I tend to agree in part with Rauliruegas and I am the one who wrote the review in Stereophile. I do agree that people considering the table should read other full reviews and listen to for themselves, which is something I think should be done with any product being considered regardless of what any reviewer writes.
However, I do not agree that the Monaco is "truer" to the recording. I think it introduces a different set of colorations compared to a good belt drive. In particular, it definitely imparts a "drier" sound and truncates harmonic development. This was repeatable, record after record, and can be recognized even on an MP3, just as, if you read the Kuzma review I wrote, the Airline arm on the big 'table imparted a noticeable brightness compared to my reference and compared to other tables.
It is definitely true that unless one knows the recording it's impossible to tell. However, I can tell you that Greg Calbi, who mastered "Graceland" among hundreds of other LPs heard that album played back on the Caliburn and he was amazed to hear things he did not hear on the master tape. Now part of that was the resolution of my system which surpasses what he had in the mastering suite back then.
In addition, a gentleman who owns a Monaco visited me and while the 'table was gone, when I played him a CD-R of the same material transferred using both my reference and the Monaco, he heard precisely what I described in the review.
Now while I believe what I wrote about the sound of the turntable is accurate (how could I think otherwise?) I tried not to make value judgements because different tastes come into play. My aim was not to "damn with faint praise," I was just trying not to get either too effusive or too damning, which is what I try to do generally.
In fact, a guy who bought a Continuum Caliburn complained to me that my review was too mild mannered. He accused me of "holding back." Remember: I compared the Monaco to both the Caliburn and the Merill-Scillia.
If one wishes for "accuracy," you're better off with a CD player, which "measures" far better than any turntable. Of course speed accuracy is important but given that virtually every record is pressed slightly eccentric, (few are pressed 'dead center' is claimed perfect speed accuracy really the most important consideration?
Ultimately, I think anyone considering the Monaco should try to listen to it. It has many outstanding qualities and I tried to make those clear. It also has a distinctive "solid state" dryness that I could not deny. My reference is both recorded music and live: I attend the symphony monthly and attend other live events.
Yesterday I was at an event in Chicago and brought a CD-R along containing the same material transferred using my reference and the Monaco: same arm (Graham Phantom), cartridge and phono preamp. I played both without comment and the reaction was in line with what I wrote. I am sure that what I expressed in terms of sonics are accurate.
Why does the Monaco sound as it does? Read about Hall sensor commutated motors. The 'table does use sine wave commutation (as opposed to the less expensive square wave commutation) but just as belt drive has 'issues' (that can be addressed but not to perfection, which is what Continuum has done), so can direct drive but NOT to perfection, something I believe it can be inferred, Monaco claims for its design. If you look at how these motors work and do some online research, I just don't think "perfection" is possible and that what I heard is the characteristic of that lack of "perfection." Whatever the cause, I'm quite certain I described the sound accurately (of course I'd think that!).
As for the price, I disagree with whoever wrote that it didn't seem like it was worth the price. It is easily worth the price. The build quality is exquisite and the engineering superb, and everything about the presentation is first class. The 'table is a major achievment, it really is. I just found the sound dry and harmonically "tight." Play a piano recording on the Monaco and then on something like the Merrill. You'll hear it. That said, the Monaco stomped all over the Merrill (and most suspended 'tables I've heard) in the bottom octaves.
I was happy to see the posts here were very thoughtful and didn't attack me personally....--Fremer |
The Dynavector is the cartridge I'd recommend using with the Monaco... and did in the review! |
No need to apologize for disagreeing! However, looking at the Monaco close up, examining the build quality and taking into account what must have gone into designing, building and actually manufacturing such a product, I don't think it's overpriced. The computer box, which looks like nothing, is packed with a sine wave commutation computer, which alone, is expensive. In fact, some experts with whom I consulted doubted it could be sine wave commutated because of the price of the product. Sine wave commutation is expensive....Mr. Lloyd didn't specify the system until his manufacturer's comment. |
No problem. I can take a punch. It's part of the job. The Orpheus is fantastic! The other part of the job, hearing all kinds of great stuff, is the best part... |
There's something else I'd like to add to this discussion that I didn't delve into in the turntable review. My Lloyd requested I use his stand and I did. It is a lightweight carbon fiber "A" frame design with "lossy" Sorbothane pads in between the frames, with thickness specified by the weight of the gear placed atop each shelf (the proper implementation of Sorbothane which acts as a terrific energy absorber under pressure and a high frequency spring not under pressure, which is why different thickness Sorbothane discs are provided).
The stand also was supplied with the top of the line carbon fiber shelf. If you put a finger on the top shelf you can easily move the shelf. and laterally deflect the entire stand. This is purposely done and if you look at Grand Prix's website at the "shaker" tests, you will see its effectiveness. However, what didn't make sense to me, was putting a spinning object atop such a stand since few such objects, no matter how well machined, are perfect, (like car wheels, which require lead weights and dynamic balancing to not vibrate as everyone reading this knows). So I wondered how the top shelf was behaving with a spinning platter atop it. I conjectured that it would move as the platter spun, which would not be a good thing.
I procured a pair of calibrated B&K accelerometers and attached one to the top shelf of the Grand Prix stand and started the platter. I was both surprised and impressed to find that the start up was so smooth, the accelerometer didn't register even a blip either upon start up or when the platter was at either 33 or 45! That was impressive and proved both smooth start up and superb platter machining or casting (I don't recall how it was done).
However, I then decided to test the stand's ability to deal with airborne vibrations. My thought was, the stand's carbon fiber is stiff and light and thus moves the resonant frequency way up so that combined with the properly implemented Sorbothane, low frequency vibrations would be prevented from entering the system and getting to components on the shelves either from the floor or the air and in fact that was the case. The stand's ability to reject low frequencies was outstanding.
But, when I ran an 800Hz to 20kHz sweep tone through the speakers at around 89dB I was literally shocked to find that the stand's resonance was directly in the midrange and was both broadband and high in amplitude. Based on what I saw with the accelerometer taped to the top carbon fiber shelf, the stand "sang like a diva" throughout the midrange! Given the stiffness and lightness of the construction, perhaps this should not be surprising. In addition, the shaker stand really only measures lateral, low frequency performance.
From that part of the test I concluded that the stand's midband performance in the presence of typical musical content was poor and that those who like what they hear from it, are hearing and preferring a midband coloration of some sort. I cannot come to any other conclusion.
Furthermore, given what I heard from the turntable, my initial conclusion was that the loss of harmonic and decay resolution was possibly a result of the stand's behavior. Now you might say I should have removed the table and put it on my Finite Elemente stand, but Mr. Lloyd insisted that his stand be used and that his stand was better and better suited to the turntable. This was not a review of the stand so I found myself in a quandry.
I then decided to put the accelerometer on the Monaco's armboard and repeat the test. I found what I was expecting to find: the Monaco's plinth is a beautifully designed dual carbon fiber shell with a visco-elastomer damping material between the shells (something the stand does not include). And guess what? The accelerometer on the armboard showed a significant attenuation of the resonance, but it was still present.
Next I put the accelerometer on the top shelf of the "stiff," heavy, aircraft grade aluminum, turnbuckle "stretched" Continuum stand (okay, it sells for 25,000 dollars), which features a magnetic repulsion system with zero physical contact, which Mr.Lloyd had said was the wrong approach when he examined it, and it greatly attenuated midband frequencies by comparison.
More significantly, when the accelerometer was placed upon the Continuum's armboard (which features a 3 dimensionally suspended, dual magnesium pod, damped armboard using Kevlar straps and an energy absorbing magnetic attraction system (patented), the attentuation of airborne musical content was nothing short of astonishing. It was almost complete.
No doubt this system is responsible, in part, for the Continuum's amazing sonic performance. However, an examination of the Continuum stand's low frequency performance showed the Monaco stand to be superior in rejecting LFs. This was puzzling but after the accelerometers were gone I discovered that the perimeter air tube that surrounds the platform had deflated. I should have inflated it before doing the tests but I cannot say whether or not the Continuum stand is capable of matching the Grand Prix stand's superb low frequency rejection.
However, in the end I chose not to deal with the stand issues as the review was not of the stand but of the 'table, used on the manufacturer's stand as requested.
I have no doubt that some of you will come back at me now saying I should have brought all of this into the review and/or moved the 'table to my reference Finite Elemente stand, but I chose instead to review the 'table as requested by the manufacturer. That is how he usually sells it, and how it's shown at shows.
In the end, I conclude that the shaker test on the website is really an incomplete and not necessarily relevant methodology for testing the stand's effectiveness in the presence of a complex, wide band musical signal, while it does demonstrate the stand's effectiveness with laterally generated low frequency vibrations, which are a small part of the overall picture.
And you think this job is easy?
Finally a disclaimer: I am not a resonance control engineer, or an engineer of any kind, for that matter and I invite anyone with engineering experience in this field to comment or dispute my conclusions based on the tests, which I'd be happy to email.
I'd like to conclude by saying my only goal is to review gear honestly and completely, while avoiding mindlessly parroting manufacturers claims. I have tried to do that with this review, and describe as accurately as possible the sound that the product(s) produced in my system.
If anyone reading this wishes to hear the MP3 comparison, email me through my website (www.musicangle.com) and I'll send them to you so you can describe what you hear to others. I did this for one reader (not the one quoted in the review) and here's what he said (note: the MP3s were not identified as to which was which and I won't do that for you if you wish to hear them).
Here's what the last guy said, not knowing which he was hearing:
"In my opinion this mp3 had more life in the music, more depth in Van's voice. You could hear the instrumentation more clearly, what it truly sounded like where it was placed and yes their are female backup singers."
"In my opinion initially this mp3 had a little more lower bass but only in the beginning .Otherwise it was dryer less lifelike"
When I compared the Merrill-Scillia and the Monaco, I ended up preferring the Monaco's bass performance and rhythmic certainty, and the Merrill-Scillia's smooth and rich harmonic presentation from the lower mids and up.
I should also add that John Atkinson went to listen to the Monaco at RMAF and was "more impressed than (he) was expecting."
By all means go listen to it. It is a great turntable and I didn't mean to imply anything less, but it does have a personality as do most audio products and while it will be to some people's liking it won't be to everyone's. So be sure to listen and listen beyond your first impression!
|
Dear French Fries: I did just what you're axing for in the latest ish of Stereophile: the Monaco and the Merrill-Scillia, both around 20K reviewed in the same issue.
The Scoutmaster is a great 'table. I reviewed it. You should be tickled. But it's impossible to line 'em all up and list them by merit. It just doesn't happen. However, I doubt I wrote "It just doesn't get any better than this," as aside from being a cliche, it tells you zilch.... |
While a CD made from vinyl does not sound as good as the live source, it does sound better than commercial CDs for whatever reasons. I made a CD-R of Van Morrison's "Astral Weeks" (original Warners-7Arts label) for some Warner Brothers executives who told me it sounded much better than their commercial release... |
of course listening to an MP3 is not a "professionally accepted" way of auditioning anything. I didn't use MP3s to audition the 'table or any other product. However, I was fascinated to find that even reduced to an MP3, numerous correspondents were able to describe the Monaco's sonic character listening "blind." I certainly think the Monaco is a "top tier" 'table and never meant to imply anything but that. Same with the Kuzma ref and Airline arm but that system sounds bright on top as did the Avid Acutus I reviewed. Audio products have sonic character. If you remember I suggested the Dynavector XV-1s cartridge as the ideal compliment to the 'table's character. I agree with whomever described the Monaco as a"time machine." Its rhythmic sense and pacing abilities were clearly outstanding as was its bottom end extension. However, I believe part of that is because of the midrange issues I described, that are in part due to the stand issues I noted with the B&K accelerometers. |
I am as fascinated to read Mr. Robinson's comments as anyone here. I can tell you that as this thread has run, I have received at least a dozen private emails from people agreeing with my assessment of the Grand Prix Monaco. These were not negative statements, necessarily, simply statements of what they felt its sonic character to be. As for the stand, I didn't "hear" the stand as a separate product. I only "heard" it in context of the 'table and then did the accelerometer tests. A shaker table measures lateral displacement only. It's used for testing products in earthquakes. The accelerometer tests confirmed that the Grand Prix stand works extremely effectively as confirmed by the shaker table results on the Grand Prix website. However these are large scale displacement tests. Audio racks, as opposed to earthquakes, need to deal with low displacement degradation caused by audio signals in the room that are broadband and low in amplitude. I don't understand what a shaker test tells you about a stand's behavior in a room where loudspeakers are playing music and energizing the shelf upon which the component is placed. An accelerometer test does, as the gentlemen who responded to this thread who specializes in these kinds of measurements confirmed. The real test of the effectiveness of an audio stand is what it does when energized by loudspeakers playing in a room. The Audiogon poster who attacks me for not being an engineer and making these measurements is really playing a very bitter game. if you like the sound produced by the GP stands, that's fine. If you wish to determine the stand's behavior in the presence of wide band audio signals, do the measurements, or get someone who you feel is qualified. I think you'll get the results I did. The shelf upon which the turntable sat is in no way isolated from being energized by the airborn energy in the room just because it sits on sorbothane pucks. The shelf may be isolated from the shelves below or from the frame, but the airborn energy is reaching the shelf itself and how it behaves in the presence of the energy is the issue at hand.
Finally, one criticism I have of audio reviewers is that too many of them are afraid of saying anything negative about a product, or of describing its character lest it be taken as being negative. Such people should become publicists. |
I have not been locked to my computer! I am in Georgia attending a Saab driving school and only logged on a while ago...i will be happy to answer your questions...and I need to look at the thread because I don't recall acusing anyone of attacking me and if I did I didn't mean to so let me follow this thread.... |
OK, so you didn't 'attack' me but you certainly spewed a great deal of sarcasm. I never said that comparing MP3s was the way to shop for audio gear. However, I think it was worth pointing out that a number of people were able to characterize the sound of an unidentified turntable using MP3s and that the description they gave correlated with my findings listening "live."
As for the accelerometer test: I used a pair of calibrated B&K accelerometers and mounted one on the GPA's top shelf and one on the top shelf of my reference rack . I ran a frequency sweep at 89dB played through the speakers and read the recorded results. I affixed the accelerometers to the stands and recorded the results. Where they came from is not relevant. These are not 'secret' devices nor was the "fix" in. I made sure to reverse the accelerometers to make sure the results were consistent with both and they were. If you'd like to see them, I'd be happy to supply them to you.
Mr. Lloyd requested that I review the 'table on his stand and that's what I did. No doubt as with any mass loaded, suspensionless design, the platform upon which it's placed will have an effect on the sound, one that's greater than using a 'table with a suspension such as the Merill.
I did not discuss these results with Mr. Lloyd because the review was of the 'table, not the stands. The results I got were not discussed with Mr. Lloyd because they were not part of the review and had they been, they would have been published. I understand I was opening a can of worms bringing this up on this forum and I discussed it with JA who gave me the go ahead after I explained the methodology. What I heard correlates with what I measured though the listening came first. The masking of low level decay information and harmonic development is what you'd expect from a support resonating in the midband.
Look up "shaker table" on the internet and see what it does and what it is used for. It is a large lateral excursion device used to test products under 'earthquake' like conditions. My point was, and remains that such a test is peripheral to the use for which an audio stand is intended, which is to isolate from airborn room energy created by loudspeakers (as well as from energy coming up from the floor through the stand). I said that the GPA stand did a good job of isolating in the very low frequencies but that as the sweep tone increased in frequency and reached the midrange, the stand's top platform exhibited a relatively high amplitude, wide-band resonance that is easily seen in the recorded graph. What's more, a lightweight, undamped carbon fiber platform would be expected to exhibit just such behavior.
I did not and do not "reject" Mr. Lloyds measurements. They are valid for what they are measuring, which is the stand's ability to reject low frequency, wide excursion lateral movements. That's what a shaker 'table measures. The GPA stands do extremely well in such tests. But what does that have to say about how a stand deals with airborn audio frequencies?
I listened before making these measurements. The measurements tend to correlate with what I heard, not vice-versa. I would much rather have heard a glorious sound and gotten equally glorious measured results. I didn't.
However, the measurements did corroborate both the exception sound produced by the Caliburn and they did indicate that the claims made by the manufacturer for the stand's and 'table's isolating abilities were true. Had they not been, I would have revealed that.
Please reconsider before making charges about my honesty or ascribing dark ulterior motives to what I've reported. I'm afraid one of the reasons too many reviews write happy-talk non-critical reviews is that they don't wish to be made uncomfortable by the kinds of charges you've leveled against me.
The Grand Prix 'table will get a Class A rating because it deserves one. However, it, in combination with its stand (recommended by the manufacturer) does have a particular sound that I feel I have described accurately.
My findings seem to differ from those of David Robinson. It will be up to readers to listen for themselves and decide whose are more accurate.
"Wow! Now we can compare two state of the art turntables with an MP3 file sent by e-mail. Thank goodness for the internet. Just think about it, I can have a dealer set up two systems, send me an MP3 of the systems via e-mail and purchase the better one without ever leaving my home to actually go LISTEN to the products. You're on to something Mikey! Look- I know you actually tell people to go listen, and some people such as Triode are smart enough to actually go and listen, but enough of trying to validate the results of your review by e-mailing people an MP3 file. There are just too many variables to make it a “credible” process.
With respect to you last post, there are a couple of obvious questions that struck me. How the heck did you know what you were measuring with respect to the stands and armboards if you are not an engineer of any type? (Kind of like me playing with an EKG machine and telling people their heart is in trouble.) I thought JA did all the measuring for Stereophile? Did an outside party come in and guide you through the process? If so, shouldn't you disclose who they were and if they have any affiliations in the industry? Did you ever use the Monaco on another stand or put the Merrill on the Grand Prix stand to see if it was really the possible cause of some of the faults you heard? Did you ever discuss these results and the measurement procedures to obtain them with Mr.Lloyd? I'm sure he'd like to know that his stands "sung like a Diva". How can you reject his methodology for measuring his own stands and validate your own methodology and want to send out the results via e-mail when the whole procedure appears suspect? If you want to review "honestly and completely", then disclose the entire measurement procedure or don't mention it at all. Anything else is disingenuous since you've reached your own personal conclusions from this process on how the turntable sounds.
I really look forward to reading your columns every month Mr. Fremer, honestly, but you really lost me with this one." |
I would understand your comment had I said Robinson's observations were incorrect. Did I say that? No. Your reaction to what I wrote is unnecessarily defensive. I am fascinated by Robinson's review because it is the polar opposite of what I heard over many months of careful listening.
Incidentally, I have received many emails from people who have heard the Monaco who agree with my observations and my review. I have gotten far more of those in personal emails, including from some who don't wish to be identified, than responses on Audiogon backing what Robinson reported.
But that's not the point. The point is, each person considering the 'table needs to listen for his or herself and then decide which review is more accurate of if neither of them is. |
I used the same technique to measure both my stand and the Grand Prix stand. If what you're saying is true, I should have gotten similar results. I didn't. In fact they couldn't have been more different. I repeated numerous times. You may work in this field but you're not thinking particularly straight. i compared apples to apples.... |
That you are stooping now to question my motives, my intentions, my personal feelings toward Mr. Lloyd, who I barely know, is indicative of the bizarre way in which this review has been received.
Don't forget: I've critically reviewed hundreds of products and have experienced hundreds of reactions, but none like this one. Not even close.
If you were in my position, you'd see this as a "Village of the Damned" scenario.
I mean do you want to read pure advertising copy?":
"it seems to me that Mr Fremer does not like Mr Lloyd and his endeavors, shaking up audiphile establishement with forward thinking ideas and technologically advanced solutions."
Mr. Lloyd is doing nothing all that different from what other competent individuals are doing in audio. What is he "shaking up?" Andy Payor built a dd turntables years ago. I reviewed it. Carbon fiber? Is that something "advanced" to you? Is Black Diamond Racing a name you're familiar with?
Just to be clear: I don't mean to disparage Alvin Lloyd's accomplishments here, nor did I in the review. Quite the opposite in fact.
However, I do mean to disparage the poster who wrote what's above because it's silly. Mr. Lloyd is hardly the only one designing "technologically advanced" audio products. I review such products all the time. Why would I, or any reviewer hold that against him?
A few months ago I reviewed the Kuzma Reference 'table and Airline tonearm. I wrote a review that was no more positive or negative than the one I wrote about the Monaco. I described what I heard, using adjectives, not superlatives. Much of what I found was sonically attractive, however I found the overall balance of the combo BRIGHT and said I wouldn't recommend using a Lyra Titan i or any other cartridge on the analytical side of the sonic fence on it.
GUESS WHAT? That review did not generate the hysteria the Monaco review has created. It's positively bizarre. Some of you are behaving as if I have desecrated a flag.
Snap out of it. The Monaco is just other audio product. It is nothing sacrosanct. Stop treating it as such. I wrote my opinion of what it sounds like. It's that simple, so get over it.
|
believe me, I understand how to set up a turntable. The charge that somehow I got that wrong (which Mr. Lloyd obliquely accused me of) is ridiculous... |
Jeezus! I tried numerous cartridges that I was quite familiar with. The results I got continually demonstrated the turntable's sonic character. PERIOD. What you're blathering here basically says that no reviews are valid by anyone.... |
Lewm has it right. The Monaco is a very well executed dd turntable that uses a 12 pole Hall sensor commutated motor. Nothing unique there. What is unique is the use of sinewave commutation as opposed to square wave commutation. This used to be extremely expensive, but clearly the price has dropped. Mr. Lloyd's design is elegant and brilliantly executed using high quality parts and superb machining and construction. I don't think I could have been more lavish in my praise of that aspect of the design and execution. However, just as spring suspended designs and mass loaded designs, and belt drive designs have sonic signatures, so do dd turntables. Back when the original Technics dd designs were issued, they too claimed speed perfection and the measurements available then demonstrated that was true. However, the 'hunt and peck' aspect of the servo system, which was always correcting and overcorrecting in the process of producing "speed perfection," produced a brightness and a discomfort that brought about the "belt drive" revolution of the Linn LP12. Belt drives (mostly) have problems that cause wow and flutter, but these are less perceptible as it turns out, than the high speed constant corrections of those old dd turntables. The Monaco design goes to great lengths to deal with the issues of Hall sensor torquing, and all of the other problems associated with dd motors where the platter is literally part of the motor, just as the Caliburn design has gone to great lengths to deal with the known issues of belt drive designs. Neither acheives perfection and both have sonic attributes. I stick by my sonic description of the Monaco both good (superb rhythmic-pacing performance and outstanding bass) and less good (a dry or tight quality in the midrange with a loss of low level detail and harmonic development) compared to the best belt designs. Which one prefers is always a matter of taste and as long as one understands the sonic character, one can better choose a complimentary cartridge and phono preamp. This is true of every audio product. The Monaco "white paper" claimed "neutrality" and colorlessness for the turntable. Sorry. I don't buy that there or with any other audio product I have ever encountered in more than 20 years of doing this. The review should no more discourage any interested parties from considering the Monaco than the review of the Merrill, which said that the bass was not as tight, extended and well controlled as the Monaco, should discourage audiophiles from considering that 'table. The rest of the blather here really is pretty foolish in my opinion and not worth the cyberspace it takes up. |
The goal was and is always, with any review, to make the product under review sound as good as it possibly can within the context of the review system. Of course VTA was carefully adjusted. And while I'm at it, I understand there are some IDIOTIC rumors floating around (based on a reader's email) that the Graham Phantom did not contain damping fluid. Of course it did. Who could have made such a ludicrous assertion? The Graham, which I own, was taken from the Continuum's second armboard and installed on the Monaco. The VTA obviously had to be readjusted to take into account the difference in platter height (etc.). Also, according to this reader, some yentas are asserting that my relationship with the folks at Continuum affected the review. So let's see: I attended Harry Weisfeld's son's Bar Mitzvah, I attended the funeral of his other son (the one for whom the JMW Memorial arm was named) and consider Harry Weisfeld a closer friend than I do the guys from Continuum, but somehow, after reviewing the Simon Yorke S7, I sold my TNT and bought the Yorke, though I had never met Simon Yorke at that point in time. You know what? There are some real idiots in this hobby. So let me reiterate. I LISTENED TO THE MONACO AND WROTE WHAT I HEARD. That's what I do every time, all the time. I separate the products from the people. It's essential to do that. Unfortunately, there are too many reviewers who can't do that, so they end up writing frothy, chummy reviews of every product they get in. Never a bad word. Why bother reading such reviews when you can read professional advertising copy or a publicist's hand out? |
It's "grooves" but of course it's all "subjective" and dependent upon many factors. Those are givens. However, do this long enough and get it wrong too many times and you've got no credibility. In Stereophile you write your "subjective" (I prefer "observational") impressions and then there are measurements. When it comes to speakers I try to predict what the measurements reveal and I have a pretty good track record in that regard. There should be more information in reviews than just subjective sonic opinions and there usually are in the good ones, including information that's valuable when considering a purchase. |
I returned the Halcyonics stand as I do all gear I don't buy. I have no doubt that Halcyonics made a difference.... |
I don't mind the bit**ing or the personal attacks. It's unfortunate, but part of the territory. Instead, you should visit the Wall Street Journal and look up a piece by a guy named Terry Teachout about "deaf audiophiles." This guy is dangerous and is deserving of a well written (not nasty) email. His address is there. The guy hates us and has been at it for quite some time.
Constructive criticism is always welcome but how many times do people complain that reviewers "never say anything negative" and then when they do, they complain about them too!!!!
The Monaco turntable is something everyone should spend some time listening to. It's strong suits may outweight the negative ones for you, or you may not hear the negatives I pointed out at all. Also remember that reviews put products under a microscope and when that's removed some of the problems diminish in size....
It's important to point them out though because short term you might not hear them but long term (once you plunk down yer money) you might! A reviewer's job is to find those "issues" quickly and point them out...at least that's how I see my job..... |
the fluid amount has to do with critical damping and the critical damping will for the most part be dependent upon the weight of the cartridge and its compliance. Underdamping will usually cause the sound to be brighter and 'faster,' overdamping will make it sluggish-sounding, thick and sometimes dark and veiled. Yes, this is an important consideration... |
I'm not sure why Thomas doesn't suggest damping fluid with his 'table. The arm's physical performance shouldn't be dependent upon the 'table used, though the sonic combination is another issue. A few people complained "why didn't you set up an SME V, why didn't you set up a Triplanar," etc. I tried to set up a popular inexpensive 'table (Pro-Ject) that allows for most set up parameters, and one that didn't (Reg) plus a unipivot (VPI), the idea being the old "teach a guy to fish" parable. I felt that the VPI unipivot instructions would translate easily to the Graham..... |
Zanden measurements and subjective reviews? Yes, the Zanden I first got not only measured poorly, it was actually wired incorrectly at the factory and was therefore defective. However, it still sounded incredibly inviting. Mesmerizing actually. Why? I'm not sure. However, if you're interested in measurements as a guide for what's worth buying, surely you've given up on vinyl quite some time ago. Compared to CDs, vinyl SUCKS if you go by the commonly used measurements.....measurements are worthwhile generally and very useful for the most part, but if you let yourself get led around by the nose by measurements and just measurements, you'll end up in a very bad place.....as you will if you totally ignore them! |
"Mothra" wrote: "but it;s would be typical of fremer to like because it is one of, if the not the, most expensive tables on the market."
That's silly my Japanese monster friend. I owned an relatively modestly priced Simon Yorke S7 for years and chose to not replace is with many far more expensive turntables that I reviewed. I reviewed the new $28,000 NAIM CD player and didn't feel it sounded all that different than my $7000 reference. I wonder on what basis you made the "typical" statement? Believe me, buying the Caliburn, even at an "accommodation" price was/is a big sacrifice. I am still paying it off. Another Caliburn owner I spoke with previously owned a Walker. He read my review and since he couldn't hear one before buying had to rely upon what I wrote. Talk about pressure! Was he happy with his purchase after doing a direct comparison? Absolutely. Another guy bought one and complained to me about my review at the HE2006 show in Los Angeles. He told me my review was misleading. Why? Because he felt after buying the turntable that I had 'held back' and that the Caliburn was far better than I let on. He also owns a Ferrari and says the Caliburn is his favorite purchase. I don't own a Ferrari but I agree with him. It's my favorite purchase ever too. Another buyer who writes for TAS came up to here mine and then bought his. You can be cynical but you should hear the Caliburn under good conditions. Unfortunately the sound at most of the shows has been poor but not because of the 'table. |
