$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

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

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

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

Thanks for your kind words, Artar. I like the 10t's also, but they are power hogs and have pushed tube amplification out of consideration. It can be done, but not at price I can afford.

I completely agree with the fact that the turntable makes the biggest difference. I have experienced this recently when I purchased a turntable, tonearm and cartridge. Then an opportunity came along for me to move up the same turntable line so I simply moved the arm and cartridge to the new table. I was amazed at how much more detail and bass was being pulled from each LP with the same cartridge and arm. The dynamics just seemed to wake up. This is one reason why I am choosing to keep my current cartridge and I can completely understand why Jphii would chose to stay with his. A good table will allow what might be thought of as lesser arm and/or cartridge to perform at their very best, which may be quite good. I'm sure if I took my Vector/Benz and mounted them on my old MMF 7 I could be led to think that the Vector was not worth the money I spent.

Salectric
Thanks for the insight. It is most helpful. Because of my budget I would be getting the PVC platter but perhaps I could stretch. I am trying to buy a turntable that I will be happy with for a loooooooong time since I am looking at going back to school and don't foresee making any money for the audio hobby for the next six years. So I am trying to upgrade my system to something I could live with for awhile. Because of the large amount of vinyl I have (and still accumulating) the analog front end is paramount. Now I'm leaning more towards Galibier.......

Like Twl said, it's easy to demonstrate and I've done exactly what he described - though mostly by accident. I ordered my Teres, OL Silver and Shelter 901 all at the same time, but the cartridge showed up first. Being as impatient as any other little kid with a new toy, I mounted the 901 on my old low-fi/mid-fi rig, an HK/Rabco ST-8.

It would be difficult to imagine a less suitable rig for a 901 than that, though I think Artar 1's friend with the Koetsu Tiger Eye Platinum/Denon DP-500MX gets the prize for most absurd pairing. At any rate, the 901 sounded damned impressive compared to the ADC XLM MkII that it replaced, duh, but only when it was mounted on the Teres/OL did it really perform near its full capabilites. On the cheap rig I wasn't hearing more than 1/3 of what the cartridge was capable of. For the few weeks until the Teres arrived, I had paid $1500 to hear $500 worth of cartridge.

The table/arm/cartridge hierarchy should not be overdone of course. Once you get to about a $4K table (Teres 265), the diminishing returns curve really flattens out. At that point your next multi-thousand $ upgrade will buy the most improvement if spent on a top quality arm. Going from a $4K Teres to a $6K Teres will be audible of course, but less so than going from a $1K arm to a $3K one. As Twl advised above, it's important to maintain balance. "Table first" does not mean "table above all else".

Very well said, again. Too bad there are those that can't see it.

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

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

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

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

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

I'll leave the conclusions to whoever tries it.

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

I have to agree with Tom here. I had a budget (that I blew all to hell) and wanted to get the best bang for the buck. By being able to build my own plinth for the Teres, I saved a considerable amount of money. And I am extremely happy with the end result. I also believe in the "rules of analog" as Tom states them: TT, then arm, then cartridge. I understand why you wanted to do the cartridge first, but I went the opposite direction. That's all a matter of opinion. But, so is everything else here.

So I started with the Teres, 2 different Rega based arms, and the 103r. The more I listen to other setups with high dollar arms and cartridges, the more I am amazed by how good this low-dollar rig sounds. I've got a buddy with a full-blown LP12 setup. He can't believe how much better my rig sounds, considering I spent about 25% of what he did. And our electronics are very similar, both of us being of the tube school. I think his next purchase will be a mass-loaded table, after he takes a beating on the Linn. He has finally seen the light!

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. More so than the RCM, which I also believe is essential. As much as I hate to say it, that may be the only thing I agree with Romy, I mean Raul about, the phono stage being critical. It has made more difference than other single change so far.

While I will one day have a Schroeder arm, the only other thing I may change is my platter. And only if I build one myself. The 103r stays, not because it's only $250, but because I like the way it sounds. If it's good enough for Frank Schroeder (one of these days I'm going to get a keyboard with an umlat), it's good enough for me! I think I value Frank's opinion a little more than Romy's, I mean Raul's. I'm not an idiot, I know there are better cartridges out there, but the important thing is, once again, I like the way it SOUNDS, and it is a great VALUE. Of course, if the right deal comes along, well, this could all be changed!

Like Dave said, it's a great time to be in the market for a new turntable. There are some great choices out there for relatively small money. And for various reasons we have definite TT "camps" here on the Gon who champion what we like and think others will too. Without this advice here, I probably would not have what equiptment I do, and spent more time and money finding what I like. And dealing with people like CB & TM makes it even easier and more enjoyable. Do you think any of the "big" TT companies care about your opinion? VPI excluded, as I know they go out of their way for their customers. The nice thing is, they let us have a lot of money left over to spend on vinyl. After all, without the black plastic, what's the point?

Hi Artar1:" first the cartridge, I could then work backwards to the tonearm, followed by the turntable and finally the phono stage. Yeah! That’s it I thought smugly; I will get my answers at last. "
You are right:the cartridge is the first item to choose in the analog rig, you have to put all the money you can where the music is: at the source/phono cartridge. There is nothing that you can do for that the signal that comes from the cartridge has an improvement: in a perfect world ( that does not exist ) the better that you can do it is: not degraded that signal.
Then you have to choose the best tonearm that match with that cartridge for to try to have the less degraded signal. Next the phono stage ( this link is critical ( well all is critical )and can do more harm to the signal than a TT ), TT, cables and platform.
For others reasons but Mr. Hirsh was right on this subject.
About turntables, I know that for many of you a " beautiful view " is important but I think is more important the performance of that turntables, fortunatelly today we have a lot of turntables for to do a good choice: SME ( the 10 ( for example ) price/performance ratio is exellent ), Transrotor, Avid, Acoustic Signature, Brinhkman, Acoustic Solid, VPI, Wilson benesch, Thorens, Roksan, Eurolab, Basis, etc...., all these and many more has models for differents budgets.
I recomended to you that take a look to Acoustic Siganature, btw take a look to everyone.
Now, if all of you are serious about MUSIC the only Denon cartridge in what you can think is the : DLS1. The 103, 103R,103S, are really a mediocre ( very bad ) performers at any price in front of: MUSIC reproduction.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

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

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

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

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

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

Letch,
While I have not heard any of the Teres models, I did seriously consider the 255 before deciding to buy the Galibier instead. Some of the factors that led me to choose the Galibier were: (1) some concern over the long-term dimensional stability of the Teres wood base (and even more so the wood platters of models above the 255), as opposed to the solid aluminum of the Galibier ALU, (2) I had heard the Platine Verdier set up with the same tonearm I would be using (a 12" Moerch DP-6) and was very impressed with its sound quality, and the Galibier seemed more similar to the Verdier than did the Teres, (3) the Galibier accomodates 12" arms and it also allows two tonearms to be fitted easily, (4) I read a number of accounts of problems with the Teres motor controller, and I was skeptical of the whole servo control concept---the Galibier and Verdier use a very simple DC regulator which obviously works well without any servo control, (5) the Galibier especially with the optional Teflon/aluminum platter is very massive, and mass seems to matter with a non-suspended table, (6) the Galibier seemed to me to be more cutting-edge in terms of platter technology (a lot of work went into the the Teflon/aluminum composite using lead shot and oil to damp vibrations) and drive belt technology (I believe Thom Mackris was using the wide tape before Teres), (7) I like the looks of both the Teres 255 and the Galibier ALU tables, but overall I preferred the look of polished aluminum which nicely matches the Moerch toneram, (8) I really like Galibier's philosophy that everything they make should be an "heirloom" product that will so longlasting and reliable that it can be willed to your heirs---this was consistent with my desire that my new turntable would be my final table and would be flexible enough to accommodate any tonearm or cartridge changes I might make in the future, and (9) perhaps most importantly, I had and continue to have "good vibes" in all of my conversations and email exchanges with Thom Mackris---Thom is committed to making his customers happy with their purchase. Others have had similar things to say about Chris Brady at Teres, but I talked to Thom first and never felt any need to look further.

I guess the bottom line is that this is a great time to be in the market for a new turntable and we are all lucky to have companies like Galibier and Teres to choose from. In an ideal world, we would be able to go to our local dealer and hear all of the various turntables, and indeed then be able to bring several home to audition at length. In the real world, however, we have to make some decisions based on less than perfect information. I'll confess to having had some concerns about buying any turntable without ever having seem or heard it, even with Galibier's 30-day satisfaction assurance, but I am completely satisfied with the decision to buy a Galibier.

Hope this helps.

Dave

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

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

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

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

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

This is one of the most interesting threads I've run across! And it's so relevant to my own TT upgrade research! I searched on Galibier since at this point I am trying to decide between the Quattro Alu and the Teres 265. When I started searching my ideas ran between the Basis 2001 and the Nott Spacedeck but as I read more and more I decided against suspended decks(2001) and felt underwhelmed by the Spacedeck though unlike Artar1 I love the look. When I discovered info on Teres and their spin-offs I was fascinated. Like Artar1 aesthetics are very important to me. 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. However with these tables I haven't read anyone saying a negative thing about them. I have heard people say that their table would destroy a Teres but it usually seems to be backed by hot air to trump up their purchase decisions and not experience. As for Stereophile ratings, I find too many tables lumped into the same class that don't make sense to me or bizarre comparisons or Art Dudley's use of a Graham Robin on the Galibier which seemed like a poor match. Which is why I seek these forums, to get more data.

Dan_ed, I'm almost tempted to wait till you get your Teres and see what the shoot-out brings! Yr thinking mirrors mine. However I have decided that suspensionless is the way I want to go. I'm looking very forward to yr results.

Artar1, thank you for starting this thread. I appreciate the knowledge that you have shared and the logical approach to this process that you have made. Oftentimes the best questions bring out the best answers and you have done well. I also think your sidebar into the tomfoolery concerning glass and steel is one of the best responses I've read to this issue. Again thanks. I run tubes myself but am not dogmatic about it.

Dougdeacon and Twl I appreciate all that you have two have shared here. It's helping me with my decision. Something Doug said brings me to my own question.

I have been leaning towards the Schroeder 1 (or DPS if that's what it's called now) arm but have not decided on the cartridge. The thing is that while I do listen to a lot of classical(former classical buyer for Tower), I would say that 60% of my listening is to rock, post-rock, punk, free jazz, noise etc. What would be a good match cartridge wise with this in mind? And the Schroeder the arm I should be thinking about? Any info concerning this would be helpful.
Also does anyone have experience with the two tables I mentioned above? I see-saw back and forth between the two as far as looks go but haven't really seen any real comparison as for sound. PVC? Wood? help?
Sorry to horn in, but it seemed like the info and the knowledge is in the neighborhood......

Part Two: Progress indeed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued...

Twl,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any of the denons in my opinion (dl103s was my favorite)would do a number on the above. In addition, probably one of the best cartridges I have heard is the B&O mmc 2. This would need the adapter to work in standard arm but a real gem. Many would snicker but the sound and engineering are magnificent!

Artar1, I have the Galibier Quattro ALU with the PVC platter. This is the "entry" model which presently sells for $3850. I will be trying out the Teflon/Aluminum composite platter shortly. The details of the lineup can be found at www.galibierdesign.com

Dave

Dave,

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

Viggen,

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

Dan_ed,

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

Hi Artar,

Regarding the RS-A1, it is imported by Sakurasystems.com. There's a wealth of information on that tonearm on audioasylum's vinyl section. I am attracted to the tonearm's simplicity, but it lacks a cueing/antiskate device which makes most people scared of using it incase they damage the stylus.

There's also two reviews available on the web; however, both the reviewers who are gaga over the tonearm kept the samples gratis of the distributor, so I take their reviews with a pinch of salt if you know what I am saying.

I am waiting for a used one to pop up.

Joshua,

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

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

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

Dougdeacon,

Thanks for the compliment regarding my narrative!

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

http://www.theanalogroom.com/

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

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

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

Artar1, one of the neat things about the Galibier turntables is that it's so easy to add a second arm. I have both the 12" Moerch and a VPI JMW-10 arm mounted on mine right now. With the Teres I think you have to specify a different base in order to mount two arms.

Dave

Viggen,

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

Mrmb,

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

Dan_ed,

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

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

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

Twl,

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

Thanks.

Twl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

Salectric,

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

Yes, Raul. I could use a better cartridge, but I chose not to at this time. I am not unhappy with the performance of my analog system in the least. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds fantastic. My intent is to learn, as you sometimes say, for myself the differences between theories as they have been implemented. I have simply chosen Basis and Teres (don't have it yet, but soon). I could have easily picked two others. Hey, its a hobby that keeps me off the streets and out of the bars.

Dear Dan ed: If you really want to improve the quality of your music sound reproduction in your analog audio system then you should have to change your phono cartridge for a better one, instead to change your turntable.
So, my advise is that your first step have to be a better cartridge and maybe, if something wrong with you Basis, your second step a new TT: when you want to do this second step, take a look to www.acoustic-signature.com , these turntables beats many of the ones that people mention on this thread at a very confortable price.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Artar1,

I have really enjoyed reading your Part 1 synopsis of your decision-making journey; very well written. Thank you for sharing this! I look forward to reading Part 2.

With regards,

So as not to totally trash the product, MDF does have uses in audio, speaker cabinets for example. And there are also different formulas for MDF. But one should be judicious in where it is applied. As a former owner of a MDF-based TT I completely agree with the sentiments expressed here regarding its use as a plynth material.

I feel your Salamander pain, DougDeacon. I was using an Architype stand prior to building my own.

I am on a path to get to the decision point Artar is now at. I chose to make my decision between a mid to upper Basis line table and a Teres. I now have the Basis and hope to get started on the Teres after the New Year, if the gods continue to smile on my business. I'm hoping that my own little shoot out between these two makes will answer many of my questions regarding suspended vs. non-suspended, wood vs. acrylic, etc, etc. Since I can't do this in someone's showroom I decided to do it in my listening room. Talk about expensive hobbies. . .!

Artar, I too have long been considering a TT upgrade, and the Teres has been on/at the top of my short list since TWL pointed it out in a thread I started here some time ago. (I, however, will probably spring for the 150 or 160 model for reasons of budget, and use it with my OL-modded RB-250. I'm almost there...)

Among the other 'tables on your list, I auditioned (and was very impressed by) the Gyro SE. The standard VPI Scout didn't impress me as much (at least in the context of the dealer system I heard it in, which was far less expensive than the one in which I heard the Gyro SE). I haven't yet heard the Scoutmaster.

I'm looking forward to "part two" of your post, and to hearing what your thoughts are once you have the 245 up and running.

Joshua

Artar 1,

Excellent narrative of the process most of us have to go through when choosing a vinyl front end these days. With so few dealers left it's nearly impossible to see, touch or hear most of the legitimate contenders, especially in the middle to higher price ranges.

I thoroughly agree with you regarding MDF. By far the weakest component in our system is the Salamander Synergy rack. Top, bottom and shelves are all MDF. Decently veneered and finished MDF, but as you say it's still just glorified sawdust. Our rack choices were sharply limited by visual concerns (there's that conflict again). It's sitting in our living room, where an open rack of audio gear was simply not acceptable.

The MDF top and shelves are much too ringy for best audio performance. Frank Schroeder recently commented that the length of fibers in MDF is too short for optimal damping behavior, compared to the long fibers in his wooden armtubes or, one supposes, in the hardwood base of a Teres. The base and platter of my 265 are far less resonant than the shelf it's sitting on.

Eagerly awaiting your chapter two...

I pretty much had the same thought process as you regarding table selection, artar. I expelled the VPI because I dun like MDF. However, instead of going with a mass loaded platter design ie Teres, I went with a decoupled platter design as one of my finalists with the other one being the Gyro SE, a "sprung" design. I thought a decoupled platter would come close to getting the positive attributes of both table designs.

I am backing away from the encounter since my last post though. I have the OL Silver now and want to try something different. I am thinking RS Labs' RS-A1.

Joshua,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of Part One...

>>>Yes, I have made my decision, and it will be exactly what Twl recommended in the second message of this thread: Teres 245/OL Encounter/Shelter 501. I will say more about this selection in another post and provide my rationale if that would be of interest.<<<

It'd be of interest to me, at least!

Joshua

Artar1: Along the way in my recent return to vinyl sojourn, I came across a woodworker that builds custom maple sandboxes (with dovetailed corners etc.), platforms, stands, racks etc... http://timbernation.com/ampstand_PopUp.cfm. I purchased a custom sized (28” x 22” approx.) stained 4” thick maple platform from him for less than $250 (I believe it was $225.00) including delivery.

For my new Galibier Quattro (just received), I was leaning in the sandbox direction, and Chris quoted me a great price for a maple box and platform. However, for my application I decided to go with the 4" thick platform.

The 4” platform I did receive met my expectations in terms of size, and finish, plus the price was right – a good combination of positives, and highly recommended.

Hello Artar1,

I read your post a few entries back on constructing a rack using sandboxes. FWIW, I have just completed doing a project just like this and have posted pictures on my system page. I borrowed the concept from Chris Brady's web page and just used different materials, but basically it is hardwood and laminated MDF. The shelves that float on the sand are hard maple and I took Chris's idea and used that sticky backed foam insulator material to fill in the gap around the edges. This works great as I had to use a putty knife to hold the foam back to allow air to escape while I was installing the shelves. I have my table sitting on the top shelf, but it is a suspended Basis. The sandbox would work very well, IMHO, for a Teres or any other audio equipment for that matter. The trick with a mass loaded table would be to make the stand below the sandbox very heavy and rigid. Not really that hard to do.

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

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

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

I second Artar1's recommendation of the Moerch DP-6, especially the 12" wand. I use the 12" wand with my Galiber Quattro ALU and it sounds very nice. (It also looks great with the Galibier's shiny aluminum finish.) By a number of accounts, the 12" wand sounds considerably better than the 9" wands. I don't have first-hand experience on this since I've only heard the 12".

Dave

Twl,

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

4yanx,

Oh no, the Beethoven wars!

Here's a few of my Beethoven favorites:

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

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

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

FWIW, I am humbled that you found anything I posted about record cleaning to be of value. One caveat. I have since learned a great deal about the leaching of plasticizers in vinyl and no longer recommend the use of dishwashing detergent (including the fragrence ingredients in Dawn) or various other household cleansers when doing the sink washing. Others still swear by their use, but I don't want to be responsible for someone using the "wrong" product. Some quite distressing reading regarding the use of enzyme-based fluids and their effect on certain plasticizers (including dioctyl phthalate, dibasic fatty acid, and the most common plasticizer in vinyl). Others will argue, too, that you shouldn't use tap water for an initial rinse before moving to the RCM and RRL fluids. Unless your water is extremely hard or in an area that has an abundance of chemicals, I don't think there is much of a risk unless you air dry. I've done the sink and tap water route and the distilled water route and don't tell a difference. Of course I always use the RRL regimen immediately afterwards.

OK, now this thread can move to a discussion of the best pressing of Beethoven’s

No, say, "you're right they really don't sound all that good. Load up all of your old junk in my car and I'll haul it away for you."

Do you hear that Doug?

Welcome 4yanx!

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

(I wonder why I never get invited back?)

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

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

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

Hmmm, you're in Tracy? I'm in the South Bay. When/if Doug wanders out this way, don't forget to look me up, too!