ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Gear Video: My Analysis of Michael Fremer's Caliburn vs. SL-1200G Shootout
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2017
- Michael Fremer's answer to the first video was given here after I made this analysis. I got the turntables wrong for reasons he describes here:
www.analogplane...
Michael Fremer's First Video Posting (Percussion Piece):
• Technics SL 1200G Vs ...
Michael Fremer's Second Video Posting (Vocal Piece):
• A Vocal Track to Compa...
Kris' Opinions On The Fremer Shootout:
• Sound Advice - Can a d...
Very interesting. My biggest take away, invest in a high end cartridge and amp and have money left over for a used BMW
Cartridges and amps do make a big a deal for sure and I would definitely go for the BMW ;) All equipment can color the sound. Some in a pleasing or negative way. To me its analgous to the tinting or changing the resolution in a photograph. Not everyone likes the precise sound. When I first heard the percussive piece, I would be lying if I said I didn't like the Technics. Thanks for stopping by Eric.
and make sure you have more money left over for all the time in the shop that used BMW will require. Been there, done that.
Vinyl Rewind A used BMW?😂 you could buy a new i8 for the price of that Caliburn.
really? I didn't know that turntable was that much, that's just stupid money
seriously
Conclusion: Spend 4k instead of 400k on a turntable.
Use the 396k to buy good amp and speakers! 👍
That's definitely a different way of re-framing the picture.
Jup there’s always a way to spend money more wisely, even if one has more than one needs 😉
I still have a 94’ Technics SL1200 LTD golden limited edition I bought in Japan. My precious.
I would be saying the same thing...'precious!'
Excellent reference turntable.
An Awesome Turntable!!
I still have and play regularly, my 1976 Technics SL-23. Bammm Jackson. Bammmmmmmm!
I'm willing to bet the Technics speed was more accurate than the Calburn. Not a lot of money, of course.
wcg66 I agree with you. I think the quartz locked Technics is much more likely to be speed accurate than the high end belt drive table. We all know the Rega speed trick, and I wouldn't be surprised if other manufacturers did the same thing.
As far as what differences I heard, the table which we now believe to actually be the technics had more surface noise, but IMO sounded more "natural." I might actually prefer it but I'd have to listen to 3 or 4 more demos to know for sure.
When he put up the percussion piece, I too preferred the Technics sound at first. There are people that actually prefer coloration in the sound. To me it's analogous to playing with the color or changing the lighting in a photograph. In other words, what is the natural setting may not always be the preferred setting. I agree with you on the demos and your point about the belt is a fair one. The only way to get a good measure on which one is more accurate would be to go back to the master tape and measure the true length of the piece. Thanks for the great comments guys.
Paul, how about looking at a FLAC file of the same song? My assumption would be that digital version would have the correct timing. You could tell which table is giving the best speed accuracy I think.
BarakaPDub : On Fremer's video I can hear a difference , easily. On yours , I hear no difference. I have no idea why, of course.
On a different note : According to this , ( UHFmag.com issue 86, Page 36, ) An accurate strobe light & disc, will read slightly fast when the speed is spot on . What do you think ?
Really!!!!! So many variables and people want to try to compare the two. What a joke. Not to mention the coversion BACK to digital and some file that has been compressed and put on YT. All I see is a lot of wasted time on a flawed format to begin with. P.S. I have owned a Technics Quartz direct drive (SLQ200) for 35 years plus. I think I paid $50 bucks for it.
Paul, phenomenal video, one of THE best we’ve seen so far over the years. Well done, explained incredibly well.
Thank you sir. I tried to do the best with the equipment I had at hand. I am still trying to see if I can score one of the albums he played just to see how my own system would compare. It wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison since my cart, phono pre-amp, and A to D converter are different but it would be fun nonetheless.
I found my SL1200mk2 at a pawn shop back in 2002 for just $35. It is in very good condition and I think it is an absolute marvel of design and manufacturing. Apart from upgrading the mat, cables, and cartridge, it hasn't needed any service besides oiling the spindle. Its a joy to use, dead reliable, and sounds great.
Ah man, I am jealous! Now you can easily get three figures for that same table. You grabbed it at the right time. I hope to get one as a second deck sometime but it may be awhile before I can do ti.
I’m with you!! Good man.
Boys with toys and More money than sense buying the Audiophile deck.
I never paid for a near mint technics sl 1200 mk2 my mate Pete left it to me in his will god bless you Pete much loved ❤
Thanks for this analysis. Very interesting to see the data presented like this. I don't think you got it "wrong" though. It's normal that one would assume the 6 figure turntable would have "better" reading on the audio file. I think it is quite telling about the quality Technics has put into their new SL-1200G.
Sadly, I did get it wrong but at least the data confirmed which table was playing which piece better. Fremer dropped a post tonight that announced he didn't switch the audio but he made it a bit tricky. The record he was playing was defective and the Caliburn's vacuum system couldn't hold the LP to the platter that well. He said he would post another video sometime next week with a non-defective pressing. I do intend to look at that one in detail when he posts it. I am still perplexed by the speed difference.
Laws of diminishing returns hit hard in this case. Technics SL-1200 is simply after all these years of existence, still pretty much untouchable and unfuckable, not to mention we are comparing a turntable that costs like a 4 bedroom house with a turntable with a tone arm whose design hasn't changed for over 45 years.
Thank Paul for a truly insightful video and comparison. Makes me love my SL-1200 MK II even more.
I personally would be quite content with an SL-1200 and would never look back at all. And you're right about diminishing returns.
Very interesting to have your look on it. There is no doubt Technics keeps making some excellent products.
I have a lot of TT experience. It is next to impossible to get VTA, VTF, speed, azimuth, etc precisely the same on two tables even if it was the same tables arms and cartridges. Platforms and stand would have to be the same. I don’t think the platform or rack was the same and this alone will make a difference in what you hear. To me analog comparisons for these reason aren’t worth much. BTW, was the Techniques playing thru the same phono stage? Was the load and gain setting the same? And on top of those variables making a quality call on TH-cam sound is nuts.
The fact that we are even having this conversation is all I need to know the 1200G is the table I need under $35k.
Bingo. If the 1200G is this good, who needs to spend $150000 or more.
There was no difference to me! You can get great "high end" audio for a fraction of the cost of that "caliburn" !
You get to a point where there are definitely diminishing returns. I would be quite content with the SL-1200G.
You can't really tell over TH-cam.
@@BarakaPDub Yes, me too!
Its quite likely the Technics table is not fast but is spot on, and the Caliburn is running a tad slow....would be interesting to plot a test tone disc on both and use a frequency counter to see which has more drift and less accuracy in speed.
While I can't account for the speed. The Technics actually came out on top which just goes to show you don't need to pay the price of a house for a quality turntable.
One thing not mentioned ... The Technics SL-1200G had the plastic lid still attached.
Here's the issue ... The lid (especially when open) acts as a magnifyer to room movements as well as sounds and vibrations, even traffic.
Removing the lid removes this issue completely.
Good point. I always take the lid off of my Rega when I am playing records for that very reason.
@@BarakaPDub
You did some great testing. But the results could have been corrupted by micro vibrations.
This is why Paul has the best site for vinyl lovers. He can take the most complicated technical stuff and at least make it reasonably understandable to us dummies. I also trust every thing that comes out of his mouth! Absolutely my favorite ambassador for vinyl! Thanks always for informative vids!
Thanks for the kind words Chris. Although, I got to confess, sometimes I don't always get it right and if I don't I try and make amends. If you ask my wife, I never get it right ;)
@@BarakaPDub Firstly thanks for the review. Secondly I’m afraid that you’ve pressed my button with that last comment though, but know that I am on your side.
I can't abide that kind of leech on my life. Man or woman I do not tolerate people attempting to belittle me in order to elevate their facade of self-confidence. Clearly you're wife's been brainwashed like most women in the West today to think that belittling you is OK and it sounds like you have allowed her to get away with it no doubt because you've bought that same brainwashing by the lame-stream media and even if she's joking, it's a very tired and quite controlling/belittling joke that wouldn't come from a real loving wife.
If you haven't the confidence to point these facts out to her [show her this comment] and flip the script "The change has come, she's under my thumb" lyrics by Rolling Stones come to mind, or better than a game of one-upmanship demand mutual respect, then I'd kick her to the curb and hire a prostitute instead.
In the long run a prostitute would be cheaper than that sort of wife and leave you with more money to upgrade your gear and enjoy life MGTOW style. As Jack Black would say, didn’t you know, you're wife's 'The Man' and there used to be a way of sticking it to the man, today we call it MGTOW. ;-)
Edit: Please don’t trust feminist wikipedia's word for the meaning of 'MGTOW', it's not a misogynist movement at all, quite the opposite, its an anti-misandrist and anti-gynocentrist, or truly egalitarian movement.
When you said you thought he swapped the audio I had to have a listen again and I am convinced he hasn't. To my ears the second audio is much more natural, fuller, bells ring longer, instruments sound like real instruments. I have listened to lots of his videos on TH-cam and the second one sounds more like them than the first. I really enjoy your channel and you are very knowledgeable so you may be right. Thanks for doing great work you have helped me when choosing new records to buy.
You know, I thought exactly the same when I first watched the video and then I had to look at the files to see what I was hearing. I could be completely wrong on the swap and I am eagerly waiting to see the results. He could make me a complete idiot but it won't be the first time ;) Thanks for commenting on your perspective Jeffrey. I am always curious to hear what people think.
He didnt swap, Fremer admitted he DID NOT swap. This guy is a bafoon
You're wrong in your assumption that the Caliburn has better speed control. There is no contest between a PLL direct drive and belt-drive driven by a synchronous motor. The PLL direct drive wins every time.
There is no reason to assume the Caliburn is accurate at all because Continuum Audio Labs, despite making a six-figure turntable, apparently can't be bothered to test the wow & flutter or rumble of their tables-a feat which somehow Technics has managed.
direct drive is noisy; there's a reason why few high-end tts are direct drive
@@johnholmes912 Audiophile turntables are predominantly belt-driven because anyone in their garage can make a belt-driven turntable out of a platter and a motor and a piece of wood and then sell it for several thousand dollars with the story that it is superior to any direct drive, which is where superior manufacturing and development really goes.
What we need is someone like our friend Ian to do a shoot out of turntables costing from about $600. to about $6000. Fremer reviews low priced tables but like all magazine reviewers he never criticizes or compares and contrasts. As an accountant I'm always watching the law of diminishing returns. Are you willing to spend thousands of dollars for maybe a 1 or 2% perceptible improvement ? Its in the modest to mid price range where we have very little information.
I'm with your Richard and don't be surprised if Ian has something up his sleeves down the road ;) The audiophile magazines sometimes need to be taken with a grain of salt. Most of their income comes from the advertisements of the products they review so they are kind of between a rock in a hard place. Diminishing returns...absolutely.
I took a class specifically on composite materials many years ago and to kick of the class, the professor said, 'Composite Materials...only used in high price manufacturing or for people that have the money to spend on their hobbies (i.e. airplanes or golf clubs).' While the use of composite materials has come down in price over the years, the applications haven't changed that much. I wasn't surprised to start seeing them in turntable tonearms.
Richard Riley Dear Richard...
Thank you again for your kindest support and belief.
You are right about it...which many of us hopefully would have realized along the way: Audio/hifi reviewers from sources with paid advertisements never dare to compare and criticize. How would you feel if i belong to YZ Acoustics or Orthopen Audio and paid you Richard a $500,000 cheque to place my advertisements on Page 2 and 3 of your Audio magazine for Jan and Dec issues of 2017? Would you dare to write a bad review of my YZ speakers or my Ortopen cartridges? Would you dare to write off my YZ speakers or Orthopen cartridges as the lowest performing or horrid sounding speakers or cartridges in their respective price class? Would you dare to cut off your future sources of advertisement income by becoming "blacklisted" by YZ and Orthopen? If you state one model besting all the other six models from six other manufacturers, you would be pissing off the other six manufacturers too. Your audio webpage is loaded with flashing advertisements from various manufacturers and retailers in your precinct, would you dare to speak the truth?
Yes my dear friend Richard.... everybody needs to post these real life questions to all these audio reviewers accepting their huge source of income from manufacturers.
Richard Riley Dear Richard...
Thank you again for your kindest support and belief.
You are right about it...which many of us hopefully would have realized along the way: Audio/hifi reviewers from sources with paid advertisements never dare to compare and criticize. How would you feel if i belong to YZ Acoustics or Orthopen Audio and paid you Richard a $500,000 cheque to place my advertisements on Page 2 and 3 of your Audio magazine for Jan and Dec issues of 2017? Would you dare to write a bad review of my YZ speakers or my Ortopen cartridges? Would you dare to write off my YZ speakers or Orthopen cartridges as the lowest performing or horrid sounding speakers or cartridges in their respective price class? Would you dare to cut off your future sources of advertisement income by becoming "blacklisted" by YZ and Orthopen? If you state one model besting all the other six models from six other manufacturers, you would be pissing off the other six manufacturers too. Your audio webpage is loaded with flashing advertisements from various manufacturers and retailers in your precinct, would you dare to speak the truth?
Yes my dear friend Richard.... everybody needs to post these real life questions to all these audio reviewers accepting their huge source of income from manufacturers.
Richard Riley ...and yes my dear Brother Richard... i am in the midst of planning a turntable shoot-out and review series...😄🖑
i will do my best.
And Richard, thank you yet again.
Yours,
ian.
There are some brands where their lower-cost tables are quite good. Lots of Rega tables, at all price points, are good. A used VPI Scout can be pretty hard to beat for price / performance.
I think from my perspective as a vintage enthusiast, a comparison of the original Technics 1200 to the reborn model would be more appropriate.
After seeing the final results that Fremer posted, I have a lot of respect for the Technics 1200 now. Not that I didn't respect it before because, outside of the VPI direct drive, I think it's the model to be beat and there is a reason why the design has been so lasting. I am seriously considering picking one up...if my wife will allow another turntable in the house.
Great video! This is THE MOST EXPENSIVE placebo effect ever. Could do better things with six figures overall on a good hifi system and other things. ;-)
While I think it would be fun to own a Caliburn, my wife would agree with your comment wholeheartedly and smack me around silly ;)
I would say to imagine Technics couldn't or doesn't use the same or superior technology, methods, materials or manufacturing tolerances as a small specialist company, considering the vast resources and experience of Matsushita, is pure fantasy. 1200 is god tier gear.
If someone told me the only turntable I could get for the rest of my life was a 1200, I would be a happy man.
My dog says the Technics has better resolution in the range from 20 to 31 KHz.
I wouldn't dispute a dog's hearing ;)
😀😁😁😁
About as intelligent as what this bloke has posted.
After I had my ears tested and found I was topping out at twelve K I felt like selling my system and buying a 'record player' .
Different doesn't always equate to being "better". It's always personal and subjective. And accuracy in vinyl replay is an illusion.
And the biggest issue here is price. Did I hear a massive six figure improvement? No, I heard slight differences that if compared with the original studio masters (which are also personal and subjective to whoever engineered) you would hear something completely different. I think the Technics more than stood its ground in such company.
Given the choice I'd rather buy a house, and with the change buy the Technics 😁👍
Fascinating though, regardless. 👍
One more thought ... on the waveform editor how do you know the Technics wasn't giving the more accurate transcription?
Thanks so much for the comment Chris. I am not sure if my disclaimer came through at the beginning but the Technics did hold it's own. My analysis did show which table was truly preferred by most but per Fremer's posting on his website, the Caliburn had problems with a defective LP on the percussion track. So it did best the much more expensive table in this regard and I was really impressed with what it did.
While I do agree that audio playback is an illusion, I have to respectfully disagree with the accuracy comment since vibrational dampening, frequency response, transients response, speed, pitch, etc. are things that can all be measured against known values. This little experiment is just an approximation with the data that was made available and actual music, while valuable, shouldn't be the main focus when making measurements. But watching videos of test tones wouldn't be too entertaining though ;)
If I had access to the equipment and more tools at my disposal, I would be doing something a bit different in terms of testing to truly compare the performance two tables/arms. Having said that, the actual preference of the human ear is a different story. Some people like coloration. Some distortion is actually pleasing to the ear. Moreover, the actual recording, mixing, mastering and vinyl pressing play into the equation of what we are hearing. In this particular case, the pressing of the LP made a big difference so it skewed the test.
I understand fully your perspective on this, and I would be rather surprised if the Caliburn didn't sound better (or should I say different) than the Technics. Recording VBR compressed streams from TH-cam will not give you accurate results on a waveform editor, though your findings do seem reasonable even if your interpretation is somewhat debatable.
Its not just the law of diminishing returns in regards to how much sound quality is achievable for your pound or dollar, and of course design excellence in terms of build, which surprisingly doesn't always equate to better sound, but does add to the "I want" factor, naturally.
I've been in this business for a very long time now. I consider myself an Audiophile. I love Vinyl replay, and I also love high end digital. I don't mean CD's, which are technically a compromise. I spent a number of years as a recording engineer, and I've worked with some very well known Artists. I came in at the crossover point when early digital (awful) pushed traditional analogue multitrack & mastering to one side. I remember almost overnight changing from 1 inch mastering to DAT mastering. Because the multitrack's were analogue, noise reduction systems were still being used before digital masters were rendered.
further noise reduction wasn't needed, and once the early PCM systems were used to multitrack, dynamic head room and the resulting noise floor dropped. Dolby & DBX systems became redundant. BUT something wasn't right. Digital was in its infancy, and engineers had to learn to master differently. The end product would no longer be analogue, but digital. Though early digital was awful - remember those 14bit over-sampling CD players? The recordings weren't very pretty either because the majority were mastered with vinyl in mind as the end product. That's why so many remastered classics on vinyl sound so much better than CD's (with the odd exception)
Early 80's DDD masters sound superb, even by todays standards.
When you use the term "accurate" I ask "accurate to what?"
Here, the Caliburn shouldn't be seen as the reference just because the turntable/arm combo costs a fortune. I hate measurements as likeable sound has little to do with them, in fact often the opposite.
But such a test of this extreme needs to be so much more than an A/B listening comparison via a VBR stream on TH-cam. The reference should also be at least the master recording.
From my experience, studio masters sound very different to the rendered vinyl product - note I said different, not better. CD's don't sound exactly like studio masters either, but in real terms come closer.
Ears and our attached brains have a liking for various colourations, this is where vinyl comes in. Todays digital masters don't have the limitations of CD's (which brick wall's bandwidth from 20Hz to 20kHz) a 24bit 192kHz recording extends frequency greatly and adds 144dB of dynamic headroom. Vinyl can't achieve that level of dynamics, but it can replay the extended bandwidth, hence it often sounding better than basic CD's. Though our ears roll of frequency within the 20Hz to 20kHz bandwidth, our brains don't as we seem to perceive an extended range. RIAA equalisation is key, so a well designed phono stage is important to attain that range.
We all spend silly money on Hi-Fi's to create what we think is an accurate or realistic sound. this perception is an illusion as well as an opinion, hence there being so many systems all claiming greatness.
The first link in the chain is not the turntable or the vinyl disc, its the Artists being recorded, then the mic's, cables, recording equipment and the skills of the studio and its engineers to capture the magic of the moment. What transcribes those moments will always be a representation based on what we think sounds cool.
Chris, thanks for relating your experience here. You have to admit it must have been fun just to master period. I am very jealous in a lot of regards because I think it would be extremely enjoyable to do that kind of work. I got to ask, is it as blissful to listen to the master tapes as everyone claims?
In terms of accuracy, you want to get to a known set of target values in a statistically repeatable fashion. This is where a set of test tones of a known values are valuable as one set of measurements. How well can a given turntable/arm approximate and replicate an understood norm? This is where things like the Feickert application become appealing to those testing the turntables. Whether people actually like the accuracy or not is a different story and this is where we are in agreement on the coloration. If you look at the responses to the test, while most people liked the table that played each respective LP better, the responses were not in 100% agreement. I have never been a big fan of the digital versus analog debate because I think both can be done well or badly but that falls within all of the links in the chain leading to the transfer as you described. A poorly miked and badly recorded band likely will not be saved in the mastering process.
For the waveform analysis, I used the 96/24 files that Fremer posted on his website BTW, not the TH-cam compressed audio.
Subtle differences are not always easy to hear on instant A-b tests. They become easier to discern after long term listening. Relying on instant switch overs assumes we are able to make instant discernment... a wrong assumption to make. If you spent your life working with audio you come to realize it can take a while to latch on to the sonic signature of a component. You are effectively learning the sound of a component. And once it's been learned, the differences become easier to hear later on.
This is why when you acquire some gear, once you have familiarized yourself with it you notice aspects about the sound you may not have picked up on when you first heard it. It's also why people claim their new gear sounded great in the store but once they got it home, it didn't sound the same. Over time in the context of their own listening room, they picked up on things they didn't initially notice. Micro-distortions and colourations will grate more on your nerves the longer you listen.
You could be right. Something is there because the data presented supports it. I just couldn't hear it but just to put it out there, I could be hitting some limitations on my PC speakers.
I have done a lot of A/B'ing with mastering and in most cases it's immediately clear the master choices the engineer chose to make.
I have watched this clip several times over the last few months. A couple of additional comments. 1. It would have been something to compare the Caliburn to the SL-1000R technics table. its roughly a quarter of the price. 2. Many consider the table/arm damping is used to control/reduce vibrations from the room, outside areas. That may be part of the source, but a much larger percentage is coming from the cartridge, with cartridge vibrations traveling down the arm to the base of the arm, to the plinth, where they are either damped or reflected back to the cartridge muddying up the sound ever so slightly. I have heard the SAT arm, it is sure impressive. 3. a third comment would be it would sure be interesting to hear the SAT arm on the 1200G or the 1000R table. Thanks again for doing the data analysis. Was quite interesting to follow.
Thanks mcgjohn. All interesting points and it makes me wonder if Mr. Fremer would be interested in approach these down the road. An SL-1000R would be an interesting comparison.
@@BarakaPDub I doubt it. Too many high end table mfgrs may be impacted. I have a feeling the 1000R may get you pretty close to the OMA K3. Lead times on the 1000R used to be 3 months wait, now 6-9 months wait.
well i hate to break it to you but if one of them is off in speed it's the caliburn. technics are the most acurate turntables on the planet, that's how dj's are able to keep to records on beat over a 1-2 minute period. no other turntables are able to keep their speed like technics and the records will start drifting off beat. what would really be a shootout would be to redo the test using the same stylus on both turntables. and at that point, hey, maybe the tone arm may end up a little better but $99,000 better i guess depends on how much money you make but as far as speed goes looks like dude needs to calibrate his caliburn, and yes running the records at different speeds/pitch is going to give you a different wave form.
The Caliburn was off. With the warp, the Caliburn vacuum system wasn't working as it should.
@@BarakaPDub It is difficult to understand how a simple turntable without a vacuum system can play a flatter vinyl than one with a vacuum system, because the vinyl was the same in both tests.
In the voice sample there are some extra harmonics and slightly better tracking. All in all, quite impressive that a 4K turntable can come that close to a 6 figure turntable.
No kidding. I would never sneeze at picking up a Technics.
I can't see how the Caliburn can pick up more details than than the Technics if they use the same cart. If the Caliburn sound wave somehow looks more beefy I would actually suspect that the Caliburn introduces more distortion and rumble than the Techy does.
The tonearm, wiring, and turntable body do contribute to the sound but I agree the cart should make the biggest difference.
Thank you so much for doing this, Paul. I have been reading more and more lately and getting to the point that I think that even though we see differences, the fact is they really don't matter nearly as much as we think. Case in point, this shootout. I have been especially reading up on sense memory and how critical it is to do a switch with a second
or two for us to clearly pick out differences, and lets face it, none of us do that.
No problem Kris and this is something I had been wanting to do for awhile. I am looking forward to seeing if he does post an updated version with a corrected LP. It will at least let me see another data point and I am very curious to see where the Caliburn will end up speed wise.
Had never heard of Continuum before. Heard an A/B test on a glorious soprano - something something Auvergne. Holy crap gorgeous, but amazing how it sounded like you could walk around the performers in 3 dimensions on the Continuum. 😃 (edit) It’s the second track used here. The difference was distinct listening to the whole track on the original YT video. Amazing recording. 🎉
I love high end audio but have come to realize that people get more obsessed with the sound than the music which kinda defeats the purpose. I've found if you listen to the music these differences aren't even noticed. Like watching a movie, are you watching what's going on or looking at the resolution of the picture. I really have to chuckle when I see people having to analyze the music on the computer to find differences. One thing I noticed early on was the audiophile recordings were crap music I didn't want to listen to. Not that I'm knocking it, (well I guess I kinda did). High end audio is a hobby, but has little to do with music appreciation. The other thing is from bottom end gear to lower mid is a large sound improvement for moderate cost but from mid to top is a very modest improvement for a huge cost. But it's cool, as I said it's a hobby, and if you enjoy it go for it. But really not needed to appreciate music. I also don't get doing these demos on utube? And 8 second clips? Really? I have decent amp n speakers on my computer and good headphones and couldn't notice a difference. In person I usually have a pretty good ear.
You know, I agree with you. My number one priority is the music. For example, there is stuff that I have vivid memories of listening to on AM radio and I have some nostalgia for the sound that only AM radio could produce. To hear the music squeaky clean would kill the vibe for me.
There are some really well recorded albums that can become butchered with less than optimal conditions. The playback chain is just one step in the process though. The way the music was recorded, mixed, mastered, and manufactured are also just as critical, if not more so.
As for the 5 or 8 second samples, this is really just to focus in on audio memory. Most people, like myself, can't lock in on one particular instrument's sound or frequency, replay the piece again after its completed, and then remember the differences. Unless something is way off, it's hard to remember what the contrast might be. Some people are good at it but I am terrible. That said, I have done some other audio comparisons of different album pressings where the differences, when played at 4 seconds a piece, can be pretty stark.
For this video, it was just for fun to compare the two systems. I had a hard time discerning on the vocal piece, even though looking at the hi-res data shows there was some difference.
as i listen, i find i hear differences after long-term listening. it is mostly subconscious and then it surfaces when you are least expecting it, causing you to seriously consider the reasons for the difference and weigh whether an expenditure is necessary. quick A/B switching is SOMETIMES useful, but not always.
Agree absolutely with your first sentence! This guy's analysis is absurd.
I agree with you. I also struggle with the fact that some people are convinced they can hear a difference on a compressed TH-cam video - AND how someone thinks computer analysis of that video clip can in any way prove conclusive one way or the other.
Agreed. 6 figures no way. However, some turntables a more musically involving than others even in under 1k range.
Thanks for the analysis, Paul! I did watch both videos posted by Michael and can hear audible differences with the first video , which I can hear better decaying of the piano and percussions and overall better tone and fidelity on the Caliburn. The second one was a bit tricky to me but the one played on a Caliburn made my ears drums vibrate more when Netania was singing and her vocals has slightly better definition overall. In my opinion, the amount of money spent on a Technics SL-1200G versus the Caliburn Continuum do change the overall sound quality for the better but the laws of diminishing returns definitely apply. I wish I can have hands-on on both setups and play some Music Matters Jazz albums and my old-school death metal records...
I hear you, totally, on the Music Matters and Old-School Metal. It would be fun to play a bunch of different stuff on the two set ups and to be fair, it can be difficult to see what the Technics can really do with only two data points or songs. I am glad you could pick up the difference on the second track. I even made the comment on his video. Then when Kris made his video, I did some A/B testing and I found couldn't hear anything. I must have played it twenty or more times. It could be my laptop speakers are not the greatest but looking at the data, there is no one that can deny there isn't a difference. There is something there.
BarakaPDub Just listen to the cello opening, it is so much more like the real thing on Michael's turntable.
I was using my pair of Beyerdynamic DT990 250ohms headphones connected
to my Auzentech Forte sound card via its built-in headphone amp, which
may explain why I was able to hear the differences. I tried my best not
to fall into the "golden ears" fallacy but then again, I'm a fair bit
younger than most "audiophiles"...
If I had $100,000 or more to spend on a Caliburn, I would absolutely buy one.
Just so I could admire its beauty... it’s a piece of art, I get it.
You and me both but only if I had more surplus cash. I think I would want to pay off my mortgage first.
There are so many wonderful turntables.
You can't beat the Technics. The strobe light is mesmerizing and easily takes your focus away from the sound. Never mind that it only tells you the turntable is spinning at approximately the right speed. And of course when the day comes that the direct drive motor no longer spins at the right speed you have the pitch adjust! All this means that for music lovers, and would be DJ, Technics is the only choice. You can improve on the music to your taste with the pitch adjust, a feature no so called audiophile turntable has. Pair it up with an amplifier with tone controls or better still, a graphic equalizer and you can really get your creative juices flowing, no longer forced to listen to the music the way the artists intended you to!
I am totally with you on the comment that you can't beat a Technics and this just goes to show you don't have to pay the price of a house to get a decent turntable.
Using an analogy of Video Cards (GPUs) this comparison would be remarkable in that you could get so close to the performance of a six-figure component with one that is four figures. That technics is a fine machine.
Yep and it's proven to be even finer ;) Fremer just announced that he didn't switch the audio on the video. Apparently, the LP being played had an imperfection and Caliburn had problems with keeping it vacuumed to the surface. I got it wrong but it's not that he didn't make it tricky.
I listened to this with my brain pre programed, by you, to expect that the two sections were reversed. That did get me confused as hearing that way couldn't convince me that was true. The vocal had the Caliburn a clear but subtle winner for me. I felt that the separation of the singer within the sound stage was better which made it more enjoyable. I listened with HD600 and a Bottlehead Crack OTL valve headphone amp via a mid range Asus sound card.
Reading through the comments I find that the tracks were correctly labelled so I guess that's the reason for my confusion. I was rather alarmed at the bouncy arm on the Caliburn compared to the Technics.
As often said, best to use equipment to listen to music and not play music to listen to equipment.
I don't know if you caught it and I hope it didn't drop out but I tried to put in a disclaimer that I got it wrong at the beginning of the video. Your last sentence is well said.
@@BarakaPDub So your entire video is misinformation. Its not helping anyone.
It's amazing how well the technics holds up against the caliburn wow. Sure there is a difference but for the price I would say its sonically similar to differences between cables.
You know, I would have to agree with you. I was really amazed at how well the Technics performed.
No mate. You didnt here them in Space and time.
@@BarakaPDub i just ordered the 1210g , for the price it is amazing
@@keithfailmezger1596 how is it???? what cartridge??
i love it .. and i am running a grado master 3 and running through a parasound JC3+@@Darrin.Crawford
First of all I like to state a fact that cell phone / computer audio resolution is inferior. That said if you listen from either source to make a comparizon you are not getting the ture audio performance. So whatever judgement you have is skewed. I like the idea of comparing the waveforms to make a decision. One thing I may add is you have to cal your cartridge for its amplitude vs freq response to make outputs similar or just use one cart for both tt test or those results are skewed also. For speed accuracy I recommend a strobe test on both tt. Thats my input.
The three most important things that make analog listenable is cartridge, phono preamp, and setup. Setup includes isolation and proper cartridge alignment etc. You can get by with an inexpensive direct drive table and your vinyl will sound fantastic if you get the three things that I mention correctly. Then as you get more into vinyl you can make upgrades as you go.
Yep. I've done several videos on set up.
One thing got unnoticed here.... The technics has the lid on. The lid will transmit vibration and soundwaves to the base and has a profound effect on the sound , depending on the playback volume. Any audiophile will always take it off when using it. Also the caliburn uses a clamp to ensure a firm connection of the vinyl to the platter. Fehmer did not bother using a clamp on the technics either. Last, the microscopic speed issue... I think you can count on 50 years of evolution by a big company over a backyard shed company to get the speed right. I think it would be a interesting to know, who gets the speed most right 😁. The difference is so small, but anyway.. it is so nerdy that we need to know..
I do agree the lid will impact it but in this case, I think he was going directly from his phono stage to the A/D converter.
Your analysis was enough for me to realize if a difference cannot be heard or hardly seen, the Technics SL-1200G is probably going to satisfy me. Thing is, I still don't have the money for such a luxury. What to do? I bought the S-1210GR; and, I sense I have a really magnificent turntable from what I'm feeling from it so far.
Honestly, I don't think you can beat the 1210 GR. It's a really nice table and I would be content with one. It gets to a point where upgrades are only going to get you minimal improvements.
What an awesome video, Paul, I love stuff like this, thanks so much for sharing what you found! I have no doubt that you are correct in analyzing which table was which during the percussion clips. I felt bad when you were showing the vocal clips because I couldn't hear a difference, but felt better when you said the same thing.
I like that the video focuses on the analytical aspect only. It's a different approach than I take, which is more philosophical in that I'd consider what percentage I perceive one table to be better than the other and weigh that against a 40 times higher price, then calculate the *value* to me.
When I see your level of interest in the analysis, it makes sense that you prefer reissues of records to the originals IF there is a demonstrably better quality sound to be had, whereas I'll tend to the OG version if it's affordable and in VG+ condition, even if it means I pay a bit more than I could have for a brand new better-sounding reissue.
Anyway, blah blah blah, but I love these types of informative analytical videos too!
Cheers, Tom
Thanks for the support Tom. Ultimately, my bottom-line is if you don't enjoy the music, then why the hell listen? In a lot of cases, even the reissues are not worth the price but in the case of the Music Matters stuff, for example, it's hard to find an OG that is in VG condition and isn't going for three or four times the price of the reissue.
To use a couple of classic Kris-isms, if you're already an A student, is being an A+ student going to make you that much better? Moreover, paying $100 for a $1 dollar record isn't going to equate to a 100 times the enjoyment. Gear is likely the same.
I try and have some rationale limits but sometimes I break them and make my wife cringe in the process ;)
Hearing differences between turntables and tonearms is a discussion I can't get into as my ears are just not that capable. To me most important was to know if the same cartridge was used on both turntables. Listening differences between cartridges is something I feel more confident about.
I am with you on the cart. I think the cart makes a big impact on the sound provide the mechanical parts of the turntable are done correctly.
Hi, On the second vocal track I can hear better separation between the orchestra and the vocal. Better separation on the Caliburn to my ears.
I am glad you could pick it up and it could be due to hitting the limits of my PC speakers. When you look at the files though, there is no denying that there isn't a difference. This can be clearly measured.
Some people hear that difference , i did hear it too..........the 1200 is good hifi , the Caliburn more organic and real.
To me the Technics sounds just a tad bit more crisp. That may be a "Coloration" but I like crisp, so I will stick with my 2 1200s.
I could easily live with a SL-1200 for the rest of my life and never complain. Thanks for watching Joe!
@@BarakaPDub I just got a Hana SL cartridge for one of mine and the other one gets my Goldring 1042. I love the isolation they give. I like to crank up lots of bass....
How is the quartz locked direct drive technics running fast? How do you know the belt drive continuum is accurate?
Did you test that notion regarding speed accuracy against a digital file?
Oh, that's right you were completely wrong in your assumption that michael switched the audio...
The Technics did win the test. I got it wrong in the video. I don't know if Fremer has the resulting post up.
Very interesting. Thanks for your time and sharing of your experience! 😎👍👏🙏
Thanks Bilbo for the kind comment. Even though I got it wrong, it was still fun to do the video.
Out of you mind sir, absolutely out of your mind such small differences. Even with having the income I have I would never. Even on a detailed chart, the human ear is so limited, I’m never bored with such lunacies as these.
Yep. I am out of my mind and if I had the income, I wouldn't go that far either. Moreover, my wife would kill me ;)
Hey Paul thank you for sharing this info. Ahhhh I'm going w Technics, couldn't hear a difference in 2nd video, and I'm thinking that what we see isn't exactly what one hears. I believe the peaks and valleys happen so quickly the ears are playing catch up. Just my thought. Again thanks for taking the time to do this, have a great weekend-- Lisa
Thanks Lisa. I played the second track over twenty times with an A/B switch and I really couldn't hear anything. Some people are saying they could and it could be they have a better playback system. I am using my PC speakers which will definitely have limits. Regardless, I felt the second track was pleasing with either turntable. BTW - I caught your vinyl tag video early in the morning the other day and I don't think I left a response. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed what you put together.
+BarakaPDub thanks Paul I appreciate that take care
There are differences.....in favour of the Technics. You can clearly hear flutter coming from the Caliburn, caused by the not so happy marriage between the tone arm and the cart used. The record is not perfectly flat and the combination has trouble taking the wobble caused by the vinyl. The Technics tone arm doesn't seem to have any problems at all tracking the groove and coping with the wobbly surface. And if a combination produces uneven running, in this case caused by a wobbly behaviour of the cart-tone arm combo, that product failes. Regards, Willem.
I mean, that combination failes. I'm sure another combination might perform much better.
Just another quick remark. Once one hears flutter, one will hear it from that moment on. Lucky are the ones that do not hear or recognise it. I do, unfortunately.
Yep. The record not being flat really screwed up the Caliburn's performance per Fremer. The vacuum system on the Caliburn could suck down the warp so it really impacted the performance.
What you call flutter, I call the actual sound of an instrument(at least to an extent).
The Caliburn has the tonearm wrapped in silicone shrink wrap to clean up the top end from "ringing."
The Technics tonearm is naked metal and it rings a bit.
Silicon shrink wrap costs five bucks and I recommend you wrap the Technics arm yourself which takes ten minutes and requires little skill to do correctly.
The Technics tonearm can be even further upgraded for $150 with a liquid damping tonearm accessory from KAB.
This is a simple add-on tray of liquid silicone which brings extra definition and control while tracking the grooves of a record.
This will add clarity to the tonearm, which is really the main difference you are hearing.
The feet that hold up the Technics can also be upgraded by isolating them using soft rubbery add-ons for a few bucks while you are at it.
All these mods are standard inexpensive procedures for improving Technics arms and removing airborne and self generated noise that gets into their design.
They will move the turntable from "pretty good" UP TO "WOW-that's CLEAR."
The difference in performance between the Caliburn and the Technics in your test is due to your not knowing how to set up the Technics.
The price difference is ridiculous.
I heard the 1200G had a little more of an investment in the tone arm. I haven't seen it personally to a test to it but I don't think it's a solid metal piece. I am betting the Caliburn tonearm is a composite to increase the overall stiffness which is what you want to lower the resonance. The Technics takes a different approach by changing the center of gravity by using the S shape in it's design. I agree that some aftermarket mods should help to dampen the resonance more.
My take on it was the continuum seemed to create a greater sense of realism & detail around the instruments and vocals giving them a sense of air moving around in the room thus giving it more life..
That may be true. I would love to hear the thing in person.
Close to what I (thought I) perceived. One man's realism & detail apparently is another man's flutter.
Huge difference in sound, atmospherically. I could hear far greater/longer decay on the Caliburn. It sounds much more 'live' and clean to me. Also, the Technics seems a bit darker. There is definitely something dramatic to my ears. That said, the difference was much, MUCH greater to my ears on the first track/example.
Thanks for chiming in A K. I am glad you could pick up on the differences and there are many that could.
Both pieces are fantastic, products of superb research and engineering. I guess I need to have Audacity installed in my ears.
Concur. This was all done in fun though.
When I first watched his videos I honestly couldn't hear much of a difference. When you pointed out the piano and drums then I could hear a subtle difference. Vocals still sound the same. Displaying the files in Audacity definitely showed the difference in detail. For the price the Technics is still a winner as only a few people can afford the Caliburn let alone the cartridge he used. Most of us will just have to stick with what we can afford and make the best of it. Thanks for the great analysis!
No problem and thanks for watching through it. I got it totally wrong by the way. Fremer announced today that the audio was not switched at all and that his Caliburn had problems with a pressing that was defective. He said he was going to post another video with a non-defective pressing next week. At least my analysis did conclude which file was better but not the table which was playing it ;) I am curious about the speed issue.
Though it begs the question, why can't a six figure turntable play a record as well as a four figure one? :)
I can hear a big difference and it makes me sad that the Caliburn will never be mine! I would describe the difference as listening to a flute player who cannot produce resonant tone versus one who can, or a singer who imitates operatic singing but cannot fill an opera house versus one who can produce the singers formant whose voice can fill an opera house. The difference isn’t about volume per se, but about the complexity of the sound waves produced, or in this case recorded and reproduced through playback.
Thanks for the comment Shorty. I would really love to hear it in person on a system that brings out the commensurate level of detail. Sadly, unless I win the lottery or Michael Fremer invites me over, that will never happn.
Using the vocal LP I consistently heard a treble resonance on the Technics that I didn't hear on the Continuum, along with less bass and treble extension.
I am glad you could pick something up. I think I am hitting the limits of my PC speakers. I played the song some twenty times while doing an A/B switch and I couldn't hear anything. At first, I thought I did and I even commented on the Fremer video that I thought the Caliburn was better but then Kris commented that he couldn't hear anything so I decided to listen a bit further.
Looking at the audio files though, there is no denying there isn't a difference. Now which is better, it really comes down to preference. More accuracy isn't always the best. The analogy I like to give people is photography. Sometimes using natural light doesn't bring out the best in a photograph. Sometimes the manipulation of the light is preferred by some.
That's why I use my headphones to listen to something in detail. I don't have high end desktop speakers, but a set of Logitech 5.1 PC speakers that sound great if i crank them a bit. But when it comes to music editing I switch to my Bose headphones to get any and all analytical details that I need to hear.
one thing I will say as I own a 1200g is that the table needs considerable run in. at least 500 hours and probably more as the bearing need to run in. Heack its brand new vs. a table that been running for years. There should be more of a sense of ease with the older table. Still, put a better headshell and platter mat on the 1200 and you may be even more suprised. the arm on the 1200g is really good contrary to what other say.
Hey Paul. Nice study of the signals. I also got intrigued when Fremer posted the video. I think you mentioned the specs and price of the 1200GR. In the video the 1200G is playing. Half the price, aluminum tone arm, lighter. Curious how the review will be. It is great this classic is back. I could the tempted to switch it for my hotrod P3. Still I'm surprised over the differences between the two youtube videos. In the first there are clear differences, the second these are almost gone. Who would have guessed there is a speed difference. Can you put a percentage on it? I think the world will stop spinning if the samples are not swapped :) Take care. /Paul
I actually didn't think the 1200G was too bad and I would be quite happy with it. I too will be looking forward to his full up review when it's dropped. It's hard to make a firm determination off of only two records though. I would be curious to see how it does with some other genres. I mean how well could it do some classic funk ;) As for the timing difference, I would love to calculate it out but too see which one is truly off, you would have to check the master tapes. Another way to do it is to play a bunch of different records. If the time difference is consistently off regardless of what record is played, it's likely a problem with the Technics. If the time difference is random, it could be due to belt slippage on the Caliburn. That's at least how I would try and scope it out a bit more. Thanks for the comment Paul.
The files were not swapped. I'm starting to save for my new turntable :) I have the feeling the Technics will play funk just fine. Part of me is very much influenced as the Japanese designed it for playback on the radio/studio. The same reason I like the DL103. Just makes music sound good. Enjoy the rest of the weekend. /Paul
Yep. I got it wrong. I am curious to see Fremer's new video whenever he drops it. Will the Caliburn be that discernible from the Technics?
BarakaPDub You didn't get it wrong. You picked the sample that sounded best. It sounded the best, the curve looked the best...and you made a logical assumption, the mind loves rational thinking, but Fremer tricked the most of us. /Paul
Hey Paul. Just been reading some test on the Technics. I will not be surprised if it was the most accurate. In HifiNews of july it was stated "the SL-1200GAE’s absolute speed accuracy is an astonishingly precise +0.006% and its low-rate wow is just 0.01%". Somewhere else I read it reproduced the 3150 Hz tone as 3150,2Hz. /Paul
Technics rans faster, based on what? could the other one run slow. How did you get to this conclusion.
My conclusions were wrong by the way. You can see the different in length when you look at the actual WAV files. They are not the same.
Speed? Most top turntables control their speed well enough for the human ear. That arm on the SL-1200G is pure professional, and not for top cartridges when they need a very light arm to work their best. It seems everyone who post wishes to pick a piece of something, and not the total package.
True. Very true on picking a piece of something. Thanks for commenting D. League.
I like my Linn Sondek/Grace 707/Coral 777! I also have a Technics 1200 yet to be set up (and about 12+ more TT's on hand). Variety is the spice of life!
Nice! Linn, Grace, & Coral all are great tables. I am tempted to pickup a Technics after this current round of performances.
The most important fact, that no one ever mentions, is that if your not listening to your music with 17 year old sonically virginal ears you’re really not hearing any significant difference!
Seeing the difference on a wave file is irrelevant. Your not hearing that and the difference is minuscule to begin with!
But, if paying obscene amounts of money for nothing makes you feel better, go for it! I’m sure, at your funeral, your heirs will laud you for your expensive hobby….
To each his own I guess.
@@BarakaPDub
Well, I was in a very high-end audio shop where we mainly shared technical tips, new (old) music and had people who knew, just generally, what to do with an equipment budget.
We were haggling out one day when an obviously well-heeled gentleman walked into the shop with an audiophile magazine and a credit card.
He laid down over six-figures for audio cable he saw in the magazine.
Cables, that’s it.
As he was well into middle age I asked him, sincerely, what he thought he would gain, in terms of audio performance, since he couldn’t possibly tell the difference between a set of perfectly functional off-the-rack cables and the cables he wanted that were literally more valuable than gold.
He had quite a stunned look on his face thinking about my impertinent question.
He said he probably wouldn’t be able to hear any difference but his friends would be impressed…
If you got it baby flaunt it!
So here is my take, and as a musician and very picky about pitch and timing, I wrote on his side by side review, "Interesting observation, and if you listen to the final notes of each piece, you can clearly hear an interesting anomaly with speed variations. On the first demo, the final "tings" are smooth and no variation in speed, and on the second, its as if there is smearing of the speed (and pitch) of the final "tings". I am assuming these were reversed? Could it be that in fact Direct Drive is flawed? This is why I have always stayed away from Direct Drive tables. Guess I will stick with belt drive for the foreseeable future."
You have good ears J Tay and I am betting, being a musician, your better able to pick up on the differences. Playing it blindly, I couldn't hear too much of a change.
99.99% of us will not hear a difference (or will strain to hear a difference). And even if we hear a difference, it will not be representative of all of the differences or the extent of the differences.
Why?
Because most of us are playing this via youtube, and via our computer's speakers, and after the degradation from the analog-to-digital conversion, and then the degradation from the digital-to-analog conversion.
Michael Fremer is playing those songs with zero conversions -- it is 100% analog, from beginning to end.
Michael Fremer is using 6-figure monoblock amps, a 6-figure -phono amp, 6-figures in interconnects and power conditioning, and 6-figures in speakers, and his speakers are ideally positioned to within a ¼ of an inch. (if one of his components is not 6-figures, it is still wildly expensive)
It is on such a spectacular, exotic, professionally set-up stereo that you will hear all of the differences between the two turntables.
If you listened to the test, in person, in Michael Fremer's home, the differences would be striking and apparent.
Doing this test for the public, over the internet, is akin to listening to your neighbor's stereo through the walls, and trying to figure out which turntable they are using. It is not exactly like that. But you get the idea.
Nice comment but in person, I guess I could say perhaps and I don't mean that in a snarky way. Listening to this at 24 bit/96 kHz with high end Sennheiser headphones, my ears strained to hear anything different. Then again, my ears are not the best.
@@BarakaPDub Sampling rates above Red Book (or CD quality 44/1 kHz / 16 bit) is almost entirely marketing hype -- meaning, quality does not improve (only the potential for quality improves).
A .flac file that holds 44.1 vs a .flac file that holds 176.4 differs only in that one is holding more frames, which one would think would result in better quality.
Consider the following:
From my apartment, I am recording a party that my neighbors are having across the hall.
Would the sound quality really change whether I used 44.1 kHz or 176.4 kHz?
What the studios do, almost 100% of the time, is they put (somewhere between) poor, sub par, reasonably good, or good (rarely great) sounding source material into a high resolution container. So that 192 kHz / 24 bit music is a file in a container that lets you hear exactly how screwed up the contents of that container is. You have a perfect sonic picture of bad sound.
Like using a state-of-the-art scanner to make a copy of a blurry printout. Your copy will be super accurate; will be 99.999999% the same as the blurry original.
The record companies are counting on the public believing that they do an extra special job when producing high resolution files. But they do nothing different. They put the same flawed sound into a higher resolution container. And a case could be made that the song will sound worse in the higher resolution container, because better stereos let you hear not only how great a recording can sound, but also let you hear every flaw in a recording.
Most of my best sounding .flac files are CD quality.
If those same, well-mastered songs were also available at higher sampling rates and higher bit depths, then they would probably have slightly better sound quality on the right equipment in the right room.
On Wednesday, 12/18/2019, Steve Guttenburg reviewed a new speaker system (includes a woofer that meshes seamlessly with the speakers) from Magnepan. He found them to be one of the best sounding sets of speakers that he ever heard (better than the Vandersteen Sevens, that were in the same room). Steve played CDs (and only CDs) on an Aesthetix Romulus Signature DAC -- nothing high res.
th-cam.com/video/AzPBz3SOT4A/w-d-xo.html
The sound quality is 99.99% dependent upon the studios hiring mixing and mastering engineers that have ears -- not on ever-increasing sampling rates.
Cheers!
I know this video is no longer new, but I hope you will see this nonetheless: What I will say now is anathema to most audiophiles, but I believe a lot of gear can be replicated with one simple appliance: an equalizer. With my own Rega Turntable, a Rega Exact cartridge and an equalizer I have made almost identical replicas of several cartridges, including cartridges from Zyx, Shelter, Soundsmith and Lyra. So I downloaded the hi-res files from Arrogant Planet and took it upon me to replicate the two Caliburn songs with the Technics audio. The vocal track was the one where I could hear the least difference, but I took an ABX test and scored 15 out of 16 correct (I can post the log if it has any interest). I didn't feel like I needed to do a blind test for the percussion track. Then for both the vocal and the percussion track I applied a simple EQ boost on the Technics audio, and then I could no longer tell them apart from the Caliburn - that is, for the percussion track, the warp was causing problems, as we know, so I did a time stretch. Time stretching can be quite tricky, so the percussion track would be the one where I could imagine that people would be able to hear the most difference, but I still doubt that anybody would be able to hear much, if any, difference for either song in a blind test, including on the percussion track.A good parametric equalizer costs around $200 used as opposed to the $28,000 for the SAT tonearm when new. That's an enormous difference. Many audiophiles see equalizers as the work of the devil and something "impure", yet they're willing to pay $28,000 for an appliance that does exactly the same thing - which is what many appliances do.
If you're interested I can of course send you the files I made.
On a slightly different note: My Rega turntable ran fast (around 0.8 percent) like most other Rega turntables. Instead of paying a fortune for another table, I simply put some adhesive tape on the subplatter, and now it only runs 0.02 to 0.03 percent fast, which is more or less the same as the Caliburn turntable. My Rega probably has higher deviations from the average speed than the Caliburn, but I can live with that.
An EQ is only a band aid and in no way, can compensate for either a hardware integrity issue nor less than pristine electronics.
As a temporary fix until such problems can be directly addressed, ok. For instance--a low frequency from the turntable causing woofer pumping....a subsonic filter can cut that off along with resulting lack of purity. Fixing the feedback problem is the proper pathway.
in real life no digital file can touch the see through quality of vinyl so how can you duplicate anything with digital
I almost think at around @ that the Technics plays a bit more accurately when I hear the bells tinkling and Direct Drive tables are known for less wow and flutter ..The bells seem to have a wee slight trembling sound effect on the Caliburn, AM I wrong ? ..They both sound great and for the huge price difference that always matters to most people,but not all, I would buy the Technics 1200 over the ''Goliath" Caliburn. My choice for a great quality Belt Drive at 4 figures would be a Luxman PD 171A
No. I don't think you're wrong at all. Personally, I would be quite satisfied with the Technics 1200 and I am not sure if spending more money would get anything that's vastly superior if you know what I mean. Thanks for commenting NICE DAWG.
I think your analysis is spot on. My response to Michael's first video was that I could hear a significant difference and I definitely had a preference for the second playback. It had better definition and clarity. But having listened on headphones, I was a bit shocked that even the high end turntable I found quite unpleasant! I'm a dedicated vinyl buyer and have a modest, original sl1200 setup that impresses me much more than cd or streaming, mainly because of the grand soundstage. But that is through speakers - I don't listen to it with headphones. For headphones I use an MP3 Walkman, which never ceases to engage me. I think it is noise floor of the turntables - and noise in general - which spoiled it for headphone listening. I'm a bit surprised! Maybe digital is better than I thought.
You're bringing up some very good points and it's really hard to make a good determination based on two songs being played. I know a lot of people slam digital but honestly, there is a lot more that goes into what ultimately hits your ears. Too me, the recording of the music, mixing, and mastering is really a key player. Vinyl can sound spectacular but the pressing can affect the quality. Then you have the playback equipment, where everything in the chain can ultimately color the sound image in one way or another. This goes for digital or analog. Thanks so much for the great comment.
I could tell a difference ... but it's subtle ... the Caliburn sounds more "musical" to me. It's a feeling more that what I'm technically hearing if that makes sense. Placebo? maybe ... but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
And it's perfectly okay to stick to your story. There's something there for sure but I don't think my mediocre PC speakers are capable of putting out the difference. I probably need to throw it on the big rig. Thanks for the comment.
Caliburn is more emotive,soulful,organic yet very resolute without fatigue.Its more nimble and sophisticated with that sense of airiness around decays.Its the manner it emphasize and enunciate notes in lifelike manner thats utterly convincing.Do i sound from Stereophile now?LOL
I wrote this in a comment under Mikey's post on Analog planet, but I'll repeat it here. We know the pitch stability was better on one TT than the other due to the warp, but what is the real culprit here?
The tonearm on the Caliburn has more mass than the Technics arm.
Watch the video carefully--when the Technics arm goes over the warp, you cannot see the cantilever "bounce" very much. Then, watch the Caliburn. The more massive arm offers more "resistance" to push against (think momentum here), and it bounces quite a bit more. Is it a defect or a fault? No! Does this make one arm "better" than the other? Certainly not! It just means that the cartridge and arm may not be ideal matches for each other. Too little mass in an arm can be detrimental also, but that is a subject for another discussion.
At any rate, that is WHY the pitch wavers more on the Caliburn setup than the Technics. With a different cartridge, the situation could have been reversed, or at least reduced on the Caliburn.
By the way, that "bounce" is what helped me identify the turntables in those videos quite easily. I'm surprised nobody else caught that.
Thanks for the great comment. It's a good theory but it's hard to tell how much of an impact without really dissecting the tonearms, looking at the counterweight assemblies in detail, and the Caliburn's vacuum system. The geometry of each arm is different. The mass moment of inertia and CG is also different on the arms and this affects the tracking ability. It also could be helping to contribute as to why we could be seeing less bounce on the Technics. It would be nice to look at the arms up close and in person.
For the Caliburn though, since it couldn't overcome the warp with it's own vacuum system, the bounce is a periodic function which I am sure could be measured in the file.
If I am not mistaken, Mr. Fremer did this comparison after several requests from analog planet members and others to do so.
You may be right. I am curious if he will ever do a follow up on it.
The presumption that David (Technics) did not slay the Carliburn (Goliath) is inaccurate. The premises assume and the Goliath is accurate and David have to match up for it, so anything David did or didn’t do will be a short coming. The compare should be using the same cartridges for both tone arm and compare against the actual performance of the record in terms of time, frequency and dynamic response. Oh and don’t forget to use GPS time.
So I assume the cart was exactly the same but it's been awhile and my memory is pretty poor. I would sync everything to an atomic clock ;)
I noticed that the Caliburn had a record clamp and the Technics table didn't. Both should have been clamped to be fair.
True. Although the Caliburn's clamp (vacuum system) wasn't working to well for the first track per Mr. Fremer.
I was the one who requested some vocal music for the comparison. I asked for something from Solti's The Ring Cycle - without a doubt one of the great achievements in modern recording! Operatic singing is way above the typical pop/rock stuff! Still, Songs Of The Auvergne was a good choice!
Thanks for requesting it. It was a good piece and something of from the Ring Cycle would be outstanding. I just hope he'll do a follow up.
The audio was not swapped.
Great video again, thanks for putting this under the microscope.
Confirms my point that sound gets to a point where it's great then the rest comes down to preference.
Most ice cream brands are similar, some people prefer the taste of one brand of vanilla over another.
Unfortunately in audio it costs a lot to find out what you prefer, and diminishing returns come into play quickly.
It also made me feel better about my modest system, knowing that I'd have to spend way too much for way too little improvement.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can't hear it it may as well not be there, I don't care about what shows up under analysis.
Thanks for the great comment and yes, you're absolutely correct in preference. I'm a tweaker/analyst by nature so if I come across something that turns out to be a placebo effect, I definitely want to pass it along.
Still happy with my automatic 1600mk2 & M1A😊
I would not turn down a Technics at all! They're built like tanks and sound great.
The real question is: does the sound difference justify a 2 figures difference in price?
I don't think so.
Your perspectives and analysis are quite good. The fact remains that although the ultra high priced Caliburn clearly out resolves the Technics, so will a reasonably priced turntable, like a Well Tempered. ( I am a Technics SP10 owner). Many of these differences can be narrowed at real world prices. While this is not to take away from the Caliburn's achievement. Most 1970s era audiophiles tend to view such elevated prices with disdain, and prefer to tweek older models with surprising results. Just my opinion.....which can as usual be wrong.
I share you're opinion in some regards. While I think it would be fun to own either Turntable, the law of diminishing returns applies and my wife would likely divorce me if I spent the equivalent of a two bedroom home on a turntable.
Unless the same cartridge was used, not jus the same model, the comparison is immediately invalid. I heard the pops and clicks. They were unmistakable. The second recording was Joseph Marie Cantalaube songs of the Auvergne. The artist appeared to be Vittoria de Los Angeles. I have this recording on both vinyl and cd. I also have Kiri TeKanawa recording. More later. BTW, I consider that my Empire 698 With Shure V15 Type V MR is superior to both of them in every respect except isolation unless placed on an optical table in which case it's their equal in thar respect also.
I didn't care for the 2 song selections that were chosen, but maybe Michael is familiar enough with them to tell differences. I also wonder about the arm/cartridge alignment in the Technics.
I thought splicing of the videos wasn't done very well to be honest. The vocals would come in on the Technics and when the Caliburn came in the vocals tailed out which made the comparison difficult to judge. I heard a slight difference. The vocals sounded a tad colder w/ Technics and very slightly warmer, smoother on Caliburn. At 16:47 the wave was cleaner with Caliburn.
Thanks for the critique but my software has it's limits on the splicing because I am limited more by visual frames. The recordings started at different places which also made at bit more challenging but the goal was for a quicker A/B comparison of the audio. I think with the audio, I hit the limits of my PC DAC and Speakers which are not the greatest by any means.
Good work! this is the way to approach this, scientifically, and not assuming too much. I'll have to post my interview with Mr fremer to the vc. We talked about the beatles mono box and he was informative and enthusiastic as ever.
I would love to see that! It must have made for a fun time for sure. Where did you manage to catch him? Was your interview used for a publication anywhere?
I write for an online music magazine called noripcord and hosted a podcast called the High and Low Podcast, so I've done a bunch of interviews with folks like Ken Scott, Mark Lewisohn, Rod Argent and Greil Marcus. Here's the link but I'll post the Fremer:
www.highandlowpodcast.blogspot.com
The singers voice sounded slightly warmer on the Caliburn than the Technics. Which is more accurate is hard to tell. A lot of this can be due to cartridge resonance. This is in the ver low frequencies--8-20 hz. If it gets to high it can suck power out of the amplifier. This is what nobody measures anymore. It depends on the match between the mass of the tonearm and the compliance of the cartridge. Stereo Review used to always measure that and state what mass of tonearm the cartridge was suitable for. High compliance cartridges mate well with low mass tonearms. Less compliant cartridges mate well with higher mass tonearms.
Interesting point about the tonearm Russ as I have read the same. There is something there for sure. I just couldn't pick it up with my ears at all.
I find the Caliburn to be raspy.. The and the Technics to be softer and more pleasant to listen to. Especially starting at 13:37 and 13:56 ... maybe the Caliburn is reflecting too much resolution of tonal contrast? I'm comparing it to lenses in photography. Canon sharpness vs Nikon softness in portrait photos. Canon very well suited for Sports images with it's higher contrast. I prefer the smoother sounds coming from the Technics. I find the sounds from the Caliburn to be harsh on my ears. Gritty. Technics to be mellow by comparison. But all of this could be results of the cartridges being used on each model. Sad that there isn't any mention of make and model for the cartridges being used in both of these players. Thanks for the graphics!
Thanks asaprocky. I think we has using the exact same Lyra cart on each deck. I am not sure if Lyra makes the cartridge anymore but I think it was something akin to the Lyra Atlas.
It's hard to say that the differences between these two turntables are restricted to what we're listening to (DAC+Amp+Headphones or DAC+Amp+Speakers) and what we see (Audacity) when the source is a digital file. We must keep in mind that there was also a digitization (ADC) of analog audio as well. These two conversions de-characterize the original sound by imposing imitations on both.
Nothing compares to on-site listening in an all-analog medium. We can only say that there are differences, but how different, never.
What I wouldn't give to listen to these systems in person.
I am 73 ,I the this speak hugely for the Technics SL-1200G table. I have a Dual 1229 on an isolation sandbox home made and it sound fantastic for $450 table
Thanks for commenting Joe. I don't think you can go wrong with the Technics!
To me the Caliburn with the Sat is clearly superior and for me easily distinguishable. You have to know what to listen for. If you cant hear it either your playback system, DAC, headphones headphone amplifier, or speakers is not of high enough quality in order to hear it.
Thanks for the comment and I think I hit the limits of my DAC/PC Speakers. I have yet to try it on my big rig.
technics you win.
Can't say I disagree with what I know now ;)
why would you use a record that has a marked warp in it that leads to quite large visible movement of the arm as it endeavours to track the humps in the record. The bass driver displacement will be quite marked unless a severe warp filter is used
Fremer did a follow up on this and he did comment on how bad the Caliburn performed with the warped record. The Caliburn's vacuum system wasn't good enough to hold the record flat.
I've heard differences in the test files especialy in the busiest parts of the samples and i did not need spectrum analysis to be sure they are different...what impressed me is the fact that the newer 1200 is worthy of installing a very good cartridge on. It sounds close anough to the Caliburn to save 100k$
You know, I agree completely. There isn't that much of change in the signal path.
You got it right. I posted the same conclusions based on my ears and Audacity files, and that is this: if an analog front end cost what the Caliburn costs (over 100k$ all in , with all the necessary component parts to play an LP including the phono stage, arm, cart, speed controller cables, etc, it had better beat the Technics 1200G pretty soundly, so to speak, or a whole lot of angry Continuum and SAT customers with torches in hand, are going to want their money back. That said, depending on the music you listen to, the rest of or your system, your hearing, etc, using a better cart (in the 2K$ range, gets you 95% of the way to the Calburn for well under 10K$ all in, and that's not shabby. Save the money, buy an even better phono stage and a whole lot of LP's. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't own the Caliburn/SAT combo, I would If I could afford it, Problem is just like most folks, I cant live in the Continuum, , neither can the wife and children, nor can we drive around in the arm. For what the table and ancillaries cost, most folks spend on a first home, and the arm is a mid priced car these days. Not many folks in the real world even those of us that would happily spend that kind of money can/could afford to. Nice to know the Techie and a nice cart can get us 90 plus percent of the way there, and that's not shabby.
Thanks for the fantastic comment and I agree with a lot of what you're saying. In my experience, while the mechanical part is important for minimizing external vibrations, the more critical component is the electrical path. This was a good exercise showing the difference the mechanical pieces could make. Fremer said he was going to do a follow up with a non-warped pressing and I eagerly await that video to see how far off the two truly sound.
What I IMHO hear in the 1200 lacking (less lively, less reverb) can be improved very much by a different mat. The stock mat deadens the sound. A harder material mat with a solid record clamp, so it doesn't slip, makes a very noticeable improvement in those areas.
I've heard the same thing about the mat and I think that's what a lot of people have been replacing first.
I watched the Framer video too... I mean the first one... And I liked the sound better when the Technics were showed. the sound were more comfortable to my ears. It sounded like the instruments were more separated and controlled. So it better be the Caliburn playing :)
I hope so too! Otherwise, I am going to look like a complete idiot but thankfully, it wouldn't be the first time. BTW - I don't if I went back to comment but loved your Vinyl Tag video. I think you kicked that thing off again.
Yeah, it looks like a lot of people in the VC jumped onboard The Vinyl tag :) It would be fun to watch your response too :)
You can adjust the speed on the technics To the same speed as the more expensive turntable...
Correct. The speed is easily adjusted on the Technics.
Through youtube and through my high-ish end speaker setup, I could hear very little difference between the turntables. My takeaway is that by the time you are at the 1200G level, the law of diminishing returns has taken over. It reminds me of the Bugatti Veyron in that the first two hundred or three hundred or so horsepower get it to 200 mph and the other 900 horsepower are needed to get t0 230 or whatever the crazy top speed is. Bottom line, I think that given the choice, the 1200G would go home with me along with the leftover $100,000 + dollars.
I agree completely and your Bugatti analogy is perfect in this case.
@@BarakaPDub Thank you! Let's not even mention how much music that 100K would buy.
I have three turntables, my worst being an Audio Technica AT LP 120 USB. This video is making me love even that one! I've always wondered just how much better these exotic sports cars really were. Not much, it turns out. I feel better. Turns out that the reason for having one of these six figure TT's is the same reason to have a six or seven figure sports car. It's to impress your friends and prove that you are rich enough to not care how much it cost.
And I'm not putting it down. Seriously. We all have different reasons for purchasing this stuff beyond just the music. That Caliburn is a work of art and, if you can afford it, a wonderful thing to use and own and, frankly, just look at.
At the end of the day it's the music that matters ;) This isn't a chicken or the egg scenario. Without the music, there would be no music reproduction. While I am a bit of an audiophile, it is fun to dream about owning that Maserati :) Fremer doesn't claim to be rich but given his line of business, he does have some nice connections for procuring that type of equipment at a nice discount.
Just to clarify, it was revealed that your assumptions of which clip is which table was wrong in the video right, they are actually the opposite?
Yes. I was totally incorrect on this one.
@@BarakaPDub Very interesting, because what you said still seemed correct, that the waveforms looked more defined and clear on one, which turned out to be the Technics. Makes me glad to be an SL1210GR owner anyway ;^)
@@leon9021 You know, I think once you get to that level, you're really splitting hairs. I honestly would take the SL1210GR and never look back.
@@BarakaPDub Same. I used to be very into tables and such, but I gotta say that I havnt found them to be that big of a difference maker. Even the step from my Rega RP1 to the SL1210GR wasnt very noticeable and Im pretty sure I could be happy with most any 500 - 1000$ table for life.
They sure look juicy though, those 5 figure decks.
@@leon9021 Yes. If there is one thing that does ring true to me, it's spend your money on a great set of speakers.
Hey Paul. I always rely on you for translating gear talk to my dumb ears and this was fun to watch. I didnt hear a HUGE difference and for 100K difference, if I was Fremer, I'd say "WTF!!!!". Seriously. 6 figures for a turntable? I'd be too worried that something on it would break and I wouldnt enjoy it. I wont spend 4K on the technics but then again, what do I know. Really enjoyed this. Question to you. I give you $100,000 right now and tell you that you can either get one turntable OR 100K worth of records. What do you do, sport? What do you do?
That's an easy one ;) $96,000 on records and $4000 on the Technics or another turntable that gets me to 99.5% of what is on the master tape. My bottom line, if the music doesn't move you then why the hell would you bother listening. I think my wife would slap me silly though if I even spent $4000 on a turntable. She would rather me invest it on some project around the house.
It's not 100k diference it is a 196k difference
I can Hear a major Diferance between the two on the second vocal track.
Hello Nizo. You have far better ears than mine. I really couldn't discern a difference, even at high res.
I heard a huge difference also. Don't focus on the voice. Focus on the music on the background. It is a night and day difference
BarakaPDub
I’m with you on that one.
Night and Day they say???
Night and Night to me.
And not with ear buds or tv speakers but with my Planar Headphones and I still hear no difference.
Certainly not 6 figure difference regardless if you have a Wolfs bearing or not.😜
Your need to BLOW UP and ZOOM IN to extreme levels to see these differences is a perfect demonstration of "diminishing returns" of a high magnitude that would make the Caliburn purchase unjustified if money mattered in your purchase decision. I found the sound clips to be impressively close and beautiful in both cases. Any difference(s) in the playback sound were inaudible to my ears. I applaud the Technics SL-1200G as a master piece of design and manufacturing. AND, to be clear, I do not own a turntable or any albums.
You're absolutely right about blowing up and zooming in to see the specific differences. I couldn't pick up any differences either, even when listening to the hi resolution files.
If I’m not mistaken, just the platter on the Caliburn is around $10,000.
With it's vacuum system $10,000 would have to be a minimum.
Did both have the same cartridge? Also how much easier would it be to hear the difference in real life vs a compressed you tube video? I would assume it would sound a lot better.
Supposedly it was the same cart. With his system, you might be able to hear something ;)
@@BarakaPDub I would hope so. He implied it but did not specifically say it was the same cartridge.