wmb@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Mark Boggs) (07/20/85)
One solution to a manual turntable letting the stylus try to play your clamp is to spend $17 on a nifty gadget from Thorens that picks up the arm around the time you get to the label. All is does is catch the tonearm when it gets to the end of the music, release a catch and lift the whole shebang of the record. Regarding the Direct vs. Belt drive controversy. The Nakamichi Dragon-CT for a lowly $1795 is one fine direct drive turntable. I don't think there is another table around that is signifigantly superior to it. It has no problems tracking the cannon shots on the Telarc test record (Something the Sota Sapphire with an Emminent Technologies arm failed at). It also boasts signal-to-noise of 78dB, unmeasurable speed drift and deviation, and wow-and-flutter < .01% I'd be interested to hear of belt drive models that match those stats and center the record for you too. Nakamichi also uses dual DACs to eliminate phase shift in their CD players. So Sony is not alone in this. -Mark
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (07/22/85)
> Regarding the Direct vs. Belt drive controversy. The Nakamichi Dragon-CT for > a lowly $1795 is one fine direct drive turntable. I don't think there is > another table around that is signifigantly superior to it. I do not think there is another turntable superior to it, period. The Dragon-CT is the *only* turntable on the market that can compensate for center holes on records that are punched off center. I wish I could afford one.
man@bocar.UUCP (M Nevar) (07/24/85)
< Nakamichi also uses dual DACs to eliminate phase shift in their CD players. < So Sony is not alone in this. < -Mark Since Sony makes Nak's PCM processor for them, they may also make Nak's CD players. Anyone know who makes the Nak CD player ? Mark Nevar
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (07/25/85)
>Regarding the Direct vs. Belt drive controversy. The Nakamichi Dragon-CT for >a lowly $1795 is one fine direct drive turntable. I don't think there is >another table around that is signifigantly superior to it. It has no >problems tracking the cannon shots on the Telarc test record (Something the >Sota Sapphire with an Emminent Technologies arm failed at). It also boasts >signal-to-noise of 78dB, unmeasurable speed drift and deviation, and >wow-and-flutter < .01% I'd be interested to hear of belt drive models that >match those stats and center the record for you too. I would have to agree that the Nak is a very good turntable. I don't quite consider it to be in the same league as the Sota or the Goldmund (whose superb quality and simple design appeal to many audiophile purists), but the record centering feature is a significant breakthrough that places the Nak as a strong contender in high-end turntables. However, I strongly disagree with your reasoning for touting direct drive in general and the Nak in particular. - You laud the Nak for its ability to track Telarcs 1812 cannon shots. In my experience, the primary factors that determine trackability are cartridge design and setup (particularly tracking force), and to a slightly lesser extent, the tonearm design and its compatibility with the cartridge. You don't even state whether the cartridges in both turntables were the same! - A signal-to-noise ratio of 78db?? How does a turntable get a signal-to-noise spec at all? Since the only part of a turntable that carries signals is the cable, I would assume that s/n ratio could only be determined for a specific cartridge. As I see it, the only demonstrable advantage of the Nak over other well built turntables is the elimination of wow caused by a mispunched center hole. In addition, I see no reason why this new centering technology could not be applied to a high quality belt-drive design like the Sota. Imagine a turntable with incredible isolation and state of the art vaccuum record clamping like the Sota in addition to the centering feature of the Nak. Be worth waiting for. Ben Broder ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (07/26/85)
In article <440@moncol.UUCP> ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) writes: >- A signal-to-noise ratio of 78db?? How does a turntable get a > signal-to-noise spec at all? Since the only part of a turntable > that carries signals is the cable, I would assume that s/n ratio > could only be determined for a specific cartridge. S/N ratio for a turntable usually refers to the rumble figure. The Yamaha PX-2 was rated at greater than 80 dB and also was a direct drive turntable. in listening tests, no one present could distinguish it from an Oracle or a Linn Sondek using identical cartridges, Dynavector DV23R's. The Absolute Sound uses one for their cartridge evaluation turntable. it's a fully automatic linear tracker. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
rdp@teddy.UUCP (07/26/85)
In article <440@moncol.UUCP> ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) writes: > >- A signal-to-noise ratio of 78db?? How does a turntable get a > signal-to-noise spec at all? Since the only part of a turntable > that carries signals is the cable, I would assume that s/n ratio > could only be determined for a specific cartridge. > >Ben Broder >..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben >..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben It is quite simple to imagine how a turntable can have a signal to noise ratio. Mechanical noise suorces such as rumble generate mechanical vibrations in the platter, in a variety of directions. It is these vibrations, when referenced to a standard velocity, that comprise the signal to noise ratio of the turntable. The most rigid spec for signal to noise is (if I remember my numbers) is DIN spec 45.539, which measures rumble, with no weighting or filtering referenced to a velocity of 5 cm/sec, which, in a typical moving magnet cartridge produces about 5 mV. So a signal to noise ratio of 60 dB would be equivalent to an average equivalent rumble veloctity of 50 microns per second ( .001 x .05 m/sec), which would produce a signal voltage from such a cartridge of 5 uV. This is about an order of magnitude greater than the typical noise output of good phono preamps, but the spectrum of the rumble noise is weighted towards the deep bass, so there is not a direct comparison possible. Most Japanese (and most others) use a weighting filter before measuring the noise, which significantly reduces the sensitivity of the measurement below 500 Hz, where, of course, most of the rumble energy lies. It is undoubtedly such a weighted figure that NAK touts above. As a point of comparison, my own unweighted and weighted measuements for venerable turntables follows, much from memory, so I might be off a bit here and there. The measurements were made using a custom-made glass "record" covered with a very thin layer of silicon oil to eliminate possible "squeal" and other extraneous effects. Model DIN 45.539 DIN A weighted Thornens TD-125 48 db 61 db Thorens TD-124 42 db 58 db Lynn Sondek (new) 68 db 76 db (old) 58 db 64 db Connoisseur BD-2 IV 61 db 75 db Dual 701 52 db 71 db Dual 601 52 db 68 db Denon 600 (?) 63 db 72 db LUX pd-121 56 db 68 db Phillips GA-212 38 db 50 db AR turntable 48 db 58 db The last of these measurements were made in 1980, so I have no comparison to modern equivalents. You should note that differences on the order of 4 db or so might be considered insignificant, primarily due to experimental variations. What is shown is that there is not a clear cut advantage of one type over another, just that bad turntables are noisy, good ones aren't. Dick Pierce
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (07/29/85)
> > Since Sony makes Nak's PCM processor for them, they may also make > Nak's CD players. Anyone know who makes the Nak CD player ? > > Mark Nevar A local audio dealer told me that the Nakamichi CD players were manufactured by Kyocera. I have no proof or other info beyond his word. - Greg Paley
knf@druxo.UUCP (FricklasK) (07/30/85)
>Kyocera make Nak's CD players.
Which is OK, since the Kyoceras are even MORE expensive.
'`'`
Ken
'`'`'
PS Sony makes all three of the car CD's (Sony, Pioneer, and Alpine),
though there is a $250 range in price when you buy them. wmb@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Mark Boggs) (07/31/85)
Well, my first post to the net and I got flamed. Gee whiz guys, now I have to defend myself, and act like I know what I'm talking about. Here's my return flame to Bennett Broder's scathing attack on my simple-minded entry into the world of "tweak talk". >I would have to agree that the Nak is a very good turntable. I don't >quite consider it to be in the same league as the Sota or the Goldmund >(whose superb quality and simple design appeal to many audiophile purists), >but the record centering feature is a significant breakthrough that >places the Nak as a strong contender in high-end turntables. Have you performed any listening tests between the Nak and any other table? If not, what is the basis for your opinion? In my original post I said "I don't think there is another table around that is signifigantly superior to it." I was addressing the question of whether or not there was a direct drive table which compared to the high-end belt drives. I compared it with a Sota Sapphire (which I owned) and found that the Nak sounded cleaner, especially in piano pieces. I don't have access to a Goldmund, so I can make no comparison there. >However, I strongly disagree with your reasoning for touting direct >drive in general and the Nak in particular. I don't believe I made any claims about any other direct drive table. I was only touting the Nak. >- You laud the Nak for its ability to track Telarcs 1812 cannon shots. > In my experience, the primary factors that determine trackability > are cartridge design and setup (particularly tracking force), and to > a slightly lesser extent, the tonearm design and its compatibility with > the cartridge. You don't even state whether the cartridges in both > turntables were the same! Pardon me, I was being brief. I used Alchemist IIIs on both tables tracking at the recommended 2 grams. Perhaps, then, I should have said the Nak's arm was superior to the Emminent Technology's arm? Or maybe, a conventional arm is superior to a linear one? I probably should have just talked about clarity of sound, but I was shocked that I tracked the cannon shots, and thought I'd mention it. (Translation: point conceded) >- A signal-to-noise ratio of 78db?? How does a turntable get a > signal-to-noise spec at all? Since the only part of a turntable > that carries signals is the cable, I would assume that s/n ratio > could only be determined for a specific cartridge. Dick Pierce beat me to answering this and did a much better job of it than I could've done. The specifications in the owner's manual state: Signal-to-Noise Ratio.......Better than 78 dB (DIN-B) The April '85 issue of Audio gives an unweighted figure of 66 dB and a weighted figure of 87 dB. By the way, Dick, do you happen to know how the DIN-B standard compares to the DIN-A standard you used? >As I see it, the only demonstrable advantage of the Nak over other >well built turntables is the elimination of wow caused by a mispunched >center hole. In addition, I see no reason why this new centering >technology could not be applied to a high quality belt-drive design >like the Sota. Imagine a turntable with incredible isolation and >state of the art vaccuum record clamping like the Sota in addition to >the centering feature of the Nak. Be worth waiting for. I wasn't claiming superiority (read my original post again). I claimed at least equivalent performance. Incidently, Nakamichi did think about isolation when they built the table. Little things like attaching the dust cover hinges to the lower platform which is isolated from the rest of the table. It also weighs 44 lbs. So what's the bottom line for all of this? I SOLD my Sota and replaced it with the Dragon-CT. Nuff said. -Mark
schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) (08/02/85)
> < Nakamichi also uses dual DACs to eliminate phase shift in their CD players. > < So Sony is not alone in this. > < -Mark > > Since Sony makes Nak's PCM processor for them, they may also make > Nak's CD players. Anyone know who makes the Nak CD player ? > > Mark Nevar Sony does not make Nak machines. Nak eschewed the Sony techniques in favor of the better-sounding Philips techniques, and I believe that Nak is using some or all of the Philips LSI chip set. From the sounds of it, these machines may sound pretty good... Sony is still playing catch-up, as far as sound quality goes. (Flames, anyone?) -- Steve Schley ihnp4!mmm!schley