Sony LX-310 Turntable with Bluetooth Connectivity $236 + Delivery ($0 C&C) @ The Good Guys

180

Go to Deal

Cashback

jsediv on 24/10/2023 - 13:29 thegoodguys.com.au (679 clicks)
Last edited 24/10/2023 - 13:42 by 2 other users

FRENZY23

RRP $399. Apply coupon code FRENZY23 at checkout.

Heres a copy paste description:

The Sony Turntable with Bluetooth Connectivity PSLX310BT is a fully automatic vinyl record player with Bluetooth 5.0 for easy connections to your true wireless earbuds or headphones. The player features a convenient one step auto playback function, switchable gain levels, sturdy aluminium tone arm with excellent traceability, and diecast aluminium platter. Also included is a felt mat for the platter and a thick removeable dust cover muffling any potential acoustic pressure from a speaker setup for better stability.

Related Stores

The Good Guys

• 

  Wolfenstein98k on 24/10/2023 - 14:05

  +16

  If you're using vinyl because you think you can hear a difference, don't then run it through the extremely lossy compression of a Bluetooth connection.

  • 

    Namidairo on 24/10/2023 - 14:30

    It also supports output to a computer as an USB audio (probably recording/input) device, but I doubt that's great either.

    As for the Bluetooth, that was probably an afterthought, as the codec selection is limited to SBC and Apt-X. Not even their own "lossless" (Many would say that it isn't) codec LDAC. Good job Sony.

    Another thing to note is that the support page says that it's incompatible with 78rpm vinyl as well.

  • 

    Aloa on 24/10/2023 - 15:01

    'lossy' is a controversial term to use in this comparison, say 'digital' is more accurate.

    • 

      Wolfenstein98k on 24/10/2023 - 15:04

      +3

      It's not controversial at all, even the best Bluetooth codec (LDAC) is lossy.

      It only allows AptX, which is very lossy.

      Mind you I'm fine with AptX-HD, or even AptX in a pinch, but I don't claim to be a vinyl connoisseur. I trust the double-blind studies and a cursory understand of digital audio.

      • 

        cactusjuice on 24/10/2023 - 15:28

        Yup, correct

      • 

        Aloa on 25/10/2023 - 10:08

        Vinyl as analogue productions are lossy AF by the digital standard when you compare to bluetooth, so it is controversial.

        The reason why people should never play vinyl via Bluetooth is that, it defeats the purpose of playing a vinyl record —— and for a fundamentalist, one shouldn't even consider playing any vinyl that is digital-recorded or mastered.

        • 

          Wolfenstein98k on 25/10/2023 - 11:15

          @Aloa: Any "fundamentalist" would surely be buying their vinyl direct from the small number of pressing firms that avoid digital conversion in the pressing process too, right?

          Digital delay lines have been used in the pressing process since the early 80s.

          Almost ang vinyl pressed in the last 40 years has been converted to digital and back at least once.

          Almost everything about vinyl is pure cork-sniffery. Full of myths and bullsh!t and marketing.

          I've found about 95% of even the most "fundamentalist" vinyl consumers have no idea about how digital sampling really works, let alone that their vinyls have not been "purely analogue" from start to finish, let alone that they couldn't hear the difference anyway.

          • 

            Aloa on 25/10/2023 - 15:11

            +1

            @Wolfenstein98k: I agree most of what you said, except people can hear the differences of pops and cracks no matter what. :-)

            Also, 'Turntablism' is a thing that all about replaying, which I think contributes to Vinyl's revival (in a good way). I don't fault people when they don't know about it, but I do believe they should know the reason why they are doing what they are doing, so strictly no Bluethooth over vinyl imo.

    • 

      HaydosK on 24/10/2023 - 19:35

      How? If I record it losslessly in flac I bet you won't hear a difference.

  • 

    Budju on 24/10/2023 - 18:46

    +1

    Yeah this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen

• 

  zefoz on 24/10/2023 - 15:24

  +1

  It does have two rca outputs as well, and has an inbuilt pre amplifer so good to set up to a non phono input amp, therefore you can avoid bluetooth altogether if needed

  Dual output: Phono / Line

• 

  dynaflow on 24/10/2023 - 15:35

  Analogue sound vs digital sound…An old chestnut,but as a musician I can tell the difference.

  • 

    Wolfenstein98k on 24/10/2023 - 18:56

    As a musician who understands how digital audio works, I assure you you can't tell the difference.

    Digital audio is converted to (analogue!) sound waves in the speakers.

    The only thing you could "hear" would be the anti-aliasing filters or bad ADC (which stopped being a thing decades ago).

    $10,000 says you can't tell the difference in a reasonable ABX comparison.

    • 

      HaydosK on 24/10/2023 - 19:36

      You can hear a difference because many songs are mastered differently.

      • 

        Wolfenstein98k on 24/10/2023 - 20:39

        Almost no songs are mastered purely on the analogue domain, but practically zero songs are analogue all the way to pressing. Digital is in the chain, even if you buy it on an analogue medium.

        As to mastering, that's usually a myth. Analogue media tend to show higher results on dynamic range tests, but that's an artefact of the process of REMOVING audio content when printing to vinyl. High- and low-pass filters are used, and very low bass content is often truncated or made closer to mono if it has any stereo component to the panning, in order to prevent the needle jumping the groove.

        9 times out of 10, even with a vinyl pressing done today, the actual mastering is not different - except where minor compromises are made to make vinyl more closely mimic the true digital playback.

        Almost everything about modern vinyl is pure myth-making.

    • 

      Budju on 24/10/2023 - 22:38

      As someone who has studied digital signals, there is no way that there isn't an audible difference between pure analogue and a crumby Bluetooth signal. But in any case, if you are happy with a moderate fidelity digital signal, then why do you A. own a record player, and B. are degrading your expensive records listening to them at Spotify streaming quality (or worse)? Not to mention, you are subject to the record player's ADC, and Bluetooth receiver's DAC. Which, if you own this record player, is shit. I feel like you need to go back to your research table, sir.

      • 

        Wolfenstein98k on 25/10/2023 - 07:05

        If you've "studied digital signals", why are you confusing Bluetooth with "Spotify streaming signal"? They're completely different compression techniques and not remotely comparable (even at 128kbps due to OGG Vorbis).

        Also note you're replying to a thread simply comparing "analog sound to digital sound".

        • 

          Budju on 25/10/2023 - 13:48

          @Wolfenstein98k: They are both digital signals. Different transmission techniques don't change that. They are comparable because they are digital signals. There is nothing more to say to your failed attempt at sounding superior.

          • 

            Wolfenstein98k on 25/10/2023 - 14:24

            +1

            @Budju: Incorrect. A digital WAV file is incomparable to an SBC Bluetooth signal.

            This like saying "Apples and Oranges taste the same because they are both fruit".

            Bluetooth (typically via SBC) is heavily truncated digital audio. A lot of content is removed, some audible.

            By comparison, a 16-bit WAV file removes no audible content from the original sampled analogue sound. When played back through modern ADC, it is audibly indistinguishable from the original analogue sound.

            • 

              Budju on 25/10/2023 - 19:32

              @Wolfenstein98k: Which part of what I said was incorrect? Because it sounds like you're just agreeing with me, but doing it with a hugely annoying tone.

              • 

                Wolfenstein98k on 25/10/2023 - 23:26

                @Budju: I don't understand why you replied to me in the first place, if you actually think I'm correct.

                You chimed in to claim to have done more study than me and that I need to do more "research", but you have been vague and unspecific to hide that you don't actually have any technical knowledge on the topic.

                That's also why you can't find any flaws in what I have said (which has been specific), and just offer literally meaningless statements like "both Bluetooth and OGG Vorbis are digital signals". The sentence contains no information - no one is under the impression that either were analogue.

                You have nothing to add, but you feel compelled to talk, and to talk down to me too.

                It's okay to just know less about a topic and accept it.

                (If you'd like to prove me wrong, give some technical details to your argument so there's actually some content to it. Otherwise you're clearly just remaining vague so as to hold your indefensible views without justifying them.)

                • 

                  Budju on 25/10/2023 - 23:32

                  @Wolfenstein98k: My original response to you was significantly more brutal, but I re-wrote it because I actually felt sorry for you. As it's pretty clear you have no comprehension as to how the much signal degradation would be involved in an analogue to digital to digital to analogue transfer over a wireless digital signal transfer medium. Page 1, you're not correct. But nothing you have said negates or invalidates a single thing I have said. You're literally talking about container formats to try and rebut my justification for comparing two digital signals. Irrelevant. Why you actually agree with me, is that you seem to understand that Bluetooth is a lossy transmission format that would have an audible difference when compared to raw analogue transmission.

                  • 

                    Wolfenstein98k on 25/10/2023 - 23:42

                    @Budju: Right, but 320kbps Vorbis is essentially transparent. No one passes a reasonable ABX with it. That is available through Spotify.

                    Though "lossy", it's very transparent and completely incomparable to even a good Bluetooth codec like AptX-HD.

                    So, what exactly do you disagree with here?

                    • 

                      Budju on 26/10/2023 - 00:15

                      @Wolfenstein98k: The context of this discussion is a record player that converts a vinyl analogue transmission to a Bluetooth signal.

                      Do you support this device?

                      • 

                        Wolfenstein98k on 26/10/2023 - 00:32

                        @Budju: Well, I don't think vinyl is worth it in almost any context for the reasons I've outlined. Almost all of its purported advantages are myths.

                        By contrast, digital audio is perfectly fine. There are no disadvantages.

                        However, as I said at the start, if you think vinyl is worth it, then don't waste that perceived advantage by running the output through a Bluetooth connection.

                        The only potential saviour here would be if it ran LDAC, which is a close to transparent BT codec in ideal conditions - only it doesn't.

                        So no, not at all.

                        (PS the context of this discussion was digital vs analog audio. Look at the thread you're replying within.)

• 

  terrys on 24/10/2023 - 17:10

  +2

  As expected, being Sony, they have saddled it with a cartridge and arm that look non-standard that offers no tracking weight or anti-skate provision.

  Don't worry about warranty - they'll walk away from this in a couple of years like they did with their MP3 players (that needed their software to transfer the music), Walkman phones (which utilised a proprietary connector they dropped within three years), their earlier turntables (proprietary connector for both signal and power which were a cut-down DC feed) among other things.

  They really don't like no longer being a standards setter, but display little self-awareness of why that is the case. Well engineered units crippled to follow some wet-dreams in the marketing section and delusions of being the main player.

  $50 tops for what will be, in effect, a disposable unit.

• 

  Manny Calavera on 24/10/2023 - 18:20

  I’ll stick with my SL-D2 then.

  • 

    gregoinc on 24/10/2023 - 20:12

    The SL-D2 looks amazing. Pity they are not available new anymore.

• 

  daft009 on 25/10/2023 - 14:09

  what about the audio technica sound-burger for similar money?
  https://www.audio-technica.com/en-au/at-sb727

  • 

    casho on 26/10/2023 - 13:56

    That is good for portable use