Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH


Anyone read Fremer's review of the Grand Prix Monaco in the latest Stereophile?

Ouch that has to hurt. I am familar with the design of this table, and of course on paper it seems groundbreaking, but if I were in the market for a $20K table, (I'm not) this review would completely kill my interest in this seemingly stellar product.

Any other opinions?

(actually this is a great issue of Stereophile - lots of gear I am intersted in)
emailists

Showing 2 responses by cohnaudio

For the record, I was the guy that visited with Mr. Fremer and that owns the Monaco. First, let me say that he is an extremely nice guy and was kind enough to allow me to listen to albums at his place for an afternoon. Thanks again Mike.

Now, let me give you my thoughts on what I heard. As Mike points out, I unfortunatley did not hear the Caliburn and the Monaco together. I did listen to the Caliburn at his house (using the arm that came with the table) and it is a very fine sounding table. On its own, in a system that is very different from mine, there is no way that I am capable of comparing the two tables based on sound memory.

I did listen to 2 cds that Mr. Fremer put together. One is a comparison of the Caliburn, with the arm that comes with the table, compared to the Monaco with a different arm (I beleive the Graham Phantom). There is one song on that cd - Van Morrison (can't remember the song) The other cd is a compilation of rock, Jazz, easy listening and classical (great selection Michael!). On the first cd (which I listened to at Michael's house), I did hear a difference in the harmonics. The differences were noticable, but not night and day. Keep in mind that there were two very different arms and the comparison was between a $120k table and a $20k table.

With respect to the second cd, I have listend to it close to a dozen times on a very revealing system (Dartzeel preamp and amp and Evolution Acoustic MM3s) and I have to say that it took at least 6 very close listening sessions (going back and forth between the comparisons) and moving my listening seat to the nearfield (as my room is not treated) before I could hear any real difference. Now my ears are not nearly as well trained as Michael's, but I have been in this hobby a long time - listening to vinyl for 35 years, and I really had to strain to figure out the difference. I would describe the difference I heard as a very slight rounding over of the leading edge of the note. I'm afraid I did not, and do not, hear the dryness that Michael hears.

Over the years, I have been lucky enough to hear some of the finest turntables in the world (e.g., the SME 30, the Brinkmans, the Kuzmas, the Walker the Rockport and now the Caliburn). Each has its strong points and its shortcomings. What I heard in the Monaco was something really special. I think it is one of the most transparent and neutral turntables I have ever heard. It does not sound cold to me and to my ears does a fantastic job at harmonic development. Sometimes the piano sounds so real it is scary.

One thing I was wondering about is whether the cartridge used by Micheal was a good match for the table. I use the Dynavector XV-1s.

Bottomline, is the Monaco a match for the Caliburn? I don't know, I wasn't able to compare the 2 live and did not find the cds conclusive. One thing is for sure, there is no way I would spend $120k for a turntable. I do beleive that the Monaco is a great table that beats much more expensive tables I have heard. I had to laugh when I read some of the comments above that stated that the author was writing the turntable off their list because of the review. This is as bad as buying a turntable without hearing it because of a good review. As in every case, you need to listen to the equiptment with gear and software that you are familiar with. I would find it hard to believe that anyone could listen to the turntable in my system with the Dynavector cartridge and call it cold or harmonically challenged. Indeed, If some of you would like to join me for an evening to give a listen, you are more than welcome (assuming you bring the vino)
After reading Mr. Fremer's views on the Grand Prix stand, I thought I should share my view on the stands. I have owned the GPA stands for about 3 years now. Prior to that I have had a number of the top-line stands, including the top Finite Elemente stands. While all of them were good, they did not make a really noticable difference in the overall sound quality of my system. I had the Finite Elementes and found they made some difference (a good thing given the expense), but I kept hearing from different sources about these new stands that made a real improvement in the sound quality. (I should point out that up until recently, I had the racks between, and about 4 feet behind the speakers) I finally tried the GPA racks and could not beleive the diffence. This is not hyperbole. The sound was cleaner (a layer of hash swept away), more solid and more dynamic. Moreover, there was a sense of ease that was not there before. I can't explain why this is or why Mr. Fremer's tests show what they do. All I know is what I continue to hear from the racks. Indeed, everyone I know that has tried these things has had the same view. Based on his results, you would think I would hear real confusion in the midrange (particularly given where my rack was located), but in fact the opposite was true. As I said, I can't explain it, but I definitely like what these racks do.