Hi Lew,
As far as volume is concerned, I left it to Frank and Joel, who knew the musical selections. With the Atma-sphere's stepped attenuators, it was impossible to obtain an exact volume match.
I'm still recovering from the show, and I'll revisit the other comments in this thread in the coming days. Your observation was an easy one to address quickly however.
My biggest regret (as I posted in the "meet and greet" thread) was to let "team Schroeder" show up at the last minute with a piece that we had to spend time positioning in order to eliminate hum - at everyone's expense, and in a room being heated with OTL's and Dave Slagle's Tequilla and beer.
Frank put me in a difficult position when he advised Joel and me at 4pm on Saturday, that his sample of the A90 wasn't consistent with his earlier experiences of the cartridge. The arm had yet to be mounted on the Stelvio-II at that time.
Frank proposed that we might round up a second sample of a Dynavector XV-1s, a cartridge he has on more than one occasion diplomatically stated was not his preference.
Perhaps Frank can comment further.
In an attempt to give Frank every opportunity to shine, I let him in the door with a wonderful, $20K LCR phono stage designed by Jeffrey Jackson (being exported to Asia by Artemis Labs). 30-50 people were inconvenienced for 40 minutes as a result of this late (but wonderful) entry.
Those who expected a definitive outcome were amply forewarned, but having said that, I would have liked to have been able to maintain a bit more consistency between the two rigs.
If you trace back through the other threads on this forum, you'll note that I requested that we begin working on equipment compatibility on Thursday night, and locking it down by Friday night at the latest.
Had I taken a hard line on this, we would have listened to only the Talea, and I would have come off as shutting the Schroeder out of the picture. I was in a difficult situation in this regard. Perhaps I should have taken a hard line on this.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
With all of this talk of a "repeat" for 2011, I need to comment that the Tri-Planar has been wronglly perceived as the red-headed step-child in all of this discussion - much as I have tried through all of this to emphasize otherwise.
The Tri-Planar is (to my ears), every bit as valid a reference component as anything I've heard from Frank's body of work.
Much as I tried to paint this otherwise, the Tri-Planar has all but been ignored in these discussions.
Another obvious contender is the DaVinci. Considering the lack of "finality" of any of these comparisons, I would argue in favor of adding a different arm in the mix - IF we do another tonearm event next year.
As far as the comparisons in Steve Dobbins' room are concerned, I heard several critiques of how much real information could be taken away from that demonstration. Sound familiar?
All of these comparisons are inherrently flawed. Perhaps Dan_ed, Palasr or someone else can comment, as: (1) I didn't witness any of this, and (2) it's not my place to comment.
The takeaway from all of this, is that these are show conditions, with varying samples, and only a general sense of what this gear sounds like can be ascertained.
So ... what's the point of all of this? I think the biggest takeaway is that we can build relationships with fellow audiophiles which can better serve us as in the future.
If, for example Dre_J, Lewm, and David Shreve come away with similar observations from an event they've all attended, then they form a small circle, whereupon future observations have a reference point and validity to them.
When Peter and I started Redpoint in 2001, there was an uncanny consistency in our descriptions of our design prototypes, as well as how those changes either served or detracted from faithfulness to musical reproduction.
This was across a 900 mile distance, with us running considerably different systems. This drove our development in a consistent direction - albeit with the huge attendant shipping expenses resulting from our physical separation.
So, the way I look at this, the key takeaway is what we learn about each other, rather than what we learn about specific pieces of gear under adverse conditions.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Thanks Brad,
Yes, that was in my opening comments, and also, remember Frank's comments about 70% certainty in his introductory comments.
Even with all of these preambles, you'd be amazed at the amount of criticism (most of it constructive), that I've received offline.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
If someone develops a cure for testicular cancer and the solution took 5 years of development, involving 50,000 person hours, millions of dollars, and it requires $2,000.00 in materials to implement per patient, what is its worth to the cancer patient? Of course in hi-fi, none of us has a gun pointed to our head, with our life on the line. We're debating angels on the head of a pin over luxury / aspirational items. In all of these conversations, I grow just a wee bit weary of the naysayers who look at an elegant solution and try to ascribe a value based on not having been in the trenches, and not understanding how much effort was involved in arriving at the solution. I have yet to find an elegant solution in hi-fi that doesn't involve simplicity, and the quote on the Galibier home page is my guiding principle: "You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away."
... Antoine de Saint-Exupery The simple, takes time, blood, sweat, and tears to arrive at and reminds me of a comment by Mark Twain: "I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time."
... Mark Twain The proof is in the pudding ... Cheers, Thom @ Galibier |
Read the second paragraph again, Bill.
Much as you'll hate to admit it, you'll find yourself in complete agreement with me. Let me put this in simpler terms: hi-fi is NOT a life changing pursuit. We are talking about LUXURY items.
The point is however, that there are those who would look at a finished product - a simple collection of widgets - and say "I could have done that, and for a mere fraction of the price". The point is however that they have not done it.
Herb Papier came up with a brilliant design which has stood the test of time. Joel Durand patented azimuth adjustment on the fly. Frank Schroeder has his own innovative solutions.
Time will tell us where the latter two's innovations fit.
What's not to like?
Thom @ Galibier |
Dertonearm,
The principle of Occam's razor is a valid design approach - whether you like it or not.
If I understand your post (not an easy thing for me) you appear to be in agreement with me on the point that something has the value that people put on it - whether it's for a luxury item or anything else.
Thom @ Galibier |
Dertonearm your comments appear to be trolls. I cant believe that youre actually serious. As you expound on your own philosophy however, you are taking crack shots at the work of some brilliant designers Ive had the opportunity to meet. Only because of this, am I following up. You obviously have much more free time than I do.
I did not say that Occams razor is the ONLY valid design approach, but rather that it is A VALID APPROACH, and one that I adhere to. Its a metaphor for an approach, and nothing more.
Time and again, as I look at audio components, the ones of lasting value are those which are the result of pairing down of unnecessary design elements, unnecessary points of failure, as well as ones that, while they may be based in solid theory, are an utter failure from a perspective of producing a musically involving component. We still dont know everything we need to measure, and unless you can contribute something to this body of knowledge, you have to deal with it.
With regard to the topic of paring down the unnecessary (or what doesnt work), Ill give you two examples.
*** NOTE *** while composing this post, I see that Atma-sphere made some parallel comments regarding feedback.
In the development of a phono stage, Mike Sanders of Quicksilver followed the path of regulation. It produced beautiful square waves ... and irritating musical reproduction. Try as he might, with different regulation schemes, he continued to return to an unregulated supply.
Before you go about misinterpreting these comments, I am NOT arguing for or against regulation. This example is about one designer who focussed on a solution based on the skills he brought to the table, with an eye on the final design goal satisfying musical reproduction. Someone else might solve this problem very nicely with a regulation scheme.
Theres a phono stage (name witheld) which uses 9 small signal tubes to regulate each channel of its power supply. Thes tubes in turn have their filament supply regulated by LM317 regulators. Whether this section of the power supply circuit is the reason for the bleached (lacking in tone color) and undynamic, and uninvolving sound, is something that I cant say for certain, but it is certainly characteristic of a design approach of: if a little is good, then more must be better.
I see this (approach of excess) over and over again in our industry the piling on of extra circuit elements. One designer I know calls it gratuitous parts selection. It fits into a pattern that too much hi-fi gear falls into gear that does everything right except satisfy the listener.
In writing the above, I can anticipate your hearty objections that there must be objective criteria to which the designer is held accountable. Well guess what? We (as an industry) are still trying to figure out what to measure.
I had breakfast with Ron Sutherland (Sutherland Electronics) at the Audiofest. Ron told me the key challenge he faces (from a design discipline perspective) is to know when hes done to stop piling unnecessary elements into a design.
Ron revisits his design goal to determine whether hes achieved it, in the context of the design architecture he laid out. A corralary of this is of course to re-visit the design to see if you inadvertently bypassed your end point, and to strip away the unnecessary components. This was the background to my Mark Twain quote about taking more time to write a shorter letter. It was apparently lost on you.
Lastly, your proclamation that something has only the value that ascribe to it is a bit extreme. The market as whole determines the value of something. You or I may disagree with the market, but we still have to deal with the fact that we are but two individuals with opinions. We can make an individual case for our opinions, and perhaps sway opinion in the process... or not. One thing is clear - we wont sell our case by proclamation.
Lastly, perhaps you didnt intend to come off as being arrogant, but this is how I interpret many of your posts. I believe that that English is not your first language, and perhaps this is the source of the communication problem. In any case, I have limited time to walk you through this.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Welcome home Frank, and thanks, for the detailed follow-up.
At the end of the day, the key takeaway, while not what everyone hoped for, was a very good one, nevertheless. New and old friendships were made / rekindled.
I agree with you, 100% about the volume control coarseness, which was exacerbated by two factors: (1) too much gain in the amplifiers for the speaker/room situation. This resulted in living too low" on the dial where the steps are larger, and (2) the change in cartridge / phono stage which resulted in a larger than expected gain mismatch at the point of entry into the line stage.
I agree with you. At 6pm on Saturday, our choice was to either kill the session, or to proceed with a "flawed" one (flawed according to expectations of a more direct comparison). We went full speed ahead, which I think was the right choice.
Ultimately, setting a deadline (rather than a goal) of 24 hours ahead of time for completing a test setup would have helped mitigate this. We could have (with Ralph's help, for example) reduced the gain in the Atma-sphere M-60 amps, to result in a more clockwise rotation of the volume dial, where the steps are less coarse. This would have helped level matching to a degree. Then, theres the issue of loading that Ralph brought up ... easy to do a day ahead of time, but not so easy when its show time.
So, with the reality of a show, and all of the interruptions and potential catastrophic events, what's a fellow to do? I know that you were really slammed for time, and unable to run through your simulation as early both of us would have liked. Similarly, I was working on an equipment change that didnt land in suite 1130 until 3am on Friday morning. Such is the reality of shows, and matching gear in unfamiliar places.
Perhaps the answer lies in some sort of hybrid approach for any future sessions - something you alluded to: to increase the population of "candidates".
This would allow us to put a hard deadline for any "entries", of 24 hours before "show time". If something hasn't been fleshed out by then, it doesn't get into the session. It sounds a bit harsh, but would serve as a means of "thinning the herd".
With that understanding, there will be no perception of a hidden agenda, and we can all get on with the business of playing with all of these toys. Heck! I dont have a pony in this race ... other than my turntables (grin).
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Bill,
You need to experiment with your MP-1 loading. I've run as high as wide open (47K - no loading resistors) with an XV-1s. On other phono stages with the XV-1s, I've run as low as 35 ohms.
Tri-Planars, Moerchs, Taleas, and a few other arms come with multiple counterweights.
If you use a heavier combination of weights, closer to the bearing pivot (adjusting for desired tracking force), you'll have a lower effective mass than by using a lighter weight combination located farther from the pivot.
Listen for bass tonality, and adjust accordingly.
Lastly, your dealer should be able to guide you through this. If they don't know the answer, then I'd contact Joel Durand so that he can educate them.
Trust your ears.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Hi Lew,
All of the early adopters have been made a handsome upgrade offer which lasts through the end of the year. I've never seen a manufacturer participate so heavily in helping owners make a change to a new version.
Of course, the trade-in offer year will bring some special opportunities for Version-Is to those who might otherwise be priced out of a Talea. For that, you can watch the Durand page, the Galibier Bargain Bin, as well as offerings from his other dealers.
It was never Joel's intent to make so many changes so soon, and Joel and I had more than one conversation about this release following so quickly on the heels of the introductory offering this, coming from a fellow who took 9 years to find ways to improve his Gavia and Stelvio turntables.
As Joel worked on addressing customer feedback on the ergonomics in the Version-I, the concurrent improvement in sonics was too great to delay. With introductory pricing scheduled to expire, it made sense to release the changes for those paying the post-introductory price, while at the same time, paying thanks to the early adopters.
I can give you more background on how this evolved, and specifically what changes were made and why, but I think this is best handled in a private e-mail and not on this forum. If you're interested in my take on the differences between the two versions, you can contact me offline. I believe we may be meeting again at a customer of mine and a neighbor of yours in a few weeks, and I can cover this in more detail there.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
I have yet to experience a cartridge whose essential character was not revealed to me after 5-7 hours.
It most certainly loosens up and settles in for 25-70 hours, and you should absolutely revisit your entire setup several times (including loading) during that period.
My point however, is to enjoy yourself, and only re-visit this over the coming months as your mood strikes - perhaps after every 5-10 hours of play.
Change the easily accessible parameters (fine adjust of VTF, azimuth, VTA)? You bet! They're easy enough to do with the Talea, but at the same time, don't make yourself crazy over this.
Loading is a bit tricky, as it has an effect on the mechanical damping of the motor assemply, so I wouldn't change this as frequently as the other parameters. You will change your thoughts on this as the suspension loosens up, but focussing on this too much (early on) will drive you batty. There are too many variables to get control of.
Fifty hours of listening is 150 LP's. That can take some time, and if you obsess too much, you'll lose a lot of needless hair, and most importantly, you won't enjoy your hi-fi much.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
It's not the tonearm, that's limiting your choice of your record collection, Cousinbilly.
An upgrade can be a cruel mistress until you sort everything out, but when you do, your record collection will be returned to you.
Of course, you'll hear further into the mix with any good arm/cartridge, but assuming you've set it up well, I'd revisit both my turntable and phono stage.
A recent example: in the course of the past two weeks, I've been listening to various equipment combinations to flesh out a new drive system design.
I'm hearing 10-15 dB further into the noise floor with this drive system, and it's exposing the flaws in one step-up transformer - flaws that were somewhat noticable before are now laid bare in bold relief.
Keep the faith ...
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
