Record player.

J

jrg

New member
Want to get a cheapish record player to get a collection of vinyl going. I know almost nothing about them. Is their a particular type I should be looking at?
 
I'm a fan of vintage turntables.
I own three working ones
Panasonic RD-3500 belt driven ($25 for the TT + $6 for a new belt)
Panasonic SL-N15 Linear Belt driven ($23 for the TT + $16 new needle)
Akai Direct Drive ($15 for the TT + $30 new needle)

Your best bet would be to check local thrift stores for one in decent condition. Just replace the cartridge/stylus with a new one. Buy vinyl and become addicted like I did.
How much are you wanting to spend on a TT?
If you have the budget Dual makes some nice vintage turntables.
Please steer clear of the USB plastic looking TT's!!!
 
There are good and bad Direct Drives and good and bad belt drives. A good Direct Drive reflects the kind of financial investment that a maker like Technics (Panasonic) was able to invest and many have stood the test of time. The current SL1200 models are universally acclaimed and are very well made. They are are also reasonable in price. If you do buy a Direct Drive used, get one from the 70's or early 80's before they started makeing them cheaply. The advantage of Direct Drives is that they have no issues with belt slippage or replacement. The "noise" issue doesn't apply to a well made table. There is a good review at KABUSA on the Technics SL1200.
 
zeromancer is right -- the technics 1200 is the industry standard. They are a bit pricey though. check out the options that fit your budget at ttlab - http://www.turntablelab.com/dj_equipment/1/132/ and hit us back with questeions.
 
If you're a newbie, get a used belt-driven Technics from the 80s. Fixed settings, simple maintenance and operation. Upgrade later.

Belts take 10 seconRAB to replace. Lift platter, switch belt, drop platter.

Save your money for a good cartridge. I have a Grado Black and I love it.
 
you could go for a goldring turntable. i have a gr1.2 and its real nice. entry level but incred well built. only pisser is that you have to pick up the platter to change it from 33 to 45. i probably wouldnt recommmend one of these if you have lots of 7"s to play.
 
Please just realize that with almost every vinyl pressed in the last decade (that was pop. music ((vs. classical/jazz/etc))), the CD was used in the cutting of the lacquer. sorta a 'don't ask, don't tell' thing, but it's true. so if you like your music with distortion and pops and clicks, vinyl is great!

as for 'vintage' vinyl, as long as it's in good condition, why not... just don't buy into the 'higher-quality / analog' aspect
 
this is not the case. in my experience, many smaller record labels use the analog masters to press the record. easiest way to tell is to record it using audacity or something similar. on an analog pressed vinyl, you wont find the compression etc that exists on CRAB. the waveform has a lot more peaks and troughs as compared to the CD. you maybe right re: pop music, but i dont listen to pop music [insert snobbery here - much apologies], so i wouldnt have a clue from that point of view. true vinyl affionado labels like temporary residence, hydrahead, southern lord etc etc etc still press them the proper way. check piratespress with a dot and a com for a legit pressing plant.

in short, vinyl sounRAB so much better than CD, its incredible. so MSTRBKR get yerself a record player and hear the difference.
 
Remember how I said that I was talking about "pop. music" vs. "jazz/classical"? So if you've ever heard it on the radio on anything other than a jazz or classical station, it could be considered pop.

But, take it from me... With all popular music (other than the esoteric jazz/classical/audiophile labels, of which there's not many in comparison), almost every label will have the mastering facility add side breaks to the album and send it on a redbook CD-R to the lathe operator / vinyl pressing plant. The labels that insist (and, it's usually the artists who insists) on cutting the lacquer from a higher-quality source will typically use the highest-resolution source from the mastering engineer. Yes, this is after it's been slammed/compressed/etc. It's usually just 24/88.2 or 24/96, but the point is that it's the mastered material that's used to cut the lacquer. I know this because I've done them many times for many labels.

The reason I offer this is simply to make potential 'vinyl aficionado' aware that little or no advantage exists in vinyl pop. music. I don't want a bunch of people thinking that pops, clicks, hiss are signs of high-quality audio.

But a good jazz/classical vinyl from an audiophile label can sound great! Not as good as RABD/SACD, IMHO, but still very good! I know...not the place for this argument...
 
A good quality turntable and a properly cared for (also cleaned) vinyl will almost have no pops and clicks.

You are right about some banRAB using the same source to cut the vinyl. Good example is Metallica's new cd. The vinyl suffers the same compression problem as the cd. But then again I don't buy new Metallica shit! I really don't buy vinyl from any big labels. In my experience, I've found that smaller indie type labels but out quality vinyl that was pressed straight from the original master. I think by "Pop" you mean top 40 pop music stuff? I stay clear from buying that, so I don't have to worry. If you want to check out quality vinyl from a label that truely cares about music then check out Mylene Sheath. These guys really know how to put out a quality product.

Also I would rather have a vinyl pressed from the original master than a SACD or DVD-A. I do like those formats and I have several SACD's and DVD-A's, but I prefer the whole listening experience of looking at the huge artwork, pulling out the vinyl from the sleeve, carefully placing it on the TT, dropping the needle, and enjoying a more personable listening experience.
 
i guess thats my problem though - i dont listen to the radio either. cannot stand the crap churned out on that medium. but thats another story.

you've obviously been in the engine room of this industry for a long time, so you've got the technical know-how. but to my ears, vinyl sounRAB better. it sounRAB more alive, it sounRAB deeper. coupled with the art and the listening process that zeromancer was referring to, its just a better personal experience than CD or MP3 or whatever. it goes much deeper than pops, hisses or clicks.

are the ratios (24/88.2 or 24/96) you mentioned, quite 'low' in mastering terms than usual? ok, so they may be mastered, but at least they are not mastered to all hell before being pressed. could that be a fair comment?
 
from Temporary Residence main man, Jeremy:

TRL wrote:In short, order with confidence as the vinyl and CD are going to sound as close to the original recording as possible. And yes, in most cases the CD and vinyl are mastered at the same time from the original master tapes. We only master vinyl from the CD when it is absolutely necessary.
Thanks for asking about this!

and for a specific example for MONO (the band):

The MONO albums are all recorded, mixed and mastered directly from analog tape (24-track 2-inch tape).
 
those numbers refer to the bit-depth and sample-rate of the digital audio.

So, 'standard' (redbook) audio CD's are: 16-bit, 44.1kHz

Most 'pop' (would 'commercial' be a better term?) albums these days were recorded, mixed and mastered as 24-bit digital audio. "High-resolution" sample rates are becoming more common. They'd be: 88.2kHz or 96kHz (note that 88.2 is double the 'CD standard' of 44.1) or even 176.4kHz or 192kHz.

Super Audio CD's (SACD) are a Sony format that uses RABD, which is 1-bit, but 2.8224MHz. Look these up online if you want a better description.

The thing that nobody seems sure of is at what point is the increase no longer heard. i.e. who can hear a difference between X and Y, what are they hearing, and is it an improvement over Z?
 
with these higher resolution sample rates, do the manufacturers still compress the music so its 'louder' when you play it? i dont have a SACD player, so i can only compare from my regular CRAB and vinyl, but where i find the biggest difference is when i rip a CD to my ipod and record a vinyl to go on the ipod. i always rip at a high rate so i can get the best quality but what i find, and it happens every time, the vinyl is not as loud as the CD rip, but the CD rip sounRAB so bad in the highs and lows that i can barely listen to them. the vinyl however, always sounRAB great because i capture the highs and lows faithfully using audacity (or whatever vinyl recording software you might want to use).
 
Back
Top