Is the Teres a
Larry- It's a little off-topic and I know that this came up in a thread somewhere, but where might one find suitable mylar and what materials/method do you use to attach the ends to form a loop? Got a Well Tempered with an Origin Live DC motor and silk string belt, but want to experiment with the mylar. Thanks Jim |
I would like to see many of the tables mentioned in this thread, if not all, in the audition. I'd also like to see them shielded from view, in the sense that those passing their sonic judgments do not know which table is coming next! OK, I'm dreaming even beyond the likelihood that such an audition would come off at all. :-) |
Jimbo3, Here's a source for mylar tape: http://www.mccormicksnet.com/mccormicks/tapes.htm Scroll down to the bottom of the page and look for "Mylar Streamers". The 1/2" wide size used by Teres/Redpoint/Galibier owners costs <$5 for a 100' roll and it comes in colors! Make sure your motor pulley is wide enough before you choose a size. For cutting the ends and getting them square I bought a VCR tape splicer. It's never been out of the box. I found I can do an excellent job with a new #11 Xacto blade, a straightedge and a clean, flat working surface. It helps to be nearsighted, and no caffeine! Some people use VCR splicing tabs but I've had better results with 1 mil x 2" clear 3M shipping tape. My splicing tabs always seemed to separate after awhile. My shipping taped belt is as good as the day I made it, seven or eight months ago. If 1/2" black mylar will suit, I'll gladly make a belt up and ship it to you. Let me know the length you want if you're interested. Like Cello, my 100' roll should be enough for several lifetimes. |
Psychicanimal, I'm right with you on complex, full orchestral tuttis for exposing stylus drag. Massed violin tones will expose speed irregularities caused by big percussion hits, brass blasts, etc. No offense taken that you can't visualize a table like mine or Thom's being thoroughly resistant to stylus drag. No reasonable man would take offense at another man's lack of imagination! <;-) |
Nothing is perfect. Mother Earth, for example has a resonant frequency of about 7.8 Hz if I remember my numbers correctly. Steel girders are elastic. Tape drive being perfectly rigid? You get the picture ... just a better approximation we all hope. We're all just about hunting down these demons in ways we consider pracitcal but that others would consider to be madness. Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
Thom, We're definitely on the same page about PRaT, sorta what I tried to say in my post criticizing Art Dudley's infatuation. While PRaT can certainly be masked by a stereo, as 4yanx pointed out, most PRaT-loving reviews I've seen are in fact praising inaccurate tonal balance or inaccurate reproduction of leading or trailing edges of transients. A particular inaccuracy may of course sound "better" on some recordings, but it will be insufferable on most others. The "perfect" stereo would *exactly* reproduce the tonal balance and transient behavior of the recording, and its noise floor too. A component that fails in one or more of these areas will probably mask some of the musicians' PRaT, but focusing on PRaT is indeed focusing on the result, not the cause. Enjoy the TriPlanar. Here's a tidbit that's not in the manual: the cueing height adjustment also controls the point across the record where antiskate kicks in. Weird, but easy to understand if you look at it long enough. :-) Sorry to NGeorge for the endless OT, but it seems like a nice conversation! |
Ngeorge I noticed you mentioned the RS Labs A1 arm. I have ordered the 340-2. One of the arms I have is the RS Labs. The other will be the Schroder DPS. So far I only have the ZYX 1000 Airy. Can you give me any advice on the RS arm?. I am looking at one of the Koetsu's as a second cartidge. Any thoughts on possible matches between tonearms and cartidges?. Bill |
Hi Bill, I like the RS-A1 for its speed and dynamics. I have, however, an issue with its delicate nature; you can't afford to be casual with it. It's made very different from other arms in the market. I have only compared it to my stock RB-300, which it beat easily. You have to be "careful" when handling it. That said, having the Schroder DPS should more than make you satisfied, shouldn't it? It's one of the finer arms around, I think. But if you can have both the Schroder and RS-A1, then do compare them and let us know what you think of them. Hmmm, that should be an intetersting shootout! Regards, George |
Thom - I see you've expanded your list of splicing block sources! I really want an Editall - I remember these from my college radio station and they were great. But there doesn't seem to be a 1/2" model at US Recording. There's one by TME - how does this compare to Editall? Also, where do you and Peter get your CLEAR mylar 1/2" tape? All the leader tape I can find is colored. Hope all's well, Patrick |
Hi Patrick, I'm just now catching up after the Rocky Fest. Gravity never rests (old climbers' saying) ... It's The Tape Center splicing block on my support page: http://www.galibierdesign.com/support.html One thing you need to be aware of is that the holographic Mylar tape has horrible quality control, with spools varying by as much as 3/16" in width. I find that the easiest one to use with the holographic stuff is the Marker Tek because it has hold-down levers to position the tape. With correctly sized tape on a good splicing block, levers are unnecessary. With the holographic Mylar stuff it's very helpful however Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
I read with interest Art Dudleys review of the Galibier Quattro Supreme in the October Issue of Stereophile. Once I got past his tedious, Brothers-Karamazov-like saga that began the article, I could tell almost immediately by Arts tone, and his initial use of a Graham Robin tonearm, that he was not enamored with the Quattro. Thats really too bad. 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. Are any of these turntables the absolute best when compared to the Rockport Technologies System III Sirius turntable and tonearm, the SME 30 turntable with the SME Series V tonearm, the Basis B turntable, or the Walker Proscenium Gold Signature? Beats me. All of these turntables, including the Quattro, are so far beyond my budget it would be like asking me which exotic sports car is the best in the world by having me read reviews about them. And even if I could take these wonder cars for a test drive, I am in no position to evaluate them properly. So it was with Art Dudley and the Quattro Supreme. What really is the extent of Arts knowledge? In his review of the Graham Robin tonearm, he openly admitted to having only three turntables on hand for testing, one of which was the Linn and two of which were clearly budget-oriented components. Although the Linn is an okay table for the money, it has not been a world-beater for quite some time. Furthermore, considering its cost for the fully loaded version, it doesnt represent a particularly good value anymore. Moreover, I am sure most of you have noticed a bias in Arts writing, which favors British-made audio components, much the same way Harry Pearson loves to ramble on favorably about VPI turntables, as was the case in the latest TAS issue. Forget about "correct" PRaT PRaT is what makes you want to dance, or nod your head, or tap your feet, or wave your arms: it is biological Only a truly awful musical ensemble will fail to get the rhythm, and the equipment which fails to retrieve it from a recording is, quite simply, a failure. -- Johnnantais Far too much is made of pace, rhythm, and timing; I see this often in product reviews. PRaT, while important, is not the only factor to consider in a turntable. Speed consistency, wow and flutter, rumble, freedom from sonic feedback, reliability, stability, sonic balance and neutrality, musicality, system synergy, ease of use, size, cost, and aesthetics these are only some of the parameters that need to be considered carefully when one purchases a new table. To use PRaT as the deciding factor as to whether a component is a Class A contender or only an also ran is a gross oversimplification. But apparently that is what Art did. His article showed us his overall lack of experience with turntables of exotic design; it showed us his lack of understanding of the Quattro Supreme in particular; it showed his unwillingness to take the time to give the Quattro a thorough test with a good tonearm, like the Schroder, which did occur after one was provided for an audition that was far too short; it showed his sophist tendencies, his interest in being an iconoclast, his preference for turning a cute or interesting phrase at the expense of a fair and balanced review. Such a review, while useful for prospective customers, is rather pedantic for those who thirst for literary flare. As for a shootout, I am not in favor of one. It would not give each turntable manufacturer the best opportunity to show off his or her product in a favorable light. What might be more useful would be to create a situation in which manufacturers could come to demonstrate their latest inventions using an audio system of their choosing in an atmosphere that encouraged cooperation, discovery, inquiry, and non-competitiveness. It would be an art/music fair of sorts, not a sporting event in which the crowd lusts for a winner while the loser is thrown to the lions. In my opinion, there would be no losers at such a show, just a collection of turntables offering different sonic and aesthetic values and attributes to meet the needs of a very diverse analog-loving public. |
Artar1, Setting aside the comments on Art Dudley's review and approach to reviewing about which I am in no position to comment, I found your general remarks about TT reviewing, your reluctance to endorse shoot outs as well as inappropriate reliance on PrAT and any particular attribute of analog playback quite insightful. And your taste in high end tables is pretty good too. |
Well gee, at least I notice that some are paying attention! I would point out that nowhere have I ever written that PRaT is the ONLY factor to consider in reviewing or evaluating a turntable, but it IS the Prime one. I also write often about detail, dynamics, tonal accuracy and imaging. Extrapoplating I would assume that Art Diudley has never done so either. PRaT is the MOST important factor, since the sense of musicality arises from PRaT, or timing or whichever facet of correct speed you want to talk about. By this I mean, if one has to accept less than perfection and sacrifices must be made, where does one make the sacrifices? I submit that musicality (PRaT) is the one thing that must NEVER be sacrificed. I would also point out that correct timing (PRaT), IS "speed stability, wow and flutter" and the more stable the speed the better the PRaT will be. This is my whole point in my Lenco Experiment, and yes, the Lencos are far superior to the Linns even in my beloved PRaT, though if I didn't have a Lenco which in addition to PRaT also produces world-class detail, dynamics and all the other audiophile paraphernalia which is wrongly placed ahead of PRaT, I would live with a Linn, Roksan or other 'table which places musicality (not simple "smoothness" and information) and thus timing at the top of the heap. The better the speed stability, in addition, the better the information-retrieval, imaging, cartridge tracking (and thus improved sonic performance), "gestalt (musical piece being presented as a piece/whole and not a collection of disparate parts). Atar1 also assures us that since he cannot afford the top-of-the-line pieces he is in no position to judge - "All of these turntables, including the Quattro, are so far beyond my budget it would be like asking me which exotic sports car is the best in the world by having me read reviews about them" - but then goes on to sing their praises. Based on what, their enormous price tags? Let us bow before these Mighty Creations as they have ludicrous price tags far beyond our reach. These 'tables have all been criticized in various ways, many of them for lack of musical involvement - the SME 30 for one - and whatever strengths they might have, it means nothing if they don't draw you into the musical magic (and not simple HiFi special effects). The reason the Linn still has such a strong following after all these years, even at its inflated price tag when fully tricked-out, is because it is first and foremost a musical turntable, as all turntables should be (but sadly aren't). I believe that many want to ignore or wish away the issue of musicality, since it can't be designed-for except by the sort of talent we cannot understand or explain (and often by simple accident, or "discovery" which, however, should be recognized and imitated), and which must be recognized. It is far more difficult to trust our instincts and senses and biological and emotional responses (which is what music is all about), than to sit in front of speakers with a check-list: "trumpet clearly audible in left-hand corner, check; echo audible around viola, check; harpsichord audible in right-hand corner, check..." I've said it before and I'll say it again: musicality is not an entirely subjective experience, much as the pundits would have us believe this (so they can sell their over-priced a-musical monstrosities), accurate speed (and by this I 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. The heavier platters simply reduce the belt-reaction time (caused by stylus drag which is VERY audible) due to increased inertia, lowering it into the lower frequencies where the timing - or PRaT - resides. The lighter turntables move the speed instabilities up into the higher frequencies, and so lose detail relative to the big turntables, which is why so many audiophiles, trained by the largely detail-oriented audiophile press (easy to describe and look like experts), assume they are superior in every way. The culprit in all these speed instabilities is the belt, being rubber stretches and contracts at frequencies as already described, which is audible. This is why thread drives sound better than rubber-belt drives. But better than these weak little cogging motors and threads aided by expensive band-aid electronics is a well-designed idler-wheel drive with a monstrous but designed exactly and precisely and solely for turntables. Try the experiment to verify my assertions, I've thrown this particular gauntlet down several times over the last year with a 100% success rate so far (even my enemies admitted the Lenco's great sonic prowess and musical power), all are welcome to join and report on the results. Based on my own experience of heavy/massy belt-drives vs lighter belt-drives, I'd hazard a guess that Art Dudley was right in his review, but he committed two crimes: he spoke of musicality as if it were important, and he placed a cheaper product ahead of a more expensive one on musical grounds. I would describe him as a man of courage and integrity, it just happens that only the English still produce classic 3-point suspension turntables which major in PRaT, the 3-point suspension tunrtable being an invention of the American company Acoustic Research. Ironic, eh? |
Whether some folks would admit it or not, or whether they'd actually try to disprove it or not, there is a great deal of merit in what Jean has to say. I will not attempt to compare the object of his challenge to any super high-end tables (e.g. a Walker or the like) because I have not done such a comparison myself. But, hey, Albert has a mighty fine Walker and he took the challenge, with a pretty damn favorable overall report, I might add (but not in direct comparison to the Walker, though). I have personally compared a couple of my own creations to a number of what are considered here to be mid-priced tables. Yes, I recognize that PRICE is not an absolute indicator of quality (as I have sadly found out on more than one occasion). However, anyone who has, say, a $2000-$5000 table and is still searching for the MUSIC, you would be well served to give his challenge, well, a challenge before spending another grand on that utopian cartridge or arm. Might not beat EVERY table in this class, but it won't cost you much to find out and I'm wagering you will at least get close, if you let your EARS do the deciding. Of course, it does take a modicum of skills to accomplish and, lacking that, maybe find someone to help. Else, feel free to over spend in comparison to several otherwise well regarded tables! :-) I will agree that there are a variety of factors that combine to make a turntable PLEASING. I also do not particularly like the term PRAT, because it means different things to different people. It is kinda like some art. You know the old sating - I don't know what it is, but I know what I like. I also know that MUSIC is about MUSICALITY, and I know it when I hear it. Search for it, find it, and enjoy it, regardless of the package! :-) Of course, this has nothing really to do with a Teres (a fine table) and the subject of the thread, or Art Dudley, a sidetrack in this thread, other than I think his focus on musicality is a good thing (while not agreeing wholly on his reviewing methods). |
Regarding the Teres and the subject of PRaT, I was a Linn LP12/Ittok/Karma or Asak owner for about 11 years, worked as the analog set-up man at some high-end shops which sold Linn tables(and others), was taught LP12 setup by Ivor, and probably know something about the subject, based on some experience. My Teres 245 is better than any Linn LP12 for PRaT. It also is better in virtually all other areas that I can think of. Significantly better. Regarding the matter of "belt stretch/release" as a "bugaboo" of belt-drive turntables, this is entirely a matter of the belt materials used. While many older belt-drive designs used rubber or rubber-like belts, some now have moved away from that toward non-stretch belt materials. Notably, the Teres models use a mylar tape belt, which is very non-stretch and provides a wide surface for preventing slip. Tensioning is not a problem. The heavy platter provides enough inertial force to overcome the stylus drag issue, and the DC motor is non-cogging. There is an optical reader with a strobe pattern on the platter, which ensures correct speed during playback. While correction is possible in extreme circumstances, my deck does not make any corrections during the playback of my LPs during the entire side of play. Corrections can be seen by the lighting of the red LED on the motor/controller housing, and it does not light up during play on my deck. In addition to rubber belt stretch/release problems, 3-point spring-suspended decks add to the problem of the "RC tank" speed control issues, by also getting into motion with the stretch and release of the belt. Unsuspended TTs like the Teres do not suffer from this problem. With the Teres, the use of a high quality non-cogging Swiss DC motor, a non-stretch Mylar tape drive belt, the heavy platter, and the unsuspended solid base design, all work together to make a very precise speed during the playback of the LP, and virtually all of the problems that plagued the previous belt-drive turntables have been largely overcome. While I do recognize that the benefits of the high-torque idler wheel drive systems like the Lenco are very good at maintaining the speed during passages likely to produce stylus drag, they are not the only ones which can do this. However, they are probably the most affordable ones, and that is a good thing. After all, only 1/2 of the musical information is on the record, and the other half(time domain info - including frequency and PRaT) must be supplied by the speed stability of the deck. The record pressing company provides half, and relies on the consumer's deck to supply the other half. |
Excellent summary Tom. I've been fighting this battle for the importance of speed stability for a year now! And yes, the two - PRaT and speed stability - are intimately connected. The Roksan mounts their motor so that it can revolve around its vertical axis, so the motor will turn instead of the belt stretching, thus preventing the belt from stretching and leading to better attack and information retrieval. This solution placed them ahead of the then-reigning LP12 and by doing this practically started the whole high-end 'table challenge to the classic Linn formula. I have heard again and again the great PRaT (which by the way isn't a hazy notion, only being so by our habit of saying/writing PRaT rather than Pace, Rhythm and Timing, which is quite precise) of classic 3-point suspensions, and believe that this PRaT is there because the suspension accidentaly (it wasn't intended) mimics the Roksan trick to a certain extent, revolving in the direction of the tension on the belt to mitigate belt-stretch and thus speed instabilities. This discussion of PRaT and speed stability is very refreshing, especially as it relates to music! Just in case somebody misinterprets me (somebody always does), I'm not against expensive state-of-the-art assaults on what is possible in music reproduction, what I'm against is design specifically aimed at justifying high price tags, which is certainly a problem in the high end, and I'm also against placing such things as detail and imaging above musicality and PRaT, by the age-old trick of claiming these things are subjective and therefore unimportant. The state-of-the-art 'table that is also musical is a triumph, but let's not pretend that all such assaults are musically successful, and so indeed successful at all. Vive la music! |
Well Jean, I'm glad you're fighting it too. I've been on the bandwagon for over 20 years now. I admit that my focus has been on belt drive tables for virtually all of this time, and I've been trying to look at ways to solve their problems, and with some tables, they actually have been solved. With the non-stretch drive belt, it is necessary to have a non-cogging, almost vibrationless motor, so that there is no transmission of the cogging or vibration effects from the motor to the platter via the non-stretch drive belt. Then all that is left is the stylus drag issue, and that can easily be solved by enough rotational mass in the platter, and enough torque in the motor. Once the cogging is gone, then all the rest of the stuff falls into place. The only problem with the non-cogging DC motors is the cumulative slowdown which can occur from the additive effects of stylus drag over the course of the LP side, but this seems to be able to be overcome by this system, because on my Teres it isn't occurring(and I use low compliance cartridges which would exaggerate stylus drag more than most other cartridges). Interestingly, the Teres bearing uses the viscous drag of the lubricant in the tightly toleranced bearing to keep the platter constantly in a slight state of drag, so that the motor is pulling at all times, and no "freewheeling" occurs to mess with the speed. Perhaps this is why the stylus drag issue doesn't have the same effect as it does on other table designs. I'm convinced that alot of what goes on in high-end audio stems from "traditions" like "that's the way it's always been", and only a few mavericks have broken from this with new designs over the years. But, as we go on, more and more people are trying new(or old cast off) things in an attempt to move toward better sound. It's a good thing. As I've been known to say, "I don't care if there is a hamster in an exercise wheel in that box, if it sounds good, I'm for it." |
Hi George, there was a typo there, the word "motor" being excluded from "well-designed idler-wheel drive with a monstrous but designed exactly and precisely and solely for turntables motor", meaning a motor designed specifically for use on a turntable, and specifically to combat stylus drag. A similar but less impressive motor (and not specifically built for use in record players) was used in the design of the Versa Dynamics (or Rockport) turntable at some point, and reportedly cost upwards of $300 from the manufacturer. Unfortunately the adjustments and measurements to make this idler-wheel system work as well as it does are quite stringent, so the only practicable way to try the experiment is to buy a Lenco L75 or L78 (in North America, in Europe the armless versions are available), remove and replace the tonearm, use the entire Lenco motor/platter/top-plate and construct or have constructed for you a new heavy, non-resonant plinth, making it an unsuspended deck (which is simpler anyway, but does have sonic dividends). The Lenco motor is unsurpassed, its drive system superb, as is its platter, its bearing of high-quality, and its idler wheel the best ever designed. It's all explained in the very lengthy "Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot" thread on this very forum, which is a lengthy process. For a briefer apercu, click on my "system" and also visit the following pithy website: http://members.home.nl/fmunniksma/Lencotdl.htm The cheapest way yet devised for blindingly good vinyl playback performance, an experiment on just how audible stylus drag is, and fun too! I'm an ornery critter ;-) So far the Mighty Lenco has defeated a Well Tempered Classic, a Nottingham Spacedeck, various Maplenolls, an Audiomeca, various Linn LP12s, and others reported to me via private e-mails. Cost is roughly $200 plus tonearm and cartridge of your choice, and to get the true measure of the 'table, don't short-change it with an el-cheapo tonearm, use at the very least some Rega or variant, 4yanx first bravely tried his with a Graham 2.2! And to continue the PRaT discussion, PRaT comes in various strengths, like alcohol. A 'table can have PRaT, but how much PRaT does it have? Below a certain level, it's the same as having none, and it can reach heights undreamed-of, as the Lenco Experiment shows. Anyway, bear in mind the design/advice/guidance is all free, the Lencos themselves are cheap, the experiment both fun and instructive, and I let the results speak for themselves. |
I'm with Jean and Twl on the speed stability issue, and also in the belief that there's more than one way to achieve it. I haven't built a Lenco but I certainly trust comparisons like 4yanx's, Albert's and many others. Twl's explanation of the weaknesses of many belt-driven designs (unstable motors, stretchy or slipping belts ) is exactly consistent with our experience. Our Teres was built when they were still experimenting with different drive belts. It arrived with both a silk thread and a 1/2" VCR tape. We were asked to try both and report results. We did, and the differences were clearly audible. It was so bad with the silk thread that Paul actually wondered if we'd made a serious mistake. "This is the table that's supposedly killing $8K+ tables? How awful must they be?!" The time smearing of notes was painful, and we didn't need any audiophile mag to tell us something was wrong. Then we switched to the tape drive. I reported its superiority here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1062459400&openmine&zzDougdeacon&4&5#Dougdeacon As mentioned by Chris Brady later down that thread, the best results have been achieved with 1/2" mylar tape. That's what all up-to-date Teres owners use AFAIK. It makes a bit of HF noise going around the motor spindle, but that's inaudible from more than a few feet away. The speed stability (PRaT if you like) it provides is more than worth it. Once you've got speed (and also resonances) under control, the investment in more costly arms and cartridges becomes fully audible and worthwhile. Until then they'd be partly a waste of money. In this sense Twl's philosophy of table before arm before cartridge is proven exactly correct. Just last week I tried the aramid fiber (kevlar?) belt supplied with another high end table on my Teres. Lovely quietness going 'round the spindle, but its slight stretchiness sucked the life and jump from the music. The leading edge of every note was rounded off and dull. Paul made a nasty face and I quickly took it off. Idler wheel, direct drive, belt drive. Each can apparently provide the necessary speed stability. It's all in the engineering. |
Johnnantais, PRaT is the MOST important factor, since the sense of musicality arises from PRaT, or timing or whichever facet of correct speed you want to talk about. Nothing like a reductionist, someone who takes a very complex series of events or complex phenomena and reduces them to a single, overly simplified explanation or root cause. By this I mean, if one has to accept less than perfection and sacrifices must be made, where does one make the sacrifices? I submit that musicality (PRaT) is the one thing that must NEVER be sacrificed. Thats your opinion. I would also point out that correct timing (PRaT), IS "speed stability, wow and flutter" and the more stable the speed the better the PRaT will be. Really? Most budget, direct-drive turntables have excellent measured speed stability and very low wow and flutter, but sound drab compared to many well-made, belt-driven turntable systems, which, albeit, cost much more. Let us bow before these Mighty Creations as they have ludicrous price tags far beyond our reach. Feeling a tiny bit jealous are we? Try the experiment to verify my assertions, I've thrown this particular gauntlet down several times over the last year with a 100% success rate so far (even my enemies admitted the Lenco's great sonic prowess and musical power), all are welcome to join and report on the results. Enemies? I think you are taking this issue way too seriously. And I am not surprise to see that you are pushing your own product, or creation. Youre not biased a bit, are you? I would describe him [Art Dudley] as a man of courage and integrity I would describe Art as being cavalier and perhaps lacking in extensive turntable experience by his own admission. His article did not impress me, nor am I impressed by your post, a wandering diatribe about the virtues of PRaT and turntable musicality. If it werent for 4yanxs endorsement of your views, I would have completely dismissed your post as a misguided rant by one who is overly sensitive and unduly attached to his own opinions and rhetoric. |
Well, Im 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 its called PRaT, or whatever, arent 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 Jeans 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 its called PRaT, or whatever, arent 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. |
4yanx, My LP12 is not the be all and end all in analog. Far from it. It is a solid performer though and in my system it is not the weakest link in the chain. I still have it after all these years simply because I have no compelling reason to replace it. I haven't a clue what I would buy if I were shopping for a new table. In the price range I would be in I would probably be looking at a Teres bearing, motor, speed controller and battery power. I could easily make the rest. The only point I was trying to make was that the original master tape would be the control and the contenders in this competition would be trying to be most faithful to that control. |
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. |
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. |
