RECENT AUDIO NOTES

This section contains ALL the newest material before it is posted to the dedicated files. It will remain here for around six months. In this way, readers can find the latest observations, news, opinions and thoughts in the fastest time.

Caveat 1- Readers should always keep in mind that the material which is most recently posted is also, generally speaking, the least reliable. It is usually, though not always, my (or our) "first impressions". Sometimes it will be an "update", which of course is usually more reliable. In any event, I may further edit, quite liberally and without any notice or warning, anything you may read here.

Caveat 2- A good number of the posts below are by Anonymous Readers of this website. They are separated from my own posts (*******), and should never be considered my own personal evaluation, belief or recommendation. In many cases, I will add a "Personal Reply" to the reader's letter. If so, my contribution will be the only editorial part of that post that I take personal responsibility for.

I have made these letters public because I feel they may be interesting and informative to some readers. I also like an exchange of observations, evaluations and ideas, even when I disagree with some of them. However, readers must always consider the extent of the previous experiences of the anonymous writer. Serious thought should also be focused on the writer's actual objectivity and their sonic priorities. All of this background and perspective is obviously relevant and critical, and can be extremely difficult to evaluate within a short anecdotal observation. A continual scepticism in our audio world is a perspective that is difficult to argue with.

The comparison of the Lenco/Graham with the Kuzma Stabi/Air Line has been postponed. It may be delayed until I have a chance to participate myself (which would be in the summer). Everything else is still on schedule (the Kuzma 4 vs. 2 motors was already reported on, and the Dynavector 1S/1T comparison will appear shortly -see below).

I can report that some of the scheduled events have now taken place. The Lenco/Graham was compared to the (earlier) Lenco/E.T. and the Forsell (all with the same cartridge) in my associate's system. I don't have the critically important details at this time, but I did receive the "big picture", which is...

The Lenco/Graham was far superior to the Lenco/E.T., even after the latter's bearing was updated. The sonic improvement was significant enough that my associate is selling his Lenco/E.T. and purchasing the (latest) Lenco/Graham. The Lenco/Graham was also superior to the Forsell, but I wasn't able to learn the degree of superiority (my associate had serious time constraints). In any event, my associate will be here by the end of the month. I'll learn more then, and we'll make our own Forsell/Lenco comparison in my system.

My next report, based on the comparisons and experiences in my own system, with multiple listeners, will be posted in early March, but it may have to be delayed due to historically cold weather in Florida. I don't want to make an evaluation based on less than optimum conditions. Even worse, I may risk damaging my cartridge in sub 70F (or sub 20 Celsius) temperatures.

Also, due to a system grounding problem, which I have been unable to solve, I will not be able to audition (in isolation) the Coincident MC Step-UP Transformer.

This new phono cartridge was evaluated over the last few months by a number of my associates, one of whom owns the Dynavector XV-1S. I have not heard it yet myself. The most literate and experienced of this group, who is also the owner of the XV-1S, wrote this short review. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"Let's begin by emphatically stating that the 1S is one of the finest mc cartridges in existence and that even the most demanding of audiophiles could easily adopt it as their reference. It is very well built (keeping in mind it is after all a cartridge) and will mate with just about any analog set up. It is costly at almost $5,000, but given the current hierarchy of state of the art in cartridges, this figure is considered reasonable. What makes the 1S so special is its overall balance. It is superb in all parameters of performance and exceptional in a few, namely harmonic completeness and tonal accuracy. How much better can it get?

Well, that brings us to the 1T. The 1T looks very similar in appearance to the 1S, but incorporates a slew of improvements structurally and electrically. (this will be left up to those interested to fully investigate). How does all this translate sonically? The answer is quite sizable. The sonic enhancement is evident in practically all areas. Take what is special about the 1S and turn it up a notch or two. The 1T refines all the already stellar attributes of the 1S. These do not represent a Bob Beamon long jump in the Olympics, but more like knocking a 1/100 of a second off of a 1500 Meter speed skate. For example, the delectable high frequency response of the 1S gains more air and silkiness through the 1T.

The bass takes on a slightly punchier, ballsier feel. (Sounds somewhat strange reading back those last two words.) The mids, especially female vocals and massed strings, sound more luminous and fully fleshed out. There does exist two categories of reproduction that does take a giant stride forward. The first is soundstaging. Not only does the image become vastly more open and expansive, the focus within the soundstage is eerily precise. The location of instruments on stage can be located with uncanny exactitude. Close one's eyes or listen in the dark, and the speakers (if the audio system is so capable) will disappear.

The second area of performance breakthrough involves capturing the weight of instruments. This is particularly true with double bass, cellos, organs, and drums, but still evident with lighter instruments such as guitar, horns and violins. The initial attack of the instruments possess greater intensity, and the full measure of their force has a heightened visceral sensation. This quality generates true excitement when listening to reproduced music, approaching the feeling one gets at a live concert.

To achieve optimum performance with the 1S and 1T, will not only require precise setup, cartridge loading will also noticeably affect their sound. It is recommended that the 1S be loaded at 200 ohms and the 1T, due to its higher internal impedance, see a 300 ohm load. Obviously, owners can experiment and settle on any setting they desire, but the recommended settings will maximize the cartridges performance, given the context of a high resolution, accurate audio system.

Both the 1S and 1T are at the pinnacle of the cartridge hierarchy. Living with the 1S will provide a highly enjoyable, rewarding vinyl listening experience that will leave little to be desired. However, the 1T (at almost $10K- outrageous pricing for any cartridge- but unfortunately that's what it costs to achieve this level of excellence) will sound that much better. It is not "night and day", nor does it represent "a difference of kind". The 1T is an easily discernible refinement and, if money is of no consequence, it is highly recommended as the cartridge of choice.

Is it worth its extravagant price? That question can be answered as follows: If an equal or superior cartridge is available at a lower price, then the response would clearly be no. Unfortunately, at present, I am unaware of any other cartridge, at any price, that is its equal."

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.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the August 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

One of my most veteran readers (and contributors) sent me this letter, which challened my assumptions about CD versus SACD audio reproduction. I'm not an "expert" on digital technology (as is this reader, who has asked to remain anonymous), so I am not even going to attempt a point by point rebuttal.

However, I still feel it is important to read my Personal Note below. I also have complete trust in my 4 associates' observations and judgment that SACD is far superior to CD, when both methods are implemented at the highest level (see Reference Digital Sources). Here is the reader's letter, with very minor editing and my bold:

I have enough rudimentary knowledge about digital sources to know that it is impossible, everything being equal, for a SACD to be sonically inferior to a CD. Digital audio comes down to sheer numbers to recreate the original analog (music) signal, which means it's completely illogical to state that more (SACD) 'data points' (the numbers) can be less accurate and complete than fewer (CD) 'data points'.

The problem is that SACD is NOT a digital system comparable to PCM (be it CD's 16 Bit/44.1KHz or modern higher resolutions). SACD uses DSD, which is basically a single bit delta sigma modulator (AD) direct output. The system therefore samples at 1 Bit with a sample frequency of 2.8224 MHz.

This means in strictly information theory principles SACD encodes 64 possible states for a 44.1KHz sample rate signal, compared to 65536 possible states encoded on CD for a 44.1KHz sample rate. This means SACD has actually many fewer real data points than CD. It seeks to overcome this by applying very agressive noise shaping, if this is successful is a matter of debate.

Of course, this whole debate is a little redundant, as all modern audio Analog to Digital converters use delta sigma modulation just as for SACD, though several run at 128 or 256 times the sample rate - so they can contain twice or four times the "data points" of SACD, which is however still much less real resolution than afforded IN PRINCIPLE by the CD format and a pitiful fraction of what modern high resolution formats offer.

Now if the playback system also includes delta sigma DAC's (which in essence again MUST BY PRINCIPLE downgrade any signal from CD to their inherent limitations) one may argue that simply feeding the Delta Sigma Modulator signal directly to the demodulator results in less degradation and hence has the potential to sound better. However, not all playback systems rely on Delta Sigma DAC's (though the majority since the late 90's have).

We may debate the relative sonic merits in length, however this is done elsewhere on an ongoing basis. What I would like to correct is the simple mistake of assuming that SACD contains actually more 'data points' than CD, which it does not do in principle, though a CD derived from a SACD style Delta Sigma Modulator will of course have at best the same information to work with and the process of conversion is usually lossy. Again, not all CDs are derived this way however, so some may contain much more real information than a SACD.

So, in short, SACD is one more of Sony's 'Perfect Sound Forever' marketing ploys, high resolution PCM is at least in principle much superior. In then end much more depends on the implementation (and recordings) though, than on the format."

"SACD is a disc of identical physical dimensions to a standard compact disc; the density of the disc is the same as a DVD... A stereo SACD recording can stream data at an uncompressed rate of 5.6 Mbps; four times the rate for Red Book CD stereo audio."

Dynamic range- CD- 96 dB SACD- 120 dB
Frequency range- CD- 20 Hz to 20 kHz SACD- 20 Hz to 50 kHz, and, most important to me...
Disc capacity- CD- 700 MB SACD- 7.95 GB

Bottom Line- As long as SACD requires and uses greater "disc capacity" per channel than does CD, I will not back down on my technical claim (quoted above).

This letter is from the above veteran reader, who challenged my assumptions about CD versus SACD audio reproduction. This is his most recent take on Entry-Level components, with my bold:

Much derision by Audiophools nonwithstanding, the Technics 1200/1210 Turntable (now marketed and sadly pidgeon holed as DJ Turntable) is a surprisingly well performaing design. If fitted with a suitable headshell (non-rigid) and a Denon DL-103R plus a nice patter mat and record weight this table is quite special and ahead of many of the inexpensive 'garage inductry' Tables of this age.

I recommend placing the table on a suitable suspension (I recommend four of the kind of inflatable doughnuts sold for people with Chalfonts to sit upon down at the local pharmacy topped by a large & heavy Ikea rubberwood Butcherblock cutting board - works for many unsuspended designs).

Two areas of significant improvement but of more advanced modifications are the power supply (Batteries are best, bypassing the on-board regulator and adding a serious heavy duty external supply with a few 100,000uF of capacitance helps too) and re-wiring the original arm (there is not a lot wrong with it otherwise, actually). Another easy win in sound quality states is to disable the stroboscope LED's.

Past that, several "Kit" houses nowadays sell kits at various levels of expense, some off assembled versions.

Audio Note UK (www.audionotekits.com - DIY line not identical to their finished products, often benefit from further parts upgrades but it gets expensive quickly)

Audio Professor (http://www.audiopro.co.jp/ - very nice Amplifier Kits, difficult to buy, Japanese only website, parts quality could be better)

Bottlehead (www.bottlehead.com - custom builds possible, transformers are Magnequest, other parts often quite generic)

Diyhifisupply (www.diyhifisupply.com - offers all products also assembled at very modest cost and has possibly the widest range from DAC's with tubed outputs over all sorts of premaplifiers and Amplifiers into some speaker stuff and uses very high grade components, mostly on level that would need heavy modifications of commercial gear to equal)

Elekit (http://www.elekit.co.jp/english/ - kits are a little basic as are the passive parts but cheap and fun)

Softone (http://www.icl.co.jp/audio/english/ - they offer semi-kits [motly parts] and some example designs - kit/part section is hidden in the Japanese side of things)

Sun Audio (http://www2.big.or.jp/~sunaudio/index_e.html - Kits are often a little basic, Transformers are custom made by Tamura but not as good as retail grade Tamura, well known but not as good as some of less well known Japanese Kits)

Sun Valley (http://www.kit-ya.jp/ - very interesting kits, like Audio Professor ostensibly Japan only)

Yamamoto (http://www2.117.ne.jp/~y-s/index-e.html - mostly assembled, has kit versions of some products, high quality components)"

This letter is from another veteran reader, which provides his most recent observations on Entry-Level components, and again with my bold:

"I’m writing... to communicate my work in optimizing an entry level system, something you suggest and which I took rather seriously. Please excuse the length of this note, but I promise it will only take a couple of minutes to read.

After using some high value 1980s solid state gear from NAD (NAD preamp + 2200 amp, both restored and slightly upgraded), and then moving to a tube line stage with an Odyssey amp, I am very happy with going in the opposite direction with a tube integrated mentioned briefly on your site. It is the Onix/Melody SP3 (in my case the SP8, which is identical except for output tube bias measurements).

I find it head and shoulders ahead of the other pieces, particularly in tonal completeness and low level playback, and especially with upgraded tubes I think it lives up to its stunning review in 6Moons. It has excellent synergy and no audible tube rush with a George Wright phono stage. Combined as used units the total cost of the integrated and phono stage was about $1,000. As you can see from the image I’m enjoying an MHZS 66F CD player (vintage Mullard 12AX7 tubes and a decent power cord) as the other source, which is also head and shoulders above the NAD player I previously had for very little extra outlay.

Speakers are a pair of vintage Dynaco A25 speakers that were acquired for free. While the drivers were in excellent shape I had to make new cabinets for them. I went ahead and upgraded the capacitor to Obbligato aluminum/copper and added a ‘supertweeter’ to function above 14KHz, used decent quality wire in the cabinets, and replaced the binding posts with goldplated lightweight copper ones. I think they provide significant improvements to a good sounding speaker, and they have great synergy with the modern tube amp. They also blend quite easily with a CA 2000 Mirage MS12 subwoofer.

The Thorens TD150 Mk II has been slightly modified through a series of things gleaned mostly from others--modest dampening of the chassis, moving the arm leads from the tin plated terminal strip under the table to Cardas female RCAs installed at the back of the case, splitting the arm and chassis leads and running them to two binding posts at the back of the case, installing an upgraded captive PC, a Herbie’s mat, custom machined arm counterweights, diy armboard (mahogany-acrylic-mahogany sandwich), and diy silver interconnects (the phono stage and CD player also have diy silver interconnects) with Eichmann copper plugs. Small expenditures, but a big performance jump. From time to time I still use my idler with a Magnepan Unitrac arm and enjoy it immensely.

Speaker cables are diy from a Jon Risch design and they caused me to sell off the AQ cables I had previously.

Phono cartridges. For a few years I enjoyed the Denon DL103, then had a ruby cantilever and line contact stylus installed by SoundSmith, then moved it into a diy wood body while using it with an SUT assembled of Cinemag transformers by a friend. While it is certainly an optimized DL103, I find myself gravitating to TOTL vintage MM and MI cartridges. There is a huge thread on Audiogon about these gems, and while they take some effort to find, I think it’s worth the effort.

This system provides me with tremendous musical enjoyment and seems a good fit with the small (11 X 14) parlor room in our historic house."

A long-time reader, who is also an audio manufacturer, periodically sends me some of his latest observations and thinking about various subjects. I removed the material that may have conflicts and/or "sensitivities", but the remainder is still quite interesting and potentially highly valuable, with my bold as usual:

"I just want to pass on a few observations and suggestions, based on your recent updates.

Regarding the CineMag step-ups that are packaged by Bob's Devices, based on the 10 Audio review, I'm sure that Bob has made no provision for adjusting the loading resistor. Jerry mentions that while he likes the sound in general, he says it's really stunning with the Denon DL-103R. This makes sense, since that cartridge has a 14 Ohm internal impedance and, with the CineMag, is looking for a 47K Ohm phono load. That just happens to be the default resistor which almost every phono circuit uses, so no load adjustment is required.

However, the lower the internal impedance of the cartridge, the lower the phono load needs to be. Otherwise, the CineMag sounds too hard and bright. For my MoFi-branded Miyabi, which has a 2 Ohm internal impedance, a 10K load works best. Of course, that's based on the fact that I can remove the 47K resistor from my phono circuit completely and replace it with any other value. Since most 47K resistors are soldered in place, you'll have to experiment when using one that parallels the 47K default. Unlike normal cartridge loading, gross steps, such as 5K or 10K between values, are fine enough.

As a caveat, I also found that there is a synergistic relationship between the circuit and the CineMag that goes beyond proper loading. You may find that it's character will change, with the phono circuit that it's feeding.

I've used an ET2.5 arm for almost 20 years, and probably have more money invested in the air compression system than most listeners put into their entire front end. Early on, I became friends with Jay Victor, an air compression engineer and audiophile, who later became VP for new products at Monster Cable. You can see his photo is the Audio Advisor catalog, associated with Pangea cables and cords. A lot of the tips came through him.

Like myself, Jay used a Maplenoll Athena turntable, which came with what is essentially an ET1 arm. I replaced it with an ET2, later upgraded to an ET2.5. My Athena eventually morphed into a DIY version of the Walker Proscenium Gold, with a 105 lb. (mostly) lead platter, the evolution of which is a separate story in itself.

Anyway, to optimize the ET, you need a minimum 4 gallon surge tank (commercial or DIY), plus a whole range of filters, regulators, and controls. The best air compressor you can buy is any of the Danish-made Jun-Air models, which are primarily marketed for medical and dental use. While relatively quiet, they're still as noisy as a modern refrigerator and need to be placed in a separate room. Mine is a Jun-Air 6-15, which retails for about $1.8K, but which can be found used for mush less than that -- I paid $750 for a "like new" dealer demo. Wisa and similar compressors are really designed for fish tanks and are woefully inadequate for high-end audio.

To get the most out of your ET2.5, you need regulated 19 psi air pressure, which means that it must be regulated down from something higher, like 30 or 40 psi. There also has to be a high-enough flow rate to ensure that the air supply doesn't poop out. Ideally, the compressor should fill the tank, turn itself off, and cycle on after 10+ minutes. If you have a large enough tank and a high enough flow, you can even run the arm for a couple of hours between on-off cycles. With a 4 gallon tank set for 19 psi, mine is typically running 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off.

The Jun-Airs come with their own built-in tank, as well as a simple regulator, which are enough to get you started. But to do it right, you need to add dust, oil (unless it's an oil-less compressor), and moisture filters, as well as a needle valve and a Fairchild air pressure regulator as close to the arm, as possible. Naturally, pressure gauges need to be positioned along the way at critical junctions. It also helps to use heavy duty Tygon tubing with special metal compression clamps.

See "air compression" at http://www.mcmaster.com/ for filters and accessories.

Of course, the entire rig can be used with any air bearing arm or table, including the Forsell and Air Tangent..."

I've now had the Lenco/Graham Phantom II in my system for 3 weeks. Normally, I would have had enough (quality) listening hours to post something substantial, and maybe even definitive. Unfortunately, the (historically) poor weather I've experienced, and further problems optimizing the Graham tonearm (with the ZYX UNIverse), have caused a delay. However, I still feel I can post something important even at this time, though with some significant caveats.

I feel it is "highly probable" that the Lenco/Graham is the finest turntable/tonearm combination I've ever heard in my system (or anywhere else for the matter), and that includes my long time reference, the Forsell turntable/tonearm. I would be more direct and definitive with this evaluation, which my readers now expect from me, but the above mentioned "caveats" will not allow this (without recklessly speculating).

Here are my present "issues" with the Lenco/Graham, which I believe can not be ignored or finessed:

1. The phono cable, while being completely broken-in (with a special device), is a complete unknown to me. (It is the TCI Viper, which comes with the Moerch tonearm.) Worse, it is 1.2 meters long. In contrast, the Forsell had NO tonearm cable (the internal tonearm wire was direct coupled to the step-up transformers). Since I strongly believe (through several direct experiences) that the phono cable is the most critical of ALL the connecting cables, this present situation forces me to be cautious at this time, even though I don't hear any obvious problems with the TCI. (I plan to resolve this issue by, once again, using an ultra-short phono cable, but only after both the choice, and the final location, of my phono preamplifier is resolved, probably in late April.)

2. I have discovered, again through direct experience, that the amount of damping fluid is the critical factor when it comes to optimizing the Graham Phantom tonearm. First, I used too much, which sounded pure, but also "dead", and the bass was noticeably loose, instead of "solid" and "firm". Then I reduced the amount in steps, until it sounded ultra-immediate, intensely dynamic and with extraordinary bass, but then the highs were hard, wiry and dirty (similar to mistracking), especially at louder volumes. I've now increased the amount of fluid, and I think I have it (or pretty close to being) optimized, but I'm not certain.

Further, it may also be true that the damping fluid is effected by the room temperature, which means any serious fluctuations will drive the tonearm (and you) crazy (since the optimum VTF will also change at the same time).

3. Along with the amount of damping fluid, every other tonearm adjustment was also set up incorrectly at the beginning (VTA, VTF, Azimuth and anti-skating), despite closely following the instructions, and even considering my past experiences. I've now made improvements in every area, but I still feel there is some room for improvement, since changing one parameter may mean changing another.

4. Because of the poor weather (I assume), we have also experienced unusual AC voltage fluctuations (for this time of the year), which have adversely effected the Lenco's motor and (day to day) speed. I still haven't learned the best method of bringing the Lenco to the exact and proper speed(s) and, more importantly, keeping it there. I'll be visited by the Lenco "rebuilder" in early April, and we should then come up with a final strategy to solve this issue (which can also drive me crazy).

The results of all of the above is this: At any one time, I have heard the Lenco/Graham Phantom II outperform, or at least equal, every other turntable/tonearm combination in my experience, at any price, and in every single sonic parameter. In fact, there is not one area where I can criticize it, when I have heard it at its best (with maybe the possible exception of lateral width, but only "maybe"). I find this state of affairs both amazing and inspiring.

However, it is also important to state this contrasting fact: I have still yet to hear this combination do everything, at its best, all at the same time. This is why I am so frustrated, and also hesitant to make a definitive declaration. Still, I am confident that I can, eventually, and with some help, achieve this complete optimization. When I do, the critical details will be revealed and the highly deserved celebrations can begin, because it will indeed be an audio achievement to celebrate.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the September 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

A reader recently sent me some Denon "news", which may be of interest for the many Denon enthusiasts out there. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"...Thought I'd share some recent info. My background is that I have been using a Denon 103 on a Rega Planar and also on a couple of lovely old Dual idler wheel drive TTs (1209, 1219). The 103 is a superb cartridge.

Recently the exchange rate has been moving in favour of the Australian dollar and by shopping carefully I was able to purchase a DL304 and a DL103SA. The latter is an anniversary edition limited to 2000 world wide. It is an improved version of the DL103R -- totally different body, and comes in a beautiful walnut box. And it is expensive in the UK and Japan, $700 to $800 US. However, Galen Carol Audio in the US has them at a very reasonable price.

Looking at the Yahoo Japan auction site this evening, I noticed that there was an even newer version of the DL103 on the market which hasn't made it to the West as yet. A DL103SLS. It has a white body. From what I could tell using Google Translate, the body is made from ceramic. The cost is around 37,000 yen in Japan-- roughly US$400.

I haven't played the DL103SA yet, but I now have the DL304 in my system. It is a wonderful cartridge. Still has the great Denon sound but more of everything: more detail in the music, more sound staging, much more 3D sound. Much better at capturing the upper range, and better definition on the bass' nice and chunky as I like it. For what I paid for it, it is exceptionally value for money. (Mantra Audio in the UK is selling it at a great price.)

As you mentioned on your site, it pays to shop around for the Denons. I posted my recent research on prices at my blog:"

http://jerryswig.blogspot.com/2010/03/denon-moving-coil-phono-cartridges.html

Back in December 2009, I posted a short update of this new version of the original Pure Reference (PR) speaker, the difference being the "Extreme" consists of two cabinets (monitor and subwoofer), instead of one. This latest update only concerns the monitor part of the Extreme.

As I mentioned in the lengthy original review of the PR, I used the (supplied) "extender feet" to slope back the speaker, with the goal of having the tweeter positioned further behind the midrange, for better time alignment (and focus). I later did the same with the Extreme monitor. Now, it turns out, Coincident has a new version of the PR Extreme monitor which is sloped back (one inch less depth between the bottom and the top), and I've had a chance to audition these sloped monitors in my own system. (In every other manner, they are exactly the same.)

The result is a very small improvement in image focus. However, you must remember that my monitors were already sloped back somewhat in the first place (by raising the front of the speakers with the extender feet), so there should be a slightly greater improvement in other systems. Further to this, the "should" requires more explanation...

Creating a slope, for time alignment, artificially (as I did earlier), or with the actual construction of the speaker itself (as with this new sloped PR monitor), will provide an improvement in image focus, though mainly at close distances; 12 feet or closer. However, the further the speaker is located from the listener, the less noticeable the improvement in focus will be. In fact, I doubt there will be any improvement at around 20 feet or more.

In short, the closer you are to the monitors, the more noticeable the improvement with the sloped version, but I also need to make this perspective clear; Unless one is sitting very close (8 feet or less), the overall improvement with the sloped monitors will usually be subtle. So, for most listeners, this change will be considered a refinement, which is always welcome, and only rarely will it be a "big deal".

I recently auditioned the latest version of this amplifier and then compared it to the "Original" version that I reviewed* more than 3 years ago (they are still both designated the "MK II"). While I was told the power supply has been changed somewhat, and the actual circuit, size and shape are still exactly the same, the most obvious difference (for most people) will be in the cosmetics. They have gone from "rudimentary" to a shiny stainless steel, almost like chrome, and the three transformers are now hidden. The retail price is also still the same, but this may not last much longer, since the U.S. dollar has dropped quite a bit in value in the last 3 years. As for the sonic differences...

This latest version has several sonic advantages over the original. If I was forced to be ultra succinct, I would simply say it is "more refined", but to be specific, the new version is:
1. A little cleaner, faster and purer.
2. A little more delicate and detailed in the highs.
3. It is also a bit more defined, extended and solid in the bass.
4. The sound floor, already the lowest I've ever heard in the original, is even a little lower in this version.
5. It is a little quieter, both mechanically and electrically.

If I can broaden the sonic comparisons, though from memory only at this time, and not direct experience, I would make the observation that this new version retains all of the strengths of the original amplifier, while adding more of the unmatched strengths of the fastest and purest transistor models (Spectral, Halcro and Clayton). Alternatively, from a more "musical" perspective; it is "less electronic". In short, this latest version is the closest to "the best of all worlds" that I've yet heard.

Also, while it has no sonic implications, I should mention that this new version runs considerably cooler than the original. You can leave it on for hours and it's still only a little warm to the touch. Further, this change also means that the tubes will have extended life. This may be a serious advantage for some, especially if you are using expensive output tubes (as I am). Also on the "practical side", this new version has an AC ground switch, so any hum can be eliminated without using "cheaters" and/or turning the amplifiers on and off.

This new version does have one practical disadvantage (and I'm not counting the extra time required to clean the shiny surfaces); you lose around 4 dB of gain. For the odd system, this may present a problem, but in most circumstances, including myself, it will be a non issue.

Overall, it's a nice improvement, especially at this very highest level of performance, but I don't want to exaggerate its size, individually or in total. The "breakthrough", in my/our experience, was achieved with the original model. To use a previous analogy, this version is the next page, while the original model was another chapter (and maybe even two chapters) in amplifier performance. However, this is a "page", let alone "chapter", that no other amplifier I've ever heard has reached. This is what makes an otherwise simple refinement into something important.

*The Frankenstein review/essay also includes my extended observations and views on the most common amplifier typologies (tubes, transistors, OTL, DHT, SET etc), plus my recent amplifier history.

As this is written, at the end of April, my evaluation of this front-end combination is now around 95% complete. My only remaining reservation, based on the final "unknown" factor, is the degree of the sonic degradation caused by the phono cable (TCI Viper 1.2M). However, since I now have a Cardas DIN plug (the "industry standard"), I can make a custom phono cable using my current reference cable, and it will also be 12 inches shorter (just to start, and much shorter when my phono stage is finally repositioned).

This is what I can state at this time: With the turntable and tonearm now optimized (though maybe the tonearm is still not "perfect"), this combination is definitely the finest I've ever heard in my system (or anywhere else). It is noticeably superior to the Forsell, and to an even greater extent that I heard (and reported) previously. This increased superiority is due to the optimization of the turntable by the person who rebuilt it for me: Jean Nantais.

The important details: The tonearm optimization was "routine"; Simply finding (through experimentation) the precise settings that allowed all of the sonic parameters to be optimized simultaneously. (Still, no one parameter, by itself, is now superior to what I had heard before the tonearm was optimized.)

The Lenco turntable situation was different; it was actually operating at only around 50% of its full potential. Worse, I wasn't able to know this and had no method to correct it if I did. It's simply amazing to me that, even though the Lenco was far from its best, it was still noticeably superior to the Forsell (itself completely optimized).

The problem, as Nantais explained to me as it was fixed, was that the idler-wheel wasn't making proper contact with the platter, due to a faulty spring. After this was attended to, along with cleaning the underneath of the platter and the idler wheel, the Lenco sounded like a different component altogether. The degree of the improvement I/we intially heard, 2 months earlier, was literally doubled.

Nantais claimed that the Lenco's torque had been severely compromised by the defective spring. I can only verify the results of this seemingly tiny change. Looking back, it was a proverbial "blessing in disguise" that the Lenco was somewhat compromised when it arrived, because I've now heard for myself, and in my own system, the critical sonic effect of increased and proper "torque".

So here is where we stand now: I will have my new phono cable ready in a few days. I already have detailed observational notes taken down during the last two months, and while I don't expect very much to change with the new cable, it will still allow me to communicate my observations and final evaluation with the full confidence that I'm not missing anything of real importance.

I plan to write reviews on both components, which should be posted sometime by late May. My main focus, by far, will be on the Lenco, since I feel the ultimate implications of its unprecedented performance (in my experience) are far more important than the evolution of a next-generation tonearm. In fact, I plan to give the Lenco "the full treatment", which means as thorough a review and evaluation as I am capable of making. It deserves it.

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.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the October 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

This interesting letter, from a veteran reader, brings up a number of issues concerning idler-drive turntables (and their competition). I've had only limited experience with my Lenco Idler-drive, but nothing I've heard so far allows me to challenge any of the reader's observations below. However, I must still reserve my own judgment at this time. There's only very minor editing and my bold:

"...Having owned many high-end turntables, I ended up with a Garrard 301 for the past 5 years. It seems crazy that I sold my old TT that was worth almost 10 times the cost of the Garrard, but I never looked back. With my experience with the Garrard (and the EMT 930) in the past 5 years, I have accumulated some insights about turntable designs that are far away from mainstream thinking.

The reason for using a belt drive system is to reduce motor noise without resorting to expensive measures. I am now convinced that belt drive was invented not because idler drive was noisy, but purely as a cost-cutting measure; I have measured my Garrard 301, and the amount of rumble is negligible. I am using a 110dB/W/m sensitive horn system, which is -3dB at 20 Hz, and I do NOT hear any rumble. With a good modern reissue LP, the perceived noise floor is no higher than that of a CD. The idler drives are NOT noisy even with a brute of a Garrard motor, if mounted on a proper plinth. Belt-driven TTs often sound unstable. Piano music is often unlistenable because of pitch instability. I have compared my Garrard with CDs of the same piano recordings, and I cannot detect any pitch instability. Rock solid.

Suspended chassis is a disaster. All the suspended decks I have heard, esp. the lightweight ones such as the Linn, lacks the solid foundation necessary to portray large scale orchestral works. Electronic music and small scale vocal or instrumental music might sound OK, but it cannot deal with any large scale music. The combination of belt drive and suspended chassis is even worse, when you add pitch instability into the mix. The soundstage often collapses when things get a bit more complicated, and the imaging rapidly gets confused. The Garrard imaging is rock solid from the lowest PPP to the loudest FFF.

The notion of a frictionless bearing is totally misguided. Noiseless, yes, but frictionless, no. The problem lies with the variable needle drag when a record is played. Is it easier to control your car speed driving on ice or on a proper road surface? If the bearing is frictionless, the needle drag will result in large (theoretically infinite) speed variations. You then have to rely on the motor (via a stretchable rubber band) to try and correct that speed variation.

The engineers at Garrard understood this all those years ago, and added an eddy current brake to the drive mechanism. The brake imparts a constant drag on the platter for the motor to work against. Any variation in needle drag is tiny in comparison and has no effect on platter rotation speed. This results in rock solid pitch. The only modern TT design I have come across with a similar feature is Tim de Paravicini's magnetic drive design. Indeed, it was Tim who revealed this secret to me when I discussed TT design with him two years ago.

The Garrard has obvious design weaknesses too. The motor is extremely powerful, and the energy needs to be sunk into a massive plinth or one with constrained layer damping. I went the massive route and used a backbreaking slab of marble. The bearing design is also ancient, running the spindle directly on a copper thrust plate. Analogue Tube Audio in Germany markets a ceramic ball bearing with bronze thrust plate replacement, which reduces the bearing noise to a negligible level. This bearing is state of the art and is comparable to any bearing on the best modern decks. The platter is also a bit resonant, but this can be overcome with damping and/or platter mat selection. I use a suede mat from Acoustic Solid, first suggested to me by Jean Hiraga.

Even with escalating price that came with the Garrard craze, this turntable (and the 401) still represents remarkable value and is highly competitive or even superior to what is available today."

This letter is from a veteran reader who has been relaying his extensive experiences with the finest and latest Avant-garde horn speakers for several years now. Here is his most recent update, with my bold:

As you know I was very happy with my matrix dual 15 inch custom Trio basstowers developed by Bert Doppenberg of BD-Design in Nuunspet NL. They were also complemented by a pair of JBL2245H in ELF config with an Elliot sounds ELF integrator from 40hz and down, driven by a Spanish 800 watt digital amp from Coldamp. But this combo had one limitation when playing loud in my big room, it bottomed out at levels in excess of 110db.

To rectify this I had Bert design a new matrix cabinet with better headroom and also extension into the middle 20s, to avoid another sub and digital amplification. To make it possible to handle, we settled on 2 cabinets per side. Each cabinet houses 2 hieff neodymium BD-15 fifteen inchers, a total of four per channel. Each pair of drivers are driven by one dedicated BD-30 30watt analog chipamp, customized for woofer service. The drivers are aligned closely together to increase acoustic output and act as one unit. The total efficiency @ approx 25hZ (minus 3db without eq) is in excess of 103db.

The amps are connected to the outputs of my all-out 300B amps and the signal is first crossed over passively by a dual slope 6db/octave line-level filter RC- RC 95 and 130hz into the BD-30. Then the signal is fed to an Equalizer based on a pcb Project 84- from Rod Elliot of Elliotdesigns down under.

This is an all out approach for an analogue constant Q p8 band parametric eq, customized to operate between 20-100 hz. Each of the 8 bands can be adjusted +/- 12-14db to cure room modes. I mainly will use them to take down peaks (which normally will result in filling dips as a bonus), thus avoiding unnecessary strain on the bassamps. These eq.s are sonically extremely transparent, much caused by my choice of opamps: the smd LME49723 I had to solder to Brown Dof DIL8 adaptors from Cimarron Technology in the USA. Psu for the P-84 is a shunt bipolar PLACID psu from Twisted Pear Audio in the US and supplies an exteremly clean and stiff power.

The result is a system that moves some serious amounts of air with an unprecedented ease and finesse. I´m now starting to approach realistic live bass reproduction. At full throttle it´s hardly possible to feel ANY vibrations from the cabinets and their cnc´d plywood interior.Exterior is plywood as well as a precaution in cause I should feel tempted to cross over at higher frequencies.

This all out approach influences the whole tonality of the system, and lifts it up another notch on the "sq-spiral". Highly recommended!"

Here's another reader's view of the Garrard 301 upgrades discussed above. I felt his warning should be shared. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"I read with interest the letter you posted from a Garrard 301 user. As a 301 user myself, I find no disagreement with anything he says - I've never had a turntable that sounded better.

However, about the bearing mod using a ceramic ball: On reading some forums lately , I've noticed that while many agree that it sounds better than the stock bearing and thrust plate, they have also noticed that, due to the fact that the ceramic ball is harder than the Garrard spindle, the ball starts to gouge out the bottom of the spindle. So it appears that this improvement may come at a price, that is, damaging a part that is probably difficult to come by, not to mention expensive. That has made me decide not to try that mod. Others may wish to think about it and read what some others have said before they try it. Yes, there is a lot of misinformation on some of those forums (What? you're joking, right?), but given this particular circumstance, what has been reported seems to make sense.

Disclaimer: I have no personal experience with this. I'm using the original bearing/thrust plate on mine, which sounds good to me, but I have not had the opportunity to compare the two, but even if the mod does sound better than the original, fear of ruining what for now works just fine is what keeps some of us from going that route. Caveat emptor, and all that."

A reader sent me some positive observations about using a different tube with "the biggest selling preamplifier of all time". If it's true, what a tragedy that this wasn't known 40+ years ago! Any confirmation would be most welcome. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"I got a couple of Sylvania grey plate 5751s cheap ($9.00! For a pair). I put them in my Dynaco PAS linestage and I have to say wow, what a improvement. Much more focus in all frequencies, but especially in the mid to highs. Vocals seem to be much more forward. Gain is not a problem for me, so I have not noticed anything there.

The music is much more introspective with much greater inner details. It’s the old 'I am hearing things I never heard' routine. Like you, I listen mostly to vinyl, but when listening to CDs the difference is even more dynamic than on vinyl. I plan on obtaining 2 more and trying them in the phono section."

Personal Note- There is a loss of gain when using the 5751, which may not prove a problem with the linestage, but the phono stage may be a completely different matter in many systems. I still look forward to hearing the results of the 5751/phono stage experiment.

This is the second letter from the same reader concerning these drivers (the first was posted in January). The intriguing part (for me) is the claim that these drivers are both high efficiency and high quality ribbons; the best of all worlds. Once again, any confirmation of this reader's experiences would be most welcome. Some editing and my bold:

"I have an update on my implementation of the BG Neo 8 line array. Since I wrote you, I decided to give the line array a chance to work on its own, without a crossover, or any other attempt at manipulating the FR. The result is amazingly transparent and revealing. Imaging is improved, particularly in depth. The absence of phase anomalies and electronic haze from the crossover is just amazingly beneficial. You don't know what grungy junk you are listening to till you take it out and hear what music can sound like without it.

I am still working on the integration with the bass and the tweeter; the 6 driver line is flat from 250 hz to 10,000 Hz at the listening seat, the portion from roughly 3 khz to 10 khz is elevated about 2-3 db above the 250 to 2,500 hz range according to my measurements. This is because of the nearfield to farfield transition inherent in line arrays. More on this subject is available from Dr Jim Griffin's paper on the subject
http://www.audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf.

This issue, if audible to you, can be resolved by listening closer to the speaker and by lengthening the line array. However, with my tube based pre and more so with tube midrange amplification it is not a noticeable elevation of the treble but just an absence of the slight rolloff of the treble common to much tube amplification equipment.

The transition from nearfield to far field is the transition from a linear rate of SPL decline with distance from the source to a square law where the SPL declines with the square of the distance. On Griffin's chart I put up the points as they are in the system with the line array equidistant with the bass panels, and when set in front of them at the appropriate gap for time coherence.

Sound wise, there is no speaker I heard that reveals so much (for better or for worse), without the crossover interfering with the midrange it reveals differences among components very readily and brought me to better understand the deficiencies in my various components and made it easy to decide which compromise I prefer. Lush sounding recordings sounded as such. CD was easy to listen to with the tube preamp. The Audible Illusions Dual Mono gave a wall to wall and slightly shallow soundstage detail was preserved, but a slight bit of its sharpness was smoothed (lost its "etch"), this with the Musical Fidelity HTP DAC/pre feeding it, while the HTP feeding the amps without the preamp provided more detail, but gave a much narrower but noticeably deeper soundstage limited to the space between the midrange line arrays. Through the tube pre, you could not hear where the speakers were and the slight grain in the HTP's output was partially smoothed out. The broad soundstage and harmonic correctness in the tube preamp's rendition were clearly "editorial" enhancements. Maybe they just undo some of the effects of solid state ICs stripping harmonic information - but that is still an editing job.

I could not hear this through the crossover and it did not realize how dominant the sound of the Audible Illusions preamp was in this system. The choice I am making for the moment is to accept the euphony of the preamp because it makes so much of the music more exciting and natural sounding and renders otherwise unlistenable recordings (particularly on CD) easily enjoyable.

Practical matters:
This is a reiteration of the power handling issues discussed in my initial letter, with an emphasis on handling of full range signals rather than bandwidth limited signals. The midrange line array of BG Neo 8 drivers is capable of easily producing 115 db SPL peaks at my listening seat without noticeable distortion.
The ongoing power handling limits with the 6 drivers arranged in 3 parallel pairs (5.1 ohms), are 40 watts RMS, beyond which heat damage may be caused to the drivers, but this translates into a constant delivery of 106 (for the full speaker, 103 db for the midrange pair) SPL at a listening seat 12 feet from the speakers.

Since that would necessarily cause rapid hearing loss, I doubt anyone plays that loudly (even I don't). The music power limitation is 100 watts (50 watts per driver, doubled for a parallel pair) and amounts to an average listening level of 110 db at 12 feet, which is even too loud for a dance club, and finally peak power handling is about 800 watts, which is over 120 db SPL. In short, the Neo8 line array can be pushed very hard even when working well outside its normal frequency range (due to there being no crossover).

For most normal listening levels loud = 100 db SPL peak, very loud = 105 db spl peak, the amp driving the line array needs 5-15 watts.

I am toying with the idea of installing a passive 1st order high pass at line level so that I can restrict high energy signals at the vicinity of 150 hz from arriving at the Dynaco III, so that it does not strain to pump lower frequencies than the line array can produce. I have done so before and got more use out of the tube amp on large scale works. After all, I remember coming out of a concert saying that if you heard a Mahler piece and left the concert without a ringing ear, somebody in the orchestra did not do their job or you have lousy seats."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This final parameter may be the most important to me in terms of how the Lenco improves my personal listening enjoyment and appreciation.

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

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

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

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

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

Part Four- The REASON for the Superior Performance of the ("Reference") Lenco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part Six- Some Issues Concerning the Lenco and Other Idler-Drive Turntables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the November 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

A reader has answered my request (see April 2010 above) for confirmation concerning the use of 5751 tubes in the Dynaco PAS 3(x)'s linestage. This is great news, but it's also a true audio tragedy that this wasn't known 40+ years ago. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"I have been listening to my old, completely stock, Dynakit PAS 3 over the last few months rather frequently, because in some ways I like the line stage in the PAS-3 better than the line stage in my Atma-sphere MP-3. The MP-3 line stage has a great big powerful low distortion sound that is more impressive than the sound from the PAS-3, however I find I can listen to the PAS-3 line stage for longer sessions, even though I think I hear much higher distortion and the sound stage is more vague compared to the MP-3. Somehow I find the distortion generated by the PAS-3 to be very easy to tolerate. The PAS-3 creates a sound that I would describe as more delicate and intimate.

As soon as I read your comments concerning the use of 5751 tubes in the PAS-3, I set out to search my old tube drawer for some used 5751s that I remember storing there. I have just finished listening to the 5751s in the PAS-3, and I agree with the reader who suggested that they are better tubes for the PAS-3 line stage than 12AX7's. Playing CDs with the 5751s in the line stage, I hear better impact on Bass Drum (no improvement in bass guitar impact or pitch definition), increased transparency, decreased distortion. The music feels more immediate. Tiny errors that the mixing engineers have let slip onto many recordings are much easier to hear.

With some old 12AX7As in the line stage, I hear a quality on some male voices that creates the illusion that the the recording microphone was in a funnel when the recording was made. With the 5751s the funnel sound is much reduced. Listening to recordings of bluegrass mandolin, I hear the resonance of the instrument's small wooden box with very little effort as a clear component to the sound, along with the sound of the strings and the pick. It remains to be discovered if the 5751 tubes would be a good choice in a PAS-3 that has new high-end capacitors in it. Mine still contains the old caps and old resistors. The heater voltages are slightly lower than what the designer desired, and my B+ voltage is a little lower than spec. - but even with these age related problems the PAS-3 just keeps playing music."

This letter was sent to me by a new reader, and later confirmed. There's no editing, but my bold:

"You may be interested in this tidbit: Every year, the Luthier association in the US holds a big conference. Every year the top makers sponsor a blind competition. Every year, the experts… builders, critics, musicians, etc., choose the best instruments. Every year, the million dollar Stradivarius and other ancient instruments lose to the newer instruments. Every year, the reviewers make up lies and excuses, continuing to insist that the older instruments sound better even when they voted otherwise in the blind test. Some of these reviews include the best and most famous musicians in the world. The human capacity for self-deception is a sorry thing."

Personal Note- I found that Luthier conference competition remarkable, for a number of reasons. I always thought the old instruments were unmatchable myself, based on everything I’ve heard and read for many years, though that always seemed to be scientifically impossible from a modern perspective. The test results, the stubborn resistance to those results and the actual “judges” knock out that dogma, and add an unflattering example of human nature at its worst as a bonus. This reader's example is far more important than the simple commercialization of some hobbyist audio magazines. This anecdote artfully illustrates how difficult it is to overcome powerful prejudices.

My audio system, after a number of important changes and experiments, discussed in prior months, is finally broken-in and stablized.

I plan next to make a direct comparison of three MC Transformer step-ups (the Bent Silver, Bob's Devices CineMag and a new model from Coincident). After that, I will probably compare some phono cables, including the Graham IC-70.

The results of these comparisons will most likely be posted in July or even later.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the December 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

Here is a reader's letter about idler-drive turntables, and various related issues, which I believe sheds an interesting and different light on the reasons for their unique performance capabilities. There's minor editing and my bold:

"Besides the Garrard 301 that I am currently putting together, I also bought a Lenco L78 and plan to restore and rebuild it as well. It will take some time, but my goal is to compare and tweak both in order to see which one is able to perform better. From what I've read so far, I expect the Lenco to have a bit more potential than the Garrard. As of now, both will be housed in similar slate plinths.

Compared to a Garrard 301, the Lencos are still relatively reasonably priced on eBay. I'll keep you posted about my findings, but it will take a few months for sure.

The fact that VPI offers the rim drive system as an upgrade, to me confirms the superiority of the idler/rim concept. What I'm not sure about though is if positioning a flywheel between motor and platter (like VPI does it) is a better solution than coupling the motor directly via a lightweight rim drive wheel (idler drive) with the platter? The heavy flywheel between motor(s) and platter slows down the motor's speed correcting reaction.

A design idea that I have couples an eddy current brake mechanism with the platter (instead with the motor like on the Garrards). Like on the Garrards, the tiny artificial drag from the eddy current brake moves the operating point of the motor to an area where it operates with higher torque, PLUS it also 'loads' the connection between motor/idler/platter in a way that (in theory) should allow the motor's speed correcting reaction to load fluctuations from stylus friction to reach the platter quicker - and thus correct speed fluctuations quicker.

It's much like towing a car with a rope. When the car in tow simply 'rolls' the rope first needs to be tightened before the pulling car is able to correct the speed of the car in tow back to nominal speed. If the driver in the car in tow slightly breaks, the rope is tight at all times and speed changes of the car in tow can be corrected quicker by the towing car, since the rope does not have to be tightened first. The resulting speed fluctuations (wow/flutter) of the car in tow will be lower.

My train of thought might have other problems ... but it makes more sense to me than what VPI offers. VPI's rim drive 'de-couples' both motors from the idler (in the VPI design the idler is also a heavy flywheel) using belts. And making the idler wheel a heavy flywheel, further slows down the motor's attempt to correct speed changes that actually occur in the platter's speed, since the motor(s) have to accelerate the flywheel (with the very high moment of inertia) before the speed change of the flywheel can be used to correct the platter speed.

In the above example this would translate into putting a very heavy (rolling) third vehicle between the towing car and the car in the back whose speed changes we're trying to correct. The logical consequence is, that the speed changes of the car in tow will be larger and longer, because it takes more time for the towing car to correct them.

Well, it's all theory and it may lack a few things that Harry Weisfeld probably has already figured out? I guess the only way to find out is to try ..."

Personal Note- As still a relative novice in this subject, my current feeling is to avoid all belts until proven otherwise.

Further, here is the second letter from the same reader, with more fascinating information and theories.

"I had an interesting conversation with Terry and Nigel from Loricraft/Garrard in England yesterday. I initially contacted them a few days ago with some technical questions around the 301 I'm currently restoring/rebuilding.

During our conversation, they explained, that the 301 actually sounds better when operating with 230 Volt and 50 Hz, using the 50 Hz pulley, which is a bit larger than the 60 Hz version for the U.S.. The reason for this - they explained - lies in the motor, which operates with higher torque when running on 230 Volt - which, the 301 was initially designed for anyway.

This makes sense to me, and confirms how important "torque" actually is. In our "car analogy", this would simply increase the HP/motor torque of the towing car, enabling it to quicker correct speed fluctuations of the car in tow.

Another question - that, unfortunately I forgot to ask them - is related to the difference in sound between the highly thought after "grease version" of the 301 that you might have heard about - and the "oil version". The main technical difference between both is, that the platter bearing of the "grease version" is lubricated with grease instead of oil. Supposedly the grease version of the 301 sounds better than the oil version.

One obvious difference between the grease and the oil version is, that the grease lubricated platter bearing creates more drag and requires the motor to "work harder" - meaning operate in an area where it develops more torque.

If you scroll down to the speed vs torque chart* from an earlier email, this represents an operating point of the shaded pole motor "further away" from the end of the curve at 100% speed, and closer to probably 90-95% of nominal speed, where it simply puts out more torque, but also runs a bit slower.

If we compare this to the "car analogy", the grease bearing creating more drag is the equivalent of having the driver in the towed car keep his foot slightly on the break, "tightening the rope" between the towing car, and the car in tow. The towing car now needs to work harder to maintain speed, and thus debris on the street, that the car in tow runs over and tries to slow it down, has less impact on the speed of the car in tow.

And as far as I know, the early 301s were equipped with grease bearings mainly for use with mono records.

My interpretation/explanation: Because pick ups for mono records required heavier tracking force (increased flutter), Garrard chose a grease bearing design to have the motor operate with higher torque to better overcome speed fluctuations caused by the larger amount of friction between the (mono) record and needle.

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense …
It would really be interesting to see how other readers comment/react to this."

*The reader sent me a chart, but I don't have the technical ability to reproduce it on this website.

Until I find a list which is more definitive, and objective, here are some speakers that I, and some Readers, have found to work very well with low-powered Single Ended Triode (SET) amplifiers;

I would appreciate finding out about any other models, that readers have actually heard for themselves, to add to this list. This list is not a temporary project. It will be kept permanently in the Speaker Files. Further, don't expect to see the speaker models posted here a day or so after your e-mail is sent to me. Please remember that I'm usually behind in ALL my correspondence, including even the brief and helpful information letters.

Finally, I will keep my own "SET friendly list" because at least one list should have no commercial foundation, temptations or considerations*.

*For example, another website placed the Merlin speakers on their list, which, despite all their enviable qualities, will still not work well with low-powered SET amplifiers. I know, because I tried them. The sensitivty was just too low. Merlin, themselves, uses the excellent CAT amplifiers, which are pentode based and push-pull, at their audio show demonstrations. I would trust Merlin to know how to optimize their own speaker designs.

The Graham Phantom II is the finest pivoted tonearm I have ever heard, but I still don't feel confident that I can describe its (minor) imperfections in as thorough and accurate a fashion as is possible for me. I've had difficulties in both setting up the Phantom II, and, worse, separating its performance from the Reference Lenco (which I believe may be impossible at this time). I should have more relevant comments and observations posted by the end of this month.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the January 2010 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

This is the latest installment of a veteran reader's serious quest to fully optimize the Avantegarde Trio, which he is fortunately sharing with all interested audiophiles. There's some very minor editing and my bold:

After in room measurements of true Trio midbass rolloff, I decided, after consultation with Phil Marchand of Marchand Electronics, to continue going passive lowpass filtering, to avoid any noise issues (my amps are only 200µVAC on the outputs and absolutely noiseless, so I don´t want any new issues). He thought going active might introduce noise.

I thus ordered some custom mono XM-46 130Hz 24db/octave phase correct line lvl low pass filters for the Doppenberg towers. Since they´re hooked up to the output of my 300B amps, they also have a fixed L-PAD (adjusted by me to 9db attenuation made by 2 Audio Note 2 watt tantalum resistors on the inputs. PM recommended 20db, but that was too much).

The units arrived after a few weeks and looks very well made and 'pro' with their well damped inductors and hi-quality pcb´s. They´ve now been playing for a couple of weeks, and I must say that I´m very impressed:

The bass is even cleaner and tighter and a colouring upwards, I just have had, without being aware of it, is obviously gone, and the whole system is even more unstrained and effortless, HOWEVER LOUD I play!

For the very first time in my life, I´m able to hear the lower registers of a concert grand Bøsendorfer, reproduced with the full body and weight of the real thing. The 24db solution was a very good way to go, and I thank Phil for advice, very good service and expedient shipping. The superb quality of the units, obviously contributes to the successful implementation of the woofers.

I would encourage other Trio owners to investigate this HI-EFF solution,rather than going for 'the way of least resistance', with the original 'hornloaded' heavily eq-ued subwoofers. IMO"

Coincident Frankenstein and Dragon Amps driving the Pure Reference Extreme Full-Range (A report and comparison)

These are the most recent LPs to join The Supreme Recordings. They are too new to place in an upper category, and there aren't any descriptions ready either. Also, I am now back to systematically playing all my records, starting with where I left off in October 2001 (when I prepared to leave Toronto to move to Florida).

DVORAK-CELLO CONCERTO-STARKER-MERCURY SR90303 (SPEAKERS CORNER)*
HODDINOTT-ORCHESTRAL MUSIC (SYMPHONY NO. 3)-ATHERTON-DECCA SXL 6570

*The first Mercury Reissue from this company that matches the promise. Very natural, large and dynamic, though it is somewhat veiled, which will keep it from joining the two highest categories.

My most recent addition is an extreme version of a vintage Lenco Idler-Drive (using a super heavy plinth and high quality bearing), with a Graham Phantom II tonearm.

I also have a new record cleaning machine, the Clearaudio Double Smart Matrix.

Hawthorne Audio (High Effiency Dual-Concentric Drivers and DIY Projects) NEW 02/10

Audiophil-Online (A German website discussing audio components, accessories and "tuning") NEW 03/10

Volti Audio ("Specializing in Klipsch Speaker Upgrades and Restoration") NEW 05/10

Analysis Audio (A "manufacturer of the highest quality, high performance planar-ribbon loudspeakers available") NEW 06/10