Nandric: That is a proccess, step by step till you be THERE, you will know when arrived!
R. |
Dear nandric: +++++ " What are we supposed to do with 'distortions' that we
are not able to hear? Whatever componets we own
the unknown one may have 'less distortion'. How are we
supposed to get the right unknown component of any kind? " ++++
first build/improve the audio system to permit be aware of different kind of distortions everywhere: how?, well that's part of each one forward in each one audio learning curve. I know that your audio system is not up to the necessary level of resolution: you posted that you can't distinguish/be aware after a comparison between two Virtuosos where one has an aluminum cantilever and the other a boron cantilever and if your system can't tell you anything about differences on performance then you have a lot of work to improve your audio system resolution.
IMHO Halcro is not in better status that your system is. He can't either distinguish between " nice " distortions and music and it is not that his ears are not able to but his system is the one that has not the required resolution level.
Tha's why he likes those distorted Signets or the FR6SE or the FR tonearms( heavy distortions everywhere here: IMD, THD and the like. ), Da Vinci no-azymuth facility, poor performance with the 20SS or with the TK10 or the Azden or the 420 or with that system feedback or ...or....
I know very well his Halcro electronics an almost all his system including the Vandersteens.
Nandric, IMHO one target that IMHO you have to improve is your system bass range management, several " problems " are fixed down there and when that frequency range is at optimum level then that system resolution we are talking about appear as a " pile " and then you will continue to build/improve other system areas. Read one of my last posts in the MM thread as a comment to what Stanwal poste there.
In any tonearm the main target ( at least for me ) is to ta achieve the best bass frequency range management, only the best ones achieved and one of those ones is not the FR one that is really bad down there and not permit that resolution we are talking about: high IMD/THD and other kind of distortions hide those distortions.
All these is not easy to understand till we experienced till we learned.
Please don't thing for a moment that I'm dimished your or Halcro system: NO, I'm only trying that you can take a " different road " to really improve your system performance and to be aware of distortions and only with better true and high resolution you will be aware of and then you can fix it not before.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
but I understand that an architect loves 'huge projects'. Ha ha...very true. In the variables I listed....I left out Headshells and Headshell Wires.....which Raul rightly advocates as important elements. Throw in a choice of 5 headshells and 3 types of wiring.....and we are up to 691,200 combinations for each and every cartridge? Raul convinces himself that he is close to perfection in the evaluation of his cartridges and all the variables, but the reality is......he is as far from it as am I? Cheers |
Dear Henry, There is this notion about the 'reduction of complexity'. Our brain already select between 'long'- and 'short term' data and also devide our actions in 'routine' and 'conscious'. I divided my 'just listening to the music' , as you put it, from my 'messing' with the componets by installing two separate systems. In my living
room there is the 'constant' Kuzma Stabi Reference with Triplanar and the Reed 2 A both with fast headshells by which I seldom change anything. To satisfy my 'messing
needs' I installed an second system im my bedroom with the
SP-10 , FR-64 and Lustre 801 , both with exchangable headshells. Because I deed this only recently and descovered, as you predicted, the joy of 'messing' with
3 carts in one single day, I spend at present the most time in my bedroom... However when the 'sickness' is cured I intend to 'return' to my listening room . The precondition (for the cure)is : don't buy any cart anymore.
BTW regarding the FR-66. I don't like the dimensions but I understand that an architect loves 'huge projects'.
Regards, |
Dear Nikola,
To put into perspective the variations and possible combinations that can affect the sound of the analogue performance in my particular case.......with every cartridge there are 9 possible adjustments:-
1. Turntable x2
2. Arm x4
3.VTF x5
4. VTA x4
5. Azimuth x4
6. Overhang x3
7. Loading x2
8. Capacitance x4
9. Anti-skate x3
With the minimal options for each that I have included......it makes 46,080 combinations and permutations for EACH cartridge.
And I have 30 of them!!??
Forget the 'anal' factor......ask yourself.....'Do I ever want to just listen to the music?'
Cheers
Henry |
Dear Nikola,
I agree with you about the FR-64s.....but I also think the FR-66s is even more beautiful?
And such authority it has.
In fact.....I have been contemplating selling my DaVinci arm and replacing it with an arm that accepts interchangeable headshells...like the DV-507MkIII?
But then I thought......there is no other arm (other than the Copperhead) which is as good with MMs AND LOMCs as the FR-66s.....so why take a risk? Why not just buy another FR-66s?
And in terms of investment strategy.......it's like money in the bank?
Regards
Henry |
Dear Raul, the adding up 'theory' leeds to infinite regress.
What are we supposed to do with 'distortions' that we
are not able to hear? Whatever componets we own
the unknown one may have 'less distortion'. How are we
supposed to get the right unknown component of any kind?
My friend Henry just spend a huge amount of money for the
'right cables' and then hear from you that he likes some
peculiar kinds of distortions ,probale caused by the wrong
tonearm geometry. Ie Stivenson. And then to think that
by drilling a hole which is only 1,5 mm larger he could
adjust his both FR tonearms also for Bearwald.
Regards, |
Oh well,
I tried!!
As always... |
and of course that we/our self have the knowledge level to distinguish between mere distortions ( any kind ) and music, because sometime what we think is music in reality is only " nice " distortions.
R. |
or showedit in a wrong way!!!
R. |
Nandric: The other critical side about is that if our audio system has not the necessary resolution level then we can't hear we can't be aware of an accurate set up/alignment against a " so, so " set up because the audio system can't shows those differences.
R. |
Dear nandric: +++++ " there is no way to avoid distortions with any pivoted tonearm " ++++
there is no way to avoid it with any tonearm and if our target is to achieve lower distortions then the cartridge/tonearm/headshell/ set up/accuracy alignment is of paramount importance: each single alignment parameter. Seems to me that for some of us the importance level that we give to each parameter is different and between other things that's why differences in what we heard, I mean: more " wider " differences due to wider/higher distortions on that analog set up/alignment.
Years ago almost no one took care on cartridge cantilever alignment and today we all know the critical importance on this parameter as on the AZ or overhang.
I think all of us already learned about but things are that some of us are not to " anal " about.
We know what is the best to each one and that's how we decide and decided what to do or where to be " anal " or not.
Regards anbd enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, there is no way to avoid distortions with any pivoted tonearm. The choice is between 'less distortion' at the end of the record or the 'average distortion' across
the record. From the choice made one can not deduce that one 'likes' whatever kind of distortion.
Dear Henry, I know for sure that Dertonarm uses the FR-66/ FR- 7 (kinds) for a long time as his reference. He can hear all kinds of carts by his friends Thuchan and Syntax without the need to buy any (other) for himself. We may assume that he adjusted his FR-66 optimal relative to the FR-7 models he owns. This means that the cart 'prescribed' the geometry. Or, which is the same, Ikeda 'perscribed' the geometry for for both of his constructions. However you may be 'like Nikola' (aka 'sick') but you are certainly not like Dertonarm. With + 20 carts you are 'forced' to follow the geometry of your FR-7 /FR 66 combo for all other carts you may use with the FR-66.In my former post I made explicit restriction to the FR-64. Speaking about our common 'sickness'. I am crazy (= sickness) about the tonearms and more in particular about the FR-64. To me the most beautiful tonearm ever made. But I don't like the FR-66 in esthetical sense and that is why I never owned one. To defend myself I prefer other kinds of 'arms'.
Regards, |
Alright posters,
Just to depersonalise this and bring it back on point: there is no error in setting of the Glanz G series on the Audio Craft arm and concerns about the (apparently still unheard) performance of the cartridges in question can therefore not be brought down to alignment induced distortion. Of course, this does not preclude other arms being suitable matches but the steel template that comes with the AC3300 LB (not to mention extensive auditioning) leaves no doubt about accuracy.
Just saying.
As always... |
Dear Halcro: Now I can confirm why you like what you like ( I was not wrong about you. ) , why you like those kind of distortions.
Yes we are way different about audio system music priorities. Your last post is your " testament ". Good for you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover: I can't agree more with you.
+++++ " If we cant rely on cartridges costing US$2k-10k to have diamonds accurately placed in the cantilever then ..... " +++++
Mediocrity is a " polite " word to say is a SHAME, there is no excuse for that after all those years of analog/cartridge manufactured experiences.
Problem is that almost no body cares and not only the people pay big KK$$ for that kind of " high-end " cartridges but they " report " here and everywhere its top quality performance. Can you beieve it?
Regrads and enjoy the music,
R. |
I'm afraid gentlemen that we have officially landed in the age of mediocrity with regard to cartridge build quality, no matter what price.
Note the recent experiences of Fremer with the Lyra diamonds being mounted incorrectly. From my experience you can add to that list Zyx Omega/Airy and Benz, all wildly out and sent back for replacement/retipping.
If we cant rely on cartridges costing US$2k-10k to have diamonds accurately placed in the cantilever then there is no hope for us or our precious records.
I suspect that we need both overhang and asymith adjustability for all cartridges and a good microscope to double check the diamond on any cartridge purchased. |
Halcro, why in the hell today you own several tonearms and dozens of HEADSHELLS? why? please let me know. I own the tonearms because I am 'sick'.....just like Nikola :~} And I own the dozens of headshells so I can have the dozens of cartridges I own......mounted and ready. Of all the headshells I own........the majority are Yamamoto Ebony HS-1As or Fidelity Research S3. The remaining metal headshells I own are used for cartridges I almost never play? I almost never change headshells for my favourite cartridges and I am certainly NOT a 'tester' of cartridge/headshell combinations? You may not think this to be 'smart'......but that's the way I am? I do not place the same importance on azimuth adjustment as you do. Berating me about that is a futile exercise. Let's agree to disagree? |
Dear Nikola,
I really don't know if 230mm for the FR-64s gives Stevenson or Baerwald as I only have Dertonarm's template to align them and it doesn't say what geometry is used?
The strange thing is......that Daniel recommends that 231.5mm be used for the FR-64s yet accepts the Fidelity Research specification of 295mm for the FR-66s?
To allow the interchange capability of all my interchangeable headshell/cartridges......I must use the 230mm and 295mm figures.
This then relates to a S to P distance of 223mm for the MA-505s tonearm? |
Dear Nandric: My take on that subject is based on facts not theory.
Btw, almost all Japanese tonearms alignment by manufacturer advise were made it through Stevenson. I don't want to go inside again to that subject but IMHO Stevenson is the " wrong " way to go against Löfgren A and B.
Stevenson is a " way to think ", Japanese manufacturers took it. My way of thing is different and in no single of my more than 25+ tonearms I use Stevenson alignment. I respect to whom did it or like it.
As I always say: each one of use like differnt kind of distortions and each one of us common sense level is different too and each one of us music sound priorities are different too.
So it is not easy to agree in every audio subjects.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Henry, As Raul stated I assume that we all want to learn. The first review about the FR-64s that I have read was the German Magazine 'Das Ohr' (the ear) from 1984. Our
member Dertonarm was then a reviewer by this Magazine. Regarding the tonearm geometry already than both reviewers made the remark that the geometry in the user manual was not optimal. They recommended the spindle -pivot distance of 231,5 mm instead of 230 mm in the manual. With 'optimal' geometry they meant the Bearwald. Well I recently ordered by Yip his Mint protractor for my FR-64- SP 10 combo. Yip wrote to me that the geometry in the user manual is Stevenson : 230/ 244,9 ( spindle -pivot/ eff. lenght).
For my combo I wanted Bearwald which according to Yip imply :231,5/ 248,2 mm respectively. I am not sure if you referred to your FR -66 or 64 with your statement that the geometry of your FR tonearm and FR-7 cart is 'perfect' Bearwald but if you referred to your FR-64 this can't be true. I never owned the FR-66 so I have no idea which geometry is assumed in the user manual for this tonearm. But I am familiar with the FR-64 from 1983 till now.
I agree with Raul reg. the integrated headshell/carts combos's but my reasons are more pragmatic than theoretical.
Regards, |
what is the new lesson?, because as you know I'm always willing to learn.
R. |
Halcro: ++++ " but the fixed headshell of the FR-7 cartridges is not one of the places that I would select to work upon? " +++
of course not because you can't do nothing about!!!!!
I repeat: IMHO today an integrated cartridge design is a wrong very limited design. That some of us prefer it does not means is a good design and IMHO can't justify that ignorance level/marketing that the cartridge manufacturers had it.
You own or owned the Technics 100C in an integrated version ( MK3. ) and for what you posted on that cartridge performance I remember that you was not " happy " enough because that cartridge can't shows you what really is. Ask any one that own the stand alone version and everybody can tell you its very top performance even one of those Technics owners posted in the MM thread that he prefers the Technics ( MK4 stand alone. ) over the Lyra Atlas that he own and compared in between!!!!
Again, what are we talking about? what are we achieving through this " excercise " in favor of music, in favor to improve our each one system? what???????
R.
R. |
Dear Halcro: I own the FR and I posted that I still own because I like it.
Now, I think I don't posted that VTA/VTF can't be changed because that is something that any one can do it through the tonearm facilities.
No, it is not " only " azymuth as you said ( latter on that. ). I don't know if you really don't care about azymuth or what you posted is only in " defense " ( no sense defense. ) of a IMHO a limited wrong cartridge designs:
++++ " but I have found that azimuth, when adjusted by the majority of users......is more often wrongly set.... " ++++
the main subject is that to make and achieve the best any cartridge can show us we must have the azymuth facility to make changes during the set up/alignment, azymuth changes makes a difference always. So try to diminish its importance makes no sense to me but I respect your " no sense " defense????
Halcro, why in the hell today you own several tonearms and dozens of HEADSHELLS? why? please let me know.
As many of us you already learned the critical importance to match the cartridge not only with the tonearm but with the " right " headshell and this " characteristic " that always makes a paramount differences on performance cartridge level is " deny " in an integrated design.
At least two other critical characteristics that are " deny " on integrated designs: you can't change the internal(headshell wiring for a better today one and you can't make a precise alignment never because you can't align the cantilever in an integrated design.
Halcro, what is all about?....you are aware of all these so why post something like what you posted?
Are you telling me that all what we learn on cartridge/tonearm set up/alignment is not true or important?.
I respect your opinion but not only can't agree with you but with those kind of posts I even am in doubt I really know you as I thought I know you!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Dear Professor, Thanks for your advice but my experience is
the other way round. For the low complience carts I use my
Reed 2A, 12'' and 27g. eff. mass. For such carts there
is no other option. But ,as Halcro, for all my MM carts I use
the FR-64S with excellent results. This arm is considered
as a 'havy gun' but the eff. mass depends from the used
headshell (+cart weight) as well from the 'place' of the
counterweight relative to the pivot. Now all or at least
the most MM carts are about 6-7 gr. so the counterweight
nearly touches the pivot. For some MM carts
one need to use heavier headshells to compensate. I also use
the Lustre 801 which is much less(?) heavy but the FR-64 is
much better 'tracker'. My quess is that the bearings by
FR-64 are exceptional. However I also own the Sumiko 800
(aka 'Breuer') and can provide the 'optimal conditions'
according to your opinion for both Signet's.
Regards, |
Raul,
I appreciate your restatement of some of your concerns. I have already tried to explain that when considering "the importance of VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ/Overhang and accuracy in all those parameters" the Glanz/AC3300 LB combination has no concerns.
I do not believe in argumentation and, as a minimalist, I don't enjoy repeating myself. Repetition rarely convinces and so I will leave it to others to listen and/or read, consider and decide as they will. Was it ever but thus...
As always... |
Dear Raul,
I always respect your opinions but.......in the case of the FR-7 series cartridges in their fixed headshells.....I beg to differ?
If one uses these cartridges in the FR series tonearms (for which they were certainly designed) and set the spindle to pivot distance to that recommended by Fidelity Research.......you achieve a perfect Baerwald alignment. Now VTA and VTF are easily adjustable via the tonearm and have nothing whatsoever to do with the cartridge/headshell design.
This leaves only azimuth as the 'missing' adjustment.....but I have found that azimuth, when adjusted by the majority of users......is more often wrongly set?
The proof of the pudding is in the 'results'......and it seems churlish to bemoan the fact that a 'glorious' sound could potentially be better?
I strive to eliminate and reduce distortions in the entire audio chain as far as I can.....just as you do......but the fixed headshell of the FR-7 cartridges is not one of the places that I would select to work upon? |
Regards, Nandric: In publications contemporary to the TK7E/SU, Signet insists the cart should be paired with a low-mass arm; "We cannot recommend the cartridge being used with any other than---".
From several of the comments above, it seems matching the tonearm to the cart continues to be a relevant concern. An integrated headshell designed for use with a specific tonearm eliminates operator error. Set VTF, a hint of anti skating. Almost plug 'n play, the ultimate "P-mount".
For those of us who like our options, who imagine we're capable of learning from our mistakes, there are numerous carts of the 1/2" mount style to fiddle with. :)
Peace, |
Dear Dgob: +++++ " The owner's manual asserts that on a Sony tonearm overhang error of +/- 3mm (!) is not a problem for it's "practical use" " +++++
++++ " It is a thinking shared by Glanz and Nagaoka ... " +++++
I think I did not made clear my take down there:
the cartridge integrated headshell designs had its " euphoria " ( marketing more than any other real meaning. ) at the end of the 70's early 80's.
I was " infected " by that market euphoria and even that I owned the stand alone model I bought it the " new and better " integrated one ( I still own a FR one. ) and for many years I live thinking that the integrated ones was the best road to go.
Why accepted that marketing " hype "? IMHO for the same reasons that some of the manufacturers had when they started with those designs: ignorance, in my case " full ignorance " and maybe in some cartridge manufacturers: part ignorance, part marketing$$$$ and part don't be aware of the critical importance in any cartridge alignment/set up.
Please tell me any one of you when was the first time/year that you be aware of the importance and the why's of: Baerwald, Stevenson, Löfgren, etc., when you was really aware of the importance to match the cartridge to the right tonearm/headshell, when you was really aware of the importance of VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ/Overhang and accuracy in all those parameters, when was the very first time that you read a cartridge/tonearm review where the reviewer made it emphasis on all those critical cartridge/tonearm alignment/set up, when was the very first time that you read from any single cartridge designer about, when you heard for the first time that an audio dealer/distributor talked in that way?????when???????
IMHO today any one of us are truly aware of all those subjects in a way that no one in those old times been and many times not because they as " professionals " don't know about but because they did not gives the importance level it has.
Take that Sony statement: " +,- 3mm. " this means that 6mm on overhang makes no difference but we all know it makes a whole and huge difference for the better or bad.
Why am I still with the FR integrated design?, because sounds good but even that I can't be sticky with a cartridge where I can't improve its performance due to set up cartridge limitations when exist ( in my case I own. ) almost endless cartridge alternatives that outperform my FR, the Glanz, the Yamaha or AT integrated ones.
I always support and supported that the best way to improve any audio system and any audio cartridge signal is. TO LOSE AND ADD THE LESS. A wrong cartridge set up permit that I " lose and add " not the less but the " more ".
My target my main target is to have the lower distortions( any kind. ) in my audio system and the cartridge integrated headshell designs IMHO can't help me to achieve that main target. Remember that to " lose and add the less " accuracy is a critical factor to achieve it. This was and is our Essential target when designed.
Fortunately I have an " adventure audio attitude " that permit me till today learn each single day and that permit me discovery new roads and new alternatives in favor of music.
I understand you about but I already left behind that audio stage of my audio life. Almost everyone pass through the same audio stages trhough our audio life, well I already passed there as I'm sure you will pass it sooner or latter.
In the other side each one of us like different kind of audio system distortions and things are that I like different distortions you like.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, I assume that you made a typo by 'promoting'
Banquo's XL 33 to XL 55 'status'. My own interest is involved
because I hope to obtain the XL 55. If your XL 44
is somehow 'better' than the XL 55 you are using 'top line'
argument in some other sense than you are used to do . Say, those Signets and the arguments against Halcro and Professor who prefer lower kind ( 3-7) above the above
ranked kinds. Halcro btw even refused to cosider my kind offer
of my beatuful Signet 9 CL (NOS!). I, on the other side, bought
the Signet 7 E as a proof of my own open mind (grin).
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
You have precisely interpreted my intention.
Thanks
As always... |
Dear Banguo, My gosh! There is no conspiracy on either side
so you are consequently not in 'the middle of something'.
We all try to provide info to our best knowledge but what
you intend to do with this information is your own choice and/or decision.
All my headshells have 'splits' and azymuth provision for obvious reasons
but if I get the chance to obtain the Glanz 5 or 7 for a good price I would
certanly buy any of those. This is how I interpret Dgob's
recommendation. That is btw how I bought the most of my carts: by others recommendation. More in particular by Raul's recommendation.
Regards, |
Banquo363,
:~)
As always... |
I seem to have inadvertently found myself in the middle of something.
Rest assured that I don't know enough (nothing really) about integrated headshells to take sides either way. I will say that I am surprised by how good the cart sounds given the degree of 'error' it has in my setup. I find that comforting.
I'm selling the cart anyways, not because of the headshell but because I'm looking to go all MM.
If I ever find a Glanz cartridge (6 months of snooping and I've yet to lay eyes on one), I'll be back here for more lessons from the ghost of Goebbels. |
Banquo, It seems to be obvious that Sony made those integrated cart/headshells for their own turntables/arm combo's. As deed Ikeda for his own tonearms. But the difference is this. According to J. Carr the magnets by FR-7 series are so big that no other solution was possible. This however is not the case by Sony. The Pro.55 for example contains the regular XL 55. I would not mess myself with the cart but you can post this cart to Axel and ask him to do this job for you. The added benefit is his check of the suspension and stylus. As Raul stated and I can confirm this XL series is exceptional.
Dear Dgob, I am not 100% sure if the SME sliding base can provide optimal geometry for whatever cart but should be obvious solution for the Glanz G series.
Regards, |
Banquo363,
Equally, I accept your point about Sony's thinking. It is a thinking shared by Glanz and Nagaoka (except both emphasise the importance of correct VTF and overhang) - to name two brands that I know of. I also accept completely that your ears and the intelligence that informs them must be the final arbiter.
No offence intended and pleased that you found your way to my Glanz thread. Sensible contributions are always welcome.
As always... |
Hi Banquo363,
No inference drawn but my point still stands. You're obviously mature and intelligent enough to appreciate what you hear and, equally, what you read. My Glanz operate the way they do because I fell upon the correct combination and I was only trying to confirm that finding the correct arm/cartridge combination is no more essential with the integrated cartridges than it is in optimising their stand alone brethren.
I recall that without electricity even the finest equipment is just scrap metal and therefore realise that there are always interdependencies in our hobby. And againm we should be acutely aware of Geobbels' contention that if one asserts an inaccuracy with sufficient force, many will accept it as fact.
As always... |
Dear Nandric,
After I mounted the sony, I wanted to see how close it was to the Mint LP's arc that I have for my arm. Even Ray Charles could see that it was off.
Dgob: oh, I wasn't trying to imply anything about your set up; I'm sure it sounds divine. It's true that finding the right tonearm would make the Sony better, but my point was that Sony itself doesn't appear to think so since it accepts quite a margin of error.
Dear Raul: I need another cart like a hole in the head. You can't imagine how many times I've looked at a Goldring g800 after I read your remarks--but I can't bring myself to buy another cart. |
Dear banquo363: +++++ " but I'm pretty sure that it could sound better if adjustments were possible. " +++++
absolutely right. Now, don't have to believe in my words right now is a XL44L on ebay if you try it I'm almost sure that's performance level beats the XL55 you own. Btw, mine already has the Axel's touch.
Sony made a great job in that XL cartridge family, very good indeed.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Banquo363,
I appreciate what you are saying but with the Glanz G series and AC3300 there is no error. It is, as my expert had asserted from the start, a precise match for the Audio Craft template and their performance in this combination really needs to be heard to be appreciated. I suspect you can find such a tonearm match for your Sony if you feel it merits it and have a mind to undertake the necessary work.
Either way, happy listening and good luck.
As always... |
Dear Banquo, '+/- 3mm'? I ever made a joke pretending not to be able to see whatever fraction of just 1 mm. Then I got reprimand from Dertonarm and Raul togehter. As you probable know they often disagree but not in this case. Since then I never make jokes about any dimension. BTW those Sony integrated are ugly as well as clumsy while one
can get all of those integarted models also 'solo', without the headshell. I own the XL 88 and hope to get the XL 55 very soon. Raul already mentioned XL 44 as a very good cart.
Regards, |
I just received a Sony xl33 w/integrated headshell. The owner's manual asserts that on a Sony tonearm overhang error of +/- 3mm (!) is not a problem for it's "practical use". Either Sony is crazy or else they have a loose conception of practical use. Evidently, they are not crazy since the cart sounds pretty darned good, but I'm pretty sure that it could sound better if adjustments were possible. |
Dear Nandric: With an integrated cartridge design you can't move the cartridge to the left/right side incase that the cantilever came in with a tiny side deviation. Remember that when you make the cartridge alignment/overhang with the protractor ( MINT LP, for example. ) you must align not only the stylus tip but that the cantilever coincide with the protractor " lines "/align-lines and almost always to achieve that in precise way we need to make tiny very tiny cartridge changes to one or the other sides ( left/right. ).
Nandric, in those all times many of the cartridge alignment subjects that we already learnend were almost no " important " for the cartridge designers ( for different reasons, between them: no-knowledge about. ).
I know many of us already grow-up through the years ( and still doing every single day in favor of music. ) but unfortunately some of us ( including cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stages designers. ) did not.
IMHO any tonearm/cartridge combination where you have set-up/alignment limitations means that what you are hearing is a higher distortion performance against the ones with out those limitations.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean
with 'not only that but even you can't make a precise/accurate cantilever alignment!!!'. I have no idea to what 'not only that' refer nor what you mean by 'precise/accurate cnatilever alighment'.
Regards, |
Dear nandric: Not only that but even you can't make a precise/accurate cantilever alignment!!!
R. |
Hi Nandric,
All I can really say is that the Glanz G series are designed with the aid of fortune. By this I mean that they are perfect fits for the Audio Craft AC3300 LB tonearms (with AP300 wand) and can be checked against their own protractor. My fortune was simply to have tried it on the AC3300 in the first effort and JOY!
I am certain you could find similar fits with other arms but I simply have had no need to assess their stunning performance in any other combination. Maybe it would be a fine fit on one of your other arms. I know that the only expert that I know on my cartridges (G series) suggested they might also be a good fit on the SME 3012R. I do hope you have the opportunity to try one to assess their performance for yourself. You already have some experience of the direction that these cartridges take you musically and I share your positive and mature assessment of that experience.
As always... |
Dear nandric: Your point is of paramount importance and I already posted several times in several threads including this.
IMHO any cartridge where you can't make change azymuth set up always be a wrong cartridge set up and the same if you can't make a headshell changes or even overhang changes.
In the old times I bought it almost all the cartridges that came with integrated headshells but some manufacturers as Technics and AT where wise/knowledge enough to permit in those designs both parameter changes. Some other very respectable manufacturers as Yamaha or FR just don't care about. I think that with these kind of designs they made it a mistake a heavy mistake.
IMHO there is no single justification or no single argument to support no-azymuth change designs, period.
Today all those integrated cartridge designs including the ones where we can make azymuth/overhang changes are the " wrong " item because that so old internal wiring/connectors and because we really can't match if with the right headshel/tonearm.
Like today I read this thread but IMHO is useless ( at least for me ) that some of you put all that energy on " faulty " cartridge designs.
Of course that fortunately we live in a free world, go a head! some of us likes to be sticky with some audio subjects/items.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dgob, We both try to inform other members about the Glanz and Astatic carts. While both kinds are not easily available one may have luck and if one find ,say, Glanz
31 l or E even more luck because of the price difference with the Astatic MF 200.
Thanks to your info I was able to at least see the G3 which should be similar to your G5 and G7. I do believe that those are exceptional carts but I also noticed that
they have no azimuth and eff. lenght adjustment provision.
By the integrated headshell/cart combo's such a provision is necessary for the correct geometry adjustment. One can see by Technics 205 mk 3 ,for example, how those provisions look like. BTW there is no standard or 'norm' for the 'right stylus place' in a cart. That is why the most headshells have this adjustment provision.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
Sorry, my points only relate to the Glanz G series and their distinctions really and I should have made that clear. My triangulation only works in that domain - no real experience with the others (only the specified Astatic and Glanz): although I have observed the cosmetic similarities between the Glanz MFG and Astatic MF ranges. I think your logic and experience here seem sound.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, You obviously overlooked my connection between
wishful thinking and logic. From only two carts of both
kinds (Astatic and Glanz) I constructed the 'all quantor'
by help of which the universal statements are made. Now
by Astatic versions MF- 100, 200 and 300 only the styli
differ. I own the 200 and 300. From 'all possible' Glanz
carts I own the 31L (line contact) and 31 E ( elliptical?).
Those Glanz look exactly the same as the Astatic's
qua body and even (packing) boxes. All of them
have the marking 'MF' on the styli with respective numbers.
Ie without the stylus one can not determine which
one one has at hand. There is not much to compare visualy.
But if one compare the prices there are huge differences.
I got my Glanz 31l and 31 E for about 30 Euro each. As
Vetterone also concluded there is no difference qua sound
between Glanz 31l and Astatic MF 200.
Regards, |
