$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

Twl,

I am not surprised to learn of your objections to the Aurora Gold in terms of build quality. The pictures of it on the Origin Live web site tell me that story. But it is interesting to learn that you were dissatisfied with the sound. However, maybe that shouldn’t be a big surprise either.

I read several reviews of the OL turntables. One was in Hi-Fi+, a magazine that seems to love everything British, especially Origin Live. Then Paul Szabady of the Stereotimes seems to be equally dazzled by everything OL just like Hi-Fi+. I am sure there’s no tacit collusion, but I am just a wee bit skeptical of Szabady when he uses the Linn as a reference standard. There are several turntables that have eclipsed the performance of that analog veteran so as a yardstick it’s no longer that impressive. Then I could not help but notice Origin Live advertising on the Stereotimes web site. While this is not a crime, it does cause me to wonder about the truth and objectivity of that online publication.

What surprised me the most was Fremer’s review of the Resolution Modern in the July issue of Stereophile. He stated that the Resolution Modern was one of the truly special products he had auditioned in the past 18 years. That’s quite a statement, but yet the turntable only ended up in Class B of Stereophile’s rating system. (Maybe Atkins was not as impressed, or maybe he thinks that his Linn is still the reference standard?) Whatever the case, it seems that Fremer has bestowed greatness on a number of products lately, which raises some doubts in my mind about his objectivity.

>>I have had suspended-chassis turntables such as Linn, and others, and have worked on a lot of others at the shop I worked at. Listened to most of the other brands too, over a long time. I once liked the suspended designs, but have come to feel that the unsuspended designs are more to my liking.<<

I don’t have this level of experience. The last mass-loaded turntable design I listened to was the Clearaudio Master Solution. I had no complaints with its sound whatsoever. The price of the deck was another matter.

With my limited knowledge, a suspended design turntable cannot overcome all of the problems of a suspended floor. It can minimize them, but not eliminate them. A wall mount is the only way to go, but it has problems too, especially if one’s home is vulnerable to the vibration caused by street traffic. As for airborne vibrations, you are right about them, especially if the music is played loud and subwoofers are employed in a smallish room in which the turntable has been placed too close to the speakers.

>…even when I have my big Rottweiler jumping around in front of the TT.<<

You are a brave soul; that would make me very nervous!

Artar1 - I forgot to add the Nottingham Spacedeck in the list - sorry.

Artar1 - My experience with tables is not as large as some others, I have had Linn (LP12 and Axis), Michel Gyro, Rega P3 and VPI HW19MKIV (current), as you can see those have a different suspension approach.

I have heard Acoustic Signature tables and sound fantastic, but not the Teres line. I feel keen towards mass loaded tables with proper shelves to control resonances (Nuance, Bright Star, Ginko, etc..), I am considering this tables, and would like to share the list with you:

1.- Avid (Diva or Volvere)
2.- Acoustic Solid (Check ETM coverage by S. Rochlin)
3.- The Bixx table (with optional battery PS)
4.- Wilson Benesch Act1

Unfortunatly I have added more variables to the equation instead of making it simple, but I think you are on time to pick and choose the best for you.

Fernando
I have not heard the last two odf this list, please keep that in mind.

Artar1 - never heard a Shelter cart myself, but I am sure you are in the right track based on others opinions.

Fernando

I had an Aurora Gold here for audition about a year ago. I used my own arm and cartridge on it, and also an Encounter arm, a Shelter 501, and a DL103R, and a Music Maker II.

IMO, it did not even compare to my Teres in sound quality, or build quality. I sent it back. I've never tried the OL Resolution table.

I have had suspended-chassis turntables such as Linn, and others, and have worked on alot of others at the shop I worked at. Listened to most of the other brands too, over a long time. I once liked the suspended designs, but have come to feel that the unsuspended designs are more to my liking.

There are some inherent problems with suspending a belt-drive turntable on springs, due to the suspension interacting with the drive system, in a bad way. In addition, while the suspension may help with some floorborne vibrations, it does nothing for airborne vibrations.

Funny as it may sound, my(no longer with me) Linn LP12 suspended turntable was far worse with footfalls and floorborne vibrations, than my current Teres is. Funny because the suspension system is supposed to isolate the TT from floorborne vibrations and footfalls. The Linn used to dance all over the place, even when I tip-toed, and the Teres stays rock-solid, and has no audible or visible effects at all, even when I have my big Rottweiler jumping around in front of the TT.

In all of our discussions, not much has been said about mass-loaded tables versus sprung or suspended tables. The suspended table may have an advantage over the mass-loaded design, especially in the area of handling acoustic feedback and being more airy and rhythmically nimble, if that’s true.

Obviously the Teres is a mass-loaded table, as is the Acoustic Signature Final Tool, which Raul likes very much. The Teres uses acrylic/wood, and the Final Tool uses soft aluminum. Both tables have received good reviews: reviews of the Teres have been testimonials online while the Final Tool has received two “professional” write-ups.

Currently I am looking at both tables, and will compare and contrast them shortly in another post. The Teres is more aesthetically appealing while the Final Tool may be more robust, although it does use an AC rather than a DC motor. This difference I find interesting, but not too significant.

I am also looking at two other turntables from Origin Live that no has talked about so far – the Resolution Modern and the Aurora Gold. Both have received outstanding reviews. Michael Fremer really likes the Resolution Modern, and subsequently it was awarded a Class B rating in Stereophile, while the Aurora Gold has been reviewed with much praise by Hi-Fi+ and Stereotimes.

So the field of turntables has certainly widened while my choice of cartridge has been narrowed to just the Shelter, which shouldn’t surprise anyone still reading this thread. I have also narrowed the tonearm choice between two Origin Live offerings – the Encounter, which Fremer likes, and Illustrious, which has also received good reviews. Any other tonearm I have considered is either too expensive or does not seem to perform as well as either of these two from OL when a low compliance cartridge is considered. When I get the chance, I intend to share what the critics are saying about these two decks.

Flg2001,

In all honesty, I have not heard the Denon 103G. Is it similar to the 103D? My first cartridge will be the Shelter 501 II. I am very sure about that decision. I am still working out the turntable/tonearm combination.

Artar1 - Have you heard the 103g (gold)?, I do think it is the only up-scale cart besides my 103r (copper) from that model line, just courious....

Fernando

Hey Letch,

It’s only money, right? That’s what I keep telling myself! Hang in there!

Not to make matters worse for you, have you seen the Redpoint tables? They are breathtaking to say the least.

I know that money will not be the final arbiter in you situation. Sonic performance and aesthetics are important to us both, right? I don’t think it will be a tie. I don’t know why I say that, but I think once you see the top-of-the-line Galibier, you won’t be satisfied with anything else! I know that feeling well. And I bet you’re going have trouble sleeping once you have made your decision. That’s how it is with me. Man I need help. I think I’ll go to AA – Audiophiles Anonymous! “Hi, my name is Artar1…

Also remember that you will need to do finishing work with the Teres if you were to buy the 245 or 255. But you could always by the Cocobolo model! Yeah! That’s the ticket.

Hold me back! Only thirteen big ones for a used La Luce, why sign me up now! What’s 13K, anyway? (That’s more than I spent for my daughter when I bought her a used 2001 Beetle.)

So let your brother buy the Linn. Wait until he sees your Galibier/Teres. He’s going to be green with envy for sure. Man I bet he dumps the Linn or tells you have lousy your rig sounds. Is he older or younger than you?

>>And again, for people like him the magazines plant certain ideas that, as with most people, turn into opinions.<<

You know I have a similar problem, but I try not to let them become strong opinions! : - )

It’s really hard not be influenced by the so-called experts, especially when one cannot see and hear the equipment firsthand. You are very fortunate that you will at least get a chance to see both units before you make a decision, but you won’t be able to hear either one within the context of you own system.

>>We all desire to know things, and as I've seen too often on the 'asylum, confuse second-hand anecdotal evidence as knowledge.<<

Damn, that sounds like me; I had better clean up my act right away. : - )
As I always say, “Others are entitled to my opinion.” Wait a minute, that didn’t come out right. Let me start again. “The opinions of others find their genesis in my well-formed advice.” Oops. Well, you know what I mean?

Unfortunate, first hand experience comes very slowly. It’s not easy to arrange for meaningful auditions of the very equipment we would like to buy. My preference is to ready about this equipment extensively in the press, if it’s available, and as well as online. Then I like to listen to the piece or pieces in the dealer’s showroom. And finally, I like to bring the unit home for testing in my own system. But that’s not always possible either. Finally, I like to listen to live, unamplified music to refresh my memory with what “real” music sounds like.

In this vein, it sounds like you have really done your homework and are ready to listen to your “very short list” of candidates. I think you are doing a great job and will be rewarded with a really hot deck.

>>I have come to respect {Twl’s] views through reading a large number of his posts, and think that he tends to give a very balanced and thorough views without trying to push an ulterior motive.<<

I agree totally. Twl is more objective than Michael Fremer.

>> Some people want to push a certain approach or product as if it's the only way in their "expert" voice.<<

I just hate that, don’t you? When I give advice I try to place it in context to what I perceive the person is asking, not from some hidden agenda of my own. If I don’t know, I simply say so.

>>However, in the end it is my responsibility to sift and sort the data, and come up with my own decision and the accountability of a mistake resides solely with me.<<

I agree. It also helps that when it comes to analog I am not hyper-picky. There are many turntables and tonearms that I could be completely happy with, many of which I cannot afford, however. For me it’s not so much about knowledge of the external world, but knowledge and experience of the inner landscape of my own being. If I come to experience my own inner process without judgment and the preconceived ideas of others, I am more likely to make the right choice, one that fulfills both my mind and heart.

Flg2001,

Yes, the Denon 103R is a very popular cartridge, one used by several of the people who have posted here. Can't go wrong with that unit.

Artar,

I didn't mean to imply that only money would be the deciding factor. I meant that in the case of an aesthetic tie that "value" would be the key. By value I mean a combination of performance, price and aesthetic factors. This would be determining equation. Now any one of those factors can "break the bank". If for instance money is tight, that may do it or I don't like the looks of one of the tables. Or the sound might blow me away and I will decide, "this is the one!" Believe me, my desires will battle with my reason till either the white or dark horse will pull to a decision. I am sure that when this happens I will be happy with the result.

I, too, have had a thing for the La Luce tables! Jeez, it says that they have one used, you should go for it! Only 13 grand!
My brother actually likes the look of the Linn but the only dealers near him sell Linn, Rega and Music Hall which while nice tables aren't my idea of state of the art. And again, for people like him the magazines plant certain ideas that, as with most people, turn into opinions. We all desire to know things, and as I've seen too often on the 'asylum, confuse second-hand anecdotal evidence as knowledge. Even first hand experience is relative to those many changing factors. I'm not saying that empirical or second-hand data, is invalid, but that empirical evidence is best accompanied by YMMV or IMHO and that second-hand data is something that should be acquired through a large data set. I have read lots in magazines, on the internet, here and on the asylum forums and have developed criteria as much as I can through this and what empirical listening with different tables I have been able to get access to.
This dovetails with what you saying to twl, that what he tells us is very worthwhile but he should not feel responsible for the use of the information he gives. I have come to respect his views through reading a large number of his posts and think that he tends to give a very balanced and thorough view without trying to push an ulterior motive. Some people want to push a certain approach or product as if it's the only way in their "expert" voice. That's fine but to me, those people are noise and I tend to block it out. However, in the end it is my responsibility to sift and sort the data, and come up with my own decision and the accountability of a mistake resides solely with me. What I come to is not knowledge (as Socrates says, as time goes on the one thing that he does know is that he doesn't know) but enough information to be dangerous enough to throw thousands of dollars down the analog hole. Though twl and dougdeacon better watch out if that Teres ain't great cuz I'm coming after them!!! Kidding!!!
Really, everybody here has been a great help and I'm confident that I'm on the edge of a great decision. Kudos to everyone who has contributed to this dialogue.

HI, my two cents here:

I own a Denon 103r, after having a Rega Elys, Cardas Heart, VdH 10MC and Linn K9. This cart is very musical, involving, well rounded and a great bargain.

I have heard many other great cartridges at some friends systems here, some sound better, but at x5 cost !

Fernando

Dear Artar1: If you read my answer to your question you can see that the DP6 that I choose was with the standard headshell, not with the precision arm tube.
Regards and always enjoy the music.
Raul.

Rauliruegas,

The Moerch DP-6 with the precision arm tube is $1,890 in the United States. Sorry, that's the price.

Twl,

How audio designers achieve their works of art is a mystery to me. I would love to know how various materials affect the sound; how one circuit carefully chosen over another makes for greater depth and harmonic richness; and how a DC motor can be made to rotate a heavy platter at a nearly constant speed. The good designers know, but they are extremely reluctant to explain their art in detail for fear of plagiarism.

All too often we see many components that simply copy the ideas of others. They may look different, but they are really “me-too” products. The Teres and Galibier are genuine and individualistic, as are those turntables from such companies as Michell, Transrotor, La Luce, Kuzma, and a few others. Then there are the copycats, products that are being introduced into the marketplace at present in an attempt to capitalize on the resurgent interest in vinyl. One, however, can always tell the truly ingenious design by its attention to detail, solid build, commonsense operation, and pleasing aesthetics, not to mention sound quality, which is always first rate.

>>I provided some information that I have learned over the years. There is even a whole lot more beyond these things that we have discussed here.<<

What serves us best is what pleases us most if we are thinking and acting independently. All too often audiophiles choose what is popular or what is currently fashionable in the audio press. While printed and online publications have their value, they do not choose for me, nor do the opinions of others on this, or any bulletin board, serve as my final position on any subject. But then again it’s always nice to be influenced by people who really know what they are talking about.

I speak for myself when I say that I am grateful for your very generous sharing of knowledge. I have certainly learned a lot in a very short period of time. What I find even more useful is how you are able to keep a relatively open, objective mind even when someone suggests something that may not fit your personal preference or experience. You never seem to lose your professionalism under these circumstances, which does, indeed, highlight your years of experience and your wisdom, which you have so kindly shared here.

>>Even these few things have caused some significant differences of opinion here. It is good to get some of these ideas out on the discussion table, so that it can be of use to people willing to learn.<<

I have read nothing so far that I feel countermands what you have presented. If anything, the contrary opinions that have been made to date have only served to reinforce your assertions, not detract from them. So you can feel secure in your contributions. They have been very helpful, at least to me, and I am sure to others as well.

>>I do not intend to say that my selections are by any means the only good selections. There are many ways. Long term experience with listening to different items is the best way to learn. Anytime you listen to advice from anyone, including me, there are going to be certain biases present, based upon what the advisor prefers. This is only natural, and has to be taken into account.<<

To be human is to be biased. Naturally, we tend to recommend that what we like and know. But, I have read all of your posts here and a few elsewhere, and I am convinced that sometimes you have been able to transcend your own frame of reference in making a recommendation that seemed to serve the needs of the recipient without any ulterior motive on your part or any apparent antecedent predilection.

>> I recommend getting as much personal experience as possible, so that you don't need to "lean on" anyone else for opinions which might not match your own needs. I realize that there are a number of folks here on the forum that made their buying decisions based upon what I recommended. This weighs heavily on me, because I feel personally responsible somewhat, for their happiness with their analog system. I cannot guarantee that they will like my selections as much as I do.<<

You needn’t worry in my case. One of the major laws of interpersonal-relational psychology is that we cannot be responsible for the happiness of others, but we are responsible for our own well-being. If we are happy and centered, then we are best able to encourage, engage, and evoke the vitality of others. Following suggestions or recommendations as if they were a recipe for wholeness, individuation, and transformation is usually a mistake, for these things can only be achieved through direct experience and hard work. That is especially true when it comes to choosing an analog front end. However, by providing your personal experience in relationship to analog you have made it possible for us to learn and grow vicariously without removing any of the fun of self-discovery.

Hey Letch,

When you see and hear both the Galibier and the Teres, you will know quickly which one is for you. Don’t let money alone be the deciding factor; let your heart and your desires guide your final choice. Only then will you be able to live with your decision for years to come, years filled with the sweet melody of vinyl or its driving, pulsating force that will fill your being with gladness.

You can tell your brother that Linns are nice, but show him what I lust after:

http://www.toddthevinyljunkie.com/products/product.php?id=48

If he doesn't like that turntable, then try this one:

http://www.toddthevinyljunkie.com/products/product.php?id=49

Or if this doesn't please him, then he can always try this Transrotor TT:

http://transrotor.skileon.info/code/de/produkte/plattenspieler/tourbillon.htm

Now; I ask you; would you buy a Linn after seeing one of these beauties?

Enjoy!

Artar,

I think what's going to happen between these tables is going to come down to value. I have a feeling that I am going to end up owning a Teres when all is said and done. The Galibier is pushing the price envelope and while I am looking to get a package deal with the same arm I think that it's likely that the performance will be so close that the extra $$$ of the Galibier will push me into the Teres. But who knows, I could be blown away.
I am extremely torn about the aesthetics of these two tables though. The Galibier was my initial preference but there is something a little more natural about the Teres tables. Luckily I'll have to let the value vs performance angle make that decision for me.
I got into an argument with my brother today because his dream table is a Linn and while I think they are fine tables I have never heard one sound as good as a lot of other tables I have heard. That I don't even consider the Linn put him off. I think that he's got Stereophile Stars in his eyes and tends to take too much of what they say for "truth". I have nothing against what they publish (though I do think they make some major gaffes) but I think that there is a larger data set to collect from forums such as this and the 'asylum. My brother has not heard many tables so his view is more magazine dependent.
As we all know, it's dependent on so many system factors and preferences. I've done a lot of research and have made my choices and will be making my next steps soon. Perhaps I should go make that airline reservation now......
I recently got the reissue of Janos Starker playing Bach's Cello Suites and get all gooey thinking of what those will sound like on a world class table. Yow!
All in all I look forward to rediscovering a lot of records when I finally make the purchase.......

Dear Artar1: First I write " around $5K ". Second: I own the Moerch Dp6 ( one of my 12+ tonearms ) and already hear the UP4 in my system. Third: I hear all those cartridges ( six of them in my system. I own 20+ cartridges )here we have to include ( I forgot. Big mistake ) the Denon DLS1 for $ 1,200.00. Fourth, I know very well five of those TT because I tested on my system.
Now, I put both tonearms because any one can choose in a different price level: UP4: 850.00 against DP6: 1,300.00 ( standard headshell. It works great. No problem ).
Why so many alternatives/combinations? ( and as you know, there are more ones ): first because the budget, $5k/$6k and second because our musical bias/differents audio systems/differents rooms.
Now if I have to blend these items for one or two differents analog rigs, here it is:

Sumiko Celebration....: $ 1,500.00 Denon DLS1..$1,200.00
Moerch DP6............. 1,300.00 Moerch DP6.. 1,300.00
Acoustic Sig.Final Tool 2,400.00 Final Tool...2,400.00

Total: $ 5,200.00 $ 4,900.00

These two cartridges ( in this analog system ), the Transfiguration Spirit Mk3 and the Allaerts MC1ECO, beats the Shelter 501MK2 and the 901 ( I own both along with the 90X ). The Dynavector and the Van den Hul are very near of them.
Any of the TT's are a great performers, if you ask me that I choose another , I will be happy ( too ) with the Transrotor.

Artar1: I don't support to any manufacturer, like you already told me about Acoustic Signature, I support always to the Music.
If you go to the AS web site: www.acoustic-signature.com, you can learn about these TT's, for example their bearing is a dry one: no oil bearing ( very interesting ), the platter of the Final Tool has a weight of 11 kg and they use not a belt drive on it but only a simple thread, and the motor, power supply and facilities, put right on the top. Try it, at that price it is a great bargain and very hard to beat ( I think almost imposible. ) for less than 10,000.00 TT price range ( other than AS Mambo/Analogue One MK2 ).

BTW, and this for other thread. Right now any one can buy great cartridges/tonearms/TT on the Audiogon clasiffieds, examples:

Benz micro Ruby2 for: 1,300.00 ( one of my favorite cartridges ).
Ortofon Jubillee ( new ), only: 800.00
Spirit MK3 ( new ): 1,050.00
Van den Hul ONE Special: 700.00
Van den Hul Colibri ( a bargain ): 1,800.00

Tonearms:

Naim Aro: 1,300.00
Wilson benesch Act One: 1,200.00
Micro Seiki Max 237: 1,500.00
Ikeda IT-407: 1,800.

Any of these tonearms beats your OL choice and many of the tonearms that have the people in this thread. Yes, they are second hand, but for a very small fraccion of their prices you can be on the top.. My experience tell me that there is no problem with that or at least I have luck in many ocassions.

Regards and always enjoy the music.
Raul.

Artar, when you get deep into turntable, tonearm, and cartridge design, there are many things that don't meet the eye. This is the job of the designer and manufacturer to make the best that they can at the price points they intend to sell the items at. It is very difficult for every analog user to fully understand all of the intricacies of analog systems. And it is not necessary for an analog user to understand all of it.

It ultimately depends on the musical reproduction that results. Since we already know that there is no perfect system, we strive to find what serves us best, musically. Different people may have various ideas about this.

I provided some information that I have learned over the years. There is even a whole lot more beyond these things that we have discussed here.

Even these few things have caused some significant differences of opinion here. It is good to get some of these ideas out on the discussion table, so that it can be of use to people willing to learn. In the end, each person makes their decision based on what they know, and what they want. As long as you are happy with the result, and the budget was within your capability, then it is a good result.

I have certain tastes and needs for my music system. The items I selected provide what I wanted, at my budget. I do not intend to say that my selections are by any means the only good selections. There are many ways. Long term experience with listening to different items is the best way to learn. Anytime you listen to advice from anyone, including me, there are going to be certain biases present, based upon what the advisor prefers. This is only natural, and has to be taken into account. I recommend getting as much personal experience as possible, so that you don't need to "lean on" anyone else for opinions which might not match your own needs. I realize that there are a number of folks here on the forum who made their buying decisions based upon what I recommended. This weighs heavily on me, because I feel personally responsible somewhat, for their happiness with their analog system. I cannot guarantee that they will like my selections as much as I do. However, so far, it has worked out pretty good, because I haven't gotten anyone angry at me yet for a bad recommendation. But it could happen. I do know that they won't go too far wrong with items I recommend, but it may happen that they prefer another item better, and I cannot control that. All I can say that if you have a similar taste and need as I have, then the items I recommend will work well together to give you that result. If everyone liked the same thing, then there would be only one TT, one arm, and one cartridge for sale. The fact that there are many, shows that there are different tastes, needs, and budgets, and different ideas of how things should work. This is part of the fun.

Hey Letch,

I am looking forward to reading your report about the Teres-Galibier shootout. Who do you think will win? Which table grabs your attention more? Inquiring minds want to know!

Twl,

You have provided yet another interesting discourse on the importance of the turntable. Keep it coming!

The turntable’s contribution as a provider of all time-domain information is really a mind twister to be sure, but true. One can make the same argument of the transport mechanism in CD players. Without motion, in either case, there is no music.

The bearing is also important, as you say, and it gets so little attention being buried deep in the plinth. Without robust construction, ample lubrication, and being constructed of high quality parts, the bearing will be unable to help the platter rotate at a constant speed without wobble. Even minor movement can create vibration that is then transmitted from the platter to the cartridge where it’s passed onto the speakers as noise. And if the turntable and tonearm resonate too much from airborne vibration produced by the speakers, these resonances create a feedback loop making the situation even worse, something I head with the Denon/Koetsu combination I discussed earlier.

>>The better turntables…allow the cartridge/tonearm combination to perform at a better level because they are presented with the record information from the groove in a more stable manner, both vertically, horizontally, and in the time domain. Without this proper stability of the record groove, no stylus/cartridge can work at its best, and therefore will perform at less than what was intended.<<

If vibration, wow, flutter, and rumble levels are too high, or if they interfere too much with the proper functioning of the cartridge, no matter how expensive that cartridge might be, the cartridge will not live up to its full potential and may even perform at a lower level than a less expensive transducer on a great table. I experienced this firsthand with the Denon/Koetsu combination. While the sound of that combination was good in relative terms, it could have been easily equaled by a cartridge costing only 1/10th the price, or even less. So my experience does correspond to what you have written above. To hear a truly rock-solid turntable spinning one’s favorite vinyl can be awe inspiring: the background is jet-black and silent, every detail is clearly rendered, bass is thunderous and palpable, and there is a prevalent display of upper-octave bloom and air that cannot be equaled by digital.

>>I only point out that the cartridge can only transducer what it reads, and the arm can only hold it properly over the groove, so that the turntable can feed the information to the cartridge effectively…The turntable provides the environment for the cartridge to work. If the environment is poor, the cartridge cannot make up for it.<<

I think this statement sums it up nicely.

Raul,

You need to run the “numbers” before making specific recommendations in regards to Dsiggia’s theoretical budget of $5,000. Unless one was to buy used components, not always practical with analog, many of your suggestion combinations exceed $5,000. Times have changed and with them prices have gone up!

Since we have already discussed the need for a good arm, one that is both stable in the horizontal and vertical planes of movement when outfitted with a low-output, low-compliance cartridge, and in consideration of the equipment you have suggested, the Moerch DP-6 with the precision arm tubes is the best alternative. Its current cost in the United States is $1,890. Also keep in mind that each precision arm tube is $500 each.

Tonearm = $1,890 USD

Cartridges

Van den Hul MC ONE SPECIAL = $1,500

Ortofon Kontrapunkt B = $950 (On Sale for $675)

Allaerts MC1 ECO = $1,522

Benz Micro M2 = $1,295

Clearaudio Victory = $1,800

Lyra Argo = $1,195

Sumiko Celebration = $1,500

Transfiguration Spirit MK3 = $1,500

Dynavector D17 MKII = $750

With the exception of the Ortofon and Dynavector, all of the above cartridges are over $1,000, and some are way over this price.

Average Cartridge Price = $1,335

Turntables

Transrotor Atlantis A = $3,000

Acoustic Signature Final Tool = $2,500 (This price won’t hold for long.)

Avid Volvere Sequel = $4,000

Nottingham Space Deck = $1,800

Roksan Xerxes X = $3,500

Thorens TD 850 BC = $1,800

Wilson Benesch Circle = $2,400 (With Tonearm)

Basis 2001 Signature = $3,400

VPI Scoutmaster = $1,700 (Estimate without Tonearm)

Average Turntable Cost = $2,678

Cost Summary

System Range = $4340 to $7,690

System Average = $5,903 (A Budget Breaker)

The Raul Special = $5,685
(Includes the Acoustic Signature Final Tool, Moerch DP-6, and Benz Micro M2).

My Raul, you do have expensive tastes, especially when it comes to turntables!

So let’s take a sanity check: I like the Moerch arm, but I don’t like the Space Deck, Thorens, and VPI Scoutmaster; I would never buy these tables for myself. Of the cartridges listed above, I like the Benz Micro and the Dynavector. So let’s say I go with the Moerch and the Dynavector, which leaves the turntable. Of the tables that remain on my theoretical “short list,” I like Transrotor Atlantis, Acoustic Signature Final Tool, Avid Volvere Sequel, and Roksan Xerxes X, all of which have an average cost of $3,250. With the exception of the Final Tool, the others are more than I can afford.

Since we have blown the $5,000 limit, here is the Artar1 special:

Teres 255 = $2,775
Origin Live Illustrious = $2,400
Shelter 501 II = $800

Total $5,975

Raul, with $6,000 to work with, what’s your recommendation? And don’t blow the budget this time!

Is Raoul dismissing the Teres on purpose? I like the Teres. How could I hate a direct drive in drag? Which brings up the subject of the Creature. Raoul, the Creature kicks ass. It's in the 5K category when fffffffffully modded...

Dear Dsiggia:".... see a real life issue I don't think you can solve with your reasoning; I don't think your logic can work for folks working on a budget up to $5K...".

Here are some examples of analog rig ( around $5K ) that you can blend according with what you want to hear:

Cartridges: Van den Hul: MC ONE SPECIAL,
Ortofon....: Kontrapunkt b.
Allaerts...: MC1ECO
Benz Micro.: M2
Clearaudio.: Victory
Lyra.......: Argo
Sumiko.....: Celebration
Transfiguration: Spirit MK3
Dynavector.: D172 MKII.

Tonearms: MOERCH: DP 6 or UP 4 ( both has interchangeable arm wands with different effective mass, so you can blend with any of those cartridges. )

Turntables: Transrotor: Atlantis.
Acoustic Signature: Final Tool.
Avid: Volvere.
Nottinngham: Space.
Roksan: Xerxes.
Thorens: 850 BC.
Wilson benesch: Circle.
Basis: 2001 Signature.
VPI: Scoutmaster.

Any of these combinations beats your analog system for a wide margin ( btw, hands down many of the anolog systems of the persons on this thread. ). Try it.
Regards and always enjoy the music.
Raul.

Woo hoo! This is the kickenest thread! I really dug Artar's Husserlian Foggy Mountain Breakdown vis a vis the turntable qua analog reproduction system. And twl's Q.E.D. response to those dodging the breakdown to posit the superiority of the cartridge. Even in the face of Derrida(R.I.P 2004) dealing with the problem of language and its separation from meaning(which is bogging us all down) we strive to communicate our intentions with the very specific goals concerning the reproduction of music.

I have learned a lot concerning the viability of my own approach to the problem and feel that what I have learned here as validated where I had been, and focused where I am going. I spoke as if I had narrowed my choices down but it was bluster, and I was unsure, but what I have learned here has firmed that up. There's nothing like getting the experimental data of others to vindicate your own conclusions. I feel a little like Watson and Crick stealing the x-ray data from Rosalind Krause on their way to the helical structure and Sweden for the Nobel; as I nab from Doug, Twl, Dan_ed,Artar and others as I will make my way to Denver. For the time being I will refer to this as the holy land of analog and if Teres and Galibier will let me have a listen, I will let my ears do the deciding up front and in person. Phenomenologically speaking if I may.

I feel guilty for leaving the cartridge out of this however. Too be honest I kinda want to slap on my current Benz with the new rig and see what I think before I up the ante. Call it my own experiment but I think that it's one way to have fun if you aren't too dogmatic about the ride. And it is about fun init? Listening to music and all?

As someone pointed out the records are the real deal but I disagree with the recording quality since I feel the musical quality is the thing. I own some records that sound like they were recorded in a garbage can with a wire attached to a dixie cup and they sound mighty fine to these ears! And on a good system I can tell you if it's a 30 or 55 gallon can and whether that dixie cup was paper or wax covered!

Funny bringing that up, I started counting how many LP's, singles and CD's I had and what it's value was compared to my system. The result? Well, I do know that the replacement value of my collection would way supercede the value of my system. As for what I paid? I don't know. I got some stuff pretty cheap back in the day. I do know that I spend more on equipment than music these days but partially because the the growth of my collection has always superceded my ability to listen to it all. I've tons of stuff still sealed that I may never get to. Not that that stops me from buying.....

Most of my friends buy tons of records and have very basic rigs to play them on. But I get a kick out of playing some punk single on my system and watching their eyes light up when they realize that there is so much more there! (Prior to overproducing Nirvana's Nevermind, Butch Vig produced one of the great midwest punk singles, Mecht Mensche's "Acceptance" 7" which is as raw powerful and far from the jillion-track sound of Nevermind as you can imagine).

Sorry to ramble on but these were some of my thoughts on the current events. After I make my magical mystery tour to Colorado I will let everyone know what I thought and what I decided on my turntable decision. Bring the empirical data back to the fold.

As my school was fond of saying, there are no answers, only better questions......

Live to 2-track or die!!!

Actually, the largest impact is provided by the musicians.
Therefore your largest expenditures should go to them.
:-)

Wow! I didn't know that...

Interesting and informative thread. While considering the arguements of which part of the analog playback system has the most impact another option occured to me. In my limited experience #1 on the 'order of importance' is the record itself. The quality of the recording, mastering, pressing, etc.. ultimately determines how good any turntable will sound. Therefore the largest expenditures should be on the vinyl itself. Sorry to fly off on another tangent.

Rushton is right on the money concerning my "bright" characterisation of the Rhea. To put things in context I was moving from a MMF 7/834P setup to a Basis 2001/Rhea combination. So it is understandable that at the time I would get this as a first impression. What little I have heard the BAT VK P10SE I would say that unit is a tad warmer than the Rhea, but they are really close. I would really love to hear an IO someday.

I haven't looked seriously into what tubes I might use in the Rhea but I will probably seek professional advice as it is critical to get the right, read quiet, tubes in the first stage.

Dan_ed,

Thanks again for your endorsement of the Rhea. I am sure you are very happy with that phono stage.

As you may know by now, I must wait until next April before I can spend any more money on audio equipment. (I must get through Tax Season before I blow the big wad!) So I can’t take advantage of the current used Rheas on Audiogon. Even if I could, we are looking at a good $700 or more over my budget. (Ouch!)

Without a doubt, the Rhea was a big improvement for your system. I know what you mean by adding more highs, lows, and dynamics. The Klyne did that for me in regards to my Conrad-Johnson PV14L ($2,500) and Proceed AVP ($5,000). And like the Rhea, the Klyne is so quiet that when I place my ear against the loudspeaker, I hear nothing, no hum and no hiss. I can’t say that for either my CJ or Proceed units.

>>Some might find the sound a tad bright, but that will vary from person to person.<<

Hmmm. I have heard the opposite reported by the audio press. It surprises me there would be any brightness at all. Could it be the cartridge? Maybe a different loading is in order? I am only guessing.

>>BTW, that 10x thing is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics if you catch my meaning.<<

I understand what you are saying.

>>The numbers for your system are close enough that only a listen in your system would allow you to know for sure.<<

Unfortunately, that may not be possible.

>>I haven't gotten to rolling in better tubes, which would probably help with the somewhat bright presentation.<<

What tubes did you have in mind? If the Rhea is at all bright, it won’t work very well with my Martin Logans.

>>My previous phono stage was a fully modified EAR 834P, a very solid performer for the money and perhaps you could investigate that unit as a candidate.<<

I now see where you might feel the Rhea is a tad bright. The EAR 843P is more than a tad dark.

Rushton,

>>My recommendation of the Aesthetix Rhea comes from my grounding in the Aesthetix Io Signature phono stage.<<

No more needs to be said. That unit is truly state of the art.

I will see what I can do in regards to buying the Rhea, but I can’t make any promises.

Viggen,

If I am a fan of Edmund Husserl, it is without my conscious knowledge and it is quite by chance within the limitations of my “eighth-grade” education, now strained to the maximum!

With a quick Internet query, Husserl seems to be very partial to phenomenology, and is even credited with creating it. While I am an avid supporter of objectivism and positivism, there are, I must admit, states of being and objects in our environment that defy reductionism, experimentation, measurement, and quantification in purely analytical terms. For example, the feeling of love might be measured via a galvanic-skin response, but the depth and nature of that love is largely unmeasurable as being distinct from any other human emotion, such as fear. Both can be detected by sensitive instruments, but the “machine” can only tell us that an emotion has been expressed physiologically, not which feeling. In phenomenology, inner experience is not only accepted, it is encouraged along with a precise vocabulary to describe events, observations, feelings, and sensations. I submit that much of subjective audio reviewing is phenomenological in nature and not scientific, although there are some who might claim otherwise!

If anyone is interested in knowing more about Husserl, here is a brief synopsis I found while cruising the Internet:

>>Husserl is the father of phenomenology. Born in the former Czechloslovakia, Husserl studied in Leipzig, Berlin and Vienna, where he also taught. He began his studies as a mathemetician, but his studies were influenced by Brentano, who moved him to study more psychology and philosophy. He wrote his first book in 1891, The Philosophy of Arithmetic. This book dealt mostly with mathematical issues, but his interests soon shifted. Husserl immersed himself in the study of logic from 1890-1900, and he soonafter produced another text: Logical Investigations(1901).

Some of his major ideas of this era were intentionality, relations, and identity of things. He came to focus on perceptual experience, and as he began to shed his early Kantian ways, he wrote Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy(1913). His last three books were Formal and Transcendental Logic(1929), Cartesian Meditations(1931), and Lectures on the Phenomenology of Inner Time-Consciousness(1928), a group of lectures he compiled and edited. His lectures and essays comprise a large amount of his works.

Husserl attempted to shift the focus of philosophy away from large scale theorization, towards a more precise study of discrete phenomena, ideas and simple events. He was interested in the essential structure of things, using eidetic analysis of intensionality to yield apodictic(necessary) truths.

Husserl aided philosophy, breaking the Cartesian trap of dualism with new ideas like intensionality. He was perhaps the most important force in revitalizing 20th century continental philosophy.<<

Is Artar a fan of Husserl?

Psychicanimal,

The music is in the original performance, 100%, which emanates from the minds and hearts of the musicians and conductor, if one is present, as the musicians play their instruments to create sound. The performance is but a fleeting moment in time captured on an analog master tape and then later transferred to the vinyl disc. The disc becomes the sonic equivalent of Michelangelo’s marble from which art (in this case, music) arises once liberated by an audio system, of which the turntable, tonearm, and cartridge, acting together, are the sculptor’s chisel. Without the vinyl record, there is no music regardless of the quality and eloquence of the analog front end; and without the turntable, tonearm, and cartridge, the vinyl record remains a black and lifeless disc of petroleum by-products; it has the potential for conveying music, but nothing more. Obviously, all four elements are needed if music is to result, along with the preamp, amp, speakers, and cabling.

So now the argument seems to be which element is the most important. That’s like asking what is more crucial, the brain or the heart? Without either, life, as we know it, is impossible. Sure, heart transplants permit a continued existence, albeit a very short one with many limitations and much suffering. Currently, a mechanical coronary pump is no substitute for a living, healthy, and viable heart despite what we might have read. This medical analogy, however, has only limited utility when it comes to assessing the importance that each element plays in an analog front end. Those who argue that a poorly functioning turntable, or one that functions well enough but fails to provide the proper platter rotational speed, low wow and flutter, excellent protection against spurious vibration and rumble, and a proper balance of materials to assist in the best sonic performance possible, are correct. However, those who argue that the cartridge is the most important element, provided a competent turntable/tonearm are present, are not wrong either, at least not entirely. So how is it possible for both positions to be correct? Are we not looking at a paradox?

If one were to argue the validity of a single point of reference (i.e., the cartridge is the most important element) to the exclusion of all else, such an argument would quickly lead to a position favoring reductionism and absolutism in a situation that clearly suggests that the balancing of all the three elements (turntable, tonearm, and cartridge) is required to create a harmonious whole where the total is more than the sum of the parts. (This supposition would also be equally true if the turntable had been argued as being the only important factor that mattered.) Stated another way, the turntable, tonearm, and cartridge issue is like solving three linear equations with different unknowns (x, y, and z). To leave one equation unsolved would mean to obtain an incorrect outcome, or at best, a partial, but incomplete answer. All three elements (turntable, tonearm, and cartridge) need to be considered simultaneously, with an equal probability given that anyone element could be scrutinized momentarily to the exclusion of the other two. If this process were allowed to continue long enough, one would have the benefit of seeing the entire picture, as well as enjoying the view from all relevant perspectives.

This approach may be fine in theory, but what if another variable is introduced – cost? In a perfect world and with unlimited time, money, and energy, one could spend all the resources necessary to solve the “three equations” to come up with a superior turntable/tonearm/cartridge combination. But most audiophiles are limited by the exorbitant prices of SOTA products, making it very challenging, indeed, to find the most eloquent solution with limited funds. Most of us have to compromise, including myself. So which of the three elements gets shortchange with our initial purchase?

Several of us have already tried, or experienced, the expensive cartridge/modest turntable and tonearm combination, and found it lacking to some degree. Better results were obtained by pouring more resources into the turntable first and less into the tonearm and cartridge, in that order. The logic is simple: it’s easier, when finances permit later, to upgrade the tonearm and cartridge with a great foundation in place, that foundation being the turntable. Over time the tonearm would be updated next, followed by the cartridge.

Pursuing a course in which the cartridge comes first would mean that the modest turntable and tonearm would never fully reveal what the high-performing, high-cost cartridge had to offer. (It’s like buying an expensive FM tuner in a region that plays country music and talk radio on the AM dial, and the nearest classical/jazz FM stations are too far away for really good reception.) Moreover, this situation would not improve dramatically if only one element were upgraded at a time. If the turntable were purchased next, it may not have the correct arm mount for our modest tonearm. Or if the tonearm were to come next, the turntable may not be able to support it properly, and so on. Additionally, as long as the analog front end is being used, the expensive cartridge is slowly wearing out, meaning it, too, will need to be replaced eventually. This replacement expenditure may also put a limit on one’s upgrade aspirations. However, if a reasonably good sounding cartridge of modest cost were selected first, one can sink the bulk of one’s audio dollars in the turntable with the intension of upgrading the arm next and finally the cartridge. Thus, cartridge wear in this situation would be of less concern because the cartridge would be replaced eventually and would, therefore, have less impact upon one’s future upgrade plans.

In formulating my analog front-end plans, I followed the process outlined above to a large degree, and I modified my plans accordingly as a result of all the posts that have been made here. While my initial post asked for advice about cartridge selection, I also, indirectly, asked about turntable and tonearm compatibility. At that point I had momentarily elevated the importance of the cartridge, but not to the permanent exclusion of the other two elements, those being the turntable and tonearm. Throughout this process I have engaged in a juggling act, so to speak, keeping all three elements in motion until I found a solution for each one, a solution that would not only serve the whole, but each part thereof.

Atar1,

My recommendation of the Aesthetix Rhea comes from my grounding in the Aesthetix Io Signature phono stage. The Io Signature simply is one of those components that can change your whole outlook on what is possible with vinyl replay and what supremely natural music reproduction sounds like. The Rhea gives one a very good sized slice of what the Io offers. Unfortunately, even the Rhea is expensive. But, if one's budget gets close, it's well worth a very hard look at whether one can possibly make that extra financial stretch. Purchase of any of the Aesthetix gear is a "never regret it" acquisition.

Regards,

I applaud TWL's excellent treatise on the relative importance of a turntable. His logical approach is compelling.

In my experience the turntable is the most critical part of an analog setup followed by the tonearm and then the cartridge. This has been debated before and while there is never complete consensus, there seems to be broad support for this position among experienced listeners. I hold to this position because of what I have heard from a broad spectrum of tables, arms and cartridges. Theory is nice, but is no substitute for actually listening.

Synergy between various components is of course important. But my experience tells me that tonearm, cartridge matching is what matters most. There are synergies that go well beyond simple compliance/mass matching that are often difficult to predict. I find that matching an arm/cart to a turntable to be much less of an issue. A good sounding arm/cart combination always works well with a good turntable.

So contrary to what some have said here, selecting a turtable first is a sound strategy.

Improving the transducer on a given turntable will improve the sound only to the degree that the turntable is capable of producing. To improve the sound further will require a better turntable. Once this point is reached, no transducer in the world will improve the music, until the turntable is improved.

Raoul, is this so hard to understand?

That's why I play my records on the Creature. The platter spins records and plows through transients accurately. Because of that a modded integrated headshel DJ cartridge does the job extremely well...

***

I disagree, and stated reasons.

I could just as easily state that the "transducer" is the "necessary evil".

I maintain that the transducer is limited by the turntable, and that in real-world situations, a moderately good transducer working at maximim performance on a top-notch turntable, will outperform a top-notch cartridge working at reduced performance on a moderately good turntable.

You have given no reasons to back up your opinion, other than your opinion. I have heard your argument a million times and it has never "held water" yet.

I state that a cartridge which has more musical information properly fed into it, will outperform a more capable cartridge which has less musical information fed into it less properly. I backed up my case with reasons for my position. This would clearly place the turntable higher in the order of importance. I understand you disagree.

Tell me why.

I would totally agree with you, if your statement was "A better cartridge will sound better than a lesser cartridge, on the same turntable(so long as they match well with the tonearm)." However, when the discussion leads to the matter at hand, that is where we part company.

Regarding musical reproduction, it is understood that more recorded information getting into the system is paramount to improving the music. Correct me if I am wrong about that.

If a cartridge retrieves less musical information(or lost information, or speed corrupted information) from the recording(due to a flaw in the turntable performance), it cannot sound better. It can sound "smoother" or "flatter response", etc. but it cannot sound "better" because there is less musical information entering the system, or there is flawed musical information entering the system.

Conversely, if the cartridge retrieves more musical information from the recording(even if the cartridge is of lesser quality), it will sound better(more musical) because more of the music enters the system.

Certainly, this music can be affected by the quality of the transducer, but at least the music makes it into the system.

This is my point. A quality transducer cannot produce music that is lost or corrupted by a turntable flaw. Improving the transducer on a given turntable will improve the sound only to the degree that the turntable is capable of producing. To improve the sound further will require a better turntable. Once this point is reached, no transducer in the world will improve the music, until the turntable is improved.

Assuming that we have the best turntable in the world at present, then the arm and cartridge selected will have a chance at working at their best.

Once again, someone explains things properly, in a clear, concise, and cogent manner, while someone else babbles some crap that nobody understands trying to support his point of view.

This is getting old.

Thanks for trying Tom.

Dear Twl:" and even gave a little test that people could do to verify, and placed no attack at you during my discussion. However, you have decided to take it upon yourself to say that I am wrong, and implied that I am misleading the members of this forum. That is not appreciatedand ...". I'm not attacking you, you put all that words not me, I only put : facts, sorry to disturb to you. " all turntables are acceptable in this regard, so that it matters not which turntable is used? Because if I've been going for all these years without knowing about a cartridge that can overcome ...", I never speak about: " it matters not wich TT is used?, all these are your own words.
Do it you a favor: read carefully my answers before you would be angry.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

TWL is back to his old self...WOW!!!

Dear Twl: Your last two answers don't change in anyway the formula: cartridge/tonearm/turntable. Your answers confirm everyword I already post on the subject, between those words:" tonearm and turntable are really a "_necessary evil", because without them the transducer is unable to operate. However, it's important to remember that it is the transducer itself who has the main responsibility in LP reproduction, and the final result will depend firstly in this transducer quality, and secondly in the quality and matching of its partners ".
TKS for that.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Dear Raul, perhaps you can point out to me how a cartridge can retrieve information from the groove, if the turntable allows enough movement in the platter to allow the information modulations to pass undeflected under the stylus, or to overmodulate the stylus? This is, of course, bearing in mind that there are modulations in the groove that are on the order of a millionth of an inch, and the movement tolerances in main bearings(even with the oil in them) are about one thousandth, or even one ten-thousandth at best.

Also, perhaps you can explain to me how a cartridge can make the speed correct, and provide proper time-domain and frequency information? Bearing in mind, of course, that the cartridge cannot even hope to affect these parameters, no matter how good it is.

Then, please explain how all turntables are acceptable in this regard, so that it matters not which turntable is used? Because if I've been going for all these years without knowing about a cartridge that can overcome the errors of a turntable, I need to be educated on that right now.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with my position. I will be happy to allow you to enlighten me about the errors of my ways.

And, by the way, I do agree that the tonearm and cartridge are very important factors as well, and I do not minimize their importance in the signal chain. I only point out that the cartridge can only transduce what it reads, and and the arm can only hold it properly over the groove, so that the turntable can feed the information to the cartridge effectively. They work as a team, and if the turntable "drops the ball" and lets the groove be the slightest bit unstable in any plane, the cartridge will never read some of that information correctly, and it will be lost or changed. The turntable provides the environment for the cartridge to work. If the environment is poor, the cartridge cannot make up for it. That is why I say what I do. Not to argue just for argument's sake.

Also, I simply stated my position and the reasons and even gave a little test that people could do to verify, and placed no attack at you during my discussion. However, you have decided to take it upon yourself to say that I am wrong, and implied that I am misleading the members of this forum. That is not appreciated.

I've really enjoyed this thread & everyone's opinion's.

Raul,

Whether you're correct or others are correct, it feels like you're speaking from an ideal sense, not a practical sense. I see a real life issue I don't think you can solve with your reasoning; I don't think your logic can work for folks woking on a budget up to $5K (and probably a much higher budget). A huge percentage of the folks here are on a budget & are trying to achieve the best possible music from a table, arm, cartridge, preamp, rack, interconnects, cleaining machine, and accessories, within a reasonable budget. It's tough to apply your "logic/argument" in this thread, I wouldn't have a chance do it within my budget.

50% is on the record. It contains only vertical information, when it is stationary. The turntable provides all the time-domain information, as it spins the record under the stylus.

In addition to the time-domain issue, the turntable provides some other extremely important attributes, without the proper function thereof, the cartridge cannot work up to its capabilities. This would relate to the main bearing's ability to maintain stability in the lateral plane. If the main bearing allows movements to occur within it(from vibration or other sources), the platter can be moved microscopically laterally, and therefore influence the critical juncture of the record/stylus contact. The record information contains modulations on the order of angstrom measurement. If the main bearing allows the platter to move, even slightly laterally, this will cause some of the record information to pass under the stylus without deflecting it(therefore losing information), or cause the record information to pass under the stylus and deflecting it too much(therefore causing overmodulation). Both of these conditions cause our cartridge to not perform as intended, regardless of how great the cartridge is, or how perfectly it is matched to the arm. No turntable does this function perfectly, as yet. The better turntables will allow the cartridge/tonearm combination to perform at a better level, because they are presented with the record information from the groove in a more stable manner, both vertically, horizontally, and in the time domain. Without this proper stability of the record groove, no stylus/cartridge can work at its best, and therefore will perform at less than what was intended. To get the best information retrieval from any cartridge you select, the record groove must be passed under the stylus with the most stability possible, in all three planes: vertical, horizontal, and time-domain(speed). Then the tonearm and cartridge combination can begin to do their work properly. Without this, they will never even approach their potentials. And this is why the turntable must be considered primary in the order of importance in the analog chain. Notice I did not say that it is the only important thing. Simply that the foundation must be laid before the roof goes on.

Dear Artar1: Yes, you an me agree on these subjects. But after that answer from you, Twl post:"According to the "rules of analog" the TT is the most important part, then the tonearm, then the cartridge. You seem to have..." and three or four peoples follow him.
These " rules of analog " are not only a wrong advise but an inexistent one.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Artar, I'm pretty happy with the Rhea. When I was looking for a phono stage upgrade I had the Rhea and a BAT VK P10SE on the short list. Both are very good sounding units and I could be happy with either. Karma decided for me when a Rhea should up for sale that was within driving distance so that is what I ended up with. I'm an engineer so please forgive me if the following description of my impressions sounds a bit dry and this is also the first highend phono stage that I have had any long term experience with. The Rhea brought more of everything into my analog system. More highs, lows, dynamics. It was the bass improvement that I noticed first. The Rhea is also very quite. Some might find the sound a tad bright, but that will vary from person to person. It is a very good match for my VK 50SE which has 100Kohms of input impedance. BTW, that 10x thing is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics if you catch my meaning. The numbers for your system are close enough that only a listen in your system would allow you to know for sure. I do believe that as I continue to put better components in front of the Rhea that it will not get in the way and really allow differences to show.

Yes, the Rhea uses Velcro to fasten the top. This is actually a pretty good idea when you consider how much easier it is to roll tubes with a top that quickly lifts out of the way. The unit is a bit heavy so it would be a pain to lift it out of the rack and have to mess with screws to get the cover off. I haven't gotten to rolling in better tubes, which would probably help with the somewhat bright presentation. I want to get to know the sound with just the stock Sovteks. I do notice a rush when the needle is lifted as the circuits unload but I don't hear anything that interferes with my enjoyment of the music.

My previous phono stage was a fully modified EAR 834P, a very solid performer for the money and perhaps you could investigate that unit as a candidate. I recommend the basic unit without volume control. I had about $1000 into mine including the mods. I did have both phono stages in my system for a few weeks so I could really judge the difference. The EAR was noisier than the Rhea and sounded subdued and rolled off at both ends but the little guy made a good showing.

Art needs to answer the question, too. It's not a trick question--and Raoul unknowingly starts answering it...

Rushton and Dan_ed,

Thanks for the recommendation, but the Aesthetix Rhea is a little beyond my budget.

The Rhea is a great phono stage; there’s no doubt about that. How do you like yours? Do you notice any tube rush? How is the top secured to the chassis? The Stereophile review talked about heavy-duty Velcro being used instead of screws? Is this true? And then there are all those tubes, ten in all, right? Wow. I wonder how much that costs to retube the unit. I also noticed that the output impedance of the Rhea is a little on the high side, measuring 2K ohms across most of the audioband, according to Stereophile, and rising to about 3K ohms at 20Hz. My line stage has an input impedance of 25K ohms, which may create some compatibility issues, namely reduced bass output. Ideally there should be at least a 10-to-1 ratio between input impedance to output impedance. The 3K ohm rating is a little marginal for my Klyne.

Raul,

I think I have already stated what you have now just posted. Yes, the cartridge is important. I am not sure that anyone here is disputing that. But the turntable and tonearm are also important too, just as you have said.

Here is what I said 15 days ago when this tread first began:

>>It may be a little strange that I have decided to start with the cartridge, but I believe it's the cartridge that has the biggest impact upon the sound of an analog front end. That is not to say the turntable, tonearm, and phono preamp have no influence because they certainly do. But I feel the cartridge and its requirements need to be considered first, like speakers, before the rest of the analog system can be chosen. For example, the choice of cartridge influences the choice of tonearm. The tonearm needs to have the proper mass to be compatible with the compliance requirements of the cartridge. Moreover, the arm has to match the turntable and work well with it too. So all these components have to be chosen carefully and balanced in order to get the best sound possible.<<

So you see you and I are not that far a part, and in fact I think we are saying very much the same thing.