OK, so you didn't 'attack' me but you certainly spewed a great deal of sarcasm. I never said that comparing MP3s was the way to shop for audio gear. However, I think it was worth pointing out that a number of people were able to characterize the sound of an unidentified turntable using MP3s and that the description they gave correlated with my findings listening "live."
As for the accelerometer test: I used a pair of calibrated B&K accelerometers and mounted one on the GPA's top shelf and one on the top shelf of my reference rack . I ran a frequency sweep at 89dB played through the speakers and read the recorded results. I affixed the accelerometers to the stands and recorded the results. Where they came from is not relevant. These are not 'secret' devices nor was the "fix" in. I made sure to reverse the accelerometers to make sure the results were consistent with both and they were. If you'd like to see them, I'd be happy to supply them to you.
Mr. Lloyd requested that I review the 'table on his stand and that's what I did. No doubt as with any mass loaded, suspensionless design, the platform upon which it's placed will have an effect on the sound, one that's greater than using a 'table with a suspension such as the Merill.
I did not discuss these results with Mr. Lloyd because the review was of the 'table, not the stands. The results I got were not discussed with Mr. Lloyd because they were not part of the review and had they been, they would have been published. I understand I was opening a can of worms bringing this up on this forum and I discussed it with JA who gave me the go ahead after I explained the methodology. What I heard correlates with what I measured though the listening came first. The masking of low level decay information and harmonic development is what you'd expect from a support resonating in the midband.
Look up "shaker table" on the internet and see what it does and what it is used for. It is a large lateral excursion device used to test products under 'earthquake' like conditions. My point was, and remains that such a test is peripheral to the use for which an audio stand is intended, which is to isolate from airborn room energy created by loudspeakers (as well as from energy coming up from the floor through the stand). I said that the GPA stand did a good job of isolating in the very low frequencies but that as the sweep tone increased in frequency and reached the midrange, the stand's top platform exhibited a relatively high amplitude, wide-band resonance that is easily seen in the recorded graph. What's more, a lightweight, undamped carbon fiber platform would be expected to exhibit just such behavior.
I did not and do not "reject" Mr. Lloyds measurements. They are valid for what they are measuring, which is the stand's ability to reject low frequency, wide excursion lateral movements. That's what a shaker 'table measures. The GPA stands do extremely well in such tests. But what does that have to say about how a stand deals with airborn audio frequencies?
I listened before making these measurements. The measurements tend to correlate with what I heard, not vice-versa. I would much rather have heard a glorious sound and gotten equally glorious measured results. I didn't.
However, the measurements did corroborate both the exception sound produced by the Caliburn and they did indicate that the claims made by the manufacturer for the stand's and 'table's isolating abilities were true. Had they not been, I would have revealed that.
Please reconsider before making charges about my honesty or ascribing dark ulterior motives to what I've reported. I'm afraid one of the reasons too many reviews write happy-talk non-critical reviews is that they don't wish to be made uncomfortable by the kinds of charges you've leveled against me.
The Grand Prix 'table will get a Class A rating because it deserves one. However, it, in combination with its stand (recommended by the manufacturer) does have a particular sound that I feel I have described accurately.
My findings seem to differ from those of David Robinson. It will be up to readers to listen for themselves and decide whose are more accurate.
"Wow! Now we can compare two state of the art turntables with an MP3 file sent by e-mail. Thank goodness for the internet. Just think about it, I can have a dealer set up two systems, send me an MP3 of the systems via e-mail and purchase the better one without ever leaving my home to actually go LISTEN to the products. You're on to something Mikey! Look- I know you actually tell people to go listen, and some people such as Triode are smart enough to actually go and listen, but enough of trying to validate the results of your review by e-mailing people an MP3 file. There are just too many variables to make it a credible process.
With respect to you last post, there are a couple of obvious questions that struck me. How the heck did you know what you were measuring with respect to the stands and armboards if you are not an engineer of any type? (Kind of like me playing with an EKG machine and telling people their heart is in trouble.) I thought JA did all the measuring for Stereophile? Did an outside party come in and guide you through the process? If so, shouldn't you disclose who they were and if they have any affiliations in the industry? Did you ever use the Monaco on another stand or put the Merrill on the Grand Prix stand to see if it was really the possible cause of some of the faults you heard? Did you ever discuss these results and the measurement procedures to obtain them with Mr.Lloyd? I'm sure he'd like to know that his stands "sung like a Diva". How can you reject his methodology for measuring his own stands and validate your own methodology and want to send out the results via e-mail when the whole procedure appears suspect? If you want to review "honestly and completely", then disclose the entire measurement procedure or don't mention it at all. Anything else is disingenuous since you've reached your own personal conclusions from this process on how the turntable sounds.
I really look forward to reading your columns every month Mr. Fremer, honestly, but you really lost me with this one."
As for the accelerometer test: I used a pair of calibrated B&K accelerometers and mounted one on the GPA's top shelf and one on the top shelf of my reference rack . I ran a frequency sweep at 89dB played through the speakers and read the recorded results. I affixed the accelerometers to the stands and recorded the results. Where they came from is not relevant. These are not 'secret' devices nor was the "fix" in. I made sure to reverse the accelerometers to make sure the results were consistent with both and they were. If you'd like to see them, I'd be happy to supply them to you.
Mr. Lloyd requested that I review the 'table on his stand and that's what I did. No doubt as with any mass loaded, suspensionless design, the platform upon which it's placed will have an effect on the sound, one that's greater than using a 'table with a suspension such as the Merill.
I did not discuss these results with Mr. Lloyd because the review was of the 'table, not the stands. The results I got were not discussed with Mr. Lloyd because they were not part of the review and had they been, they would have been published. I understand I was opening a can of worms bringing this up on this forum and I discussed it with JA who gave me the go ahead after I explained the methodology. What I heard correlates with what I measured though the listening came first. The masking of low level decay information and harmonic development is what you'd expect from a support resonating in the midband.
Look up "shaker table" on the internet and see what it does and what it is used for. It is a large lateral excursion device used to test products under 'earthquake' like conditions. My point was, and remains that such a test is peripheral to the use for which an audio stand is intended, which is to isolate from airborn room energy created by loudspeakers (as well as from energy coming up from the floor through the stand). I said that the GPA stand did a good job of isolating in the very low frequencies but that as the sweep tone increased in frequency and reached the midrange, the stand's top platform exhibited a relatively high amplitude, wide-band resonance that is easily seen in the recorded graph. What's more, a lightweight, undamped carbon fiber platform would be expected to exhibit just such behavior.
I did not and do not "reject" Mr. Lloyds measurements. They are valid for what they are measuring, which is the stand's ability to reject low frequency, wide excursion lateral movements. That's what a shaker 'table measures. The GPA stands do extremely well in such tests. But what does that have to say about how a stand deals with airborn audio frequencies?
I listened before making these measurements. The measurements tend to correlate with what I heard, not vice-versa. I would much rather have heard a glorious sound and gotten equally glorious measured results. I didn't.
However, the measurements did corroborate both the exception sound produced by the Caliburn and they did indicate that the claims made by the manufacturer for the stand's and 'table's isolating abilities were true. Had they not been, I would have revealed that.
Please reconsider before making charges about my honesty or ascribing dark ulterior motives to what I've reported. I'm afraid one of the reasons too many reviews write happy-talk non-critical reviews is that they don't wish to be made uncomfortable by the kinds of charges you've leveled against me.
The Grand Prix 'table will get a Class A rating because it deserves one. However, it, in combination with its stand (recommended by the manufacturer) does have a particular sound that I feel I have described accurately.
My findings seem to differ from those of David Robinson. It will be up to readers to listen for themselves and decide whose are more accurate.
"Wow! Now we can compare two state of the art turntables with an MP3 file sent by e-mail. Thank goodness for the internet. Just think about it, I can have a dealer set up two systems, send me an MP3 of the systems via e-mail and purchase the better one without ever leaving my home to actually go LISTEN to the products. You're on to something Mikey! Look- I know you actually tell people to go listen, and some people such as Triode are smart enough to actually go and listen, but enough of trying to validate the results of your review by e-mailing people an MP3 file. There are just too many variables to make it a credible process.
With respect to you last post, there are a couple of obvious questions that struck me. How the heck did you know what you were measuring with respect to the stands and armboards if you are not an engineer of any type? (Kind of like me playing with an EKG machine and telling people their heart is in trouble.) I thought JA did all the measuring for Stereophile? Did an outside party come in and guide you through the process? If so, shouldn't you disclose who they were and if they have any affiliations in the industry? Did you ever use the Monaco on another stand or put the Merrill on the Grand Prix stand to see if it was really the possible cause of some of the faults you heard? Did you ever discuss these results and the measurement procedures to obtain them with Mr.Lloyd? I'm sure he'd like to know that his stands "sung like a Diva". How can you reject his methodology for measuring his own stands and validate your own methodology and want to send out the results via e-mail when the whole procedure appears suspect? If you want to review "honestly and completely", then disclose the entire measurement procedure or don't mention it at all. Anything else is disingenuous since you've reached your own personal conclusions from this process on how the turntable sounds.
I really look forward to reading your columns every month Mr. Fremer, honestly, but you really lost me with this one."
