Teres, Galibier and Redpoint

Hello all,

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
(http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/ces06dc3.htm).

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.

5. Dynamics:

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.

Cheers,
Thom

Hi all,

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.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Just one correction Dan ... NO Rumble with any of these turntables.

I just put up a Boulder Travelog page if anyone is interested in attractions in our wonderful town.

Currently, you can only reach this page from the small thumbnail photo of Boulder on the left side of the home page.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Richard,

I'm working on a self-leveling 18 x 24 shelf that can sit on top of an existing equipment rack.

The minimum shelf size for these 'tables is actually 16" x 22". The Teres, BTW can get by with approximately the same footprint. To help you visualize how a Galibier (or Teres for that matter) sets up, I put together the following drawing to show the footprint:

http://www.galibierdesign.com/faqs_shelf_size_22_16.html

You can easily visualize overlaying the Teres teardrop shape over this image.

Al in Sanibel is running a very nice Micro Seiki MA-505 Mk III tonearm until his Schröder arrives. This particular Micro is not the last word in resolution, but it is indeed a very nice tonearm - getting the core of the music very right.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Andrew,

Dan spent from about 10am until 5pm chez Galibier. We listened to:

1. Schröder / ZYX Universe
2. Triplanar / Dynavector XV-1s
3. Schröder / Dynavector XV-1s

We ran out of time for the 4th permutation.

We'll let Dan report on his vist both to me and Chris.

BTW, there were indeed very few constants between Chris' and my rigs other than tonearms and cartridges.

One other shared reference point is the Artemis Labs phono stages (PH-1, PL-1) which both Chris and I love.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

It's my humble opinion that of the 4 permutations we wanted to listen to on Saturday, the one we didn't get to (Triplanar/ Universe) is the best combination for the Universe. Please see my comments below about mass matching caveats, and the fact that my Ebony Schröder Reference has an 18 gram effective mass.

Everything I've heard tells me that the attributes of the Triplanar and Universe is a match made in heaven. Given that no component is perfect, I'd say that both Triplanar and Dynavector are slightly stronger in "incisiveness factor", while Schröder and ZYX are slightly more about tone color.

Now, the ZYX is fast, and the Dynavectors have tone, so don't take the above comment to the extreme. Realize that this is a broad, sweeping generalization as all 4 products perform to a very high level.

Only when you listen side by side will you hear a difference and will you come to a preference.

I don't know what went on at Chris' house, but I suspect that his Edgarhorns played a significant role in the different results.

I speak from experience of both of the Edgarhorns as well as of my soon to depart Exemplar horns. Before switching to my new Azzolina Audio horns, I would have considered the Edgars/Exemplars to have a correct presentation. Every other cone driver based, front-loaded horn has had tubby colorations. Not so with the Azzolinas, but I digress. Again, we're talking about 3 speaker systems that perform to the level of the arms and cartridges in question, but having said that, this is all about small but significant differences.

Rather than take a side trip into this topic, I think that this worth a rant on my Rants Page - the perilous journey into low power triodes and horns. To quote someone I once used to correspond with: "it's a long and dangerous journey ... bring plenty of milk and cookies".

So ... once again, the poor audiophile is in system matching hell - given the inherent flaws in any transducer (be it a cartridge or a speaker). If it were only more simple, we could make global proclamations. Forums like this give us the opportunity to triangulate on combinations that make magic.

Now that I have what I consider to be speakers that lend a slightly more even hand to the music, I am beginning to ponder whether an 18 gram Ebony Schröder Reference is a bit too heavy for the Universe. My ZYX has the silver base plate, BTW.

After CES, and at Frank's suggestion, I tried to see if 18 grams was the upper limit for the Universe. I increased it by employing the optional brass cartridge carrier to add 5 more grams (total mass of 23 grams). This slowed things down.

Perhaps 12-15 is truly the magic spot for the Universe? Unfortunately, I don't have a Jacaranda or Bocote version to play with, but Dmailer's Jacaranda arm / Universe combination would point toward this (15 grams) being the true upper limit for optimum performance.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

It's my humble opinion that of the 4 permutations we wanted to listen to on Saturday, the one we didn't get to (Triplanar/ Universe) is the best combination for the Universe. Please see my comments below about mass matching caveats, and the fact that my Ebony Schröder Reference has an 18 gram effective mass.

Everything I've heard tells me that the attributes of the Triplanar and Universe is a match made in heaven. Given that no component is perfect, I'd say that both Triplanar and Dynavector are slightly stronger in "incisiveness factor", while Schröder and ZYX are slightly more about tone color.

Now, the ZYX is fast, and the Dynavectors have tone, so don't take the above comment to the extreme. Realize that this is a broad, sweeping generalization as all 4 products perform to a very high level.

Only when you listen side by side will you hear a difference and will you come to a preference.

I don't know what went on at Chris' house, but I suspect that his Edgarhorns played a significant role in the different results.

I speak from experience of both of the Edgarhorns as well as of my soon to depart Exemplar horns. Before switching to my new Azzolina Audio horns, I would have considered the Edgars/Exemplars to have a correct presentation. Every other cone driver based, front-loaded horn has had tubby colorations. Not so with the Azzolinas, but I digress. Again, we're talking about 3 speaker systems that perform to the level of the arms and cartridges in question, but having said that, this is all about small but significant differences.

Rather than take a side trip into this topic, I think that this worth a rant on my Rants Page - the perilous journey into low power triodes and horns. To quote someone I once used to correspond with: "it's a long and dangerous journey ... bring plenty of milk and cookies".

So ... once again, the poor audiophile is in system matching hell - given the inherent flaws in any transducer (be it a cartridge or a speaker). If it were only more simple, we could make global proclamations. Forums like this give us the opportunity to triangulate on combinations that make magic.

Now that I have what I consider to be speakers that lend a slightly more even hand to the music, I am beginning to ponder whether an 18 gram Ebony Schröder Reference is a bit too heavy for the Universe. My ZYX has the silver base plate, BTW.

After CES, and at Frank's suggestion, I tried to see if 18 grams was the upper limit for the Universe. I increased it by employing the optional brass cartridge carrier to add 5 more grams (total mass of 23 grams). This slowed things down.

Perhaps 12-15 is truly the magic spot for the Universe? Unfortunately, I don't have a Jacaranda or Bocote version to play with, but Dmailer's Jacaranda arm / Universe combination would point toward this (15 grams) being the true upper limit for optimum performance.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Dan,

The photos on the bearing page are a bit confusing. Frank makes fine VTF adjustment available (via the thumbwheel on the counterweight) for both the DPS and the Reference.

It's a no-close option. The only reason it isn't standard is because some folks get the hee-be-jee-bees over the concept of the thumbwheel - either from an aesthetic perspective or a sonic one.

I recently learned that the Model-2 has a threaded end stub for this same purpose. I sometimes learn about these arms from other Schröder customers. It's only fair that I share the info ;-)

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Doug,
Yes, Dan heard only one of my two best available working combinations - the Triplanar / XV-1s.

In terms of the initial agenda, the Triplanar / Universe was scheduled for Sunday morning - planning on doing 2 combinations on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. Unfortunately for him, Dan had booked an early morning Sunday flight.

Because the Schröder / Universe combo was so sluggish sounding (for reasons we now know), I felt it necessary to give the arm another chance to strut its stuff - I mounted the XV-1s on it. Dan had after all signed up to the job of reporting back to Aoliverio.

By the time we made it to the Triplanar / XV-1s combo and listened for a couple of hours, time drew too short to mount the Universe. Knowing that it is the most documented of these arm cartridge combinations, (thanks to Doug), I left this pairing for last.

I'm hopeful, that I will soon see a Schröder arm wand which is compatible with both of my cartridges.

Heck, I'll even take one coat less than Chris' 15 coats Frank, but don't keep my anxious customers waiting on my behalf. After all, I do have a Triplanar that sings with the angels with both XV1s and Universe (hint ... hint ...).

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Dan, Frank ...

Frank's comments on drive systems and torque are spot on. He and I had a good discussion about this at CES - a conversation that verified everything I've learned in the past 6 years.

Any turntable drive system is a resonant system in engineering terms, with all of the associated components fitting into the equation:

- platter / bearing / oil viscosity
- drive interface (pulley/belt, idler wheel, direct drive) and their materials
- motor torque constant and motor bearing

If you change any single element (yes, even the oil), you've changed the system's Q - it's resonant behavior, for better or worse.

A few years ago, we experimented with some motors that had about 4 times the torque constant of our current motors. You couldn't put your finger on it, but they failed to satisfy.

In many ways, this higer torque motor sounded like good digital. Something was missing (listener involvement) , but it was not readily identifiable in traditional audiophile terms of frequency response, speed stability, etc.

Many people involved in the auditions actually liked the "sound", but I've learned to factor in what I refer to as the "demo room effect" - a component which initially grabs your attention because it is new and different.

While on the subject of auditioning and the demo room effect, I had an interesting conversation with Charlie (Azzolina Audio) about this. We've come to recognize two broad categories of customers.

1. The sort of fellow who powers up his system for an hour or two at most - the busy sort of individual who wants to have it "all" in a short period of time. My experience has been that this type of user profile gravitates towards a system tonality that tends toward the fatiguing side of the spectrum.

2. The other broad category is the fellow who lives with his music for hours on end. Charlie and I fit into this category. While I would never consider any of our designs to be lacking in inner detail, their virtues tend to be a bit more subtle - not calling attention to themselves.

Interestingly, the higher torque motor appealed more to user profile #1, but I dismissed it as musically unacceptable.

This is not a dismissal of high torque designs, but rather a comment on the many ways in which you can alter a design such that the parameters are mismatched. Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choices.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi Richard,

I've been woefully behind on this thread due to working on some background issues. As I wrote to Dan_ed privately, I'll expand on the Anvil and other questions in the next 36 hours.

Regarding suspended designs, there's a new keeper of the Merrill turntable flame. Check out the AR Vinyl Nirvana site at: http://www.vinylnirvana.com/

Specifically, it's my understanding that Anthony Scillia is carrying the AR/Merrill torch. The direct link to that page on this site is: http://www.vinylnirvana.com/ar_mods1.shtml

IMHO, the Merrill turntable (evolved from George's mods of the AR), is the best suspended turntable I've ever heard.

Back when Chris first met me, it was my trusty Merrill that made him get back into vinyl after some 20 years of buying into the promise of digital. I had heard many contenders to the throne over the 9 years I ran my Merrill Heirloom and they all fell short of the mark by varying degrees. I've not heard the latest Oracle, but this is perhaps the only other suspended turntable I'd consider. But that's just me ...

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Ah ... the written word ... it can sometimes be our worst enemy. Ask me how I know this ...

It was surely brave of Dan to try to summarize his experiences of his weekend: sleep deprivation, jet air travel, strange systems, etc. As time rolls forward, I'm sure we'll have more folks posting opinions that diverge by 180 degrees from Dan's - or maybe it's 540 degrees ... when one's head starts spinning, it's difficult to count the revolutions. I look at all of this as an expanding pie, and look forward to more comments - irrespective of which manufacturer "wins" - we all win ... including the consumer.

Not to put words in John's mouth, but he had one other major advantage over Dan ... having more than a casual a familiarity with both Chris' and my systems.

This brings up a consideration about auditioning analog in unfamiliar systems. Last week, I had a discussion with someone who asked me if anyone auditioning my gear ever brings a CD or two to play ... to help in triangulating on my system's general characteristics. No one has done this to date, but I will make a point of suggesting that people do so in the future.

We all know that digital front ends can be as variable as any component in the signal chain. Choice of DAC, grounding strategy, distortions in the form of jitter, variations in the analog output stage can all (to name a few) produce an entire range of sonic pallets. Still, there are some constants about digital that can be instructive in terms of auditioning analog, and this point is a wise one to consider.

-----

One thing to come out of this thread is the reinforcement of an alternative distribution model - what David Robinson of Positive Feedback calls "Craft Audio". I prefer the term "Artisan Audio", as the former term connotes basket weaving to me. The concept is valid however, with people like Nick Doshi (who built Doug's preamp) garnering a grass roots following. This model is by no means a new one, but public discussion makes it more "real".

To me, the relevant aspect of this model is not so much that Nick, Chris, or I are more talented than designers working with larger companies. This may or may not be the case. There are two attributes of this small manufacturing model that have the potential to confer unique advantages however: (a) price/performance, and (b) niche appeal.

The first part has to do with the pricing structure - the fact that every dollar spent on product development translates into fewer dollars at the retail level. The second aspect is that smaller manufacturers can follow their own song, knowing that if they are true to themselves, that their referral network will grow, and that like-minded individuals will seek them out (if you build it they will come).

Please don't take this pricing advantage as anything but a theoretical one. We have all seen too many components loaded with expensive, boutique parts that sound like drek. The small-scale designer could easily be tempted to load a preamp up with $10 Vishay resistors, but at the end of the day, he still has to be (a) competent, and (b) know what music sounds like. I have heard all too many fabulous components which were assembled with what are essentially floor sweepings to know that the chef is as important as the ingredients.

There are quite a few products in the traditional distribution network that are both outstanding performers as well as offering great value. Recently I auditioned a single ended amplifier by Quicksilver Audio - an amplifier in its late stage of prototyping which is projected to retail for $2K. If this amplifier gets the respect it deserves, it will cause the manufacturers of quite a few 5 figure amplifiers to sweat.

I've admired the work of Quicksilver since the 1980's, and finally got to meet Mike Sanders after last year's RMAF - with him having moved to the Colorado Front Range (relocating Quicksilver from Reno, NV last year). My earliest impressions of Quicksilver (dating back to the mid 1980's) were of an honest company which produced products that sold for more than a fair price - a company that always emphasized classical design techniques and values - hard-wiring, conservative operating points, reliability, and support. In short, they're my kind of company. What I did not know about Mike until meeting him is that he has really been working to push the sonic envelope as of late.

I use Quicksilver as an example of a company that offers incredible value while following the traditional distribution model because I have had the opportunity to follow the company - first, from an outside perspective, and now getting to know the man behind the product. Two channel audio is being killed by charlatans (you know who you are), and if honest companies like Quicksilver get their due, then two channel will survive and the music lover will benefit. I think it's safe to speak for Chris that we'd both be honored to be thought of in the same category as companies like Quicksilver.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier