Analog for low vs high efficiency speakers

bonzo

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
766
Read this interesting tidbit on another forum - does anyone know how TT choice will change from high to low efficiency speakers? One guy also recommended parallel tracking arm for low efficiency, not sure why. Any experience?

"The Verdier is generally used in a specific school of system building, based on high efficiency speakers. If you've been to Munich, the Silbatone guys demonstrate every year that a spherical stylus gets quite sufficient information off a record, thank you, if said information finds it easy to travel out of the speakers and to the listener's ear. Decks for this school are really only there to provide a stable platform for arm and cart and not editorialize the sound. Besides the Verdier, look at Micro Seiki etc. for a similar approach. If used outside this context, such decks are often accused of sounding a bit quiet or even boring.

Systems built around low efficiency polyprop or bextrene drivers tend to favour decks that take a more active role in shaping the end result, I find, and depend on a more highly developed sense of detail, and quite often a higher level of treble, as provided by sharper styli à la MicroRidge et al.
 
i think its pretty bogus, personally. do people think direct drive would work better on low efficiency speakers because of more shove? most of my friends with high efficiency speakers actually have direct drive TTs - Brinkmann, Garrard, etc.
 
i think its pretty bogus, personally. do people think direct drive would work better on low efficiency speakers because of more shove? most of my friends with high efficiency speakers actually have direct drive TTs - Brinkmann, Garrard, etc.

Garrard is idler. I can see why some designs which might be noisier could be a choice for lower, but not for higher, efficiency speakers. Would go to know if someone had any experience of this happening.

Also not sure why he mentioned a couple of designs which he considers 'non-active' to sound boring in lower as opposed to higher efficiency speakers
 
Garrard is idler. I can see why some designs which might be noisier could be a choice for lower, but not for higher, efficiency speakers. Would go to know if someone had any experience of this happening.

Also not sure why he mentioned a couple of designs which he considers 'non-active' to sound boring in lower as opposed to higher efficiency speakers

idlers have more drive than belts though. analog is far from quiet in general, so not sure it matters. if you are looking for dead quiet, stick with digital.
 
idlers have more drive than belts though. analog is far from quiet in general, so not sure it matters. if you are looking for dead quiet, stick with digital.

HA! Gonna play devil's advocate here...."ïf you're looking for dead quiet, stick with digital, you only hear half of it. :D
 
Back
Top