I am completely sympathetic! I, too, am looking into my next table and have considered all three of these in addition to Avid and Acoustic Signature. It is most likely that all of these tables are capable of great performance. I have owned a very good suspended table in the past but I have come to realize that these are not the best at dynamics and "the startle factor". (I borrowed that phrase because I think it really sums up what my preference is for vinyl playback.) If the listener tends to like warmer,perhaps a bit smooth playback then I would think a suspended table would be in order. So, like you, I'm going down the nonsuspended, high mass road.
I also give the nod to the 3 tables you mentioned because I think they are the best value around when you compare all of the features included in the price. But my personal preference is for the arm and bearing to be tightly coupled. So that ruled out the Redpoint for me. Another preference I have is for mounting multiple arms and here again I think these tables get the nod because the armboards can easily be manufactured and the pivoting feature makes for setup ease.
So I'm down to Galibier and Teres. Here is where the dilemma really begins to kick in and like you said it is virtually impossible to hear both table in my system in my room. Again I'm left to comparisons based on research and not listening sessions. Both of these tables imploy a simpler is better approach if we skip the motor controllers for now. The biggest difference is in the materials chosen. I'm also an amateur woodworker so I really appreciate the look and craftsmanship of the Teres tables. I have no issue with movement of the wood because I'm satisfied that the process that Chris uses in making the Teres tables is sufficient to keep any movement to a minimum. I'm also put at ease by the great effort that Chris goes to to stand behind what he makes.
As I said before, my preferences in sonics tend to the dynamic and what many would refer to as bright. I reject this because bright is exactly how I would characterize all live music I have ever heard. Anyway, that leads me to think that Thom's approach using all metal may yield sonics closer to what I would prefer. But I also admit that this is at best a guess on my part.
Now, just a brief comment on the motor controller that is used by Teres and some others. I'm an engineer, EE and CS, and I do have some concerns with a feedback loop controller. It does seem that the one in question is very well implemented, but again my preference is for simple is best.
So here we are Richard. Both on a similar quest and both facing the same obstacles.
Hi; I am in the same boat as well. I have heard all of these tables, hands down the RedPoint was the winner to my ears that day for a table using mass and being unsuspended. However what I found was the SOTA Cosmos or Millenia better suited my listening needs; netural. It was mached with a TriPlanner. What ever way you go I am sure you will be happy, in the end.
You really should also consider the Verdier Platine at this price point.
Arm coupled to table
Takes 2 arms
Armboards rotate for easy adjustability/setup
Dan ed- Do you know why Redpoint does not couple the arm and bearing? I could give Peter a call but I'll wait until after the holidays. Aesthetics don't mean much to me but I kinda go for the Redpoint's anodized red model. I have seen a Teres 340 and it's truly beautiful. The review of Galibier seemed incomplete to me. Jumping from a Grahim Robin arm to a Schroeder is to great a leap.
Guys sorry to be no help, but I have questions for both of you. I also just sold my turntable and arm and I am on a quest for a new table front end. I have not really narrowed my list as far down as you guys yet, but the Basis and Avid tables were amongnst the tables I was considering in addition to the Galibier and Teres and Brinkmann. What did you not like about the Basis and Avid tables.
Funny that you mention dynamics or 'startle factor' as this is the reason to not have a suspended table as I sold my Nottingham Spacedeck and Arm as the combo because it sounded slightly slow with no dynamics. I have had several people tell me you have to get a suspeneded table to have the most dynamics. I really wish there was a way I could audition all of these tables but I only can audition the Brinkmann.
Meby - As far as my Avid is concerned, I really have nothing negative to say about it. It is overmatched, price-wise, by my arm and I do want to get another cartridge (maybe a Lyra Titan instead of my Helicon). The Volvere is the first model in its lineup. Eventually I want to reach my idea of analog nirvana and I think the three models above will closer reach it. The arm and cart can only take what the table gives them. I'm itchin to find out what else is out there. Count me in for the diseased audiophile club.
This is a great thread!
I recently heard the Galibier turntable and it has a strength I thought important, DC motor and battery powered.
Perhaps the others have the same system?
Yes, please take my comments and observations as nothing more than that, my opinion based on my preferences.
I am still a big fan of Basis tables and the Vector. I've used both for a couple of years and could be happy with Basis for many more years. That said I think they through a huge soundstage with heavy bass, at least from the 2500 and up, but they are a bit dark sounding and I think that the leading edge dynamics could be better. In my search for improvement it was mentioned to me by several people that the motor on the Basis could be improved upon with something like the Walker Drive or the VPI SDS. But we're talking at least $1500 and no guarantee that this alone will solve all of the issues. This is the same issue that I have with many tables and a very big part of why I think Teres, Galibier and Redpoint are a better value when considering the DC motor solutions employed by these manufacturers. Also, for my preferences, these 3 tables provide a cost effective solution for adding additional arms. Well, Redpoint's solution may not be as cost effective but if one had several arms this may still be the way to go. I'm still not completely sure if the Redpoint armpod actually connects to the plinth or not. My understanding is that the de-coupled armpod is one of the few differences between what Thom and Peter produce. I suppose I still have research to do in this area of armboards and armpods.
I suspect (big opinion here) that part of the lack in dynamics is due to the damped suspension, it is after all a shock absorber. I also tend to believe that metal is a better material to start with than acrylic to yield the sound that I want to hear. I'm still not certain about Cocobolo, but hey, they do make musical instruments with it. This is definitely a matter of personal choice. No table is perfect.
I also looked at Sota and I do think they make an excellant table. The multiple arm mounting was an issue for me. Not that Sota can't do it, but they do consider it to be custom work and so more money. Again, a question of what is the better value.
Again, this is all based on my preferences and I don't mean to suggest there is a short-coming with any of the tables mentioned in this thread. All are capable of reproducing great music. But I think Richard and I have narrowed our search to Teres, Galibier, and Redpoint.
Richard, I may be missing something but I believe the reason for decoupling the armpod from the main bearing is to prevent vibrations from the record surface making their way to the arm. I believe that the designer of Avid tables discourages unipivots for this very reason. I think a drawback is that there is a potential for things not aligning properly. And, unless you really seperate the armpod completely from the bearing as in completely seperate stands, they are still coupled by whatever the components are sitting on. So why not just couple everything and sink the vibrations together. I'm sure I've probably butchered this and hopefully someone will come along that could provide a better explanation.
Yes, I think all three use the Maxon DC motor. Unless things have changed, only Teres and Redpoint are using the feedback controller that was developed during the original project. It uses a closed loop feedback controller with a sensor in the plinth that "watches" a strobe pattern on the plinth. This is how the Teres is implemented and I'm guessing that the Redpoint does the same.
I have an earlier version of the Redpoint Testa Rosa which I got when Thom and Peter were partners. I have recently upgraded to Galibier's newest platter which has brass and graphite rather than teflon. The brass and graphite is a huge improvement over the teflon topped platter which I had. IMHO much improved dynamics and clarity. As far as sound I doubt that you could go wrong with any on your list. I must say that I really like my Redpoint/Galibier and that Thom will go the extra mile to make sure things are right for you if you end up going with him.
Guys - This is great! All three tables use a DC motor. Which I think is the better choice, as is the battery option.
What arm and cartridge are you using on the Galibier? How is Thom's trade up policy is he liberal with the trade in values?
I am a fan of smaller companies as well and I have profound respect for the three companies you outlined above having spoken with Thom, Peter and Chris myself. All are very nice and accomodating people. Before you make your final decision on what turntable system to purchase, may I suggest that you take a look at the Sound Engineering SE-1 turntable, especially with the flywheel option, and perhaps even speak with Bob Benn regarding his design principle & product. Best of luck in your ultimate analog venture.
Happy New Year fellow Audiogoners!!!
I am using a Schroeder Reference with a ZYX Universe cartrdige. The sound with the teflon platter was very good and thought it would be difficult to improve much. The graphite top platter really seems to make a difference in attack and dynamics without suffering from some of the negatives that are sometimes associated with this type sound. It has a very musical quality with improved clarity. You should probably talk to Thom regarding any trade-up policy as I think it would vary based on the individual situation.
BTW, regarding the moveable armpod, I cannot really say if a moveable armpod sounds better or not. I do know that on my Redpoint there are set screws that allow you to position the armpod up against the base. Once it is aligned properly you can move the armpod, for example to dust, weigh your tracking force etc., you just move it back up against the base and it will be in the exact alignment as you had before. Keeping in alignment is really not an issue.
Dear Richard: Good that you already decided to buy a new TT. All the TT named in this thread are really good. Which one is the best: well no exist the " best TT " per se, this depends of the synergy with the cartridge/tonearm that was matched and with the synergy with our own ( very personal ) music priorities.
The ones that you are looking for are very good TTs and I like the Galibier, specially with its new mat, that is an all metal build unit and that your Triplanar makes a great synergy with it.
I like Dan-ed agree that you could take a look to Acoustic Signature TTs ( that are a metal ones too ), this ones are really good performers and could match very well with your Triplanar tonearm.
As a fact you can't wrong with either of these TTs. Which do you prefer? which one likes you? with which one you will be happy for ever?, your personal answers to these and other questions will tell you what to do about. Remember that our opinions are only " our opinions ", the important subject is yours one because you have to live with that TT not ours.8888888
Regards and enjoy the music.
Dmailer, thanks for clearing up the armpod alignment. The implementation you describe sounds like it may have some advantages over the pivoting armboards used by Chris and Thom, although I'm guessing those pods are more expensive.
Are you using the Anvil and/or a ring clamp?
I think Raul should buy one of each and set up a salon! Then we can use them to compare his 18 arms and 47 cartridges. ;-)
Truly, it's as Raul said. These are all fine tables, each with its own plus points (many) and minus points (few). Obviously we like Teres, since we bought a 265 and then upgraded to a 320 thanks to CB's excellent trade-in policy. I'm not ashamed to say the visual aesthetics of cocobolo played a part in our decision.
Our sonic priorities are similar to what Dan_Ed described. This is why we chose an unsuspended, high mass design. I have a hard time believing that a plinth that's free to move would provide full dynamics and transient speed. Try putting sorbothane or roller-anythings beneath your sub-woofers or main speakers and see what happens to the sound.
Cheers to all and a Happy 2006!
Yes, I am using the Anvil which seems to work very well. I am not much on the idea of using an outer ring clamp to me it seems like it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Very good example, DougDeacon. I have experienced this with my 10t's. If I want to hear mud in the woofers I can just remove the 40# stands.
Dmailer, DougDeacon burst my bubble as far as using a ring since he told me that the TriPlanar would not clear it when the cartridge was near the end of the grooves. Maybe Thom has a better idea for machining a ring to use with the TriPlanar but I would probably only be interested in using one to see if it would provide a solution for some of those 'tater chip records. I will have a graham 2.2 mounted as well so maybe I could use it with that arm.
I did express to Thom some reservations about the Anvil but I admit I've never used a weight and am only going on what I have experienced with clamps. That is some records need different clamping pressure than others. I'm not sure how that translates to the weight.
... some records need different clamping pressure than others. I'm not sure how that translates to the weight.
I've never tried a weight either, for exactly this reason.
It's only Rudolf Bruil's ring that is a problem, due to its unusually large diameter. Sound Engineering should be able to make a TriPlanar-compatible ring. There's also an Audiophile Club of Athens (Greece) member that offered custom made rings. I'd have to google to find it, it's been a year or two since I looked at it.
I don't think you ought to write off your Avid table just yet. The Volvere is an excellent table, no existing arm or cartridge is sonically too good for the table although linear trackers are not a great match. You should consider getting the motor and power supply to upgrade it to a Volvere Sequel.
The high mass tables have a very different flavor but I am not convinced that they are better in an absolute sense. The Volvere has an articulate, incisive sound with tons of PRaT (apologies to those who hate the term). I think you will find the Teres especially something of a sonic polar opposite. While you will gain some sonic weight and richness you will also give up something. To use a motoring analogy I think you are looking at going from an autocrosser to a grand touring car.
Now that CES is over, I would like to keep the above question going. I've discovered that there are some opinions out there that say the Galibier and Redpoint tables have more PRaT than the Teres. ???????
Yes, I was hoping that someone who went could offer a review of these based on what they heard. That's assuming Thom, Chris and Peter were all in attendance.
Teres has never shown at CES before. Don't know about Galibier or Redpoint.
All Teres models got a huge PRaT upgrade in late-2005. Even better, this upgrade cost virtually NOTHING!
In early September CB sent a few owners, including me, a new drive belt. Instead of the previous 1 mil x 1/2" mylar tape, the new belt is 2 mil x 1/2" mylar. The improvement this thicker, sturdier belt makes is phenomenal.
Two years ago when my first Teres was new, I started a thread to report the improvement made by 1 mil x 1/2" mylar tape vs. silk thread. One Galibier/Redpoint owner (Salectric?) added that he got still better results with 2 mil tape. I should have tried some then but it slipped my mind until CB sent me one.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent CB on 9/12/05:
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
The clear belt provides MUCH superior coupling of platter to motor. This is 100% good. (I'm ignoring motor vibration transmission, not really a big issue with Teres motors). Superior coupling forces the playback stylus to more accurately reproduce the path of the cutting stylus in the TIME dimension.
In our system amplitudes became greater across the board, dynamics got stronger, leading edges got quicker. Bass response in particular increased so much that many familiar records actually sound strange: frequency balance shifted so radically they literally sound like different (and much better) recordings. All this from a belt change.
Last night I played Acts 2 and 3 of Wagner's 'Gotterdammerung'. That's 7 sides, I couldn't stop myself. The music and the drama were compelling, terrifying, overwhelming, shocking and real - exactly how the death of the Gods should sound. All this from a belt change.
This morning I played Bach's Well Tempered Clavier performed by Ralph Kirkpatrick. These are the most delicate sounding LPs I know of. Kirkpatrick's 36"-wide clavichord was never more fully present, despite the necessity to play these records at very low levels. (A live clavichord is very quiet. Two people having a conversation will easily drown one out.) All this from a belt change.
Our preamp gain control is now set lower to achieve the same SPLs. We hear less tube rush, less vinyl surface noise and our preamp gain tubes aren't being pushed as hard. All this from a belt change.
Clarity, tunefulness and pitch accuracy are improved on nearly all records, sometimes dramatically so. I have one or two really torturous records that I've never been able to play cleanly to the end. (Operatic sopranos on inner grooves mostly.) If I told you everything I've tried it would take hours. The new belt solved 90% of the problem with the very toughest of these, and 100% of it on the others. It helped more than the TriPlanar vs. OL Silver, more than a 320 vs. 265, more than a ZYX UNIverse vs. a Shelter 901. All this from a belt change.
Methinks FlyingRed's comparison from last Summer, which found the Teres lacking in PRaT, convinced CB to make a change that worked. I don't know if anyone's compared these tables since then, but I do know any comparison using the old belt is now quite outdated.
Here's another possible source for your platter ring, that was shared on the Lenco thread:http://www.xs4all.nl/~rabruil/ttring.html Sorry I do not know how to do the nifty link thing;)-~
Thom had mentioned something about CES so I assumed he was showing. Perhaps not. It's good to know that the heavier mylar tape seems to be doing the job, but it doesn't make the decision any easier! :)
That is the ring that DougDeacon had mentioned. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work with TriPlanar tonearm.
Another small upgrade to the Teres tables is that the motor pulley has been changed. Apparently my 160, bought last month, was the first table to incorporate this new tweak (I believe Chris told me the shaft was now phenolic, but I'm not entirely sure). Chris said that this made an audible difference as well.
My system is extremely "budget" compared to most, but I will say that my Teres 160 gives me a whole new appreciation for PRaT.
Redpoint at CES
Doug - do you have a source for the 2mil tape? Mylar?
The new belt was just part of our on-going work quest for better sound. Some time ago we did extensive listening to many belt materials, We found that thicker belts sounded slightly better, but did find anything thicker than one mil. So we decided to make our own belts cut from sheet material. It was a pain to create a the cutting jig but now we have a new set of possibilities for materials.
FlyingReds comments about leading edges and smearing is a pretty good description of the Koetsu Urushi I was using at the time. Koetsu's have legendary lushness and warmth, but at a price. It's a sound that some like but Flying Red obviously does not.
Doug - Thanks for the info on the belt. It's amazing that it would make that big an improvement.
Thanks for the reality check. I quite agree with your assessment of the Urushi, as you know. I don't doubt that it had a huge (or soft, rather) impact on what FlyingRed heard.
Still, our belt comparisons were made using our 320/TriPlanar/UNIverse. The improvements we heard and still hear were anything but small. YMMV I suppose.
I was hoping you could find a source that's easier than cutting by hand. Oy! I'll poke around and see if I can find one. Sorry to be such a pest.
I've been down for the count with a post-CES flu bug ... one of the down sides of having an incredible number of great people pass through our room at the show.
Someone pointed me to this thread, and I wanted to address a few factual questions for your benefit. For the record, we were co-exhibiting with Aydn - the Artemis Labs guys
1. Separate arm pods (Redpoint):
While Peter and I disagreed on this issue, there is no question in my mind that with a proper, rigid turntable shelf, you can make wonderful sound this way. One thing that bothered me about this architecture involved the possibility of accidentally moving the arm pod and changing your overhang adjustment. Toward this end, one of my last acts as Peter's partner, was to design a repeatable, precise spacing system.
This spacing system works very nicely for the 9" tonearm pods - the ones with the scallops. To my knowledge, no equivalent method has been implemented for the cylindrical pods for 12" tonearms.
Dmailer (in this thread) was the last customer to purchase a Testa Rossa style turntable from me before Peter and I effected the Redpoint/Galibier split. He is very happy with the stability of his separate arm pod ... in conjunction with his Schröder Reference tonearm and ZYX Universe cartridge.
2. Dimensional stability of wood as a turntable material:
I'm in no position to comment on its dimensional stability. Whether or not it is possible to produce a turntable base / platter that will outlive you is of no concern to me.
I prefer to achieve my sonic goals with materials that allow me to sleep well at night.
Chris has likely worked long and hard to ensure the stability of the wood and you get to vote with your hard earned dollars.
The question might arise as to how I can endorse Schröder tonearms. Simply put, Frank sources naturally aged wood - wood that has not been kiln dried, but has rather been sitting and stabilizing for decades.
3. The Redpoint Red turntable:
The Model A is powder coated and not anodized. Peter may have plans for red anodizing in the future. It's best to check with him.
4. Verdier (and mods):
I've ceased to support other products with individual motor pod sales. I have learned from my network of Verdier owning buddies that numerous European users are very happy with the TF Acoustics controller.
In a few months time, I'll be able to comment on the efficacy of this conversion.
I don't consider this to be architecture limited (e.g. suspended vs. non-suspended). My suspended Merrill was very dynamic while sounding tonally natural. Many of the British suspended decks are too bright sounding to my ears - even if they do sound dynamic. Certainly, non-suspended decks like Teres / Redpoint / Galibier have plenty "startle
factor". This is another case of execution vs. architecture choices.
6. Commonality between Redpoint and Galibier:
Over time, I'm certain that Peter's and my personal interpretations will evolve.
One of the first steps in this direction for me is the recent development of the Tunable Platter Interface (TPI) ©. I'm sure that Peter has lots up his sleeve too. To the benefit of the consumer, we're all tortured souls who lose sleep ... dreaming up new ideas.
7. Motor controller architecture.
Peter and I have been using the same controller designed by me in 2001- with minor evolutionary modifications being made since then.
While his and mine have minor ergonomic differences, they are the same simple motor controller.
Teres (along with Progressive Engineering, I believe), use the Manfred Huber designed controller which I lovingly refer to as the "Hubermatic".
I built Bob Benn's (Sound Engineering) very first motor controller (http://www.galibierdesign.com/bob_benn.html) - for his Sound Engineering turntable. At the time, I was unaware that I was "developing" for a competitor. The photo above is of a somewhat crude construction - necessitated by the custom implementation. I could not use my circuit board.
When Peter and I set out to thinking about motor controllers, the idea of supporting Manfred's controller design in a commercial product gave us the creeps. I've always favored the simplest solution possible. What may be good for a DIY-er can become a nightmare to support in a commercial context.
For those of you who don't know, Manfred Huber (a stellar fellow from Munich) donated his controller circuit to the original DIY Teres project and subsequently licensed it to the commercial Teres venture. We declined Manfred's kind offer to license the Hubermatic (as I lovingly call it) for our effort.
Instead, we opted for a simpler approach - an LM317T based (and now, it's more robust, LM338T bigger brother) regulator circuit. Nine parts is all it takes. Less to go wrong, and something that can be fixed in your home town with no re-programming of any chips.
This was more of a philosophical approach to simplicity and reliability than it was to outright performance. We felt that a great performing controller that was down for service is no good for anyone.
The more we experimented with belts and batteries in the early days, the more we realized that our approach had no performance drawbacks. 100% reliable? Of course not. Nothing is, but we sleep better at night knowing that we've done our best to reduce the risk of ownership.
There's no single answer that's correct for everyone, and the push-start feature in the Hubermatic is way cool. For Peter and myself, this comes at too high a price, however. Don't lose sleep over this ... that's the job of the manufacturer.
8. Galibier trade-up policy.
This depends on your starting and end points. Talk to me privately.
9. Anvils, clamps, etc.
The new graphite topped platter (Stelvio - Tunable Platter Interface - TPI ©) seems to prefer no clamp, although this is system dependent to some extent. Dmailer has yet to try this, and one other user still likes his Anvil. It's all about choice, and we're exploring alternatives.
Last year, I had on loan a periphery clamp from Bob Benn (Sound Engineering). This effected a minor improvement over an Anvil, and was not IMHO worth the "heart in throat" cost of risking cantilever damage.
I've "been there, done that" with my Merrill and have no desire to put my customer's expensive cantilever/stylus assemblies at risk. I also like to simplify the act of playing a record.
10. Pulley design:
There's a correct design for every belt profile. We've been upgrading our customers' 'tables at no charge since we came out with the new design last June. The improvement is not subtle. I suggest that Teres owners contact Chris too, because if he's achieved what I have, you will be very happy with the results.
Thanks for the informative posts, Thom and Chris. I've spent some time absorbing all of this information here concerning these tables and trying to come to terms with what would suit my own preferences. I suppose in the end it would be best to hear these tables. Not an easy feat but not impossible with some patience and vacation time. :)
I have also been reading the archives about the issues concerning positioning the motor pods in order to maintain proper belt tension. My experience to date has been with stretchy drive belts but it can imagine how critical this can be with a belt that gives almost no elasticity. Even with the Basis I used to own I would notice the motor had walked toward the table after a week or so. This did not seem to impact the sonics so I never experimented with spikes or some kind of material under the motor. All I know about the mylar belts is what I've read and it does seem that tension is critical. So I'm curious as to how sensitive this tension adjustment is.
Richardmr, have you made any decision yet? I've got two tonearms and no table. This is causing me nothing but stress. I still can't make up my mind.
Tension with a mylar belt is certainly touchier than with a more elastic one, but with Audiopoints coupling discs beneath the three spikes on my motor it doesn't move by itself. I check belt tension once in a while with a finger, but it's typically stable for weeks on end.
Find something else to stress about! ;-)
Dan ed - No, I have not made a decision yet and I'm probably not any closer to making one. It depends what side of the bed I get up on. I'm sure all three of the models would be great. But since I've started this thread there seems to be some well thought out arguments concerning the high mass designs lacking PRaT and that the table I own being much better than I knew. So I'm still investigating and would truly appreciate any and all opinions on this issue.
I used a Technics SP-25 as a motor to drive a VPI TNT Jr. platter. The turntable and the motor turns about same speed 33RPM. The pulley on the Technics is about 11.8 inch so the belt tension is much lighter than normal turntable motor which is about 1 inch. The bigger pulley diamter provides much more belt contacting surface area. I wonder why turntable manufacture did not making 4" or 6" pulleys so the pulleys have the same diameters as motor pod. This way, the motor pod still has the same foot print. The pulley can be made from plastic materials for light weight and reduced vibration. The lighter belt tension also reduces side load on the spindle bearing which results lesser side load bearing friction.
Thank's Dougdeacon. I will probably build a stand for which ever table I get so I'm planning what surface finish to use. Thom has a picture on his website that shows an owner who fashioned a mechanism for doing fine adjustments to the motor position for belt tensioning. I do have an idea for making such a gizmo but it sounds like it probably isn't necessary unless I use some hard, slick surface.
I completly underestimated how long I would be without a table and how much I would miss it when I sold my last table. I have no one to blame but myself for my stress. It doesn't help to sit down for a listening session and be surrounded by all those LP's that are still waiting cleaning, inspection and cataloging. They're calling my name and I'm starting to answer them back!
BTW, I noticed you had a bearing upgrade done to your 320. Would you care to to provide details on the differences with the new bearing and how it has impacted the sound?
The motor pod on my Redpoint/Galbier does not move during normal use. Mine is sitting on a flat surface without footers or spikes. It is fairly heavy so it does not move around unless of course you nudge up against it when cleaning etc.
Hi Richardmr, I know all to well how that side of the bed thing works. I would be interested in reviewing the arguments you mention concering PRaT and high mass tables. I gather from Thom's recent comments that it may be mostly a question of implementation rather than design theories. I have no doubt that there are many great tables to choose from.
I thought I'd jump in and say thanks to everyone here on the analog forums. I don't post very often, but I do drop by to read the posts when I have a few spare minutes. There is really great information here and a lot of very knowledgeable people who generously share their opinions.
I purchased a VPI scoutmaster last spring so I could get a taste of vinyl. Well - it hooked me. And I've been going nuts since! Anyhow, after carefully considering my options, I took the plunge a few weeks ago and put down a deposit on a Teres table and Schroder arm. I considered many other tables, including the other subjects of this thread - Galibier and Redpoint. In the end, the Teres just appealed to me the most (both technically and visually) and I figured I couldn't go wrong with any of these tables.
Now to sit back and wait patiently... (Argghh!)
We haven't received the new bearing yet, so my table is presently doing a live imitation of an exploded diagram. Fortunately, tables of this type have relatively few parts!
Waiting is hard, I feel your pain. Dutifully cleaning records we can't play doesn't quite satisfy. It does give me a chance to remove the cat hairs from all the fiddly bits on the TriPlanar. Those are hard to reach when it's mounted.
I've also borrowed the Stillpoints that support the 320 to test beneath other components. We normally use cryoed Symposium Rollerblocks with tungsten balls, courtesy of Cello. This gave me a chance to A/B.
Beneath the power amp I prefer the Stillpoints (more texture and inner detail). Paul prefers the Rollerblocks (more presence). Oy! It is rare for us to disagree on sonics for any length of time. So either he'll come to his senses ;-) or we'll conclude that in this application they are different, but only slightly so.
Colin, We captured another one. Great!
Which model Teres and Schroeder did you fling your hard-earned money at? (Don't worry, there's no wrong answer!)
The bigger pulley diamter provides much more belt contacting surface area. I wonder why turntable manufacture did not making 4" or 6" pulleys so the pulleys have the same diameters as motor pod.
Excellent point and excellent question. I presume there must be some reason. Anyone?
Congratulations, Colin! I'm very gealous right now! :)
Dmailer, does the Galibier/Redpoint motor sit on little rubber feet?
I'm betting that the pulley diameter is dictated by the motor shaft speed. Not to say that it can't be done and I image something like this is built in to some of the flywheel drives. Still, there is a ratio between the pulley diameter and platter diameter that must be maintained for a given motor speed. My math is too rusty to work through quickly, but to have a pulley of 4-6" would require either some type of reduction from the motor shaft, a much slower speed motor, or a much larger platter diameter.
My motor pod does not have footers. I believe there are threaded holes that would allow you to attach a spike or footer if you choose.
I ended up ordering a Teres 350 with a Schroeder Reference arm. I just got an email from Chris and the base is done, and the platter will be another few weeks. As far as the Schroeder arm goes, I'm trying not to get too excited about it - as you might expect, it's going to take a while...
A couple of quick comments ...
Firstly (to Dan-ed), yes, I've seen examples of various turntable architectures (high mass, low mass, suspended, unsuspended) that have PRaT and Dynamics. One of the most impressive and honest products in the low mass, suspended category was my dearly departed Merrill Heirloom. I'd like to think that my unsuspended high mass rig is up to this standard.
This is one more case of choosing your architecture and either getting it right, or screwing it up ... nothing to do with the choice of architecture.
When I say PRaT (or dynamics, or soundstage, etc.) I'm referring to a component that doesn't get in the way of what's on the recording. There are numerous components in any equipment category which hyperbolize or exaggerate a particular sonic attribute in order to fool the listener. I'd prefer to leave this sort of dishonest product out of the discussion.
To clear up the confusion about potential for slipping motor pods, I currently supply 'tables with small cones. They don't have to be used, and all components can sit flat on the shelf if the end-user prefers.
The small contact surface of the cones makes it very difficult to move the motor pod accidentally. As Dmailer noted however, even the flat surface of his motor pod resting on his relatively smooth Vibraplane is non-problematic. Yes, Dmailer can play with feet if he so chooses (threaded inserts).
A manufacturer needs to design for a worst-case scenario. For this reason, I went to the cones. Redpoint went to very thin, silicone rubber pads under their motor controller. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion.
To Nghiep, a 6" diameter pulley would mean that the motor rotates at roughly 66 rpm to spin the platter at 33 rpm - this, in the absence of any reduction mechanism. This would require an extremely high-torque motor - along the lines of a direct-drive rig. It certainly can be done. By the time you design this powerful a motor, the flywheel effect of the pulley is likely to be swamped by the motor's torque.
Thom @ Galibier
Redpoint went to very thin, silicone rubber pads under their motor controller.
FWIW, I once tried adding a thin (<.5mm) layer of a self-adhesive, non-slip material to the bottom of the coupling discs on which my motor spikes sit. I thought this might reduce the occasional (once every month or two) need to check belt tension and/or improve motor stability and thus dynamics.
In fact, I got one of those unintended consequences. The very tiny amount of rocking this "squidgy" layer allowed caused a "THUMP" when the tape splice went 'round the motor capstan. This was transmitted back through the belt to the platter, where the cartridge picked it up and sent it to the speakers.
I peeled it off. No more thumps. Solid coupling works best for me. I'm sure Twl and the folks at Audiopoints would laugh knowingly.
Colin, good for you!!! I am now starting to get the itch to "really" upgrade my TT and arm. I am considering also one of the Teres'(265?) or a Galibier. I am leaning toward the Schroder Mod 2 arm. My budget is less the yours but I believe the TT and arm may make a big difference.
What will you mount you Teres on?
I am curious concerning this question of PRaT and mass-loaded tables. It seems that the low torque motor used on these 3 tables contributes to this "lack". This does sound feasible with a low torque motor when considering stylus drag. However, if the platter is anything over 20 lbs. I can't see how, given the inertia, that this could contribute to a loss in PRaT. Perhaps I'm not considering the right parameters.