Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-cad.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!wmb
From: wmb@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Mark Boggs)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Turntable Clamp & Turntable Controversy
Message-ID: <358@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 06:31:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-c.358
Posted: Wed Jul 31 06:31:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 21:23:05 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 71


Well, my first post to the net and I got flamed.  Gee whiz guys, now I have
to defend myself, and act like I know what I'm talking about.  Here's my
return flame to Bennett Broder's scathing attack on my simple-minded entry
into the world of "tweak talk".

>I would have to agree that the Nak is a very good turntable.  I don't
>quite consider it to be in the same league as the Sota or the Goldmund
>(whose superb quality and simple design appeal to many audiophile purists),
>but the record centering feature is a significant breakthrough that
>places the Nak as a strong contender in high-end turntables.

Have you performed any listening tests between the Nak and any other
table?  If not, what is the basis for your opinion?  In my original post
I said "I don't think there is another table around that is signifigantly
superior to it."  I was addressing the question of whether or not there was
a direct drive table which compared to the high-end belt drives.  I
compared it with a Sota Sapphire (which I owned) and found that the Nak
sounded cleaner, especially in piano pieces.  I don't have access to a
Goldmund, so I can make no comparison there.

>However, I strongly disagree with your reasoning for touting direct
>drive in general and the Nak in particular.

I don't believe I made any claims about any other direct drive table.  I
was only touting the Nak.

>- You laud the Nak for its ability to track Telarcs 1812 cannon shots.
>  In my experience, the primary factors that determine trackability
>  are cartridge design and setup (particularly tracking force), and to
>  a slightly lesser extent, the tonearm design and its compatibility with
>  the cartridge.  You don't even state whether the cartridges in both
>  turntables were the same!

Pardon me, I was being brief.  I used Alchemist IIIs on both tables tracking
at the recommended 2 grams.  Perhaps, then, I should have said the Nak's
arm was superior to the Emminent Technology's arm?  Or maybe, a conventional
arm is superior to a linear one?  I probably should have just talked about
clarity of sound, but I was shocked that I tracked the cannon shots, and
thought I'd mention it. (Translation:  point conceded)

>- A signal-to-noise ratio of 78db??  How does a turntable get a
>  signal-to-noise spec at all?  Since the only part of a turntable
>  that carries signals is the cable, I would assume that s/n ratio
>  could only be determined for a specific cartridge.

Dick Pierce beat me to answering this and did a much better job of it than
I could've done.  The specifications in the owner's manual state:
Signal-to-Noise Ratio.......Better than 78 dB (DIN-B)
The April '85 issue of Audio gives an unweighted figure of 66 dB and a
weighted figure of 87 dB.  By the way, Dick, do you happen to know how
the DIN-B standard compares to the DIN-A standard you used?

>As I see it, the only demonstrable advantage of the Nak over other
>well built turntables is the elimination of wow caused by a mispunched
>center hole.  In addition, I see no reason why this new centering
>technology could not be applied to a high quality belt-drive design
>like the Sota.  Imagine a turntable with incredible isolation and
>state of the art vaccuum record clamping like the Sota in addition to
>the centering feature of the Nak.  Be worth waiting for.

I wasn't claiming superiority (read my original post again).  I claimed
at least equivalent performance.  Incidently, Nakamichi did think about
isolation when they built the table.  Little things like attaching the
dust cover hinges to the lower platform which is isolated from the rest
of the table.  It also weighs 44 lbs.

So what's the bottom line for all of this?

I SOLD my Sota and replaced it with the Dragon-CT.  Nuff said.
				-Mark