@lewm Agreed. A constant cleaning device like you describe should only slightly slow the platter and the Condor would be able to compensate for it as long as it was applied before the speed is "synched" (less than 0.005 RPM error). After that point, if the speed error is greater than 0.025 RPM, it will be considered abnormal and will be ignored. At start up, the first 4 revs are ignored as the platter comes up to speed, then it usually takes a half dozen revs (at a cold start) after that to synch the speed. This whole mechanism is reset every time the platter is stopped or the speed/tempo adjust is changed.
Example of a piece o’ crap, useless review
I’ve harped on how crappy and useless many “professional” reviews are because they lack rigor and omit critical information. This one is from TAS that is a main offender of pumping out shallow/unsupported reviews, but most of the Euro mags among others are guilty of this too IME. One key giveaway that a review is crap is that after reading it you still have little/no real understanding of what the piece under review actually sounds like or if it’s something you’d like to consider further. I mean, if a review can’t accomplish those basic elements what use is it? This review is so shallow it reads like it could’ve been written by someone who never even listened to the review sample and just made it up outta thin air. In addition to failing on this broad level, here are some other major problems with the review:
- There is no info regarding any shortcomings of this “budget” turntable — everything is positive. Sounds like it was perfect, ehem.
- There are no comparisons to another product in the same general price category or anything else.
- The reviewer doesn’t even share what equipment is in his reference system so we can at least infer what he may have based his impressions on.
In short, in addition to this review being so bad/useless for all the reasons stated it actually reads more like advertisement for the product than an actual unbiased review. I can think of nothing worse to say about a review, and sadly many reviews out there are similarly awful for the same reasons. Sorry for the rant, but especially as a former reviewer this piece of garbage pushed all my buttons and really ticked me off. What say you?
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/sota-quasar-turntable-and-pyxi-phonostage/
Showing 4 responses by phoenixengr
I agree with the OP that the TAS review lacks substance which is a real shame as there are technical specs in the Pyxi manual as well as several frequency response and noise plots that might put a little more meat on the bones of this review.
The circuit of the Pyxi was designed by Wyn Palmer and he has published a very erudite white paper about the design as well as his personal philosophy on what makes a good phono stage and the science of psycho-acoustics. It leans more technical than the review but is still a good read for anyone interested in the subject (the paper is about the Acrux phono stage which has not gone into production but is closely related to the Pyxi in design and execution):
|
@soix - Really, Part Time Audiophile as an example of good reviews? Their stated policy is to NOT publish a bad review. The puff pieces I’ve read on their site goes far beyond hagiography and would make even the most shameless fan boys blush. No measurements at all. IMHO, that site is the biggest joke of all reviewers.
@ghdprentice - I respectfully disagree that it would be in no ones best interest to publish a bad review. The purpose of using measurements should be to confirm the published specifications are accurate; what we are witnessing now in the absence of verifiable measurements are wild claims by mfrs that defy logic and known principles of physics and electronics without any accountability for stretching the truth,or in some cases, just making things up out of whole cloth. The turntable industry is especially rife with this problem exactly for that reason: no independent measurements. The major magazines apparently have testing capabilities as they do very analytical testing of amps and speakers but for some reason, they take what ever specs the turntable mfrs publish as gospel (they do add a disclaimer such as "according to the mfr, blah blah blah" which they assume gets them off the hook). I think what is needed is to resurrect the Consumer Reports model where the reviewers do a complete tear down of the product to comment on its construction, capabilities and deficiencies including detailed measurements of its performance as well as operational and listening tests.
I doubt that will happen. In the mean time, a major "tell" for me is how a mfr responds to questions about their claims; if they are transparent and engaging, especially if they provide actual measurements, I have more confidence in their specs. If they deflect or hide behind "we only care about how it sounds" or "it’s secret sauce and we can’t tell you" then one has reason to doubt what they say.
Another way to look at it is this: If a mfr publishes a spec and it is reasonable or close to the median for that type of product, it shouldn’t draw suspicion and shouldn’t be difficult to prove if challenged. But when a spec is orders of magnitude better than anything else in its class, it begs for an explanation. A mfr should WELCOME any challenge as a chance to prove it and draw further attention to their ground breaking product. Making outlandish claims then running away from anyone challenging those claims is sure sign that something isn’t right. |
@lewm wrote:
This is misconception on the part of the reviewer. The Condor/RR corrects for speed drift over time, it cannot adjust for the amount of drag that is applied with a record brush. All belt drive tables will have this phenomenon due to belt creep. Even the most powerful direct drive tables will loose speed synch if enough drag is applied. None of this should happen while the stylus is in the groove.
In fact, one of the techniques that the Condor uses is NOT to apply correction in the presence of "unusual" amounts of drag; if we did, the speed would suddenly shoot up when the record brush is removed and would take longer to come back down to normal. By not applying correction, the speed will slow while the brush is applied but will quickly return to normal as soon as the brush is removed. |