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
The room is 50% of the equation????  Where did that number come from???  I thought your original post was rhetorical but maybe it was not.

Enjoy the ride
Tom
Really? We’re gonna bicker about exact %’s in a subjective context? Audiogon in true fashion. Fine, replace “50%” with “significant” if that makes you feel better.

The point, which should be obvious by the original statement, is the room contributes “significantly” to the speakers sound, so comparing in different rooms could give different presentations.

And the question wasn’t rhetorical, I asked for responses. 
I totally agree about the room impact, in the past 4 years i have moved with my system in 3 different rooms, they are all different size and different shape.

 The sound is different in every room with the same speakers and the same turntables. Now in my own room i can make serious acoustic treatment after i have received the actual acoustic analysis and 3D model of my room from the specialists.

Here is the interesting article, just the basics for everyone.

What i’ve immediately noticed in my room is standing waves. I’m working on acoustic treatment, my thread about it didn’t get much attention.




I don't understand the attraction of vinyl. Compared to digital, you only hear a fraction of the detail. I also can't believe you can hear any difference between a $500 turn table verses a $20,000 turn table. I thought the difference is in the quality of the cartridge. However, even if you buy the most expensive cartridge, digital is always going to sound better
.
The attraction to vinyl is love of music. This essence of this is distilled down into Michael Fremer's iconic comment that, "There's more there there."

Its easy to hear the difference a better turntable makes. Not only the turntable as a whole, but each individual component of the turntable. This is especially obvious if, like me, you would change just one part at a time. I've heard the exact same turntable with only the motor changed. Simply going to a more steady drive you hear greater bass authority, improved harmonic development, an overall much more involving sound. Changing only the platter, I once heard Chris Brady demo two platters on the same table. Huge, obvious difference everyone in the room heard it easily. Even something as seemingly minor as the thrust bearing, the piece at the bottom of the bearing on which the bearing turns. I've replaced that and the ball bearing that turns on it. Just that one little piece within the bearing and it was easy to hear the difference.

All this is because a turntable is not just a turntable. It is a bearing, platter, motor, base, suspension, arm, and cartridge. The arm itself is not just an arm either. The arm is comprised of a head shell, arm tube, a housing with bearings that varies tremendously by design, some sort of anti-skate mechanism, mount, and internal wiring. Then there is the cartridge, which itself is made of a stylus, cantilever, suspension, coils, magnets, body, and terminals. The job of all this is to transform microscopic undulations in vinyl into a voltage that varies as the precise analog of the squiggles. How microscopic? The smallest squiggles on a vinyl record are on the order of the size of an organic molecule. 

The problem is the instant the platter starts spinning the whole kit and kaboodle starts vibrating. Which is nothing compared to when the stylus starts squiggling back and forth, with forces acting on it the equivalent of nearly a ton per square inch. 

Of course the quality and precision of each and every component involved affects the resulting sound. For certain the better and more perfectly executed the design of these components the better this will work. All this precision and perfection, does anyone really doubt it costs more to do it better? Really?

And if digital is always going to sound better, then how come no one who has actually heard the same recording compared in my presence has said so?
I think all too often digital proponents confuse ultimate accuracy with sound quality.