Is the Teres a

No, you've taken me all wrong, Pat, or I wasn't clear. What I meant was that with all this talk of shoot-outs between TABLES, it's the wonder folks weren't clamoring for a shoot-out between R2R decks before using one to compare to the Linn table - meaning that if the Linn equaled the R2R being used SOMEONE would be bound to say, "but if you used this other R2R.... :-O

I agree with what your saying in the a comparison to the master would be revealing.

Hi Raul, just a couple of notes to add. I will re-iterate that I never said or wrote that PRaT (or timing, or whatever...;-)) was the ONLY consideration, but the prime one, or "critical" one as you wrote. We differ, or divide on the following issue: while you seem to trust the measurements being offered by the various manufacturers, I don't, I think there is something wrong with the testing method, rendering the measurements moot. Which is to say that the 'tables in practice, playing real records with actual music, cartridges and so on (a dramatic stylus profile will cause more stylus drag and thus speed deviation than an easy conical one, to name but one possibility) suffer far larger speed deviations than they do in the lab, whose measurements do not reflect reality. Apart from that pretty fundamental issue, I agree with most of what you have to say, materials do their share in highlighting or damaging timing. And in the DD sweepstakes, I have found that I prefer the sound of the older big servo-controlled DDs like my Sony 2250 and a Technics SL1100 I have, both of which approximate the sound of a Linn LP12 (full of PRaT and flow) to the drier and more precise, but less rhythmic sound of the SP10 MKII. This too, I attribute to a speed instability which is falling below the radar of the testing method, which I believe to be as full of holes as a corporate document or a politcal speech.

Speaking of LP12s, I love the sound of classic 3-point suspensions, Pat, and when they play (I keep a modded AR-XA and Ariston RD11S around), I get immersed in the music and take a vacation from audio neurosis. They are, however, very agile, smooth and lush and extract an astonishing amount of information, and one could get neurotic if one was really determined ;-). In fact, ALL vinyl spinners blow my mind when I get them to perform properly, including my humble Connoisseur BD2 with Pickering cartridge (a total mind-blowing blast, cheap fun for an afternoon). After all these years, I still can't quite believe that a rock dragged through a squiggle can reproduce all those beautiful instruments and singers in my room. Awe.

Dear Jean: I understand your concern about, but I think that we have to trust in the manufacturers measurements. Other way we will have to do that job for our self: it is almost impossible.

Yes, we can trust in our ears ( brain ) too, but I think that in that subject we have to be objective ( technical measurements ) and let our subjective appreciation yest like that a : subjective appreciation.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Johnnantais,

You don't know me at all so everything you wrote about me is a projection of yourself. Others might be intimidated by you, but I am not. I see you for what you are – an unabashed windbag and pompous ass who likes pawn-shop turntables.

Artar1, you want to talk about windbags and pompousness? "There are a number of really fine turntables on the market today from Galibier, Teres, Redpoint, Verdier, Pluto, La Luce, Transrotor (their high-end models), and Kuzma Stabi, just to name a few. I would even include the Clearaudio Maximum Solution with the Clearaudio TQ-1 Tonearm among these aesthetically pleasing and sonically talented over-achievers." When you've done defending the indefensible - competing with the Joneses and admiring the Joneses for the simple fact the Joneses have a helluva lot of money to spend - then get back to me. Over-achieving means performing well beyond the design, materials and attached price-tags, and this is evidently not true of the 'tables you listed, we are expected to pay dearly for their performance, and as I pointed out earlier, many of these 'tables have been criticized for a lack of musicality/involvement (and not only by Art Dudley), which at their respective price-points is inexcusable, in my world anyway. This means the resources to build these expensive turntables exists, but there is a lack of talent behind them (not all, but some). I have no intention of intimidating anyone, but I will not stand by while people misrepresent what I have clearly written for all to see, invent things I have not written, and unfortunately, I am simply set off by people lauding items simply because they are expensive, without using their heads. Pay attention to the criticisms as well as the strong points discussed in reviews, and try to relate them to design. Boiling it down: use your head, trust your senses, decide for yourself, do not let price-tags rule your perceptions, as this leads to the multiplication of no-talent hacks in the high-end who justify high precie-tags by the use of fashionable ideas, materials and simple excess. Ultimately, this does more damage to the high-end, which consequently creates less new converts (who remain unconverted) and shrinks the market. I have no great quarrel with you, but a combination of the above set me off, I wish now I hadn't had my attention drawn to it by the two replies which followed your writings. My apologies if I was too harsh, sometimes I see red before the smoke clears.

Raul, I entirely agree with you with respect to a testing method, but the current one is evidently faulty. My Lenco challenge is entirely empirical and hence scientific: I invite people to re-build it and test it in the context of the systems they know best, their own. I admire science and have faith in the process. But unfortunately, too many scientists and engineers do not obey science's own process: if there is physical evidence which contradicts their cherished theories (in the loss of timing, for instance), then they simply deny the evidence. I believe a new reliable test must be devised, that the current one does not measure true speed deviations. By true, I mean in practice, say with a current "generic" representative of the cartridge world and tonearm world - say a Shelter 501 mounted on the ubiquitous Regas and their clones - and playing a variety of actual records. Even this test would have all kinds of loopholes, but it would be a truer one than that currently concocted. I don't know what the current testing system is, but it is evident to me that it does not reflect the reality: lower-mass turntables almost universally are said to have excellent PRaT (in the press, in my own experinece, in forums such as these) while generally having lesss accurate speed measurements, while higher-mass tunrtables are almost universally said to lack it, while having generally higher published specs. Please note the "almost" I inserted, as I have not heard ALL high-mass turntables. But when I hear others' systems, or indeed play one of my classic 3-point suspensions, I hear that extra PRaT, whcih indeed is lacking in many heavier 'tables. While some want to say this is a distortion, I don't think so. My own heavy idler-wheels also have incredible PRaT, but they don't use belts, and are not classic 3-point suspensions. I believe the speed variations audible in various belt-drives are due to insufficient torque, and that depending on the mass the speed variations occur at lower frequencies in the case of high-mass turntables (and thus affect timing) or higher frequencies (and thus affect information-retrieval, detail). I may be wrong, but if I am right, or if it is some other thing, while these speed variations are entirely audible, they are not being meaured by the tests. The human ear and the human mind and yes, the human heart (emotions unfortunately definitely a part of listening to music) is thus still the best measuring instrument we have, if only we learn to trust our senses/reactions. Based on these senses/reactions, we should develop a new test which reflects our experience. Empirical science at work, senses/evidence show old test unreliable, new test devised which reflects our senses/evidence. This would lead to better designs. Anyway, up for your consideration.