$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

Viggen,

The Gyro SE is a great table. Can you tell me a little more about the RS Labs tonearm? Thanks.

First off I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to respond to my analog questions. It's really tough these days to get good help. As you know many audio salons either have no analog setups, or if they do, they may have one or two turntables that are usually what I don't want.

Jphii,

It may be a little strange that I have decided to start with the cartridge, but I believe it's the cartridge that has the biggest impact upon the sound of an analog front end. That is not to say the turntable, tonearm, and phono preamp have no influence because they certainly do. But I feel the cartridge and its requirements need to be considered first, like speakers, before the rest of the analog system can be chosen. For example, the choice of cartridge influences the choice of tonearm. The tonearm needs to have the proper mass to be compatible with the compliance requirements of the cartridge. Moreover, the arm has to match the turntable and work well with it too. So all these components have to be chosen carefully and balanced in order to get the best sound possible.

As to my associated equipment, I am currently using a pair of Martin Logan Ascent loudspeakers with a pair of Cambridge Soundworks Newton P-1000 subwoofers. My amp is the Proceed AMP5 and my preamp is the Klyne Model 7LX3.5. I will have the phono module added sometime soon. The phono module has a fixed capacitance of 150 pF, variable loading from 100 ohms to 47K ohms, and selectable gain of 36, 50, 64, and 66 dB. Also in the near future, the Proceed will be relieved of its two-channel duties and replaced by a bi-amping arrangement, which will include an Adcom GFA 5500 for the woofers and a tubed amp for the ESL panels (e.g., Conrad-Johnson Premier 140, McIntosh MC275 monoblocks, Quicksiliver V4 monos, or Music Reference RM200).

My room measures 28 feet long and 14 feet wide. The listening portion is a 14-foot square. I sit about 10 feet from my speakers, and it seems that a 100 watt per channel amp into 4 ohms is all I need.

As for the type of music I listen to on vinyl, 85% is orchestral classical music and the rest is instrumental jazz.

I hope this information helps.

Twl,

I have looked at the Teres 245 very closely. I like the way that turntable looks; I am a real sucker for aesthetics. But there is no way for me to know in advance whether I will like how it sounds, and I will not have a frame of reference in which to judge it. However, by the testimonials I have seen and by the various posts on this bulletin board, my impression is that it must be a very good sounding turntable indeed, one that I could be very happy with.

I do have one question. It appears that I will have to finish the turntable myself. I am not opposed to that idea, but having to apply the finish to a $2,400 turntable in which there is no dealer markup seems a little too much to pay.

Now I am not trying to cause trouble here; I am just making an observation.

Also, how much sanding is involved and how is the final finish applied?

As for tonearms, I seem to like the SME 309 or Morch better than the Origin Live. What is your take on these alternatives?

To get started with analog, I will choose one of the cartridges from the first group, and maybe upgrade in a couple of years once I have a better understanding what my current cartridge can do and what analog is capable of delivering. So let me look at the choices presented.

I feel the point of diminishing returns sets in very steeply at the $800 price point. I am sure that $300-to-$500 cartridges come very close, but the $800 cartridge delivers that something extra I am willing to pay for. So $800 is the floor, but $1,500 is the ceiling. Above that level, I feel a little uncomfortable spending more.

I put the Dynavector on the list because of a review done by Paul Seydor of TAS. I have never heard the cartridge, but I get the feeling that I would like something with a little more midrange lushness and a little more output, perhaps 0.5 mV.

The Shelter 501 has been well reviewed and is the hot cartridge right now. It tops my list and should work well with the equipment I now have.

The Sumiko is also very good, but I think the Shelter might be slightly better, and certainly not worse. I can only choose one cartridge so the Shelter leads the group.

I was really excited about the Grado. But with its tracking and hum issues I am a little less excited about it now. I have heard the Grado Reference Sonata in the recent past. It did a fantastic job on vocals, but when it can to symphonies, there seemed to be a loss of air and bloom in the upper frequencies and the overall presentation was a little less exciting.

The Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood got such a strong recommendation by Bob Reina of Stereophile, but in the Audio Asylum and on Audiogon the reception has not been that strong. While I am sure it's a good cartridge, I don't see too many people singing its praises. I think the reason might be that anyone willing to spend $800 or more for a cartridge may want a moving coil design and not a moving magnet.

For my upgrade cartridge choice, it will most likely be either the Shelter 901 or the Benz Micro L2.

Dsiggia,

There's no question about it: the phono cartridge is very important, and with the help of everyone here, I am sure the turntable and tonearm I will choose will be more than good enough to support the cartridge.

Soliver,

Thanks for the great recommendations, especially the Hadcock arm which I think is now called the Hadcock 242SE Integra. It costs about $1,250 or so. It is one beautiful arm and I believe there are several arm wands and head shells available.

The Music Maker is a possibility, but it is now at $995. I think the Shelter 501 heads my list at $800, thanks to Twl's review of the Music Maker. I know the Music Maker received three great reviews in the press that I have seen, but I think the Shelter may be more of what I am looking for. I like the MC sound; there's more air and atmosphere when everything is set up correctly.

I am also familiar with the Michell Gyro and the Eurolab from the reports I have read about them. The Michell is on my list; the Eurolab is now only available directly from Europe. But nevertheless, your recommendations have helped me a lot.

Dougdeacon,

Wow, you have a lot of knowledge about analog; perhaps, that is why you have "deacon" attached to your name? You're the man!

Well, the ZYX recommendation is great, but $2,000? That's a little over my budget by $500, if and when I upgrade. I will have to take your word that the ZYX is better than the Shelter 901; I have no basis for comparison. But at that price, what about the Lyra Helikon that everyone seems to rave about in the press? If I go with the Shelter 501, my next step up would be either the Benz Micro L2 or the Shelter 901. That's about as much as I can afford, I think.

The Teres 245 Cocobolo is too much. But I am interested in the Teres 160 at $2,250. With nearly the same (or the same) motor, platter, and bearing assembly, the major difference between the two is the base. Both weigh about 60 pounds, which is a lot. I don't think that I will be able to tell the difference between the two. Maybe others can, but I doubt that I would be able to.

In regards to the finishing, the Teres web site says that it takes only a couple of hours to finish the turntable. Well, I think it would be longer than that. All of the acrylic parts need to be sanded and polished. Then the base needs to be sanded as well, and then a stain or final wood preservative applied. The drying time alone will take at least 12 hours, or more. Then there is the assembly of the table and arm, not to mention the mounting of the phono cartridge, all of which will take some real work. Knowing myself, I would be looking at about 16 hours of labor, or something like that. But in the end, I would have one beautiful turntable.

Twl,

Thanks for your help, and thanks for your review of the Music Maker.

If I buy the Teres, I will be doing the finishing work. I will most likely spray the stain onto the base using a Sata air gun and air compressor. I would use M.L. Campbell stains, which are really great. And for the polishing of the acrylic parts, I wound need to get one of those handheld buffers.

You and I seem to have a similar view about price performance. I like to get the most from my audio dollar. I think the Teres 160 will do that for me, even though it will take some work to finish the turntable and to assemble it. But the experience might be worth it.

When I get the phono section added to my preamp, it will have a maximum gain of 66 dB. When the line stage gain is added, I will have a total of 80 dB. Will that be enough? I think so, but then what do I know?

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the OL Silver, but I like my tonearm to be jewel-like. I know that may seem a little shallow, but then I am a shallow kind of guy! The tonearms that have really caught my fancy are the Hadcock 242SE Integra and the Moerch DP-6, which is not very cheap! The Hadcock sells for about $1,240 currently and the Moerch around $1,890. I know that's a lot of bread, but I don't think I would be happy with anything else. After all, I would be spending a lot of time looking at the arm and lowering and raising it onto countless records. If the thing were too ugly, I might not like what I hear. I now that sounds a bit irrational, but then I am an irrational kind of guy!

Jphii,

Thanks for the offer! I live in Tracy, California; that's the Central Valley, but it's close to the Bay Area.

It seems like a lot of people like the Denon DL 103R and the AT-OC9 ML/II. One fellow on the AudioAsylum Vinyl bulletin board has gone so far as to say that the AT-OC9 is better than a $4,000 Dynavector XV-1! While I am not going to spend four big ones on a cartridge, I have to wonder about the validity of that statement. So what I would like to know is the Denon better than the Shelter 501? Now I don't want to start a cyberwar or anything but that's a legitimate question, I think?

Okay everyone,

This is where I'm at on the turntable decision. It looks like I will be going for the Teres 160 ($2,250) using the Shelter 501 cartridge. It's now a question of tonearms. Which should it be, the Hadcock 242SE Integra or the Moerch DP-6? I would love to go with the Hadcock because it's cheaper and real nice according to the 6 Moons review. But the Moerch is also very nice. Help! Also, is there anyone who thinks the Teres 160/Shelter 501 combination can be outdone by something else in that price range? Any further help would be appreciated! Thanks guys!

Okay everyone,

I have just read all the new responses, and I have a boat-load of questions. But more about that later.

It really seems I don't know what I am doing.

At this point, would it be reasonable for me to assume that the Teres 160 would be a good investment? (Please say yes; it's okay to humor me!?) If that turntable is okay, then I can take the next step -- selecting the tonearm and cartridge.

I do have a weakness for good looking stuff, but if that means poor sound quality or compatibility issues, then I will relinquish my beauty requirements accordingly.

Let's assume I would like to end up with the ZYX R-100 Fuji FS/FC and maybe start with something like a Shelter 501 or even the ZYX R100 H (I read the review. Wow!), what tonearm is going to mate well these cartridges? And let's forget about looks and concentrate on the sound. However, the arm really can't exceed $2,000, and hopefully less. Any suggestions? What about the SME 309? Would it work?

I've got to get back to work; I have a mountain of things to get done today besides worrying about my analog front end.

More to follow...and a very big thanks!

I would like to jump in here, if I may. I would like to keep this discussion friendly and helpful; I don't want this thread to deteriorate into an argument or to have it become personal. Please.

Maybe Dougdeacon is a quick study. He has a great system, he seems to know a lot, and he has helped me. Now, I am no genius nor am I an expert on anything, but Dougdeacon knows more about analog than I do, and I have 12 years of experience between 1974 to 1986. In those years, I did not advance my knowledge very much. I just played records. Now I would like to do a better job of setting up a turntable. I will only have one shot at this for a number of reasons. I don't want to make a bunch of dumb mistakes and lose a lot of money.

I am reading though what has been written here and I am reading other analog threads as well to learn even more.

Thanks

Howdy,

So now we're on to tone controls and tubes. Interesting! Well, count me among those who like those little (or big) bottles. I am planning on buying a tubed amp for my Martin Logans. Heaven knows they need some life, richness, vitality, and warmth so they will sound half-human.

I've got a lot more to say, but first I need to get some work done, and my right arm is also hurting so I got to take it a little easy. Nevertheless, I think I'm getting some where thanks to all the posting being done here. I can say without a doubt that if I didn't ask all these dumb questions, I know for sure I would have blown my analog setup. You know it's not that easy; digital has turned my brain into a basket of a bunch of ones and zeros!

Cmk,

Nice system. I really like your speakers. I mean they almost look alive, or something. I'm sure you get that comment a lot from the non-audiophile types that stumble into your listening room.

I have not considered Schroeder in the past because of price. They make one hell of an arm, and wow is it cool looking. (Sorry Twl!) The Model 2 should make a good match with the Teres; it's listed on the Teres web site as an approved arm. Now the question I have for you is how much does it cost? If it's under two big ones, I will give it serious consideration. But any arm I buy will need to give me flexibility for future cartridge swapping. Right now it's a toss up between the ZXY and the Shelter 501. But I may also want to try a Benz Micro or a Dynavector in the future. It would be financially painful indeed to have to buy a different tonearm for each cartridge. Now it makes a lot more sense why I see a few turntables with multiple arms and arm mounts.

By the way, which cartridge do you use on your Schroeder? How did you go about choosing it?

Soliver,

I appreciate the Music Maker/Hadcock recommendation. If the Music Maker were to be my last cartridge, I just might go for it. But I think I have my heart set on a moving coil. I know that may sound a bit irrational, but there it is. What can I say? But wait a minute...

It seems that the Music Maker is a redesigned Grado Reference without the wooden body. It has a high compliance and a relatively high output of 4.0 mV. The descriptions of I have read in the three reviews of the cartridge tell me that it has a sound similar to the Grado Sonata but with more transparency and detail and a better balanced frequency response. To paraphrase TNT Audio, female voices are natural and sensual, as one would expect from a Grado. Sibilants are very natural and not harsh at all. The Music Maker is a good tracker, has excellent bass and bass articulation, something missing in the Sonata, and is smooth and easy to listen to. TNT goes on to say that it sounds like a really good CD player, minus any upper midrange brightness or coarseness in the upper most registers. 6 Moons concurs and adds that soundstaging is very 3-D and instruments have a slight rounding. Not tinny at all. And Stereo Times, using mystic and even impassioned language, describes the Music Maker as having an uncanny ability to convey the genuine gestalt of the music.

"No single aspect of its sonic performance stuck out. It didn't sound bright and lean, nor mellow and muffled. It didn't sound fast or slow...It just sounded like music."

While such languages pulls at the more poetic aspects of my heart, it does lack a little objectivity in enabling me to grasp the true nature of Music Maker. Also, at a thousand big ones, the Music Maker puts itself in a category close to the Grado Statement Reference and Benz Micro L2 just two hundred dollars away. Having said that, the Music Maker doesn't do the Grado tango nor does it have the Grado hum!

Twl,

If Dougdeacon is the man, then u'd the man of the man! (Well, that really didn't make much sense?)

I do have plans to at least try the Shelter 501 (I hope Dougdeacon ain't readin' this!). So if that's the case, the Hadcock won't work as a one-arm solution. It also appears that the Music Maker, with a compliance of 30 cu, places it in a category apart from cartridges like Shelter, Koetsu, and Denon. Of those three, it would be the Shelter for sure.

"When you start bringing "looks" into the equation, and thinking that performance may not be affected, you are venturing into very dangerous territory."

That's what my friend said about my wife six years ago. Well things seem to be working out between us so maybe there's hope for a tonearm? : > )

As for the Triplanar, its too much on the pricey side so maybe I will have to pass.

By the way, what do you think about the ZYX R100 Fuji? You can e-mail me if your feedback is controversial?

Now, I would like to know how to determine the compliance of a cartridge and the mass of a tonearm? Moreover, how do I match up compliance with mass? Robert Hartley (Now don't make fun of him!) says it's important but doesn't bother to explain how to do the math or where to obtain such information. Nor does he talk at length about matching a tonearm's bearing assembly with the cartridge to be used. Help!

Here's another question: Can the Origin Live Encounter handle both a ZYX and a Shelter? I know you use the Silver version, so that must work well, correct? What about that possibility?

Here's yet another question: You have the Teres 245. Did you consider the Teres 255 with the bird-shot platter? I know the lead adds mass, but is it worth the extra cost and doesn't one need a more powerful motor to spin the added weight?

Thanks for your help.

Dougdeacon,

I didn't know that the tonearm cable should be uninterrupted for higher-quality MC cartridges, like the ZYX. I didn't know that cable breaks would degrade the sound. With the cable design of the Moerch DP-6, how much degradation would result by this design? Would it be a small amount or would it be noticeable by someone like me? The Moerch has the flexibility of interchangeable arms to match different cartridge compliances, but what good would that be if the cable disrupts too much of the fidelity? And do you think the Origin Live Encounter could do double duty by handling both the Shelter 501 and the ZYX?

In regards to ZYX, Robert Levi has done handsprings over the ZYX R100H, whereas Stereophile's Sam Tellig felt it was uninvolving, or something like that. Also Michael Fremer was underwhelmed by the more expensive ZYX R-100 FS, and Art Dudley's response to the ZYX R-1000 Airy S was somewhat lukewarm at best. My concern about the ZYX is that it might be too neutral and may not be involving enough, especially when I think about how neutral sounding my speakers are all ready and may be pushed into sounding perhaps sterile.

No, I don't listen to hard rock, techno, punk, or electronica. I listen to classical music and jazz. I even have a Perry Como recording! (Now how bad is that?) But I don't understand how the Shelter 901 would not be good for classical music or jazz?

Thanks for your help as always!

Dougdeacon,

Let me say that your postings have helped me a lot. And also let me say that I apologize if my last post to you sounded like a district attorney in a cross examination. That was never my intention.

My interest in the Moerch began with the review done by Paul Seydor for TAS, and has continued with the many favorable reviews it has received in the Vinyl Asylum. Nevertheless, the Shroeder, Graham, Triplanar, and SME arms have all been received with even more enthusiasm because they represent the state of the art for that sytle of arm. The Moerch is one step below the best offerings from these companies. I think many would acknowledge that. At the same time, however, it is cheaper while still delivering very good performance, interchangeable arm wands, and good looks. But the Triplanar is a handsome and high-performing arm indeed, maybe one of the best.

In an earlier post, you mentioned that an uninterrupted tonearm cable would provide the best fidelity. That may be true. I was curious how much fidelity loss would we hear? Or maybe it would be something that would completely escape my attention?

Of course I was kidding about not telling you about buying the Shelter 501. : >) I am sure that you won’t be troubled by what my final decision will be.

I must admit it’s downright frustrating that an expensive tonearm is limited to a few desirable phono cartridges. The OL Encounter will work great with the Shelter, Denon, and Koetsu, but not so well with the ZYX. Ahhhhhhhhhh! : > (

My floor is a heavily padded, wall-to-wall carpet over four inches of rebar-reinforced concrete on top of earth. The floor is very stable and solid. My rack is steel and glass and is quite sturdy and heavy. The turntable would be placed upon a double-decker, laminated hardwood base in which sand would be the damping material between the two hardwood boards. The turntable will not be placed between my speakers, but the room will have two self-powered subwoofers. (I gotta get the bottom octave you know!?)

So I either decide up front what cartridge I want to buy and just live with it, or I buy something like the Moerch, which may have a small limitation with its cabling, and then enjoy the possibility of using the arm with a wider range of cartridges.

I would not call the ZYX flawed in anyway, and I am sure Dudley never intended to say that, nor did I read that interpretation. Seemingly, he preferred a cartridge that had more texture, nuance, and layering I believe. He felt that the ZYX very accurately reproduced what was on the record surface with steady neutrality while minimizing surface noise, a very big plus, and while providing excellent tracking. And what’s wrong with that I ask? So it seems that the "house sound" for ZYX is no sound at all while providing a quite ride and very good tracking. I would not call that flawed.

As for Fremer, well he likes a lot more excitement than me. I still get a kick out of Perry Como. (Wait a minute; the nurse is coming with my medication and my light gray Cardigan. Now that’s better.) Who knows how he set up the ZYX or whether his tonearm was a good match. I know he uses a very expensive Simon York with a Graham 2.2 arm.

Dudley also has a fairly tricked-out Linn turntable, if that matters. But let’s face it: the Linn is not better than a Teres 265 with a Triplanar VII! No indeed!

And I guess we can discount whatever Sam Tellig says, right?

>>Despite his abrasive style, I trust Salvatore's ears…<<

I don’t know what to think of Salvatore. I feel he’s too dogmatic, rigid, and iconoclastic for me. Your advice and the advice given by Twl is much better balanced and more objective in a rational way.

>>The 901 does the opposite in a sense. It overshoots on leading edges, which slightly etches the edges of everything and makes it all sound a touch over the top… Very exciting, very detailed, not at all warmish….<<

If the Shelter 901 sounds over the top in your system, how do you think it would sound in mine? I will have to pass on this cartridge. Did different loadings have any effect? Did you try a lower resistance setting to try to soften the top end?

>>I've only heard your ML's once, and that in a shop with a poor setup. Even worse, they were brand new and certainly not broken in. I'll trust your characterization of course. (BTW, do you hear a disconnect between the bass drivers and the midrange/treble. I thought I did but I was only there for a minute.) If the ML's are the slightest bit bright or edgy or tizzy, a Shelter 901 may emphasize that. A Koetsu will round it off a bit. A ZYX will play it pretty much straight down the middle, nothing emphasized but nothing hidden either.<<

The Martin Logans can have a transistorized, metallic, even bright sound if not set up correctly, broken in, or used with the right electronics. I have heard many different models over the years driven by Threshold, Audio Research, Krell, Classe Audio, Adcom, Premier, Spectral, Proceed, McIntosh, Sunfire, and Mark Levinson. Threshold sounded dry, sterile, and lifeless. Audio Research, not the Reference Series, had a steely quality in the upper midrange that gave me listening fatigue. Classe was lovely and sweet, but I got a headache after about 40 minutes. Spectral was even worse: I got a headache in only 20 minutes. Premier was well balanced but very bright, as was Adcom (big surprise). Proceed and Mark Levinson give a nicely warm, well balanced, rich, and nuanced presentation. I can listen to my Proceed AMP 5/Martin Logan Ascent combination for three or four hours with no fatigue whatsoever. The same is nearly true with the Sunfire, which has the most open, transparent, uncolored, and clear sound of any amplifier I have ever heard, but it could use a little more warmth and sweetness to give it a tad more soul. The McIntosh (MC402) was a real stinker. It was warm and overly rich, almost to the point of being diffuse. The bass had a billowing quality, the soundstage was deep but not very wide, and the highs were tipped up with a very rich additive glow that was most unnatural.

Little wonder that the best demos of ML speakers I have heard were with Mark Levinson and VTL.

In my system, I plan to add a tubed amp for the ESL panels and a solid state amp to drive the woofers. I plan to use a passive biamping arrangement with an attenuator affixed to the RCA inputs on the solid state amp to help balance its gain with that of the tubed unit.

As for any discontinuity between the woofers and panels, I have never really detected such a problem, but then the Martin Logan Ascent uses a single ten-inch, aluminum-coated driver with a robust magnet that creates a very quick, tight, and percussive bass. I never feel that the ELS panels are out of synch with the woofers. I only have about 18 months of experience with my speakers with an average listening time of about two hours a day, so there’s always the possibility that I might detect this discontinuity over time.

In your system, I would suspect that the ZYX would fit well with the B&W N803/C-J MF2500A/C-J PV-11 combination. (I Own a PV-14L, so I know a little about the Conrad-Johnson sound.) In this situation, a very steady neutrality would be in the best service of your system’s overall synergy.

I think I will go and watch a movie now. All this typing is making my arm hurt!

Thanks again!

Soliver & Twl,

I will post in a little while. My daughter wants the Internet and we are fighting over the computer. :>(

So I will go listen to some music and tune back in later.

Artar1

Raul,

Have you considered starting a new thread in the amp/preamp section of Audiogon where you might debate amplifier design?

Yes, the signal originating from the source, whether it’s from LP/CD/SACD/DVD-A/cassette/real-to-real tape/etc., is compromised by the components downstream, a loss of fidelity as it were, regardless of whether those components are tubed or solid state. Not only that, the source itself is a compromise, and hence a loss of fidelity compared to the original musical event. And if you take this argument still further, the event itself, if it is amplified music, also suffers a loss of fidelity compared to what could be achieved with acoustical instruments played by inspired, talented musicians in an “ideal” environment, whatever that might be. However, among those who cherish unamplified music, you will not get universal agreement as to which opera house, symphony hall, or recital room will do proper justice to the sound. There is, I’m afraid, an inherent relativity to the quality of music reproduction, not only at the live event itself, but also in the recording process, as well as in the playback equipment – tube or solid state. No matter at which point one chooses to examine the music making process, whether that includes the original creation of the musical score, the interpretation of that score, the recording process used to capture it using either analog or digital means, or the playback equipment in the studio or in the home, everything listed here is open to opinion, interpretation, judgment, preference, bias, and so forth. All of these issues have been thoroughly examined over the past 30 years, and as yet, to my knowledge, no “absolute sound” has emerged, Harry Person notwithstanding.

While it may be admirable to minimize sonic degradation and loss of fidelity in our home playback systems – tubed or solid state – a more practical ambition might be to please ourselves rather than remaining doggedly faithful to the “straight-wire-with-gain” axiom, which usually favors transistors over tubes. No matter how good one’s home system might be, no matter how perfect the room, the music reproduced there is, at best, a facsimile of the original, a facsimile, if one is flexible enough, that could be open to interpretation and modification if one pleases. Why not? Interpretation and experimentation are artistic expressions that give the audiophile the ability to mold the original event, whatever that might have been, into a form that simply pleases him or her. It might not please others, and it might not even please the creator of the original performance, but that is what art is all about, is it not? Art is the process of personal expression, interpretation, and experimentation that may very well lead to something new and exciting. This process is what makes being an audiophile rewarding, stimulating, and personally gratifying. However, when preconceived ideas are applied (e.g., tubes degrade sound), when theory becomes the goal rather than the process, the enjoyment of home audio, in whatever form it may take, is inherently diminished, along with the motivation to pursue it.

>>When we use tube electronics always do a heavy degradation , let see why: when the signal goes through any tube the tube adds harmonics that does not exist in the signal and the problem is not only the degradation of the signal but that that harmonics are at hearing levels, so in this stage the tube electronics works like a " signal generator ".<<

I will submit to you that no matter how a signal is transmitted, no matter how it is amplified, whether tubes, MOSFETS, bipolar circuits, JFETS, and so forth are used, the signal is changed, and the devices being used, whether they are tube or solid state, add their own signature to the sound, which cannot be measured with current means. Moreover, it has been my experience that when passive preamps have been used (or no preamp at all) and the most simple, but elegant solid state circuits have been employed, the sound that has resulted has been the most amusical I have ever heard in my 30-plus years in audio. Furthermore, some of the best performances I have every witnessed, ones that conveyed the emotion and soul of the music in ways that were utterly captivating, have been accomplished quite easily with tubed gear. Interesting, isn’t it?

>>I'm not against tubes, I'm only in favor of music.<<

If that’s true, then why are you posting your views in favor of solid state reproduction in a thread dealing with turntables, tonearms, and phono cartridges? I think maybe you have an agenda that does not correspond with the topic under discussion? You have told us to think about tubes in relationship with the love of music, and we already have. As a music lover, I now ask you to examine your reasons for posting here, off topic, and your efforts in trying to convert some of us, or all of us, to leave the "glowing bottles" behind to embrace the cold, unvarnished realty of solid state.

Hiowl,

You might want to ask Twl about the Shelter 301.

Mrmb,

Thanks for the information. I have bookmarked the site for future reference. I plan to build something similar in the future, and maybe even replace my existing rack. I just have to convince Luda about it. I may also experiment with different damping material. I could try cork or crushed Styrofoam. But sand is a very logical choice, albeit a heavy one. Thanks again.

Twl,

As always, you have provided useful and sage comments about the tubes versus solid state issue. For me, the issue is closed and it's a solved problem as far as my system is concerned. What's more, I agree with you about the choice between the two as being a matter of personal taste. That sure works for me.

Hey Dougdeacon,

Thanks for responding.

It might have been very silly of me to ask you about the loading question. I should have known you must have tried every conceivable resistance, and then some.

The Shelter 901 is now off my upgrade list. If it sounds bright in your system, can you imagine what it would sound like with my Ascents, like perhaps breaking glass or fingernails being drug across a blackboard? These could be the horrors of brightness awaiting me with that cartridge.

You didn’t respond about the sonic degradation that one might expect with detachable arm tubes. Perhaps the loss of fidelity would be small for most people, but for those who have considerable experience, it could be a small problem with top quality, low-output MCs.

I have now made up my mind as to what turntable, tonearm, and cartridge I intend to buy. Any predictions? The answer can be found in a single recommendation that was posted here in this thread.

Before I divulge the answer, however, I would like to provide some data I have collected about some of the popular cartridges that have been discussed in this thread. This data includes cartridge mass and compliance as well as the mass of one tonearm that was discussed here, the Origin Live Encounter (effective mass = 14gm). I have also taken the liberty to calculate the optimal cartridge/arm system resonance frequency from the data supplied by Van den Hul in Appendix 2 of his online question-and-answer treatise about phono cartridges. (Incidentally, I got the web site information from, you guessed it, Twl.) Here is the URL: http://www.vandenhul.com/artpap/phono_faq.htm#a2.

According to Van den Hul, when we match a phono cartridge to a tonearm, it is important to achieve a cartridge/tonearm system resonance frequency between 8 and 12 Hz, with 10Hz being ideal. If the resonance frequency is too low, the tonearm/cartridge may be excited by record warps creating audible distortion and mistracking. If the resonance is too high, the tonearm/cartridge may be excited by bass frequencies in the record grooves. Thus, we should select a cartridge with the proper mass and compliance that matches our tonearm, or to select a tonearm with the correct effective mass that matches our cartridge, to maintain a cartridge/tonearm system resonance frequency between 8 to 12 Hz.

Here's the data:

Cartridge Mass

Shelter 501: 8.0gm
Grado Statement Master: 6.5gm
Grado Statement Reference: 6.5gm
Music Maker III:6.2gm
Denon DL103R: 8.5gm
AT OC9: 8.0gm
Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood: 6.0gm
Dynavector 17D2: 5.3gm
ZYX R-100FS: 5.0gm
Sumiko Black Bird: 9.6gm
Benz Micro L2: 9.0gm

------------------------------------

Compliance

Shelter 501: 9 x10-6cm/dyne
Grado Statement Master: 20 x10-6cm/dyne
Grado Statement Reference: 20 x10-6cm/dyne
Music Maker III: 30 x10-6cm/dyne
Denon DL103R: 5 x10-6cm/dyne
AT OC9: 9 x10-6cm/dyne
Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood: 15 x10-6cm/dyne
Dynavector 17D2: 15 x10-6cm/dyne
ZYX R-100FS: 15 x10-6cm/dyne
Sumiko Black Bird: 12 x10-6cm/dyne
Benz Micro L2: 15 x10-6cm/dyne

--------------------------------

Resonance Frequency

Shelter 501/OL Encounter: 11.3Hz
Grado Master/OL Encounter: 7.9Hz
Grado Reference/OL Encounter: 7.9Hz
Music Maker III/OL Encounter: 6.5Hz
Denon DL103R/OL Encounter: 15Hz
AT OC9/OL Encounter: 11.3Hz
Virtuoso/OL Encounter: 9.2Hz
Dynavector 17D2/OL Encounter: 9.4Hz
ZYX R-100FS/OL Encounter: 9.4Hz
Black Bird/OL Encounter: 9.5Hz
Benz Micro L2/OL Encounter: 8.6Hz

Dan_ed,

I spotted the Aerial 10Ts in your system setup; I just love those speakers. In fact they could be my favorite! Boy am I envious! Drool. Drool. And what a setup you have! Wowy...Wowy!

I just love your rack. Not only is it beautiful, it must be very quiet and absorb all the vibration thrown at it. I just love the birdseye maple and walnut. What a great job!

My current stand is steel and glass. It's okay, but from an engineering perspective, it's not as massive nor does it absorb the energy that your stand is capable of. If I get the time in the future, I would love to replace my current rack with one similar to yours. Keep up the good work!

Viggen,

If my numbers are correct, then the Dynavector 17D2 should work with the OL Encounter. But before you run out any buy the cartridge, you might want to ask others if they have tried the combination. On the other hand, the Dynavector line is featured on the OL web site so it's my guess that the combination will work.

Hi Dougdeacon,

Thanks for the compliment, but you must really thank Van den Hull for making this information available to all of us. All I did was to push some keys on a calculator. : >)

I agree that my calculated values will vary to some degree in practice. Anyone contemplating the OL Encounter tonearm and one of the cartridges mentioned will need to do their own fact checking. Also other factors have to be taken into consideration, some of which have been discussed in this thread, including tonearm construction, quality of materials used, and tonearm bearing type and assembly.

Even though the Grado appears to be a "marginal" match with the OL Encounter, some have said that the Grado does better with a tonearm with a higher effective mass than what is actually recommended by Grado. It seems that a 13-to-14gm tonearm works better than a lighter one, especially if mistracking it to be avoided. One individual in particular uses the heaviest arm tube offered by Moerch in his setup. So the numbers alone don't always tell the complete story. But in the case of the Music Maker III, it appears that the OL Encounter would not be the best combination. This idea has already been tested in practice.

Dougdeacon, how did you guess which tonearm I would be starting with? Yes, I have made my decision, and it will be exactly what Twl recommended in the second message of this thread: Teres 245/OL Encounter/Shelter 501. I will say more about this selection in another post and provide my rationale if that would be of interest.

In posting the compliance figures for each cartridge, it did occur to me that cartridge manufacturers may use different ways to measure compliance. With ZYX, two figures were given, one for vertical resonance and one for lateral resonance. I guess it's the vertical, rather than the lateral, that's more important in regards to footfalls and record warp?

For me, the continuous versus non-continuous tonearm cable debate is now a low priority, now that I will be choosing a tonearm with a continuous cable. Moreover, from the tonearms you have listed, they are in another league from what I can afford. My choice is between the Moerch DP-6 and the OL Encounter, with the OL winning out. Besides, I don't think my hearing is good enough to tell the difference between a tonearm with a continuous wire and one that has a non-continuous cable, with all other factors being equal.

I will try to leave the scissors and soldering iron at home should I find myself in CT. Besides those items are no longer allowed as carry-on items with the airlines. : > )

Funny you should ask about a recording cleaning device. That was the first thing I bought along with a truckload of cleaning material. Thanks to 4yanx (maybe you have heard of him!?), the records I do own now look new! This time around I went about analog "ass-backwards" so to speak. When I was younger, I didn't have the proper cleaning tools, which explains to some degree how it was possible for fungus and mold to damage my vinyl.

While it is true that I am investing a lot of energy into vinyl, I will continue to listen to CDs. My player is a very good one and is emotionally satisfying. However, vinyl is more of a passion and a hobby, whereas CDs are more of a convenience pleasure, like watching TV.

It might be a good idea if I provide the source of the information regarding the effective mass of the tonearm to be used with the Grado cartridge that I have mentioned in this thread. The information came from a question that I had asked on the Vinyl Asylum about the compatibility of using the Grado Statement Master with an Audio Quest tonearm. This was one of the responses I received:

In Reply to: Grado Statement Master with Audio Quest PT-9 Extreme Tonearm posted by Artar1 on August 17, 2004 at 20:21:45:

The Master requires an arm having 12-16g effective mass. This was told to me by both John Grado (in person) and their head designer (phone). I have my Master on a Moerch UP-4 arm with the heavy armtube, which is an excellent mate for the Grado. You should ascertain the effective mass of the Audio Quest arm.

Please keep in mind that I did not call Grado to verify.

Dougdeacon,

You are always welcome at any time! October is a good month in Tracy. It will be ninety degrees today, but it's a dry heat! And while you're here, don't forget to visit the Livermore Valley wineries, if you're into wine. It's fun and not too expensive. Then there's Yosemite and Carmel, although these two destinations are not exactly a stone's throw away! (I sound like an ad in a travel magazine.)

I will let you know when everything arrives. The biggest hang-up now is the money. I have two thousand saved, and more is on the way, but my calculations indicate I will need three thousand more, plus money for the phono stage. Man, this in one expensive hobby! : > (

Not only will I have to be careful about setting up the bearing assembly for the Teres, there is also the finishing phase. While I know the Teres web site claims only a couple of hours are needed, I think this estimate is a little unrealistic. It make take the Teres craftsmen (craftswomen) only a couple of hours, but for someone like myself, it will take longer, maybe a couple of days. When I get the turntable, I will recount my entire experience here, along with any tips about finishing and detailing.

By the way, I recalculated the resonance frequency of the ZYX R-100FS for the OL Encounter and found it to be 10.5 Hz, which is nearly ideal according to Van den Hull.

While I am waiting for the Teres turntable, I will be doing two things: 1) buying more vinyl and 2) attempting to design and build an isolation platform for the Teres. This project will hone my wood finishing skills.

As you are probably aware, commercially available isolation platforms can be quite expensive. I have seen one or two that cost more than a thousand. I think that I can build one for a lot less, maybe only a couple of hundred. Why so much? Well, I plan to use two layers of laminated hardwood, which is not cheap, and I will need to either buy or rent some furniture clamps. After the wood has been cut to shape, I will need to figure out what damping material to use between the hardwood layers. Some have suggested Bubble Wrap to create a poor man's air bladder. While this is an intriguing idea, there are two issues with this approach: 1) it will be somewhat difficult to level the Bubble Wrap because it is not perfectly flat; 2) the Bubble Wrap may deteriorate, or breakdown, over time. My solution is to use sand, and to place the two hardwood layers in a pre-made hardwood box that will accommodate the two layers. Sand is very cheap, easy to use, and will not breakdown. As far as I know, it's a great sound-absorbing material and is easy to level. The only problem I can see is how to keep it perfectly sealed between the various hardwood layers. Maybe I could use some high-quality clear caulking that carries a 20-year warranty as a sealant? I will post more on this later.

For those of you who already have a turntable, you might try what I am visualizing:

1. A hardwood box could be used that has dovetail miter-box corners. It needs to be deep enough and large enough to accommodate the two layers of the "floating hardwood" upon which the turntable will be placed. Naturally the top portion of the box will be open. Only the bottom and sides need to be constructed.

2. Sand could be placed on the bottom of the box, and the first hardwood layer placed and leveled on top of the sand. Caulking could then be applied to seal the sand. We don't want that material getting into the turntable bearing assembly.

3. More sand could be place on top of the first hardwood layer, followed by the second hardwood layer and caulking.

4. The bottom of the box can be equipped with high-quality metal cones, preferably brass. Underneath the cones one could place pucks from Black Diamond Racing.

Obviously I have not worked out all the details, but if anyone has comments they would like to make, please share them.

A couple of people have written to me privately about the current thread. In one message, a concern was voiced about the Moerch not be suitable with the ZYX. I wrote back explaining that the Moerch would be a great match, at least in theory, because I have not tried the combination. Here is what I wrote:

There's probably no misunderstanding at all! Moerch tonearms are great, and not only that, have a wonderful aesthetic appeal, which I find nearly irresistible. And with their interchangeable arm wands, they make a brilliant choice for many analog front ends.

If I were to choose the Michelle Gyro SE or Eurolab turntable, my choice of tonearm would be the Moerch DP-6. With the Teres 245, the Origin Live Encounter may have a slight advantage in creating the best synergy. The emphasis here is "slight." Moreover, there was a discussion in the thread regarding the effects of continuous versus non-continuous tonearm cabling, with the idea that continuous cabling may be preferable in many situations. While I grasp the significance of this assertion, my counter idea is that for some of us, myself included, we may not be able to detect any difference, at least at first. But there are a number of audiophiles who have listened very deeply into the quality of their systems over a long period of time. These people are not casual listeners, and have developed a considerable intimacy and knowledge of all the components in their setup in the same way that some of us have come to know the deepest aspects of ourselves. This knowing is a process that takes time and experience. Under these circumstances, I believe, it does become possible to distinguish the type of cable used, continuous versus non-continuous, and to form a definite preference for the former. I believe I will become one of these audiophiles because it is not uncommon for me to spend hours at a time listening to each and every note of a piano sonata or the ebb and flow of the melodious intermixing of instruments that make up many of the symphonies of the Classical Period.

Under $2,000, there are only a few tonearms that really look and sound great. The Moerch is certainly one of them. In my situation, I am trying to maximize price performance, not only for reasons of cost, but because of my own minimalist outlook toward life. Someone else might have a much different approach to vinyl and tonearms, in which case the Moerch would be the ideal solution. After all Paul Seydor and Robert Green of TAS loved the Moerch when it was paired with the Eurolab.

Do you hear that Doug?

Welcome 4yanx!

Do you know that I tell everyone I know about your vinyl cleaning process? Why its the first topic I bring up at all the cocktail parties I attend! :> )

(I wonder why I never get invited back?)

I am always told, "Why on earth are you still listening to that old record stuff?"

My reply goes something like this, "Well, many CDs sound like high-pitched machinery in need of oil."

That usually gets me one big dirty look as my cocktail-party acquaintance beats a hasty retreat to the buffet line.

4yanx,

Oh no, the Beethoven wars!

Here's a few of my Beethoven favorites:

Beethoven: Symphony no 9, Furtwangler, Schwarzkopf, Angle Records

Beethoven: Piano Concerto Nos. 1-5 (Set), George Szell, Emil Gilels, Cleveland Orchestra

Beethoven: Symphony no 9 / Normandy, Tabernacle Choir, Philadelphia Orchestra, CBS Records

Twl,

I have a question regarding the Denon DL103R and the Origin Live Encounter tonearm.

The resonance frequency of the DL103R on the OL Encounter seems to be 15 Hz by my calculations. Can this be right?

In an earlier post, you indicated that you have used the DL103R on the OL Silver, which has an effective mass only one-half gram less than the OL Encounter, but yet this combination worked well, right?

I think I could use a little clarification because my calculations would indicate a mismatch. Did I miss something?

Thanks!

Joshua,

I am glad you asked me about my decision-making process in regards to choosing a turntable, tonearm, and cartridge. Now is a good time to talk about it.

Before I get started, I think it's important to make it clear that what I have chosen is based upon a subjective, personal decision and is not an attempt to prove, objectively, that my choice is the only one. There are many analog front ends that I find highly desirable and eminently musical, turntables that I can live with quite easily. But I cannot afford tham all. I would like to also emphasize that my decision is NOT an absolute one that has led to the unequivocal Holy Gail of sound. If I have learned anything these past 30 years is that there are many valid and emotionally moving ways to convey the music we love though a careful selection of audio components.

Over the last six months, I have read dozens of reviews about various turntables and tonearms in my own personal quest to find the "right sound." Five turntables continued to attract my attention time and again. These turntables included, in no particular order, the following: Teres 245, VPI Scoutmaster, Nottingham Space Deck, Michell Gyro SE, and Scheu Premier MK2 (Eurolab). This list does not suggest that these are the only worthy candidates available. Today, more than ever, there are so many turntable choices that it leads me to wonder how anyone, especially a vinyl-nubee like me, can make a viable choice? Nevertheless, these five candidates have captured my fancy, and it was from this group I finally picked a winner for me.

Despite a great review by Paul Seydor and Robert Greene of TAS, the Eurolab was the first to go only because I would have to order it directly from Germany, and I would not receive any local service as a result. The Teres offers all the same sonic benefits, I believe, and maybe more, using a somewhat similar design, but in a more beautiful package. If I lived in Europe, however, the tables would have been reversed. (Pun not intended!) I would have been more inclined to buy the Eurolab and would have saved money in the process.

The next turntable to go, even though it received a recommendation from TAS, was the Space Deck, a curious name to be sure. There are many people who own and love this turntable. I am sure it sounds great and offers wonderful price performance. However, I was a little put off by the description of how the bearing oil is added to the unit, and I do not much care for the MDF plinth, which is covered by a simulated blue-black marble coating. I really don't like simulated substances, especially a vinyl coating that is made to look like marble. I know this may sound shallow, but that's how it is. And finally the tonearm most often recommended for the Space Deck is the Space Arm, not a bad pairing actually. With this arm, however, I felt somewhat restricted; I wanted more selection in order to create my own synergy.

The final three decks presented a really tough choice. The VPI Scoutmaster represents the best price-performance leader of the group and received a strong recommendation by Mr. Analog himself, Michael Fremer of Stereophile. The Gyro SE has to be one of the coolest turntables around, and it too has received strong endorsements. The Teres, of the three remaining units, is the class beauty, but unfortunately it is not only more costly, but it has to be hand finished, which didn't sit well with me at first. So for a long time I went back and forth between the Scoutmaster and the Gyro.

Anytime I attempted to choose the Scoutmaster, I congratulated myself on being prudent and cost-conscience. But after a few days, the decision would not stick; I didn't feel I had reached closure. Maybe it was that MDF plinth again, but this time finished in a high-gloss coating. Sure MDF is known to reduce vibration and unwanted resonance, but isn't it really glorified, compressed sawdust: you know, wood fibers and synthetic resins bonded together under heat and pressure? That sounds cheap to me. And then there's that tonearm. If I went for the VPI Aries, I could mount any tonearm of my choice, but with the Scoutmaster I got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the best tonearm would be the JMW-9, which I feel lacks true anitskating. Twisting the tonearm cable doesn't sound very precise to me! Just how many turns are required and where do I make them? Thus, when I couldn't answer those questions to my satisfaction, I would jump to the Gyro thinking that a suspended design was the best way to go, even though some had argued that a sprung deck might be a little more "plush" sounding than a mass-loaded unit like the VPI. Also, the Gryo is not as easy to set up as the VPI, or so I was told.

While I went back and forth between the VPI and Gyro, the Teres kept grabbing my attention. It was that gorgeous rosewood base, that thick dazzling acrylic platter, and that awe-inspiring 50-pound mass that caused me to return to it again and again.

Eventually I had enough of this unabashed wavering so I forced myself to make a choice: the Gyro SE and the Teres entered the final round. At last I was making some progress.

End of Part One...

Salectric,

If there were anyway I could afford a Teres with a dual-arm platform I would, and then the Moerch DP-6 would be placed on the second arm mount. That would be awesome! But I need to exercise a little restraint. This turntable business has gotten me so excited that I can't sleep! Now how strange is that, I ask you? Wow, I need to chill out a little so I guess I will just obsess over the phono stage to distract myself! : > )

Twl,

You know, technical matters are never as simple as they seem, and this certainly applies to the calculation of cartridge resonance frequency.

While I was aware of the two compliance measurements, horizontal and vertical, for a phono cartridge, I did not grasp their significance until you posted. Unfortunately, most tonearm and cartridge manufacturers only provide measurements for the "vertical" plane. ZYX, being the exception to this rule, provides both vertical and horizontal compliance figures. However, I could not find any horizontal measurements for the other cartridges listed in this thread. If I had access to this information, I would have posted it.

Is there anyway to obtain horizontal effective mass figures for tonearms and the corresponding horizontal compliance information for cartridges? And do the horizontal and vertical effective mass readings differ that much for the OL tonearms?

I am in the process of printing out the entire thread relating to the "Strange Tonearm Tweak" that you started awhile back. It looks like a good source of additional information that may prove very useful in my better understanding tonearms and their influence upon the sound.

While I am not trying to become Twl's "Mini-Me," I would also like to use the Denon DL103R as a "backup/workhorse" cartridge as Jphii, Stefanl, C123666, and yourself have recommended. But my cartridge resonance frequency calculations have indicated otherwise, unless I use the "HiFi Mod," which you should think seriously about marketing. So here are my questions:

1) Can the HiFi Mod be used on the OL Encounter?

2) By using the HiFi Mod, will the added weight affect the vertical effective mass figure, and if so, by how much? I realize much of the additional weight is positioned at the tonearm's pivot point, far from the headshell, which means the added mass should not affect the vertical effective mass readings that much. But is this assumption correct?

3) Is the HiFi Mod needed for the OL Encounter to accommodate the DL103R, or will the heavier bearing housing compensate?

4) Can adjustment of the OL Encounter's antiskating force compensate for insufficient horizontal effective mass, or will that simply increase the pressure on the inner groove wall without offering improved tacking and the transmission of musical information/dynamics that may be lost when improper lateral arm movement occurs as a result of the stiff suspension of low compliance cartridges like the DL103R? My guess is the answer is "no."

Thanks!

Twl,

In my last post, I meant to say, "inner- and outer-wall of the record groove" and not just "inner groove wall."

Thanks.

Dougdeacon,

Thanks for the compliment regarding my narrative!

I know what you mean about there not being enough dealers available to demonstrate high-quality analog front ends. I guess we are lucky in the Bay Area because we have the Analog Room. They have a lot of nice equipment, but I must point out that they do not carry Teres or Origin Live. : > (

http://www.theanalogroom.com/

I have two systems. One sits in my living room in an open rack. Luda, amazingly enough, didn't object! She uses that system to play her Russian music and I use it when she is watching Russian TV in the family room where my other system resides. Sometimes I find myself in the living room nursing a glass of wine and listening to jazz or classical music as I await my turn in the family room. Lucky for me the family-room TV will disappear soon and will be replaced by a Steward FireHawk screen. Whoopee! In compensation, Luda gets two, or maybe three TVs!

I wasn't aware that MDF rang like a cowbell! Well, I'm exaggerating a little. All of my speakers are made of it to one degree or another, including the chambers that house the woofers of my Martin Logans.

By the way, part two is coming; I just need an opportunity to write it.

Joshua,

I, too, considered the Teres 150/160. I think either one would be a very fine table indeed, and will place you miles ahead of many other tables you could buy. The differences between the 150/160 Series and the 200 Series have to be small. If I were blindfolded, I might not be able to tell the difference. But someone like Dougdeacon or Twl might because of their considerable experience with analog. Later, if you like, you can always upgrade the tonearm making your analog setup even more spectacular.

You know I am not surprised to learn that you were a little underwhelmed by the VPI Scout. Don't get me wrong; I am sure it's a nice table. But I don't always trust what Stereophile writes. Sometimes what they publish seems a bit political, as if they are trying to buy off or placate luminaries of the audio industry or various manufacturers thereof.

When I get the Teres 245 set up, I will let everyone know how it sounds.

Dan_ed,

Wow, your system is all ready way he-man-like! You could buy a Teres and then you would have two tables in which you could spend the rest of your life trying to figure out which is better. But don't be surprise that the Basis might sound better on one type of music and the Teres on another. This outcome would really drive you nuts. Why, you might even need to make a new rack to house both tables! I know it would be a rough job, but someone has to do it, right? Then you could give us a blow-by-blow description of the shoot-out. That would be great!

Viggen,

Thanks for the information. I found one of the reviews, and I know what you mean. As for the arm not having a damped cuing mechanism, my hands tremble so much that I would most likely end up bouncing the cartridge off the record surface like a basketball. I will have to think about it, but thanks for the tip.

Dave,

Which model do you have and how much is the cheapest one in the Galibier line? They look expensive! But boy are they really cool looking!

Twl,

As usual, thanks for your speedy and complete response to my questions. I appreciate it!

It doesn’t surprise me to learn that there is a lack of published information about horizontal effective mass and horizontal compliance for cartridges. Because I will be buying an Origin Live tonearm and I know it will work with the cartridges I have selected, I am not going to pursue the issue any further.

It’s also good to know that the OL Encounter does not need any further modifications to handle low compliance cartridges. But the HiFi mode still looks intriguing, and it’s good to know that it doesn’t affect the vertical mass of the tonearm.

Come to think of it, the bearing housing on the OL Encounter does appear to be on the massive side, which is a good thing. And I would guess that the bearing housing on the OL Illustrious is even sturdier.

I have one last question if I may. Is the Teres 255 worth the extra $350 to get the lead-shot platter?

Thanks.

Part Two: Progress indeed!

No sooner did I get my short list down to two finalists, an urge to find the best price/performance combination took control, and the VPI turntable, once eliminated, found itself back in the lineup. Then I read a review about the Transrotor Leonardo that had my head swimming in luxury as well as audio debt. All the progress I had made earlier was slipping away. It never fails. Anytime I try to make a quick and well-informed audio-buying decision, bouts of doubt, indecision, unabashed ruminating, and excessive flights of fancy always seem to take over. I was stuck again. Somewhat despondent and equally frustrated, I posted a question on this bulletin board that started this thread over a week ago. But instead of asking directly about turntables and tonearms, I decided to inquire about phono cartridges instead.

Asking about the cartridge first seemed a logical thing to do, and if my memory serves me correctly, Julian Hirsch recommended that approach many years ago, back in the audio dark ages of the early 1970s. Julian reasoned, rightly or wrongly, that after one’s loudspeakers, the phono cartridge affects the quality and nature of the music played through one’s system more than any other component. His argument was based upon the very properties of the cartridge itself in which mechanical energy is converted into an electrical signal, which is then feed to the phono preamp and eventually converted back to mechanical energy by the speakers. It was this electromechanical interface that was the defining element of any audio system, more so than the turntable, tonearm, preamp, and amp. Julian further reasoned that the turntable contributed little so long as it was quiet, stable, and rotated the vinyl record at the correct speed. The tonearm only needed to hold the cartridge steady and track the record grooves in a reasonably faithful manner, all of which could be achieved with a little diligence during setup. And we all know his views about amps and preamps, especially solid state ones, sounding identical, or nearly so for all practical purposes.

What heady and naïve times those were to think that the attainment of quality sound could be so oversimplified to the absurd. Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson lifted this fog of simplicity and ignorance in the underground audio press, which went unread by me unit the late 1980s! There is something reassuring and gratifying, I will admit, in simple (but in this case inaccurate) explanations of complex events and interrelationships, especially those that most audiophiles confront when attempting to assemble a musically compelling system based upon component interaction and synergy. We now know that the turntable and tonearm are crucial to achieving good sound. We now know that achieving this sound is not just a matter of steadiness, consistent speed, low wow and flutter, and good tracking. We now know that the preamp and amp have a significant affect upon what we hear. But this new knowledge was subjective and not quantifiable by test-bench numbers, data often supplied by Julian Hirsch and a few others in an attempt to prove sound quality via harmonic distortion, decibels, and RIAA equalization, data that in most circumstances has limited usefulness for the typical listener.

Nevertheless my indecision was getting the better of me so a novel, but perhaps dubious approach was in order. It seemed logical that if I could identify the “right” cartridge, I could then work backwards to the tonearm, followed by the turntable and finally the phono stage. Yeah! That’s it I thought smugly; I will get my answers at last.

Little did I know that I should have started, perhaps, with the tonearm, one that would allow me to use a variety of cartridges, and then work forward and backwards. There’s more logic in this approach because several in this thread have argued that even a modest cartridge, like the Denon DL103R, could produce dazzling results when mounted onto a very good tonearm and turntable. I was told that later I could upgrade the cartridge, but I would always have the benefit of an excellent turntable and arm. Absurd you might think? “No,” I say, for I have heard a Koetsu Tiger Eye Platinum used with a Denon DP-500MX, a combination that robbed that wonderful cartridge of nearly all of its upper-octave air, bloom, and richness. Why on earth would someone use such a combination? Don’t even ask!

So the tonearm was going to be the deciding factor, and there were only two candidates vying to be number one.

To be continued...

Dsiggia,

Oops, my mistake about the Tom Evans. That's what I get for drinking wine while trying to type a e-post: I get everything all screwed up. While in that condition, why even my Bose Wave Radio sounds good! : > )

I am very encouraged by the number and by the quality of posts being made here. It tells me there is a very genuine, and perhaps spreading, interest in all things vinyl. Just look at the number of very fine quality turntables and tonearms available today, maybe that’s a strong indication of an interest in vinyl that will not die despite the proliferation of the digital format. Turntables are even being used at my daughter’s high-school dances even though CDs still predominate there. Nevertheless, it shows that vinyl is here to stay and has a good chance of growing.

I have to run now. My daughter wants to go shopping and won’t let do anything else until we do. : > (

I guess that’s what I get for being indulgent!

I’m back from shopping at Holister, Co. and Abercrombie and Fitch. My daughter made out like a bandit: over two hundred dollars in ten minutes, half of which she paid! Not bad I say. And she is so happy about her new winter coat. (There is life, I guess, outside of vinyl, but I know it’s hard to believe, right?)

Letch,

Thanks for the kind words; I, too, appreciate your posting here. Your comments are always welcome.

Your choice between the Quattro Alu and Teres 265 will be a tough one, for there’re both fine turntables. I believe the October edition of Stereophile is carrying an article, written by Art Dudley, about the Quattro Alu. I only skimmed the text. I hate to admit that I spent more time drooling over the pictures.

I once had a suspended turntable, but it wasn’t in the same league as the Basis 2001 by any means. However, I did find it very musical, rich, and warm. In those days, you know when the covered wagons made their way west, I had no idea what PRaT meant, and I only discovered the definition for that acronym recently, I hate to admit. But the type of music I like is not full of fury or bombast; it is lyrical, smooth, and melodic. Later I purchased a direct-drive turntable on the basis of a review by Julian Hirsch. Boy did it every sound crummy, but I really didn’t know any better until now, thanks to Twl, Dougdeacon, 4yanx, and others.

In regards to the Nottingham Spacedeck, Luda, my wife, likes it the best of the ones I have shown her, including the Michell Gyro and the Teres 245. She likes the more traditional look of the Linn.

>>I wouldn't say shallow, I prefer to think I'm sophisticated in that way but it wouldn't be the first time I was fooling myself.<<

I would probably be the last one to call another one shallow, but since I like my equipment to look good, I feel a little guilty because the “really hardcore” audiophiles seem to be focused on the sound; aesthetics seem to be secondary. Well they are not secondary to me. Maybe that’s one reason I could never warm up to equipment like NAD despite the following it has gathered over the years.

I don’t take too seriously comments by others claiming to have Teres-killing decks. How would they know without hearing a friend’s unit or buying one for themselves to compare to their “world-beater?” As for Stereophile, I have mixed feelings. I agree: how can they lump so many turntables into one category? Well, the answer is that they try to compare various units on the basis of memory, whim, bias, personal relations with the manufacturer (e.g., the love-fest with Musical Fidelity), and, of course, advertising dollars. (Yeah, what’s up with putting the Graham Robin on the Gailibier? Oh that makes a lot of sense? Maybe Art should have tried something else, or better yet he should have asked the manufacturer for an appropriate arm and phono cartridge.)

If you need more information about the Schroeder Model 1, you may need to talk with Twl. You will have to examine that arm’s effective mass and its bearing assembly to determine whether it will properly accommodate your desired cartridge. Given you musical tastes, you could start with a Shelter 501, and from there you could try different cartridges. Here’s some data about the Model 1 that you might find useful:

1) Torsion-bearing, magnetically stabilized and damped

2) Virtually no bearing friction, no bearing chatter

3) Dynamic damping of the tonearm-cartridge-resonance through induction of eddy currents, adjustable

4) VTA repeatable and finely adjustable

5) Tonearm wands are interchangeable, available in 8.5 – 12inch length

6) Effective Mass depending on the armwand from 5gr – 35gr

7) Tonearm wands/rods made out of carbon fiber, jacaranda, ebony, acacia, bamboo, pertinax etc.

8) Incognito wiring, single run, other wiring upon request.

http://www.soundscapehifi.com/schroder.htm#model1

With different armwand material and armwand weights to choose from, you should, at least in theory, be able to match the Model 1 to virtually any cartridge. But I don’t know about the cabling or the bearing assembly of the tonearm being able to absorb the energy of a low compliance cartridge, like a Shelter. Once again, you will need to ask Twl.

Twl,

I suspected that the lead-loaded acrylic platter was the start of diminishing returns from a sonic perspective when one goes from the Teres 245 to the Teres 255. The two platters may be difficult to tell apart for the average listener in a short, double-blind test, but I am willing to bet over a long period of time the differences might assert themselves. The lead-loaded platter should provide even blacker backgrounds and, as you have suggested, should rotate at a more consistent speed due to the greater platter mass, assuming, of course, the electric motor has the ability to handle the added weight without overheating. I assume it does, for everything about a Teres turntable seems a little on the overbuilt side.

I would love to hear the wood platters, and in one sense they are beautiful to look at. But I have never really been drawn to that design, maybe for aesthetic reasons. Perhaps there’s too much wood, and I like the combination of the wood and acrylic better than an all wood system. I know my reaction is largely subjective, and I can appreciate the added dampening offered by a platter made from hardwood.

If cost was no object, and for me it always will be, I would opt for the latest Teres model, which I believe is the 360. The Teres 265 is too much turntable for me, but I do appreciate the suggestion. When I first began thinking about the Teres, my mind fixated almost right away on either the Teres 245 or the 255. Now that I have had more time to think about it, I am beginning to lean in the direction of the 255. It’s only $350 more, and if I were to upgrade to this platter later, it might cost me more if I were to include shipping. But you are right, at what point does one stop, a very good question indeed! For me, it would be the 255.

>>I think it is prudent to understand the turntable system in the context of your entire audio system. Is the system going to be able to resolve the added improvements in the front end? If so, then any front end improvements are quite worthwhile, if you can afford them.<<

Nice point! You should be an audio dealer! My speakers are very revealing; they let me hear the differences between two different ICs connected between the amp and preamp, so they would reveal the small differences between turntable platters. The question I should ask myself is not whether I can hear a difference, but what significance should I attach to that difference and how much am I will to pay to get it? It’s amazing how most people, while they can detect a difference between X and Y, lose that ability very quickly once they understand the cost of the upgrade, especially if that cost is exorbitant.

>>According to the "rules of analog" the TT is the most important part, then the tonearm, then the cartridge.<<

While I understand this general rule, I am still fighting the old dogma propagated by Julian Hirsch. Without a doubt, if the turntable is faulty, audible distortion will become quite obtrusive as a result of inconsistent platter speed, wow and flutter, rumble, and acoustic feedback. On my previous turntables, which allowed speed adjustment, I can remember increasing and decreasing turntable speed in order to hear the very obvious sonic effects. And these tables had an integrated dust cover that caused very obvious feedback when lowered during play. Moreover, if the table is also of poor design, the reproduction of bass notes will be lacking, and pitch definition will be difficult to discern. On my pervious decks, the reproduction of bass was always a major weakness. Because of what you have just said and my increasing understanding of the importance of the turntable and its influence upon the sound, I am more inclined to opt for the Teres 255. The extra $350 spent on the table will pay the largest dividend.

>>In my opinion, the most limiting item in your analog chain at present is the DL103R. I love the DL103R, and it is truly a great cartridge for the money, but it is not as good as a Shelter 501.<<

You are correct, without a doubt. The Shelter 501 will be in my lineup, but there’s something romantically compelling about a top-performing cartridge that costs about $239! Now I know this is another one of my subjective and irrational positions, but no one has to convince me that the Shelter is better. So I might drop the idea of the Denon altogether for the sake of balance.

I like your concept of “balance.” I think creating a balanced analog system is probably the most important goal. Perhaps, it does matter too much where one begins (e.g., turntable, tonearm, cartridge, and phono stage) so long as all of the final elements in the resulting setup are fully balanced in terms of their ability to work together and in their ability to deliver a fine sonic performance. If one cannot establish a good balance, then I like your idea of starting with the turntable first, followed by the tonearm, cartridge, and then phono stage. This approach creates a solid foundation while permitting upgrades to occur later.

>>That is why I made the selections that I did. I had a budget, and wanted as close to the best as I could afford. Thankfully, there were these high-value options that I could select from, which provided performance that was very close the top and cost in my budget range. I felt the same way about the arm and cartridges that I selected…Sometimes you have to go into the experimental products from smaller companies, in order to get a price/performance ratio like this, because they sell at lower cost to try to break into the market. It can be risky, but it can yield great sonic rewards for the money, if you make the right decisions.<<

Right decisions indeed! With your help and with the help of Dougdeacon and Jphii, I think we are seeing, perhaps, a major reduction of risk in trying products from companies like Teres. Your combined experience not only serves as good testimonials, they also provide invaluable experience. As audio prices continue to climb, as the influence of the Internet continues to grow, and with it, the acceptable of buying goods and services over the World Wide Web, and as long as audiophiles like ourselves are willing to share our experiences through a forum like this, I think we will begin to see a shift away from the Sound by Singer’s of the World toward direct marketing companies like Teres and others. Such companies offer us the best in price/performance. This is where I like to shop.

>>Pick your favorite $5k cartridge and tonearm, and put them on a Rega 3 or some other $500 turntable. Play it.

Then put a RB250 and a DL103R ($250 + $250 = $500) on a $5k turntable, and see which sounds better, musically. And, which makes more difference.<<

I Have had the privilege of experiencing the first situation, but the cartridge cost $10,000 (Koetsu Tiger Eye Platinum, which now sells for $13,000), and was placed on a $650 Denon turntable/tonearm combination. While the sky did not fall, much of the air, bloom, richness, top-end extension, and inner detail were missing. It was a perfectly good waste of an incredibly expensive cartridge. However, this mismatch easily beat a $1,000 CD player, which may not be saying very much.

Salectric (Dave),

You have made some very useful and valuable points. Thanks for sharing your experiences. You have made many compelling observations in favor of the Galibier ALU, which seem irrefutable. But I would like to explore several points if I may.

I am looking at the Galibier ALU, as is Letch. But unlike Letch, I am not sure I can afford the ALU’s asking price, which is more than a thousand dollars higher than the Teres 255, a turntable that is already quite expensive by many standards. So I guess you and Letch are, or will be, playing on a “higher” field, which is great, of course.

You mentioned that your first concern regarding the Teres 255 was its long-term dimensional stability because its plinth and tonearm mount are made of wood, and not aluminum. Are you concerned that the main turntable bearing would somehow work itself loose inside its hardwood housing over time causing rotational speed inaccuracies and unwanted platter wobble? Isn’t aluminum a relatively soft metal? Wouldn’t stainless steel be a better choice, albeit a very expensive one? Stainless is not only more ridged, but has greater tensile strength along with a greater ability to withstand tarnishing. However, because of steel’s greater mass and density, it may have a greater tendency to ring so a more elaborate damping system would have to be devised, which explains in part why aluminum was chosen. It’s interesting to note that, according to Art Dudley’s review of the Galibier Quattro Supreme ($6,600 as tested), concentric channels are dilled into the bottom of the plinth and filled with lead shot and oil in accordance with a computer model. The oil and lead, no doubt, serve as a damping mechanism to reduce ringing.

Letch, if you are reading, the Galibier ALU uses a solid PVC platter in its standard configuration, minus the added benefit of oil-and-lead mass weighting. Not only that, PVC, as a material, is softer than acrylic while not providing the same tensile and dimensional rigidity. Yet it’s heavier. However, lead can be added to acrylic, as is the case with the Teres 255, to increase mass and to improve rotational speed accuracy. If you purchase a Galibier, you may want to consider the aluminum-Teflon patter for an additional $1,250! Also note that it’s my understanding, according to Art Dudley’s article, the plinth of the Galibier ALU lacks the added benefit of oil-and-lead mass weighting found in the Quattro Supreme, yet another compromise as it were. Without this damping material, the aluminum plinth might exhibit increased ringing, degrading to the turntable’s signal-to-noise ratio. Now whether this added ringing is audible is another matter indeed!

I am wondering whether Teres is still having trouble with the servo control of its DC motor, if they are really using a servo-control mechanism. If the problem is still there, that would be troubling indeed. I wonder if anyone reading this post can respond to this question. Yet, I don’t quite understand your objection to servo control? Could you elaborate, perhaps? The Teres web site describes their DC controller mechanism this way:

“The Teres is best described as a self calibrating fixed DC regulator…The quality of the regulator used with a DC motor has a significant sonic effect. Listening evaluations have shown that even small modifications to the circuit are clearly audible. The Teres regulator circuit has been carefully optimized to provide the best possible sound.

The Teres regulator starts with a high performance regulator constructed from discreet components. This circuit offers far better performance than simple IC regulators that are more commonly used. For you technical types it consists of a precision current source feeding into a shunt regulator. The result is excellent immunity from input noise and extremely low dynamic impedance. This translates into better pitch stability and ultimately better sound.

Building on a capable regulator design the Teres regulator is implemented using only the highest quality components. Component selection was guided by careful listening evaluations where component differences could be reliably identified. This optimized regulator using, Black Gate capacitors, high quality film capacitors and low DCR inductors offer improvements in musicality that is not subtle.”

(http://www.teresaudio.com/i_motor.html)

It’s also interesting to note that Teres offers a lifetime warranty on all of their motors, and they go out of their way to describe the construction of these motors, stopping short, of course, of calling them servo controlled. Nevertheless, one of the first upgrade items I intend to buy will be a replacement motor, along with numerous turntable belts, in case Teres should ever go out of business.