Features

It seems that 15.75KHz brick wall low pass filter is automatically applied on every uploaded video?

Technics first.

Are there links for these files?

10 seconds into the vpi and i knew the technics was better.
great lp! i wish i had your knowledge when approaching a dollar bin!

I think that both recordings/videos represent the actual turntable playing.
The Caliburn setup has a more natural presentation, offering more subtle details and no harshness.

I liked the second one better today..

Prefer the Calliburn. More natural presentation. I wonder what the difference would be if using a stiffer head shell in the Technics plus alternative mats? I think some of the difference is typical of good belt drive v good direct drive.

Regardless of the differentials due to the turntables (which we can't really isolate on these tests)....the SAT tonearm must make a positive contribution.
But more significantly.....I have found with dozens of headshells of differing designs and materials....the Yamamoto carbon-fiber headshell (which resembles uncannily that of the SAT)....improves virtually every cartridge I mate it with.

Right off the bat, the Caliburn was more spacious and natural. The dynamics at the end sounded harder and more shocking with the Tecnics, more natural with the Caliburn.

and indeed the tracks were mixed with the percussion and my initial findings were correct, notwithstanding my second guessing. The first track was cleaner on the previous and that must have been the Caliburn. Still, would be happy with the Technics.

How about a comparison between the BB512 and the Rambler!

The samples here are not switched (Mikey says this right in the video).

The Continuum sounds less "canned" and a little more open than the Technics here.

I listened to the video twice without watching and took notes. (so I didn't know which turntable was first),

I preferred the Continuum hands down... There was no aspect of the Technics which bettered the Continuum..

Notes:

There was greater body to both the vocals and the strings.

Stereo separation was greater - giving a wider sound-stage.

The vocal on the Technics sometimes sounded a little shrill - smoother on the Continuum

The timbre of the instruments had greater realism.

The Technics started playing the music and my eye brows went up and down and I thought oh that's nice. I did note while listening that I was really focused on the vocals and didn't hear the instruments as much as I wanted. I've found when A/Bing it really helps to focus on one instrument or part of the music as I go back and forth between the two things.

I started spacing off and was completely lost in thought when the Continuum started playing this piece of music. I listened twice and I completely got lost in the performance. So I thought the Continuum was better. But to hang with a 160,000 turntable isn't bad at all. We'll see how that first test ended up. I thought the audio was switched in the first video.

Way back I bought this disc ( the AP version mastered by Doug Sax). I played it once, could not stand the vocalist's voice (especially that fast beat) so I filed it. After this experience I may revive it tomorrow ( it's the middle of the night here right now).

On came the Technics and I still didn't like this performance. However I also thought how good the turntable sounded and that anybody who bought one will be very happy.

Then the Caliburn/SAT. Well the rest of the orchestra did make the session after all. Far more natural sounding and the singer appeared not just to be a singing head but had the possibilty of having a body too. Most of all she didn't annoy me as much as my previous experience of her. In short, far more enjoyable. Where's my chequebook :-)?

BTW - I still think that the Technics sounded good irrespective - just not as good as spending How Much??

What are those headshell leads?

More detail and nuance, on the music. More emphasis and natural balance between soloist and orchestra, giving a more realistic sense of depth. Voice has more natural texture too. All obvious on a cheap pair of earbuds via my Macbook Pro, can't imagine how impressive difference would be in person.

your face. The record sounded clean.

But this time it really did look like you came away with egg on your face! ;^)

Any word on which file is which? Also, were the cartridges same age/hours?

Without hearing "A" I would have been content listening to "B." Side by side the difference is clear and "A" sounds best to me.

'A' definitely for me. Seems a bit more neutral and cleaner. B seems a bit pronounced at lower mids.

There is an ease to the vocal on the 2nd one. The first one seems, at times, to come off as a bit forced. There is also more of a unity with the recording regarding the vocal on the 2nd one, whereas on the first one, the vocal seems spotlighted.

0117davrathA:
1. Impressions: Straight forward and almost-distilled-water-plain (might be because of the way how the speed control works?).
2. Lesser upper harmonics (might be because of the tonearm-headshell-mat-body of the turntable?)
compared to 01117davrathB.

01117davrathB:
1. A bit more "vibe" on the vocal (not sure why?).
2. More relaxed presentation.
3. A bit more detail on the upper harmonics (might because of the arm and t'table?).
4. Blacker background especially on the micro harmonics (might be because of the arm and t'table?).

Personally it is hard to decide because highs are not really open up on 0117davrathA.aiff and 01117davrathB.aif .

Might just be too personal, this vocal recording is not really my cup of tea, but it's ok.
Try another test with more highs recorded of personally choosen song known as "Habanera" (not sure about the song and album title)... Go decide (if trouble arises because of doing so).

Sound wise (for this type of recording), preferred the 01117davrathB.aif table.

S&MCAL.aif have a lasting after-taste compared to S&MTECH.aif after days not hearing on it.
Personally got that feeling of longing to have more listen to S&MCAL.aif but still preferred S&MTECH.aif on any day.

Will 1200G 'jerk and hunt' if this table is not mounted on an-almost-rock-solid-concrete-based-floor?

Have you tried the manual torque gain adjustment on the 1200g? I've read that turning it to about 1/5th of full improves note decay, sustain, and overtones... which are the primary differences I'm hearing here.

I have the Devrath record in both US black label as well as UK Pye. Maybe that's the problem as both files sound deader than dead on my Windows 10 computer (Juliet@/Cayin amp/Senn 600) compared to what I hear on my decent but not mega main system. I suppose File A was marginally cleaner. I am sure I would hear it clearer at the site but that is always true.

As for Max sorry to hear of his passing but I wouldn't put his RCA Rubinstein recordings in any audio HOF. Sounded like a nice guy though.

Definitely preferred the Caliburn--even on my less-than-state-of-the-art headphones. I have both the original black label and AP reissue and know this record pretty well. It almost sounded as if the VTA on the Technics was slightly off; however, I know Michael--who wrote the book and recorded the DVD on cartridge setup--is meticulous, so it's clear (to me, anyway) that the Technics turntable/arm is responsible for the sonic difference. Whether that difference is worth a house (or condominium) is, of course, the question.

I prefer the Caliburn's version. But what a nice choice is Songs of the Auvergne!! Thanks Michael!!
Next comparison should be with the "Bachianas Brasileras" by Villa-Lobos.

... than teh unidentified from a few days ago ?

I listen to the files several times and I have to tell you I hear no difference between them.

Like kozakjj and others, I listened several times using both headphones and speakers and heard no difference.

I understand purchasing an expensive component for aesthetic and other enjoyment factors. I do that too. But the sound quality differences seem to be questionable.

. . . on my Mac laptop! Not a huge difference, but absolutely there, which I think is kind of remarkable. "A" wins, BTW. Will endeavor to listen through my system next.

Still, you have to credit the Technics with sounding pretty darned good for a fraction of the money.

Now I have to buy this LP and listen on my table.

Well, looks like I picked the 1200 both times!! :-D

The main difference seemed to be wavering in the voice,which makes me think the speed of the Technics wasn't right,or stable. Keep on truckin' vinyl guy.

I certainly appreciate the effort to compare the turntables, especially using the same cartridge on each turntable. I would have been more interested in hearing how something like a Rega RP6, at half the price of the Technics stacked up. Keep up the great work Michael!

I predict the full review will conclude that the Technics with the 30,000 dollar arm would compete with the Continuum.

I am looking forward to seeing how Mike achieved his cartridge mounting in the Technics, the arm seems to follow its own alignment objectives.

If he can find two 'zero points' his cartridge, I will be gobsmacked! (I mean that thinking it's the arm, not Mike, that will fail here.)

... until the "GR" version becomes available?
Then you could do a comparison between those two 'tables - this time, perhaps, with a higher end fixed-coil cartridge. Possibly either an Ortofon 2M Black (which is what Technics was using to demo the "GAE"), maybe in the PNP version, or the new VM760SLC from Audio-Technica.

many times in Real life and I can tell you, it blows away any other turntable I've heard over the last 37 years in all aspects.
Makes me wonder if these A?B comparisons are worthwhile.

Dear Michael
Can you please give us some more details about recording procedure and how the files were created? Many people ask for this, me too, so please give us some more details about:

- How the files were created? with ripping? live recording?
- What ADC and what software was used?
- If recorded live(!!) what microphone?

thanks a lot.. those info will be very usefull for evaluating the files and achive some real conclusions..