New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Vinyl system contribution
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Welcome to the Graham Slee Audio Products Owners Forum

 

Open to all owners plus those contemplating the purchase of a Graham Slee HiFi System Components audio product and wishing to use this forum's loaner program: join here (Rules on posting can be found here)

This website along with trade marks Graham Slee and HiFi System Components are owned by Cadman Enterprises Ltd


Vinyl system contribution

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Chivas View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chivas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Vinyl system contribution
    Posted: 24 May 2010 at 4:13pm
A contentious issue, but nonetheless interesting!!
 
I have been in the wonderful world of vinyl for just more than a year and have been tinkering around with different arms (2 to be precise Smile), a few cartridges , isolation devices and 2 phono stages (in my system) and am still trying to guage what the biggest contributor to the whole system is, i.e. what is the single item with the biggest impact in your whole vinyl reproduction system?
 
For me, by a country mile, it was upgrading my headphones!! For the first time I can actually start hearing those small differences between different components that make a significant impact, e.g the difference between the SMPS and PSU1. Before this I could hear small (for the money negligible) differences, but now the whole topic has opened up again for me.
 
Interestingly: the rule of thumb for a CD playback system for allocating your budget (according to Robert Harley's "The complete guide to high-end audio") is
  • 7% cables,
  • 13% source,
  • 40% amplification and
  • 40% speakers.
 
According to Mark Baker on his (Origin Live) website for vinyl playback the contribution (not necessarily linked to price) is
  • 65% source
  • 15% amplifier
  • 20% loudspeaker

That is quite a big difference from the CD playback system and I guess the same philosophy that made Linn so successful.

The contribution of the source (*) is further broken down to
  • 40% turntable
  • 30% tonearm
  • 10% cartridge
  • 15% phono stage
  • 5% isolation and support

Of course Mark will say that turntable + tonearm = 70% of the contribution to the source = 45% of the whole system!, because he makes turntables and tonearms.

In another topic on this forum Graham said that as long as the turntable does its job of turning the record properly and the cartridge is of decent quality (Goldring 1042 or better) it is all in the electronics, which makes sense to me to a certain degree, because in the end, a turntable cannot do much better than turning a record at a constant 33.3 rpm and isolating the stylus from the environment. How far can you take this really?
 
So from the above, it is clear that Mark and Graham differ in opinions (unless Graham meant that from a certain level up, all TTs do the same job and 100% of the difference is in the last 15%).
 
Personally, I cannot say as I have not had enough exposure to different components and systems, but from experience, I can say that you can spend all the money you want on your front end and amplification, if your speakers + room / headphones are not good enough, it doesn't matter anyhow. I guess same can be said of the front end if you have good speakers.
 
What has been your experience? If you had a limitless budget and could spend it on one component, what would it be? Let's limit it to the source(*) (as above) to keep it interesting.
Back to Top
mrarroyo View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1401
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mrarroyo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2010 at 12:18am
I have always thought of an split of 40% on the source, 40% on the speakers, and $20 percent on the amp. Of course your "milage may vary".
Miguel
Back to Top
Graham Slee View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Retired

Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Location: South Yorkshire
Status: Offline
Points: 16314
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Graham Slee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 May 2010 at 8:47am
Quote: (unless Graham meant that from a certain level up, all TTs do the same job and 100% of the difference is in the last 15%) Unquote.

Yes, that's the gist of the matter IMO.

I really liked the Opus3 Continuo http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/opus3_e.html, but for the motor going wonky after too short a time (it would start to vibrate then you lost all the gains).

The Opus3 Continuo plus 9" Hadcock arm and Music Maker 2 was THE "defining moment", albeit short lived, for me. As for cost: £2,500 approx. Did I pay that much for it? Never! No, I simply could not afford that much - I got these items by barter.

The music was taken into a completely different dimension, but here I was using my broadcast issue HD250 II headphones - with speakers I doubt the subtleties that did the trick could be heard unless the speakers were quite incredible, and here I guess I shall have to disagree on budget allocations...

To get the absolute best means 100% on everything! How could it ever be different?

Instead, we concentrate on the "common man" or as Fernando said "the vulgar customer" (vulgar means common, just to clear up any confusion). As ordinary men (and some women) we simply don't have the disposable income. What we (at GSPL) try to do is make the less expensive grab at the heals of the esoteric using the electronic skills and experience gained over a lifetime (well almost, I hope I've a few more years of learning still to go Wink)

Graham
That none should be able to park up and enjoy the view without a smartphone and the knowledge in how to use apps
Back to Top
tg [RIP] View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 1866
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tg [RIP] Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 May 2010 at 2:30pm

MO solely, different people put different percentages on things according to their own perspective eg your quotes above, mainly it seems to me,  journalists looking for something to write about and asking various people what they think.

There will always be one or another limiting factor when upgrading your system and I don't know if percentage cost of various parts of a system can ever be more than guesstimates.

I started with upgrading speakers and any ideas I had of budgets went out the window within six months and as many different speakers (most secondhand and none over $500) - I finally settled on a pair that cost me $1000 - they were good enough to hear what else I needed to change and to allow me to hear the changes.  Then the rot really settled in Wink

Amp upgrade, preamp upgrade, turntable upgrades, phono stage upgrades, CD upgrades and a goodly few different cartridges made visits and some stayed.

All levelled out now for a while - there is a recession after all.

present percentages @ RRP

Speakers 45%, all sources including phono stages 40%, amps 15%.

No they are not still the same speakers I mentioned earlier, rather better.

Headphone rigs not included above except for sources.

Headphone amps 60% (2 of), headphones 40% (2 pairs) - there is very little apart from the deepest bass that I hear on headphones that I do not hear on my speakers (perhaps not as "in your face" but they do most of it).

Luckily for me I did not waste too long with cheaper headphones and jumped in at the deep end.

Glad to hear you have found a pair that make a significant difference for you.

Not a lot of point in upgrading bits when you cannot hear the improvements.

My analogue frontends would run around 20% cartridges, phono stages 30%, arms 15%, tables 35%.

That said, the cheaper TT/arm combo at around 25% the cost of the dearer one, gives around 85 - 90% of the performance on most music and recordings and 200% of the convenience.

On the very good recordings though it is the other 10 -15% that makes the difference, the more expensive (read heavily modified) table really does lay the whole thing out.

Itzaak Perlmann playing Beethovens violin concerto in D on an Angel recording is spellbinding on that rig.

On the cheaper one, Pink Floyds classic DSOTM complete with all the abuse of years, absolutely makes the remastered CD sound plastic.

So, what do I think, percentages smercentages, I would not get too hung up on the figures anyone bandies about, maybe they can be somewhat convenient for some purposes.

The part worth remembering is that a cheap cartridge on a good table/arm will usually sound better (through the same system) than an expensive cartridge on a cheap table/arm and that it is as much a matter of matching the cartridge to the arm as of the quality of the arm.

Back to Top
SteveC View Drop Down
New Member
New Member


Joined: 16 May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 12:05pm
I honestly don't think there's any right or wrong answer to this question. The percentage allotted based on money really only makes sense is you buy all new stuff, at retail, and even then I'm not sure it makes sense. The old Linn model of "spend as much as you can on the front end" or GIGO makes sense to me if you plan to upgrade over time. I agree that a system can never be better than the source feeding it. However, I also think there is a point of diminishing return, at which major spending on anything starts escalating drastically for the improvement received. Also, if you pick the wrong combination, no amount of money is going to make it sound good. Putting my 300B SET amps in front of pair of Maggies is going to be an exercise in frustration! Smile

I might as well put all my cards on the table here. If you assume, as I have come to believe, that it is simply not possible for current technology to deliver sound that is fully lifelike, then taste does play a part in any final decision. If you accept that, then Hi-Fi always, by definition, My-Fi. You might as well buy what you like. In my case, based on what I actually paid for things (almost all used), my record playing system costs more than the combination of phono stage, preamp, amps and speakers in my current system. This system really floats my boat. I didn't buy it based on a model. I bought it based on what I enjoy in a system. I put something in, listen to it, and if I enjoy music through it, I buy it. As long as I can afford it, percentage of cost is not even a question. - Steve 
Back to Top
Fernando View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 Sep 2009
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 216
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fernando Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 11:47pm
Hi folks,
 
This thread is very interesting for many reasons. Many reviewers write many things about many audio things accordingly the commercial compromises, is a indubitable fact, but not that complete true.
 
It's vulgar in audiophile magasins, or other,  to see many opinions in some articles about the best way to obtain the best sound, in fact each opinion it's only an personal opinion, nothing more.
 
For me, in audio system all elements needs to give a complete harmony, and tonal balance between obviously each audio source. Analogue source, cartridge, phono-stage, amplifieur, digistal source, cables, and loudspeakers, all this sources depends off all system.
 
A good source with a bad amplification, i'm afraid that final results are  a complete disaster.
 
It's very dificult in my opinion what correct percentage to use in each audio element, nothing is perfect. Many audiophiles says that a good amplification was the key for all system, others defends that loudspeakers are the most important audio element... may opinions, many reasons, all maybe are correct, who knows? Our hearings? maybe.
Back to Top
SteveC View Drop Down
New Member
New Member


Joined: 16 May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 1:24am
A good source through bad amplification may be a disaster, but you have to admit that good amplification can't fix a bad source. Right? Garbage in, garbage out.

On the other hand, good amplification can ameliorate source problems, which is exactly why I purchased a Jazz. To hear my old Columbia's properly EQ'd has been a complete delight! I can finally enjoy the sound as much as I can the performance. - Steve
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.070 seconds.