Recommendations for an automatic turntable?

[Chicago_Pete]

Not always practical to run across the room and pick up the needle when Im working from home so I thought an auto TT would be a good idea.

I also have about a thousand LPs that I need to go through, maybe 20 percent will be keepers so why clean them all and burn up the SPU in the process.

I would like to keep the entire setup in the $500 range, could stretch that a bit for the right vintage piece.

Thanks, Pete

[pauln]

I like the old radial tracking B&O tables; they have a few advantages.

They pick up and home the arm after a record.

The cartridges take just two seconds to replace.

They are inexpensive, maintenace and adjustment free, and are very easy on the records.

See here for comparisons: http://www.beocentral.com/categories/ttr

I have had four turntables in the last 30 years; the one I use now is my original first one - Beogram 1900 - still going strong and sounding great.

There are two disadvantages.

The cartridges are expensive (but worth it); I have a collection.

Since the stylus, cartridge, arm, mount, suspension, platter, motor and eveything else are all designed as an integrated whole there are no adjustments, alignments, angles, or other geometry to set them up - its all done. The disadvantage is that you won't learn all the usual adjustments most others need to set up a table. If you get another table later you will be inexperienced in all that.

[jt1stcav]

Another vintage automatic 'table to consider is the rugged and sophisticated Technics SL-1600MK2 from '79 to '81...I believe it was their top-of-the-line automatic before getting into the cheaper P-mount setups of the '80s. I have the semi-auto version (SL-1700MK2 with arm return only) and it's been a spectacular piece of machinery all these years (thanks to my dad)!

Just a thought...good luck in your search.

[Chicago_Pete]

Thanks guys, I thought a lot more people would have an automatic TT in their arsenal?

[oldtimer]

I also use a semi-automatic Technics from 1979. Not the top of the line, but direct drive SL-D2. Still works like a champ, I have put aftermarket feet on it for leveling and better isolation purposes. I did not chime in until now because it seemed too "cheap" compared to what you are used to.

[thebes]

No recommendation but I think even a lot of the top end direct drive turntables were automatic or semi-automatic and used may fall in your price range. Check out the "Museum" at this site and also read there advice on what to look out for when buying used.

I've also got a B&O and like it very, very much.

http://de.geocities.com/bc1a69/index_eng.html

[pauln]

This info is provided for those that may have little or no experience with record players and might be wondering how to jump in without being disappointed, without tearing up their records, and without having to become an expert (at least right away) on the alignments and geometry most tables require to set up properly. After getting in to it, you can always keep going up the ladder IF your records have not been harmed while getting started. The reason I mention this is that it is possible to jump in and buy an expensive table without having any experience, and this can be frustrating when one discovers that the thing is rather complicated and difficult to dial in just right.

Especially for those for whom the CD has been their only source experience, the use of a turntable for record playback can be extremely enlightening and wonderful, or it can be frustrating and irritating. Unless you have access to an expert that can tune up and dial in your ordinary turntable / suspension / arm / cartridge / stylus system your results will be at the whim of probability - which means probably not optimum for best playback and ultimate sound.

In the old days record players had an extra arm to hold a stack of records above the playing one (changers). After each record finished the tone arm would home, the spindle (which was about 5 inches tall and had a hold and release mechanism) would allow the next record to drop, and the tone arm would touch down in that one's lead-in groove to continue play. By virtue of this operation it was absolutely required that the tone arm be fully automatic to finish records and begin the new ones.

The stacking of the records meant that almost all of the geometric specifications of the relationship between the stylus and the groove changed with each added record to the stack under the one being played. Vertical tracking angle changed as the stack was played through, for example. It was also possible for the records to slip over each other a bit sometimes, and all concerns about fine resolution things such as the contact physics between the platter and the record were off the radar. Most of these possible problems were mitigated by using very primative stylus shapes (spherical), stiff compliance, and heavy tracking forces in the 5-10 gram range.

As one might expect, all these things led to the collection and compounding of serious playback errors:

• The cheap styli, usually a gem other than diamond, with limited or basically poor response performance
• A non-optimized arm, motor and suspension
• An overall system that did not resolve differences in VTA and other factors
• The tendency for operators to not clean or handle records carefully, because the differences could not be heard
• Heavy tracking and non-optimized forces and geometry leading to fast record wear and damage

Amazingly, these old changers were very popular and "worked" fine for the mass listening public. The heavy tracking and rolled off high frequency response tended to make them sound "clean" in that the snap crackle and pop of dirty records was highly supressed. Like juke boxes.

But back to our story. As folks moved to better tables the automatic functionality of the old changers was veiwed with disdain and tables became single record at a time players with manual cueing, either by hand or with a oil damped lever for lifting and lowering. I think the loss of the auto drop and pick up of the tone arm is an unfortunate artifact of unwarranted association with the auto operation of the inferior old changers.

Bang & Olufsen has always been sort of extreme about automatic functions (their DataLink system of full controll over all the components is a little off the wall for my tastes), but they have never been afraid of re-engineering the fundamental concepts and designs to acheive highest performance goals. For example, in the area of stylus and cartridge design and production they were at the top of the field. The technology and results of their cartridges in the 70's meets and in some cases exceeds the performance of cartridges sold today for over $1000. Few know that the highly acclaimed and expensive moving coil type cartridge was actually invented by B&O; and after studying it they decided that the sound was inferior and they abandoned that type of design.

I guess my point is that on the one hand they invented a technology (moving coil) which they rejected as inferior to their moving iron system, and on the other hand they retained the auto tone arm drop and lift function even though competing high end tables would not touch it out of irrational prejudice. B&O has always gone their own way to reach their performance goals and have never really gone the way of the masses.

For anyone looking to enter or resume the vinyl frontier, I would recommend B&O tables as at least the first table to get because they are fool proof, very well designed and built, excellent fidelity, ease of operation, and they are extremely gentle to records as their stylus compliance is twice that of ordinary high compliance styli - this allows them to track at 1 gram tracking force without harming the vinyl in the way that tracking too low with an ordinary stylus potentially will harm the vinyl by mistracking the high frequencies. The finest B&O styli track flat past 50KHz; they are extremely good. Even if you get a very high end table later, the B&O will preserve your records as you build your collection ("First, do no harm").

My 30 year old B&O is the only component in my system that has always remained, always played perfectly, never given a lick of trouble, never needed to be repaired or even adjusted (well, I did replace the belt, but it did not realy need that to be done)... it is forever. I have collected 10 catridges for it so I will be able to enjoy it indefinitely. A few of these cartridges are superior to anything that can be purchased today for over $1000. I can change them out in 2 seconds. This extends their life, makes them easy to clean and inspect, and allows me to save my very best styli for my very best records.

Here is a link to B&O radial tracking tables: http://www.beocentral.com/categories/ttr

Here is a link to their old style cartridges: http://www.beocentral.com/categories/mmk and http://www.beocentral.com/categories/m20

Always trying to be of help,

Pauln

[ZAKO]

I had a Lincoln changer that would flip over the records..Play both sides this would not effect styles rake...I worked at Lincoln at that time....Next time you get your car greased at a gas and service station,,, Look up that grease rack is what we designed.....Audio changers were a hobby for the CEO so we also got into automatic record changers design...

[oldtimer]

Sounds like a collector's item, I have never seen one of those.

[LarryC]

Very well-taken points, Pauln, about how formidable it can be to get into LPs. Many more details and much more trickiness than CDs. I think one has to actually see it done and have access to an expert or two to help build the necessary confidence and knowledge of the details.

"Few know that the highly acclaimed and expensive moving coil type cartridge was actually invented by B&O; and after studying it they decided that the sound was inferior and they abandoned that type of design."

That would be someone's interesting spin, but I doubt that it's the complete story. Moving coil (MC) cartridge designs were often a very mixed bag up through the time B&O developed its 'tables. Some of the best MC's (e.g., ESL, Fairchild) had outstanding sound, but were very poor trackers. (Ortofon may have been a long-standing exception.) My old Fairchild was a wonderful-sounding cart, but produced audible record wear every time I played a record -- not just scratchiness, but actual wear! And then, added gain devices were needed such as transformers or sometimes noisy gain stages. Moving magnet cartridges like Shure, Stanton and Empire offered good quality sound, if not as transparent as MCs, plus great trackability and little to no record wear.

(Times have changed to a considerable extent -- although they can be very pricey, today's good low-output moving coils, e.g., Transfigurations, Ortofons, Benz's and Clearaudios, are excellent trackers and have the edge in transparency and accuracy, in my view.)

It would have been quite a bit easier for B&O to use MM (moving magnet) carts, because they could fit right into the sleek design, track records beautifully with little wear, and avoid the need for step-up devices like transformers or added low-noise gain stages. I think all those advantages would be very attractive to B&O.

[pmsummer]

I have three "automatics", and I love 'em all.

Thorens TD-145 (semi-automatic),

B&O Beogram 1700 w/20CL cart,

and my beloved ELAC Miracord 40A 4-speed changer.

[pauln]

LarryC, good observations about moving coil... they probably did improve through the years.

"It would have been quite a bit easier
for B&O to use MM (moving magnet) carts, because they could fit
right into the sleek design, track records beautifully with little
wear, and avoid the need for step-up devices like transformers or added
low-noise gain stages. I think all those advantages would be very
attractive to B&O."

Just to be clear, B&O does not use moving magnet. They use the rare and unusual Moving Micro Cross (MMC) which is a moving iron system. The magnets and coils (four of them with 1200 turns each) are stationary while the micro cross itself only moves
with the stylus, thereby varying the distances between the arms of the
cross at the back of the cantilever to the magnets. The design certainly does offer more flexibility
concerning the mass and geometry of design for the magnet and coil (compared to MC and MM cartridges). In automotive terms, think of the sprung vs unsprung weight of the components of the wheel and tire suspension. Moving iron is the most efficient of MC, MM, and MMC in so far as it requires the least energy (provided by the pushing of the groove walls against the diamond) to produce a signal. Minimizing the moving mass further reduces the wear on the records and improves high frequency tracking.

Notice the difference in orientation of the coils comparing the MM to MMC...

[oldtimer]

Regarding turntables in general: It seems to me that as long as you have a steady rpm, and a stylus tracking at proper angle and force, and there is no feedback or hum issues, that the rest is very minor. I know that certain stylus shapes are better than others, so even allowing for this, what is the big deal that makes for prices ranging from the low 100's to the thousands? I'm here to learn, so please educate me.

[pauln]

"...as long as you have a steady rpm, and a stylus tracking at proper angle and force, and there is no feedback or hum issues..."

The big deal is that in the most very real sense, what is happening is mechanical - a small rock is being dragged across a piece of plastic. And electrical - the original signal is boosted an additional 60dB or so more than a digital source. And from that, one ultimately hears music and any extra noise and abberations that the system adds in. Before getting to the minor things, those major things have to be addressed and they are very sensitive and require experienced design based on difficult principles.

Since the turntable is a mature technology most manufacturers of even modest ones can get most of the way toward perfection, but the sensitivity tends to reveal which makers did their homework, used the finest materials, and produced the most coherent designs.

Since the source quality is critical to the performance of all the downstream equipment, and since the variability of performance among turntables may be probably greater than these downstream components, small differences up front might make a big difference in how the music sounds. Maybe this extends the diminishing returns curve further than for most other things like amps and speakers?

[J.4knee]

I have always liked Denon for used inexpensive TT's, I still use mine

http://cgi.ebay.com/Denon-DP-72L-Direct-Drive-Turntable-DP72L-DP-72L-RARE_W0QQitemZ120154474926QQihZ002QQcategoryZ48649QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-DENON-DP-59L-Turntable-Record-Player-VGC-No-Resrv_W0QQitemZ220143132093QQihZ012QQcategoryZ3283QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[LarryC]

Pauln, that is about as good a description of moving iron as I can recall, which probably means it was clear for my level of understanding. The unsprung weight analogy and the drawings made good sense, too. Do the cross's pieces vary the flux surrounding the magnets when they move, and are the cross pieces magnetized?

[Chicago_Pete]

Thanks everyone for chiming in.

When I was growing up here in Chicago seemed like everyone had a United Audio Dual turntable.

Always wondered if it was a local thing?

Those Denons look sweet, that high gloss rosewood finish reminds me of a Luxman CL35 pre I used to have.

I am going to go with Pauln's B&O recommendation. I like the idea of an easy setup and the no issue reliability.

This is going to be an Ebay or Audiogon purchase so if you see one that looks to be a good value, please post it.

I dont have a clue on which model would be a good choice?

Thanks again, Pete

[sputnik]

You should also look into old Dual TTs. I have a B&O that sounds pale and puny compared to my Dual 701. I love the look and operation of the B&O but the sound just isn't there compared to the Dual. Granted, I'm comparing a bottom of the line B&O RX with a MMC5 cartridge to a top of the line Dual with fine cartridge. I also owned a mid seventies Technics (I don't even remember the model designation - it had a nice looking curved tone arm) that was outperformed by the Dual. Good Dual models include the 1219, 1228, 1229, and the 701 among others. One of these with a Shure V15 III (if you can get one) will be sure to please. They're well worth a look.

[pauln]

LarryC, yes the cross ends modulat the magnetic field and induce the signal in the coils. I don't think the micro cross is magnetic, just iron. If it was magnetic the interaction with the coils' magnets would not be linear.

Sputnik, "pale and puny" is an interesting description. Consider these ideas:

The output level for a B&O MMC cartridge is 0.6 millivolts (mv/cm/sec). Most moving magnet types are around 1mv/cm/sec. So they are louder. Some are a lot louder...

Also, many stylus types have their resonant frequency up around 19-20KHz which lends a bit of added sparkle and zing to the very highest asperants, sybilants, cymbals, etc. The B&O styli are flat at least another octave beyond that and have a clear and more dry sound in the high end.

Many fine cartridges continue to use a spherical diamond, even some extremely expensive ones over $1000. They produce a subtle tracking error in which the left and right channels' relative phases alternate leading and lagging each other with each wiggle of the groove in the record. See illustration below. This phase shifting is very slight but occurs twice for each audio frequency waveform. It also can add a bit of sparkle and zing to the music.

Ultimately, it probably all comes down to synergy among the components. Some downstream combinations of amp and speaker may actually benefit from the added emphasis from some cartridges. Other combinations might sound best with a flatter and more extended yet subdued cartridge.

The lines drawn through the styli below represent the contact points on the groove wall - it is those points that provide the signal. The misalignment is because the original cutting head uses a line contact blade, not a round one. The effect shown is exaggerated, of course. []

[sputnik]

.....Sputnik, "pale and puny" is an interesting description. Consider these ideas:

The output level for a B&O MMC cartridge is 0.6 millivolts (mv/cm/sec). Most moving magnet types are around 1mv/cm/sec. So they are louder. Some are a lot louder...

Also, many stylus types have their resonant frequency up around 19-20KHz which lends a bit of added sparkle and zing to the very highest asperants, sybilants, cymbals, etc. The B&O styli are flat at least another octave beyond that and have a clear and more dry sound in the high end.

Many fine cartridges continue to use a spherical diamond, even some extremely expensive ones over $1000. They produce a subtle tracking error in which the left and right channels' relative phases alternate leading and lagging each other with each wiggle of the groove in the record. See illustration below. This phase shifting is very slight but occurs twice for each audio frequency waveform. It also can add a bit of sparkle and zing to the music.

Ultimately, it probably all comes down to synergy among the components. Some downstream combinations of amp and speaker may actually benefit from the added emphasis from some cartridges. Other combinations might sound best with a flatter and more extended yet subdued cartridge.

The lines drawn through the styli below represent the contact points on the groove wall - it is those points that provide the signal. The misalignment is because the original cutting head uses a line contact blade, not a round one. The effect shown is exaggerated, of course. []

I think you pretty much nailed it regarding the differences I hear (the "sparkle and zing") between the two TTs. I had to go look up some specs and you're right about the output voltage - the Shure V15 III is spec'd at 3.5mv (at 1,000Hz.) Right again about the frequency response curve - flat up to 19kHz then a slight wiggle through 20kHz then it probably begins to go resonant after that since thats where the curve ends. That was a good illustration of tracking error. I use an elliptical stylus so tracking error should be reduced, right? Thanks for offering your thoughts - I actually learned something. I really admire the ingenuity involved in stereo phono.