Motor test turntables pionner plx1000, technics m3d and audio technica 1240
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2

    Default Motor test turntables pionner plx1000, technics m3d and audio technica 1240

    Ey..... I want to make this video to see differences responses of this turntables..
    Super oem(audio technica) it's perfect

  2. #2
    Tech Guru the_bastet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    2,363

    Default

    ATLP1240 is still my favorite turntable. I use them like crazy, but they havent stood the test of time for build quality yet, like technics.

    My technics were made in the 80's and are still going strong. They work like brand new (aside from an rca replacement and tonearm lock replacement).

    We shall see how the newer Super OEMS hold up, but I will not that my 150's were god damn tanks.
    - Equipment - 2X Technics 1200, 2X Audio Technica ATLP1240, 2X XDJ700, 2X XDJ1000 MK2, Denon DNX-1100, Mixars DUO, DJM750 MK2, NI Audio 10, NI Aduio 4, Serato SL3, 4X Shure M44-7, 2X Ortofon Pro S, 2X Numark Groove Tool, Maschine MK3, Samson Carbon 49, Roland SE-02, Novation Launchcontrol, TouchOSC, Nocation Peak, Arturia MiniBrute, Korg Volca Kick, MicroKorg (Classic), NI Komplete Audio 6

  3. #3
    Tech Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Totally pointless, like nearly every youtube blog.

    There are actual measureable specs for these things, like start and stop times. I dont know how a video of a hand pressing a series of start buttons on turntables is useful to anyone..

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNoDJ View Post
    Totally pointless, like nearly every youtube blog.

    There are actual measureable specs for these things, like start and stop times. I dont know how a video of a hand pressing a series of start buttons on turntables is useful to anyone..


    This was a pretty messed up bunch of tests, too.

  5. #5
    Tech Guru mostapha's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reticuli View Post
    This was a pretty messed up bunch of tests, too.
    How so?

    It wasn't perfect, of course. But it was at least apples to apples with some useful information. I feel like it might have carried more weight if he'd used a "real" converter instead of a budget one, but his conclusions didn't seem wrong.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mostapha View Post
    How so?

    It wasn't perfect, of course. But it was at least apples to apples with some useful information. I feel like it might have carried more weight if he'd used a "real" converter instead of a budget one, but his conclusions didn't seem wrong.
    Changing the converter wouldn't have automatically alleviated the issues with the comparison.

    For one, because random distortion and periodicity distortion are heard differently. An order of magnitude quieter periodicity distortion will sound worse to a person than random distortion, which is why Pioneer switched to 64bit processing and added aggressive accompanying dither on the DJM900NXS2. Dither is nothing but random-like noise added. Going, 'look, the Pioneer has some weird oscillation but it's smaller than the chaotic noise in the high frequencies of the Xone,' was a little alarming.

    Even more worrisome about that review, and here debunking a criticism on the DJM so as not to seem like I'm piling on just one brand, was claiming the Pioneer was distorting at a much lower metering level with the digital pad at default. The Xone has a quieter master output. He didn't verify that it wasn't the interface/converter clipping. If you look at his software scope levels, the clipping occurs at exactly the same spot across the tests... highly unlikely to be an identical clip point between the mixers and the Pioneer just so happens to be inaccurately metering. The Pioneer metering has issues, but that's not one of them.

    For these sorts of tests, it's not so much which interface, but how you use it and how you verify that you are not running out of headroom. Every interface and sound input setup has to be treated like that, regardless of its price. Any common distortion found between the two mixers, like on some of his harmonic distortion tests, would likely be the interface, as well. Zero point in attributing it to the mixers without evidence.

    Again, any interface is going to have its own characteristics, and what you're trying to find are differences on the mixers while ensuring that their benign differences (like output level differences) are not becoming an issue for the interface and the computer. At least he didn't make any claims about "inadequate drive" on the outputs like I hear old timer analog rotary heads blab on about.
    Last edited by Reticuli; 01-23-2018 at 05:15 PM.

  7. #7
    Tech Guru mostapha's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,654

    Default

    That's absolutely fair. I have to admit I didn't watch all of the video and assumed he was handling the inputs correctly. Thinking back, that's probably not the case.

    Furthermore, with the DJM being all digital, and 64-bit at that, they'd have to be pretty dumb to set it up badly enough that it was possible to clip its DAC...it would be pretty easy to force the ADC/inputs to use a reference level so that with everything pegged it still wouldn't clip the DAC on the output...and if they designed it like that with idiot DJs in mind, it would exhibit that exact behavior....since it would be easy to generate so high a level that no real world ADC could cope with it.

    I didn't catch anything about random noise but did see some stuff about higher order harmonics in the xone. I just assumed his commentary had some association with reality.

    I also find it odd that he didn't seem to find some other faults in the xone that I've seen demonstrated elsewhere as well. But, I easily could have missed them.

    As for the jab at rotary heads....do people actually claim that a higher output level is automatically a positive? Or by drive do you mean people actually like the sound of a bozak or whatever driven nonlinear?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mostapha View Post
    That's absolutely fair. I have to admit I didn't watch all of the video and assumed he was handling the inputs correctly. Thinking back, that's probably not the case.

    Furthermore, with the DJM being all digital, and 64-bit at that, they'd have to be pretty dumb to set it up badly enough that it was possible to clip its DAC...it would be pretty easy to force the ADC/inputs to use a reference level so that with everything pegged it still wouldn't clip the DAC on the output...and if they designed it like that with idiot DJs in mind, it would exhibit that exact behavior....since it would be easy to generate so high a level that no real world ADC could cope with it.

    I didn't catch anything about random noise but did see some stuff about higher order harmonics in the xone. I just assumed his commentary had some association with reality.

    I also find it odd that he didn't seem to find some other faults in the xone that I've seen demonstrated elsewhere as well. But, I easily could have missed them.

    As for the jab at rotary heads....do people actually claim that a higher output level is automatically a positive? Or by drive do you mean people actually like the sound of a bozak or whatever driven nonlinear?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well you can't clip the DSP of these floating point digital mixers, anyway. You can clip the ADC stage (which is actually quite easy on the Pioneers due to their goofy input trims and DSP-based channel meters, especially with the way DJs screw around with the EQs) or reaching the 0dB full scale limit on the output stages, assuming the limiter is turned off, which it should be outside of the studio environment. However, you have to reach into the second red (now "Clip") on the output meter to clip that stage at all.

    Now, I will say I'm disappointed with the way Pioneer's digital pad works on their newer mixers. It's just a digital version of the analog pad screw on the DJM800, which in and of itself wasn't a bad thing, as it was (still is on the DJM900s) useful for at least compensating for limitations of gear further downstream (like that Behringer). If they're going to put a digital pad in there, they should have made it pre-master-meter before it goes to any outputs. That way you put a -10dB attenuator in the settings and just stick the master out volume at max, as you do on the Xones and could optionally do on the digital Denons.

    Analog rotary heads are not talking pleasing intentional distortion, rather that slightly quieter signals inherent to some mixer outputs are somehow not getting the most out of their amps. It's mental. I mean, geez, all the amp volume is is a trim, anyway. The only situation pro nominal makes a difference is on long cable runs, and then, half the level on one over the other isn't going to amount to much, which is usually what they're complaining about between mixers. Uhhh... turn your amps up, dude. Simple. That doesn't even get into the whole issue with how bad most balanced ins and outs are compared to the records/tape outs if we're comparing short runs.
    Last edited by Reticuli; 01-24-2018 at 03:39 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •