I am as fascinated to read Mr. Robinson's comments as anyone here. I can tell you that as this thread has run, I have received at least a dozen private emails from people agreeing with my assessment of the Grand Prix Monaco. These were not negative statements, necessarily, simply statements of what they felt its sonic character to be. As for the stand, I didn't "hear" the stand as a separate product. I only "heard" it in context of the 'table and then did the accelerometer tests. A shaker table measures lateral displacement only. It's used for testing products in earthquakes. The accelerometer tests confirmed that the Grand Prix stand works extremely effectively as confirmed by the shaker table results on the Grand Prix website. However these are large scale displacement tests. Audio racks, as opposed to earthquakes, need to deal with low displacement degradation caused by audio signals in the room that are broadband and low in amplitude. I don't understand what a shaker test tells you about a stand's behavior in a room where loudspeakers are playing music and energizing the shelf upon which the component is placed. An accelerometer test does, as the gentlemen who responded to this thread who specializes in these kinds of measurements confirmed. The real test of the effectiveness of an audio stand is what it does when energized by loudspeakers playing in a room. The Audiogon poster who attacks me for not being an engineer and making these measurements is really playing a very bitter game. if you like the sound produced by the GP stands, that's fine. If you wish to determine the stand's behavior in the presence of wide band audio signals, do the measurements, or get someone who you feel is qualified. I think you'll get the results I did. The shelf upon which the turntable sat is in no way isolated from being energized by the airborn energy in the room just because it sits on sorbothane pucks. The shelf may be isolated from the shelves below or from the frame, but the airborn energy is reaching the shelf itself and how it behaves in the presence of the energy is the issue at hand.
Finally, one criticism I have of audio reviewers is that too many of them are afraid of saying anything negative about a product, or of describing its character lest it be taken as being negative. Such people should become publicists. |
Gee Mr. Fremer, I never attacked you. Heck I don't even own any GPA products. I was simply asking some LOGICAL questions based upon what YOU posted. Your silence in answering these questions is quite telling (and disturbing). |
I have not been locked to my computer! I am in Georgia attending a Saab driving school and only logged on a while ago...i will be happy to answer your questions...and I need to look at the thread because I don't recall acusing anyone of attacking me and if I did I didn't mean to so let me follow this thread.... |
Why are you "fascinated" to read Mr. Robinson's comments on the Monaco? Are not his listening observations of the Monaco just as valid as yours? It appears his comments coincide with the listening experiences of actual owners of the Monaco. |
OK, so you didn't 'attack' me but you certainly spewed a great deal of sarcasm. I never said that comparing MP3s was the way to shop for audio gear. However, I think it was worth pointing out that a number of people were able to characterize the sound of an unidentified turntable using MP3s and that the description they gave correlated with my findings listening "live."
As for the accelerometer test: I used a pair of calibrated B&K accelerometers and mounted one on the GPA's top shelf and one on the top shelf of my reference rack . I ran a frequency sweep at 89dB played through the speakers and read the recorded results. I affixed the accelerometers to the stands and recorded the results. Where they came from is not relevant. These are not 'secret' devices nor was the "fix" in. I made sure to reverse the accelerometers to make sure the results were consistent with both and they were. If you'd like to see them, I'd be happy to supply them to you.
Mr. Lloyd requested that I review the 'table on his stand and that's what I did. No doubt as with any mass loaded, suspensionless design, the platform upon which it's placed will have an effect on the sound, one that's greater than using a 'table with a suspension such as the Merill.
I did not discuss these results with Mr. Lloyd because the review was of the 'table, not the stands. The results I got were not discussed with Mr. Lloyd because they were not part of the review and had they been, they would have been published. I understand I was opening a can of worms bringing this up on this forum and I discussed it with JA who gave me the go ahead after I explained the methodology. What I heard correlates with what I measured though the listening came first. The masking of low level decay information and harmonic development is what you'd expect from a support resonating in the midband.
Look up "shaker table" on the internet and see what it does and what it is used for. It is a large lateral excursion device used to test products under 'earthquake' like conditions. My point was, and remains that such a test is peripheral to the use for which an audio stand is intended, which is to isolate from airborn room energy created by loudspeakers (as well as from energy coming up from the floor through the stand). I said that the GPA stand did a good job of isolating in the very low frequencies but that as the sweep tone increased in frequency and reached the midrange, the stand's top platform exhibited a relatively high amplitude, wide-band resonance that is easily seen in the recorded graph. What's more, a lightweight, undamped carbon fiber platform would be expected to exhibit just such behavior.
I did not and do not "reject" Mr. Lloyds measurements. They are valid for what they are measuring, which is the stand's ability to reject low frequency, wide excursion lateral movements. That's what a shaker 'table measures. The GPA stands do extremely well in such tests. But what does that have to say about how a stand deals with airborn audio frequencies?
I listened before making these measurements. The measurements tend to correlate with what I heard, not vice-versa. I would much rather have heard a glorious sound and gotten equally glorious measured results. I didn't.
However, the measurements did corroborate both the exception sound produced by the Caliburn and they did indicate that the claims made by the manufacturer for the stand's and 'table's isolating abilities were true. Had they not been, I would have revealed that.
Please reconsider before making charges about my honesty or ascribing dark ulterior motives to what I've reported. I'm afraid one of the reasons too many reviews write happy-talk non-critical reviews is that they don't wish to be made uncomfortable by the kinds of charges you've leveled against me.
The Grand Prix 'table will get a Class A rating because it deserves one. However, it, in combination with its stand (recommended by the manufacturer) does have a particular sound that I feel I have described accurately.
My findings seem to differ from those of David Robinson. It will be up to readers to listen for themselves and decide whose are more accurate.
"Wow! Now we can compare two state of the art turntables with an MP3 file sent by e-mail. Thank goodness for the internet. Just think about it, I can have a dealer set up two systems, send me an MP3 of the systems via e-mail and purchase the better one without ever leaving my home to actually go LISTEN to the products. You're on to something Mikey! Look- I know you actually tell people to go listen, and some people such as Triode are smart enough to actually go and listen, but enough of trying to validate the results of your review by e-mailing people an MP3 file. There are just too many variables to make it a “credible” process.
With respect to you last post, there are a couple of obvious questions that struck me. How the heck did you know what you were measuring with respect to the stands and armboards if you are not an engineer of any type? (Kind of like me playing with an EKG machine and telling people their heart is in trouble.) I thought JA did all the measuring for Stereophile? Did an outside party come in and guide you through the process? If so, shouldn't you disclose who they were and if they have any affiliations in the industry? Did you ever use the Monaco on another stand or put the Merrill on the Grand Prix stand to see if it was really the possible cause of some of the faults you heard? Did you ever discuss these results and the measurement procedures to obtain them with Mr.Lloyd? I'm sure he'd like to know that his stands "sung like a Diva". How can you reject his methodology for measuring his own stands and validate your own methodology and want to send out the results via e-mail when the whole procedure appears suspect? If you want to review "honestly and completely", then disclose the entire measurement procedure or don't mention it at all. Anything else is disingenuous since you've reached your own personal conclusions from this process on how the turntable sounds.
I really look forward to reading your columns every month Mr. Fremer, honestly, but you really lost me with this one." |
Thank you taking the time to post a thorough response Mr. Fremer. With all due respect, I never leveled any "charges" against you. I was simply asking some questions with respect to what YOU already posted. You used the words "honestly and completely" and I thought they were contradicted in your post regarding the measurements, hence my asking for clarification. Sorry if they ruffled your feathers. I never once stated your review or your measurements were not credible, just trying to figure out how you got them. |
Frankly, I'm glad that not all reviews are like spring and butterflies. Give us the truth, even if it hurts. |
I would understand your comment had I said Robinson's observations were incorrect. Did I say that? No. Your reaction to what I wrote is unnecessarily defensive. I am fascinated by Robinson's review because it is the polar opposite of what I heard over many months of careful listening.
Incidentally, I have received many emails from people who have heard the Monaco who agree with my observations and my review. I have gotten far more of those in personal emails, including from some who don't wish to be identified, than responses on Audiogon backing what Robinson reported.
But that's not the point. The point is, each person considering the 'table needs to listen for his or herself and then decide which review is more accurate of if neither of them is. |
Dear friends: IMHO and for my audio experience every time that we change an audio item/link in the audio system chain and specially when that link/audio-item is a " statement " level product ( maybe the Monaco is that kind of audio product. ) we have to " re-think " our whole set-up audio system.
Normally our system set-up is tweaked/" equalized " for what we have/like suddenly a totally new audio item goes inside that audio system we can't think that we only have to switch that new audio product and everything will be fine because it is not: we have to make some modifications " here and there " for that audio system settle down in good shape again ( example, when we change a tube audio item for a SS audio item. ). When we " introduce " a lower distortion, more accurate, less noise, lower colorations audio item in the audio chain system we must to start a new system set-up: different cables, speaker position, new volume ( SPL ) level to hear it, etc, etc.
I don't know if Mr. fremer makes changes in the VTA/VTF and cartridge load impedance ( at least ) against what he normaly use with those cartridges in his Caliburn or with other belt drive TTs. These parameters changes are critical for the Monaco review, we have to tie/tweak both system ( Monaco and belt drive one ) for we can make a fair review, well at least this is my humble opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Rauliruegas writes; I don't know if Mr. fremer makes changes in the VTA/VTF and cartridge load impedance ( at least ) against what he normaly use with those cartridges in his Caliburn or with other belt drive TTs. These parameters changes are critical for the Monaco review ... Why would that be? Regards, |
Dear friends: This is something that I miss in my last post:
" Sometimes when we make those kind of changes in our audio system the " cooper " appears and else-where there is a link that now we dicovery it is not up to the task!!!!!. "
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Metralla: In any audio system: distortions/colorations/noises self audio links always hide errors in the quality sound reproduction in one or more links in the audio chain.
When you switch to an audio item that it is lower in distortion/coloration/noise some of those errors has no place to hide and we have to re-start our whole system set-up looking for those errors dissapear.
IMHO it is a mistake to say or think that the " new boy on the street " is the culprit of everything because it is not or at least not for the whole " bad quality sound ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Mike,
Thanks for writing a review that told us (the audio consumers) what you really heard. If I am ever in the position to spend that kind of money on a turntable I will certainly listen for myself and draw my own conclusions (the advise you have given numerous times). Until then, having a person with an experienced ear write a comparitive article on the sonic nuances of the 'table is both helpful and entertaining. A far cry from the usual reviews that read like advertisement fodder...... Please keep it up!
Chris |
I think I know what Raul means,and have to agree with his assertion.Even when A/B'ing some pricey phono cables,in my friend's set-up, required my re-voicing his arm/cartridge parameters.Especially the bearing fluid in his Graham.Why?Probably had something to do with internal resonances,or better delineation,from the cable,requiring a slight change!What can I say?It seems to make sense,that "voicing" a system,requires "really" knowing "it",and what you hope to gain from component changes."Not" getting something new,and hoping for the best!It's a never ending process,or at least a continuing one,'til you run out of money.Or get divorced!-:)
As for Mikey....I'm beginning to think if I were him,I'd be sorry(by now)that I ever took the time to post,on this forum!It's almost like one has to walk on egg shells,when making some claims.Fearing you may have to defend some comment,not necessarily meant the way it came out.I've been there alot,but the nasty responses to me,were often well deserved.-:)
Best. |
Dear Raul, Please do not take offense, because I think you are a very courteous and very knowledgable person, and I greatly respect your insights. But if you think carefully about what you say, perhaps you can see that you do have a preconceived bias and agenda, just like many of the rest of us. In this case, it seems to me that you are positing that the GPM turntable is in fact inherently lower in distortion than either all belt drive turntables or the Caliburn (I'm not sure which). Once one takes that position, then your statements follow logically. But do you or we know that your basic premise is correct? I suggest that one is always trading one set of distortions for another, when one changes the paradigm, e.g., from belt drive to direct drive or from a tube preamp to a solid-state one. |
Dear Lewm: IMHO I think that if everyone of us are testing an audio item ( that we know is a good product ) and we find that it is not performing in the way we are expecting, what normally do any of us?: try to find the whys of that poor performance and try to correct it making changes " here and there " till we achieve the performance target that we know the product can show.
In the Monaco case the minimal changes that we have/must to try ( because of the short comings that MF reviewed )are: load impedance, VTA/SRA, VTF and even a different tonearm and/or phonocable interconnect.
The short comings that MF speaks in his review have to " see " with those parameters changes and maybe " playing " with those changes everything will be right on target.
I don't care about the Monaco but I think for what I read on the MF review and for what he say in this thread that the conclusion of that review was a little on the unfair side for the Monaco and maybe needs a re-review ( or at least a second Stereophile review with a different reviewer in a different audio system ) making some of those changes and other ones.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
heard a rumor about a guy who bought grand prix table at show, now moving up to a walker. believe what you will |
Dear Grooves: I know I'm no-one to tell you this ( I'm not the the Stereophile editor in chief!!! ) but IMHO it is almost mandatory a Monaco Stereophile follow-up review where the Monaco " feels " at " home ".
For what I read in your review and for what you already posted I assume that you don't make/do almost nothing for the Monaco wil be/stay " happy " in a more friendly analog audio environment ( I think that every product that you or any reviewer review deserve that and specially with one product/Monaco that show a new " old " technology that is very interesting for the analog Stereophile readers and for the whole audio community. ). Maybe you did but you don't say nothing about.
What do you think?, I ask you and insist about because you are " someone " at the reviewers community and " someone " at the very top level: YOUR OPINION IS CRITICAL AND DELICATE ON THE SUBJECT !!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
This is an interesting thread that drives home the fact that vibration control and stand construction material is a key determinant of sonic signature. From reading the review and now Mike's follow up here I wonder what the table would sound like on 2" thick or more maple. I test (mostly) vintage equipment and I have a thing for the big Luxman tables. Unfortunately, without proper stands these tables are two dimensional with the sound stuck on the speakers. You have to build a special platform with a sandwiched elastomer to exploit the big Lux tables. Once you do they are in the same league as the Walker.
Bet this table could benefit from these stands.
Good job, Mike.
Peter |
Raul, I am now forgetting what Mike Fremer actually did, but did he not test both tables with the same tonearm and cartridge? If so, then the only variable was the use of two different stands (assuming also that he took the elementary precaution of using the same interconnect and phono preamp in both cases). So, the deficiency of his review is that (I agree) it would have been nice (and very interesting) if he had tested both tables on the same stand. As he wrote here more than once, he used the GPM stand, because the maker of the GPM table insisted on it. SO, if all the above is true, then one can fairly say that the perceived differences in sonic character between the two tables are valid, for Mike's ears and given the difference in stands. What you are saying is that some tweaking of tonearm/cable/cartridge used on the GPM might alter the sound of the GPM for the better. Who could argue with that? I certainly don't, but that's asking and answering a different question. To me, the Fremer review is a very rare instance where a reviewer actually compared two high end products head to head and gave us the straight poop, in his opinion, whereas in most cases we are fed verbal pablum that tries through metaphor to describe the sound of a piece of gear in isolation. JV of TAS does this all the time; he has a boatload of high end gear in his living room, but when he writes his (usually elegaic) reviews, he typically does not mention how the equipment in question compares to his various references. |
Peter,
Can you elaborate on the description of the stand you refer to?
Scott |
I think Mikey does a very good job at reviewing, as he is consistent in his listening approach and generally has more than one arm / cartridge combination to makes his assessment on its sound.
As long as you understand Mikey's musical tastes and tonal/sonic preferences you can get a pretty good idea of what an item sounds like.
No - that does not preclude listening to it yourself, however it is nigh impossible to listen to everything.
Take his review on the Einstein phono pre amp - it is pretty much spot on. I have it at home on demo and it is extremely dynamic, pure and transparent. It has the BEST bass drive I have ever heard. However it can sound a little forward and uncompromising on top. pretty much what Mikey said.
I was thinking about the Monaco, but its inherent sonic signature is enough for me not to pursue a lot of time in trying to have a listen to it. I prefer a more euphonic on top, but still dynamic view of preceedings.
I think Mikey has more than done enough for us audiophiles. We can look at our own listening preferences and use Mikey's view's to allow us to at least narrow down potential opportunities and have a listen for ourselves..
happy listening |
Dear Lewm: I'm not saying that MF does not heard what he say, certainly he did.
What I'm saying ( please read again carefully what I posted )is that if any one is comparing/testing two different TT's surrounded for the same around analog rig: tonearm/cartridge/cables/phonolinepreamp, etc etc, we must try to make an individual set-up to achieve the best performance on both TT's: VTA/SRA/VTF/load impedance, due to their different " colorations/distortions " ( like you say: " I suggest that one is always trading one set of distortions for another " ). Maybe one specific load impedance value makes synergy with the " colorations/distortions " of one unit but the same load impedance value could not make the same synergy with the other TT and this could happen too for the other parameters: VTA/VTF/etc,, that's why is mandatory to make a precise individual TT set-up taking in count any single parameter that can/could affect the quality sound individual TT performance.
We have to compare apples with apples, this means: the best performance of both TT's and from here decide about.
For what I read elsewhere the Monaco set-up was far away from ideal and is unfair to judge it or make any valuation on that un-friendly environment.
Like I told you I don't care about the Monaco but if I was its designer I would like that any review/test/comparison take place in the same performance level ( set up ) conditions. Yes, IMHO MF had to tweaked the whole Monaco set-up and ( for what I read and for what he already say ) he did not: I wonder why????????, totally unfair: the Monaco and more important the Stereophile readers don't deserve that in any professional product review, well at least this is what I think about.
Take a look for the MF's " force " ( brutal force ) he has: in this thread Downunder ( and I can assure that other people too. ) already post +++" I was thinking about the Monaco, but its inherent sonic signature is enough for me not to pursue a lot of time in trying to have a listen to it. I prefer a more euphonic on top ... " ++++, because MF opinion, WOW!!!!!
Lewm, MF has a great great responsability in its hands ( like no one in the analog domain. ) and that's why I think he has to be more carefully about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul
Your comments re myself and others " MF has a great great responsability in its hands ( like no one in the analog domain. ) and that's why I think he has to be more carefully about"
I respectfully disagree. YOu don't need to agree with the final outcome of what MF says, however if you understand his listening biases and comparison reference points his a valuble and consistent help to us vinylphiles.
For me to try and listen to a Monaco TT would be VERY difficult from here in Australia, and going on MF's review and his consistency and professionalism in reviewing products over the years I will not actively chase my tail in trying to hear the Monaco.
Hopefully one day I will to see if MF's view is accurate when putting my listening biases to work.
Unfortunately no one can listen to all TT's, so you need to either be lucky enough to be able to listen or take some advise from professional reviewers.
Who else would you out of any reviewer believe more the Mikey??.
J Valin or W Garcia - Valin is a joke and both give you no frame of reference to what they are listening and how it compares to other TT's. R Gregory is OK, however he spends too much time trying to think up better and smarter metaphor's - and beside anyone that has an entire loom of Valhalla must have some high frequencies missing.
Mikey Fremer - keep up the good work. ps, when are you going to review the Walker TT or does J Valin have to return his permanent loaner first :-) |
So, as we all know, the only way to truly have an independent credible opinion on a piece of gear would have been for a shootout type comparison, where Mr Fremer would be one of several experts giving his opinion. And you know all of the detailed setup. Until that happens there's NO knowing what something really sounds like, and the review is a reflection of his personal ears, system and interests. Unbelievable how so many audiophiles are so naive...
So the truth is somewhere inbetween Robinson and Fremer's opinion. I'm glad I have a system that brings out what Mr Robinson hears. I feel sorry for Mr Fremer, as the second time this year he's reviewed something extraordinarily good vs his personal reference but is unable - or unwilling - to say so wholehartedly. So much for his personal choices, I'm gladly not relying on Mr Fremers ears to buy my system components.
I do find one thing disturbing. That when taking a step back on his whole GPM review and ensuing discussion here, it seems to me that Mr Fremer does not like Mr Lloyd and his endeavors, shaking up audiphile establishement with forward thinking ideas and technologically advanced solutions. You know what eventually happens to those who cling onto established paradigms...they are left behind.
We need more of the Lloyds in our audiophile world and less Fremers. And to those that are put off by Fremers review I would suggest to buy the Caliburn, I heard its a great table, maybe if you ask you can get the same price as Mr Fremer...now wouldn't that be nice! |
I subscribe to Stereophile, but generally find it useless in making buying or even auditioning decisions. Most issues go to the recycle bin the same day that they are received; however, without fail, the first thing that actually and always gets read is MF's Vinyl Corner, followed by any reviews that he writes. You might ask why. The answer is probably not what you might think.
I do not think that MF always gets it right, nor do I always agree with his assessment of a particular product; however, I do believe that he loves analog with a true passion and that he gets exposed to more analog equipment and records than I will ever get the chance to hear, much less have in my home.
Based on owning and then trading a Goldmund Reference for a Rockport Sirius after hearing the Sirius in my home, I know how important it is to compare equipment side by side in the same environment and how hard it can be to admit that your preconceptions may be flawed until someone demonstrates something better. For whatever flaws MF may have, he is entertaining and does open a window for the rest of us into the big buck analog arena. Like any other reviewer, he has his own set of prejudices/musical priorities which color his judgments, but I belive that he tells it the way he hears it. Perhaps I am naive (lawyers like me generally are not), but I believe that for MF the Continuum represents the pinnacle of analog reproduction and maybe in his system it does. I have only heard it at shows, so reserve any final judgement.
A distant acquaintance who owns a company that makes a very expensive phonostage took one to MF's house to compare against the Boulder. Said phonostage is in the same price range as the Boulder and for many of us represents a more truthful choice. The acquaintance after a night of comparing the two admitted that in MF's system with his equipment, the Boulder was audibly better. He was at a loss to understand why as he had previously run the same comparison at a dealer's store. Again, this supports the notion that MF is a straight shooter and tells it the way he sees it. |
Whenever a ground-breaking product comes along, we sometimes have to revaluate our frame of reference, and see if what we are listening to is indeed better, or just different.
I'm like many of you, I read Mikey's column and do believe he's telling it as it is, in the context of his system. For that I do appreciate his consistency and minimum standards which Stereophile maintains.
In this particular instances, you have one TT which is DD and the other a belt drive. The comparison was done with the same equipment, same arm/carts and the conclusion was that the Monaco was thin sounding in comparison with the Caliburn.
Certainly the one key thing about the Monaco is its touted speed accuracy. I'm a little perturbed that no mention was made of this parameter in comparison to the Caliburn, since this is one of the Monaco's key selling points. So is it indeed more accurate than the Caliburn or not? I disagree with the assertion that speed accuracy and consistency is not an important criteria for a TT, let alone one that costs over $20k or 4x that amount.
Certainly if one is more accurate, it would extract more detail and/or possess the more correct presentation of the music. This is fundamental to good analog playback.
If you agree that the more accurate TT is presenting the music correctly, then the next obvious thing is to build up the rest of the system around its strengths - base, arm and cart/phono which are complimentary/sympathetic to the TT. Unless you evaluate the piece of equipment with the best matching anciliaries, how would you know what is its performance envelope? Here I agree with Raul, that perhaps the tables (pun intended) were stacked in the Caliburn's favour, the outcome was therefore obvious.
Where then does this leave the potential customer who's looking for a state of the art analog playback system? If you accept Mikey's conclusion and write off the Monaco, I think you missed the point completely. Go listen to both tables and gain an appreciation of what each has to offer, listen for its "sound", and choose the one which ultimately matches your system and musical preferences. Its all about getting the right "mix". At this level and price point, the balance can easily tilt either way.
Mikey, thanks for bringing these new technologies to our attention and giving us your honest opinions on their sound, and more importantly, the context of your review! |
Dear Downunder: +++++ " YOu don't need to agree with the final outcome of what MF says " ++++
That was not the point and my subject, you really miss it:
+++++ " . Yes, IMHO MF had to tweaked the whole Monaco set-up and ( for what I read and for what he already say ) he did not: I wonder why????????, totally unfair " +++++ and
+++++ " What I'm saying ( please read again carefully what I posted )is that if any one is comparing/testing two different TT's surrounded for the same around analog rig: tonearm/cartridge/cables/phonolinepreamp, etc etc, we must try to make an individual set-up to achieve the best performance on both TT's: VTA/SRA/VTF/load impedance ( compare apples against apples and not apples against oranges. )" ++++
I'm not against MF, I read him every single month and in one way or other I enjoy it and no I don't agree always with his statements. I respect him like a person and I respect his unvaluable analog audio experiences where in some way or other almost all of us were/are learning something always.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
the problem as i see it, Raul, you are suggesting MF should have "tweeked" the Monaco to compete with what ever it is being compared to. the problem with that is, who better then the designer to know what sounds best with their product. if other cables, cart. or arm were entered in to the review or the same one in the compared setup you would complain they weren't the correct tweeks(arm, cart. cables stand/rack etc.). who better then the designer to deside what sounds best with his/her design,in the end it's his/her ear you are listening to. I have a little different aproach. I subsribe to the idea that every part(tt, cables, amp, pre-amp, phono etc.) should add to the whole and be able to stand on it's own. meaning, if any new component is entered in to a system it should make a positive improvement(tube or solidstate) whether it brings out the bad in another component or makes the sysem as a whole sound better. i understand synergy and except it's importants, but like children all components MUST be able to play together. |
Dear Koegz: I think we are talking on the same subject/approach with very little differences.
I almost agree with you that in theory the designer should be the right person to know about but we have here the Guru of the analog gurus ( and this statement does not means that he has no errors: he is human like any one else. ) that IMHO and with all respect to everyone in many ways knows/experience a little more on some ways that the designers it self.
+++++ " I subsribe to the idea that every part(tt, cables, amp, pre-amp, phono etc.) should add to the whole and be able to stand on it's own " +++++
the critical word here is " add " because many times that component add good " things " and other times add bad/wrong " things or ( like you say ) brings out the bad on other components.
In anyway we have to make a FINE TUNE set-up to find the wrong component(s ), to find why the new component it is not performing like we are expecting and fine tune it ( tweaked ) to find if with this fine tune that component is up to the task. I think that when you add your Talon subwoofer in your audio system you make some fine tune about, right?
+++++ " all components MUST be able to play together. " +++++
I totally agree with you, only add with/in synergy.
Achieve this target is very complex because there are many different parameters in an audio system ( including room ): if we change the VTA or the cartridge load impedance ( examples ) almost everything change for the good or bad and that's why I think that every single link in the audio chain must be fine tuned to obtain what anyone of us are looking for in our individual audio systems that in my case is to be nearer to the recording and live event.
Well, what I'm saying is that in this time MF does not fine tune his audio system for the Monaco and I ask him again: WHY????? Because he is comparing it to his Caliburn that is totally fine tuned in his audio system!!!!!!!! , got my subject?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
agree and disagree. assuming MF system sounds as good as he claims it does(i believe that, that is a given)and all the parts are of high quality state of the art components(i am sure they are), changing one component should not be the direct cause of the system to sound bad(the extreme) unless it has flaws. an example maybe to compare a porsche 911 to a corvette. they both do the same thing but if i were to say that the porsche beats out the corvette in everyway(and it does) in a test drive you would argue that the porsche was tweeked(even though we are talking stock cars) better then the corvette or that the track was set to posche's favor. these aguments don't hold water, would you argue the porsche has better tires or a better clutch. would you swap parts to try to improve? of corse not. IT IS THE SUM OF IT'S PARTS AND HOW THEY ARE CONECTED THAT MAKES ANY COMPONENT WHAT IT IS, THEY ARE CHOSEN BY THE DESIGNER. you can tweek a SYSTEM but in the end a component is what it is..... i do enjoy the music |
When someone makes the statement and I quote "Based on what I saw with the accelerometer taped to the top carbon fiber shelf, the stand "sang like a diva" throughout the midrange" Well all the accelerometers I ever used I had to use the 10-32 threaded part in the bottom of the accelerometer to bolt it down so you would get a accurate reading. I question the test Mr.Grooves has done. I have worked for Freescale Semiconductor for 10 yrs in the accelerometer test and development division. |
Dear Raul, I think MF usually uses the Cobra tonearm on his Caliburn tt and that for the sake of the comparison, he mounted (whatever tonearm) on his Caliburn and the same one was used with the GPM, so he is NOT guilty of trying to force the GPM to perform in a system that was customized for his Caliburn. Moreover, with all due respect, you are missing the point. The point is that in order to do such a comparison, one must observe the scientific method - change only one variable at a time. In this case, he held the system constant and changed only the two turntables (plus unfortunately the turntable stands), and he heard what he said he heard. End of story. One could well argue that the Mike heard the difference between the two stands moreso than the difference between the two turntables, but he did as he was asked by the GPM manufacturer.
Your point that further tweaking of the GPM in isolation could possibly make it superior to the Caliburn is unchallengable, since in the end this is all about subjective judgment.
By the way, I have no dog in this fight; I cannot afford either turntable. |
Dear Koegz: Let put things in " other " way ( because we are talking about the same subject ): when you change a component in any audio system you have to deal with a different kind of distortions/colorations/noises that could like you or not, if not IMHO I think that the people that cares about quality sound reproduction should be try to find what is happen and try to " fine tune " elsewhere to be nearer his expectations.
Now, at the level of product that we are talking almost no product will sound bad, maybe different but not bad and like I told you we always could make a fine tunning, don't you think?
Come on, when you change for a different cartridge: what do you do?: I think that you try to fine tunning till you are satisfied: right?
Now, if you don't do it then we are talking in different audio language and we are losting our time.
This is not who or whom has the reason but where we can meet/coincide.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " you are missing the point. The point is that in order to do such a comparison, one must observe the scientific method - change only one variable at a time. " +++++
IMHO I don't think I miss the point because in my experience when you change a TT or a cartridge or a tonearm, in theory, you are changing only one variable but it is not so simple, it is very complex: when you change any of those analog audio items you are changing several variables because each analog link is not self independent: it depends of the other analog links and its self variables change ( could change ) when the other variables change.
I'm sorry my english limitations make very difficult to me try to explain you how complex is the whole analog process.
At the end we not have to agree about you have your point of view ( that I respect ) and I have mine.
Think how many variables change when MF switch from the Caliburn to the Monaco and if you still think that only change one variable then you and me does not nothing to talk on this subject: different drive system, different mass platter, different platter material, different arm board, different plynth, different footers, different..., different..., etc, etc, so complex!!!!! and that's why we need to fine tunning.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul
MF also compared the Monaco against the Merrill or are you forgetting that.
No-one has seemed defensive against his comments on the Merrill???
has anyone heard the Merrill?? |
That you are stooping now to question my motives, my intentions, my personal feelings toward Mr. Lloyd, who I barely know, is indicative of the bizarre way in which this review has been received.
Don't forget: I've critically reviewed hundreds of products and have experienced hundreds of reactions, but none like this one. Not even close.
If you were in my position, you'd see this as a "Village of the Damned" scenario.
I mean do you want to read pure advertising copy?":
"it seems to me that Mr Fremer does not like Mr Lloyd and his endeavors, shaking up audiphile establishement with forward thinking ideas and technologically advanced solutions."
Mr. Lloyd is doing nothing all that different from what other competent individuals are doing in audio. What is he "shaking up?" Andy Payor built a dd turntables years ago. I reviewed it. Carbon fiber? Is that something "advanced" to you? Is Black Diamond Racing a name you're familiar with?
Just to be clear: I don't mean to disparage Alvin Lloyd's accomplishments here, nor did I in the review. Quite the opposite in fact.
However, I do mean to disparage the poster who wrote what's above because it's silly. Mr. Lloyd is hardly the only one designing "technologically advanced" audio products. I review such products all the time. Why would I, or any reviewer hold that against him?
A few months ago I reviewed the Kuzma Reference 'table and Airline tonearm. I wrote a review that was no more positive or negative than the one I wrote about the Monaco. I described what I heard, using adjectives, not superlatives. Much of what I found was sonically attractive, however I found the overall balance of the combo BRIGHT and said I wouldn't recommend using a Lyra Titan i or any other cartridge on the analytical side of the sonic fence on it.
GUESS WHAT? That review did not generate the hysteria the Monaco review has created. It's positively bizarre. Some of you are behaving as if I have desecrated a flag.
Snap out of it. The Monaco is just other audio product. It is nothing sacrosanct. Stop treating it as such. I wrote my opinion of what it sounds like. It's that simple, so get over it.
|
Raul,you are getting a bit carried away with some of your assertions!Not that you are wrong,but to be honest if someone is interested in a product,they usually assert their own perception and tastes first,"then" weigh the benefits of a good,or bad review!
I really don't believe you have to get so technical,with your arguement.Sometimes it is beyond technicality!!!Either something interests us enough to "discover" the benefits of ownership,or not!
To pick apart every single parameter could take a lifetime,if we became so obsessed.Everything has it's positive and negative side!Intuition can play a big part,in a purchase,if we have a general grasp of the product,and what we want from it.
I think Mikey,did a commendable job,with this table(I don't always agree with him,as it should be).Why do I absolutely know this??Because I would NEVER want to do his job!!!!It is a NO win situation,with the attitudes of the hyper-audiophile legions,waiting to find something to pick on.
The reviewer job is to give us a roadmap,to "see" if this particular product is something we find interesting,and are capable of acquiring.Just to point us in a direction.We make the choice to take it further.He cannot cover every possible consideration,or he would surely go nuts!
You cannot cover ALL the different parameters with a product like an analog playback rig!There are too many variables.You "surley" know this!
Fremer did a damn good(enough) job,and if I was interested in the product,I would want to check it out,regardless of how the review shaped up.
When I bought my Avalon Ascent speakers,Michael Gindi(a reviewer at the time,and a person with good intention)was pretty adamant about my buying them.He was a friend of a friend,but was nice enough to invite me to his home(before the speakers came out)and then followed up with numerous compelling phone calls(to me)trying to convince me to acquire the speakers.He was a good salesman,btw!
I went to Mike Hobson's place(he was a dealer at the time)to check them out,and the performance was far from stellar!
Though I was disapointed,I still felt I had gotten enough good feedback,and heard enough in the speaker to "kind of like",that I put down a deposit on them,knowing that these products "had" to be better than the demo performance.I went with my own intuition,and perceptions of what I would ultimately get(which I got in spades,btw).
Personally,I think anyone wanting to acquire something like a MONACO,will not be dissuaded by a so-so review!
Sometimes you have to go with your own instincts!"THAT" cannot be tested for!
Best regards. |
|
The three things that stand out in my mind here are the stand issue, which has been fully discussed, the assumption that the sonics can be traced primarily to DD vs. BD, and the fact that aside from the Monaco's many obvious strengths, one way its problems showed up was in a lack of dimensioality, in other words, a lack of resolution. This is not an issue of altering the flavor through tweeking; it is a lack of information. IMHO, VTA, loading, etc. should not change this once optimized in a truly reference system. The only issue that makes sense to me aside from that of the stand is perhaps the way an arm and table handle resonances and how they interact around that.
I throw my vote in with those that think Michael has done an unusually good and honest job of ferreting out the deal here. We can only aspire in such situations though. This is planet earth after all and there are many logistics that will forever remove us from situational perfection. |
Dear Piedpiper: +++++ " VTA, loading, etc. should not change this once optimized in a truly reference system. " +++++
I agree but that never happen..
Regards and enjoy the music.
raul. |
Raul,
LOL! I guess the operative word is "should"! |
|
I used the same technique to measure both my stand and the Grand Prix stand. If what you're saying is true, I should have gotten similar results. I didn't. In fact they couldn't have been more different. I repeated numerous times. You may work in this field but you're not thinking particularly straight. i compared apples to apples.... |
Jeezus! I tried numerous cartridges that I was quite familiar with. The results I got continually demonstrated the turntable's sonic character. PERIOD. What you're blathering here basically says that no reviews are valid by anyone.... |
believe me, I understand how to set up a turntable. The charge that somehow I got that wrong (which Mr. Lloyd obliquely accused me of) is ridiculous... |
Raul, This is getting to be fun. According to what you wrote above in response to my last response, a reviewer should take into account that one preamp contains different values and brands of capacitors and resistors and circuit topology than another, if he were to be comparing preamplifiers. Moreover, he should be willing to replace parts and alter the circuit of the (in his opinion) inferior sounding product, to see if it can be made to sound better. The essence of audio reviewing is to take the product that the manufacturer puts out there and listen to it as is. The GPM and the Caliburn are both record players, period. For all his faults, HP got this part right 30 years ago when he started TAS. Raul, we should discuss this over a couple of Coronas.
I quite agree with Grooves re the innovative nature of the GPM, or lack of same. Wonderful as the product may be, it is a direct-drive turntable made with a lot of carbon fiber parts. We've seen this before, although maybe not in the same place. The most novel aspects of the GPM appears to be the motor and its speed control and the incredibly high quality of execution. |
Lewm has it right. The Monaco is a very well executed dd turntable that uses a 12 pole Hall sensor commutated motor. Nothing unique there. What is unique is the use of sinewave commutation as opposed to square wave commutation. This used to be extremely expensive, but clearly the price has dropped. Mr. Lloyd's design is elegant and brilliantly executed using high quality parts and superb machining and construction. I don't think I could have been more lavish in my praise of that aspect of the design and execution. However, just as spring suspended designs and mass loaded designs, and belt drive designs have sonic signatures, so do dd turntables. Back when the original Technics dd designs were issued, they too claimed speed perfection and the measurements available then demonstrated that was true. However, the 'hunt and peck' aspect of the servo system, which was always correcting and overcorrecting in the process of producing "speed perfection," produced a brightness and a discomfort that brought about the "belt drive" revolution of the Linn LP12. Belt drives (mostly) have problems that cause wow and flutter, but these are less perceptible as it turns out, than the high speed constant corrections of those old dd turntables. The Monaco design goes to great lengths to deal with the issues of Hall sensor torquing, and all of the other problems associated with dd motors where the platter is literally part of the motor, just as the Caliburn design has gone to great lengths to deal with the known issues of belt drive designs. Neither acheives perfection and both have sonic attributes. I stick by my sonic description of the Monaco both good (superb rhythmic-pacing performance and outstanding bass) and less good (a dry or tight quality in the midrange with a loss of low level detail and harmonic development) compared to the best belt designs. Which one prefers is always a matter of taste and as long as one understands the sonic character, one can better choose a complimentary cartridge and phono preamp. This is true of every audio product. The Monaco "white paper" claimed "neutrality" and colorlessness for the turntable. Sorry. I don't buy that there or with any other audio product I have ever encountered in more than 20 years of doing this. The review should no more discourage any interested parties from considering the Monaco than the review of the Merrill, which said that the bass was not as tight, extended and well controlled as the Monaco, should discourage audiophiles from considering that 'table. The rest of the blather here really is pretty foolish in my opinion and not worth the cyberspace it takes up. |
Dear lewm: Don't be so " extreme ". All I'm saying is that when we change a componnent we have to made a " fine tunning ": that's all.
Come to Mexico and be my guest for the Coronas!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear grooves: Of course that I know that you know how to make a TT/tonearm/cartridge set-up ( you have a DVD about. Btw, very good one. ).
The point is that you don't mentioned nothing about specially on load impedance and VTA. So, now I understand that you use the same load impedance with both set-ups, is ok for me don't problem: no one knows better your system that you.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
