Who will survive? One last table til I die.


I want to buy a final turntable (call it 25 years worth of use until I can't hear or don't care). I want to be able to get parts and have it repaired for the next quarter century. I would also like the sound quality to be near the top or upgradable to near the top for that time period. I don't necessarily require that the manufacturer be solvent that long (the preferable situation), but otherwise the parts would have to be readily available and the design such that competent independent repair shops be able to fix it. I won't spend more than $10,000 and prefer (but don't require) an easy set up that doesn't need constant tweaking. I'm willing to pay for the proper stand and isolation needed over and above the initial cost.

I've got 9,000 LPs, and it doesn't make sense to start over replacing them with CD/SACDs (although I have decent digital equipment) even if I could find and afford replacements. Presently I have a CAT SL-1 III preamp and JL-2 amp, Wilson speakers, Sota Cosmos table, SME IV arm, and Koetsu/Lyra Clavis/AQ7000nsx cartridges.

Thanks in advance for your input. Steve
suttlaw
"If you really like the music and want to know how it sounds what is recorded in your 9,000 LP's, you have to change your electronics, specially your amplifier: this amplifier, like all tube amplifiers, is a nice an expensive equalizer let me to explain it:
many people, like us, love music and through our analog system we want to reproduce what is in the recording ( there are many people that does not care about it ), that is that we need a system that can do that job: that can be ACCURATE TO THE RECORDING. The tube amplifiers can't do it, it is impossible by the physics laws), only can function like an equalizer sound reproducer. All the tube amplifiers change their frecuency response with the changes in the impedance of the speakers and this speaker impedance ( normally ) change with the frecuencies, so what are we hearing through a tube amplifier?: a hard make-up sound, a " clown " sound, not what is it on the recording. I think that almost all of us have a duty: take care for that the signal sound reproduction be the less degraded signal in our system.
So, if we want to hear what is in the recording first we need an accurate audio system and the electronics ( like the amplifier ) are a very important step to get that target. Now, if your target is other than to hear what is in the recording then you can do anything you want."

Raul, while I heartily defend your right to say things ( I am a lawyer and firm beleiver in the first amendment) I think you went a little overboard on two points. Too much emphasis on the importance of the cartridge and that comment about tube equipment.
Every component in every system either adds or subtracts something to or from the signal.
We have not come anywhere close to being able to measure all the characteristics of a music wave. Let alone measure the electrical signal that it has been converted to.
A tube is a natural device requiring much less trickery than solid state to convert or amplify a musical signal. Tube amps are usually very simple designs. Solid state amps are based on a transistor that is basically a switch. Just getting it to work involves major trickery.
Solid state guys always try to hide behind accuracy.
Flat frequency response, low distortion, megawatts of power etc., just doesn't get you alway the way home.
IMHO I have never really heard a horrible tube amp. I have heard some horrible solid state. In the early days solid state was a bad as cd was in its infancy. People tried to deny how bad ss was because they could not measure it. Both tube and solid state preamps and amps can be filters(equalizers). Anyone who has been involved with tube amplification is well aware of its abiltiy to be extremely euphonic sometimes intentionally. SS is more likely to be sterile and cold. Since music is not sterile and cold we can conclude that it too has left something out or added something.
The truth is both designs add and detract from the music. Both devices do somethngs easily and have to work really hard to do others. Getting them to do everything usually requires lots of money and designer trickery.
In creating the illusion of live music there is considerable trickery involved. RIAA phono equlization is a trick. Stero imaging is a trick. The lists goes on.
I wonder if any of has any idea how ragged the (you guys are smart, so I know some of you do) the final frequency response curve is for your system being played in your room. And that is after all the tricks that have been played at each and every stage of the music chain. Most of the curves we see are weighted and manipulated by the speed and response of the machine making them.
Every component in the chain is extremely important, things reproduced properly in one component can be easily lost in another.
The ultimate evalustion is the final result. Does a trumpet sound like a trumpet. You will know. You may be impressed by sonic wow in the beginning. In the long run if it does not sound like music, you will see it for sale on Audiogon
Hi, guys:

I think my Airy2 is finally getting broken in. I've been playing the Cardas sweep record and the process accelerated. I spent last night with the Sheffield Drum record, specifically trying to optimize tonearm/cartridge setup for dynamics, and I was impressed with the improvement. I finished by playing Stanley Clarke's Schooldays, one of my longtime dynamic touchstones, and the dynamic impact was as good as I've had. Then, to see if I had compromised other important parameters, I switched to Ella and Joe Pass on a Pablo (my favorite "unknown/ignored" label) LP, and her voice was silk and his guitar fullbodied with good overtones. I'm going to live with the Airy2 for awhile before making a final decision on changing cartridges, but last night I was pleased.

A quick aside, the VPI JMW arm has the easiest VTA adjustment I've ever had the pleasure of using. It allowed me to quickly and accurately repeat VTA settings for comparisons. Sure beats my old method of using a sparkplug calibration tool to repeat settings.

I was interested in Dougdeacon's comments about the Airy3 dynamics problem with certain tonearms. My HRX, of course, came with the JMW and, since there is no separate armboard, the plinth is drilled specifically for the JMW. Obviously I am reluctant to drill new holes in my pretty new plinth, so it will take a lot to get me to change to an arm that doesn't fit in the JMW mounting holes. (Are there others?) And, as luck always has it, just before stumbling on the HRX buy, I had purchased a brand new Graham 2.2, which I now have sitting in an unopened box.

As to the $3400 tonearm cable question, I think I'm more inclined to put that kind of cash towards a new phono stage first. I was hoping someone would come up with God's greatest tonearm cable for under $1000 but you guys have too much experience with the really good (read, oh my god, does heaven really cost that much?) equipment.

I'm also thinking about a new preamp, possibly a linestage so I could use whatever phono stage I liked best. The Steelhead, though, offers an interesting alternative. Using it as my preamp as well as my phono stage might make it cost effective.

Interesting that Raul mentioned subwoofers, because I've been thinking that should be my next move. I definitely plan to add a pair before even contemplating a main speaker change (Watt Puppy 5.1s, now the oldest component in my chain). I've been looking for Vandersteen 2Wq's as a reasonable costing and sized tryout option.

I do agree with Gregadd about tubes, relying on specs, everything is a filter, etc. Since I am unencumbered by any surplus of technical knowledge, I just plug it in, turn it on, listen, and decide. I was into solid state early (remember the Audio Research SP4?)as the wave of the future but eventually found tubes were more satisfying. I do admit, though, that I have not tried any of the new top solid state gear.
Gregadd,
Excellent and well-argued post, at least when I read it through my many-colored glasses. ;-)

Suttlaw,
Glad to hear the Airy2 is breaking in well. The choice between it and the Airy3 really is a matter of system synegy and taste. If it gives you ample dynamics then it's presumably a good match for your system. Since your tastes are, "unencumbered by any surplus of technical knowledge", I presume that leaves them free to like what sounds most musical without other prejudices. Sounds like a short path to enjoyment to me. You are living the life!