Posted by ChairmanOfTheBored on 01/05/08 01:55

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:11:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote in
>message news:l43sn31gahsmt0hrglbnsdeqbiuj0hi39s@4ax.com
>> On 3 Jan 2008 14:02:35 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott
>> Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, and the bad part about it is that they are such
>>> cheap junk, and so many people are using them believing
>>> that this is the best they can get out of LPs. We have
>>> a whole generation of kids now who think the Shure M44
>>> is the best cartridge you can buy.
>
>Again, a current M44 is probably a thing of beauty compared to what you get
>in a $129 USB turntable.
>
>> Actually, there are a few models out that use state of
>> the art turntable elements. They run about $5k or more
>> each. 1.5" thick quartz platters... Pretty well decked
>> out.
>
>There's no reason why a 1.5" quartz platter provides a unique advantage for
>playing LPs unless you are blinded by pretty toys and hype.
>
>
Far better than a single ingot metal billet ever was or ever could be.
It is the state of the art. The molecular distribution is much more
precise, so the thing is as balanced as it gets. In the days of albums
and turntables, it and its heavy base would rule. Then, one would hope
they made similar considerations when they chose or designed the bearings
that it spins in.

There is no hype. That is real science.

[Back to original message]