INTRODUCTION

INTERNAL LINKS

Turntables have made steady progress from the early efforts of the, then revolutionary, AR (Acoustic Research) turntable (and tonearm from the early 1960's) to the Forsell and Rockport in the 1990's. Not much has been done in the last few years, except to work on better isolation and deader materials.

The Linn Sondek LP-12, Thorens TD-125 and Ariston RD-11S were the most famous and popular turntables in the 1970’s. All three were upgraded and improved versions of the basic AR design. None of them could compete with the innovative designs that came out during the early 1980's.

The first true modern high-end turntables were the original version of the Goldmund Studio and the (large) Micro Seikis, quickly followed by the innovative Oracle and the original Townshend Rock. The VPI HW-19 turntable eventually evolved into a less expensive combination of the Goldmund and the Oracle designs. The two Versa Dynamics models arrived at the end of the 1980’s. Then came the superior Forsell models and the Rockports etc.

This is a truly unique time for turntables. The demand is very low and yet there are still numerous models available from very small and obscure firms. Most of them are expensive because of the high costs associated with tiny production runs.

Sadly, there are no credible reviews by the established audio press that would distinguish them by performance. Most of them are just ignored by the audio press, because these small manufacturers can't afford either large advertising budgets or "loans" of indefinite length to the 'reviewers'.

I would like to believe that one or more of them would equal, or even surpass, many, if not most, of the turntables that are in the References below. The two problems I face are that their retail costs are almost always much higher and I don't know exactly which of them are truly "outstanding".

Also, there is a greater risk with turntables that their moving parts might not be available in case of bankruptcy. As soon as I know, definitively, that one or more of them is worthy of serious consideration, you will see it mentioned or even listed here.

This turntable/tonearm combination was evaluated by (3 of) my associates over the last 6 months. At my request, the most literate and experienced of the group has written a succinct "review". I was not part of the listening group. Please keep in mind that this is Kuzma's latest 4 motor unit. Furthermore, I have a somewhat different perspective concerning turntables, so I have posted some "Personal Notes" below the review. There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"Spending almost $40,000 on a tonearm/turntable combination, especially in light of the vast advances in fidelity offered by the finest SACD players, may seem wildly irresponsible or decadent (others may classify it insane), but if the goal is to extract the most information from those archaic vinyl discs, and maximize the enjoyment involved in listening to records, it is money well spent. Bear in mind that a further expenditure of at least $5,000 for a cartridge, and at a minimum another similar amount on a phono preamp, and we are now talking $50 big ones to spin vinyl. Obviously, the Kuzma, with 4 motors, is a highly esoteric product that is beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of even hard core analog addicts, but its significance cannot be dismissed or minimized.

The Kuzma, mated to a top flight cartridge, like a Dynavector XV 1S, and a state of the art phono preamp such as the Aesthetix Lo, will allow the listener to hear detail and musical nuances from records that were heretofore buried in the grooves. The resultant music will be revealed at a level that must be experienced to be believed. As good as other turntable/arms of lesser price can be (i.e Forsell, Acutus, VPI HRX, Clear Audio, Basis, Linn, Verdier, Goldmund, etc), once the Kuzma is auditioned, it becomes evident just how much information has gone missing in action, or has been perverted in transmission.

To simplify, turntables fall into two categories of design and construction. They are generally low mass, spring suspension designs which are typified by Linn, Oracle, Avid, Basis, and then there are those that are high mass, either damped or not, such as VPI HR-X, Forsell, Micro Seiki etc. To generalize, the former group will excel in the micro realm, that is they usually offer a transparent, neutral sound that is not the last word in bass impact and overall weight and impact. Compared to turntables in this category, good SACD players will sound noticeably superior in terms of bass performance, dynamics, impact and punch. The high mass turntables' strengths will be macro oriented, with bass extension, wide dynamics and impact being their forte. These analog units will provide stiff competition and may even surpass the performance of the best SACD players in these sonic parameters.

It takes an ingenious design with meticulous execution to be able to combine the best attributes of both turntable design camps. Very few manage this feat, and unfortunately it cannot be accomplished on the cheap. The Kuzma is the least expensive (I know difficult to believe at its steep price) design that has achieved success in combining the micro and macro performance in one package. The Kuzma's overall sound is so neutral, that after months of evaluation it is difficult to criticize. It is so superior to any competitor that sells for $20K or less, that delineating its flaws are almost impossible. Its all there- transparency, immediacy, full extension at both frequency extremes, huge image with pin point precision and localization of instruments within the soundstage, complete rendering of harmonics and low level detail AND explosive dynamics with weight and impact that will make you think your amplifier is on steroids.

From a design perspective and build quality, the Kuzma is state of the art. Nothing about the arm and the table are less than the finest. It is designed to be simple to set up and maintain and it has proven highly reliable that should provide decades of enjoyment filled use. Once it is set up, there is very little to adjust, except of course, cartridge adjustments such as VTA, VTF, SRA etc. These are made exceptionally easy due to the Kuzma tonearm design which permits VTA adjustment on the fly and exact settings with the use of a digital readout. Using an air compressor for the air bearing tonearm is a minor annoyance, but it is exceptionally quiet and virtually maintenance free.

There may be other turntable/tonearms that offer superior performance in specific areas, or perhaps even overall. Rest assured that they will NOT be less expensive, and most likely will be substantially more costly. At its price (that of a very nice automobile), the Kuzma will not be bettered nor will it be easier to use or maintain. To hear the seemingly unlimited potential of analog reproduction, the Kuzma must be experienced in a state of the art audio system. It will represent musical reproduction at its highest level."

Personal Notes- I am very confident of my associates' evaluation of the sonic performance of the Kuzma. That is why I placed the Kuzma in Class A, despite the fact that I have not heard it myself. However, I have a somewhat different perspective on turntables. I believe there are two inherent and fundamental problems that all turntables must overcome: incorrect speed and audible vibrations.

Accurate speed requires enough torque and inertia to overcome any drag caused by the inevitable friction from the continual and changing stylus/record groove interface. That sounds easy to accomplish, but it isn't, as audiophiles who have (joyfully) experienced (and appreciated) idler-drives (for proper torque) and/or very heavy platters (for inertia) will testify. If successful, this is where the "macro" information will be heard (and felt) and then jealously valued. Thorens and Garrard provided torque with their (now vintage) idler-drives, while Micro Seiki and Melco were the first turntable manufacturers that used extremely heavy platters.

The turntable must also be vibration free, including the platter, from internal and external sources. Goldmund, using metapolymers, was the first manufacturer I know of to address this issue in a serious manner. Townshend Audio (with the Rock) made their contribution with a hydraulic suspension. Now almost every modern turntable design attempts to reduce unwanted vibrations. If successful, this enables the turntable to sound neutral (without a character) and pure at all volume levels, along with allowing low-level ("micro") sounds to be heard, and not obscured.

My historical take is also somewhat different. While it is true that the Linn LP-12 was once relatively superb at capturing low-level sounds (in the 1970's, compared to most mediocre direct-drives), which is why it became popular in the first place, it can no longer compete in micro capabilities compared to the many superior modern turntables, such as the Forsell or Kuzma, which have much fewer internal vibrations (resonances).

Finally, as I promised a few years ago, I have recently initiated a project of building a DIY Idler-drive turntable, using a vintage turntable as the foundation. It will be "all-out" (meaning "no excuses"), and will have a tonearm similar to the (linear) Forsell. Thus any comparisons will be fair and relevant. I'm hoping the turntable will be completed this Fall, or early Winter. I should receive it in February 2010. I will report back at that time, or earlier if helpful. My goal is for it to honestly compete with the Kuzma, but at a much lower cost. I'm optimistic. If the project is deemed successful, I will do my best to help interested readers duplicate the results.

I asked my associates to evaluate any differences that could be heard going from 2 to 4 motors on the (top of the line) Kuzma Stabi XL turntable. This is important, because most owners (and reviewers) have only heard the original 2 motor version. This is their report, with my bold:

"The differences are subtle, but noticeable and more discernable the higher the resolution the audio system in which it is placed. The sonic advantages of the 4 motors are as follows:

1. Greater speed stability- Which results in virtually perfect pitch reproduction. This becomes apparent only when you switch from the dual motors to the quad, or if one is hyper sensitive to pitch deviations. The rock solid speed stability provides the feeling that sustained instruments such as piano, never alter their timbre and tone and sound disarmingly real.

2. Wider dynamic gradations- The gradations from ffff to pppp are more relaxed, and the levels between those extremes more obvious.

3. Enhanced sense of weight and authority- Akin to increasing the wattage of your amplifier, but with no sonic penalty. Hard transients have greater intensity, and instruments possess a heightened feel of more harmonic content.

4. More expansive soundstage- The sound field opens up, especially on large orchestral works. Grander sense of scale is revealed, and with no loss of focus or precision within the soundstage.

Overall, the improvement going to the 4 motors is worthwhile and, once experienced, there is no going back to the dual motors."

Personal Notes- The Kuzma Stabi XL4 is now our baseline Reference turntable. The first competitor for the Kuzma will be an all-out Wood Lenco (with a Graham Phantom II tonearm, while the Kuzma will use its own Air-Line linear arm).

This is the finest turntable I have ever heard. Now I've heard countless turntables in the last 40+ years, in my own system as well as in private homes, showrooms and at audio shows, but none of them can match this turntable in its overall cumulative strengths. While it was inevitable that I would eventually discover a turntable to outperform my personal reference of more than 17 years, the Forsell, what is amazing is that this new reference uses a technology (and actual model!) from more than 4 decades ago. Adding to the mystery is that fact that I had long felt this approach was obsolete (based on my actual experiences of the past, and not just simple "theory").

Accordingly, I now feel I have a considerable amount of "investigating" and "explaining" to do, to both my readers and to myself. My immediate goal is to understand and describe the underlying basis of what I (and others) am hearing. I will then attempt to put all of this into a reality-based perspective that will be both helpful in finding a direction/strategy for future component choice while also providing a rational foundation for that direction and choice. Based on my previous history when experiencing something that was radically different, I feel the best approach is to first take a step back and start from the beginning, with a short review of My Turntable History.

My first turntable (not counting my parents' "Victrola") was the legendary Acoustic Research (AR) AR-XA. I used the AR from the late 1960's until 1972, when I purchased my first "serious" turntable; a used Thorens TD-125 (which had a Rabco SL-8E linear tonearm). I also owned a variety of other turntables during the 1970's (all purchased used), including the Ariston RD-11s and a number of Japanese direct drives. Not surprisingly, I ended the decade with the (then already famous) Linn Sondek LP-12.

However, an amazing number of important turntable innovations occurred in the 1980's. Fortunately for me, I owned an audio store during almost this entire decade. This enabled me to hear virtually every serious model, either in my home, my store or both. While I was a dealer for only a few of the manufacturers, this still didn't hold me back. I made certain, with a generous trade-in policy, direct imports, along with loaners and organized "shootouts", to hear everything possible. There are far too many turntables in this group to list, but my own personal turntable choices are a different matter...

I first replaced the Linn Sondek with a (second generation) Oracle, but that was itself soon replaced by the (original) Townshend Rock in 1982/3. The Rock withstood all challengers, but I eventually sold it because my listening room lacked a stable temperature. This, in turn, meant that the Rock (with its high viscosity oil bearing) would have variable RPM speed day-to-day, which drove me crazy, so I replaced it with a (late model) Goldmund Studio and T-3F tonearm.

Near the end of the decade, I had the Versa Dynamic Models 1 & 2 (one of which was an employee "loaner"). However, I eventually returned back to the same Goldmund Studio (now with a SME V tonearm), mainly to eliminate the complexity of operating and maintaining the Versa. While I really enjoyed the Goldmund/SME combination, it was not as good a performer as either the Rock or Versa models, when all of them were fully optimized. Since then, things have been very different...

In late 1992, I purchased the top-of-the-line Forsell Air Force Reference. Unlike Forsell's standard "Air Reference" model, the "Air Force" also had a flywheel, which (the manufacturer claimed) increased the platter's inertia 40 times; in effect going from 25 to 1,000 lbs!

Unfortunately, it took almost 30 minutes to get the Forsell to the proper speed and then stabilize it. Even worse, the starting speed changed every listening session, thus forcing the user to repeat the process from scratch each time. Further, once started, the platter had to remain moving, making the process of taking the LP on and off a precarious process. The Air Force was a little better in performance, but not worth the hassle (and expense) in my opinion, so I replaced it with the "standard" Air Reference. This is the Forsell I have now used, on and off, for the last 17 years.

The Forsell Air Reference, now long discontinued, is an air-bearing turntable, with a dead 25 lb platter and a dedicated record clamp. It comes with an air-bearing linear tonearm. When I/we first heard it "stock", it easily outperformed any turntable/tonearm combination I (and my associates) ever heard. However, we were not satisfied with the status quo, so we significantly improved its performance, by using far superior air regulation and isolation (this is described in the Reference Turntable File). The overall improvement was such that our standard model was now definitely superior to the (stock) Air Force (flywheel) model.

The Forsell had/has a number of critically important strengths. It was very neutral and natural. It also had the lowest sound-floor I have ever experienced, plus a naturally large and focused soundstage. The frequency extremes were excellent, but I had heard better (Melco in the bass). The outer details were also outstanding, but I had heard its equal. Overall though, no other turntable could capture the recording as well as the (modified) Forsell. Nothing we heard came close to it while I was in Toronto. Since I moved to Florida, the Forsell has proven to be handily superior to both the VPI Aries 2 and then, later, the original VPI HR-X (with the light cheap platter). If there is one point to all of the above, it is this: The Forsell Air Reference, after being optimized, is one formidable turntable.

This is where things have stood now since 2005, with me continually searching for something better. While, at times, I began to feel discouraged, I never gave up. Then something, highly unexpected, came my way.

Starting in 2003, I began to receive a growing number of letters from readers who were impressed with (and switching to) vintage idler-drive turntables. In each case, the original turntable was modified, usually with a much better plinth (both heavier and deader). I was, as is my nature, highly sceptical of their glowing descriptions of these models, since I considered them hopelessly outdated. This was because of the sonic problems I had heard myself decades earlier, which were thought to be inherent and unsolvable. My viewpoint at that time was simple...

Every turntable I had heard in my early life, up until the AR, was an idler-drive, though I was unaware of any distinction at that time. To overly simplify matters; the idler-drive turntables had an idler wheel between the motor spindle and the platter, while the new belt drive turntables used a belt between the motor spindle and platter. This belt innovation was supposed to better isolate the motor's inherent vibrations from the platter, which would then reduce the audible "rumble" (the descriptive sound of those vibrations).

At that time, the late 1950's and 1960's, rumble was becoming more of a problem because of the growing popularity of "stereo" (mono cancelled out rumble) and the increasing number of speakers which had enough bass extension to make it audible. Matters came to a head when AR (and then KLH) came out with acoustic suspension speakers (especially the AR 3). These models were relatively small in size (2 cubic feet), but they still had extended bass response. Now virtually anyone could afford, and fit into their rooms, a speaker with bass deep enough to easily hear any rumble. (The fact that AR soon came out with their own belt drive turntable makes a lot of sense now, when looking back 50 years ago.) As for myself, I owned the Acoustic Research AR-5 for a few years back then, and I was easily able to hear the rumble from a (stock) Thorens TD-124, placing me in the belt-drive camp. Further...

Belt drives were also much less complicated (and much less expensive) to manufacture. Accordingly, they began growing their market share. However, in the 1970's there was a new competitor, direct-drives, which eliminated the idler wheel (and belt) by direct coupling the motor and the platter. Importantly, they also had no audible rumble. Direct drives became incredibly popular during the 1970's, but with a few exceptions, almost all serious audiophiles still preferred the belt drive models. Meanwhile, idler-drives, while still having some proponents (who were by then considered "eccentric"), were believed to be now "obsolete", and were mainly forgotten by the audio "mainstream" (especially the audio press). This perspective was considered the "common audio wisdom", and not seriously challenged, until the last decade.

Then the readers letters started arriving (a number of them are posted in the Reference Turntable File). I received a particularly important letter from an audio manufacturer I knew, Roger Hebert, of Wyetech Electronics. Hebert informed me that he had replaced his (late model) VPI Aries with a modified Lenco, and he wasn't looking back. There were now far too many positive anecdotes about idler-drives for me to simply ignore them any longer. Accordingly, I finally made a promise to my readers (in late 2006), posted on this website, to look into this idler-drive phenomenon. However, I had a serious dilemma; I didn't know what exact direction I should take, since, as a completely independent audio journalist, I had only limited resources, both financial and time.

In the end, I decided to make just one serious idler-drive commitment. If it worked, great, and if not, that was it for me. So it was everything on one throw of the dice. Then came the next big question: Which idler-drive model should I choose, and from whom? I immediately ruled out the Thorens TD-124, because I had too many negative experiences with it in the past, the last being in 2000/1. I didn't want my negative bias of the TD-124 to become an "excuse" or an "issue". For the sake of practicality, that left only Garrard and Lenco. The new Garrard 501 looked really interesting, but I felt it was grossly overpriced. Then, as it turned out, three Canadians ended up making the decision for me...

Roger Hebert (a Canadian) had brought Jean Nantais* (another Canadian, and the person who had rebuilt Herbert's "modified Lenco") to my attention. Nantais had also previously been mentioned to me by another reader, so I already knew of him. Eventually Nantais, who had been aware of my website for some time, contacted me directly, and we started a correspondence. Nantais was highly interested in me auditioning his rebuilt Lenco, though much less enthusiastic when he found out I was now living in Florida, and not Ontario (as he had assumed). Finally though, we were able to make a mutually acceptable arrangement, which involved a third Canadian (a former customer and now a friend and "associate").

*Nantais is the person who began the famous, ultra-lengthy thread in the Audiogon Analog Discussion Group with the title of: "Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot", which actually began the Lenco awareness "movement". (That original thread was tragically removed from Audiogon, but there is a part "II" still posted.)

This associate had purchased my original Forsell Air Reference, just before I left Canada to move to Florida in 2001. (The Forsell I've used in Florida since then is owned by a close friend, whose own audio system has been inoperable for years.) My agreement with Nantais was straightforward: If my associate felt that Nantais' Lenco was as good or better than the Forsell, then, and only then, I would get involved. So the two of them made arrangements for a Forsell Vs. Lenco "shootout", in early 2009, in my associate's home. They both promised to keep me well informed.

This shootout occurred on schedule, but the results were somewhat ambiguous. Worse, they had considerable difficultly isolating the two turntables respective performance, which would have made the comparison more focused and relevant. (This is why the "results" were never posted on this website.) However, they still agreed to further comparisons, since my friend did hear "promise" with the Lenco and Nantais, surprised at the Forsell's performance (compared to other "famous" turntables he had heard), now realized how he could further improve his Lenco.

While Nantais and my associate were making their (now regular) comparisons, I began a correspondence with another Lenco enthusiast; Jean Veys. Veys, located in Europe, was experimenting with slate plinths for the Lenco. He was really excited with the results, and he later experimented with heavy (20+ lb) platters (which have always appealed to me). Now things were really looking interesting, but also more confusing. Further, this complicated my "one throw of the dice" strategy. The climax of all this came in August and September 2009. I informed my friend about Veys' slate Lenco, and my friend replied to me with a shocker; informing me that he had now purchased Nantais' latest Lenco! He also sent me pictures of it, which were really impressive. I asked him for the details.

According to both of them, Nantais had made further improvements in the plinth, bearing, feet and platter interface. This new design also allowed my associate to use a better tonearm, the Eminent Technology (ET), which made the comparison with the Forsell more relevant. The bottom line- My associate preferred the Lenco/ET to the Forsell. My thinking at this point was this: Since the ET tonearm was not quite as good as the Forsell tonearm, this meant that the Lenco was able to overcome that disadvantage and still outperform the Forsell. Accordingly, I had no excuses left to avoid going ahead with the (Nantais) Lenco. However, based on correspondence with Jean Veys, I covered myself. I requested that we would eventually hear both a wood and slate version of the Lenco, and I would decide on which one I preferred. In any event, I would end up with one of them. There was still one final act before I received my Lenco...

Nantais, taking no chances, since this new Lenco might also have to challenge a 4 motor Kuzma, decided to build me a "Super Lenco", which he now calls "The Reference". It has an even better (cost no object) plinth than my associate's earlier model, plus a new, custom made bearing (also cost no object). He informed me that it would take longer to build, but I informed him that I didn't care as long as it was finished before my associate made his annual visit to me in February (2010).

As it turned out, the Reference was finished (barely) on time, and it went to my associate's home first, where comparisons were made. The results- It was superior to both the (older) Lenco and the Forsell. In fact, the improvements were so noticeable that my associate even ordered a new Reference for himself. Shortly thereafter, my associate loaded the Reference Lenco (along with the Graham Phantom II Tonearm) in his truck and drove down to Florida, where I was his last stop.

And now it's time to describe what I've heard and observed since this "Reference Lenco" arrived in my home in late February.

My most important observation is that the Lenco did not fail in those areas where I originally expected it to fail. Based on my prior experiences with idler-drives, I was concerned that I may hear "rumble", and even if the rumble was no longer itself directly audible, I still expected the higher sound-floor of the Lenco to obscure low-level musical information. As an audiophile whose entire system was designed to have the lowest sound-floor theoretically possible, any component that noticeably compromises this area would be unacceptable to me, regardless of its other virtues.

As it turned out, the Lenco's sound-floor was basically as low as the Forsell's (which has an air-bearing platter). In fact, I couldn't distinguish them. Since the Forsell had the lowest sound-floor I ever experienced, the Lenco's (highly welcome) achievement in this area is both surprising and unexplainable (at this time). In any event, with this highest of hurdles successfully breached, the next challenge was the Forsell's neutrality and/or lack of coloration/character. Once again, to my surprise, the Lenco matched the Forsell in this critical area (especially for those serious audiophiles who don't want a relentless "editorializing" or "bias" in what they hear). Further, in the area of transparency, the two turntables were also indistinguishable to me. In short, the two turntables sounded very similar in "the basics", which is something I hadn't experienced before at this high level.

After this preliminary and requisite examination, the Lenco went into "new territory", where the Forsell was not able to follow it, and some of it was even "unchartered" for me. By going back to (and expanding on) my contemporaneous notes, what you will read below is what I observed in the various and important performance/musical parameters, some of them unique to turntables, with actual LP examples provided whenever possible:

A Superior Degree of Articulateness (and "Speed")- Or, in musical terms, the rare ability to accurately reproduce staccato notes (single or consecutive) without the usual smearing. Staccato notes are sharply defined, yet musically related. They usually come in bunches, which start and finish in a short time frame. They usually involve plucking and/or percussive instruments. The (almost impossible) task for the turntable is separating and individualizing each and every single note (while also retaining the important "relationships" between these notes). It is this rare ability which also allows the original rhythm and tempo to be heard. Importantly, it also makes the music more "intelligible", so that the words of the lyrics are more easily discerned. I've never heard a turntable equal the Lenco in this general area.

The LP that first, and most clearly, demonstrated this ability was Laurie Anderson's "Mister Heartbreak". The exact cut was "Kokoku".

However, the most amazing and surprising display of the Lenco's pure "speed" was also the most subtle. More importantly, it came when I was listening for something else. I was playing Pfitzner's "Gesange fur Bariton und Orchester", a (somewhat rare) German EMI LP (065-45 616) that I am very familiar with. My main focus was on the voice of the soloist Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, using the 1st cut on Side One: "Herr Oluf". At the very end of an orchestral crescendo, as things became quiet and the harp became prominent, I experienced something for the first time: A high harp note came and went so quickly that I didn't realize it, or react to it, until it was already well gone (my guest described it as "like lightning"). All that remained, to prove it actually occurred, was its decay.

Now in "real life", this may be not be that unusual, but in Audio, I had never "heard" this "disappearing act" before, even with the fastest electronics and/or plasma tweeters. For me, this was a "revelation", demonstrating a speed unprecedented in my experience. And, if nothing else, it also definitively proved that if something is "lost" at the source, it can never be recaptured, no matter what lengths are taken.

A Superior Reproduction of Sustained Notes- This parameter not only concerns "vibrato" notes, but also the decay and the echoes of all notes. The Lenco provides the listener a sense of "security" when a sustained note, or passage, begins and develops. (It is especially noticeable with Organ Music.) This is true also of "real life" and even CD reproduction. However, it's unprecedented (for me) when it comes to phono sources.

In my experience, the Lenco's only possible rival was the Forsell "Air Force", which had both a heavy platter, and the further application of a massive flywheel. The LP that first graphically displayed this unique quality was (the late) Michael Hedges "Aerial Boundaries" on Windham Hill (particularly the 1st cut on Side One).

Let's now take a larger perspective; Consider how highly unusual it is for one component to excel with those contrasting extremes of music reproduction. In this particular instance, with both vibrato and staccato notes. These two highly contrasting notes provide very different challenges to the component, yet the Lenco reproduces both of them outstandingly well. It is this rare type of achievement which epitomizes the Lenco's exceptional level of performance.

Superior Immediacy and "Presence"- This is most easily noticeable as an enhanced feeling of vividness. It is still somewhat subtle (compared to the Forsell), and maybe even partially psychoacoustic in nature. I believe it is caused by the superior speed and articulation discussed above, plus the consistency of the Lenco's performance, regardless of the volume level and musical complexity of the recording. This improvement can be heard with any well recorded LP, so no example is necessary in this instance.

Superior Bass Reproduction- This is obviously no surprise. In fact, if there was one area where even a completely uninterested person could hear the improvement with the Lenco, this would be it. The Lenco excels in every subset of bass reproduction; impact, control, detail, weight, extension, texture and decay. You can hear its special quality with virtually any good LP, though one record which particularly stood out was the soundtrack "Emerald Forest". The entire LP was impressive, but especially revealing was the last cut on Side Two.

A Superior Reproduction of Musical "Flow"- This is difficult to describe, because it takes some time for it to effect and register on the listener. Further, it's not something you listen "for", because it doesn't just "happen". I would best describe it as the sense of being in a "consistently stable center" (a platform), which is always unchanged, even as the music continually changes in complexity. This "stable center" provides a perspective (or foundation), which allows the listener to hear all of the musical ebbs and flows, large and small. These flows, in turn, reflect the musicianship and the structure that were a natural part of the original recording. This is in contrast to other turntables, where one hears an almost mechanical and arbitrary reproduction of the same recording.

If I can make an analogy, it's like being in a ship so large that no waves (flows) can effect it. This means you can clearly see the various flows, always knowing that the flows themselves are not effecting (distorting) your view. In contrast, a small boat can be so effected by the waves (flows) that you will soon lose the ability to distinguish the different flows from each other.

An excellent example to verify this sense of structure, and which actually inspired my thoughts on this subject, is the Decca/London album of the Shostakovich/Haitink 11th Symphony, 1st Movement, though other records, especially symphonic, may be even more revealing.

A Superior Sense of Weight and Natural Body- This is also quite subtle. It's caused, I believe, by the tonal consistency previously discussed above. This consistency provides a noticeable "relationship" between the original notes and the "after effects", which then helps form a singular "body". In effect, with the Lenco, the musicians, and their instruments, have more natural "substance", as though there was more (and proper) "gravity" at the time of the recording. Any decent natural recording will provide an example of what I am attempting to describe.

A Superior Lack of Homogenization- This improvement is critical to me, and obviously one I greatly value. It is heard at all volume levels, but it's most easily noticed during the most complex musical moments; orchestral crescendos, or during loud passages with non-classical music. The Lenco smears the music (instruments and voices) noticeably less so than other turntables I've heard, which, in turn, allows relatively soft sounds to finally cross the "threshold of audibility". It also allows the musical relationships, between the instruments, to be more easily noticed, understood and appreciated. While unrelated, even the textures of instruments are now better heard.

At best, the "tiny" can be heard clearly, even when it's loud. Accordingly, you may hear some things for the 1st time. Things you didn't know were ever there (how could you know?) in the first place. Once again, any good recording with complex passages can verify my observations. In this instance, the particular LP which brought this improvement to my attention was (at least according to my notes): Rimsky-Korsakoff, "Russian Easter Overture", Maazel, Decca/London.

Superior Dynamic Response, Tension and Intensity- With the Lenco, I can get the feeling, for the 1st time, that "nothing is held back". You feel the musicians are truly "serious" and "committed". With some special recordings, I even experienced a "tremendous concentrated force", to a degree unprecedented for me. This capability is not to be confused with simple "explosiveness", which both turntables share. The Lenco also helps break down the intimacy barrier, which will normally separate the listener and performer. This is a very rare accomplishment. On some familiar records, the combined effect of the above can be almost shocking. The Lenco is also outstanding in its ability to "startle" the listener, which is my fundamental test.

This is also the perfect opportunity to bring up a word that is continually overused, and more importantly misused, by audiophiles. I'm talking about the word "involving". Many audiophiles routinely claim that certain components are "involving". This is total nonsense. The most that any particular audiophile can ever claim is that he or she, as a listener, feels "involved" when that component is being used. This feeling is strictly a personal response. This same personal response may, or may not, occur when other listeners hear the exact same component. So how then does the Lenco turntable fit into this discussion of "involving"...?

The Lenco has the unique capability, in my experience, to make it obvious whether the musicians themselves are now "involved" (or not!) in any particular recording. This is in stark contrast to the listener's (unpredictable and personal) reaction to that reproduction of the musicians involvement. That is a profound difference. The Lenco can then reproduce, to a superior degree than all other turntables I've heard, the musicians "involvement" with the music. That is one of its singular achievements.

The detailed results above simply reiterate what I previously posted in March, though this time there are no "qualifications": The Lenco outperforms every other turntable in my experience, and at any price. It is superior, or at best equalled, in every single sonic parameter. In fact, there is not even one area where I'm able to criticize its performance (at this time).

Next, I would like to discuss how and why I believe the Lenco is able to perform at this unprecedented level. Then I will give my perspective on the various options available to those readers who are interested in purchasing the Lenco. Finally, I will explore some related issues and questions concerning the Lenco, idler-drives and turntables in general and the reproduction of music.

I initially wrote "ReasonS" in the above title, but I then felt that would be disingenuous at best, because there is only one ultimate and logical explanation for the Lenco's superior performance, and that is its (optimized) Idler-drive System. I came to this conclusion after a process of elimination, using as much cold logical thinking as within my capabilities. My methodology was to directly compare the Forsell and the ("Reference") Lenco models I auditioned, section by section. With such easily noticeable sonic differences between them (as described in detail above), there must also be an obvious difference(s) in their design and/or execution to separate them.

So below is my comparative analysis, part by part...

Shelf Isolation- Both turntables used the exact same isolation system. This is a heavy metapolymer plate, with hard rubber-like feet further isolating it from the shelf. The Forsell also had "fluid bags" underneath it, while the Lenco has three heavy-duty brass footers ("bear paws"). I don't see any clear advantage here for either turntable. If there is one, it would be very subtle in its effect.

Suspension System- Neither turntable has a suspension, so this is a non-starter.

Bearings- The Forsell has an air-bearing, while the Lenco has a custom-made bearing, with ultra-low friction. Any advantage would have to be negligible, especially in the case of the Lenco. In fact, one can argue that no bearing could be noticeably better than one using air, so I believe than any slight advantage here would favor the Forsell.

Plinth- Both turntables have heavy wood plinths, though the Lenco plinth is much heavier, so it does have an advantage here. However, the Forsell's motor is in its base, instead of the plinth, which gives it an advantage. In the end, the Lenco may still have a slight overall advantage here, but once again it will be negligible in effect (proven by their similar neutrality and sound-floor).

Platter- The Lenco's cast platter is dead, balanced and oversized, giving it a greater amount of inertia relative to its (9 lb) weight. The Forsell platter is heavier and made of metapolymer, so I believe it still has a small advantage here. However, even this advantage mainly disappears because of the...

Platter Interface- The Forsell has its clamp, while the Lenco uses the Goldmund (metacrylic) mat plus a (Harmonic Resolution) clamp. The Goldmund mat effectively eliminates the Forsell's metapolymer platter advantage and it even reduces the Forsell's platter weight difference. Both clamps use materials to absorb unwanted vibrations and they also reduce LP "sliding". When everything is taken into consideration, these two related areas, when combined, are very close to a wash in my estimation, and any noticeable differences would have to be subtle.

In Summary- It's obvious that all of the critical design areas are reasonably close, with the Forsell having slight advantages in its bearing and heavier platter, while the Lenco has slight advantages in its heavier plinth and (by default) its platter interface. I think it's also clear that none of these parts, individually, or even collectively, even come close to explaining all the significant differences in actual performance between the two turntables. This leaves us with the last remaining difference in design, and this time it is unquestionably significant...

The Forsell uses a good quality motor, with a belt around the attached spindle and the platter circumference. The Lenco, in stark contrast, uses a heavy-duty motor (with high RPM), with a tapered spindle directly connected to an idler-wheel which, in turn, directly moves the platter. From a purely logical perspective, using the process of elimination, I believe their respective drive systems explain why the Lenco outperforms the Forsell in all the sonic areas described in the previous section. In turn, the similarities of the above six parts explain why the two turntables still perform at the same high level in the important areas of neutrality, transparency and sound-floor.

In short, I believe, to the point of conviction, that every single sonic advantage enjoyed by the Lenco is explained (and caused) by its (highly superior) drive system. However, the Lenco's high quality plinth and bearing etc are still critical. They are the reason for the Lenco's lack of noticeable sonic problems when compared to those competing turntables designed and built to the highest standards (such as the Forsell), but using a different drive system. So the complete package is necessary to reach the outstandingly overall high level of performance I've experienced with the "Reference Lenco". To make my thinking clearer, some imagination is asked for...

Make believe all the turntables ever made had completely interchangeable parts (what a fantasy!), and you could simply switch any two drive systems, while keeping everything else exactly the same. Next, if the Lenco and Forsell then switched their respective drive systems, I am convinced that you could basically reverse all the comparative sonic results described previously. In fact, a rewrite would be really simple, I would just have to switch "Lenco" with "Forsell", and vice-versa, and not have to change even one other word.

And now I will try my best to explain why the (Lenco's) idler-drive system provides such a noticeable sonic superiority over other turntable drive systems.

A well-designed and executed idler-drive has more effective torque (ET)* than any other type of drive system. It's that simple. The amount of ET is critically important, because it is required to overcome the inherent "groove resistance"** of the LP. The less the "groove resistance" effects the platter speed, the fewer sonic problems (stylus drag**) the system will experience (and you will hear). In short- Every single change in the record groove requires some amount of ET to overcome it (without any alteration in speed). This is true even if it's a tiny change (like the high harp note discussed above), but especially if it's a large change (deep, powerful bass notes or complex crescendos).

Effective torque, in effect, is required to properly "initiate" a musical note (or passage). Since a continual stream of new notes must appear while the LP is being played, adequate ET is a necessity at all times. Without the proper amount of ET, the sound will vary, depending on the amount, and type, of notes (resistive changes) coming into play (as various physical changes in the groove). It's this variance, or musical inconsistency (distortion), which good idler-drives diminish better than any other design.

My "conviction" comes from direct experience. While I heard all of the described improvements from the first day I used the Lenco, they were virtually doubled after the rebuilder, Jean Nantais (during a visit), changed a spring and cleaned both the idler-wheel and the bottom of the platter (where they connect). Since these modifications increased the ET (which I could actually feel), and effected nothing else, I don't see any other logical explanation for my/our observations and experiences. Accordingly, this is not simple and thoughtless "dogma".

This brings us to a critically related subject: What about inertia? What role does it play in this issue (since many turntables have heavy platters to increase inertia)? The critical question- With a large amount of inertia, do you still require a large amount of ET?

I am not a physicist, but the overwhelming amount of direct (and anecdotal) evidence comes down to this: Inertia is required for the turntable to "sustain" existing musical notes and sounds, but it has only marginal utility when it comes to the "initiation" of musical notes (where adequate ET is required). If this were not so, any turntable with a heavy platter would be able to equal the Lenco's performance. However, even turntables with both heavy platters, and flywheels, have failed to equal all of the Lenco's strengths in my experience. Accordingly, I feel it is incontrovertible to argue that inertia, in any amount, is not enough, on its own, to allow a turntable to perform at the highest possible levels of performance. (Do not forget that the Lenco also excels at "sustaining" notes, despite its lack of a seriously heavy platter.)

The "bottom line", or the ultimate conclusion, of the above is thus inescapable: A large amount of effective torque is an absolute requirement to reach the highest level of turntable performance. Idler-drives, when well designed and executed, are the only type of drive system that can produce this required amount of effective torque, thus only idler-drive turntables are capable of achieving the "highest level of turntable performance". However, all of the remaining parts of the turntable must also be of outstanding quality to reach this ultimate potential. If not, there will be the usual sonic "trade-offs" (between the various turntable designs), which we audiophiles find so frustrating (and sadly, the norm). So, in other words...

When everything is otherwise basically equal (isolation, plinth, suspension, bearing, platter interface etc), a good idler-drive will outperform all the other turntable designs. Unfortunately, things are rarely equal in audio, which is the main reason why idler-drives are now rare, grossly underestimated and vastly unappreciated. One purpose of this review/essay is to redress this regrettable state of affairs.

Finally, can there be any exceptions*** to this claim of idler-drive superiority? Well, since heavy platters and flywheels, along with electronic regulators (such as the Linn Lingo and VPI SDS) are still inadequate, that leaves us with a drive system with multiple drives (motors). I've heard a number of turntables with two motors, and my associate has heard one with three motors. Unfortunately, none of them had the effective torque of the Lenco. At this time, there's one last hope; the Kuzma Stabi XL4 Turntable, which has 4 motors. A comparison between the Lenco and the Kuzma was originally scheduled this February, but later cancelled. We still hope to make this comparison sometime this year. However, even if the Kuzma succeeds, consider its cost and complexity? It may well be the one exception that proves the rule.

* I use the word "effective" to distinguish this capacity from "gross" torque, which is the forte of (a few) direct drive (DD) turntables. Unfortunately, the use of electronic circuits ("feedback") in all DD motors, which is required to control their unusually low RPM (33 & 45), basically compromises what should be their inherent advantage. This is proved by typical DD turntables, which are usually no better than even belt drive turntables in those areas where the Lenco (and other idler-drives) excels. Further, even expensive DD turntables, such as the Goldmund Studio and the vintage Japanese models now in vogue (which I've heard and even owned****), noticeably lack the Lenco's strengths. One modern direct drive, the Grand Prix Audio Monaco, may have finally solved this problem, but, once again, at what price?

** The term "stylus drag" has been commonly used by others to describe the problem that idler-drives excel at overcoming. However, I prefer instead the term "groove resistance", because it is more precise, direct and graphic in describing exactly what the turntable must overcome, while "stylus drag" is the result of turntable failure.

***I will also discuss "rim drives" in the Options Section. I consider rim drives to be in the same family as idler-drives.

****I owned a stock Sony 2250 for around a year, and auditioned, more than once, the top-of-the-line Denon in a Mitch Cotter B-1 Turntable Base with a Fidelity Reserach 12" Tonearm.

To all those readers who are now seriously interested in purchasing a Lenco, my first word of advice is to avoid being blinded by all of the superlatives I've used to describe the performance of the Lenco. It must always be remembered that all those superlatives, while well earned, apply only to the Lenco I actually heard, and to no other. My description then is of one particular turntable, which while demonstrating (and proving) the unprecedented "potential" of the basic design, does not promise the actualization of that same potential to others.

This is because there is a huge difference between the "Reference Lenco" I heard and a completely stock Lenco, no matter how good its condition. So to provide a necessary and helpful perspective, I would like to use an (automobile) analogy...

First, you must think of the original stock Lenco, even if it's still in mint condition, as a "jalopy". However, this particular jalopy has an unexpected fluke, which takes it far out of the ordinary. For some unknown reason, the manufacturers decided to use a Formula One racing engine and drive train! Of course, this engine is completely wasted if no "modification" is ever made to the rest of the car, but all that matters to us is that a modification is possible. It's just a question of what modification will fully optimize that outstanding engine. Still, we must never forget that this automobile, without any change, will always be a jalopy, regardless of its engine etc.

In effect, when you purchase a stock Lenco, you must only look at its basic drive system, platter and bearing, and forget all the rest, because it will be eventually replaced. (Like Michaelangelo "seeing" David imprisoned in the huge piece of marble, and then carefully removing all the "excess".) In short, when you purchase a stock Lenco (or any other vintage idler-drive turntable), you are also making a long-term commitment to take the necessary measures for it to reach its fullest potential, at the least possible expense, in time and money. Without that commitment, you have nothing special, a common mediocrity at best, while its dormant potential is relegated to the theoretical and the irrelevant.

And so here are all the options that are currently available to potential or existing Lenco owners, along with other idler-drive alternatives (and I will add other options as they become known to me). The order of the options is irrelevant:

1. Rebuild by Jean Nantais- This was my choice, and I'm obviously very satisfied with the results. Nantais' background is discussed above. He lives and works in Ontario, Canada. He does not currently have a website (he informed me that he is working on building one), but you can contact him at this email address: ripplefritz@hotmail.com

Just below is the Lenco upgrade "price list", in US$ Dollars, that I requested from Nantais. I felt it may prove helpful to some readers. I will keep this information posted until the Nantais website is actually up and running (there's some minor editing and my bold):

"Here's the price list, not including the Lenco (sometimes I have some, sometimes not, price to be discussed according to market value). I continue to improve all products without price increases (in most cases) over the established classic recipe I developed...

My prices vary according to the level and finish, from $2,900 from my lowest at 75 pounds and veneered (23" x 19" x 6" sans feet or 'table), through $3,500 for the next step up (noticeably superior to the 75-pound version), 100 pounds veneered (24 1/2" x 20 1/2" x 7 1/4"), and finally my "Reference" Lenco, 100 pounds, hardwood sides, at $6,000 (24 1/2" x 20 1/2" x 7 1/4").

This needs some explaining: for solid hardwood sides, whatever profile, instead of veneered plinth, add $300 (plus the cost of any exotic wood if so desired). For two-tonearm plinth, instead of one-tonearm plinth, add $300. The metacrylate mat is $250 (a serious upgrade), for the Bearpaw footers $200 (another serious upgrade). Each tonearm position comes with two tonearm boards, and the installation of tonearm is included if it is sent to me.

All base models have all the work I have developed over the years done, including improved (not new but modded) main bearing, practical footers, professionally-recoated metalwork. The actual cost of any exotic veneers or hardwoods is to be added, contact me to see what is available.

The "Reference" includes all upgrades in the price, including my completely new main bearing, which is only available with the Reference, and of course my new re-thought plinth (much more expensive and labour-intensive to make) and hardwood sides, and finally, a wooden crate constructed specifically for it. Which means it is not very much more expensive than a fully-tricked-out 100-pound "Classic" (though in a different sonic league), and it comes with custom-built crate.

I also rebuild Garrards and Thorens, and have similar plans for them as I did with the Lenco Reference. I have also done Sony 2250 DDs (actually sound very good, superior to the Technics SP-10: servo-control is very much more fluid-sounding than quartz-locking) and various heavy DDs (upon request, done a few), everything can be improved.

Turnaround is roughly 6 weeks, and work begins when a 50% deposit is made."

2. A DIY Project- This is, by far, the most popular route to take. Fortunately, there are websites, people and dedicated companies to assist you along the way. If you feel confident in your mechanical abilities (I don't!), then nothing can beat this method for "bang for the buck". Below is one website I am familiar with that is dedicated to the Lenco DIY community:

Lenco Heaven- This website is operated by and for Lenco DIY enthusiasts. Besides it many members, it also has multiple sources and contacts. I consider this website a virtual requirement if you want to eventually purchase and optimize the Lenco on your own, and even if you decide to take a different direction. Its membership is free. http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php

Plus two people and an established business to buy parts from:

Jeremy Clark- He has designed custom made bearings for the Lenco. Information and pictures of Clark's bearings can be found on Lenco Heaven. The prices appear reasonable to me. His email address is: jeremyclark@redbeardconsulting.co.uk

Peter Reinders- Builds a new "top plate" for the Lenco, which is called the "PTP". His email address for contacts and orders is: reinderspeter@hotmail.com

Oswalds Mill Audio- Various plinths and parts. See below.

3. Finished Lenco Turntables- Jean Nantais isn't alone in offering the Lenco as a finished component. Here is another Lenco rebuilder.

Oswalds Mill Audio- They also offer a true alternative to the wood based Nantais version. http://www.oswaldsmillaudio.com/index.html
Here is their description of their custom made Lenco...

"The OMA Anatase Turntable uses the excellent Swiss made Lenco motor and platter, with OMA's own bearing and new idler wheel assembly. All of these components are secured directly to a massive 2" thick slate plinth which weighs approximately 80 pounds. Each one is custom made to accommodate whatever tonearm you wish (or two arms.) If you already own a Lenco, we can take it as a donor, and give a discount on the price, or you can purchase the Anatase complete"
Introductory price- Anatase ex tonearm $4,450

4. A New Idler-Drive Turntable- There are at least two new Idler-drive turntables being manufactured today. I haven't seen, let alone heard, either of them.

SASKIA IDLER TURNTABLE- This is described as: "The first all new idler drive turntable in decades, Saskia was designed from the ground up by Win Tinnon to reach a new level of excellence in vinyl playback. Assembled from solid, specially selected clear Pennsylvania slate, the turntable weighs slightly over 200 pounds. The idler mechanism, bearing, platter and spindle are all new designs, not copies of designs of the past."

It sounds really interesting, and it looks beautiful, but it is extremely pricey. There is no website as of now, but the builder/designer can be contacted using this address: gofigure@internetpro.net

There is also an alternative to the Saskia (despite their claim above), though it is also expensive.

Garrard 501- This is manufactured by Loricraft, of record cleaning machine fame. It is distributed by Smart Devices in North America. I tried hard to find one used, at a good price, but I was unsuccessful. It also looks interesting. Part of their description:

"The 501 uses advances in technology which have come about in the years since the classic 401 ceased production, including an advanced bearing developed from and interchangeable with the original 301/401. It also used the years of experience Loricraft has gained rebuilding and restoring these classic turntables."

http://www.garrard501.com/
http://www.smartdevicesinc.com/smartht.html

5. Garrard 301/401 Alternative- These two idler-drive turntables are more famous, and expensive, than the Lenco. They have almost a cult like following. Many audiophiles swear by them. There's plenty of discussion about them on the Internet. They can also be purchased refurbished, or improved in DIY fashion.

6. Thorens TD-124 Alternative- This is the turntable that inspired Stereophile reviewer/writer Art Dudley to finally part with his Linn Sondek (which really upset his fellow "Linnies"). I've heard the TD-124 on a number of occasions, but I was never impressed with it. I also found it complicated internally. However, it is highly important to note that I never once heard it even close to its best, so don't be prejudiced against it just because of my experiences.

7. Obscure Idler-Drive Alternatives- There are other serious idler-drive models, which are even rarer than the above, from Rek-O-Kut and EMT (which are very expensive and heavy). While there are countless other vintage idler-drive turntables from various manufacturers, I don't know of any others that can be fully optimized like those mentioned above.

8. Used (Previously Modified) Idler-Drives Turntables- This means any used (Nantais) modified Lenco, or another used, previously modified, alternative idler-drive turntable. This option will appeal most to those audiophiles, who like myself, can not do the modification work themselves, but are still looking for the best possible price and value, and the least possible financial risk. You may find these "idler deals" at Audiogon, Audio Asylum and, I think, Lenco Heaven, and maybe even Jean Nantais himself, since many DIY idler-drive enthusiasts are constantly "trading-up". This is the option I would have used if I wasn't able to afford a "new" Nantais or an OMA Anatase Lenco.

Care, of course, must be taken into confirming the condition and the quality of the modification, so some research will be necessary to "earn" your "deal". Also, don't overlook potential shipping problems, both in cost, because of the weight, and the fact that a DIY project won't have standard shipping boxes. Purchasing only from an experienced and reputable DIYer is the best advice.

9. Rim Drives- This is a relatively new option, but it offers a true alternative (for some). There are two well-known U.S. based companies that offer these devices, VPI and Teres. Basically they are a portable idler-drive, which directly connects to the rim of the existing platter (which means it will replace the existing drive system of the turntable). It is certainly an elegant solution in theory, because you can keep your existing turntable, and avoid going through the hassle and expense of a completely new turntable (or project).

The VPI rim drive is designed specifically for (some of) their own turntables, while the Teres Verus is more versatile. The Verus can be used with a variety of turntables (if the rim of the platter can be reached by the wheel). The VPI uses belts, while the Verus is direct coupled to the motor (like an idler-drive), giving it the theoretical advantage in effective torque. I haven't heard either of these rim drives, but that "theoretical advantage" of the Verus appears to have borne fruit in actual practice, at least according to a direct comparison posted on Audiogon (Johnjc, 01-13-09), on a VPI Super Scoutmaster no less.

There is another company, Trans-Fi, that makes a new turntable, the Salvation, with an existing rim drive. Here is part of their description: "Slate plinth, Acrylic Platter, Inverted bearing, ceramic ball/nylon thrustplate, Direct Rim-drive/DC motor, Variable Rotary speed adjustment control 33-45rpm"

It looks really interesting to me, and the "Projected price with T3Pro (a linear tonearm) well under £2000"

http://www.trans-fi.com/turntables.htm

I believe that this option should be seriously looked into by those who don't want vintage components in their system, but still desire the (at least some of the) benefits associated with good idler-drives (effective torque), and also don't want to spend $ 15,000+ for a new idler-drive. Of course, only time will tell us if rim drives can give us all the advantages of actual (high quality) idler-drives.

This is an exciting time to look for an idler-drive type turntable. In fact, considering the great variety of choices available today (some of which I'm certain I missed), this may be the true "Golden Age" of Idler-drives. Even better, I think it's only a matter of time for more models and options to become available (like from China). This website will attempt to stay current with the latest choices and developments.

Reference Lenco Issues

1. Can the "Reference Lenco" be further improved?- I believe so, but I also do not believe the improvement will be "significant". This is because the (current) Reference Lenco doesn't have any obvious sonic problems or the equivalent design weaknesses. A better version would have to improve on parts that are already of outstanding quality, and which are nearing the limits of technology.

2. The slate plinth- This will be the next step on our Lenco adventure, and I believe it's the change that has the most likely chance of improving the current "Reference" model. However, I will make this a priority audition only if my associate, who has the same "Reference" as myself, informs me that he prefers it over our (wood) version. Also, I'm not ruling out another plinth material which is superior to both wood and slate. Bottom Line- I'm completely flexible when it comes to the plinth material.

General Idler-Drive Turntable Issues

1. The Critical Importance of the Plinth- When I wrote above (in Part Four), that "when everything is equal, an idler-drive will be superior to other drive systems", I must stress that I was being "figurative" and not "literal". In fact, if and when "everything is equally" bad, there is a good chance that the competing drive systems may sound better than idler-drives, at least in overall performance. If this were not true, idler-drives would have never "disappeared" in the first place. Accordingly, I believe this complex issue requires an explanation...

When you consider all the anecdotal evidence concerning idler-drives, starting from decades ago, right up until the present, the one constant fact is unavoidable; the plinth is the "make it or break it" part of these turntables. The largest and most easily heard improvements (or degradations) always involve the plinth. In the case of my "Reference Lenco", even a relatively small change in plinth materials made a significant sonic improvement, according to my friend/associate.

So I believe that while other turntable designs, like belt-drives and direct-drives, can get away with just a "good plinth", an idler-drive, because of its extra energy (effective torque "ET"), requires a truly dead plinth to really shine. This then is the unavoidable "trade-off" with idler-drives; The greater the amount of ET, the greater the requirement of a dead plinth.

2. Be CERTAIN that the original vintage turntable is operating properly- This is so obvious, that is shouldn't even have to be mentioned. Idler-drives are relatively complex devices and should never be confused with (simple) belt-drives when it comes to repair and/or maintenance. However, many audiophiles, including myself, do not have the knowledge and skills to know if a mechanical device is (or is not) at a 100% operating level (and nothing less than 100% is acceptable). Worse, we won't know how to get the defective machine back to 100%. So my advice is simple; if you don't have these skills, you better know someone who does, or purchase a working machine from someone who is knowledgeable and reputable.

3. Is an even higher level of turntable performance possible?- I'm not sure, but it would require both a sonic breakthrough in the plinth (slate or some other material), plus an even deader and heavier platter (and an effective clamping system). Importantly, there would also have to be no sonic trade-offs when these changes are implemented. In my opinion, the most obvious current candidate to reach this "new level" would be the Saskia turntable mentioned above.

4. Idler-Drives Compared to CD Reproduction- This is interesting. CD playback doesn't have any "groove resistance", so it obviously doesn't require any "effective torque (ET)". In theory, CD playback should equal, and even exceed, any idler-drive at its best. This is because the LP itself will not be perfectly (center) pressed, so there will always be some speed variations (distortions), regardless of the amount of the idler-drive's ET.

On the other hand, idler-drives should also sound more like (the best of) CD playback because of its superior speed consistency. However, since many listeners still much prefer (idler-drive) turntables, especially in those areas where idler-drives excel, can there be any explanation for this? I believe so...

CD reproduction is limited by its high sound-floor, which means it loses some low-level musical information. This, in turn, means something will be noticeably "missing", even if everything else is "perfect". Unfortunately, when you also consider Redbook sample rates, various filters and jitter, the cumulative degradation will even be audible on the "initiation" of notes, which should be the easiest challenge for digital reproduction. However, it is possible that CD playback will still outperform analog playback in the "initiation" of notes, if the competing turntable has low ET. At the least, it would be the trade-off between the turntable "smearing", and the CD "losing", musical information. The good idler-drives eliminate this frustrating choice of trade-offs.

5. Idler-Drives Compared to the ELP Laser Turntable- This is even more interesting. Unless I'm missing something, the ELP laser LP turntable not only has no "groove resistance", it also doesn't have any digital anomalies. I still haven't heard an ELP turntable in a familiar setting, but it would be fascinating to compare it to a good idler-drive. In theory, once again, it should equal (or exceed) any idler-drive in its greatest strengths, but what if it didn't? What could be the scientific explanation(s) for such a surprising result?

Maybe the present lasers are too large to reproduce the "note initiation" (which a Blu-Ray laser may directly rectify). The only other possible explanation would be a problem with the ELP's current drive system. It would have to have noticeable problems with speed consistency, even with no groove resistance. This could occur if it used some sort of servo or electronic devices to sustain its speed. If someone eventually makes a direct and serious comparison between these two designs, and I find out about it, it will be posted here.

6. Future Models- I feel that it is inevitable that new idler-drive models, or related rim-drive models, will become available in the near future, while belt-drives will (reciprocally) slowly lose their popularity and dominance. Some of these new models will be built in North America. However, I also expect some models to come from China. Of these, some will be based on Western designs, while others may be new Chinese designs or even "knock-offs" of the original vintage models that started all of this excitement in the first place.

I can understand how some audiophiles will read the above review/essay and come to the conclusion that this entire Lenco/Idler-drive Vintage Story "is just too good (or strange) to be true". In fact, I felt exactly the same way until what I heard, in my own system, with my own ears, convinced me that it was all valid. So, to be clear, when it comes to idler-drive turntables: There is a real "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow".

This means, at the very least, I strongly advise all phono-oriented audiophiles to hear a good idler-drive turntable, in a system you're familiar with, even if it's inconvenient. Simply ignoring these models, as I did for (too many) years, is not only unproductive, it touches on plain stupidity and even arrogance. "Excuses", at this point, are just a mask for some form of bias or denial.

However, despite my passionate convictions (which are common for a new "convert"), I feel it's also much too easy to simplify both what I (and others) have observed and the resulting conclusions I later formed. The first fundamental reality about idler-drives is...

While idler-drive turntable may offer the highest potential performance, these models also require the greatest effort to reach that level of performance. That's the trade-off, and it's also what ultimately doomed them in the audio marketplace. So there is no "free lunch" here, but there is still much for audiophiles to celebrate, because the good news dwarfs the hurdles. For example...

Some audiophiles will be able to achieve most of the idler-drives potential by themselves, if they have the necessary DIY skills and/or with kits. Further, considering their performance/price ratio, Lenco models modified by others, such as Jean Nantais (and maybe OMA), also offer outstanding value for the money when compared to competing turntable designs, even including those being sold used and heavily discounted. This is the reason why I can eventually see a time where many existing turntable manufacturers will offer their own idler (or rim) drive model.

This brings us to the question of why the idler-drives died out in the first place? There are people who are far better positioned to answer this question than I am, especially if they were on the "inside" of the turntable business back in the 1970's. Still, looking back now though, 30 to 40 years later...

I believe that audio took a tragic "wrong turn" when it moved completely away from idler-drives. Audio did the same thing with tube electronics, but that didn't last long (a few years), while (high quality) idler-drives are still not manufactured today. This neglect was caused partially by ignorance, but also by the idler-drive manufacturers themselves, who did NOT evolve their turntables like the other serious turntable manufacturers. So, in the end, they were their own worst enemy. They had an inherent design superiority and they never took full advantage of it.

In fact, I am convinced that if any turntable manufacturer, 30 years ago, had built idler-drives as seriously as Goldmund built direct-drives, or as Micro-Seiki built belt-drives, we would still have idler-drive turntables being made today. Instead, we have the comedy/tragedy of a relatively mediocre turntable, the Linn Sondek, surviving all these decades, while ironically claiming a special performance capability in those exact areas, such as "PRaT", in which any good idler-drive is so far superior to it that the "comparison" is actually grotesque.

I can't avoid the question of money and cost, especially in comparison to the (belt-drive) alternatives. I look at this way; the Forsell, if made today, would cost around $ 25,000 (with tonearm, and if one considers 18 years of inflation). It has outstanding performance indeed, but the Reference Lenco (now $ 6,000) is noticeably better. The only two commercial turntables that I believe could be even better than the Reference are the Saskia ($ 36,000) and the Kuzma Stabi, 4 motor version ($ 30,000). The only other alternative is the OMA Anatase, which may also be an outstanding performer and value.

As for those almost countless turntables with a single belt-drive, I seem them as fundamentally flawed, no matter what they cost, and no matter what lengths are taken to optimize the rest of the turntable (heavy platter, super bearings, "space-age" materials, "microscope ready" suspension etc). It's like someone running the Olympic finals of the 100 meter dash with full body metal armour, and still expecting to win. To quote a "mainstream" reviewer (in a similar context), who actually owns a $ 125,000 version of this metal clad "sprinter"; "They're a lost cause".

I have never before been as satisfied with a turntable as I am with the Lenco Reference. Am I disturbed that I didn't get on the idler-drive "bandwagon" before this? No! If you allow yourself to think this way, you will eventually drive yourself crazy (and not just about audio related issues). I also listened to transistors for years and to pentode output tubes for decades (before moving to SET amplifiers). All that matters now is that I've experienced what a good idler-drive can uniquely accomplish, and I'm relating those experiences and observations to others, as best as I can.

Finally, to be direct, and maybe even crude, I put my money where my mouth is. My detailed reasons for doing so are above.

These are the two finest turntables that I have ever heard overall in my own system. This Class A ranking is conditional. These turntables (both of them) require extraordinary isolation and very specific air regulation to reach their ultimate (Class A) level of performance. When the Forsells are optimized, they have unprecedented neutrality and retrieval of low-level information, plus a huge and focused soundstage, and they are at least excellent in every other sonic parameter, though not "state of the art".

The Air Force model, with the flywheel, is a little better than the basic "Reference" model; it has slightly superior speed stability, but I feel it is not worth the hassle, cost and speed pitch problems (the basic speed will change slightly every time it's turned on.) Both turntables share another problem:

The VPI HR-X "Special Edition", the Verdier, the top of the line Maplenoll models, and all of the Melcos, have better bass reproduction than either of the Forsells.

Further- I was recently (12/03) asked by a reader to name any "potential problems" to look for before purchasing a used Forsell Turntable. This is how I replied to him:

There are two potential problems:

1. The Motor- It may get noisy and fail. Fortunately, it should be able to be directly replaced with an entire new motor from Redpoint. This "solution" is in theory only at this time, since I don't know anyone who has done this so far. (I might take this route next year myself if I decide to keep my Forsell loaner, for sonic reasons, along with the increased reliability.)

2. The Platter Bearing- The only method of testing for this is to listen to solo piano, or another instrument, which is sensitive to noticeable "wow and flutter". If the bearing does go, the only possible repair, that I am aware of, is from Forsell themselves. I had this problem with my previous Forsell, and a technician from Forsell repaired it (along with my friend's Forsell, which had the same problem).

Forsell Motor Replacements- A helpful reader sent me some important information for Forsell Air Reference owners who require a motor replacement. This is really good news, since there appears to be no manufacturer or distributor assistance at this time, in North America or in Europe, which I consider a disgrace. Sadly, the people who own the "Air Force" model, which uses a separate flywheel, still have a problem. Here's his communication, slightly edited;

"I found the (Forsell) motor in Belgium. The cost is $ 30. The company is Premotec, and it's located in the Netherlands (www.premotec.com)".

(The item number is:) 9904-120-16214. (It is) 24V DC.
PS: They should look and ask for the Belgian Agent. He may have it in stock, but they have also an agent in the USA."

For Improved Air Flow- I use 3 low-pressure, high-flow pumps for the tonearm, and 2 low-pressure, high-flow pumps for the platter. Each group has its own dedicated regulator, with 1% variability down to 1 PSI. I use the Schrader-Bellows models. The tonearm supply also uses the surge tank that comes with the turntable, the platter does not.

For Improved Acoustical and Mechanical Isolation- I use an 18" bicycle inner tube underneath a .75" metapolymer plate, then 9 fluid bags between the plate and the bottom of the Forsell base. The fluid bags must all be the same size, or one/some of them will bear more/all of the weight, compromising the isolation and maybe even causing an eventual leak, which could be disastrous. This isolation system, both the most economical and effective I've found, may also work with other turntables.

This reader, from Europe, has discovered an easy method to improve the performance of the Forsell air-bearing tonearm. I will try it myself as soon as I have a chance, and get back with the results at that time. Any Forsell owner who duplicates this experiment, is highly encouraged to relay their experiences here, no matter what the results. This letter was edited:

"I discovered that if I twisted the (Golden) armtube slightly towards the front, then the arm would float easier on its air cushion, allowing me to turn down the airflow and get less turbulent flow. Why this is, I do not know, but it may be a good tip for other Forsell owners as well. The armtube is just slightly turned along its axis, making the air holes not pointing straight upwards, but slightly to the front (maybe 5 degrees from the vertical). I adjusted all the angles, and set the vta to almost neutral (level arm), and found it to play marvellous."

A helpful reader sent me a link to Forsell's (new?) website. The actual link is below, and also in the Link File. Here's the URL:

Other turntables that we have heard many good things about, but we have no experience with, are the:

Walker Audio Proscenium

E.A.T.

Micro Seiki 8000 or 5000

TW Acustic Raven

Loricraft 509

Townshend Rock V

Galibier Stelvio

Grand Prix Audio Monaco

The Verdier La Platine comes without its own tonearm (they don't make any). However, it can accommodate two tonearms at the same time. Our experiences have been very positive using one of the Class B tonearms (VPI JMW 12).

The overall sound quality appears to be competitive with the Forsell combinations, and superior to the other designs within this class. This turntable utilizes magnets for its bearing instead of air pumps, but it has its own impracticalities; including no suspension, a weight of 120 lbs., and a price of $ 8,000 without the tonearm, which I still find "reasonable".

CAVEATS: The earlier models had an overly resonant (concrete) base which they called "granito". They are not References. (One reader wrote that he was able to reduce the resonance "by using 3 heavy triple point brass cones (Mapleshade) on top of the base at the available 3 corners, and an additional cone on top of the arm board over the mounting bolt.")

There have also been some problems with the magnets, which can cause hum over time. This problem is repairable by the owner, so it is not serious.

I have, personally, auditioned this particular model, but not at great length. It is probable that this design subtracts some low-level information (in comparison to the Forsell models). This was based on two (short) listening sessions and also conversations with some other of my associates, who are much more familiar with the sound of this design than I am.

Further- I've read a number of comments by Verdier owners who claim that using the Redpoint/Galibier Motor Drive System noticeably improves their turntables. It uses batteries and also provides critical speed adjustments. The cost is $ 800. Neither I, nor my associates, have any direct experience with this drive system. There are links to these two companies in the Link File. (8/03)

These turntables should have been here from the initial introduction of this list. They were missing because of my oversight. They were superb value new, and even better value used. Their bass, dynamic qualities and speed stability are as good as it gets. They are also generally neutral and highly detailed. They can be further improved with updates. They lack the last bit of "refinement" and neutrality that is necessary to join the Class A turntables.

Neither of these are turntables for a "novice". They are both very heavy and difficult to set-up properly. They are still well worth the trouble to find and optimize.

A reader informed me that he has updated manuals for certain Maplenoll models. He can also suggest simple modifications to improve virtually all the different models.

This generous reader is prepared to help people for free. Any reader interested in this information should send an e-mail to this site, and the message will then be forwarded to this Maplenoll connection. This site is not otherwise involved in the communication.

There were originally two models, plus enhanced versions of both. Both have had some reliability problems because of their complicated design. The original designer/owner, John Bicht, is still available to both service and upgrade them. In their day, the late 1980’s to early 1990’s, they were the best turntables in the world.

They still hold up today because of their very advanced design and unique tonearm. They should be modified with better air regulation and by defeating their suspensions, if possible. The more expensive model, the Model Two, is a little better than the Model One, but both are superb. They have very noisy pumps that you will have to sonically "hide", despite the fact that they are within a solid container. When optimized, the two Versa’s are probably the finest overall turntable/tonearm combinations within this class.

It's around 3 decades ago now, but there was a time when the original Goldmund Studio took the title of "The Finest Turntable in the World" from the Linn-Sondek LP-12. Of course it was an unfair competition, considering that the Goldmund was much more expensive, had up-to-date engineering and was manufactured from advanced materials (lead/plastic polymers). It was also much easier to setup, and it stayed setup.

The last model they made, with a metacrylic base, is the finest of this series and the particular model designated as a Reference. The suspension should be defeated like the above Versas. (Sorbothane pucks or their equivalent.)

The Goldmund Tonearm, the T-3F, was very good, but it was not equal to the performance of their own turntable and a hassle not only to set-up, but also to operate and maintain. Other tonearms are preferable. (See the Tonearm File.) All of them will work well with the Goldmund, though the mounting will be tricky. (The Goldmund Studio's subchassis (or plinth), which is made out of an exotic metapolymer, is very difficult to drill through.)

With the proper tonearm mounted correctly, and the suspension defeated, the Studio comes reasonably close to the Versa for a lot less money and it is a joy to use. It is noticeably superior to any of the CLASS C turntables below.

Considering its long-term influence and the fact that this design is still "competitive" after 3 decades, it is obvious to me that:

and not the (far inferior) Linn Sondek LP-12, which is just a few years older.

Caveat: The Studio is as deep as it is wide, and doesn’t fit on standard shelves.

Clarification- The earlier Goldmund Studio models, with their metapolymer platter and subchassis, but with wood bases, are still superior to the Class C tables below, but the sonic differences are not as pronounced; so you can rate them Class B/C.

Repair Issues- I've been recently informed that Goldmund can no longer provide the direct-drive motors for these turntables if and when they need to be replaced. Any verification of this bad news would be appreciated. Even better would be some information on how to find a (direct) replacement motor.

However, really early Goldmund models have a potential problem that can not be repaired. This is from the Goldmund website:

"Our early production of the Goldmund Studio and Studietto turntables used a motor made by Pabst in Germany which was discontinued in the early 80s by its manufacturer without service possibilities. We changed the motor for a JVC one which we still have in stock for service. Any turntable using the early motor will be unusable when the motor stop working and we have no way to help, the original manufacturer not providing even spare parts. The Pabst motor is easily recognizable being in one part, with very thin loose wire connecting it to the front panel of the turntable. On the contrary, the JVC motor was made in two separate parts, motor and electronic board, was covered, under the suspended top plate of the turntable by a thin molded plastic black cover and attached to the front panel by a flat cable. We strongly encourage all buyers to not buy the Pabst version since the motor are now 20 years old minimum and cannot be repaired."

The Clamp- The Goldmund Clamp was expensive, but superb, one of the finest clamps ever made and I highly advise using it.

The Studietto- The Goldmund Studietto was their least expensive design. Its midrange and high frequencies were similar to the Studio, but it had mediocre bass and its (less expensive and simpler) tonearm had the same problems as described above. (The original Rock Turntable/Tonearm "wiped the floor" with this model in a "shootout" many years ago.)

Further Information on the Studietto- I've always assumed that the Goldmund Studietto could be improved, like the larger Goldmund Studio, with a better (non-spring) suspension, though I've never done it myself. Now, a reader has actually made this improvement with satisfying results. Here's part of his (edited) letter, with some important details:

"(I'm) using the Audioquest Sorbothane domes instead of the springs. (Note: to do this correctly, you need to remove, invert, and re-install the large knurled height adjustment knobs so the Sorbothane domes can rest on a nice flat surface.)"

Personal Note- I advise any owner of the Studietto to duplicate this reader's actions, unless the stock springs are necessary because of serious and unsolvable isolation problems. (6/04)

The Goldmund Reference model was their finest sounding turntable, but it was still not quite equal to either the Versa or the Forsell, and it cost considerably more. It was extremely impressive looking though, and its ultimate performance was most likely compromised by the use of the Goldmund Tonearm. This particular assessment, unlike the others, is from people I knew, rather than from my personal experience. (There may be a new, improved version of this ultra expensive design, but we have no information on it as of yet.)

Further Reference Information- One reader, who has very broad experience with "all-out" turntables, has written to me that the Goldmund Reference, with the Air Tangent tonearm, "is still a world beater", and that he now regrets selling the combination. His opinion is credible to me.

A veteran reader, who has already relayed his observations to us about the MFA Luminesence preamplifier, has been recently experimenting with an early Goldmund Studio. Initially, he was not very impressed with it. These are his latest experiences (with minor editing):

"After living with a Studio/T3 combo for a while and getting it all right, I have changed my mind on it completely. Granted, it is not as clean as modern super-tables, but its sheer musicality, huge blooming midrange, transparency, unbelievable dynamics and slam, not to mention earth-shaking bass, finally convinced me to keep it.

I was at first taken aback by its sound after living with dry Japanese tables and an EMT for a while, but now I'm a fan. It is true that my early wooden version is a "voiced" table, having colorations not unlike the Linn, but they are mostly in the right places, so to speak. Plus, when I isolated the subplatter on hard foam/sorbothane pucks, I didn't hear much of the wood anymore. In fact, it is very possible to remove the subplatter altogether, and use it on those pucks sitting on any hard surface.

As for the Pabst motor, it is performing well, and I found a spare (albeit expensive). I also took it apart, and found it is very possible to fix it, if the main coils are OK, and they rarely go. For a while, I had two identical early Goldmunds with defeated suspensions here, one with a T3, and one with ET-2/magnesium tube. The T3 won every time. The ET-2 was definitely more accurate, delicate and neutral, but it was "asleep" compared to the T3. It had no midrange bloom and it lacked bass. Great tracker though, even with the Koetsu Onyx. I was also surprised to see that the T3 is worth MORE on the open market than the table itself! "

Personal Notes- I never had a chance to play around with an early Studio, other than at customer's homes, though I did have an opportunity to optimize the last version they made, including one that I owned for a few years. I really enjoyed that turntable. In fact, I can't think of any turntable I've ever used that has provided as much satisfying sound, with as little hassle and effort while using it.

Removing the entire base, as this reader suggests, is well worth trying. However, you have to have not only the isolation devices, but a different method to control the motor, since the controls are all on the base. I never liked the T-3 tonearm, including the "F" version. It was a real pain to set-up; not the alignment etc., but the fine motor adjustments, that determined if and when the arm moved on its rails. The best combination I heard was the SME V on the late Studio.

Below is potentially "Great News" for the owners of the Goldmund Studio turntables. It is from a veteran reader and contributor to this site; Here it is, slightly edited;

"...I found out that an EDS-900 Dual 704 motor is nearly identical to the one used in early Goldmunds. Furthermore, the EDS-1000, used in the Dual 701/721, is an IMPROVED vesrsion. I recently aquired three junky Duals and will check these motors out. If this, indeed, is true, than older Goldmunds can be kept going indefinitely. Dual Europe has both new EDS-900 ($300) and the EDS-1000 ($650) in stock, but they can be salvaged form old tables for next to nothing (I paid $140 for three). Will keep you posted as to feasabilty of retrofitting. You can let all stranded Goldmund owners get in touch with me for any questions they have. Goldmund Europe still has miniature motors for the arm in stock ($300 a pop)."

This update from the same reader arrived a few days later;

"Dual motor update: Dual 701/721 motors are larger in diameter, so some machining is required. Other than that, they could be used. Of course a HANDY guy can do it. Dual power supply must be used. Not a DIRECT replacement, no. Dual 704 looks to be much closer from a picture, but I won't know till I get it (next week)."

Futher Correspondence- These updates are from the same helpful reader above. After a little editing;

"Final breakdown on the replacement motors from Dual tables:

Dual 701/721, EDS 1000/EDS 1000-II- These motors are 5.5" in diameter, while the original Goldmund Papst is 4 3/8", so machining is required.

Dual 704 (may be also 504, never got that, EDS 500 motor), EDS 900 motor- IDENTICAL top, diameter, color etc. Major difference: circuit board extension beyond housing about 0.5" x 1.5", so some machining is required. This motor is not as thick as the original, has less of a magnet and as a result, less torque. Dual's own platter is much lighter.

EDS 1000 has more torque and it is smoother than original Goldmund. There is a posting on Audio Asylum by a Goldmund Studietto owner who actually wanted to replace a WORKING Papst with an EDS 1000 to acheive smoother ride.

Further, both motors are fed via their own electronics, and MUST be used with it. It is not bulky, will fit inside. All in all, I would only recommend these if all other options are exausted (that is, the original motor replacement at about $500, if you can find one). I paid $50 for a Dual 704, so it is a cheap fix, but Goldmund platter probably will have to be given a spin to start turning!

The last word- The Dual 704 (EDS 900) motor definitely wouldn't work - not enough torque. So forget about quick cheap fixes."

Personal Note- This reader deserves thanks for sharing his time, investment and efforts. After everything is said and one, the EDS 1000 motors, found in the Dual 701/721, can still work, though "some machining is required". They may even provide an improvement!

A superb turntable/tonearm combination that was very underrated by the audio press. A number of English 'reviewers' disgraced themselves, and their profession, by claiming it wasn’t even equal to the performance of the far inferior Linn Sondek. (This embarrassment occurred during the "Linn Hysteria" of the early 1980's.) Their matching tonearm, the Excalibur, was also excellent.

This turntable had many innovative features; including the (oversized) bearing, composite platter, hydraulic suspension and tonearm trough. Its only serious problem was that the basic speed of the earlier models varied with the room temperature.

Its performance was superior to the better known Goldmund Studio/T-3F and I even believe actually competitive with the Versa. This turntable, without the tonearm, may still be available in an updated version new from England. This will be difficult to find but it is worth the effort.

Further- I have been informed that Townshend is coming out with a new and superior version of this turntable. My source also wrote "that it wouldn't be cheap".

All of the Melco turntables, while rather rare, are excellent performers. They all have very large and heavy machined platters with no suspension. They require above average isolation and some fine-tuning to reduce resonances or else their colorations will disqualify them from this class. Their bass, solidity and dynamic qualities are state-of-the-art. They can also accommodate two tonearms. These are worth purchasing, if you can find them.

When it comes to the Melco turntables, there is a simple Rule: The heavier the platter, the more desirable the Melco.

Warning- Some Melcos have a worn bearing, due to the extraordinary pressure of their platters, so check them out before purchase.

I made a mistake when I originally combined the descriptions of the Melco and Micro-Seiki turntables. They are quite different in design. I only have enough personal experience with them, all of it on friends' systems and all of it impressive, to know that they should be in this Class, or even higher (specifically the large, heavy models). One reader, who is both familiar and enthusiastic with the entire Micro-Seiki line, sent me this information, which I have edited:

"The Micro-Seiki models 1500, 2000 and 3000 are suspended, although Micro understood and implemented the suspensions slightly differently. The models 5000 and 8000 used their own air suspensions. Once again it was not a suspension in the normal sense, but an uncoupling because their internal resonances were taken care of within the turntable itself.

They do not 'require above average isolation'. Their design was a total self-containment. You could put some of the Micros in your bed and they would perform like they were on top of a 5 ton concrete slab.

None of the Micros allow any fine-tuning or adjustments. There is NOTHING on Micro to adjust or to tune. They are not the Walker Proscenium adjustments nightmare!

None of the Micros (from model 1500 and up) have any colorations that could be fixed by adjustments. There were different versions of Micros that were designed for different purposes (like the Bronze platters meant to work with SS electronics and so on) and those 'versions' have different intended colorations. None of the Micros had colorations due to the resonances.

Generally, Micro-Seiki (since 1965) was the company from which all contemporary TTs imitated their design (quite unsuccessfully I would say). Micro’s TTs (along with EMT 927) are quite in a different league that really has no references to the entire army of contemporary TTs. It is very sad...." (7/03)

Further- A different reader had some observations concerning his new Micro-Seiki front-end, which he used while his ELP Laser Turntable was being repaired. With some minor editing:

"On another note, I have finally set up my big Micro-Seiki with the Schroeder Reference tonearm and ZYX 1000 Airy. Without having the Vyger set up next to it, I can only say that the Micro/Schroeder/ZYX is very satisfying. They are a joy to operate compared to the Vyger and the arm sets up in no time. The Schroeder arm definitely tracks better than the Vyger arm and has a much more stable image. Oddly, surface noise is also reduced. One surprise was that in setting the azimuth visually I found the sound quite satisfying. Upon checking the crosstalk with the Wally tools Analog Suite and Cardas test record, I was surprised to see only 1 dB of channel cross talk and over 40 dB of separation in both channels. The Schroeder arm definitely has very stable tracking abilities. I did not play with the azimuth after this as I figured it was more likely I'd make it worse than better."

"So the overall sound with JL-3's and Micro/Schroeder/ZYX is certainly the best I've ever had in 25 yrs of audio experience. Its the old adage of hearing your record collection all over for the first time. So far I am reluctant to nit pick on the sound because its simply a joy to listen to. We'll see how long the novelty lasts, but so far its well worth all the efforts. One thing for certain: there may be better (conventional) turntables out there but I doubt I'll ever change. The Micro is just a delight to operate and is an incredible piece of engineering."

I've owned and lived with an Aries 1/JMW-10.5 combination. They provide the best performance and value I know of at anywhere near their (now used) price points. The Aries will provide excellent performance in every sonic area, and it's very easy to set-up since it has no suspension. It is more attractive than most of their other models and is also very well built. Because of the setup, I was not able to isolate the individual performance characteristics of the turntable and tonearm. Despite its overall excellence, it still lacks some of the refinement that the Class A turntables possess.

It’s worth the extra money (if you have it) to move up to the Aries from the HW-19. The only TNT model we feel is superior to the Aries, is the (now also used) TNT-6 "Hot-Rod", with the really heavy platter. (Unfortunately, the "Hot-Rod" is rather rare, but worth purchasing at a good -50% off- discount.) How does the Aries compare to a Class A turntable/tonearm...?

VPI Aries 1/JMW 10.5 Vs. Forsell Air-Reference Turntable/Tonearm- Considering only the respective retail prices of these two front-ends, this comparison is obviously unfair, but the Forsell can be purchased used at a major discount, and the VPI is a modern design that has really impressed me. The question is: Can a "modern design", the best that I've heard for the money, equal or even surpass the performance of an "all-out" design from a decade earlier?

When it comes to audio, I don't like suspense. The Forsell is better, and it is easily noticeable. The Forsell has sonic advantages in every parameter except two. It is a little more natural, it has a larger and more focused soundstage, and, most importantly, it has a lower sound-floor, allowing the subtleties of the musical performance and the recording space to be more easily heard, felt and sensed. The VPI equals the Forsell in speed stability and it also has a slightly more solid, deeper and impactful bottom-end, though the bass on the Forsell appears to be a little more cohesive with the rest of the audio spectrum. (Note- With proper modifications, mainly extra air pumps, the Forsell's bass equals or even exceeds the bass of the Aries.)

On a purely practical note; the Forsell requires the owner to upgrade its air supply and it also has problems with room isolation, while the Aries, and the JMW 10, are as easy to set-up and optimize as any serious turntable/tonearm I've experienced, and I've had many.

Both these particular Forsell and VPI models that were compared can still be improved. The Forsell by better air regulation and acoustical isolation, while the tonearm that comes with the VPI Aries has been updated. These various improvements do not alter my overall evaluation.

Further- I also prefer the Aries 1, overall, to the (standard) VPI HR-X (discussed below), which is twice the price. I've had both in my home. Still, the "Special Edition" HR-X, in Class A (above), is noticeably superior to the Aries.

These two turntables both come with the all "frosted acrylic" platter, which is inferior to the heavy-duty aluminum and acylic platter which came with the Aries 1, so they are not References. They do have some sonic advantages, but they're not great enough to offset the new platter's problems. They also have the improved versions of the JMW tonearm, but that also doesn't make up for the problems inherent with their inferior platters. Don't forget, any early version of the JMW tonearm, which were installed on the Aries 1, can also be updated, in stages if need be, and that is what I advise at this time.

If VPI ever gives the purchaser the option of replacing these new platters with the older heavier versions, the above caveat is then obviously both irrelevant and cancelled. Considering VPI's history of updates, this is definitely a possible scenario.

The better BASIS turntables may be in this class, but my associates and I have no direct experience with them.

There are many other new turntable designs that could also equal, or even better, the performance of the above Reference models, but they are almost all very "pricey". We will not stop looking none the less.

These are one of the best overall values of any turntable ever made. They are excellent in every way; sound quality, build quality, ease of setup and use and they can even be updated. They do have one (minor) "downside": Their appearance is just "plain Jane", unless you get their (more expensive) piano black finish. There is more than one version of this turntable, so please read what is below carefully.

Important- Only the HW-19 Mk. IV is in the Upper Category, the older models are in the Lower Category.

After some correspondence with a reader, who is more familiar with the different iterations of the HW-19 Mk. IV and the Aries turntables than me, I am clarifying (and changing) my previous advice:

All the versions of the (now discontinued) HW-19 MK. IV are References, except the last version they made, which, instead of the previous heavy platters, had the all ("frosted") acrylic light-weight platter. This version is not a Reference because the platter will seriously compromise the sonics. As for the Aries, it's a very similar story...

Only the Aries 1, with the aluminum/acyrlic heavy platter, is a Reference. The later Aries 2 and Aries 3, with the same "frosted acrylic" platter, are not References, despite some sonic advantages. It's the old cliche of "one step forward, and two steps back". The only exception would be if their platters are refitted back to the original aluminum/acrylic. These two models both have an updated version of the JMW tonearm, which has improved sonics, but that doesn't make up for the inferior platter.

Besides, the tonearm that came with the Aries 1 can always be updated itself to the latest version. This is what I advise at this time. It is not only the best sonic choice, it's also the most economical, since the Aries 1 is now a bargain on the used market.

FURTHER: The Mk. IV is behind only the Maplenoll Ariadne (and probably also the Michell Orbe) in sound quality within this class. It can accommodate any tonearm I can think of. This turntable can also be noticeably improved if its spring suspension is defeated, actually replaced (with Navcom "silencers" etc).

Caveat: This design is wider than most other turntables and does not fit on standard turntable shelves. Fortunately, extra wide stands and shelves are generally available.

July 2006 Update- For 15+ years, I've been advising the owners of the HW-19 to exchange the 4 isolation springs (in the corners) for sorbothane pucks, or their equivalent. Well...

Great news! The same advertisement from Elusive Disc, mentioned just above (HR-X), also includes an offer for four "Sorbothane Isolators", to replace those same 4 springs. For years, numerous readers have asked me where to find those pucks (with no success), and now VPI is finally offering them on their own. The price is $ 40, and well worth it for the noticeable improvement in sonics. Their exact description is as follows:

"Replacement sorbothane pucks for all HW-19 Turntables. Four are needed for all turntables. It most cases we like the sorbothane pucks better than the springs used in the MK#3 and MK4 models!"

Personal Notes- These Sorbothane Isolators should also work well with the original HW-19 as well as the MK. II version. The only exceptions are where the turntable is poorly isolated from footfalls etc, in which case the springs are a requirement.

With proper setup and care, this turntable/arm combination is the best sounding ever made for the money.

The model that receives the Reference designation has no suspension and was made from the late 1980’s until the early 1990’s. It was well built, but because it used an air pump and had a linear tonearm, it was difficult for an average audiophile to setup. The VPI 19 Series is preferable for most audiophiles.

The Maplenoll is so good, that it even approaches the CLASS B turntables in some areas of sonic performance. This company is now out of business, but a former employee was servicing them. This turntable is the one to get in this class if you are comfortable with air pumps, linear tonearms and can find a good, isolated location.

IMPORTANT: Make sure to read the entry on the Ariadne Signature in Class B above. There is relevant information there concerning all Maplenoll turntables.

The original (then revolutionary) Oracle became the first turntable to improve on the performance of the Linn LP-12 for the same amount of money. When it comes to these stunningly attractive and (once extremely) innovative turntables, the more recent the better the performance.

They are similar in sound to the VPI if you use Oracle’s hard mat. Their only sonic downsides, compared to the VPI, are less extended bass reproduction and a little less sense of solidity.

Conversely, the Oracle is most likely slightly more neutral in the mids and highs, and maybe also a little purer sounding. These advantages are audible only if and when the Oracle is setup properly*. Unfortunately...

The earlier (entire 1980's/early 1990's) models were very difficult to set up properly (meaning no wobbling*), which is critical in optimizing their sound. These turntables are also not as versatile as the VPI when selecting tonearms.

*A properly setup Oracle MUST:

1. Bounce perfectly straight up and down,
2. With absolutely NO wobble,
3. Exactly 3 times when the spindle is depressed straight down,
4. And then STOP.
That is the difficult test we used.

FURTHER NEWS: This company is now back in business, so you can get parts and maybe some upgrades. The Oracles can be purchased used at quite reasonable prices.

Caveat: Always have extra spare belts and even an extra motor for this turntable, because their availability can never be assumed with this company. Their current (visually stunning) design is too expensive to advise purchasing new (unless you get a serious "deal"), but it is much easier to set up than their previous models and it also sounds a little better.

IMPORTANT- Only the latest model of the Delphi is in the Upper Category, the older models are in the Lower Category.

There were a number of reasons why I didn't put this turntable line on this list from the very beginning. I admit that it was a very close call. I have now had second thoughts. Here is the complete story...

I was a Gyrodec dealer during the 1980's. Their model then (the MK. II) was a very attractive turntable (it looked like a large Oracle) and an excellent performer, but we also felt that the design wasn't quite fully thought out (just like the earliest VPI). The Details...

It was prone to minor adjustment problems which couldn't be rectified and, accordingly, we were never confident that it was totally optimized, no matter how much time we worked on it. This was a very frustrating experience for us. While our customers really liked the turntable, I was uncomfortable with it, fearing that there would be other problems surfacing over time, which would eventually haunt me. Next...

Some listeners felt that the continual movement of the (6) inertia weights (on the bottom of the platter) was distracting. There was one other issue...

Because it was an import (with the inevitable extra distributor markup), it didn't have the performance/value ratio that the VPI HW-19 series had at that time, at least in North America.

However, a few things have changed:
1. My perspective (and judgement) on how relatively (in)significant those older problems actually turned out to be in practice.
2. The current longevity and popularity of the design, along with owner loyalty and long-term satisfaction.
3. Michell's continual improvement of their basic design and their update program, while still keeping the prices "reasonable".

So, here is where I stand today.

Used (Mk. II) models...

If a reader can find a Mk.II used, that is in good operating condition, and properly set up, then it should be an excellent purchase. It will be in the same sonic league as any of the older Oracle or VPI models (though not the Mk. IV), and preferable to the Linn. Still...

The VPIs can work with more tonearms, and they are also far easier to setup and to keep setup.

Further Notes- The Gyrodec (Mk. II) worked particularly well with the SME IV or V, and so should the more recent models.

The Gyrodecs (and Orbes) can also accommodate two tonearms with some "special order" custom work.

Upgrades...

As mentioned above, Michell also offers upgrades on all of their older turntables, so they can be brought up to their latest models. This is a very important policy, which makes all of their models desirable. These upgrades are highly desirable, especially if there are any problems or annoyances with an older model. The owners of the earlier models will obviously have to absorb more costs and difficulties for these upgrades.

Current models...

Their latest models, the Gyrodec MkV and the simpler SE, plus the top-of-the-line Orbe models, are even more advanced versions of the Gyrodec MkII, but I have no direct experience with them. The Orbe uses a different motor, which cannot be upgraded to by Gyrodec owners.

Since all these models are basically iterations of the same design, they are all References. They should all be superior to the older MkII. I make this statement based on the descriptions of the upgrades, my personal experience with this company and the overwhelming and unanimous anecdotal evidence of objective observers. That being said, there will most probably be noticeable sonic differences amongst these different models*.

*A number of readers, who claim to be very familiar with this line, have written to me that the Orbe is "different" than the Gyrodec. One reader wrote:

"The Orbe (MkI) sounded darker, massier, more stable, while the Gyro (MkIV) is more airy, breezy, less stable. The gap even widened with the Orbe MkII, which uses a tacho-controlled DC-motor which is NOT available to GyroDec users, and as such present Gyros can not be upgraded to near-Orbe status."

Another reader, who is also a part-time reviewer, informed me that "the SME IV and Orbe isn't a brilliant combination whatever the two manufacturers say - the SME just dumps too much energy into the Orbe's singalong chassis and gives it an upper bass bloat. You can help this by isolating the armboard with blue tac. Every other arm I've had here works better:-)". He much prefers the Morsiani unipivot, a tonearm I never heard of (they also manufacture a serious turntable). He claims that the Morsiani "is stunning", and sells for only about $ 450 direct from the manufacturer, but he also states that adjustment of the tonearm is tricky, so it isn't for everyone.

Leftovers...

The earliest Michell turntable, with 6 "pods" instead of a conventional platter, is not part of the Gyrodec "family". It is not a Reference under any circumstance. It does look neat though, and it would make a good prop for a "sci-fi" movie.

The Michell Clamp was relatively inexpensive, but it also wasn't very good. The Orbe clamp is claimed by the above reader to be "far superior" to the earlier model.

IMPORTANT- Only the Orbe and the latest model of the Gyrodec is in the Upper Category, the older models are in the Lower Category.

The description for these models is above. They are not quite good enough for the "Upper" level.

Description is above. They are not quite good enough for the "Upper" level.

Description is above. They are not quite good enough for the "Upper" level.

This turntable (WTT) is another excellent performer, which excels in speed stability, the retrieval of low-level information and neutrality. Its bass reproduction and dynamic contrasts are not as good. It is very easy to set-up and maintain. I advise purchasing it used only; sadly, the new retail price is now too high to compete with the latest VPI.

This company also made/makes some other turntable/tonearm combinations. The less expensive model, the Well Tempered Record Player, is not as good, but it could be an excellent "starter" if found used at a cheap price. I recently placed this model within the Entry-level References. (9/03)

Their more expensive model is even better than the Classic, but it is not worth the very large premium they are asking for it. However, if you can find one used for a really low price, I would seriously consider it if its strengths are appealing.

Note- These turntables have no suspensions.

Caveat: The distributor overcharges for some spare parts, like belts.

This turntable may include a modified Rega RB-300 tonearm, though it can be purchased without any arm.

This turntable is very similar in overall performance to the Well-Tempered, including its problems with reproducing bass and dynamic intensity. The one major advantage though is their arm-trough with silicon fluid, which dampens numerous tonearm resonance's. Another is their (isolation) base; an actual Seismic Sink. On the other hand, the speed stability of the Rock doesn't equal the WTT.

This is one of the better values on the turntable market today, but it is not in the same sonic league as their superb Rock Reference, listed above.

The Linn now has its own dedicated file. Here is the Link: THE LINN SONDEK LP-12

ROCKPORT SYSTEM III SIRIUS TURNTABLE AND TONEARM- From what we have read, and seen, we feel this has the potential to be the finest turntable/arm in the world, at this moment. The designer/owner of Rockport, Andrew Payor, has extensive experience manufacturing all-out turntables. The price to the consumer, purchased direct at "wholesale", is more than $ 70,000. There is no retail price, thank God.

An actual physical description of this model is within the review in the August 2000 issue of Stereophile, as well as on the Stereophile website in their "archive" section. The physical description is excellent (though just a "rewrite" of Rockport's own description), but the review itself is controversial and, in some parts, ridiculous. (Rockport has no website itself at this time.)

The original models of this turntable (those from the early/mid 1990's) were very well built and had superb sonics, though not quite as good as the Forsell.

There may also be a potential problem with the Model II's power supply. It was custom designed and built by Rowland to Rockport's specifications, but it can no longer be replaced, and it may be very difficult to repair.

Andrew Payor, himself, appears to be very accommodating to his customers, based on my personal correspondence with Payor, three Rockport customers and other anecdotal evidence.

Rockport has moved on since then (along with their price). However...

Someone in our group heard the Sirius III in the Fall (2000), and within two different, very high quality systems. These two auditions, each lasting a few hours, were in Europe, not North America. He was also familiar with most of the other components. He noticed some problems. Unfortunately, neither system had the resolution required to make a definitive observation or opinion.

A little later (February 2001), an experienced and objective reader, who lives in Europe, also heard the latest Rockport, and independently described the same sonic problems that my associate had previously heard: A dry, "clinical" sound, though superb in other areas; detail, imaging, bass etc. (The reader actually preferred the less expensive, and now discontinued, "Acapella" model.)

Recently, within early Fall 2001, a veteran audio distributor also described the exact same sonic problem with a Rockport (latest model) that he heard in the New England area. It is also important to note that, as far as I know, this was a model that Andrew Payor himself felt did have optimized sound.

Meanwhile, I have now discovered, from a very reliable source, that at least one of these "European" Rockports (and maybe both) had the ultra-expensive Clearaudio cartridge installed on it, which just happens to have the same "clinical", "mechanical" sound that they (the reader and my associate) both describe. Accordingly, two of the listeners didn't hear the Rockports at their full sonic potential, and may have unfairly transferred the sonic problems of the cartridge to the turntable.

The situation is a little confusing. However, with 3 independent listeners (within 3 systems and with four auditions) describing the exact same problem, a "warning flag" must now go up on this design.

This problem, if it exists, may not bother some listeners (or reviewers), but many others will find it a disqualifying condition. At the very least, listeners must be made aware of its potential existence prior to any serious audition.

On the "pro" side you have; Michael Fremer*, HP/TAS and Peter Moncrieff of IAR. On the "negative" side you have; one of my readers and two of my associates. However, it is only fair to emphasize that all** of the "pro" side actually "lived" with the turntable in their own homes while the entire "negative" side only auditioned it in other peoples' homes.

On the other hand, all the "pro" people are "reviewers", which, in today's environment, means that they will most likely have some serious and undisclosed "baggage" (especially Michael Fremer*). Also, it must be stressed that each person within the "negative" side independently heard and described the exact same sonic problem. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this is only just a highly unusual coincidence.

* Michael Fremer and Andrew Payor (Rockport Technologies) have had an ongoing "relationship" for many years. Just compare Mr. Payor's writing and literature to Fremer's writing on the same subjects. They are "closer than two coats of paint". Be cautious of Fremer's reviews of any turntable or tonearm that is competitive, in any manner, with the Rockport designs. The same warning goes for any other component built or marketed by Andy Payor that is reviewed by Michael Fremer.

**I am assuming Peter Moncrieff "lived" with it. The review, still in process, is ambiguous at this point, despite its length.

What does all this mean to a potential purchaser?

The Rockport, because of its price, only makes sense if it is "head and shoulders" above everything else. Any audiophile who has enough money and interest to purchase this design should take the time to hear it in depth, and in optimized conditions, along with making valid comparisons to its serious competitors.

I would especially focus on the potential sonic problem that is discussed above. In short: I would purchase one of these models only after all doubts are totally satisfied.

The Rockport was a Reference (in August 2000) based on what I had read and also what my associates had heard about it from inside the reviewing community. This designation was consistent with my "Reference Policy" at that time, but it was also something I had never done before (or since). Why did I take such a risk with some people I didn't even know well?

I "dropped my guard" (with some prominent magazines and their reviewers) because I thought it was safe. I wasn't concerned with the usual "conflicts of interest" because of the unprecedented price of this model. No matter what the final conclusion will be concerning the true sonic performance of the Rockport- I still feel now that I was WRONG to do that.

In short-I have now changed my original policy on how a component may join this list.

To read the exact details of "The (new) Reference Policy" go to The Overview of the main file of The Reference Components.

Accordingly, I have decided that this (singular) Reference designation (based only on reviews and reviewers) is no longer consistent with my new policy, so I have removed the Rockport from Class A and placed it in this section, where it should have belonged from the very beginning.

A reader, whose identity will remain private and confidential, was kind enough to share this information with me:

"I purchased a very early Rockport Sirius almost fifteen years ago from Andy Payor to replace a Goldmund Reference. At the time there was no air isolation base or outboard power supply for the motor. I proceeded over the next five years to spend more for updates than the original cost of the turntable. Given that the updates were installed one at a time, I have an excellent perspective with respect to what each of these mods accomplished [air isolation base, Rowland power supply (digital), mods to fix the power supply by Demian Martin (substitution of analogue signal generator), 50# stainless steel platter, various motors, flywheels and belts, etc.] Of all these updates, the only one that was not a clear improvement was the original Rowland power supply.

I am also very familiar with the early version of the Acapella (a friend bought the unit which Michael Fremer reviewed) and a somewhat later version owned by another friend and with the Sirius 2 (the use of granite for the plinth was in my opinion a mistake that gave this turntable a cold clinical sound). Based on these experiences, I can say that each of these tables shares certain familial traits, the most salient of which are the substantial elimination of mechanical noise originating from the turntable coupled with extreme isolation from environmental noise, extreme low level detail and dynamics. Of the three versions with which I am familiar, I would say the 2 is cold, the 1 very neutral and the Acapella somewhat warm.

Based on talks with the owners of two of the Sirius 3 tables, I have every reason to think that they surpass the earlier models."

REGA- I was a dealer of this line from 1996 to 1998. Their original, lower-priced< models (The Planar 3 & 2) are within the Entry-Level section. Their performance is excellent for the money, but it is not equal to the level of the present Class C models.

Further- A customer of mine measured the speed of a number of Rega turntables some years ago. He claimed that they were all slightly fast. This observation has also been made by a number of other critical listeners since then, including myself, and could be the reason for their slightly "exciting" sound.

I was not impressed with Rega's highest priced model (the P9), which I was able to audition for more than a month in my former retail store. It was well detailed, but I felt it lacked solidity and liquidity and it also had an unnatural tonal balance and some frequency irregularities. It additionally looked like it was cheaply built for the high retail price. Rega claims that the high cost is due to the P9's exotic and very expensive (ceramic) platter.

I understand that some significant improvements have now been made with this design (including their new RB1000 tonearm), but I have no direct experience with them. I haven't auditioned the P25, their medium priced model. So no turntable from this company is within these 3 Reference Classes, for now.

SOTA- I was also a SOTA dealer for a few years in the 1980's, and I sold quite a few of them, both new and used. I also compared both models to everything in existence back then. The SOTA turntables were very good, but they had reliability problems with their power supplies, plus they were constantly going in and out of business (like Oracle).

They were heavy and solidly built, but the suspension moved like a pendulum for an extended period of time as soon as the tonearm was put into position and engaged, and in any other instance in which the subchassis moved. This horizontal "oscillation" is the main problem with this design. (See the IAR website's lengthy discussion of turntable designs and compromises.)

I didn't find them quite as tonally natural and, even more important, as good in speed stability as the other turntables (I assume because of the above noted oscillations); including the VPI, the Oracle and even the Linn Sondek. It wasn't a big difference, but it was noticeable when listening to the turntables over extended periods of time. Personally, I found it a disqualifying characteristic for my own system, then and now.

The SOTAs had excellent bass and good dynamic qualities, and were relatively easy to setup, though not quite as easy as the VPI. The setup, while straight forward and quick, never seemed to be as optimized as with either the VPI or the Oracle, though the Oracle was much more time consuming and required real skill. They could not be used with some tonearms, but this is true with just about every other turntable except the VPI series.

The vacuum model (the Star Sapphire) requires an ultra clean platter at all times and, even then, it may still damage some records. It did have some sonic advantages over the original Sapphire though, a more "solid sound" and slightly better speed stability.

I have known people who were very happy with these turntables, so it is possible that I am being overly critical with them, but that is my nature, and especially when their (inevitable) area of weakness just happens to be one of my top priorities for excellence.

I am not familiar with any of their "budget" models, or any other SOTA turntable that came out from the mid 1990's till the present.

The SOTA Clamp was excellent, one of the finest ever made, and reasonably priced. I highly advise using one of them.

PINK TRIANGLE- The (original) Pink Triangle had a few (minor) innovative design features and a unique appearance, but the build quality was mediocre and the sound quality was unexceptionable. My store had a few of them come in as "trade-ins". It had all the problems of the Well-Tempered Turntable, but lacked most of its corresponding strengths.

However, someone (that I trust) has informed me that their most recent upscale model (the Tarantella II) is a total redesign and is an excellent performer. It may be competitive in sonics with the best of the current Class C models. On the downside, it may also still have some problems with its build quality and reliability.

SME- I have very limited personal experience with these models (only the early, "big buck", Model 30), but my associates have helped me fill in some of the "blanks". The real problem with evaluating these models (fairly) is removing the SME tonearms from the equation, which I don't think anyone has done so far.

They all appear to be superb in sonic performance; actually comparable to the finest models in Class B. They are very well-built, which should be no surprise with this company.

Unfortunately, they are also very expensive and relatively overpriced compared to their peers, at least in North America.

SME's competitors (in Class A, B and other models) are usually (much) less expensive, and they are either almost the equal, the equal or even superior, in actual performance. The SME problem - they sounded slightly "dead" and "analytical" compared to the competition. In short, the SME turntables should only be seriously considered if you can find a "real deal" on them (which I have seen).

I should stress than none of us has heard the "second generation" SME 30 or 20, which according to a reader, have improved bearings.

Further- Very recently, the Model 30 was proclaimed to be, in effect, "the finest turntable" by Michael Fremer of Stereophile. Within the actual "review", there was no direct comparison, or any technical explanation, in the required depth, of why he now preferred this turntable/tonearm to his "former champion", the much more costly Rockport Sirius 3.

Considering Michael Fremer's long-time, close relationship with Rockport's owner/designer Andrew Payor, audiophiles will have to make a potentially expensive choice when deciding whether Fremer is both completely "on the level" and also accurate in his assessment, or if there was a "falling-out", which may have clouded his judgement. Based on Michael Fremer's past history, see some of it in the lengthy Fremer file in Reviewing the Reviewers, I don't envy those of us who will make this choice.

ARISTON/SYSTEMDEK- The early history of this company, and its rival Linn (and Fons), could be the subject of an interesting book, or even a movie. Each has claimed to be the "original" design, and I don't know the actual truth in this case. (Check the Vinyl Asylum search engine for further information.)

Their original model, the RD-11S, was a virtual clone of the Linn LP-12 in appearance and in basic design during the 1970's, or maybe it was the other way around. The sound was very good, but I (and many other listeners) felt that the Linn still had a slight edge in performance.

I never found out why, but there was speculation at the time that it was due to the superiority of the Linn's bearing and general machining. At least that was what Linn claimed. It is also very possible that this "difference" might have been totally imaginary (it wouldn't be the first time that happened).

Linn played up this slight "difference" to the hilt, with the big help of an obsequious British press, who embarrassed themselves (in the late 1970's) with their lack of objectivity and their near hysterical admiration for the LP-12.

The result: Linn won their first "marketing war", and the LP-12 became a cult object at the same time. Their marketing skill has proved to be their greatest strength over the years.

In the 1980's, the two companies went in different directions. Ariston was, by then, unfairly left behind by "serious audiophiles", but they reorganized and came out instead with some high quality budget models. They were all "good for the money". Their new name was: Systemdek. I was a dealer for this line when I opened my store back in 1981.

These turntables must not be forgotten. I will put them in the Entry-Level section.

Further- A reader later informed me that a new version of the Systemdek is still available from Audio Note, which is well-known for their single-ended amplifiers, kits and high-quality, exotic parts. Below is the short write-up on the Audio Note website:

"The Audio Note TT1 turntable is a three point fully floating suspended sub chassis model derived from the award winning Systemdek IIX. The platter is a acrylic platform and drive to the platter is provided by a round rubber belt."

None of us has had any experience with this model, but a different reader sent me a letter in early Fall 2005 with some interesting information and observations. It is in The Recent File at this time.

AUDIOMECA- Their models are superficially similar in appearance and basic design to the Goldmunds, because they are shiny black and use metacrylic material. There are major differences though. For instance, the Audiomeca uses a belt drive, not a direct-drive, and a multiple composite material for their platter, not just metacrylic etc.

Their linear tonearm is also made in the same factory as the Goldmund models. It is very similar in design, with most likely the same strengths and weaknesses.

Their J1 model, from the early 1990's, was not equal to the Goldmund Studios (any of them) in sonics. This was an observation I made when I auditioned one of them in my store during a lengthy loan. The only qualification with this audition and comparison is that the Audiomeca was used with its own tonearm, while the rival Goldmund Studio had a SME V.

I haven't heard their most recent efforts, which they (and some owners) claim are improved and might have turned things around.

REVOLVER- I had some limited experience with this line back in the early 1990's. It was very similar to the budget Rega's in overall design, but with a reduced build quality. I also felt that the sound was similar, but with the slight edge going to the Regas.

ORACLE ALEXANDRIA- The Alexandria is very competitive with, but isn't quite as accomplished as, the Lower Class C models above. It is still an excellent value for the money, especially at its typical used price. It is a Reference and located, for now, within the Entry-Level section. It is a priority to purchase the extra belts and motors for it also.

Further- A reader has informed me that Oracle no longer has parts for this model. I have no other verification of this information. (5/03)

More Recently- These excellent sounding turntables are now prone to failing motors, which the manufacturer can do nothing about, so a letter I recently received from a reader is really good news:

"I have just installed the "Advanced Motor Upgrade" kit (from Origin Live) into my Oracle Alexandria Mk II. I can say without reservation that the improvement in sound quality is significant and worth way more than the $ 540 that I spent.

I did not have high expectations for sonic benefits other than the elimination of the increasingly annoying motor noise from the aging Pabst. Extending the service life of the deck was the focus so I was not prepared for what I heard. As I related to the Origin Live folks, it was like looking at fine print with my aging naked eyes and then slipping on my reading glasses. It's just a lot easier to enjoy the musical presentation.

The installation required a little DIY ingenuity but was relatively straightforward. I was anxious to complete the installation so it is not as tidy as I would like. Therefore, I will be making a more refined version of the motor mount adapter plate in the next two weeks. As I told Origin Live, digital pictures and detailed assembly instructions will be forthcoming in case other adventurous Alexandria owners are looking for an upgrade." (4/04)

TERES- This company sells 5 turntables direct to the public, and they can also be purchased as kits for further (modest) savings. So far, every owner's correspondence that I've seen has been very positive. Comparisons to commercially available turntables have almost always been in the Teres' favor, even when there was a large price differential against them.

If these writers are accurate, and some of them have had considerable experience with turntables, then the Teres line is simply a "steal" and the typical (and well-known) turntable manufacturers from the past are in potential trouble (just like most North American tube amplifier manufacturers).

None of us has heard any of the Teres models. One associate is seriously considering purchasing their (former) top of the line (Model 255-$ 2,600/$ 2,300 Kit). Their new "top of the line" is the Model 265*. It has "a lead loaded platter constructed from solid hardwood". I have never seen anything like it. The retail price is $ 3,700. There is no mention of a kit.

My current advice is that I would seriously look at this line (and the Redpoint below) before making a new turntable purchase. In fact, with the highly positive, anecdotal evidence continually accumulating, it will not be long before I can properly and safely use the word "overwhelming" to describe it. This means I can then, consistent with the posted "Reference Policy", add it to the existing References without any of us actually hearing it ourselves.

*Further- I just heard there is a new "top of the line" planned for this Fall. It is the Model 340, and it is supposed to weigh around 130 lbs. and cost around $ 6,000 direct, with no kit available. It appears to be a "heavy-duty" version of the recently introduced Model 265. This company is becoming increasingly serious. (6/03)

REDPOINT- This (more recent) company is an offshoot of Teres, and also offers direct sale turntables, though no kits as far as I know. There are two basic models in the line, with a further choice of exotic platters etc. They have appeared to move ahead of the Teres line in development, but their turntables also cost more. (This situation may have changed with introduction of the Teres 265.) My advice concerning Redpoint mirrors exactly my advice concerning Teres.

Parts- There is also increasing evidence that the parts (motors, platters etc.) that they (both Teres and Redpoint) sell separately can improve existing designs (Verdier, VPI Aries, Scout etc.). There is an obvious trend here which is great for audiophile consumers and not so good for everyone else in the (established) audio industry.

On a purely personal note, I find it very exciting to have these two companies (along with their DIY equivalents) continually coming out with innovative products at reasonable prices. Their enthusiasm and passion are obvious. It reminds me of audio 20 years ago, when "the quest" for perfection was more important than anything else.

VPI HR-X ("SPECIAL EDITION")- This model must not be confused with the "standard" HR-X now being sold for $ 10,000 (see below), which also includes the latest JMW 12.6 tonearm. This version is one of the three earliest models made by Harry Weisfeld and was purchased by one of my associates. He preferred it to the Verdier La Platine, which he also owned. The "shootout" with the Verdier was done in the correct manner, using the exact same tonearm and cartridge.

I have also heard this same model myself, four times now, and with equipment I am familiar with. All the auditions were quite lengthy and extensive. While I can't say that I am fully intimate with its performance, since that would require actually living with it, I can say that it is truly superb, with rare and desirable qualities. I also preferred it to the Verdier.

The two versions of the HR-X share the same basic design, but there are two major differences between the Reference model and the "standard" HR-X (which is NOT a Reference-see below):
1. The "special edition" has a solid (all) aluminum plinth (and not an aluminum/acrylic "sandwich"), and also has
2. The exact same heavy duty platter used on the earlier TNT Hot-Rod (and not the relatively lightweight acrylic platter).

The "Special Edition" (my own term) HR-X is not available by "special order", and since only three of them were ever made, or likely ever will be made, it is only an "Interesting" turntable, rather than the Class A turntable is was, and still would be as of today (7/07).

This "special edition" HR-X is Weisfeld's greatest achievement. It is really an accumulation of everything he has learned in the last 20+ years and is, in essence, a super version of their basic Aries model. It is far evolved from the earlier TNT models that I am familiar with. The beauty of it, for me, is its basic simplicity and elegance. Intensive thought, and careful execution, appear to have been applied to every aspect of its design.

As for the "standard" HR-X, I was able to compare it directly to a modified Forsell turntable and tonearm. The results are described below, in "Other Interesting Turntables".

Unfortunately, up until recently, it has been nearly impossible to convert the (non-Reference) "standard" version into the superior "Special Edition" (which has both a much heavier and deader platter and an all aluminum plinth). Well, I have some really good news...

VPI is finally offering current HR-X owners the choice of the Special Edition heavy-duty platter. The price is $ 1,200, and, in our experience, the extra cost is well worth it. While it still won't be the full "Special Edition", with our combined experience, we estimate it will be around 75%* there. That may also put this "hybrid" version of the HR-X in our Class A, but we will be cautious for now, and wait for more direct experience and anecdotal evidence before proceeding. Besides, the competitive field in "all-out" turntables has also changed since the "Special Edition" HR-X itself came out two years ago now.

*I later realized that this number could be ambiguous, if not misleading. I meant 75% (or even more) of the difference (or improvement) between the basic performance of the standard HR-X and the superior performance of the (complete) "Special Edition".

CAUTION- I highly advise having VPI perform all of the skilled labor involved in installing this new platter (and the matching bearing). I feel it's far too risky to try to "wing it" with something like this, despite the extra shipping costs and time lost in transit.

Finally, I heard about this HR-X platter option from a couple of sources, neither of them being Harry Weisfeld, the chief designer and co-owner of VPI Industries.

July 2006- A reader recently brought to my attention an advertisement on the website of Elusive Disc. It includes the HR-X's optional heavy-duty platter, which I have strongly advised using to the readers of this website for years now. The price is $ 2,000, which appears distinctly overpriced to me (but still worth it). As far as I'm concerned, this heavy-duty platter should be stock, considering the $ 10,000 retail price of the HR-X. Also, there is no mention of a trade-in on the inferior platter that comes with the stock HR-X. Here's the actual text of the ad:

"Easily upgrade your HRX Turntable with VPI's HRX Super Platter for superior sound! The HRX Super Platter weighs in at a hefty 30 pounds which will give you a quieter background, better speed regulation, deeper, tighter bass and improved soundstaging and dynamics.

Easy to Upgrade! Upgrading the the HRX Super Platter is as easy as replacing the old platter with the new and changing the belt!

This upgrade includes: HRX Stainless Steel and Acrylic Super Platter & a new Belt."

Personal Notes- There's some good news here for HR-X owners;
1. They have included a new belt,
2. It appears that the platter can be replaced without the requirement (and the cost, hassle and time) of sending it back to the factory. Meanwhile...

It may be possible to later sell the (then useless) stock, clear, lightweight platter to those audiophiles who still (mindlessly) follow Harry Pearson, Brian Damkroger, Anthony Cordesman and (the normally reliable) Roy Gregory. Don't forget that all of those reviewers went "bonkers" over the HR-X with that same original platter. However, I would not make any unethical and/or disingenuous claims to sell the inferior platter. Simply refer to their reviews and leave it at that.

This short "review" was written by one of my associates. This audiophile has extensive experience with turntables, and the HR-X in particular. He also has the finest system, overall, I've ever heard in someone else's home. In short, I have complete confidence in this report, which is why it is located here, rather than in the "Readers Letters" below. There's some very minor editing, and my bold as usual:

"The VPI idler wheel drive was substituted on the HR-X in place of the regular belt driven flywheel. The performance of the HR-X (with the "Super Platter"), prior to the inclusion of the idler wheel, was nothing short of superb on all levels. There did not seem to anything lacking or in need of improvement. To cut to the chase- The idler wheel drive evinced the kind of sonic advancement more associated with preamps or amplifiers rather than motor changes on an already stellar turntable. The sonic improvements (many of which I expected) included more weight, impact and authority, especially at the low frequencies. Much like going to a more powerful amplifier. Bass was tighter and punchier.

What I did not expect, and was surprised to encounter, was greater purity and transparency in the mids and highs. More air around instruments with enhanced ambient retrieval and low level detail. Transients were now reproduced with a precision that I had not previously encountered.

In conclusion- There are no sonic downsides, only improvements that are wrought by the insertion of the idler wheel drive. It takes a turntable that was close to state of the art and nudges it into that esteemed realm.

There is a caveat, however, and it is a fairly significant one- SET UP. Unfortunately, the instructions included with the idler wheel are virtually useless. They do not even begin to prepare one for the incredibly frustrating journey in getting the idler wheel to operate properly with the HR-X. (I have been told that the other VPI turntables do not present the same degree of difficulty in set up due to their lack of a lossy suspension - a la "air balls" in the HR-X). The critical precision, and I do mean critical, in accurately locating the idler wheel in relation to the turntable's platter requires tremendous patience and diligence.

Placing the wheel too close will result in an awful grinding noise accompanied by oscillation which will cause the arm to be jimmied to and fro. Pull the idler wheel too far away and the turntable will run at too slow a speed. After days of experimentation, I can offer the following advice to hopefully spare others my tumultuous ordeal in setting up the idler wheel drive.

1. Set the SDS to 60 Hz (for 33 1/3 operation).

2. Place small round cut outs of .25" thick sorbothane pads* with the adhesive side facing down under the rubber feet of the motor assembly. The pads should be large enough to accommodate the entire rubber foot.

3. Position the wheel as far away from the platter while still maintaining fairly accurate speed. This will prevent the grinding and the oscillations. Do not worry about total speed accuracy at this point, since the SDS will be adjusted later for that purpose.

4. If the distance of the idler wheel to the platter needs to be adjusted in any direction, move the turntable and not the motor assembly.

5. Once you have correctly located the motor assembly (meaning there is the absence of grinding and oscillations AND proper speed has been achieved), use the VPI stroboscope to precisely set the speed by adjusting the SDS.

6. Upon successful completion of all these steps, it is now necessary to run the turntable at 45 rpm for at least 6 hours otherwise wow and flutter will be painfully evident. This is a result of the round belt on the idler wheel needing to become adequately seated.

*If the sorbothane pads are not used, the idler wheel will be in need of period and frequent realignment since the turntable rests on air balls which are prone to slight movement. Any movement is sufficient to disrupt the distance relationship between the idler wheel and the platter. The sorbothane pads actually act as a spring loading mechanism maintaining the correct alignment between wheel and platter.

Is the idler wheel drive worth all the effort required and the substantial expenditure ($1,000)? The response would be a resounding YES."

Personal Notes- I have no experience with the rim drive. The above information was earlier conveyed to Harry Weisfeld, the co-owner of VPI, who has since confirmed the observations and results of my associate.

VPI HR-X TURNTABLE ("STOCK")- I finally had a chance to carefully set-up this beautiful and well-built turntable, along with its JMW 12.6 tonearm, and then compare it to the Forsell Turntable and Tonearm, which has itself finally been optimized after more than 18 months of use. Everything was kept exactly the same. The HR-X was very impressive for around a half-hour or so, but the final results, unfortunately, were seriously disappointing.

The HR-X is highly detailed, powerful and delicate, but it's also noticeably dry and analytical in character. It's much different than the Aries I lived with and even the older HW-19 Mk. IV, both of which are References on this site. The HR-X reminds me of the Spectral preamplifiers from the 1980's. Like the HR-X, the Spectral had unprecedented outer detail, extended frequency extremes, but it also subtracted low-level musical information, which for me was, and still is, an "amusical" (unnatural) and fatal flaw. I much prefer the Forsell overall, or their own Aries for that matter.

As for the details; The natural harmonics, "bloom", body, decays, sense of space, musical textures are all compromised and bleached out on the HR-X. In other words, the "sound floor" of the HR-X was noticeably high. I also feel there is a subtle emphasis in the upper midrange and lower highs, which artificially enhances the musical details, along with tape hiss and vinyl noises, but this is the least of the problems, and may even be my psychoacoustic reaction to the uncovered details I was finally hearing. The fact that the HR-X has many sonic strengths, and is easy to set-up, is irrelevant in the larger context I'm discussing. Changing the various "settings", like VTA, VTF and the the amount of air pressure in the four columns, were not able to even alleviate the serious sonic problems we observed.

An example; One LP I played, Oregon In Concert (Vanguard VSD 79358), was converted from a concert hall recording into a studio recording. The notes no longer "hung in the air", as they have with other top turntables I've heard over the years. With other LPs, instruments and voices tended to sound "generic", instead of being unique to themselves, meaning they lost some of their "individuality".

For those audiophiles who don't understand the differences between "detail" and "low-level information"; please listen to this turntable. It's like the difference between looking at a forest in Summer, and the same forest in Winter. Yes, you will see more of the trees in Winter, but that's only because the leaves and foliage are all dead and gone.

I realize that my criticisms will leave me alone among an ocean of rave reviews and hype for this component, but on occasion you have to stand up by yourself if you're a truely independent critic, with your own individual outlook, and this is one of those instances. This is a relatively low-profile website, with little real influence in the audio world, but I would still be doing my small readership a gross disservice if I attempted to hide, temper or obscure the above observations and my subsequent judgement.

For those readers who look for "wedge components" to separate, expose and test audio reviewers, this is that component. Read Harry Pearson's TAS rave of the HR-X, which has been posted, along with Anthony Cordesman's "ditto-rave" in the same magazine (Issue #151), and then compare them to my profoundly different description and, even more important, my highly negative reaction.

The English magazine, HiFi+, even declared the HR-X to be their "Analog Component of the Year", while it's my "Disappointment of the Year". More recently, in May 2006, Stereophile also gave it another rave review, which is posted on their website. Of course, since Stereophile now gives rave reviews to more than 95% of the components they "review", this result is hardly surprising. (Interestingly, they had Brian Damkroger review the HR-X, and not Michael Fremer, their so-called "analog specialist", who has heard some of the HR-X's competition. There must be a reason that the editor, John Atkinson, made this decision. Of critical importance, Damkroger didn't mention even one other competing manufacturer's turntable by name.)

I welcome the comparisons with other audio writers myself, and advise readers to listen to the HR-X themselves, even if it takes an effort.

I'm still highly impressed with the "Special Edition" of this turntable. The only differences between the two models, which share the same brilliant design, are in their execution. The "Special Edition", my own term, is an incredible component. In fact, it WAS in Class A of the Reference Turntables on this website, and still would be if it was actually available. Its sonics are far different, and far superior, to the "standard" version described here. It's definitely worth the extra money, hassle and time to get one of them.

For those audiophiles who already have a HR-X, and truly enjoy it, my observations should be irrelevant. For those owners who have a similar outlook to mine, there are a few possible "remedies". You could switch to the TNT Hot-Rod platter, which is what the "Special Edition" uses. Based on my experiences with platters, the majority of the problems of this model should be eliminated. The extra cost, whatever it is, will be well worth it. Plus, you can always sell the old platter to someone on Audiogon who wants to build a DIY turntable. It may also be worthwhile to consider using a "lush" cartridge with the HR-X, like a Koetsu, or its closest contemporary equivalent.

I can not explain the popularity of the HR-X with hardcore phono buffs. I can only speculate that "The Emperor's New Clothes" fear factor has been in effect until now; meaning no one wanted to be the first person to go out on a limb and criticize the HR-X and, by implication, challenge Harry Pearson's and HiFi+'s competence for good measure. This short "review" removes that "excuse".

On a positive note, I can think of three scenarios where an audiophile would be understandably happy with the HR-X;
1. An audiophile who requires some "offset" for a veiled, slow and overly heavy sounding system,
2. An audiophile who owns a large record collection, but still prefers the sound of a good CD player, and has been dying to find a turntable that sounds similar to their digital ideal. The HR-X could be their "dream come true", and
3. An audiophile who can't hear, or doesn't care about, "low-level musical information".

I've known and admired Harry Weisfeld, the designer/co-owner of VPI Industries, for more than 20 years. He still has the best track record for designing and building turntables of any person I know, especially for value. That is why his turntables are the most common line within my Reference Turntable File, but no one is perfect. I consider the HR-X an anomaly for him. Ironically, if I was going back into the audio retail business, VPI would be, literally, one of the the first companies I would call, but my initial order would NOT include their (standard) HR-X.

Further Updates and Information- One of my associates recently received the new (Gingko Audio, modified, 'squash-type balls') "footers", which directly replace the original air suspension inserts found within the HR-X's four posts, that are used for isolation. He informed me that they definitely made some sonic improvements*, along with eliminating the annoying requirement to regularly pump-up the air isolators, which inevitably leaked a tiny amount of air over time. I don't know the cost and/or availability of the "footers" at this time.

*My associate felt the sound was "rock solid"; with greater "purity"; as well as more "impactful", "punchier" and "tighter bass"; and had a "more open and focused soundstage". He used the expression "greater solidity" more than once.

Personal Note- Unfortunately, while these new "footers" are welcome news, they don't directly address the sonic problems of the HR-X that I discussed above. To do that, the actual HR-X platter and (to a lesser extent) the subchassis will both have to be changed.

A reader, and also a former customer of mine from Toronto, sent me some relevant information about the HR-X platter upgrade. He also included a description of his own experiments. They're interesting, so I included them, with just a little editing:

"I have some information to share with you, direct from VPI; The new, heavy-duty platter for the HR-X table will be available sometime in the Spring. It will have a weight of about 30 lbs. I believe this is a little more than the "Hot-Rod platter". It will also have a much better bearing than the one used on the Hot-Rod platter. Apparently they will also size it for other tables such as the Aries, Scout etc. This could be good news for owners of these tables. The price will be $1,000 with a trade-in, or $1,500 without a trade.

My first attempt at making my own plinth turned out so good that I have plans to make another one. This time I am going to use a solid "2 inch" thick aluminium piece. I don't know if this will have any sonic advantage, but it is something I want to do. It will also have the new platter from the HR-X, a better tonearm (Triplanar or close to it) also one of the ZYX cartriges. When I am finished, I think this will be a very serious table."

Personal Note- I can only repeat myself. All HR-X owners should switch to this platter, pronto. The only thing I can add is that now Aries and Scout owners should also make the switch.

VPI ARIES 2 AND ARIES 3 TURNTABLES- These turntables both have the all "frosted" acrylic platters, which I don't like, so they are not References, despite some advantages. If their platters are somehow refitted to the original heavy-duty aluminum/acylic (20+ lbs.) version, which was standard on the Aries 1, then they are References.

ELP LASER TURNTABLE- There is now a dedicated file on the unique ELP Laser Turntable.

Garrard 301/401/Thorens TD-124 Turntables- I've been receiving occasional letters from people asking me my opinion on these two vintage turntables. This is what I have replied:

One of my friends had the Garrard 301/401 (with an SME tonearm) for a short period of time many (around 25) years ago. My memories are now obviously hazy, but I do remember that we preferred the Linn LP-12 at the time. I realize the 301/401 is now a rare and desirable collector's item, but I can't see it competing with the better modern designs.

In the case of the Thorens TD-124, I've actually owned 3 or 4 of them, the most recent in 2001. I also feel it does not compete with more modern designs, including the Linn, which is another older design that some people ignorantly feel I am overly critical of, and that I also don't fully appreciate.

These two turntables do have two important upsides:
1. They are very well built, using heavy duty steel, motors, etc.
2. They don't use a suspension, which is a sonic advantage if you can get away with it (see my Class A Turntable References above).

These designs, and all the other vintage turntables that I've heard, don't have the newest, highest quality bearings (noticeable rumble); dead or neutral platters (obvious colorations/smearing); and the latest techniques to reduce the unwanted energy generated from within them, and/or their acoustic environment (more smearing/more colorations). Their advantages don't overcome their disadvantages in my opinion.

I fully realize I didn't hear either of these designs "at their best", meaning with the best tonearms and with modern, isolated bases, but even if this were the case, I still can't imagine them improving to such a degree that they would be competitive today.

However, for alternative opinions on Idler Drive turntables in particular...

After my short write-up above, indicating my sceptisim of these models, a reader sent me this letter which I felt should be shared for the sake of balance and a more complete perspective on the vintage Garrards:

"I just want to add an opinion to your recent December 2003 update concerning vintage turntables. I am an owner of a custom-built Garrard 401, and I have to say that I think it competes very favourably with many of the better turntables of today (though obviously not with the very best). I believe that the problems plaguing the 301/401 models were always to do with the fact that they were built into very poor quality plinths and bases - often no more than a plywood or chipboard box really. When I received my 401 around 3 years ago it was in such a configuration. I have since spent about £1200 ($2000?) on a proper custom-build by an experienced engineer/turntable builder, utilising superior materials such as ash, granite, Tufnol (a high performance plastic), and carbon fibre, as well as a very high quality custom power supply. I use an SME 309 (modified) arm with a Denon DL-304 cartridge.

Since the rebuild I have yet to experience any of the often listed problems so associated with these turntables, especially that of rumble. I've heard a number of turntables up to around £5000 and none compete with my Garrard (including the Nottingham Analogue Hyperspace which I heard a few weeks ago). I, and a couple of friends (whose audio opinions and listening skills I value very highly) have also heard the Clearaudio Master Reference, and this, in all our opinions, failed to match my turntable's performance. This all leads me to conclude that the design of these turntables is in fact exceptional, it was only (and largely still is) the way these products are built up which is the problem in my view. Even the engineer who built my turntable up commented on the quality of engineering of the 401, and the fact that it is rarely seen today. Perhaps it is important to note that I have never heard as low a noise floor in any other system.

This all sounds a bit like I'm blowing my own trumpet here, but I definitely believe in calling a spade a spade (which is why I read your website). I haven't heard many of todays real Class A designs, and I wouldn't expect my Garrard to compete with those, but am convinced that if my turntable was a production design today then it would be very competitive indeed.

Unfortunately people continue to re-build the Garrards into such inferior materials as marble, MDF and such like, so many people still have no idea of the potential of these fantastic designs."

"There is a great turntable and No.!: The EMT 927 and just a tiny bit less great the EMT 930. These are Masters of the Platine Verdier. Then... The Garrard 301 in a correct plinth can work wonderful in an all triode/horn system. It outperforms a Linn LP12 in its latest version with ease.

I started in that range with the following turntables:

Thorens 126 MKII, Micro BL91, Goldmund Studio (old wood plinth version), Kuzma Stabi-II (I was the distributor of Kuzma), Platine Verdier (concrete base), VPI TNT, TNT-III, Well Tempered Signature (still have it), EMT 930, EMT 927 (and a Garrard 301 is there as well).

I still favour the ZYX R100 Fuji as the best. No need for the Airy, the standard version is so good, I am fine with it. FR-64s tonearm: On an EMT-930, or on other heavy TT's, it can perform Class-A! Not the fx aluminium, that is Class-C. But the bearings must be 100%."

Personal Notes- The EMT turntables are more revered by their owners than any other turntable I can think of, excluding the Linn during the hysteria of the late 1970's. There must be something special about them, but, like the Garrards, I don't see how they can equal the modern designs using air bearings, flywheels and exotic materials etc.

It's been decades since I heard any Lenco turntable. From what I know now, I never heard any of them (or the Thorens TD-124, EMT or the Garrard 301/401) at their best at that time, or since that time. The same reader above (Teres/Galibier), had some news and observations to make about the Lencos. Here they are, slightly edited:

"Another thought for you. You may be aware of the Lenco phenomenon that has been running on the Audiogon Analog forum. There's a Canadian called Jean Nantais who has been championing the Lenco L75/L78 as a competitive turntable when suitably modified - an affordable alternative to the Garrard 301/401. In its day, the Lenco idler drives were criticized for their rumble performance. Now that acoustic isolation is better understood, it seems that the likely cause of the rumble problem was acoustic feedback due to the poor design, resonant plinths used in the 60s/70s.

These Swiss turntables have a very high quality balanced motor, a balanced platter and a good bearing. When the cheaper, non-precision steel parts are damped and greased and the 'table is installed in a high mass, solid plinth, they are capable of producing surprisingly good results. I have recently tried the experiment and the Lenco partnered by an FR64s arm and Koetsu Black performed to a very high standard. It hasn't bettered the Galibier yet, but came very close.

The Koetsus were allegedly developed and tested using idler wheel drive turntables and when so mounted the frequency balance of the Koetus Black is more even than when previously fitted to my Linn. Like the Garrards, the transients and dynamics are excellent, speed stability is very good and image location was accurate. To my ears, it betters the Teres, Nottingham Analogues and SME 10s that I have heard. I have also tried an Expressimo modified Rega arm with a DL-103 on the Lenco and that too performs very well, although the extra quality of the Koetsu stood out for me.

I would suggest that anyone possessing the skill to build a solid plinth, and set up their arm/cartridge by themselves, would be well advised to try out the Lenco option, at least as a budget component. I am certain that the re-plinthed and modified Lenco performs better than any new turntable I have heard costing up to £2000."

Personal Note- I've been hearing so much positive "buzz" about these vintage idler-drives for the last few years that I now believe there must be something to it, assuming the owner has the execution done correctly. On the other hand, outperforming a Linn Sondek is one thing, while outperforming a VPI Aries or a Galibier, let alone a Forsell, Rockport or Walker, is another. I'll become a "true believer" myself when I actually hear one of these optimized "idlers" perform competitively with some successful modern turntable designs, and I don't even mean those expensive models at the highest level, which would be unfair, but something reasonably close.

GARRARD 301 TURNTABLE- I received another letter about this (idler drive) turntable from a reader. Once again, the observations could not be more positive. Here it is (my bold):

"I was looking through the Reference Turntable section and came across the discussions on the Garrard 301/401 and the Lenco's............ Just another music lovers opinion but I do have some direct experience you might find interesting.

I have been enjoying an original VPI Aries/JMW 10/ZYX Airy 3X-SB for some time now. About a year ago I started reading about how people were taking these old idler drive TT's and building good plinths for them and having great success (especially the Japanese). About three months ago I took the plunge and purchased a 301 off EBay. It was in great original condition, but I went through it and restored, lubed, and cleaned it anyway. I built a 4" Hard Maple plinth with an Ebony armboard and mounted a new Triplanar VII.

I'm not sure what I expected, but what I got was pretty well off the charts. Using my same ZYX cart it simply did my Aries in......... Much more dynamic, better leading edge definition (which I feel makes it time better). Bass extension like I have never experienced from analog. Better tonality, musicality............. on and on. The most surprising thing is that it's quieter........ This really shocked me. I figured this crazy old antique, which is supposed to rumble, would be rather noisy and have no resolution... WRONG!!! Again, much better than my Aries.

I know some of this is attributable to the tonearm, but I can't imagine it's accounting for everything I am hearing. I am sure set-up and execution has a part to play too. I may have gotten lucky, or maybe some others have gotten even better results?? Right now I don't really feel like tweaking around too much as I am busy listening to my records.

Hope this sheds some light for you............ There really is something about these things. If you ever get a chance to hear one done right you should check it out for yourself."

Personal Notes- First, let's get the "reasonable doubt" out of the way. I agree with the reader, the tonearm change, by itself, can't be the reason for "everything" he heard. The JMW 10 isn't that "bad", and no tonearm is that much better than it. So, logically, the turntable deserves a reasonable share of the "attributions" he heard. That being admitted, and absorbed...

All right, I'm convinced: There must be something to all of this "idler drive" excitement. There's just too much of it to ignore, and these enthusiasts aren't "Linnies" (holding on to a fantasy), but just the opposite; leaving some of the best modern turntables for something they recently discovered, that was manufactured in the distant (for audio) past. Accordingly, one way or the other, I'm now making a commitment to experience the reality of this phenomena, with direct observation, in my own system.

There are some hurdles before this will happen:
1. I won't be able to get to it until 2007, because of previous commitments (and I still want to hear another "modern" turntable and tonearm compared to the Forsell).
2. I don't have the required skills to build one of these turntables. So I'm going to have to find one being sold already finished, and without any compromises. I don't know how hard that will be.
3. An uncompromised turntable is an absolute requirement for me. I can only do this once, so it has to be right. I don't have the time for second-chances and/or "excuses" if I'm not impressed.
4. Further, and related, to the above requirements, I need to know which of the idler turntables is the best performer once it is optimized. My meaning of "best" is the least amount of audible flaws. I don't care about someone's idea of "musicality", I want the model that best preserves the signal, for better or worse.
5. The Thorens TD-124 is out of the running, since I already owned more than one of them, and was never impressed with it. I know none of them were optimized, but I'd be dishonest if I told you I could listen to it again without any prejudice. Besides, I never liked they way they operated, and even their appearance turned me off. (That's superficial, but still defendable while there are other options.)

Further Thoughts- I have to admit that I still have a degree of scepticism about idler-drives. This unease is based on the history of turntable development and marketing. This is my problem: I don't understand why none of the contemporary turntable manufacturers are using this method, if it's truly superior to what they are now using. If there's a rational reason for this reluctance, I can't think of it.

The manufacturers can certainly duplicate, if not improve on, the original technology. There are no patent problems by now, or excessive costs, associated with idler drives. Audiophiles, who already spend serious money on 1930 to 1960 technology (think horns and SET tube amplifiers), would definitely not be hesitant with new idler drives either, if they perform well. I am truly mystified by all of this. I don't know what I'm missing. Any rational explanation would be welcomed, and posted.

"I read with interest in your recent updates that you are contemplating the purchase of an idler-wheel turntable. You note that there are no manufacturers of such turntables now. That is not strictly true. If you look at http://www.garrard501.com/, you will see that Loricraft, the UK-based company that now owns the rights to the Garrard name, makes a turntable called the Garrard 501, which seems essentially to be an updated and optimised Garrard 301/401. I look forward to reading your thoughts on idler wheels – I have a Lenco L75 and plan to put it in a slate plinth (http://www.world-designs.co.uk/acatalog/Slatedeck_Plinths.html). Even in its existing plywood plinth, it easily bests my Linn, using the same arm and cartridge.

You may find these links of interest, also."

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/featureshtml/garrard401revived.html
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/featureshtml/garrard401sndqual.html

Personal Notes- I have to thank this reader for the correction, as well as clarifying my thoughts and goals. Forget the DIY updates, or even the second-hand updates, I've now decided to go for the "real deal", and will seriously try to purchase a Garrard 501 sometime next year. There will only be one obvious hurdle, the price: The top-of-the-line "Inspiration" is $ 22,000*, and the "Standard" is $ 13,500* (stainless steel versus aluminum chassis), and that does NOT include the tonearm. I will either have to find one used, at a really great price, or get one wholesale, if that is even possible. I would much prefer to buy one instead of getting a "loaner" (from anyone). The favor involved in such a serious loan would be just too significant to ignore, even unconsciously, plus I don't want to have any (even justifiable) time constraints during my evaluations.

*I'm not an expert on the price of (or the extra costs associated with using) stainless steel, but the extra $ 8,500 ($ 22,000 less $ 13,500) appears much too high to me. My associate, who is much more familiar with material and labor costs, doesn't use the word "appears", he claims the extra charge is totally unjustified. He goes even further: He feels that the $ 13,500 price for the "Standard" is also much too high, considering the retail prices of the original 301/401 models (a few hundred dollars). (His evaluation takes into consideration inflation, reduced "economy of scale" and all the upgrades.) If true, it would appear that this price is more of "what the market will bear" than the normal manufacturing cost/retail price ratio. I really hope he's wrong about this.

For interested readers, I now have Links to both the manufacturer in the UK, Loricraft, and the U.S. distributor, Smartdev (see below and in the Links File).

Meanwhile, another reader sent me his observations concerning the Garrard 301, but this time with a somewhat different take and outcome. Here it is, unedited (my bold):

"Your recent posting on this old TT encourages me to share my recent experience. 2005 was the year of the Garrard experiment for me. I went from an (VPI) Aries MK1 to a well maintained Garrard 301, with a hefty 8 layer hardwood base (similar to the expensive Shindo), with Schroeder DPS (with Ebony wand)/Airy 2. I was dissatisfied with the bass, and went to the Triplanar 7. This ended being a better match for my cartridge. My initial positive experience was similar to your reader. Yet I still felt I could do better. After 10 months, I tried the same arm/cartridge on a Teres 255, and found a vast improvement in low-level definition (lowered sound-floor in your parlance), transparency and tonal richness (completeness). It just sounded better. So the Garrard is no longer.

As to why the idler drives are no longer made, this has been discussed on Audiogon. The most compelling reason is cost to build; these are high parts count mechanical assemblies. Belt drives work very well, and are cheaper to make."

Personal Note- This letter further confirms my decision to go "all the way" with these idler drives. That's why it's only the Garrard 501 (at least first) or nothing for me.

This reader provides another choice other than a DIY project or the ultra pricey Garrard 501.

"I have a Garrard 301. I haven’t gotten up and running yet. The whole approach to playing vinyl with Garrards fascinates me. Through my contacts with Jonathan Halpern at Tone Imports who is the Shindo Importer (whose line includes the Shindo modified version of the Garrard 301, and Auditorium 23 Garrard ancillaries) and Matt Rotunda of Pitch Perfect Audio (dealer for Shindo and Auditorium 23) here in San Francisco. I have had a lot of exposure to the Shindo version of the Garrard, and the philosophy behind idler wheel turntables. Jonathan is the preeminent scholar about all things Garrard. He knows just about every thing there is to know about them and the various iterations. He makes a very compelling case of the superiority of idler wheel tables over belt-driven tables. I wish there were a write-up somewhere about that perspective, because I think we could all benefit from knowing it.

I have heard the Shindo Garrard 301 many times, and I do love the sound. It is propulsive, meaty, and it simply allows the music to sing in a way that I haven’t heard with other vinyl setups. Comparing my setup with a Zyx Airy 3SB mounted on a modified Well Tempered Reference to the Shindo, I think intellectually that my setup is in the same league. But my emotional response to Shindo 301 is stronger, and I think I enjoy music more through the Shindo it gets more of the music out of the grooves in a way that is hard to put your finger on. So, if I had the money to spend, it would be on a Shindo 301. Failing that, I will eventually setup my own Garrard with the great info I have gotten from Jonathan and Matt.

One of the things I have learned from Jonathan, is that getting that great Garrard sound is pretty dependent on the choice of the right arm and cart, with deference given to the SME 3012, EMT, Shindo and Ortofon carts etc. So matching up a well-plinthed Garrard with a modern arm and a Zyx for instance, might not reveal that Garrard ‘magic’ I have heard. But the fun is in the fiddling.

BTW, Matt Rotunda sent an email out announcing the availability of a plinth custom-made for the 301 by Auditorium 23 (I’ll forward it to you). It looks like it a great piece, and it includes a custom drilled armboard for your choice of tonearm as part of the deal. I will forward you that message. I’m tempted to begin with this as a base for my own Garrard."

Tone Imports
http://www.toneimports.com (Link is also below and in Links File)

Personal Notes- This may be a good option for me (and others) if I can't find a Garrard 501 at an affordable price next year. However, there may be another issue here, based on the above letter, and one which I find increasingly disturbing the more I think about it...

It appears that the importer, and/or the re-builder, may require you to also use their chosen tonearm, an "Ortofon/EMT RF-297". (I would prefer either a Tri-planar or Graham Phantom.) There's a huge difference between simply touting the superiority of a good idler-drive, and then going on to state that you also need the older, vintage tonearms and cartridges to get "the great Garrard sound". This, to me, is now entering the world of "Nostalgia". To believe all of this, you must believe that the height of phono engineering was reached 40 years ago, and we've been going backwards ever since, not only in turntables, but everything else phono related. I don't buy that for a second.

I'm not concerned yet, because the previous readers, and many others, have had highly positive experiences with the best of the modern tonearms and cartridges. Frankly, I'm not interested in any turntable that doesn't work with our contemporary, associated phono components.

I've been hearing about this turntable from a variety of sources, all of it positive and enthusiastic. This is taken and edited from two letters by a reader who is both excited and (is apparently) very experienced:

"As a huge fan of analog music reproduction (in any format), I recently went on a quest to find the table of my dreams... I've owned many tables and have found great things in each, but had yet to find one that embodied everything I was looking for. To cut a very long story short, my research ended with the Redpoint Testa Rossa XS. WOW!!! MAGIC! MUSIC, SLAM, ARTICULATION, IMAGING, SOUNDSTAGE, TONALITY, PACING--you name it, this table has it! While it costs $ 6,500 (direct price), I feel that it outperforms tables costing 3 times as much. As you've already pointed out, Redpoint has provided sonic upgrades in the form of their motor to numerous folks owning Verdiers, VPI's, etc. The XS weighs 130 lbs, uses Teflon, aluminum, lead-shot and oil in it's composition and is DC operated. I've never heard a table quite like this (and I've heard "them all" including the Teres)."

"(This)... is my honest assessment of the vinyl machine scene--as I have thoroughly evaluated it in the NYC market. In addition, several "audiophiles" have stopped in for a listen to the system with the Redpoint XS TT, and most are utterly stupefied by what they had just heard! One close friend was shaking is head in disbelief and giggling like a little girl as we listened to Basie's 88 Keys recording on Pablo!!!"

"I have owned many different tables, and the VPI I am now parting with is the HW19 Mk4 (with every upgrade, including the latest Mk5 TNT platter and bearing) and Triplanar/Audioquest 7000. To my ears, there was very little difference sonically between the TNT Mk4 and the 19,... and living on a busy and noisy street in Brooklyn, it made more sense go with the 19 over the TNT..." (10/03)

I have only "show" experience with some Teres models, and no experience at all with the Galibiers (or the Redpoints either). There are various discussions of these different designs on Audiogon, Vinyl Asylum and other websites, but this reader also makes a relevant contribution to the discussion. Here are his observations, slightly edited, with my own "Notes" in the middle and at the end:

"After living with a Linn turntable for 20 years, and upgrading periodically, I switched to CD as my main source about 10 years ago. In January, I played a few old LPs and thought they sounded awful. I had it serviced and a new (Denon 304) fitted and still wasn't happy - colored, muddled bass, etc. exactly as you describe.

To cut a long story short, I have spent a significant amount of time auditioning the most frequently recommended analog components and would like to share a few observations.

First, ...the Kuzma Stabi turntable... would rate class C at best. I heard it with the Stogi arm and powered by the Bastin "Wave Mechanic" power supply. It was pleasantly musical sounding, although the bass response rolled off early and steeply.

Having read about the Teres tables on Audiogon, I arranged an audition in Colorado and also got to hear the Galibier Quattro. (When Chris Brady went commercial with Teres, two of the other leading members of the Teres group (Thom Mackris and Peter Clarke) set up Redpoint. Due to logistical challenges, Peter and Thom split in 2003, and Thom now builds and sells the Galibier range (www.galibierdesign.com).)

Arriving in Colorado, I was pretty much convinced that I would be buying a Teres 265. However my extended auditions changed this. The massy Teres tables offer great isolation from vibration and excellent speed stability. However, the use of hardwood and lead for the platter, and chassis, means that, to my ears, they are over-damped*. I have a 70s rock lp that is very complex, with lots of transients, which I use to check whether a turntable does "timing". The Teres couldn't manage it - it damped out the leading edge of the bass guitar, which gave the curious effect of making the cut sound like it was playing slow. Also, the resolution wasn't as good as I had hoped - there's a passage on a Supertramp LP where sax and guitar are playing in unison, in the same place in the sound stage, and only the best tables resolve this as two discrete instruments playing - the Teres didn't."

(*I would use the word "under-damped" myself-See "Personal Notes" below.)

"I believe that analog components reflect the music tastes and sonic preferences of their creator (e.g. SME and classical/opera). Chris Brady (Teres) likes quite bland music and with his Koetsu Urushi cartridge (plus SET amps and horns) he's achieving a very lush, smooth sound that's the opposite of digital, however it's colored all the same. I heard the top end model too, the 360, which had the same sonic signature but more refinement and detail. As an objective assessment I would say that the Teres range couldn't be rated higher than lower class B.

The Galibier, in contrast, was agile and dynamic whilst having detail, bass extension, everything one could wish for. I spent 8 hours in 2 sessions listening to this turntable, playing complete LP sides. What I found fascinating was that the cuts in between the ones that I particularly wanted to hear (my references) sounded fresh and engaging as never before. I think it's that previously, listening to them on the Linn, they were simplified to the point of banality. On the Galibier, the complexity and charm of the songs was revealed. Extending the information about designers' tastes in music, Thom Mackris listens to bluegrass, jazz, small classical ensembles and 60' West Coast rock which was reflected in a better balanced set-up.

The other observation is that both Thom and Chris used the Schroeder Reference tonearm. I also heard this at the UK ZYX distributor's demo. The Schroeder's distinguishing features are its sense of airy openness around the instruments; complete absence of coloration induced by bearings and the absence of leading edge exaggeration caused by arm tube resonance. It is apparently highly responsive to fine adjustment and in two of the demos it was slightly lacking authenticity in reproducing string bass and bass guitars (due to the tastes of the owners). However, I have discussed this with the designer/builder, and I am assured that it is possible to optimize the set-up to achieve this. I would rate the Schroeder Reference above the SME V.

I noted your caveat on the Dynavector Karat 17D. From conversations I have had with owners, the consensus was that this cartridge was a little lacking in bass weight compared to others in the Dynavector range, however the 17D2 version corrected this. I would suspect that the UK owner who contacted you was using a Linn, possibly with Naim amplification which tends towards a lean sound."

Personal Notes- 1. Despite the reader's observations, I would still like to audition the Kuzma Stabi Reference, which is a very different model.
2. While at the Las Vegas 2004 CES, one of my associates and I attended a similar "shoot-out" of two Teres platters; the cocobolo wood with lead, and an acrylic with lead. The results were surprising to us. Almost everyone there, except the two of us, preferred the wood platter, which sounded much fuller and "richer". Sadly, it also noticeably smeared and colored everything at the same time. The acrylic platter was much more focused, neutral and clean, but it was also analytical and dry. So, we weren't happy with either platter.
3. I feel that all designers should use the most challenging musical software, in order to test and learn the component's inherent limits.
4. One of my associates also felt the latest Dynavector 17D2 was lacking in deep bass weight, and he used it on a VPI JMW 12.6.
5. I asked the reader for further clarification of his experiences. This was his reply;

"1. I heard the 200 series Teres at Chris Brady's home, and he replicated the "shoot out", so I heard the 245 (all acrylic platter), the 255 (lead loaded acrylic) and 265 (lead loaded cocobolo wood) and two examples of his range-topping 360. In each case he moved his Schroeder Reference and Koetsu Urushi between the turntables. I heard the Galibier at Thom Mackris's home the previous evening and then went back the following day to cross-reference what I had heard.

I think that the explanation is that Chris Brady is seeking an analog sound that is tonally richer than cd and has gone off on a track towards lush and mellow. His 360 turntables are quite detailed but lack that ability to transcribe the transients accurately. Thom Mackris has a view that the development of the Teres sound is limited by the (narrow range) of music that Chris listens to.

2. I live in the UK and don't get Stereophile. I checked their website and the only reference I could find was to Michael Fremer reviewing the Kuzma Stabi S in July 1999*, and it was also a runner up in their products of the year that year. It was the same model, the Stabi S, that I auditioned, with the Bastin Wave Mechanic power supply. I heard it at a dealer's suggestion - he felt that it was a product that "punched above its weight." It had a pleasant, balanced tonal quality but came unstuck on more complex program material with a pronounced bass roll-off. In my view this was a trade-off that I couldn't live with at any price, however I got the impression that it's one of those products that is very tolerant of matching components and set-up inaccuracies."

(*The Stabi Reference was later discussed by Fremer in the September 2004 issue.)

Personal Note- I still think that these new, direct-sale, turntable companies, Teres, Redpoint and Galibier, are the wave of the future. They offer a wide range of continually evolving products, good service and are flexible in meeting customers' changing demands. It's going to be difficult for stores to compete with them, especially since they rarely offer relevant experience, expert set-up or choice. I can even see some veteran turntable manufacturers selling direct-to-the-public in the future.

FURTHER- This Teres/Galibier post inspired a thread in Vinyl Asylum, which is both interesting and informative. The thread started on July 1, 2005 (#428594).
It is titled: D.I.Y. Time: Teres & Galibier 'semi-shoot-out'.

I've heard some good "buzz" about this turntable for a while, so I decided to share it with everyone. I have no experience with it personally, and neither do any of my associates. Still, it seems to be a serious contender for "the finest turntable available", and it's not "crazy money". Here's a press release sent to me by a helpful reader. I've edited out the most enthusiastic "propaganda" that was included (my bold):

The TW Acustic Raven table...was recently judged to be one of the highlights of the Heathrow High Fidelity Show.

Designed by Thomas Woschnick, of TW Acustics, the Raven AC is a true high end turntable benefitting from the finest German engineering, build quality and attention to detail. Consisting of a solid base (50kg), machined from a specially developed high density polymer, a one-piece bearing of the highest density non-resonant stainless steel, and a heavy polymer platter together with pure copper, this turntable ensures the ultimate in stability and control.

Drive is provided by a microprocessor controlled DC motor employing quartz crystal referencing to ensure accurate speed to within 0.000000002 seconds per minute! This high torque motor enables the 10kg platter to reach operating speed within one second, via a maintenance free belt. The tonearm is fitted to the turntable via a bronze armboard with Teflon underlay. It is possible to fit up to four tonearms to the Raven at once. The result of this no-compromise approach, is an effortlessly natural sound throughout the entire frequency range, extremely high resolution coupled with ultra-precise timing and a tightly controlled bass that retains all its detail.

Specifications:
• Solid turntable - total weight 50kg. Platter weight 10kg
• Materials - custom high density polymer, stainless steel,Teflon
• Inverted one-piece bearing with capillary lubrication
• Tightest manufacturing tolerances
• High-torque DC motor, quartz referenced and microprocessor controlled
• Speed accurate to 2 nanoseconds per minute
• Motor controller is fully adjustable and programmable
• Spin-up time - >1 second
• Extremely smooth and quiet in operation
• Optional Stillpoint feet
• Optional extra bronze armboards with Teflon isolation

Further- I don't know the price of this model. The North American distributor is High Water Sound. The person to contact is Jeffrey Catalano. Their website is a work in progress as of now. They're located in New York City (212-608-8841).

Here's the latest letter from a reader concerning this beautiful turntable line, which I would love to hear in my own system. I felt it should be shared. It's almost unedited, except I broke it into more paragraphs (my bold):

"... Could I just chip in my observations on two decks you mention...the SME 30 and the SPJ La Luce.

I owned the SME 30, Mark Two, for four years. Fitted with the Series Five arm, it is a deeply unconvincing experience. As you point out, the sound is analytic and 'cold'. I'd go further, if you use this deck for any length of time you will become aware of a sort of 'grey' mechanical sound. The result is dangerously close to Cd rather than fine analogue. The key offender is the arm....something like a Graham Phantom shows a real move forward. But the 'cold' quality does not fully go away. It is always there, lurking in the backround.

As for Michael Fremer's suggestion that it equals the Rockport Sirius....complete and utter nonsense. I once spent several hours doing a direct comparison of these two decks ..something no reviewer seems to have done...and the difference is massive. The Sirius disappears, leaving a wonderful, billowing soundstage full of life and detail. Above all, the Rockport manages to shrug off any sense of mechanical reproduction. It is one of the few components which really does approach mastertape quality...once heard, never forgotten (this was a Sirius Three, using a VDH Grasshopper). Switching to the SME 30 was a shock. I do not exaggerate..a real shock. The soundstage collapsed (same cartridge), the sound become analytic and 'grey' and the whole thing left a profound sense of disappointment. If you were giving points out of ten, the Rockport would get 9.5 and the SME, about 5. The difference really is that great. Only the deaf would not hear it.

I note that both Mr. Fremer and Roy Gregory, of Hi Fi Plus, have compared the Rockport to other decks, without being able to do a direct comparison. I can think of no other reason for their profound ignorance in this matter (well, actually, I can, but.....). The Rockport is in a league of its own...and probably always will be, given the astonishing cost and complexity of engineering.

Now, the SPJ La Luce: I bought this to replace the SME 30, and have fallen in love with it. It just might be the best 'afforable' deck available. Well, affordable is a relative term, but I could buy one, and not the Rockport (more's the pity). This deck has some of the same attributes as the Rockport, at a lower level. Wonderful, billowing soundstages that you feel you could walk into; a lack of mechanical artifice, the ability to produce masses of detail in a natural unforced manner. I suspect that the real gem here is the unipivot arm; but as a complete system, the SPJ with something like a Benz Ebony cartridge, is the unit to beat.

One further point, the friend who owns the Rockport (his third!) believes the SPJ La Luce to be the only 'normal' deck to approach its qualities...and he has no axe to grind. Expensive, and the manufacturer could be said to be a touch 'quirky', but well worth the cost. I speak as someone with no bias in these matters..I have learnt, like most of us, by making mistakes and then moving on....costly but great fun.."

And here's a short comment from a more recent letter from another reader who lives in Europe, with some reservations concerning the SPJ tonearm, with some minor editing:

"Very interesting info about the SME 30 and the La Luce from Spotheim. I agree with the SME turntables, but I know 2 owners, with the SPJ, who changed the Spotheim tonearms, the latest one went for a DaVinci tonerm."

I just heard about these models. Here's the intial information I received, somewhat edited. I don't know who the U.S. distributor is, or even if one presently exists. I also don't know about the relationships of these people below, or if there is a financial conflict somewhere, but I think there's enough real substance here for those interested to further pursue:

"(We) have heard some Acoustic Solid turntables from Germany recently, which are just about the steal of the century for tables. The "Solid One" model (of about 10 different models!!) is a massive aluminum table with separate electronically controlled ac/dc motor with separate aluminum billet pod for arm (up to 3). Retails for $4,000 (comes stock with incognito Rega 300 and Ortofon MC cartridge--which you can flog on Audiogon for around $300-400!). Soncially as good as the (TW) Raven for less than half the cost!... Len Gregory mates it with his Conductor tonearm for world class sound.

Check out the website at: www.acoustic-solid.de (Note to Readers- this link is already in the Links File.)

A friend and business associate of mine in Germany, Robert Graetke, introduced me to Acoustic Solid. Robert is the distributor for Shindo and Sun Audio in Germany, and manufactures exceptional tweaks for Garrard and SME products (eg. titanium bearings, spindles, etc.). Robert has been in the analog business for a number of years, and knows Mr. Fiekert (partner in Scheu Audio), Dr. Forsell, Thomas Wosniak of Raven AC and the owner of Platine...

So he really knows the European analog business backwards and forwards, and is a very good critical listener (former concert violinist). In Robert's opinion, all the models of the Acoustic Solid sound great, expecially when considering the price. One of the lower cost models, the Black Wood Classic ($1,600 retail!) apparently sounds better than the VPI Super ScoutMaster costing 4-5 times the price. In fact, there's a dealer in San Francisco who's said, to the AS rep in the US, that he's having a hard time selling his more expensive tables, because the AS Black Wood model sounds too good!

At the high end of the Acoustic Solid line, the "Solid One", the "Solid One Plus One" and the "Royal" (very pretty too!) models are all world class sounding tables. AS also makes two tonearms that appear to be a reminescent of the Ortofon arms so highly prized in Asia. The arms sell for $2,200 (...with Cardas Incognito wiring/VandenHul silver optional).

Thorsten Loesch, noted audio engineer from England, did a review of the Acoustic Solid "Solid One" in 2003 for "Enjoy the Music", and loved the turntable so much, he still uses it as his reference table as does Geoff Husband the reviewer for TNT Audio magazine in Europe. Geoff is using the Conductor tonearm on it, and says "I'll never go back to a convention pivot design arm (he sold his Schroeder Reference...). Thorsten says that the AS Solid One is as good, if not better, than the Platine Verdier for a considerably lower price...."

Personal Notes- I checked out the website and the Thorsten Loesch review of the Solid One. It looks like I now have the "hots" for a third turntable (the Royal). For the record, the previous two turntables on the list are the Garrard 501 and the TW Acustic Raven. I also feel the same way about two new (and very different) tonearms; The Graham Phantom B-44 and The Conductor. I can't get to any of these components until well into the new year, but they're now on my radar. (12/06)

ACOUSTIC SOLID TURNTABLES- I received a letter from Musical Sounds, who are located in Connecticut, informing me that they are the North American distributor of this line. There is now a direct link to them below, and in The Links File. The turntable which I have a personal interest in, "The Royal", has a retail price of $ 10,000. Here is the letter, which is slightly edited, from Zed Husain:

"Someone sent me a link to your recent posting concerning one of the product lines we import and distribute in North America, 'Acoustic Solid'. We carry the entire line of products... For those that wish to contact us for referrals to our dealers... can reach us at, 203-877-7776." (12/06)

ACOUSTIC SIGNATURE TURNTABLES- This is another turntable manufacturer located in Germany. Their models look quite similar to those from Acoustic Solid (see above). The reader, who introduced me to this company, explains the "coincidence", amongst other things in his letter (with some minor editing and my bold):

"I read your recent recommendation of the Acoustic Solid range of turntables from Germany and I feel that the very similar Acoustic Signature range also deserves a mention (see http://www.acoustic-signature.com/).

Apparently Acoustic Signature and Acoustic Solid used to be one company.

I have personally listened to several models from the Acoustic Signature range, including the top-of-the-line Analog One MkIII, with the new Continuum Audio Labs Copperhead tonearm, fitted with a ZYX Airy 3X H Cosmos cartridge, into a Connoisseur phono stage, built by Peter Mares. This combination trumped my current Basis 2800 vacuum with Basis Vector tonearm combination, with the same cartridge, in the areas of solidity, macro dynamics, bass weight, definition and image size.

May I also highly recommend the Boston Audio graphite record mat. This is a definite improvement to any non-vacuum platter turntable in my experience and totally transforms the sound for the better... lower noise floor, better leading edge definition but not at the expense of tonality or decay."

Personal Notes- For the record, while I am highly interested in the Acoustic Solid Royal turntable, I have NOT made a "recommendation" of any of their components. There's now a direct link to Acoustic Signature in the Link File. (12/06)

SPJ TURNTABLES- I've been hearing about these turntables for a while now, and may have seen them when attending the CES in 2004, but I can't remember one way or the other. They're beautiful, but also expensive, though if what I'm hearing about their supposedly stellar performance is true, they may be worth the price. Below is a reader's observations. I feel they should be shared, since they appear basically credible to me, though that doesn't mean, of course, that one should "drop their skeptical guard". I'm not myself. I see these models as two more potential alternatives to the known "all-out" turntables already out there. Time, as usual, will eventually sort things out. Here it is, with only slight editing:

"I bought the SPJ La Luce Turntable with the Lyla arm and Cardas Myrtlewood Heart cartridge...it CLEARLY outperformed my Versa 1 and the "reference grade" Kuzma XL table with Airline arm and the (re-worked Shelter 90x) Kuzma Ref cartridge set up by Scot Markwell from The Absolute Sound... I burned pre-liminary CD's of various music from each of the turntables, identical levels, but unscientifically, not the same cartridges. The Versa and the SPJ had the same cartridge. The soundstage that the SPJ posseses is ENORMOUS! In a blind listening test, I thought for sure it was the Kuzma based on how well linear arms have performed in the past. When my roomate told me to open the drawer of the cd player, my jaw dropped. It was the SPJ. The power and complexity that this unipivot arm has is amazing. Next I compared it to a Avid Actus with a Triplaner 6 and an ebony LP Benz. The same thing...this huge soundstage with all the inner detail able to resolve...that was on a set of Wilson MAXX 2's, driven by a Hovland HP200 and a Radia amp, all Golden Ref Cardas cable. And the backgrounds are so black...the music just jumps out at you.

...I'm telling you, I've heard almost every table out there and this clearly beats everything I've ever heard. I STRONGLY recommend you audition this table wherever you are that you can...Oh, just as a side note...there was an occasion where Wes Bender from InnerSound, Dan Meinwald from E.A.R. and some fellow from the Robb Report heard the SPJ Centoventi compared to the SME 20/2...I was off axis and my jaw dropped as well theirs' did too...

The difference between the La Luce and Centoventi is very small...maybe only in the fact that original arm is on the Centoventi...mmm...Brooks Berdan is not too inclined to "sell" me on something because he knows I can tell the difference (maybe due to being a musician as a profession). And he also knows that I'm cheap enough to do serious comparisons to de-bunk any myths."

Further- The main website for SPJ is: www.spotheim-spj.com/
Besides the usual information and pictures, there are links to Brooks Berdan and other distributors. Missing among them is Tri-Cell Enterprises, who distributes the SPJ line in Canada. Tri-Cell's link can be found in this website's own Link File.

VPI SCOUT- A reader sent me the below letter describing his experiences and judgement with this turntable, and the VPI HW-19 Mk. IV, which is still a Reference, despite the fact that it is now discontinued. I added my reply to him (both include slight editing-the writer is European), for the sake of my perspective on these two models, and my thinking on making a fair comparison in this instance. Here's the reader's letter:

"I've compared my VPI HW-19 Mk. IV (Audioquest PT-6 tonearm) with the new VPI Scout (JMW-9), and the Scout is way more refined, detailed and more impactful to my ears. (My humble system: Wright Sound wpa3.5 2A3 mono blocks, Wright Sound WLA-12A preamp, Klipsch Cornwall II speakers.) Both turntables were tested with the Denon 103R, but the Scout/JMW-9 has a 3 grams headshell weight added. How come you never mention anything about this Scout turntable with inverted bearings? Now that the VPI HW-19 Mk. IV is obsolete..."

My Reply to this reader- None of us has had a Scout for personal and/or professional use. I don't challenge the reader's observations, other serious audiophiles have made very similar claims, but I would first use:
1. the exact same tonearm and I would also
2. defeat the MK IV's spring suspension (using Sorbothane pucks etc.), as I advise in the listing,
before I came to a definitive conclusion about them. (Frankly, I don't like the platter on the Scout. My experience tells me that the much heavier and deader platter of the Mk. IV* will outperform it, everything else being equal.)

In short, until you hear the HW-19 Mk. IV with the exact same tonearm, and its suspension defeated, in effect bringing it up to the same level of potential performance as the Scout (both turntables can still go further), you can't state, definitively, that the Scout is the superior model. (The Scout is also much less versatile when it comes to tonearm compatability.)

My present "bottom line" on VPI turntables is this: The basic design of the Scout is brillant, but it's the execution that concerns me. For the same design, but with much superior execution, I would go with the original Aries 1, now discontinued, if it was my choice. I think it's a steal at its typical used prices. Then use the considerable savings to upgrade the (included) JMW 10 tonearm to the latest version, and/or look at a VPI SDS and even their flywheel.

*I strongly advise upgrading every single earlier version of the VPI HW-19 with the "heavy-duty" Mk. IV (aluminum/acrylic) platter/bearing, if possible. It's an outstanding ("no-brainer") sonic investment for the money. (12/05)

This provocative letter is from a reader who has made some valuable contributions in the past. This is a follow-up on his last correspondence. There is only some minor editing to shield the "innocent", plus my bold:

"I know my previous experience of the Teres and Galibier turntables was challenged by a Teres owner here. It was interesting to hear the new Teres Certus direct drive at the RMAF last October. Chris Brady admitted to me that it removed a layer of veiling that he didn't know was there on the table I heard on my previous trip. He attributes the improvement to the motor. I would say that the Certus is now close to equalling the Galibier Stelvio.

Three stand-out impressions from (the 2006) RMAF for me were:

1) The Cogent True to Life field coil speakers - not absolutely accurate, but very engaging and the most enjoyable sound at the show.
2) Flying Mole class D amplifiers - they have a pre/power combination with 100 wpc/8 ohm that has agility, nuance and power and is not expensive. (I have a theory that our friends in the audio press are conspiring against class D because the technology represents a threat to their established solid state advertisers.)
3) I was in the TW Acustik room when Frank Schroeder was there with a guest. They played the same track on the cheaper model Raven, fitted with a cheap arm (Sumiko MMT like) and the Dynavector 20X cart, followed by the expensive table with the Schroeder Reference SQ and the ZYX Universe.
There was a difference - the expensive rig sounded brighter but less dynamic. Herr Schroeder and Woschnik admitted they were close and favored the extra "air" of the expensive arm/cart. However, sitting there asking myself "which sounds more convincing, more like real musicians and instruments?", my answer was the cheaper arm/cart combination. How is it I never hear "air" around instruments and singers when I go to live concerts? (1/07)"

I recently received a letter from a reader with two questions. Here's the first, the second (Apogee/Krell) will require a much lengthier response. There's some slight editing and my bold:

"I have a Goldmund Studio ST4 with the original tonearm...Your article mentions using sorbothane pucks to replace the very soft springs. It appears the Audioquest ones are no longer available. Is there another source for these? My other concern is the adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Does the use of the sorbothane significantly improve a very musical deck's isolation, and therefore performance? As far as I understand, sorbothane comes in differing densities, and using the wrong one will not work, being either too solid or too wobbly to be affective."

My Response- I don't know anything about the different densities of Sorbothane, but I strongly advise using a hockey puck with one of the new VPI Sorbothane isolation pucks on top of it, interfacing with the bottom of the Goldmund's subchassis. You should also use something below the hockey puck to make certain that it doesn't slide around. The whole point is to stabilize the Studio's subchassis, while also absorbing micro vibrations. One of my associates and I both used this method with great success (he had an ET tonearm, while I had a SME V). The improvement was easily noticeable. The VPI Sorbothane pucks are sold by Elusive Disc, and maybe some others.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that this same solution can also be used with the smaller Goldmund Studietto. If so, I highly advise the procedure. In fact, it's possible that the resulting improvement will be even larger than with the Studio.

This letter is from a veteran European reader and past contributor. He doesn't pull his punches, and even gives some helpful advice on improving the sound of the new copper platter update of the Raven. There's some editing, due to privacy issues, and my bold:

"I recently listened to the Raven turntable. Audiophile friends own them, and we also conducted a tonearm comparison. They have a collection of the best modern arms and I would like to give you my impressions. Two identical cartridges, two identical tonearms, same electronics and both the owner and I came to the same result: The Raven is a fast, but a cold and analytical sounding unit. Based on this – and the differences we heard compared to the other turntable, we wondered for a while what had confused us: The expensive copper update for the platter is not good. A record directly on it was really bad in reproduction. We then tried a cheap paper mat between the copper and the record, and it became DRAMATICALLY better. Arthur, a PIECE of Paper!

I am amazed that Fremer raved about it so much. Tastes are different, but cheap for the money??? Hm, strange...

I heard that this unit is sometimes offered as a package with the Schroeder tonearms. Another friend had a Raven with a DPS Schroeder arm for a loan, and told me he had problems to get the right setting with that arm. He gave up, because the results never satisfied him compared to his other tonearms (Phantom, Kuzma Air Line). The Schroeder SQ is an updated Reference, but there's no big change in the construction; the main difference is the Valhalla tonearm wire. I listened probably 5 to 8 times to his Reference arm, and in my opinion it is very good in the mid frequency area. It can create a wide soundstage, but in the high frequencies and bass, it is no match to other tonearms like the Graham or Triplanar. A well known importer told me that he sold his Schroeder Reference arm, because it never held its settings, and he got tired of adjusting it all the time after his wife opened a window (also confirmed by the owner with this loaner turnable). I think the Phantom betters them in every area, and even the TriPlanar has a better overall performance."

Personal Notes- Fremer's "reviews" are utterly predictable by now. Even components which are actually proven to be "defective"*, still receive "raves" from him, which is why the raves are also totally meaningless. Any confirmation of this "paper mat" modification would be welcomed. The Raven AC/Graham Phantom is still a combination I would love to hear one day.

*Zanden DAC- November 2006, plus the Harmonic Technology Cables-August 2005.

I just received this information from a reader. There is also a thread on this subject in the Analog section of Audiogon. The cost of the platter, according to a poster on Audiogon, is $ 1,199. There's minor editing and my bold:

"VPI is now taking orders on the new 25 pound 'super platter' with matching inverted bearing. Orders will begin shipping on or around May 1. The 'super platter' can be ordered directly from VPI or any one of its many authorized VPI dealers.

This platter is the most advanced platter VPI has ever made and, of course, it is compatible with the VPI Periphery ring. Made from an acrylic/stainless/acrylic sandwich (just like the HRX chassis), this is a big bad platter upgrade, and will fit all VPI turntables EXCEPT for the HRX. This platter has better bass performance, will fit the periphery ring, is ultra quiet, and has more stability, great slam, and power.

Yes, it will fit the HW-19 series, all Aries, all Scouts, Scoutmasters, and the SuperScoutmaster. It’ll even fit all the previous 20 years of TNTs, just not the HRX, which has a larger diameter bearing assembly, and has its own optional HRX super platter. VPI is offering a $300 discount if the platter is purchased with a current model VPI turntable.

If a customer has purchased any VPI turntable (except the HRX) after 3/1/07 and they purchase the Super Platter, they are eligible for a $300 rebate on the Super Platter directly from VPI with the return of the old platter and bearing."

Personal Notes- As many readers know, I've been requesting this "super platter" for years now. I highly recommend it for any VPI turntable with the all acrylic light-weight platters, or the older platters that are around 10 lbs (most HW-19s). However, those VPI turntables which already have heavy platters (20 lbs and up, such as the Aries 1 or some TNT models), may not receive a serious improvement. In that scenario, I would consider this purchase only if there were a "trial period". Credible anecdotal evidence may change that condition.

Finally, if VPI wants to be really fair, and smart, they should offer the exact same $ 300 rebate to every owner of an appropriate turntable, no matter when it was purchased, even if it was 20 years ago. The potential monetary profit, and goodwill, from such a generous gesture, is obvious. I feel this would be particularly appropriate for the recent Aries and TNT models, because a serious platter like this should have been "stock" in the first place.

I received an interesting letter from an European reader who has taken issue with a letter from another European reader that was posted in February 2007. Below is the reader's letter, then the relevant parts of my reply, and finally the reader's reply to my reply. There's very little editing and my bold:

"I find it upsetting that someone as experienced as yourself would print a letter without all relevant information in place. We do not know what cartridge was used for comparison or what speakers the person used. I own a Raven after owning a Hyperspace and have tried multiple arms. What the Schroder does is fabulous. For sure it is not perfect. But we do not read anything but a criticism from this letter. I have tried many cartridges on the Schroder and there are varying synergies depending on the compliance & compatibility of the cartridge. I have also tried many different mats and the copper platter direct as well. The copper platter alone performs very well. I use the Living Voice Mystic Mat, which I love. What many of us have found is that different mats offer different synergies, depending on arm/cartridge combination. Also depending on even the recording being played back.

For me the most important thing to note in this comparison is does the person have the turntables properly isolated. My Raven is on a spring based shelf that is mass loaded. After the addition of effective isolation the turntable achieved another level of performance. In addition, I was not able to hear the results of any tonearm comparisons as readily with the turntable not fully isolated. In this comparison of the person providing the letter were both turntables isolated equally? Also, did the person have speakers that produce the full frequency spectrum including bass. Many reader in Europe have small rooms and speakers that are not able to produce the lowest octave of bass. In my opinion this fully negates a large part of any review. Any equipment having strengths in a few areas while having glaring weakness at the frequency extremes or as such can not be used evaluate other equipment. In this case, speakers lacking bass and the ability to image can not be used to evaluate a turntable or any source equipment. Source equipment needs to be evaluated full range. Many people proclaiming one thing better than another do not have full range systems to hear the "truth". In addition, once bass is introduced into a system, everything changes. Bass often effects the perceived detail in music and can introduce resonances that are very difficult to dissipate into the music. Again, I must emphasize the importance of isolation in evaluating any analogue source.

If you have noticed, most of the new "Super Turntables" in the $ 40,000 dollar and up range have isolation included with the turntable in the form of either air, springs or magnets etc. I would suggest many of the turntables out there would easily compare to megabuck turntables once isolation is added. In a "good room" a wall shelf might suffice. In a more complex system a mass loaded rack w. air or spring isolation would be even better. My spring base, from Machina Dynamica, was revelatory in allowing me to hear my turntable for the "1st" time. Many of my comparisons were invalidated once adding effective isolation."

I have numerous and prominently displayed caveats and conditions posted at the very top of the Recent File, and also before every monthly section of the reader’s letters. I can’t do more than that to caution readers that the letters may have to be read with a skeptical outlook, at the very least.

I choose letters from people who appear credible, unbiased and experienced. I never meant the Reader’s Letters section to be “definitive”. I realize that all the relevant information is not posted, but sometimes the writer omits information that he feels may identify him, or is not relevant to the larger issue. These letters are usually not from people who go to extreme lengths to keep it all “scientific”, but I still feel they may have value.

I realize some may find some of the opinions “upsetting” or “offensive”, but that’s the cost of honest opinions that are not censored or edited. This reader’s mentioning of the “paper mat” alone made it worth posting.

You should also remember my own “Personal Notes” at the end of this person’s letter. Here is what I wrote:

“Any confirmation of this "paper mat" modification would be welcomed. The Raven AC/Graham Phantom is still a combination I would love to hear one day.”

I’m not familiar with the Schroder tonearms. so I am not able to make a comment about them. With their design and materials, it’s obvious that they will work with some cartridges better than others. I agree with you that the cartridge should have been mentioned, and that it is critical to make a final evaluation, but I wasn’t going to let that stop me from posting the letter. Readers will have to do their own research to find out if one of the Schroder tonearms is a good match for them.

Finally, I agree with you about acoustic isolation, which is why I have discussed it on a regular basis.

"Thank you for the prompt reply... Due to the length of the update thread, you end up reading excerpts. As such I forget your disclaimers. After doing some research, I do know the person who submitted the letter. The person in fact does not have a full range system. This is my primary problem. I have learned that once you have a full range system that everything you listen to is different. You hear the effect of bass & more on the full sonic spectrum. While you thought your system was perfect you now hear its deficiencies. Once again thank you for the response and do feel free to post my response.

FYI, my system; Wilson Maxx II, VTL MB 750 w. 7.5 preamp using 5751 tubes. A custom tube phono stage & custom solid stage battery powered phono stage. EMM CDSAse CD for source (excellent for SACD but not for CD). Turntable is TW Acustic Raven AC w. Schroder SQ, Ikeda IT407, SME V & Graham Phantom coming soon. Cartridges currently in use are a Koetsu Jade and ZYX Universe X-SB. I have had a Dynavector XV-1s, VdH Condor, Dynavector XV-1s, Koetsu Urushi and Sonic Labs Eminent. I have had extensive experience in learning about synergies. These do extend to the phono stage as well. An often ignored point: I use an outer ring to great affect. And of course the Promethean base, which makes all the difference in the world. I could not hear much of my testing until after installing the base. It allowed me to hear each cartridge/arms true capabilities. If the turntable is not effectively isolated you would not truly know how the combination you are listening to sounds."

Personal Notes- I agree with this reader about the serious problem of evaluation when not having a "full range" system. The same is true when the person has a small room, and/or any other conditions where a system's, or a component's, potential performance is seriously compromised. This is why all reviews of relevant components must be looked at with a ruthlessly critical eye.

Finally, this reader was actually able to identify the earlier reader, despite my best efforts. This is more evidence of how truly small our audiophile community really is. Still, openness and honesty in communication is the best policy in the long run, because no one knows it all, which means we must share what we do know, or else we'll live in ignorance, or, worse, in deceit. Accordingly, I thank both of these readers for their contributions.

Another reader has sent me an enthusiastic appraisal of this isolation mat. This confirms the letter from the earlier reader (just above). Here are the two letters he sent, put together and edited:

"I picked up a Living Voice mystic carbon fiber turntable mat on audiogon after reading this article:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/vinyl/vinyl.html

This mat is everything the article says. It is like the mat acts as a buffer above and below the record, reduced noise vibration, feedback distortion is killed = infinitely sharper resolution. Tonal density is more vivid. The sound stage and instruments are extremely sharp and 3 dimensional. This is much more live and life like. It is instantly recognizable as soon as you drop the needle. This mat is really quite remarkable. This is a much greater improvement over what the equitech q transformer and dedicated lines brought.

...I have heard that the needle running in the groove causes the record to vibrate.. which would interact with the platter.. which would feedback to the arm.. etc..etc. I am not a scientist, but the transformation is undeniable. This mat seems to kill any induced vibrations/distortion. Like a Minus K situated right under the stylus. The resolution comming thru the needle is aplomb. The article I sent you talks about timber, speed, tonal density, improved bass, high end etc etc.. yes with aplomb.

My tt does not have a hydro conditioner/speed control - but the real test is Piano. Piano now sounds utterly convincing, life like and real. The 3 D imaging jumps right out and is the most noticeable for me. The sound stage is so real and crystal clear you can see the performance... literally walk around with the musicians. The recording has turned into a live event!

I don't know if you have or seen High Definition TV, but this is the same kind of change. This is like a very large Turntable upgrade. Again this dwarfs the difference good power conditioning brought to my system. Usually by the second side of an LP my system starts to sound good.. Now I fire everything up, drop the needle, and my jaw drops. I was alway sceptical about the cartridgeman's isolator. The new one is suppose to to be hugely improved, and the mat and isolator are suppose to work in tandem to produce even larger improvements."

Personal Note- You can't read something like this without wanting to hear it in your own system. The review at 6 Moons appears to be well done. Unfortunately, this mat is really expensive, 225 Pounds (I couldn't find the U.S. retail price). Still, I will try to audition one of them after I'm through with my current projects. The U.S. distributor is: Bill Feil (Audiofeil) Tel: 716 400 6177

As promised above, here is the interesting news about a new idler-wheel turntable. I don't have all the information yet, but that will be forthcoming. A number of audiophiles already know more than we do about this development, because I found out that VPI was at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, where they demonstrated their new drive system.

At this time, I've been told that this new idler-wheel is an upgrade for VPI's top-of-the-line HR-X and (some) TNT drive systems, in effect replacing their current flywheel systems. I don't know the cost of the upgrade. I assume it will later become an option when purchasing one of these models, and maybe even other models one day, such as the Aries. It should be available within a few weeks.

According to VPI, the idler-drive is a big improvement in "weight, impact, dynamics and the bottom-end," and with no downside. If true, the performance of the upgraded HR-X, especially with their heavy platter, may be unprecedented in certain important musical areas. (If this wasn't enough to digest, it's even possible that an all-aluminum HR-X chassis will also become an option. This is the "MORE!".)

We plan to eventually get one of these idler-drives, and we'll report the results (compared to the present flywheel system) as soon as they are definitive. (10/07)

A reader from Europe has just sent these interesting observations about his experiments with the popular VPI turntable. There is some editing, because English is not the reader's mother language, and my bold:

"I have tried some different solutions, and:
-The upgrade from standard acrylic platter to the heavy platter provided clearly quieter sound reproduction, better timing, and less need of the periphery ring. The bass also seems a little better.
- The upgrade from belt drive to rim drive is not very easy. The distance/pressure between the rim drive and the platter must be exact, but when this is accomplished, the bass improves a lot. Further, the timing, and all kinds of 3D/perspective skills, are so much better that it seems like an entirely new turntable construction (which it probably is).

Be careful not to put the rim drive too close to the platter. If you do so, you will get some motor noise into the system, and you may also have some further difficulties with feedback. Alternatively, if the rim drive is not close enough, you will lose much of the described improvements. However, the sound quality from the upgraded SSM seems to be much better than any of the Aries I have tried." (3/08)

Personal Note- I feel this letter is highly credible and makes perfect sense to me. However, I believe that the Aries, once equally modified, will at least match the performance of the (modified) Super Scoutmaster, if not prove to be superior.

A veteran reader sent me his recent observations concerning turntable mats. There's some editing and my bold:

"I hadn't really researched this whole mat idea...after thousands of hours reading and researching countless other audio topics. To an extent, mats are turntable dependant, where one solution may not be the best bet for all decks. My TT has an acrylic platter... and apparently they can generate quite a bit of "grundge". No wonder getting a good mat has made a world of difference.

A quick tour around the forums often point to the Acromat being the best mat they had tried - after trying many others. The Mystic Mat is always close to the top. They have a really good description of the interaction of vibration and the importance of a good mat. http://www.sounddeadsteel.com/case.asp?caseID=13

Herbies mentions the Boston Acoustic mat, and the Mystic Mat, and claims that their mat equals and outperforms even the mighty Mystic Mat with acrylic platters. http://herbiesaudiolab.home.att.net/grungtt.htm
I have also heard really good results using the outer ring, with the Mystic Mat, and other mats as well, where the record weight is not doing the whole job.

Which intrigues me with the SOTAs and their vacuum system. Owners of vacuum systems swear by them... Jerry has a brief description of the benefits : http://www.10audio.com/sota_cosmos_iv.htm
And how the vacuum bonds the record to the platter... Which is closely tied in with understanding resonance, and implementing solutions into a turntable design that works! That also is the drum the new Merrill-scillia's are beating, in this very interesting article: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ms/ms2.html

Intellectually, and intuitively, I feel that the Mystic Mat may be correcting design flaws help to kill any platter/bearing/spindle/plinth induced noise. And an interesting concept about the isolator is that it helps to stop the (record - stylist - cartridge - arm) feedback loop, and this makes a lot of sense why the sound has been cleaned up so much when using both products.

Maybe I am finally hearing details every one else has been hearing all along... Who knows??? In any case, I am thoroughly enjoying the unprecedented clarity. Or is it that once and a while we get a glimpse of real clarity...?" (3/08)

A veteran reader and contributor recently sent me his observations on two turntables that are still popular with many audiophiles. A little editing and my bold:

"Thought I'd give you my opinion on the Oracle Premiere Mk IV Limited "Gold" Edition

I just got it...The "Limited Edition" is differentiated by all parts that are gold-plated being not aluminum, but machined from some heavy metal. May be brass, may be steel alloy. Even the clamp is twice the weight of regular Delphi. The Premier is a larger table, and it took my 2-lb MG-1 air-bearing as if it was Rega. It has no electronics on board, speed controller is separate, and it has a Turbo power supply, the one that later was used on Mk V. The platter is lighter than earlier Oracles, which were all metal. This one is a sandwich of black acrylic and two aluminum plates top and bottom. Tapping it reveals less ringing than earlier ones.

In fact, when I contacted Oracle about possible upgrades, they did not say anything about the platter, just new Mk V clamp (it has a delrin damping ring) and delrin suspension towers. All of those upgrades are very inexpensive (clamp is $120 and the pillars are $105). Gone are those sticky mats. This one has a very hard acrylic one. Subchassis has additional weight attached to it, which is hidden by the platter. The Mk IV has the much better AC motor. Because of its rarity, people are not familiar with it. Price in 1994 was $4,500. So, in a way, Premiere to Delphi was as (VPI) TNT to HW-19. It is very rare, only a few were built. Perhaps there are just a few of these in the US. There was a later Premiere Mk V, but I have never seen one. I saw a few regular Delphi Mk IV recently being sold for $2,000 easy, so I imagine this one is worth considerably more. I imagine that Mk V optional granite base would be a great improvement.

Besides killer looks, here are my observations (compared to my old trusty VPI HW-19 Mk III with a TNT platter/bearing and defeated suspension):

1. The whole tonal balance is more open, there is much more air and high end;

2. The sound overall is somehow "smoother", it does not have a "texture" to it, which leads me to believe that that heavy power supply does indeed do it's job;

3. It has a much wider and deeper soundstage;

4. Sound is BIG;

5. It does not have the low bass power nor energy of VPI. Very low frequencies are there, they are just "gentler"; but, that is easily compensated by the midrange and treble that are more natural, liquid and transparent;

6. Subjectively, it seems more dynamic in upper bass, mids and treble. I think that TNT platter sucks too much life out of vinyl.

7. All in all, it is somehow easier to listen to;

8. If memory serves me right, it does not have the low detail retrieval capability of Goldmund, but it also does not have the Goldmund's slightly nasty midrange (with the Goldmund arm).

The main trait, I would say, is the overall NATURALNESS of sound, and DELICACY on top." (5/08)

Personal Note- I never heard the Oracle Premier in either my store or home, so I don't know how it compares with their Delphi, let alone other turntables.

A helpful reader sent me this letter, which may prove to be very useful for the owners of this highly popular turntable. There's minor editing, and my bold:

"After having read (your website) article on the LP12, out of interest, I thought I would try the "paper ring modification" between the subplatter and platter. It amazes me that such modifications can make a difference to a supposedly already "good turntable". Nevertheless, a marked difference it does make! However, different paper types (thicknesses, surface coatings, textures/grains) have different effects on a setup and different effects BETWEEN setups. On my setup, I initially tried an 80g/cm copy paper, the advertised effects were instantly discernible, the ringing is gone, the bass is also tighter, less flabby more refined, yet everything else remains the same. I then tried a 250g/cm paper. This had the same effects, however it affected the treble, making it sound warmer. I tried other weights, 60, 70, 90, 100 g/cm etc., as well as newspapers, magazine papers, glossy photo papers (which have a catastrophic effect on the sound).

It seems that copy papers of uniform texture, with no prints, no surface coatings, of uniform grain size and thinner papers sound best. In my system, the 80g/cm plain inkjet/copy paper remains my favourite. However, on my father's LP12 setup, the same 80g/cm paper, he feels, brings out more low level detail, the bass is more refined, the ringing gone, but makes the treble sound a little bright/brittle. Although at first he refused to live with the affected treble, he has since changed his arm setup and currently is very happy with the paper ring modification.

In my experience this modification has a beneficial effect of similar but lesser magnitude to that of a Ringmat. It brings significant improvements to the LP12 sound, but will not address its fundamental shortcomings." (5/08)

Personal Notes- It appears to me that the chosen paper shouldn't allow the platters to slide or move. Also, only if necessary, I would suggest changing the VTA, very slightly, to any person who experiments with this modification. This may offset any sonic downside caused by the minute change in height from the paper.

A veteran reader, and past contributor, recently sent me these observations. I don't have any personal experience with either mat. Some minor editing and my bold:

"There is quite a bit of buzz about the Acroplatmat, and I was able to pick one up for $100 and test it against the Mystic Mat.

For both tests, I used the Cartridge Mans Isolator. I tested the Mystic Mat and the Acroplatmat sitting flat on my acrylic Platter, and then tried both mats sitting on cork and Herbies damping dots. I tested every iteration backwards and forwards.

I found the Acroplatmat quite enjoyable. Using both mats, I gained an appreciation for the improvement that mats can bring. The various blogs and asylums seem to favor the Acroplatmat. With my Clearaudio Champion 2 and Schroeder 2 tonearm, I found just the opposite.

The Mystic Mat sitting flat on the platter is the hands down winner. Vast and far reaching improvements in all areas. The Mystic Mat/Isolator is a killer combination revealing extraordinary levels of energy, expression, clarity, resolution, impact and nuance.
First Rate." (5/08)

A veteran reader sent me his latest observations. Here it is, with some minor editing and my bold:

"...(My) new item is a turntable, the Galibier Serac, with Tri-Planar Mk.VII tonearm (cartridge is still my ZYX Airy 3, low output, with silver base). This is a vast improvement over my previous Acoustic Solid turntable, in all areas. I heard several combinations of Thom Makris' turntables when I visited him in April, and one thing that they seem to all have in common is a remarkable sense of layering: the various instruments or instrumental groups are very well defined, timbrally and spacially and there's a lot of air between them. Indeed, that characteristic was immediately apparent when I put mine in my system.

...I think that, at this point, I'm almost where I've been trying to get for the last three years--there's still a bit of room for improvement in the turntable area, with an aluminium base and/or heavier platter, which I heard at Thom Makris' home in April (the Gavia model). I won't go to the Stelvio, which is really far-out, price-wise; I know two people who have it here in Seattle, and I can't say that it sounds tremendously better than mine--we're almost starting a Galibier club!). After that, it would require a large financial investment to improve things a little bit here and there."

The same reader, as above, also brings us up to date with his most recent experiences with two Galibier turntables, and with another change of mind. Once again, there's no editing but my bold:

"On the Galibier front, I must correct a statement that I made last year, after I had received my Serac. I had mentioned that the Stelvio (the top model) wasn't "tremendously better" than mine, as I heard it in two different systems in town. Well, I was wrong. The problem was that these systems weren't set up properly at all, something I discovered later.

Since that time, I've upgraded my Serac platter to the TPI (with graphite mat) platter, and that did improve things quite a bit, particularly in terms of the silence behind the music ("blacker background" indeed), and the quality of layering and separation between instruments. I've also had the opportunity to hear one of these Stelvios again with the system in better shape than earlier, and it is indeed quite a jump up again in performance. It still remains that the Serac is an incredible bargain for what you get!" (10/09)

THE REFERENCE COMPONENTS.

AUDIO CRITIQUE.

THE RECENT FILE.

The Supreme Recordings

COPYRIGHT 1999-2010 ARTHUR SALVATORE