In my review of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//loudspeakerreviews/417/">Polk Audio's RT25i loudspeaker</A> (September 2001, Vol.24 No.9), I was mightily impressed with Matthew Polk's execution of this $320/pair design. Although it has since been replaced by the RT27i, with slightly modified cosmetics and a different tweeter, the RT25i remains my favorite loudspeaker costing less than $500/pair.

In my review of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//loudspeakerreviews/417/">Polk Audio's RT25i loudspeaker</A> (September 2001, Vol.24 No.9), I was mightily impressed with Matthew Polk's execution of this $320/pair design. Although it has since been replaced by the RT27i, with slightly modified cosmetics and a different tweeter, the RT25i remains my favorite loudspeaker costing less than $500/pair.

In my review of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//loudspeakerreviews/417/">Polk Audio's RT25i loudspeaker</A> (September 2001, Vol.24 No.9), I was mightily impressed with Matthew Polk's execution of this $320/pair design. Although it has since been replaced by the RT27i, with slightly modified cosmetics and a different tweeter, the RT25i remains my favorite loudspeaker costing less than $500/pair.

Dense, compact, and built to run <B>O</B>-rings around the competition, SME's flagship turntable makes every other design I've encountered&mdash;with the possible exception of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//analogsourcereviews/258/">Rockport's System III Sirius</A>&mdash;look almost homemade. I don't mean to insult the many fine, well-engineered designs out there, but I've seen nothing else to compare with SME's tank-like approach to spinning a record. Comparing the Model 30/2 to a tank isn't exactly fair: the machining is done to higher than mil-spec tolerances. I don't think anyone else building turntables today is <I>capable</I> of this level of construction quality, never mind design ingenuity and fit'n'finish.

Dense, compact, and built to run <B>O</B>-rings around the competition, SME's flagship turntable makes every other design I've encountered&mdash;with the possible exception of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//analogsourcereviews/258/">Rockport's System III Sirius</A>&mdash;look almost homemade. I don't mean to insult the many fine, well-engineered designs out there, but I've seen nothing else to compare with SME's tank-like approach to spinning a record. Comparing the Model 30/2 to a tank isn't exactly fair: the machining is done to higher than mil-spec tolerances. I don't think anyone else building turntables today is <I>capable</I> of this level of construction quality, never mind design ingenuity and fit'n'finish.

Dense, compact, and built to run <B>O</B>-rings around the competition, SME's flagship turntable makes every other design I've encountered&mdash;with the possible exception of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//analogsourcereviews/258/">Rockport's System III Sirius</A>&mdash;look almost homemade. I don't mean to insult the many fine, well-engineered designs out there, but I've seen nothing else to compare with SME's tank-like approach to spinning a record. Comparing the Model 30/2 to a tank isn't exactly fair: the machining is done to higher than mil-spec tolerances. I don't think anyone else building turntables today is <I>capable</I> of this level of construction quality, never mind design ingenuity and fit'n'finish.

Dense, compact, and built to run <B>O</B>-rings around the competition, SME's flagship turntable makes every other design I've encountered&mdash;with the possible exception of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//analogsourcereviews/258/">Rockport's System III Sirius</A>&mdash;look almost homemade. I don't mean to insult the many fine, well-engineered designs out there, but I've seen nothing else to compare with SME's tank-like approach to spinning a record. Comparing the Model 30/2 to a tank isn't exactly fair: the machining is done to higher than mil-spec tolerances. I don't think anyone else building turntables today is <I>capable</I> of this level of construction quality, never mind design ingenuity and fit'n'finish.

Dense, compact, and built to run <B>O</B>-rings around the competition, SME's flagship turntable makes every other design I've encountered&mdash;with the possible exception of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//analogsourcereviews/258/">Rockport's System III Sirius</A>&mdash;look almost homemade. I don't mean to insult the many fine, well-engineered designs out there, but I've seen nothing else to compare with SME's tank-like approach to spinning a record. Comparing the Model 30/2 to a tank isn't exactly fair: the machining is done to higher than mil-spec tolerances. I don't think anyone else building turntables today is <I>capable</I> of this level of construction quality, never mind design ingenuity and fit'n'finish.

Dense, compact, and built to run <B>O</B>-rings around the competition, SME's flagship turntable makes every other design I've encountered&mdash;with the possible exception of <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//analogsourcereviews/258/">Rockport's System III Sirius</A>&mdash;look almost homemade. I don't mean to insult the many fine, well-engineered designs out there, but I've seen nothing else to compare with SME's tank-like approach to spinning a record. Comparing the Model 30/2 to a tank isn't exactly fair: the machining is done to higher than mil-spec tolerances. I don't think anyone else building turntables today is <I>capable</I> of this level of construction quality, never mind design ingenuity and fit'n'finish.