Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH


Anyone read Fremer's review of the Grand Prix Monaco in the latest Stereophile?

Ouch that has to hurt. I am familar with the design of this table, and of course on paper it seems groundbreaking, but if I were in the market for a $20K table, (I'm not) this review would completely kill my interest in this seemingly stellar product.

Any other opinions?

(actually this is a great issue of Stereophile - lots of gear I am intersted in)
emailists

Showing 8 responses by sirspeedy

Though it did seem like a nice unit,the asking price was/is absurdly high!I am sorry it did not seem to live up to it's performance potential,according to MF,but I simply don't see "20 large" anywhere in that product.I am sure research was costly,but it still does not equate into such rediculous pricing!...
I am sorry to disagree with you Mikey.I am entitled to my own opinion.
Understand,when I read how a product,like the "beautiful" Monaco does not sound so hot,and does not "appear" to be extremely costly,from a parts standpoint(at least not 20 grand),it is not too big a stretch to think it is over priced.I don't buy the direct drive reason for this either.Carbon fibre...maybe-:)
Looking at another very precise design,like an Oracle Delphi MK ( "what ever is the latest"),something I don't own btw,and seeing the Monaco costs FOUR times it's asking price,I feel(only an opinion)that the Monaco is way too expensive.
Both designs are precise,and beautifully made,but the Delphi "sounds good"!
Sorry,and I understand the "nickle defense" of a mfgr,but you owe your readership something as well!
No wonder High End is in the state it is in,and so many mfgrs are hurting!Do you remember the OLD TAS?I cannot believe "that" scribe would have had nothing to say about "this" asking price!
Sorry for the sarcasm,but I/we don't have to go gracefully into "over priced land" without an occassional objection!There was a time that the journalists of the day were on our(the consumer's)side!
BTW,I am not in condemnation of you,as a reviewer.Just your last post!It cannot be easy being in your shoes,and you "DO" do a credible job.
Best.
Grooves,I understand your point,and must admit that having just purchased a Transfiguration Orpheus,one can make a good case for high pricing there,too!Maybe I was a bit harsh,and for that I am sorry!
Yes the Cosmos IV is a great table(I own one),and it has gotten amazingly good,and well deserved press(see latest rave in "10 Audio").What I like about MIke's coverage(in general)is the exposure to newer product offerings.
Best
I think I know what Raul means,and have to agree with his assertion.Even when A/B'ing some pricey phono cables,in my friend's set-up, required my re-voicing his arm/cartridge parameters.Especially the bearing fluid in his Graham.Why?Probably had something to do with internal resonances,or better delineation,from the cable,requiring a slight change!What can I say?It seems to make sense,that "voicing" a system,requires "really" knowing "it",and what you hope to gain from component changes."Not" getting something new,and hoping for the best!It's a never ending process,or at least a continuing one,'til you run out of money.Or get divorced!-:)
As for Mikey....I'm beginning to think if I were him,I'd be sorry(by now)that I ever took the time to post,on this forum!It's almost like one has to walk on egg shells,when making some claims.Fearing you may have to defend some comment,not necessarily meant the way it came out.I've been there alot,but the nasty responses to me,were often well deserved.-:)
Best.
Raul,you are getting a bit carried away with some of your assertions!Not that you are wrong,but to be honest if someone is interested in a product,they usually assert their own perception and tastes first,"then" weigh the benefits of a good,or bad review!
I really don't believe you have to get so technical,with your arguement.Sometimes it is beyond technicality!!!Either something interests us enough to "discover" the benefits of ownership,or not!
To pick apart every single parameter could take a lifetime,if we became so obsessed.Everything has it's positive and negative side!Intuition can play a big part,in a purchase,if we have a general grasp of the product,and what we want from it.
I think Mikey,did a commendable job,with this table(I don't always agree with him,as it should be).Why do I absolutely know this??Because I would NEVER want to do his job!!!!It is a NO win situation,with the attitudes of the hyper-audiophile legions,waiting to find something to pick on.
The reviewer job is to give us a roadmap,to "see" if this particular product is something we find interesting,and are capable of acquiring.Just to point us in a direction.We make the choice to take it further.He cannot cover every possible consideration,or he would surely go nuts!
You cannot cover ALL the different parameters with a product like an analog playback rig!There are too many variables.You "surley" know this!
Fremer did a damn good(enough) job,and if I was interested in the product,I would want to check it out,regardless of how the review shaped up.
When I bought my Avalon Ascent speakers,Michael Gindi(a reviewer at the time,and a person with good intention)was pretty adamant about my buying them.He was a friend of a friend,but was nice enough to invite me to his home(before the speakers came out)and then followed up with numerous compelling phone calls(to me)trying to convince me to acquire the speakers.He was a good salesman,btw!
I went to Mike Hobson's place(he was a dealer at the time)to check them out,and the performance was far from stellar!
Though I was disapointed,I still felt I had gotten enough good feedback,and heard enough in the speaker to "kind of like",that I put down a deposit on them,knowing that these products "had" to be better than the demo performance.I went with my own intuition,and perceptions of what I would ultimately get(which I got in spades,btw).
Personally,I think anyone wanting to acquire something like a MONACO,will not be dissuaded by a so-so review!
Sometimes you have to go with your own instincts!"THAT" cannot be tested for!
Best regards.
As to the Phantom fluid usage.......Since I am close to upgrading my Graham 2.2 to a Phantom the subject of NOT using fluid perplexed me.I am very familiar with the huge differences even the most minute amounts of fluid impact the 2.2's performance(I am talking pinhead amounts,and have been at this for years,on this arm).
My friend has just upgraded his 2.2 to the Phantom,and "it"(Phantom) is not as sensitive to fluid as the 2.2.Yet,it still "definitely" benefits from fluid usage! You MUST be VERY careful about finding the "perfect" amount,for a given cartridge's energy!This will NOT take one listening session if you are exacting!
I called Bob Graham recently,as I had some questions regarding set-up.The fluid issue came up in the conversation(as did the titanium arm tube option,which he thinks is the equal of the ceramic,and a matter of taste).
As to the fluid usage...his feelings, on non usage was that the arm "sounded quite good,surprisingly,with no fluid,but that does NOT mean it should not be used"(his words). He has not done an A/B comparison,with fluid,and
based on my own experience with my friend's Phantom(he has the same Transfiguration Orpheus cartridge as me)I will definitely use the fluid.
This could be cartridge dependent,but the Phantom definitely likes fluid with the Orpheus in use.Small increments STILL affect sonics BIG TIME!
Hope this helps.
Good luck.
I think there can be way too much ego(nobody in particular,btw)in this hobby,and very obvious on these numerous threads.
I see this in all the little "groupings" in my audio circles.You know...the tube vs SS clubs,or the high mass vs suspended table clicks,or particular cartridge lovers/defenders,etc,etc.Everyone wants to voice an educated opinion(I'm no exception).Sometimes just to offer up "something" that will stick,and maybe get some thread time.
Here,to my surprise(a pleasant one)we had a well known hobbyist/reviewer,make a "series" of interesting posts about an interesting product,which developed into varied subjects.Still intriguing,to a good extent.
What this ultimately morphed into,and it really became kind of ludicrous,was the very typical "ego fest",with many folks questioning a "good natured" original series of responses by Mike Fremmer.
I doubt his heart was "not" in the right place!To me,all his responses were to be explanitive of his review.Then defensiveness set in,and "here" it was uncalled for.The hobbyist ego thing again(not Fremmer's ego either).Too many "I know alot,and want someone to know it too" posters,diluting a well intended series of posts by a well known person in our hobby,who truly seemed to be good natured and wanting to be helpful.AND did not have to!
What good could come out of baiting and questioning every action involved in a complex review process?I have been at this for four decades,and could not/would not want to perform such "pain in the ass" procedures.Just listening is way too much fun for me.
Do we think the forums on Audiogon would be more interesting if a reviewer,like Fremmer,did not even bother to contribute something?
Would all us simple hobbyist types(to different degrees)be more happy just kicking around the same stuff we always do,without input from the "guys" we all like to read......and be critical of(in private) to our own audio friends -:) We all do it!-:)
Yet,when said high profile folks are "NICE" enough to chime in(in this case "alot",and more than he should have,due to the stupid "contrarians" out there,IMO)with only good spirited intentions,it does not seem to be such a stretch to at least "want" more of this in the future!At least I would.
I doubt this will happen,much to this extent,in the future.Deservedly so!!
Now we can all go about posting the same repetitive,uninteresting stuff I've been following for some time!
Sorry for the rant,but I feel better now!
Best to all.