Review: Grand Prix Audio • Monaco 2.0 Turntable

[DaveyF]

Yes, this thread is becoming very confusing : we are mixing average speed - sometimes called absolute speed - with with the instantaneous variations of speed, the point that Monaco mainly debates in their whitepapers. IMHO they must be discussed clearly and separately, otherwise no one can understand the arguments or participate without being misunderstood.

+1

 

[tima]

Yes, this thread is becoming very confusing : we are mixing average speed - sometimes called absolute speed - with with the instantaneous variations of speed, the point that Monaco mainly debates in their whitepapers. IMHO they must be discussed clearly and separately, otherwise no one can understand the arguments or participate without being misunderstood.

Worth noting is the GPA white paper (there's only one,) to which you refer, was written as applicable only to the Monaco v1.0 TT. The v1.0 was in production over 10 years ago and replaced by the v1.5, itself now replaced by the GPA Parabolica. Alvin Lloyd withdrew the whitepaper around the time he released the v1.5 but it can still be googled on the Web. It remains an interesting document, giving insight to GPA's thinking on turntable design, but the numbers it uses no longer apply. Later Monaco 'tables are considerably more accurate.

Given that, the obsolete white paper says this about speed measurement and GPA design goals for the v1.0:

"We needed to specify and set the design goals. Our design goal for the drive system was a speed
accuracy level, measured at the platter, while playing a record, in excess of 20 parts per million even when
measured within a single revolution. In other words platter speed would not vary by more than .002% from
absolute even when measured directly at the platter over time or within a single revolution. This variation would
be defined using three sigma protocols* as opposed to the typical RMS method**. Measuring the accuracy not
only over time but also within any single revolution gives the most precise overall view of the true speed
accuracy of the design that is obtainable. For reference, this compares to the current best quote of speed
accuracy at any price of .005% RMS, which represents a speed error 3.5 times greater than our stated goal of
.002% peak error from absolute. Further, no other turntable manufacturer measures the actual speed of the
platter. Instead they measure the motor speed and infer the platter speed from that. This will subsequently
conceal the speed errors in the drive system. ...

*3 sigma means 997 times out of a 1,000.
**RMS is an average measurement that conceals the small variations by averaging them into a long-term measurement.
This hides the flaws of a drive system as it relates to the precision and consistency of turning a record. Thus even a table
with a claimed speed accuracy of say .005% RMS is still generating individual speed errors much higher than this but they
are averaged out."

Much has changed since then. GPA cites peak deviation from a perfect 33 1/3rpm rotational speed for the 2.0 as typically better than 0.0001% (1ppm). Last I heard, Alvin is working on a new whitepaper.

 

[tima]

Hello tima,

...

In complex systems (and I would argue the turntable, and especially the hi-fi system as a whole is exactly that), how a given variable is distributed matters more than the presence of that variable. In other words, how a turntable achieves its speed stability can often have a far greater influence on our perceived enjoyment/non-enjoyment, and in a way that’s fundamentally different to what exact speed stability it achieves. Again, though this is not aimed at the Monaco specifically, I think perhaps we can all point to turntables in which the implementation of drive topology conveys significant benefits in perceived enjoyment, despite the absence of absolute speed stability - and vice versa.

Nevertheless, that there continues to be devotees of both belt, idler and direct-drive turntables suggests the how of the platter turning is fundamental to our perception of music, not just because of its implications for speed stability per se, but as your review suggests, because music is always pitch and amplitude over time and the three are always modulating. Timing errors will therefore always impact the way pitch and amplitude are conveyed. My hypothesis (and it is nothing more than that) is that it’s the distribution of those errors that differentiates our perception of belt versus idler versus direct-driven given all forms of rotational mechanisms will have inherent degrees of speed instability.

Given we can perhaps acknowledge that all lathes also share this variation, my thinking is that if indeed they are complex systems of non-linearities, what matters most is not that those non-linearities exist in both the lathe and the turntable, but only that as long as those non-linearities are distributed in a benign (stochastic) manner, our ear/brain mechanism is able to accommodate those non-linearities, and in fact perhaps, confer unexpected benefits to signal detection despite the presence of the noise (see link in my previous post).

. . .

There is of course an ongoing debate (and rightly so in my perspective) of the direct correlation between what can be measured and what can be perceived. However, as many of us have discovered - often to our lament - a component that produces vanishingly low distortion, noise and output impedance measurements does not always confer a direct benefit on listener involvement. In fact, in some cases, and even taking into account the fact we all have our preferences and biases, it may cause the opposite.

In complex systems, higher-order effects matter. Even in cases in which a component has objectively come to match an ideal of linearity, there will still be many who may not prefer it (although I completely accept there will be just as many who might) - not because it’s demonstrably/objectively linear (a first-order effect), but because its linearity comes with second- and third-order effects that cannot be predicted ahead of time (and certainly not in isolation).

Yes, if it cannot be observed then it’s fair to suggest it may not be worth observing. Yet complex systems - and especially, a dynamic, high-order and interdependently complex signal played back via a dynamic, high-order and interdependently complex mechanism in which interactions matter more than single independent actions (1) - often leads us to conflate evidence of absence for absence of evidence. It’s only later, once time has allowed us to peek beneath the first-order effects of our discoveries that we’re able to observe any second- and third-order effects. Indeed, the problem in dealing with complex systems is that second- and third-order effects are generally masked by first-order ones. But just because they may not be observable now, does not mean they may not become observable in the future.

And while I can accept that Ockham made a valuable observation, that observation holds most true when applied to simple systems where parsimony is a virtue. In complex systems, in which variables interact and generate second- and third-order effects that cannot be predicted ahead of time, parsimony is likely to only lead to a false dichotomy built on first-order effects (2).

In any case, no more of my hypothesising will change either the real-world performance of the Monaco, nor your perception of it evaluated via your own ears. I’m grateful you’ve shared your thoughts with me, and taken the time to respond in such a generous manner.

Take care, tima.

853guy

—

. . .

Hi again 853guy,

I'll keep this short, but not for lack of interest in your comments.

I agree that the way a drive system is implemented and how a 'table achieves its accuracy has a major impact on how it sounds. Alas, few manufacturers want to go into any depth on that subject. I also agree that a component with excellent measurements may not be preferred. While I recognize it's "what's on the tape" that gets reproduced, my referrent remains live acoustic music. In the case of the new Monaco 2.0, I experience more of the immediacy, vivacity and presence of live music than I did with the Monaco v1.5. There's no telling what others will like. Since I believe we hear more similarly than different from one another I do believe, like it or otherwise, many others will perceive a difference. Describing that difference is another matter.

The notion that it is the distribution of non-linearites moreso than the presence of those non-linearities that makes them accepted or accommodated may be the case. In fact this may be one explanation why turntables with less accuracy have been accepted for so long. Imo, in the case of the Monaco 2.0's stable accuracy it is the absence of non-linearities that leads to a near immediate recognition that it really is a different sounding turntable. (The extremely low distribution of non-linearites, if you will.) And despite the possible presence of less than perfect lathes and records, the sonic improvements of greater accuracy are clearly audible. [I feel more comfortable now stating this as a fact than an endless row of 'imo'.] The presence of non-linear manufacturing or product is not a justification for the failure to pursue more accurate turntables because experiential evidence does not bear that out. Talk of vanishingly low wow and flutter is likewise no such justification; our ears or ear/brain system is more adept than we take it for.

And yes, the correlation between measurement and perception may not (always) be such that the better the former the more likely the better the latter. As I've written, imo the Monaco 2's improvement in sonics validates its measurements. Part of saying the Monaco is a simple 'table was to note there are (largely?) only two variables in play in the improvements found going from v1.5 and v2.0, viz. noise and accuracy. Still a complex system. Yes, there always could be an obscured explanation for "what's really going on" yet undiscovered. For a year now I'm convinced there is very strong correlation between the improvements (as described by measurements) and the much improved sound. I'll daresay it's causal, but the Humeans in the crowd and others (scientists?) may not believe in causality.

Cheers,
tima

 

[853guy]

Hi again 853guy,

I'll keep this short, but not for lack of interest in your comments.

I agree that the way a drive system is implemented and how a 'table achieves its accuracy has a major impact on how it sounds. Alas, few manufacturers want to go into any depth on that subject. I also agree that a component with excellent measurements may not be preferred. While I recognize it's "what's on the tape" that gets reproduced, my referrent remains live acoustic music. In the case of the new Monaco 2.0, I experience more of the immediacy, vivacity and presence of live music than I did with the Monaco v1.5. There's no telling what others will like. Since I believe we hear more similarly than different from one another I do believe, like it or otherwise, many others will perceive a difference. Describing that difference is another matter.

The notion that it is the distribution of non-linearites moreso than the presence of those non-linearities that makes them accepted or accommodated may be the case. In fact this may be one explanation why turntables with less accuracy have been accepted for so long. Imo, in the case of the Monaco 2.0's stable accuracy it is the absence of non-linearities that leads to a near immediate recognition that it really is a different sounding turntable. (The extremely low distribution of non-linearites, if you will.) And despite the possible presence of less than perfect lathes and records, the sonic improvements of greater accuracy are clearly audible. [I feel more comfortable now stating this as a fact than an endless row of 'imo'.] The presence of non-linear manufacturing or product is not a justification for the failure to pursue more accurate turntables because experiential evidence does not bear that out. Talk of vanishingly low wow and flutter is likewise no such justification; our ears or ear/brain system is more adept than we take it for.

And yes, the correlation between measurement and perception may not (always) be such that the better the former the more likely the better the latter. As I've written, imo the Monaco 2's improvement in sonics validates its measurements. Part of saying the Monaco is a simple 'table was to note there are (largely?) only two variables in play in the improvements found going from v1.5 and v2.0, viz. noise and accuracy. Still a complex system. Yes, there always could be an obscured explanation for "what's really going on" yet undiscovered. For a year now I'm convinced there is very strong correlation between the improvements (as described by measurements) and the much improved sound. I'll daresay it's causal, but the Humeans in the crowd and others (scientists?) may not believe in causality.

Cheers,
tima

Hello again tima,

I too will keep this short, as more from me seems redundant given I am speculating and will be repeating ideas already shared above.

As you intimate, we have a lack of depth of data from additional sources. Though we have accumulated many data points apropos digital playback and amplification, for vinyl there is simply insufficient data to provide anything approaching statistically significant levels of certainty. At this point in time, we know what we like, and that’s about it.

Unfortunately that means the Monaco’s measurements are insufficient in-and-of-themselves to lead to any claims of causality. Compounding the opacity is that the averaging of errors tells us nothing about their distribution, allowing them to be deemed inconsequential when in fact when viewed in a non-Gaussian distribution may prove to be anything but (again, we need a level of analysis beyond what we currently have, and unfortunately, I am only regurgitating what’s already been covered).

Nevertheless, given the ear/brain’s ability to discriminate timing anomalies that exceed the Fourier uncertainty limit, any errors associated with and inherent to vinyl replay - and the distribution of those errors especially apropos peak deviation - surely warrants further research. Hopefully, that Monaco have at least attempted to move in a direction of data gathering re: speed stability/peak deviation will lead to more interest in this aspect of replay, and motivate other manufacturers/researchers to help us understand why vinyl remains so compelling a format, despite the many measurements suggesting it shouldn’t.

Not holding my breath, of course. Just saying it'd be nice.

Thanks again, tima - appreciate your thoughts.

Best,

853guy

 

[spiritofmusic]

I’ve just upgraded the pwr cord to my new bespoke tt speed control psu with a better one (Sablon QGC to Sablon Reserva Elite).
So, just one change, to the motor. Not a source component like phono, or even pre.
I’m sure the previous pwr cord was doing a swell job. Seconds in to listening, and the SQ upstick is vast.
My guess is noise floor is reduced, but it may also be that speed stability/accuracy is more on the button.
Whatever, I could never have envisaged such an upstick.
If the 2.0 is indeed doing something akin to this pwr cord, obviously mechanically to an even greater level, I can see how it would be a game changer over the 1.5.

 

[XV-1]

I’ve just upgraded the pwr cord to my new bespoke tt speed control psu with a better one (Sablon QGC to Sablon Reserva Elite).
So, just one change, to the motor. Not a source component like phono, or even pre.
I’m sure the previous pwr cord was doing a swell job. Seconds in to listening, and the SQ upstick is vast.
My guess is noise floor is reduced, but it may also be that speed stability/accuracy is more on the button.
Whatever, I could never have envisaged such an upstick.
If the 2.0 is indeed doing something akin to this pwr cord, obviously mechanically to an even greater level, I can see how it would be a game changer over the 1.5.

seriously Marc, you are saying your new power cord is helping speed stability on your turntable. LOL - I want some of your drugs

I can understand that a power cord on the turntable will change slightly the sound of the table, but not the speed accuracy.

 

[bonzo75]

seriously Marc, you are saying your new power cord is helping speed stability on your turntable. LOL - I want some of your drugs

Either Marc periodically does take something, and if not, he needs to start taking something

 

[spiritofmusic]

XV, was just an idea.
But I am sure of one thing, Sablon cables are brilliant at reducing noise floor - we can at least agree cables help here, and some are of more help than others?
This is seriously OT.
But I’m flabbergasted that this upgraded cord has made such a difference, and so maybe it’s easier now for me to accept the 2.0 is so superior to the 1.5.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ked, the drug of choice in E Anglia is too wild, too hard for all you metropolitans back in London.
We just love “B” * out here.
The harder the better .
*= Brexit.

 

[XV-1]

XV, was just an idea.
But I am sure of one thing, Sablon cables are brilliant at reducing noise floor - we can at least agree cables help here, and some are of more help than others?
This is seriously OT.
But I’m flabbergasted that this upgraded cord has made such a difference, and so maybe it’s easier now for me to accept the 2.0 is so superior to the 1.5.

I understand pc's make a difference. I generally use Nordost Valhalla on my TW Acustik turntable power supply and it is superb. But it makes zero difference to the speed.

 

[spiritofmusic]

XV, thanks for getting me up to speed on that .

 

[miniguy]

I understand pc's make a difference. I generally use Nordost Valhalla on my TW Acustik turntable power supply and it is superb. But it makes zero difference to the speed.

It is under appreciated by many how important the quality of power is entering a turntable’s motor controller. One should use the best power cable one can afford at that location. Though it is impossible to know which parameters of the turntable’s performance are thus affected, there is no doubt about the sonic gains that can be achieved.

 

[spiritofmusic]

+100.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Maybe someone can start a new thread on the influence of pwr cords to tt motors.
If the consensus is that it’s not any effect on speed stability/accuracy, then what?
I mean, a tt motor ideally drives the platter at the right speed without introducing noise or vibrations.
If the new pwr cord is not having an effect on speed, then it must be on noise.
My tt uses direct rim drive w no servo feedback loop, a purely analog device where speed needs to be checked intermittently.
A rim drive by definition introduces more motor noise into the system (direct wheel contact on platter). Maybe my new power cord is particularly useful here in minimising noise getting to the platter via the drive wheel? Maybe by smoothing out drive wheel operation?

 

[dan31]

Agree on the power supply and cable for the tt motor. A quiet happy supply will yield improvement.

 

[PeterA]

Maybe someone can start a new thread on the influence of pwr cords to tt motors.
If the consensus is that it’s not any effect on speed stability/accuracy, then what?
I mean, a tt motor ideally drives the platter at the right speed without introducing noise or vibrations.
If the new pwr cord is not having an effect on speed, then it must be on noise.
My tt uses direct rim drive w no servo feedback loop, a purely analog device where speed needs to be checked intermittently.
A rim drive by definition introduces more motor noise into the system (direct wheel contact on platter). Maybe my new power cord is particularly useful here in minimising noise getting to the platter via the drive wheel? Maybe by smoothing out drive wheel operation?

Marc, perhaps the new power cord is making the rubber contact patch on the rim drive units smoother. Seriously though, just start a new thread on the topic.

 

[microstrip]

seriously Marc, you are saying your new power cord is helping speed stability on your turntable. LOL - I want some of your drugs

I can understand that a power cord on the turntable will change slightly the sound of the table, but not the speed accuracy.

Most probably it will change the sound of the remaining system, but not exactly the turntable sound ...

What kind of controller uses your TW turntable? Does it have any digital section to control speed or generate driving waveforms?

 

[spiritofmusic]

XV, I’m attracting a ton of flak on my new thread for even suggesting a pwr cord can influence the sound of a tt.

 

[XV-1]

XV, I’m attracting a ton of flak on my new thread for even suggesting a pwr cord can influence the sound of a tt.

LOL. at least you did not say pc's help with speed control

 

[spiritofmusic]

Hey, why humiliate myself online? I can’t wait to start the “why are footers improving my inert passive grounding box?” thread.
I could do with lots of brickbats being thrown at me, I need to build a new carport.