2. analog
  3. 130589-163

VPI 2nd Pivot for 3D

I just installed mine and discovering my old records anew.  I thought I knew everything there was to know on the original pressing of Fleetwood Mac's Rumers......but no - there's more.  You immediately hear a more solid bass, but then the dynamics hit hard.  It sounds like my amp is on steroids.  More cleanliness, - everything is better.  Very highly recommended.
128x128stringreen
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,788 posts
 
So true, slaw. While having made a number of turntables worth owning (though not tonearms---unipivots suck!), VPI has little credibility in terms of a design point-of-view or philosophy. Or, I guess Harry can claim, it has "evolved" ;-).
stringreen's avatar
stringreen OP
6,468 posts
 
Slaw - isn't the goal of a company to make a product better, and bring in additional capital for that effort?  Honda is a better product now than it was in 1960, as is Apple,  Boeing, et al.  People vote as to the success/failure of the innovations with their checkbook....the American way.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,788 posts
 

stringreen, it's not VPI's (or anyone else's) attempts to keep improving it's product(s)---making incremental improvements to a model over time---that it's detractors find objectionable, but rather their history of first embracing one design philosophy, then abandoning it for a second of a completely different nature, then a third. And with each new design, claiming it to be the best way to make that component. I myself don't feel that way, thinking that Harry just came to embrace different designs at different points in time honestly, not cynically. One may buy whichever VPI design one prefers. Or none of them!

There are more extreme examples that can be cited, particularly the myriad of different models offered simultaneously by some speaker companies. Making different speaker models for different applications, room sizes, maximum SPL and/or bass extension capabilities is a very sensible and justifiable practice. But to make speakers of rather different design for the same application does not speak well of a company's integrity. A few speaker companies not exhibiting this lack of integrity are Vandersteen, Magnepan, Eminent Technology, and Wilson, perhaps one factor leading to their long-term success. 

slaw's avatar
slaw
21,402 posts
 
stringreen, I’ve been somewhat a critic of yours for a while. Mostly because of your willingness to (seemingly) support any product that comes out of Cliffwood. I remember asking you a few years ago about your recommending the ceramic platter. Upon my asking, I found out that you had never owned one but that your recommendation was based on Harry’s recommendation.

Yes! A company’s goal should be to improve their product. Most companies take a year or two to roll out an improved product. VPI has condensed this down to what seems like every 1/4. This, to me seems like that at every whim Harry has, for a new product, he has the ability to put it out for the masses with little regard for inherently new/better designs that will stand the test of time, but for the almighty advertising dollar/social media talk that seems to drive VPI’s popularity along with the ongoing Talk on threads such as this.

This is not good for the industry as a whole IMO. VPI has hit on a rare point in history where they can seemingly do no wrong in the eyes of most.

Will one ever see the interest in a VPI product 20 years down the road that there is now for a Rock 7, that has only been out of production for about 5 years? Highly unlikely!




bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,788 posts
 

Really good points, slaw. I didn't want to be that harsh, trying to give Harry the benefit of the doubt. But your assessment is more on point than mine. I feel the same way about ARC, finding their frequent and endless updates and revisions of current models, and New! Improved! model introductions, cynically timed to keep the cash flow of the company healthy. That is a viewpoint very much belittled by hardcore ARC defenders (apologists?).

How frequently/often should a company make changes to their current models, and introduce new models which mock the old? I don't know if there is an answer to that question.

More to discover