Peter
Has your friend ordered the Fidelis Analog replacement for the Technics MN6042 Pitch Synthesizer IC yet? That brings a naturalness and stability that is uncanny .
Review: Grand Prix Audio • Monaco 2.0 Turntable
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Peter
Has your friend ordered the Fidelis Analog replacement for the Technics MN6042 Pitch Synthesizer IC yet? That brings a naturalness and stability that is uncanny .
No. I think I read about this and sent him the information, but he is not listening to much audio these days.
Nothing new here, a quick follow-up to confirm: I spoke v. briefly with Alvin Lloyd, and yes, the motor in the Monaco 2.0 is a coreless motor. He noted that the controller implementation and especially the software are key factors in the 'table being what it is.
To go a bit off topic: Where it may get interesting is to compare the Monaco 2.0 with its younger brother, GPA's Parabolica. My understanding is the Parabolica uses the brushless 12-pole DC cored motor that was in the Monaco 1.5 although its controller software is similar to the Monaco. Then compare the Parabolica with the new Technics SP-10(?) or price similar SL-1000R. I'm hoping to cover the Parabolica later this year.
I hope you get the chance to do a side by side review Tim albeit I understand that making stars align is no easy task.
It was not just a one table experience...it is many tables over more than two decades that has left me with this impression.
Although this type of comparison can have punctual interest for those carrying it, IMHO this preference for the SME turntable could be expected. The SME turntable was designed by the people who designed the arm, to create a coherent sound - what I call the "master tape fluidity" of the SME combo, although not the most detailed and dynamic sound. However many people have great systems with SP10 Mk3 turntables - does this unit also sound "unnatural and mechanical" in your friend system?
IMHO it is very important to diagnose the real reasons of the mismatching before looking for other reasons. IMHO if you were not able to figure the what's and why's you will not be able to figure what is "cogging" from this audition.
Agreed. It is precisely because we could not determine why the table sounded the way it did that I have asked a couple of times what the "sound" of cogging sounds like. I don't have the experience to identify that sound and it seems that people are reluctant to try to describe that cogging "sound" in this thread.
I am not saying that the SP10mk3 does not sound great in other systems. This is just one data point, as MikeL would say. I am reading this thread with interest and there is considerable debate about the cogging effect with cored motors. Can I ask you again to describe what you hear when you say that this effect is audible?
Well I say that I could not discriminate it, it is why I am asking. My problem is that the direct drives I owned had non optimized plinths, light platters or other sins. I could not say that the problems in sound quality were due to the motor technique. I listened more than once to a SP10 mk2 with a good quality plinth, but could not find anything I could relate to stability problems, although I preferred another turntable.
David (DDK) has written some well thought findings concerning the action of correction systems, but as far as I can read most people hide behind the "je ne sais pas quoi" that affects their listening, appetite or foot taping abilities ...
Maybe asking about what cogging sounds like is the wong approach, i.e. what particular sonic attributes evidence cogging?
I keep falling back on the best example i have, pardon me if we're tired of hearing about it.
It's like asking about hearing pitch deviation. I had zero sense of pitch deviation listening to the Monaco 1.5 - why would one expect a more speed stable and accurate turntable to sound any better? The v1.5 had a cored motor. Overall it sounded excellent - as good as I'd heard at the time. Yet switching to coreless motor in v2.0 yielded a 'table sounding shockingly better.
I believe we can experience distortion and not realize it as such until we experience its absence. So in this instance, if you want to hear what cogging sounds like, listen to a Monaco 1.5 then listen to a Monaco 2.0. If you want generalization, take similar comparisons if you can find them. (Or as morricab suggests, generalize across years.)
My view? Ask yourself what sonic attributes are related to time and timing - that's where to listen.
I keep falling back on the best example i have, pardon me if we're tired of hearing about it.
It's like asking about hearing pitch deviation. I had zero sense of pitch deviation listening to the Monaco 1.5 - why would one expect a more speed stable and accurate turntable to sound any better? The v1.5 had a cored motor. Overall it sounded excellent - as good as I'd heard at the time. Yet switching to coreless motor in v2.0 yielded a 'table sounding shockingly better.
I believe we can experience distortion and not realize it as such until we experience its absence. So in this instance, if you want to hear what cogging sounds like, listen to a Monaco 1.5 then listen to a Monaco 2.0. If you want generalization, take similar comparisons if you can find them. (Or as morricab suggests, generalize across years.)
My view? Ask yourself what sonic attributes are related to time and timing - that's where to listen.
I am a (well done) direct drive fan, and I believe we are seeing the state of that art meeting and pushing beyond where it rested for so many years (early 80s Japanese totl decks). Coreless drives are no doubt important in pushing this state of the art. Focusing on them to the point of making them a marketing catchword is a bit silly however. I mean how much is a coreless motor? Yet making a truly top class turntable is still a relatively small club...
Okay. I think if you look at all the 'tables manufactured in the last, say twenty-five years there is evidence of focus on many areas of improvement many relating to vibration and reducing noise with high mass. But the importance of high rotational accuracy and speed stability has not been of much focus - as suggested by the lack of innovation and the fact we're discussing it now. Until modern challenges to the orthodoxy brought to light the improvements that can be had, we were largely satisfied with less.
How manufacturers tout those improvements can partly be gauged by we consumer's response. While there is probably a relation between motor cost and motor quality, i suspect the bigger cost comes from controller choices and implementation.
Sorry, I find myself disagreeing with your suggested method. I could easily imagine many reasons why the two turntables could sound different, not related to cogging. Unless the Monaco manufacturer was prepared to supply us complete and exact information about the differences between the two turntables we are not able to debate it.
Should we consider that all coreless turntables from the past are intrinsically better sounding than the 1.5 with its cored motor?
Sorry, I find myself disagreeing with your suggested method. I could easily imagine many reasons why the two turntables could sound different, not related to cogging. Unless the Monaco manufacturer was prepared to supply us complete and exact information about the differences between the two turntables we are not able to debate it.
Should we consider that all coreless turntables from the past are intrinsically better sounding than the 1.5 with its cored motor?
I understand and largely agree. Yes, it is not as optimal a comparison as one can imagine.
As I noted: "I keep falling back on the best example i have..." I spent a fair amount of time in discussion with Alvin Lloyd about just why the two versions were so sonically different. He with his engineering and software staff spent many hours on the same topic - while they expected some improvement they were all pretty astounded at extent of improvement. In the end we all agreed about why. While the controller software was brought in-line with the requirements of the new motor and with some new methods adopted for using the encoder, it was concluded that the change of motor likely had the biggest influence on sonic improvements.
We're generally not successful in syllogizing from what is the mechanical-electrical-etc case to specific claims about sonics. Not so much for validity, but for truth. "Changing the belt to a rigid aramid fiber fomula improved dynamics." - maybe, but the follow-up argument is always well ... there's so many other variables in play, - the tubes in the amps were different, etc, etc.
So acknowledging it is not proof, I'm drawing on the best real world example I know and the rational notion that it was the large changes that made the difference. The engineers were in the best position to assess if some other factor should be considered; none were posited. Their discussion came down to reduced noise and greater stable accuracy, both of which were a function of the motor. The two versions of the 'table afforded about as close a comparison as likely to be found.
But the above is 'merely' a metodological issue and not about the main point of my post and assessing questions such as "what does cogging sound like?" There, I'll stand by what I said. Maybe it is better put as 'what does cogging not sound like.' If we had your perfect comparison, we could be definitive - but we don't. Maybe the answer is not one broken into very distinct tests, Tang-esque: "on the 'table without factor X you can hear the bird sounds." Or, as I've used as an example: I hear no pitch anomalies from Table-A, why should I pay (a lot) more money for greater speed accuracy from Table-B? Maybe our ears are far more sensitive than technology has allowed us to assess. Maybe the expectation of a certain kind of answer is holding us back. Maybe we don't grasp that we're hearing distortions of various types until those distortions are gone.
Doesn't this define the ever elevating state of the art in replay? The latest cable the latest powersupply regulator, the best transistor the most accurate speed control...?
Or is it elevating
Monaco 2.0 run through the AnalogMagik Speed Test, playing a 3150Hz tone on an AM test record. TestRecord-->Phonostage-->ExtSoundcard-->Latop-->AM software. Given the vicissitudes of physical objects (test record) there was variance across the track. I recorded hi/low readings of 3.14960kHz - 3.15182kHz as the test ran. Screen shot is where things were when I took it. Obviously a different method than the Monaco's motor controller system reading platter speed optically over 166,000 times per second. Fwiw, the v2.0 does not allow speed/pitch adjustment as did earlier versions.
Hi Tang,
"How much speed deviation is allowed to still hear music as intended?" You would think it is simple, but that question may have many different answers.
I'll start upside down with a side note: I believe speed stability is as important as or more important than speed accuracy. I'll approach this from the listener's perspective rather than from the record manufacturer's or lathe master's perspective - which warrants its own discussion.
"... as intended." - That could mean "a reasonable simulacrum" of what you heard from a real performance, given that it is an audio reproduction which depends on the quality of the reproducing system.
Another answer might be: it depends on your own expectations and assessment.
A slightly different approach may be: How much speed deviation are you willing to tolerate or accept? I suspect many vinylphiles would say "I'm happy with the sound of my turntable", without having experienced a 'table that is less accurate or more accurate. Many may believe what we hear is what is intended. I suspect many audiophiles don't have an experience of more accurate or less accurate - more or less deviation. A common notion suggests pitch deviation is the threshold of audible accuracy.
While agreeing that we all have our individual likes, preferences and tolerances, I also believe that some turntables are sonically better than others and that it is possible for a gross or broad consensus about that to obtain. I also believe it is possible to hear differences between 'tables that are more speed stable and accurate than others. And those differences can go far beyond pitch deviation. Having experience with such is, imo, important to acknowledging differences.
For example, I experienced considerably improved dynamics, dynamic contrast, spatial characteristics (soundstage breadth, depth, height, dimensionality) and tonality, among other attributes, with my Monaco 2.0 than I did with say, my SOTA Sapphire, Teres 320, or Manaco 1.5 'tables. I still enjoyed playing music with them - every thing sounds good until you hear something better. While we wrangle about the path from sonics back to physical characteristics, I know there is less speed deviation with v2.0 and I attribute that to much of the differences I hear and like. So are more consistently life-like dynamics intended? Is the tonality of that trumpet more like a real trumpet playing? Is that intended? Are those locatable back-wall reflections of the timpani intended? What can you accept? And what do you want?
I'd like very much to hear what others think.
Tim, I don't think anyone would disagree w your premise that more and more accurate speed accuracy, and as you say speed stability (aka lack of drift), can only add to the illusion of reality.
However there are many ways to skin a cat. GPA have gone for DD, and v careful measurement of speed/feedback loop on a moderate weight platter. By nailing perhaps the most complex control system on speed, they've achieved an exemplary outcome.
But turn to the AS2000 or Vyger Atlantis/Indian, and you have a wholly different approach, with highly accurate motors combined with high mass/high inertia to achieve perhaps broadly similar performance, no feedback, and now advantages of air suspension and bearing. And the illusion of reality brought about differently.
However there are many ways to skin a cat. GPA have gone for DD, and v careful measurement of speed/feedback loop on a moderate weight platter. By nailing perhaps the most complex control system on speed, they've achieved an exemplary outcome.
But turn to the AS2000 or Vyger Atlantis/Indian, and you have a wholly different approach, with highly accurate motors combined with high mass/high inertia to achieve perhaps broadly similar performance, no feedback, and now advantages of air suspension and bearing. And the illusion of reality brought about differently.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |