Lohanimal, If your question is not hypothetical, you got a great deal. I paid $600 for my QL10, but it was in "broken" condition. Or were you merely trying to point out that cost is not necessarily related to quality, especially with used or vintage equipment. So the question posed by the OP falls apart in that case.
Turntable versus tonearm versus cartridge: which is MOST important?
Before someone chimes in with the obvious "everything is important" retort, what I'm really wondering about is the relative significance of each.
So, which would sound better:
A state of the art $10K cartridge on a $500 table/arm or a good $500 cartridge on a $10K table/arm?
Assume good enough amplification to maximize either set up.
My hunch is cartridge is most critical, but not sure to what extent.
Thanks.
So, which would sound better:
A state of the art $10K cartridge on a $500 table/arm or a good $500 cartridge on a $10K table/arm?
Assume good enough amplification to maximize either set up.
My hunch is cartridge is most critical, but not sure to what extent.
Thanks.
- ...
- 154 posts total
@chakster as a joke question I bought a JVC QL 10 with UA arm in mint condition for £400 - is a £10,000 cartridge wasted on it? The question is why did you buy it ? @lohanimal If the counterweight is not broken (like on most samples) then do not under rate this tonearm. Victor top of the line cartridges (MC and MM) are quite nice and even after 30-40 years cost over $1k for MM (like X1II) and over $2k for Direct Couple MC that inspired Audio-Technica for ART-1000 ($5k). My ex TT-101 was restored by Fidelis Analog for another audiogon member. |
@chakster , you like cocobolo? Check out the record clamp I just made on my system page. The finger lift is also cocobolo. @mijostyn you got your own workshop? Nice! Maybe you could make two cocobolo sideboards for my LUX :) |
If the assertions (premise) are not true then deduced statements from those assertion also can't be true. Assertion formulated in the simple ''S is P'' form ( ''subject is predicate'') can hardly be sufficient base for correct reasoning. Relational statement can't be put in terms of ''properties of individual objects''. Those are implicated by analogy with statements about individual objects. |
- 154 posts total