Entry-level audiophile turntable- Rega or Orbit?

Made a pair of middle-aged men start a hilariously trivial dick-swinging contest, far as I can see.

 

No, not really. Simply due to economies of scale. I think people forget how many turntables (and vinyl records) a year were sold back in the 1970s and early 80s. In spite of the "vinyl revival", sales of turntables and vinyl records are currently two orders of magnitude less than what they were in the 1970s and early 80s. Current manufacturers just don't have the R&D budgets and manufacturing volumes to compete with the giants of the 70s and early 80s.

 

Lmao

 

A stable 33.63 rpm is still not exactly great, anyway…

 

I suppose there could be some cherry picking going on, but they also seemed to get good ones sent to Fremer, Seeley, etc. The Carbon Evo does have the speed box regulator stuff included now; that can't hurt. Hate 'em or not, they did put a crap ton of upgrades into the Carbon Evo. (And I know we'll at least agree that getting rid of the 2M Red is a positive.)

 

Agreed. It apparently makes for "toe-tapping", however.

 

I have had my Rega Planar 1 for about 3 years now and its been a great entry level turntable which I have in my vinyl room stereo setup. I have no issues with wow and flutter and the cartridge is decent and what I expected. I however would not mind getting one of those Fluance RT85s for a second turntable for my living room system so I can spin records on that system as well. Or if that turntable sounds better I may swap them. The Fluance looks like a great deal and has a better cartridge. I have not seen any negative reviews on it for the money, so it may be another great option as others have pointed out here.

 

Still has the Carbon arm though.

 

Well, consider this: everything in my living room rig, on which I'm listening to the new Black Midi LP, was purchased new within the last 18 months. I'm not one to spend a lot on gear because I'm neither a gearhead nor an audiophile. So it's an Ortofon 2M Black playing through a Yamaha RN803 receiver with KEF Q950s. So basically a mid-fi setup leveled up by a really nice pair of speakers. (I didn't buy the KEFs. My boss bought them for me as a bonus for taking on a project I really did not want to take on. And that kind of thing is why I work for this company.)

I'm playing that LP on a Technics SLD2 from 1981 that I bought, refurbished, from my main local dealer for a hundred bucks basically as an add-on when I was buying some speakers from him. I would 100 percent put this 40 year-old table, which isn't even one of Technics best old models, up against anything you could buy today for under a couple grand. Which is why I haven't replaced it: that's $1900 I had to spend on records.

 

Here's a chart that may help people understand (or not). The chart has been filtered to show only vinyl EP, LP, and single sales from the RIAA.

U.S. Sales Database - RIAA

Sales now are nowhere near what they were at the peak of vinyl sales, adjusted for inflation. The money isn't there to make hi-tech turntables anymore. That's why there are so many MDF + cheaply made motor rubber band decks on the market. DD decks require an enormous amount of engineering and R&D and manufacturing investment that Rega, Pro-Ject, and Orbit can only have wet dreams about. The scale isn't even remotely comparable despite what the marketing crap says.

 

Just to give you a little perspective, in the last 30 years, total US sales of vinyl albums has been 164.8 million. In 1977 alone, US sales of vinyl albums was 344 million. More than twice as many in a single year as in the last 30 years combined. The RIAA started tracking sales of all formats in 1973. For the next decade, US sales of vinyl albums averaged over 250 million a year and didn't dip below 100 million units until 1988, six years after the introduction of the CD in the US.

All those people buying records needed turntables to play them on. Manufacturers pumped out millions of turntables during the heyday of the vinyl record, not just for the US market, but worldwide. Total sales of turntables last year was less than 75 thousand units.

 

If between those two? No question the Rega for more reasons than resale value if you upgrade.

 

I understand the concept of economies of scale. But it doesn’t explain why technically, with advances in manufacturing, you can’t get just as good sound from something $600 that’s made today.

I am struggling to think of another product type—that involves electronics or technology in some way—where it’s gotten worse.

I know, some of you are saying, “it’s a wonder this guy knows how to feed himself.” But alas… also, I’m enjoying making jokes at my own expense here.

 

It's not that they can't, just that there is not a large enough market now to offset the costs of R&D, and creating all the tooling necessary to produce the product at anywhere near an attractive price.
I'm still puzzled how Technics presents the 1200G at its price.

 

Turntables are not electronic devices. They electro-mechanical devices, with heavy emphasis on the mechanical parts. This isn't like digital electronics, where cost reductions are essentially a photolithographic process of shrinking the size of the individual transistors. More transistors per die and more die per wafer means more functionality per die and less cost per die. You can't photolithographically shrink a tonearm.

A tonearm is a precision mechanical system. Here's a photo of two Technics SL-1200 MKII tonearms from 1979:



Now here's a couple photos of the Uturn Orbit tonearm:





You tell me which one looks more like a sophisticated, precision instrument. Designing a tonearm as complex as the Technics requires a lot of R&D, testing, validation and finally tooling for manufacturing (keep in mind each and every part requires precision tooling). Those costs are amortized over the life ot the product, which in Technics case was spread out over 40 years and millions of units.

And then there are the motors, pulleys, platters, etc. Unlike the ever shrinking transistor, these things have actually gotten more expensive to design and manufacturer over time.

Technics has made incremental improvements over time, but their basic design goes back over 40 years. And, many of the parts/tooling was shared over several different models, not just the venerable SL-1200 series.

 

Is a Clearaudio Concept a crappy turntable? I hope not for $3600. But it has a pretty simple looking tonearm.

 

Not exactly an apples:apples comparison. That is the Clearaudio Concept Active model, which includes an $850 phono stage and a $1000 MC cartridge in the price. Also, I can tell by looking that the Clearaudio tonearm is manufactured to tighter tolerances and uses more expensive materials than the Uturn Orbit tonearm. It also looks like the parts are machined, not made from tooling. Machined parts are much more expensive per part than precision cast parts, but there is no tooling cost involved, just machine time. That's why machined parts are used for small volume precision manufacturing. Absorbing the cost of tooling only makes sense if the anticipated volume will be enough to offset the cost of the tooling.

The Clearaudio turntables are well made, but like the Uturn, they don't have the volume Technics has enjoyed over the last 40+ years. And, therefore, lack the advantages of economies of scale. You are paying more for precision than you get from UTurn. Their R&D costs are also amortized over a much smaller volume of units. Again, it all has to do with the economies of scale of making millions (Technics) of something versus making hundreds (Clearaudio) of something.

 

Your post is right as rain, or course, and my devil's advocacy isn't going to result in raised blood pressure, but a table in 1980 would have to have been a bit under $55 according to inflation calculator compared to a basic Orbit at $180 now. I wasn't looking for turntables then (my trusty Magnavox was going strong), but I don't imagine that $55 bought a heck of a lot sound quality. (And we've changed the way inflation is calculated a couple of times since then to make it seem like less) From most accounts, a $180 ($55) Orbit achieves a reasonably decent sonic baseline, in line with or better than the components it's likely to be paired with. (I'd look elsewhere were my budget even $100 more.)

 

After all of this, I guess the OP is going to stick with his iPod and a pair of Skullcandy headphones.

One of my favourite arguments from this thread: YOU may not HEAR any difference, but the SPECS never lie!!

Personally, I prefer to listen with my ears. I guess I'm just crazy like that.

 

Fair point... but manufacturing of these mechanical devices requires relatively much work to be done by hand.
Nowadays almost every electronics product is for the biggest part made by robots, so these things that require a lot of manual labor have become relatively expensive to manufacture.
So you need to spend more to get the same in this case.
I think this applies to most mechanical stuff that require precision and is complex to assemble for a robot.

 

What does this mean? Are you saying a 35 year old Rega P3 shares some parts with a OEMed by Technics MCS table?

 

I'm not sure inflation calculators have any bearing on the OP's decision. The real question is what can he get today, in 2021, for a price comparable to a Uturn Orbit. It should be noted that in his first post, he specifically said he had his eye on a Uturn Orbit Special, which sells for $459. In most markets, with a little judicious shopping, it should be possible to get a VERY nice, fully serviced vintage table in very clean condition with a nice cartridge installed for that kind of money.

I think more relevant to the OP than past rates of inflation is depreciation/appreciation after his purchase. The Uturn will immediately begin depreciating the minute he opens the box. If he shops wisely, the vintage table will likely hold it's value better and, in many cases, may actually appreciate.

 

I'm going to guess here but I'm guessing that poster means people traded them into hi-fi shops so they could buy a different turntable. Many reasons someone might have done that. The British hi-fi press was very nasty toward Japanese decks and dealers often parroted lies about them. This is well documented and it went on stateside as well. Even as recently as a couple of months ago a major hi-fi dealer that ships out catalogs was making some very wacky false claims against DD decks in their ad copy. Kinda funny that they do not sell DD decks. Also funny to me that in the last five years or so plenty of people have jumped ship from belt to DD decks.

In case anyone thinks I hate belt drive turntables, I'll just say for the record I don't. What I dislike are poorly made newer belt-drive designs that use cheapo motors.

 

I don’t think anybody said that, did they? The truth is, some people will hear speed fluctuations, and some won’t. For those who do hear them, the specs are critical in determining whether spending several hundred dollars on a turntable is going to be a satisfying purchase.

We all listen with our ears. Some of us just don’t hear things others do.

 

Ironically, even though I recommended a serviced, vintage Japanese direct drive for the OP, both of my current tables are belt drive. However, the OP isn't likely to find them in his price range (at least in the condition that would make him happy). Having owned, serviced and used many vintage direct drive Japanese tables, I think they represent the best value in the sub-$500 price range. They are plentiful on the used market, well-built, reliable and easy to service.

Technics is the most ubiquitous, but all of Pioneer, JVC, Kenwood, Sansui, Yamaha, Sony and Denon made some great tables back in the day. A mid to upper range table from any of these manufacturers is a thing of beauty.