Nottingham and Teres comparison

i auditioned a spacedeck before settling on my teres 255. (soon to be 265 - platter on the way)

i thought that the teres had better detail, extension, and timing.

the spacedeck, surprisingly to me, had slightly better overall dynamics. (hopefully the new platter will bring it up to the level of the nottingham)

they are both excellent decks, but i found the teres to be the more satisfying of the two.

I dunno, I think, and I'm sure some will disagree, that to truly compare tables you should listen with the same arm/pickup combination.

I guy I know locally who has run a mostly analog shop for many years and knows the guys who designed the Teres did an after-hours comparison for a bunch of us recently. He got a 255 for his personal comparative purposes. Doubt you'll find another dealer who will PUBLICLY do such a comparison lest he lose business to this fine table that is sold direct.

Anyway, we compared the 255 to a Clearaudio Champion, 'Not Spacedeck, 'Not Hyperspace, and a Michell Orbe all using an Origin Live Illustrious and a Shelter 901 run through very high end Air Tight stuff and an Aesthetix IO phono stage. He said he picked these tables because they facilitated a quick exchange of the arm/pickup combo and because the other four were the best selling tables in his "upper-mid" market. Even at that, we were there all night and into the next morning light.

With out boring everyone with details (though there are many), we all generally thought the Hyperspace and the Teres were neck-and-neck, then the Spacedeck, a handful of cat's whiskers back (but not as far behind as one might think based on price), then the Michell a good bit farther back, and finally the Clearaudio. A couple preferred either the Teres or the Hyperspace and a couple ranked the Clearaudio over the Michell (though I was definitely NOT one of those).

In any case, this was not a fully controlled comparison, to the extent that such is possible, but it was a rare opportunity (at least for me) to compare tables (especially with the Teres involved). Tweaks, DC motors, cables, platters, etc. will result in differing performances, to be sure.

To me, the Teres was very detailed but, at the same time, analog "involving". I would take issue with those that would claim the Teres lacks in dynamics - it's a GREAT table in virtually all respects.

I guess all of this babbling leads me to me point. Try the tables YOURSELF, if at all possible. Do not base your decision solely on what I, or others, might say. Use YOU ear and buy what sounds best to YOU.

Sorry, the mention of the Teres 255 does not really address your question with respect to the 135 or 150, with which I am not familiar. If you decide to go the Teres route, I'm sure Tom (Twl) will be of great assistance to you with any questions or issue you might have.

My recommendations would be that IF you decide to go with a Teres TT, then get one of the models with the wood base. I feel that is one of the most important aspects in improving the sound of this brand of TT, over the acrylic base 100 series. All the Teres models are good, but there is quite a large improvement in the wood base models, and I recommend starting there, and staying away from the acrylic base models, unless there is an extreme budget crunch, and you should even then plan to upgrade to the wood base ASAP.

4yanx, that was a very enlightening report of the comparisons of those tables you mentioned. I'm glad to hear of reports like this, because there is still not enough info going around about how the Teres fares against the other better quality tables out there. Thanks for reporting that.

Also, bearing in mind that the Nottingham tables are well known for providing excellent performance at the price, I feel that both they and the Teres have shown that they are in the "giant killer" category. I'd say as the Teres retails for about $1k less than the Hyperspace, it is still tops on my "high value" list. But you have to look at that Spacedeck at retail $1700 as a great deal too.

I just shows that excellent analog performance does not have to cost "an arm and a leg".