Who will survive? One last table til I die.


I want to buy a final turntable (call it 25 years worth of use until I can't hear or don't care). I want to be able to get parts and have it repaired for the next quarter century. I would also like the sound quality to be near the top or upgradable to near the top for that time period. I don't necessarily require that the manufacturer be solvent that long (the preferable situation), but otherwise the parts would have to be readily available and the design such that competent independent repair shops be able to fix it. I won't spend more than $10,000 and prefer (but don't require) an easy set up that doesn't need constant tweaking. I'm willing to pay for the proper stand and isolation needed over and above the initial cost.

I've got 9,000 LPs, and it doesn't make sense to start over replacing them with CD/SACDs (although I have decent digital equipment) even if I could find and afford replacements. Presently I have a CAT SL-1 III preamp and JL-2 amp, Wilson speakers, Sota Cosmos table, SME IV arm, and Koetsu/Lyra Clavis/AQ7000nsx cartridges.

Thanks in advance for your input. Steve
128x128suttlaw
Dear gregadd: *** " Others can see that Raul conitnues to move the goal post. " ****

Wich's your point ?. What are you trying to say?. That example don't tell the whole history because that amp needs 33 db of global negative feedback that introduce very bad effects and for other way we can't see the Stereophile diagram response on that subject. BTW this amp is in the high level of the " permited " output impedance.

Gregadd be serious and mature. Don't try to deffend what it can't be deffended. Don't try that this serious subject fall in a witch hunting or a words game.

Your link put everything and everyone in the right " place ". What do you want? , you don't have a point till to now. Remember that this is not a contest. Come on Gregadd use your experience intelligence and don't try to find a point where does not exist one.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Raul,
Would you please explain to the group your ability to slip in and out of proper syntax and grammar in your posts?

If you have the ability to put your thoughts out there in a cogent fashion, please do so with every post.

I don't pretend to speak for everyone here, but in my case, I find your pendantic comments to be idiotic when you post as though you were typing in English for the first time in your life.

Further, you take the position of instructor in every thread you invade. Get over yourself, you might actually learn something for the people you delight in talking down to.

I will end my post with a twist on your tag line:
"Shut up and enjoy the music"
Raul, the EA-230 is the older Berning design, which used traditional output transformers. I am referring to the new ZOTL designs which are completely different than the EA-230 was. My amplifier is a ZOTL design.

It is still not "perfect" for all speaker types, but it is a very large step in the right direction for tube amplifiers, when used with the a correctly matched speaker system.

It is my estimation, that this concern of yours which we are discussing, is primarily related to speaker systems which have wide impedance swings into lower impedances that would have negative effects on tube amps with higher output impedances, and on that I agree with you.

However, one parameter does not make an amplifier, and there are speakers for use with these amps which will keep the frequency response/output impedance curves at a level within good acceptable ranges for music listening. While many SS amps do have the very low output impedances that would work well with difficult speakers, that parameter alone does not make them good for musical listening. As you well know, there are other things involved with this.

I am not trying to change the "physics laws". What I am doing is pointing out that a variety of tube amplifiers when used with properly matched speaker systems, can have acceptably flat response curves(even if not perfect), and still provide a very musical result because of other strengths that tube amps have and other weaknesses that SS amps have. I have been primarily on the "defensive" side in this argument, because I don't wish to insult people that use SS amps. But I will say that some of the more expensive and flattest response SS amplifiers that I've heard provided some of the worst listening experiences that I've ever heard. They don't provide specs for "grainy, hard, or cold" sounds. People don't call them "sand amps" for no reason. However, I will admit that some good SS amp designs do provide a very flat response and a tonal quality and overall sound quality that can come close to a good tube amp. Basically, you can "pick your poison", nothing is perfect, and you buy what you like.

What I chose was a carefully selected blend of Single-ended Triode coherence and tone, with similar speed and control of SS(using the ZOTL impedance converter), and the open and transparent sound of OTL. I had David Berning himself design and build it with his own hands. It is the only one of its kind in the world. I selected speakers that would work well with it. It makes music. It is the only item in my system which is not replaceable. I call it "The Holy Grail", because prior to the Berning impedance converter invention, it was simply not possible to have an amplifier with only one output triode per channel in a single-ended triode configuration, with no output transformer, and achieve anywhere near a low enough output impedance to operate any normal speaker. This amp not only achieves a low enough output impedance, but puts it closer to what an SS amp might be(without feedback). In my opinion, this amp is the cutting edge of audiophile amplifier design, going where no amp has ever gone before. Using a single Type 45 output triode to directly drive a speaker element. This is a revolution in amplifier design, because it takes the best aspects of best tube design(SET) and provides a solution for what previously were the drawbacks of the no-longer-necessary output transformers, and provides better impedance matching, and direct drive from the triode. The result is "top to bottom" freqency extension capable of square-wave reproduction anywhere in the audio range, blazing speed, transparency, openness, tone to burn, superb coherence due to the pure Class A design inherent in SET, super short signal path, ultra low-noise due to RF tube heaters and no AC power "grunge" due to rechargeable 12vdc battery power, improved linearity due to choke loading, incredible grain-free liquidity and a musical sound quality overall that is "to die for".

Now if I have to "settle" for a fraction of a db of frequency response variation at a couple of frequencies where my speakers are a bit reactive, in order to get all these benefits, then that's fine with me because I got the better end of the deal.
Raul I guess we will,"have to agree to disagree." I knew you would counter with the negative feed back argument! Please, negative feedack was invented to cure the ills of ss! Anyone who does not like feedback couldn't possibly be a fan of solid state.

"Moving the goal post" means you change the facts to suit your argument. You claim you never discussed damping factor when you did so extensively. You gave the lower range of output impedance for tubes as 0.5 Ohms. Then you changed it to 0.3 Ohms. This was done curiously after you read my post concerning the Transecdent amp's output impedance of 0.4 Ohms.
No, the laws of physics cannot be violated. However we can use another law of pyhsics to counterract it. I say this as I sit before my computer suspended in air with gravity pulling me toward earth but the force of the floor preventing me form crashing to the ground.

I don't think you are an idiot. You are dogmatic.
I find it interesting the we in the Audiogon community continue to participate in allowing Raul to hijack so many threads. I'm doing exactly that now by offering this post, and I plead guilty to doing so. But, I wanted to let fellow Audiogoners know that I don't plan to gratify Raul (and his multiple ghost writers) in the future by responding to his baiting. All of the threads with Raul have devolved into useless "point-counterpoint" contentions that de-value this forum and make it a less pleasant place for sharing ideas and experiences. For me, posts from Rauliruegus will henceforth fall into my "ignore" file; I find his contributions counterproductive and I do not intend to encourgage even more by responding to him.

Twl and Gregadd, I appreciate your efforts to engage in a discussion on so many of the topics being tossed out in this thread and others, but I'd also be happy if, upon reflection, you decided the "discussions" with Raul are simply not worth the bandwidth and not worth diverting the entire thread from the question originally posed. Clearly, I respect your choice to do as you wish in this regard.

Best regards,