Acustic Research XA vs High End Turntables Sound Test Demo 

IT's not Fair it must be the same Cartridge for all Tonarms changing

The high end decks gave more clarity and detail, but the 60 year old AR still did a commendable job overall.

Here's a test for you...put a good quality cartridge in a STOCK (un modified) AR XA (or XB) that has been cleaned up/functioning properly. Play the last few grooves of the original Telarc 1812 overture with the final cannon shots. The AR will track the shots within the cartridge's recommended tracking force range. Remove the cartridge from the AR and install it in turn in the other TTs. The other two will likely bounce the cartridge/arm completely out of the grooves at anything less than 2x the recommended force and even then will probably mistrack the final canon shot. Been there, done that test.... People consistently "rate" the AR XA/XB based on its appearance/price instead of the design engineering involved and its actual ability to play a record. The tonearm and head shell, which are often replaced as an "upgrade" is actually a far better functional design than any of the arms that are typically suggested to replace it. Modifications made to the XA will usually downgrade its performance compared to what it was capable of when in new condition. That includes spring upgrades, which are invariably too stiff. Motors? If the stock motor can maintain 33 1/3 RPM constantly - which it can - an "upgrade" motor can't make 33.333 into a "better" 33.333!. Belts are another issue. Most belts sold for the XA/XB are too short and are just cheap generic belts that can manage to be looped around the inner platter and motor pulley. They are not as precisely made as the original belts, which AR individually ground to spec. Increased flutter can be the result. The only belt I am aware of that is close to the original - at least it's the correct length - is made in Australia! Go figure... The typical "too short" belt then requires stiffer springs to keep the platter in the proper position. The stiffer springs then reduce the isolation the TT is famous for. IOW, nearly all of the popular mods actually reduce performance...they are DOWNGRADES from the TT as delivered new.

The XA was absolutely brilliant! Coherent and ambient. It breathed and kept hold of harmonic subtleties.

the AR XA has a $ 129.00 cartridge, the first and second turntables have cartridges costing $ 2000.00. Fair comparison ?

Hard to judge the turntables given they are each running very different cartridges. As Edgar Vilchur (the designer) said, the job of the turntable is to get out of the way (and let the cartridge do its thing). really, one could say that about all audio components. None can rise above the quality of the signal itself. They can only detract. So much ink is wasted on unquantifiable and undefinable characteristics for which there are no physical principles to "optimize". The mere fact that this comparison is relevant more than 60 years after the AR XA was introduced is testament to Edgar Vilchur's emphasis on fundamentals, while rejecting the temptations of exotic materials and woo-woo theories.

Considering that the XA is 60 yrs old, cost $500 in today's money when new & has a cheap cartridge I think it stood up quite well to 2 TT's and cartridges that cost thousands of dollars. Not a fair comparison BUT, the XA kicked some serious a$$ all things considered. Run this again with the same cartridge in all 3 TT's and post that video. This video just proves how capable the XA really is. Thanks! After listening 4 times, the XA's right channel is down in level, NOT the fault of the table but I'd say some work needs to be done to the cartridge or RCA leads. Just my 2 cents.

AR kicks butt!

The fist deck was the best followed by the second. The AR was not in the same class of course and is lacking in it's presentation of lower mid and especially bass frequencies, which, by comparison to the other TT's was effectively missing. The upper mids and high frequencies, though, seemed adequate and on a par with other TT's in it's class.

Who does Audio Test comparisons with a warped record?

The AR is clearly running slow. Sounds like it's running at 31RPM Not really fair If I'm correct on the speed issue

The first two sounded Great, the third I personally would not ever use. The first one Geodec was the smoothest less popping and clear , Smooth you could listen all day.

I could listen to differences among cartridges. Not turntables. XA have synchronous motor and theoretically have no speed problem. Surfaces of RCA connectors on XA should be cleaned or the cable replaced for its age.

Sound difference, the phono cartridges not the turn table. Thump each turntable when the record is playing and see which is better.

You might consider using a flat record for testing instead of this warped one. What's the point of buying a high end turntable if you are going to put a warped vinyl on it.

The AR motor is pitched slower ..It needs adjustment

Vinyl records, eh? You just can't beat it, with all the pops, clicks and crackles you just know aren't on the master tape.

Not a very scientific comparison. All it proved is that they can all play an LP.

A very unsatisfactory demo. Different carts,different electronic. But soundwise nothing was convincing. On my old 1249 with a DV Karat on an vintage AX-5 even via a pair of decent old Actel speakers it sounds WAY more clear and dynamic. Im pretty sure YT compression did its part.

useless