Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH

"One thing IS apparent, listening to an MP3 on a cheap PC, is NOT a professionally accepted way of auditioning (anyone, correct me if I am wrong here) $20-120k components"

Could the point be that if a preference can be demonstrated with a recording on the lowly MP3 then it must be real?

"I'm also a bit dissapointed that the discussion here has been so civil. No death threats, name calling, etc. I guess there's the H-cat thread for that."

I'm thinking that perhaps the LP listener is a kinder, gentler sort of audiophile?

I really felt compelled to comment regarding the less than stellar stereophile review especially since I am one of the very few people that has spent some quality time listening to the Grand Prix Table.

I found it very interesting that Fremers review was almost the opposite of David Robins review in Positive fedback. Both use top class reference tables (Walker and Caliburn).

Fremer described sonic limitations, such as "somewhat cool, dry, harmonically somewhat bleached, reduced depth and air, tended toward the one dimensional, etc."

David Robinson raved about the table. He mentioned things like "emotionally connects me to the music. Excellent staging/imaging, Texture and nuance to burn, fusion of lushiness and harmonic rightness, belongs in the first rank of turntables."

Based on my experience listening to the table in my friend/dealers personal system, I for one do not hear anything that Fremer describes. Of course, I am not comparing the Grand Prix to anything and possibly missing some of the nuances. However, when listening to analog through the Grand Prix, I hear a fantastic sense of depth and spacial cues. Harmonics are so natural with you are there focus and 3 dimensionality. You can basically reach out and touch the performers. Couple that with see through transparency and a soooooo quiet black grainless backdrop.

The common denominator is that David Robinson's review table and the table that I am familiar with both use the Dynavector 507II arm and XV1S cartridge. I do find it hard to believe whether that can make the difference between both reviews.

Bkonig, yes I did replace my Acutus with the same arm and cartridge. The differences were not subtle:
The Acutus is an aural hologram.
The Monaco is a sonic time machine.

of course listening to an MP3 is not a "professionally accepted" way of auditioning anything. I didn't use MP3s to audition the 'table or any other product. However, I was fascinated to find that even reduced to an MP3, numerous correspondents were able to describe the Monaco's sonic character listening "blind." I certainly think the Monaco is a "top tier" 'table and never meant to imply anything but that. Same with the Kuzma ref and Airline arm but that system sounds bright on top as did the Avid Acutus I reviewed. Audio products have sonic character. If you remember I suggested the Dynavector XV-1s cartridge as the ideal compliment to the 'table's character. I agree with whomever described the Monaco as a"time machine." Its rhythmic sense and pacing abilities were clearly outstanding as was its bottom end extension. However, I believe part of that is because of the midrange issues I described, that are in part due to the stand issues I noted with the B&K accelerometers.

I am as fascinated to read Mr. Robinson's comments as anyone here. I can tell you that as this thread has run, I have received at least a dozen private emails from people agreeing with my assessment of the Grand Prix Monaco. These were not negative statements, necessarily, simply statements of what they felt its sonic character to be. As for the stand, I didn't "hear" the stand as a separate product. I only "heard" it in context of the 'table and then did the accelerometer tests. A shaker table measures lateral displacement only. It's used for testing products in earthquakes. The accelerometer tests confirmed that the Grand Prix stand works extremely effectively as confirmed by the shaker table results on the Grand Prix website. However these are large scale displacement tests. Audio racks, as opposed to earthquakes, need to deal with low displacement degradation caused by audio signals in the room that are broadband and low in amplitude. I don't understand what a shaker test tells you about a stand's behavior in a room where loudspeakers are playing music and energizing the shelf upon which the component is placed. An accelerometer test does, as the gentlemen who responded to this thread who specializes in these kinds of measurements confirmed. The real test of the effectiveness of an audio stand is what it does when energized by loudspeakers playing in a room. The Audiogon poster who attacks me for not being an engineer and making these measurements is really playing a very bitter game. if you like the sound produced by the GP stands, that's fine. If you wish to determine the stand's behavior in the presence of wide band audio signals, do the measurements, or get someone who you feel is qualified. I think you'll get the results I did. The shelf upon which the turntable sat is in no way isolated from being energized by the airborn energy in the room just because it sits on sorbothane pucks. The shelf may be isolated from the shelves below or from the frame, but the airborn energy is reaching the shelf itself and how it behaves in the presence of the energy is the issue at hand.

Finally, one criticism I have of audio reviewers is that too many of them are afraid of saying anything negative about a product, or of describing its character lest it be taken as being negative. Such people should become publicists.