Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Turntable Challenge... (Read 8915 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Turntable Challenge...

I have here two short (13 second) samples from the same record.  One was recorded using an "cheap" Optonica direct drive turntable (Stanton 500E MKII cartridge), the other was recorded with a Thorens TD-160 turntable (an 'audiophile favorite' costing $350+ back in 1974, using the same Stanton 500E MKII).  Both were normalized to the same levels and encoded with Lame v3.92 using --alt-preset standard.  No other modifications to the originals were done.

What I'm wondering is this:

(1) Can you ABX the difference between these samples?
(2) Which do you prefer as to sound quality (if any)?
(3) If so, why?

Of course, this is not a very representative sample of different kinds of music, and 13 seconds may not be nearly enough to judge.  But since we have some 'golden ears' here, I'm wondering if you'll pick the "good" turntable, or the "plastic" direct-drive Optonica as your favorite? 

Sample 1: http://home.attbi.com/~fewtchmon/tt1.mp3
Sample 2: http://home.attbi.com/~fewtchmon/tt2.mp3

Enjoy... 

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #1
I havent tested the samples yet, but i'd recommend to use FLAC or Monkey for such a test instead of MP3.

The errors created by the lossy compression should be higher than the differences between the 2 turntables IMHO ....

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #2
Quote
I havent tested the samples yet, but i'd recommend to use FLAC or Monkey for such a test instead of MP3.

The errors created by the lossy compression should be higher than the differences between the 2 turntables IMHO ....

I ask you to try a listen first, to see if you think so .  Yours is a common assumption, and I think you'll be surprised.  Note again that no other changes were made except swapping turntables (same cartridge, preamp, soundcard, everything else).  Neither of these put too much of a strain on --aps (highest average bitrate is 206kbps).

If nobody detects a difference (or difference only in artifacts) then I'll use FLAC... but I think they will.  I want to conserve bandwidth for dialup users if possible, so I used --aps for now.

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #3
I used lame to decode the files and ABC-HR to ABX:
The difference is rather obvious, I scored 14/17 (started with 1/3), (uncorrected) p-val <0.01.

tt2 introduces a little echo ("reverb effect") and sounds brighter. Furthermore there's a difference in the stereo image.

Although I find tt2 more pleasant sounding, I suspect this might be caused by added distortion.

(Length of file is more than enough: I used the first two seconds to abx)

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #4
Thanks... I was looking for a positive ABX first.

If you like, aside from the 'general' reverb, listen and see if the 'cymbals' are clearer in which one, and which produces a truer decay effect in the echoing notes (in the "wah wah wah" interludes).  There are also some smaller musical details in the left channel which could be a guide to which sounds more detailed.  I don't think I picked a very good record/sample for hearing small details, I may post a second test later.

Edit -- the difference in stereo image may be due to cartridge azimuth, which affects channel balance (the Thorens is adjustable & corrected, the Optonica is not adjustable).

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #5
Quote
If you like, aside from the 'general' reverb, listen and see if the 'cymbals' are clearer in which one, and which produces a truer decay effect in the echoing notes (in the "wah wah wah" interludes). There are also some smaller musical details in the left channel which could be a guide to which sounds more detailed.

I have compared the files again: tt1 seems to be more detailed, doesn't add effects like tt2, has clearer 'cymbals' and produces a less distorted decay (at sec 2.5 and 6; if this is truer, I don't dare to decide). The details on the left (the "square-wave-hum") might be an unfair comparision, considering the slightly different stereo image.

So my guess would be that tt1 is the more expensive one. However, I don't know which I would buy.

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #6
Fair enough... imho, it's not enough of a representative sample to determine buying preferences anyway.    I'll reveal the results in a day or so.

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #7
Hey fewtch
    By no means do I think I have golden ears however I listen to you samples a time or two or three.....but to me tt2 imho and 45 year old ears seems to be the more detailed one.  seems like it is clearer or more detailed on the high side although I would have Thought that the difference should have been on the low side...due to the higher quality dampening on the Thorens.  Once again just my assumstion.  My Guess is tt2..... Thorens!!!
What if the Hokey Pokey....is What it's all about?

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #8
Difference in stereo, the bells ("cymbals") are more centered in tt1 and more to the right in tt2.
More treble in tt2, too.

ABX 16/16, quite easy. Dozens of times the losses of --alt preset standard 

I find tt2 more detailed. Either it is the Thorens, either you messed up the catridge adjustment.

What's this record ?

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #9
tt2 has more treble (sounds sharper) and has wider stereo separation. From the little experience I've had with synthesizer equipment, the accompaning "fuzz" on the left channel sounds more true to what I'd expect it to sound. On the other hand, I find the attacks of the main melody a little too harsh in tt2 and I like the sound of tt1 more, but maybe that's the way it is recorded. I say tt2 is better.

Having practically zero experience with turntables, I can only start to guess where this difference would come from. As allready mentioned, I would first suspect the alignment of the cartridge to be the main cause. What sonic qualities does a "better" turntable have compared to a cheap one? Less rumble, more stable rotation, better electronic components, what else? Could any of these actually affect the sound in the way we hear it? You tell me! But I am hesitant to say that the turntables themselves are the cause.

btw: The music is awesome, please let us know, what it is!
Pio, that singing smiley is one of the cutest I have ever seen!

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #10
The turntable must be perfectly stone-rigid, so that the stylus and the record are positioned perfectly.
At 7 cm of the center, at 33 rpm, the reading speed is
2x7xPIx100/180=24.43 cm/s
Therefore a 14 kHz sine will have details as small as
0.2443/(14000*2)=9x10exp-6

So the vibrations must not exeed 4.5 micrometers at the vinyl and stylus.
And this is only the frequency domain. I don't know the level accuracy. Add to this that the vinyl and the stylus are both flexible...

All this is theory.

I'm fed up with this 60 kg stone under my turntable. I found a pretty 20 kg one instead.
I might very well record the same vinyl with and without stone, with and without cones for the turntable, and with and without slipmat, to see how it really sounds...
but not yet, because it'll be quite a mess to setup.

The record reminds me a little of Jean-Philippe Rykiel (occitane rock), Peter Baumann (Biking up the strand), Belly Dance (couldn't ever know which one it is I've got... my father who made the cassette says it was an armenian name)... though these ones are more serious... and of Popcorn too.


Turntable Challenge...

Reply #12
The samples posted are from Klaus Wunderlich's "Sound 2000" (1973, Telefunken-Decca).    The name of the song is "Cornflakes" and it is indeed in the style of "Popcorn."  Yet another excellent (and great sounding) record that isn't available on CD, to my knowledge... there are hundreds or thousands others.  Anyone really interested in pre-1990's music ought to consider getting a turntable.

tt1 is the Thorens TD-160, tt2 is the Optonica RP-3300 direct drive.  Everything is adjusted properly on the Thorens, as far as I could get it (I recently spend 6+ hours "dialing it in" using a stylus force gauge, cartridge alignment gauge, test record and PC software to get correct azimuth and etc).  Maybe I damaged the stylus doing all that!

No comments on which people prefer, I just thought I'd try this as an experiment .  The music sample I used is actually not very revealing of the strengths of the TD-160 (much more detail in general, rhythmic flow, 'soundstage' and such, just a generally "expensive" sound).  The Optonica sample sounds "strained" and distant to me, the TD-160 sounds much more natural and flowing -- easy on the ears (that's my impression).

An interesting note -- I posted this same test here, and a turntable fan immediately (within 15 minutes after I posted) picked out the Thorens correctly from the Optonica.  No speculation as to why, check it out if you like.

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #13
Quote
Having practically zero experience with turntables, I can only start to guess where this difference would come from. As allready mentioned, I would first suspect the alignment of the cartridge to be the main cause. What sonic qualities does a "better" turntable have compared to a cheap one? Less rumble, more stable rotation, better electronic components, what else? Could any of these actually affect the sound in the way we hear it? You tell me!

Background rumble tends to obscure musical detail (obvious), so the platter should be well isolated from the motor.  Other qualities...

* The turntable should be as acoustically "dead" as possible and no parts should vibrate and add resonances of their own, or what you're hearing is the turntable and not the music. 

* Speed stability is important... a heavier platter helps. 

* Platter bearing (what it rests on) - condition of, and if it's properly oiled (can affect rumble & speed stability).

* A quiet, stable (perhaps well shielded) motor is important -- if the cartridge isn't well shielded, it can add low-level hum (perhaps even audible hum). 

* Correctly fitted belt with proper stretch characteristics (can affect wow/flutter, speed stability and motor rumble) -- more important in some turntables than others depending on design.

* A tonearm with properly adjusted bearings (tight) and matched correctly to the cartridge (mass/compliance) -- the cartridge/tonearm match can affect a lot of parameters, including "wow" (from LF resonance causing the cartridge to wiggle around while playing), sensitivity to footfalls, and exaggerated background noise from "groove scrub" if the match is way off.

* Headshell  (detachable or fixed) - detachable can add small unwanted resonances.

* Perfectly level (very important), stable shelf (many 'audiophiles' resort to wall shelves).

* Distance of turntable from speakers (if applicable), the further away the better.

* Even the platter mat chosen can make a (relatively small) difference -- record slippage during playback can result in speed & sound quality issues, static can result in crackling on playback, and there should be some air under the record to allow resonances to dissipate somewhat instead of spreading through the vinyl.

There's a lot I still don't know... I've never heard, or had a chance to play with any of the "megabuck" turntables (probably never will).  But the number of variables that can affect analog playback is pretty staggering.

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #14
I downloaded the files to play with them a bit.

I decoded with lame, and then took the wavs and converted them to mono using just the left channel.  Then I re-encoded with lame --alt-preset insane.

Running the resulting mp3 through mp3gain, I saw that tt1 is 0.5 dB softer than tt2 in the left channel.  I probably could have just used Frank Klemm's routine if I wasn't such a lazy-ass and had ported his code to win32.

Then I did the same thing for the right channel and noticed that tt1 is 0.4 dB louder than tt2 in the right channel.

I adjusted the amplitude in each channel to make them the same, and then removed the 19 msec time misalignment as well.

I saved these as flac files:

http://ff123.net/export/tt1a.flac
http://ff123.net/export/tt2a.flac

I haven't tried careful comparison of either set of files yet, but I would be interested to know if the level correction makes the identification more difficult.

ff123

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #15
comparing tt1 and tt2, I can hear the extra reverb in tt1 (11 of 12, uncorrected p = 0.003).  Added an extra 9/9 (for 20 of 21) listening to the position of the cymbals, which are further to the right on tt2.

ff123

Edit:  comparing tt1a and tt2a, the position of the cymbals in tt2a are still further to the right, and seem to move, while tt1a's cymbals are steady in position (ABX: 11 of 12)

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #16
ff123,

Thanks for the additional listening and comments.  Channel balance issues are "de rigeur" with turntables... the info. extracted is much smaller than a human hair, and a little twist of the headshell (cartridge azimuth) can change things a lot.  Less than 1 dB is pretty good though .

Would you say you like the sound of one or the other better?  I may want to repeat this test with a longer musical selection, so rather than just ABX'ing (which is good for testing specific differences but can be a little sterile) people can give more informed opinions on which sounds better to them... so far, opinions seem to be leaning toward tt2 (the much cheaper table), which surprises me a bit... but maybe it shouldn't, since some claim CD's have a "brighter" sound than vinyl, and most everybody is more used to listening to CD's.  Also, people probably expect more distortion from turntables and can possibly grow to like the sound of the distortion!

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #17
I like tt1 because of the stable position of the cymbals.

ff123

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #18
Quote
I like tt1 because of the stable position of the cymbals.

ff123

My guess is that's due to the better tonearm on the TD-160... the bearings are tight, whereas on the Optonica (tt2) the tonearm bearings have some wiggle (loose tolerance), and probably moves around a lot more than it should while playing.

I wish I could repeat this test with one of the REALLY expensive turntables (~$5,000) set up by a pro, and compare it to the TD-160, which is considered just barely into the "high end" category (not to mention, it's quite old, nearly 30 years).  The results might really get interesting then  .

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #19
fewtch,

Do you mind making the WAV's available (lossless in the format of your choice, if you want).  I'd like to see if I hear any difference at all because of the mp3 compression.

ff123

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #20
Additional comments are available from Arny Krueger (author of PC-ABX) in the rec.audio.opinion newsgroup.  The name of the thread is "Can you hear difference between Thorens and Optonica?"

ff123

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #21
Quote
rec.audio.opinion newsgroup


What a horrible place! I'll stay here, thanks.

D.

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #22
Quote
Quote

rec.audio.opinion newsgroup


What a horrible place!

Indeed!!

However, rec.audio.tech, rec.audio.misc and rec.audio.high-end are not that bad ,and sometimes interesting.

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #23
rec.audio.opinion has characters, er character.  It entertains, although I admit it's not everbody's cup of tea.

Arny wrote:
Quote
The tracks measure to be somewhat different. There seemed to be
channel-balance issues.  Using TT1 as a reference, TT2 has less about
a dB more response above 10 KHz  and then the curves "flip" and TT2
has less response above 15 KHz by about 6 dB . TT2 has fairly large
(ca. 10 dB) hi-q resonances at 15 and 24 Hz. Both files have what
seems to be a strong perceptual coder "footprint" in the form of a
sharp cutoff at about 18 KHz.


I don't think these measurements quite explain the difference in the stability of the position of the cymbals, though.  Fewtch's explanation seems plausible, at least.

Nice experiment, by the way.  I'd love to see more of these.

ff123

Turntable Challenge...

Reply #24
Quote
fewtch,

Do you mind making the WAV's available (lossless in the format of your choice, if you want).  I'd like to see if I hear any difference at all because of the mp3 compression.

ff123

ff,

Unfortunately I didn't save the original .wavs.  I could always re-record the Thorens part and come up with a couple new samples if you're *really* interested (but anything new would semi-invalidate the comments already made).

P.S., I'm really impressed that this test has turned out to be so popular (it almost seems about to be slashdotted! (LOL)).   

If you like, I'll post two entirely different samples from another record (same turntables, same situation) for you specifically to download (I can't make .wavs or LPAC/FLAC files generally available due to server bandwidth, but if you wanted to do that...).  If you like, drop me a PM and I'll make something available (either the same or different music, let me know).