Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH

A "digital release" is likely to be produced according to Redbook specifications. Then you are back to the same old hash. There are people in this universe (if you can imagine it) who prefer RBCD to LP, because they are obsessed with surface noise. If you refer to DVD-A or SACD "releases", there are lots of folks who prefer one or the other of those sources to LP. Then it boils down to a matter of opinion. But there are several posters on the Vinyl Asylum who use Tascam or Masterlink digital recordings to preserve their vinyl in hi-rez. Most claim that those (not too expensive) devices do generate copies that are indistinguishable from the LP source. I've heard some such recordings on a friend's rig, and they are indeed remarkable, but we never sat there and compared the digital recording to the original vinyl played on the same system. Mike Fremer appears to be someone who also believes that hi-rez digital reproduction captures the essence of the best vinyl reproduction. I don't think he mentioned what device he uses to make his digital recordings and at what resolution.

While a CD made from vinyl does not sound as good as the live source, it does sound better than commercial CDs for whatever reasons. I made a CD-R of Van Morrison's "Astral Weeks" (original Warners-7Arts label) for some Warner Brothers executives who told me it sounded much better than their commercial release...

"One thing IS apparent, listening to an MP3 on a cheap PC, is NOT a professionally accepted way of auditioning (anyone, correct me if I am wrong here) $20-120k components"

Could the point be that if a preference can be demonstrated with a recording on the lowly MP3 then it must be real?

"I'm also a bit dissapointed that the discussion here has been so civil. No death threats, name calling, etc. I guess there's the H-cat thread for that."

I'm thinking that perhaps the LP listener is a kinder, gentler sort of audiophile?

I really felt compelled to comment regarding the less than stellar stereophile review especially since I am one of the very few people that has spent some quality time listening to the Grand Prix Table.

I found it very interesting that Fremers review was almost the opposite of David Robins review in Positive fedback. Both use top class reference tables (Walker and Caliburn).

Fremer described sonic limitations, such as "somewhat cool, dry, harmonically somewhat bleached, reduced depth and air, tended toward the one dimensional, etc."

David Robinson raved about the table. He mentioned things like "emotionally connects me to the music. Excellent staging/imaging, Texture and nuance to burn, fusion of lushiness and harmonic rightness, belongs in the first rank of turntables."

Based on my experience listening to the table in my friend/dealers personal system, I for one do not hear anything that Fremer describes. Of course, I am not comparing the Grand Prix to anything and possibly missing some of the nuances. However, when listening to analog through the Grand Prix, I hear a fantastic sense of depth and spacial cues. Harmonics are so natural with you are there focus and 3 dimensionality. You can basically reach out and touch the performers. Couple that with see through transparency and a soooooo quiet black grainless backdrop.

The common denominator is that David Robinson's review table and the table that I am familiar with both use the Dynavector 507II arm and XV1S cartridge. I do find it hard to believe whether that can make the difference between both reviews.

Bkonig, yes I did replace my Acutus with the same arm and cartridge. The differences were not subtle:
The Acutus is an aural hologram.
The Monaco is a sonic time machine.