There's something else I'd like to add to this discussion that I didn't delve into in the turntable review. My Lloyd requested I use his stand and I did. It is a lightweight carbon fiber "A" frame design with "lossy" Sorbothane pads in between the frames, with thickness specified by the weight of the gear placed atop each shelf (the proper implementation of Sorbothane which acts as a terrific energy absorber under pressure and a high frequency spring not under pressure, which is why different thickness Sorbothane discs are provided).
The stand also was supplied with the top of the line carbon fiber shelf. If you put a finger on the top shelf you can easily move the shelf. and laterally deflect the entire stand. This is purposely done and if you look at Grand Prix's website at the "shaker" tests, you will see its effectiveness. However, what didn't make sense to me, was putting a spinning object atop such a stand since few such objects, no matter how well machined, are perfect, (like car wheels, which require lead weights and dynamic balancing to not vibrate as everyone reading this knows). So I wondered how the top shelf was behaving with a spinning platter atop it. I conjectured that it would move as the platter spun, which would not be a good thing.
I procured a pair of calibrated B&K accelerometers and attached one to the top shelf of the Grand Prix stand and started the platter. I was both surprised and impressed to find that the start up was so smooth, the accelerometer didn't register even a blip either upon start up or when the platter was at either 33 or 45! That was impressive and proved both smooth start up and superb platter machining or casting (I don't recall how it was done).
However, I then decided to test the stand's ability to deal with airborne vibrations. My thought was, the stand's carbon fiber is stiff and light and thus moves the resonant frequency way up so that combined with the properly implemented Sorbothane, low frequency vibrations would be prevented from entering the system and getting to components on the shelves either from the floor or the air and in fact that was the case. The stand's ability to reject low frequencies was outstanding.
But, when I ran an 800Hz to 20kHz sweep tone through the speakers at around 89dB I was literally shocked to find that the stand's resonance was directly in the midrange and was both broadband and high in amplitude. Based on what I saw with the accelerometer taped to the top carbon fiber shelf, the stand "sang like a diva" throughout the midrange! Given the stiffness and lightness of the construction, perhaps this should not be surprising. In addition, the shaker stand really only measures lateral, low frequency performance.
From that part of the test I concluded that the stand's midband performance in the presence of typical musical content was poor and that those who like what they hear from it, are hearing and preferring a midband coloration of some sort. I cannot come to any other conclusion.
Furthermore, given what I heard from the turntable, my initial conclusion was that the loss of harmonic and decay resolution was possibly a result of the stand's behavior. Now you might say I should have removed the table and put it on my Finite Elemente stand, but Mr. Lloyd insisted that his stand be used and that his stand was better and better suited to the turntable. This was not a review of the stand so I found myself in a quandry.
I then decided to put the accelerometer on the Monaco's armboard and repeat the test. I found what I was expecting to find: the Monaco's plinth is a beautifully designed dual carbon fiber shell with a visco-elastomer damping material between the shells (something the stand does not include). And guess what? The accelerometer on the armboard showed a significant attenuation of the resonance, but it was still present.
Next I put the accelerometer on the top shelf of the "stiff," heavy, aircraft grade aluminum, turnbuckle "stretched" Continuum stand (okay, it sells for 25,000 dollars), which features a magnetic repulsion system with zero physical contact, which Mr.Lloyd had said was the wrong approach when he examined it, and it greatly attenuated midband frequencies by comparison.
More significantly, when the accelerometer was placed upon the Continuum's armboard (which features a 3 dimensionally suspended, dual magnesium pod, damped armboard using Kevlar straps and an energy absorbing magnetic attraction system (patented), the attentuation of airborne musical content was nothing short of astonishing. It was almost complete.
No doubt this system is responsible, in part, for the Continuum's amazing sonic performance. However, an examination of the Continuum stand's low frequency performance showed the Monaco stand to be superior in rejecting LFs. This was puzzling but after the accelerometers were gone I discovered that the perimeter air tube that surrounds the platform had deflated. I should have inflated it before doing the tests but I cannot say whether or not the Continuum stand is capable of matching the Grand Prix stand's superb low frequency rejection.
However, in the end I chose not to deal with the stand issues as the review was not of the stand but of the 'table, used on the manufacturer's stand as requested.
I have no doubt that some of you will come back at me now saying I should have brought all of this into the review and/or moved the 'table to my reference Finite Elemente stand, but I chose instead to review the 'table as requested by the manufacturer. That is how he usually sells it, and how it's shown at shows.
In the end, I conclude that the shaker test on the website is really an incomplete and not necessarily relevant methodology for testing the stand's effectiveness in the presence of a complex, wide band musical signal, while it does demonstrate the stand's effectiveness with laterally generated low frequency vibrations, which are a small part of the overall picture.
And you think this job is easy?
Finally a disclaimer: I am not a resonance control engineer, or an engineer of any kind, for that matter and I invite anyone with engineering experience in this field to comment or dispute my conclusions based on the tests, which I'd be happy to email.
I'd like to conclude by saying my only goal is to review gear honestly and completely, while avoiding mindlessly parroting manufacturers claims. I have tried to do that with this review, and describe as accurately as possible the sound that the product(s) produced in my system.
If anyone reading this wishes to hear the MP3 comparison, email me through my website (www.musicangle.com) and I'll send them to you so you can describe what you hear to others. I did this for one reader (not the one quoted in the review) and here's what he said (note: the MP3s were not identified as to which was which and I won't do that for you if you wish to hear them).
Here's what the last guy said, not knowing which he was hearing:
"In my opinion this mp3 had more life in the music, more depth in Van's voice. You could hear the instrumentation more clearly, what it truly sounded like where it was placed and yes their are female backup singers."
"In my opinion initially this mp3 had a little more lower bass but only in the beginning .Otherwise it was dryer less lifelike"
When I compared the Merrill-Scillia and the Monaco, I ended up preferring the Monaco's bass performance and rhythmic certainty, and the Merrill-Scillia's smooth and rich harmonic presentation from the lower mids and up.
I should also add that John Atkinson went to listen to the Monaco at RMAF and was "more impressed than (he) was expecting."
By all means go listen to it. It is a great turntable and I didn't mean to imply anything less, but it does have a personality as do most audio products and while it will be to some people's liking it won't be to everyone's. So be sure to listen and listen beyond your first impression!
