SAT Direct Drive Turntable!

[Direct Drive]

I'm curious too.
What is this 3rd top turntable?

Could it be this....I don't think he has reviewed.

 

[XV-1]

I just need to boast that my system sounds exceptional regardless of tt with or without suction..hehe.

But since you mentioned, I might have to buy a dd just to make MikeL keep looking at his rear view mirror.

Tang
save yourself 38,000 Euro and go SAT table sans vacuum

 

[XV-1]

Could it be this....I don't think he has reviewed.

I would love Fremer to review this. But, would it even fit into his room

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Tang
save yourself 38,000 Euro and go SAT table sans vacuum

funny concept of "saving"

 

[Ron Resnick]

If you would like Michael to answer your questions here, why don't we keep the decorum high and the sarcasm and irrelevant comments low?

 

[Direct Drive]

It doubles as a Pipe Organ, who new.

Tuned to 0.5hz!!! MF did a video of it in 2018 Munich show.

 

[TrackingAngle]

Smarkiness has now infested a once 100% civil group. That’s sad. So let’s straighten out some misconceptions: first there is no advertising for the SAT turntable so I clearly did not use it to write the review. Yes, I sat down with the designer, who remember has graduate degrees in mechanical engineering and materials science unlike the “snarky geniuses” posting here, and learned about what he’s done and I described it. Then I wrote about it and I measured the speed performance using the platter speed app which bettered the SP-10R. And I described the sound. Someone posted that somehow I should have done something else. Perhaps a metallurgy test? What is the job other than what I did. Just curious. BTW: I’ve reviewed the NVS, the Monaco Grand Prix, the SP10R in the OMA plinth, the SL-1000R, two VPIs and a few Brinkmann DDs, so claims notwithstanding I do have DD reviewing experience. If you don’t like the SAT vacuum system, which avoids drawing vacuum through the bearing and so avoids many issues, you needn’t buy it if you choose this TT. And it holds vacuum for an entire side no problem, which is what I wrote. Those speculating didn’t read what I wrote. The comments about it like what happens if you lose the TORX driver are the kind of infantile drivel I expect on Audiophiles- North America not here. Sad to see this. BTW: anyone who thinks that butt ugly OMA prototype is what OMA will market to its esthetically sophisticated consumers is butt foolish. The finished product looks spectacular. Finally, I’ll shortly have the SAT, OMA and AF Zero here to compare. Let the faux outrage commence! (For whatever ridiculous reasons). My favorite snark comment by far was one from someone who concisely laid out what the job is, (though substituting ad copy for tech explanation) and then criticized me for doing it. If that individual had a serious criticism of that process he’d have laid out his version of the job, but he didn’t. As for me positively reviewing the SAT for my accommodation price, how TRITE! Everyone knows I did it for advertising dollars and a free dinner.

 

[ack]

Beautifully written Michael! If I were disappointed with some folks in here before, I've been totally disgusted now.

 

[PeterA]

I picked up on that in a different thread.



Fremer enjoys (and promotes) audiophile 'effects' - sonics more likely heard in a listening room than a concert hall. His reference tends to be other equipment.

Hello Tim, I agree that Fremer focuses on audiophile effects in his reviews. He also tends to refer to other gear instead of to live music and the way real instruments sound. I suspect he and other reviewers are conflicted. The readers ask for comparisons, and this often leads to a discussion about effects and the other gear being compared. Which component brings out more detail, which has a blacker background?

I think there is a way to accomplish both goals. One can compare two turntables by making digital recordings for quick and easy direct comparisons and also describe which turntable sounds more like real music and why. And then the reviewer can go into why the other turntable does not sound as much like real music. The problem, as I see it, is that the reviewer's job is easier and the writing seems more interesting and full of content when everything is broken down into parts and sonic attributes rather than a comparison to the larger picture of the sound of music. And the reader has been conditioned to understand the sound of components and systems by these attributes and the glossary of terms.

I think there is a real opportunity here, with some effort, to reexamine how reviews are approached and what they should communicate. It is a real challenge and I am skeptical that such a shift will take place, but it is possible, IMO. Car and appliance reviews are about performance, function, build quality and sometimes aesthetics. Audio gear reviews can be about those things too, but they can be be about much more. Audio gear and systems are tools to help us experience a music performance from the past. It is about emotion and art and the appreciation of greater things. We all share the reference to live music, and audio reviews should help us to understand whether or not the reviewer thinks the product under review brings us closer to the sound of real music.

What does the "blacker background" of one turntable compared to another really tell us about how a component brings a system closer to the sound of the real thing? It may seem that one turntable is more forensic in its analysis of the information in the grooves, but it can also mean that it is more damped than the other table. It does a better job of eliminating noise that can obscure resolution. However, if eliminating noise is the result of overdampening a component, it may also obscure information like the ambient energy that remains in space after the bow touches the strings of a cello and the body amplifies the vibrations. As long as that energy exists in the hall and can be heard by the audience, there is no black background.

The audience waits to applaud as the conductor very slowly lowers his arms at the end of the final movement. I have often thought that this is because the conductor is waiting for the last remnants of energy to dissipate and turn to silence marking the end of the piece. This takes time. I almost never hear that silence anywhere during the music, not even between movements when there is shifting and motions from the musicians and audience. Total silence in a concert hall is rare.

I want to read why a reviewer thinks blacker backgrounds are good, and what they have to do with the live listening experience. Is it because the component does a better job of lowering noise? Does it increase natural resolution? Or do the starker images and bolder sound come at the expense of the subtler stuff, the stuff that makes us think the reproduction is alive and real?

In a good concert hall, I hear music clearly, but it is not the clarity that comes from seeing more detail under a microscope's lens. It is the clarity of the energy from the instruments coming together to form the bigger picture of the music's message. It is the beauty of a great orchestra playing well together. It is the genius of the composer interpreted by the conductor and musicians. I want to know which turntable gets me closer to that and why.

 

[PeterA]

Ack, I am sorry that you are angered by my post. What in particular do you not like?

I welcome the sharing of different opinions on a discussion forum such as WBF. Healthy debate and the sharing of ideas, as long as they are civil and both sides are listening, is how we learn from each other. Closing debate, sensoring ideas, and stifling discussions seem to be in favor these days, but they do not get us very far or move us forward. I think we should tolerate, be respectful of, and even celebrate differences of opinion.

 

[bonzo75]

Maybe Fremer can clarify what he means by the term "black background" as readers might be interpreting it various ways. Microstrip somewhere mentioned to him it was the absence of artefacts, which is a positive definition, maybe Fremer can clarify what he means by the term

 

[thedudeabides]

Fremer enjoys (and promotes) audiophile 'effects' - sonics more likely heard in a listening room than a concert hall. His reference tends to be other equipment.

I don't believe MF promotes anything other than trying to describe what he hears. All concert halls sound different and the same concert hall sounds very different depending on where you sit. We all know this to be true. With all due respect, your post is nonsensical and meaningless from a reality perspective.

And exactly how does one promote "audiophile effects"? And which effects are you talking about?

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . His reference tends to be other equipment.

Hi Tim,

Why do you think this? How do you know how often Michael attends live music performances?

What is your basis for this assertion?

 

[lordcloud]

Hi Tim,

Why do you think this? How do you know how often Michael attends live music performances?

What is your basis for this assertion?

What is the problem with the reference being other equipment?

I find it odd that people think the reference should be live music or the sound of instruments, as you're not comparing it to listening to the live music or the sound of instruments. You're listening to a recording of those things. The reference should be other equipment, as that would be the only "known". Almost anything else is just guessing and not as useful.

I prefer to know how one amp, table, dac, etc, sounds in comparison to similar equipment I may be interested in, versus how it sounds compared to what I think a trumpet in an unfamiliar space should sound like.

 

[ALF]

Smarkiness has now infested a once 100% civil group. That’s sad. So let’s straighten out some misconceptions: first there is no advertising for the SAT turntable so I clearly did not use it to write the review. Yes, I sat down with the designer, who remember has graduate degrees in mechanical engineering and materials science unlike the “snarky geniuses” posting here, and learned about what he’s done and I described it. Then I wrote about it and I measured the speed performance using the platter speed app which bettered the SP-10R. And I described the sound. Someone posted that somehow I should have done something else. Perhaps a metallurgy test? What is the job other than what I did. Just curious. BTW: I’ve reviewed the NVS, the Monaco Grand Prix, the SP10R in the OMA plinth, the SL-1000R, two VPIs and a few Brinkmann DDs, so claims notwithstanding I do have DD reviewing experience. If you don’t like the SAT vacuum system, which avoids drawing vacuum through the bearing and so avoids many issues, you needn’t buy it if you choose this TT. And it holds vacuum for an entire side no problem, which is what I wrote. Those speculating didn’t read what I wrote. The comments about it like what happens if you lose the TORX driver are the kind of infantile drivel I expect on Audiophiles- North America not here. Sad to see this. BTW: anyone who thinks that butt ugly OMA prototype is what OMA will market to its esthetically sophisticated consumers is butt foolish. The finished product looks spectacular. Finally, I’ll shortly have the SAT, OMA and AF Zero here to compare. Let the faux outrage commence! (For whatever ridiculous reasons). My favorite snark comment by far was one from someone who concisely laid out what the job is, (though substituting ad copy for tech explanation) and then criticized me for doing it. If that individual had a serious criticism of that process he’d have laid out his version of the job, but he didn’t. As for me positively reviewing the SAT for my accommodation price, how TRITE! Everyone knows I did it for advertising dollars and a free dinner.

Well stated Michael, thank you for sharing. Even though the vacuum process is a little time consuming, the design, as you described, is topnotch and well thought out...Marc does have the background that facilitated his design.

As usual, a very nice review...

BTW, I find dinner with Maier is always a nice time...

vbw,
a

 

[Audiophile Bill]

So if you would like to add vacuum platter to your Sp10r or SAT or any deck for that matter (if it doesn’t come with it), you could use the below for £995:

I-Qual Vacuum Disc Mate IQ1300A

No more wobbly records Vacuum stabilizer Operational video here. More information and manual here. Review here.

www.mcru.co.uk

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Audio Technica had a similar device years ago....still available on Ebay

Audio-Technica At666 for sale | eBay

Find great deals on eBay for Audio-Technica At666. Shop with confidence.

www.ebay.co.uk

 

[Direct Drive]

So if you would like to add vacuum platter to your Sp10r or SAT or any deck for that matter (if it doesn’t come with it), you could use the below for £995:

I-Qual Vacuum Disc Mate IQ1300A

No more wobbly records Vacuum stabilizer Operational video here. More information and manual here. Review here.

www.mcru.co.uk

Looks interesting, if not on the pricey side ;-). Having what he'd the video I can see how it works. But will VTA be different with each LP, i.e. inconsistent.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Looks interesting, if not on the pricey side. Having what he'd the video I can see how it works. But will VTA be different with each LP, i.e. inconsistent.

i think you’ll need to adjust VTA to account for increased platter height to start with - thereafter it must need adjustments as you would do now for different LP thickness unless I am not seeing something

 

[PeterA]

What is the problem with the reference being other equipment?

I find it odd that people think the reference should be live music or the sound of instruments, as you're not comparing it to listening to the live music or the sound of instruments. You're listening to a recording of those things. The reference should be other equipment, as that would be the only "known". Almost anything else is just guessing and not as useful.

I prefer to know how one amp, table, dac, etc, sounds in comparison to similar equipment I may be interested in, versus how it sounds compared to what I think a trumpet in an unfamiliar space should sound like.

Nice post lordcloud, and thank you for starting the thread and keeping us informed about this new turntable.

I do not think there is any problem with referencing other equipment. That is part of a comparative review, as MF does here. I think most audiophiles want to know how one piece of gear compares to another, and this is what we each do when auditioning gear in our homes or at a show or dealership, though in some cases it is comparing whole systems.

I personally use a number of references when assessing gear: specific components, specific systems, and live music. Each reference has its value. I happen to think a review is richer and more informative if it considers both the competition and the sound of real music. MF does a lot of wonderful reviews of music. Surely his comments about the sound of a recording reference his memory of the sound of real music, otherwise, what is the basis for any meaning or common understanding of what he is writing.

When a reviewer describes the crash of the cymbals in the back of the hall, or as MF wrote the whack of the timpani being distinct from the reverb or reflection of the rear wall, this is a direct reference to the actual sound of those instruments in real spaces. That is excellent, and something to which many of us can relate. There was some good descriptive language in the "listening" part of the review. I think it is difficult to avoid describing specific sonic attributes when sharing one's impression of the sound of a piano on a specific LP. We see this in most if not all reviews.

I am simply hoping for a bit more in addition to the comparison to another similar product. I want to learn how the listener is moved by the experience - or not. What is it about the design that elicits such a response? And does the piano sound more real on one turntable or the other. It does not matter where one's seat is located in the hall. A piano either sounds convincing or it does not. Or it is more or less convincing than a different presentation.

I would like to better understand what MF means by "blacker backgrounds" and why they are either desirable or not. What causes them, do they come at the expense of something else which may go missing, and how they relate to what we hear when listening to actual music.

There is no problem with referencing other equipment. Bring on more comparative reviews, just add some more thoughts about how those comparisons help or hurt the believability of the reproduction by referencing real music. Personally, I want to know if the component moves the system in the direction of hi fidelity to the source recording or more toward the natural sound of real instruments. Both are valid goals. They are just different and often result in different sound.