A Copernican View of the Turntable System
More pix of Raul's creation: http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/rv/s/f/1280794749.jpg http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/rv/s/f/1280794750.jpg ____ |
Hi All, So I've suggested my being impressed by the changes that I have achieved in moving to a naked Technics SP10 Mk2 with a decoupled, stand-alone arm tower. Yet I started to wonder what precisely constituted this "better". Well, in a ham-fisted attempt to clarify my thinking here I thought I'd share some impressions of this experience. As I noted, with the new analogue arrangement, the first and most obvious change is that the sound stage is far larger. This means that the spacing between musicians is not only wider but it is markedly deeper too. This is accompanied by the sensation of actual acoustic space between musicians and presents a perspective that is far closer to that provided in an actual live performance. The next most obvious feature relates to the above one but is that you acquire more control over complex performance material. Large orchestra crescendos do not become confused and the instrumentation remains identifiable throughout. This goes hand in hand with the much increased sense of ease that performances attain. The next most obvious change is the increased level of 'detail' that you get. For me, detail is the critical factor of quality in high fidelity replay. This is not only being able to hear additional instruments but also to be able to distinguish timbre and every audible feature that makes a live performance. To neglect the certrality of detail as the key criteria seems to me to depend on a violent limitation on what one means by 'detail'. For me, the term means 'more information' and that is surely (be it in increasing the bite of string instuments or; the rasp of brass or; the percussive impact of drums, strings or keyboards or; the quieter spaces that give good staging) at the heart of everything that the audiophile is seeking. Well, you get more detail when playing your music through this new analogue arrangement. This fact leads to a need to 'equalise your hearing'. This seems critical to me because (I believe) we can become familiar with hifi norms that have little to do with actual live performances. One such norm is the spotlighting of a frequency range and or instrument at the cost of the full range of the actual performance. It's difficult to explain what I mean here other than to say that proportion is generally lost with this form of hifi spotlighting (there are of course other forms of equipment that can also achieve these negative results - including certain cables and forms of amplification). In the new arrangement, the lead instrument/frequency is brought back into perspective with the full ensemble. This does not mean that there is a loss of detail in such a lead instrument or frequency range. What it seems to mean is that the supporting detail is brought out into what becomes a more detailed performance in which everything just seems right (key instrument or frequencies included). Listener fatigue also goes on holiday as this new detail makes its entrance. As I say, I found that it made me reassess the various cues that I had become accustomed to basing my assessments of components on. And that put live performances (or intimations of them in line with my own experiences of live performances at a variety of venues) back to the fore of my appreciations. I name four recordings that underpin, and seem to fully testify to, my impressions. These recordings are: 1. Bach, Goldberg Variations, Glenn Gould (1982) CBS 2. Bach, Donatas & Partitas, Nathan Milstein (1975) Deutsche Grammophon 2721 087 3.Prokofiev, Romeo and Juliet complet ballet, Algis Zuaitis, Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra, EMI CPD 41 4452 3 and 4.John Surman, Westering Home, (1972) Island Records, HELP 10. I wont go into detail about the factors that come through on these phenomenal works: they are worth listening to regardless of the quality of ones equipment. Suffice it to say that all four of these recordings make my above impressions certainties for me. Yet all recordings take a similar route to improvement (obviously in proportion to the quality of their own performance and recording) with my nude turntable and detached stand alone arm tower. I strongly recommend such experimentation for those who might seek to explore my experience and appreciation of what constitutes its being better. |
Dear Nandric, Thank you. I think! Just by way of clarification around my listening, there are notes on the recordings that I have suggested above. As I say, they are worth having in their own right: Review of Prokofievs Romeo and Juliet complete ballet, Zuraitis: http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/February%201990/42/813451/PROKOFI+EV.+Romeo+and+Juliet%E2%80%94ballet,+Op.+64.+Bolshoi+Theatre+Orchestra++Algis+Zuraitis.+Classics+for+Pleasure+0CD+CDCFPD4452+(two+discs,+nas%3A+142+minutes%3A+ADD).+From+EMI+SLS1650933+(883) Reviews of Bachs Goldberg Variations, Gould: http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2002/sept/gould/ http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/32884/Glenn-Gould-Bach%3A-Goldberg-Variations/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bach-Goldberg-Variations-BWV-988/dp/B0002ISFRU Reviews of Bachs Sonatas and Partitas, Milstein: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pdp/profile/AUPFJ7DHP16HO/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp http://www.epinions.com/review/pr-Bach_Sonatas_Partitas_Nathan_Milstein_Music/content_61056388740 Reviews of Surmans Westering Home: http://www.allmusic.com/album/westering-home-r148391 http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/john_surman/westering_home/ These are all available with a little effort for anyone who does not own them. Maybe the Prokofiev is a little more difficult to obtain but well worth the perseverance I feel. Anywhos, it would please me if any of this proves helpful. Happy listening |
