$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

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?

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

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

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

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 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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!
.

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?

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!

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.
.

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.

... 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?

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".

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?

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!

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!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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
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.

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

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

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.

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.

Dan_ed,

It’s always a good idea to be nice to your wife. Luda asked what I wanted for my birthday, which is fast approaching. I said, “How’s about a contribution to my turntable savings account?” She said, Will five or six hundred do?" “Why certainly!” I replied. I am getting closer guys. : > )

My favorite music for vinyl is classical. That type of music was what I bought first in any abundance, and it is what I am buying now despite the fact I don’t have a turntable. It’s a risk buy so to speak, but I feel that I have to get back into the vinyl game in some way. Shoot, by the time I actually get my turntable, I will have about a hundred albums. Now I know that’s a puny record collection to many, but it’s like diamonds to me!

I will have to say that even with rock, vinyl reigns supreme over CDs. Even though I listen to classic music, what got me going toward vinyl was hearing “Gloria” by the late Laura Branigan. The music was so sublime, the beat was so hot, and her voice was so real and in the room with me I literally jumped out of my chair and commenced to flail myself about has if I had become possessed by the Almighty. Wow! Rock was meant to be heard from a vinyl record on a great analog front end. The music I experienced that moment was better than any live concert of amplified music I have ever heard!

Salectric,

It's great to hear about your platter upgrade! Let us know how it sounds. I think we're all eager to hear.

Artar1

Jphii,

Because you built your Teres from scratch, it might be useful for some of us if you were to describe the process for us and to comment on the overall quality of the turntable, if you wouldn't mind. I think that would be very instructive and helpful for some of us newbees, like me.

Well, you’re not the only one who has blown his budget all to hell. If you’ve heard of “A Bridge too Far,” right, well my analog saga is becoming “A Turntable too Much!” Let’s see, my budget started out at $3,000 for the turntable, tonearm, and cartridge. Now it’s over five big ones! Help! As of today, I am up to a Teres 255, an Origin Live Illustrious, and a Shelter 501. Why the Illustrious? Hey, I just love that name, don’t you? It looks a little better than the Encounter (I can just see Twl rolling his eyes!), and it has a few more refinements that I like. What concerns me about both the Encounter and the Illustrious is that in some photos it appears that the back end of the arm base is hanging over the edge of the arm board mount, which would be aesthetically unacceptable for me. If this proves to be the case, I will ask Teres to make sure that the arm board mount for my Teres is made larger so there will be no overhang. If they refuse, then it’s back to the Moerch DP-6.

>>I know people who spend shitloads of money on their analog rigs. I'm trying not to. In fact, the best "analog" purchase I made was my Supratek.<<

Right on! That’s one hell-of-a preamp by anyone’s standards! If I had it to do over again, I would buy the Supratek Cortese. But I own a Klyne System 7 line stage that certainly outperforms my Conrad-Johnson PV14L and my Proceed AVP-5. In fact, I have no criticisms of the Klyne so it’s difficult for me to justify taking a $2,000 loss by selling it to buy the Cortese.

Hey, if you like the DL103R, I say go with it. Don’t let anyone talk you out of it. I can certainly support you one that one.

Artar1, I am not a materials engineer and so cannot comment on your speculations about the various materials. What matters, of course, is the resulting sound quality, and I can vouch for the sound quality of the solid aluminum base in the ALU model. I have no doubt that the Galibier Quattro Supreme would be even better, but that was beyond my price limit. For what it's worth, the designer Thom Mackris says the the platter upgrade makes a much more significant improvement in sound quality than the upgraded base. I will be finding that out shortly when my new Teflon/aluminum platter arrives.

Dave

Raul,

Thanks for your kind thoughts and observations. The cartridge is very important, as you have pointed out. I also think that balancing the system, as Twl has suggested, is also important. For me, which I believe it was your suggestion, I will start with the Shelter 501 and put it on an Origin Live tonearm, either the Encounter or the Illustrious.

And thank you for your continued support of the Acoustic Signature turntable. However, I think my heart is set on buying the Teres 245 or 255; I like the look of wood.

Thanks for posting.

Artar1

Salectric (Dave),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, this thread has come along way from a discussion about an $800 cartridge upgrade to talks about high-end tables and arms! No complaints here, I learn a great deal from threads such as this.

On the subject of shopping trips. My wife spent Saturday at a charity flee market that supports a day program for special needs adults. So she comes home with 3 records! Ok, so two of them were duplicates for me but it really is the thought that counts. This is just another indication to me that she is supporting my audio passion. I may have to start being nicer to her.

In the short two years of my analog rebirth I have discovered that with almost any of the modern tables that I can enjoy just about any type of music. I now listen to nearly everything from Bluegrass to Bach, though classic rock is my base, and I felt that even my former Music Hall did a good job on all of this music. I have learned that dynamics are probably most important when you consider music that might be described as rich and warm. The playback of so many musical passages are enhanced by the ability to provide that immediate tone and beat. You may not notice any deficiency with rock but you most certainly will with classical and even some Bluegrass. Things my old Dual table way back when could not deliver.

So maybe I am just reiterating what Twl has already stated, that you really can't go wrong with any of the better modern tables. If you can accept this then why shouldn't aesthetics come into the equation. We are visual creatures and will probably spend a good deal of time looking at our equipment while we are listening to it.

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.

Thanks Artar1! I'm getting a lot out of dovetailing my questions into this thread.

Twl - Perhaps you could comment more on the Schroeder, I haven't seen much information on what can be accomplished with the various materials for the tonearm. I like the idea of a Shelter 501. And is this arm suitable for someone who is just learning about tonearms? I'm not really a tweaker in that regard. Though I want to learn more.

Any comments about Schroeder in general would be helpful from those with experience hearing one. The data on audioasylum is very positive but not too specific on details.

The Schroeder does have an excellent rep and both companies offer it as package deals with their tables. I'm still wavering on the aesthetics of the tables though. It's a nice choice though. It seems to me that there is plenty of aesthetically pleasing equipment out there so someone cares about those things.

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

Letch,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Torsion-bearing, magnetically stabilized and damped

2) Virtually no bearing friction, no bearing chatter

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

4) VTA repeatable and finely adjustable

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug,

Thanks for muddying the waters! Kidding. Actually one of my concerns was that the Teres height adjuster would be a major plus. I am not that proficient with fiddling around with tonearms yet and while I had considered a Basis Vector (with the adjustment option), I just heard so much good stuff about the Schroeder that I felt that perhaps I should make the plunge with that arm. I am less concerned with the cartridge. I feel that I can work up to that after the fact.

Thanks for the info on the motor, that was a concern. I have a friend who lives in Colorado Springs so perhaps a visit with him is in order so that I can go hear both tables since they are both conveniently located in that area. I am less concerned with the arm situation since I'm blowing the bank with just this table and arm.

Not that these tables are cheap but it does seem that at their price point that they are SOA solutions that compete with the best.

I wonder how many of us would have to donate to get Dan_ed the Galibier for the three-way shoot-out......

Sure thing, DougDeacon! To all, I am now soliciting donations for my "Dexter's Analog Lab" project. :')

Letch,
If you go with any Schroeder below the Reference, one advantage of a Teres would be CB's arm height adjuster. If optimizing SRA turns out to be important for you it's a much better solution than the set screw and sliding post method.

Some of Salectric's Galibier/Teres distinctions are worth a second look:

the Galibier accomodates 12" arms and it also allows two tonearms to be fitted easily,

A Teres accommodates 12" arms just as easily as a Galibier. Both brands have free-swivelling armboards. A two-armboard Teres is available, though it is a special order. Galibier does win that one.

I read a number of accounts of problems with the Teres motor controller, and I was skeptical of the whole servo control concept

I had a controller problem a few weeks after I received my Teres. CB overnighted a completely new motor/controller unit, which gave me the $100 Signature upgrade for free. I'm not personally aware of any controller problems since the Signature and Reference series came out last year. Even if Teres closed its doors tomorrow, the readily available schematics and parts list make it possible for any electronics technician to repair or even build a Teres controller from scratch. The benefit of self-regulating platter speed is obvious, DC motor speed creep will never be an issue. The music is always in the same key at the end of a side as it was at the beginning! ;-)

It seems that a Teres/Galibier decision must usually be made on aesthetics, budget and these relatively few features differences. No one who's heard both has said that either sounds clearly better than the other. Maybe Dan_Ed should add a Galibier to his Basis/Teres shootout. Go Dan go!