Wave Kinetics NVS Turntable - Stereophile Review

Dear Raul, In your discourse you could not resist taking a shot at tube amplification vs solid state. There is no doubt that SS gear can easily be built to surpass most tube gear in terms of the commonly made measurements (THD, IMD, etc). However, in contradistinction to that finding we also have the testimony of legions of careful listeners who nevertheless prefer tubes (certain tube amplifiers, that is). Further, there are data to suggest that the commonly collected data used to characterize our amplifiers are wholly inadequate to predict what happens when they are asked to reproduce a true music signal. These two facts may indicate that tubes are doing SOMETHING better than SS. (Talking in generalities here; I concede that there may be some SS amplifiers that can "play" in the league with the best tube amplifiers and are better suited than tube amplifiers to drive some of the awful behemoth multi-driver, low efficiency, low impedance speakers that are on the market precisely because those humongous SS amplifiers are available to the high-end consumer.) My point is, if you are truly working on a higher plane and searching for a better world of music reproduction, it would behoove you to open your mind a bit more. In other words, you may be guilty of the very "head in the sand" thinking that you impute to others.

I think someone did test the NVS with a Timeline. This was mentioned possibly in the previous now banished NVS thread. Perhaps the person who performed this comparison will enlighten us.

As to the Onedof, why would one assume it has perfect speed stability a priori? It is made by man; ergo it will have some flaws. What? Did you think it would be flawless in performance, just because it costs $150,000? (Kidding but not kidding.)

Actus, I often have similar thoughts. Another one, besides the issue of off-center spindle holes, is that many of us acquire the bulk of our LPs in used condition for a couple of bucks, with no knowledge whatever of how they were cared for by the previous owner. Thus one has no way of knowing whether "all" the music remains available for retrieval by one's megabuck phono cartridge and associated components. Then too, there are a myriad of issues relating to how an LP was cut in the first place, by whom and with how much care. However, I think Raul's point is that while we have no control over LP imperfections, we do in theory have control over turntable speed (by choosing a turntable that does its major job of providing a constant speed at all times, i.e., in spite of any effect of stylus drag). Why not eliminate as many variables as we CAN eliminate? Then at least we can be sure that when we are playing well made LPs, the time line will be conserved as the musician interpreted it. I imagine that MF would choose to withdraw his statement, if he could now edit his remarks. That one was too stupid to defend.

I've never heard a Caliburn, much less seen one in the flesh, so I can have no opinion of it or of MF's fascination with it. Just from what I have read, I would take the NVS over the Onedof and the Caliburn, and not just because of the lower price. Yet, there are elements of the NVS drive system that I would like to know more about before I would invest in it. I am quite happy with what I have, in any case.

I agree with Halcro's basic sentiments, BUT what I would like to see Fremer do is to use a garden variety but generally well recognized tt as a "control" in his listening experiments. Then perhaps the vast majority of us who cannot and never will hear any of the 3 megabuck tt's in his own system can really appreciate what might be gained by doing so. Or, if he is capable of truly objective opinions, we would find out that one or another of the most expensive turntables in the world is really not up to snuff. I suspect there is a pretender or two among them, but we will never know about it, because S'phile and the audio press in general "protects" them.

I once exchanged a few direct emails with Fremer. He is really a nice guy, but he could not see that his owning the Caliburn must make him at least subconsciously biased in its favor. Or, to take the Raul line of argument, he has found in the Caliburn at device that colors the sound in a way that he prefers. Thus the Caliburn will win all shoot-outs in his system. This is perfectly all right on a personal level but does not benefit those who hang on his every word.

In MF's original review of the Onedof, in which he compared it one on one to the Caliburn, I was rather taken aback by some of the "features" of the Onedof. Apparently the whole turntable is based on a novel idea for a platter bearing, and that part of the tt works well. But some of the other aspects of the turntable, e.g., the platter design and build, were not so impressive as the bearing, IMO. It's got the LOOKS of a very expensive turntable, but I did not get the feeling that the maker has been studying turntable design for a long time or that he had other novel ideas besides the one that gave rise to the bearing. In summary, why is the Onedof in this "top 3" at all? Perhaps only because of its audacious asking price. Among tt's of similar conception (separate "pods"), is the Onedof any better than a TOTL Simon Yorke or a Da Vinci or a Transrotor or you name it?

Spirit, By now that review ought to be in the public domain. Try the S'phile website or the NVS website.