I’m not really going to talk about the RPM 10 Record Player by Pro-Ject Audio Systems. I’m going to talk about what these record players stand for. The funny thing about the modern audiophile record player is the record player inevitably likes to display every piece and part of the machine as if it were crafted from gold. I, personally, find this aesthetic a bit ugly in its purity and spartanism. Each one of these record players has a base, a record plate, a tone arm, and needle, and a belt driven motor. Let’s start with the arm. Why can’t this ever be anything fun like it being in the actual shape of an arm?! Then, take the record plate. This plate is made to be massive and heavy to keep the speed of the record more consistent due to the inertia of this plate. This plate is often made of translucent glass or acrylic. Again, I don’t see why items couldn’t be embedded in the glass to give it some texture. All I want is a flourish of some kind! Is that too much to ask? But for you serious audiophiles, get out your high thread-count comforter, get out your precisely positioned Eames Lounge Chair that you paid an expert to find the sonic inflection point in your den, get out your velcro attached foam dampers, get out your 80 mil red virgin vinyl copy of Stereo Review’s Stereo Demonstration Record, and get out your checkbook because you are going to be paying around ten grand for one of these machines.
Loading ...
May 27th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Mr. Baunach:
For the record (pun intended) this particular turntable is priced at $2400 US, not $10,000. I’m confused - how hi-end turntables be simultaneously ‘display(ing) all parts as if crafted from gold’, yet be ugly in their ‘purity and spartanism’ (contradiction, yes?). You obviously haven’t seen a lot of high-end turntables - there are several that ‘embed’ stuff in the ‘glass’ (glass is hardly ever used - there are reasons for this). There are also reasons for embedding things in the platter (not ‘plate’ - gad!), and it has nothing to do with looks, but might appeal to you nonetheless…check out Teres turntables (teresaudio.com), and the divine Spotheim SPJ (http://www.tjbailey.com/spj/products.htm)
Maybe Bang and Olufson is more your type, but - damn it - they no longer make turntables.
Turntables and arms and various components are designed based on some sort of engineering and listening and tweaking, and different manufacturers have their theories. What falls out of the research is what gets built - they are not meant to be eye candy, or cater to mainstream acceptability, nor are they meant to offend or alienate same said audience - they are what they are, just like the hairs in your nose.
Expensive turntables? 10 grand is the starting point. Check out the
Continuum Caliburn - $90,000 - $110,000
Walker audio Proscenium Gold Signature w/tweaks - $85,000
Rockport Technologies System III Sirius w/tweaks - $75,000
Ugly? I’m sure you’ll hate them all, and the more expensive, the ‘uglier’.
The cost of a turntable is a tricky subject, but has nothing to do with whether you like the looks of it. You want to use that as line of reasoning to support your disdain for the so-called lack of aesthetic merit. Perhaps your point is that something expensive must look ‘nice’, and thus inspire lust. Best of luck with that. The fact that someone is willing to pay $22 million for a painting by Rothko - aesthetic value implied - does not mean it is really worth that much, does it? (paradoxical, no?) Aesthetics are a very personal and complex thing (Kant argue with that). I personally like the looks of the above turntable, and other turntables. I’m not going to shell out my money based on looks alone - for anything - except maybe shoes. Unlike art, the lust inspired by this turntable for me is based on the desire for how it sounds, or rather, how it can communicate in the right system.
I’m perplexed by the ‘arm looking like an arm’ comment - good lord - does that mean in your world that cameras should be shaped like giant eyeballs? That would be ‘fun’. And you have a background in architecture? If I didn’t know a thing about architecture, I could easily run around and point fingers at so many ‘atrocities’ that populate the urban fabric in general, and say ‘they paid ten million for that?’ Etc, etc, etc….Ever lusted after a building based on its cost? I could also talk about you yoke architects sitting in your Mies or Gehry or Corbu or Rashid (wait, he’s not an architect) - designed chairs, pulling on stogies and espousing post-modern (or is it post-mortem) gobbedlygook regarding the architectural and socio-cultural relevance and virtue of Zaha Hadid’s Vitra fire station. But I do know a thing, and know better than to make off-handed, reductive comments. The world is way more complex than that.
If you’re going to ‘talk about what these record players stand for’, by all means illuminate us. But your article is pointless. You could buy any turntable and hot-glue seashells and cheap gemstones onto the platter, and swoon in rapture, and probably do it for under $1000. Whooppee. Nobody’s forcing you to buy the $10,000 turntable and you do have choices -it’s a free market. Stereo Review? What are you talking about? It’s been out of print for over eight years, and no audiophile paid any more attention to that magazine than architects do to Architectural Digest. Get real. If you feel compelled to critique something, you could at least be an honorable writer and get your facts straight - you’re uniformed. And for god’s sake, read your own articles over to see if they make sense.
May 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate such well thought out comment. I think all this stuff you said makes sense. This was the most enjoyable comment I’ve read on this blog, and I can’t thank you enough. The only thing I would have done differently is I might have included a couple of links to your favorite record players. Feel free to do so. The truth is, I don’t think these expensive turntables are ugly. I like a modernist, stripped-down aesthetic as well as good sound quality. I just like having fun when I write, too. And it’s a blog after all. I’m not really a professional. If I got paid well to write about this stuff, then I would be more than happy to be more thoughtful. Until then, I’m going to treat this as a hobby, and have fun with it.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:10 am
All I am going to say is… $100,000 ?!?! For something to play VINYL?! Im somewhat of a purist myself, but it had better come with a front door for that price! I doubt most of the master cutters produced ever cost that much, nevermind a player!