Actusreus. Indeed: this sounds premature. But it was a long night of listening...
And the process was repeated the next night - with exactly the same set of results and impressions. And the same head-scratching. At this point I'm going to be in danger of sleep-deprivation!
The salient differences were again a holographic presentation of music, regardless of genre (anything from 14th century plainsong to rock) and the strongest suspicion that the noise-floor was much lowered. Inner details better articulated, image height improved, and out-of-phase information greatly enhanced, all contributing to a sound that was immediately highly involving - none of this being particularly subtle.
The only observations I can make are these. The "arm" on the turntable is a thin wafer of aluminum. I don't recall the actual weight of the unit but it is only a few grams. Not much longer than the cartridge it rides on a jeweled pivot. I suppose, like all unipivot-type arms the setup is a critical matter. The design of the arm actually makes this rather easier than some I've used. As well, the "cables" from the cartridge (which are truly micro-fine) have to be very carefully dressed as any improper placement would probably cause a degree of drag.
What is left is a Shure V15 III with the most minimal mounting imaginable. It is somewhat difficult to envisage a more vestigial setup.
I believe this is the only matter of any importance, and that the lack of mass renders the lack of record support unimportant.
I have done a little reading on this system: the writings are very scant, and some of the reports are as one might expect) quite damning. These led me to expect a lackluster result - hence my surprise.
I actually hesitated more than once before committing anything to print; my suspicion was that I would be accused of infatuation or worse! But, the truth is simply what I hear. Unfortunately there has been next to no discussion of this turntable on the Net, and I'm beginning to think this is a real shame.
The idea of 'massless' arms and linear tracking has been well explored (I used an Eminent Technology air-bearing arm with much pleasure for quite some time) and I believe the concept has much merit.
Mr Gammon, the designer of the Transcriber, has not been always kindly dealt with by the audio press, and again I am beginning to think that this is a shame. If I recall, he was an early pioneer of close to zero-mass arms, and I believe he was on the right track.
Perhaps this execution was simply too much of a departure; and perhaps the 'arm' setup was daunting. I have no idea what would happen if I set the arm up incorrectly (and don't have much of a desire to do so) but perhaps the sound would be greatly impaired if I did so.
There. I've got my observations off my chest! I fear there won't be too much discussion on this and that's regrettable. I, for one, think that this turntable might just have been a minor masterpiece.
And the process was repeated the next night - with exactly the same set of results and impressions. And the same head-scratching. At this point I'm going to be in danger of sleep-deprivation!
The salient differences were again a holographic presentation of music, regardless of genre (anything from 14th century plainsong to rock) and the strongest suspicion that the noise-floor was much lowered. Inner details better articulated, image height improved, and out-of-phase information greatly enhanced, all contributing to a sound that was immediately highly involving - none of this being particularly subtle.
The only observations I can make are these. The "arm" on the turntable is a thin wafer of aluminum. I don't recall the actual weight of the unit but it is only a few grams. Not much longer than the cartridge it rides on a jeweled pivot. I suppose, like all unipivot-type arms the setup is a critical matter. The design of the arm actually makes this rather easier than some I've used. As well, the "cables" from the cartridge (which are truly micro-fine) have to be very carefully dressed as any improper placement would probably cause a degree of drag.
What is left is a Shure V15 III with the most minimal mounting imaginable. It is somewhat difficult to envisage a more vestigial setup.
I believe this is the only matter of any importance, and that the lack of mass renders the lack of record support unimportant.
I have done a little reading on this system: the writings are very scant, and some of the reports are as one might expect) quite damning. These led me to expect a lackluster result - hence my surprise.
I actually hesitated more than once before committing anything to print; my suspicion was that I would be accused of infatuation or worse! But, the truth is simply what I hear. Unfortunately there has been next to no discussion of this turntable on the Net, and I'm beginning to think this is a real shame.
The idea of 'massless' arms and linear tracking has been well explored (I used an Eminent Technology air-bearing arm with much pleasure for quite some time) and I believe the concept has much merit.
Mr Gammon, the designer of the Transcriber, has not been always kindly dealt with by the audio press, and again I am beginning to think that this is a shame. If I recall, he was an early pioneer of close to zero-mass arms, and I believe he was on the right track.
Perhaps this execution was simply too much of a departure; and perhaps the 'arm' setup was daunting. I have no idea what would happen if I set the arm up incorrectly (and don't have much of a desire to do so) but perhaps the sound would be greatly impaired if I did so.
There. I've got my observations off my chest! I fear there won't be too much discussion on this and that's regrettable. I, for one, think that this turntable might just have been a minor masterpiece.