Why do turntable purists prefer Thorens over Technics?

[Spellbound]

By turntable purists I am talking about certain people who frequent record conventions and record shows. Most of them are older. By older I mean people in their 50's and 60's. I remember listening in on a conversation while I was at this one dealer's table... "Technics is shit" "Never owned one never will"

Now this is quite fascinating because most younger people consider Technics turntables, especially the SL1200MK series to be the DJ industry standard. Mention the word Thorens to them and they will have no idea what you are talking about.

Are Thorens turntables superior?

[Spellbound]

[RetroRuss]

The main difference is that Technic decks are more 'robust' plus you can adjust the pitch to help with that all important mixing, which is not possible with Thorens. Also you wouldn't want to put your Thorens in a club for every DJ to play with because they are bloody expensive!!

Soundwise they are brilliant but at the price you'd pay you would expect that!!

[Noman]

Reason No 1: A purists would never use a SL1200 or any player with "direct drive". (The motor is directly connected to the plate)

Optimal for the "purist" is when the motor is totally isolated...

Reason No2: And then we have the limited possibilities to set up the arm on a typical DJ player.If you are a purist you are willing to spend more money on Equipment just to measure and set up all the angles of the arm and cartridge than you have to pay for a complete SL1200. :)

[QUINNY]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Spellbound: You obviously have no idea about the lengths that some peole will go to, in order to find the best sound. I suspect that even the Thorens isn't good enough fore most.

Potentially, the best one I've encountered (and what should be an elegant solution) must be the laser equiped turntable that was mentioned on this site in a different thread about a year ago. I don't remember the name of it and quite frankly, I don't much care, but the idea of using a laser to track the grooves (rather like a CD) seemed to be a pretty nifty concept. However, having heard a sample, it did sound rather sterile and lifeless and the set up of it is rather difficult.

[Graham_Start]

Thorens is just one of the names that certain purists will worship. Others praise Linn, VPI, or any other number of vintage or contemporary manufacturers. While I don't dispute that these companies made a quality product, the adoration that some people apply to them smacks of fanboyism. Having said that...

Many purists frown on direct drive turntables because there used to be so many bad ones around, especially cheap consumer tables in the 80s. However, the 1200 is quite decent in this regard.

Others frown upon them because they are a mass-produced Japanese-made consumer product, and in their view, any such thing must therefore be inferior.

I've read claims from audiophiles that the 1200 has low-level fluctuations due to stylus drag. This is bullshit, plain and simple. The 1200 has rock-solid pitch stability, something that is almost impossible with a belt-drive table. The biggest issue with the sonics of the 1200 is that tonearm and the wiring leaves much to be desired. Back in the day, Technics made broadcast turntables that had a decent direct drive motor, but a detachable armboard so that you could fit whichever tonearm you liked onto the unit. When I hear younger people claim that the 1200 is the "best turntable EVAR!" I feel compelled to point out that it wasn't even the best turntable that Technics made.

There's an outfit in the UK that sells a kit that allows you to replace the 1200's tonearm with a Rega RB250 tonearm (a most excellent tonearm for the money). I've been wanting one of these as the best of both possible worlds, but I can't afford it. :(

[Spellbound]

Spellbound: You obviously have no idea about the lengths that some peole will go to, in order to find the best sound. I suspect that even the Thorens isn't good enough fore most.

I have always thought the Technics 1200 was the best turntable one could buy. Well I guess I just fell for the hype. Most people my age worship that damn thing. Me personally I always try to have an open mind about everything. The only turntable I worship right now is my Vestax portable. It runs on batteries, has a headphone connection and pitch control. I can take it with me to the beach or listen to it while I am traveling by airplane or train. Once I did try to connect it to my home stereo system but the sound was not very good. I guess a decent pair of DJ headphones can give the impression the cartridge on the Vestax portable is of a higher quality.

[Graham_Start]

Originally Posted by Spellbound

I have always thought the Technics 1200 was the best turntable one could buy.

It probably is as far as a DJ is concerned. As for listeners, that's another matter entirely.

[originalbigm]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Spellbound: You obviously have no idea about the lengths that some peole will go to, in order to find the best sound. I suspect that even the Thorens isn't good enough fore most.

Potentially, the best one I've encountered (and what should be an elegant solution) must be the laser equiped turntable that was mentioned on this site in a different thread about a year ago. I don't remember the name of it and quite frankly, I don't much care, but the idea of using a laser to track the grooves (rather like a CD) seemed to be a pretty nifty concept. However, having heard a sample, it did sound rather sterile and lifeless and the set up of it is rather difficult.

It was an ELP turntable.For a more technical review and discussion refer to this link.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-ELP.html

[QUINNY]

I love reading what these vinyl audiofiles have to say. They must be some of the most neurotic people in the world!!!

Remember, these are the people who would argue that vinyl sounds better than a CD from original master tapes and would probably argue that vinyl sounds better than the actual master tape itself. Although I'm willing to concede that it is possible that vinyl could subjectively sound different (and therefore better) to a master, I really don't know where they're coming from on many of the things they say and if a playback device has to be so, so precise for them to get off to the music, surely they're missing the whole point. They're in effect trying to hear things that maybe aren't there in the first place, weren't considered by the artists or producer and certainly weren't heard over the studio speakers, in some cases at 4 o'clock in the morning with a head full of coke, booze or both.

They're too precious by far!

[Graham_Start]

Some of what they say is valid, but yes, a lot of it is nonsense. The best example I can think of with regards to audiophile fanaticism is how recently, on a prominent mastering engineer's forum, there was a thread comparing the mastering on numerous different pressings of the same CD. Brief snippets of two of these were posted, with the poster claiming that the second one had slightly better imaging and dynamics. Most people agreed.

That is, until someone synced up the two samples, and found that they were bit-for-bit identical. And yet, one person was still insisting that one was superior to the other.

Another example is the 30th anniversary vinyl pressing of Dark Side Of The Moon. A lot of work went into mastering this particular edition. This was well-documented, with detailed explanations of what was done and by whom.

There are people who insist that there is a better and an inferior-sounding cut of this release... despite the fact that it's been made clear that all of the 30th anniversary copies are pressed from the same stampers!

[QUINNY]

To loosely quote Murray Roman.
"Look at all these bananas rotting in the port. What're we gonna do, what are we gonna do? Well, we'll get some groovy guy to say you can get high on bananas."

Just about sums it up.