I absolutely abhor those who feel it necessary to speculate on the relative merit of products when they either have not heard one of the products or perhaps own one and have heard the other at a show or a dealer's showroom. That having been said, it is almost impossible to get access to certain products for in home comparison.
With respect to the query which is the subject of this thread, I owned an early Goldmund Reference TT initially with a T3B arm and later with a T3F. Both arms were installed by Bill Pugh who was the American rep of Goldmund at the time. My Rockport was an original Sirius without the 50# platter, the motor controller and the air isolation base. All these enhancements were later added to my Siriys which I continue to own.
The Goldmund was the single most visually impressive TT that I have ever seen. The level of QC and machining were superb, the Rockport was quieter, more dynamic, more controlled in the midbass, decoded more detail and imaged better. The Goldmund was sweeter and in many ways more musical, but not necessarily more accurate. As detail and imaging were high priorities at the time, I chose the Rockport. Fortunately, the upgrades Andy Payor later developed and was kind enough to retrofit allowed me to retain the strengths of the original while addressing the weaknesses. This sounds like an answer but really begs the question as the comparison was of one system (TT and arm) vs. the other. I always felt (but have no real proof) that the arm of the Goldmund coupled with its lack of a better bearing were its primary weakesses and that with the proper changes, the table might be significantly improved. I also understand that the last 50 had significant improvements that dramatically improved the sound and that Goldmund did build a much better version of the arm but that it never became commercially available.
In closing either a late reference or a Rockport would be a wonderful choice for a cost is no object system. Unfortunately, neither shows up on the used market with any frequency and both require a very knowledgeable set up person or patience and very good instructions.
With respect to the query which is the subject of this thread, I owned an early Goldmund Reference TT initially with a T3B arm and later with a T3F. Both arms were installed by Bill Pugh who was the American rep of Goldmund at the time. My Rockport was an original Sirius without the 50# platter, the motor controller and the air isolation base. All these enhancements were later added to my Siriys which I continue to own.
The Goldmund was the single most visually impressive TT that I have ever seen. The level of QC and machining were superb, the Rockport was quieter, more dynamic, more controlled in the midbass, decoded more detail and imaged better. The Goldmund was sweeter and in many ways more musical, but not necessarily more accurate. As detail and imaging were high priorities at the time, I chose the Rockport. Fortunately, the upgrades Andy Payor later developed and was kind enough to retrofit allowed me to retain the strengths of the original while addressing the weaknesses. This sounds like an answer but really begs the question as the comparison was of one system (TT and arm) vs. the other. I always felt (but have no real proof) that the arm of the Goldmund coupled with its lack of a better bearing were its primary weakesses and that with the proper changes, the table might be significantly improved. I also understand that the last 50 had significant improvements that dramatically improved the sound and that Goldmund did build a much better version of the arm but that it never became commercially available.
In closing either a late reference or a Rockport would be a wonderful choice for a cost is no object system. Unfortunately, neither shows up on the used market with any frequency and both require a very knowledgeable set up person or patience and very good instructions.