2. analog
  3. 1366040022

Everything about this is wrong...

I just finished a refurb/rebuild of a turntable, and I'm still puzzled.
The 'table is a Transcriptors Transcriber - yes this is the one where the "arm" is integral with the lid, and the platter itself moves tangentially. This unit just about breaks every rule of turntable design. The top and sides are glass; the record is suspended on a number of rubber nipples; and of course as the tangential movement is incremental one could make the argument that the stylus is never in the right position - the platter is always 'catching up'

So, it's a nightmare of sensible design - on paper. It may be beautiful to look at, but it makes no sense in terms of conventional thinking. And, if it had been such a good idea, unconventional or not, the idea would have caught on.

I compared the sound to two other turntables: one was a well-modified Thorens 150 AB (zero issues with this unit, and perfectly set up) and the other was a DD Kenwood 7010 from Japan, again perfectly set up. Arguably, neither of these tables is the absolute top-drawer, but they're both very good; maybe with slightly different signatures, but having compared them with today's offerings I've never felt the need to do much about upgrading them.

I have a number of excellent Shure V15 III cartridges, and this being a traditional choice, one was attached and adjusted. The records varied, but a re-issue of Stevie Wonder's Talking Book was the most profound shock!

Nothing prepared me for the simply holographic imaging that the Transcriber produced. The music had the sounds I am used to, but the soundstage was something I`ve never experienced to such a degree. To reiterate, there was nothing in the basic sonic signature that was very different from what I`m used to; but the imaging itself was simply extraordinary. I've tried some pretty exotic front ends in the past, but never felt like radically upgrading: yes, there were certainly differences when using a $10K turntable and arm/cartridge, but never did I think these were anything but subtle and probably not worthwhile.

Bottom line: what do you think is going on? I rebuilt the Transcriber for fun only. I didn't think the sound would be anything out of the ordinary - in fact I though quite the opposite. But, initially, I am stunned, and prepared to think that my assumptions were all just that - groundless assumptions.
As the title suggests, everything about this turntable is wrong, and it shouldn't have produced the extraordinarily involving music that I heard last night. But it seems to have done just that. Now I'm wondering what else I'm going to hear from my record collection....

The system is a Quad: ESL 57 speakers, Quad amp and pre-amp, and the cabling is sound throughout. Capable of sublime music, and one I do not think I will ever `improve`.
I try to keep in touch with what's going on in the industry, regularly visiting the high-end audio stores and always come away relieved that my money is safe!

But....this odd turntable, this masterpiece of contrary thinking is doing things I have rarely even come close to experiencing. Why?
57s4me
Post removed 
57s4me OP
30 posts
 
Hifiharv. The arm does not travel - only the platter! This is the madness/cleverness of the design. By breaking the rule of moving-arm transduction the whole idea of necessary platter mass is also thrown into question.
The concept is not only utterly iconoclastic, but utterly attractive: logic would dictate that one would make the platter massive and damped, this partially to reduce the effects of the stylus in the groove - resonances and suchlike. But the assumption made is that one needs an arm in the first place! Remove the assumption and this turntable is what can happen.

And yes, the record is suspended, as it were, via those little pucks and rubber nipples. Disastrous if there was a large arm supporting the cartridge, but not so in this case!

I believe that some long time ago a well-respected audio guru awarded this turntable a "Disaster of the Millenium" award or some such term. I now wonder if he judged its audio qualities based on its looks?
57s4me OP
30 posts
 
Elizabeth. Maybe you are right - but I would hope it was just as much good management as luck :-)
Actually, for those, like me, who have suffered at the hands of conventional unipivot designs, this is a relatively easy setup, with a very simple and elegant design. The unipivot for those who hate unipivots? Maybe.

And I agree: I think the detractors may not have heard the table properly set up. It certainly requires a certain 'clean sheet' way of thinking.
bifwynne
2,206 posts
 
I hate uni-pivots . . . . and love them too. It's a love/hate thing. But properly set up, my uni-pivot sounds great. Just listened to Chuck Dutoit conducting the Orchestre symphonique de Montreal, Stravinsky's The Firebird (London Digital 1986 414 409-1) on my VPI Classic. The kettle drums brought down the ceiling, then my wife with a pot of water, threatening to dump the water on my stereo if I didn't turn the da*n thing off. There you have it: the love and hate thing.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,341 posts
 
The idea of a static tone arm that provides a rigid platform for stylus movement would seem to make sense and have advantages over a free moving tone arm, so I think that is/was an innovative idea that could have a significant advantage, all other aspects of design aside.

I have no doubt that table would have to be in good operating condition and set up just right (like most all good tables) to sound good, only doing it would be somewhat different, right?

Once accomplished, if all the other aspects of design and operation are functioning properly, I would expect some fantastic results, but I could see where that might be a big if, maybe a big enough even to have helped assure that this unique design never took off in a big way despite certain potential advantages.

ANy gear that takes a novel approach to doing things that is firmly based on good scientific principles is worth a listen I would say. You never know what might be accomplished by thinking out of the box. Lincoln Walsh and the speaker drivers he conceived that apply the principles he learned as a radar engineer/technician during war time are good examples of an "out of the box" design paying dividends.
More to discover