Epigraph

"…just buy a used Micro Seiki and don’t worry about turntables anymore; built like a tank and sounds better than TTs costing over 30K USD.”
Mr. Ikeda, of Ikeda / Fidelity Research

The Main bitching
 
It amasses me how the preoccupation of the analogs people with their turntables has practically no relation to the actual sonic result that those turntables are capable off and practically entirely depends from the blown up intellectual things that have no or littlie  relation to actual sound of those turntables
 
The reason I write this article is become a see a huge lack of any common scene in turntable universe. Some folks do analog. They buy, turntables, tonearms, cartridges, phonocorrectors, washer machines, records, many other tools, they go over a huge amount of time and effort to get bet sound out of all this ridicules analog gear. Their efforts are perfectly reputed thing to do. Still, an audio a typical Moron can not escape from himself and while perusing better analog Sound the audio Morons submerge myself into the swamp of completely irrational addiction to the sings, that has no relation to better sound and   “better audio”.
 
Any audio person know that a Turntable maters. Different turntables produce different sonic masking inflictions and different performances equalizing colorations. The best of them do not impact (or even highlight) the interpretations of performed peaces and do not inflict sonic limitation to “the sound” that was taken out of LP. Sound simple, doesn’t it? Well, unfortunately the audio industry and the audio cretins who sponsor it (means you, the analog people) do not get it. The market flooded with dozen and dozen different turntables. I’m perfectly fine with a large number of $200-$500 turntables. They do not pretend to sound neutral and they cost accordingly. However, what to do with an army of $1000-$75.000 turntables that sound identically to their $500 counterparts, cost hundred times more and accompanied with all imaginable BS about their irrelevant designs, the BS structured only to convince the gadgets-minded Audio Morons the they “should be” sounding better.

Really, HOW MUCH “BETTER” AT TURNTABLES SHOULD BE FROM THE LEVEL WHEN IT ALREADY DELIVERS A PERFECTLY NORMAL SOUND? I know, I know, there is an army of idiots-reviewers who love to writhe this doodles how the different turntables produces the different sounds. Let leave aside that their “sounds evaluation” is as bogus notion that they only is cable to employ in their “incorrect reviewing techniques”. Let leave also aside that the reviewers are juts plain ignorant fools living in complete denial: the Fremer,  reviewing in context of his impotent playback, impotent psycho-balance and in the room with sucked of reverberation time, the Myles who detects on his turntable the seismic movement of continental plates …. playing it in on the ….. smallest Martin Logans and having his turntable sitting atop of his TV set… I can go on … but give me a break! If we leave aside ALL that crap and presume that in the contemporary world there is no way to get a public objective opinion about a turntable’s Sound then what we have left? It is correct we have left with the pure intellectual and semi-technical justifications that you, freaks, convince yourself, while you are anticipating a turntable to reproduce better SOUND. So, HOW YOUR INTELLECTUAL CONVICTION RELATES TO  ACTUAL SOUND? Good luck to answer this question.

Two or 5 motors spinning the same platter, the tension decoupling, the DC supplies for motors, the super sophisticates power sources for the motors, the NASSA’s or defense materials (this always made me to laugh), the complicated player suspensions, the crazy bearings and oiling topologies, the sophisticated allocations of masses in platters, the unimaginable decoupling and suspension ideas, the kinky idea of the vibration propagations and so on and so on and so on … Certainly this all are valid engineering points but again: HOW MUCH ALL OF THIS RELATES TO THE ACTUAL SONIC RESULTS, and particularly not the DIFFERENCES HOW A TURNTABLE PORTRAY THE SOUNDS BUT HOW IT DOES SOUND? (Not to mention that what our analog gurus-reviewers know about Sound and it’s objective assessment worth nothing). So, you the consumers, do not buy the turntables for their sound but for this intelectual justification what was done in those turntables. As the result, we have  the Graveyard sounding Rockport turntables; Rock-&-Rolly but with no bass sounding VPI turntables; ecoy and puffy sounding Thorens turntables; flimsy, capricious and brainless built Walker turntables; farty sounding Garrard turntables; magnanimously-ineffective sounding Linn turntables, digitally sounding Clearadio turntables, zippy  and floaty sounding Rega turntables, rubbery  and chewy  sounding Kuzma turntables, Audiogony sounding Wilson Turntables, granitely sounding Well Tempered turntables … I might go on and on…. You also have the Continuum guys who very egger to convince everyone  that his software know what their turntable needs to Sound “correct” but at the same time they was playing a half of the CES 2005 their turntable at wrong speed and not able to hear that tempi-vise and tonally his $50K turntable was way off… Pathetic? Stupid?  I am not taking about the Continuum’s people but about YOU - THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE A RESPECT TO A TURNTABLE EXPLICITLY FOR THESE INTELLECTUAL DESIGN EFFORTS INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL SONIC EFFORTS.

Well,  be advised  that if you freaks buy turntables only as an investment into a MUSEUM OF ABSTRACT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING then you do it juts as an investment into a pure relevant to sound BS. A few days ago a guy that I know bought a big turntable. The guy considers himself a rational person and he perhaps is. The turntable came with a supplemental but demanding engineering feature that I personally consider is quite bogus; means HAVING NO RELATION TO SOUND. When I asked the guy if he intend to use this feature he replied that it is a magnificent feature that has a great implication to sound. Knowing that he did not even set his TT up I asked him why he made such a statement. He replied that whoever used it told him so. Eventually he admitted that he has no one credible person who ever use the feature and that his feeling that this feature might me beneficial he pulled totally out of his own ass. Why? Because he (as well as you) wants to believe that a MORE EXTRAVAGANT ITEM IN A MUSEUM OF ABSTRACT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PRODUCES BETTER SOUND.

Do you wont evidence that you all analog freaks are in fact are just freaks? Ok, couple months back a guy from Hong Kong, a good and reputed dealer, posted at each audio junkyard his adds that he was selling Micro Seiki RX-5000 and RX-8000 turntables. The prices were moderate but over a course of months no one cared. Then the guy to sell his Micro decreased the prices to a laughable level, giving them practically free for the price of the shipping reimbursement. The Micro Seiki 5000 and 8000 were taken then. How the funny part – why the Morons who love to talk about the turntables, about their turntable’s sound and about the turntable’s features pay their tribute to their inferior sounding $30K-$75K turntables but disregard Micro Seiki, the turntables that for a minute fraction of the price make the “audiophile” $10K-$75K turntables to sound like bogus crap. What I mean: “HOW MUCH “BETTER” AT TURNTABLES SHOULD BE FROM THE LEVEL WHEN IT ALREADY DELIVERS A PERFECTLY NORMAL SOUND?” The beauty of large Micro turntables is that they are simple like hell and it is imposable to make them to sound bad. Whatever you do to them dose not affect their default performance level. What kind level? Well, give me Micro 5000 or 8000 (the 5000 is slightly better sonically but has “support issues”) and I put all my reputation behind that it will SONICALLY OVERPERFORM any turntable out there (probably the .the EMT 927 would have a chance but because of different reasons). So, for the bogus believe system of an average Audio Moron the lagers Micros Seiki are dangers as if person look at the ACTUAL SOUND from Micro Seiki than he recognizes that they deliver so high sonic complexity that the entire pyramid of audio-worth that the audio-moron has pre-built in his sick head is trembling and collapsing down. Why those (some others) better turntables do not sit in the homes of the “industry leader wonna be”? BECAUSE OWNING THE BETTER SOUNDING TURNTABLE DO NOT PROPEL THE BOGUS AUDIO-INDUSTRY ON IT’S ENDLESS “REACHING THE STARS”. In the end, why the average audio hoodlums did not snatched those available Micro Seiki like a God sent gift? BECAUSE NO ONE FROM THE “PUBIC OPINION MAKERS” TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

Frankly speaking, I personally, was looking at the funny things that are going on with turntables and decided to take that reminding Micro Seiki 5000. I do not really need it: I owned and used a couple RX-1500, RX-1500FVG, couple RX-5000 and now I am using the RX-8000. When I saw the RX-5000 that was selling for the price of an elaborated cable elevators I called for some guys who I know who were on the TT market, All of them decided to pass because the cretins who they see in their audio publication did not mention for them that Micro Seiki were the “recommended components” and because the NASSA did not sponsor the Micro Seiki design..  So, the Morons month after month refused to buy them I said that it is not right. I bought this RX-5000 and will repost it at my site for $15K. I am not exactly look forward to make money on it (people who know me personally know that those $3K, $10K, or $15K would not make any difference for me, not because I too wealthy but because I do not play those games) but I look forward to propose the JUSTNESS AND JUSTNESS IN ANALOG JUDGMENT. If Micro-Seiki RX-5000 SOUNDS better then turntables that are being sold for $75K and if there are some idiots out there who scream that the $75K is a justifiable price then HOW MUCH THE BETTER SOUNDING MICRO SEIKI SHOULD COST? You figure out.

Rgs.
Romy the Cat

tokyo john wrote:

… If they then get the audio sickness, they will go on to spend many many thousands of dollars, over and over, for very modest incremental improvement to sound…

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=432

For instance when the idiot-Framer recently drooled over himself about his new TT it was fine but the ONLY one way in which I might accept his (or anyone else) comments if he was able to name the specific imperfections of his former turntable (before even listening his new one, this is very important!!!) and then, after nail down what was wrong in his previous TT, he would listen the new TT and to observe how the new TT took care about the named imperfections. Any other metal approaches are faulty. No to mention that any worlds and that partially reviewing whore are faulty.

Let forget that the people who do those TT “evaluations” as THEY EVALUATE THE INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN SOUNDS INSTEAD THE INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT TO SOUND. What we have to remember that “many thousands of dollars” buy just many features in turntables but not the more advanced sound via a turntable. The asshole Cho-san, the chief-designer of Micro, told me that the art of turntables design is the art of recognizing and managing emotions in materials. I wonder how much of that “recognition” exists among those who just apply the mechanical concept and the sound-unrelated theories to the marketing campaigns…

Rgs,
Romy the caT

Romy the Cat wrote:

I look forward to propose the JUSTNESS AND JUSTNESS IN ANALOG JUDGMENT. If Micro-Seiki RX-5000 SOUNDS better then turntables that are being sold for $75K and if there are some idiots out there who scream that the $75K is a justifiable price then HOW MUCH THE BETTER SOUNDING MICRO SEIKI SHOULD COST?

drdna wrote:

but let's not forget that we should never equate equipment prices with sound quality.

In contract to this the audio industry implemented a different model were Price has no reference point to sound quality and relates only to the sound-extraneous binary justifications of production and marketing efforts. Why binary? Because those evidences are compartmentalized and encapsulated, having no relation to anything that might relates to actual sound. Take for instance an abstract well perfuming turntable. Now, add to this turntable an reservoir with heavy water that has no purpose beside juts sitting on the side of the TT. Now begin to convince yourself that a manufacturing of heavy water, separation of deuterium, hydrogen/water catalytic exchange and even the storing of heavy water are expansive presses that require a lot of infrastructure. That would be all correct but how would it be related to actual sound of the TT? 

You said that “but let's not forget that we should never equate equipment prices with sound quality. You said “sound quality” not the salable marketing concepts? How much conversation about real “sound quality” you have seen in any audio review or any price assessment of any component, not to say a turntable? The point is that sound quality is not a tradable commodity by audio industry. However, in my world there are no other commodities besides the sound quality. That is way in my “framework of perception” prices have immediate and direct relation to sound quality. I wish everyone had the same feeling and if they do then that entire idiotic audio industry along, with own artificial price setting would die out and perhaps my new buddy Mike Fremer would go back to flip the burgers in a McDonald, the place what he belongs.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

drdna wrote: but let's not forget that we should never equate equipment prices with sound quality. Absolutely disagree. This believe is the most ridicules accomplished that audio propaganda implanted inept the brains of audio people. Equipment prices should be directly equated with sound quality, this is what price should all about and this is the ONLY rational way the pricing should be applied. The person who pay highest price must have highest sound quality and if it is not the case then the prices strategy was wrong.

guy sergeant wrote:

"Cho-san, the chief-designer of Micro, told me that the art of turntables design is the art of recognizing and managing emotions in materials." What the hell does this nonsense mean?

guy sergeant wrote:

I must have skipped the lecture on the emotions of materials when I did my engineering degree... seriously though, I can understand the concept of impedance matching materials, I can see that different materials would have different mechanical (resonant) signatures etc... Which amplifier was your Micro's platter optimised for? Have you had to change it as your amplifier's evolved?

Recently, since I‘m doing some remodeling of my turntable, there was some noise on my site about Micro Seiki turntables. I really do not want to push my site toward to becoming one of the typical audio fetish sites but in context of this thread I would like to offersa few images of Micro Seiki.

The picture above is one of the latest productions of Micro Seiki. It is Model 8000-II. It is very uncommon version as it features the poll pieces that are not made exclusively to use it with dual-pivot armboard, allowing mounting three tonearms instead of juts two. Also, it has a shorter version of supporting air-base that is not as ugly as the Micro’s standard BA-600. The owner uses a new Kusma linear tracking tonearm that took place of the right and the front arm-pivot, making it all-together this turntable very comfy. If the owner did not use the dead sounding Burmester speakers with this turntable combined with a “Die Hard: With a Vengeance” subwoofer then it would be possible to talk with the him about Sound….

The 3 images above were sent to me by a visitor of my site as an illustration of an incredible madness that some Japanese turntables people might dive into. Japanese folks very frequently (and very unfortunately!!!) precipitated with a notion that natural materials would produce “natural sound”. Well, chicken feather is a natural material, why they do not use it for their tonearms? Anyhow, here is a person took a large chunk of wood (I’m sure it is some kind of Stewartia or Snowbell  tree) and converted it into a TT base using a Micro Seiki’sd platter. I have no idea how it sound and if it all make any sense but I’m sure that his wife was very pleased that he spent that weekend in the  family basement making his turntable instead of smoking marijuana in a local strip club…. :-)

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Dominic wrote:

do you happen to know which models had the air bearing?

Stitch wrote:

Some more pics

Ronny,

I found is a bit strange that you decided to use the left front leg instead of the right front leg for mounting the third SME tonearm.  If any reason why did you do it? I always thought that left front leg is the least conformable leg as the cartridge covers the point where a needle nits the record and it make it very uncomfortable to use.  When the third tonearm is mounted on the right front leg then I found it very comfy. Not to mention that the gap between the motor and platter will become very narrow and the standard 35 belt might be used. The fewer gaps take smaller footprint. One more thing: if you use some very noise-fertile cartridges then the left front leg location might be too ‘live” for them.

I usually do not do the Audiogon posting. There are too many idiots in there and they are under too much protection of the douchebags that run that site. Not to mention that I well remember WHY I was “banned” from Audiogon to begin with:

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=2329

Still, I was attracted to subject that some Audiogon posted touched, so I decided to play alone. Eventually it turned into the typical Audiogon BS with simpletons craving for imperative recommendations. According to Audiogon business model it had to follow with an army of audio pimps and “advisers”. I am not a vulture and I will let whoever enjoy it to participate….

However, yesterday I posted an extended wrapping up to that Audiogon subject that Audiogon douchebags deleted. I have no idea why, probably if I send them Micro 5000 as an admission gift or show to them a tattoo on my ass with audio reselling license than they would not vandalize my post. Anyhow, as the respect to the time I invest to type it I reposted it here. This is my conclusion post that was deleted from the end of second page of the following thread:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1244737338

Right before I said: “I have written today a large conclusive post and posted it, withdrawing myself from this thread. For whatever reasons the post disappeared. I saved it and I will rep-post in at my site as I think it does a good conclusion for this whole thread.”

*************************************************************

To answering the Thuchan’s initial question about the differences between the SZ-1 and SX-8000 and to finish my enrolment in this thread…

The SZ-1 is not a Micro-Seiki flagship. It was flagman before Micro-Seiki stated to do 8000, so most of the SZ-1s were made before Micro begun to make 8000 model. The SZ-1, if you fins it will be old very old. Micro is gone in may 2001 and up to the spring 2001 they made (in one way or another) 8000/II, so with the best luck you can fish a TT that will be 10-15 year old and catch the TT from Micro production of 90s. The SZ-1 is very much an assurance that it is production from 70s or beginning of 80s. It might not be so bad but it is 30-40 years old TT with all following consequences.

Micro SZ-1 has air-suspended motor and the motor has a small gyroscope on it. It is probably good design-wise but I am a bit defensive to accept that it has a lot of actual impact to sound. I drove 8000 with variety of different motors, including adding to original 8000 motor a custom-made mushroom-shape axis-extender that created a very good flywheel/gyroscope effect on the motor. With all honesty, even if I could recognize some differences but they were not worthy attention. If you load your cartridge with let say with 75R then can you recognize the change to 72R? Well, we probably can (not blindly) but can you correlate it with change of VTA to .2 degree? If you say that you can then I would challenge you honesty and sincerity.

One interesting moment about the SZ-1 vs. 8000 debate might be around the urban legend that suggested that Micro use in SZ-1 a “straight” motor but later in 5000 and 8000 models they went for active start motors. The idea was to let the motors for a first 5 second of TT start to run at high voltage to give an initial momentum to a stationary platter. The notion is cool but after seeing quite a few 5000 and 8000 I did not find this behavior. Opening and 5000 and 8000 motors I also did not see anything that would be responsible for it. Also, with all honesty - what is the difference? If you TT would reach a cruse speed for 15 second or for 25 second? One might say that one approach is better for motor bearing then another but come on people, let have some perspective to it – you will die sooner than the damn TT motor will wear out! So, who cares!

I never had SZ-1 but I know 3 people who dose. I heard the SZ-1 but I would not make comments about it sound in contest to 8000. I would not accept the comment of the SZ-1 owners what they think about the SZ-1 sound vs. the 8000. The reason for it is because I know in my personal experience that it is immensely difficult to methodologically correct and intellectually honestly to compare the sound of two turntables if both of them are made more or less properly. Tolstoy use to say the bad marriages are all different but the good one all the same. There is a lot of truth in it in audio. I have an interesting experience about it last year. People who know me know that I am a big FM enthusiast and I had a killer tuner that under proper use delivered the best FM result possible.  Then I brought another “best tuner”, mane by completely different topology, culture, coals and period. That another best tuner, appropriately properly used for own topology delivered absolutely identical “best FM result possible”. So, all roads lead to Roma and I think that it is very much with TT. At the level of Micro 8000 or SZ-1 (conditionally 5000 of you know what you do) you are way beyond the point where your TT is the weakest element of your chain. If you wish to play more with analog improvement then play with other analog aspects and live the TT alone. The whole beauty of the large Micros that they are just a based platform that set a sets a default sound, certain pedal-point of analog performance and you can shape something above this base but you do not go below the pedal-point.

So, me the debate about SZ-1 vs. 8000 is mostly a debate about ergonomics and nothing else. As the result of this thread I did get the message about the accused benefits of extra flywheel for 8000. In my past I learned that it was not true. Still, if you insist I might give it one more try and if the circumstance will come I might try it evaluate the subject again. Still I would not actively peruse it as I did in past. In fact most likely, since I sold my flywheel unit,  I might not do it and will die in complete analog ignorance… Probably if someone will bring a good flywheel to me I might put it on use, otherwise it will be as is: with no bass, collapsed soundstage, with no inner-details and a lot of background noise… :-)