Does a more expensive turntable actually sound better?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 авг 2016
- Download uncompressed WAV files for listening and comparison: drive.google.com/open?id=0B_o...
A side-by-side audio quality comparison between a $300 Audio-Technica AT-LP120-USB professional direct-drive turntable and a 1980s Quasar CS-7030 stereo system with built-in belt-drive record player. The AT-LP120 certainly looks more impressive, but which one actually sounds better? Listen and decide for yourself!
To hear the Quasar playing an entire album side: • Frank Chacksfield & Hi... 
Наука
To be completely honest, I'm hard pressed to tell any Earth shattering differences between the two. Whether that means the Quasar set is doing a superlative job making the most of what it's got or the Audio-Technica isn't "that" great of a turntable I'm not sure.
Differences that I did notice: the Quasar seems to have slightly more pronounced bass and midrange, while the A-T table seems to have slightly better stereo imaging.
Ultimately, though, I'd be happy listening to either one.
The problem is the differences become more pronounced, and eventually annoyingly obvious, after you've listened for a few months. And the wear on the record from the cheap "needle" is significant. Add to that the fact that the cartridge on the AT is designed for durability, not sound quality. For DJ use, it's "good enough".
And the main sound quality differences are in the needle/cartridge rather than the turntable. One turntable is better than the other on wow and flutter, but it's something you notice over time.
To use an example of how time plays a part: The first time I ever heard a 96k mp3 file, I thought it sounded like true CD quality. Then, after a week or so I was listening to a song with cymbals, and they sounded a bit like they were recorded under water or something. I thought the player was damaged. Turns out, my ear had been trained to notice a type of distortion that comes with MP3's, that never existed with analog sources. It became annoying. Also, I never played them through my Hi-fi system at home (just ear buds). There was no where near as much DEEP bass as in a CD or record.
i.e. this test is interesting, but if you sit in a room and listen to these two turntables through a quality hi-fi system, and challenging audio sources with full range sound (unlike the compressed reader's digest records used here) the difference would be night and day. And put a good cartridge on the AT and it will be even more apparent.
I know, I used to do these kinds of comparisons a LOT when I sold hi-fi in the 70's. I sold a LOT of quality turntables and not a single ceramic cartridge piece of junk. Not one.
Your post confuses me as, there is no such thing as a 96khz mp3 since an mp3 only goes up to 44.1 khz, which is its limitation.
Are you confusing mp3 with WAV?
I mean 96k bits. A CD Rom digital audio file uses 1411k bits.
Robs OnBass Ok, that made more sense. Had me scratching my melon for a moment.
If anyone is using this thread to try to learn about sample rates, please don't. Everyone is grossly misinformed and/or misinterpreting other people. Do some research elsewhere. Posters, y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.
The best turntable is the one you love the most.
Agreed.
Yeaah, I have a new turntable, but still I love the old 1982. one a bit more than a new one.
I agree with all the comments below, but especially the later.
Quasar really held its own and yes the audio technica is a more balanced sound..... Personal taste comes into it too.. Surely pumping it through an amp with bass and treble controls allows you to achieve the sound you want 🤔
Thank right
Except if you get a suitcase turntable.
Who would've known the record community is so toxic
Just a bunch of tryhard little kids and ignorant hipsters that think they know everything. I have a 1970's Emerson "all in one" turntable and have played everything on it from 1930's shellac to modern day vinyl never had any issues and it sounds great, and you can hear it all the way upstairs. It's never broken or needed repair other than a new needle in 2005.
MrWolfSnack You should replace the needle, you might not notice but the dull needle will still pretty much work, but itll wear down the grooves.
No because I only use the turntable a few times a year. It doesn't get used all that much. I only have it on when I'm cleaning or doing long activities down there. Like this year the last time I used it was in February when I played some 8-tracks.
Just started getting into Vinyl over 7 months ago. I find it best to just ignore the toxicity, get what's best for you, and upgrade whenever you can. Because sometimes, the community makes me want to go back to buying CDs. Vinyl does have better sound quality, but damn; it's like in order to get into Vinyl, you also have to have OCD.
@@josterplays8128 lol this!!!
I like how everyone is commenting about how the Audio Technica would sound better with a new cartridge, have you taken into consideration that the cartridge and stylus (there is a difference you know...) on the Quasar is like, a 20 year old CERAMIC one yet still produces a richer sound? The output is also going from the headphone jack...
people are saying the quasar needs a new cartridge. dummy.
Actually, through reference monitors, the Quasar sounds pretty bad. Very unnatural and trebly.
But the source is still outputting through a headphone out.
Like the GE Wildcat that I still have does lack the bass and treble when I used the tone control. The cartridge itself is a GE C660 ceramic cartridge with a stylus that had a + shaped body attached to the cartridge, but it does have a pretty decent sound quality. The BSR had much better quality, and that was also made by Fisher where they put out the BSR record changer. The GE Show N' Tell was a child's record player that has a mono cartridge with a screw type stylus which is called a sapphire needle, and it can play mono records, and sometimes playing a stereo record when playing on a Show N' Tell which was compatible, but it will not track 12" singles due to skipping where a bass line was loud while the record skips badly, and it sounds like gun shots or a machine gun. And also, it will shred styrene 45's which cause it to wear out very badly.
Wow you mentioned all the same phonos I have...except Kenner's Close N Play. The Show N Tell played styrene a few times without a problem but yeah it did wear them out. I can't believe they were making children's records and pop music styrene records at a time when many kids had cheap phonographs tracking over 5 grams. Vanity Fair was even still making acoustic tone arm phonos with spike needles. Crazy times. Styrene must have been a lot cheaper to make then vinyl...oddly you could find the same 45 titles pressed on styrene or plastic depending on the pressing plant I guess. For example Bell records...you could find The Partridge Family "Dosen't Somebody Want To Be Wanted" on styrene and vinyl. I was always happy to find heavy vinyl records.
I would say that the Audio-Technica has a more precise sound output, but the Panasonic has that warmness that the tube lovers so enjoy.
You meant the Quasar
@@Afterimage_Rush nope! Same brand
Everyone talking bout turntables but what i LOVE is this record itself
I think the 80's record player sounds better.
I disagree. The cheaper player sounds significantly worse quality across all the frequencies, and lacks detail and finesse. The cheaper player is simply designed for people who like things thicker and bassier. It is also exibiting upper groove distorion from the crap stylus.
to me it feels like the cheaper one sounds a little off-tone or something. the newer one definitely sounds clearer and displays more from what I hear
*****
That's because it is being played through totally inappropriate amplification. It's like having a premium sports car being driven by a talentless novice.
For me, it's like the cheap deck sounds better but the more expensive deck sounds truer.
the 1980s deck adjusts the sound for taste so you get more bass and more high end, it sounds "equalised" for want of a better term.
The AudioTechinca deck reproduces the sound more accurately but it sounds flat, the midrange is louder.
good ear!
By the time RUclips's audio compression algorithms have had their way, it's a bit difficult to determine which one has the better sound. I imagine that this is a comparison that only works when you're in the same room as the equipment.
Right. Both sounded the same through my 300 watt sound system.
wattage doesnt matter.
You can hear a pretty good difference with headphones.
I didn't imply that it does, I was just describing what I am hearing it through.
+Joe Snes and your $300 speakers will sound better than someone's netbook laptop speakers, or Beats headphones, etc. It's definitely going to vary based on a number of end-user variables. I watched this on a phone initially, so the single speaker offered little variation between the two. I'll try a better sound setup, but it may still be inconclusive.
The Audio Technica has a much cleaner sound with less distortion than the Quasar, but the Quasar seems to have a richer more full sound to it, but with some added distortion at times. I think a different cartridge on the Audio Technica would probably improve the sound considerably.
Yep! I also use the Audio Technica AT-LP 120 for transferring 78s and also LPs/45s sometimes. I mainly transfer 78s, since that's what I collect! BTW, love your videos Luke! :)
the thing is the Quasar is using a much heavier tracking force.. and that can cause the sound to go "fuller" , but as you said.. you can adjust everything on the Audio Technica and mos probably not kill your record just by playing a number of times.
also different preamps are being used.. and that can also affect the overall eq curve
Agreed
Ceramic cartridges do not use or need a pre-amp.
After listening to some of the WAV files from your google drive, i think the biggest difference i can hear is that the ATH is a cleaner, tighter, and sounds a little more live. I think the Quasar still does an okay job with playing the big band music, but there certainly is a difference compared to the ATH. Some people may be hearing that the quasar sounds a little brighter, and maybe louder, but listening to the WAVs with a good pair of headphones brings out the truth
Initially I preferred the Quasar, but it's bright, forward sound would probably be fatiguing over extended listening periods.
The Audio Technica had a much more balanced sound, which would suit a wider variety of music and be more comfortable to listen to cranked!
thank you, People are saying they don't hear a difference... but its pretty darn huge. As to what sounds actually better it is hard dot say. The Quasar has the better right and left separation but the drums sound very harsh as you mentioned and are a little bit too forward for me. The Audio-Technica seems to have better 'soundstage' where you seem to hear instruments being further back or more in the front. I am not really sure which player retrieves more detail but I assume its the Audio Technica. You definitely can hear things you cant on the Quasar but some instruments seem muffled.
The Audio Technica has a more refined, softer sound. The old player has more “punch”. Indeed for long listening sessions it would be fatiguing.
The AT is my choice for sure, yet I bet some people would prefer the other one because sound is interpreted in different ways.
I suspect the Quasar is still coloring the sounds from the tone controls, even if set to the neutral position. Also, ceramics can have a bright/forward tonality, combined with the added harmonics from the conical stylus. Nothing wrong with any of that if that's what a person thinks sounds good. Just know the ceramics with a conical stylus are going to wear the lp out more than a magnetic with a more modern stylus profile. I wonder how these two would sound with an 80's pop record that has plently of sibilants schschschschschschssss
I downloaded the wav files and played them through a hi-def soundcard using Audio Technica headphones. It sounds like there is a bit of rumble from the Quasar and the bass tends to fall apart a bit. The sound from the Audio-Technica sounds fine to me. The bass is firmer. Interesting that according to Audacity both files have energy all the way out to 23 kHz.
Oh man, these computers you have in the background
they are both lots better than crosley's!
well lion shop the Tandy legacy turning tablet had negative ministry dump trucks eating from his dick and the super duper hyper heroes of dev iPad and iPhone and iPad and iPhone and iPad and iPhone app development and SEO specialists and the like button and it was the only one who is a copy to the hotel is located at a later time I am a little more about your experience and skills to help me out with a worse than a year and a few weeks and then you will have a good idea of the only one that is the same time as I am a little more about your order is ready for a while and then you will have a good time for a while back to me and my family is in a couple days and then I can get the chance of a water change your email and delete the email and delete the email address and I will have a great weekend too bad you don't want you can get a new thread for the launcher to be able and I am a bit more than one person who has the best way for you and I will have a good idea of the people that are in a couple days and then you will have a great weekend too bad you don't want you can see that it will take place at least I know if there was an old friend who was a pleasure speaking of a newbie would have a nice to hear about it but the DJ for your email find all of your life and I will be a great weekend too much to ask about it is very difficult time getting the error.
i totally agree.
UnderFact Well, it's hard to argue with that. WTF????????
Jannes Kruid Same quality than my GE Show 'N Tell and other kiddie record players.
I still have my turntable and just bought the new Foghat LP. Off of Amazon, of course. No more Harmony House.
Another great video! I loved the intro and outro snippets especially. I could hear the cymbals on the Quasar better. I actually preferred that sound, the Audio Technica sounded more muffled to me. Great editing.
Love your videos. They have reawakened the long dormant audio nerd in me.
For a more accurate comparison use the same stylus on both so you are evaluating only the turntable and not the cartage. Also, use a better phono amp if you really want to pick up the full sonic benefits of an improved turntable and cartridge.
I'd love to see a what a 200 dollar Audio Technica AT440mla cart sounds like on a cheap plastic deck verses a Technics SL1200.
It's like those offroad vehicle comparisons where one car has stock AT tires and the other has upgraded mud terrains. Why even bother with a comparison if the circumstances are different.
Love it. I would like to have my old Zenith back, but alas, my brother sold it to the neighbor. It had the 2 gram tone arm with the ceramic cartridge. My mother put it on layaway and then paid it off on my 17th birthday. I now own a Dual changer 1019 bought from ebay and I love it. I'm sure purests wouldn't like it either! Ha! It has an idler wheel and it can stack records. It is beautiful with its large center spindle and a stack of 45's playing! Haha! I thought the comparison was a hoot! You should be front and center on the floor of the Consumer Electronics show in Las Vegas with these demonstrations, you would steal the show! Keep up the good work, very enjoyable!
The $300 one sounds like someone put a pillow on the speaker! I think the 1980's one sounds better!
I agree. The new one sounded muffled. I have my computer plugged in a decent hifi system and the difference is huge. The test could be different on classic music, opera or rock but I suspect the old stuff would still sound better..
I also agree a 300$ turntable does not make a good turntable but the cheap 80s one is awesome
he was using a shit preamp. duh there old one sounds better.
Exactly
some people here are deaf to hear the true comparison of cheap and expensive the cheap is a lot better sounding
For the life of me I couldn't tell ANY difference between the two except for a slightly higher pitch sound on the AT. What surprised be was the stereo separation was the same on both and the bass seemed the same level to me. I have enjoyed HI-FI music all my life (81 yrs.) and I know from what I speak. Thanks for the video and work you went through to put this together!
They both sound fine. Really its how clean and straight the record is. EQ and speakers.
Wow! At first, I couldn't really tell a difference, but once you focus, I mean focus good on the individual ranges of separate instruments, you can really hear the difference! The Quasar sound like it just opens up so much more, whereas the AT has a muddy drab, almost high-low mid drag top it, definitely noticeable and not as enjoyable. Nice find on the Quasar! Love old Technics tho
Generally I enjoy your videos. This one is a bit flawed, though. The LP120 is by any standard an entry level turntable. It's really not bad, but not great either. Your preamp/mixer is rather low-end as well, and in any case it's not the same as whatever is inside that quasar unit. So basically, apples and oranges. A better test would be to compare the AT-LP 120 to a used standalone unit, using the same preamp and pickup system.
Also, after youtube has compressed the crap out of the audio quality, there's no way to really compare the sound of both units properly anyway.
I'm by no means a proponent of expensive gear. But in my opinion, some used 80s turntable that was somewhat mid-range quality back in the days, combined with a modern midrange pickup and a cheap and cheerful, but better than radio shack-quality, preamp (or older amp with an integrated one) will easily outperform both units you tested here, and probably still cost a third of, or half as much as, the ATLP120.
I will post links to download uncompressed copies of the tracks, and will re-record the AT-LP120 tracks as played through the pre-amp of my Technics receiver.
+1. I think how one defines "expensive" should have been clarified. The AT-LP120 isn't a top end audiophile turntable by any means. While it may look like a Technics 1200 on the surface, I think to call it a "professional" turntable is stretching the truth somewhat, as I very much doubt it could stand up to the kind of abuse a 1200 can take, nor do you find them in professional usage environments. I also agree that thanks to RUclips's audio processing, not to mention the number of devices that the audio signal is running through, it is hard to fairly judge the 2 turntables.
There is no doubt in my mind that a Technics 1200, properly setup with a decent cartridge would walk all over the AT-LP120. So would any of the lower end Technics direct-drive turntables of the 80s. So would many of the better belt drive audiophile turntables of today. Unfortunately what many fail to realise is that there are hundreds if not thousands of high-end turntable designs out there, some of them very reasonably priced, that aren't sold via the mass-market retail outlets such as Amazon. Unfortunately many give the impression that these OEM turntables and the crappy little all-in-one devices are the only turntables on the market today which is simply not true. And with the number of very good vintage turntables to be found today on the used market, including the Technics 1200, you don't have to look far to find a turntable that would put the LP120, not to mention any 80s music centre to shame.
All true, but you would probably agree that the ATLP120 IS expensive compared to the 80s charity shop or flea market-priced quasar. It's a matter of perspective :-)
Edit: On a sidenote, 1200s are bult like tanks, but they don't sound that great. I had a pair, they're great for DJing purposes, but for listening, you can go better for less. Also, depending on where you live, you could pay twice the price of a new ATLP120 for a 1200 that has been abused for decades and needs an overhaul.
The MK2 version of the 1200, which is the most common variant, suffers from poor quality tonearm wiring. Technics fixed the wiring in the M5G, replacing it with OFC Copper wire that didn't degrade over time. The MK2 arm isn't difficult to rewire, and rewiring the arm can be done for very little money to bring a huge improvement.
Many of the 1200s in use or on the market today will have had little if any maintenance, and therefore won't sound their best. Contrary to what many believe the bearing isn't permanently lubricated, and requires a few drops of the Technics motor oil every 2000-3000 hours of use. Cartridge alignment is also key to getting the best from a 1210 deck, involving using a custom-made protractor to align the cart to the given Technics null points. And of course, the cartridge must be matched to the arm, which itself must be in good condition.
Look, we all know that, and if not, we know how to use google. You can dump even more money into those TTs, buy KAB or Origin Live or tonearms, external PSUs etc etc, and it will still only sound "good for a 1200". Plus, you'll have dumped hundreds if not thousands of bucks into it. This video compares two cheap turntables of which the 300 Dollar ATLP120 is the expensive one - don't lose perspective ;-)
Hey, VW - amazing you got such good reproduction from the Quasar. I think I hear some compression of the dynamics, which could either be the ceramic cart (most likely) or the headphone out. I'm not about to give up my Ortofon and Clearaudio cartridges though!!
I think both sound good. Sometimes I wonder if people that pay 1000s of dollars on a TT are crazy. My entry level project TT sounds good enough to me.
If you've never heard of Voyd before then check them out. The company may have been bought out by another or just simply went out of business - not sure which but they had some really expensive TTs years ago circa early to mid '90s or so that ranged about $2,000-$15,000 (in those years' dollars not today's). The stated specs for the most expensive one was (according to my 'Stereo Review' Buyer's Guide 1992 edition) an incredibly low W&F 0.0001% with rumble at an equally incredible low number of 90dB. The $6,600 model has the same spec for rumble but the W&F is 0.001% and the $3,000 model W&F of 0.01% and rumble at 85dB.
To put those numbers in perspective, the best other, more reasonably priced, TTs were in the range of W&F being 0.025% to 0.015% and rumble around 80-85 or so. So Voyd had done an impressive feat but you sure paid dearly for it. I've never owned a Voyd nor have I heard one but with numbers like those you can be sure that with an equally great (expensive?) cartridge attached you'd be experiencing the absolute finest in vinyl playback.
The 80s turntable had surprisingly good stereo separation. I wouldn't say I prefer it, but I think the more mellow frequency response is a vibe.
the apt-2 has a muddy sound on mine in my opinion . looking to upgrade, any suggestions?
I’m trying to decide between a realistic lab 420 or a Rega p2. What one do you think I should go with? Please help
Old one = Better bass, warm sound, full sound, better hi-hats
The AT sounds better, but it isn't so much the turntable. The cartridge is much a part of it, as is the phono stage (in this case, the mixer). The magnetic cartridge is more compliant, meaning better tracking of the record and less wear. The main function of the turntable is to turn the record at the proper speed, with as little fluctuation as possible. It then becomes a matter of features you want, and what kinds of records you plan to play. One advantage of the AT, especially for those who collect older records, is its ability to play 78rpm records. A cartridge with the proper stylus is needed, though. 78 styli are available for most major brands of magnetic cartridges, including AT, Shure, Stanton, etc. Hearing a 78rpm record played on a good system is surprising.
First of all, great job in all the precise editing! Just listening over a pair of powered 5 inch computer speakers, I found both TT's sounding good, but the Quasar seemed to have a brighter hi end overall. I was amazed as to how well the Quasar did with the trumpets. I could easily hear the "rap"! I bet the Technica had a cleaner signal though.
Hey VWestlife, I watched your review of a cheap turntable I was going to buy as a gift for a father in-law. Long story short somehow I decided to get him something completely different and now I'm the proud owner of an Audio Technica-LP60 (took your advice on the best starter table)and some Micca PB42X speakers.
Prior to this I'd never even considered getting into vinyl. So I just want to give a thank you from me for getting me into a new hobby, my wife remains un-enthused but she'll get into it eventually (hopefully).
The Audio Technica definately sounds richer, is less tinny and has a little more bass, but the other turntable is still fine! RUclips compression may however be reducing the real life difference...
That's why I provided download links in the description, so you don't have to listen to it through RUclips's compression.
Witch is TT number 1 and witch is TT number 2 in your download links?
thanks
That is for an unrelated comparison, not between the two turntables in this video.
I am a bit confused. The download files are from a different video? Just post the link so i can see what TT are compared.
thanks
Love bass, will go with the older one.
i hear a lack on the left channel and also a lack of high frequencies on the new tt. but not really sure about it.
you got me going on this stereo stuff. picked up on ebay your admiral stereo demo lp... great music... love it...
I haven't downloaded your WAV files just listened on You tube, The Audio Technica sounds to me superior in the Hi end treble and also better stereo separation. The Quasar still sounds good, but slightly muddy & less dynamic range. I was an Engineer, I would say the limiting factor in the quasar is the Ceramic cartridge. Here in the UK even on what we would call music centres (All in one decks) in the 80's magnetic/Mc cartridges were used over these. As to which sounds best its of course subjective, both sound good, in a blind test I might say the Quasar, which would contradict what I just stated, ( : however both are preferable in my opinion to CD.
I'm 14 years old and I don't know what your even talking about sometimes yet I still enjoy your video :)
I'm 18 and I know, but a cannot hear any difference.
I am nearly 18 and I too can't hear any difference. :-)
I only have cheap wireless headphones for 40€/50$.
I'm 14 and I think the Panasonic sounds better. The $300 one sounds kinda muffled when compared. The more I listened the worse the muffling seemed to get.
What does your age have to do with anything?
was going to ask u if u did this . good thing i caought this . booked marked for later review. :)
Correction on date I bought my Music Hall MMF 7. I meant to type in 2004 (not 1984...Roy Hall was still living behind the Iron Curtain back then). Sorry! The turntable is beautiful with a rich piano black base with a free standing motor assembly in plinth cutout (very cool). I use a Blue Point high output coil cartridge (very nice).
With all due respect the signal from both is going to be restricted by the cheapest component in the chain which is the low cost amplifier in the music centre. Then converting the analogue output to digital wonderland to use it on You Tube another process that compromises all audio uploads on you tube taking a lot of the dynamics away from the equipment on test. I could just about make out the characteristics of the music centres cheaper ceramic cartridge though and it was quite a well thought out test but with limitations of its own.
Have you listened to the uncompressed WAV files I linked to in the description?
+VWestlife Yes thank you , I could tell that some of the detail was missing on both TTs and that was I suspect the music centre amp.
Glpi lpi listening to this through the crappy mobile phone speaker😁 funny thing is...that way the 80s turntable sounds clearly better to my ears. plugging in good headphones -eliminating at least the clearly weakest component for me- makes the winner less easy to decide...
You want to do a real comparison? use the same preamp on both. The difference in bass response and stereo separation could easily come from the preamp used.
Impossible to do, since a ceramic cartridge does not need a pre-amp.
Then you cannot compare them this way.
It's not a problem unless you have a preconceived notion that it's a problem.
+vwestlife you're the one who made the video in the first place.
i had it in another tab and i was just enjoying the music lol didnt even know it was switching xD
Tried listening to this using my Sennheiser momentum m2 headphones wired up to my Creative X-Fi Fatality platinum sound card, without looking at the video, but i can't really tell when you switch between them. So the difference in my experience is not noticeable enough for me.
Fact is its all mental.If they blindfold you and play any two tables with same cartridge and same record at most it would 50/50 Fact. If you spent 10,000 on your table in your mind it sounds better,blindfolded average normal person will hear no difference and both will sound good. Its all a mythical big dick contest for those that need to feel superior. I agree a 10,000 dollar table is cool to look at but thats all
stuknda80z plenty of morons around that buy them and those stupid little bridge things to hold up the cable off the floor fucking idiots
Yup. Selection bias. I'll take it one step further. I've read articles/interviews of professional recording and electrical engineers. They will all tell you that in the lab, even the extreme best turntables can't re-produce music accurately play-to-play as a digital file can; they will also tell you that records made in the "classic" age of rock had horrible dynamic range and were effectively compressed so that needles didn't skip out of grooves on cheap record players. The entire "vinyl is superior" phenomenon is based on lies so that record companies can sell a $40 copy of "Dark Side of the Moon". Having said that, I own a new turntable ($300) and like the feel/physicality of the medium for music from the 1970's. But, I'm under no illusion records are anything but a century old technology with limitations imposed by physics no turntable can reverse.
The Audio-Technica sounds a lot better. The Quasar CS-7030 has more bass and sounds warmer but also lacks of all the details. Bass is not the important thing to make a song sound better, it's all about what you can hear and how cleary it sounds.
You must not have good headphones because a brighter sound doesn't make it better, the audio technica isn't bad it just lacks high end and low end
This is all subjective. If you think that the 80's turntable sounds better.. fine. Just because i like something else, doesn't mean i have bad headphones.. :D
bolloxology
you can't even tell the beat is there with the audio technica man wtf????
Yes. My thoughts too. Much richer and better detail on the Audio Technica. Warmth is nice, but not at the expense of separation and detail.
That's the best sounding ceramic cartridge I've ever heard. That said, the high end is still quite distorted, like every other ceramic cart I've heard. I wonder how much of that distortion is just due to the higher tracking force.
Title of the first sample track? I've been watching this vid just to hear it more :D
The 80s one sounds better in the high and low ends, tho the mid range is kinda bad. The right one however is the opposite, low and high are bad but mid is nice.
Hard decision but I think the 80s one is better.
your username and profile pic make me cringe so hard it hurts.
to me the 80's player seems to sound better, sounds like a lot wider for the frequency range
Wow, I never thought I'd hear the symphonie fantastique in a random video like this
Is it possible that because it's an older record, it takes to a higher tracking force better than a new record might? VWestlife already discussed the tracking force thing in the Crosley Cruiser video
How can you compare a DJ Turntable with a Record Player ( hi-fi system ) the Quasar is for the casual amateur listenner besides the Audio Technica is for DJ purpose and for other music styles . Panasonic&Technics is the same society everyone knows that the only difference between both is Panasonic was specializated in making TV's and Videorecorders besides Technics was the audio Hi-Fi, loudspeakers, high-end stuff . Audio Technica is a clone like many other brands from the Technics SL MKII but lacks in much materials they used to make the Audio Technica . $300€ is a mid-end Turntable since the high-end were more expensive around $600€ to $1200€ . so even there the quality differs . Don't understand nowadays people that thinks what they make today is better which it isn't for many reasons today people doesn't care anymore of their materials as they did decades ago . Decades back a family bought a Turntable and Hi-Fi high-end for their life + the quality was far superior cases were in metal, the insides were build with gold molten so that everything was very expensive besides nowadays all in cheap plastic , the duration from something is around 5/10 years and if you're lucky it can go to 15 years but needs to be cared everyday . Also the new hype records they sell nowadays isn't the same from what it was decades ago , nowadays new records are digitaly recorded and not more mono then stereo with the first dolby suround sound . Even the quality of some Stylus/Needles are made cheap nowadays . I have bought in 1998 ,concorde ortofons and it was for $350€ . All in all we cannot compare something from the past with nowadays technology since alot of nowadays is just sand they threw in the eyes to make us dream .
Mid-range priced modern audio gear lasting for 5 to 10 years?
Man! You must be the luckiest human being on Earth!
Today not high end Hi-Fi is well designed (better than in the past, even) but manufactured like crap.
Besides: Casually, I have another Ortophon Concorde..., well my brother has, because at the end of the 80's I give him my turntable and my whole collection of vynils. Thankfully for me, vynil is a nightmare of the past.
I use analog in the tape format: a end-of-existence (1991-92, if memory doesn't betray me) three head Pioneer cassette machine with Dolby S and auto-calibration biasing, and a glorious open reel Revox tape recorder.
The 1980s turntable actually sounds better.
The best type are the standalone turntable.
Like the JVC JL-F30 or Pioneer PL-600
The 80s Panasonic is surprisely good even though it’s all in one type
what are your thoughts of an elliptical on a cheap tt i have a sony ps lx250?
It will make a slight but noticeable improvement. It's not a huge difference, but if you're due to replace the stylus anyway, then you might as well get an elliptical one.
I love waking up to a new vwestlife video!
Well not is most important audio quality,
this is only one part.
Other important aspects are:
- Quality of turntable
- Characteristics of turntable
For example...
People collectors of vinyl,
need preserve his music ... But...
What is the best way to preserve vinyl??
the answer is: With A GOOD TURNTABLE!!
If you buy any turntable with low quality,
only for save money, I'm sure that you will lost your music collection,
because YOU WILL RUIN THOSE EXPENSIVE COLLECTION VINYL!!
Audio-Technica AT-LP120USB is a good option,
but also you can check most options of turntable labels like:
Technics, Pionner, Marantz, Stanton etc.
Give more importance to quality & characteristics of turntable than price of these.
There is no such thing as "vinyls"! Vinyl is already plural.
Thank you for you clarification...
But well people from US,
destroy my spanish language...
in many words!!
I think not problem for error in one word. =)
Raul Villanero Isn't a record called "un disco"? And a record player is "tocadiscos" (literally "it plays records")? That's what I was taught when I took Spanish in school.
Of course...
But i don't talk about you,
I mean generally. (many people from US not respect my language)
My Sony turntable from the 80s still works great
The ceramic cartridge seems to accent the treble around 8-11 KHz which makes it sounds brighter. What I would next would be to do a spectrum analysis on both turntables.
I still stand by my previous comment, though I have to ask: Have you been able to do a full review of the Quasar?
the older tt sounds warmer and more lively almost like tape vs digital
From what I heard (using studio monitors) the newer turntable was more crisp, as expected. And the Quasar turntable sounded more "woodie" or warm sounding. But it sounds exactly like my grandmothers old console stereos. I am not sure if its possible to upgrade the needle on the Quasar but if you could, I dont see how they couldnt sound similar with an upgrade. However, it doesnt really matter because some people just may want to hear the older sound because it brings back a feeling where the newer phonograph/turntable might sound too sterile.
@Vwestlife - Could you please give me the details on the two records you played, (you show them at 2:53), especially the "Admiral" one.. Does it have a record number on the back? What does it say on the spine (Band name, Album name etc)? I enjoyed it and would like to try to find it on Ebay. (Unless you're selling it) Thank you!
It's on Discogs.
Thank you Sir! I found it and ordered it..
This was a fun comparison. Nice work slicing the audio together. $300 to me is expensive, but i know to others this is chump change for a TT. My Marantz TT-151 uses the same "belt sliding" technique to change from 33 to 45. While I have to agree with some of the others who commented about the comparison, I still enjoyed it, and if nothing else, the AT-LP120 sounds very good to my ears. I think you should have done a comparison like this with your other TT reviews, pitting them out of the box against the AT-LP120. I almost bought the 95E cartridge, but I was looking at the response and stylus specs compared to the 92E, and the 92E has a better range and a slightly better stylus shape, plus it is cheaper. So far I have been very happy with it.
The 80's deck sounded way better to my ears, warmer with depth.. The USB sounded awful in comparison, almost like a CD, clean, sterile..
You're the perfect example of "Audiophile" "believe what you want to believe" BS... he bypassed the digital part.. it's 100% Analog yet you "hear" digital... (& let's not talk about your computer..).
Greg D It's my opinion, that's all.. keep your knickers on.. ;)
@@gregd6022 Well, I think he's right. I don't think he's "hearing digital," but it's clear that there's a haze of bass on the older turntable that's giving it a "warmth" that is easily perceptible. I personally prefer the newer turntable when I'm specifically listening to an instrument because it feels more detailed and the stereo imaging is wider; but when I just passively hear it, or I'm not focusing on a particular instrument, the warmer, seemingly "fuller" sound of the old turntable is immediately more inviting.
I don't see any "expensive" TT...
$300 is not expensive? How rich are you?
VWestlife Did you read what I wrote???? NOT rich at all!...sorry, I thought u were replying to my other post..let me add it in..
In another post I wrote: "Please, $300 is a fairly inexpensive entry level model TT. When I was working during college, at Radio Shack, my cheapest stereo component was less than $500 back in the late 80s." So as a poor college student, no, not rich at all.
78 Tranz Am Man
I'd rather spend $300 on a vinyl collection to _play_ on a turntable than on the turntable itself.
But now, decades later....I have what I consider slightly above a entry level TT. VPI Scout ($1400) with a Dynavector 17D3 cartridge ($1000) and a Musical Surrounding Phono preamp ($1000). College investment paid off...
So, in the first song I could hear some mid-range distortion/clipping on the junky turntable & overall the junky turntable had an emphasised low-end response - perhaps some kind of "loudness" preamp on the input side?
The $300 turntable sounded with a uniform dynamic range & frequency response.
I really enjoyed this video. Fun to watch and fun to listen to. How much the preamp situation makes, I don't know. The ceramic cartridge in this video and extended lows and highs, but not overdone, and a lot more information to be heard with more warmth and presence than the AT. If you conceive other means of comparison, I'd love to hear those too. I wish we could go back to the pre-CD days of releasing music in a more "flat" recording and let the end-user adjust it to their liking. When CDs first came out they were the most shrill sounding things I'd ever heard (worked at a radio station), so I heard this on good equipment. My first CD player experience was a Luxman, so it was good quality. CDs have gotten better, and I know we can record CDs and MP3s with better quality than they currently are if they'd just quit eq'ing the recordings so much. Sorry for the long post, but I really did enjoy this video.
they both sound really good.. but man.. that Quasar gets all the girls ;)
Oh look - you don't need to send them via the amp, also the camcorder will compress the sound and mess it up something terrible. These two things will destroy any "top end" sound the DJ cartridge can produce.
Plug the line out from your mixer into the line in of you PC and record the sound that way (get Audacity if you don't have recording software, it's free). Then use Movie maker to turn it into a video for youtube.
Also you need to play something with a real quiet part, classical music is best, that will show the rumble and turntable noise of the cheaper deck, piano music is best for showing speed issues.
Also - forgot to add - play a 12inch 45 dance track with decent bass, these are loud and really put the stylus though its paces. That will show how well the stylus tracks the record.
No -- when used in A/V input mode, a Sony Handycam will not compress the audio. It has a peak limiter to prevent it from clipping, but as long as you don't set the audio gain too high, that doesn't affect the audio. It was passing through 16-bit, 48 kHz uncompressed PCM audio. But nonetheless, I gave a link in the description to download direct, uncompressed audio samples from the turntables.
OK, but that still leaves the issue of the amplifier, you could have gone straight from the DJ mixer into the camera line in and that would have been much better.
The best way to do it though is to go direct into the line in of your PC. In fact I would have connected the decks directly to the line in - no other kit in circuit at all - and recorded both individually in Audacity. Then normalise the recordings (which puts the peaks to 100%) and cut them together, save it as a 48k WAV file for download. Also make it into a youtube vid, although as others have said, that will also introduce a lot of messiness. If we could download the directly recorded WAV we could really compare!
I'm not slagging this effort off, it's a fascinating thing to do.
Derek Williams My laptop does not have a line input. And even if it did, the Handycam's audio circuitry is higher quality. Sony put profressional-grade, broadcast-quality audio in their old DV camcorders.
OK, fair enough. But it's still true you didn't need to go via the cheap amplifier, that only served to degrade the signal, direct from mixer to camera would have been better.
Treat yourself to a USB soundcard though, it opens up a lot of options for using your machine to record stuff!
Thanks for doing this though, it's an interesting subject.
How did you connect an 80's turntable to the PC? 🤔
Just listening to the songs without watching the video to see when they switch I hear ZERO difference
Did the same. Very little difference.
with good headphones its pretty easy
They don't need to be good. It's still pretty easy. Some people just have rather poor hearing, it seems.
I know the sound has been compressed but you can clearly hear the difference between the two. The older turntable has a richer sound as well the mid bass pops a little more. I can hear better instrument separation from the old player.
Nice job setting up the comparison! I cannot hear the difference through RUclips via open speakers on my television on the first record. The AT sounds better than the quasar on the second record.
A very neat experiment, and although the set-up is less than ideal, it does show a discernible difference (assuming of course that the listener is using a good playback set up with full frequency response and low distortion).
The percussion sounds more realistic from the MM pick-up and the bass is a bit clearer.
Quasar was the bottom of the barrel, not mid range.
The 1980s Quasar CS-7030 sounds better.
I can hear more of the ride and drum stuff from the Quasar vs the AT LP120. I wonder if that could be fixed with a different cartridge or if everything leading up to the cartridge has something to do with the sound or not.
what's the artist and song name of the first song in this video?
So, you're comparing a DJ turntable to a record player.
The ATlp-120 is a terrible TT. I hoped very much that it would be a replacement for the sl1200 when it was discontinued, until I auditioned it. It sounded horrible. I would not consider this to be a decent TT at all, not professional at all. Both turntables are junk. Even in your test the ceramic cart sounds worse, but it really is junk against junk.
If you say so... the reviews say otherwise.
Read the review in hifi world. My issue with the lp-120 was distortion, audible wow and flutter (0.2%), the flutter component I found most annoying messing with piano big time. This was like nails down a black board. The lp-1240 was much better but piano was still wrong, but build quality was way better. The sl1200mk2 though was wow and flutter 10 times better and a much better arm, a damped and shielded platter (the lp-120 does not even have shielding and many carts hum). It is not speed stable (absolute speed) and many users have reported warped sub platters and warped platters. The anti skate on the arm does not set correctly so stylus wear will be high. I wanted the lp-120 to be better, I considered buying one, but after checking one out (I have 5 turntables and I have been into vinyl for over 20 years) I realized they were total junk, and defiantly not even close to a decent turntable. They may sound ok through bedroom speakers, but a decent system and the flaws are really obvious. Shame really as if AT had charged maybe 50 bucks more for it they could have addressed some of the issues and it might have been a decent entry level turntable.
How many blind tests did you do to make sure you were really hearing the differences you thought you were hearing? If you bought the Audio-Technicas with the predetermined notion that no turntable could ever sound as good as a SL-1200, then of course to your mind the SL-1200 is always going to sound the best, unless you record the output of each turntable playing the same LPs, and then do a blind test to see if you can reliably tell which recording belonged to which turntable.
No you missed my point, I actually wanted the AT-120 to sound better, the point I am making is I actually went into the shop wanting one.
The issues were wobbly this is when we swapped over to the lp1240 which I admit was better but issue was still there. I agree blind tests are very valid a lot of people convince themselves this or that wire improves there system, but they can pick the better wire blind (because there is no difference). That said the lp-120 issues were massive and obvious, it has terrible wow and flutter that can be picked by anyone with ears blind 0.2% is massive compare this to a Technics 0.025% or even my Commonwealth idler drive from the 1950's is less than 0.1%!! Most untrained ears wont pick 0.1%, but 0.2% is another story. My other issue was distortion, a bit like removing the wadding from a speaker (standing waves) kind of like a doubling. At first things sound bigger then you realize it is wrong. This is probably the platter not being damped and ringing like a bell and the undamped plinth. I know someone who attempted to damp a lp-120 plinth and damp the platter which apparently helped a bit, but the motor not being shielded on the lp-120 cant be fixed, neither can the wow and flutter. The arm looks like a Technics arm, but the antiskate does not work correctly, some again have attempted fixes, but nothing that works well. Dont get me started on the inbuilt preamp!! The Lp-120 came in at a price point and it failed IMO. The U turn Orbit sounds a lot better and it would be where my money would go if I was looking for a budget turntable. You can also buy belt driven Technics with way way lower wow and flutter than the lp-120 completely refurbed with a warranty for less than a Lp-120 and they will sound a lot better. There are may cheap ways for people to get into vinyl like this or buying used.
Back to blind tests I have done loads, my friend used to own a hifi shop, for giggles we switched and swapped loads of gear and better often means more expensive, but I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns we both heard it, but it is way way way over the level of a LP-120.
I hope someone does a decent budget DD, maybe AT will in the future, but sadly the current model is way off the mark.
i totally agree with you the AT-LP 120 is shit! I also hoped it would be a replacement for the the 1200/1210 cause theyre are way to exepensive nowadays. But they sound shit and every other aspect is also shitty.
I'm so loving this 60s music.
I love the MARANTZ TT143 Linear Tracking Turntable which is supposed to give you the best listening experience like that you get if you are lucky enough to have been in the recording studio during the recording session and it is one that you have to have the lid down otherwise the record won't play as the tonearm hardware is built into the lid of the turntable.
Have you any clue what Hi Fi equipment is ? Your gear looks like it all comes from a garage sale.
The records and Quasar were thrift store finds, and I got the DAK mixer on eBay, but I bought the Audio-Technica turntable brand new at a high-end electronics store.
Neither of these are "expensive". The LP120 is considered "entry level" by budget conscientious audio lovers. The LP60 would never be recommended by an "audiophile", its equivalent to a Crosely.
CNet says the AT-LP60 will let you "discover the joys of analog sound" and "see why audiophiles love LPs": www.cnet.com/news/why-audiophiles-love-lps-buy-this-super-cheap-turntable/
slavikcc
All the reviews I've found of it have been generally positive. Vinyl Harmony says the AT-LP60 "is a hidden gem that surprises you with its quality when you least expect it to. One of the best value for money players that you can get today": www.vinylharmony.com/audio-technica-at-lp60-review/
And Musehelix says "the Audio Technica AT-LP60 is the best entry level turntable in its price range and I highly recommend it": musehelix.com/audio-technica-at-lp60-usb-review/
i have the at2020 and their 30x headphones, been pretty happy with both.
Minimize your browser and listen so that you cant see what one is playing. I can only hear a slight increase in noise on the really high notes like symbols and High-hats. I thought they both sounded good.
your test is flawed in so many ways... first of all you tested two average TT, one old, one new. The "expensive" one is going through 2 cheap-ass amps, one of them is the "cheap" one's integrated amp... wtf ? I could keep on but this is just not serious. An audio quality test with a goddamn camcorder in the chain, why not?
When are you going to compare the expensive turntable? Is that in like part 2 or something. Both these tables are mediocre.
$300 isn't expensive? Good, then I'd appreciate a $300 donation, since it's so cheap...
Alright... give me your bank account number and I'll forward you 300 dollars. I would say a technics 1200 at around 800 new or whatever is a "nice" table. But hi-fi nerds would laugh at that. A "nice" hi-fi table would be around 1000. And big hi fi nerds would consider that entry level. If this review featured a 500 dollar table I might not be giving you shit. Thanks for the review. Just commenting and talking shit.
***** I never claimed the AT-LP120 is "nice" or "high-end". I just stated the obvious fact that to the vast majority of people, $300 is expensive.
not trying to argue. I appreciated the video. 300 Dollars is not chump change... but turntables are a niche market. Most people into audio probably spend 200-500 dollars on speakers, maybe 200 on an amp. Just saying... 300 isn't a wild amount of money if you're into vinyl. 5 brand new records you're looking at 120 dollars. (generally 25 bux a record)
That's just what I was thinking. Neither turntables are high end.
Hey, this is a long shot. But I am getting a similar turntable without a ground-wire, where did you add yours? I have a feeling I know where to put it inside the turntable, but can also imagine I'll just get it wrong and balls it up. Cheers
You mean the AT-LP120? See my video about modifying it to remove the built-in pre-amp.
@@vwestlife oh excellent, thank you very much!
I did one simple test, but very accurate. I listened the video without see the video, and I saw a big difference in the audio quality. Then I saw the video and realized that the better quality came from the old system. I believe that the pre-amp inside the system is better than the mixer. Have those mixers the RIAA curve in there pre-amp stages?
I love those comparisons!
The ceramic cartridge does not use a pre-amp. The pre-amp in the mixer conforms to the RIAA curve and actually has a flatter response than the pre-amp in my Technics receiver.
The Quasar sounds slightly 'washed out', Audio Technica has so much clarity
i'm not sure that $300 would constitute an expensive turntable! $300 is cheap!
If $300 is so cheap then I would gladly appreciate a $300 donation!
VWestlife $300 is cheap for a turntable - VERY cheap!
drnickyp I'd rather spend $50 on a good used record player and $250 on records to play on it!
VWestlife good for you, but $300 is still cheap for a turntable!
drnickyp For the 1%, I'm sure it is.
It seems like the Audio-Technica has a higher dynamic range and frequency response. I think that the method for testing could be improved upon. I wonder what is inside of that little mixer, I also wonder what the internal amp on that quasar is effecting the sound quality. If I were to guess, it is probably using one of those one chip 10 watt car stereo type amplifier IC's. RUclips compression has an effect on it too.
The sound was quite different and very noticeable. I found myself leaning towards the old player until Winchester Cathedral. The vocals really came out on the new player. I didn't realize how good the vocals were until you spun that song on the new player.
they are both cheap turntable
Those are both cheap turntables
$300, cheap?
Don't waste your money on a new set of speakers. You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers.
This kind of audiophile snobbery is what turns a lot of people off to the hobby.
Love the Billy Joel reference! haha
The Sun Will Rise Again your mom is cheap. Get the fuck outta here
A great demonstration. How did you make sure the speed was set exactly?
Using a strobe disc.
VWestlife I thought it would be something like that. Thanks.
Fun comparison. The Quasar seemed to have stronger bass and highs (loudness compensation effect). Coming off the headphone jack, you are pretty much taking the signal off the power amplifier stage and depending on the design of that stereo, it could have loudness comp. built in. When listening at lower volume, people may tend to like that effect more.
I notice a bit of distortion in the bass on either player on the first cut. You can buy a $2000 turntable with a $1000 cartridge but if the pressing is not great, neither will be the sound.
I applied an EQ curve in post-production to cancel out the effect of the loudness contour, using a CD player playing a sine wave sweep to measure it. The result is flat response from 40 to 19,500 Hz. The Admiral LP may have been a Dynagroove pressing.
Dug through my basement today and found a cheap Onkyo. Works pretty well. I think I'll start a vinyl collection. Any recommendations?
What kind of Onkyo?
CP-1100A belt turntable. Seems not to be worth much online