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
Sidebar: Eleven A Measurements (from September 1995, Vol.18 No.9):
I performed a full set of measurements on the C-J Premier Eleven A, but I'll show just a couple here. In the measurements accompanying WP's review of the original Eleven amplifier, Tom Norton found a suspicious-looking distortion spuriae trace (fig.1) that implied the amplifier suffered from crossover distortion. It appeared that the culprit was the circuit that drove the biasing LEDs; the A revision of the amplifier was said to have been fixed in this regard. Fig.2, taken under much the same conditions as fig.1, shows that, indeed, it has been. The distortion is now primarily second-harmonic rather than the original's third-harmonic; both are generally regarded as innocuous unless present in much higher quantities than in the C-J.



Fig.1 Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A, 1kHz waveform at 10W into 4 ohms (top); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (bottom).



Fig.2 Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A, 1kHz waveform at 2W into 4 ohms (top); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (bottom).

Second, it has been postulated that all audible differences between well-designed amplifiers are due to the differences in frequency responses caused by the voltage-divider action between the loudspeaker impedance and the amplifier's source impedance. The latter measured between 0.48 and 0.56 ohms for the C-J, varying only slightly with frequency; and 0.28 ohms for the Krell KSA-50S, giving rise to response variations when loaded by the B&W Silver Signature (fig.3). The top trace is the Krell; the bottom, offset by 1dB for clarity, is the Connie-J. It varies by about twice as much as the Krell, reaching ±0.25dB. The tube amp's more depressed top two octaves were audible as a very slight lack of air, yet it was the C-J's lower mids that sounded warmer—the opposite of what these curves would suggest.



Fig.3 Krell KSA-50S (top) and Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A (bottom), frequency response at 0.5W into B&W Silver Signature loudspeaker (0.5dB/vertical div.).

Neither of these amps will be all things for all listeners. If you just have to have the most forceful presentation of rock music's low-frequency foundation, then the Krell will be the better choice. The Conrad-Johnson, on the other hand, will be the better amplifier for soundstage freaks and those in love with the sound of the human voice. You pays your money, you makes your choice. Be sure to listen to both.—John Atkinson
To see the graphs go to stereophile archive for conrad johnson.click on premier 11 review. At the end of the article click on "measurements for premier 11.
You'll see the frequency curve for ss Krell KSA 50 and tube CJ Premier 11a are virtually identical over the audible spectrum driving a real speaker load. http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/403/index9.html

Sorry Rushton. I couldn't help mysel.
Dear Gregadd: You take an old review, nine years ago, and take a tube amplifier at it's best low limit on output impedance against a SS amplifier in the low-top worst case on output impedance.

Still in that way we can read on your link:

*****" The top trace is the Krell; the bottom, offset by 1dB for clarity, is the Connie-J. It varies by about twice as much as the Krell, reaching ±0.25dB. The tube amp's more depressed top two octaves were audible as a very slight lack of air. " ****

Regards and ejoy the music.
Raul.
You know, I really don't care about the output impedance, damping factor, frequency response, or any of those other measurements you guys are talking about as long as they are within reason. I care how it sounds. It was proven back in the seventies when solid state amps were just beginning to catch on that you can make an amp with spectacular specifications that sounds like crap.

Arguing specifications is a waste of time. There are way to many variables to pin it down to a certain spec. It's like arguing if a Mercedes is better than a BMW.

So here's the bottom line. Of all the systems I've listened to, the ones that are the most enjoyable, especially on a long term basis use tube amps.

BTW, in case you were wondering, it is a Mercedes