Why does your turntable sound the way it does.


Ok, we all seem to agree that turntables sound different, and there are any number of upgrades to a basic turntable that are offered, up to and over $100k. But what is it that causes a turntable to sound the way it does. After all, isnt the basic principal that the table causes the groove undulations to pass by the stylus at a certain speed, thereby creating the sound we hear. If that's true, then only something that affects that point of interaction should have an effect on sound. Forget of course, differences in cartridge, tonearm, wire or preamp. Just think of the turntable itself.
Now, we hear that idler drives are more impactful than belt drives, belt drives are quieter and release more inner detail, direct drives maintain speed and tempo better, aluminum platters sound different than acrylic or glass or MDF. Platter mats can change the sound considerably. different bearing materials and precision in manufacture can change the sound. but why?
Is there a basic sound to be acheived when everything is perfect, and what we are hearing is actually a distortion of that sound based on resonance or time or torque or vibration or whatever. Is there a means of measuring what a cartridge can do in a perfectly set up system where there is no influence on the stylus/vinyl interface and the cartridge is free to follow the groove undulations without exterior influence. Is this perfect environment found in the cutting head, or is it also subject to the same influences as the playback stylus. And if so, how can we ever account for that effect in our playback systems.

So, fellow Audiogoners, what do you think has the greatest effect on vinyl playback as far as only the turntable itself, and what do you think can be done to ammeliorate those effects.
manitunc

Showing 4 responses by lewm

Mapman, What about tubes vs transistors? Is it absurd for some to prefer tubes, an "older technology"? For that matter, are we all absurd for preferring to continue to play records at all, when there are so many modern less fussy digital alternatives available? And the beat goes on.

I don't prefer idler drive uber alles, but I don't reject it based on the age of the idea, either.
Raul, Might you not like the strain gauge cartridges, if you believe RIAA is a major culprit in signal degradation? I understand that you did not care for the SoundSmith one, because it was inaccurate as to frequency balance, but I know guys who are listening to some of the vintage strain gauge cartridges and liking them very much, e.g., the Technics and the Euphonics, not to mention Win.

As to this topic, the answer will be different for each and every turntable. Thus I find the question hopeless. Can you re-phrase it? It would be better not to get into yet another debate about the relative merits of belt-, direct-, and idler-drive, but I fear it is inevitable. Next comes plinths or no plinth. There's a whole other thread for that religion. Only Syntax has the key.
Dear Raui,
The aim of my post was to wonder out loud whether you have ever played with the vintage strain gauge cartridges, and if so, what you thought of them. I know already that you are not a fan of the SoundSmith one. By the way, I think it's the case that ALL strain gauges require some sort of "pre-preamplifier", not just the SoundSmith. I was talking to Dave Slagle about this at the recent Capital Audiofest. He is among said fans of the vintage strain gauges.
Thanks. Did you like the Panasonic or the Sao Win? Perhaps this is an unfair question, since you may not have heard those cartridges in many years. I have heard that the Euphonics is perhaps the best of the bunch, but this is only one person's opinion (who was talking to me at the Capitol Audiofest).