I've been reading and hearing more and more about the superiority of direct drive because it drives the platter rather than dragging it along by belt. It actually makes some sense if you think about cars. Belt drives rely on momentum from a heavy platter to cruise through tight spots. Direct drive actually powers the platter. Opinions?
Nothing much to worry about, TWL. The existing stock of affordable DD tables is small and stable and the concensus here says that mass produced DD will never again be seen. So there really isn't much need for concern about buyers responding to a wrong impression about superiority. The reference to spec wars was funny. I still have a copy of the October, 1987 Audio Magazine Annual Equipment Directory(The Industry Bible) boasting on the cover that it contains more than 4,300products and over 75,000 specs. What a feast for numbers people. 62 Hz, 89 rpm, 16%. WOW! Doesn't that just give you goosebumps?
Yet to be addressed is the subject of quartz lock. Quartz is an alchemist's dream come true. Quartz has no comparison to a wobbling belt nor the brute force exercised by an idler wheel rubbing against a platter.
Quartz *resonates* electrically, giving timing and life to both man and machine. Quartz is a source of true metaphysical finesse wherever it's used.
If any of you guys would meet me in person and looked at the palms of my hands you'd understand. They are completely red from using a huge white quartz crystal for meditation and meridian resonance stabilization. My life force is distributed and timed with the help of quartz.
Has anyone seen those little quartz plum bobs sold at incence stores? I can place the center of my palm directly under the plumb and as I concentrate the plumb rotates faster and faster in ever increasing circles.
"If any of you guys would meet me in person and looked at the palms of my hands you'd understand"
Uh, that's OK, thanks anyway...
But getting back to the subject at "hand" (ahem), as far as I know there's nothing about implementing a quartz-referenced PLL that couldn't be done in turntables using something other than direct-drive, if one wanted or needed to.
It's not the "quartz-locking" timing reference that creates any problems in turntables. It's the corrections that happen when the platter speed is determined to need "correcting".
Rhe method of "correcting" the speed requires alot of thought and engineering expertise. If corrections are done quickly, and using a light platter, then "flutter" occurs during the speed changes, as it tries to return the platter to proper speed. If corrections are done slowly, then it would be "wow" that occurs.
Certainly, there's nothing wrong with using the quartz-clocking mechanism for checking the platter speed as a reference.
Regarding quick speed changes with a light platter, as it regards stylus drag problems, often the heavily modulated passages which cause the stylus drag are relatively quick, and are over by the time the speed-control mechanism detects and make changes to compensate. This causes overcompensation, and then when this overcompensation is detected as too much speed, then it has to slow it down again. This is known as "hunting". Generally perceived as "flutter".
Regarding slow speed changes with a heavy platter, as it regards stylus drag problems, the inertia of the platter is great enough that it makes rapid speed changes impractical or impossible, so that most any changes needed to be made by the speed control must be slow, causing "wow".
So, it's not really the method of detecting the speed variations that are at issue, and many types of speed-monitoring technologies will work for this. It is how the engineer decides to go about the speed corrections that will make the difference of how we hear what happens when it is done.
Vitality is vital. Essential. Quintessential. I never have heard any turntable I own wowing, fluttering or hunting. Perhaps I'm not critical or astute enough to observe these faults but I suspect I am happier being unaware of them. Like that burned out pixel, it doesn't bother you at all until you notice it and then it can't be overlooked. Seems like the more you train your ear, the more it costs you. I think I'm going to sell all my turntables except one direct drive. WOW!
LOL! I realize that in most turntables, the speed is well-enough controlled that you don't consciously hear the wow or flutter components of speed controls.
However, it may be registering in your hearing in a way that causes you to think that one turntable "sounds better" than another, for reasons that you have a hard time explaining or describing.
Typically, a person is about 10 times more sensitive to flutter than to wow. So flutter must be kept to a much lower level than wow must be kept, in order for it to not be easily perceived.
This may possibly be why very different turntables with very disparate measurements in the "wow and flutter" category may not sound discernably different, even though one table may measure 10 times less than another. It may depend on what component of speed variation(wow or flutter) is present in their drive control(and at what amounts). A table with primarily flutter in their speed variation must have about 10 times less measured variation, as a table with primarily wow speed variations, for them to "sound about equal".
Maybe not many people really care about this, as long as they sound fine, and that's great. I'm just pointing out that no turntable system has perfectly controlled speed, and that there are variations which need to be dealt with, and that they may influence what you hear if they get beyond a certain level of perception. Engineers will need to be concerned with these things when they design a turntable, but listeners must only be concerned about what they hear as the result(thankfully!).
It seemed to me that some proponents of the various forms of drive systems wanted to point out some technical aspects of why their "favorite" sounded better, and why their "less favorite" did not sound as good(to them). I thought that some of this technical information may contribute usefully to the discussion.
Of all types of TT faults, speed error and wow and flutter are the easiest to evaluate. A strobe disc and a neon bulb will verify that average speed is at least as good as the power line frequency (which is very good). Actually, quartz controlled DD turntables will be better than the line frequency. Test records have tracks with test tones that are designed to make wow and flutter evident. If you can't hear a problem with the test record you will never hear it with musuc.
Psychoticanimal, I have read that the Constitution and Declaration of Independance were both written on hemp paper. At one time farmers were required to grow the stuff to help pay for the war. Another interesting fact is that the war effort was equipped and capitalized by the harvesting of native Ginseng. Seems the stuff that grew wild in Virginia was the best in the world and we were able to trade with Asia for things we could not produce. You know, like cameras and televisions and cars. Currently we are returning to those days when we imported almost everything. Can I get a witness?
It seems that we all agree that no turntable and no drive system can accomplish theoretical perfection, and some of us feel that today's best are good enough. I'm in that group because I have been impressed throughout this discussion with the knowledge that I can't afford anything appreciatively better than what I have. Fortunately I like it.
Macrojack, after reading this thread (much of which I don't have the background to understand) I am curious about a few things. What prompted the question to begin with? How did the thread influence your thinking - it seems to have done so if you're selling off 'tables. What are you selling and what are you keeping and why? I hope these questions aren't intrusive, but your actions and your "WOW" made me really curious. Thanks, Chuck
Chuck, Initially I posed the question because of curiosity and an instinct that perhaps DD had been sent away prematurely by a trend that was propagated by an audio press I distrust and by a need for isolation which was addressed by suspending turntable chassis rather than evacuating unwanted energy. The suspended turntable trend naturally favored BD. With the subsequent development of isolation platforms and vibration control, I wondered if it might be that DD is really superior after all and should be revisited. What I've gotten from this is a strong awareness of controversy. There are strong arguements on both (actually three) sides so I would be less sure than when I started if not for learning about the Grand Prix Racing Monaco and Chris Brady's plans to develop a Teres DD. I mean, look at it, one of the pre-eminent BD designers says that after extensive experimentation he has concluded that DD has greater ultimate potential. Who among the respondents to this thread brings greater credibility? So I am selling my Well Tempered Reference Table that I have used for 12 years and a slew of DD tables I don't like as well as my Luxman PD 441. There is a Technics SP 10 MK II, an SL 150 MK II and a Technics SL 1100A. They are all strong, stable and good sounding but I like the look and feel of the Luxman better and it has more of a sense of pace and drive. I also have a Yamaha PX-2 which is well made and beautifully designed with tangential tracking but it is a bit too gizmo for me. It might go to my kids since it is fully automatic and you can do everything except change records with the dustcover closed. I think that, as it stands today, high end vintage DD on the used market represents the most bang for the buck in analog playback.
Thanks. Very interesting. It'd be fun some day (this is pure fantasy) to have a show-down of the three formats (idler included). Everyone bring their tweaked, DIY examples, categorize them by some leveling criteria (price?) and let it rip. Of course, we'd have to hire enough security to keep things peaceful, but it'd be a hoot to hear the show. And congrats for nurturing a most entertaining and educational thread.
It wouldn't prove anything I don't think, but it certainly would be interesting. You would want identical arms and cartridges, equally broken in and meticulously set up to the same exacting parameters. But even if you couldn't manage that, you would probably discern the differences in overall sonic character between the three. Doing it blind would be a good thing since many of us clearly carry expectations with us when it comes to this topic. Does anyone here have the wherewithal to organize such a comparison?
Drubin, You've hit upon a great idea. Talk about a crowd attraction. Denver is pretty central in terms of U.S. geography and RMAF in October would be a terrific site since it is likely that the principal competitors might all be there anyway. The only hangups would be classification and maybe ground rules. Should we start a new thread for this topic or just keep going here? Obviously we would see older and probably reconditioned models for Idler Drive and no holds barred new stuff for belt. I imagine that it would be NOS DDs unless the Monaco might show up. Who are going to be the judges? Will it be a panel like in the Olympics where each judge holds up a card with their score and then we average them? More comments and ideas, please.
Those coming to Denver will get to hear the exact same table, arm and cart with belt vs. direct drive. It's a simple matter with the new prototype to switch between belt and direct drive. But I hasten to add that this still will not mean much about the debate at hand. The motor and controller topology is completely different. So people will be hearing motor differences along with the belt vs direct differences. I suspect that in this case the motor/controller differences will have a larger impact than the drive method.
There seems to be a lot of religion about drive methods, but I see it as just a small part of the equation. The motor/controller design and characteristics are at least equally important. Rather than taking our direct drive development as an endorsement of the drive method it would be more accurate to say that we have developed a promising new motor and we are implementing it with direct drive. A suble but important difference.
And, that Denver trip is less than 10 days away! I'm salivating all over the keyboard just thinking about it!
Microjack, if you'll allow me an observation. I get the impression that your real motivation for starting this thread, and coming to some of the conclusions you seem to have, was to somehow justify doing what you wanted to do. Sell your current table and buy a table that you had your eye, or curiosity, on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm much the same way. However, there is a pervasive theme through many of the well thought out posts here. That is, all of the popular drives have their benefits and short-comings, it still comes down to implementation of the whole table.
Personally, I'd be much more interested in a shoot out between your Druids and a few other well regarded speakers. Not trying to hi-jack the thread, but the Zu's do have my interest.
Teres: You *elected* to implement it with direct-drive. Why? Marketing (which I think may be a good move in a crowded BD universe), and/or something more?
PA: You lost me, I don't understand the meaning of your response to my wisecrack (which was only in reference to "watching women's palms" -- intended as a joke, though I'm guessing you're not joking about anything...)
Zaikes, if you think about for a minute, moving to DD for marketing reasons alone would be a huge gamble (some might say insane), to say the least, from a business point of view. I've worked for start-up companies for almost 12 years and I can assure you if you swim against too strong of a current you will drown quickly. Chris can certainly speak for himself, but based on everything I've heard about him I doubt there is anything short of a sincere desire to improve the current state of the art being offered from Teres. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, pessimism is another issue. Especially when it is expressed from a position of absolutely no first hand knowledge of the table in question. But you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not trying to throwing darts at you, maybe just spill a little beer on your foot. :) Where did the animal go?
P.A. may be waiting for me to apologize for calling him psychotic although, if he really is psychic he surely knows I meant no harm. I've assumed from first hearing of it that Teres is looking to raise the bar not the bar graph. If Chris was looking to sell more tables, he'd be designing Teres Jr. for mass consumption rather than some ambitious project that I won't be able to consider buying.
Zaikesman, I have to admit that the direct drive choice was based almost entirely on theoretical reasoning. The initial quest was to produce a better quality motor using some new techniques that I had been musing about for some time. When examining drive methods it looked like DD had the most potential (ie lack of compromises). But at the same time it also looked like the most difficult and risky approach. A little isolation can cover a lot of motor sins and with DD you get none. I also looked closely at idler drive. From a theoretical perspective it seems that idler drive is somewhere between BD and DD. Some isolation but less than with BD. I happen to think that idler drive has a lot of potential and suspect that at some point I will experiment with it.
In the end I settled on DD because I believed that this new motor would have low enough torque ripple that DD could be used without compromising the smoothness that is characteristic of a good BD table. Our first DD incarnation confirmed my theories. It had great pitch stability, drive and rhythm but sadly lacked smoothness and refinement. But with some considerable effort the smoothness and refinement has now surpassed our best BD motor. So is the success due to the motor or the drive method? The answer must simply be yes.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, marketing had little to do with the decision. It's going to be difficult to recoup the development costs for the DD motor. Sadly the motor is expensive to produce so I doubt it will ever be sold in volume. But I can say that it has been one of the most personally rewarding ventures I have embarked on.
I was sincere in my question to Teres -- not pessimistic, only a bit prodding. I think it's possible to do both (good marketing and good design; there's nothing wrong with the former as long as it serves the latter), I just sense he's downplaying the reasons why Teres is, in your words, taking "a huge gamble". For all the reasons you list why this wouldn't be undertaken lightly, it's hard to conclude anything other than that Teres does believe that DD holds more promise in some important way(s). I want to know why.
Perhaps the original question should have been: Why do belt drive turntables have a reputation for better sound quality than direct drive turnatables? (This ignores the rim drive fans who are definitely a niche market group). With the question phrased like that the answer becomes much clearer. It is in two parts: 1 The Linn/Naim axis in the 70s did a superb job of marketing the Linn LP12 to such an extent that the audio press started to doubt their own ears. The result, only belt drives were worthy of audiophile ears. 2 The japenese giants saw DD as a way of producing TTs cheaply and sacrificed sound quality in name of the God profit.
As a result the point marked 1 became a self fulfilling prophecy in the domestic market. It was only in professional markets (broadcast studios etc) that the true benefits of DD were realised.
Which is better? Neither, each has its own pluses and minuses. Execution is all in the quality stakes. It is a fact that the domestic turntable development suffered irreputable harm at the hands of the Linn/Naim hysteria of the 70s. (That and the arrival of CD) stiffled the development of the TT.
One last thought: I would never buy a turntable without specifications, not because the specs dictate the neutrality of the sound but because if I am to lay out hard cash I want to make sure the manufacturer is not ripping me off and I have something to bash them with if my purchase does not measure as it should
Specs...It is obvious that the sonic character of a loudspeaker cannot be defined by specs, although some things like frequency response can be usefully measured. However performance requirements of a TT (not the arm/cartridge) are so simple that I think that specs can tell the whole story.
1..A TT must rotate the LP at exactly correct speed, and without speed variation for reasonable stylus drag force variation. 2..A TT must not generate a magnetic field at the cartridge. 3..A TT must not generate vibration, for example rumble. 4..A TT must attenuate vibration of the base it is mounted on.
All these can be accurately measured. The only issue is to determine what acceptable values might be.
And remember that the real reason for specs is for the manufacturer to verify that each unit he builds has been properly manufactured and assembled so that it performs as well as the design permits. Use of specs to assess the quality of the design is something extra that people do with specs. It is more valid for TT than for most other audio equipment.
As a proponent of the "niche market" rim drive group, I would suggest that Eldartford omits probably the most important character of the TT-resonance frequencies. I grant that he does mention vibrations. My real question, as always, is how do specs. capture this. Again as always, all I want is to hear the TT. I did hear the Shindo/Garrard 301, and I bought it.
I should say that regardless of how good it sounded, putting it on the Halcyonic base greatly improved it. Again resonances. Would it not be great to have freedom from resonances.
Dear friends: There is other point that " speaks " in favor of the DD system:
from what I know the cutting lathe machines ( that " make " the LP ), like Neumann, Fairchild, Scully, etc, etc, has DD design not BD/IW. Wonder why?, yes you have the answer.
Thanks Teres for elaborating. Guess it's a good thing you feel your product development results have affirmed the theoretical reasoning which preceded them :-)
On somewhat of a sidetrack note, let me toss out a bit of theoretical reasoning of my own. I think almost everbody in the business could have it backwards in placing substantial platter mass out near the rim. I know why it's done, but suspect that in a different sense it might be a disease worse than the cure. IMO it could be much better from a resonance standpoint to concentrate whatever mass is required for inertial effect as close to the bearing axis as possible and make the outer regions as light as practical. I understand this would entail use of greater mass overall if one wanted to achieve an equivalent inertial effect. But locating mass very far away from its point of mechanical constraint (the main bearing) is inviting trouble in my estimation. Given that a platter must have a flat top, I think maybe a parabolically-curved underside, yielding a constantly varying thickness, might work well...something like this half-profile: __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ______________________________________ ____________________________ ____________________ ______________ __________ ________ _______
(Sorry, the system doesn't permit the full illustration without justifying it, so imagine it mirrored with the bearing axis at the left margin.) Of course the bearing-point itself would be up inside the shape, slightly above its center of mass. Looking at this, I wonder if possibly the York TT that Fremer has sometimes pictured in his column might not have a similar platter profile, but I don't really know and can't think another myself. But if it does, that makes more sense to me than the common approaches. End of off-topic musings...
Hi Raul, from a quick Google: "scully lathes where made by larry scully. most of them where made in the 40ies and there are still lot of them working. nicely made. optical much more exciting than a neumann the quality was never comparable. althought most of todays "audiophile" records where cut on these lathes. nice feature of the 1940ies scullys is the inside out leadscrew. you have 2 leadscews. one for cut normal and one for inside out cuts... the first lathes where all fixed pitch with a gear box. lather models ha a very complicated "vary-groove" mechanism where tube electronics controlled a strange mechanism to varie the pitch. the biggest disadvantage on scully lathes was the belt driven turntable. with a asynchrounous motor, 2 belts and a heavy clutch the turntable was never that strong and stable.."
Emphasis on "although most of todays "audiophile" records were cut on these lathes." Evidently the cutting lathe technology is no way to tell which is the superior system.
Direct drive is a recent development, early cutting lathes (used to produce records we still listen to and value) used motor-driven gears as well, and its use today in making master discs does not enlighten as to which is the superior system overall, given the presence of assumptions, and the need for the ability to minutely variate the speed of the cutting motor/platter: "Between 1953 and 1955, Neumann developed a method of varying the groove pitch depending on the recorded amplitude. To this end, an additional playback head was mounted on the tape deck. This additional playback head determined the groove amplitude to be recorded approximately one half-rotation of the turntable in advance and fed this value to the cutting lathe as a control signal via a corresponding drive amplifier. Of course, this also required a separately variable pitch drive. For the first time, this made it possible to extend the playing time of an LP phonograph record to approx. thirty minutes."
In playback speed stability in practice, not the ability to vary the speed to accomodate the creation of groove modulations in cutting grooves, is the key. The problem of distortion-inducing vibration/noise is a given and it is the responsibility of the purchaser to correctly set-up any turntable, belt-drive, DD or Idler, suspended or unsuspended, there is no magic bullet. Apparently Van den Hul has his turntable set-up on a concrete pillar sunk deep into the ground! The best way to determine speed stability given the problem of which measurements are meaningful, is the human ear. Back to comparisons in front of witnesses, i.e. demonstrations! Theories must be tested to be verified - or discarded - and the human ear is the final arbiter.
Once again for the Gipper!: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing."
- Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, former Chief Research Engineer, H.H. Scott
+++++ " The best way to determine speed stability given the problem of which measurements are meaningful, is the human ear. " +++++
The question is: in what range of pitch sensitivity is our ear? how much/less changes on " pitch " can we hear ?
About the statement of Mr. von Recklinghausen, today things are changong about. Today we have better audio designs, better audio parts, better " rooms ", improved know-how, etc, etc. , at least at the high-end audio niche.
Tbg...If you want to measure resonant frequency (and I presume Q) there is a straightforward way to do this. You apply vibration to the item you are testing, with frequency swept over the range of interest, and record vibration amplitude of the item under test using one or more accelerometers glued to the item at locations of interest.
You might want to perform such a test during development of the design so as to achieve a non-resonant platter.
O.K. Everyone seems to agree that we don't like vibrations and everyone seems to believe that speed stability is of great importance. The only diagreement I've heard has to do with which is more important. Doesn't it seem that bringing them both to manageable levels concurrently should be well within reach given what has already been accomplished? Likewise it would seem that all of these 3 drive systems are capable of performance levels approaching perfection. So there are three best approaches and none are inherently inferior. Is anyone going to switch as a result of reading or participating in this thread?
i think it is because turntable designers all have varying degrees of understanding of the entire turntable system, and place varying amounts of emphasis on "perfecting" the various aspects, within a certain price range, and possibly with different technologies and approaches.
It is definitely not a foregone conclusion that just because a company makes turntables, that they are "expert" in the field. And even "experts" have holes in their knowledge base. And even if they do know everything(impossible), they cannot implement perfection, or even close to it at any affordable price range.
So, what you buy is inherently a compromise. What types of compromising, and how well the compromises work as a whole, will determine the results. And, since different people have different listening tastes and sensitivities, different forms of compromise may appeal to different listeners.
That's why there are numerous manufacturers, who all provide a different set of engineering compromises, in an attempt to get the best result at the price range intended.
Is it really possible to design the perfect turntable. I think not. I do not agree with Twl, that designers have a hole in their knowledge base. I think it is the knowledge base that has the hole. This and the absence of perfect materials.
Interestingly, were we all willing to convert the signal into digital information immediately, it might be possible for a computer to "remove" non-rigid materials' impacts on sound such as the new telescopes remove the atmosphere's impact on light hitting the mirror. Or remove the resonances of the table, or the LP being off center. All we would have to give up would be analog sound.
I had the pleasure of hearing the new Teres 380 direct drive table (still prototype) last weekend in Dever. I won't say that it answers this question in absolute terms. I will say that Chris Brady has implemented a clearly superior Teres that will probably send many designers back to the drawing board. The 380 completely humiliated a 320 in tempo and gave a very life-like, snappy presentation. Don't pass up a chance to hear one!
I was there too. Although I left before Dan arrived, I was able to spend a couple of hours with Chris and his son Ryan comparing the 380 direct drive with his 320 and the new more affordable 280. All three tables were quite distinct in sound. I was initially impressed by the appearance of the 380 in that it very nicely finished and to my eye was more attractive than even the drop dead gorgeous 320. The word "prototype" always causes me to imagine some Rube Goldberg contrivance with wires and switches dangling. This piece looked ready for the Smithsonian. "Humiliated" has a very a malicious overtone to it so I guess I would question it's usage as well, but to say that the 380 completely eclipsed the 320 would certainly be true and it wouldn't sound quite so deliberate. The 380 has a brash and very striking appearance compared to the softer all wood appearance of the other two. But it's sound is more natural, easier and more commanding. There is more nothing about it. While it's appearance is more striking, it's sound is decidedly less conspicuous. Easier and less as if there is any mechanical assistance to the retrieval of signal. For the minutiae fans, there is room to question the results as there were different arms and cartridges involved, but all cartridges were ZYX and both of the arms I heard came from the top drawer. The 380 had a Schroeder and a Universe and the other two used the Moerch DP-6 and an Airy3. The only specs I can recall was the weight of the 380 at 135 lbs. and the price as projected should drop in very near that of the Grand Prix Monaco. Beautiful house and the Brady Bunch were extremely cordial. They live in Broomfield, halfway between Boulder and Denver and Chris knows his stuff and hosts a really warm party. Get in touch with Teres and see if you can wrangle an invite to the next open house. It was a hoot.
Ok, how about "humbled"? Anyone is welcomed to go hear these tables and apply whatever adjectives they wish. The point is that once we had gone through the progession of 280-320-380 no one needed, or wanted, to go back and confirm what they thought they were hearing between the 320 and 380. The difference was profound. Macrojack is correct that the difference in tonearms and cartridges does account for a good jump in dynamics. However, this difference does not accout for the superior tempo and attack to just about every note that is reproduced by the 380. It is definitely a Teres, but it is also a Teres with a great deal of snap and live-ness. Chris demonstrated the effect of applying more torque (there is a pot on the controller for this) so there was no doubt in my mind where this increase in performance was coming from. Cb does have some more refinements planned but I doubt these will change the basic presentation. Sorry to use a cliche, but this new Teres does strip away another layer that I doubt any of the other models can touch being as they all use the same motor, controller and belt drive.
Dan, don't take personal offense, please. My only point is that, especially as one "climbs the ladder" in this hobby, differences (good or bad) generally become a matter of smaller and smaller degree (unless someone totally blows a design or comes up with something truly revolutionary). For there to be THAT much difference between the 320 (the accounts of many claiming it the best table they EVER heard - look up the comments) and the 380 leads me to believe (yes, IMHO) that either the 380 is the best thing since the invention of music (which I doubt) or that the 320 was not all that good to begin with (which I also doubt).
4yanx, I can't place either the 320 or 380 in the hierarchy of world class turntables. I imagine they belong there but I don't know the competition at all. Relative to each other, the difference is obvious and convincing. The 380 was easily the best turntable at Chris Brady's house that day. We now have established that one manufacturers only DD is better than his best BD. Does that bring us any closer to a conclusion about the opening question?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
