2. analog
  3. 1060660051

Why can't I hear 20 years of phono 'progress'??

How can this be??! A well-regarded 1980 Ortofon VMS20e MkII $150 mm cartridge in an ambivalently-regarded 1980 Thorens TD115 $430 turntable sounds identical to a highly-regarded 2002 Grado The Reference (high-output) $1200 cartridge in an equally-highly-regarded 2002 modded Rega Planar 25 $1275 turntable. Before you dismiss me as another naïve wacko, please read a little further.

I’ve been building a whole new system over the past year and a half, made critical auditions of dozens of components, and been quite satisfied with my 45yo ears and results. You can click on my system below for an OTT description, but with everything else in place, I’m listening to the carts through a fine BelCanto Phono1 -> AQ Emerald -> retubed Sonic Frontiers Line1 -> AQ Viper -> Steve McCormack-upgraded DNA0.5 -> AQ Bedrock -> Thiel 2.3 -> great room acoustics, or Headroom Max -> Stefan AudioArt Equinox -> Sennheiser HD600.

I’ve had the Rega-Grado paired for over two months, both items bought separately from A’gon. Cart has several hundred hours, P25 I installed the Expressimo counterweight, donut mat, snugged tonearm nut to plinth and set the speed to 33-1/3 with tape on the subplatter. FWIW, the Thorens has an upgraded mat and cables, record clamp and 10lbs of inert clay in the base, and new belts and styli over the years. The cartridges set up and align perfectly in both units, confirmed with test records. I know the 115/vms20 to be very synergistic, and, hum aside, had always thought the rb600/grado worked well together.

We’ve been just loving the sound of the Rega-Grado for those two months, so before I put the Thorens into storage I just wanted to remind myself what I had been listening to for 23 years.

That was a couple weeks and way too many hours of clinical listening ago. Despite swapping equipment stands, matching levels, and playing every type and quality of vinyl, I’ve never heard two pieces of equipment sound so identical, this after choosing between DACs, CD transports, digital and analog interconnects, vacuum tubes, headphone amps, preamps, etc.

Both the overall sit-back-and-relax musicality and every audiophile definition from general frequency balance and PRaT to bass articulation and depth retrieval are the same(!) The most I can say now is that on the best recordings with the most focused and careful listening, the P25 has more inner detail on vocals, more articulation on complex cymbal brushwork, and smoother massed strings. But most of the time I had to confirm this (barely) with headphones, it was below the resolution of the Thiels that have unraveled every other upstream difference before!

I’m sure a true Golden Ears with a $100K system could be more conclusive. The Thorens' semi-auto operation, sprung dustcover, detachable tonearm wands, replaceable styli, front-panel cueing, electronic speed control are all huge real-world advantages over the Rega-Grado hum, $800 retip and fully-manual operation. So what gives?? Have I done something blatantly wrong with the Rega? How can a 23yo $580 rig equal 5yo designs adding up to $2600? I always knew my 115/vms20 combo sounded good, but never expected this – I’d sell the P25/reference at a loss but for nobody believing that my archaic TT is even in the same sonic league! Plus the newer record player gives more 'street cred' to the whole system(?) All enlightened suggestions, useful comments and curious questions welcome. I've come to trust many of you and your inputs over the months, so don't be shy! No, I won’t be selling my Thorens at bluebook :-)
128x128sdecker

Showing 5 responses by zaikesman

zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Lugnut is on target when he says Ultrakaz got it right. Having read your question, I don't at all doubt your ability to fairly and squarely evaluate the situation, but the next step is to isolate all the independent variables. Despite the fact that it is possible that your old rig is as *good* as your new one, I find it more surprising that they would sound the *same*, as they are clearly so different physically. Seems like some sort of complementary synergy could be producing a sonic similarity by pure chance. Also I'm guessing that Sean is correct when he suggests optimal loading for the carts could reveal more. But if you never find a substantive difference, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to unload the more costly new rig and just continue enjoying your old one, 'audiophile cred' be damned.

P.S. - Although I may be atypical around here, in that my main reason for being such an analog-heavy audiophile has a lot more to do with software (records!) than it does with sound (the music is the thing, and I can be perfectly happy with a decent CD as I can with a decent record - and by a long shot not all of either are - as long as it affords me access to music I value), I am not put off too much by Pbb's usual comments. True, he is utterly predictable, but so are some of the guys on the 'other side'. I never mind being asked to defend myself in these forums, so long as the challenge is sincere and open to fresh input. There's a lot about the straight-up vinyl listening experience that's quite compromised compared to digital (noise, shorter program length/interuptions, no random/remote/programable track access) in an objective sense. I happen to be subjectively fond of a lot about vinyl that's tangential to sound and listening issues, although for me all audiophile concerns are tangential (and subordinate) to my ability to get the music I want in any form. Yes, Pbb's comments are often more needling than they are constructive or instructive, but I've seen plenty of such comments inserted on the digital side by 'analog guys', Doug's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. For me, such manufactured disputes are always beside the point, which is the music baby. :-)
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Tom's and the others' analysis of the relative cost issue was in direct response to a part of the question. Although I must regrettably agree that many things analog are today priced rather exhorbitantly for what they are, this same criticism can be fairly levelled, as you know, at all areas of the high end, and is simply the result of the luxury market process, the playing field of which we are free to pick and choose from (or not) as will and necessity dictate. My only problem with the cost/inflation scenario depicted above is not that it is "disingenuous", but that to a neophyte casual reader, it would be possible to construe from it that higher price is inextricably tied to higher performance. However, knowing Tom's philosophy a bit better than that, I am sure that was an unintentional impression, which is beside the point to his main argument, one that could just as easily be interpreted conservatively as advocating sticking with the older, cheaper solution and, as you suggest, putting the difference back into new software.

What I do perceive as "disingenuous" is your contention that Tom's analysis is somehow offered as a "specious" example of "...proclaiming it [analog] to be superior in every way to the other way of doing things [digital]...". I honestly don't see how you can get here from there, and such a hyperbolic non-sequitor tends to shade your overall critique with the very same "speciousness" you say you deplore. You are correct, however, in pointing out that within the larger audiophile galaxy (not to mention the non-audiophile real world), digital is still king, and it was not necessary or true to paint you as one of the last remnants of a failed revolution. But, as a poke at yourself, the observation was well within the spirit that you entered into the discussion with, so please don't get sanctimonious about it.

As I said, I generally welcome your contrarian/realist perspective in any discussion based on principle, if not always substance, and whether I fully agree or not. Still, it would go a long way for your own credibility if you would acknowledge for the sake of completeness that technically, analog is in important ways the more information-rich medium, and that there are perfectly rational reasons why an audiophile - and a music-lover - would continue to pursue the format even in this new century. And I also advise lightening up a bit - your 'side' is in absolutely no danger of the losing the 'war', so over-defensiveness looks unbecoming. Besides, no one wins an argument by contending that others should not receive the pleasure that they do because it is irrational (whether that were true or not), and in our hobby as any other, receiving pleasure is at the end of the day the only justification possible (the same could be said of posting on Audiogon too, so all of our motivations are quite naked if you think about it...).
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Thanks for prompting an interesting thread, and happy listening :-)
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Eldartford, a couple of thoughts:

1) The shape of the stylus has a big influence upon the perceived level of surface noise, and the more radical 'line-contact' geometries are not generally found in mid-priced carts, or most MM carts generally. But the actual type of motor system used, or its frequency response, may not always be a determining factor.

2) The LF rumble you have could be the result of a cart/arm system resonance that is undesirably high in frequency/amplitude, and is excited by certain recordings more than others, but not as much (or at all) by between-track silent grooves. This would be a different scenario than whatever rumble is contributed by the TT motor or is pressed into records, and could help account for your results. Another possibility could be that your TT is not sufficiently isolated from your speakers and subs as far as mechanically-transmitted feedback goes, and that the variations in 'rumble' you see are mostly being caused by differences in your preferred volume settings with different recordings (with records that are pressed 'hotter' being less problematic).
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
El Dee, you're right about the stylus shape of the V15VxMR (my calculations translate the Shure website data [given in mils] to be a mere 3.8 microns X a healthy 76 microns - which, while not the largest major-radius design going, definitely qualifies it as a fine-line-contact design, and considerably more so than my own twice-the-price 6 X 40 micron BenzMicro Glider MC) - I should have looked this up before spouting. However, if no one mentioned it already above, many folks (OK, many audiophiles anyway) through the years have felt the V's built-in brush can exacerbate the pick-up of surface noise from otherwise basically clean records, so if you haven't done it previously, you may want to experiment by listening with the brush locked in the raised position (bear in mind that a VTF adjustment is necessitated by this change, which I believe is specified in the manual).
More to discover