To the Et2 owners here, I learned on this "ET2 on Linn" linked thread https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/eminent-technology-et2-on-linn-lp12?highlight=et2%2Band%2Blin...just how passionate these Linn people can be. 8^0 Good post by Pegasus, imo, I especially like this part. Pegusus
you’re outside of the fenced green pastures of audiophile correctness if you mount an ET2 or ET2.5 onto a Linn. But outside the fence, there’s life too! Because the ET2 / 2.5 is not a heavy arm it’s feasible, probably needs "expert tuning" of the springs. @daveyf I learned over the years on AudioGon, that there are people in Audiophilia with years of experience, much money spent on gear, who can’t hear differences between the turntables themselves. One assumes because they have never did a Goldilocks setup where just the turntable was the changing factor? Why else otherwise? From my personal experiences; and not to dish the various VPI, SP10 Technics, Jean Nantais Lenco, all fine tables in their own iterations that I owned (and do still own the Sp10 and Jean Nantais Lenco); I discovered that they were all ....bottlenecks....... to the ET tonearm. This was realized when I was mounted the ET 2.5 to the Verdier and it went to another higher level. I sent a picture of my ET 2.5 and Verdier La Platine setup (an American/French) collaboration to Mr. Verdier in France, when he was still alive. His comment back to me was "What is this strange looking, high quality tonearm you have mounted ?" It was "outside" of his Audio box, but he could tell it meant business. The ET 2.0 and 2.5 are little known in Europe and likewise Verdier La Platine little known in the US. Much better known in Canada, else I would not have found one 10 kilometers from where I lived at the time. Daveyf - IMO If one heard the ET on the Linn in past years and found it a good combo, I have no doubt if one were to "expertly" mount an ET tonearm, in its correct iteration based on the cartridge being used, to the newest version of Linn - that one would be very satisfied. |
From the recent London cartridge posts here, I did find a thread started by, to my surprise, Jean Nantais - on the London Decca. I attach fyi. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/decca-cartridge-experiences\ I found comments from Frogman and Dover within the thread. I have restarted my winter ritual of pulling 4-5 unknown records every day from my collection, listening to them and cataloging - electronically and physically. Unless a London cart drops from the sky into my lap 8^0 - I will remain in music lover mode this winter. |
You guys have excellent memory! Yes, London Decca. Possibly the most frustrating of all my audio experiences; certainly of those in analog playback. The Decca makes a sound that, in some respects, is the best I have experienced in my system, When I say “best” I refer to the ability to let recorded music have more of the sense of aliveness and to move with the forward impetus that live music can have. Tonally, while it sounds somewhat “old-school”, it gives individual images a degree of tonal density that I love. However, as Chris remembers, no matter what I do I can’t get rid of a deal breaking amount of ground buzzing and humming.
As far as tracking goes it has always surprised me that it tracks better than its reputation would suggest. On my ET2 the best tracking cartridge in my humble stable of cartridges is the Monster SG2000. The Decca doesn’t track nearly as well, but is acceptable with most recordings and has the most trouble, as expected, with densely orchestrated orchestral recordings. I agree that the magnesium arm tube is the way to go. Likewise, use of the damping trough does improve the Decca’s tracking; not hugely so, but a definite improvement in difficult musical passages. The cartridge is so alive sounding that it can afford the very subtle “slowing” of dynamics that the use of the trough seems to cause with some cartridges.
Now, here is a bit of a mystery. As anyone who has ever struggled to find the best grounding scheme for their audio system knows, it is all a bit mysterious why some things work and why others don’t. The hum/buzzing that I experience with the Decca is not subtle. I can reduce it to a level that with fairly aggressive music I can just about ignore it, but as I said it is ultimately a deal breaker. When I lower the “paddle” into the trough’s fluid the level of the buzzing is reduced slightly. Huh?! Why on earth (pun) would this be? Not a huge difference, but an obvious reduction. Thoughts? |
You guys have excellent memory! Not according to my wife ..... 8^( Regarding the Hum and Buzz with the Decca. From what I recall Frogman you are running a straight shot from the cartridge pins soldered into the phone stage connections directly. Left ground right ground left signal right signal. I run in a similar fashion but with unshielded wiring a direct shot (3 feet in length), and terminating using WBT plugs. My wires are separated once they leave the armwand. 4 separate wires hanging in a happy face loop, cause minimal air bearing interaction - but, not being braided all the way can be more susceptible to hum and buzz. What I did to remove the noise. Did you try this? Go behind the phono stage and separate the wires the last 12-18 inches before they go into the phono. With the phono on, the record NOT turning- turn up the volume and start moving each wire individually - one at a time. U will induce noise with each wire movement. Once the first wire is in a position that is quietest, use blue tack to keep that strand in place. Repeat this process with the other three wires. By the time all four strands are done all should be quiet. Did you try the phono stage cheater plug with the ground removed ? Also If someone is using regular shield L and R phono cables and you have noise - try picking up the preamp / phono box and move it 12 inches in all directions. Frogman the damping trough mystery with subdued noise when it is engaged; a weird phenomena since the damping trough is not electrical. |
Thanks, Chris. Great suggestions.
**** Did you try the phono stage cheater plug with the ground removed ? *****
Yup, of course,
**** separate the wires the last 12-18 inches before they go into the phono. ****
Have not tried that. Wires are a twisted pair for each channel; unshielded from cartridge pins to smiley face and beyond to just above manifold. Then, above the manifold each twisted (braided) pair goes into its own individual length of Teflon tubing all the way to where each wire is soldered to the back of the corresponding RCA jack inside the phono stage. From the point that each twisted pair goes into Teflon tubing, both “tubes” together go into a length of copper braid over which is black insulating sheathing. The phono stage end of the copper braid has a copper wire “pig tail” which goes to the grounding lug on the phono stage. From that same point where the pig tail is soldered to the copper braid, a short length of each of the two Teflon tubes exit the copper braid/sheathing and each of the four individual wires are soldered inside the phono stage.
I have wanted to try going totally unshielded the entire length of wire(s) for quite some time which would allow me to try your suggestion of moving each individual wire around. Great suggestion. A couple of points: I have no grounding issues whatsoever with any other cartridge I have except the ATML170OCC; although to a lesser degree. All MC’s are dead silent. Also, I experience essentially the same degree of grounding issues with the Decca in the Alphason and Grado tonearms which I used before acquiring the ET2 and the Decca.
In the meantime, I’m working on getting up the nerve to buy a Decca Reference $😱$
Regards. |
frogman - In the meantime, I’m working on getting up the nerve to buy a Decca Reference $😱$ @frogman Do you think the nerve to buy that Decca Reference, is superseded only by the nerve to play it every day ? Especially on those cold days when some Scotch, Wine, Slivovitz, ....,(fill in the blank) accompanies the music. 8^0 The official London Cartridge website http://londondeccaaudio.com/shows the various models, stylus in each model. (pricing is from Needle Doctor)
Reference - Ultra low mass fine line - $5000 Jubilee - Extended Line Contact - $3000 Super Gold - Extended Line Contact - $1500 Gold - Elliptical - $1200 Maroon - Spherical - $950 Professional - Spherical -
Surely the Reference model comes with more than fancy body work and a different stylus to justify its price ? Can anyone elaborate ? |
Chris,
I’m sure there are many like you (and me) out there who find the expense of buying Decca a constant internal struggle. I hope you buy one so you can report your findings, for my benefit. How selfish is that? |
There is a London SuperGold fitted with the Decapod (which replaces the horrible stock mounting bracket, making the mechanical bond between pickup and arm much more secure) on ebay right now. It has just been serviced by John Wright, fitted with a new extended line contact stylus. The UK seller has it priced at just under $1100 US, plus about $20 shipping. The Reference has a much better housing (machined from a block of aluminum) than all but the Jubilee, finally addressing the microphony inherent in the thin stamped tin housings of the cheaper models. Is it worth $3500 more than a SuperGold? The Jubilee splits the difference, but I hate it’s looks. All the London’s are improved over the Decca’s (I’ve owned various models of both, even two different versions of the London SuperGold, one with a Van den Hul stylus, the other a elc), with tighter tolerances and attention to detail. Better tracking, less sibilance on vocals and hard piano strikes etc. Still maintaining the astonishing immediacy, in-the-room presence, thunderous bass (better have a good arm ;-), explosive dynamics, and sheer "aliveness" Deccas are renown for, making most other designs sound "polite". Not as clean, pure, and "easy on the ears" (some find them brash, in-your-face) as high-performance MC’s, though. |
Eric,
You have come out again... my friend!
Referring to a Decca must energize your senses?
Love it! |
Couldn’t resist Steve! I’ve been refraining from engaging lately, both here and in life. It’ll pass ;-) . A pretty good guitarist I’ve known since I was 18 was way more moody than I, and not too long ago drove his Chevy van off a cliff in Arizona and killed himself. He was drunk, but word is he did it intentionally. Suicide by driving? The most deeply miserable musician I’ve ever know (a great guitarist and songwriter named Dan Bernard, with whom Los Straitjackets’ bassist Pete Curry and I were in a band with in the late 70’s) drank himself to death before making it to 40. Took Evan Johns ’til he was 60 to do the same. Another is a guy whose fantastic first album you may have: Emitt Rhodes. Very talented, very unhappy. But he’s a smoker (Jazz cigarettes), not a drinker. I don’t know whose idea it was, but the cover of his recent album is a photo of him looking to be sobbing. Weird. |
slaw - I hope you buy one so you can report your findings, for my benefit. @slaw Steve - I took an interest in the London Decca cartridge 5 years ago. But it was at the same time as my Quad 57 subwoofer project in Room 2, which took priority. That Sub project went really well. Last few years I have plodding through my library in music lover mode with my "Freedom Fighter" cartridge - a Benz Micro MC3 retipped by Peter of SS. Top one in this picture. https://photos.app.goo.gl/jMNhVwaXMUnRZqrw9It's a great cartridge for playing many records as it makes all of them sound good with minimal VTA changes needed. So, with being stuck inside during winter, I am starting to do more research on the London again; with the objective of coming up with formed opinion based on theory. These "theory" opinions - imo (8^) are worth 10% of real experience opinions. They are good enough opinions though, I think, theory opinions, for spotting a good deal when it comes about. I never buy anything unless it's a good deal, and the Canadian dollar has pretty much killed buying audio items except for maintenance items, like my recently re-tubed RM9 Music Reference amp. Cheers Chris |
|
|
By the way, fellas, the way to differentiate between a London SuperGold fitted with a VdH stylus and one with an extended line contact stylus is to look on the bottom of the cartridge, on the red plastic of the cheesy mount iirc. Hand written (by John Wright) in what appears to be felt tip pen ink will be either SG1, SG2, or SG3. My VdH Supergold was marked SG2, but my current elc-stylus SuperGold came fitted with the Decapod, with no writing on the bottom of the cartridge (it doesn’t have the red plastic mount, of course). Somewhere in the accompanying literature I saw SG3, though. The Current SG’s are built far better than were earlier samples, mine showing no signs of oxidation on any of it’s parts, commonly seen in all Deccas, and even early Londons. My SG actually looks like a professionally manufactured product! I think it is fairly priced at $1500 (I forget the extra cost for the Decapod, but it’s not much, and well worth it), and requires only 30-40dB of gain. A phono stage with a high overload margin is a good idea, as it puts out a whopping 5mV! Another by the way: the designer of the Trans-Fi Terminator used the London Reference as his cartridge during development of the arm, for what that's worth. |
Gentlemen,
Can’t help but once again congratulating the members of this thread. On other A’gon threads if one gets off target he is quickly excoriated and belittled. Not here. The latest example is the discussion of the London cartridges. A few of you share your knowledge and the rest of us learn a lot. Makes me want to run out and find a nice Decca - with a Decapod, of course.
Harry
|
- Regarding London Maroon / Art Dudley (Listening 156):
In the comments about arm matching, Art got the resonance frequencies of the Abis SA1 the wrong way: The horizontal is in his test about an octave lower (centered around 6Hz) vs. vertical (around 12 Hz), not the opposite way round.
Assuming the SA 1.2 has only slightly differing vertical and horizontal masses, this leads to a 4x stiffer vertical compliance than horizontal, this is what I wrote, and was to be expected.- I don't agree, that a horizontal resonance at 6Hz poses any problem, but optimally the vertical resonance is considerably higher, which is the case with the SA1. Therefore (and because of the chunk solid construction of the arm) it is expected that the SA1 was (slightly) preferred. But damping would be desirable as also his situation shows.
- In one of the better german magazines there was a test of the London Studio which is similar to the Maroon, but using a front and back tie-back thread, instead of only one pulling back. The review sounded somehow surprised by the (even better than expected) sound quality, which Intrigued me. - Is this possibly the best sounding London, at least of the "basic" ones?
- Reflecting abouth this review, a suspicion came up: The double tie-back thread is probably for DJ cueing reasons, but... it stabilizes ("grounds" ?) the cantilever better, and must reduce horizontal compliance. Both are very desirable effects - specially in the ET2 arm, because it might lift the horizontal resonance a few Hertz, a few dozen percent. This gives more playground for optimizing the counterweight / spring combos. If buying new - this would be my choice (and using it with the damping trough).
- If one can go without the airy-fairy upper highs of the more modern styli, the conical stylus has its own considerable advantages - musical coherence: See DL-103 & Ortofon SPU.
(OK, I think the VTF is a bit higher too).
|
@ct0517 ,
The reason I was interested in your opinion of a London Decca was specifically for the ET 2.5 arm. If I were ever to buy one, it would go on my Townshend Rock 7 and/or my tt project w/ my ET 2.5. Eric has been kind enough in the past to give his thoughts regarding the Rock 7. |
@slaw I said in the previous posts I am open to interrupting my current vinyl routine, and put a London on, if, someone sent me one. I know, it would involve venturing to the dark side - Audiophile mode again. 8^0 How many records does the serious audiophile keep in rotation at one time? Any thoughts? Where equipment "sound" takes priority over the music itself. Cartridges are like car tires. I have found that there are people who spend more research time on buying replacement tires for that special car, than the time they spent buying the actual car! If a person has money to burn it's another story. ************************************************** @pegasus Unfortunately for the ET 2.0 and 2.5 owners there has never been a competent "audio magazine" review, that demonstrated the 3 dimensional aspects of ET 2 setup. Being introduced same time as CD might have had an effect. I will re-iterate, if someone can find a good review that goes into depth and shows an understanding of the Armwand, I Beam Setup and Leaf Springs.... show the review to me. So, when we are researching items like cartridges, forum member contributions, carry more weight for me if the person owns the same gear. The way I see it - Frogman and yourself struggled with different versions of this Cartridge. Frogman's London cart is the older 3 pin model. ************************************************ Research from Audio Magazine Reviews. Pegasus
In the comments about arm matching, Art got the resonance frequencies of the Abis SA1 the wrong way: The horizontal is in his test about an octave lower (centered around 6Hz) vs. vertical (around 12 Hz), not the opposite way round. Audio magazine reviews usually contain comment sections - was this mentioned ? Pegusus - In one of the better german magazines there was a test of the London Studio which is similar to the Maroon, but using a front and back tie-back thread, instead of only one pulling back. The review sounded somehow surprised by the (even better than expected) sound quality, which Intrigued me. - Is this possibly the best sounding London, at least of the "basic" ones? Any comments from Eric or other London owners ? ******************************************** Some of my research. Martim Colloms and Michael Fremer both had similar experiences to Frogman and Pegasus in Stereophile on the Jubilee and Reference https://www.stereophile.com/content/london-decca-jubileereference-phono-cartridgeMartin Colloms re:Jubilee
Good, well-modulated recordings contain peak amplitudes that are beyond the compass of Deccas—even the Jubilee. The cartridge sounded pretty wonderful until it failed to track, when all hell broke loose. It doesn't mistrack in a subtle manner—you know immediately from the edgy, ringing rattles it produces that something is wrong. Nothing I could do with respect to setup or ancillary components did much to push the trackability envelope.
However, this is also a significantly flawed cartridge. This may not prove fatal—it just depends on the demands you plan to make on it, and the care you can lavish on both system-matching and alignment. As in the old nursery rhyme, when it's good, the Jubilee is very, very good; but when it's wrong, it can be horrid. ************************* ^^^ (The last sentence mirrors what can happen with a Linear tracker setup - LOL. If a good setup - good all the way through, (not just at two points like a pivot arm). But if it's off. It's going to be off all the way through.) ************************ Michael Fremer - London Reference) ( should mention I stopped reading Fremer reviews years ago when he reviewed a product (Linear tracker) - found it better, heard the differences, but decided it was not worth the added effort. He got "old" for me from that point forward. His review happened to be lumped together with Colloms by Stereophile, in the same link above.)
Michael Fremer
You have never heard a snare drum or cymbal retrieved from a vinyl groove until you've heard what the London does. When tracking correctly, its transient delivery was nothing short of astonishing—by a laughable margin, the most realistic I've ever heard. The entire drum kit, in fact, from the kick drum up, left my mouth agape. The same with voices, which were delivered with a coherence—a wholeness—that was scary with the lights out. Rhythmically, dynamically, and, to a lesser degree, spatially, the London Reference is in a league of its own. It speaks with a single voice of authority as has no other cartridge in my experience.
**************************************************** So good comments so far .........if I was a drummer like Eric - .......8^0 ***************************************************** Fremer comments continued. But not everything fared as well; in terms of both music and noise, it was difficult to predict what I was going to hear when I dropped the stylus in a groove. Some records that are silent when tracked by the Lyra Titan were full of pops, ticks, and other garbage through the London.
Some think the London tears through vinyl, but after playing some discs repeatedly, I didn't find that to be the case. Setup, however, is critical—the utter lack of "wiggle room" is made more of a challenge because you can barely see the stylus tucked underneath the body, and there's no cantilever with which to reference the zenith angle. And the London horribly mistracked some records and had difficulty with sibilants on others.
Would I make the London Reference my primary cartridge? No—its performance is too unpredictable. Would I recommend it for use as an auxiliary cartridge on a second tonearm? If you can drop $4495 and not worry and you play lots of jazz and rock, don't hesitate—you'll get your money's worth with every play, and you'll play it more often than not. There's a mono configuration available, and as a mono cartridge—its original purpose in life—it must be stunning.—Michael Fremer ^^^^^^ my comments now. sounding like an audiophile cartridge to me ? ? You know ? the one you use with just those records. I am not looking for another audiophile cartridge. So I ask do any versions of this cartridge do well with large scale orchestral music? Seems the London Reference is the one, the pricey one with the aluminum body. My Verdier platter is all aluminum. It was made from a billet of aluminum. I am assuming an aluminum sheet used to shape the Reference body ? I have worked with Aluminum it bends and shapes fairly easy. The market prices are what they are however ........ That's where I am at. sorry for the long post. |
Thanks Chris - pretty sums it up.
- Why London?
I recorded my brothers "world music" LP collection from the 70’s end of 70s to ca. 1980. Garrard SB 100 Decca Grey cartridge, top "high end" Pioneer receiver :-), recorded to a portable JVC pro cassette recorder.
After 40 years, these recordings still have this abundant energy, are fun to listen (and in some high level upper range passages sound a bit "relentless", diplomatically speaking.)
But: Unforgettable.
- safe bet for problems: High quality low friction arm with high lateral mass, as I experienced.
- *thinkable* solutions: Such arms with damping (a bit vertical, more of it horizontal) - I’d try London in an ET2 with a good amount of damping.
- Or, known working solutions: Unipivots, like Aro etc. with a moderate amount of damping, and the Well Tempered arms.
|
Chris,
Thank you for all of the excellent information. I understand where you're coming from. I really didn't think that you'd take my posts that seriously, it was meant to be somewhat humorous, yet I was hoping anyone reading might share their experience with a London on either table/or arm I mentioned. |
I think that Chris is the perfect candidate for a London Decca Reference mounted on one of his ET’s. He understands the arm like few do and has the mindset and discipline to get the most out of the combination. There was something about one of his posts that gave me the feeling that he is intrigued 🤔 |
Frogman - appreciate the comments but we are all a bunch of audio crazies. There are worse things that we can be I guess 8^0 I have never seen a wire loom like yours. as posted on this thread previously. Frogmans ET 2 setup. https://photos.app.goo.gl/P3at6pmSPGeFFABZ6Nothing but audio passion makes that as far as I am concerned.
There was something about one of his posts that gave me the feeling that he is intrigued
For some reason I can’t get the memories of racing Go Carts out of my head, when l think of this London cartridge. There were some tremendous crashes into - most of the time a stack of rubber tires. But in between those crashes, it was an exhilarating ride. As far as the London on the ET. Someone send me one and I can put it on the ET 2.0 HP in room B. that is using an Sp10 MKII with Acutex 420str. https://photos.app.goo.gl/82pfNoQgwND5yhtz9The SP10 is in a minimal plinth held up by stainless steel columns which bolt into the base. The ET 2.0 HP model version is on a circular armpod that was cut from billet of brass. One screw on top for the ET2 and three holes on the bottom for the spikes or bolt directly into the base from underneath. The whole thing rests on a Audio Technica AT616 footers. The intent of this design from many years ago, was not to look pretty, but to eliminate Direct Drive motor and other vibrations. Build it and they will come ? Comes to mind now. . I have found that the long I beam - and single leaf spring if tightened just short of snug, provides action that is excellent damping with out of round records. That might work well with a London cart but obviously speculating now. ^ I realize that what this last paragraph is saying probably flies in the face of the person that "targets snug", but this tonearm is unique, and it "flies in the face" of all other tonearms anyway. |
All 4 users of this tonearm can better in private correspondence
exchange their endless modifications opinions of this remarkable
tonearm.
|
Ahh, good to know that! :-) |
Who's the fourth ?
The magnetism of the "dark side" shows no bounds.
@nandric
Nikola - would you like to be part of our London project by ......ah ......being the London cartridge "donor" ?
Surely this fabled cartridge must occupy a spot in your "army" of cartridges ?
|
Dear Chris,
You obviously mean London Decca? Also meant for those who
are obsessed with modifications. I bought ''the other'' cantileverless
kind : Ikeda 9 REX. No hum at all you know. You as my former
brother can borrow the precious. I myself am already donor but
also think that charity has its own limits. For Decca you can ask my
''other brother'' Don Griffiths. For some curious reasons he also
likes this cart.
|
Nikola - good morning. So you got me curious about this Ikeda 9 cantileverless cartridge. Did some research found your forum thread here. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/anyone-familiar-with-ikeda-9-series-cantileverless-kind-mc-ca...from that thread your post. nandric OP
06-18-2018 3:00am
Thanks dear ddriveman, My only problem with 9C,mk 2 is the
(very) low compliance. I can hardly get 50 microns ’’pure’’
with tracking capability test records. Speculating or rather deducing
from VTF 2 g by R versions in comparison with 2.5 g for my 9C,2
I assume that R versions have higher compliance (?).
BTW I recently purchased Ikeda 9 TT with aluminum cantilever.
Nice but not equal to the cantileverless kinds. ****************************** "I hardly get 50 microns" I did more research about your comments ...... According to the Vinyl Essentials - Hi Fi test record http://rssconsultancy.co.uk/article71.pdfthe section on tracking says this. Next comes the test that strikes fear into all cartridge manufacturers - the Tracking Ability Test. This is simply a tone recorded with increasing amplitude ranging from a 40 microns peak-to-peak sinusoid cut in the vinyl to 100 microns in 10 micron steps. So why such a low score. This 50 microns seems low since the scale starts at 40 or is your scale different? Curious to know what tonearm/s were tried with this Ikeda 9 to get this result ? Disclaimer - I have no opinion on these Hi Fi test records. I have never used a test record or felt a need so this is new to me. I know there are a couple on the shelf somewhere as they came with a group of collector records I bought years ago. *********************************************** So, from this information it appears you like the Ikeda 9 cantilever less over his normal carts with cantilevers. But can I assume your favorite carts still have cantilevers ? As someone that owns an army of cartridges. I would be, .... I’m sure the other three "remarkable tonearm" owners 8^0 would be ,.... et al, very interested on your opinion - pros and cons of the Cantilever less ...and did you personally experience a London cart ? Thanks Chris |
Hmmm,
Trying to figure out how this thread got 1.3 million views and 2200 posts if only 4 of us own the ET arm?
|
The thread is made up 1) ET 2 owners, 2)ET 2 wanna bees, 3) the curious, 4) the trolls. 5) the Comedians (which fall into sub categories of a) Light humor b) Dark and Sarcastic humor. The only female ET2 owner I know of is Wendy. Good lord she hasn't age a bit ! Music is indeed the fountain of youth. 8^0 I confess I enjoy the category 5b posters alot. IMO Nandric' posts here (being a non-owner) are a good example of 5b. These types of comedians are able to dish it out and take it too (which they seem to enjoy) With that I look forward to @nandric reply to my question about the Ikeda and London cantilever-less. I have data on the London which I have shared. But this Ikeda is a ? I can understand though, somebody wanting to send off on a plane or ship and say bye-bye to....any cartridge that only tracks less than 50 microns. 8^0 (my feeble attempt at 5b) Go up to any average person and ask them what they think of Cantilever-less ? |
Dear chris, Regarding your own categorisation of the ''visitiors''
of this curious thread I would subsume myself under category
5 b. But according to my own opinion I would add category
''teasers'' and count myself as one of those. To put this cryptic
I like to tease people that I like.
Well to me test records are ''necessary''. I own so many cartridges
that some ''fast adjustment procedure'' is needed by their change.
I always start with tracking ability test and like 60 microns ''pure''
but accept 50 if some carts (like Ikeda 9) can't reach higher value.
According to my German test record 50 Mu(aka Microns) is
sufficient for any ''normal LP''. So usually when I get 60 microns
I keep the corresponding VTF as is.
Asking which of my carts is my ''darling'' is like asking which of
my kids is my favourite. This an ''immoral question'' (grin).
But I can answer the question about my ''darlings'': Allaerts MC2,
Magic Diamond, Ikeda 9 REX, FR-7 fz, Kiseki blackheart, Miyabi
standard , LP S and Urushi Blue sky.
|
|
Hi Chris it looks not the "traditional London way" as in your photograph, instead it's this way: https://audio-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/c_91_pro.pngIf one looks carefully, one can see the thread that "secures" the cantilever from the front against backward scratched groove motion, instead of pulling only from the backside. |
- BTW - anybody had the issue, that the damping trough "moved" over a long time? Ie. the bonding tape letting loose slightly, not symmetrically bearing side vs. outer side.
In consequence the "oil bath" is not level with a level arm.
- Any plusminus systematic listening impressions with the long i-beam? Ie. whether the counterweight far out (lower i-beam resonance) is preferred to less far out and a heavier counterweight?
I tend to feel ( ;-) that the bass with my high compliance cartridge / ET 2.5 is unusually quick and extended with the long i-beam, and with the counterweight rather far out.
|
|
Pegasus your picture doesn't load for me. Any plusminus systematic listening impressions with the long i-beam? Ie. whether the counterweight far out (lower i-beam resonance) is preferred to less far out and a heavier counterweight? I tend to feel ( ;-) that the bass with my high compliance cartridge / ET 2.5 is unusually quick and extended with the long i-beam, and with the counterweight rather far out. The only negative for me so far. Sometimes my wife is careless and leaves the main floor door leading down to Dads's Hole ....open. Our Savannah cat likes to explore. So I have been researching the costs for an an acrylic cover to cover the entire ET2 tonearm and Verdier platter - and accommodating that long I Beam means .........a bigger Acrylic footprint now. The stuff is not cheap. I tend to feel ( ;-) that the bass with my high compliance cartridge / ET 2.5 is unusually quick and extended with the long i-beam, and with the counterweight rather far out. This is the recommended setup formula for highest vertical inertia. ******************************** for non ET2 owners. The Curious 8^0 Picture two friends equal weight on a teeter totter. That's the ideal setup for fun and ET2 setup.. If a heavier friend shows up instead he will need to sit closer to the center beam. Likewise with the ET2 the heavier weights move forward closer to the air bearing. Not ideal. With the ET2 this increases horizontal inertia. The ET2 already has high horizontal inertia and medium vertical inertia. We can modify this with the counterweights positioning and increase vertical inertia - less weight further out. |
**** BTW - anybody had the issue, that the damping trough "moved" over a long time? Ie. the bonding tape letting loose slightly, not symmetrically bearing side vs. outer side.
In consequence the "oil bath" is not level with a level arm.****
Yes, and the arm will then “see” varying degrees of damping as the paddle traverses the trough. Not good. My solution was to cut a small piece of foam approximately one half or more the length of the portion of trough that is bonded to the manifold housing and slightly taller than the space between the bottom of the manifold housing and the arm board or top plate of the table. Push it inside the middle portion of the gap between the two and the springiness of the foam will apply just enough pressure to the underside of the bonded portion of the trough to keep it perfectly in place. |
Yes, and the arm will then “see” varying degrees of damping as the paddle traverses the trough. Not good. Frogman/Pegasus No not good. A case of the "tail wagging the dog" ?? We are dealing with an exotic tonearm here. We go to a lot of trouble in setup, to achieve what we believe is simplicity - the Truth. https://photos.app.goo.gl/qp7Va8CbBkKmsBz67We took the Red Pill a long time ago... remember ? You don't want the back end (damping trough) not holding up its end of the agreement. ************************************ Reminds me of something my late uncle said to me one time many years ago. We were riding in my car and I thought I heard something making noise in the back. My uncle said to me "don't worry about any noises in the back" ......LOL It's a substantial piece, the damping trough. If mounting I am off to Home Depot for permanent bond. Removing the tonearm, Putting the manifold casing on its backside. Lining it up correctly. Triple checking. Committing to it. Then it becomes even more critical to set the arm up right. If you are lined up correct at the front - you better be straight with the paddle at the end. No one told me this road was going to be wet ........8^0 |
The road: started for me with the Et One ca. 1985. After I’d explained the physical drawbacks of the construction a few months earlier to an enthusiasmized friend... :-)
It worked sonically rather well - with the one exception of the somewhat lacklustre sound of a Decca London cartridge, which I couldn’t explain - at that time.
Then, ca. 1987 an offer I couldn’t resist: The offer for an ET2.Later adding the damping trough, in between the (shitty) WISA pump and the expensive & OK lab tank, which now is broken thanks to ageing PVC. It is replaced now by an adapted cheap PE gasoline tank. Then the high pressure bearing and the ET2.5...The evolving ET 2/2.5 is the best audio & musical joy investment I ever made. Returning to it after ca. 15 years of Well Tempered Signature front end was like coming home.
The one thing I always come back with surprising consistency: Maximized (and almost) perfect lateral balance is surprisingly audible. The ET2 / 2.5 is an audio measuring tool for forces on the cartridges cantilever. It’s more easily adjustable than any other arm IMO. First level the turntable on its own as precisely as feasible (more difficult because without the help of the ET2.) Then level the arm on the ’table by nulling the tendency to glide away.After this, in my somewhat "organic setup" (wood floor, wood parts in the base), I level the integral turntable with help of the arm.
And the other thing really standing out: The front end is so revealing that several times during the last weeks I heard something slightly off, and it was either the floor "working" (level, see point above) or:
By handling of the arm, touching the counterweight or some other handling, the VTF differed *slightly* - ie. not more than 0.015 gram. It was eally less than 2cg. Context: I do not really tighten any screw in my setup, because of (...). This *was* audible in a close to blind test situation - "... somethings sounding not quite... ??". In such a revealing setup it’s *musically* rewarding to a surprising degree how much (less than) 0.01 gram VTF can do, sonically.
I invite anyone to try first before argueing against - an ET2 or any other superb front end BTW will show it. (And yes, I know that temperature and other factors modify the dampers properties constantly). |
The last time I travelled the "Wet Road" I was using the short I beam. https://photos.app.goo.gl/CDygimyC7ByWM79C7For Non ET2 owners and the Curious. Look at the yellow circle in the picture. Notice how the air bearing spindle (Grey) is flush with the (black) counterweight cap. That is the easiest way to detect a 2.5 with the larger spindle. On the 2.0 version the counterweight cap overlaps the smaller spindle. The ET 2 manifold casing (think of a car engine block) is bored out, to be able to contain the large 2.5 spindle. Now the confusing part is Bruce’ labeling on the manifold case, for both the 2.0 and 2.5 - just says "Eminent Technology Tonearm 2" The labeling doesn’t differentiate between the two versions. Why the larger spindle for the 2.5 ? .... (the curious ask). Good question. Short answer.... to match resonances better with MC If you take two tubes same material - one larger diameter than the other; the larger diameter will resonant lower. You can prove this by striking each one with a mallet or like. The larger 2.5 version spindle was designed for MC carts and their higher resonances (stiffer cantilevers), so the 2.5 spindle resonates lower. Matching resonances better. ******************************************** tomic601
12-12-2019 1:08pm
Wanna be here @tomic601 Hello Tom. I missed your post.. Welcome..... will you be staying for dinner and drinks *^0 @nandric will you be joining us for dinner Nikola ? Please bring some slivovitz 8^0 |
@chris
I think the reason for the ET2 spindle design was
a) it was quite brillant with any cartridge (and still is).
b) the ET2 spindle is ca. 23 g vs. 31g (ET 2.5). This concerns horizontal mass 1:1.
Also the bearings outer tube is considerably heavier. This concerns compatibilty with sprung subchassis.
Mid 80's there were a lot of english (and swiss/german) tables around, with rel. lighweight sprung subchassis. Minimizing mass was important for compatibility.And keeping the spindle (and horizontal) mass low was important for optimized MM & MC compatibility. (If only not to stand too much out in the theoretical rain concerning "much too high horizontal mass").
The high pressure bearing increased stiffness of the bearing, and the larger spindle increases stiffness of the bearing by an additional factor of 2.5! The ET2 bearing is stiff to begin with (it's not the "intuitive" air cushion one imagines), but the ET2.5s large surface high pressure bearing is even stiffer by (guessed) almost an order of magnitude.
Practice shows that even the high compliance B&O MMC1 "likes" the heaviest ET2.5 configuration, without getting hickups.(as it "likes" a longhorn stabilizer even though the coupling of the cantilever to the body is of rel. low stiffness.) |
You sound happy with your 2.5 Pegasus. Be glad that Bruce is not based in Europe with an audiophile mentality. His prices would probably be double. 8^0
I think the manufacturer builds product, and provides general guidelines based on his/her design, testing, etc.... Then the product gets into audiophile hands and all hell breaks loose. Music lovers use products as designed I have found. They don’t have a temptation to tweak and just enjoy the music. Audiophiles are more likely to break the rules and go against guidelines.
This can be good and bad. Its good if they come up with "tweaks" that encourages the manufacturer to upgrade - improve on their design. Bruce’ more recent examples of this include the Long I Beam (reducing the lead weight requirement by half), Aluminum mounting plate, and Aluminum Joint (Gooseneck) that holds the armwand to the air bearing spindle........ replacing the previous Carbon Fiber.
******************************************
Vinyl versus Digital Shootouts
I started doing shoot out’s with my son when he visits. We put on a record album, and queue up the same album on Tidal HiFi .....15 seconds later. Adjusting for volume we switch between the two. The way I used to play with 15 IPS tape versus vinyl. Yeah doing some venturing on the dark side over the holidays.
Result/Findings.
As good as Tidal HiFi sounds ....CD quality and better, my son is getting an awakening on how good vinyl really is. He then starts asking questions about the chain of events, from the needle drop and how we get the sound out. Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel for all these records after all. He is also fascinated with how a piece of long string, around a platter, is able to keep the music in time (the tempo and rhythm of the music) as good as the digital stream, as far as the human ear is concerned.
I admit as well it is a lot of fun switching between different re-masters of the Beatles albums and the like, with just a click.
Cheers
|
|
|
Kevin,
That's an ET 1.0 tonearm on the SOTA.
Bruce' first version not counting his early work collaboration with Mapleknoll. IMO- that's more for the collector.
But we know how collectors are .. very few ET1's around. So price wise? .....whatever a collector is willing to pay.
I would be jumping on the ET 2.5 w/Mag Wand. That person selling knows not what he is selling - it probably came from an estate. Just sell the turntable ........if only the tonearm is of interest.
I didn't mention it to you privately as you had just bought speakers. 8^0
Cheers Chris
|
Chris
If that is the case and depending what the reverb seller would drop too it sounds like an excellent buy.
Lol, what's money, when it's gone it's gone! |
Kevin unlike most of the readers and posters on this thread, including myself; you are in a very unique, and envious position I must say, (probably to the owners of ET 2’s and ET speaker products), to be able to contact Bruce, take the short drive, and see Version 2 of the ET tonearm in action. When you witness and feel, first hand the action of the bearing, you will understand how extraordinary it is, compared to other air bearings.
Regarding those two linked ET tonearms/tables for sale - I myself don’t buy anything unless I perceive it as a deal. Now something can become a deal for me, if I know I can personally sell (easily) part of the package that doesn’t interest me.
Caveat
For someone like yourself, coming from long time experience with only pivot tonearms, it is IMO, important that the person be the personality type to see "OUTSIDE" the Box, and to be able to see, work and play ......"straight".
A straight line is demanded for proper operation, whether we are talking about how the tonearm tracks, or how level it needs to be. 8^0
|
Chris,
Seems like a great buy on the arm. That pump doesn't have enough output for a high pressure manifold, does it? The surge tank, at this point would not be safe run at higher psi, as they weaken over time. |
A few comments about the offered arms:
- the ET one is a good choice for a low to medium compliance cartridge, usually a MC. I think the bearing was almost (?) as high quality as the "low pressure" ET2 bearing. The bearing (and the headshell / arm / bearing connection) is less stiff than the ET 2.5 though.
The main advantage of the ET 2 and ET 2.5 is that they are more adaptable (than most any arm on the market except the Mörch).
- Surge tank: My Airtech tanks end caps broke during a long time of being stored away. My replacement was a standard HDPE gasoline tank, 10l (ca. 2 gallons) with two 5mm holes drilled in the screw cap, with silicone tubing entering each hole, one with a short piece entering the tank, one with a long piece touching the "floor". The tank is filled with polyacryl wool for damping. The seam of screw cap / tubing then is "glued" with hot glue. This stays air tight since 10-15 years, and i's cost were almost nothing.
- My original ET pump with ET 2 arm gave ca. 0.25 to 0.3 Bar. With the improved tightness of the ET2.5 air bearing I'd expect 0.4 Bar. This is at least enough for a (well) "working" bearing. My high pressure manifold still runs at 0.15 Bar - much better than the original "low pressure" ET 2 bearing! |
Hi!
Kind if a n00b here. Is the model 1 same level as the ET2? |
Slaw - That pump doesn’t have enough output for a high pressure manifold, does it? The surge tank, at this point would not be safe run at higher psi, as they weaken over time.
Steve The surge tank and original 3 psi pump in the picture provides clues into the history of ownership. I am making an assumption that another pump was used with that setup. Not available now, so the original pump is included. The original pump showing may also indicate that the tonearm started life as a 2.0 and might have been beefed up to a 2.5 by Bruce later....when he used to do these modifications. As we know, Bruce designed the ET tonearm in a way that the tonearm PSI can be built to customer specs. 3 PSI to higher up to 19 psi. I would recommend the person buying "that" tonearm to just pickup an aftermarket pump on the wholesale market and bypass the original pump seen in the photo. The pump as we have discussed here is an audiophile journey on its own, for the person that wants to explore that rabbit hole. We have discussed here as well, how to determine what the PSI has been set for at the factory, for anyone buying a used ET 2 version tonearm with PSI unknown. We can rehash if anybody wants. I do enjoy talking tech. Takes my mind of these markets - lol ******************************************* Pegasus
- Surge tank: My Airtech tanks end caps broke during a long time of being stored away. My replacement was a standard HDPE gasoline tank, 10l (ca. 2 gallons) with two 5mm holes drilled in the screw cap, with silicone tubing entering each hole, one with a short piece entering the tank, one with a long piece touching the "floor". The tank is filled with polyacryl wool for damping. The seam of screw cap / tubing then is "glued" with hot glue. This stays air tight since 10-15 years, and i’s cost were almost nothing.
- My original ET pump with ET 2 arm gave ca. 0.25 to 0.3 Bar. With the improved Pegasus - I am sure your surge tank is built to Swiss Specs 8^0 and very good ....however I am of the personal opinion that technical talk of surge tanks, scares new potential owners away. I think the air bearing tonearm talk itself may intimidate people enough, without getting into details on the tonearm peripherals. JMO With that, I believe a better solution is to use a pump whose surge tank, and water removal functions are part of the pump's integral design - plug and play, no maintenance needed. How does that sound ? ****************************************** @the nature boy re: your question about the ET1. I believe your question was for the most part answered in the previous posts ? Visually looking at both versions one can see many differences. The ET1 is probably as rare to be seen for sale, as the 2.5 for different reasons. Now if one is of the belief that the vinyl hobby is a vibration resonance adventure; well Bruce has done "extensive" analysis on materials, resonances; just look at his sub woofer product Low Frequency testing, that he took to Africa to test Elephant responses. Anyway Look at the materials used in the ET1 compared to the ET 2.0 and 2.5. The 2.0 - 2.5 have VTA on the Fly, exchangeable armwands, and an I beam design that allows for matching up to different carts. Now with that, I am sure there are ET1 owners out there loving them, and they work great with their systems. It’s all about tweaking and tuning - isn’t it ? Myself - I think a better question is what is the difference between the ET 2.0 and 2.5 ? It is not obvious to the general onlooker ? Cheers |
