can a Dual TT compare to Music Hall 2.1 or Rega P1?

"sillyputty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a61c8a10-204e-4b2a-a6b4-836dc96a2bbc@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The reason why I'm asking is I'm thinking about putting together a
> second system for another room and wondering if a Dual belt-drive (for
> example this one on ebay:http://tinyurl.com/63uq6l) is comparable to a
> Music Hall MMF2.1 or Rega P1 and/or could be a lower-priced
> alternative? Thanks.
>
Try rec.audio.opinion.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> Try rec.audio.opinion.

if you want an opinion. ;)

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

"Mike Rivers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eub8k.45$ge.6@trnddc02...
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> Try rec.audio.opinion.
>
> if you want an opinion. ;)
>
Sorry, typo. Try rec.audio.fact :)

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

"sillyputty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> The reason why I'm asking is I'm thinking about putting
> together a second system for another room and wondering
> if a Dual belt-drive (for example this one on
> ebay:http://tinyurl.com/63uq6l) is comparable to a Music
> Hall MMF2.1 or Rega P1 and/or could be a lower-priced
> alternative? Thanks.

A belt-drive Dual turntable in good shape should be equal or better to a
modern entry-level turntable.

"Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:YradnWdG76xrBfzVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "sillyputty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

>> The reason why I'm asking is I'm thinking about putting
>> together a second system for another room and wondering
>> if a Dual belt-drive (for example this one on
>> ebay:http://tinyurl.com/63uq6l) is comparable to a Music
>> Hall MMF2.1 or Rega P1 and/or could be a lower-priced
>> alternative? Thanks.

> A belt-drive Dual turntable in good shape should be equal or better to a
> modern entry-level turntable.

On what basis do you make that claim? The modern 'table probably has
"deader" that makes better contact with the disk.And the arm also might be
less resonant.

"William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> "Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:YradnWdG76xrBfzVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "sillyputty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>
>>> The reason why I'm asking is I'm thinking about putting
>>> together a second system for another room and wondering
>>> if a Dual belt-drive (for example this one on
>>> ebay:http://tinyurl.com/63uq6l) is comparable to a Music
>>> Hall MMF2.1 or Rega P1 and/or could be a lower-priced
>>> alternative? Thanks.

>> A belt-drive Dual turntable in good shape should be
>> equal or better to a modern entry-level turntable.

> On what basis do you make that claim?

Personal experience, and some measurements.

> The modern 'table
> probably has "deader" that makes better contact with the
> disk. And the arm also might be less resonant.

I'm not talking about "probably", I'm talking about personal experiences and
facts.

Besides, this is hardly a tall claim - the Dual 701 was a higher-end product
in its day, and we're talking entry-level turntables.

"Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:nrmdnVh1dqjTtP_VnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
> > "Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:YradnWdG76xrBfzVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> "sillyputty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]

>>> A belt-drive Dual turntable in good shape should be
>>> equal or better to a modern entry-level turntable.

>> On what basis do you make that claim?

> Personal experience, and some measurements.

>> The modern 'table probably has "deader" that makes better
>> contact with the disk. And the arm also might be less resonant.

> I'm not talking about "probably", I'm talking about personal
> experiences and facts.

> Besides, this is hardly a tall claim - the Dual 701 was a higher-end
> product in its day, and we're talking entry-level turntables.

Well, I consider it a "fact" -- based on personal experience -- that one
wants an acoustically dead platter and some way of clamping the disk tightly
to it. This is simple physics.

To the OP... One way * to judge the quality of any arm/'table combo is to
listen to the disk's surface noise. Generally, the better the system (with
the same pickup, of course **) the less and the lower the surface noise. In
particular, transient noises will be shorter and more "tick"-like, rather
than blurred "pops".


* Note that I said "One way". Not "the only way". I have to say such things
because most people can't read plain English.

** That should have been implicit, but I had to spell that out, too.

"William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> "Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:nrmdnVh1dqjTtP_VnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote
>> in
>> message news:[email protected]
>>> "Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:YradnWdG76xrBfzVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> "sillyputty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>
>>>> A belt-drive Dual turntable in good shape should be
>>>> equal or better to a modern entry-level turntable.
>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
>> Personal experience, and some measurements.
>
>>> The modern 'table probably has "deader" that makes
>>> better contact with the disk. And the arm also might be
>>> less resonant.

>> I'm not talking about "probably", I'm talking about
>> personal experiences and facts.

>> Besides, this is hardly a tall claim - the Dual 701 was
>> a higher-end product in its day, and we're talking
>> entry-level turntables.

> Well, I consider it a "fact" -- based on personal
> experience -- that one wants an acoustically dead platter
> and some way of clamping the disk tightly to it. This is
> simple physics.

It's intuitive physics, which needs some kind of confirmation, either
analytical or experimental, to back it up.

As far as tight clamping and vibration go, conventional wisdom among people
who work with sort of thing every day is that loose clamping or no clamping
is better. The goal of vibration damping is to dissipate energy, and a
loose coupling between the mat and the metal does that better because it
allows more sliding and flexing.

Virtually every manual turntable and a lot of automatics allow you to
replace the turntable mat with whatever you want. Because of the very large
surface area of the interface between the mat and the platter, this is a
very good form of damping.

> To the OP... One way * to judge the quality of any
> arm/'table combo is to listen to the disk's surface
> noise.

That's an interesting piece of audiophile lore. I've done experiments where
I measured test bands from the HFNN test record on a glass-platter Rega,
with and without a thick felt mat. Negligible differences. It gave me a lot
of respect for the damping effects of the vinyl LP all by itself.

> Generally, the better the system (with the same
> pickup, of course **) the less and the lower the surface
> noise. In particular, transient noises will be shorter
> and more "tick"-like, rather than blurred "pops".

A cartridge and arm have to be seriously into the POS range to have
mechanical effects that would change those things.


A little anecdote - I browbeat your old boss, a certain Mr. Atkinson into
actually doing technical tests on a turntable for the little ragazine that
he runs. He only did it once - I suspect because he found that most of what
he measured in the way of nastiness came from the LP itself.