Teres, Galibier and Redpoint

Hi Dan, Frank ...

Frank's comments on drive systems and torque are spot on. He and I had a good discussion about this at CES - a conversation that verified everything I've learned in the past 6 years.

Any turntable drive system is a resonant system in engineering terms, with all of the associated components fitting into the equation:

- platter / bearing / oil viscosity
- drive interface (pulley/belt, idler wheel, direct drive) and their materials
- motor torque constant and motor bearing

If you change any single element (yes, even the oil), you've changed the system's Q - it's resonant behavior, for better or worse.

A few years ago, we experimented with some motors that had about 4 times the torque constant of our current motors. You couldn't put your finger on it, but they failed to satisfy.

In many ways, this higer torque motor sounded like good digital. Something was missing (listener involvement) , but it was not readily identifiable in traditional audiophile terms of frequency response, speed stability, etc.

Many people involved in the auditions actually liked the "sound", but I've learned to factor in what I refer to as the "demo room effect" - a component which initially grabs your attention because it is new and different.

While on the subject of auditioning and the demo room effect, I had an interesting conversation with Charlie (Azzolina Audio) about this. We've come to recognize two broad categories of customers.

1. The sort of fellow who powers up his system for an hour or two at most - the busy sort of individual who wants to have it "all" in a short period of time. My experience has been that this type of user profile gravitates towards a system tonality that tends toward the fatiguing side of the spectrum.

2. The other broad category is the fellow who lives with his music for hours on end. Charlie and I fit into this category. While I would never consider any of our designs to be lacking in inner detail, their virtues tend to be a bit more subtle - not calling attention to themselves.

Interestingly, the higher torque motor appealed more to user profile #1, but I dismissed it as musically unacceptable.

This is not a dismissal of high torque designs, but rather a comment on the many ways in which you can alter a design such that the parameters are mismatched. Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choices.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Thom, that sounds very much like what we heard when Chris purposely cranked up the torque. The leading edges became hard sounding. You're description of this as being more of a digital sound is very good. It was a great demo of the effect of too much torque.

Frank,

Are you sure that wasn't Tri Mai you were "modifying"?
Nobody's heard from him in days. ;-)

***
Thom's mention of the demo room effect and two listener types reminded me of a recent experience. Our new SPM speaker cables have less zing and obvious pizzaz than our old Blue Heavens. In the first few minutes (ie, in the demo room) we both wondered if something was missing, if HF's weren't a bit suppressed.

After a bit more thought and listening, it became clear that what was missing was bloat on the HF's. We discuss LF bloat all the time, but it occurs at all frequencies. Maybe we call that "smearing".

At any rate, once we stopped missing the excess "detail" from the Blue Heavens it became clear that the SPM's are superior from top to bottom. Violins sound more like violins and less like VIOLINS. Triangles and tambourines are the size they should be, etc.

Sorry for the digression. I just appreciated Thom's point and wanted to emphasize the risk in making quick judgements based on what sounds exciting.

WOW!!I'm really loving this discourse,and predict this will be "THE" anolog thread of 2006!!Great stuff,and much to ponder,for me.
Frank,I see NO reason you should feel like you're walking on eggshells,even if you want to help the apparently worthy,good word of mouth,you always get.Also,I hereby appologize for my dumb comments,of the past!
When I read a mfgr/designer's post I consider the content,which in your case IS quite plausible!The fact that you have added some of your own observations,which "might" stir the pot(I have NO problems there -;))is just fine with me,because you have the added benefit of some rather interesting conclusions!Having previously owned the Triplanar,I never felt I had the ability to get the high freq performance that my friend Sid got from his Air bearing design(BTW-I still don't).Even though the late,super wonderful guy,Herb Papier aided my somewhat imperfect arm/table match-up,I ultimately moved on.I'M STILL NOT ALL THAT HAPPY,BTW.So this is clearly NOT one of those "I now love what I have" posts!Yet you have alot more exposure than I do,and I appreciated you comments.
I do enjoy having some "juicey" afterthoughts bouncing around,in my head,after a well written post.Thanks!
BTW,you too Thom,and everyone else who is,and will be responsible for my "clicking" onto "this" thread ahead of ALL others.Hopefully for a long while!!

Best!

Great thread - excellent insights into the challenges of system synergy. I agree with Doug and Thom about demo room first impressions.

I made the trip to Colorado a year ago and heard Galibier first. Thom was running a Lyra Titan on his Schröder Reference at the time. Whilst I appreciated the detail and incisiveness I was disturbed by the "leanness" of the presentation. So Thom set up his Micro Seiki MAX 282 with his trusty Denon DL103R which matched the rest of his rig far better and allowed me to forget about the system and enjoy the LPs I had brought along.

The next day I went to Chris's and started with the 200 series tables, which were clearly second best to the Galibier. When Chris switched to his 360 the detail retrieval was much improved, like focusing a lens on a camera. However on some challenging tracks I had doubts about the timing and speed of bass (as reported earlier in this thread and elsewhere). The progression through the Teres line however was seductive - the lower priced tables had the effect of setting a new baseline for me.

Fortunately I had another day in Colorado and was able to get back to Thom's to calibrate my listening impressions.

He set up his DL103R in his Schröder and even though the cartridge is technically inferior (in terms of detail retrieval) to the Urushi that Chris was running, I was able to hear and enjoy my music without the electronics getting in the way.

I guess my point is to acknowledge how difficult it is to compare competing components in different systems and I would suggest it's important to limit the variables and to go back to check component A again after component B.

The side bar is to confirm the lesson we all learn the hard way that good system synergy is never achieved by assembling the most expensive or most favored individual components.

Whilst it's great fun to hear products that aren't finalized and to hear experiments with motor torque, I can't help thinking that their effect is to overwhelm the listener and shift their perceptual baseline. Unhelpful for the listener but perhaps not the vendor who engages the listener in the product development process.

In my case, my choice was also influenced by the simplicity/reliability of the table because I'm 7,000 miles from Denver.