Is the Teres a

Well, I’m kinda hoping that, rather than argue, it can be realized that we are all after the same thing here with respect to turntable performance. Whether it’s called PRaT, or whatever, aren’t we all looking for the visceral, emotion-filled, faithful reproduction of the stuff in those grooves? You know, the music that makes you REALLY “dig it” for jazz fans, makes your foot stomp for rockers, makes your spirit soar for classic lovers, makes you feel down and stinkin’ for blues brothers, etc. Slam without being thumpy, mids without being colored, detail without being lifeless. How one “gets there” is somewhat irrelevant so long as the journey has a satisfying end for YOU, the only important listener.

The idea of speed stability and its effects of vinyl reproduction are not new, nor are they the creation of Jean. There are MANY, and several in this very thread, who espouse that as one of the ultimate objectives. Doug has noticed the effects in his iterations with different “beltings”. Tom recognizes and stresses its importance and I must say that I very much agree with his "I don't care if there is a hamster in an exercise wheel in that box, if it sounds good, I'm for it." That, after all, is the bottom line.

Jean, to his credit, brought to light the performance of the Lenco after having owned and, more importantly, worked on and constructed a good many different types of tables. Not to put words in his mouth, but Jean came to the conclusion that speed stability was a very crucial aspect of performance, if not the most important, and that the Lenco “got it right” – and at a bargain price. I always got the feeling that Jean, and others, believe that while the speed stability issues is crucial, it is not the only factor necessary to achieve satisfaction, with overall results being the ultimate measure of success. Jean describes this ultimate satisfaction as PRaT, but I do not think he would argue that speed stability is the only issue involved. Looking at the long Lenco thread, one sees discussions of a high-mass plinth, constrained layer damping, electrical wiring issues, tonearm positioning, headshells, platter mats, etc., etc. So, resonance control, wow and flutter, RF, tonearm/cartridge combos, and a host of other factors combine to “make the music” – not JUST speed stability.

As such, I believe that Jean’s assertion that PRaT (as he defines it) IS the ultimate goal and that it is what we all seek, whether we call it PRaT or something else. Again, and perhaps this is something on which Jean and I disagree, I do not like the PRaT label because it seems sometimes to be a crutch for proponents of many different reproduction approaches and evoking that word seems to set up false and resistive barriers. I know what I like, you know what you like, and we know it when we hear it. I took the Lenco plunge because I was interested in the challenge and I was looking for a relatively modestly priced audio-related project as a vehicle for teaching my son some basic engineering, electrical, physical, and woodworking principals. We were truly shocked at the performance realized for less than the cost of the tonearm cables many here use. So, we proved to ourselves that one does not HAVE to spend huge money to get huge sound. In that sense our efforts were a huge success.

Still, this really strays from the thread topic of Teres tables. I have heard several now and they are fine performing tables. But, whatever vehicle we use to spin those discs, I hope we are all absorbed in the results!

Thanks for clearing up matters 4yanx, I wouldn't say we disagree about the issue of PRaT, or more precisely the "word" PRaT or even its meaning, what it comes down to is that PRaT is a politically-charged word, a leftover from the Linny vs High-Mass American 'table wars of the '80s. So you're right, in order to open some eyes. In fact, many eyes already are open, even on the part of manufacturers, as high-mass turntables of all sorts are resorting to more and more ways to increase speed stability from their high-mass platters, (by the use of thread and mylar in lieu of rubber belts to the use of multiple motors and flywheels), another term might have to be adopted, such is politics.

And Artar1, you continue to misquote and perform your own kind of reductionism to my own writings: to say that PRaT, or to use a less politically-charged word, speed stability, is the most important quality in vinyl playback is something that has always been conventional wisdom, from quartz-locked direct-drive systems to the Lingo on the Linn and the use of several motors on the large Clearaudios, all these things were an admission that speed was not perfect, and needed more help. The use of several motors by Clearaudio on their already-massive platter is an admission that mass alone is not sufficient in a belt-drive system to achieve true speed stability (yes, I read the high-end analogue reviews as well and can name a list of expensive items as well as anyone in this forum, I just don't automatically covet them). And while measurements show one thing, my point has always been that despite these measurements, as you helpfully point out with respect to cheap DDs, these speed instabilities still exist and are clearly audible. The same applies to the large price-no-object turntables that come with very impressive measurements, but that in many cases lack musical involvement. This means there is a speed instability, and this instability is occurring at a lower frequency due to the high mass and thus inertia of the platter. Picture a loaded tractor-trailer vs a Toyota Corrolla: the truck has to start braking long before the light, and start up is euqally slow, due to its mass/inertia. The Toyota stops on a dime and starts equally quickly. Only a very high-torque system overcomes this, with a superb drive system and correctly-calculated flywheel system.

You continue your pandering of high-priced turntables by defending what you haven't heard, and raising accusations of jealousy. If you weren't so evidently in the status game from the beginning, you would know from my many posts - I admit fellows like 4yanx with his previous use of the expensive Graham 2.2 are more to your liking and so probably pay no attention to my posts except to defend high-price items for the sake of their price-tags - you would know that I own and have owned some quite expensive belt-drive turntables, two Maplenolls (Athena and Ariadne) and an Audiomeca, and so had nothing to gain from promotong Lencos. Until I accidentally tripped over idler-wheel drives (I didn't even know they existed) more than 10 years ago I had fully intended continuing on the high-end treadmill with more and more expensive pieces (at the end of the eighties I already owned MCs which cost roughly $2000).

Which brings me to the accusation that I am simply biased: I have guided many to rebuilding Lencos under their own steam, and to test them in their own systems to come to their own conclusions far away from my influence, and to report on it honestly on my thread if possible, or at the very least in e-mails. There is no more objective test possible in this world, so your accusation falls utterly flat. As to enemies, unfortunately this is no exaggeration, and is on record on my Home Despot thread (you should check into actual evidence before jumping to conclusions and making accusations), objective proof, not misinterpretation. One lied repeatedly and misrepresented both the experiment (evidence) and claimed I had written what I had never written, the other, perhaps like you, was simply jealous at the amount of atention I was getting, and sent me a personal e-mail entitled "You are a pussy", and tried to discredit my effort by various means. Again, if you had paid attention, I use the Lenco simply to demonstrate the enormous potential in idler-wheel-drive systems, which I believe to be the best approach, I confess (but again, I lead people to conduct the experiment in the laboratory of their own homes and systems and risk negative feedback, which has never occcurred). This is because the Lenco can still be had very cheaply, because of fellows like you who respect only price-tags and believe they will somehow be more respected if they fight to defend the status-quo (fellows like you also permeate science, which develops more slowly because of it...Galileo's greatest enemies were his colleagues, not the Church). I learned long ago that a lot of very expensive equipment sounds like crap, is utterly unmusical (some are even a-musical), a lesson you should learn as well by listening and trusting your reactions. In fact, this is becoming a theme in more and more high-end reviews, which is a definite sign of hope. As to the importance of PRaT, many manufacturers have always stressed its importance (Linn, Naim, Rega), and since the lack of it was clearly audible in certain over-priced items, a faction developed which claimed that PRaT was an illusion, which named the proponents Flat Earthers (thus implying they were being unscientific, though in fact the reverse was true), and stood by the expensive status-enhancing equipment. We dance to music, this is rhythm, the sheet-music is built on timing, the musicians have to keep perfect time, our breathing and heartbeats develop according to timing, and this is the biological root of our response to music. The harmonies depend on timing (destroyed by audible wow), the actual physical tracking of a cartridge improves the better the timing is. It bothers me not a whit if fellows like you are not impressed by my "diatribes", and please feel free to ignore any further posts, or if you feel you must address them, then please inform yourself first, and refrain from misrepresenting me.

As to those others who are watching, sorry for hijacking this thread in this way, but there is nothing I hate more than being misquoted and misrepresented. I personally believe that the best physical system so far developed for vinyl playback is the idler-wheel drive system, which I discovered all unawares more than 10 years ago in a flea market in Helsinki, which amounted to an instant conversion (and several there who actually heard it, as opposed to arguing what they had no experience of, had asked me to adapt the system to their extremely expensive record-playing systems). It was my hope when I started the Home Depot thread that I could get the world to test this theory in the laboratories of their own systems and thus provide the empirical testing and thus proof. So far, this is a 100% success. It is not a promotion of the Lenco, it is the use of the excellent but cheap Lenco to make the point, which by its very cheapness encourages nmany to make the attempt. So far even my enemies, who showed honour in this instance (something about Audiogon brings out the best in people, even when behaving badly), have admitted the Lenco was superb, even if they didn't accept the Lenco's version of events (tremendous bass, incredible air, astounding imaging, etc.) and claimed it was manufactured. It was my hope that some manufacturer out there would once again pick up the idler-weel technology and begin to manufacturer a new idler-wheel drive at a reasonable price (Loricraft/Garrard makes them, but at astronomical prices), so that all audiophiles could enjoy the benefits. I'm nothing if not an idealist, and probably incredibly naive to boot. I see now that it would be extremely expensive to produce something equivalent to the Lenco (but I would love to be proved wrong on this count), so I guess we're stuck with recycling the old technology. As Dougdeacon wrote, manufacturers ARE paying attention to the issue of PRaT (or whatever they want to call it), and are making decisions based on its presence or absence in their designs. They are also discovering that when true speed stability is achieved (not according to some evidently faulty test but in actually playing an album with real actual music on it and depending on visceral reaction as well as in terms of information), all else falls into place, given a good design to begin with. I applaud the developers of the Teres project for paying attention to these more musical less-easily pinned-down facets of vinyl reproduction, as I indeed applaud all who do so, and like-minded consumers as well. Audiogon is indeed my favourite forum, after all, glad I tripped over it by accident, as I tripped over the idler-wheel principle years ago ;-)

Sometimes a turntable manufacturer steps up and really compares their own product to (aruguably) a better source. Back in the mid 80's I was invited to a comparison between a maxed out LP12 (hooked up to the best system in the store) versus the final two channel studio tape of the same recording. I can't recall the brand of the reel to reel but it was huge and running at 30 IPS. This was in Omaha at The Sound Environment, which at the time was a very good high end salon although somewhat snooty as Linn retailers are known for. I could be wrong on this since I don't remember the artist but I believe this was when Linn first entered the world of making software. The gentleman that put on this display was one of the Linn executives from Scotland. I was so intrigued by the performance of the turntable that I stayed for the next demo just to confirm what I had heard. The vinyl held its own against the studio tape. There were differences and this was to be expected but the differences were very small. IMO, this is the best way to evaluate the performance of a turntable combination rather than introducing various flavors inherent in tonearms and cartridges and comparing those. I still tip my hat after all these years to Ivor for having the wisdom and guts to do such a comparison. Then again, maybe it was all just a set up, full of fraud but my ears don't think so. I attended out of curiosity since I was already an owner of my second LP12, the first (original table) not being upgradeable. I would suggest that any proper evaluation of current contenders for a turntable shootout simply mount their best choice of arm/cartridge and compare each to the original master tape.

Patrick, I'm surprised some folks weren't then clamoring for a shoot-out betweeen R2R decks as a basis for deciding which to pit against the Linn. :-) I am beginning to agree with others who are souring on the whole shoot-out notion. May be kinda fun as exercise in listening for musical differences, but as long as your happy with what you have....

Dear Jean: *** " Whether it’s called PRaT, or whatever, aren’t we all looking for the visceral, emotion-filled, faithful reproduction of the stuff in those grooves? " ***

I agree totally with 4yanx.

*** " this is the best way to evaluate the performance of a turntable combination rather than introducing various flavors inherent in tonearms and cartridges and comparing those. " ***

I agree too with Lugnut.

*** " mean truly accurate speed, in practice and playing a real LP) being seminal in this regard. If these Big Heavyweight turntables fail to recover PRaT (as any do, I had the Maplenoll Ariadne with 40-pound platter which was less musical than the Athena with the lighter 15-pound platter it replaced), it is because their speed stability is in fact not stable " ****

Jean this is not true : The PRaT or not PRaT of any turntable depends of many factors: speed stability, rumble, bearing type ( air bearing, magnetic bearing, oil bearing, non oil bearing, etc ), platter material ( wood, acrilyc, metal ), heavy mass type or other type, belt or thread drive ( thread are the best for heavy mass metal platters. Not very good with wood/acrilyc ones . ) suspended or not suspended, in which kind of plataform is mounted, which tonearm, which cartridge, which phono cables, which phono preamp, which speakers, which amplifiers, which recordings, etc...

As you can see it is a very complex subject and the speed stability is only one of the parameters, yes is a very important ( critical ) one but as I told: is only one.

The must important issue on what Jean already told us is that we have to remember that the turntable " exist " first because we have to retrivial the recording information through it ( the only way ) and second that for do that in an accurate way ( accurate to the recording ) it has to run exactly at 33 1/3 or 45 rpm. Any deviation it will be audible an out of place: it will be inaccurate and if does not exist that speed stability we will hearing a different recording ( due to timing. Jean you are right in this issue ). That speed stability has to be in the long and short run.
Which will be the criteria range for that speed stability?, well at least the turntable has to have a speed accuracy of: +,- 0.01%. Less of this " figure " is not permisible for a high-end turntable. The best ones, like: Walker, top Basis, top VPI, Verdier, Acoustic Signature, Well Tempered, Top Sota, Nothingham, Micro Seiki, Maplenol, meets and surpass this speed criteria ( example: Walker: 0.002% ). All these units are belt/thread drive systems. The direct drive systems easily meets that speed criteria: Technics SP 10 MK 2/3, Denon DP 80/100,: 0.001% ( The Sirius that is a direct drive TT obviuosly is at the top of the target ).

Now, this speed stability depends on many issues: bearing type, platter balance, platter weight type, motor quality, etc..., but all things the same, the difference will be on the: power supply. Take a look on the power supply ( some are stand alone units, like Walker and Acoustic Signature TTs. ) and you can see how elaborate are the circuits and then you can understand why it is so important and critical for speed accuracy the power supply design.

Now, all of you: your turntable meet, at least, the 0.01% speed accuracy criteria ?. If not, you are in problems, I really mean: the music reproduction is in serious problems.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.