Out of production reference turntables

I should perhaps clarify "tuneless." In hindsight, it's a bit over the top...

When I heard the Rockport it SOUNDED fantastic. It was wonderfully neutral, even, extended, and stable. But it did not separate musical lines as well as the Goldmund--on records I've engineered and produced, it was more difficult to separate, for example, the bass guitar from the drums than it was on the Goldmund. The Rockport did a better job of separating them in space.

The Goldmund, for me, remains the very best turntable I've heard. I just wish I could afford one.

Oh, Mike--ad hominem comments are always fun, but really, they say more about the speaker....

Best,

Bob

Naimfan,

Interesting observations.

The Rockport seperated instruments better in space. That implies superior reproduction of the time domain. Perhaps due to better speed stability?

The Goldmund seperated instruments better in timbre or tonality. That implies superior reproduction of the mix of frequencies that gives each instrument its unique voice. Perhaps due to better control of the spurious resonances that can muddy clean stylus tracing?

All speculation on my part, since I haven't heard either table. But maybe useful to D.H., who's also trying to audition these tables without actually being able to hear them.

Dear Bob: The experience that you are sharing with all us ( Tks ) is true only and only if you hear both turntables with the same audio system, in the same room and with the same tonearm/cartridge combo. Other way it's only a irresponsible " fun ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Bob, any generalized putdown like "tuneless"......especially based on a brief, totally unqualified and nonspecific experience......begs for an 'ad hominem comment'......don't you think? if you take cheap shots you gotta be able to handle the blowback.

being critical requires specifics to be credible. are you saying that 'all' Rockport's are 'tuneless'? how brief was your experience with the Rockport? was the Rockport in a system with another tt to compare with?

in any case, you clearly know your stuff and i don't want to make a bigger deal here than is reasonable. i have a few Naim fans as friends and i mostly like what they like......but they definitely have a particular perspective on things.

as a multiple Rockport tt owner that has owned a few other tt's i certainly have my biases too.

Mike--

Fair points all. "Tuneless" was not one of my better efforts at diction!

Gotta agree on "they definitely have a particular perspective on things..." But then, everyone does... n'est-ce pas? And no, can't agree on ad hominems being justified....

Anyway, the Rockport I've heard belongs to a family friend in northern NJ. When I've heard it, the system (if I'm remembering right) was the Rockport, a Lyra Parnassus , Aesthetix Io phono preamp (among others), Levinson something or other mono's (20.6?), and more speakers than you could shake a stick at--Watt/Puppy, Sonus Faber Extremas, and so on. (I liked the Extremas the most, FWIW)

My take on the system as a whole remains the same--brilliant sonics, but not as "engaging" as others I've heard. Definitely the lowest noise floor of any TT I've heard. Substituting a Roksan TMS raised the noise floor, and diminished the sense of space and spatial separation, but improved the "engagement" factor. Granted, different arms and a different Parnassus. The TMS just sounded more....propulsive, if that makes any sense. The TMS also made it easier to tell if the players were having fun, playing together, etc. Why? I have no idea, esp. since the Rockport was clearly resolving more info.

In any event, back on thread, I'd say either the Rockport or the Goldmund would be a worthy reference table. Haven't heard the Forsell, so can't comment. And I stand by my remark on the Oracle--having owned one, it doesn't belong in the conversation.

Best,

Bob