Claiming something is best is indeed taking a stand. We live in a society now where that seems to be discouraged. People who share their ideas of what is best have the confidence and experience to do so. No one is saying they are right. What is right? But do we not agree there are different levels or steps in the quest to move us closer to the experience of live sound?
I look at what products have survived over time and remain highly coveted. What is it about them that makes them legendary? Why do people admire the old Micro Seikis, the Neumann, the original American Sound? What is it about the WE horns, Tannoy Autographs or JBL Paragon? The classic recordings of the 50s and 60s? I am not saying that there is agreement that these are all better than the best of today. I am saying that there is something that certain products have that connects the listener closer to the music, and this quality stands the test of time. These are some of the best products of the past, in part because they are recognized as such and they deliver on that promise. They have earned this reputation and people seek them out. The best of today, CH Precision, WADAX, and others may be coveted in the future and perhaps stand with those that I mentioned.
When one describes what he thinks is best, does he make a list of sonic attributes and describe compromises and trade-offs? Or does he describe what the product or system does to bring him closer to the experience of listening in the concert hall? Does he talk about the music, the genius of the composer, the conductor's interpretation, the musician's playing? Is he left to experience the recording on not think about the gear? This is what the best components should have in common. It is not about price or buzz or what uses the newest technology. It is about the final result and effect on the listener. It can not be best if there are trade-offs and compromises. The best are those few with little or no compromises.
Here is how ddk describes what he thinks is the best of the rare group of five Beyond Turntables:
"Even among the best of the best turntables, there’s still be a distinguishable hierarchy. I don’t claim to have heard them all but many have passed through my hands and this small group is compiled after several decades of high end experience. In this group every player has the ability to completely disappear and present a natural, sophisticated experience of the recorded music, that’s why they’re Beyond the so called high and ultra high end for me where price has become the determining factor. At some point I came across the American Sound record player, a 550+lbs monolith designed by a minimalist. There’s nothing extra and/or non-functional here, not even paint. What finishing there is on the steel has a function and comes from the Japanese tooling industry, a hand finishing technique for grinding down and flat leveling machined steel surfaces. American Sound’s purity of design follows through to its sound, there’s nothing to attract or detract, simply music and of course Natural…"
David later writes this about his AS2000, a project he pursued only because he was confident he could improve on what was:
"Most of what you wrote which I agree with describes 4) which you can get from fairly modest setups when you know what you're doing. The increases in resolution in terms of accuracy, musical detail, tonality, timbre, tonal depth and range, dynamics, etc. get you closer to that live like sound, the glass in the window to the live event getting bigger and cleaner. The ultimate step is getting beyond the system or the window and actually stepping into that event, not just sonically but emotionally so your brain and body react to what one hears in a completely natural way. To get there you need a lot more resolution and the complete tonal picture picture of an actual not and not only parts or highlights of it which is what you get even in the best systems. The AS2000 is where you can step Beyond the system, the room and life like to an actual live event where you have full resolution. Even a single note from a good musical instrument is very rich sophisticated and complex, then you have the character of note changing with the quality of that instrument, finally there's the individual creating that note with their virtuosity and essence of self. This what you can have and get in a live event and what might think impossible from a recording but it's there. The purpose of the AS2000 is to bring out that information from the grooves and get out of the way, all the macro, micro, the dynamic, all the resonance, the decay, the rise, the fall, the speed, the attack, the sweetness and the harshness of a note and then the notes and their delivery but the artist, this is resolution. As in a live event you get not to just hear a violin but to know who's Heifetz, who's Haendel or Grumiaux; Starker & Rastropovich and then there's Casals. This information is all there in the better analog recordings and you'll be able to touch it when the system can resolve all of it."
I was fortunate to be able to own one of the Beyond Turntables, the Micro Seiki SX8000II. I then had the original AS1000 at home for a month and was able to directly compare the two. I now own the AS2000. These are good/better/best. There is a reason Vladimir Lamm sought out the AS1000 and used it for fifteen years to develop his electronics. There is a reason all visitors to Utah preferred it and the Neumann cartridge to David's other turntable/cartridge combinations.
I reread Michael Fremer's Stereophile review of the OMA K3 turntable yesterday. He compares it to the AirForce Zero and SAT XD1. Here is an excerpt in which he describes the sound and the differences between the three tables. Comparing this to what David and Tang write about their turntables illustrates for me the contrast between the concept of something being the best and the idea that everything involves trade-offs, and in the end, we all simply choose which sonic compromises we want to live with.
K3 sound
The K3 was fast, clean, detailed, highly resolving, super-transparent, effortlessly dynamic, and capable of producing unparalleled transient precision and depth-charge-deep bass "wallop" that's fully extended yet totally free from overhang. The K3's "hit fast, hit hard, linger just long enough, and then get out of town" performance could not have been more different from the Air Force Zero's. That would come as neither a surprise nor a disappointment to either 'table's designers—although my time with Mr. Weiss leads me to believe he'll be disappointed that I didn't write that "the K3 blows the fat, sluggish, energy-retaining Air Force Zero out of the water."
I've heard my share of fat, sluggish, bulbous-sounding turntables and thin, lean, edgy, bass-deficient ones too. The sonic performance of these two super-'tables—and that of the SAT XD1, which sonically sits somewhere in between—isn't accidental. All three are purposeful and intentional in design and sonic outcome.
The K3 is brash and bold (which doesn't mean bright or mechanical), while the Air Force Zero is velvety and reserved (which doesn't mean timid or sluggish). I'd give the silent-backgrounds nod to the Zero (over every turntable I've yet heard) and the pristine, explosive transients nod to the K3.
People can reject the idea that something can be the best and instead simply appreciate things at a high level. But when someone else expresses with some confidence that he has found something he considers to be the best, and he explains why he thinks so, people should respect that and appreciate what it takes for someone to arrive at such a conclusion. We are all here to learn, and I am glad this forum allows us the opportunity to share our thoughts and express different opinions.
