I hold an itch to respond to micro's comment better than you K.David.
Tang
Same here, because then I would get a slap on the wrist.
I hold an itch to respond to micro's comment better than you K.David.
Tang
I was really itchy ! Anyway, they truly are opposites design philosophies in every way possible.I hold an itch to respond to micro's comment better than you K.David.
Tang
Peter,
I think that this dubious definition is the source of many disagreements. Less sonic signature does not mean that it should carry more information. The process of sound reproduction is selective - the information carried in the recording is always manipulated, some information is fortunately lost during playback , as it would affect our enjoyment and illusion and other is enhanced, making it more easily perceived. One of the main problems of some digital is the excess of recording information, making it sound artificial and tiresome.
Consider for example, the stereo image. It would not exist as we like it if did not add the reflections in our room. It is known that this process will mask some information - it is why most professionals listen in the near field, in a very absorbent room.
The whole process of stereo is too imperfect and subjective to allow such dogmatic definitions. Except for those cases of evident coloration or distortion, rankings of sonic signature (our the damn neutrality) are meaningless as they depend mainly on listener preference.
Hmmm, so it’s closer to $144k euro for the plinth then6k for the technics motor and 100k for the plinth.
Hmmm, so it’s closer to $144k euro for the plinth then
i think we need to remember that SAT succeeded in peoples minds as an arm somewhat due to the outrageous price. not saying it did not get favorable endorsements too. it surely did. but that price did keep it exclusive.....and desired. an aspirational product.
then he brought out new arms at double that price. not sure if any sold at that $50k+ number......but likely they did. so we should not be surprised at the audacity to charge those prices.
i have to say i admire his confidence.
I listened to a direct comparison between a SAT and the top Graham with the same top cartridge. They sounded so different that I easily understood that someone loving the SAT sound could be disposed to pay the high price. If I was mainly an LP listener I would surely dedicate more time to the SAT.
I will wait for more data and information on the turntable. Is it its sound as revolutionary as that of the tonearm? Lets us hope that Mike Fremer will repeat his generous sharing of hirez files, perhaps recorded with his Continuum and the SAT.
Anyway I admire manufacturers that are brave enough to display their high prices openly in forums and dealer pages and do not cache themselves behind the argument that if you have to ask the price you can't afford it. My applause to Mark Gomez on this one.
$168,000 without tonearm for this turntable is so stupid I'd be laughing it it was actually funny. What a joke.
A bargain? Can't agrree.
I think it's basically a SAT plinth for the Technics mechanism+controller.
Well, sonically it can be very good but pricing it 2 or 3 times higher than almost all top turntables in the market needs not only courage but maybe a bit of insanity.
How much are the AS, Vygers ...etc which are all original designs and productions?
It's much, much cheaper than an AF0 at $ 400,000. In fact, it seems a bargain. Why is it a joke? For all we know, it may be an engineering marvel.