Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by ServingTheMusic, Jun 6, 2018.
IIRC, those are uni-pivot arms? Somehow, they give me the jitters.
They are made by a well known make - Ortofon!
Good to know, gives it more credibility. Needs a heavy counterweight for it, though.
I'm starting to shop a new deck and stopped in to my local shop today. I think I'm set on a Rega, but I was impressed with how nice the EAT was. I demo it in the store, love the build and tonearm. I'm bumping this topic again to see if anyone is using one. Looking for some feedback.
Actually, there's three of us!
You know we're going to have to face off at some point, as "There Can Be Only One" (Highlander)
There's a couple people around here with one, including @tyinkc in this thread, and @LIBrian in another thread, probably more, very nice tables, love the carbon fiber plinth and the suspension, though I wish the base was something a bit more resilient than coated MDF, I'd hate to see it get a corner ding or some other damage. But I guess you could say that about most tables.
I’m the third I mean fourth!
What is Facebook?
Fifth here, if I'm counting correctly
Ask about EAT turntables and learn others are also not on facebook
With this site, you always get more than you give!
this just hit my inbox:
EAT C-Major Turntable & Jo No.5 MC Cartridge Review - NOVO High-End Audio Magazine
Thanks, I do like these but I still think I'm going for the Rega.
Now I have to decide what cart I want.
I am a Rega man my self. Ania Cart with P8.
I am a new member here. I got a lot of help from this forum as I researched getting back into vinyl. I hope my first post will help some folks looking at the EAT C-Sharp.
Last January I pulled my LPs out of storage after about 30 years. I replaced my mid 70's Thorens TD 160 turntable with the EAT C-Sharp about 1 month ago. This is an amazing turntable and I will post some comments and pictures here.
I got this turntable with a $500.00 discount with a white plinth. White was definitely NOT my first choice, but the $500.00 off put it within my budget. Plus a white plinth and black plinth sound the same. The turntable came with the new EAT Jo No.5 cartridge as oppose to the Ortofon Quintet Black which it had previously shipped with. After a 30 year absence, I was totally amazed by just how good vinyl sounded. My return to vinyl quickly turned expensive because I wanted to see just how much better it my sound.
For several reasons I had to place my turntable away from the rest of the system. This meant using a separate preamp stage near the turntable. I had a concern because the turntable was on a cart located next to one of my SB-2000 sub-woofer. Feedback was a big concern. I put the turntable on a piece of 3/4" black particle board which in turn was set on Audioquest Q-Feet. I get zero acoustic feedback. Foot falls, which were a problem in this room with the Thorens, have no effect on the C-Sharp. I have had no skips with this turntable, including when I accidentally brushed against the cart. It has great isolation.
I wanted to try to improve on the already great sound of the C-Sharp and I demoed the new Parasound Halo Hint 6 integrated amp in listening room. The sound was so much better: fuller bass, greater detail and better soundstage. I did not expect this type of improvement and it wasn't just me who noticed. My wife who is not a discerning listener noticed the difference immediately. The other thing the Hint 6 improved was the noise floor. This created a new "problem". The sound was so good I wanted to listen at a greater volume. At higher volumes I could now hear some background noise: a flutter that sounded like a motorboat and was caused by a nearby WiFi router. It was one of those things it took a while to hear, but once I heard it I couldn't ignore it. I returned the Clear Audio preamp I had bought and replaced it with the Parasound Halo JC3 Jr. The better shielding did elite the flutter and I noticed even more improvement in the sound quality. Once again my wife noticed the improvement. The same LPs had noticeable improvements with each improvement I made.
The most amazing thing about the Hint 6, JC3 Jr., EAT combination was the low noise floor. Even at high volume a good pressing was just about dead quiet. I never knew vinyl could be this quiet. Of course this created a new problem. I wanted my albums to sound their best. I was listening at louder volumes and record noise was very annoying. So the last piece of this puzzle was the purchase of an Audio Desk Vinyl Cleaner Pro ultrasonic record cleaner. This was the final piece in my LP nirvana. I couldn't be happier with this EAT C-Sharp turntable.
There was one little hiccup with the EAT C-Sharp and EAT Jo No. 5 cartridge that is a bit crazy and inexcusable. The EAT C-Sharp comes with a record weight that is intended to be placed on the threaded spindle. In normal use the record weight works by gravity only. When you need to remove the 11 pound platter the weight is screwed down to act as an aid to removing the platter. The new EAT Jo No. 5 cartridge is a wide ride. Much wider than the Ortofon Quintet black. The EAT record weight/clamp shipped with the C-Sharp conflicts with the EAT cartridge. About 25 percent of the records I played on the C-Sharp had run out grooves that went close enough to the label that the Jo No. 5 actually hit base of the record clamp. This knocked the cartridge out of the groove and jump back 1/4"and the process repeats itself. Yes you read that right: The clamp EAT ships with the C-Sharp conflicts with their own weight. EAT has a new "Massive Record Weight" that lists "A smaller footprint" as one of the features. I bought this weight and it does cure this issue. The problem is you still need the old weight for times when you must remove the heavy platter. But seriously, no one noticed this when they developed the cartridge?
This hiccup was the only negative I have found with this otherwise great sounding turntable. I look forward to playing all my old records on this combination. It is like hearing them for the first time. Some people wanted some pictures. I will include a few below.
The cartridge is made by Ortofon from a standard body design they offer for OEM. You would think EAT would have tested this!
Yes I had read Ortofon was the OEM for this. It sounds like EAT made quite of their own design modifications. I was concerned about the new EAT cartridge when I went to pull the trigger in October. This was their first cartridge. I was relieved when I read it was an Ortofon product and several reviews mentioned the Jo No. 5 may actually sound better than the Quintet Black. I have no way of confirming this, but it assured me I should still go ahead with the purchase.
To me the conflict with the EAT record weight borders on totally inexcusable. This is all their products and all under their control. The only thing I can think of is they were often not using the record weight while testing. But then again, you would think they would test the entire system from A-Z. The other thing that bothers me is they had this other EAT Massive Record Weight come out around this same time.It listed the narrower footprint to work with wider cartridges as a feature. This product had to be in development for some time, meaning EAT was aware of issues with wide cartridges. It just seems they rushed this switch to their cartridge to market.
Those of you considering this turntable might want to ask your dealer about this problem and perhaps they will offer to throw in a different record weight to keep you happy and make the sale. Just don't throw out the EAT record weight which you will still need to remove the 11 pound platter.
EAT Jo No. 8 first impressions as compared to Jo No. 5
I recently upgraded the cartridge in my C-Sharp. I was beginning to notice the first signs of stylus wear. I was so happy with the results so far with the C-Sharp and the Jo No 5. I was planning on getting a new Jo No 5, but I was intrigued when I saw EAT had just come out with the Jo No 8. I love the sounds of my current setup, but how much better would it sound with EAT’s higher end cartridge. Right now there is a $300.00 trade for a Jo No 5 when upgrading to the Jo No 8.
Here are my impressions of the Jo No 8 vs the Jo No 5. Remember this is not a direct A/B comparison since I had traded in the Jo No 5. But I had become very familiar with the sonic characteristics of the No. 5. I make no claims to be an audiophile, but I think I have a decent ear and can pick out differences between two pieces of equipment.
Smooth, flat and quiet. I could listen to this cartridge all day at a loud volume and experience no listener fatigue.
First thing I noticed was this cartridge has lower output level than the Jo No. 5. My HINT 6 has a numeric readout for the volume control spanning from 0-99 and I have no idea what these numbers may represent other than a reference you can return to. Using the Jo No 8, I set the volume on the HINT 6 about 8-10 digits higher for same level.
Seems to be noticeably quieter than the Jo No. 5, which was remarkably quiet on its own. There seems to be less noise and hash coming out of the grooves of older records. I am guessing the shibata stylus rides in a different level within the groove wall than the older cartridges with larger styli previous used on these records. This means the groove is in good shape where No. 8 runs. Jo No. 5 was like this too, but this cartridge is even quieter.
The cartridge is extremely quiet. Again beating the Jo No. 5 which was very quiet. Grooves between tracks on a good pressing are dead quiet, I was amazed to hear this cartridge seems quieter than source. I would hear tape background hiss start up as tracks started and ended with dead silence between tracks. Once again I am talking about a good pressing.
The cartridge pulls a lot of detail out of the music. You hear more fine nuances that were partially hidden with Jo No.5. Brushed cymbals seem very realistic. At first the bass seemed less deep than Jo Number 5. But I think it is actually the great detail in the No. 8 makes the bass cleaner and less rumbly or boomy than the No.5. Not that the No. 5 sounded terrible, but the No. 8 is cleaner. The stereo placement is a little better than the Jo No 5. I have played several tracks where the singer seems to be out just in front of the speakers and in the room.
Very flat. I notice no coloration.
So far no sonic issues, but there are several “real world” issues.
I had a problem with my original Jo No 5 not playing nicely with the EAT record weight that shipped with the C-Sharp. The wide body of the cartridge would hit the record weight prior to reaching the final run out groove. This would knock the tone arm back 1/4” or so and then the process would repeat. It wasn’t pretty. I bought the EAT Massive Record Weight which has a more slender profile. The Jo No 8 has an equally wide body and may not work with certain record weights. Buyer beware.
There is also a relatively minor issue that is more of an issue if you have older eyes like mine: The cantilever and stylus are tiny and they do not project down very far from the base of the cartridge body. This makes it a bit of a challenge to cue the stylus unless you bend over sideways. I do not do that. I have had acceptable results by using the “ ^ “ at the top of the letter “A” from the EAT logo on the front of the cartridge body as a reference. This condition also makes it difficult to use a stylus brush to clean the stylus. Additionally the tiny stylus makes it hard to see when the brush is in contact with the stylus.
I am very pleased with the EAT Jo No 8 cartridge in my EAT C-Sharp. For me it was well worth the additional cost over the Jo No 5.
Separate names with a comma.