The full name of the test record that was used is:
"Ultimate Analog Test LP" by Analog Productions.
Axel
Hi Dougdeacon,
phew, now let ME tell you, that this particular main-line manufacturer considers that ~ 0.2 cantilever off-set within tolerance!
+++ For azimuth and VTA (SRA), MAJOR changes always have MINOR effects +++
Listen! I did, as I mentioned, maybe not that it came that clear across. All of this 'tiny' stuff you can HEAR, oh yes, but IN NO WAY SEE ON THE SCOPE, right?
So, I think this measuring is not exactly inane nonsense. Unless I hear from a production cart maker that a 0.2mm off-set is way out of spec. It is a problem that has been noted before by e.g. J.C. how tricky it is to get it right BY HAND, never mind by some tool, jigs or what ever in volume runs.
I do not think for one moment that I'm the only one around trying to get his cart alignment right, whilst the cart itself actually confounds those hyper-tolerance attempts as e.g. preached by DerTonarm...
If you can have such wide spec variations, go tell me 0.01mm starts to count!? No way for the scope, and who can tell for your ear.
Greetings,
Axel |
Dougdeacon
afore we're all gonna ride real high on that one, a little supporting help for all those imperial/inch folks.
0.254mm or 2.5 tenth of a millimetre = 10 thousands of an inch! (I hope this will help some)
I'd be little surprised if there arent some (or more) folks that would not even trust themself to see that difference...
As a trained Engineer (Mechanical) I can, thank you.
But that needs some training, and then some
Axel |
Hi Al,
It is an MC as I surely stated, all of 3.5$ of it.
We also measure it by switching channels, and stepping up and down the alignments parameters mentioned AND using an SUT just to see. NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!
There is a resonant peak ~ 12dB --- can you believe it, at between 80Hz - 120 Hz!
But it does not translate into hearing it... The main issue it that whacked out channel balance.
Hi Raul,
I think you put your finger right on it!
+++ ... what you find it is no surprise at all. It is easy to write specs on product manuals/brochures where we read it and almost never we ask for a test on it that can validate those specs: we trust on it. +++
SO, PLEASE CAN WE HAVE SOME SHOWING OF HANDS WHO MEASURED HIS CART WITH OSZILLOSCOPE AND TEST RECORD!
How about Dougdeacon, who thinks it is 'inane' to measure a 10 thou out-of-centre cantilever cart?!
Axel |
Hi Al,
THAT particular cart actually has no such an issue, as for example a 'Dorian' would have BIG TIME!
But now we'd get close to a make disclosure, which I would not like to do at this point. I'm in touch with the manufacturer to see what they have to say.
I can EASILY use this cart with 47k due to it's damping arrangement, in fact it is rather happy with 1k. (NO MORE CLUE NOW). You might be aware that these days there some are actually some quite fine with 47K.
Next I also mentioned the testing with SUT, which is using as low as 13ohms loading on primary. Results were NOT AT ALL influenced (I'm not talking of scope's beam-width variations here!)
There has been a lengthy discussion on that SUT subject on some other thread, say no more...
If a resonance would influence the channel balance being out by a factor of 10 (compared to spec.) we would see this BIG TIME on the scope.
The only res. as mentioned (~100 Hz!)is VERY visible on the scope.
Axel |
Hi All,
well, I'll keep you posted on this one.
Id love to know if some other folk could share some related example(s), good OR bad, just so as to learn something from it.
You can tweak-align you sweet hind off, and NEVER come right if that happens, distortion is programmed for you right in the cart.
Note: an e.g. relatively cheap cart, the DV 20X-L STILL includes a measurement diagram of the cart you bought --- WELL DONE I SAY!
Thanks,
Axel |
:-) Wow Commcat,
maybe there is no need to test a Ferrari either.
Well, I guess we do know it's more fun to drive with correct wheel-alignment, handles the corners just a bit better.
That said, would they ever agree that an incorrect aligned one ever left their premises? Mistakes can happen on all sides --- as long as they are not too many and too often.
Axel
PS: But then also, who actually has the gear available to question a factory setting? |
Hi all,
Dave,
that res. ~ 100Hz showed a 'lift' of 2.25 times signal level compared to the rest of the measured band level.
I would NOT think it is a faulty test record... And as I stated, it is not audible with normal listening.
Why? I have no idea, other than at ~ 40Hz I have some 'room lift/lock' --- and it might just all fit together. Who knows.
Dre_j,
in being proper and decently scientific what you suggest aught to be done. Alas I have not another cart of same make and build to do this. THEREFORE, in all fairness my measurements are not 'valid' according to scientific method. What is valid is that I get distortion at high vinyl levels with massed instruments / orchestra / fortissimo, and it *seems* to tie in with the channel imbalance. At medium level, and less complex music it can not be easily noted, if at all.
Larryi,
it sounds contradictory and you noted that correctly.
Yet --- if I compared the two carts, not factoring in the problem area of the one, it is my finding. Since at the time of comparing I was still assuming that 'some' as yet un-detected alignment issue was causing this distortion with massed instruments, fortissimo, etc. It is NOT affecting tonality, detail, and such at more normal levels. So, the 'assumed to be defective' cart still sounded a good second to what I had listened to. The Orpheus is yet more detailed, yet a bit clearer, yet a bit more balanced, simply better. I incidentally also had the lesser "Transfiguration AXIA" in my system and of course given taste and all such it was not my preference, with a type of slightly more refined Dorian sound i.e. it has a slight edge on a Dorian - AND if you like that sound presentation. It is VERY open sounding and a bit tilted towards the top i.e. not at all as neutral as the Orpheus.
The point is, that the cart under question is NOT breaking up all over the place!! It might just be yet so much better if it were in spec. --- an assumption of course.
Part of this enquiry was to get some feedback on similar 'encounters' AND NOT to categorically insist on a scope beams width measurement finding.
There is e.g. one track that puts left to right channel out of phase so as to cancel them. All being at it's best next to nothing should be heard during play-back.
I instead get 1kHz 'screaming' at me. A pretty clear indication that the preceding measurements of channel leakage and imbalance found were correct.
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi Dave,
some dB correction.
I just veryfied the 100Hz res. level. It was 2.5 times signal level. BUT that makes it ~ 7dB and NOT 12dB. Sorry, for this misstatement.
It appears to fill in the upper bass 'floor bounce' related dip in that area of the speaker, and is therefore not actually noticable.
Axel |
Thanks Glai,
just the sort of feedback, type=good, I hoped for.
Now,+++ The azimuth sweet zone is tiny and easy to jump thru. +++
On a 3 point cart mount i.e. not flat-top mounting, and in a fixed Azimuth arm like a SME V, I come to think the ~ 2 deg. stated Azimuth-test-tilt, might be a bit out-of-whack.
So let's say it's more like +/- 1 deg. at best.
Suffice to say I NEVER ever would tilt it that much, that the cart-body outer rim touch the head-shell, the max. that was tested.
A perceivable air-gap would always be still there i.e. left and right top between cart main body top and head-shell bottom.
In your experience could an Azimuth-tilt, as actually in use, of between ~ 1/4 to 1/2 deg account for a 10 times! greater channel mismatch, AND a 12dB(L)to 18dB(R) out of spec cross-talk?! I have a hard time to figure that to be so.
My suspicion is further, that the gummy / suspension settled (funny enough, always to the left in these type carts) creating this 10 thou out-of-centre cantilever.
In your experience, would such 'smallish' cantilever off-set be able to create these out of spec. measurements?
Again, I find this hard to swallow, since cantilever off-set is a 'fact of life' even with some more pricy carts --- according to what I hear.
+++ (assuming phono stage gain is matched) +++ this point HAD to come up, which is good.
On the oscilloscope measurement the amplitude mismatch was perfectly replicated by swapping channels left to right.
Next argument could be some out-of-balance cable connection. Again, no measurable difference in resistance could be noted, BUT about 0.1 ohm difference in DC cart-coil resistance between left and right!
Could this explain the (10x higher then spec) 2dB left-to-right mismatch (spec= >0.2dB)?
And also the *different* L/R cross-talk of 12dB and 18db?
But surely NOT the 12/18dB *higher* crosstalk of -16dB and -10dB vs. spec. = >-28dB!
I'd really appreciate your take on this.
Thanks,
Axel |
Hi All,
Please! I truly do NOT want to sensationalize anything here, and I'm asking the sort of feed back that I'm now getting, so as to see if there is some reason to believe that the measurements do not tell the correct story.
Dre_j
my Electronic Engineering Consultant whos Scope and measuring expertise was used, has just this afternoon hopped on his plain to the Munich Hi-End, so your scope related info will have to wait a couple of days, if that's OK.
+++ What output of your audio system are you using to feed your scope? +++
We used the XLR output of the ML326S, I stated that before, as well as having used the build-in 326S phono-modules.
+++ there is the possibility of additive and induced error... +++
That was my first question when seeing the results. Switching L vs R gave the exact reversed results, as I stated before as well.
+++ - The area of resonance could also be possibly due to the tonearm resonance (or somewhere else in the system which is why it would be good to test another cartridge) on that note, does adding damping to your arm change your measurements? +++
Very well, I did try the SME V silicon-trough arm-damping and it had NO! influence at all. I did not mention this so far, since we are now getting into the detail of a two page report that came about during the measuring session. (Very labour intensive job, me doing the setting variations, the Consultant doing the scope work right next to me and writing his report.
+++ If this is a modern o-scope, are you using the cursors to take amplitude values ... +++
Using amplitude values, calibrated to scope's screen grid, no digital read-out.
+++ - Are the gains settings for the phono-stage set to the same level? +++
Yes, and right now I have lots more trust in the ML R/L correct gain (check J.A.'s report on that pre if it helps).
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/106ml/index3.html
Having exactly reversed results after channel switching confirmed this also.
+++ - Is the cartridge loading the same on both channels? +++
Again, as I said before. First used with ML 47k input impedance, second run with SUT using 13ohm Tantalum Shinkoh 1/2watt 2% (actually better then spec). Also L/R reverse gave exactly reversed results. (I wish that cart be a balanced as that XF-1 trannie)
+++ Depending on how you are gathering the numbers, there could be an entire spectrum of cumulative amplitude which is not exclusive to the frequency intended to be measured and this can also effect your results. +++
Now, why would that only affect one channel?!
+++ There are a number of variables that can stack up and add errors to the measured results. Some other thoughts are the crosstalk introduced by the system itself- this can be checked by sending the output of one cartridge channel into the both input (L&R) of the phono-stage by using a Y-connector. +++
That we did not do, also since the left-to-right out-of-phase-track LISTENING result confirmed the poor results. Next question then is how much that Y connector is going to add to the issue...
+++ I hope this all makes sense +++
It absolutely makes sense, even though some items are inclusive of each other, but better double check, right?
Hi Dougdeacon
just give this here guy at least the time of day, man :-)
+++ It would not occur to me to tackle this common problem by o'scoping a cartridge to check channel balance and/or crosstalk. These distortions are vastly more likely to be caused by resonance behaviors, distortions in the amplification stages and/or speaker problems than by crosstalk or channel imbalance in a cartridge.
99% chance this was a wasted effort, IMO. +++
I have tried EVERY trick, down to machining off 20 thou from mounting screws so as to get more zenith. Please, don't think me being some measuring freak. I'm more the other way inclined i.e. don't trust measurements only and rather use my ears.
This must be more seen as a last resort and as I said: "trying to get to the bottom of it."
Alignment-tweaks are 'peanuts' if you have such discrepancies!
All that stuff you are talking about does not even SHOW on the scope! With the exception of a 6:00 to 6:03 turn of the cart to compensate for its 10 thou cantilever off-set.
Just tell us how you are going to find -12dB to -18dB less cross-talk! or -2dB less channel imbalance! your suggested way. That's like moving the deck-chairs on a listing boat!
Also, why would I get into all this pain with no reason? Just to give you guys some entertainment?
I'm plenty more rational then that, and can think of better ways to pass my time i.e. listening to music :-)
Thanks in any case for all the valuable feedback and detailed questioning.
Greetings,
Axel
PS: Anyone have an idea what a ~ 0.1ohm difference in coil DCR L/R could produce in terms of that issue?! |
Hi Larryi,
you say:
+++ I wonder if your problem with orchestral crescendi has to do with your channel imbalance issue. +++
Right now I think it has much to do with it, lots! But even more so, the out-of-whack L/R cross-talk!
Firstly it is much less than spec. and secondly it is 6dB in difference between L/R! If things get busy the channel info starts to 'smear' across, the louder the more noticeable, wouldn't it?
And what else would that be but distortion I ask?
Next, you say:
... initially all seemed quite fine. (When listening to this lend out cart)
Most folk can't even hear a 1dB difference in SPL for a start! (Mono) ---- BUT most folk can hear the DISTORTION caused by such an imbalance,(stereo) yes?
If not getting to the bottom of it (as I called it), you go on and on, with your alignment tweaks to no avail!
Now, let's have some more low down on this quality issue. In an off-line email exchange we/I have a case with a Jubilee owner, who just for the life of it can't get rid of the same kind of symptoms I seem to hear, hallo --- that brand you mentioned.
Next, same brand, also Jubilee with a 3 time factory return! And still not right, plus a split open body side of about 15 thou! And never addressed during the various returns! You mentioned quality issues, now that sound like one.
Pictures are right here by me, if that should sound like an 'overstatement', it is not, as it finally was taken back after plenty PT of prove it on my side.
OK, again my intend is not to blacken any name. --- I still have NOT disclosed the make showing these measurement problems, there where some guesses I did not confirm.
It truly makes me think, how many reticent alignment issues are actually based in an out-of-balance spec cart.
Let's see if we can get a bit closer to THAT part of the issue.
As Raul has stated: We ALL seem to trust those quoted measurements --- and what helps is, that it is nigh impossible for a lot of users to set-up a proper test. Not everyone has acquaintances prepared to spend hours on your gear, if the have an oscilloscope for a start.
Thank you for sharing,
Axel |
Hi Dan_ed,
why is it that some of you folk make me feel like having root-channel?
Having insinuations of lacking integrity, lacking general understanding of the basic issues, using inane approaches to problem solving, and the like is not warming ones cockles, now would it?
Like just read your own fine stuff here please:
"Having been through a few such discussions with him I know it is just not worth the effort. :-)"
So far I always tried my very best to answer queries, and if some of the opposed party finds it not to their liking, they just put the "phono down"? Hm...
Putting an agenda like this is leaning pretty far out of the bus! It takes courage, for me it does!
I also don't want to come over like some fool, I am simply looking for civilised discourse, --- though I am known to get a bit enthusiastic at times, it is NEVER meant to be unkind --- and all say, AMEN :-)
Greetings,
Axel
PS: Ever heard of EST? Erhard Seminars Training? Well it might help to get a handle on some interactions, as long as I'm not called an EST-hole :-) |
Doug,
if a manufacturer would only share that easily your trash it and dump it approach.
10 thou out of centre, since you seem to refer here to optical inspection, is not to my current knowledge a reject criteria in THAT industry.
Now if it helps, I worked over 30 years in the electronics industry and most of that time in Semiconductor Manufacturing, so I do have some idea about quality issues, if you please. And in the spirit we like to get to the bottom of things...
Axel |
Thanks Dre,
I will follow up on the Y-connector suggestion, some time next week the earliest.
We used:
2 pairs of single ended scope probes (4 probe/clamps) in differential mode.
The scope was quite recently calibrated I might mention also.
I have posted a bit earlier today my assumption that the cross-talk's lowish level, PLUS the 6dB variance L/R could explain an increased 'smearing' problem at higher accelerations / output.
Would this assumption (all things considered equal for the moment) make some sense in your experience?
I actually think it could be a clue to the massed instrument high level distortion / smearing.
I further assume the 2dB channel imbalance is not nice, but the lesser of the related issues.
It would mostly pull images more to the higher output side, AND produce some image 'fluffing' i.e. the opposite of a 'carved-out-ness'?
Lastly, could you give some indication if this 0.15ohm DCR diff. between the L/R coils is unusual, or is this of no import within your range of testing carried out?
I'm much obliged for your constructive engagement and it might just serve more than only my curiosity.
Many thanks,
Axel |
Hi Dre,
as my consultant is back from Munich, please find the rest of the pending answers :(+++)
- Please provide the model number of the O'scope you are using.
+++ Hitachi Model V-212 Megahertz Scope
- Are you using the 10x probes?
+++ NO, we used the pre-amp (326S) XLR output, assumed to be more correct then 10x probe.
- Have you verified the O'scope inputs track each other by tracing the same input signal?
+++ Yes, using 5V square-wave signal to verify both channels are still calibrated.
- Where are you taking these measurements? (What output of your audio system are you using to feed your scope?) there is the possibility of additive and induced error...
+++ ML326S pre-amp XLR out-put, but using the probes between PLUS and GROUND pin.
- The area of resonance could also be possibly due to the tonearm resonance (or somewhere else in the system which is why it would be good to test another cartridge) on that note, does adding damping to your arm change your measurements?
+++ We will follow up with measurement of another cart, and I'll be in touch. Damping with the arm's silicone trough had no influence on the 100Hz ~ 7dB resonance at all.
- are you using a different amplitude settings on the O'scope to take amplitude measurements before you convert the output to dB? these amplitude settings can be off relative to higher settings which could contribute to an error in measurement.
+++ We convert to dB by calculation and value derived from amplitude measurements of scope's screen grid.
- If this is a modern o-scope, are you using the cursors to take amplitude values OR are you using the measurement features to get amplitude values from the scope numerically? (I ask because these time based measurements can be misleading by containing more than the frequency of interest.)
+++ No numerical output, but amplitude calibrated to screen-grid.
- Are the gains settings for the phono-stage set to the same level?
+++ Yes.
- Is the cartridge loading the same on both channels?
+++ Yes.
Depending on how you are gathering the numbers, there could be an entire spectrum of cumulative amplitude which is not exclusive to the frequency intended to be measured and this can also effect your results.
+++ Having discussed this suggestion, I'm told this was highly unlikely as there were no indications noted that would have supported such.
There are a number of variables that can stack up and add errors to the measured results. Some other thoughts are the crosstalk introduced by the system itself- this can be checked by sending the output of one cartridge channel into the both input (L&R) of the phono-stage by using a Y-connector.
+++ As mentioned already, we will use this suggestion for additional verification and I'll keep you posted.
Thank you again for all these valuable inputs,
Axel |
Howdy Dan_ed
ha, ha, :-)
>>> ... but I'm sure cartridge manufacturers have a better way to measure all of this without putting stylus to vinyl. <<<
As we say over here: "my foot in a fish can..."
I asked them about the value of the induction of that cart uH..., was busy with figuring out primary SUT loading and the right RC for resonance damping ---- they do not even measure it or know!
I think they make a well working lot of samples by hand and then run production, no measurements no more. How else can you get such variations to happen, correct me if I'm wrong.
Output's the name of the game, even for the more pricy stuff.
Next, I unfortunately have no "Cardas Test Record" and if I can find one it's quite expensive I guess. The one I used "The Ultimate Analog Test LP" we bought at the RMAF.
Next thing is, that this cart has now been recalled, so we'll see what 'non-vinyl measurements' they will quote --- my best guess is non. They'll rework it and send it back in 3 month time, that's how it's done. It's not my first issue with them, you see.
Now, we have planned to do some follow-up measurements (same method, same rig, getting scientific...:-) using a Lyra Dorian and maybe some other cart, I'll keep you posted.
The joke of today is (for me) that I picked up a Garrott (A&R) P-77, MM for NOTHING!
It sound better than that... well you know what. It's not funny actually 3500$ MC getting whacked by a 40 year old MM for nothing!
Words fail me, and Raul will giggle quietly, saying I told you so... :-)
Your XV-1s is some fine item, I heard it at the RMAF and my take was, it to be superior to, well you know what.
Now your: "I do get 1.0 to 1.3 dB of crosstalk.." doesn't compute with me, it should <-28 or -30dB compared to the opposite channel when ONLY the opposed channel has information i.e. either lateral or vertical as is done with that test record from Analog Productions.
Maybe you can help me to get a handle on how this cross-talk measurement of yours compares.
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi Dan_ed,
that's fine, now we could be on your page... B U T a 1dB channel separation (balance variance, left vs right) would still be nothing to right home about.
With your kind of cart (and mine for that matter) we are talking smaller then 0.2dB spec --- now have I a feeling we might still not speak about the same thing...
As I mentioned:
1) channel balance (L to R imbalance) spec smaller then 0.2dB, mine was a dismal 2dB.
2) cross-talk (L or R leaking its info into the opposed channel) spec better then -28dB or -30dB, again mine was another dismal -16dB leak to right and **-10dB** (even worse)leak to the left.
I'm trying to put your DMM measurements against this, if possible.
Greetings,
Axel |
Howdy guys,
as long as you're have some fun here, I say.
Now my few pennies if you don't mind.
Glai says:
>>> ... or QC is very good. ...Same goes for airtight and Lyra <<<
Now guess WHAT? I put in my consultant's stock Lyra Dorian. NO sibilants, no massed instruments distortion, sailing through the most difficult of my tracks.
For an answers --- see Glai's comment.
I think Doug, who wants us to suffer is doing real good... I had that Windfeld (yes, OK) out, it goes back to the factory. Looking from below it looks VERY much more off then I realised checking from the front. Yes, Doug was right to suggest to trash it, and get a life, hm :-)
Next please, Dan_ed,
you say:
>>> When I use my DMM on MAX for example... <<<
Dear Sir, you must READ my statements properly and sink them in. I AM USING A SCOPE! This multi-meter measurement stuff sux, period.
On a scope you can see what going on, like noise etc. but not every one has one to play with as I mentioned also. So I'm lucky in this regard.
Next, there is NO household appliance running when I measure, period.
I also have a SEPERATE, audio only, circuit from the distribution box --- I'm told that helps :-)
So in closing, I'll have some follow up measurements comming on, with SCOPE and EVERYTHING the same as the Windfeld exercise was done, but now on a Lyra Dorian. J.C. beware :-) The cart is already set-up and running in my rig.
If we screwed up I'll also tell you, and also if we know why --- if we did (actually I'm confident we didn't). Ortofon recalled the cart, and I hope we get to some amicable agreement. If not, we'll see what to do next.
Thank you for your lively interest in this subject and it may yet prove to be of more educational value also, if Doug comes out of his corner and stops smirking at us.
Greetings,
Axel |
Hi All,
as promised some more measurements information.
First the good news:
A well used Lyra Dorian that did perform much better than that first measured cart (PW) showed the following:
Loading with 1k, AND 10nF capacitance, measured on XLR pre-outputs:
Left vs. Right = -0.6dB @ 1kHz 7cm/s lateral (mono track), spec = <1dB (So that was a pass)
Left vs. Right = on 1kHz 7cm/s vertical out of phase track, pretty CLOSE to out of phase, (about 12dB better on listening then PW, pretty good)
1 kHz left channel -28.5dB leakage to right! Spec = >30dB @ 1 kHz! (Only marginally less then spec. and can be attributed to it's aging, or measurement variation(s)...)
1 kHz right channel -28.5dB also, leakage to left! Spec = >30dB @ 1 kHz! (comment as above)
Cart roll-off @ 20kHz -3db (much better then PW rolling off at -6dB)
Resonance at 29Hz at -20dB, high Q for about 3sec. during the sweep track.
The measurements confirmed that the set-up is pretty much OK.
Now, what was NOT OK, was my consultants 'R.O.T.' initial db conversion on some PW dB results. Still the figures show a big problem yet.
Here the revised figures:
No loading i.e. 47k:
Left vs. Right = -1.6dB @ 1kHz 7cm/s lateral (mono track), spec = <0,2dB!
Left vs. Right = on 1kHz 7cm/s vertical out of phase track, clearly NOT EVEN CLOSE to out of phase! (no change as done by listening)
1 kHz left channel only -18dB leakage to right! Spec = >28dB @ 1 kHz! (only a smallish convertion error of 2 dB)
1 kHz right channel only -27dB leakage to left! Spec = >28dB @ 1 kHz! (now this was pretty way out, not in voltage measurement but in the dB conversion! :-(
The end-result is still bad enough though.
There are plenty more measurements on this test record, which where done, but those above tell most of the story.
Track ten for example should produce a clean sine-wave and in the case of the Dorian it does, the PW looked rather distorted leaning to one side and dented in, plus more of such, all supporting that something is not right.
So there you have it...
Next up will be a Transfiguration Orpheus, I'll keep you posted and hope it will not be getting too boring.
As Doug would have it, if its 'broken' why bother to measure it :-) Both the Dorian and Orpheus are not 'broken' so I guess we may have his blessing :-)
Greetings,
Axel |
Hey Dan_ed,
man, not "LOOK AT ME" ...look at these measurements. I have no noise to take care of as I explained, so ARE you reading what I put there? I NEED NO FILTER neither my buddy, somehow it feels you are busy with some other contributor. No need to get tizzy with each other, please...
You say:
>>> Now, a spectrum analyzer would be much different. <<< Well yes, I guess we can agree on this. But hey, now we are really talking $$$. Just to check a cart, well maybe, but not in my budget, sorry.
So let's agree you go use your DMM, and I wish for you it's a FLUKE of sorts, else any error will be very likely further aggravated.
Please lets just be nice, and I will say it next time more pretty like e.g.: measuring with a DMM, compared with a O'scope appears to me of a little lesser result related quality. Also no filter seems needed, given of course the particular circumstances. (I think of hiring a typist, all that for simply "sux" :-)
Love you all,
Axel |
Hi :-)
I wish Dougdragon, and Darn_ed would join the that "LOL:)" just a little bit --- hey, now "look at me" man!
Greetings,
Axel
PS: that right man, someone thinks I'm that Beverly Hill cop dude Foley, pissing off that whole oh so serious congregation?! |
Hi All,
as mentioned (promised?) the Orpheus L cart measured today.
It is to spec. in all but down by ~ 1.5dB on cross-talk at -28.5dB but the same for L/R
Spec. Channel separation: Greater Than 30dB.
Listening to the cross talk Ulti. Test tracks seems to confirm it NOT being any better than the Lyra Dorian that we also measured.
Enjoy the music while you can,
Axel
PS: Any VTA and Zenith tweaks did not yield different / better results. |
Hi All,
it's been a couple of days, and let me share todays status on what prompted this thread.
The the cart measured was found to have an out of spec. tracking angle (plus further test still to do...) Since it was still under warranty it will be replaced.
As I do not have 'deep enough pockets' and have not followed Doug's advice to chuck it in the bin, at least I now may get a working example.
Funny thing is, that I am now much more into the 'beauty' of MM's sound, so I might just keep it as a trophy :-)
It also shows that even the most expensive offerings by a manufacturer is no guaranty for faultlessness.
So, if anyone just can not get his cart to perform despite having done his alignments over and over confirmed --- it might be the cart actually is the cause.
Greetings,
Axel |
