2. analog
  3. 1058745046

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
gregadd
574 posts
 
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.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,101 posts
 
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.
herman
2,259 posts
 
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
sbank's avatar
sbank
3,379 posts
 
Herman,
Thank you for a breath of fresh air! Cheers,
Spencer
jimbo3
304 posts
 
C'mon, Herman, Mercedes capacity for coolant can be up to a quart more than BMW and the extra weight adversely effects acceleration, braking and handling. Therefore, the BMW must perform much better. If you likes the cars, you must likes the BMW better. Porsches used to not have any water coolant at all and they were even better, which is proof that water as coolant is no good at all.

With tongue firmly in cheek-
Jim
More to discover