AR-XA in box?

[DavidR]

45 minutes ago, frankmarsi said:

I'm curious about what you prefer in jazz as I must admit, I'm still learning though let me drop a few names for ya.

Tom Scott, Grover Washington Jr, George Benson, Chick Corea, Larry Coryell, David Sanborn, Sonny Rollins, Miles Davis, John McLaughlin, Kieth Jarrett, Jon Luc Ponty, Thelonius Monk, Coltrane, Brubeck, ...........

My Favorite jazz album>

I have tickets to see Tom Scott in September who has re-assembled the LA Express. You can find the entire album on You Tube.

[DavidR]

57 minutes ago, frankmarsi said:

I also agree regarding the 'jazz' music. I've immersed myself into loads of it lately. Vinyl is the only way to listen correctly and is period correct

And thru a tube amp with AR91s.

[frankmarsi]

David, Tom Cat sounds like 'The Crusaders" from 1978, are you familiar with them?

 Except for few of the ones you've mention, this is more recent jazz, I'm finding that I like 1950's to early 1960's, some late 40's but, thanks for the names, I'll look into more of them as I'm still learning and discovering.

FM.

[tysontom]

2 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

Tom, answer if you please or simply avoid but, what to you listen to mostly vinyl, or CD?  I'm just curious. I use CDs while vacuuming, writing out checks for bills, using the keyboard and whenever I don't intend to be moved by the music or simply want background music or just feeling lazy as vinyl takes some effort just like anything else that is worth while to mount a vinyl disk.

Regardless of your answer,  please don't fear that I may sway away from vinyl as I am committed to it since back in the early seventies when I became an AR speaker owner and even more so when the resurgence re-started the wonderful world  of vinyl all over again. Though, I started as a young teener with vinyl in the early '60s, and have continued all the way to the present. In 1961, I bought my first vinyl record and still have it. "Walk-Don't Run" by the Ventures. 

Being sort of a tinker-er was not why I decided to spend literally thousands and thousands on my multiple vintage tonearms, expensive MC cartridges and loads on second cleaning equipment to prove that vinyl is better. Purchasing the 7000 records I own and buying more every month is not the way to save for retirement either. 

As a dedicated listener of many decades I too bought into the 'new' tech. and back in 1990, I bought into CD, I even own decent machines, 5 cd players in fact that were considered excellent though not high-end and still I was not satisfied with the sound quality although 28 years ago, it was good fun and a pleasure to use. But, even then in 1990, almost 8 years since it's first introduction to the masses, I felt my ears weren't lying to me, something was missing when listening to CD as compared to vinyl.

 I set-up my present main system with 3 turntables, 2 tape decks and two CD players and an FM tuner and all inputs are selectable at the turn of a knob. So, switching back and forth to any of the mentioned input sources is available for A/B companions which I have done enough times to necessitate shutting the CD player off and quickly switching back to phono. I even have had listening guests ask me to do the same as they felt the vinyl was so much more invitingly warm and satisfying to their ears.

A few vinyl discs that I purchased were cut from CD originals and not master-tapes, and this is very noticeable in play-back.  On a system that is as revealing as mine is, it's noticeable and again, even during casual listening, a guest or two, who haven't real listening experience can also pick it out the differences. 

With CD one simply pops a plastic disc into a flimsy plastic draw and then hopes for the best. The sound emanating out of any CD player was made to sound just like the designer who designed it to their own tastes and this is after the recording engineers and mastering folks have already done their jobs. The listener has no say in the actual sound quality because the designer and mechanical CD player is deciding for the listener.

With vinyl, one can vary the sound with their choice of cartridge, tonearms, and turntable. Sound can also be adjusted by changing phono cables, platter mats, stylus tracking weight, and VTA. With all of these parameters and flexibility, the listener decides what quality they enjoy best suited to their liking, whereas with CD, you take what you get, with no choosing on your behalf.

So, go ahead, pop in another CD and listen to someone else's perception of sound that you should be listening to according to their tastes.

Or, don't be lazy like you can be with a CD and custom arrange, set-up and enjoy the quality and sort of sound that you like best and that's afforded with vinyl.

Otherwise, like I said, pop-in another disc and hope that you like it. Remember, it was promised that CD was perfect and will last forever with perfect sound and that kind of talk was with-in the first few years. So, let's see 1982 was basically when CD came out,  two years ago the Hi-Fi press was saying CD is on the way out and for the last 10 years vinyl is living a insurgence with record sales higher than in the last 25 years. I'm left scratching my head.

In the last year or so, I've gotten into' jazz more than ever before, over 75% or more of what I bought is not, I repeat is not available on CD. And, many jazz re-releases are not being offered on CD. Go figure.

If you're a great system appreciator as I am, and as I learn from the best systems out there just like I always have, you might surf the web looking to see and hear/read what the 'other-side' enjoys. Those who can afford the very best listening systems in creation use vinyl mostly.  So, for me,  it is immensely satisfying to see the lion's share of better systems that are centered around vinyl usage.   

One word of caution; the best vinyl reproduction will not come while using an AR-XA table in its original form regardless of what the fans may think, feel, or believe as up-grades are required. I know many here are content with it though and that's all right too of course but, is not the best one can do. For casual, not really critical listening it's fine to a degree.

 But, in my world I wrestled with my new XA for two years in 1972,  gave-up and never looked back except in memory saying: "gee, remember when you thought that was the best there is?". In actuality, it's just too 'bare-bones' in its construction and simplistic design just as Ed Villchur intended it to be. Back in 1972 it pushed many lower quality tables aside and even poor mid-stream turntables to shame and rightly so but, it wasn't able to match the upper echelon either as that wasn't its intended purpose so, please let's stop pretending that it is, and that's 46 years ago in my experience. 

Even though he tables I use are vintage and ranged in costs back then in 1972 from $260. to $360. w/o tonearms, at the time the XA was costing  $78. Again, go figure, it's easy to see. 

And finally,  please stay on topic, as advised.

* Note: All that was required is as I already said in my first two opening sentences when I started this post.

* And DavidR, thanks for being 'real' in your comment. At least with a vinyl disk, if it's a poor or crappy pressing or damaged, at least you can read the liner notes in daylight. You could also return it claiming it's warped or scratched and get a refund.

FM

2 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

Tom, answer if you please or simply avoid but, what to you listen to mostly vinyl, or CD?  I'm just curious. I use CDs while vacuuming, writing out checks for bills, using the keyboard and whenever I don't intend to be moved by the music or simply want background music or just feeling lazy as vinyl takes some effort just like anything else that is worth while to mount a vinyl disk.

Regardless of your answer,  please don't fear that I may sway away from vinyl as I am committed to it since back in the early seventies when I became an AR speaker owner and even more so when the resurgence re-started the wonderful world  of vinyl all over again. Though, I started as a young teener with vinyl in the early '60s, and have continued all the way to the present. In 1961, I bought my first vinyl record and still have it. "Walk-Don't Run" by the Ventures. 

Being sort of a tinker-er was not why I decided to spend literally thousands and thousands on my multiple vintage tonearms, expensive MC cartridges and loads on second cleaning equipment to prove that vinyl is better. Purchasing the 7000 records I own and buying more every month is not the way to save for retirement either. 

As a dedicated listener of many decades I too bought into the 'new' tech. and back in 1990, I bought into CD, I even own decent machines, 5 cd players in fact that were considered excellent though not high-end and still I was not satisfied with the sound quality although 28 years ago, it was good fun and a pleasure to use. But, even then in 1990, almost 8 years since it's first introduction to the masses, I felt my ears weren't lying to me, something was missing when listening to CD as compared to vinyl.

 I set-up my present main system with 3 turntables, 2 tape decks and two CD players and an FM tuner and all inputs are selectable at the turn of a knob. So, switching back and forth to any of the mentioned input sources is available for A/B companions which I have done enough times to necessitate shutting the CD player off and quickly switching back to phono. I even have had listening guests ask me to do the same as they felt the vinyl was so much more invitingly warm and satisfying to their ears.

A few vinyl discs that I purchased were cut from CD originals and not master-tapes, and this is very noticeable in play-back.  On a system that is as revealing as mine is, it's noticeable and again, even during casual listening, a guest or two, who haven't real listening experience can also pick it out the differences. 

With CD one simply pops a plastic disc into a flimsy plastic draw and then hopes for the best. The sound emanating out of any CD player was made to sound just like the designer who designed it to their own tastes and this is after the recording engineers and mastering folks have already done their jobs. The listener has no say in the actual sound quality because the designer and mechanical CD player is deciding for the listener.

With vinyl, one can vary the sound with their choice of cartridge, tonearms, and turntable. Sound can also be adjusted by changing phono cables, platter mats, stylus tracking weight, and VTA. With all of these parameters and flexibility, the listener decides what quality they enjoy best suited to their liking, whereas with CD, you take what you get, with no choosing on your behalf.

So, go ahead, pop in another CD and listen to someone else's perception of sound that you should be listening to according to their tastes.

Or, don't be lazy like you can be with a CD and custom arrange, set-up and enjoy the quality and sort of sound that you like best and that's afforded with vinyl.

Otherwise, like I said, pop-in another disc and hope that you like it. Remember, it was promised that CD was perfect and will last forever with perfect sound and that kind of talk was with-in the first few years. So, let's see 1982 was basically when CD came out,  two years ago the Hi-Fi press was saying CD is on the way out and for the last 10 years vinyl is living a insurgence with record sales higher than in the last 25 years. I'm left scratching my head.

In the last year or so, I've gotten into' jazz more than ever before, over 75% or more of what I bought is not, I repeat is not available on CD. And, many jazz re-releases are not being offered on CD. Go figure.

If you're a great system appreciator as I am, and as I learn from the best systems out there just like I always have, you might surf the web looking to see and hear/read what the 'other-side' enjoys. Those who can afford the very best listening systems in creation use vinyl mostly.  So, for me,  it is immensely satisfying to see the lion's share of better systems that are centered around vinyl usage.   

One word of caution; the best vinyl reproduction will not come while using an AR-XA table in its original form regardless of what the fans may think, feel, or believe as up-grades are required. I know many here are content with it though and that's all right too of course but, is not the best one can do. For casual, not really critical listening it's fine to a degree.

 But, in my world I wrestled with my new XA for two years in 1972,  gave-up and never looked back except in memory saying: "gee, remember when you thought that was the best there is?". In actuality, it's just too 'bare-bones' in its construction and simplistic design just as Ed Villchur intended it to be. Back in 1972 it pushed many lower quality tables aside and even poor mid-stream turntables to shame and rightly so but, it wasn't able to match the upper echelon either as that wasn't its intended purpose so, please let's stop pretending that it is, and that's 46 years ago in my experience. 

Even though he tables I use are vintage and ranged in costs back then in 1972 from $260. to $360. w/o tonearms, at the time the XA was costing  $78. Again, go figure, it's easy to see. 

And finally,  please stay on topic, as advised.

* Note: All that was required is as I already said in my first two opening sentences when I started this post.

* And DavidR, thanks for being 'real' in your comment. At least with a vinyl disk, if it's a poor or crappy pressing or damaged, at least you can read the liner notes in daylight. You could also return it claiming it's warped or scratched and get a refund.

FM

Frank, I can see you are fully committed to LPs and vintage vinyl, and that’s wonderful—to each his own, of course.  And you're right, there is a resurgence of vinyl (although miniscule in the grand scheme of things) with collectors.  This is good to know, because I have many hundreds of LPs that I am going to sell soon.   I listen to an occasional LP, and I really enjoy some of the early LPs that I have—mostly classical and jazz, but I prefer CDs to vinyl simply because:

·         CDs have much wider bandwidth

·         CDs have more accurate, lower-distortion reproduction

·         CDs have much lower noise

·         CDs have much greater dynamic range

·         CDs don’t have record noise, scratches, pops and clicks that are present to a small degree on even the best-preserved LPs.

·         CDs don’t gradually wear out over time

·         CDs don’t require a lot of personal intervention to start and stop, etc.

For casual listening when I’m not fixated on sound reproduction, I listen to HD FM broadcasts.

However, I will say one thing, I have had a number of manual and automatic turntables over the years.  I had a Thorens TD-124 with an SME tonearm and Ortofon cartridge.  Later I owned a Linn Sondek LP12.  I later had a very nice direct-drive Denon table with another SME tonearm.  But through it all, I had my two-motor and my later single-motor AR-XA turntable (with the AR arm, which I consider excellent) and a variety of Shure V-15 cartridges.  I never ever saw any advantage to any of the Thorens, LS or Denon (although the Denon direct-drive setup came up to speed almost instantly!).  The AR Turntable tracked about as well as any of them, had perfect speed constancy and virtually no acoustic feedback, which the others had to some degree or another.  The biggest compliment to the AR-XA was the complete and unabashed imitation of the AR-XA by the Linn Sondek LP12, with the only difference being the price.  The LP12 was probably 10X as expensive and offered absolutely no improvement in performance. 

—Tom   

[ra.ra]

1 hour ago, tysontom said:

The LP12 was probably 10X as expensive and offered absolutely no improvement in performance. 

This thread is taking on some new and interesting angles of discussion, and this conclusive statement from Tom, in my opinion, condenses in a single sentence both the initial and long-lived acclaim and success of the earliest AR turntables (TA, XA, etc.). The real beauty of these tables, aside from the lovely visual qualities, was the excellent performance delivered for only a modest cost investment. I find myself rarely interested in trying to obtain or experience the "best" of anything; but at the same time, I am always interested in the "best value" of any goods or services that might enter my life.

Tom's extensive knowledge of, and unwavering respect for early AR products is always consistent in this forum, and many of us are the beneficiaries of his many posts on CSP. The writing is backed up with facts and opinions (and charts and photos and lab reports and.....), and I enjoy reading this sense of conviction, while also knowing that Tom will call out the real stinkers that AR brought to market as well as lauding many audio products produced by any number of reputable manufacturers over the course of several decades.

Likewise, I admire Frank's deep commitment to his vinyl pursuits and pleasures; and I also respect newandold's abandonment of these earlier technologies for a more contemporary and convenient format. We're all enjoying musical reproduction in different ways, with different equipment, in different rooms, and with different budgets and different ears. 

To DavidR, I loved seeing that great LA Express band in the early-mid 70's when they toured with Joni Mitchell. They played in an exceptional music hall on my college campus, but the next time I saw her (same venue) she had upgraded (my word) her jazz IQ even more and was playing with Wayne Shorter and Jaco Pastorius. Soon thereafter, she was collaborating with Charles Mingus and Herbie Hancock and earned her metaphorical Ph.D in American jazz music. I also enjoy all of the other artists you have mentioned, several of who brushed up against Miles and were brought up on Creed Taylor's label (CTI) with excellent production and riveting album covers. And like Frank, I still dig many of those 50's and 60's cool cats who were out there be-boppin' on the fringe.       

[frankmarsi]

Hi Tom, interesting viewpoint check this out.  http://loudwire.com/vinyl-to-the-rescue-physical-albums-outsell-digital-sales-in-2017/

Beyond the cliche, "We agree to disagree" line, I differ with you on a number of items you mentioned and attempt to respond to a couple.

Granted I respect your opinion and I also realize that you may be one of the few surviving souls from AR's past but I haven't started formulating my opinions last year or even ten years ago.

I go way back as I constantly mention in any one of my rants.

"CDs don’t gradually wear out over time": I can show and play for you vinyl disks that I played in the early seventies using a Shure Type III and the records show no visible wear, more importantly don't sound worn either.

"Dynamic range": I'm sure spec-sheets, white papers and such will show a CD has better specs but, again that's on paper. However, in my personal experience few CDs can offer the ending harmonic trail ends or 'over-tones' to notes fading as vivid sounding as a quality pressed vinyl disk. In my experience CD's will typically fade notes away quickly and won't offer the time of trailing tones as vinyl does.

Though looking at the guts of an TD125 one is hard pressed to even imagine the AR-XA coming close to it in quality of construction and design and most importantly quality of sound. Even if it is many moons since I used my AR-XA, I can honestly assure you that an XA can't hold a candle to the TD125 even if by my memory alone.

"wear out over time":     As I stated above I have disks that have been played numerous times and do not exhibit any signs of wear due to use. In fact these last few years I've been using high quality moving coil cartridges and although I'm not using a microscope or making recordings of said disks to compare, I detect no noticeable wear even from my Ortofon Cadenza Blue MC cartridge that I track with at 2.52 gm.

"Don’t have record noise, scratches, pops and clicks"':     After a good cleaning using a ultrasonic bath I can play disks for you that exhibit no noise, 'tics' or pops providing the pressing is a good quality one. Using any of these disks I will sit there and from a stark black back ground the music will emerge and start to play.

"don’t require a lot of personal intervention to start and stop":    I'll not respond to this because vinyl wasn't born into a 'push-button' culture as the CD was and does require arm and stylus placement onto and off of a disk. Besides, for a vinyl person 'approaching the turntable, lifting the the arm, then placing it on the disk is a holy ritual steeped in tradition and purpose'. I'll give ya "personal intervention". 

"CDs have much wider bandwidth": actually, that is governed by the recording engineers at the time of recording so for me, it's a variable that can't really be compared. Again, on paper I too would imagine a CD does have a broader bandwidth but, is it heard as the initial recording process will determine that aspect.

" CDs have more accurate, lower-distortion reproduction": My ears do not have d'arsonval meter movements so I can't document or measure distortion per-se but, again during listening I can not detect any distortion whatsoever unless, there might be 'groove-damage' or the phono cartridge was improperly set-up(weight, azimuth, VTA/SRA or the recording tech was riding the controls and inadvertently introduced some tiny speck of distortion. Again, I am human and sadly do not have any robotic abilities or sensitivities to record tiny electrical impulses with.

In a minor defense of an LP.

Esthetics: Vinyl can present a 'tactile' experience in feeling and warmth with its conveyance of sound. One can almost sense the rosin on a bow, the slap of the strings against the neck of a double acoustic bass when plucked, the hiss of swirling brushes on a snare drum.

Sadly, maybe 9 out of 10 people are already tainted with misconceptions and false and wrong experiences with vinyl. Let's face it, who in their lifetime hasn't had less than positive or favorable experiences with vinyl records. I mean everybody and his uncle has abused, mis-used or partially destroyed a vinyl disk through mishandling, uncaring and just plain unknowing how to properly play and handle a vinyl disk. Yes, the masses have been using vinyl since the creation of it for public consumption, when just after Edison started turning cylinders and selling them. Point is, we all have had our share of incorrect use of the oh-so delicate vinyl disk.

Now, granted I realize that here you are the "Anointed One, The All Knowing, The Grand Exalted Ruler" here and justifiably so, and I have the utmost of respect for your status in the electronic/speaker industry and certainly of your opinions.  In so many words,  you must have already forgotten technically, knowledge that I'm not even aware of. Or, as they expression goes, 'you've already forgotten more than I know', or will ever know in this related field.  But, don't you or anyone else wonder how a lowly bare bones XA table can be compared to a Thorens TD124 which by  the way as you know is of a completely different design than the AR-XA.   And, although I'm aware about the Brits flooding the market with reviews, loads of advertising and such when all along the LP-12 came after the AR-XA, as the LP-12 was responsible for doing the same kind of crap to the Thorens TD125 which again borrowed so much from the AR-XA, it's still very hard to compare the two and think the XA is better.

I my memory bank, I can't for the life of me ever recall back when I used an AR-XA to ever approach the sound quality of my Thorens TD125 tables. And certainly never approach the sound of my first iteration Technics SL-120 mk1, certainly not my Technics SL-1100. In the press, it has been mentioned that "Doug Sax" used to use a SL-120mk1 and a V15 Type III to test listen. Whether or not that is true is beyond my scope of information.

I'm unlike many here who defend what they already own nor do I follow the herd, especially this new brazen group of newbies here in the last few years who spew their newbie misconceived perceptions as if they've been listening for decades to AR products as many here have notions and attempt to speak as if they are experts. If I'm not mistaken, one of these 'boot-campers' even attempted to go 'toe-to-toe' with you a few  weeks ago. Sacrilege and heretical, in the Book of AR!

 I worked up to my knowledge base by listening, observing and using, and pitting one component against the other to draw my conclusions as to which table is better than the other over the course of many decades. So, in my world, no matter how I may respectfully uphold your vast knowledge and scope of experience, time-in and mind-set/opinion that an AR-XA table could even approach much less match or equal the two afore Technics mentioned tables that I have so precisely set-up, we'd be at odds with one another. Not in any measurement or actually 'user' (me, in this case) experience or perception is there of any comparison, much less 'sound-better' than.

So, in these here-in contained words we've exchanged, I'm left with no other recourse or conclusion. We'd both have to sit in the same room and hear what I have assembled, give you a chance to absorb the music played, give you a chance to see-thru each component and then ask if you really can find any sort of a comparison or justification to believe that the AR-XA table can even remotely compare to my assemblage of what I believe will be an opinion changer for you.

Of course, would this moment that I'm proposing ever come to fruition is another question. I, can say with enough of a notice before hand would gladly have you over here to my modest and humble abode for a few solid-blocks of listening sessions. I can unequivocally assure you that your keenly honed ears and mind will be at ease when you hear how clear and transparent my system is allowing you to hear-thru each component/transducer in its own audible space. That is to say, the cartridge will carry the music through the tonearm, through the table and cables thru the pre and power amps all the way to the AR-LST's with-out any of each mentioned component in the signal path impeding the other. The use and choice of each inline component that I use will allow you to fully embrace if not fully agree with my point regarding CD versus Lp and better quality than AR-XA turntables.

It has been my utmost pleasure to speak with you and certainly an honor that you have responded to my opinions/assertions in the 'one on one' manner that we have found ourselves posting on in this forum.

Be well, and good evening, FM

[Aadams]

Here is a preview for the closing credits to this thread.

"In the making of this thread no animals were harmed and no minds were changed"

Adams

 

[newandold]

42 minutes ago, Aadams said:

Here is a preview for the closing credits to this thread.

"In the making of this thread no animals were harmed and no minds were changed"

Adams

 

Most interesting was the O.P derailing his own thread

Bill

[frankmarsi]

At least this offering shows the contents quite clearly and is hiding nothing. The AR-XA offering has no explanation as common sense doesn’t seem to be in the mind of seller.  However,  no worry as here’s a much better in every way offering and in contrast a potential buyer can be assured that he can see what he’s buying.

Certainly, the price is different but, that’s for obvious reasons as this table exudes quality and effortless performance and is miles above the AR-XA table.

I employ two of these tables along with two Dynavector 505 arms in system #2.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Technics-SL-1100a-Boxed-Turntable-with-Shure-SME-3009-AKG-Tonearm-Rare-Vintage/132672305090?hash=item1ee3e2b7c2:g:V-QAAOSwirFa7hEd

In the box....

 

Out of the box...

..

[Pete B]

Frank, what do you think of the SP-10, a member of the Connecticut Audio Society (CAS) rebuilds them:

https://sites.google.com/site/mpbarneysources/technics-sp-10-mk2-custom-build

He's done two of them.

[frankmarsi]

6-25-18

Hi pete B, and thank you for your complement about my tonearm and table combination.

Actually, in 1970 the Technics SL-1000 was introduced first, then the SP10 then the SL-1100, then the SL-120mk1. All with-in the time span of two years (’70-’72).

All of them each have a different outward appearance but, the motors are basically the same and interchangeable.

I’ve never handled the SP-10 but, it’s the TOTL of that original series.

The SL-120mk1,  has a servo controlled motor as does the first SP-10 and SL-1100.

By 1977-8, the SL-120mk1 morphed the into the SL-1200mk2, with quartz control also and continued later with the mk3, 4, 5, 6 and in 2010 was discontinued oddly enough in the midst of the vinyl resurgence.

It utilized a quartz-controlled speed motor also.

Recently the SL-1200G and GR re-emerged and is casting aside many top-flight and big dollar audiophile tables. Some in the ‘hi-end’ community embraces the whole deal and have been buying and bragging on forums while others remain with lowered jaws.

Getting back to your question. The SP 10 as time passed became the SP-10mk2 & mk3 simply by also employing a quart-controlled motor also. The latest version is considered the cream of crop and price wise the most costly with its more advanced speed circuitry and special platter which employs a brass layer to it and is said to improve its sound quality. The latest SP-10R iteration’s price is five figures.

It’s considered the turntable all others aspire to be in terms of speed accuracy and large degree of build quality. Google them, and Technics' show it being manufactured.

Are you considering purchasing new or used?  Which ever way you chose, you’ll be glad you did and will never feel the need to change. As did the original line, the newer ones will support most any quality tonearm. The older ones that I use simply add to my policy of using components that get out of the way of the music. If I were to redo and switch to new, they'd be mine but, at this point in time I'm total vintage.

FM.

P.S. I can understand why your friend has only worked on two of these.

They rarely,  if ever need repair. They're seemingly designed and built to last many years.  Depending on use, one to 2 small drops of light oil on the motor shaft and that's it.

[Pete B]

I have an SL- 1200 MKII with no mods at all, and don't expect that I'll ever spend that much on an SP-10.

I never looked into the history, thanks for the info and writeup.

[frankmarsi]

5-26-18

Regarding my choice of turntables:

All I did was clean them up well, removing the skeevy germs of their previous owners and install better tonearms. Then level their position by using appropriate density vibration absorbing feet. 

Henceforth, it leads to better sound quality for me and I can touch them and the vinyl with-out getting decades old greasy and snotty germs on them.

Since I purchased my first SL-120mk1’s in 2005, they’ve for all intents doubled in price as did the tone arms that I love and use.

The same with my SL-1100’s as they’ve also doubled and further increased in price and it seems many folks are once again appreciating both of these old-birds now and more than they did in years. This is obviously, due to their inherent high quality and the resurgence and new popularity of vinyl. For true dyed in the wool vinyl puffs like me, CD’s are passe and lack so much.

Regarding these tables, the aficionado’s opinion is that they’re simply a speed accurate table that’s stood the test of time, like the last 46 years in fact. Folks simply buy a different arm board and mount an S.M.E., or Jelco or other fine tonearm. These tables have great specs and are extremely quiet, and they’re built like tanks.

With certain equipment, like speakers, turntables and arms and head-shells, I like to ‘standardize’ and with this method of uniformity, I know what is going with the system at all times as I’ve reduced the number of variables. This leaves me able to enjoy the music and not fuss around with stuff as the concentrated effort is solely on the music.

The only items I change would be new and better phono cartridges and their dedicated cables and types of music that I enjoy.

I’ve already assembled the speakers, tone arms, preamplifier and amp combination, and turntables that I’ve always wanted since the 1970’s. So, all I do is buy new and used records, clean them up and sit back and enjoy. There’s no guessing if there is something amiss or not tuned properly. I did all of that stuff in the ‘60s and ‘70s in my learning and discovery years.

I don’t entertain constantly changing components like some folks do as I feel I have reached a point where I’m beyond that as I’m not just starting out in this field and it has been a life-long hobby. That maybe be fun to an extent but, it takes away from listening time. Besides, like I just said, I now have the system I’ve always wanted for what I consider an ultimate system and life long dream of ownership.

 I’m enjoying the ride!  So, you see, it’s easy-peasy to please me.

FM

[newandold]

This topic has become quite entertaining!

That being said, my interest in it has as little to do with audio as one could possibly imagine.

Bill

 

[DavidR]

On 6/24/2018 at 9:59 PM, ra.ra said:

To DavidR, I loved seeing that great LA Express band in the early-mid 70's when they toured with Joni Mitchell. They played in an exceptional music hall on my college campus, but the next time I saw her (same venue) she had upgraded (my word) her jazz IQ even more and was playing with Wayne Shorter and Jaco Pastorius. Soon thereafter, she was collaborating with Charles Mingus and Herbie Hancock and earned her metaphorical Ph.D in American jazz music. I also enjoy all of the other artists you have mentioned, ...............

I never got to see them back then. I have seen Robben Ford (the guitarist for LAExpress) three times at TCAN in Natick. After the last performance I got to chat with him briefly and I mentioned the L.A. Express. He smiled and said "Ah, 'Tom Cat', lots of good music on that album. They did one of Joni's songs, 'Love Poem', on that album. It's my favorite. Tom Scott will be performing at TCAN, as well. I doubt Rob will be the guitarist.

[newandold]

29 minutes ago, DavidR said:

I never got to see them back them. I have seen Robben Ford (the guitarist for LAExpress) three times at TCAN in Natick. After the last performance I got to chat with him briefly and I mentioned the L.A. Express. He smiled and said "Ah, 'Tom Cat', lots of good music on that album. They did one of Joni's songs, 'Love Poem', on that album. It's my favorite. Tom Scott will be performing at TCAN, as well. I doubt Rob will be the guitarist.

You guys may enjoy this performance with Joni and Jaco and Pat Metheny

 

Bill

[frankmarsi]

 'as little to do with audio as one could possibly imagine'.

What do you mean?

Regarding Joni, I have many disks she's recorded, on vinyl, of course. I consider her one of the more unique and creative female singer/song writers around and have been a fan since mid 1968. Sadly, a few months ago it was reported that she wasn't doing too well. I never heard the follow-up. She's an extraordinary songstress and multi-talented.

FM

[der]

14 hours ago, newandold said:

This topic has become quite entertaining!

That being said, my interest in it has as little to do with audio as one could possibly imagine.

Bill

 

I could not agree more.

[frankmarsi]

der, and what do you mean?

Pete B., DavidR, tysontom and I have all been discussing audio here.

Maybe not your audio but, audio just the same.

Snarky or 'drive-by' divisive incendiary comments as it were with one sentence remarks is not discussing audio either and make no clear point.

Flippant shouts from the bleacher seats are not constructive and add nothing to the dialog here which iincidentally originated about a box with the possibility of a turntable in it. Not about audio complete;y but, about a device that is used to make an audio signal.

FM

 

 

[newandold]

59 minutes ago, der said:

I could not agree more.

.....figured I could not be the only one ☝️!

 

Bill

[frankmarsi]

Diseases can spread easily especially a nasty one.

[Aadams]

What is the difference between choosing from among multiple TONE arm and cartridge combinations to get a sound profile and simply using a 31 band equalizer?  It seems to me that Tone/Cartridge combos are really hardwired equalizers that require a lot of futzing.  Am I wrong?

Adams

[newandold]

44 minutes ago, Aadams said:

What is the difference between choosing from among multiple TONE arm and cartridge combinations to get a sound profile and simply using a 31 band equalizer?  It seems to me that Tone/Cartridge combos are really hardwired equalizers that require a lot of futzing.  Am I wrong?

Adams

Equalization is what you do AFTER you have tweaked your turntable/tonearm/ cartridge/to deliver the most accurate rendering of the music possible.

You are right about the futzing, but if you are a record nut, NO amount of that is too much.

 

Bill

[Aadams]

23 minutes ago, newandold said:

Equalization is what you do AFTER you have tweaked your turntable/tonearm/ cartridge/to deliver the most accurate rendering of the music possible.

You are right about the futzing, but if you are a record nut, NO amount of that is too much.

 

Bill

Yes the equalizer is always in line after the phono stage.  If you change tone arm and cartridge doesn't that cause an equalizer change? ................assuming an equalizer is used.

[newandold]

12 hours ago, Aadams said:

Yes the equalizer is always in line after the phono stage.  If you change tone arm and cartridge doesn't that cause an equalizer change? ................assuming an equalizer is used.

I don’t know, IMHO, until a vinyl nut arrives at where he/she, wants to be with turntable cartridge considerations, an EQ would not even figure into the mix.

Not an exacting science.....knowing for sure where the differences in the audio spectrum will be between specific cartridge tonearm combinations.

 

Bill