Teres, Galibier and Redpoint

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.

Getting past the initial eye-opening lesson of what increased tempo can do to the reproduction of the music does take a little time. Just as with tone, dynamics, etc., Raul's favorite question is always present. "Does it sound like live music?" and I would add "Does it sound like the original performance?". As I said before, during the demo of the DD it was clear after some point that too much torque was actually detrimental to the presentation. So it begs the question as to what is the proper amount of torque that should be applied. How much pluckiness is too much? I agree that a valid comparison between belt and DD even in the same line, Teres in this case, may not be fair until that torque limit is known and applied. I wonder if Thom's experiments with torquey motors may have uncovered a happy medium if the motors hadn't been of fixed torque design. I have no doubt that if too much torque is applied that it would be a tiring thing to listen to, much like many CDPs.

Then there is the old rule of thumb that many people apply no matter what the subject is, but especially when technology is involved. "You don't want to be an early adopter." I do believe Chris is heading in a good direction with his development of the DD. However, I still ask the question of myself regarding how much is this new option worth to me and does it justify the cost. Another consideration is how long is it going to take to develop the controller and motor to the point where it is ready for the market.

Flyingred mentioned some great points about his choice of the Galibier and I am in complete agreement. I have always been of the opinion that two of the biggest factors in favour of the the Gavia (and Stelvio) are the simplicity of the motor system and the fact that one doesn't have to worry about major movement of the materials used. I also hold the belief that the metal vs. wood structure is more condusive to a dynamic presentation. It is also very true that follow up sessions without so many variations in equipment (tables, arms and cartridges) would probably have helped me to make a more definitive report about which table I preferred.

When it comes to the comparison of the Gavia and say the Teres 320 I haven't experienced anything that would change my opinion. I realize that this may sound like a contradiction from my earlier statements, but in fact, it is a clarification of where my thoughts are at the current time. I just can't honestly say that I can identify that I heard "this was better that that".

The points made about jumping on what sounds pleasing or "better" at the time is well taken. I admit, as I'm sure we all have, to having made equipment choices that latter turned out not to be what I was really looking for.

Thom, I just realized we never played with the Anvil! :)