$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

Artar 1 to Twl:

Nice point! You should be an audio dealer!

ROFL!!! Artar, do you really think this quality of advice comes from an amateur? Or did you forget the ;-)?

On the TT/arm/cartridge hierarchy thing, I was fiddling with cartridges this weekend and thought I'd try the opposite extreme from the cheap TT/expensive cartridge mismatch, just for haha's. While switching from one fancy MC to another I slipped my old ADC XLM MkII in the system.

Now this was about as ridiculous as the Koetsu Tiger Eye/Denon setup. $3900 TT, $3900 tonearm, 25-year-old MM cartridge that was about $140 back in the day. (It does have a fairly low-hours stylus, though it hasn't been used in about 18 months.)

I gave the old XLM quite a scare. First, she got mounted on this high-falutin rig. Then I brought out the alignment protractor. She had never seen one of those before, and she didn't like it one bit! Crookedest cantilever I've ever seen but there was enough play in the slots to line things up, more or less.

I pulled out some backup copies of one or two LPs and -OOPS! Don't forget to bypass the stepups. Can you say overload?

So how did this nonsensical mismatch sound. Damned impressive! Having lived with three top quality MC's the weaknesses were obvious of course, no highs, not much bass, kinda slow and sludgy. But it was also dynamic, musical and very listenable. If I had never heard the MC's I might go some time with the XLM before noticing what was missing.

Without coaching him I asked Paul which idiotic mismatch he'd rather live with, this cheap cartridge/expensive rig or the Shelter 901/cheap rig we listened to for a couple of weeks before our Teres showed up. With no hesitation he pointed at the good rig/cheap cartridge combo. "This makes music," he said, "the Shelter just showed up the flaws of the inadequate TT and arm."

It was silly, but it was fun to demonstrate the truth of the hierarchy Twl recommends. Balance is best of course, but if you must mismatch for a time, get the best rig you can afford and skimp (to a point) on the cartridge.

DougDeacon, exactly why I'm keeping the Benz Glider for now! :) What I can't hear won't disappoint me!

Dan_ed,
So you want to buy a lightly used ADC XLM MkII? You'll be even less disappointed, I guarantee it! ;-)

Artar
I recently saw another thread here at Audiogon where there was Teres shoot-out and the platter change between the 255 and the 265 was not a large difference in sound. This has me thinking that perhaps I might go to a 255. I am unsure of the Galibier PVC platter and the step up costs are expensive. The ALU/265 are about the same in cost but if I bought the 255 that extra money could go into helping me pay for the Schroeder and the Teres height adjuster as Doug mentioned above. My issue is that I have read negative things about acrylic platters but it seems that this is quite a platter and if Twl likes it.....
Like you I like the look of the 255 though I also like the wood platter, there is something a little too homogenous to it though. The lead shot inside gives the clear platter quite a distinctive flair.
I called a friend last night in Colorado and am going out to visit him in the next few weeks. I think that I will try and arrange visits to see if I can hear these tables.

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.

Twl does the lead loading in the acrylic platter do anything for bass response? I'm not accussing it of being bass shy cuz I don't know what the bass sounds like on any Teres. I do know that on other acrylic plattered tables that the bass seems to be greatly improved with more platter mass, or perhaps it is a combination of things?

Twl,

You know, I do enjoy the process, but I also see the journey as part of the hobby of analog reproduction. Spinning vinyl is not only rewarding in its own right, but it carries with it greater involvement on the part of the audiophile, from the choice of turntable, tonearm, and cartridge to the selection of music. There’s simply more to do as you know, which brings me, certainly, closer to the music. And then to share these experiences with others makes it all the more rewarding.

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

That’s for sure; there’s a lot of detail. Putting together a very good analog front end entails an attention to detail; otherwise it would be very easy to make a very big mistake, like putting the wrong tonearm on the turntable.

DC motors have been used in turntables for sometime, especially direct-drive ones, which are not very popular at all for good reason – lousy sonics unless the table costs nearly a million dollars. The direct drive model I once owned used a quartz controller to maintain consistent speed, or so said the marketing literature, and a built-in strobe to help with speed adjustment. All of this technology could not compensate for a lack of bass, dynamics, and presence of a black background. Instead my last turntable was more adroit at highlighting surface noise over inner detail and micro dynamics.

My concern about AC motors is the amount of shielding they have in order to reduce hum in cartridges, like the Grado Reference line, that have no shielding and are susceptible to turntable hum. I’m glad the Teres doesn’t use an AC motor. If I should ever decide to use a Grado cartridge, hum shouldn’t be an issue, or at least that’s what I have been told.

In addition to stylus drag, I also imagine that bearing friction and air friction affect speed consistency, but to a lesser degree. If the platter were spinning in a weightless vacuum, it should continue to rotate without any fluctuations in speed for ever. But you are right: the stylus will have the greatest impact.

It’s interesting to note that stylus drag is accumulative; that is, as a record is played over a 20-to-30 minute duration, the speed will diminish over that time. Why is that? It’s also equally interesting how an AC motor can achieve a “speed lock” without some form of a feedback sensing system that supplies the needed electrical pulses should there be any current drop in the AC line.

>>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.<<

This is a good argument for the lead-shot platter, and as a $350 upgrade, it seems to be a no brainer.

>>However, I do know that if something severe happened to the platter speed, that the controller would account for the change immediately.<<

Is the adjustment instantaneous or is there a lag time? If a lag exists, is it audible?

As for the acrylic platter, would it be possible to use a felt or Neoprene pad to reduce ringing in the upper midrange, or is that undesirable? Without the pad, the vinyl will be laying directly on the acrylic.

Hey Doug,

What does ROFL mean? Is it like “ROTC?”

I think it’s fairly obvious that Twl is very knowledgeable, but I don’t know how he came by that knowledge. Some amateurs are quite talented. Maybe Twl is one of them. But apparently he is not an amateur so it would be interesting to learn about his background as well as yours. So start talking… : > )

And thanks for the very informative experiment you ran this week. But the very things you described missing in the expensive turntable/tonearm combination used with a cheap cartridge – “no highs, not much bass, kinda slow and sludgy” – are some of the attributes of the Koetsu Tiger Eye/Denon setup, except I didn’t really hear slowness and sludge. Hmmmm?

Letch,

I wouldn’t imagine that there’s a large difference in sonic quality between the platters used on the Teres 255 versus the one used on the 265, but you will need to ask Doug for more information. I think it’s more a matter of aesthetics than sound. I prefer the look of acrylic on wood, rather than wood on wood. But that’s me.

While you know I like the Teres 255, please keep in mind that you will have to do some finishing work, and you will need to feel fairly comfortable with that decision. I am sure that more than a couple of hours are required despite what is said on the Teres web sit. But if the process does not intimidate you, by all means go for it!

If I were to buy the Galibier, I would choose the upgrade platter, especially after reading Twl’s comments above about rotational momentum reducing stylus drag. I think that’s important. However, the PVC platter does not appeal to me from an aesthetics point of view. Sure PVC might be heavier, but I like the look of acrylic much better.

I don’t know what you have read about acrylic platters, but there seems to be many turntables that use acrylic for their platters including Clearaudio, Transrotor, and Bluenote, just to name three. And if you go with the lead-shot version, you will be buying a platter with a lot more mass, which should help reduce the upper-midrange resonance that Twl talked about. I am also wondering what a platter mat might do as well?

Let me know about your listening impressions after you have heard the Teres. I won’t get that opportunity before I buy.

Artar,

I guess I'll give you the quick rundown on my TT. Since wood is my business, and one of my favorite hobbies it was a fairly (ha!) straightforward affair. Selecting the woods for the look I wanted was actually harder than everything but the veneering of the radii on the plinth.

The quality level I was shooting for is probably a little less than what Chris sends out. I knew I'd never sell it, so there was one thing I really didn't care to get too anal about. To look at the pictures it looks like an heirloom piece. But there are a couple of slight flaws in the veneer that I didn't feel like fixing. Since I had a vacuum clamp/veneer bagging system on order at the time, I knew if I wanted to fix it it would be easy. I used cauls and clamps, and while I could have made it perfect, I wanted to get it done. If I would have waited for the bag, it would be perfect.

The process itself was simple, if you have access to the tools and knowledge:

Select grain you want to show, lay out wood, cut wood.



Joint wood, plane wood, cut wood again, lay up wood, glue wood, clamp wood, sand.



Layout holes, drill holes, fill holes with lead, plug holes, making sure that the curly end grain on each of the teak plugs lines up exactly, then sand.



Sand some more, prep for veneer, veneer, sand, sand some more, sand even more!



Many coats of shellac, using steel wool in between each coat.

Final polish with pumice suspended in paraffin oil using a felt pad.



Easy, eh?

One thing I did was make it a little bigger all around than a “stock” Teres. I just wanted some more heft. The other thing I did was to make sure the top and bottom surfaces were parallel. I mean parallel within .005” using a surface plate and dial indicators. I about crapped when we tested that, because on top of the sanding, I used a scraper for a better finish. I did use a machine sander to do the first rough sanding, but only down to 220 grit. I ended up with 800 grit & the scraper. Watching that needle not move was one of the most satisfying moments of the build.

Now I have steel templates to use for the next ones I build. There are a couple going now, out of various materials. I also bought 2 acrylic plinths from Chris. Why, I don’t know, but they were only $150 shipped. I may make some cool stands out of them!

If I ever get time to revise my site, I’m going to include a quite lengthy Word document that details what I did, complete with sarcasms and my bombastic wit!

P.S Now that I found out how to do pics, I'm going to have fun 'till the mods put an end to it!

Jphii,

Wow! Wow! Wow! What else can I say? You have done a fantastic job! And you make it sound so easy, which of course it is not. You have much to be proud of, and your turntable is just gorgeous! Congratulations! Thanks for sharing.

>>The quality level I was shooting for is probably a little less than what Chris sends out.<<

It looks the same to me. I can’t tell the difference, and it seems perfect to me.

>> Layout holes, drill holes, fill holes with lead, plug holes, making sure that the curly end grain on each of the teak plugs lines up exactly, then sand.<<

How did you sand the plugs when it looks like the grain of each plug does not go in the same direction as the reset of the base?

>>Many coats of shellac, using steel wool in between each coat.<<

What type of shellac did you use? Did you brush or spray?

>>Final polish with pumice suspended in paraffin oil using a felt pad.<<

Is there any source I can turn to for more information about this polishing technique? What grit of pumice did you use and how did you suspend it in paraffin oil? Where did you get the felt pads?

>>The other thing I did was to make sure the top and bottom surfaces were parallel. I mean parallel within .005” using a surface plate and dial indicators.<<

Incredible! Great job!

>>Now I have steel templates to use for the next ones I build. There are a couple going now, out of various materials.<<

You’re going to build more turntables?

>>If I ever get time to revise my site, I’m going to include a quite lengthy Word document that details what I did, complete with sarcasms and my bombastic wit!<<

I look forward to reading it! What a great story!

What does ROFL mean? Is it like “ROTC?”

Rolling On Floor Laughing, which I'm now doing again of course. Now you have to work out ROFLMAO.

I think it’s fairly obvious that Twl is very knowledgeable, but I don’t know how he came by that knowledge. Some amateurs are quite talented. Maybe Twl is one of them. But apparently he is not an amateur so it would be interesting to learn about his background as well as yours. So start talking… : > )

Not me!

And thanks for the very informative experiment you ran this week. But the very things you described missing in the expensive turntable/tonearm combination used with a cheap cartridge – “no highs, not much bass, kinda slow and sludgy” – are some of the attributes of the Koetsu Tiger Eye/Denon setup, except I didn’t really hear slowness and sludge. Hmmmm?

Well, that's probably the 25 year old cart and 10 year old suspension. It was musical though, with no extraneous noise from the TT of course. How was the Koetsu/Denon setup in that respect?

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".

... 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".

That should be required reading for each of us, every day. Could we get A'gon to paste it at the top of the screen next to their logo?

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.

TWL: Excellent discussion in your two posts above. Thank you.

I would just add reinforcement of your point relative to the AC versus DC motor conversation: in many cases, designers have made careful evaluations/selections for their specific turntable designs. Most of us are aware, for example, that Lloyd Walker and Harry Weisfeld both believe pretty strongly that they are each getting the best possible results for their turntables with AC motor designs. (In fact, Lloyd has been rather emphatic to me on that point relative to his experiments with both kinds of motors. He has concluded that he can better control the speed accuracy and stability of an AC motor and can overcome the cogging effect using a very low torque motor with a very high mass platter. Clearly a design choice.) And, the Teres designers have certainly found certain DC motor/controller combinations to best meet their design requirements (as discussed). These choices are not absolutes; when cost is removed from the equation, they are design synergy choices.

Again, thanks for your very thoughtful and thorough comments.
.

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.

Harry once offered to ship me one of his new 300rpm motors tweaked to drive a Teres, just for an A/B. I promised him a fair review that would include some non-Teres-owning audio friends to insure balance.

Then VPI introduced the ScoutMaster and got swamped with orders from real customers. You know, the kind that send money.

I expect I fell right off Harry's back burner and behind the stove with the other dust bunnies. Too bad, it would have been instructive.

This is a really good thread, with a lot of detailed analysis and clearly reasoned opinions. Combine this with another current thread on VTA adjustment, and a nubie like me almost wishes he hadn't heard how much better analog sounds! Anyway, it's fun to read and learn....

Thanks for the valued insights, Tom. Based on your explanation it does make sense to me that the additional rotating mass can have a positive impact on bass response, which is what I have heard when I moved to a table with a much more massive platter. I suppose that in a similar fashion a more massive plinth has the same effect, being that it is more solidly "grounding" the arm and bearing so that the stylus has a better chance of translating all of the information in the groove.

I do understand your meaning in the quote from you that DougDeacon referenced. I think so many times we just engage in bench racing here on the forums, it is fun, but sometimes we loose touch with the reality that nothing is perfectly defined or modeled and certainly nothing is perfectly implemented. Perhaps I have an advantage in some small way because I don't fully understand what all of the tradeoffs are and how they impact the sound. Well advantage probably isn't the right word, ignorance is bliss is a better description of my current audio prowess. But I do love music and I get very excited each time I open a new door in this hobby. I just have to take a bite of the apple but it seems there could be a price to pay.

Hey Artar1,

I've been reading this thread and it has been a blast. I saw your message where you said you were buying vinyl without the turntable to play it and that you like classical. Have you ever seen this list of recordings before?

Highend Audio by Arthur Salvatore

I hope I installed the link correctly. If not, here is the link to do a cut'n'paste:

http://www.high-endaudio.com/supreme.html#Con

Arthur Salvatore can be pretty controversial but so far, the recordings that I have managed to acquire that are on his "excellent recordings" list are awesome in sonic quality.

One other thing I was curious about is the demo you heard of the high end cartridge on the Denon Direct Drive. Just curious as to which Denon model it was and although detail was lost, did it still sound pretty damn good? I currently have a fairly modified Denon DP-59L that works great in my book but someday, I will also have a decent belt drive unit too (need to keep pinching those pennies).

Mr. Kidknow

Doug,

>>Now you have to work out ROFLMAO.<<

Hmmmm…

Wait a minute…I think I have it…no wait…Hmmmm…

Don’t tell me: it’s how a dyslexic spells “Alfa Romeo?”

>>Well, that's probably the 25-year-old cart and 10-year-old suspension. It was musical though, with no extraneous noise from the TT of course. How was the Koetsu/Denon setup in that respect?<<

Well, I have to sort out the contribution made by the speakers to the overall sound, but I think I can do it.

First, the Denon was very susceptible to acoustic feedback like sticking one’s head in a rain barrel while someone else was beating it with a club. Now, that’s an exaggeration, but I was very conscious about NOT getting out of my chair to wander around the room, a small den on the second floor, for fear that my footfalls would be transferred to the speakers. I also noticed that Bob was also very careful not to jump up suddenly while the record was playing. I further noticed that Bob lowered the Denon’s dust cover VERY carefully, which still managed to send a LOUD thud to the speakers. You know, the sound of dropping a 100lb bag of potatoes from a second story building. These experiences told me that the plinth and platter (a good name for a pizza parlor for audiophiles) were doing a very poor job of providing good isolation and damping.

Second, while the midrange was clear and present, I noticed a lack of good pitch definition in the bass, which may have been due to the Carver Amazing Cubes rather than the cartridge. And there was a noticeable lack of upper-octave bloom and air that should have been there. When the music was first turned on, the subs were outputting too much “boom,” so the first order of business was to reduce their output. Then I had Bob adjust the bass Q of his Amazing speakers to 1, which is fairly tight and fast. This is how I have my woofers set up, and I believe it better corresponds to lower frequency reproduction in the concert hall and in real life, such as artillery fire, which I have heard close up. (By the way, no subwoofer ever made can even come close to reproducing the retort of a 105mm howitzer. Maybe that’s why I seldom listen to the finale of “The 1812 Overture” that so many audiophiles insist on playing. Give me a string quartet any day!)

Once the bass was brought back into line, Bob “goosed” (honk!) the midrange so that it would have more presence, but not at the expense of the very top octave. All was well, but I still noticed a slight lack of the rich overtones that live music possesses, especially when it’s played in the San Francisco Opera House. Okay, no biggie I told myself, but then I had to remember that I was listening to a $10,000 cartridge (now $13,000), and I was a little underwhelmed!

At the Analog Room many years ago, I heard a Koetsu cartridge on a Sota Sapphire Turntable with a modified SME tonearm driving a pair of Quad ESL 63s. Wow! There was life, breath, depth, air, and atmosphere in the records being played, a sound so beautiful that no CD player I have ever heard regardless of cost could possibly match. With this “gold” standard in mind, the Denon/Koetsu sounded more like a smooth, homogenized CD than really great vinyl; that’s how much deadening was applied to the music thanks to the Denon turntable.

While the midrange had presence, clarity, transparency, and openness that were very impressive, it lacked the ultimate in layering, shimmering nuance, and three dimensionality of the best tube/analog-based systems I have heard. The electronics were partly to blame, for they added a very slight dryness to the mix, but it was minor. Nevertheless, the Koetsu cartridge was at the helm, and I expected more, but the slightly dulling effects of the amp/preamp/turntable combination held it back. If the Koetsu had been mounted on your turntable, Doug, I would predict a far different outcome. Gone would be the sublime neutrality of your ZXY, and in its place we would be bathed in glorious golden tones with exquisite air and detail.

Huba! Huba! Huba! Oops, I think I need a cold shower!

Glorious golden goo you mean, and a shower would definitely be in order! I've heard two good Koetsu's on a Teres (RSP and Urushi). A ZYX sounds more like real music to me, YMMV.

Nice description though. You painted a good picture of this guy's setup and it ain't pretty. Carver Amazing Cubes? Midrange tone controls? Pity he wasted so much dough on a cartridge. He could have gotten better sound for half the money by asking Twl or the guys at the Analog Room.

Meet you at the Plinth & Platter for a Pint?

Mr. Kidknow: I'll add a "second" to your recommendation of Arthur Salvatore's Supreme Records list. If you're fond of classical music, this is a great list to peruse.
http://www.high-endaudio.com/index_ac.html

When I first saw Arthur's list appear several years ago, I was pleased to see how closely his list and my record collection coincided. So, I'm biased. His recommendations track right along with my own experience, including his contrarian comments about LP collecting and which pressings sound more like real live music (largely). Not sure he and I see quite as "eye-to-eye" when it comes to his equipment recommendations, however. But I sure do respect the man for his LP recommendations!
.

Doug,

The bass, midrange, and treble controls were on the back of the speakers! Now that's amazing!

The sound was not as bad as I have painted it, and it wasn't overly warm either.

By the way, Bob lives in Washington so the Sound Room would be a little far for him.

Twl,

I fully appreciate how lengthy the DC vs. AC discussion can be! Wow! Thanks for the information.

>>AC Synchronous 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.<<

So the line frequency never varies? It’s always 60Hz?

In your estimation, what is the best controller for a DC motor?

>>Since the ear is most sensitive to minor speed variations occurring in a rapid manner (flutter), we strive to minimize flutter, but the methods we use may result in slower variations (wow).<<

You have given an excellent definition of flutter. I now understand that concept much better.

>>However, it is generally conceded that a well-implemented DC motor can sound better than an AC synchronous [one].<<

This is my understanding as well.

>>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.<<

Good point. For most of us, how the motor controls a Teres turntable will be nearly inaudibly, especially for someone like me. Frankly I am not too worried about the AC vs. DC debate because under most circumstances I would have a hard time telling the two technologies apart on a sonic basis. Nevertheless, I am glad that the people at Teres have taken DC regulation seriously and have done as much as possible to create the best motor possible for the money.

>>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.<<

I understand. The acrylic will be good enough for my purposes. Several turntable manufacturers use it. The other popular material is aluminum. But these platters always seem to have a mat. However, a few companies are using composites. I guess they are hoping that a mixture of materials will provide the best of all sonic worlds. But this may not be the case. Composites might simply magnify the weakness of each element used or create a rather dull sound, like mixing too many colors together on a painting which oftentimes creates a brown, gray, ugly mass.

>>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".<<

Brilliant! A wonderful statement! You have given the best argument against audio-absolutism I've seen, the idea that there can be only one best component for a given category, an idea promulgated by such people like Harry Pearson and Arthur Salvatore.

Twl,

>>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 perceived as faster and better dynamics in these frequencies, and will add impact.>>

It’s this argument that has encouraged me to save a little more for the lead-shot platter. I think the added cost will be worth it.

>>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.<<

Another brilliant synopsis, the best I have seen! It’s this type of information that would be of the greatest use to readers of TAS and Stereophile. I seldom see this kind of information. What you have stated here might take one ten years or more to learn, and for some of us it might always allude our grasp.

>>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.<<

While I am aware of the imperfections of my system, at some point I let go of the pursuit of perfection and simply listen to the music from an emotional plane, rather than an intellectual one. I know it’s sometimes difficult to do so, but when I critique too much I run the risk of missing the whole point of listening. My system already gives me a heightened sense of pleasure. Sure I can make improvements, but like you have said, Twl, there comes a point where I can no longer afford to upgrade nor can I continuously change the components in my system.

>>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 you are saying here is the basis of a badly needed editorial or essay that should appear in the audio press. This editorial is the type of subject we audiophiles need exposure to rather than being told to honor our local dealer by the self-righteous and sometimes sanctimonious Robert Harley.

>>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 sensitive to, and get the least possible flaws in the areas that I am less sensitive to (in accordance with my budget).<<

I quoted you again without cutting any text. What you have said here needed to be repeated, for its that good. By providing your balanced philosophy and many years of experience, you are helping a lot of people, including myself, make better audio buying decisions. For this I am grateful.

>>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.<<

Amen! What else can be added to this very adroit observation.

Ccryder,

And when you finally buy a good turntable, you will really know what you have been missing. Then it’s off to buy vinyl!

Mrkidknow,

>>Have you ever seen this list of recordings before?<<

Yes.

>>Arthur Salvatore can be pretty controversial…<<

Yes, that he is. You might want to contrast Arthur’s style with how Twl views the world.

Personally, I don’t subscribe to audio gurus or follow the Ten Commandments as prescribed by TAS, Stereophile, or others, although Twl and Dougdeacon are two people I listen to before making any audio buying decision. But the operative word here is, “listen,” and not follow blindly. We still must use our ears and our own experiences in choosing the components that will make up our system. It always surprises me how many people abdicate that responsibility to others, asking them to make all the decisions for them so they might have a SOTA system without having worked for it.

In some cases it’s not possible to hear a component befor buying it. In such cases, it makes sense to read the audio press and to gather the opinions of others. But even that entails homework. Before I posted my initial question on this bulletin board, I had already spent six months analyzing my needs and narrowing my choices. All I needed was a little help to get unstuck, and I got it with Twl and Dougdeacon’s assistance. Without having spent months wrestling with the issue of which turntable to buy, I would not have had the "ears to hear" the advice that has been so graciously given me.

The Denon/Koetsu combination was good enough to encourage me to pursue vinyl with invigorated enthusiasm so the combination must not have been that bad. If you read my last post on this subject, the one I addressed to Doug, you will see my views on the strengths and weaknesses of the system I had the pleasure of hearing. Was this system state of the art? No. Am I looking for the very best system that money can buy? Again, the answer is no. So, yes, the Denon sounded pretty good to me. It cost about $650 and is the current top-of-the line model from that company. But what you should be asking yourself is how good does your current turntable sound to you and how best can you improve it within an acceptable budget?

I have a slightly different question for the group, one that involves the analog front end, but has not been discussed until now -- preamps. I am talking about affordable phono stages, ones costing $2,000 or less. Does anyone have a favorite they would like to share?

I am currently looking at three models in addition to perhaps buying the phono stage for my current preamp, which, by the way, should be quite good:

1. GSP ERA Gold V with either the GSP Elevator or Bent Audio Mu step-us transformer.

2. K&K Audio SE Stereo Phono Kit.

3. Wright Sound Company WWP 200C with the WMT 100 Step-up Transformer.

So what do you all think? Comments? These preamps must be good enough for the Shelter 501 and ZYX Fuji.

Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide.

Atar1, if you can stretch your budget a bit more, there currently is a used Aesthetix Rhea phono stage being offered for sale on Audiogon for $2700. At its $4000 retail price, the Rhea is a superb phono stage. If you can buy one used at a price you're willing to live with, it would be a great phono stage choice, and would exceed any of the other likely competitors. (Note: I don't know anything about this seller.)
.

I'll second Rushton, I love my Rhea! Bought mine used on A'gon as well and at about the same price point.

Interesting results heard last night at a friend's.

We were playing with different phono stages and step up devices. I'll keep this short (it was not a controlled test, just 2 of us listening and saying "that sounds better/worse now").

Using a Denon low output moving coil (don't know model) putting out about .3mv.

UsinG a home built step up transformer that was B&S TC103 based - very clean and nice. But changing to an old battery powered step up made things more "real", with added air and clarity. Don't ask the manufacturer and model because they are long gone and never made it into any real mass production and distribution (too bad, it was real nice).

Then we switched from a Hagerman phono preamp to a AHT (solid state) and removed the step up's. Much clearer, better bass and air but a bit sterile.

Then we switched to a Loesch-Weisner tubed preamp & phono stage and tried the 2 step-up's again. Much better in both cases than the AHT (surprise), but again the battery powered step up was the ultimate winner.

I would bet that the results may be completely different with a different cartridge. Anyway, FWIW, I thought this may be interesting to you'all. It was real nice to have all of these goodies to play around with and informally check out against one another.

Bottom line - it all makes a difference - there is no "best", just what is more compatible with the rest.

Enjoy,
Bob

Dear friends,

I think that people who seriously cares about musical reproduction at home, has to have as their main priority to extract the signal from the LP with the utmost accuracy possible. In other words, the main priority should be the phono cartridge, with the arm and turntable as secondary priorities, which of course must also be taken into account. This is easy to understand if we consider that phono cartridges, as well as speakers, are transducers whose function is to convert the audio signal from one type of energy (mechanical) to another type (electrical) and viceversa. This is the most difficult and important task to be done.

With this in mind, the cartridge should be selected first, regarding important parameters such as: The basic principle of operation (MM or MC); the type of internal magnet (smarium-cobalt, neodymium, rare earths, alnico, etc.); the type of stylus, material and design of the cantilever; suspension, cartridge body, and several minor factors. All the former will determine how accurate will be the "translation" performed by the cartridge itself when reading the LP information. Obviously the cartridge will operate into a given "environment", consisting of the arm and the turntable, and this environment must be optimized as far as possible to facilitate the cartridge's job. However, as I said before, this environment should not be the goal in itself, but only a mean to the main purpose. If the job is done correctly, the result will be a good synergy between all three elements, leading to an natural and musical reproduction.

Continuing with this reasoning, the second priority would be to choose an arm that makes the best match with the cartridge. Any deviation from the optimal matching will mean a degradation in the sound to be reproduced. The third priority then must be the turntable, which is the "environment" into which these couple will dance.

If the turntable was the first step, this would put us into an extremely limited condition, as there is no perfect universal turntable as yet. Let us suppose that we begin our setup by choosing a turntable designed by the suspension principle, this feature alone would not allow us to use a heavy tonearm, if this turntable was a Linn (for instance) it would be unable to use as SME V, because as we all know there is no synergy between them. On the other hand, if the turntable had an acrilic/wood plate, there are in fact cartridge/tonearm combos that sound better in this type of plates. On the contrary if the plate was metallic, then the combo to be used would be different, and this would prevent us to freely choose the cartridge/tonearm. If the turntable uses a metallic armboard, then the chosen combo will have to be different from that with acrilic armboard. This means that nobody would be able to openly choose the cartridge and arm they wish, as the turntable itself would define the rest of the components, which will again put us into a less than ideal situation.

Lets us now suppose that we begin our setup in the order Cartridge-Tonearm-Turntable. We would begin by choosing the cartridge that we know will get the optimal quality in LP musical reproduction. Up to this point we shouldn't care about the turntable that will be chosen. Then we would choose the tonearm that best complements the cartridge, still disregarding the turntable. Once cartridge/tonearm duo is defined, then and only then we are in position to choose the turntable that helps us to preserve the signal quality of the transducer and tonearm.

The tonearm and turntable are really a "necessary evil", because without them the transducer is unable to operate. However, it's important to remember that it is the transducer itself who has the main responsibility in LP reproduction, and the final result will depend firstly in this transducer quality, and secondly in the quality and matching of its partners. The combinations described by some of you, like using a cheap cartridge/tonearm with a good turntable, versus an expensive cartridge/tonearm used with a poor turntable, do not prove that the turntable must be the main priority. They only shows us that our analog systems must be carefully balanced in order not no suffer the consequences, as you perfectly discovered ("The
Shelter just showed us the flaws of the inadequate turntable and arm"). Furthermore, a serious music lover would never say something as "What I can't hear won't disappoint me" as somebody expressed (!). This way of thinking goes directly against the principles of high-fidelity reproduction, and virtually any system to be found would satisfy this absurd criteria.

The issue is not about who's right. The important thing is to try to minimize mistakes when building our analog playback systems, that apart from getting us far from the optimal, they cost us a lot of money. In my experience, this goal is unambiguosly achieved if one follows the time-proven formula cartridge/tonearm/turntable.

When enough experience and knowledge are not available, is easy to make mistakes. I will give an example: Somebody in this forum began by purchasing a turntable with acrilic/wood armboard, and then he bought the cartridge and tonearm. Later he changed the tonearm, without noticing that the new arm works better with a metallic armboard (a facility his turntable does not have). Unfortunately, he also chose a non-optimal tonearm. Although the criteria exerted to choose this tonearm was the ability to change the VTA in real time, the fact remains that changing the VTA also demands re-calibrating the rest of the arm set-up parameters (azimuth, overhang and vertical tracking force). The only tonearm capable of this feat is manufactured by SpJ, whose design incorporates 4 precision micrometers to do this marvel (!). The final result of this criteria was a wrong tonearm, mounted in the wrong turntable, and combined with the wrong cartridge and a even poorer phono stage.

We have to learn from our own mistakes, as well as succesful stories from the rest of us. Any person commited to music and analog musical reproduction should remember that the tonearm and the turntable can't make any improvement in the signal generated by the transducer (the phono cartridge). If we make the right decisions when choosing a good match for the tonearm and turntable, the result will be an optimal signal quality showing a minimal amount of degrading. This is the quest of all us who care about music.

There is no doubt about it. Mr. Hirsch was right: The transducer is the main election. (BTW, he was also right about the speakers subject)

Regards and always enjoy the music,

Raul

Raoul, what's this blah, blah, blah?

I'll ask you a very simple question--and most people here know the answer:

What percentage of the music is in the record?

Raul,

I think I have already stated what you have now just posted. Yes, the cartridge is important. I am not sure that anyone here is disputing that. But the turntable and tonearm are also important too, just as you have said.

Here is what I said 15 days ago when this tread first began:

>>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.<<

So you see you and I are not that far a part, and in fact I think we are saying very much the same thing.

Rushton and Dan_ed,

Thanks for the recommendation, but the Aesthetix Rhea is a little beyond my budget.

The Rhea is a great phono stage; there’s no doubt about that. How do you like yours? Do you notice any tube rush? How is the top secured to the chassis? The Stereophile review talked about heavy-duty Velcro being used instead of screws? Is this true? And then there are all those tubes, ten in all, right? Wow. I wonder how much that costs to retube the unit. I also noticed that the output impedance of the Rhea is a little on the high side, measuring 2K ohms across most of the audioband, according to Stereophile, and rising to about 3K ohms at 20Hz. My line stage has an input impedance of 25K ohms, which may create some compatibility issues, namely reduced bass output. Ideally there should be at least a 10-to-1 ratio between input impedance to output impedance. The 3K ohm rating is a little marginal for my Klyne.

Art needs to answer the question, too. It's not a trick question--and Raoul unknowingly starts answering it...

Artar, I'm pretty happy with the Rhea. When I was looking for a phono stage upgrade I had the Rhea and a BAT VK P10SE on the short list. Both are very good sounding units and I could be happy with either. Karma decided for me when a Rhea should up for sale that was within driving distance so that is what I ended up with. I'm an engineer so please forgive me if the following description of my impressions sounds a bit dry and this is also the first highend phono stage that I have had any long term experience with. The Rhea brought more of everything into my analog system. More highs, lows, dynamics. It was the bass improvement that I noticed first. The Rhea is also very quite. Some might find the sound a tad bright, but that will vary from person to person. It is a very good match for my VK 50SE which has 100Kohms of input impedance. BTW, that 10x thing is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics if you catch my meaning. The numbers for your system are close enough that only a listen in your system would allow you to know for sure. I do believe that as I continue to put better components in front of the Rhea that it will not get in the way and really allow differences to show.

Yes, the Rhea uses Velcro to fasten the top. This is actually a pretty good idea when you consider how much easier it is to roll tubes with a top that quickly lifts out of the way. The unit is a bit heavy so it would be a pain to lift it out of the rack and have to mess with screws to get the cover off. I haven't gotten to rolling in better tubes, which would probably help with the somewhat bright presentation. I want to get to know the sound with just the stock Sovteks. I do notice a rush when the needle is lifted as the circuits unload but I don't hear anything that interferes with my enjoyment of the music.

My previous phono stage was a fully modified EAR 834P, a very solid performer for the money and perhaps you could investigate that unit as a candidate. I recommend the basic unit without volume control. I had about $1000 into mine including the mods. I did have both phono stages in my system for a few weeks so I could really judge the difference. The EAR was noisier than the Rhea and sounded subdued and rolled off at both ends but the little guy made a good showing.

Dear Artar1: Yes, you an me agree on these subjects. But after that answer from you, Twl post:"According to the "rules of analog" the TT is the most important part, then the tonearm, then the cartridge. You seem to have..." and three or four peoples follow him.
These " rules of analog " are not only a wrong advise but an inexistent one.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

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.

I've really enjoyed this thread & everyone's opinion's.

Raul,

Whether you're correct or others are correct, it feels like you're speaking from an ideal sense, not a practical sense. I see a real life issue I don't think you can solve with your reasoning; I don't think your logic can work for folks woking on a budget up to $5K (and probably a much higher budget). A huge percentage of the folks here are on a budget & are trying to achieve the best possible music from a table, arm, cartridge, preamp, rack, interconnects, cleaining machine, and accessories, within a reasonable budget. It's tough to apply your "logic/argument" in this thread, I wouldn't have a chance do it within my budget.

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.

Dear Twl: Your last two answers don't change in anyway the formula: cartridge/tonearm/turntable. Your answers confirm everyword I already post on the subject, between those words:" tonearm and turntable are really a "_necessary evil", because without them the transducer is unable to operate. However, it's important to remember that it is the transducer itself who has the main responsibility in LP reproduction, and the final result will depend firstly in this transducer quality, and secondly in the quality and matching of its partners ".
TKS for that.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

TWL is back to his old self...WOW!!!

Dear Twl:" 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 appreciatedand ...". I'm not attacking you, you put all that words not me, I only put : facts, sorry to disturb to you. " 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 ...", I never speak about: " it matters not wich TT is used?, all these are your own words.
Do it you a favor: read carefully my answers before you would be angry.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Once again, someone explains things properly, in a clear, concise, and cogent manner, while someone else babbles some crap that nobody understands trying to support his point of view.

This is getting old.

Thanks for trying Tom.

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.

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.

Raoul, is this so hard to understand?

That's why I play my records on the Creature. The platter spins records and plows through transients accurately. Because of that a modded integrated headshel DJ cartridge does the job extremely well...

***

I applaud TWL's excellent treatise on the relative importance of a turntable. His logical approach is compelling.

In my experience the turntable is the most critical part of an analog setup followed by the tonearm and then the cartridge. This has been debated before and while there is never complete consensus, there seems to be broad support for this position among experienced listeners. I hold to this position because of what I have heard from a broad spectrum of tables, arms and cartridges. Theory is nice, but is no substitute for actually listening.

Synergy between various components is of course important. But my experience tells me that tonearm, cartridge matching is what matters most. There are synergies that go well beyond simple compliance/mass matching that are often difficult to predict. I find that matching an arm/cart to a turntable to be much less of an issue. A good sounding arm/cart combination always works well with a good turntable.

So contrary to what some have said here, selecting a turtable first is a sound strategy.