Teres, Galibier and Redpoint

I ended up ordering a Teres 350 with a Schroeder Reference arm. I just got an email from Chris and the base is done, and the platter will be another few weeks. As far as the Schroeder arm goes, I'm trying not to get too excited about it - as you might expect, it's going to take a while...

Colin

Hi all,

A couple of quick comments ...

Firstly (to Dan-ed), yes, I've seen examples of various turntable architectures (high mass, low mass, suspended, unsuspended) that have PRaT and Dynamics. One of the most impressive and honest products in the low mass, suspended category was my dearly departed Merrill Heirloom. I'd like to think that my unsuspended high mass rig is up to this standard.

This is one more case of choosing your architecture and either getting it right, or screwing it up ... nothing to do with the choice of architecture.

When I say PRaT (or dynamics, or soundstage, etc.) I'm referring to a component that doesn't get in the way of what's on the recording. There are numerous components in any equipment category which hyperbolize or exaggerate a particular sonic attribute in order to fool the listener. I'd prefer to leave this sort of dishonest product out of the discussion.

To clear up the confusion about potential for slipping motor pods, I currently supply 'tables with small cones. They don't have to be used, and all components can sit flat on the shelf if the end-user prefers.

The small contact surface of the cones makes it very difficult to move the motor pod accidentally. As Dmailer noted however, even the flat surface of his motor pod resting on his relatively smooth Vibraplane is non-problematic. Yes, Dmailer can play with feet if he so chooses (threaded inserts).

A manufacturer needs to design for a worst-case scenario. For this reason, I went to the cones. Redpoint went to very thin, silicone rubber pads under their motor controller. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion.

To Nghiep, a 6" diameter pulley would mean that the motor rotates at roughly 66 rpm to spin the platter at 33 rpm - this, in the absence of any reduction mechanism. This would require an extremely high-torque motor - along the lines of a direct-drive rig. It certainly can be done. By the time you design this powerful a motor, the flywheel effect of the pulley is likely to be swamped by the motor's torque.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Redpoint went to very thin, silicone rubber pads under their motor controller.

FWIW, I once tried adding a thin (<.5mm) layer of a self-adhesive, non-slip material to the bottom of the coupling discs on which my motor spikes sit. I thought this might reduce the occasional (once every month or two) need to check belt tension and/or improve motor stability and thus dynamics.

In fact, I got one of those unintended consequences. The very tiny amount of rocking this "squidgy" layer allowed caused a "THUMP" when the tape splice went 'round the motor capstan. This was transmitted back through the belt to the platter, where the cartridge picked it up and sent it to the speakers.

I peeled it off. No more thumps. Solid coupling works best for me. I'm sure Twl and the folks at Audiopoints would laugh knowingly.

Colin, good for you!!! I am now starting to get the itch to "really" upgrade my TT and arm. I am considering also one of the Teres'(265?) or a Galibier. I am leaning toward the Schroder Mod 2 arm. My budget is less the yours but I believe the TT and arm may make a big difference.
What will you mount you Teres on?

I am curious concerning this question of PRaT and mass-loaded tables. It seems that the low torque motor used on these 3 tables contributes to this "lack". This does sound feasible with a low torque motor when considering stylus drag. However, if the platter is anything over 20 lbs. I can't see how, given the inertia, that this could contribute to a loss in PRaT. Perhaps I'm not considering the right parameters.