Is the Teres a

Doug, Joe, Larry, Thanks for the kind words. It's certainly a nicer and more honest ego boost than any review from some mag. Teres Audio is a for profit business, but my primary motivator for running the business is rewarding interactions with customers like you guys.

George, Yes the Quattro takes what came out of the Teres project to another level. But so does the Teres 150, 160,245, 265, 320 and 340. All of these tables are vastly different from the original Teres project incarnation. But it is incorrect to assume that the Supreme and a 340 sound similar or that they would get the same rating. You point out that both are suspensionless and high mass. Of course all turntables that share those characteristics will have some similarities. However, the material differences (hardwood vs. aluminum) have a huge impact on sound. I know what these materials sound like. An aluminum turntable simply will not sound anything like one made from hardwoods.

It interesting to note that in recent comparisons between a Teres 340 and a 320 the contribution of the aluminum rings and feet in the 340 can be heard. As a result we are evaluating a 340 where brass has been substituted for all of the aluminum parts (not to mention a new 60 lb. platter). If all goes well it will be shown at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest.

BTW: the Quatro Supreme platter weighs 32 pounds. The base is 75 lbs (vs 95 for the 340).

Chris

Guys,

Yes, I made my own. But, I used the Teres design, acrylic platter, bearing, motor & controller, clamp, and battery pack. The main difference between mine and a stock 245 is the plinth. I also built a sub base a la 340, but it is not connected the way the factory one is. It basically serves as a high mass (maybe 30# Brazilian rosewood ((Madura)) shelf for the TT. Oh, I also went to VHS tape, and for some strange reason I like it better than the mylar.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing my plinth sounds better than the "standard" one. I have 25 pounds just in lead shot in it & the arm board. There is also a solid piece of Macassar ebony inlaid (structually, and for sonics, not just for cosmetics) in to the top. It is also at least an inch thicker, and wider around the exterior shape of the plinth. Also, the arm board is solid ebony with lead loading. I also have a couple of other armboards in the rotation.

As far as the weight of the two companies' platters go, each is arrived at in a different way. Teres: Wood. Quattro Supreme: Metal & Teflon. Both use lead loading. As we all know, there are different sonic outcomes to each approach.

I guess my personal opinion (yes, my PERSONAL opinion} is that the Supreme is one butt-ugly piece of work. I have not heard one, and it may sound exceptional. But, if I was going to dump six grand on a TT, it would be a Teres. I don't even really like the acrylic plinths compared to the wood Teres, but I still bought 2 of them in a moment of weakeness (I love that sale page)!

Sure it would be nice to have it raved about in Stereophile. But the day I ever let that influence me over the informed opinions I've learned to trust here on the 'gon is the day I buy Bose.

BTW, Larry: Very well stated! I won't miss the next time.

Joe

All,

It's my humble opinion that passing judgment on construction materials (wood vs. aluminum) is the equivalent of judging a vacuum tube outside of its circuit context. It's impossible to come up with any valid generalizations.

One might ask why I love the wooden arm wand on my Schroeder Reference and yet do not use wood in my 'table designs.

Simply stated, tonearms present entirely different challenges to the designer, with the most limiting materials constraint being that of controlling effective mass. Quite the opposite circumstances apply in turntable design, where you can turn mass into your friend if you do it intelligently and damp it properly.

The beauty of this situation is for the consumer. Since Chris and I follow the beat of different drummers, our products are different as night and day. The choices are aesthetic ones - both visual and aural. You will never be all things to all people, and it's foolish to try.

In a fair and thorough comparison, I'm confident that both Chris' and my best effort would handily relegate many of the S'phile Class B and Class A components to the trash heap. I'm hearing this from my customers, and I've performed demonstrations which have proven this to me. I'm sure that Chris has had the same experiences.

I'd really get a kick out of an after hours comparison at the Rocky Mountain Audiofest next month - involving perhaps a Galibier, Teres, Basis, and Clearaudio. I doubt that Chris and I would get any takers for such a session, because Basis and Clearaudio have nothing to gain. However, if enough attendees request such a session of one of the large exhibitors running Basis and Clearaudio (hint, hint), it could happen.

Regarding Art's review with respect to PRaT (and color for that matter), if you read Art's review of the Graham Robin from last year, you'll note that he is describing the Robin tonearm when he describes the Supreme. This becomes clear when he writes of his brief experience with the Schroeder Reference.

Truth be told, I didn't know that Art would get the article to press so quickly. The intent was to have him work through the Robin, RB300, and his Naim Aro. I was in the process of trying to hunt down the Naim rep to get a mounting pattern for Art's (quirky to say the least) arm of choice. The day I received the draft of the article was the same day I received his Rega armboard from my machinist.

None of this is to make any excuses, and my expectations were realized by getting Art (a low-mass kinda guy if there ever were one) to get all hot and bothered over my rig. Did I expect to convert him? Not in a million years.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi NGeorge,

I'll suspend the Teres love fest (temporarily of course!) and address a couple of your followup questions/points:

---
"What I'm saying is that it would be great for the everyday guy (who's part audiophile, part insecure audio geek and part know-it-all) to read about his gear, in this instance, a turntable, on the pages of Stereophile."

I've only been involved in the higher end of audio for a couple of years, and in high end analog for 13 months, but I can say with a complete lack of insecurity (and a wealth of know-it-all) that Art Dudley's credibility as a vinyl components reviewer leaves much room for improvement.

In May he reviewed the ZYX R1000 Airy cartridge, which I own. He did a commendable job but he missed some things due to the limitations of his equipment. He made other errors due to his oft-stated preference for components with something called "PRaT", an error he apparently repeated in his review of the Quattro.

His equipment-based errors in the Airy review were caused primarily by the tonearms he used: Ittok, Ekos and whatever flavor of Rega is on his P3. None of these arms has a particularly credible height adjustment. The Airy has a microridge stylus that is sublimely sensitive to VTA. On my rig, arm height changes as small as .007mm make the difference between the Airy sounding "nice" and sounding astoundingly solid and dynamic, precisely the attributes AD said he missed in the Airy. The arms Mr. Dudley used are simply incapable of being adjusted to get the most from this cartridge.

FWIW, I'll add that reviewing a reference caliber cartridge on a Rega P3, as Mr. Dudley partly did, is rather like reviewing Z-rated racing tires on a Jeep Cherokee. There's nothing wrong with my Cherokee, but it's no Porsche 911.

AD's oft-admitted preference for components with "PRaT" virtually disqualifies him for reviewing reference quality components IMO. Pace, rhythm and timing are - or ought to be - provided by the musicians, not the reproduction equipment. If AD likes colorations that's his privilege, but he shouldn't go parading them in public while masquerading as a high end guru. That deceives the people he's supposedly serving. (I'd retract the above if by "PRaT" he simply meant that the Quattro failed to maintain rock steady speed during dynamic passages, due to stylus drag for instance. I doubt that's the case however, particularly since there's no reason to believe his LP12 would do any better and every reason to believe it would do worse.)

There is much wheat among the chaff in 'Stereophile' reviews. AD's Airy review contained many commendable insights along with the errors I mentioned. Unfortunately, the people best able to sort the one from the other are the least likely to need the review. :-(

---
"...both the Supreme and Teres 340 share the same philosophy: no suspension, mass based. The Supreme's platter weighs 75lbs (!) against the 37 lbs for the 340.

Is this the way to go? As heavy as it should be to be a good turntable?"

All other things being equal I suppose that might be so, but of course they never are. CB already pointed out the many significant differences between a Galibier and a Teres. It's more than just mass: 75 pounds of aluminum/teflon/lead are not necessarily 2.027x better than 37 pounds of cocobolo/jatoba/lead. Different materials handle resonances differently. In addition, no turntable I've heard of has a motor controller that equals the Teres. Every other controller regulates the speed of the motor. Only the Teres self-regulates the speed of the platter, which is what really matters of course.

Oops, I'm back to the love fest. Oh well!

Thom:
I very much appreciated your post, both in message and in tone. I was not planning to attend the "Rocky Mountain High" but if the comparison seesion to which you refer can be realized, I'm there. It is something I'd PAY to hear!