Wave Kinetics NVS Turntable - Stereophile Review


For all owners, there is a good review in this month's stereophile - table reviewed with the Telos arm and with a Kuzma 4Point. Framer gives the nod to his Caliburn but a close call.
vicks7
Dear Peter: Electronic design has several mathematic modeling computarized tools for circuit design and layout circuit design. We used those tools as a tool for our design and to help avoid errors/mistakes on the circuit/layout design but all those tools does not predict how the design will sound but could help to predict how it works at electrical level under different circumstances and how well works the different circuit stages stand alone and as aprt of the whole design. Yes, it is a useful tool to start with an audio item electronic design but as I said it is only to start.

The whole electronic design is more complex because it is not only dependent on the designer skills/knowledge but dependent on passive and active parts where even that two similar parts that measure exactly the same performs different and this fact makes " things " a little complex and time consuming.
No we don't designed at " blind " we use several tools and made it several tests of almost any kind.

Some famous electronic item designers as J.Curl choosed a very wise/clever road to design: he meet/asociated with other persons to design and build audio electronic items. He did it with that CTC Blowtorch phonolinepreamp where he was the circuit designer, C.Thompson the circuit layouts and B.Crump the test and parts selection.
Today he did it the same with his new electronic design audio items: Constellation Audio amplifier, line stage and phono stage. He joined other three experts to the whole design, now he only needs a good marketing manager.
Try to be surrounded with other designer experts is an alternative to design in better way when we have no " references/tools " about.

TT/tonearm design is a mechanical design a " mechanical circuit " against an electronic circuit. I'm not a TT designer or an expert about but from my ignorance level I don't know or I'm unaware of the existence of similar tools as with the circuit electronic design, at least I don't know it.

This TT " mechanical circuit " for me is almost unknow and I think that with out those modeling tools is almost impossible to know if the final product meets the design targets in an abjective manner. In electronic circuits we have several kind of references on how any part perform, each circuit part has the whole manufacturer specs with tolerances and limits for the part stay stable under any playback electrical/temperature scenario to performs at its best.

In the " mechanical circuit " we have almost nothing about we have almost no references to evaluate the operation and performance design.
Examples: which target can we choose on a TT design for S/N ratio or wow&fluter or platter weight or whci build or blend material we must use?, 100db is the right spec for S/N, why not 60db 04 75db? 0.001% on W/F is the right " figure " or is enough 0.28%? which kind of vibrational energy ( coming from every where but mainly inside the TT. ) and at which " output levels " must be avoided in the TT design because the cartridge take it as part of the recorded grooves and will be amplified? how and at what level have we to stop/disappear the self TT vibrational energy feedback, how ? why aluminum or acrilyc or steel or brass or which kind of blend TT build materials are the ones that fulfil the targets at each circuit/stage in the whole TT mechanical circuit? how to handle and stop the vibrational energy generated between the stylus/LP and TT platter and its feedback? 3.0kg. on the TT platter is right or we need 200kgs and why. We really need that crazy weight, in favor of what? is it true that more mass/weight produce or could produce higher vibrational energy to deal with?

I think I have more questions than answers. Another problem with mechanical circuits as the TT and tonearm is that are not stand alone circuits but that are " slaves " of the cartridge and it is this intimate relationship the real " trouble " to success.

I don't know what you expected from what I could answer to you post. There are several subjects around there almost endless to post about and as I said I'M not an expert on TT but I know some TT experts/designers are reading this thread and could be healthy to everyone that they decide to put some " light " on the whole TT subject posting here.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, I see your point. One "truth" is the 25th row center at the Boston Symphony Orchestra. If that is one's reference, we have still quite a way to go with our music reproduction systems.

Regarding the NVS turntable: Has anyone tested its speed accuracy with a Timeline? Can one adjust the speed if it is slightly off? It seems that at a minimum, Fremer could do this for his readers. Assuming it is truly a state of the art DD table, it would have to have perfect speed and that would be a huge marketing advantage over other drive types, I would think. But I don't see this stated in reviews or in advertising. This is one objective measurement of turntable performance.
Peter, one thing I've found re speed stability/accuracy in belt drive versus DD/idler/rim, is that in belt drive it can fluctuate over the course of a few seconds due to stylus drag/groove modulation, whereas with many of the non belt drives I've auditioned, and esp. my direct rim drive, there appear to be no/minimal fluctuations over the course of quite a few minutes, but some speed drift day to day, perhaps due to enviromental factors which can be eliminated by adjustment of speed at the start of a listening session.
Still can't find a link to the NVS review.
Dear friends: +++++ " Framer gives the nod to his Caliburn but a close call. " +++++

Reading carefuly the Onedof and NVS reviews IMHO today MF knows for sure that both TTs outperform his Caliburn.
He wants that we believe that both TTs have some " trouble " to even the Caliburn that for him is a " perfect " TT!!.

Why not to think or see the other way around: that the Onedof and NVS TTs have lower distortion/coloration that he seen as a " trouble " in both when he likes the higher Caliburn distortions becaquse that better dynamic/alive in the Caliburn could be distortions/colorations that are not well damped in the Caliburn design.

I don't heard the NVS yet but I don't think for what the owners posted here that the NVS has any kind of dryness as MF wants that we see the NVS quality performance level ( with the Onedof the MF objections seems to me has the same " defense " attitude for the Caliburn. ).

Even that the Onedof showed a better speed accuracy/stability than his Caliburn he write a fast excuse about telling: " that his unit is an early one and that he knows that in today units changes were made about ".

Onedof and NVS are more accurate than the Caliburn ( at least on spedd. ). Why MF can't think that that critical fact is a problem with the Caliburn performance against " perfect " TTs as the Onedof and NVS?

After all those years MF is still writing for rooky/newbie audio readers, his mistake.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
IMHO MF Caliburn early unit or not has no single excuse about speed accuracy/stability for those 140K+ dollars!!!!!

and he writed what for me has no common sense coming from a " pro " reviewer: " that due to of-centered LP spindle hole the accuracy on speed is not so important ( something like this. )..." How any one but MF could speaks in that way?

I forgot, in the constant Caliburn defense he writed on the Onedof review a sentence about the unique Onedof TT bearing:
"""" A few years ago,MD ( then with Continuum Audio labs, showed me a prototype for a similar bearing designed for Continuum.... ".
I don't think that trying to diminish the main Onedof design characteristic is a way to make honest not biased reviews.
The Caliburn not needs that kind of " help ", the Caliburn has its own merits with and with out MF " help ".

R.