$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

My preferences are in this order:
2
1
4
5
Don't know about Sumiko Blackbird.

For TT/arm combo in your price range, I like the Teres 245 and Origin Live Encounter.

YMMV

Wow! In that case, I must be listening through "mediocre equalizers" also.

Artar1, I agree with Doug's assessments on the Teres 245. You only have to finish it yourself if you want to save the money. I bought my 245 finished, but there is quite a bit of assembly work to put it together when you take it out of the boxes.

I can tell you from alot of experience, that a Teres 245 with an OL Encounter tonearm, and a Shelter 501, is an exceedingly enjoyable analog system, with very little fuss or bother, once it is initally set up correctly. They are all excellent matches with each other, and will produce well beyond your expectations.

You'll need a good phono section with at least 62db gain(added to 15db-20db in the linestage) for best results with low-output MC cartridges like the 501.

I'm a very "bang for the buck" oriented guy, and I use a Teres 245, OL Silver(HiFi modded), and a Shelter 501. That is my choice for best sound for the money. For an arm with no mods, the OL Encounter would be an excellent choice because it slightly outperforms the modded OL Silver, and is just a "drop-in" tonearm into any(slightly reamed out) Rega armhole. You'd really have to work hard to outperform that combo for the same money, and I'm not sure that it can be outperformed at it's price point.

Nobody knows it all. We're all continually learning. That's part of the fun of this hobby.

Artar, if you intend to use the Shelter cartridges, I don't think that the Hadcock will be a suitable platform for them. The Shelter cartridges have shown themselves to be quite difficult for unstabilized unipivot tonearms. I concur that for the Hadcock arm, the Music Maker would be better suited.

For the Shelter cartridges(and Koetsu, Denon DL103R, and other MC with <10cu compliance)you truly "need" a quality gimbal bearing arm of at least 11.5g effective mass, or a very capable stabilized unipivot of similar mass or more.

The Morch DP-6 with it's "dual pivot" design, may be stable enough for it, but I never used that combination myself. I do know that you can get a suitable armwand for effective mass matching. I suspect it would be a much better match for the Shelters than the Hadcock.

If you want a Jewel-like tonearm, I may suggest a Triplanar.

Regarding your gain levels, the 80db gain you have in the system should be fine for the Shelters and other 0.4mv output level cartridges.

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

Artar, it is important to match the tonearm and cartridge well. If you want to use a "pretty" unipivot tonearm, then the ZYX will give a better match than the Shelter. In fact, the ZYX will be much more likely to match alot of other tonearms, due to its compliance rating of 15cu. When you get into the lower compliance cartridges like Shelter, Koetsu, Denon DL103, it is much more difficult to get a proper match with the currently available crop of tonearms.
I think the low compliance cartridges give the sound I like, but the ZYX cartridges are excellent, and they are easier to match to most tonearms.

Perhaps you can find a happy matchup with a nice pretty Morch or Schroeder, and a ZYX cartridge.

I think that the 501 is the way to go for the short term(or even long term). The 501 has a "magic" to it that the 901 doesn't possess, and while the 901 has more detail, the 501 excells in just making great sounding music at a lower price. I've know a couple of people who moved from the 501 to the 901, and yearned for the magic that was in the 501, and was missing in the 901, even though the 901 was noticeably more detailed. I find the 501 to be very Koetsu-like, and I like that. The 501 is no slouch in any department, but it is not the "pinnacle" either. It strikes a very good balance of detail, magic, musicality, and price. I think that unless you have a "super-arm" the 501 is as good as anyone will ever need. Many people have previously considered this cartridge to be very near the top of the last few years crop of cartridges, and that isn't bad, considering its price. If high-value is a consideration, the 501 has to be among the top choices, if not the very top choice. The DL103R at $239 is probably my choice as the very best cartridge for the money, as it approaches the 501 in performance for about 1/3 the cost. Dollar for dollar, you can get more with the DL103R than any other cartidge that I know of. It will flat embarrass alot of much more expensive cartridges. And at $239, you can afford to play your records alot, without even considering stylus wear. It has alot going for it, but it needs a very good arm, with high effective mass, or a HiFi mod.

You know, regarding the OL Silver, I wasn't overly impressed with the appearance either, and it looked very plain. But with a DL103R on it, and a HiFi mod, we were looking at a very good performing package that cost less than most decent arms alone. When I got mine, the OL Silver was only $740, and the DL103R was only $210. The HiFi mod was just pennies. For under $1k, this setup was pulling very close to some very expensive stuff. That meant alot to me, because I can't afford $3k tonearms, and $2k cartridges. Believe me, when I set that stylus down in the record and started to listen, I forgot all about how it looked, or how little it cost(except that I kept smiling about how great it was for so little money). No, it is not the ultimate, but on the "diminishing returns" scale, it is totally out of proportion. It plays very very close to the "big league", for entry level dollars. And with the Shelter 501 in it, it is actually in the "big league" although not at the very top. If performance for the money is important to you, this needs to be considered as a possibility.

And, as Dougdeacon so accurately posted a while back, the HiFi-modded OL Silver could quite possibly be the best tonearm in the world for "leading-edge dynamics". If you look at any "big league" tonearm, they only top the list in one category, or maybe two, at most. There is a "leader" for midrange liquidity, and a leader for bass response, and a leader for etched detail, etc, etc. Any tonearm that leads the pack in any one category, must be considered in the "big leagues" of tonearms. You won't find any other "category leaders" at the price of an OL Silver with a HiFi mod.

For the money spent on a HiFi modded OL Silver, and a DL103R or Shelter 501, you will be painfully close to the top of the heap, for a whole lot less money, and it would be a great sounding package for anyone beginning in this hobby, as well as any very experienced person. Heck, I'm considered pretty experienced in analog, and I run a HiFi modded OL Silver and a Shelter 501 on my Teres 245. And I'll put it up against anything, anytime. Maybe it won't win all the time, but it will be real close at way less money. And it makes me happy with the sound.

I don't have any experience at all with the Shelter 301, and I don't even know anyone who does. Judging from the performance of the other Shelter cartridges, I'd expect it to be a good performer, but I cannot verify that.

Regarding the SS vs Tubes debate, this is a never ending argument. There are pros and cons to each technology, and ultimately it depends on individual preference.

I happen to prefer the(apparently horrific combination) of Single-Ended Triode ZOTL in my system, and it absolutely destroys(musically) any SS amp that I have ever heard in my 30+ years of audio experience. And all my SS systems were carefully matched and optimized, just as I do with my tube systems.

Technically, for every argument made against tubes, there is an equally valid argument that can be made against SS. It is nothing more than a "pissing contest", and is best not engaged in, unless you just want aggravation.

Hi Artar, yes there is something else in the equation. The OL Silver I use has the "HiFi" mod, which increases the horizontal effective mass greatly, and provides better matching with low compliance cartridges like the DL103R. The OL Encounter has a heavy bearing housing that also provides a similar effect.

Actually, the effective mass figures that are published are primarily vertical effective mass, and encompass mainly the tonearm alone. The horizontal effective mass encompasses any mass that rotates on the bearing along with the tonearm, such as the bearing housing. In effect, there are 2 effective mass figures for most toneams, horizontal and vertical, but vertical is the one that is most mentioned in specs, and horizontal is probably more important when figuring in the cartridge compliance and stability issues.

Some tonearms strive to have the same(or similar) effective mass in both planes. Others are significantly different in each plane. The needs of the tonearm are very different in each plane of motion. The vertical needs low effective mass for good warp tracking, and the horizontal may need higher effective mass to stabilize the arm against unwanted lateral movement caused by the stiffness of some low compliance cartridge suspensions overdriving the horizontal effective mass of the tonearm. Any lateral deflection of the tonearm over the groove during play caused by the movement of the stylus, will cause loss of information or reduced dynamics, because all the motion of the stylus is intended to be transduced into electrical signal by the cartridge generator coils, and movement of the tonearm actually cancels this process to some degree, depending on the amount of unwanted arm movement. The arm should remain motionless and centered over the groove during play. If it is not, then some of the energy that is supposed to be tranduced into electrical signal is lost in mechanical movement of the arm, and will never be heard. This is the subject of my HiFi tonearm modification that is discussed in depth in the "Strange Tonearm Tweak" thread in the Analog Forum pages.

Artar, in response to yesterday's questions, I don't know of any ways to know the horizontal effective mass of a tonearm, other than to get one and check it, or to use a published figure(if there is one available). Sometimes, tonearms have literature explaining their design ideas, and it would be mentioned. That is the case with the OL arms. Perhaps a call to the manufacturer may get you the info.

Now for the numbered questions:
1) The HiFi mod is not needed on the OL Encounter tonearm. It is already satisfactory in horizontal effective mass for low compliance cartridges. Also, the HiFi mod will not fit on it.

2)The HiFi mod does not affect the vertical effective mass of the tonearm, except to an extremely small extent, which would be related to the mass of the weights that is slightly outside the exact center of the tonearm bearing axle. Essentially, it makes no change to vertical mass.

3)The DL103R will work just fine on the Encounter, with no additional mods needed. The heavy bearing housing on the Encounter is designed to provide the increased horizontal effective mass.

4) The anti-skating force cannot be used to compensate for insufficient horizontal effective mass on any tonearm.

Regarding the RS-A1 tonearms, I have heard many reports of good sound from them.

However, I can definitely say that from a design viewpoint it has some very significant problems. The pivot so high above the record is a big problem(geometrically), the pivoting headshell also allows unwanted arm movement to occur right at the headshell, and the lack of anti-skate and lack of cueing are problems.

If it gives good sound, then maybe none of these other things really matter, but I wouldn't use a low compliance cartridge on it. It is not stable, and has a moving headshell which would lose information like the dickens with any kind of lower compliance cartridge, and maybe even a medium or higher compliance one. IMO, it is not a good design.

Artar, the lead-loaded acrylic platter increases performance over the plain acrylic, but is only a matter of degree. In my estimation, this is where the curve of "diminshing returns" starts to play heavy into the decision.

Yes it is better, but primarily in refinement. It is not as good as the wood platters, but a little better than the plain acrylic. The speed stability will be somewhat better than with the plain acrylic, due to the higher mass around the perimeter, from the lead shot there.

Basically, if cost is not a major issue, you can get some improvement there. But, if cost is not a major issue, then you could get even more improvement with a 265 or 340. I suppose the main concern is "where do you stop?" You can always get better, no matter how much you spend.

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.

According to the "rules of analog" the TT is the most important part, then the tonearm, then the cartridge. You seem to have this well understood, and it reflects in your selection of products. By improving the platter mass and construction, you can get more for the money spent, than by spending more on the cartridge(for example). But, you are already at a pretty good level with the 245/OL Encounter, and it can surely accept even more capable cartridges than the DL103R. So, in the context of your analog package, the additional platter upgrade would be a "nice thing" but may not be a "necessity". 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. I know this from very intimate experience with both cartridges on the same analog platform as you are getting. I'd say that if you are itching to spend some more money, the upgrade to a Shelter 501 would provide a more "balanced" analog system, which would have less limitations overall, because all the items are approximately at the same levels of performance capability. Then, for further upgrades, you could start with a TT upgrade, proceed to another arm upgrade, and then go into the upper stratosphere of cartridges. All of this will cost considerable funds to accomplish.

I think that when we are discussing the sonic performance levels of these turntables, and even including such high-end comparisons as the Verdier(and others have even compared against Walker!), it is obvious that any of these selections is in the very high performance category. Thus, any of these brands is going to provide extremely satisfactory results for the money spent. We are talking about personal preferences and slight variations that some may prefer over others.

Obviously, these small variations in sound are what ultimately will make our decision for us in this category, but I seriously doubt that any of them would be an unsatisfactory one.

Just the fact that there are some companies which make turntables that compete at the highest levels, and cost little more than entry level products, is a very good trend indeed for analog lovers.

I considered many of the same turntables under discussion above, and ultimately decided on the Teres. However, it is quite likely that I would have been similarly satisfied with a Redpoint, or Galibier, or maybe even some other options. Any table in the league of a Verdier that costs under $3k is a very good thing, as far as I am concerned. It makes any table costing over $10k seem to be very challenged in cost/benefit assessments.

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 the top and cost in my budget range. I felt the same way about the arm and cartridges that I selected. Over-achievers all. That is the way to make the most out of your analog buck. 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.

It is a simple question to answer, and can be easily proved.

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.

The prices are the same, but on one system the cartridge/tonearm is maximized(and turntable minimized), and on the other the turntable is maximized(and cartridge/tonearm minimized).

The question of "order of importance" will then be solved.

I'll leave the conclusions to whoever tries it.

I've done this many many times, and am 100% confident of the outcome.

Regarding the Schroeder, it is out of my price range, so I have never used it. I know several people(including Chris Brady of Teres) who used a Schroeder with a Crown Jewel(which is actually a re-named Shelter 501) and liked the combination.
Heavy armwand should be used.

ARtar, it sounds like you are really having fun with all this, and I hope you continue to enjoy this process. With the various selections you are choosing from, you are bound to get very good sound.

Just enjoy yourself and get the things that make you happy.

We are just trying to provide some insight that will help you to make your decisions about some of the details.

Regarding your questions about motor controllers, there are some things about DC motors that need to be known. First, they can be the smoothest way to rotate the platter. But, they have no "speed lock" like AC synchronous motors do, and the speed can slow down over the course of playing a record, unless something is done to keep it at speed. This is due to "stylus drag" and it can add up to a significant loss of speed over the 20-30 minutes of an LP side. There have been a variety of methods employed to keep the DC motors at correct speed, and they all have their plusses and minuses. The bottom line is that the heavier the platter is, with more rotational momentum, the less likely that stylus drag will significantly affect the speed. With the heavier platters, even a TT which uses speed controls will not have to engage in compensating pulses to the motor very often, if the platter stays at correct speed in the first place. I have a Teres(as you know) and it even has the lightest platter in the Teres lineup. The motor housing has some LED's on it to show when the speed has changed significantly enough to apply a correction. In fact, the red(correction)LED light never comes on during play. It only comes on when the platter is first starting up, and seeking 33.3rpm. Then the green light comes on and stays there throughout the LP side. So I really don't even see any corrections taking place, because the heavy platter keep it rotationally stable. However, I do know that if something severe happened to the platter speed, that the controller would account for the change immediately. Also, the Teres uses a strobe on the platter to continuously monitor the speed. This is quite different than monitoring motor speed, because if there is belt-slippage, the motor will "see" correct speed, but the platter could be off-speed. We always want to know the platter speed is correct.

Letch, I like the acrylic platter, but it does have issues. There is a slight bit of noticeable reflected resonance in the upper midrange. The heavier platters will give better stability, and the lead loading will help with the reflected resonance issues.

I think that the higher priced platters are better, but whether it is worth the extra money will be up to you.

Artar, the discussion of DC vs AC motors is a lengthy one.

Primarily, it has to do with AC "cogging" vs DC "non-cogging" regarding the way the motors work.

"Cogging" is the result of the motor behavior when the individual poles of the motor pass the magnets. A 4-pole motor will have a "surge and lag" effect as each pole passes the magnetic parts of the motor that can be noticeable. AC motor makers have increased their number of poles to reduce this effect, and commonly now use 24-pole motors. The effect is reduced, but not entirely gone.

AC Sychronous motors use the AC line frequency(60Hz) that is generated by the power company to use as a speed reference that keeps their motor speed "constant", similar to an electric clock. Since it locks on the line frequency, and not the voltage level, it can remain constant even during fluctuations of voltage. It is a commonly used type of drive for most of the lower cost turntables, and is even used fairly commonly in expensive turntables.

DC motors do not have a cogging effect, but since there is no "line frequency" in DC, there is no reference to "lock" on the speed like an AC motor does. DC motors are speed controlled by the voltage level. So, the DC motors must have some kind of controller, or the TT will constantly undergo minor slowing as you play the LP, due to drag forces. The "best" kind of controller for the DC motors is a subject of great debate.

Obviously, a "quartz lock" or other "hunting" type of controller that uses a strobe as a reference can have the effects of quick speed up/slow down known as "hunting". This is not good. Teres has developed a controller which uses strobe reference on the platter, which senses variations and applies corrections in a very slow manner, which is not really audible. Some may argue this and claim it is audible. The other method is to use a relatively non-referenced controller which sets speed as a constant, and hopes that nothing really slows the platter down along the way. Any slowdowns with this type of controller will be additive all along the side of the LP being played. Some will argue that this is not noticeable, but others say it is. In either case, the platter momentum is critical to the controller not having to make corrections, or not slowing the platter down during play. Neither of these systems is perfect, and the AC synchronous system is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. Since the ear is most senstive to minor speed variations occuring in a rapid manner(flutter), we strive to minimize flutter, but the methods we use may result in more slower variations(wow). "Wow"(in small levels) is less noticeable to the ear. So, the DC motor application is used to provide the smoothest results in flutter, but may have a bit more wow, or a bit more gradual slowdown, depending upon the type of controller used. In addition, belt stretch and rebound, belt slip, and other things may enter into the equation. It is a difficult engineering task to get close to perfection in this area, and there is no solid consensus on the best method to use. However, it is generally conceded that a well implemented DC motor can sound better than an AC synchronous. The individual TT makers use their ideas of what the best method is, and the user must decide which he prefers sonically. Most of the best units are very very good, and will not intrude into the listening experience noticeably.

Regarding the question about platter mats, the Teres is not designed to use a mat, and should be played "bare". If you want a better platter than the acrylic because of the reflected resonance issue, then stepping up to the next higher level of platter will be useful, not adding a mat.

However, be aware that there is no "perfect" platter either, and it remains a choice of imperfections which is most acceptable to you. There are sonic issues with every single type of platter you may select.

In fact, every single choice you make as an audiophile will have plusses and minuses. It is up to you to select equipment which has the plusses in the areas of most importance to you, and has the minuses in the areas of least sensitivity to you. This is the crux of assembling a satisfying system that will meet your needs as a listener, and it is also why there are so many different ideas of what is "best".

Dan_Ed, the lead loading in the Teres acrylic platter could have the effect of improved perceived bass response.

Essentially, the greater rotational mass will improve the ability of the platter to retain its speed through the tall steep peaks that are present in the bass information in the record groove. This will be percieved as faster and better dynamics in these frequencies, and will add impact.

Generally in belt drive systems, high platter mass is desirable. Affording to buy it may be another matter entirely.

In my case, I have selected the plain acrylic platter. This is not because I am not aware of its shortcomings, rather I am aware of them, and settled on this because it provided performance that was acceptable to me for the price I could afford. In nearly all cases, this type of "settling" needs to be done by the purchaser. Most people cannot afford to buy the most expensive product on the market, and even if they could, perfection is not attainable, so some compromise is being made at all levels. Additionally, as time marches on, even the "best" products get beaten out by some new ideas/technologies/implementations that may occur.

While I am not enamored in general of the sonics of acrylic, it has its good points, and my platter(while imperfect) provides a very enjoyable experience, even if I am aware of the slight reflective resonance issue, and its relative lack of mass compared to the higher priced platters. I am also aware of dozens of other imperfections that are present throughout my entire system. There are imperfections abounding throughout my system, and everybody else's systems, for that matter.

What I am saying is that there is a point for everyone that is a good "happy ground" for the ratio of price to performance. This point will differ greatly, depending on the needs and budget of the audiophile in question. I found a good "happy ground" for me.

What I have done personally, is made a lifetime of learning and study and listening experience, as both audiophile and industry insider, to equip myself with the knowledge to understand what is involved in the selection, application, and use of audio systems. I have even engaged in the designing and building of various products in the chain, to further my understanding of the technical aspects of this hobby. All this experience over 30+ years has shown me that nothing achieves perfection, and that everything is flawed in some way. The closer you get to perfection, the more the product costs. I have recognized that this "happy ground" is where the true enjoyment of listening is. I have found that I can recognize that equipment is flawed, understand why and how it is flawed, and still enjoy my musical experience. I simply use my knowledge and my budget to the best of my ability to gain the most sound quality for my money, while being fully aware of all the shortcomings. I select my equipment to be as maximized as possible in the areas that I am most senstive to, and get the least possible flaws in the areas that I am less sensitive to(in accordance with my budget).

I have listend to alot of audio gear in my day, and can recognize a flaw in just about anything there is. The key is to understand the nature of this, and to find things that will make you happy because their flaws are not in your senstive areas that drive you crazy. You will never find equipment without flaw. You just have to learn to live with it. This is the art of the hobby. Because after all, the purpose is to enjoy music, and if the quest for perfection wrecks your ability to listen with pleasure, it is all for naught.

Thanks guys, for your kind words regarding my discussion.

I guess that I'm "waxing philosophical" today!

:^)

Rushton, thanks, and I agree that both Lloyd and Harry are getting great results from their AC motor applications.

I disagree, and stated reasons.

I could just as easily state that the "transducer" is the "necessary evil".

I maintain that the transducer is limited by the turntable, and that in real-world situations, a moderately good transducer working at maximim performance on a top-notch turntable, will outperform a top-notch cartridge working at reduced performance on a moderately good turntable.

You have given no reasons to back up your opinion, other than your opinion. I have heard your argument a million times and it has never "held water" yet.

I state that a cartridge which has more musical information properly fed into it, will outperform a more capable cartridge which has less musical information fed into it less properly. I backed up my case with reasons for my position. This would clearly place the turntable higher in the order of importance. I understand you disagree.

Tell me why.

I would totally agree with you, if your statement was "A better cartridge will sound better than a lesser cartridge, on the same turntable(so long as they match well with the tonearm)." However, when the discussion leads to the matter at hand, that is where we part company.

Regarding musical reproduction, it is understood that more recorded information getting into the system is paramount to improving the music. Correct me if I am wrong about that.

If a cartridge retrieves less musical information(or lost information, or speed corrupted information) from the recording(due to a flaw in the turntable performance), it cannot sound better. It can sound "smoother" or "flatter response", etc. but it cannot sound "better" because there is less musical information entering the system, or there is flawed musical information entering the system.

Conversely, if the cartridge retrieves more musical information from the recording(even if the cartridge is of lesser quality), it will sound better(more musical) because more of the music enters the system.

Certainly, this music can be affected by the quality of the transducer, but at least the music makes it into the system.

This is my point. A quality transducer cannot produce music that is lost or corrupted by a turntable flaw. Improving the transducer on a given turntable will improve the sound only to the degree that the turntable is capable of producing. To improve the sound further will require a better turntable. Once this point is reached, no transducer in the world will improve the music, until the turntable is improved.

Assuming that we have the best turntable in the world at present, then the arm and cartridge selected will have a chance at working at their best.

50% is on the record. It contains only vertical information, when it is stationary. The turntable provides all the time-domain information, as it spins the record under the stylus.

In addition to the time-domain issue, the turntable provides some other extremely important attributes, without the proper function thereof, the cartridge cannot work up to its capabilities. This would relate to the main bearing's ability to maintain stability in the lateral plane. If the main bearing allows movements to occur within it(from vibration or other sources), the platter can be moved microscopically laterally, and therefore influence the critical juncture of the record/stylus contact. The record information contains modulations on the order of angstrom measurement. If the main bearing allows the platter to move, even slightly laterally, this will cause some of the record information to pass under the stylus without deflecting it(therefore losing information), or cause the record information to pass under the stylus and deflecting it too much(therefore causing overmodulation). Both of these conditions cause our cartridge to not perform as intended, regardless of how great the cartridge is, or how perfectly it is matched to the arm. No turntable does this function perfectly, as yet. The better turntables will allow the cartridge/tonearm combination to perform at a better level, because they are presented with the record information from the groove in a more stable manner, both vertically, horizontally, and in the time domain. Without this proper stability of the record groove, no stylus/cartridge can work at its best, and therefore will perform at less than what was intended. To get the best information retrieval from any cartridge you select, the record groove must be passed under the stylus with the most stability possible, in all three planes: vertical, horizontal, and time-domain(speed). Then the tonearm and cartridge combination can begin to do their work properly. Without this, they will never even approach their potentials. And this is why the turntable must be considered primary in the order of importance in the analog chain. Notice I did not say that it is the only important thing. Simply that the foundation must be laid before the roof goes on.

Dear Raul, perhaps you can point out to me how a cartridge can retrieve information from the groove, if the turntable allows enough movement in the platter to allow the information modulations to pass undeflected under the stylus, or to overmodulate the stylus? This is, of course, bearing in mind that there are modulations in the groove that are on the order of a millionth of an inch, and the movement tolerances in main bearings(even with the oil in them) are about one thousandth, or even one ten-thousandth at best.

Also, perhaps you can explain to me how a cartridge can make the speed correct, and provide proper time-domain and frequency information? Bearing in mind, of course, that the cartridge cannot even hope to affect these parameters, no matter how good it is.

Then, please explain how all turntables are acceptable in this regard, so that it matters not which turntable is used? Because if I've been going for all these years without knowing about a cartridge that can overcome the errors of a turntable, I need to be educated on that right now.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with my position. I will be happy to allow you to enlighten me about the errors of my ways.

And, by the way, I do agree that the tonearm and cartridge are very important factors as well, and I do not minimize their importance in the signal chain. I only point out that the cartridge can only transduce what it reads, and and the arm can only hold it properly over the groove, so that the turntable can feed the information to the cartridge effectively. They work as a team, and if the turntable "drops the ball" and lets the groove be the slightest bit unstable in any plane, the cartridge will never read some of that information correctly, and it will be lost or changed. The turntable provides the environment for the cartridge to work. If the environment is poor, the cartridge cannot make up for it. That is why I say what I do. Not to argue just for argument's sake.

Also, I simply stated my position and the reasons and even gave a little test that people could do to verify, and placed no attack at you during my discussion. However, you have decided to take it upon yourself to say that I am wrong, and implied that I am misleading the members of this forum. That is not appreciated.

Artar, when you get deep into turntable, tonearm, and cartridge design, there are many things that don't meet the eye. This is the job of the designer and manufacturer to make the best that they can at the price points they intend to sell the items at. It is very difficult for every analog user to fully understand all of the intricacies of analog systems. And it is not necessary for an analog user to understand all of it.

It ultimately depends on the musical reproduction that results. Since we already know that there is no perfect system, we strive to find what serves us best, musically. Different people may have various ideas about this.

I provided some information that I have learned over the years. There is even a whole lot more beyond these things that we have discussed here.

Even these few things have caused some significant differences of opinion here. It is good to get some of these ideas out on the discussion table, so that it can be of use to people willing to learn. In the end, each person makes their decision based on what they know, and what they want. As long as you are happy with the result, and the budget was within your capability, then it is a good result.

I have certain tastes and needs for my music system. The items I selected provide what I wanted, at my budget. I do not intend to say that my selections are by any means the only good selections. There are many ways. Long term experience with listening to different items is the best way to learn. Anytime you listen to advice from anyone, including me, there are going to be certain biases present, based upon what the advisor prefers. This is only natural, and has to be taken into account. I recommend getting as much personal experience as possible, so that you don't need to "lean on" anyone else for opinions which might not match your own needs. I realize that there are a number of folks here on the forum who made their buying decisions based upon what I recommended. This weighs heavily on me, because I feel personally responsible somewhat, for their happiness with their analog system. I cannot guarantee that they will like my selections as much as I do. However, so far, it has worked out pretty good, because I haven't gotten anyone angry at me yet for a bad recommendation. But it could happen. I do know that they won't go too far wrong with items I recommend, but it may happen that they prefer another item better, and I cannot control that. All I can say that if you have a similar taste and need as I have, then the items I recommend will work well together to give you that result. If everyone liked the same thing, then there would be only one TT, one arm, and one cartridge for sale. The fact that there are many, shows that there are different tastes, needs, and budgets, and different ideas of how things should work. This is part of the fun.

I had an Aurora Gold here for audition about a year ago. I used my own arm and cartridge on it, and also an Encounter arm, a Shelter 501, and a DL103R, and a Music Maker II.

IMO, it did not even compare to my Teres in sound quality, or build quality. I sent it back. I've never tried the OL Resolution table.

I have had suspended-chassis turntables such as Linn, and others, and have worked on alot of others at the shop I worked at. Listened to most of the other brands too, over a long time. I once liked the suspended designs, but have come to feel that the unsuspended designs are more to my liking.

There are some inherent problems with suspending a belt-drive turntable on springs, due to the suspension interacting with the drive system, in a bad way. In addition, while the suspension may help with some floorborne vibrations, it does nothing for airborne vibrations.

Funny as it may sound, my(no longer with me) Linn LP12 suspended turntable was far worse with footfalls and floorborne vibrations, than my current Teres is. Funny because the suspension system is supposed to isolate the TT from floorborne vibrations and footfalls. The Linn used to dance all over the place, even when I tip-toed, and the Teres stays rock-solid, and has no audible or visible effects at all, even when I have my big Rottweiler jumping around in front of the TT.

Letch, the unsuspended turntables will generally do best with a rigid, solidly coupled stand. Any rubber or soft absorbers between the TT and the stand will be counterproductive, compared to one without any rubber or soft absorbers in it.

This is why you rarely see any Teres tables or other high mass unsuspended turntables on stands with soft rubbery absorbers anywhere on them. Dynamics of the table are negatively affected, when soft absorbers are used. This is one of the reasons why there is no suspension on an unsuspended turntable. Adding a "suspension" by using a stand with a "suspension" negates part of the design of the table.

I have verified this on my own Teres turntable, and many other Teres users(ask Chris Brady of Teres) agree from their own experiences also.

If you are looking for a high-performance rack which has the proper construction for this, try a Sistrum platform. It is most definitely in the league of the GPA for performance, and is better suited to unsuspended TT use.

Disclaimer: I work for Starsound Technologies, manufacturer of Sistrum platforms and other audio products.

Letch, granite slabs are a common platform for the Teres tables, and other high-mass unsuspended tables. I have heard mostly good reports about using granite as a base with these tables. I personally do not use granite under mine, but it would be much preferred to using anything rubbery. I once experimented with some soft materials under the cone feet of my Teres. I used only very thin sheet materials, which compressed quite a bit when loaded by the weight of the TT. Even with this thin layer of springy material, the dynamics and leading edges of the music were severely blunted. When I tried thicker stuff, it got even worse. In my opinion, the results of the damping layers caused much worse results than any vibration problems that may have been there. When I returned to just the Audiopoints, then the sound returned as it was. I have only rigid materials between my TT and the floor. Interestingly, I had alot more trouble with footfalls and floorborne vibrations when I had my suspended Linn, than I do with my Teres. The Linn used to "dance around" on it's suspension all the time, even when I would tip-toe around the house. My unsuspended Teres just sits there, rock solid, and there seems to be no effect on it from walking around the house. That was a big plus for me, and I have no desire for another suspended TT again.

Regarding your Oracle situation, I was a high end dealer's analog setup guy during the 1980's. We were a Linn dealer, and also had a number of other TT lines, as well as having alot of trade-in tables around. I got alot of experience with alot of different tables, arms, and cartridges during these years. My experience was that the suspended turntables such as Linn, Oracle, and such, favored the use of a lightweight(lower mass) rigid stand with no flex. The higher mass unsuspended tables preferred heavier mass rigid stands. This apparently related to the resonant frequencies of the different types of stands, and the effects on the turntable's suspension(or lack of it). But, both preferred rigid type stands, just different mass. I also recommend using a low stand that is as low as is comfortable for you to use. A low stand has less flex or ability to move around, and also has a shorter vibration path.

Regarding the Bright Star, I've never used one, but I'd recommend getting a suitable lightweight rigid stand, and trying the TT with the Bright Star, and without it, to see which you prefer. My guess is that it would be better without it, but you should test it and see which you like.

Also, as they say "YMMV" because systems vary for resolution capability, and listener's tastes vary. Some people will prefer an "overdamped" quiet sound, over a highly dynamic sound. Generally, when you start "pushing the envelope" in dynamics and resolution, then the "warts" of the system start to show themselves more negatively. This can be irritating to some people, and they prefer to damp down the system to cover up the warts from showing. That is pretty common these days.

Ultimately, it is what you prefer that is best. I try to push the envelope as far as I can, and then attempt to correct the flaws that show up(at their sources). My budget limits me in how well I can do this, but I do what I can with the budget I have. Also, I accept certain sonic flaws in order to gain some other sonic benefits that are important to me and my sensitivities as a listener.

If you want my guess about what will happen with the GPA, I'd say that it will be a quiet presentation with very little floorborne vibration problems(they do that very well). It will also very likely sound overdamped and will have little affect on any airborne vibrations entering the system. The GPA is great for making the system quiet and "polite".

If you are looking to extend the performance envelope of the musical dynamics, resolution, PRAT, and "lifelike sound", then there are other ways which would likely yield better results in these areas.

Chris, you are going the right way, by auditioning these different things. Nobody can tell you what is "right for you", except you. We can only make suggestions based on what our past experiences have been, and we don't have your system and listening environment here at our homes.

To find your "Goldilock's" products which sound "just right" will require your listening to various things to see what makes the most impact on your listening sensitivities.

That is the best way to proceed.

Regarding your GPA amp stand, I have no doubt that it was a nice sounding addition to your system. However, sometimes there are some differences in the applications, like turntables vs amps. And again, there are differences in listening tastes.

One day, call me up and get one of the Sistrum stands to listen to. We'll be happy to take it back if you don't like it. I'm betting you'll keep it. I have an extremely high resolution and very dynamic audio system, with analog-only source, state-of-the-art SET OTL amp, and 100db sensitivity speakers, all battery powered, which will resolve the most hidden details that are below most other system's noise floors. I use Sistrum and Audiopoints under everything, and I don't have to do it just because I work for them. I do it because the sound improvement is significant. I gained an extra db and a half of headroom, just by using this stuff. My already good dynamics were improved quite a bit, detail was even better, and everything was more "in focus". The results of the Sistrum platforms under my speakers was amazing. All cabinet resonances that caused some of the colorations was eliminated, and resulted in an extraordinary improvement in my speaker performance. The Audiopoints vs the BDR cones that came standard with my Teres TT, was much in favor of the Audiopoints. And these are both rigid type points. I've had superb results from this stuff in my system, and that was why I went to work for Starsound.

Oakiris, Audiocubes is the only one that I know of with the DL103R right now. It is really worth the extra money over the regular DL103. I found the regular DL103 to be a bit coarse in the top end, and didn't track as well as the DL103R. The DL103R was very smooth in the top end, tracked well, and sounded super for the money. It's a shockingly good with the OL Silver and the HiFi mod. Nobody would ever think it was an under $300 cartridge from the sound of it.

Guys, thanks for your very nice comments about my posts.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Even though I work for an audio company, I always try to maintain my perspective as an audiophile and a prospective buyer/user of equipment.

Chris(Letch), my phone number at Starsound is 1-800-307-0728. I'd be happy to discuss anything audio related with you, anytime you want to call. Even if it is not Starsound related, or having anything to do with buying anything. People call me all the time to discuss their systems, and what I might think of the possible changes they are making, or what things to consider.

Also, anyone else reading this that would like to talk to me on the phone is invited to call anytime too. I'm sure that some people reading this have already spoken with me on the phone. Alot of people call me about analog stuff, and we don't even sell any TT gear(although I have a couple of designs in the file cabinet drawer). I probably also get about 10 emails a day about analog related stuff, from the Audiogon members.

I actually like discussing this stuff.

And you know how it goes. Eventually, everybody needs some points, or a rack, or something. So we get our chance to get our stuff auditioned. Over 90% of the time, when someone listens to our stuff, they keep it. All we ever ask for is a fair chance in the listening environment. Most of our sales go to buyers who already have something we make, and they know how good it is. We are always looking for a chance to let someone new hear how our products can reveal more of the sound of the components that they already own. We may not have made your components, but we make the stuff that helps your components sound the best they can. It is like an equipment upgrade, but you keep the same equipment. You just hear more out of it.

Chris, I think that you'll like the GPA rack. It is a very good one. There are really only 2 racks in that upper level category, and those are GPA and Sistrum. Our approach is totally different to the solution of the vibration issue. GPA tries to stop the vibrations from going up from the floor, and Sistrum tries to provide an exit path for the vibrations to transfer to ground. Of course, we feel that our solution is the better one. In either case, you'll have a very good performing rack. It's sort of like deciding between a Walker and a Rockport. You're not going to have anything bad, whichever one you decide upon. Your particular application will determine the outcome.

Jim, I haven't owned a WT turntable myself, but typically a manufacturer puts feet on the TT that are "the best that they found under the $2 price point that they are willing to spend on feet". These "footie" feet may very well have been the best sounding ones that WT tried for under a couple of dollars. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will outperform all other feet on that table. It only means that they will outperform all other very low cost feet, in the opinion of the manufacturer. It is quite possible, and even probable, that a high quality and probably much more expensive set of properly designed "feet" would significantly kick the butt of those stock feet on the WT. It happens on nearly every other TT made, so I expect it would be the same in your case.

When manufacturers are designing to a price-point, things like feet really take a back seat,and get the lowest amount of consideration and budget.

Glad you've found nirvana.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Maybe someday, you'll hear the Sistrum, and understand why I said what I did.

Yes, sad news indeed. I hadn't heard about it until I just read your thread, Artar1.

He was a true innovator, and will be missed.

Oakiris, a "cheap and cheerful" setup for that rig could easily be a Denon DL103R and a HiFi tonearm mod. That is a really nice combination on the Teres/OL Silver rig, and I have used it myself for almost a year before moving to my present Shelter 501.

There are a number of users of this combo here on the Audiogon forum, and it is very satisfying for only a small sum of money. Total of about $275, as long as your phono stage can handle the low 0.27mv output of the DL103R.

You can read about this in my review of the DL103R in the product review section, and also some other users' info in the archives. The OL Silver will perform much better with this cartridge when my HiFi mod is utilized. This can be read about in the "Strange Tonearm Tweak" thread in the analog archives, and the thread describes the DIY process for you to make yourself very easily and cheaply. If you have questions, you may email me about it when I return from CES. I am the inventor of this mod, and can answer any of your questions about it. I'm sure that the many HiFi mod users on this forum will be happy to tell you how it improved their sound quality for practically no money.

With the Teres 160 and an OL Silver, it would be nearly impossible to get a better sound for your money than to use a DL103R and a HiFi mod on the arm. I've been around the block with this, and I'm not blowing smoke.