Anyone had the chance to hear both of these tables? Would appreciate any opinions. Cheers! |
Hi Lewm, that's intersting! From your comments, the Bardo is obviously an excellent table straight out of the box, however fate obviously played a part in my decision to go for the TR. Still I will keep an eye on this thread, it would interesting to read any comments from members who have directly compared both the TR Ref and Bardo..both outstanding bits of kit! |
Hi AQ, the Fat Bob Plus is really excellent, very smooth in operation and as you say it has a stunning musical presentation. Thanks for your further insight into their design. Transrotor have just superior design, engineering & forward thinking. It is really simplistic to simply say direct drive is superior to Transrotor's TMD. That is like saying Lexus is superior to Rolls Royce.
Regards,
MG. |
Thanks Mark, but i'm keen to hear from those outside the Industry about the differences in these two tables and hopefully ascertain which sounds better :) |
Hi Jeffl, thanks for your comments. You've got a very nice system btw! I think you're right; TR tables, espcially FB tables are HUGE in Germany, but not as well known outside Europe. I agree, the TR are beautifully engineered & look great, but more importantly sound excellent. But I also have a lot of respect for Helmut Brinkmann. |
Hi Glai, that's interesting and implies the Brinkmann is more sensitive to line noise. Picking up on earlier discussion about the differences in the belt drive vs direct drive approach, I received this reply directly from Transrotor in response to a question asking why why they decided on the belt, as opposed to direct drive approach - we chose the belt drive because we think it is the best way not to bring resonances from the motor to the platter. The negative aspect of the belt drive (the belt slip) is compensated by the magnetic drive, the TMD |
Hi Lewm, reading your comments it would seem on paper the Bardo's direct drive system is technically superior to the Fat Bob Reference, however i'm not so sure the TR's belt drive would suffer from "stretchiness" since it uses a much shorter precision machined belt which only has to drive a low mass sub-platter, which in turn drives the main platter. Thus I would have thought TR's TMD is more accurate than a conventional belt-driven design? My listening impressions of the Fat Bob demonstrated it has excellent PRAT. It was clearly superior to the ZET 3.1 which does not have TMD and uses a more conventional design to drive the main platter. Stepping away from design differences for a moment, the other variable is implementation, so it would be great to hear from an AG'er who has heard both the FB Ref & Bardo. |
Hi Lewm, thanks for the clarification about the stretch you were commenting on. I guess what you fall back on is Transrotor have been building turntables for 40 years, so that's got to account for something. Still I do admire the Bardo which I think is a well engineered table. What a nice problem to have! |
Hi Audioquest,
Thanks for your insightful comments. I had a read of your review of your Apollon table which is very nice btw! I can understand why your platter might require a bit of a nudge to get going after the belts get older; the 80mm platter you're using comes in at 15kg! I was discussing another model with my Dealer; the Fat Bob Plus which has a 60mm (12kg) platter and asked if there would be any benefit in running two or three motors on that table & he said no, other than the ability to play 78's. I'm not sure if the lighter platter plays some part?
Cost and availability ultimately shaped my decision though. Once you added on all the desirable extras on the Bardo, it was actually quite a bit more expensive than the FB Reference, and despite it's slightly superior direct drive design, I couldn't see enough sonic benefit to justify the extra cost. A bit of news; my Dealer offered me an excellent deal on a Fat Bob Plus which I couldn't pass up, so I pulled the trigger and had it specified with a Konstant M-1 ps, SME-5009 tonearm & Miyajima Shilabe cartridge, which leaves extra money for a good phono stage. The 'Plus' is a new model which has a heavier, larger diameter base compared to the 'S' & updated sytling so i'm wrapped! I hope to get the table set up soon :)
Cheers,
Melbguy |
Hi Lewm, well no that's not exactly the case. The FB Reference & Bardo tables at list are similar in price, but with the FB Ref you're getting a reference power supply & very good tonearm for the same price, whereas a reference ps & high end tonearm are cost-extras on the Bardo. Certainly the FB Plus is a great value table at it's price point! |
Thanks for your comments Audioquest, yes I must admit I was surprised by the vividness and obvious lack of compression from vinyl when I first heard the Fat Bob Plus. The 'Plus' gives little away to the Reference, and i'm using the same tonearm & ps as the Reference, and the Shilabe is an outstanding cartridge. I think if I upgrade any part of my rig in the future, it is more likely to be the phono stage. My existing stage (Bladelius Heimdal) is a fine phono stage for now. I may also be tempted to upgrade to a reference arm like an SME-V or Triplanar one rainy day, but really we're talking about upgrading from Mercedes to Bentley. I'm perfectly happy where I am. |
Well Hiho as they say ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your dd deck.. |
Hiho, my apology for taking your comment out of context. You sound like you are an enthusiastic vinylphile and have a good understanding of different drive systems. I can appreciate those that find certain systems (eg: idler drive) fascinating and enjoy such tables. The matter of which system is "best" is murky water. To firstly answer Lewm's question, the feedback I got from my Dealer and directly from Transrotor is that the TMD bearing is superior to the non-TMD bearing & contributes to greater speed stability and lower noise. As Transrotor put it "we chose the belt drive because we think it is the best way not to bring resonances from the motor to the platter. The negative aspect of the belt drive (the belt slip) is compensated by the magnetic drive, the TMD."
Just regarding TR's FMD bearing. I can tell you up close it is awesome and if engineering has anything to do with it, it just appears far superior to TMD. I asked TR commented "..most important the FMD bearing. Which works like the TMD bearing with a magnetic coupling but has a total separation between the driven platter and the main platter."
Regards, MG |
Lewm, it seems I am spoken for :s |
Ultimately the success of a drive system comes down to implentation & the talent of the audio engineer. Price point does play a part. The old addage applies that you pay, you get. Though if you watch the 'Gon, some killer decks come up fs now and then. I just love the TR tables & I can say i'm sticking with them. They have 40 years of experience which gives you assurance. |
Well this is my last post on Audigon. I'm tired of the tall poppy syndrome, the wanna be magazine writers, immature copycats, and big egos. And i'm over the complete dicks who have taken over this once great site. Goodbye. |
