Grand Prix Monaco review in new Stereophile- OUCH


Anyone read Fremer's review of the Grand Prix Monaco in the latest Stereophile?

Ouch that has to hurt. I am familar with the design of this table, and of course on paper it seems groundbreaking, but if I were in the market for a $20K table, (I'm not) this review would completely kill my interest in this seemingly stellar product.

Any other opinions?

(actually this is a great issue of Stereophile - lots of gear I am intersted in)
emailists
Dear Grooves: +++++ " If one wishes for "accuracy," you're better off with a CD player, which "measures" far better than any turntable. " +++++

I don't mean it in that way, I speak of accuracy because reading your review and the white papers of the Monaco design the word accuracy takes a very wide meaning and along with that the Monaco people are experts on damping/vibrations/dissipations devices. His design was very well thinking, unfortunately I never had the opportunity hear it for to have a more precise idea of what you report on your review and what other report on different reviews on the Monaco.

Obviously the Caliburn is a top performer ( well at that price anithing must be. ) and between other advantages it has a vacuum hold down record that is a real advantage over any other TT design with out it.

Any way the Monaco is an audio item that any of us have to hear and it looks like a top TT alternative for any analog music lover.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Good for you, Rauliregas, for coming out and saying that you had not heard the Monaco.

Mr. Fremer, thanks a lot for taking the time to post the horse's-mouth info this discussion needed (and outing your nick).
I am sorry to disagree with you Mikey.I am entitled to my own opinion.
Understand,when I read how a product,like the "beautiful" Monaco does not sound so hot,and does not "appear" to be extremely costly,from a parts standpoint(at least not 20 grand),it is not too big a stretch to think it is over priced.I don't buy the direct drive reason for this either.Carbon fibre...maybe-:)
Looking at another very precise design,like an Oracle Delphi MK ( "what ever is the latest"),something I don't own btw,and seeing the Monaco costs FOUR times it's asking price,I feel(only an opinion)that the Monaco is way too expensive.
Both designs are precise,and beautifully made,but the Delphi "sounds good"!
Sorry,and I understand the "nickle defense" of a mfgr,but you owe your readership something as well!
No wonder High End is in the state it is in,and so many mfgrs are hurting!Do you remember the OLD TAS?I cannot believe "that" scribe would have had nothing to say about "this" asking price!
Sorry for the sarcasm,but I/we don't have to go gracefully into "over priced land" without an occassional objection!There was a time that the journalists of the day were on our(the consumer's)side!
BTW,I am not in condemnation of you,as a reviewer.Just your last post!It cannot be easy being in your shoes,and you "DO" do a credible job.
Best.
I think the simple answer (which unfortunatley isn't easy to do) is to let a mastering engineer hear the table and compare it to what's on the master tape.

There has to be some objective truth as to what provides the most faithful reproduction of the master tape. (objectivity in what is most faithful to live acoustic music is more difficult)

Perhaps an LP mastered from digital recording could be compared with the SACD release. In that instance, the SACD should be a closer estimation to what the 96 or 192K master sounds like rather than a downsampled CD.

Maybe even better would be a Linn records release that was offereed in LP and 96K/192K download because they seem to be offered in their native sample rate, and I read one post that seemed to indicate that those high res downloads sounded better decoded by a PS audio DLIII than the SACD's

Forgive the digital diatribe, I'm just trying to see if digital comparisons can help us make better assesments of our analog playback systems.
For the record, I was the guy that visited with Mr. Fremer and that owns the Monaco. First, let me say that he is an extremely nice guy and was kind enough to allow me to listen to albums at his place for an afternoon. Thanks again Mike.

Now, let me give you my thoughts on what I heard. As Mike points out, I unfortunatley did not hear the Caliburn and the Monaco together. I did listen to the Caliburn at his house (using the arm that came with the table) and it is a very fine sounding table. On its own, in a system that is very different from mine, there is no way that I am capable of comparing the two tables based on sound memory.

I did listen to 2 cds that Mr. Fremer put together. One is a comparison of the Caliburn, with the arm that comes with the table, compared to the Monaco with a different arm (I beleive the Graham Phantom). There is one song on that cd - Van Morrison (can't remember the song) The other cd is a compilation of rock, Jazz, easy listening and classical (great selection Michael!). On the first cd (which I listened to at Michael's house), I did hear a difference in the harmonics. The differences were noticable, but not night and day. Keep in mind that there were two very different arms and the comparison was between a $120k table and a $20k table.

With respect to the second cd, I have listend to it close to a dozen times on a very revealing system (Dartzeel preamp and amp and Evolution Acoustic MM3s) and I have to say that it took at least 6 very close listening sessions (going back and forth between the comparisons) and moving my listening seat to the nearfield (as my room is not treated) before I could hear any real difference. Now my ears are not nearly as well trained as Michael's, but I have been in this hobby a long time - listening to vinyl for 35 years, and I really had to strain to figure out the difference. I would describe the difference I heard as a very slight rounding over of the leading edge of the note. I'm afraid I did not, and do not, hear the dryness that Michael hears.

Over the years, I have been lucky enough to hear some of the finest turntables in the world (e.g., the SME 30, the Brinkmans, the Kuzmas, the Walker the Rockport and now the Caliburn). Each has its strong points and its shortcomings. What I heard in the Monaco was something really special. I think it is one of the most transparent and neutral turntables I have ever heard. It does not sound cold to me and to my ears does a fantastic job at harmonic development. Sometimes the piano sounds so real it is scary.

One thing I was wondering about is whether the cartridge used by Micheal was a good match for the table. I use the Dynavector XV-1s.

Bottomline, is the Monaco a match for the Caliburn? I don't know, I wasn't able to compare the 2 live and did not find the cds conclusive. One thing is for sure, there is no way I would spend $120k for a turntable. I do beleive that the Monaco is a great table that beats much more expensive tables I have heard. I had to laugh when I read some of the comments above that stated that the author was writing the turntable off their list because of the review. This is as bad as buying a turntable without hearing it because of a good review. As in every case, you need to listen to the equiptment with gear and software that you are familiar with. I would find it hard to believe that anyone could listen to the turntable in my system with the Dynavector cartridge and call it cold or harmonically challenged. Indeed, If some of you would like to join me for an evening to give a listen, you are more than welcome (assuming you bring the vino)