2. analog
  3. 1412253344

Goldmund Studio - still relevant today?

In today high-end world (very small, and shrinking every day), is Goldmund Studio still relevant? Is it's performance still on par with similarly priced tables, or is it a dinosaur? Is it's value still in performance, or is it mainly a collector's item? What do you guys think? I refer to late models with all-acrylic body, and JVC motor, and T3F arm, which actually work, not the early ones, which seemed to have a mind on their own :-)) They normally command at least $2500 on used market, up to $4000 for perfect examples.
markshvarts

Showing 3 responses by fleib

fleib
1,124 posts
 
Is the Studio/T3F still relevant for the used price they command? It depends on your point of view. Is a 301 or a 124 still relevant? Certainly wouldn't buy an original example of one of those expecting it to be plug-n-play.

The Studio has the beefiest springs I've seen. They came set-up for use with the T3F and some alternate springs were supplied. Still, a weak point of the design and problematic with most replacement arms. Sorbothane pucks were often used for spring replacements on both the Studio and Studietto which used the same springs.

The stock studio/T3F dramatically outperformed the Delphi (w/any arm) at that time. It was no contest really. The T3F might be outperformed by a more modern design, but I think if you heard a properly set-up Goldmund Reference from that same time, the arm would sound pretty good. The Studio is no Reference, but with a little TLC, can more than hold its own.
Regards,
fleib
1,124 posts
 
Harold,
I don't doubt your tale of two tables, but I don't share your experience. Maybe it was learn as you go, but if you put the effort into the Studio as the Delphi, you might be singing a different song. At least that's my experience and I'm not alone with that opinion. Virtually EVERYBODY back then recognized the jump in performance going to a Studio.

You could say it's an unfair comparison with the price difference, but the Oracle was at its best with a SME V and that is/was a pricey arm. I set-up or tuned Delphi with mostly the SME V, and arms like the Syrinx PU3. Yes, I got them to bounce straight and stop on a dime after three bounces. The Delphi MK II is a beautiful table and it sounds quite good if set-up properly.

Even though it's not your experience, IMO the Studio has greater potential. Admittedly, the suspension should be defeated and you need a later version of the arm or a replacement. I never cared for the Groove Isolator, but I guess that to, is a matter of opinion.

I think this sums up relative quality:
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Tables.html

Regards,
fleib
1,124 posts
 

Nandric, The Audiomeca tables evolved through the J4 to the Romance, then  Belladonna, which I believe was the last. It had the most sophisticated suspension design I've seen.  Can't remember where I saw it, but this will give an inkling:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0208/

I too had an LP12 in the mid '80s, but eventually replaced it with a Goldmund. I was a set-up person for Linn and liked the table, but it ran about 1% fast and I was addicted to the presentation.  Getting used to "correct" speed was a revelation, but I did not use the Goldmund linear arm because it seemed too high maintenance. 

In an ultimate sense, any belt drive suspended table where the platter/arm move independently of the motor, is compromised. Looking at the diverse opinions here, it seems no different than other vintage equipment requiring set-up skill and some ingenuity.

Regards,

More to discover