Yeah, I was thinking about doing that since I have a few nice p-mount carts. I really like that AT3482P on my Technics, I want to find out what it sounds like on this new table now.
Monolith table
- Thread starter Roboturner91
- Start date
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
This is yet another version of the Hanpin entry-level OEM belt-drive turntable. I wonder how many models (brands) are labeling these now. I lost count. I think it started with Teac (?). With that feature set and price, they probably won't be able to keep 'em in stock. However, I can't help but think that a U-Turn would be an overall better sounding table. It's a rather nice looking table I must admit. I wouldn't expect much in the performance department at that price point.
lico
Super Member
I kind of expected this. Enlighten me please. Hanpin (universally disregarded as junk) = Ya Horng or whoever makes these tables?
I really don't know (and I know a bit) so tell me the full story. I don't think you know much either.
Why is U-Turn so much better?
I think you are mistaken. This table, and the Teac, Fluance and Elac, do not appear to have anything in common with any of the Hanpin manufactured tables. They look nothing alike and do not share any components that I can tell.
Obviously none of this is "audiophile" equipment, but I'm pretty sure the U-turn isn't either, for all its merits. (I still haven't ruled out buying a U-turn as well, FWIW, letting them go head to head and seeing which one wins out)
Last edited:
vwestlife
Super Member
Hanpin Electron is the OEM who makes Audio-Technica's turntables and those for other brands selling similar Technics SL-1200-style DJ turntables, such as Numark, Reloop, Music Hall, etc. They are far from "universally disregarded as junk".
Ya Horng Electronic Co. Ltd. is another OEM who makes turntables for TEAC, Fluance, Akai, Monoprice, etc.
Both companies are based in Taiwan and have manufacturing facilities in China, but that's where the similarities end.
Assuming that Ya Horng is the manufacturer of the new Fluance reference series, it appears to me that they have seriously stepped up their game, not that their previous tables weren't good already, IMO. The features on the reference tables are spot-on and the specs are quite good, with W&F .07% for example. I would not hesitate for a second to buy a machine made by Ya Horng.
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
I'm not absolutely sure that Hanpin make this one. However, Hanpin is the large Chinese OEM turntable manufacturer. Could there be another large scale turntable manufacturer in China? Sure, but I have not heard of another and have not seen another discussed on the industry forums I frequent. I would seriously doubt anyone except Hanpin would have the in-house parts availability and manufacturing capability to produce a brand new turntable model for such a modest cost. The tonearm looks like Hanpin standard fare to me. I could be wrong. But it is more than likely. I will be interesting to see if anyone will take the time to actually do a measurement comparison between the Monoprice Monolith and a U-Turn. I remember when the Teac TN-400 first hit the market, there was concern over the .2% Wow and Flutter specification. I remember someone measuring there own personal Teac TN-400 turntable at around .1%, which is much better than the rated value. Perhaps these mass-produced budget models are getting better.
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
I don't have the full story of course. I just see several similarities to other turntables in this range and have listened to a few. The U-Turn was a better sounding table to me and seemed to be a much better quality (parts). Neither is audiophile equipment, but I am curious to see how this one from Monoprice measures up. Monoprice is known for high value products with decent performance.
Ya Horng is the manufacturer of the Teacs, Fluance and others, probably including the monoprice, as noted above. These are not Hanpins, not that I have a problem with Hanpin, since I own a Super OEM (PLX-1000) as well.
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
Yes, that is the other OEM. Thanks for the info.
Did five runs with the RPM app. Speed was consistently between 33.34 and 33.37. W/f was:
.11
.10
.11
.12
.11
So about .11, which to me at least is very acceptable. I expect, however, if I had a proper flat weight to put my phone on, I would probably get a better measurement. I used two 45 adapters stacked, which gave me a flat surface but it was a little wobbly and I couldn't get the phone exactly dead center.
Last edited:
I did notice this table had the azimuth issue that the Teacs have been reported to have. I applied a little elbow grease and it looks better now, although I can't tell a difference in the sound.
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
That really is not too bad for a table at this price point. Way better than spec.
Goodness, I thought I had won the inexpensive-but-good bonanza two years ago when I got a Fluance RT80 direct from Fluance for $180 on sale, but you have definitely won that prize for now Robo. Glad to hear your machine is working well and looking forward to a review once you've really gotten used to it. When I bought both a RT80 and RT81 a couple of years ago, I dealt with a torrent of negative posts in forums about the Chinese junk I bought, but both of those machines are still working a treat and I assume they will for many years to come. They're solid IMO.
Decibel_116
AK Subscriber
One thing I didn't mention is that your cell phone is adding to the Wow measurement. Actual value is probably much better without the added weight of your phone...
Frank Sol
Lunatic Member
lico
Super Member
Sorry - overstated. When I said universally disgregarded I meant I read a lot of comments bashing Hanpin. I don't agree with it.
lico
Super Member
Yep I remember that too, I was the guy who measured the TN-300 and wrote it up. I measured several tables using a test tone record feeding a PC and some wow and flutter software from over at Tapeheads. The cell phone apps that can measure it are subject to a noisy microphone. I tested vintage tables to make sure the measurement was close to stated specs for vintage tables I had, then then I figured I could trust it for measuring the Teac. If I recall the Teac was around 0.06. It was a contentious thread.