Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH


Anyone read Fremer's review of the Grand Prix Monaco in the latest Stereophile?

Ouch that has to hurt. I am familar with the design of this table, and of course on paper it seems groundbreaking, but if I were in the market for a $20K table, (I'm not) this review would completely kill my interest in this seemingly stellar product.

Any other opinions?

(actually this is a great issue of Stereophile - lots of gear I am intersted in)
emailists
Grooves. re: your accelerometer test. A three axis accelerometer would be capable of measuring both airborn and structureborn noise at the same time, but you can also just move a single axis acceleromter and make corrections for the published difference that Bruel and Kjaer notes for axis discrepancies , which by reading your report I am assuming you did. As a consultant and test equipment provider on way more structureborn and airborn vibration testing than I ever wanted to be, I can concur with you that a shaker test tells only part of the story. On measurements of transformers designed for nuclear subs, truly, as you suggest, lateral displacement is not the defining problem. When you add the effect of airborn noise (ie driver output) on a phono cartridge with sensitivity in the millivolt range, and complex air and structurborn waveforms that are arriving out of phase on all axises,( the same signal arriving at the speed of sound in air, while also arriving at the speed and r at a different time depending on the flooring, adding the flooring resonance) one can definitely theorize that more than lateral shaking should make for a better test and hence, product. However, one manufacturer I spoke with who sells his racks for upwards of 5k each considered $750 for a precision accelerometer and charge amplifer way too much of an investment. Kudos to Monaco for at least attempting to make some scientific, repeatable measurements. They, at least can prove that there is some definable, measureable resonance and vibration control on their stand although pseudo-random shock testing would most probably be the way I would start. (read footsteps and broadband) Good for you for taking the time to make some measurements and sharing them with us as well. Me, I am like the carpenter who comes home and doesn't fix the kitchen cabinet until I end up sleeping on the couch ;)

Cheers,
chris
Triode
To take the alternative view, for an owner of the GPA to achieve this "harmonically ripe" sound, one could simply acquire a Koetsu, perhaps a RSP, and match it with an equally competent tube phonostage and you would feel any lack of harmonic development, nor will your wallet be so challenged.
Triode, did you hear the "singing diva" on the GPA Monaco MP3 in the background? It may explain some of it, LOL!

One thing IS apparent, listening to an MP3 on a cheap PC, is NOT a professionally accepted way of auditioning (anyone, correct me if I am wrong here) $20-120k components.

But seriously, there are many more professional reviewers (Bolin, Weaver, Merod, Ebaen, Jensen, Abbate just to name some) that did not report over the past few years what MF heard from the GPA rack he used for his review. Which means that something else was not right...??? What could that be??? Maybe room acoustics???

Which in turn means that the detail setup and testing of components by professional reviewers, as experienced as they may be, is not an exact science and is DEFINITELY NOT AN EASY JOB. Maybe MF consulted for a second opinion with his collegue Mr Bolin, who gave the rack an excellent review 5 years ago without finding it singing like a diva?

Mr Grooves?
Wow! Now we can compare two state of the art turntables with an MP3 file sent by e-mail. Thank goodness for the internet. Just think about it, I can have a dealer set up two systems, send me an MP3 of the systems via e-mail and purchase the better one without ever leaving my home to actually go LISTEN to the products. You're on to something Mikey! Look- I know you actually tell people to go listen, and some people such as Triode are smart enough to actually go and listen, but enough of trying to validate the results of your review by e-mailing people an MP3 file. There are just too many variables to make it a “credible” process.

With respect to you last post, there are a couple of obvious questions that struck me. How the heck did you know what you were measuring with respect to the stands and armboards if you are not an engineer of any type? (Kind of like me playing with an EKG machine and telling people their heart is in trouble.) I thought JA did all the measuring for Stereophile? Did an outside party come in and guide you through the process? If so, shouldn't you disclose who they were and if they have any affiliations in the industry? Did you ever use the Monaco on another stand or put the Merrill on the Grand Prix stand to see if it was really the possible cause of some of the faults you heard? Did you ever discuss these results and the measurement procedures to obtain them with Mr.Lloyd? I'm sure he'd like to know that his stands "sung like a Diva". How can you reject his methodology for measuring his own stands and validate your own methodology and want to send out the results via e-mail when the whole procedure appears suspect? If you want to review "honestly and completely", then disclose the entire measurement procedure or don't mention it at all. Anything else is disingenuous since you've reached your own personal conclusions from this process on how the turntable sounds.

I really look forward to reading your columns every month Mr. Fremer, honestly, but you really lost me with this one.
Yes the Cosmos IV is a great table(I own one),and it has gotten amazingly good,and well deserved press(see latest rave in "10 Audio").What I like about MIke's coverage(in general)is the exposure to newer product offerings.
Best