A question of loading...

I've been running MC's into 47k since the 80's sans step up transformers. Do you know what load the Kleos is seeing at the moment ?

@dover  At the moment, i am presuming that since I am not loading the cartridge at all, it is seeing 47K. This is what surprises me a little, as previously with the older tube phono stage sans the SUT, a straight in with no load was definitely inferior to the custom 750 ohm plug that i was using. Now, with the SUT and at 47K ( presumably) that is certainly no longer the case as the SQ is as described in my OP.

I have a Lyra kleos and an Ortofon Cadenza bronze and run those with no loading into a Herron VTPH-2A. 
Soon I’m going to try a Kiseki purple heart and the recommended loading is 400 ohms but I will try it without loading plugs.
As I understand, loading is for the phono stage, not the cartridge.

Loading is at the phono stage, but it absolutely has an effect on the sound of the cartridge. There is some belief that loading effects a MM cartridge more than a MC, but I am not totally sure this is the case.
The loading would seem to be dependent on the combination of what sounds best depending on the phono stage and the cartridge, wherein I was previously under the impression that it was somewhat cartridge dependent and NOT to do with the particular phono stage as much. Seems like it is both at this point.

@daveyf 

The reason I asked  about the actual loading on MC is because I was wondering how they got the extra 11db for the MC input. If they used low gain transformers then the actual load would be 47k/turns ratio (of the transformer )squared - which would result in a load seen by the MC cartridge somewhere between 3500 - 5000 ohms.
According to Steophile review of the Cat SL1 Renaissance MC unloaded measured 3560 ohms.
So it is possble your load is between 3 & 5kohms.

Jonathan Carr the designer of your cartridge says that loading does not affect the cartridge itself with modern MC designs, but what loading  can do is dampen any ultrasonics that might affect the phono stage ( solid state devices can have low overload margins at very high frequencies, whereas tube designs less so ). Thats why he specs out loading range  up to 47k.

In my view if you can run MC's into higher impedances without upsetting the phono its a good thing. Klyne has done this for years, they use higher loading combined with very high frequency contouring to tame any ultrasonic nasties.. you are hearing the benefit of "unloading" your cartridge.

@dover   Thanks. I was certainly quite surprised at the nice increase in SQ due to 'unloading' the cartridge ( even if maybe the load is as you say, at around 3500 ohms!) . Oddly, when I was using the older style CAT phono stage without the low gain transformers and the same cartridge, the SQ was definitely better at the 750 ohm level. Just goes to show that one cannot assume similarities in this area with different gear upstream.

@dover is Klyne still active?

Dear @solypsa : I think closed a few years ago. Excellent electronics designs.


http://www.klyne.com/pages/system7.html


this was its phone:

Klyne Audio ArtsOlympia, WA 98501(360) 273-8477


and here you can read the cartridge loading through Klyne  unit:

https://www.techtrader.ch/auction/2016/03/Klyne-7-PX_B-3.5.3-manual.pdf


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

As I posted elsewhere recently, with my Lyra Etna Lamda and Manley Steelhead, unloading to 25 does produce a very euphonic lively sound with more "space" in all directions. But I can hear distortion-the type of distortion one hears when there is too much 2nd harmonic. It is very pleasant but you know it is not right. It is the audio equivalent of a carnival mirror. Too much loading and the sound becomes lifeless. 100K killed the sound. You have to strike a balance. For my Etna, it is 50K. But there are so many variables-VTA, cantilever-suspension break-in, the preamp, the tonearm cabling. I use Reed 3P arms with the cryo treated Firewire that runs straight from clips to RCA's. 

Dear @daveyf : This is a " little " diferent point of view of M.Huber designer and owner of FM Acoustics about MC loading:

https://www.fmacoustics.com/products/phono-linearizers/fm-223/

just download the data sheet information at the end of the page.

His unit is a unique design.

According that that loading of the Etna Lamda at 50K says the design problem that Manley unit has as any other phono stage design where the owners needs that kind of loading values to achieve a decent sound reproduction.

In my system unit that just does not happens and that’s why I never need to use that kind of loading figure. I tested it and that's why I said that.

R.

I do rue your gas, Raul. 
There is nothing in Daveyf's posts to indicate he is using an Etna Lambda or a Manley phono stage. You seem to be confusing me with him. Second, there is nothing in your link that even remotely addresses the issue. Are you inebriated when you post sir? It would explain much.
//S// Fsonicsmith Eating Raul. 

@fsonicsmith 

Your 1st email above is impossible to decipher

unloading to 25 does produce a very euphonic lively sound

25 what ? - 25 ohms or 25kohms ?
If you mean 25ohms you are loading the cartridge, not unloading it.
If you mean 25kohms, then you are indeed "unloading it", relative to say 100ohms.

Too much loading and the sound becomes lifeless.You have to strike a balance. For my Etna, it is 50K. 

This statement is oxymoronic.
 "too much loading and the sound becomes lifeless" - I agree with this if you mean loading down to 50, 100 ohms etc.
"For my Etna, it is 50k" -  50 kohms is unloading, its higher than the standard 47k.

Dear @fsonicsmith  : I know what I posted perfectly, no problem with.

I took what you posted only as an example of what M.Huber states in his site but I know that you not download the information about that's pertinent to that 50K/Manley combination.

Read again what I posted to Davey and you will know you are wrong on your statement.

R.

@rauliruegas   Thanks for your post and the link. I did read the link. Seems like FM believes that 20-500 ohms works best for MC cartridges. While this may be true with their preamp, it was not true with my older CAT as it sounded best loaded to 750 Ohms and NOT lower and as stated in my OP, my new model CAT sounds way better unloaded! 

For my Etna, it is 50k" -  50 kohms is unloading, its higher than the standard 47k.

You are showing your ignorance Dover. 47K is not standard for a MC and not standard with the Etna Lambda, which I am listening to as I type this. 47K is the standard for MM. Not for MC. We vinyl junkies, for better or worse, refer to lower capacitance as unloading even though you are technically correct. Why is this? Because as you lower loading values, the cantilever is subject to less damping. At the end of the day it is damping and not technical numbers that counts. Someone who knows his stuff wrote this;

The loading that the owner adds is a resistor in parallel to the signal path. That means that the higher the value of that resistor, the LOWER the amount of loading. Higher loading (lower value of the resistor) tends to damp high frequency peaks. With modern cartridges, the peak is usually well into the ultrasonic range, so loading is not needed as much as was the case in the past to correct for peaks. Jonathan Carr, the designer and builder of Lyra cartridges is among those who believe that additional loading is not needed to damp such peaks and it takes away some of the extension and open and airy sound on top. However, even though the peak is outside of the normal hearing range, it can be high enough in amplitude to overload some phono stages. He believes that loading is more important for preventing such overloading than in taming the frequency response of cartridges. I tend to agree with this. I happen to have a phono stage that does not overload and I like to run my MC cartridges (Lyra Titan and Transfiguration Orpheus L) wide open.

Sometimes, loading helps to suppress RF interference. A friend had a Hovland preamp that was passing a lot of hashy noise. It turned out that the factory default loading was 100k (essentially no loading). When we increased loading, the noise went away.

There is absolutely no harm in utilizing any particular amount of loading so one can experiment. I tend to find that higher levels of loading, say any value lower than 100 ohms, makes the sound warmer, more bass prevalent and shut down on top. Also, the lower the resistor value, the lower the total output so that volume level will go down. As a very rough rule, with most cartridges, a load of about 125 to 150 works perfectly well, and no much difference is heard if a higher value resistor (lower loading) than that is used.

@fsonicsmith 

47K is the standard for MM. Not for MC.

Whats your point. Are you loading at 50k as you claim or 50 ohms ?

We vinyl junkies, for better or worse, refer to lower capacitance as unloading even though you are technically correct. 

MC's are not generally impacted by capacitance changes.
Loading generally refers to resistance with MC's.

Because as you lower loading values, the cantilever is subject to less damping. At the end of the day it is damping and not technical numbers that counts. 

Jonathan Carr, the designer of your cartridge, does not agree with this.
Your theory is old school thinking. If you search for JCarr postings on loading you will find his views elsewhere on this forum.
 

You are showing your ignorance Dover. 47K is not standard for a MC and not standard with the Etna Lambda, which I am listening to as I type this. 47K is the standard for MM. Not for MC.

Actually 47K is the standard input impedance for all phono sections, MM or LOMC.


LOMC cartridges often seem to need lower impedances, but this is really for the benefit of the phono preamp, not the cartridge, due to the reasons Jonathan Carr has talked about, mentioned earlier on this thread.


I've been telling people this for years. If your phono section does not have troubles with the RFI caused by most LOMC cartridges (and the capacitance of the tonearm cable) then 47K will sound just fine.

An additional side benefit will be less ticks and pops, since the phono preamp will generate ticks and pops if the input section is overloaded by the RFI at its input. It is for this reason that tubes have a distinct advantage over solid state, as its easier to designed a phono section using tubes that is hard to overload.

+ 1 Atmasphere.

OTOH, do tubes have a distinct advantage?? I would say that they do when it comes to overall SQ, plus the decreased likelihood of overload, BUT they are never 100% quiet...at least IME. There is always some minimal hiss..and this leads me to believe that their noise floor has to be higher than ss. 

You are showing your ignorance Dover. 47K is not standard for a MC and not standard with the Etna Lambda, which I am listening to as I type this. 47K is the standard for MM. Not for MC.

Actually 47K is the standard input impedance for all phono sections, MM or LOMC.


LOMC cartridges often seem to need lower impedances, but this is really for the benefit of the phono preamp, not the cartridge, due to the reasons Jonathan Carr has talked about, mentioned earlier on this thread.


I've been telling people this for years. If your phono section does not have troubles with the RFI caused by most LOMC cartridges (and the capacitance of the tonearm cable) then 47K will sound just fine.

An additional side benefit will be less ticks and pops, since the phono preamp will generate ticks and pops if the input section is overloaded by the RFI at its input. It is for this reason that tubes have a distinct advantage over solid state, as its easier to designed a phono section using tubes that is hard to overload.

Ralph, as I have said many times you are a great asset and resource to this Board but when it comes to phono stage topics many including myself simply feel you are somehow losing the forest for the trees, to put it politely. First, Jonathan Carr never says anything remotely similar about optimum loading for his cartridges. I am looking at Jonathan Carr's loading chart that came with my Etna as I type this and depending upon the gain setting and the total capacitance of the tonearm wire in interaction with the phono stage and the recommended loading ranges between 104 and 340 ohms for 0dB gain and between 284 and 887 in the highest gain column of +6dB. 
But that is Jonathan Carr who sees things (rightly so) from the perspective of the cartridge manufacturer. Now lets talk about phono stage producers. They don't espouse charts, they talk about listening. Each phono stage manufacturer knows the attributes of their designs. My Manley Steelhead with built in step-up transformers is not going to behave the way a Sutherland 20-20 (just for example) will. 
To say that 47K is the standard or de facto or even starting-point loading for a LOMC is ludicrous. 

Dear @daveyf  : There is no single advantage, today SS phono stages just can't be overloaded in normal condition: comes with very good headroom. That " problem " was a " problem " of the past/several years ago. Everything change SS manufacturers move on because they learn too, they are not sticked in the past as atmasphere.

In the other side in his last post @fsonicsmith is just rigth and if we read the page 3 and 4 in the FM Acoustics link data sheet M.Huber point out easy and important information about.

Atmasphere is sticked with his very old opinion and in several threads here or in WBT was defeated but is his privilege to be sticked there: just does not moves. Who cares? .

Yes, in other audio subjects he is a very good resource as @fsonicsmith  says.

R.

Actually 47K is the standard input impedance for all phono sections, MM or LOMC.

Perhaps Ralph is referring to "industry standards" which are like the  biological artifacts of teets on boars and tailbones on humans. Or better yet, like the silly 1996 standard set by the industry for headphone amps to have 120 ohm output impedance. The audio industry has a long sordid history of setting standards that made little sense other than being convenient at the time and then slavishly and stupidly following them for years until someone brave and brash yelled for truth. People like Charley Hansen for example. How I (and most all of us) miss Charley. 

OTOH, do tubes have a distinct advantage?? I would say that they do when it comes to overall SQ, plus the decreased likelihood of overload, BUT they are never 100% quiet...at least IME. There is always some minimal hiss..and this leads me to believe that their noise floor has to be higher than ss.

Yes, they are noisier but they can be quiet enough that 0.2mV is no worries.

Jonathan Carr never says anything remotely similar about optimum loading for his cartridges. I am looking at Jonathan Carr's loading chart that came with my Etna as I type this and depending upon the gain setting and the total capacitance of the tonearm wire in interaction with the phono stage and the recommended loading ranges between 104 and 340 ohms for 0dB gain and between 284 and 887 in the highest gain column of +6dB.
But that is Jonathan Carr who sees things (rightly so) from the perspective of the cartridge manufacturer. Now lets talk about phono stage producers. They don't espouse charts, they talk about listening. Each phono stage manufacturer knows the attributes of their designs. My Manley Steelhead with built in step-up transformers is not going to behave the way a Sutherland 20-20 (just for example) will.
To say that 47K is the standard or de facto or even starting-point loading for a LOMC is ludicrous. 

@fsonicsmith 

You might think it ludicrous, but 47K is the industry standard for phonograph inputs nonetheless. Because many phono sections have problems with the RFI generated by LOMC cartridges (keeping in mind how much gain they employ to work with cartridges of output this low) its common to see loading options on such preamps. Think about it this way: Since all cartridges are different, and you need an input resistance with any circuit that can amplify, what would be the correct value for that resistance?? You might ask your self why most phono sections have a 47K input impedance... the answer is that is the industry standard; it was not something that is a random coincidence that so many phono sections are built this way.


Jonathon has his recommendations for a very simple reason: He cannot be sure that the phono section to which you are connecting his product is going to be alright with the RFI generated by the cartridge/tonearm cable combination. Further, he's also go not idea what cable you're using! So he has loading recommendations on that account, and they cover a range rather than being a specific value. He also knows that most phono sections don't deal with the RFI issue very well. But if you talk to him, which I have done in person, you find out that he thinks 'no loading' (IOW the stock 47K input of the phono section) is better if you can pull it off.

Its true as you say that not all phono sections act the same :)  That is a bit of an understatement! For example, a phono section employing an SUT will not have RFI issues, since the RFI is blocked by the SUT. Instead, you have to be careful to load the output of the SUT correctly so that the transformer does not 'ring' (distort) on account of the specific impedance of the cartridge (if you want to know more about how the ringing phenomena works please ask). So you'll find that depending on the cartridge, different resistor/capacitor values are used to accomplish that loading. So yeah, that's quite a bit different from a solid state phono section using opamps or an all-tube phono section that can run the LOMC cartridge straight in!

There is no single advantage, today SS phono stages just can't be overloaded in normal condition: comes with very good headroom. That " problem " was a " problem " of the past/several years ago.

With a solid state phono section using either opamps or discreet transistors, its the part that is outside the feedback loop that is open to overload. This is the input circuit of the preamp, which might be no more than the base of the input transistor.  We're talking about an electrical peak of 20-30dB that occurs with all LOMC cartridges in tandem with the tonearm cable (the former having a high-Q inductance, the latter having a capacitance; the two in parallel form the resonant circuit, whose resonance might be at several MHz). While there are SS phono sections that deal with this properly (Pass Labs for example) its a falsehood to say that all of them do!


Its a simple fact that if the designer has not made provision for this resonant peak, it can overload the input circuit, resulting in a tick or pop when it does so. To get around this problem, you have two options: design the phono section to take quite a bit more input voltage than LOMC cartridges are known to produce (and do as much as you can to prevent RFI from coming in through the input connectors), or come up with a loading provision (the 'loading resistor'), so the resonant peak can be detuned.


Of course if you use the loading resistor option, you are asking the cartridge to do more work. If you're using 100 ohms as a loading resistor, that's a couple of orders of magnitude more work than if the cartridge is driving 47K. This results in the cantilever being stiffer- the same as what happens with a raw woofer if you short it out (they are both based on the same principle of operation).  This is not a matter of debate, if you feel the desire to do so, take it up with Mr. Ohm. Ohm's Law cannot be defeated and isn't open to interpretation. If there is more current flowing, it has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the motion of the stylus in the groove. So the fact that the cantilever gets stiffer is not controversial. Anyone versed in the art knows this- Jonathan Carr and I discussed this issue at the Munich Show a few years ago. 


Raul's stipulation that this overload issue is something of the past is correct as most phono sections were only designed to have 'enough gain, low enough noise and proper EQ' and the electrical resonance was ignored. But he is incorrect in his assertion that this has been put to bed; this is why loading provisions exist on current equipment and are identified as 'loading' when they are really there for the benefit of the phono section, and the phono section will sound different if the RFI isn't suppressed. Its likely that the cartridge will sound different too, not because you are preventing it from ringing, but because the cantilever becomes stiffer as the 'load' resistance is decreased. This measurably affects its mechanical resonance in the tonearm. 

fsonic, May I just ask a question without making you angry or making anyone else angry.  As the owner of a Manley Steelhead myself, I am wondering how you achieve a load of 50K ohms or 100K ohms or "25", by which I take it you mean 25 ohms?  As you know, the max load if you use one of the MC inputs on the Steelhead is 400 ohms, and it offers choices going down from there to 25 ohms minimum.  I assume that is what you did in that case.  The Lyra website says the Etna Lambda has 4.2 ohms internal impedance, so 25 ohms would be a bit on the low side for phono input resistance and your description of the aural effect makes a lot of sense in that context.   The Steelhead uses autoformers in its MC section to achieve the various load resistances, which is a bit different electronically from using a SUT. I'm sure you know that.  I sure wish I could get hold of a schematic, because I would like to see how they use the autoformers.

If you connect an MC cartridge to the MM input, there you can have 47K ohms, but 50K and 100K are not offered.  However, if you change the fixed load resistor inside the chassis from 47K to 50K or 100K, by that means only can you achieve either of those two load resistances.  Is that what you have done?  I've actually purchased the resistors to change the max MM load resistance from 47K to 100K, but so far I have not done it.  I found the Steelhead to benefit greatly from a modification to its output stages (both the phono output and the passive linestage output), for what it's worth.

Not that it matters a lot, but I have to agree with Dover. In the conventional parlance, to increase the value of the load resistor is to decrease its load.  Capacitance is also a "load", but that is a different parameter.  In any case, I knew what you meant, when you discussed the effects of various load resistances, and that is what counts.

@lewm 
Not angry at all-in fact Lewm-you are among a handful of regulars on this Board that I rely upon on all analog matters and respect as having greater grasp of technical issues than I do. 
I previously acknowledged to Dover that he was correct and that I had misspoke as to loading. 

As you know, the max load if you use one of the MC inputs on the Steelhead is 400 ohms, and it offers choices going down from there to 25 ohms minimum. I assume that is what you did in that case. The Lyra website says the Etna Lambda has 4.2 ohms internal impedance, so 25 ohms would be a bit on the low side for phono input resistance and your description of the aural effect makes a lot of sense in that context.  

Yes, I meant that 25 ohms on the Steelhead with the Etna (and my VdH Crimson before it) sounded loose and sloppy, 50 ohms sounds ok on the Etna and sounded best with my VdH Crimson, and 100 sounds best with the Etna Lambda in terms of sounding tight and controlled without all the life being sucked out of the music, which occurs at all higher levels. The lower settings are euphonic but distorted. And yes, I use the two MC inputs only and not the MM. And I knew and agree that my use of the term "internal step ups" was sloppy and loose too (pun) as Manley refers to them as both in the owners manual (though I may be wrong and maybe they use the term "autoformer" exclusively) but as you stated, without seeing a schematic, even an informed person like you would find it difficult to explain what is going on and why. 

Ralph-thank you for your very polite and informative response. I apologize for my strong words directed at you. 

Thanks.

@atmasphere Ralph, thank you for contributing to this topic. What you posted was extremely informative and interesting. I certainly think that a lot of fellow a’philes can learn a lot from you.

In my case, i am still a little surprised as to why the new preamp which features a phono overload spec of 70mv rms for MC’s is so very different to my old model, I am guessing that this is high enough to not risk ringing with my particular cartridge, a Lyra Kleos that puts out 0.5mv. What is odd, and I am not quite understanding this part, is why with my older CAT phono stage, which did not use a SUT at all, that a load of 750 ohms was better sounding than straight in at 47Kohms, yet with my new model, this is definitely not the case. Presumably due to the SUT in my new CAT?? One thing, the CAT has a healthy output voltage at about 50 volts..

I still maintain-righty or wrongly-that two things are at play with loading. One can argue that they are interrelated. One is preventing ringing/overload and another is changing the magnetically induced behavior of the cantilever. 
My own misstatements about higher loading values being the same as higher loading is a common one and a common source of confusion. I think that the confusion stems from loading being nothing more than a resistor placed between the signal wires-left and right-and ground. A high value resistor such as 47K means less loading because the circuit is left relatively open. The cartridge/cantilever sees no electro-magnetic mechanical "constraint" because the resistor is to ground. Conversely, a low resistor value comes close to a short circuit/complete connection between signal and ground causing the cantilever to become electromechanically constrained. 
Ralph and others talk about the cartridge/cantilever having "to do more work" at higher loading. Ralph explains;

Of course if you use the loading resistor option, you are asking the cartridge to do more work. If you're using 100 ohms as a loading resistor, that's a couple of orders of magnitude more work than if the cartridge is driving 47K. This results in the cantilever being stiffer- the same as what happens with a raw woofer if you short it out (they are both based on the same principle of operation). This is not a matter of debate, if you feel the desire to do so, take it up with Mr. Ohm. Ohm's Law cannot be defeated and isn't open to interpretation. If there is more current flowing, it has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the motion of the stylus in the groove. So the fact that the cantilever gets stiffer is not controversial. Anyone versed in the art knows this- Jonathan Carr and I discussed this issue at the Munich Show a few years ago.

I will freely confess that I thought the loose and flabby sound I heard with the 25 and 50 ohm settings on my Steelhead was the result of a LESS STIFF cantilever and not a too-stiff cantilever as Ralph explains above. It does make sense-once one understands the higher resistor value being to ground-that the lower resistor value approaches a short circuit and that the cantilever becomes stiffer and less damped, not less stiff and more damped. Damping is the absorption/dissipation of energy. You all know that. Why a less damped cantilever results in loose, flabby sound and a highly damped cantilever results in lifeless sound is still a tough concept for me to get my head around. I think I know what Ralph means when he speaks of the cartridge and cantilever having "to do more work" with higher loading by using his raw woofer analogy and imagining having to create an electric signal by applying more mechanical force-not less-pushing on a close to a short-circuited and electromagnetically stiffened woofer cone to generate a given amount of electrical output but still-this does little to explain why a less damped (stiffer) cantilever sounds livelier and why a highly damped (loose) cantilever sounds lifeless. 

Ralph-thank you for your very polite and informative response. I apologize for my strong words directed at you.

No worries- and no offense taken. But I appreciate your words.

What is odd, and I am not quite understanding this part, is why with my older CAT phono stage, which did not use a SUT at all, that a load of 750 ohms was better sounding than straight in at 47Kohms, yet with my new model, this is definitely not the case. Presumably due to the SUT in my new CAT??

A lot to unpack here....

Its a lot easier to build a tube input circuit that has much higher overload characteristics! In a tube circuit meant for LOMC, if you overload it with too much input voltage, the overload isn't occurring in the input stage- it happens further downstream. With solid state, the overload often occurs at or very near the input, often because the circuit uses feedback, and the input section might be outside the feedback loop- even if its only the base of a transistor. But semiconductors are far more likely to rectify RF energy too, since they are diodes at some point or another. Its this latter characteristic that makes them more pesky in this regard.

SUTs are another matter altogether! I suspect Ken got tired of people calling about noisy tubes and SUTs are a way to get around that. For tubes to be really quiet in the front end of a phono section, they have to be at the top of their game. As they lose transconductance with age, the noise goes up. You have to keep the tubes active even when the preamp is being used playing CDs, so the tubes are going downhill all the time. By installing an SUT, you can easily quadruple the usable life of the input tubes.


But that comes at a price! SUTs have to be properly loaded to prevent ringing (distortion) and the proper load varies from cartridge to cartridge, since transformers **transform** impedance. So if you have a 10 ohm cartridge, the output of the SUT will be an impedance much higher than if you have a 5 ohm cartridge. So the load it needs will be different too. If the load is insufficient (too high impedance) the transformer will ring, which is to say some very high amplitude harmonics will appear at its output. This makes them very tricky to use! I find that even with them set up right, you lose a bit of detail (bandwidth at this signal level shouldn't be an issue)- that's why I've really stayed away from transformers in the audio path.

It does make sense-once one understands the higher resistor value being to ground-that the lower resistor value approaches a short circuit and that the cantilever becomes stiffer and less damped, not less stiff and more damped. Damping is the absorption/dissipation of energy.

Just to be clear- if you load the cartridge more, the cantilever will be more damped in addition to being stiffer. This can affect tracking if you get the resulting mechanical resonance outside of the 7-12Hz window.

I still maintain-righty or wrongly-that two things are at play with loading. One can argue that they are interrelated. One is preventing ringing/overload and another is changing the magnetically induced behavior of the cantilever.

We need to be really specific about what is happening here. Many years ago I had this idea about building a little box that would sort out what the ideal loading value was for a LOMC cartridge. This might have been about 30-35 years ago... At any rate, what I found was that **the cartridge itself does not ring at audio frequencies**. You can pass a 10KHz square wave through it and it will look exactly like a 10KHz square wave at either end of the cartridge. Quite simply the inductance is so low that its inconsequential at audio frequencies. It can't ring (and on this point, MM cartridge most definitely **can**, so loading with them as affecting things at or very near audio frequencies). BUT- it can have effects at much higher frequencies as I described earlier. (The result of my research in this regard was that I would not be able to make such a box, since ringing wasn't the issue.)

BTW, if there is some question about what the load should be, @lewm 's rule of thumb of being 10X higher than that of the cartridge itself is a pretty good one. Such a value will detune the radio frequency issues and won't affect the output level of the cartridge.


There are more than just two things going on with loading- and they are very much interrelated as you say. Two are caused by the cantilever getting stiffer- it can affect how the cartridge tracks and its arguable that being less supple, is less able to trace higher frequencies. So that's two things. But the loading affects the preamp too; by eliminating the RFI at the phono input, it can make the preamp less bright (a common result of RFI in audio circuits) and possibly less ticks and pops if the phono section has poor high frequency overload margins.

@atmasphere  Once again, very interesting and informative..thank you.

Ken uses a SUT that doesn't really have a lot of boost because I think he believes that as the step up increases, the loss is SQ is too great. What i am still guessing at is that the SUT allows for a better synergy with my Lyra as to what it wants to see as a load than the prior 750ohm resistor that I was using. The Lyra has a fairly healthy output for a MC at 0.5 mv and I am sure this is not putting much stress on the SUT. It was not putting too much stress on the phono stage before on my old non-SUT unit. Now the advantage of using an SUT has aways been to me that I could entertain ultra low output cartridges without too much tube noise, by ultra low, I am saying below 0.3mv...which there are quite a few very good ones out there.I wonder if that would be an option with this new CAT model, somehow, I doubt it???

Ken uses a SUT that doesn't really have a lot of boost because I think he believes that as the step up increases, the loss is SQ is too great.

That's been our experience too. The more stepup you use the less bandwidth you get.


We regularly run cartridges that are 0.2mV. If you have an SUT you should be able to get in that same range quite easily. The only thing you would have to work on is the loading of the SUT, with which Ken might be able to help you. We use Jensen Transformers when we use an SUT; they have published a pdf file of all the loading values for a great deal of different cartridges including Lyras.


Keep in mind that 0.25mV is 6dB less than 0.5mV; that means you'll have to run the volume control up a few notches to get the same sound pressure. I don't think you'll have any problems doing that :)

Indeed, the CAT has plenty of gain available, almost too much. With Ken's new 47 step volume control, luckily there is plenty of control and there should be no issue running up a few steps.

With Ken’s new 47 step volume control, luckily there is plenty of control and there should be no issue running up a few steps.

47 steps in attenuators seems to be another inexplicable industry standard.

@daveyf 
@atmasphere 

I suspect Ken got tired of people calling about noisy tubes and SUTs are a way to get around that.

Yep, I know from experience that customers were complaining about their Koetsu's with the CAT - not enough gain & too much noise.
The problem was that you only needed a transformer with about 10db ( turns ratio 1:5 ). Most off the shelf audio SUT's are up around 20/26db - which resulted in too much gain. I think this is why he has addressed the gain issue in the way he has.
Daveyf, the gain is also impacted by the system gain - how sensitive is your power amp input - so there are always exceptions.

@dover   Good point about the overall gain in the system. However, my ancillary gear is exactly the same, with the exception of the old preamp vs the new preamp. So. I would have to believe the overall gain should be the same. My amps ( i use both a ss stereo amp and a tube mono block..(not at the same time) do have similar gain structures ( the ss amp has a gain switch to switch between two settings- a very useful feature that I wish more amps featured)) .

47 steps in attenuators seems to be another inexplicable industry standard.

@fsonicsmith That's because if you don't go entirely electronic with the volume control, its insanely expensive to get a custom switch built with the exact number of steps you want. So you get a switch that someone already makes. That part is expensive too- but you don't have to buy 1000 in order get it.

Dear @fsonicsmith  : In 2018 J.Carr made a in deep analysis, modeling/simulations, with white papers including charts of the behavior of loading an LOMC cartridges with different impedance values along different capacitance values too.

He he did not shared the information in this forum but in other different to Agon and I took from there highligths of what he posted about:

""  To claim that the loading affects the measurable frequency response of the cartridge is bogus. However, if inappropriate loading bathes the phono stage in copius amounts of high-frequency noise, it may start to distort (unless the designer implemented various techniques to make sure that this won't happen), and the result will likely be intermodulation distortion.  ""

""  If the phono stage does not have high overload margin at ultrasonic frequencies, or not-so-favorable linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the ultrasonic spike resulting from high-value resistive loads (the spike can be in excess of 30dB at 5-7MHz if the phono stage input termination is 10kohm or higher) can easily result in ringing and intermodulation distortion which will obscure real information.

But if the designer does give his phono stage high overload margin and good linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the phono stage will treat the ultrasonic spike as simply another signal, and no intermodulation distortion products will be generated that could otherwise be low enough in frequency for the ear to hear.   ""


He never posted that loading to hard a cartridge will cause stiffness to the cartridge cantilever enough to mistracking. Was other gentleman in that forum who posted that he talked with JC and he understand him that kind of statement.

In the other side JC never said he had white papers of that cantilever stifness as a consequence of the cartridge loading, not even gave any single example with any of his cartridges or other ones where he measured that issue, so no measures about by him and certainly not for any one in this thread.

Now, by coincidence in that same year here in Agon the MC loading was the main subject in a thread ( exist other threads with the same subject. ) and the discussion was more or less that here in this thread but in that thread participated an Agon new comer with several posts, named Wyn and these are what he posted on him self for we can know about:



"""  may not be a renowned Audio Designer, but I am a somewhat renowned IC designer with credits that include cell phone transceivers and high performance opamps.

 I did not design the AD797. That was Scott Wurcer- a colleague at ADI ( Analog Devices competitor to TX/B&B ). and, incidentally, for whatever it's worth, also an ADI design fellow. However, I know the design quite well.

He and I were colleagues in the opamp group in the 80s. He focused on high performance relatively low frequency opamps such as the AD712 and then the AD797, amongst others.

I focused on high performance high speed amps like the AD843, 845 (at one point an audio darling), 846 (also a transimpedance design with some very interesting design aspects that I gave an ISSCC paper on) etc. etc. mostly using a complementary bipolar process that I helped develop that I believe was also used in the AD797.
 I also did things like designing the FET based AD736/737 RMS-DC converter and others.
I moved on to more RF, disk drive read/write, GSM, CDMA etc. transceivers, signal processing, PLL and DSP designs.

The idea of driving a cartridge directly into the virtual ground of an amp either just using the amp input impedance (such as a grounded base transistor) or via a resistor is hardly a new one. Some of the earliest solid state phono stages did exactly that, including one that I sold in the UK in the 1970s. I also used a transimpedance op amp that I designed (the AD846) in that mode- using the device as a current conveyor and operating it both closed and open loop as the extraordinarily high impedance "compensation node" could be loaded by a resistor to provide a fixed, and low, transimpedance for the stage.
I can't say that either approach seemed to be particularly successful ""

He is now retired and living in England and he worked too in the recording industry.
Wyn as any other engeneering at ADI or TX is a engeneering handbook walking.

So, in that thread the issue arrived as here to that cartridge stifness mechanical phenomenom caused by that hard loading issue and after several posts he posted this:


""  is why any of the purported effects of heavy resistive loading you state could be definitively true-

 certainly NOT on TRACKING which is demonstrably FALSE based on IM tests on tracking performance that I have incidentally performed as a function of load.

  ( He measured and is the only gentleman I know he did it. )

While mechanical impact does occur as a result of electrical load- there is some back emf necessarily generated by the signal current that affects the mechanical motion, but a quick back of the envelope calculation using Lenz's law and the 10uH cartridge suggests a 2 orders of magnitude difference between the generated signal and the back EMF for a 100 ohm load at 20kHz- certainly not enough to cause tracking issue.

 As for the rest, well, take the Madake for instance- the resistive load that people (reviewers) claim is best literally varies by nearly four orders of magnitude! I load mine with 60 ohms (as do many users) and I find that the resolution and dynamics is excellent while maintaining a natural timbre, tonal balance and micro/macro dynamics while not creating the unnatural etched image that many "high resolution" MC cartridges produce.

By the way, I constructed a model for the cartridge back EMF using Lenz's law and incorporated it into my simulations.
For those who are interested, the simplest version of the law is V(t)= -LdI/dt.
In this case the parameters can be measured (the LC100A meter from Ebay is a great way to do it) and the back EMF acts to oppose the voltage developed in the coil. The fractional change (attenuation) in the signal voltage is easy to calculate as it approx. equal to -L*2*pi*frequency of interest/Rload. So, it's inversely proportional to the load R and proportional to the frequency.
For example, for a 11.8uH cartridge, with a 100 ohm load the error at 20kHz is c. 1.5%.
The model measures the current through the coil and adds a correction of the form -k*s to the source voltage.
The effect can be seen both on the frequency response and on the transient response of the Phono preamp that I'm simulating.  

One of the "joys" of being an IC designer is the compulsion to measure/model everything! However, once the skills are developed it's relatively easy to do as long as someone else has done the hard work of producing suitable models to use.
Constructing an electrical model for the Madake was fraught with concern as using my own meters to measure the capacitance and inductance was anxiety producing.
Then when I plugged the parameters into the simulation and compared against my measured output I realized that the actual response had precious little to do with the electrical characteristics and everything to do with the mechanical resonances.
And so, the journey began..."""


No one in that thread including atmasphere refuted him. How can any one refute facts/measured information, no way.

Other than FM Acoustics in that different forum where JC posted in the same thread we can read what ORTOFON said about:


"  And here's an interesting comment from Ortofon to me (in a private discussion with them) - it clearly goes against what Jonathan and I have said:

[FONT=&amp]Playing with the input impedance means also playing with the sound character. The influence of the load impedance on the differences in sound is caused by the change of the crosstalk levels and the amplitude raise at the resonance frequency. The lower the load impedance, the higher the current and the more dynamic the sound.[/FONT]   """


Only as an example. If we take the Lyra Etna mated with the Kuzma 4 point tonearm the cartridge cantilever 12cu ( compliance ) has to go to 7cu to stays out of the resonance frequency range. No sense that that loadibng electrical current can stiffness in that way to change from 12cu to 7cu for the possibility of some mistracking that can or can't really occur.

My first hand experiences says that with my phonolinepreamp and in the past with the Classé Audio DR-7 loading at 100 ohms and never happens a mistracking because that kind of loading maybe just the SPL goes a little lower and nothing more.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

"" To claim that the loading affects the measurable frequency response of the cartridge is bogus. However, if inappropriate loading bathes the phono stage in copius amounts of high-frequency noise, it may start to distort (unless the designer implemented various techniques to make sure that this won't happen), and the result will likely be intermodulation distortion. ""

"" If the phono stage does not have high overload margin at ultrasonic frequencies, or not-so-favorable linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the ultrasonic spike resulting from high-value resistive loads (the spike can be in excess of 30dB at 5-7MHz if the phono stage input termination is 10kohm or higher) can easily result in ringing and intermodulation distortion which will obscure real information.

But if the designer does give his phono stage high overload margin and good linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the phono stage will treat the ultrasonic spike as simply another signal, and no intermodulation distortion products will be generated that could otherwise be low enough in frequency for the ear to hear.  ""

These statements are exactly in lockstep with what I've been saying and I agree with them 100%.

In the other side JC never said he had white papers of that cantilever stifness as a consequence of the cartridge loading, not even gave any single example with any of his cartridges or other ones where he measured that issue, so no measures about by him and certainly not for any one in this thread.

No-one has ever made a claim that there were any white papers. But FWIW they aren't needed; anyone versed in electronic theory (or anyone who has worked with generators or alternaters) understands how this works.

[FONT=&amp]Playing with the input impedance means also playing with the sound character. The influence of the load impedance on the differences in sound is caused by the change of the crosstalk levels and the amplitude raise at the resonance frequency. The lower the load impedance, the higher the current and the more dynamic the sound.[/FONT]  """

And here we see again (with exception of the last sentence) that Ortofon agrees with Jonathon Carr and myself, although their English is a bit clumsey. The 'more dynamic the sound' bit is false though. It likely has no effect with regard to dynamics as that is a function of the groove modulation. Add this portion to what Jonathan states above and you have nearly the complete picture.

My first hand experiences says that with my phonolinepreamp and in the past with the Classé Audio DR-7 loading at 100 ohms and never happens a mistracking because that kind of loading maybe just the SPL goes a little lower and nothing more.

That's good- but this sort of anecdotal comment isn't evidence or proof of anything in particular.

Raul, its painfully obvious that electronics isn't your field. There is something called Kirchoff's Law (google is your friend), which is taught in engineering and technical classes on the very first day of class, so this is engineering 101. It essentially says that if you put a certain amount of energy in a system, there will not be any more or any less energy in that system at any other point. So if you're going to make a cartridge (which makes energy, we all know that) do more work by making it drive a lower resistance, it would be a violation of Kirchoff's Law for the cantilever to not get stiffer. The cantilever motion is what makes the cartridge generate energy.


Quite literally this isn't rocket science. Its basic technical and engineering science :) taught on the very first day of school. You can prove what I'm saying very easily if you have a bicycle with a wheel equipped with an alternator for lighting. When the lights are not on (simulating no or a light load for the cartridge) the wheel spins easily and for a long time. When you turn the lights of the bike on (simulating a low resistance load of a cartridge), the wheel is harder to spin. There are millions (literally) of other examples.

Now I can put this another way: If what you say (that loading the cartridge has no effect on the stiffness of the cantilever), is true, then you have just solved the world's energy issues! All the world would need to do is build millions of cartridges and load them at low impedances and just collectively move the cantilevers. Since they don't get any harder to move, we get **free energy**!! Yay! a new branch of physics is born, brought to us by YOU! You'll be a famous world hero!


The Greek philosopher Aristophanes once said “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”

Frank Zappa once said “There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.” This was probably a comment about how people will stubbornly hang on to their mistaken ideas, even in the face of reality....


You have a choice: you can have your ignorance cured, or you can choose willfully to be ignorant. The former is smart, the latter stupid. Which is it going to be??

"" certainly NOT on TRACKING which is demonstrably FALSE based on IM tests on tracking performance that I have incidentally performed as a function of load. ""

( He measured and is the only gentleman I know that did it. )

Pick-up your measures and come back to talk with Wyn. Btw, 2 years ago you had the opportunity to post in that thread but you did not do it.

You posted several times there ( two years ago. ) but when wyn posted what you are reading here you just " dead silence ", not even JC posted to refute Wyn measures and he posted at least one time in that same thread. That attitude from you speaks by it self more than thousands of words.

" that there were any white papers. But FWIW they aren’t needed;..."

well Wyn thinks different and he proved. You, as almost always just: bla, bla, bla, with out facts, exactly as two years ago. Measures is a fact .

Anoher anecdotal: at A.Porter place he was running his low impedance MC cartrige around 400-500 and when I listened to it ( I/O phono stage. ) I told him that something was wrong with and I suggested to change the load impedance to 100 ohms and the cartridge quality performance " shines as never before " ( this was the AP words. ) and yes : nigth and day change for the better.

Btw:  ""  The 'more dynamic the sound' bit is false though.  "

Don't claim/tell to me but to Ortofon and do the same with M.Huber at FM Acoustics. Not to me.


R.

So not going with education huh?

A.Porter place he was running his low impedance MC cartrige around 400-500 and when I listened to it ( I/O phono stage. ) I told him that something was wrong with and I suggested to change the load impedance to 100 ohms and the cartridge quality performance " shines as never before " ( this was the AP words. ) and yes : nigth and day change for the better.

No doubt.

if inappropriate loading bathes the phono stage in copius amounts of high-frequency noise, it may start to distort (unless the designer implemented various techniques to make sure that this won't happen), and the result will likely be intermodulation distortion. ""

Apparently Albert's preamp needs that because

If the phono stage does not have high overload margin at ultrasonic frequencies, or not-so-favorable linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the ultrasonic spike resulting from high-value resistive loads (the spike can be in excess of 30dB at 5-7MHz if the phono stage input termination is 10kohm or higher) can easily result in ringing and intermodulation distortion which will obscure real information.

Dear @daveyf  : As many of us I'm sure you know the Hagerman calculator  that's an old cartridge tool that explains several issues that J.Carr expanded and goes deeper than Hagerman.

As in the past threads here and in other forums everything is clear but the cartridge mistracking where Wyn measures and he was really emphatic:

"   certainly NOT on TRACKING which is demonstrably FALSE based on IM tests on tracking performance that I have incidentally performed as a function of load. "  "

All what JC developed was in order and learning white papers for any audiophile.

The  issue that's false is that  exist mistracking when more current running through the cartridge.

Any one of us can do/run a tests  with our today set up making load impedance changes ( and everything the same not touching any other parameter. ) and I'm totally sure that no one will dtect or find out a mistracking due to any of those individual load impedance changes.  

The test is not looking if the sound is better or not but if exist a mistracking or not. Obviously listening an LP tracks where we already know the today cartridge has no tracking issues.
Perhaps the only characteristic that we can detect could be that with 100 ohms or lower the SPL will goes a little lower or other characteristics not related with mistracking that is what we are looking for.

R.

The test is not looking if the sound is better or not but if exist a mistracking or not.

This is complete and utter nonsense.
In 40 years of high end audio, including distributing and retailing high end audio back in the 80’s, setting up hundrededs of high end TT’s I have NEVER had mistracking due to "incorrect" loading.

The assertion is a fantasy. If the perception is loading down has cured mistracking, the listener must have the disease known as "cloth ears". Might want to consult an ENT specialist.

atmasphere :  ""   If what you say (that loading the cartridge has no effect on the stiffness of the cantilever),... ""

that's not what I'm saying even if I did not explain it in the rigth way.

What I'm saying is what i posted:


"2   stiffness to the cartridge cantilever enough to mistracking. ""

the key in that statement is: " enough ", this is what I'm saying and in his technical words Wyn too.

Two years ago here and in the other forum I told you the same: how much current has to pass through to stiffness the cantilever enough to the cartridge mistracking?

In those oboth forums I told you that for the mistracking could happens the cartridge compliance has to change a lot of compliance units and here in the Etna/Kuzma real example you need to pass from 12cu to 7cu to be out of the ideal resonance frequency range but that does not means for sure that will be a mistracking down there.

The issue is that mistracking not that cantilever stiffness. It's you who need to prove with measures that can gives the rigth answer to that question I made it two years ago and that you never answer.

R.

The issue that's false is that exist mistracking when more current running through the cartridge.

I don't think anyone has stated that this leads directly to mistracking.

The issue is that mistracking not that cantilever stiffness. It's you who need to prove with measures that can gives the rigth answer to that question I made it two years ago and that you never answer.

That is probably because I never stated anything as you seem to be implying here. I think this is probably because I use English as my main language and you don't; this apparently has resulted on a misunderstanding on your part.

What I *have* stated is that loading affects the stiffness of the cantilever. And further, that this could affect its ability to trace high frequencies. But I can see that this statement can really be misinterpreted. Note the use of the conditional 'could' in the sentence, as well as the rather ambiguous 'high frequencies'.


So let me put this another way. Most cartridges easily go to 40 KHz, I've measured this by cutting signals that high on my lathe and playing them back. Now we know that loading down the cartridge makes the cantilever stiffer. Are you saying that if the cantilever were ***easier*** to move, that it was less stiff, that it would not trace high frequencies as well? If the answer is 'no' then you have to accept that if you make it stiffer, at some point (maybe well out of the audio band) the ability to trace higher frequencies might not be as good.

Now the other aspect of cantilever stiffness is the mechanical resonance that the arm/cartridge compliance system exhibits. Making the cantilever stiffer is another way of saying that you reduced its compliance. Are you saying that by reducing the compliance of the cartridge that such will have no effect on the mechanical resonance? If no, then you accept that the mechanical resonance is affected by the compliance of the cartridge.

In 2018 thread where wyn posted and before the first wyn post you posted not one but twice:

""" When you load at a very low value (like less than 100 ohms) its possible to reduce the cartridge output and also decrease high frequency tracking abilities. ( Btw, wyn runs his mandake at 60 ohms and performs fabolous. Obviously no tracking issues. )


"" the cartridge is asked to perform more work as it has to drive the lower resistance. This makes the cartridge cantilever stiffer and less able to track higher frequencies. This is why the resistor can act as a tone control. ""


Curious that in that thread that after the first wyn post there you left alone almarg ( who was supporting you. ) and you did not post nothing again about that cartridge tracking issues not even when wyn posted was FALSE because he measured.

In the other side and in the Etna/Kuzma resonance frequency it needs 3 compliance unit to change its frequency resonance and instead of 12cu we need 10cu. Again how much current is need it to happens that?

R.

Instead 12cu we need 9cu. Frequency pass from 10hz to 9hz that's not enough for the cartridge been affected in its tracking abilities and the tonearm/cartridge behavior is not altered.

Other curious things that happened with you in those threads in 2018 is that in both threads JC participated and in both threads he not supported with a post the conversation you said took place in Munich when talked about that low load impedance consequences. Weird.

Curious too that JC even that he participated in the Agon 2018 he posted nothing when wyn posted FALSE about tracking.

Such is life.

I think is enough. If we learn something through this thread good and if not maybe helps to confirm what we already knew. All we win and no body defeated.

R.

@rauliruegas  I have played around with the loading on several different MC's in the past..the results were not anything that could really be anticipated. BUT one thing that was never in question, was that the cartridge was mis-tracking in any way...which IME is very easy to hear! 
With my current Lyra, the tracking is spot on and is certainly not effected by the load applied at the phono stage, YMMV.

My hana el sounds its best at the recommended load of 400 ohms or close to that. Its currently hooked up to the Jensen sut which presents a 430 ohm load. Also perfect for my denon 103. My other sut is a rothwell with an effective load of 100 ohms, perfect for my other mc cartridges such as my goldring eroica lx and ortofon quintet bronze. I only use 47k ohms for my mm cartridges such as my 2m bronze or my om10 super. However, my phono preamp is of course currently set to mm at 47k ohm to accept the sut input.

Dear @daveyf  : Yes, any cartridge can't track the LP grooves in precise way but not for the loading but because all imperfections that the analog alternative has. Pivoted tonearms does not helps but increment the tracking problems and the LT too.

There are several threads where we discussed all what is happening down there at the stylus tip during playing and it's " terrible " for say the least.

MC are almost immune to impedance loading. Problem is not there, but yes a cartridge always performs with mistracking but if we can detect the mistracking in the cartridge play behavior then something is wrong in the overall set up or the cartridge tracking abilities are poor. Again, loading is out of that mistracking.

Even with all the analog alternative imperfections I know we have a lot of fun with or at least we are accustom to.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

In 2018 thread where wyn posted and before the first wyn post you posted not one but twice:

""" When you load at a very low value (like less than 100 ohms) its possible to reduce the cartridge output and also decrease high frequency tracking abilities. ( Btw, wyn runs his mandake at 60 ohms and performs fabolous. Obviously no tracking issues. )


"" the cartridge is asked to perform more work as it has to drive the lower resistance. This makes the cartridge cantilever stiffer and less able to track higher frequencies. This is why the resistor can act as a tone control. ""

Yes, and this is all correct. Note the use of 'is possible' in the first paragraph, and the use of 'can' in the second. These modifiers must be considered in the use of English as a language.

Other curious things that happened with you in those threads in 2018 is that in both threads JC participated and in both threads he not supported with a post the conversation you said took place in Munich when talked about that low load impedance consequences. Weird.

This is innuendo. Come up with a link- and I will talk to JCarr myself if he is denying that conversation took place, but I doubt that is the case- he's been pretty steadfast. What is more likely is you are using a logical fallacy or simply misunderstood due to the language barrier. The latter has happened before on other threads.

MC are almost immune to impedance loading.

Well it took a couple of years but we're finally in agreement- nice to see that you've come around.

Dear @daveyf  @fsonicsmith  and friends:  Why I don't took in count before:

in the thread where J.Carr shared his white papers ( load impedance/capacitance/inductance. ) and where he posted 6-7 times and in the Agon 2018 thread I mentioned J.Carr not even did mention about that cartridge mistracking behavior but he no where in any thread and certainly not in the WBT one J:Carr never mentioned not even near about that " increment of clicks and pops " ! ! !   GO figure  ""

That " clicks and pops " is a big and false tale/lie/disinformation/fraud or just name it as you want it.

Additional to that does not exist all over the internet any white papers about both subjects. DOES NOT EXIST NOTHING AT ALL ! ! !  No measures of any kind about even that in the two other threads and in this one some of us asked for and he just as always: dead silence because has nothing in hand that can prove it. Period and I mean it.

It's incredible to been discussing seriously both subjects and no one exist ! ! ! 

Next info is what J.Carr posted about the consequences that we can read in his white papers:


""  As most phono stages are designed are right now, the input resistor needs to serve two functions. The sonically dominating function is to make sure that the resonant ultrasonic spike isn't so large that it affects the behaviour of the phono stage. The sonically lesser function is to load the cartridge. I would like to see these two functions separated so that we can start discussing cartridge loading in terms of what it does for the cartridge, rather than as a phono stage band-aid in disguise.

How heavily contaminated (or not) your audio system's environment is by conducted and airborne noise in the frequency-peaking bands will also play a role.


 if some electronic component in your house is producing RF, this could preclude you from using higher resistive values for loading.  """



Now I can really laugh of that biggest audio " tale/lie " in the all audio history and now I understand why JC don't supported that man and his " tale ". Pity for say the least.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.