Looking to upgrade my turntable

[Mike Up]

Your enthusiasm for vinyl is...interesting.

Well if I'm putting money towards a new turntable, I can buy a couple of New Records. I'm not paying $30 so I wait for the records about $20. I could care less if the Kiss record was 180 grams or not, just disappointed in a product claiming to be audiophile grade that has defects in the record grooves right out of the sleeve.

I think I'll stick to standard 120 gram records. The new Chicago IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits record sounded excellent and was even a nice pretty bright yellow. Wasn't expecting that since I missed the label on the cover stating this. Kind of cool I guess.

 

[lovinthehd]

Well if I'm putting money towards a new turntable, I can buy a couple of New Records. I'm not paying $30 so I wait for the records about $20. I could care less if the Kiss record was 180 grams or not, just disappointed in a product claiming to be audiophile grade that has defects in the record grooves right out of the sleeve.

I think I'll stick to standard 120 gram records. The new Chicago IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits record sounded excellent and was even a nice pretty bright yellow. Wasn't expecting that since I missed the label on the cover stating this. Kind of cool I guess.

It's the description of audio, the ignoring of the basic issues of vinyl, etc. that I'm thinking of. No vinyl is worth buying at this time IMO. I have a large vinyl collection but haven't added to it in 30 years....

 

[Mike Up]

Thanks. In my view their claim is likely baloney. While it's true that some mechanical things with use become more supple and theoretically alter performance this does not "prove" their claim specifically regarding cartridges changing audibly with "break in". Blind listening tests is what proves their claim but somehow these companies just can't seem to show us any. I wonder why.

I explained what's really happening with "audio device break in" here. Although the device in question is different—a cable—the principle behind why manufacturers and vendors would have a financial incentive to back this pervasive myth is exactly the same:

"
Cable "burn-in" has no basis in audio science and is just a multi-faceted marketing ploy. Besides making the consumer more reluctant to jump through the extra hoops before potentially returning the item, it's a dealer tactic many buyers aren't consciously aware of: shaming the customer for "not being a true connoisseur with discerning taste". Essentially the sellers' proposition is: "If you don't hear the improvement in X hours, simply return it."

But audiophiles are terrified to admit they "can't hear the improvement", i.e., aren't discerning, so all sorts of possible things then run through their heads which they don't want to face:

• Maybe it's just me and others can hear the difference, meaning I'm unskilled, inadequate, and/or not worthy of membership in the elite club I want to be in, "audiophiles"?
• Maybe that internet buzz was right all along, so I guess I fell for a snake oil scam?
• Maybe my gear isn't good enough to reveal the distinctions so I'll need to upgrade it, first?
• Maybe "175 hours" is only the bare minimum, so I just have to work at it a little longer?

"
Also in general, the longer you can make a consumer keep a product after they buy it, the less likely they are to return it due to some variety of dissatisfaction.

There's no break in for a cable. That's science and no way could an industry wait around for a cable to break in before using it for critical needs.

Now my Elac speakers did require an hour to sound their best and it was quite noticeable. But only an hour, no more.

As far as the Cartridge, it is a moving motor device as well so it may need some break in, but not 20 hours. Maybe an hour like my loud speakers. If there is any difference after an hour, it would be insignificant. If the cartridge sounded like crap after about an hour of play (or 1 album), it would be going back.

This turntable sounds awesome. I have never been this impressed with any turntable's sound quality.

My cousin thought I should see if that Kiss Dynasty Album sounded OK. I felt it's new, I can see the blemish on the grooves, it should not be like this. This is why I bought a new album. They did allow for a return so I just returned it. I think I'll stick to normal 120g albums for the VTA to be more precise. I didn't buy that Kiss album for being 180 grams, I bought it because it's a good album and it was inexpensive compared to most albums. Same was true of the Chicago IX album, right at $20 also.

 

[Mike Up]

It's the description of audio, the ignoring of the basic issues of vinyl, etc. that I'm thinking of. No vinyl is worth buying at this time IMO. I have a large vinyl collection but haven't added to it in 30 years....

Unfortunately, I'm finding crappy sounding FLAC and digital albums. Likely because of dynamic compression due to the loudness wars. I've heard this many times on CD. I have many different remasters of AC/DC on CD and some sound much better.

With vinyl, it seems you aren't gambling like on CD. With vinyl, you are not going to get high dynamic compression and usually will get a good master. I'm not replacing any CD with Vinyl.

I have noticed that I'm forced to enjoy the music more when I listen on vinyl as I need to pay attention to flip the record. With CD or FLAC, I find myself being pulled away more in doing things, as there is always something that needs to be done.

 

[m. zillch]

With vinyl, you are not going to get high dynamic compression and usually will get a good master.

This is the common wisodm held by many if not most people however the evidence doesn't always support this.

Although individual examples may be out there where the vinyl release has had its dynamic range compressed less than the CD (or, at least theoretically, "not compressed all"), when this does occur it is entirely because they (the record companies) had their reasons to make it that way on purpose, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the limitations of the mediums themselves.

In fact, vinyl (as medium) has such a horrible dynamic range compared to CD that there are well known songs where even with extra dynamic range compressing applied—done to the song in an attempt to shoehorn it into the much more limited dynamic range of vinyl— the quiet opening fade up at the beginning has to to completely discarded and thrown in the trash. Gone forever.

Here, grab your best headphones, crank up the volume, and listen for yourself to this cut I bet you all know well. The vinyl, even though more heavily compressed when the music does finally start, just couldn't manage to do the quiet opening 12 seconds of the song above the medium's comparatively elevated noisefloor (it would have been buried/masked by noise, hence deemed unlistenable), so they instead threw those 12 seconds away entirely. [I have replaced them with 12 seconds of silence in this demo so the two tracks are synchronized if you jump back and forth between them mid-play, such as when using a comparative program like Foobar ABX or a DAW. The synchronizing also allows us to visually examine the two images at the same time stamp with the provided images, to compare the levels of the two songs at a given moment in time.

 

[m. zillch]

I also just noticed that in the real version, CD, the center stage drum kit starts out hard left but then slowly pans across to the center.