Is the Teres a


I have just read Art Dudley's review of the Quattro Supreme (Stereophile, October issue), a table spawned from the basic Teres design. (The friendship, then break-up of the original Teres group is also mentioned as a side story.)

I have no experience with the Teres but the Supreme - a design very similar to the Teres - priced at $6,000 got a "B" rating (actually meaningless, but someone's got to give it some rating because we are a rating-mad people!).

Why doesn't Chris Brady send Art a table so that he could at least give the Teres a good review and exposure?

Art's reference, the LP12, by the way, beat the Supreme in one area: PRaT.

Cheers,
George
ngeorge

Showing 3 responses by twl

I'm always in favor of hearing a "shootout" of some great tables.

I still love my Teres 245.
I know it isn't "the best", even in the Teres lineup alone, but it sounds great to me, and I could afford it.

I think that achieving a sound that you enjoy is the important thing, and not chasing your tail for "the best", which is very subjective anyway.

It will be alot of fun doing the shootout, though. Maybe I can get out there and hear them for myself.
Regarding the Teres and the subject of PRaT, I was a Linn LP12/Ittok/Karma or Asak owner for about 11 years, worked as the analog set-up man at some high-end shops which sold Linn tables(and others), was taught LP12 setup by Ivor, and probably know something about the subject, based on some experience.

My Teres 245 is better than any Linn LP12 for PRaT. It also is better in virtually all other areas that I can think of. Significantly better.

Regarding the matter of "belt stretch/release" as a "bugaboo" of belt-drive turntables, this is entirely a matter of the belt materials used. While many older belt-drive designs used rubber or rubber-like belts, some now have moved away from that toward non-stretch belt materials.
Notably, the Teres models use a mylar tape belt, which is very non-stretch and provides a wide surface for preventing slip. Tensioning is not a problem. The heavy platter provides enough inertial force to overcome the stylus drag issue, and the DC motor is non-cogging. There is an optical reader with a strobe pattern on the platter, which ensures correct speed during playback. While correction is possible in extreme circumstances, my deck does not make any corrections during the playback of my LPs during the entire side of play. Corrections can be seen by the lighting of the red LED on the motor/controller housing, and it does not light up during play on my deck.

In addition to rubber belt stretch/release problems, 3-point spring-suspended decks add to the problem of the "RC tank" speed control issues, by also getting into motion with the stretch and release of the belt. Unsuspended TTs like the Teres do not suffer from this problem.

With the Teres, the use of a high quality non-cogging Swiss DC motor, a non-stretch Mylar tape drive belt, the heavy platter, and the unsuspended solid base design, all work together to make a very precise speed during the playback of the LP, and virtually all of the problems that plagued the previous belt-drive turntables have been largely overcome.

While I do recognize that the benefits of the high-torque idler wheel drive systems like the Lenco are very good at maintaining the speed during passages likely to produce stylus drag, they are not the only ones which can do this.
However, they are probably the most affordable ones, and that is a good thing.

After all, only 1/2 of the musical information is on the record, and the other half(time domain info - including frequency and PRaT) must be supplied by the speed stability of the deck. The record pressing company provides half, and relies on the consumer's deck to supply the other half.

Well Jean, I'm glad you're fighting it too.

I've been on the bandwagon for over 20 years now.
I admit that my focus has been on belt drive tables for virtually all of this time, and I've been trying to look at ways to solve their problems, and with some tables, they actually have been solved.

With the non-stretch drive belt, it is necessary to have a non-cogging, almost vibrationless motor, so that there is no transmission of the cogging or vibration effects from the motor to the platter via the non-stretch drive belt. Then all that is left is the stylus drag issue, and that can easily be solved by enough rotational mass in the platter, and enough torque in the motor. Once the cogging is gone, then all the rest of the stuff falls into place. The only problem with the non-cogging DC motors is the cumulative slowdown which can occur from the additive effects of stylus drag over the course of the LP side, but this seems to be able to be overcome by this system, because on my Teres it isn't occurring(and I use low compliance cartridges which would exaggerate stylus drag more than most other cartridges). Interestingly, the Teres bearing uses the viscous drag of the lubricant in the tightly toleranced bearing to keep the platter constantly in a slight state of drag, so that the motor is pulling at all times, and no "freewheeling" occurs to mess with the speed. Perhaps this is why the stylus drag issue doesn't have the same effect as it does on other table designs.

I'm convinced that alot of what goes on in high-end audio stems from "traditions" like "that's the way it's always been", and only a few mavericks have broken from this with new designs over the years. But, as we go on, more and more people are trying new(or old cast off) things in an attempt to move toward better sound. It's a good thing.

As I've been known to say, "I don't care if there is a hamster in an exercise wheel in that box, if it sounds good, I'm for it."