Recomend me a budget turntable (that still sounds better than a good cd player)

[groovejam]

I am looking for something that sounds better than a cd player but doesnt cost a ton.

I have been recomended Goldring GR1, Pro-ject 1.2 and Music Hall.

Any others that are as good or better and lesser known?

Any advice on where to get one? It seems these are all made and less expensive in the UK....

[anderbass]

I've resently scored serveral (older/used) high-end turntables at yard sales. ($10-$20)

[groovejam]

No fair, not hard to believe as some of the best ones dont look like much.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Hate to burst your bubble, but in order to really make vinyl sound better you need a large amount of very expensive equipment. The turntable is only one part of the process, you need a nice preamp, a nice amplifier, nice speakers, etc. Keep in mind this is coming from a fellow vinyl collector, so I'm not at all saying that you shouldn't pick up yourself a nice turntable, but a nice record player alone won't make your vinyl sound better than a CD.

If you really need a record player, just make sure it's direct-drive.

[Cambass]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

If you really need a record player, just make sure it's direct-drive.

Just out of interest (from someone also looking for a turntable), is there an advantage with direct drive compared to belt driven?

[ninnlangel]

Check out the vynil forum over at http://www.audioasylum.com

Lot's of good advice can be had there.

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by groovejam

I am looking for something that sounds better than a cd player but doesnt cost a ton.

Look for a DVD-Audio or SACD deck instead. Despite what some snobby "audiophiles" swear, the grammophone analog format is incapable of sounding better than a good CD player. It can sound very good however.

You can get very good sound out of an entry level Technics record player.

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by ninnlangel

Check out the vynil forum over at http://www.audioasylum.com

Lot's of good advice can be had there.

Be careful there, that forum is very well named IMO. Lots of audiophile "golden eared" types there.

[McHaven]

I picked up an Audio Technica turntable a few months back...Least I think that's the name, I'm not entirely sure at the moment. It's a brand new turntable, that was about 100 dollars. It has a built in preamp that you can turn on and off underneath the...spinning part. (I don't know much about turntable anatomy). I find it pretty good, I guess. I don't know many other turntables, considering I'm only 18.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Cambass

Just out of interest (from someone also looking for a turntable), is there an advantage with direct drive compared to belt driven?

Not for the first couple of years, but eventually belts wear out/get funky, which isn't a problem you'll encounter with a direct drive turntable.

And Philbiker, you're right, but you're also kind of wrong.
How can this be, you ask? I shall reveal, I answer.
As most of you know, most CDs that come out now are mastered to sound loud, real ballsy and punchy, because studies have shown that people are more likely to stay on a song they switch to on the radio if it's louder (If you don't believe me, take a listen to some albums from the early nineties and compare them to a brand new, released in 2007 album. ten-to-one odds the new one is louder)

When vinyl is mastered, that mentality is absent, so the mix will be what many would call "superior." Radiohead are a great example of this, as my vinyl copy of Kid A is mastered much differently than my CD copy. In this regard, vinyl does indeed sound better.

But you're right, there is no inherent quality to vinyl that makes them "better," it's the differences in mastering that account for that.

[BuffaloBass]

Sorry folks, vinyl sounds better. I'll play somethign hard to reporduce, like Joni Mitchell's voice.

With my old Kenwood KD750 ( Grace Arm and Adcom mc cart) Joni is STANDING right there. With the CD, well, shes not present.

I have NO idea what the technical explaination is, but there it is.

I liekd belt drive better, better isolation and imaging imho, but my old Kenwood KD750 is a beauty, I prefered the Ariston RD11s I had. very simple British belt drive. AWESOME!

Here: but no arm. I like Grace 707's, but thats not relevant.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ARISTON-AUDIO-RD...QQcmdZViewItem

and here is the up model compelte with Linn Sondek arm, $150,
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ariston-Audio-Tr...QQcmdZViewItem

You GASSED me. I actually bid on the RD11s.

AND BTW, fixing the quartz synch chip in the Kenwoods was MORE than a rubber belt. Belt drives rule.

[morf]

Originally Posted by Philbiker

Look for a DVD-Audio or SACD deck instead. Despite what some snobby "audiophiles" swear, the grammophone analog format is incapable of sounding better than a good CD player. It can sound very good however.

You can get very good sound out of an entry level Technics record player.

Well, yes and no. It's just a different way to enjoy listening to music. While the information on a CD indeed gets through far better than a recorded vinyl, a turntable setup allows you to listen to music in a very special way, which is better than CDs to a lot of people.

That said, I agree with you, he should get a SACD deck, but if a turntable is absolutely what he wants, a entry level Technics is a great choice.

[Barkless Dog]

if your going to do scratching with it it needs to be direct drive

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by BuffaloBass

Sorry folks, vinyl sounds better. I'll play somethign hard to reporduce, like Joni Mitchell's voice.

With my old Kenwood KD750 ( Grace Arm and Adcom mc cart) Joni is STANDING right there. With the CD, well, shes not present.

I have NO idea what the technical explaination is, but there it is.

There are two possible "technical explanations": either poor mastering on the CD or the placebo effect.

[morf]

Or a ****** preamp.

[BetterBottomEnd]

No the technical explanation is analog versus digital. Theoretically a record can capture every single nuance of the sound because the recording is done mechanically. A need excited by sound waves engraves the data. Digital is sampled especially with modern computers at a ridiculous number of samples per second still a computer has to connect the dots so all the information is not actually there. Now the advantages of vinyl assume highest quality recording and reproduction equipment as well as no digital devices in the chain ever.

[Dan1099]

I'm definitely of the "same material, same mastering, CD is just as good, if not better" club. However, I do agree there's a certain ritual to listening to vinyl that is very enjoyable.

[dancehallclasher]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Hate to burst your bubble, but in order to really make vinyl sound better you need a large amount of very expensive equipment. The turntable is only one part of the process, you need a nice preamp, a nice amplifier, nice speakers, etc. Keep in mind this is coming from a fellow vinyl collector, so I'm not at all saying that you shouldn't pick up yourself a nice turntable, but a nice record player alone won't make your vinyl sound better than a CD.

If you really need a record player, just make sure it's direct-drive.

This is the first time I've ever heard an audio enthusiast recommend direct drive over belt drive for anything other than scratching.

[morf]

Originally Posted by BetterBottomEnd

No the technical explanation is analog versus digital. Theoretically a record can capture every single nuance of the sound because the recording is done mechanically. A need excited by sound waves engraves the data. Digital is sampled especially with modern computers at a ridiculous number of samples per second still a computer has to connect the dots so all the information is not actually there. Now the advantages of vinyl assume highest quality recording and reproduction equipment as well as no digital devices in the chain ever.

Actually all the information the human ear can hear and much, much more is on a CD. The difference, so little at that, is not possible to be heard. Not to mention that mechanically "reading" the music means a lot more physical factors are likely to throw off the "reading". If you want something precise, it is certainly not going to be with a turntable that you'll get it.

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by BetterBottomEnd

No the technical explanation is analog versus digital. Theoretically a record can capture every single nuance of the sound because the recording is done mechanically. A need excited by sound waves engraves the data. Digital is sampled especially with modern computers at a ridiculous number of samples per second still a computer has to connect the dots so all the information is not actually there. Now the advantages of vinyl assume highest quality recording and reproduction equipment as well as no digital devices in the chain ever.

That is completely wrong.

Recorded music is nothing but an electronic waveform signal. CD Quality 16 bit PCM digital audio with all its sampling does a significantly better job at recreating a digital waveform signal than any consumer grade continuous analog audio format.

Now, a Studer 24 track 2" tape is an entirely different animal.....

And I agree on direct drive over belt drive for most LP rigs - belt drive will have less floor noise, but not by much (at least not enough that it's really perceptible outside extremely expensive audio equipment), and belts wear out and need regular replacement - direct drive tables run virtually forever with little or no maintenance.\

Vinyl can sound fantastic, particularly if the pressing, mastering, and material quality all come together, and given a decent turntable (aforementioned entry level Technics consumer grade table) and decent cartridge. I have a few hundred records, I never replaced most of my records with CD when CD came along because the difference in quality wasn't enough for me to care.