Review: Grand Prix Audio • Monaco 2.0 Turntable

[tima]

My Monaco 1.0 is getting packed up by my dealer today for the 2.0 upgrade...I can't wait to hear it

Wonderful! Of course, we look forward to your impressions.

 

[tima]

Is there anyYuja Wang on vinyl?

Kind regards,
Tang

Not that I know about. The way i cope with that is Arthur Rubinstein.

 

[tima]

...

1) Coreless/slotless motors that have continuous torque (i.e. almost no torque ripple) and no cogging. This is still a rarity (not 100% sure this Monaco has a motor like this even) and not found in most TTs today. ...

Hi - I believe the Monaco 2.0 does have a coreless/slotless motor and no cogging.

 

[853guy]

I agree with the direction you are taking the discussion 853, the potential presence of higher order effects that are seemingly vanishingly small but can have serious sonic consequences. It is interesting to note that there was a kind of evolution in DD from the early days to the "end" times in the mid 1980s in Japan. One of the things realized was that a system with too tight a grip that was constantly correcting even the smallest deviations (i.e "hunting") gave stellar wow and flutter numbers and on a macroscopic level perfect speed control but led to an edgy sound not unlike what is heard from distortions of other kinds of electronics (digital sources and amplification).

Also, it was not appreciated at first that a standard iron pole motor is not ideal for a smooth and continuous torque delivery...again macroscopically it was fine but on a moment by moment basis the torque was not constant and thus the drive to spin the platter was not constant. This effect was largely smoothed out with belts and heavy platters so it was less of a concern to that crowd...and they were ok with a sound that is not ultra precise.

Three evolutions hit the late stage development of Japanese TTs that went largely unnoticed by the western belt loving world:

1) Coreless/slotless motors that have continuous torque (i.e. almost no torque ripple) and no cogging. This is still a rarity (not 100% sure this Monaco has a motor like this even) and not found in most TTs today. Interestingly, Nakamichi even went this direction with their famous cassette decks, ones like the famous Dragon and ZX-9 (both used a capstan motor that was coreless/slotless and dubbed "super linear"...a derivative of this motor was also used in the famous TX-1000 TT), that are widely regarded among the best of the best for cassette tape. They wisely realized that no matter how good your control system is it cannot correct speed fluctuations properly that come from the motor itself and like jitter for digital, the microscopic fluctuations in time matter greatly to the sound quality.

2) Improved/nested control loops. Kenwood in their late TTs (starting with the L-07) used a loop within a loop with a loose/tight control. They also coupled this with a relatively heavy platter (see point 3) to further smooth with some inertia thus triggering correction less frequently and less aggressively. JVC pioneered (Yamaha also used) the bi-directional servo that pushed and pulled the platter to minimize over/undershoot. These strategies were employed to eliminate "hunting".

3) Moving to heavier platters. It was realized that a higher mass platter makes it easier for the servos to do their job and likely to engage less frequently. Kenwood had a 5Kg platter, Yamaha had a 6kg platter (with the option of a massive 18Kg platter). Several other makers went to heavier platters as well.

I think these developments helped to address many of the unintended consequences of early DD decisions as a deeper understanding of what was happening with motor control systems emerged. I am not sure that the Monaco has learned all of these lessons. Interestingly, the Brinkmann Bardo and Oasis use some of the knowledge above but in some unusual ways. The motor is low torque and they rely more on platter mass for stable speed (more like a belt drive) but have a correction system unlike most belters. It sounds quite good that TT.

As to your lathe argument, I believe that you should control what you can on the reproduction end. Each record will have some relative fluctuation in the speed around 33 1/3 that comes from the lathe inaccuracy...however, you have no idea what this distribution might be and any attempt to measure it would be convoluted with the measurement system (assuming you would need to turn the record to measure it...perhaps there is a way to see this fluctuation another way...with laser interferrometry perhaps? But then you would need steady tones cut into the record and look at inconsistencies in the interferrometric pattern). So, each record would then theoretically interact differently with your TT and, as you have noted, in an unpredictable and higher order manner. So, IMO, all you can do is minimize the variation on your end as you have no control of what comes to you and it will be constantly variable. By minimizing on your end it seems to me that you are in effect limiting the interaction that leads to higher order effects.

Just my take on it.

Hi morricab,

Hope you're well.

Does “minimising on (our) end” necessarily mean a turntable of greater-than-average speed accuracy, or a turntable of lesser-than-average peak deviations, or both? Or does it mean a turntable capable of distributing errors in a manner more psychologically acceptable to our ear/brain mechanism?

As you intimate, I’ve heard several early iterations of direct-drive turntables that both impressed me and left me emotionally disengaged at the same time, though of course, I cannot say with any certainty that my emotional subjective perception was therefore the result of the direct-drive topology itself. And I certainly cannot say that a turntable that is both low in errors of speed accuracy and peak deviations in-and-of-itself will therefore result in greater subjective engagement.

Richard E. Bellman was a mathematician working in the area of control theory and dynamic programming. While investigating the problem caused by an increase in volume associated with adding extra dimensions to a mathematical space, he realised that (basically) for each additional dimension, the amount of data needed to draw any statistically significant findings grew exponentially and disproportionately (not linearly) relative to the additional dimension, leading to an increase in complexity (and therefore, higher and higher-order effects). He called this the curse of dimensionality.

In other words, for each additional variable, complexity grows in ways that can no longer be predicted nor understood by reference to first-order effects. Parsimony of data points becomes insufficient for making observations of any utility value, because the interaction of higher-order effects cannot be predicted ahead of time, even in cases in which the observer is aware of the first-order effects.

Again, to return to the notion of error distribution rather than error averaging, the problem for us, especially when it comes to turntable speed accuracy/peak deviation, is that with each incremental decimation of measurement, we need higher and higher levels of statistical depth to avoid the averaging of errors (to the point where we believe there are none, or at the very least, to the point they cannot be detected). However, given the ear/brain’s ability to discriminate timing errors that exceed the Fourier uncertainty limit, any errors associated with the timing cues inherent in musical replay will not manifest themselves under errors of speed accuracy (given that the “error” associated with a record that spins consistently at 33.3334 rpm will likely be much less discernible by the listener relative to that same record spinning consistently at 33.3333), only under errors of peak deviation and their distribution.

However, if peak deviation is calculated using standard deviation, the result will only ever be an average number that unfortunately tells us nothing about the distribution of those deviations. The asymmetrical will be shuffled into a pretty bell curve, and we will be content that any peak deviations are therefore relatively benign and undetectable. Again, if it’s true the ear/brain mechanism has detection capabilities beyond the uncertainty limit, and therefore, more sensitive to individuated peak deviation errors rather than overall speed accuracy errors, we would do well to use non-Gaussian models to avoid meaningful deviations and their distribution being dismissed as non-consequential for music replay. (1)

Regardless of the import of any of the above, a manufacturer’s measurements, a reviewer’s impressions, or an enthusiast’s recommendation - or any multiples thereof - still fall well short of providing a pool of corroborative data for making claims of correlation, let alone causality. Again, if we are to invoke science to support our subjective perceptions, then we must also accept that science demands something rather more robust than many individuals making inferences of certainty to justify pre-existing biases or preferences.

Best,

853guy



(1) We would possibly also do well to factor in the variables of whether or not any measurements gathered are with or without a record playing, the weight of the record, the dynamic range of the record, and the tracking force of the cart. Stylus drag is a phenomenon oft mentioned but again, with a paucity of data surrounding it. Again, given my preference for vinyl in many but not all cases, I would love to see more research apropos vinyl replay, and the fact Monaco are attempting to make measurements is commendable. But data points are not the same as data sets, and data sets do not equal statistically significant findings. We have a lot of the former - I would (eventually?) like to see more of the latter.

 

[microstrip]

Hi morricab,

Hope you're well.

Does “minimising on (our) end” necessarily mean a turntable of greater-than-average speed accuracy, or a turntable of lesser-than-average peak deviations, or both? Or does it mean a turntable capable of distributing errors in a manner more psychologically acceptable to our ear/brain mechanism?

As you intimate, I’ve heard several early iterations of direct-drive turntables that both impressed me and left me emotionally disengaged at the same time, though of course, I cannot say with any certainty that my emotional subjective perception was therefore the result of the direct-drive topology itself. And I certainly cannot say that a turntable that is both low in errors of speed accuracy and peak deviations in-and-of-itself will therefore result in greater subjective engagement.

Richard E. Bellman was a mathematician working in the area of control theory and dynamic programming. While investigating the problem caused by an increase in volume associated with adding extra dimensions to a mathematical space, he realised that (basically) for each additional dimension, the amount of data needed to draw any statistically significant findings grew exponentially and disproportionately (not linearly) relative to the additional dimension, leading to an increase in complexity (and therefore, higher and higher-order effects). He called this the curse of dimensionality.

In other words, for each additional variable, complexity grows in ways that can no longer be predicted nor understood by reference to first-order effects. Parsimony of data points becomes insufficient for making observations of any utility value, because the interaction of higher-order effects cannot be predicted ahead of time, even in cases in which the observer is aware of the first-order effects.

Again, to return to the notion of error distribution rather than error averaging, the problem for us, especially when it comes to turntable speed accuracy/peak deviation, is that with each incremental decimation of measurement, we need higher and higher levels of statistical depth to avoid the averaging of errors (to the point where we believe there are none, or at the very least, to the point they cannot be detected). However, given the ear/brain’s ability to discriminate timing errors that exceed the Fourier uncertainty limit, any errors associated with the timing cues inherent in musical replay will not manifest themselves under errors of speed accuracy (given that the “error” associated with a record that spins consistently at 33.3334 rpm will likely be much less discernible by the listener relative to that same record spinning consistently at 33.3333), only under errors of peak deviation and their distribution.

However, if peak deviation is calculated using standard deviation, the result will only ever be an average number that unfortunately tells us nothing about the distribution of those deviations. The asymmetrical will be shuffled into a pretty bell curve, and we will be content that any peak deviations are therefore relatively benign and undetectable. Again, if it’s true the ear/brain mechanism has detection capabilities beyond the uncertainty limit, and therefore, more sensitive to individuated peak deviation errors rather than overall speed accuracy errors, we would do well to use non-Gaussian models to avoid meaningful deviations and their distribution being dismissed as non-consequential for music replay. (1)

Regardless of the import of any of the above, a manufacturer’s measurements, a reviewer’s impressions, or an enthusiast’s recommendation - or any multiples thereof - still fall well short of providing a pool of corroborative data for making claims of correlation, let alone causality. Again, if we are to invoke science to support our subjective perceptions, then we must also accept that science demands something rather more robust than many individuals making inferences of certainty to justify pre-existing biases or preferences.

Best,

853guy



(1) We would possibly also do well to factor in the variables of whether or not any measurements gathered are with or without a record playing, the weight of the record, the dynamic range of the record, and the tracking force of the cart. Stylus drag is a phenomenon oft mentioned but again, with a paucity of data surrounding it. Again, given my preference for vinyl in many but not all cases, I would love to see more research apropos vinyl replay, and the fact Monaco are attempting to make measurements is commendable. But data points are not the same as data sets, and data sets do not equal statistically significant findings. We have a lot of the former - I would (eventually?) like to see more of the latter.

Great post 853guy. I could not resist highlighting the summary!

 

[morricab]

Hi morricab,

Hope you're well.

Does “minimising on (our) end” necessarily mean a turntable of greater-than-average speed accuracy, or a turntable of lesser-than-average peak deviations, or both? Or does it mean a turntable capable of distributing errors in a manner more psychologically acceptable to our ear/brain mechanism?

As you intimate, I’ve heard several early iterations of direct-drive turntables that both impressed me and left me emotionally disengaged at the same time, though of course, I cannot say with any certainty that my emotional subjective perception was therefore the result of the direct-drive topology itself. And I certainly cannot say that a turntable that is both low in errors of speed accuracy and peak deviations in-and-of-itself will therefore result in greater subjective engagement.

Richard E. Bellman was a mathematician working in the area of control theory and dynamic programming. While investigating the problem caused by an increase in volume associated with adding extra dimensions to a mathematical space, he realised that (basically) for each additional dimension, the amount of data needed to draw any statistically significant findings grew exponentially and disproportionately (not linearly) relative to the additional dimension, leading to an increase in complexity (and therefore, higher and higher-order effects). He called this the curse of dimensionality.

In other words, for each additional variable, complexity grows in ways that can no longer be predicted nor understood by reference to first-order effects. Parsimony of data points becomes insufficient for making observations of any utility value, because the interaction of higher-order effects cannot be predicted ahead of time, even in cases in which the observer is aware of the first-order effects.

Again, to return to the notion of error distribution rather than error averaging, the problem for us, especially when it comes to turntable speed accuracy/peak deviation, is that with each incremental decimation of measurement, we need higher and higher levels of statistical depth to avoid the averaging of errors (to the point where we believe there are none, or at the very least, to the point they cannot be detected). However, given the ear/brain’s ability to discriminate timing errors that exceed the Fourier uncertainty limit, any errors associated with the timing cues inherent in musical replay will not manifest themselves under errors of speed accuracy (given that the “error” associated with a record that spins consistently at 33.3334 rpm will likely be much less discernible by the listener relative to that same record spinning consistently at 33.3333), only under errors of peak deviation and their distribution.

However, if peak deviation is calculated using standard deviation, the result will only ever be an average number that unfortunately tells us nothing about the distribution of those deviations. The asymmetrical will be shuffled into a pretty bell curve, and we will be content that any peak deviations are therefore relatively benign and undetectable. Again, if it’s true the ear/brain mechanism has detection capabilities beyond the uncertainty limit, and therefore, more sensitive to individuated peak deviation errors rather than overall speed accuracy errors, we would do well to use non-Gaussian models to avoid meaningful deviations and their distribution being dismissed as non-consequential for music replay. (1)

Regardless of the import of any of the above, a manufacturer’s measurements, a reviewer’s impressions, or an enthusiast’s recommendation - or any multiples thereof - still fall well short of providing a pool of corroborative data for making claims of correlation, let alone causality. Again, if we are to invoke science to support our subjective perceptions, then we must also accept that science demands something rather more robust than many individuals making inferences of certainty to justify pre-existing biases or preferences.

Best,

853guy



(1) We would possibly also do well to factor in the variables of whether or not any measurements gathered are with or without a record playing, the weight of the record, the dynamic range of the record, and the tracking force of the cart. Stylus drag is a phenomenon oft mentioned but again, with a paucity of data surrounding it. Again, given my preference for vinyl in many but not all cases, I would love to see more research apropos vinyl replay, and the fact Monaco are attempting to make measurements is commendable. But data points are not the same as data sets, and data sets do not equal statistically significant findings. We have a lot of the former - I would (eventually?) like to see more of the latter.

I would say that average speed is probably only moderately important and short moment by moment peaks more so but what I think is even more critical is the Frequency of fluctuations. So, if the speed is continuously fluctuating (i.e. never going a steady speed) this will be more damaging than one that is running steady at a slightly wrong speed. The amplitude of those fluctuations might also be critical but a tightly regulated system will likely only see slight deviations from the target speed but frequent corrections of over and undershoot. This "hunting" was often blamed for mediocre early DD sound. Another source of continuous variability is the motor itself. Only a motor with little to no torque ripple can have truly smooth speed delivery. All others will cog or have torque ripple as a consequence of using iron poles in the motor. This will means the motor is always somewhat slowing or accelerting the platter. Speed control cannot correct this completely as it is inherent in the motor design. Long, slow drifts in speed are probably much harder to detect. Of course a peak deviation of a few hz is likely to be audible around 1Khz but not at 50Hz. Average speed being off will affect the pitch of all playback and could even sound "fast" or "slow" but has to be off a fair amount for most people to hear it well. So, IMO, it is the frequency of moment by moment fluctuations in speed that are most critical. I think this is why high mass TTs are often regarded as SOTA...they might not be right on target but they drift slowly and this is not so readily heard. DDs with heavy platters and well thought out control also deliver excellent sound because they incorporte motors that have little torque ripple and can therefore be inherently smooth...then it is up to the controller to get it right or mess it up. I am not sure an optical encoder is sufficient for this and if it prevents over and undershoot. The better sounding strategies were things like double PLL where you had tight/loose control (kenwood) and bi-directional servos that provide push and pull correction (JVC and Yamaha). Denon used what was essentially a magnetic encoder with thousands of lines per rotation as well...however, I think the motors were not of the torque ripple free sort. Brinkmann has put a spin by making a quite low torque DD and high mass to give something like Nottingham does with a belt drive. Having heard the Bardo in a customers system I can say this seems to be a pretty good strategy.

I think consideration of needle drag adds a third variable, unless the drive system has suficient torque or inertia (how many KG must hte platter be??) that it is truly inconsequential. I don't know this answer but it must be considered a random smear of a randomly smeared recording.

Since i think frequency of fluctuation is more important than the degree of deviation (either average or instantaneous) then one should look at a histogram of fluctuations and their amplitudes and see how universally praised TTs differ in this regard from middle of the road peers and see if there is any correlation with what we hear. A big belt-drive Micro or American Sound might show more drift but far fewer rapid fluctuations from their cheaper competition. I know that Continuum spent a huge amount of money on the motor and drive control for the Caliburn (I was told $8K...their cost). Even though it was belt drive they used a coreless/slotless motor for maximum linear torque and an expensive Sinusoidal commutation controller. Clearly some of the big boys think smoothness matters just as much as accuracy.

 

[tima]

I would say that average speed is probably only moderately important and short moment by moment peaks more so but what I think is even more critical is the Frequency of fluctuations. So, if the speed is continuously fluctuating (i.e. never going a steady speed) this will be more damaging than one that is running steady at a slightly wrong speed. The amplitude of those fluctuations might also be critical but a tightly regulated system will likely only see slight deviations from the target speed but frequent corrections of over and undershoot. This "hunting" was often blamed for mediocre early DD sound. Another source of continuous variability is the motor itself. Only a motor with little to no torque ripple can have truly smooth speed delivery. All others will cog or have torque ripple as a consequence of using iron poles in the motor. This will means the motor is always somewhat slowing or accelerting the platter. Speed control cannot correct this completely as it is inherent in the motor design. Long, slow drifts in speed are probably much harder to detect. Of course a peak deviation of a few hz is likely to be audible around 1Khz but not at 50Hz. Average speed being off will affect the pitch of all playback and could even sound "fast" or "slow" but has to be off a fair amount for most people to hear it well. So, IMO, it is the frequency of moment by moment fluctuations in speed that are most critical. I think this is why high mass TTs are often regarded as SOTA...they might not be right on target but they drift slowly and this is not so readily heard. DDs with heavy platters and well thought out control also deliver excellent sound because they incorporte motors that have little torque ripple and can therefore be inherently smooth...then it is up to the controller to get it right or mess it up. I am not sure an optical encoder is sufficient for this and if it prevents over and undershoot. The better sounding strategies were things like double PLL where you had tight/loose control (kenwood) and bi-directional servos that provide push and pull correction (JVC and Yamaha). Denon used what was essentially a magnetic encoder with thousands of lines per rotation as well...however, I think the motors were not of the torque ripple free sort. Brinkmann has put a spin by making a quite low torque DD and high mass to give something like Nottingham does with a belt drive. Having heard the Bardo in a customers system I can say this seems to be a pretty good strategy.

I think consideration of needle drag adds a third variable, unless the drive system has suficient torque or inertia (how many KG must hte platter be??) that it is truly inconsequential. I don't know this answer but it must be considered a random smear of a randomly smeared recording.

Since i think frequency of fluctuation is more important than the degree of deviation (either average or instantaneous) then one should look at a histogram of fluctuations and their amplitudes and see how universally praised TTs differ in this regard from middle of the road peers and see if there is any correlation with what we hear. A big belt-drive Micro or American Sound might show more drift but far fewer rapid fluctuations from their cheaper competition. I know that Continuum spent a huge amount of money on the motor and drive control for the Caliburn (I was told $8K...their cost). Even though it was belt drive they used a coreless/slotless motor for maximum linear torque and an expensive Sinusoidal commutation controller. Clearly some of the big boys think smoothness matters just as much as accuracy.

Yes - I agree. I thought it was generally agreed that speed stability is primary or equally valued with low peak deviation. The less likely speed varies and the slower it varies the less noticeable that is within the limits of listening to some one particular player. With regard to optical encoding, it's not clear there are problems with the method per say; it is the frequency of reads and the frequency at which the controller processes and responds to those reads that impacts the efficacy of optical encoding. I believe this can occur at a rate such that higher mass and higher torque play less into the equation.

The phenomenological side of this topic is fascinating. Using a reasonably speed stable and accurate 'table - say one that measures very low wow & flutter or even none at all - it appears to me that most audiophiles do not recognize something amiss. We don't generally recognize speed errors at some rate of deviation nor do we recognize slow drift inaccuracy. It is rare to experience drift until it is significant. Take that reasonably speed stable and accurate 'table and put it back-to-back with an otherwise identical but highly speed stable and accurate 'table and the differences made by the increased stablitily and accuracy will come to light. It's not that the original 'table will sound bad, but the second 'table will sound significantly better in terms of the sound description attributes we typically use to describe what we're hearing.

 

[microstrip]

Yes - I agree. I thought it was generally agreed that speed stability is primary or equally valued with low peak deviation. The less likely speed varies and the slower it varies the less noticeable that is within the limits of listening to some one particular player. With regard to optical encoding, it's not clear there are problems with the method per say; it is the frequency of reads and the frequency at which the controller processes and responds to those reads that impacts the efficacy of optical encoding. I believe this can occur at a rate such that higher mass and higher torque play less into the equation.

The phenomenological side of this topic is fascinating. Using a reasonably speed stable and accurate 'table - say one that measures very low wow & flutter or even none at all - it appears to me that most audiophiles do not recognize something amiss. We don't generally recognize speed errors at some rate of deviation nor do we recognize slow drift inaccuracy. It is rare to experience drift until it is significant. Take that reasonably speed stable and accurate 'table and put it back-to-back with an otherwise identical but highly speed stable and accurate 'table and the differences made by the increased stablitily and accuracy will come to light. It's not that the original 'table will sound bad, but the second 'table will sound significantly better in terms of the sound description attributes we typically use to describe what we're hearing.

Unfortunately all these nice thought experiments are usually carried with turntables of different brands that have very different sound signatures - most of the time we can not know what are the real causes of the differences we perceive. IMHO, except for cases of extreme poor quality, extrapolation to other tables based on basic technology is abusive - although it feeds several audio myths.

 

[tima]

Unfortunately all these nice thought experiments are usually carried with turntables of different brands that have very different sound signatures - most of the time we can not know what are the real causes of the differences we perceive. IMHO, except for cases of extreme poor quality, extrapolation to other tables based on basic technology is abusive - although it feeds several audio myths.

Yes, you're right about that. Most of the time we cannot know the 'real' causes of the differences we perceive between pieces of gear because the comparators are too different from each other.

I had the fortunate opportunity to compare the Monaco 1.5 vs Monaco 2.0 side by side. Here the differences were well understood. The two 'tables were nearly identical but for the drive systems. I used the same tone arms (4Point, Tri-Planar), same cartridges (Etna, Benz LP S), and otherwise same identical system to try both 'tables. I believe this was as close as one could get to - at least for an amateur audiophile such as myself - for performing the 'right' kind of examination of this sort. It was neither extrapolation nor a thought experiment. I spent four months making comparisons and contrasts in critical listening. From what I heard my conclusions were, quite flatly, that the sonic differences were astonishing. I went through the physical differences with the designers (not marketing people) with as fine a comb as I knew to use. And they were open with me. (Some of the interior technology I promised not to discuss.) They had come to the same assessment as I and there was lots of debate and looking for ways to poke holes in the obvious explanation about what we heard. At the end, we could not avoid the same conclusion we independently drew. I knew I was going out on a limb to report what I heard and fully prepared to accept there may be other reports that contradict my conclusions; maybe my ears were 'wrong'. Thus far those contrary reports don't exist, just the opposite.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, you're right about that. Most of the time we cannot know the 'real' causes of the differences we perceive between pieces of gear because the comparators are too different from each other.

I had the fortunate opportunity to compare the Monaco 1.5 vs Monaco 2.0 side by side. Here the differences were well understood. The two 'tables were nearly identical but for the drive systems. I used the same tone arms (4Point, Tri-Planar), same cartridges (Etna, Benz LP S), and otherwise same identical system to try both 'tables. I believe this was as close as one could get to - at least for an amateur audiophile such as myself - for performing the 'right' kind of examination of this sort. It was neither extrapolation nor a thought experiment. I spent four months making comparisons and contrasts in critical listening. From what I heard my conclusions were, quite flatly, that the sonic differences were astonishing. I went through the physical differences with the designers (not marketing people) with as fine a comb as I knew to use. And they were open with me. (Some of the interior technology I promised not to discuss.) They had come to the same assessment as I and there was lots of debate and looking for ways to poke holes in the obvious explanation about what we heard. At the end, we could not avoid the same conclusion we independently drew. I knew I was going out on a limb to report what I heard and fully prepared to accept there may be other reports that contradict my conclusions; maybe my ears were 'wrong'. Thus far those contrary reports don't exist, just the opposite.

This is the type of relevant experience - but unfortunately limited to a specific turntable. I only listened to the original version of the Monaco many years ago, and at that time what I listened was no my cup of tea. I still have to listen to the new version. Do you know what is the mass of the Monaco platter?

BTW, it was great to find you listened to my usual test for top digital (Shostakovitch 8th, although Haitink, not Previn) in you Monaco 2.0 evaluation.

 

[853guy]

Yes, you're right about that. Most of the time we cannot know the 'real' causes of the differences we perceive between pieces of gear because the comparators are too different from each other.

I had the fortunate opportunity to compare the Monaco 1.5 vs Monaco 2.0 side by side. Here the differences were well understood. The two 'tables were nearly identical but for the drive systems. I used the same tone arms (4Point, Tri-Planar), same cartridges (Etna, Benz LP S), and otherwise same identical system to try both 'tables. I believe this was as close as one could get to - at least for an amateur audiophile such as myself - for performing the 'right' kind of examination of this sort. It was neither extrapolation nor a thought experiment. I spent four months making comparisons and contrasts in critical listening. From what I heard my conclusions were, quite flatly, that the sonic differences were astonishing. I went through the physical differences with the designers (not marketing people) with as fine a comb as I knew to use. And they were open with me. (Some of the interior technology I promised not to discuss.) They had come to the same assessment as I and there was lots of debate and looking for ways to poke holes in the obvious explanation about what we heard. At the end, we could not avoid the same conclusion we independently drew. I knew I was going out on a limb to report what I heard and fully prepared to accept there may be other reports that contradict my conclusions; maybe my ears were 'wrong'. Thus far those contrary reports don't exist, just the opposite.

Hello again tima,

With all due respect, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A site such as this is likely to be populated by enthusiasts writing enthusiastically about products they are enthused about. Certainly, I’ve written many posts on components and systems I’ve liked. Similarly, I post semi-regularly in What’s Spinning Tonight about albums I’m listening to that I also like.

What I don’t tend to do is write about everything I hate. That is, for every post I make about something I like, it’s probable there are many, many more things I do not like - I just don’t write about them (1). What’s more, that I may post about an album I like is no more evidence that I like all the tracks on that album or indeed all their other albums than it to suggest that because an album does not appear in What’s Spinning Tonight therefore means I do not like it. An album not appearing in What’s Spinning Tonight (absence of evidence) does not therefore automatically confer upon that album any dislike on my part (evidence of absence).

So when a reviewer, or even several reviewers comment positively about a component, that in-and-of-itself is not to suggest that many, many others (will) disagree with the conclusions the reviewer has reached. The reviewer after all has a platform from which to write about things they are paid to form opinions about - they simply have greater visibility relative to those not reviewing (2).

So the absence of contrary reports is not unusual. This is especially true apropos a product that is essentially a niche product existing in a niche price bracket appealing to a tiny, tiny fragment of the world’s music listeners, of whom few will have heard it in conditions as you have. Even in cases such as this in which two reviewers agree with the manufacturer, the absence of contrary reports neither suggests there are no contrary reports any more than it does that the reviewers and manufacturer's impressions must therefore correlate with those of the general populace (3). Mostly, it means that in cases in which the variable in question is rare in quantity, and experienced only by a tiny sample size, any data points generated will have a much lesser degree of statistically significant extrapolation for the larger population, if indeed, any.

Again, I appreciate both your review and your willingness to talk more about your experience here. It's a great time to be a vinyl lover, and it's great so many manufacturers are attempting to move vinyl replay forward.

Best,

853guy


(1) In fact, as a rule, I try not to. There are way too many bands, movies, books, and hi-fi components I've not enjoyed. My time and energy is best spent on things I do enjoy.

(2) This is similar to the fact a single unsubstantiated news report of a Yeti sighting will gain more visibility among a given population than the Yeti himself will.

(3) If 100,000 people are tested and cannot hear a 12kHz sine wave, that in-and-of-itself does not mean frequencies above 11kHz therefore do not exist. It means the human hearing mechanism is non-linear, and non-linear mechanisms will produce asymmetrical results (only a few will hear them even though musical energy at 12kHz may be statistically prevalent). Consensus of opinion is not robustness of evidence.

 

[tima]

Hello again tima,

With all due respect, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A site such as this is likely to be populated by enthusiasts writing enthusiastically about products they are enthused about. Certainly, I’ve written many posts on components and systems I’ve liked. Similarly, I post semi-regularly in What’s Spinning Tonight about albums I’m listening to that I also like.

What I don’t tend to do is write about everything I hate. That is, for every post I make about something I like, it’s probable there are many, many more things I do not like - I just don’t write about them (1). What’s more, that I may post about an album I like is no more evidence that I like all the tracks on that album or indeed all their other albums than it to suggest that because an album does not appear in What’s Spinning Tonight therefore means I do not like it. An album not appearing in What’s Spinning Tonight (absence of evidence) does not therefore automatically confer upon that album any dislike on my part (evidence of absence).

So when a reviewer, or even several reviewers comment positively about a component, that in-and-of-itself is not to suggest that many, many others (will) disagree with the conclusions the reviewer has reached. The reviewer after all has a platform from which to write about things they are paid to form opinions about - they simply have greater visibility relative to those not reviewing (2).

So the absence of contrary reports is not unusual. This is especially true apropos a product that is essentially a niche product existing in a niche price bracket appealing to a tiny, tiny fragment of the world’s music listeners, of whom few will have heard it in conditions as you have. Even in cases such as this in which two reviewers agree with the manufacturer, the absence of contrary reports neither suggests there are no contrary reports any more than it does that the reviewers and manufacturer's impressions must therefore correlate with those of the general populace (3). Mostly, it means that in cases in which the variable in question is rare in quantity, and experienced only by a tiny sample size, any data points generated will have a much lesser degree of statistically significant extrapolation for the larger population, if indeed, any.

Again, I appreciate both your review and your willingness to talk more about your experience here. It's a great time to be a vinyl lover, and it's great so many manufacturers are attempting to move vinyl replay forward.

Best,

853guy


(1) In fact, as a rule, I try not to. There are way too many bands, movies, books, and hi-fi components I've not enjoyed. My time and energy is best spent on things I do enjoy.

(2) This is similar to the fact a single unsubstantiated news report of a Yeti sighting will gain more visibility among a given population than the Yeti himself will.

(3) If 100,000 people are tested and cannot hear a 12kHz sine wave, that in-and-of-itself does not mean frequencies above 11kHz therefore do not exist. It means the human hearing mechanism is non-linear, and non-linear mechanisms will produce asymmetrical results (only a few will hear them even though musical energy at 12kHz may be statistically prevalent). Consensus of opinion is not robustness of evidence.

My dear 853guy,

With all due respect, the absence of evidence is neither the evidence of absence nor the evidence of presence. It is evidence of nothing but itself. The absence of evidence is the absence of evidence. Tautologies can be fun, but find themselves somewhat limited in scope. The scope of the sceptic is boundless.

And while the absence of contrary reports about a product is not unusual, the presence of congruent reports may well be. After all, we are not men we are audiophiles. And so, in the case at hand, with reported reports being genuinely positive what can we say. Perhaps we are where Wittgenstein left us - at least for a moment - when he said "The world is everything that is the case." Thus unexposed, undiscovered, perhaps arcane claims to the contrary (as you embolded) are simply not in the world. And the claims we have before us documented in print and on line are the case. That could change but for now, again LW: "Whereof one cannot speak, therof one must be silent."

Speaking as one, I believe most reviewers report their findings to inform, to give a report, to nail something down in print as a reference point within the constant slosh and foam of on-line discussion can happen. Reviewing, at least for me, is expository.

"It's a great time to be a vinyl lover, and it's great so many manufacturers are attempting to move vinyl replay forward." Truly.

 

[tima]

This is the type of relevant experience - but unfortunately limited to a specific turntable. I only listened to the original version of the Monaco many years ago, and at that time what I listened was no my cup of tea. I still have to listen to the new version. Do you know what is the mass of the Monaco platter?

BTW, it was great to find you listened to my usual test for top digital (Shostakovitch 8th, although Haitink, not Previn) in you Monaco 2.0 evaluation.

Magnesium with a phosphor bronze flywheel. I looked through my notes and I do not have the mass of the platter. Not sure Alvin will share that but I will ping him.

Thanks for that - I'll want to look for the Haitink Shosty 8th.
I just discovered his Mahler 2nd from '69. I don't know Haitink that well and apparently I should!

 

[spiritofmusic]

Tim, I love your phrase “the scope of the skeptic is boundless”.
Akin to “a cynic’s job is never done”.
These aren’t directed at 853 who is actually a pretty optimistic, if sanguine, thinker.
No, it applies more to me.
Not so much re audio, more life in general.
I find that I have to laugh at the absurd ironies of life in 2018, otherwise I’ll definitely start crying.

 

[bonzo75]

Magnesium with a phosphor bronze flywheel. I looked through my notes and I do not have the mass of the platter. Not sure Alvin will share that but I will ping him.

Thanks for that - I'll want to look for the Haitink Shosty 8th.
I just discovered his Mahler 2nd from '69. I don't know Haitink that well and apparently I should!

I have seen Haitink do various stuff. His Mahler 1, Beethoven 9th, and Bruckner 7 are the best performances of those I have seen. His and MTT's B's 9th are among the top concerts I have seen. And once while I was walking back from the Barbican, I saw one of their lead cellist walking back to the station as well. So I started talking to her, found out she had been working with the LSO since the 80s, and asked her if she had any favorite conductor among those who visited the LSO regularly. She did, it was Haitink. He is 87 or 88 now. I have no familiarity with his recordings though. Unfortunately he has never done Shostakovich here for a while, that is what Gianandrea Noseda conducts very well when he is performing here.

 

[tima]

I have seen Haitink do various stuff. His Mahler 1, Beethoven 9th, and Bruckner 7 are the best performances of those I have seen. His and MTT's B's 9th are among the top concerts I have seen. And once while I was walking back from the Barbican, I saw one of their lead cellist walking back to the station as well. So I started talking to her, found out she had been working with the LSO since the 80s, and asked her if she had any favorite conductor among those who visited the LSO regularly. She did, it was Haitink. He is 87 or 88 now. I have no familiarity with his recordings though. Unfortunately he has never done Shostakovich here for a while, that is what Gianandrea Noseda conducts very well when he is performing here.

Thanks for that. You are fortunate in your access and travel.

 

[heihei]

I heard the Monaco at Munich this week, both in the Grand Prix room with CH I1 and Apertura, as well as the Living Voice room. Both were wonderful, and even with the little knowledge I have of turntables, I could tell this was special.

 

[stsxerses]

I second that...frst time I heard the GPA Monaco was in the Apertura room. I could tell straight away this is a very special turntable, imaging, placement of instruments and dynamics were amazing. As a Brinkman TT owner I was seriously impressed.

 

[853guy]

My dear 853guy,

With all due respect, the absence of evidence is neither the evidence of absence nor the evidence of presence. It is evidence of nothing but itself. The absence of evidence is the absence of evidence. Tautologies can be fun, but find themselves somewhat limited in scope. The scope of the sceptic is boundless.

And while the absence of contrary reports about a product is not unusual, the presence of congruent reports may well be. After all, we are not men we are audiophiles. And so, in the case at hand, with reported reports being genuinely positive what can we say. Perhaps we are where Wittgenstein left us - at least for a moment - when he said "The world is everything that is the case." Thus unexposed, undiscovered, perhaps arcane claims to the contrary (as you embolded) are simply not in the world. And the claims we have before us documented in print and on line are the case. That could change but for now, again LW: "Whereof one cannot speak, therof one must be silent."

Speaking as one, I believe most reviewers report their findings to inform, to give a report, to nail something down in print as a reference point within the constant slosh and foam of on-line discussion can happen. Reviewing, at least for me, is expository.

"It's a great time to be a vinyl lover, and it's great so many manufacturers are attempting to move vinyl replay forward." Truly.

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.

 

[tima]

"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 ... ." Hopefully. I'm a big believer in listening for oneself.

Mentioned already, as a reviewer my job is expository: to be as factually accurate as I know and to tell the reader what I hear as best I can, and do so with a modicum of literacy and readability. I make no claims with deductive certainty or Quine-like logical rigor. I have no problem with constant scepticism until it freezes action.

In terms of believing stable speed accuracy and low noise are the most critical factors for a turntable to possess I am satisfied with the evidence before me as sufficient to my needs. If some as yet unknown, undiscovered factor proves my belief false, then I'll likely change my mind. To my knowledge no alternatives have come foward. A wise audiophile proportions his belief to the evidence at hand, to the evidence of his ears. If someone prefers to believe that a hidden or unknown factor is what is really at work, then offer it up. In the end I believe some audio components are better than others and I believe that our hearing is sufficiently similar one to another that we can agree on that notion. Taste can exist in the objective world to the point that we have our own preferences among, say, a group of speed stable, accurate and quiet 'tables all while agreeing that those are the key factors that set some apart from others as better.

Yes, of course, we had a pleasant exchange that I enjoyed. I bid you adieu 853Guy.


P.S - yes Wittgenstein (both of the Tractatus and the Investigations) had plenty of critics and they are easy to find. Yours was not about the case at hand but about doing philosophy of language in general, something despite my quotes I prefer to avoid.