Is the Teres a

Well gee, at least I notice that some are paying attention! I would point out that nowhere have I ever written that PRaT is the ONLY factor to consider in reviewing or evaluating a turntable, but it IS the Prime one. I also write often about detail, dynamics, tonal accuracy and imaging. Extrapoplating I would assume that Art Diudley has never done so either. PRaT is the MOST important factor, since the sense of musicality arises from PRaT, or timing or whichever facet of correct speed you want to talk about. By this I mean, if one has to accept less than perfection and sacrifices must be made, where does one make the sacrifices? I submit that musicality (PRaT) is the one thing that must NEVER be sacrificed. I would also point out that correct timing (PRaT), IS "speed stability, wow and flutter" and the more stable the speed the better the PRaT will be. This is my whole point in my Lenco Experiment, and yes, the Lencos are far superior to the Linns even in my beloved PRaT, though if I didn't have a Lenco which in addition to PRaT also produces world-class detail, dynamics and all the other audiophile paraphernalia which is wrongly placed ahead of PRaT, I would live with a Linn, Roksan or other 'table which places musicality (not simple "smoothness" and information) and thus timing at the top of the heap. The better the speed stability, in addition, the better the information-retrieval, imaging, cartridge tracking (and thus improved sonic performance), "gestalt (musical piece being presented as a piece/whole and not a collection of disparate parts).

Atar1 also assures us that since he cannot afford the top-of-the-line pieces he is in no position to judge - "All of these turntables, including the Quattro, are so far beyond my budget it would be like asking me which exotic sports car is the best in the world by having me read reviews about them" - but then goes on to sing their praises. Based on what, their enormous price tags? Let us bow before these Mighty Creations as they have ludicrous price tags far beyond our reach. These 'tables have all been criticized in various ways, many of them for lack of musical involvement - the SME 30 for one - and whatever strengths they might have, it means nothing if they don't draw you into the musical magic (and not simple HiFi special effects). The reason the Linn still has such a strong following after all these years, even at its inflated price tag when fully tricked-out, is because it is first and foremost a musical turntable, as all turntables should be (but sadly aren't).

I believe that many want to ignore or wish away the issue of musicality, since it can't be designed-for except by the sort of talent we cannot understand or explain (and often by simple accident, or "discovery" which, however, should be recognized and imitated), and which must be recognized. It is far more difficult to trust our instincts and senses and biological and emotional responses (which is what music is all about), than to sit in front of speakers with a check-list: "trumpet clearly audible in left-hand corner, check; echo audible around viola, check; harpsichord audible in right-hand corner, check..." I've said it before and I'll say it again: musicality is not an entirely subjective experience, much as the pundits would have us believe this (so they can sell their over-priced a-musical monstrosities), accurate speed (and by this I mean truly accurate speed, in practice and playing a real LP) being seminal in this regard. If these Big Heavyweight turntables fail to recover PRaT (as any do, I had the Maplenoll Ariadne with 40-pound platter which was less musical than the Athena with the lighter 15-pound platter it replaced), it is because their speed stability is in fact not stable. The heavier platters simply reduce the belt-reaction time (caused by stylus drag which is VERY audible) due to increased inertia, lowering it into the lower frequencies where the timing - or PRaT - resides. The lighter turntables move the speed instabilities up into the higher frequencies, and so lose detail relative to the big turntables, which is why so many audiophiles, trained by the largely detail-oriented audiophile press (easy to describe and look like experts), assume they are superior in every way. The culprit in all these speed instabilities is the belt, being rubber stretches and contracts at frequencies as already described, which is audible. This is why thread drives sound better than rubber-belt drives. But better than these weak little cogging motors and threads aided by expensive band-aid electronics is a well-designed idler-wheel drive with a monstrous but designed exactly and precisely and solely for turntables. Try the experiment to verify my assertions, I've thrown this particular gauntlet down several times over the last year with a 100% success rate so far (even my enemies admitted the Lenco's great sonic prowess and musical power), all are welcome to join and report on the results. Based on my own experience of heavy/massy belt-drives vs lighter belt-drives, I'd hazard a guess that Art Dudley was right in his review, but he committed two crimes: he spoke of musicality as if it were important, and he placed a cheaper product ahead of a more expensive one on musical grounds. I would describe him as a man of courage and integrity, it just happens that only the English still produce classic 3-point suspension turntables which major in PRaT, the 3-point suspension tunrtable being an invention of the American company Acoustic Research. Ironic, eh?

Whether some folks would admit it or not, or whether they'd actually try to disprove it or not, there is a great deal of merit in what Jean has to say. I will not attempt to compare the object of his challenge to any super high-end tables (e.g. a Walker or the like) because I have not done such a comparison myself. But, hey, Albert has a mighty fine Walker and he took the challenge, with a pretty damn favorable overall report, I might add (but not in direct comparison to the Walker, though). I have personally compared a couple of my own creations to a number of what are considered here to be mid-priced tables. Yes, I recognize that PRICE is not an absolute indicator of quality (as I have sadly found out on more than one occasion). However, anyone who has, say, a $2000-$5000 table and is still searching for the MUSIC, you would be well served to give his challenge, well, a challenge before spending another grand on that utopian cartridge or arm. Might not beat EVERY table in this class, but it won't cost you much to find out and I'm wagering you will at least get close, if you let your EARS do the deciding. Of course, it does take a modicum of skills to accomplish and, lacking that, maybe find someone to help. Else, feel free to over spend in comparison to several otherwise well regarded tables! :-)

I will agree that there are a variety of factors that combine to make a turntable PLEASING. I also do not particularly like the term PRAT, because it means different things to different people. It is kinda like some art. You know the old sating - I don't know what it is, but I know what I like. I also know that MUSIC is about MUSICALITY, and I know it when I hear it. Search for it, find it, and enjoy it, regardless of the package! :-)

Of course, this has nothing really to do with a Teres (a fine table) and the subject of the thread, or Art Dudley, a sidetrack in this thread, other than I think his focus on musicality is a good thing (while not agreeing wholly on his reviewing methods).

Regarding the Teres and the subject of PRaT, I was a Linn LP12/Ittok/Karma or Asak owner for about 11 years, worked as the analog set-up man at some high-end shops which sold Linn tables(and others), was taught LP12 setup by Ivor, and probably know something about the subject, based on some experience.

My Teres 245 is better than any Linn LP12 for PRaT. It also is better in virtually all other areas that I can think of. Significantly better.

Regarding the matter of "belt stretch/release" as a "bugaboo" of belt-drive turntables, this is entirely a matter of the belt materials used. While many older belt-drive designs used rubber or rubber-like belts, some now have moved away from that toward non-stretch belt materials.
Notably, the Teres models use a mylar tape belt, which is very non-stretch and provides a wide surface for preventing slip. Tensioning is not a problem. The heavy platter provides enough inertial force to overcome the stylus drag issue, and the DC motor is non-cogging. There is an optical reader with a strobe pattern on the platter, which ensures correct speed during playback. While correction is possible in extreme circumstances, my deck does not make any corrections during the playback of my LPs during the entire side of play. Corrections can be seen by the lighting of the red LED on the motor/controller housing, and it does not light up during play on my deck.

In addition to rubber belt stretch/release problems, 3-point spring-suspended decks add to the problem of the "RC tank" speed control issues, by also getting into motion with the stretch and release of the belt. Unsuspended TTs like the Teres do not suffer from this problem.

With the Teres, the use of a high quality non-cogging Swiss DC motor, a non-stretch Mylar tape drive belt, the heavy platter, and the unsuspended solid base design, all work together to make a very precise speed during the playback of the LP, and virtually all of the problems that plagued the previous belt-drive turntables have been largely overcome.

While I do recognize that the benefits of the high-torque idler wheel drive systems like the Lenco are very good at maintaining the speed during passages likely to produce stylus drag, they are not the only ones which can do this.
However, they are probably the most affordable ones, and that is a good thing.

After all, only 1/2 of the musical information is on the record, and the other half(time domain info - including frequency and PRaT) must be supplied by the speed stability of the deck. The record pressing company provides half, and relies on the consumer's deck to supply the other half.

I like your half and half motto, Tom!

Excellent summary Tom. I've been fighting this battle for the importance of speed stability for a year now! And yes, the two - PRaT and speed stability - are intimately connected. The Roksan mounts their motor so that it can revolve around its vertical axis, so the motor will turn instead of the belt stretching, thus preventing the belt from stretching and leading to better attack and information retrieval. This solution placed them ahead of the then-reigning LP12 and by doing this practically started the whole high-end 'table challenge to the classic Linn formula. I have heard again and again the great PRaT (which by the way isn't a hazy notion, only being so by our habit of saying/writing PRaT rather than Pace, Rhythm and Timing, which is quite precise) of classic 3-point suspensions, and believe that this PRaT is there because the suspension accidentaly (it wasn't intended) mimics the Roksan trick to a certain extent, revolving in the direction of the tension on the belt to mitigate belt-stretch and thus speed instabilities. This discussion of PRaT and speed stability is very refreshing, especially as it relates to music! Just in case somebody misinterprets me (somebody always does), I'm not against expensive state-of-the-art assaults on what is possible in music reproduction, what I'm against is design specifically aimed at justifying high price tags, which is certainly a problem in the high end, and I'm also against placing such things as detail and imaging above musicality and PRaT, by the age-old trick of claiming these things are subjective and therefore unimportant. The state-of-the-art 'table that is also musical is a triumph, but let's not pretend that all such assaults are musically successful, and so indeed successful at all. Vive la music!