[jsaliga]

Yes different , never mentioned better, Very  different experience for me  with analog  TT, all my tables with different  Cartridges sound different , grado is much different in presentation vs Denon , same for Ortofon , same for Shure , etc,etc,

If you are not hearing these differences between tables and Cartridges I would be very surprised and suspicious of what your system is doing , maybe  your PP ,  Pre or both...

Regards

Be suspicious as much as you like.  Feel free to dismiss everything I said as someone who doesn't know what he's doing or hearing.  Doesn't matter to me either way as I am not trying to prove something to you or anyone else.

Cheers.

--Jerome

[a.wayne]

Not trying to be Dismissive Jerome , only discussing ... 

[jsaliga]

I understand where you're coming from.  But you should understand that I have no interest whatsoever in tearing my system apart to discover a reason why I am not hearing the big difference that someone else asserts must exist who doesn't have access to my equipment and room.  I'm not trying to be a smart ass and I hope you don't take it that way.  But I did take a fair amount of time to share in detail my experiences with these two turntable/cartridge combos.  I even acknowledged earlier that there will be skeptics, especially from mainstream audiophiles.  That's fine with me and it doesn't hurt my feelings.  But I don't have the time or inclination to try and satisfy everyone who might want to poke holes in my observations.

In short, I am pretty much OK with people just taking it or leaving it as is.  If someone finds fault with my observations or my unwillingness to indulge their theories as to why I heard what I did (or didn't)...well I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Happy Holidays. 

--Jerome 

[eclubow]

eclubow was the RP10 around when you purchased the RP6?  The RP10 cost is closer to the Raven

Not sure if the RP10 had come out yet but I would have bought the RP 6 anyway. I have't heard the 8 or the 10 yet, but I doubt I would hear a dramatic difference. Also, no matter which I picked, the cost would have been significantly less, since the Raven with tonearm was about $12,000.

[Quiet Earth]

Just throwing in my 2cents here, with the good intention of sharing opinions. I am also a Nottingham owner, and I know what mine is capable of. I have the standard SpaceDeck, which is not as nice as what Jerome has.

Do you think that possibly the iFi phono is restricting the true potential of the Nottingham deck and perhaps leveling the playing field somewhat?

Without a doubt in my mind, yes it is. That, and especially the Blue Jeans cables are holding back the performance of his table/arm/cart.  I say that respectfully with regard to the OP, not trying to diminish his overall message of diminishing returns, personal taste, expectations, etc. It's a very good post with a good message to all.

I am a big believer in spending as much or more on the source, but in this case his Nottingham is a little over the top for the rest of this system. Still, I would rather err on the source being too good, and I would keep the Nottingham. Things can only get better. IMHO of course.

[jsaliga]

I think you are dead wrong.  With all due respect, it is precisely that kind of thinking that leads audiophiles to spend out of fear and throw much more money at their system than they need to, without truly understanding what it is they are paying for.  Now, if someone has money to burn then who am I to tell them how to spend it?

One of the things I absolutely despise about this hobby (or should I say some hobbyists) is how the emphasis is almost always on cost and how very few people actually seem to know the system properties that make for good audio performance.

--Jerome

[Quiet Earth]

I am speaking out of experience, as an owner and as someone who has tried (and heard) many preamps and cables with my Nottingham. I still respect your opinion and your original post.

I never mentioned cost. Just speaking in terms of quality. Also trial and error.

Also, I am not posting to prove that I am right or that you are wrong. Just sharing another opinion.

Happy Holidays and enjoy that beautiful turntable of yours. It will give you many years of enjoyment. 

[jsaliga]

Fair enough, but I am very experienced too and have been at this for 42 years.   My experience doesn't agree with yours and we should leave it at that.

I don't have a problem with you sharing your experiences or even disagreeing with me.  But I found some of your comments very insulting even if that wasn't your intention.

--Jerome

[Quiet Earth]

I found some of your comments very insulting even if that wasn't your intention.

Jerome I am sorry if I insulted you. I apologize. It certainly was not my intention to insult you. I only wanted to tag along with my own opinion since I also own a Nottingham table. I thought that's what this forum was all about, the sharing of opinions. Especially when there is common ground to compare experiences.

I have gone over what I wrote several times and I am having a hard time finding the place where I insulted you. In fact, I believe I went way out of my way to pad my comments to make it all nice.

I don't know what else to say.   

[jsaliga]

Don't sweat it.  I would prefer to take this off line and I will send you a PM when I have some time.

Thanks.

--Jerome

[Wayner]

Jerome, you seem to be having lots of problems today. We are just discussing stupid turntables. I'd probably give you the shirt off my back if you were in need. Go spin some vinyl so you feel better. I'm listening to my Genesis box set 1970-1975 right now......It's pretty good, if you like Genesis.......Also enjoying a couple Peroni beers.....
 

'ner

[jsaliga]

You might be on to something Wayner.    I have the Genesis box set you are referring to.  Like it a lot though I haven't spun any of those LPs in a while.  I have been on a classical and jazz run lately so I will be breaking out a few LPs soon.  Don't know the beer you mention but I will probably have a glass or two of white wine after dinner, or perhaps some cognac.

--Jerome

[jsaliga]

Here is where I am at with this discussion...

First, I overreacted a bit to QE's comments, so I'll apologize for that.  He's no doubt entitled to his opinion.  I strongly disagree with it.  He hasn't heard my system and is in no position to judge its performance.  Moreover, I don't believe he has heard a Pioneer PLX-1000 in his system with the same cartridges and content I am using for direct comparison (though he is welcome to correct me on that if I am wrong).  Unless some of you are breaking in to my home when I'm not around and listening to my rig I am fairly certain that I am the only person here who knows what it sounds like and is qualified to speak authoritatively about it.  It is quite possible QE could come here and audition my system and then leave here wondering what it is in his system that is holding it back. (I say that somewhat tongue in cheek).

Secondly, there have already been a few people here coming up with theories that attempt to explain why I am not hearing the big difference between tables and cartridges that they assert must be present.  I'm curious about how many of them have actually heard these tables and cartridges and compared them side by side (my guess is none but I could be wrong).  Someone mentioned cables.  Yes, the magical elixir for audio perfection.  Better cables (likely from a boutique cable company that misuses engineering terms in their marketing literature) might do the trick, or perhaps a better phono preamp or power amp (better usually meaning that it sounds better because it costs more ) that will reveal more of the Nottingham's magic.  The stuff that the Pioneer should lack.  You know, the stuff' that no one seems to able to pin down in concrete terms absent all of the nonsensical audiophile lingo that doesn't really mean anything.

I have no desire to plumb the depths of that subject because I already have a theory in hand that perfectly explains to my satisfaction why I am not hearing big differences.  I am not hearing a big difference because there isn't a big difference to hear in the first place.  Occam's Razor.  I might also accept as a possibility that I was influenced by expectation bias and the outcome was a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I already mentioned that before as a possibility.  I am not so full of myself as to think of my hearing as a flawless, perfectly accurate audio Geiger-counter of sorts that is so tuned that I can hear a flea fart in a field 50 meters away.  My last hearing test revealed that I can't hear frequencies above 15KHz, perhaps more fodder for the critics.  Have fun with it.

But I also know that this hobby is severely plagued by embellishment and exaggeration with ample helpings of bias and placebo effect thrown in.  Some also seem to not realize that human perception (the brain, hearing, visual system, etc. ) is also part of the audio system.  There are also strong psychological concomitants that influence our perception and judgment of audio.  It seems ironic to me that a large number of audiophiles actually believe they're immune to these influences.

Does all this mean that I don't think there are audible differences between components?  Of course not.  I find that I can easily pick out differences -- in cases where differences actually exist -- between phono cartridges and speakers when I am listening to them side by side.  But some audible differences, at least in my experience, are difficult for me to pick out in isolation, not being able to compare directly.  For example, I used to own a pair of Omega Max Hemp single driver speakers.  I owned them for about 3 years and was very, very happy with them.  Then I changed them out for a pair of Audiokinesis Custom Planetarium Alphas.  When the new speakers went in I immediately noticed that cymbals and hi-hats sounded more realistic then they did on my Omegas.  Why then, did I not notice that the Omegas sound on these instruments was "lacking?"  Because they were accurate enough to suspend my disbelief, that's why.  And that is usually all that is required for enjoyable audio performance.  What about differences between other components?  I hear much less of a difference with preamps, power amplifiers, and phono preamps.  Cables?  Don't get me started on cables.  If someone else believes they make a big audible difference then I'm happy for them.  My experience doesn't agree and I'll leave it at that.

Happy listening. 

--Jerome

[kingdeezie]

Audiophiles bring up cost often, because it does matter. Research and development, parts, labor, marketing, keeping the lights on at the factory, all of these things cost money.

Compounded with the fact that audiophile equipment is a niche market, and generally, good equipment from good companies, is priced accordingly. I wouldn't think that companies like Pass, Manley, VTL, ARC, VAC, BAT, etc, etc, are price gouging.

I can buy the iphono from amazon right now for 400 dollars. Assuming amazon bought it from Ifi for 200 dollars, there is likely less than 50 dollars in parts in that unit once you factor out the case cost. Does that mean it can't sound good? No, absolutely not. But, I certainly don't think we have reached the point of diminishing returns at 50 dollars in parts either.

Same goes for the Pioneer Turntable. At 700 dollars, we are talking 150 dollars in parts at best. Can it sound good? Absolutely! Again, not quite the point of diminishing returns. 
 
So, as we scale up in price, from a well regarded company, we get better parts and a better designed product (presumably).

In this thread, the comparison is with an analog front end that costs 8K, and is plugged into a component 20 times cheaper.

Assuming we follow my, admittedly, over simplification of cost and profit in audio equipment, we see a significant mismatch in parts quality and design.

Better products in audio bring better imaging, spatial cues, dynamics, micro details, layering, etc, etc. All of the things you think are audiophile "nonsense," but do exist in recordings of all genres.

As good as the iphono can sound, it is designed at a price point, and will not resolve all of the differences the Spacedeck and company is bringing to the table. It was never made to. That is why AMR (company who owns Ifi), still makes phono stages that cost significantly more.

I don't think anyone was saying your system sounds bad, it might sound great. Well matched components in a cohesive system can sound excellent, regardless of cost.

However, that doesn't mean the performance ceiling is changed. To a point, there is always better, and until you hear it in your room, you never know it (speaking from my own experience). Unfortunately, given the nature of economics, inching closer towards that ceiling costs money.

In any event, enjoy your new table. Always loved the Nottingham stuff. 

[jsaliga]

Better products in audio bring better imaging, spatial cues, dynamics, micro details, layering, etc, etc. All of the things you think are audiophile "nonsense," but do exist in recordings of all genres.

This is the only part of your post where you even go anywhere near performance.  While I don't think all of it is nonsense, much of it is.  Other than this, the balance of your post strictly uses cost as the sole differentiator with the rest of your position resting on a mountain of assumptions, attempting to advance the idea that cost closely correlates with actual performance.

As good as the iphono can sound, it is designed at a price point, and will not resolve all of the differences the Spacedeck and company is bringing to the table. It was never made to. That is why AMR (company who owns Ifi), still makes phono stages that cost significantly more.

They make other products that cost a lot more to service a segment of the market that has the money to spend and believes cost closely correlates with performance.  The products are luxury priced at what the manufacturers believe the market will bear for the segment that the product is being sold into.  It may have better parts.  It may have a more robust design and is built to last decades.  But it may or may not sound better than a much less expensive product.  I have experienced this myself first-hand and owned some pretty expensive gear, so I don't have speculate about that.

I don't think anyone was saying your system sounds bad, it might sound great. Well matched components in a cohesive system can sound excellent, regardless of cost.  However, that doesn't mean the performance ceiling is changed. To a point, there is always better, and until you hear it in your room, you never know it (speaking from my own experience). Unfortunately, given the nature of economics, inching closer towards that ceiling costs money.

I don't care what someone else thinks of my system.  I didn't buy it to please anyone other than myself, so my opinion of it is the only one that really matters.

--Jerome

[neobop]

Jerome,
Your results/conclusions are based on your experience and are indisputable.   Would it be fair to say that your opinion(s) might change with different combinations of components?  What about if someone else tried your exact combinations of equipment, might they have a different opinion?

The first thing I thought of after reading your OP, was phono stage.  I can only relate part of my experience which I consider every bit as valid as yours.  When I was a TT guy I was considering getting a used Vendetta preamp with built-in phono.  I was told this was the same phono stage as the legendary Vendetta separate.  It was sweet.  But then I heard the AHT phono and my plans changed.  The difference was not subtle.  Some of this is based on taste, and others with differing values might choose differently. 

Just after that, I tried (took home) just about every line stage we had, and most that came in used.  That included ARC, Rowland, CJ, Threshold, Meitner, Levinson, Aragon, VTL, Krell, etc. etc.  Of course there were similarities, they all provided gain, but had different sound.  They all sucked IMO.  I built a passive.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, just my experience.  On the other hand, I think many audiofools don't realize how good it can be with carefully selected inexpensive components. 
neo 

[jsaliga]

Would it be fair to say that your opinion(s) might change with different combinations of components?

Absolutely.  However, at this stage there is very little motivation for me to pursue such experiments.  That is not to say the mood won't strike me at some point down the road.  Hell, I was very happy with my old Garrard 401 rig but then out of nowhere decided that it was time for a change.  So I won't say never and anything can happen.

What about if someone else tried your exact combinations of equipment, might they have a different opinion?

Indeed they might.  To insist otherwise would assume all listeners are the same.

--Jerome

[jsaliga]

And just to reiterate for those who might have joined this thread late and didn't bother to read the entire opening post.  I am not saying that the Pioneer PLX-1000/AT-OC9III sounds the same as the Nottingham Analogue Space 294/Lyra Delos.  My point has been that the differences are not so great as to justify the $6,800 price differential, and that is a personal value judgment.  Someone else might hear these tables, hear exactly what I am hearing, and conclude that the differences are huge or characterize them in a different way.  Or they may hear something completely different.

Most of the differences that I hear are mainly from the cartridges.  I say that knowing it might touch off another controversy.    I do pick up a little bit of power supply hum from the Poineer, but it is below the vinyl noise floor so it doesn't bother me.  The Lyra Delos is a very nice overall cartridge at a cost of $1,650.  The AT-OC9/III doesn't quite have the midrange response of the Delos, but it has somewhat more extended treble and slightly punchier bass.  It sells for the very attractive price of $499.  I am happy to have both cartridges.  Some day I might get around to trying the Delos on the Pioneer and the AT-OC9/III on the Nottingham just for giggles.  The next cartridge in my sights is the Audio Technica AT-ART9.

--Jerome

[kingdeezie]

This is the only part of your post where you even go anywhere near performance.  While I don't think all of it is nonsense, much of it is.  Other than this, the balance of your post strictly uses cost as the sole differentiator with the rest of your position resting on a mountain of assumptions, attempting to advance the idea that cost closely correlates with actual performance.

They make other products that cost a lot more to service a segment of the market that has the money to spend and believes cost closely correlates with performance.  The products are luxury priced at what the manufacturers believe the market will bear for the segment that the product is being sold into.  It may have better parts.  It may have a more robust design and is built to last decades.  But it may or may not sound better than a much less expensive product.  I have experienced this myself first-hand and owned some pretty expensive gear, so I don't have speculate about that.

I don't care what someone else thinks of my system.  I didn't buy it to please anyone other than myself, so my opinion of it is the only one that really matters.

--Jerome

Well, you are either missing my point, or completely ignoring it to to service your perspective. A better design, with better parts, will sound better. These things cost money. That is simple economics, and is true in most product segments.

In this way, cost does correlate with performance. Of course, you still have to properly match the system, or end up with a sound you don't like. Doesn't mean the pieces are created in service to a "luxury" market, but that they are still subject to people's personal tastes.

In any event we are not going to come to any agreement here. In my experience, a system has to be well matched, and exist with equipment that is consummate with its performance potential. This performance potential, again, in my experience comes at a cost.

I've never replaced an expensive component, with a cheaper one, and found better performance. In fact, I've often tried components that were talked about on audio forums as "giant killers," or "competing with products costing X times more," and I've been significantly disappointed.   

[jsaliga]

Well, you are either missing my point, or completely ignoring it to to service your perspective. A better design, with better parts, will sound better. These things cost money. That is simple economics, and is true in most product segments.

Not at all.  You don't have a valid argument because your reasoning begs the question.

In any event we are not going to come to any agreement here. In my experience, a system has to be well matched, and exist with equipment that is consummate with its performance potential. This performance potential, again, in my experience comes at a cost.

We agree on more than we disagree.  For instance, I agree with everything you said in the second sentence above.  Where we disagree is on the cost=performance question as a matter of degree, and we probably are never going to come to terms on that difference of opinion and experience.

--Jerome