What do you mean you “heard” the turntable


I don’t get it. Maybe I just don’t have the biological tool set, but I read all the time how someone heard this turntable or that turntable and they comment on how much better or worse it sounded than some other TT, presumably their own or one they are very familiar with. 

Thing is, they are most likely hearing this set up on a completely different system in a completely different environment. So how can they claim it was the TT that made the difference?  The way “synergy“ is espoused around here how can anybody be confident at all considering how interdependent system interactions are. 

Can someone illuminate me?
last_lemming
It's what you don't hear other than the music that makes a good TT.
I have a difficult time believing you can hear a significant difference between a $500 turntable and turntables costing $10,000 to #20,000.  All turn tables do is turn a vinyl disk at a constant speed.  As long as their is no feedback they should sound the same.  I thought the difference was the quality of the cartridge.  So, let's say you install an $1,800 cartridge on a $500 turntable, I will bet it will sound great.

I also don't know what the attraction is for vinyl.  Vinyl can only reproduce a fraction of the sample rate compared to 16 bit and 24 bit CD's.  Why would you want to starve yourself of the detail.  I heard vinyl sounds warmer.  However, I would rather hear the highs and mid's in a crisper sound.
There is a very noticeable difference between tables based on the build quality. If you think about from a practical, logical standpoint, manufacturers make tables from different material. There is no way an aluminum table will sound the same as a veneered MDF table which won't sound the same as a hardwood table or a delrin table. This goes the same for the platter material and weight.
@oldschool1948 said:

I have a new Technics SL-1200G and vintage SL-MK1600 MK2.  With all things being equal except the tables, trust me, I can mostly certainly hear the difference.




That comparison is not really apples to apples. The SL-1600mk2 is the platform from which the much more basic (downgraded) SL-1200mk2 was derived. The SL-1200mk2 is known for lack of mechanical shock/vibration isolation with the motor/spindle mounted to a semi-rigid rubber base, where the SL-1600mk2’s vastly superior spring suspension makes all the difference. Yes, the SL-1200mk2 feet help compensate, but not enough by themselves. Fast forward 40 years to today, the SL-1200G is made to mitigate some of the SL-1200mk2’s lack of isolation, but without a true spring suspension it remains at a disadvantage in that respect. The new coreless motor is solving a problem that never existed to begin with. Let’s face it, the SL-1200 series was never designed to be an audiophile turntable. In all it’s iterations, it was designed to stand up to heavy handed deejays so well that it survives even being abused by sub-human rap-“DJ”s. My vintage SL-1700mk2 is certainly superior to any SL-1200 variant, and I hope Technics finds motivation to release a SL-16/7/800mk3 for true audiophiles who want to be able to buy a new audiophile grade Technics turntable. 
 Though I have not done the test I would be willing to bet that a $2000 cartridge on a $500 turntable with sound just as good  if not better  Than $10,000 turntable with an $200 cartridge.  But you would never really be able to tell unless they were in the same system