Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH

I think the simple answer (which unfortunatley isn't easy to do) is to let a mastering engineer hear the table and compare it to what's on the master tape.

There has to be some objective truth as to what provides the most faithful reproduction of the master tape. (objectivity in what is most faithful to live acoustic music is more difficult)

Perhaps an LP mastered from digital recording could be compared with the SACD release. In that instance, the SACD should be a closer estimation to what the 96 or 192K master sounds like rather than a downsampled CD.

Maybe even better would be a Linn records release that was offereed in LP and 96K/192K download because they seem to be offered in their native sample rate, and I read one post that seemed to indicate that those high res downloads sounded better decoded by a PS audio DLIII than the SACD's

Forgive the digital diatribe, I'm just trying to see if digital comparisons can help us make better assesments of our analog playback systems.

For the record, I was the guy that visited with Mr. Fremer and that owns the Monaco. First, let me say that he is an extremely nice guy and was kind enough to allow me to listen to albums at his place for an afternoon. Thanks again Mike.

Now, let me give you my thoughts on what I heard. As Mike points out, I unfortunatley did not hear the Caliburn and the Monaco together. I did listen to the Caliburn at his house (using the arm that came with the table) and it is a very fine sounding table. On its own, in a system that is very different from mine, there is no way that I am capable of comparing the two tables based on sound memory.

I did listen to 2 cds that Mr. Fremer put together. One is a comparison of the Caliburn, with the arm that comes with the table, compared to the Monaco with a different arm (I beleive the Graham Phantom). There is one song on that cd - Van Morrison (can't remember the song) The other cd is a compilation of rock, Jazz, easy listening and classical (great selection Michael!). On the first cd (which I listened to at Michael's house), I did hear a difference in the harmonics. The differences were noticable, but not night and day. Keep in mind that there were two very different arms and the comparison was between a $120k table and a $20k table.

With respect to the second cd, I have listend to it close to a dozen times on a very revealing system (Dartzeel preamp and amp and Evolution Acoustic MM3s) and I have to say that it took at least 6 very close listening sessions (going back and forth between the comparisons) and moving my listening seat to the nearfield (as my room is not treated) before I could hear any real difference. Now my ears are not nearly as well trained as Michael's, but I have been in this hobby a long time - listening to vinyl for 35 years, and I really had to strain to figure out the difference. I would describe the difference I heard as a very slight rounding over of the leading edge of the note. I'm afraid I did not, and do not, hear the dryness that Michael hears.

Over the years, I have been lucky enough to hear some of the finest turntables in the world (e.g., the SME 30, the Brinkmans, the Kuzmas, the Walker the Rockport and now the Caliburn). Each has its strong points and its shortcomings. What I heard in the Monaco was something really special. I think it is one of the most transparent and neutral turntables I have ever heard. It does not sound cold to me and to my ears does a fantastic job at harmonic development. Sometimes the piano sounds so real it is scary.

One thing I was wondering about is whether the cartridge used by Micheal was a good match for the table. I use the Dynavector XV-1s.

Bottomline, is the Monaco a match for the Caliburn? I don't know, I wasn't able to compare the 2 live and did not find the cds conclusive. One thing is for sure, there is no way I would spend $120k for a turntable. I do beleive that the Monaco is a great table that beats much more expensive tables I have heard. I had to laugh when I read some of the comments above that stated that the author was writing the turntable off their list because of the review. This is as bad as buying a turntable without hearing it because of a good review. As in every case, you need to listen to the equiptment with gear and software that you are familiar with. I would find it hard to believe that anyone could listen to the turntable in my system with the Dynavector cartridge and call it cold or harmonically challenged. Indeed, If some of you would like to join me for an evening to give a listen, you are more than welcome (assuming you bring the vino)

Its all about system matching. Get the right cart with the arm, TT AND phono, you will hear magic. Get it wrong, and nothing you spin will sound right.

I believe that up to a certain price point, any TT worth its salt, should perform at the top level, class "A" or whatever you like to call it.

Grooves / Michael, I disagree that hall effect commutation has the effect you say it has, I think the problem is much simpler and was first "outed" by Sansui's engineers 20 years ago. It comes down to Newton's Third Law (you know the one, equal and opposite reactions etc)

The motor control electronics continually vary the drive to the motor to keep the platter speed constant. Any competently designed servo loop does this to an exquisite degree, virtually eliminating speed variation as a concern, but the variation in drive simultaneously torques the motor's mounting in the opposite sense.

By definition in a direct drive this counter torque is transmitted to the turntable chassis whence it proceeds to wreak havoc. How the designer copes with said havoc defines the success of any DD effort and it means that the designer is faced with a very different set of challenges from the designer of a belt or idler drive TT.

Mark Kelly

Mike said:

"That said, the Monaco stomped all over the Merrill (and most suspended 'tables I've heard) in the bottom octaves."

I am having a philosophical struggle as to how a table can play the bottom octaves exceptionally and not the rest of the spectrum.

Two things occur to me: 1) the Monaco is really not playing the bottom octaves correctly but is coloring them in a desirable manner for bass. If this is true then the coloration may also be affecting the middle and upper octaves.

2) On the other hand, one could say the exact same things about the Merrill: it is not reproducing the middle and upper octaves correctly but coloring them in a desirable manner.

A turntable, among other things, has to spin accurately through groove modulations and drain external and internal vibrations. How does a Monaco do this correctly for bass but not for the mids and highs? And how does a Merrill does this correctly for the mids and highs but not for the bass?

Or could this have nothing to do with the turntables which are both reproducing very accurately but the downstream components? I know Mike did a lot component matching but maybe at this level the components have to be exquisitely matched for balanced results. I know that when I tweak something on my table/arm/cartridge it can take many hours to dial it in to where I feel I have maximized that tweak.