Review: Grand Prix Audio • Monaco 2.0 Turntable

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
Hello tima,

First Ockham, now Wittgenstein. Who’s next… Oprah?

Appeals to authority tend to only ignite an arms race of ever more esoteric sound-bites from persons living or dead. So rather than counter your Wittgensteins with a Badiou of my own (1), I’ll simply share a few of my favourite Wittgensteinisms, like this one:

“It is so characteristic, that just when the mechanics of reproduction are so vastly improved, there are fewer and fewer people who know how the music should be played.”

But the one possibly most relevant to subjective perceptual experience is surely this:

“Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.”

Having not heard the 2.0 and having only heard the 1.0 once (with the associated caveats of an unfamiliar system), more from me seems redundant. Despite the enjoyment of exchanging posts with you in this thread, I’ll make this my last.

As has been my main point during the latter parts of this discussion, if someone states “I hear X” or “I feel Y”, that is one thing. However, if someone states “I hear X and/or feel Y because Z” (i.e., we move beyond that which is suppositional to claims of proof), then that is another thing altogether.

And though it seems there may be worth in debating whether subjective perceptual experience and Monaco’s measurements constitute sufficient evidence for falsification of the assertion hyper accuracy and its first-order effects are free of higher-order effects of a problematic nature - effectively sending any counter arguments “up in smoke” (2) - it appears the issues related to that claim will not be solved by you and I trading inspirational quotes-of-the-day (as fun as that can be).

Better perhaps that those who find the claims made thus far of some merit follow up via subjective listening in which their own preferences and biases will be the ultimate arbiters of whether the 2.0 renders all other challengers defeated, or whether, as Roy Gregory intimated in his review, they’ll choose an alternative, even despite the impressive numbers.

Again, greatly appreciate the cordial manner in which you’ve expressed your ideas here.

Take care,

853guy


(1) Badiou argues Wittgenstein’s “what one cannot speak of and must therefore be silent” is essentially the reduction of the logical to the level of the rhetorical - i.e., language games in aphoristic form (it replaces the question of truth with that of meaning) - and that truth exists beyond the boundaries of both a Wittgensteinian philosophy of language and also, a Deleuzian philosophy of the body (see Badiou, A. Wittgenstein's Antiphilosophy. New York, Verso, 2011; and, Badiou, A. Being and Event. London, Bloomsbury, 2007). Likewise, while Wittgenstein defines language use as a species of intentional action, Žižek would argue one must step outside intentional human actions (vis-à-vis Lacan), and instead defines language use as expression of the death drive (see Allen, R; Turvey, M, (Eds.). Wittgenstein, Theory and the Arts. London, Routledge, 2001). Blah blah blah, right? In philosophy, as in hi-fi, opinions abound.

(2) As already mentioned, any higher-order effects of a problematic nature are likely only to be discovered with sample sizes of statistically significant numbers relative to time. Falsification of any assertion, after all, can only be considered to be true with respect to greater numbers of people and greater and greater durations of time. As you say, all we have are the claims that have thus far been made, which is also to say, we have a paucity of sufficient evidence for making claims worthy of anything approaching statistical robustness to validate those claims beyond purely subjective experience.

I suggest that the Wittgenstein quote on self deception, and perception secondly are part of the issue with large numbers of people perceiving things a certain way to reach statistical significance, and this being of any validity

The recent ‘Laurel versus Yanny’ controversy shows there may be both mechanical and perceptual reasons people hear something the way they do, I think this a most interesting observation about the population and our interpretation of what would seem to be objective reality at least in terms of audio.

Despite the fact that the actual word being synthetically spoken, was actually ‘Laurel’, a combination of human factors, recording factors and reproduction factors, make the perception of this ambiguous to the wider population

As a result people hear two total different and unrelated words despite the fact the parent stimulus was not.
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Did you get your upgrade yet? Comments?

Not yet, I've been out of town non stop with biz stuff and Alvin was in Munich when my table arrived...I expect in a few days, getting excited
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Dealer dropped off the Monaco 2.0 a few hours ago. And installed it.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

I'll comment a bit more soon. It's one of those on the first note you know it's greatly improved...
 

ashandger

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
406
174
348
Dealer dropped off the Monaco 2.0 a few hours ago. And installed it.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

I'll comment a bit more soon. It's one of those on the first note you know it's greatly improved...

Great stuff! Looking forward to hearing your impressions on the improvements. What arm and cartridge are you using....same as before?
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Great stuff! Looking forward to hearing your impressions on the improvements. What arm and cartridge are you using....same as before?

Yes everything the same. Only table changed. (Spiral Groove Centroid and Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement)
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Dealer dropped off the Monaco 2.0 a few hours ago. And installed it.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

I'll comment a bit more soon. It's one of those on the first note you know it's greatly improved...

A few listening hours now. First first impressions is much much more silent allowing the notes to be DRIVEN out. Also how it portrays everything is space...wider, deeper, higher but a more distinct placement. Everything in a better focus. Bass is deeper tighter with a drive, but it's really everything...not just the bass, piano notes, cymbals all have this same quality. It's one of those things that there is no need for a A-B test.
 

stsxerses

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2018
23
11
108
A few listening hours now. First first impressions is much much more silent allowing the notes to be DRIVEN out. Also how it portrays everything is space...wider, deeper, higher but a more distinct placement. Everything in a better focus. Bass is deeper tighter with a drive, but it's really everything...not just the bass, piano notes, cymbals all have this same quality. It's one of those things that there is no need for a A-B test.

Do you hear any difference in terms of the fullness of the bass/mid bass, slam/weight of sound and tonal density?
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Do you hear any difference in terms of the fullness of the bass/mid bass, slam/weight of sound and tonal density?

not really on fullness. Of course I never thought a issue was here on the Monaco 1.0. Slam and tonal colors yes. The dynamic thrust of each note as it impacts, peaks and tails off is fantastic...
 

stsxerses

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2018
23
11
108
not really on fullness. Of course I never thought a issue was here on the Monaco 1.0. Slam and tonal colors yes. The dynamic thrust of each note as it impacts, peaks and tails off is fantastic...

Great thanks for sharing. Reason for asking is that some listeners of the earlier Monaco TTs seem to feel it is a bit on the lean/cool side. I heard the Monaco 2.0 for the first time in Munich this year and was blown away...it was playing in two completely different systems (both unfamiliar to me) but I could hear the TT doing things I had not heard before. I didnt feel that the sound was in any way lacking the correct degree of fullness and tonal density but then I couldnt make a proper assessment without hearing in my own set up
 

ashandger

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
406
174
348
A few listening hours now. First first impressions is much much more silent allowing the notes to be DRIVEN out. Also how it portrays everything is space...wider, deeper, higher but a more distinct placement. Everything in a better focus. Bass is deeper tighter with a drive, but it's really everything...not just the bass, piano notes, cymbals all have this same quality. It's one of those things that there is no need for a A-B test.

Many thanks for the updates. Any thoughts on micro dynamics and transparency?
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Many thanks for the updates. Any thoughts on micro dynamics and transparency?

I can't say it's more transparent than before, I can say it's more resolute...seemingly due to a lower noise floor (which was awfully low before the upgrade). Micro/Macro it portrays dynamics different that anything I've heard before. In one of the reviews it talks about how a music note is composed. The strike, the rise in amplitude, the peak, the tail off...it's all clearly heard and conveyed in a way I haven't really heard in vinyl ever before.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
I can't say it's more transparent than before, I can say it's more resolute...seemingly due to a lower noise floor (which was awfully low before the upgrade). Micro/Macro it portrays dynamics different that anything I've heard before. In one of the reviews it talks about how a music note is composed. The strike, the rise in amplitude, the peak, the tail off...it's all clearly heard and conveyed in a way I haven't really heard in vinyl ever before.


That would make sense. IME, the more accurate the speed control, the better the SQ. Do you have any way to measure the actual speed, ( like the RPM app, although even this may not be accurate enough; probably need to measure to several decimal points) - might be interesting to see what the reported speed is. I would bet it is spot on. Very nice TT.
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
That would make sense. IME, the more accurate the speed control, the better the SQ. Do you have any way to measure the actual speed, ( like the RPM app, although even this may not be accurate enough; probably need to measure to several decimal points) - might be interesting to see what the reported speed is. I would bet it is spot on. Very nice TT.

Totally agree the more speed stable and accurate the turntable, the more likely it yields better sound quality.

I wonder if there is an app that let's you use the Monaco to test the accuracy of the gyroscope in an iphone? ;->
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
That sums it up nicely. Congratulations!

I have to say your review is spot on. I was so happy with my Monaco 1.0. Not a complaint in the world. Then I read your review. Then my dealer got his 2.0. It's quite a table !
 

XV-1

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
3,591
2,576
1,860
Sydney
Totally agree the more speed stable and accurate the turntable, the more likely it yields better sound quality.

I wonder if there is an app that let's you use the Monaco to test the accuracy of the gyroscope in an iphone? ;->

probably an oxymoron trying to test the accuracy on an iphone or any phone app.
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
I would only buy a DD turntable if the motor was a coreless design. From the website it is not clear that this TT fits that category. All the speed regulation in the world will not fix the inherent issues in a cored motor. Only a coreless motor can deliver continuous smooth torque.
 

ashandger

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
406
174
348
I can't say it's more transparent than before, I can say it's more resolute...seemingly due to a lower noise floor (which was awfully low before the upgrade). Micro/Macro it portrays dynamics different that anything I've heard before. In one of the reviews it talks about how a music note is composed. The strike, the rise in amplitude, the peak, the tail off...it's all clearly heard and conveyed in a way I haven't really heard in vinyl ever before.

Sounds great. Many thanks for the feedback.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing