0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 8690 times.
well, i have no direct experience w/the nottingham, but from what others have said about it, compared to the rega's & music halls, that would be the one to get. the $64k question, tho, is would it be as good as a hotted-up technics 1200? doug s.
Own both - and yep - well - almost as good as a 1200
Quote from: akshobhyavajraI think the Nottingham is the best of the bunch, but still the 1200 will beat it in speed and rotational stability. One needs to know what to listen for in a TT. This takes time and a keen ear. More on that later...Actually I was kidding. The Nottingham Interspace with the new 2" (20 lb) platter and the Interspace tonearm (carbon fiber wand) is superior in every aspect to the 1200 - and naturally ought to be (since it's cost is four times higher). Transient silence is incredible, soundstage is massive and instrument layering is much more dimensional. To answer your question - I do not use the KAB dampening device - my 1200 is set up as follows - Shure V15VxMR cart, Sumiko HS 12 Headshellwith OFC Litz Wire Leads and KAB record clamp and 16 oz mat.Unless one compares both tables in ones own system it's hard to understand how much of an overall difference exists. One caveat - the tables did use different carts. The Nottingham employs a DV20 XH, which may or may not be significant in the evaluation. Both are good carts, though, and the Shure is an excellent tracker which actually has a prefered stylus (LC). Both tables of course were hooked up to the same phono stage - Monolithic PS-1 with HC-1b Dual Mono Power Supply.Motor design philosophyAs to your comment regarding speed and rotational stability I am not sure what you mean. Clearly the 1200 is designed for fast cueing in a DJ environment. Hence the powerful, self-correcting motor design with On/Off buttons.Tom Fletcher, the designer of the Nottingham tables, employs an entirely different philosophy - with emphasis NOT on DJ or broadcast use, but rather for home playback. The Nottingham uses a low power motor which has to be spun. The philosophy behind manual operation is that if the motor has to start the table, there would be too much power in the motor when it reached speed. This means resonance; i.e., both the record and tonearm would vibrate (like writing a letter when the table is moving). The purpose of this type of motor is to gently keep the platter at speed – nothing more. Rather than using electronic power to move mass, this deck use mass to maintain momentum – contributing to its overall minimalist design.PlatterYou mentioned rotational stablility - I would suggest that the massive 20 lb high-mass platter is nothing short of a work of art and in synergy with it's minimalist motor provides extreme accuracy and stable rotation. The table is able to retrieve information which was veiled in the 1200. This is especially true for classical music, which is more complex and less obvious with Jazz and single instruments.For more info on my impression of the table here is a link to a little review I did awhile back:http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/179442.htmlIn short both tables have their place in audio, but to compare tables designed with different purposes in mind is not going to yield a conclusive or fair comparison. In my home audio system the Nottingham offers more of what I look for. Add to this the capability of an additional arm (or just being able to employ arms like a Graham, VPI, SME or Morch) make it more versitile and desirable for me.I am still using the 1200, of course (I like the table, because it's a no-brainer plug 'n play) and will do so in the forseeable future.Best Regards,~Michael~
I think the Nottingham is the best of the bunch, but still the 1200 will beat it in speed and rotational stability. One needs to know what to listen for in a TT. This takes time and a keen ear. More on that later...
So, let me get this right...You are comparing basically a *stock* 1200 to the Nottingham:1) stock interconnects & tonearm wires2) no tonearm fluid damper3) no extra isolation measures used4) Sumiko headshell & headshell wires (which I have).Is this correct?And your comparison is made with different mechanical transducers (cartridges):1) Shure V15 V (MM)2) DV20 XH (MC)And the Monolithic phono stage & dual mono power supply (Which I also have). Any particular power cord used with the power supply?I'm asking all this prior to getting into the "more on that later..." I promised.
Dear PsychicanimalI compared stock with stock, if you wish. Isolation was as follows: both tables were sitting on 1" MDF board. This was supported by ceramic cones sitting on A.R.T. Q-Dampers graphite compound. THIS was sitting on a 2" concrete block which was sitting on 1/4" of cork. This was sitting on another 2" concrete block and another 1/4" of cork. This was sitting one a 100 lb base on concrete floor (with carpet, of course). Powercords employed are RWA - FWIW. And... I also use a vacuum cleaning machine and anti-static gun... as well as several Vans Evers line conditioners - to anticipate the additional question...Allow me to add that in my 30 plus years as an audio enthusiast I have not had any desire for tinkering or upgrading or DIY, etc ad nauseam. Hence I basically own stock equipment - powercords and tubes aside.Thus, messing around with a $70 tonearm seems fruitless - again speaking strictly for myself . Anyone who likes to unscrew stuff, solder cables, etc... by all means do so. My point is I would not buy anything more for a table like the 1200, including the KAB fluid damper or something like Cardas or Kimber wires (which are worth more than the whole table). I'd rather just go out and buy myself something souped up, if you wish to use the terminology - like a SME 10, a Hyperspace or an Aries extended - I am debating between these three - actually (since the Interspace is basically an entry level table, much like the Monolithic is a nice little entry level phono - I recently auditioned the Vinyl One, which is a significant improvement).Now, by the tone of your reply I already know where this is going - and I have no intention to engage in nitpicking diatribe with what table is better or who has the bigger member. If it aids the emotional well-being of those experiencing negative feedback of their neurotransmitters because of my personal findings I'll gladly concede that a tricked out 1200 is far superior to any and all tables - including, but certainly not limited to, the Nottingham line of tables - all variables set aside. How is that? Saves a lot of agony and testosterone can now be employed elsewhere - like the Super Bowl Discussions of A is better than B usually end up in hostility and ill feeling when they follow the before mentioned course, that is, some sort of emotional attachment or allegiance to brandBTW - I already added the caveat regarding the transducers. Obviously I am not going to buy an extra Shure or DV 20 to prove some sort of point. Further, I had the DV and the arm professionally set up by Larry of Hollywood Sound and thus am not about to fiddle with the setup. My sincere apologies if my honest impressions of the equipment or my presence on this board ruffled any feathers. My intend was to to make a positive contribution based on my experience as owner of both tables - nothing more, nothing less.It is clear that we have a diametrically opposed Modus Operandi, i.e. Weltanschauung and methodology, and thus it is best to say "De Gustibus Non Est Disputantum"Regards,~Michael~
Having worked in audio stores and being broke, I learned to tweak and tune my gear out of the nature of the job, financial necessity and a nomadic lifestyle. I wasted a 1200 tonearm trying to change the wires. Would I try again? Yes. I have good hearing memory and manual skills so nobody has to "professionally" set up my TT. It would be easy for me to compare the two decks. As for the fluid damper, it is not a tweak, but a significant improvement. It would not be fair to compare the Nottingham's carbon fiber tonearm with the 1200's $70 tonearm without the fluid damper. It's very easy to set up. Why am I going through all this trouble? For the same reason you have a 1200. Simplicity & convenience, but getting the highest possible performance. If the SP-10's were still made that's what I'd have.I hope I have answered all your questions. If I missed something is not to purposedly dodge it. Please remind me and it will be addressed.I appreciate your "comparison" of the two tables. Although not entirely valid, it is the very first attempt I see posted at being objective instead of opinionated.
hello michael,my question when you bought the nottingham interspace how much was the retail price? i noticed you quoted $750 us which seems to be a pretty good price. i have contacted the dealer in sydney and his rrp is $1950 au plus shipping and handling to perth.i wonder if it might be better to look at dealers in the us if they can provide me with a 240 v 50 hz version.anyway thanks for the input.ps btw i bought a nad phonostage and it is shockingly bad compared to an old ar cambridge integrated amp with phono stage.
hello,i did notice that music hall will have a new top flight table out soon and may also look at that.thanks for the advice.regardsrod
I snagged an used Nottingham Innerspace off Audiogon!! It should ship today, so in theory, I should have it a week from now. Oh fickle UPS gods, please deliver my baby safely...Beez