$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

Mr. Kidknow: I'll add a "second" to your recommendation of Arthur Salvatore's Supreme Records list. If you're fond of classical music, this is a great list to peruse.
http://www.high-endaudio.com/index_ac.html

When I first saw Arthur's list appear several years ago, I was pleased to see how closely his list and my record collection coincided. So, I'm biased. His recommendations track right along with my own experience, including his contrarian comments about LP collecting and which pressings sound more like real live music (largely). Not sure he and I see quite as "eye-to-eye" when it comes to his equipment recommendations, however. But I sure do respect the man for his LP recommendations!
.

Doug,

The bass, midrange, and treble controls were on the back of the speakers! Now that's amazing!

The sound was not as bad as I have painted it, and it wasn't overly warm either.

By the way, Bob lives in Washington so the Sound Room would be a little far for him.

Twl,

I fully appreciate how lengthy the DC vs. AC discussion can be! Wow! Thanks for the information.

>>AC Synchronous motors use the AC line frequency (60Hz) that is generated by the power company to use as a speed reference that keeps their motor speed "constant", similar to an electric clock.<<

So the line frequency never varies? It’s always 60Hz?

In your estimation, what is the best controller for a DC motor?

>>Since the ear is most sensitive to minor speed variations occurring in a rapid manner (flutter), we strive to minimize flutter, but the methods we use may result in slower variations (wow).<<

You have given an excellent definition of flutter. I now understand that concept much better.

>>However, it is generally conceded that a well-implemented DC motor can sound better than an AC synchronous [one].<<

This is my understanding as well.

>>The individual TT makers use their ideas of what the best method is, and the user must decide which he prefers sonically. Most of the best units are very, very good, and will not intrude into the listening experience noticeably.<<

Good point. For most of us, how the motor controls a Teres turntable will be nearly inaudibly, especially for someone like me. Frankly I am not too worried about the AC vs. DC debate because under most circumstances I would have a hard time telling the two technologies apart on a sonic basis. Nevertheless, I am glad that the people at Teres have taken DC regulation seriously and have done as much as possible to create the best motor possible for the money.

>>If you want a better platter than the acrylic because of the reflected resonance issue, then stepping up to the next higher level of platter will be useful, not adding a mat.<<

I understand. The acrylic will be good enough for my purposes. Several turntable manufacturers use it. The other popular material is aluminum. But these platters always seem to have a mat. However, a few companies are using composites. I guess they are hoping that a mixture of materials will provide the best of all sonic worlds. But this may not be the case. Composites might simply magnify the weakness of each element used or create a rather dull sound, like mixing too many colors together on a painting which oftentimes creates a brown, gray, ugly mass.

>>In fact, every single choice you make as an audiophile will have plusses and minuses. It is up to you to select equipment, which has the plusses in the areas of most importance to you, and has the minuses in the areas of least sensitivity to you. This is the crux of assembling a satisfying system that will meet your needs as a listener, and it is also why there are so many different ideas of what is "best".<<

Brilliant! A wonderful statement! You have given the best argument against audio-absolutism I've seen, the idea that there can be only one best component for a given category, an idea promulgated by such people like Harry Pearson and Arthur Salvatore.

Twl,

>>Dan_Ed, the lead loading in the Teres acrylic platter could have the effect of improved perceived bass response.

Essentially, the greater rotational mass will improve the ability of the platter to retain its speed through the tall steep peaks that are present in the bass information in the record groove. This will be perceived as faster and better dynamics in these frequencies, and will add impact.>>

It’s this argument that has encouraged me to save a little more for the lead-shot platter. I think the added cost will be worth it.

>>In my case, I have selected the plain acrylic platter. This is not because I am not aware of its shortcomings, rather I am aware of them, and settled on this because it provided performance that was acceptable to me for the price I could afford. In nearly all cases, this type of "settling" needs to be done by the purchaser. Most people cannot afford to buy the most expensive product on the market, and even if they could, perfection is not attainable, so some compromise is being made at all levels. Additionally, as time marches on, even the "best" products get beaten out by some new ideas/technologies/
implementations that may occur.<<

Another brilliant synopsis, the best I have seen! It’s this type of information that would be of the greatest use to readers of TAS and Stereophile. I seldom see this kind of information. What you have stated here might take one ten years or more to learn, and for some of us it might always allude our grasp.

>>While I am not enamored in general of the sonics of acrylic, it has its good points, and my platter (while imperfect) provides a very enjoyable experience, even if I am aware of the slight reflective resonance issue, and its relative lack of mass compared to the higher priced platters. I am also aware of dozens of other imperfections that are present throughout my entire system. There are imperfections abounding throughout my system, and everybody else's systems, for that matter.<<

While I am aware of the imperfections of my system, at some point I let go of the pursuit of perfection and simply listen to the music from an emotional plane, rather than an intellectual one. I know it’s sometimes difficult to do so, but when I critique too much I run the risk of missing the whole point of listening. My system already gives me a heightened sense of pleasure. Sure I can make improvements, but like you have said, Twl, there comes a point where I can no longer afford to upgrade nor can I continuously change the components in my system.

>>What I am saying is that there is a point for everyone that is a good "happy ground" for the ratio of price to performance. This point will differ greatly, depending on the needs and budget of the audiophile in question. I found a good "happy ground" for me.<<

What you are saying here is the basis of a badly needed editorial or essay that should appear in the audio press. This editorial is the type of subject we audiophiles need exposure to rather than being told to honor our local dealer by the self-righteous and sometimes sanctimonious Robert Harley.

>>What I have done personally, is made a lifetime of learning and study and listening experience, as both audiophile and industry insider, to equip myself with the knowledge to understand what is involved in the selection, application, and use of audio systems. I have even engaged in the designing and building of various products in the chain, to further my understanding of the technical aspects of this hobby. All this experience over 30+ years has shown me that nothing achieves perfection, and that everything is flawed in some way. The closer you get to perfection, the more the product costs. I have recognized that this "happy ground" is where the true enjoyment of listening is. I have found that I can recognize that equipment is flawed, understand why and how it is flawed, and still enjoy my musical experience. I simply use my knowledge and my budget to the best of my ability to gain the most sound quality for my money, while being fully aware of all the shortcomings. I select my equipment to be as maximized as possible in the areas that I am most sensitive to, and get the least possible flaws in the areas that I am less sensitive to (in accordance with my budget).<<

I quoted you again without cutting any text. What you have said here needed to be repeated, for its that good. By providing your balanced philosophy and many years of experience, you are helping a lot of people, including myself, make better audio buying decisions. For this I am grateful.

>>You will never find equipment without flaw. You just have to learn to live with it.<< This is the art of the hobby. Because after all, the purpose is to enjoy music, and if the quest for perfection wrecks your ability to listen with pleasure, it is all for naught.<<

Amen! What else can be added to this very adroit observation.

Ccryder,

And when you finally buy a good turntable, you will really know what you have been missing. Then it’s off to buy vinyl!