With all of this talk of a "repeat" for 2011, I need to comment that the Tri-Planar has been wronglly perceived as the red-headed step-child in all of this discussion - much as I have tried through all of this to emphasize otherwise.
The Tri-Planar is (to my ears), every bit as valid a reference component as anything I've heard from Frank's body of work.
Much as I tried to paint this otherwise, the Tri-Planar has all but been ignored in these discussions.
Another obvious contender is the DaVinci. Considering the lack of "finality" of any of these comparisons, I would argue in favor of adding a different arm in the mix - IF we do another tonearm event next year.
As far as the comparisons in Steve Dobbins' room are concerned, I heard several critiques of how much real information could be taken away from that demonstration. Sound familiar?
All of these comparisons are inherrently flawed. Perhaps Dan_ed, Palasr or someone else can comment, as: (1) I didn't witness any of this, and (2) it's not my place to comment.
The takeaway from all of this, is that these are show conditions, with varying samples, and only a general sense of what this gear sounds like can be ascertained.
So ... what's the point of all of this? I think the biggest takeaway is that we can build relationships with fellow audiophiles which can better serve us as in the future.
If, for example Dre_J, Lewm, and David Shreve come away with similar observations from an event they've all attended, then they form a small circle, whereupon future observations have a reference point and validity to them.
When Peter and I started Redpoint in 2001, there was an uncanny consistency in our descriptions of our design prototypes, as well as how those changes either served or detracted from faithfulness to musical reproduction.
This was across a 900 mile distance, with us running considerably different systems. This drove our development in a consistent direction - albeit with the huge attendant shipping expenses resulting from our physical separation.
So, the way I look at this, the key takeaway is what we learn about each other, rather than what we learn about specific pieces of gear under adverse conditions.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
The Tri-Planar is (to my ears), every bit as valid a reference component as anything I've heard from Frank's body of work.
Much as I tried to paint this otherwise, the Tri-Planar has all but been ignored in these discussions.
Another obvious contender is the DaVinci. Considering the lack of "finality" of any of these comparisons, I would argue in favor of adding a different arm in the mix - IF we do another tonearm event next year.
As far as the comparisons in Steve Dobbins' room are concerned, I heard several critiques of how much real information could be taken away from that demonstration. Sound familiar?
All of these comparisons are inherrently flawed. Perhaps Dan_ed, Palasr or someone else can comment, as: (1) I didn't witness any of this, and (2) it's not my place to comment.
The takeaway from all of this, is that these are show conditions, with varying samples, and only a general sense of what this gear sounds like can be ascertained.
So ... what's the point of all of this? I think the biggest takeaway is that we can build relationships with fellow audiophiles which can better serve us as in the future.
If, for example Dre_J, Lewm, and David Shreve come away with similar observations from an event they've all attended, then they form a small circle, whereupon future observations have a reference point and validity to them.
When Peter and I started Redpoint in 2001, there was an uncanny consistency in our descriptions of our design prototypes, as well as how those changes either served or detracted from faithfulness to musical reproduction.
This was across a 900 mile distance, with us running considerably different systems. This drove our development in a consistent direction - albeit with the huge attendant shipping expenses resulting from our physical separation.
So, the way I look at this, the key takeaway is what we learn about each other, rather than what we learn about specific pieces of gear under adverse conditions.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier