Update TV & Stereo Elevated: A Year Later

It's been almost exactly a year since I reported on the opening of a new store dedicated to high-performance audio and video in Unionville, Ontario. To mark the first anniversary of the store's opening, they had a party to celebrate the occasion.
Sun, 05/10/2015
Share | |

SoulPsychJamRocktastic

What keeps Waterfall, the band’s seventh album and the first in four years, from sinking into a kind of earnest, overly precious, 1970s lite rock muck is that James’s many influences are a mist and not a downpour.
Sat, 05/09/2015
Share | |

Transcriptors Vestigal tonearm Specifications

Thu, 05/07/2015
Share | |
COMMENTS
eugovector's picture

It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

Stereophile hasn't reviewed a Synergistic product in years.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

eugovector's picture

And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

My apologies. Hadn't had enough coffee when I responded this morning, as I forgot that Michael Fremer had written about the Synergistic Research ECTs, HCTs, and PCTs in the February issue's "Analog Corner" column.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

jmsent's picture

... many years back, and it was a total piece of junk.

T-NYC's picture

... David Gammon was correct in his use of Vestigal as Google shall tell, although Vestigial is also correct. As to the rest of the review, I agree based on the available empirical evidence and a reliable first-hand account.

Venere's picture

Holt and Gammon both sound like insufferable assholes. Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists. Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers. Lastly, articles like this only serve to show what a pain in the ass analog reproduction is (was?) and why the entire world (other than a handful of tech-dweebs who would prefer to tinker and adjust their turntables and tonearms rather than actually listen to music) has moved on to digital sources and playback. I'd rather have crappy sound from an iPod that have to deal with all the BS discussed in this "review". Fortunately, there is also the option of listening to music on a quite satisfying modern system consisting of a disk player, an integrated amp with onboard DAC, and a pair of speakers. What an appropriately named product, the Vestigal remains of a dead technology. RIP.

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I also wonder why Stereophile.com republishes ancient reviews of defunct gear. Must be Altzheimer's.

John Atkinson's picture
Venere wrote:
Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists.

1) There is a demand for our reprinting these classic reviews from the magazine's earlier days, to judge from the emails I receive from readers.

2) When we started our website, one goal was eventually to have all the magazine's reviews reprinted on-line, going all the way back to the first issue. We are well on the way to achieving that goal, hence the appearance of a review from 1975 like this.

3) This review was a classic example of theory and practice being opposed, hence I thought readers would find it instructional.

4) It costs you nothing to read this review, so what's the problem?

Venere wrote:
Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers.

Each issue of the print Stereophile features reviews of "new equipment." Even if you don't want to purchase the print magazine, those reviews eventually find their way on to our website.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea. Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

John Atkinson's picture
Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea.

Thank you. I forgot to list a 5th reason for posting these historical reviews and essay: it allows new readers to discover what a pioneer Stereophile's founder, the late J. Gordon Holt, was in the art of audio journalism.

Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

I am slowly working my way back posting the "Recordings of the Month" and am about to reach July 1982. All the "Records to Die For" features and many music features are already available in our free on-line archive.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

corrective_unconscious's picture

I saw this arm and table in high school, and it was one of my formative, first experiences with high end audio along with hearing the Dahlquists and the room dividing Maggies. It's interesting to read such a scathing criticism of various claims made for the arm, because it reminds me how much of my interest in high end audio to this day is based on the industrial design, the gadget aspect, the nerdy coolness of the gear, regardless of how much sense any of it makes in financial or even music reproduction terms.

volvic's picture

I love these old reviews, takes me back, learn new things about old gear and how great some of the old gear was and was not.

Bill Leebens's picture

Personally, I side with George Santayana's epigram, "Those who are unaware of the past are condemned to repeat it"--proof of which can be seen in US military policy, as well as the audio industry, in many instances.

Evidently, some readers side with Henry Ford: "History is bunk." How can one argue with a man who once said, "I've got no use for an engine that has more cylinders than a cow has teats??"

Amazing how pissed off folks can get at something that is offered at NO COST TO THEM, like the historical features.

God bless you, John. You are a patient man.

Alaskagram's picture

As a professional sound engineer I can tell you that the resonance of air is 7Hz the air will not support a wavelength longer then this. Consequently the air can not complete the feedback loop. Above this frequency the wave lengths are huge untill above 40Hz. Most home listen rooms are too small for wavelengths below 40Hz to form air borne resonances and as a result most feedback in turntables come from mechanically coupled resonances. These resonances can come from floors,table tops ,etc.. This why predicting these standing waves is so difficult.
During the heyday of the discos it was standard practice to suspend the turntable or use a sand box to dampen feedback. So it may not be prudent to blame "feedback" on just one part,the tonearm, rather the entire system must be taken into account.
P.S. the reference to being a "sound pro" is that after 30+ years mixing live sound I just might know a thing or two about feedback. Tonearm compliance may not so much, feedback yeah.

corrective_unconscious's picture

Has nothing to do with compressions and rarefactions in the air...well, not until that resonance impacts various parts of the audio reproduction chain and the thus changed result is repoduced in air.

The physical size of a room is one factor of many which determine the longest wavelength effectively supported by that room. It could have an acoustic "size" that is much larger, depending.

SET Man's picture

Hey!

Is Stereophile having Altzheimer's? Not to me! I'm surprised to see that some people are having problem with Stereophile posting old reviews like this one.

For me, even thouhg this arm came out before I was born... I'm 37 by the way. I do enjoy reading old pieces like this. It is a glimps of how we got here today and it is also useful for those collectors and those whom enjoy vintage audio stuffs. And not to mention that old pieces like this can also inspire what's to come in the future.

And the best parts of these historical reviews like this on Stereophile is that it's free!

By the way I'm listening to Bjork's "Debut" LP on my 1971-72 vintage Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference with SME 3009 II Improved arm and Benz Micro ACE HO cartridge ;)

Pages

Transcriptors Vestigal tonearm Reviewer's Addendum

Thu, 05/07/2015
Share | |
COMMENTS
eugovector's picture

It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

Stereophile hasn't reviewed a Synergistic product in years.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

eugovector's picture

And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

My apologies. Hadn't had enough coffee when I responded this morning, as I forgot that Michael Fremer had written about the Synergistic Research ECTs, HCTs, and PCTs in the February issue's "Analog Corner" column.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

jmsent's picture

... many years back, and it was a total piece of junk.

T-NYC's picture

... David Gammon was correct in his use of Vestigal as Google shall tell, although Vestigial is also correct. As to the rest of the review, I agree based on the available empirical evidence and a reliable first-hand account.

Venere's picture

Holt and Gammon both sound like insufferable assholes. Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists. Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers. Lastly, articles like this only serve to show what a pain in the ass analog reproduction is (was?) and why the entire world (other than a handful of tech-dweebs who would prefer to tinker and adjust their turntables and tonearms rather than actually listen to music) has moved on to digital sources and playback. I'd rather have crappy sound from an iPod that have to deal with all the BS discussed in this "review". Fortunately, there is also the option of listening to music on a quite satisfying modern system consisting of a disk player, an integrated amp with onboard DAC, and a pair of speakers. What an appropriately named product, the Vestigal remains of a dead technology. RIP.

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I also wonder why Stereophile.com republishes ancient reviews of defunct gear. Must be Altzheimer's.

John Atkinson's picture
Venere wrote:
Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists.

1) There is a demand for our reprinting these classic reviews from the magazine's earlier days, to judge from the emails I receive from readers.

2) When we started our website, one goal was eventually to have all the magazine's reviews reprinted on-line, going all the way back to the first issue. We are well on the way to achieving that goal, hence the appearance of a review from 1975 like this.

3) This review was a classic example of theory and practice being opposed, hence I thought readers would find it instructional.

4) It costs you nothing to read this review, so what's the problem?

Venere wrote:
Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers.

Each issue of the print Stereophile features reviews of "new equipment." Even if you don't want to purchase the print magazine, those reviews eventually find their way on to our website.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea. Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

John Atkinson's picture
Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea.

Thank you. I forgot to list a 5th reason for posting these historical reviews and essay: it allows new readers to discover what a pioneer Stereophile's founder, the late J. Gordon Holt, was in the art of audio journalism.

Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

I am slowly working my way back posting the "Recordings of the Month" and am about to reach July 1982. All the "Records to Die For" features and many music features are already available in our free on-line archive.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

corrective_unconscious's picture

I saw this arm and table in high school, and it was one of my formative, first experiences with high end audio along with hearing the Dahlquists and the room dividing Maggies. It's interesting to read such a scathing criticism of various claims made for the arm, because it reminds me how much of my interest in high end audio to this day is based on the industrial design, the gadget aspect, the nerdy coolness of the gear, regardless of how much sense any of it makes in financial or even music reproduction terms.

volvic's picture

I love these old reviews, takes me back, learn new things about old gear and how great some of the old gear was and was not.

Bill Leebens's picture

Personally, I side with George Santayana's epigram, "Those who are unaware of the past are condemned to repeat it"--proof of which can be seen in US military policy, as well as the audio industry, in many instances.

Evidently, some readers side with Henry Ford: "History is bunk." How can one argue with a man who once said, "I've got no use for an engine that has more cylinders than a cow has teats??"

Amazing how pissed off folks can get at something that is offered at NO COST TO THEM, like the historical features.

God bless you, John. You are a patient man.

Alaskagram's picture

As a professional sound engineer I can tell you that the resonance of air is 7Hz the air will not support a wavelength longer then this. Consequently the air can not complete the feedback loop. Above this frequency the wave lengths are huge untill above 40Hz. Most home listen rooms are too small for wavelengths below 40Hz to form air borne resonances and as a result most feedback in turntables come from mechanically coupled resonances. These resonances can come from floors,table tops ,etc.. This why predicting these standing waves is so difficult.
During the heyday of the discos it was standard practice to suspend the turntable or use a sand box to dampen feedback. So it may not be prudent to blame "feedback" on just one part,the tonearm, rather the entire system must be taken into account.
P.S. the reference to being a "sound pro" is that after 30+ years mixing live sound I just might know a thing or two about feedback. Tonearm compliance may not so much, feedback yeah.

corrective_unconscious's picture

Has nothing to do with compressions and rarefactions in the air...well, not until that resonance impacts various parts of the audio reproduction chain and the thus changed result is repoduced in air.

The physical size of a room is one factor of many which determine the longest wavelength effectively supported by that room. It could have an acoustic "size" that is much larger, depending.

SET Man's picture

Hey!

Is Stereophile having Altzheimer's? Not to me! I'm surprised to see that some people are having problem with Stereophile posting old reviews like this one.

For me, even thouhg this arm came out before I was born... I'm 37 by the way. I do enjoy reading old pieces like this. It is a glimps of how we got here today and it is also useful for those collectors and those whom enjoy vintage audio stuffs. And not to mention that old pieces like this can also inspire what's to come in the future.

And the best parts of these historical reviews like this on Stereophile is that it's free!

By the way I'm listening to Bjork's "Debut" LP on my 1971-72 vintage Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference with SME 3009 II Improved arm and Benz Micro ACE HO cartridge ;)

Pages

Transcriptors Vestigal tonearm Manufacturer's Comment

Thu, 05/07/2015
Share | |
COMMENTS
eugovector's picture

It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

Stereophile hasn't reviewed a Synergistic product in years.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

eugovector's picture

And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

My apologies. Hadn't had enough coffee when I responded this morning, as I forgot that Michael Fremer had written about the Synergistic Research ECTs, HCTs, and PCTs in the February issue's "Analog Corner" column.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

jmsent's picture

... many years back, and it was a total piece of junk.

T-NYC's picture

... David Gammon was correct in his use of Vestigal as Google shall tell, although Vestigial is also correct. As to the rest of the review, I agree based on the available empirical evidence and a reliable first-hand account.

Venere's picture

Holt and Gammon both sound like insufferable assholes. Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists. Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers. Lastly, articles like this only serve to show what a pain in the ass analog reproduction is (was?) and why the entire world (other than a handful of tech-dweebs who would prefer to tinker and adjust their turntables and tonearms rather than actually listen to music) has moved on to digital sources and playback. I'd rather have crappy sound from an iPod that have to deal with all the BS discussed in this "review". Fortunately, there is also the option of listening to music on a quite satisfying modern system consisting of a disk player, an integrated amp with onboard DAC, and a pair of speakers. What an appropriately named product, the Vestigal remains of a dead technology. RIP.

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I also wonder why Stereophile.com republishes ancient reviews of defunct gear. Must be Altzheimer's.

John Atkinson's picture
Venere wrote:
Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists.

1) There is a demand for our reprinting these classic reviews from the magazine's earlier days, to judge from the emails I receive from readers.

2) When we started our website, one goal was eventually to have all the magazine's reviews reprinted on-line, going all the way back to the first issue. We are well on the way to achieving that goal, hence the appearance of a review from 1975 like this.

3) This review was a classic example of theory and practice being opposed, hence I thought readers would find it instructional.

4) It costs you nothing to read this review, so what's the problem?

Venere wrote:
Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers.

Each issue of the print Stereophile features reviews of "new equipment." Even if you don't want to purchase the print magazine, those reviews eventually find their way on to our website.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea. Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

John Atkinson's picture
Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea.

Thank you. I forgot to list a 5th reason for posting these historical reviews and essay: it allows new readers to discover what a pioneer Stereophile's founder, the late J. Gordon Holt, was in the art of audio journalism.

Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

I am slowly working my way back posting the "Recordings of the Month" and am about to reach July 1982. All the "Records to Die For" features and many music features are already available in our free on-line archive.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

corrective_unconscious's picture

I saw this arm and table in high school, and it was one of my formative, first experiences with high end audio along with hearing the Dahlquists and the room dividing Maggies. It's interesting to read such a scathing criticism of various claims made for the arm, because it reminds me how much of my interest in high end audio to this day is based on the industrial design, the gadget aspect, the nerdy coolness of the gear, regardless of how much sense any of it makes in financial or even music reproduction terms.

volvic's picture

I love these old reviews, takes me back, learn new things about old gear and how great some of the old gear was and was not.

Bill Leebens's picture

Personally, I side with George Santayana's epigram, "Those who are unaware of the past are condemned to repeat it"--proof of which can be seen in US military policy, as well as the audio industry, in many instances.

Evidently, some readers side with Henry Ford: "History is bunk." How can one argue with a man who once said, "I've got no use for an engine that has more cylinders than a cow has teats??"

Amazing how pissed off folks can get at something that is offered at NO COST TO THEM, like the historical features.

God bless you, John. You are a patient man.

Alaskagram's picture

As a professional sound engineer I can tell you that the resonance of air is 7Hz the air will not support a wavelength longer then this. Consequently the air can not complete the feedback loop. Above this frequency the wave lengths are huge untill above 40Hz. Most home listen rooms are too small for wavelengths below 40Hz to form air borne resonances and as a result most feedback in turntables come from mechanically coupled resonances. These resonances can come from floors,table tops ,etc.. This why predicting these standing waves is so difficult.
During the heyday of the discos it was standard practice to suspend the turntable or use a sand box to dampen feedback. So it may not be prudent to blame "feedback" on just one part,the tonearm, rather the entire system must be taken into account.
P.S. the reference to being a "sound pro" is that after 30+ years mixing live sound I just might know a thing or two about feedback. Tonearm compliance may not so much, feedback yeah.

corrective_unconscious's picture

Has nothing to do with compressions and rarefactions in the air...well, not until that resonance impacts various parts of the audio reproduction chain and the thus changed result is repoduced in air.

The physical size of a room is one factor of many which determine the longest wavelength effectively supported by that room. It could have an acoustic "size" that is much larger, depending.

SET Man's picture

Hey!

Is Stereophile having Altzheimer's? Not to me! I'm surprised to see that some people are having problem with Stereophile posting old reviews like this one.

For me, even thouhg this arm came out before I was born... I'm 37 by the way. I do enjoy reading old pieces like this. It is a glimps of how we got here today and it is also useful for those collectors and those whom enjoy vintage audio stuffs. And not to mention that old pieces like this can also inspire what's to come in the future.

And the best parts of these historical reviews like this on Stereophile is that it's free!

By the way I'm listening to Bjork's "Debut" LP on my 1971-72 vintage Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference with SME 3009 II Improved arm and Benz Micro ACE HO cartridge ;)

Pages

Transcriptors Vestigal tonearm Page 2

Thu, 05/07/2015
Share | |
COMMENTS
eugovector's picture

It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
It's articles like this that make me wonder what JGH would have said about products that tend to get a bit of coverage in the modern mag, like pretty much anything from Synergistic Research.

Stereophile hasn't reviewed a Synergistic product in years.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

eugovector's picture

And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

John Atkinson's picture
eugovector wrote:
And yet, that didn't stop you from putting them on the 2015 Recommended Products List.

My apologies. Hadn't had enough coffee when I responded this morning, as I forgot that Michael Fremer had written about the Synergistic Research ECTs, HCTs, and PCTs in the February issue's "Analog Corner" column.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

jmsent's picture

... many years back, and it was a total piece of junk.

T-NYC's picture

... David Gammon was correct in his use of Vestigal as Google shall tell, although Vestigial is also correct. As to the rest of the review, I agree based on the available empirical evidence and a reliable first-hand account.

Venere's picture

Holt and Gammon both sound like insufferable assholes. Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists. Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers. Lastly, articles like this only serve to show what a pain in the ass analog reproduction is (was?) and why the entire world (other than a handful of tech-dweebs who would prefer to tinker and adjust their turntables and tonearms rather than actually listen to music) has moved on to digital sources and playback. I'd rather have crappy sound from an iPod that have to deal with all the BS discussed in this "review". Fortunately, there is also the option of listening to music on a quite satisfying modern system consisting of a disk player, an integrated amp with onboard DAC, and a pair of speakers. What an appropriately named product, the Vestigal remains of a dead technology. RIP.

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I also wonder why Stereophile.com republishes ancient reviews of defunct gear. Must be Altzheimer's.

John Atkinson's picture
Venere wrote:
Not sure what the point is for reprinting crap like this for a product that no longer exists.

1) There is a demand for our reprinting these classic reviews from the magazine's earlier days, to judge from the emails I receive from readers.

2) When we started our website, one goal was eventually to have all the magazine's reviews reprinted on-line, going all the way back to the first issue. We are well on the way to achieving that goal, hence the appearance of a review from 1975 like this.

3) This review was a classic example of theory and practice being opposed, hence I thought readers would find it instructional.

4) It costs you nothing to read this review, so what's the problem?

Venere wrote:
Review some new equipment that has some relevance to your readers.

Each issue of the print Stereophile features reviews of "new equipment." Even if you don't want to purchase the print magazine, those reviews eventually find their way on to our website.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea. Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

John Atkinson's picture
Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
I think an archive of all prior reviews is a great idea.

Thank you. I forgot to list a 5th reason for posting these historical reviews and essay: it allows new readers to discover what a pioneer Stereophile's founder, the late J. Gordon Holt, was in the art of audio journalism.

Osgood Crinkly III wrote:
Hopefully, it will include music reviews and feature pieces, as well.

I am slowly working my way back posting the "Recordings of the Month" and am about to reach July 1982. All the "Records to Die For" features and many music features are already available in our free on-line archive.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

corrective_unconscious's picture

I saw this arm and table in high school, and it was one of my formative, first experiences with high end audio along with hearing the Dahlquists and the room dividing Maggies. It's interesting to read such a scathing criticism of various claims made for the arm, because it reminds me how much of my interest in high end audio to this day is based on the industrial design, the gadget aspect, the nerdy coolness of the gear, regardless of how much sense any of it makes in financial or even music reproduction terms.

volvic's picture

I love these old reviews, takes me back, learn new things about old gear and how great some of the old gear was and was not.

Bill Leebens's picture

Personally, I side with George Santayana's epigram, "Those who are unaware of the past are condemned to repeat it"--proof of which can be seen in US military policy, as well as the audio industry, in many instances.

Evidently, some readers side with Henry Ford: "History is bunk." How can one argue with a man who once said, "I've got no use for an engine that has more cylinders than a cow has teats??"

Amazing how pissed off folks can get at something that is offered at NO COST TO THEM, like the historical features.

God bless you, John. You are a patient man.

Alaskagram's picture

As a professional sound engineer I can tell you that the resonance of air is 7Hz the air will not support a wavelength longer then this. Consequently the air can not complete the feedback loop. Above this frequency the wave lengths are huge untill above 40Hz. Most home listen rooms are too small for wavelengths below 40Hz to form air borne resonances and as a result most feedback in turntables come from mechanically coupled resonances. These resonances can come from floors,table tops ,etc.. This why predicting these standing waves is so difficult.
During the heyday of the discos it was standard practice to suspend the turntable or use a sand box to dampen feedback. So it may not be prudent to blame "feedback" on just one part,the tonearm, rather the entire system must be taken into account.
P.S. the reference to being a "sound pro" is that after 30+ years mixing live sound I just might know a thing or two about feedback. Tonearm compliance may not so much, feedback yeah.

corrective_unconscious's picture

Has nothing to do with compressions and rarefactions in the air...well, not until that resonance impacts various parts of the audio reproduction chain and the thus changed result is repoduced in air.

The physical size of a room is one factor of many which determine the longest wavelength effectively supported by that room. It could have an acoustic "size" that is much larger, depending.

SET Man's picture

Hey!

Is Stereophile having Altzheimer's? Not to me! I'm surprised to see that some people are having problem with Stereophile posting old reviews like this one.

For me, even thouhg this arm came out before I was born... I'm 37 by the way. I do enjoy reading old pieces like this. It is a glimps of how we got here today and it is also useful for those collectors and those whom enjoy vintage audio stuffs. And not to mention that old pieces like this can also inspire what's to come in the future.

And the best parts of these historical reviews like this on Stereophile is that it's free!

By the way I'm listening to Bjork's "Debut" LP on my 1971-72 vintage Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference with SME 3009 II Improved arm and Benz Micro ACE HO cartridge ;)

Pages

Transcriptors Vestigal tonearm

Because this is an unusual and controversial tonearm design, and has had astonishing claims made for its performance by the manufacturer, this in-depth report goes deeper and is longer than is usual for Stereophile. We will return to a reasonable balance of reportage in the next issue.

The manufacturer's initial advertisement for their mis-named "Vestigal" arm (footnote 1) was so laced with nonsense that we will admit to having been skeptical about the product from the outset.

Tue, 04/01/1975
Share | |

Wadia Digimaster 2000 Mk.2 digital processors Specifications

Thu, 05/07/2015
Share | |

Wadia Digimaster 2000 Mk.2 digital processors System Context

Thu, 05/07/2015
Share | |

Wadia Digimaster 2000 Mk.2 digital processors December 1996

Thu, 05/07/2015
Share | |

Pages

X
Enter your Stereophile.com username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Loading