I have looked at the measurements published by MillerAudio the latest years. The figures are between, in principle, 0,13-0,07%. Many well known TTs are struggling to get just under 0,1%, there are only a couple that are significantly better, like e.g. SME20/2. I cannot speak for the accuracy of the figures, I have only looked at them. But in reality it is a bit more complex as the tonearm is rather dominating in frequency modulation measurements.
I agree, based on my own measurements and experience. In the quest for minimising pitch variation, cart/tonearm stability seems much overlooked as a contribution and when untreated can dominate measurements IME. Otherwise, defects in the record itself such as warp and eccentricity rapidly become limiting. IMO, unless there is a fault, most reasonable TT platters can perform similarly by measurement, at least as to pitch stability.
Your polar plots has really helped me in seeing what is important when it comes to frequency modulations. Rather small things sometimes, that can totally swamp performance usually thought of as a major importance.
It's much easier to achieve on a belt drive turntable than a direct drive one like this Pioneer. The cogging effect of a direct drive motor naturally leads to higher wow and flutter figures. You have to judge whether the benefits of direct drive in torque, start-up speed and the ability to stop the platter with your hand outweigh a slightly higher wow and flutter spec. Let's not forget that this is a DJ table. Belt drives just don't work with DJ tables.
Direct Drive TT's were around in the early 70's and designed for high fidelity, DJ commandeered the direct drive because it suited their purpose. The WAF specs on direct drive machines I've seen many times best more expensive belt drive tables.
With a heavy enough platter, yes. Also the Denon direct drive turntables, with their AC synchronous motors, which don't cog, had great wow and flutter specs. But a heavy platter doesn't work well on a DJ table. You want it to start fast. That's easier with a light platter. For the third time in a post I've made in this thread: THIS IS A DJ TABLE! To try to judge its performance against the finest audiophile turntables is ludicrous. You might as well compare a Ferrari with a Land Rover.
Certainly not the 1200 - if that poster was referring to the 1200 then for myself I would have no further interest in reading his/her opinions. I'm sure that is not the case. Thanks
Hmmm, that's not what my observations/measurements suggest based on many 3rd party tone samples collated over the years. IMO if there's any general advantage as to pitch stability it is with DD, but I think it can be splitting hairs so long as there's no fault is my own conclusion. I spent a lot of effort in trying to answer this question to my own satisfaction, BTW !
I'd love to see this. Your work was mentioned upthread. Is it over on Vinyl Engine? Don't trust anything I say about consumer electronics. I'm a stereo salesman by trade. All I know are lies and popular misconceptions. But I say them with enthusiasm! Works every time.
No, my stuff on this is not on VE. I didn't originate the concept,(credit Paul R AFAIK), but essentially it's a software FM demodulator for a 3150Hz vinyl test tone, and presents the result as a polar plot. Where the circle represents one TT platter revolution, and radius represents 'instantaneous' frequency. I was blown away by it as a tool for analysing pitch stability. It took me a fair time to write and calibrate such a beast for my own use. Over the past few years I've collected and collated public web published samples of 3150Hz tones, from many and various TTs. From which I analysed pitch stability in polar form, and formed my own conclusions as to contributing factors. But to summarise or post results would be a pretty massive job, so I'm happy enough to form my own conclusions and share those FWIW.
yes, especially if youre upgrading them. I never travelled with these turntables, so the plinths arent abused. I'd much rather give these up to someone that upgrades them so I can replace them with non-audiophile abusable turntables for my competition needs.
Sweet. I have one where the plinth is discolored and I've been loathe to get it powder coated. I kind of like the battle scars. It's fun to see how far one can take these things. There's a guy out there, right now, who's fitting a Graham Phantom to one! Nutz; but, I've no room to speak. I'm with you, not sure I'd want to take them to competitions (or clubs), not anymore, now that they're out of production.
Hi ld, I don´t know if You remember I said I should not do anything more to the TT after Your last test, not that it matters but I did. A rather small thing but it was definitely an improvement. Isn´t it fun.
FWIW, the Audio-Technica AT-LP1240-USB was one of the recommended choices in the budget turntable shootout that Hi-Fi Choice magazine performed in June 2013. I've shared it before, and here's the complete test again for you to check if you like: https://www.sendspace.com/file/0o2cw7
From Wiki: "Reducing cogging torque A summary of techniques used for reducing cogging torque: Skewing stator stack or magnets Using fractional slots per pole Modulating drive current waveform Optimizing the magnet pole arc or width Almost all the techniques used against to cogging torque also reduce the motor counter-electromotive force and so reduce the resultant running torque. A slotless permanent magnet motor does not have any cogging torque." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm no engineer, but - is this true, if so, is it possible to produce a turntable with a "slotless permanent magnet motor" ?
Thats a pretty cool review. Bunch of turntables here that Ive never seen before. Thats weird, The Lenco looks exactly like a Gemini XL-1800, which were made in china, or Taiwan, Gemini didnt make their own. A plasticy piece of crap. I used to have to do shows for Gemini with these things. But this turntable is really old. Im talking 1990s.
Sooo, It appears Pioneer is re-badging the Chinese made Super-OEM table and selling it for twice the price? Why not just pick up the AT for half the price? http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT-LP1240-USB-Direct-Turntable/dp/B007R9B0UQ I'll stick with my used, but perfectly running, Technics 1200 bought for 200-bucks.
The Lenco L-3807 in the last picture above is still available in Europe for the equivalent of about $350 or so - it may not be top-notch, but with a rubber mat standard, it isn't a bad deal at all. Like an AT 120 minus reverse and 78 playback, plus a pitch bend function and a light connector - and the rubber mat. Obviously intended as an affordable DJ table, it may very well serve as a budget playback machine. You don't even have to do surgery to rip out the internal preamp like on the AT, because there isn't one. And you can get a Lenco tablet to match, try that with a VPI or similar
Lenco!? OMGosh... I know imitation is the best form of flattery (or whatever they say); but, wow. There are a few turntable manufacturers that have carved out such a historical piece of the pie that I would have thought this would just not be done: Thorens, Garrard, EMT, Lenco... well, scratch Lenco, I guess.
They are now owned by a Dutch company, and are "multi-talented", they sell a bunch of stuff other than turntables, including this cross between a moving dolly and a guitar amp: http://www.lenco.com/p/pa-81-silver/