9 Clear Light / The Street Choir
15 - 16 Richie Havens / Bagatelle
22 - 23 Lothar & The Hand People / Beacon Street Union
29 - 30 The Hallucinations / Children of God
1968
January 1968
5 - 6 Cloud / Ill Wind
12 - 13 Ultimate Spinach / The Colt Brothers Conception
19 - 20 Beacon Street Union / Butter / The Hallucinations / Bagatelle
26 - 27 Tim Buckley / Nazz
February 1968
2 - 3 H.P. Lovecraft / Butter
9 - 10 Eric Andersen / Grass Menagerie
16 - 17 Bagatelle / The Apple Pie Motherhood Band
23 - 24 Peanut Butter Conspiracy / PPMWW
March 1968
1 - 2 Chambers Brothers / South End Hate Band
8 - 9 J. Geils Band / Canned Heat
15 - 16 Beacon Street Union / The Hallucinations
22 - 23 Velvet Underground / United States of America
29 - 30 Ultimate Spinach / Butter
April 1968
4 Muddy Waters / The Hallucinations
5 - 6 Amboy Dukes / Tangerine Zoo
11 Yardbirds / Steve Miller Band
12 Steve Miller Band / Cloud / Earth Opera
13 Steve Miller Band / Earth Opera
18 B. B. King / Cloud
19 - 20 Siegal Schwall Band / J. Geils Blues Band / Cloud
25 Procol Harum / The Hallucinations
26 Howling Wolf / Beacon Street Union / The Hallucinations
27 Howling Wolf / Beacon Street Union
May 1968
2 Traffic / Butter
3 - 4 Clear Light / Tim Rose
9 Blue Cheer / Quill
10 - 11 Bagatelle / The Hallucinations
16 Velvet Underground / The Hallucinations
17 - 18 Velvet Underground / Bo Grumpus
23 John Lee Hooker / The Hallucinations
24 John Lee Hooker / The Hallucinations / Quill
25 John Lee Hooker / The Hallucinations
30 - 31 Van Morrison Controversy / Ill Wind
June 1968
1 Van Morrison Controversy / Ill Wind
6 - 8 Cloud / The Group Image
13 - 15 Quicksilver Messenger Service / The Hallucinations
19 - 22 Bagatelle / J.Geils Blues Band
26 - 29 Jeff Beck Group
July 1968
4 - 6 The Ultimate Spinach / Listening
18 - 20 Lothar & The Hand People / The Hallucinations
25 - 27 Beacon Street Union / Cloud
August 1968
1 - 3 The Nazz / Kaleidoscope
8 - 10 Staple Singers / Bo Grumpus w / Felix Pappalardi
15 - 17 Eden's Children / Velvet Underground
22 - 24 Apple Pie Motherhood Band / Wind in the Willows
29 - 31 Albert King / Jeremy Steig & The Satyrs
September 1968
5 - 7 Ars Nova / Ford Theater
12 - 14 Buddy Guy / Quill
20 - 21 Eden's Children / J. Geils Quintet
27 - 28 Velvet Underground / Fire and Ice
October 1968
3 - 5 Rhinoceros / Quill
10 - 12 Ten Years After / The Listening
17 - 19 John Mayall & The Blues Breakers / Bones
22 - 24 Jeff Beck Group / Kensingtom Market / Earth Opera
25 - 26 Headstone Circus / Far Cry
31 - Oct 2 James Cotton Blues Band / SRC
November 1968
7 - 9 Terry Reid / McCoys
14 - 16 Buddy Miles Express / Dino Valente
21 - 23 J. Geils Blues Band / The Listening
29 - 30 Lothar & The Hand People / The Cloud
December 1968
5 - 7 Pacific Gas & Electric / Quill
12 - 14 Velvet Underground / MC5
19 - 21 Fleetwood Mac / Ill Wind
26 - 28 Charlie Musslewhite Blues Band / The Listening
1969
January 1969
2 - 4 B.B. King / Fire and Ice
9 - 11 Velvet Underground / Holy Modal Rounders
16 - 18 Mother Earth / Insect Trust
22 Velvet Underground
23 - 25 Led Zeppelin / Raven
30 - Feb 1 Savoy Brown Blues Band / J. Geils Blues Band
February 1969
6 - 8 Lothar & The Hand People / Raven
13 - 15 Jethro Tull / Silver Apples
20 - 23 Byrds / Flying Burrito Brothers
27 - 28 Buddy Guy / Woody's Truck Stop
March 1969
1 Buddy Guy / Woody's Truck Stop
6 - 8 Chicago / J. Geils Blues Band
13 - 15 Velvet Underground / Wilkinson's Tricycle
16 Barry and the Remains / The Lost
20 - 22 Nice / Raven
27 - 29 Rhinceros / Ansley Dunbar's Retaliation
April 1969
3 - 6 Julie Driscoll, Brian Auger & Trinity / SRC
9 - 10 Jethro Tull / Sweetwater
11 - 13 Family / Sweetwater
15 - 17 Ten Years After / Big Mama Thornton
18 - 20 Albert King / Big Mama Thornton
24 - 27 J. Geils Band / Aum
May 1969
1 - 4 Buddy Miles Express / Howlin' Wolf
6 - 8 Jeff Beck Group with Rod Stewart / Nice
9 - 11 Poco / Family
13 - 15 Who / Roland Kirk
16 - 17 Joe Cocker & The Grease Band / Roland Kirk
22 - 24 Bonzo Dog Band / It's a Beautiful Day
26 - 29 Led Zeppelin / Zephyr
30 - 31 Velvet Underground / Allman Brothers
June 1969
5 - 7 Delaney and Bonnie & Friends / The Serfs
12 - 14 Johnny Winter / Raven
19 - 21 Dr. John The Night Tripper / Allman Brothers
23 - 24 Savoy Brown Band / Crazy World of Arthur Brown (cancelled)
26 - 28 Chicago Transit Authority / Alice Cooper
July 1969
3 - 5 Closed for Newport Jazz Festival
11 Velvet Underground / Country Funk/ Quill (Last show at the Berkeley Street location)
Boston Tea Party
15 Lansdowne Street, Boston, MA
Picture
July 1969
12 Larry Coryell / Country Funk / Quill
14 - 16 Procol Harum / Blodwyn Pig
17 - 19 Taj Mahal / Blues Image
23 - 25 Jethro Tull / Free
26 Tom Rush / Terry Reid / Free
31 - Aug 2 Ten Years After / Magic Terry & the Universe
August 1969
5 - 7 B. B. King / Teagarden and Van Winkle
8 - 9 Mother Earth / Teagarden and Van Winkle
11 - 13 Byrds / Colosseum
14 - 16 Velvet Underground / The Serfs / Country Funk
21 - 23 Savoy Brown / Santana Blues Band
28 - 30 Spooky Tooth / The Flock
September 1969
4 - 6 The Raven / Tyrannosaurus Rex / Don Cooper
9 - 11 Ten Years After / Stooges
12 - 13 Ricky Nelson / Coasters / NRBQ
18 - 20 Chuck Berry / Bo Diddley / Mountain
25 - 27 J. Geils Blues Band / Lonnie Mack / The Move
30 Mandrake Memorial / Appaloosa / Dirty John's Hot Dog Stand
October 1969
2 - 4 Grateful Dead / Bonzo Dog Band
7 Mocha Chip / Ascension / Boswell (Tuesday Night New Groups & Jam Session)
9 - 11 Spirit / Elvin Bishop / Sha - Na - Na
16 - 18 Steve Miller Band / Liverpool Scene
23 - 25 Kinks / Lee Michaels / Quill
30 - Nov 1 Al Kooper / Aum / King Crimson
November 1969
6 - 8 Taj Mahal / Bloodwyn Pig
11 - 12 Who / Tony Williams' Lifetime
13 - 15 Santana / Grand Funk Railroad
20 - 22 Mountain / Humble Pie / Eric Mercury
23 Incredible String Band
26 - 29 Joe Cocker & The Grease Band / Fleetwood Mac
December 1969
4 - 6 Nice / Allman Brothers
7 Incredible String Band
8 - 9 Jethro Tull
11 - 13 Johnny Winter / Sons of Champlin / Ten Wheel Drive
19 - 21 Sha - Na - Na / New York Rock and Roll Ensemble
26 - 28 Fleetwood Mac / Tim Hardin
29 - 31 The Grateful Dead
1970
January 1970
2 - 3 Mountain / Blues Project II / Dion
8 - 10 B.B. King / Cold Blood / J Geils Band
15 - 17 James Cotton Blues Band / Kaleidoscope
22 - 24 Byrds / Doug Kershaw
29 - 31 Staple Singers / MC5 / Rhinoceros
February 1970
5 - 7 Fleetwood Mac / James Gang
8 - 9 Delaney & Bonnie & Friends w / Eric Clapton
12 - 14 Kinks / Renaissance
19 - 21 Spider John Koerner & Willie Murphy / Erik Mercury
22 NRBQ / Livingston Taylor / The Proposition / Club Wow
26 - 28 Everly Brothers / Sha - Na - Na
March 1970
1 Neil Young & Crazy Horse / Country Funk
2 - 4 Ten Years After / Redbone
5 - 7 MC5 / Family / Stone The Crow
12 - 14 Mother Earth / Argent / Mocha Chip
15 Santana
19 - 21 Youngbloods / Livingston Taylor / Seals & Croft
26 - 28 Lee Michaels / Faces / Zephyr
April 1970
2 - 4 Mountain / Ronnie Hawkins
9 - 11 Quicksilver Messenger Service / Sugar Creek / Roxy
12 Pink Floyd
16 - 18 Van Morrison / Blodwyn Pig / Blues Image
19 Pentangle / Livingston Taylor
23 - 25 Manfred Mann / Cold Blood
29 Chambers Brothers / Youngbloods
30 - May 2 Poco / Seatrain / John Fahey
May 1970
3 - 4 Incredible String Band / Stone Monkey
7 - 9 Buddy Miles / NRBQ / Ambergris
10 John Sebastian / Ramblin' Jack Elliot
14 - 16 John Hammond / Seals & Croft / Insect Trust
21 - 23 Little Richard
June 1970
7 - 8 Traffic / Fairport Convention / Sugar Creek
15 - 17 Ten Years After / Mott The Hoople
18 - 20 Poco / Brethren
July 1970
10 - 11 Jethro Tull
14 - 16 Procol Harum / Blodwyn Pig
23 - 25 Johnny Winter / J. Geils Blues Band
August 1970
11 - 16 The Byrds / Colosseum / Velvet Underground / Serfs / Country Funk
20 - 22 J. Geils Band / Dr. John The Night Tripper / Travis Shook & The Club Wow
September 1970
3 - 5 Butterfield Blues Band / Rig
10 - 12 Fleetwood Mac / Fairport Convention
13 Miles Davis / Osmosis
14 - 16 Mountain / Mylon
17 - 19 Johnny Winter / Tin House
24 - 26 Humble Pie / James Gang
28 - 30 Iron Butterfly / Awakening
October 1970
1 - 3 It's A Beautiful Day / Flock / Chris Smither
4 Tom Rush / Murray McLaughlin
5 - 7 Small Faces with Rod Stewart / Ballin' Jack
8 - 10 Mungo Jerry / Humble Pie / Spider John Koerner
12 John Mayall
15 - 17 Byrds / Mylon
18 Frank Zappa & The Mothers (two shows)
22 - 24 Lee Michaels / Haystack Balboa
25 Pink Floyd
29 - 31 Elton John / Dreams / Rev. Gary Davis
November 1970
5 - 7 Leon Russell / Elvin Bishop / Juicy Lucy
10 - 11 Traffic / Hammer
12 - 14 Buddy Guy & Junior Wells / Cynara
19 - 21 Allman Brothers Band / Brethren
December 1970
4 - 6 Incredible String Band / Doc Watson / Mimi Farina
9 Canned Heat (two shows)
10 - 12 Poco / Jo Mama / David Rea
17 - 19 Love / Sugar Creek
26 - 29 Sha Na Na / Travis Shook and the Club World
Anecdote: I once, while rehearsing at another club on Boylston/Mass Ave, told Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground members, we were sharing rehearsal space, "they couldn't play worth $h...it! Ahh, youth! Best, Rob
|
It's Jerry reincarnated. His cover has been blown. You should have guessed earlier. Wolf equal his guitar....circa mid late 70s and Garcia, well, that's obvious.
|
Hey, Wolf, perchance did you play at the Boston Tea Party, Boston, Mass, circa 1969? Or, Fillmore East same time frame? Best, Rob
|
I agree with Raymonda and several others who have suggested that a turntable should not be chosen based on its alleged suitability for a specific genre. Regardless of the kind of music it would be used to listen to, it should be chosen to be as uncolored and accurate as possible, within budgetary constraints of course. That said, if you do want to try to optimize a given turntable/tonearm/cartridge combination so as to make reproduction of 1960s rock sound as pleasing as possible, an approach that I suspect would be more effective and more practical than most would be to install a moving magnet cartridge and experiment with different capacitive loadings. This kit from DB Systems would be helpful in that regard. Also, while I’m not familiar with the FM Acoustics Linearizer you mentioned having, based on general familiarity with the brand I’d expect that whatever functions it may perform are implemented in a high quality (and expensive) manner. However, if that device doesn’t do the trick for you, and if you are willing to invest a few $thousands in a component that provides exceptionally flexible equalization capabilities, with audible side-effects that nearly all users (including me) report to be somewhere between negligible and none, and that also provides many other functions that may be useful to you, consider purchasing one of the models from DEQX. Regards, -- Al |
IMHO, tables and arms are built for neutrality. Not that all are good at this. Cartridges are to, however, they miss the mark......and some more than others. What they do well, or not so well, may in fact make them suitable as a tone control.
But unless you have unlimited funds and a large space for several tables, I still believe that searching for a table, to use a a specific tone control is not wise for all the reason stated.
No one is saying that equipment can't have qualities suited for what you might consider a flawed album but the solution presented creates more problems then it solves.
Stick with swapping out cartridges or go out and buy an EQ.
|
So, Wolf, have you gone to hear David Lindley do his one man shows? He is out and about again. Killer player, great range of stringed instruments. (And, not too loud, which always kills it for me- he used to use a Dumble but I think he just uses the house system for all these oddball instruments). And, he's great fun to talk to- very old Los Angeles, before everybody got so caught up in things.
|
I primarily use 3 electric guitars these days (and one lap steel) made with differing woods, pickups, bridges, etc., and the sound and feel of each is completely different. That's why I use them. My amps are tube (except my current bass amp) with and without tube rectification, either push pull and single ended, with differing speakers…and they sound different…each as unique as my acoustic guitars. Note there are actual experts here, and to ignore expertise is a missed opportunity to learn something.
|
I know, as I guess any Zep fan does, that Page used a Tele on Zep 1 with a small overdriven amp. When he started using Les Pauls, I think he overdrove them by using the Echoplex preamp into the amps- Marshalls? Live -very loud.
Reproducing that at home- OK.
Source?
What I hear on the various pressings is differences in emphasis- the Classics, particularly the 45s (I only have Zep 1 and IV on Classic 45) have detail galore, but are a tad bright to my taste- very much a modern sound. The UK of III is pretty yummy, as is the UK of II (both early plums, my III is a Peter Grant credit so it is a very early one, my LZII not a first UK, probably a second). Everybody likes the US RL of II which does kick ass, but the plum of II is underrated. For 1, which I probably have the most copies of-- though I don’t have a Turquoise first, I have an early one with essentially the same lacquer info--it is bested by both the ’74 US Piros remaster and a Japanese third pressing, which is pretty impressive. The Piros is very ’of a piece’- cohesive, in the sense that it all fits together- it doesn’t have the bass power or punch of Zep II, but overall, it and the Japanese pressing are currently my preferred copies- nothing seems over emphasized. I don’t really want to shell out the bucks for a Turquoise LZ 1, but if anybody has directly compared one to some of the other Zep 1 pressings, I’d be interested in their impressions.
It’s too bad the Zep catalog wasn’t better recorded.
|
Atmashere, you amps are good and that's about it. Stay within your area of expertise. The source of music is mind not an instrument. |
It is entirely possible to optimize the TT for one genre over another.
Much of that is merely cartridge /tonearm selection. Though the
selected cartridge/tonearm may be entirely fine in all other genre's, it
has been voiced by its owner for one particular genre.
With
regard to the motor unit, all genre's will benefit from a platter spin
that doesn't change its pace, however minutely, in response to modulated
stylus drag. But it will be more apparent when reproducing rock. I'd like to know how you can optimize a TT for 80's rock as opposed to 70s' rock. Modulated stylus drag is likely more audible solo piano FWIW. Some phono cartridges will describe the texture and tones of an
acoustic instrument better than others. But will the same cartridge
that so deliciously described the wood inside the soundbox of that
Martin guitar also lend itself toward getting that over-cooked Jimmy
Page electric guitar solo rendered so that the listener perceives its
reality? Yes. Some turntables will deliver this compulsion better than others. All you have to do is hear this to know it. This is 100% correct. And audible with all genres of music. Atma-Sphere is wrong, once again. But if he wants to convince some of us he should try and prove what he says.
Next
thing he might say is that amp is an amp, and if it's good it's equally
good for everything. Then he will move to speakers. And after that to
guitars. Martin guitar would not be best for flamenco or the kind of
music that John McLaughlin used to play. John himself said it, I am just
repeating it.
There is a lot of art in designing good equipment, not only "stupid" science. But a lot of science too.
Actually Inna, you are once again wrong. Here's how: Amps and speakers are for music reproduction. Guitars are not. They are a source of music. You are engaging in a Strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. The use of a logical fallacy in any argument renders the conclusion to be false. That's why they call it a 'fallacy'. Amps and speakers do behave differently BTW, which is why I make tube amps. But the goal is to reproduce the signal applied to them as accurately as possible and any good speaker design has that at heart as well. FWIW I play in a band, one of the louder ones in the Twin Cities area. Its not like I'm any stranger to rock, and I've also played in orchestras here in town including appearances with the Minnesota Orchestra. |
That sixties/seventies sound was more a speaker thing IMO. That's how Bose got their popularity. Maybe try the JBL 12" 3-ways. The cart on its own won't take you there. |
I remember playing Zep 1 shortly after it was released on a system cobbled together by taking a suitcase stereo my parents owned, and jacking the output into an organ amp and a PA column that I set up in my bedroom when my parents weren't home. Since then, I think all my peregrinations in high fidelity have been about re-creating that thrill. :)
Zep, for the most part, is not well recorded. I have many, many pressings of some of the albums, and they offer different strengths and weaknesses. Sure, I'd use Zep to check out a system, just to see how it handles the lesser quality recordings, rather than the audiophile spectaculars that make everything sound better. I'd say if this is part of a quest for table, just buy the best table, arm and cartridge you can afford, with the recognition that if you aren't prepared to write a check from a bottomless account, you have an upgrade path in mind, so you aren't re-buying components unnecessarily. What that is, specifically, is beyond my competence. I like what I own right now, but I've had other, cheaper set-ups that delivered the goods in the context of the systems in which they were used. And yes, I continued to play Zep on all of them. :) :) |
Atma-Sphere is wrong, once again. But if he wants to convince some of us he should try and prove what he says.
Next thing he might say is that amp is an amp, and if it's good it's equally good for everything. Then he will move to speakers. And after that to guitars. Martin guitar would not be best for flamenco or the kind of music that John McLaughlin used to play. John himself said it, I am just repeating it.
There is a lot of art in designing good equipment, not only "stupid" science. But a lot of science too. |
"I’ve professionally mixed, recorded, and performed electric and acoustic
music for decades, and if anybody thinks acoustic instruments are less
dynamic than electric ones, they’re unaware of the of the basics of
music sound and reproduction. And that’s OK…comments like "over cook the
solo" demonstrate a sincere but utterly naive perception of sound not
actually existing in reality. Steve is almost charming in his somewhat
innocent weird little world, and Atmasphere is 100% correct."
Dynamic? Each acoustic instrument has a dynamic range. Yes some will get rather loud. Thinking of a Steinway grand piano. I've been around live music and musicians myself. Studied and performed. Then got a day job. but I know the sounds of instruments.... particularly acoustic ones.
But still, amplified rock and roll takes 'loud' to another level. Amplified electric guitar vs acoustic guitar. The electric guitar produces a less complex mixture of tones and texture than does the acoustic guitar which has a sound box made of selected woods, rather thin and carefully seasoned, that affects the plucked string with woody under and overtones. there is a complex texture of all the vibrating elements within. Even the very air that carries the sound.
Some phono cartridges will describe the texture and tones of an acoustic instrument better than others. But will the same cartridge that so deliciously described the wood inside the soundbox of that Martin guitar also lend itself toward getting that over-cooked Jimmy Page electric guitar solo rendered so that the listener perceives its reality?
Well, maybe the recording engineer is responsible for that slightly 'over-cooked' guitar solo because it was mic'd a tad hot and he chose not to use as much compression as do the other engineers in the trade.
Will that same cartridge deliver the muscular thrust, intensity and speed of the rock performance as it did reproducing a string quartet? I'm saying there is always a compromise. And different cartridges have their own sets of strengths and weakness'. The cartridge designer, when he voices his particular cartridge, will favor one genre of music over another. Some have, anyway. Where is the sweet spot in your low output moving coil cartridge? They all have one.
Amplified rock and roll. It can have its subtleties, but mainly it works best when you've pressurized the room. The energy of the reproduction should deliver a compulsion to the listener that will cause him/her to involuntarily move feet, tap toes, bob head and generally be body and soul immersed into the groove of it. Some turntables will deliver this compulsion better than others. All you have to do is hear this to know it. And you evidently have not heard this. Though you think you do.
Will that same turntable that rocked out so nicely get the subtleties of the acoustic mix in that string quartet?.... Only your ears will tell you this much.
I get the impression you guys are listening with your intellects rather than your heart. If you believe a thing from the outset, your mind will allow you to process all sensory input you receive in a manner that supports your preconceived notions. This even extends to recording engineers. And especially opinionated ones.
-Steve
|
I’ve professionally mixed, recorded, and performed electric and acoustic music for decades, and if anybody thinks acoustic instruments are less dynamic than electric ones, they’re unaware of the of the basics of music sound and reproduction. And that’s OK…comments like "over cook the solo" demonstrate a sincere but utterly naive perception of sound not actually existing in reality. Steve is almost charming in his somewhat innocent weird little world, and Atmasphere is 100% correct. |
"
Again, the idea that a turntable or cartridge (or other component)
serves a certain genre of music better than some other is one of the
biggest myths in audio.
"
It is entirely possible to optimize the TT for one genre over another. Much of that is merely cartridge /tonearm selection. Though the selected cartridge/tonearm may be entirely fine in all other genre's, it has been voiced by its owner for one particular genre.
With regard to the motor unit, all genre's will benefit from a platter spin that doesn't change its pace, however minutely, in response to modulated stylus drag. But it will be more apparent when reproducing rock.
I maintain, different turntables for different records.
-Steve
|
Point was that a particular record player
can be made to sound better playing back one musical genre over
another.
This is complete nonsense. Its like saying a turntable might be better at 80's down tempo rock but can't do Jimi Hendricks. Equipment does not exercise taste. It is possible to tune MM cartridges to change their tonality. However the proper tuning which will then serve all genres is called 'critical damping'. This does not apply to LOMC cartridges. If a turntable responds excessively to stylus drag its a problem for all genres of music, not just certain forms of rock. Again, the idea that a turntable or cartridge (or other component) serves a certain genre of music better than some other is one of the biggest myths in audio. |
If your table is set up properly, I think your cartridge would have more of an impact on timbre and tone control than other factors. So, maybe the OP should buy a tonearm with a removable head shell and mount it on his table. Then go out and buy a few cartridges to use as tone controls for his favorite rock group. That is logic I can understand......but setting up a whole table for one group is not wise.
God forbid if the group has a deep catalog and their albums were recording in different studio's using different engineers. Really, there is little to no continuity between albums with any group that put out more than three albums over a period of time. So, you be sheet out of luck trying that model, too. At least you can swap out cartridges and find one that sounds best with that specific album.
In the end you might be just better off getting an EQ. They really make some nice digital ones these days that are not very expensive.
Can you imagine having a Beatles Turntable, a Rolling Stones Turntable, Kinks Table, Grateful Dead, James Taylor, Stevie Wonder, Miles Davis, Coletrain.........sheet, you'd might end up with 100 different tables.
Don't even get me going a different cables for different groups.
|
"
Yeah…anybody who isn't clueless about actual music might have differing
views. What nonsense…a clear weird bias against supposed "guitar amp
fuzz" indicating a very limited understanding or appreciation of great
Rock and Roll music renders the previous post hogwash.
"
Getting excited are we? Point was that a particular record player can be made to sound better playing back one musical genre over another. Led Zep records are recorded fairly clean...if not perfectly. Some of those albums sound like they were recorded in a 55 gallon drum. (LedZep II some masters more than others) And the listener can decide whether it is preferable or not.
Can any 'one' player reproduce a superior result in all musical genre's ? You'd expect it at some of the going rates. Yet some players sound their best while reproducing music made with acoustic instruments and not a particular energetic rhythm component. I can think of one or two expensive belt drivers that ended up being cast in that light. But I won't mention those names. Yes, it is possible to tune the player to the listener preferences.
Reproducing rock music with a super energetic rhythm component, Santana for instance (1st album), does require a player that responds less to modulating stylus drag. than some of the other belt drivers out there. A spinning platter with a higher moment of inertia at the rim is recipe for success here. And it is clear that not all turntables are stellar in this one performance aspect.
Some phono cartridges sound a bit piercing in higher frequencies. And while playing rock loudly and the guitar solos are reaching for the moon it can over-cook the solo. While other carts that have more warmth in the highs can reproduce the same solo to a more enjoyable effect. And these are individual tastes as well as the difference between individual phono cartridges.
Yep, I stand by it. Rock needs a slammy player that doesn't try to sort out the pepper from the fly-shit while playing through that groove.....and there are lots of record players out there that do not meet the definition of 'slammy'.
Over here I set up different record players for different records. One excels at rock, the other does Classical much nicer.
-Steve
|
A lot of the rock recordings from the 1960s are really well recorded! The more resolution the better.
|
Yeah…anybody who isn't clueless about actual music might have differing views. What nonsense…a clear weird bias against supposed "guitar amp fuzz" indicating a very limited understanding or appreciation of great Rock and Roll music renders the previous post hogwash. To have "Groups like Led Zeppelin" require a type of turntable with "less definition" implies somehow that tube guitar amps utilized in the studio by great payers, or recording technique like that from George Martin or Glynn Johns or many others with taste and skill somehow have less worthy fidelity. "Less affected by stylus drag"…man... |
In rock, and on some rock records, too much definition can be a distraction.
It is possible to 'tune' (or voice) a turntable to compliment one genre of music or another. With sixties and seventies rock it might be advisable to select a cartridge and stylus profile that would not be too terribly revealing of guitar amp fuzz and distortion.(the intentional stuff). Perhaps conical or, at most, an elliptical stylus profile would omit some of the definition of the distortion. We don't want to highlight guitar amp fuzz. Better to extract less of it while still reporting the overall content within the groove. A cartridge/arm pairing known for producing gobs of bass energy and a muscular midrange.....and a little bit rolled off in the highs could be nice. Try to imagine a certain 'warmth' within the higher frequencies. That might help screaming, screaching guitar solos sound more stellar...and cleaner. To some ears anyway.
Arm and cartridge are certainly key players. For that matter the signal chain going into the phono stage. If LOMC, then step up trannies play a role in determining part of the sonic character of the cartridge in use. Tune for punchy and clean. A DL-103R sounds more aggressive with a 30:1 turns ratio than it does at 10:1.. We want aggressive for rock...and just about everything else for that cartridge.
The motor unit itself. (turntable less tonearm). many possibilities. But we want a TT that will not at all be affected by stylus drag as the highly modulated passages are read. I'm thinking idler territory but also direct drive. Belt drive...? some belt drive turntables rock out better than others. Those least affected by stylus drag are the ones that will produce the visceral wollop, muscular drive and the drums that leap out of the speakers in front of you.
This is why I keep more than one turntable ready for work. One in particular for rock. It is more of a blunt instrument. A sledge hammer that over time has been voiced (by me) for groups like Led Zeppelin. But the other turntable is more revealing, far more capable of extracting detail, micro and macro and retrieving the gentle nuances as well as the astounding feel it in yer guts wollop of the bass drum in Stravinsky's Firebird so much so that it resounds througout the listening room and is felt in the listener's bones. The full range of what the symphonic orchestra can produce. that is a player tuned to a sharper degree. We want that for classical.
In rock, and on some rock records in particular, too much definition can be a distraction..
m2c, ymmv, etc.
-Steve
|
I might re-word the OP's question as follows: "Which turntable/front end has weaknesses which are best masked when listening to music like that of Led Zeppelin?"
This is still flawed thinking IMHO, but it at least creates an awareness of the problem.
I'm a firm believer that your hi-fi system should surprise you - especially by introducing you to musical genres you thought you'd never appreciate and in this sense, optimizing around a musical genre points you 180 degrees away from the target.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design
|
The flaw in the Music Specific Gear argument is simply not understanding music reproduction's basic facts, among these the "low level detail" content myths…if you think Zep and AC/DC recordings lack anything sonically relative to classical oboe concertos or harpsicords, you may not be paying attention. Also, if your hifi rig can do one, it can certainly do the other. (Harpsicords are somewhat monodynamic in output, like a bad Rock and Roll recording), but a case can be made (easily) that electric guitar tone details, acoustic drum and cymbal sounds, and vocal tone are all as rich in tonal content as the Philly, just different music. All speakers have their output limits and pretty much any home drivers (not including my Italian driver Guido who is outside polishing the Bentley as we speak) will pop instantly if given a micro second of concert level uncompressed sound, unlike pro speakers which can take the hit (generally). I use the same gear for live shows with the Baltimore Consort and electric version Julian Lage (with drums and bass), and it all works perfectly with either genre (and the mains weirdly also have Italian drivers). You can own a reticent little system in your home that can't handle harpsichords, and I can imagine that it doesn't handle Bon Scott either. |
I think I settled this a while back by stating the following:
I'm miffed as to the premise of this question. Any table and cartridge combo that is honest to timbre and reproduction should do your recordings justice. If you find the recordings are compromised and require correction of some sort, I would suggest that you don't use your source as an EQ but rather buy an EQ or something that will give you the tonal correction you require.
Using a table as a narrow and specific tone control is not the way to go. It is a dead end path and will not serve you well in the long run.
.............and it still is true! |
Ralph's (Atmasphere) contention that components being music-sensitive is
a myth is not one I can agree with. One example of that argument being
mistaken is in the obvious case of the original Quad loudspeaker. I have
and love the speaker, and listen to Bach through them, but would not
dare play AC/DC at 110dB on them! Quads do very well with AC/DC and Bach; in both cases they won't be playing at 110db! Quads also do well with all types of electronic music as well as jazz and blues- so long as you play the speaker within its dynamic range. By this measure, the best speaker for anything ever is the one that can play that loudest. So maybe my Classic Audio Loudspeakers are the best for Bach, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin and solo flute. I've measured them in my room at 110 db (although I had to wear earplugs to do it). Obviously that argument is flawed! To put this in perspective, we have a question about how are particular bit of the system can favor a certain rock band, which is nearly the same question as what speaker is best for a certain period of 80's pop music (that question is actually a thread somewhere on this site). At some point, you have to get that the equipment simply does as well as it does, and that won't favor a certain band or genre of music in any way at all. Stereo equipment can't express taste! It can only deal with the media and signals put through it. Some say that a certain speaker plays bass in a certain way that is better, but if you look at the genre its supposed to favor, the recordings in that genre are all over the place in terms of how bass is presented in the recording. In fact that speaker playing bass in a certain way will favor all types of music that might have the bass recorded in a certain way. Its ***not*** favoring a genre!! For some reason this myth continues to persist. The fact of the matter is that once you understand that it is indeed a myth and nothing more, the sooner you can start to build a better sounding system as you will avoid trying to introduce colorations into your system (and that will save you flushing dollars down the loo). |
I agree with you bdp24. I read Ralph's comments as more of a warning to listen to a variety of music when making an equipment decision. Perhaps I misread that, but this has been my recommendation to people.
For a period of time, I was enamored of full range drivers. They reproduced intimate music bluegrass, string quartet etc. nicely, but they fell flat on their face with massed choirs & large orchestral music. Over time, I stopped listening to big, dense music, but I'm better now ;-)
This is where that thought exercise I proposed stemmed from.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design
|
Not just in turntables, but in all components, the nature of the music being played is affected by the failings of the components comprising a system. Different examples of any given component have different levels of failings in different aspects of music reproduction. Music containing a great amount of low-level detail (J.S. Bach’s Concerto for Four Harpsichords and Orchestra, for example) is harmed more by a component somewhat deficient in retrieving low-level detail than is music containing less of that detail. If that piece of music is typical of what one listens to, a turntable excelling in that regard is a priority. So, what are the characteristics of "Rock from the 60’s like Led Zeppelin" that are therefore a priority in the capabilities of a turntable to reproduce? Decide that, then look for a turntable excelling at reproducing those characteristics. ALL turntables have strengths and weaknesses, better in some ways than others. And different music’s require strength in some areas more than others, and are harmed less by weaknesses in other areas. IMO. Ralph's (Atmasphere) contention that components being music-sensitive is a myth is not one I can agree with. One example of that argument being mistaken is in the obvious case of the original Quad loudspeaker. I have and love the speaker, and listen to Bach through them, but would not dare play AC/DC at 110dB on them! Turntables are not so obvious, of course, but still..... |
There are surely components that "do" bass better than others, noise floor, or any other parameter you can dream of and you can certainly "optimize" around those parameters if you choose (note the quotes around optimize).
Let's use the Zeppelin example. Might there be two or more different attributes that two different individuals consider to be the essence of Zep - say for example one person considers John Paul Jones' bass playing to be the key while another might argue for Robert Plant's vocals or Jimmy Page's guitar? They might prefer two different turntables based on this strategy. How would I recommend a Zep optimized system to someone?
I think the safest path (even if you're limiting your musical genres) is to still audition a wide variety of music, including music you don't (think) you like. Linn had a lot of propaganda back in the 80's that was just that, but one of their recommendations that I subscribe to is the above auditioning strategy.
Let's put it this way. Have you ever been to a live performance where you heard a group, and only then did you consider buying recordings of their music? What's that about, and why can't this be the case with your home system (that it introduces you to new music and new genres)?
I have a thought exercise I'd like you to run in the background as you select music to play. How many times have you selected a recording (we're talking physical media), pulled it out of the shelf, and then pushed it back in?
What's that about?
Surely there are times when you're plainly not in the mood, and you pulled the recording out only because it caught your attention when you were browsing.
I would argue that for many systems, in a large percentage of the time, pushing the recording back in the shelf is because you triggered a memory of the recording not sounding that good.
What percentage of your recordings don't "sound that good"?
Clearly, we all have clunkers in our collection, but I contend that we're unintentionally shutting down our musical appreciation by many of our equipment choices.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
|
Well, of course good table should be able to play anything reasonably well but still one could try to choose based on music preferences and preferred presentation. For example, I know that I will not be into opera, rap or even Zeppelin, though the latter is closer to my taste.
As for the Nottingham, it is very popular in Britain, I have no idea why it is, yes, somewhat obscure here. It is also very unintimidating table, a little on the warm dark and deep side. |
This is one of the biggest myths in audio- that certain types of equipment might favor a certain kind of music. The fact is the equipment does not care and does not exercise any taste at all.
A good turntable will treat all kinds of music the same. I agree, Ralph. At the end of the day, if you optimize (to the extent possible) for a
particular genre of music, you will ultimately lose, and shut down your
musical choices. Today, you're into Led Zepplen, tomorrow, it might be Liszt. It's all about expanding your musical choice. Having said that, and knowing that no audio product is perfect, the strengths and weaknesses of a particular design can either be masked or hyperbolized by different musical genres. Cheers, Thom @ Galibier Design |
Wolf, I almost got that system, went for a Benjamin all-in-one unit instead that I could bring with me to college. I think if you want to hear these sorts of albums the way you remember them from the 60s you really ought to get one of the Sony/Technics/Girard tables from back then with a Shure or Stanton cartridge and AR or inexpensive JBL speakers. I do agree, though, that any good turntable will play these albums fine, my Basis does. Just might not sound the same as they did in the 60s, for a variety of reasons, some not necessarily audio-related. |
My first decent playback rig was a KLH Model 20 compact system (the one without the tuner). Built-in Gerrard table with a Pickering cart festooned with a little record brush sticking over the end…cool…really good sounding speakers for that time. |
First - the quality of the vinyl is key. If you have re-mastered discs - great. If not - then any reasonable turntable will be fine. No need to spend $1000's that's for sure. As mentioned by others the Denon is fine, Linn Sondek LP12, some of the Regas, etc. |
