REFERENCE COMPONENTS-TURNTABLES

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, Verdier 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 finest available 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 turntable was the original version of the Goldmund Studio, 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 various Goldmund models and the Townshend Rock "ruled the roost" until the two Versa Dynamics models arrived at the end of the 1980’s. Then came the superior Forsell models and the Rockports etc.

*Though some audiophiles were apparentlty able to optimize the performance of the Garrard 301/401 and Thorens TD-124 turntables to above that of the Linn and the others. I never heard any of these turntables fully optimized, back then and even up to today.

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 am confident that there must be a number of them that 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.

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:

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:

There is an interesting and informative review of the Walker in Audio Asylum, within the vinyl section of course.

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 25 years 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, 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 better than any of the CLASS C turntables below.

Considering its long-term influence and the fact that this design is still "competitive" after almost 25 years, 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 metacrylic platter and subchassis, but with wood bases, are still superior to the Class C tables below, but the sonic differences are not as pronounced; 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.

THE EARLY STUDIO-A READER'S OBSERVATIONS- 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)."

"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;

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.

"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 coloration's 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

CAVEAT-Please be advised that the readers’ letters posted on this site are solely the opinion of that reader and may not necessarily represent or reflect the opinions of Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. These letters furthermore, are not to be taken as being endorsed by Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. They are posted because they may be edifying, thought provoking or entertaining.

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 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 fascinati