Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH

Two comments:

- I have the Grand Prix rack & amp stands, and my impressions of them correlate precisely with Cohnaudio's...superb gains in bass clarity as Michael Fremer mentions, but also in the mids & treble - I do not hear any resonance or lack of clarity whatsoever. Mine has the cheaper acrylic shelves, not the carbon fiber which Michael had for test.

- As a fan of Grand Prix Audio/Alvin Lloyd and a guy who'll be in the market for a "lifetime" 'table in the next year or so, I eagerly awaited MF's review and was disappointed in the results - especially because I like my music as juicy, fleshy & harmonically ripe as possible. But he sent me the MP3 comparison of the Van Morrison track, referenced above, and the differences were blatantly obvious, and just as MF described - and this over the cheapo speakers in my laptop! The Caliburn (as well it should, for the coin) was much more harmonically developed, and the music just breathed...the same track as played by the GPA was rhythymically superb, but sounded bleached out by comparison. What I won't know until I hear the Monaco in person is whether this result is an Achilles heel, or just a $20K 'table falling short of a $120K(?) alterntaive, but fully competitive with others in its price class.

Thanks, by the way, to MF. A true keeper of the flame, to be sure, but also a genuinely nice guy who goes out of his way to do things right.

Cohnaudio, proving the axiom of "horses for courses", my impression of the GPA racks was just the opposite of yours. I used GPA racks for 4 years and I have nothing negative to say about them. They are superb stands. But I prefer the Finite Elementes and now use a MR HD13.

My GPA Monaco/TriPlanar VII/Benz LP was delivered this weekend and like you and Mtkhl57 think it the finest turntable I have ever heard. It is probably the most remarkable audio device I have owned. The TriPlanar, like the Dynavector arm is especially well suited to the table.

Mr. Fremer, I found your review to be honest and informative. You say many nice things about the table and the review really is balanced but for some reason it leaves somewhat of a bitter after taste that belies all the certainly not faint praise you gave the table. Go figure.

I completely understand why you reviewed the table on the GPA stands. I think you missed out by not listening to it on your Pagode since you, like me seem to prefer that stand.

And thanks for "keeping it real" with the review. It's especially helpful in analog to assist us with determining what combinations of tables, arms, cartridges and stands might work for our own tastes, which as this thread illustrates, will always vary.

Grooves. re: your accelerometer test. A three axis accelerometer would be capable of measuring both airborn and structureborn noise at the same time, but you can also just move a single axis acceleromter and make corrections for the published difference that Bruel and Kjaer notes for axis discrepancies , which by reading your report I am assuming you did. As a consultant and test equipment provider on way more structureborn and airborn vibration testing than I ever wanted to be, I can concur with you that a shaker test tells only part of the story. On measurements of transformers designed for nuclear subs, truly, as you suggest, lateral displacement is not the defining problem. When you add the effect of airborn noise (ie driver output) on a phono cartridge with sensitivity in the millivolt range, and complex air and structurborn waveforms that are arriving out of phase on all axises,( the same signal arriving at the speed of sound in air, while also arriving at the speed and r at a different time depending on the flooring, adding the flooring resonance) one can definitely theorize that more than lateral shaking should make for a better test and hence, product. However, one manufacturer I spoke with who sells his racks for upwards of 5k each considered $750 for a precision accelerometer and charge amplifer way too much of an investment. Kudos to Monaco for at least attempting to make some scientific, repeatable measurements. They, at least can prove that there is some definable, measureable resonance and vibration control on their stand although pseudo-random shock testing would most probably be the way I would start. (read footsteps and broadband) Good for you for taking the time to make some measurements and sharing them with us as well. Me, I am like the carpenter who comes home and doesn't fix the kitchen cabinet until I end up sleeping on the couch ;)

Cheers,
chris

Triode
To take the alternative view, for an owner of the GPA to achieve this "harmonically ripe" sound, one could simply acquire a Koetsu, perhaps a RSP, and match it with an equally competent tube phonostage and you would feel any lack of harmonic development, nor will your wallet be so challenged.

Triode, did you hear the "singing diva" on the GPA Monaco MP3 in the background? It may explain some of it, LOL!

One thing IS apparent, listening to an MP3 on a cheap PC, is NOT a professionally accepted way of auditioning (anyone, correct me if I am wrong here) $20-120k components.

But seriously, there are many more professional reviewers (Bolin, Weaver, Merod, Ebaen, Jensen, Abbate just to name some) that did not report over the past few years what MF heard from the GPA rack he used for his review. Which means that something else was not right...??? What could that be??? Maybe room acoustics???

Which in turn means that the detail setup and testing of components by professional reviewers, as experienced as they may be, is not an exact science and is DEFINITELY NOT AN EASY JOB. Maybe MF consulted for a second opinion with his collegue Mr Bolin, who gave the rack an excellent review 5 years ago without finding it singing like a diva?

Mr Grooves?