Lyra Atlas experiences

Dear @drastic : """  on rare occasions and only with a "hot" recording of piano, I'll hear breakup in the left channel,   """

Maybe the hardest high recorded velocity LP grooves to track ( other that the Telarc 1812 bass range. ) are above mid range ( usually well above that. ) frequency range and especially on high velocities in a piano recording.

You own a great audio system and I'm sure that the TT/cartridge/tonearm is just on target as is its relationsship in between.

My experiences on similar phenomenon with diferent cartridges comes because a mistracking ( not set up. ). This " mistracking " could comes from a not very good cartridge/tonearm match ( that with you seems to me is ok in this regards. ) or because those recorded high veloties are over the self cartridge abilities and in this case there is nothing to do about other than test same tracks with a diferent tonearm.

All cartridges has tracking abilities limits and maybe that's what's happening in your Atlas sample.

Now, with those high velocity recording LP grooves is a must that the cartridge stylus tip not only stay in good shape but absolutely in clean/pristine condition and obviously that the cartridge suspension been in optimal operation conditions.

You said: "" on rare occasions "" , question here can be: always with the same piano LP tracks?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

One more thing to check, particularly if "mistracking" happens only on a few recordings, is to see if that problem might just be the recording microphone overloading.  I noticed such a problem with one record  where I assumed the problem was either mistracking or groove damage until I heard the digital release and noticed the same problem.  

I don't know about the Atlas specifically (I own a Titan i), but, all of the Lyra cartridges I have owned tracked real records quite well (not that good on some of test records) and I would not expect to hear much mistracking.  

Drastic and Stingreen, thanks.
Drastic, thanks for the info. I don't have the albums you mention. Is it a case of high dynamics or bass on the inner grooves?
Raul, considering your comment earlier " I know very well your 3 tube items and the I/O is the one that makes more " damage " to the critical phono cartridge signal. " - this is not in line with my experience. For now I am running the system with a small phono preamp, the Fanfare 3, with zero tubes! It seems like you have an idea of tube overkill, which is not what I have experienced. Indeed, I have compared the Aesthetix Io with other phono preamps in my system, including the PH-6, and listened to them in friends systems, like the Manley Steelhead, all very good performers, but in all, I prefer the Io. Opinions differ of course, but the idea that the Io would "damage" the signal is foreign to me. Instead, I find that it mates well with the hybrid Einstein The tube and the OTL MA-1s. This is, listening over time. I wonder what your claim is based on. I agree, however, that the Io with all its tubes needs to be running optimal, if not, problems quickly appear. It is a very "purist" approach.

I discussed it with a main tube engineer,  here in Norway, a year ago, at Gran Canaria. He told me of his "apprentice" time, at an English tube factory in the 60ies and 70ies, and how he later became a tube specialist. It is about the distortion, he emphasised. Tube distortion is less bad for the human ear than transistor distortion. Judging from my own ears, I believe him.

Dear @o_holter : Well, you posted in your thread:

"""  What are the best phono preamp and system matches. Should the system be rearranged. Have anyone done mods or DIYs to their systems to get the "reception" right? """

I said that you have " too many tubes " where the delicate low output cartridge signal must pass on. This delicate and extremely sensitive low output cartridge signal is degraded very easy and one form of that degradation ( exist several others. ) is the high noise in any all tube phono stage ( against any SS design. ) like the I/O that I listened at least 3 times ( the four chasis one unit. ), but not only that tube inherent noise levels but the too many stages where the cartridge signal pass inside the I/O where at each stage exist degradation.

I'm not arguing if you like it or not because you already said it: you like it and this does not means is the right electronic item for LOMC cartridges because it's not. As a fact there is no perfect item in analogue audio. In the other side that's the kind of distortions you are accustom too, each person is accustomed to diferent kind of distortions.

I posted that the Atlas can shows at its best with no tubes at all or at least with no so many.


"""  but the idea that the Io would "damage" the signal is foreign to me. """

with all respect: all phono stages damage the cartridge signal no matters its design technologies. Main subject is which ones contributes to make less harm to the cartridge signal. Please remember that any single degradation to that music signal means losted music information that we can't recovery and in the other side means added distortions. Such is the " audio analogue life ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Larryi - Lyra's track well, at least from the Titan onwards - yes, this is my experience also. Even the Clavis was quite good. Generally, my Titan i experience was very good, though it is worn out (just got it confirmed by microscope at a shop). So I have never been able to test the Atlas versus the Titan with both in mint condition, just a mint Atlas against a somewhat retiring Titan. What I know is, the Titan had great sound and a lot of potential. 

I remember when we tried to tweak a Lyra cartridge to the Souther / Clearaudio parallel arm, my audio expert friend and I, back in the early 2000s. Whatever we did, tweaking the arm, weight, azimuth and so on - even tilting the player to help it move along - we heard (and partly, saw) the arm "bumping down the track" in a loose ragtag fashion, like a sledge in the snow. We became quite sure, after testing, that the design did not work out, even if it avoided inwards skating. It was worse on a spring-loaded player like the VPI HW-19 but persisted even removing the springs. When I upgraded to the SME V arm, there was no looking back.

Raul
Great, a solid-state howl in the pack!
I am investigating your option right now. A solid state Riaa - Graham Slee Fanfare 3. I have also used a Musical innovations solid state preamp. I replaced it with Einstein the Tube, and have not looked back. I have used Lyras in a solid state system, upgrading from basic to advanced. I doubt if the Atlas sounds best in a pure solid state system, if so, it has to be much better than what I have heard.

Dear @o_holter : SS top designs improved a lot over the 60-70’s old times. Yes, the Atlat can listen it best in a pure top SS design and yes it is better that what you heard.

The real challenge is to find out that audio system supported by top SS electronics.
@o_holter , the worst place to use tube electronic design is on pure active all tube Phono stage. For LOMC cartridges best match are SS bipolars, not even FETs can do it better.

Anyway, just a personal opinion and I don't want to follow argue in this new thread " window " that I think needs its own thread to discuss.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Reading all this, you can see how intellectual arguments can lead anywhere(especially if you get one thing wrong).  I use parameters as an outside guiding force-not the be all and end all of all things.  You need to get in the ballpark(with these), and then use your ears to actually hear what anti-skate does.  I think, once again, focusing on one aspect of the sound, is a mistake.  You can make a minute adjustment-let's say one where the channels seem correctly balanced-but find, after sleeping on it, that your desire to listen has diminished.  This method introduces your subconscious, which holds many more parameters than your conscious, or intellectual mind.  In short, adjust anti-skate based on what anti-skate actually does(learned by incremental changes to it), and not what it does to your system(heck, your speakers could be positioned slightly off, or you amp is slightly different between the channels, etc.).

Thanks, I agree - on some points. Raul, my s-state comparison - the stuff I lived with for a long time, learning to know its potential - included the Krell FPB600, which went far beyond my earlier s-state amps (Tandberg, Revox, Yamaha, plus lower Krell models). Possibly, some other phono stage could outperform my Aesthetix Io in my system, but this is not the point in this debate, even less so, since I find that I am well able to hear adjustement effects also on "lowly" phono stages like the Graham Slee Fanfare 3 that I am using now (since the Io is on repair), a PH-6 that.I borrowed for some time, plus some other s-state units.

Clearly, phono stages differ, how clearly do they show optimal cartridge adjustment, but they mainly point the same way, and even from a minimal box using op amps, like the Fanfare, I can get good enough feedback, to work further.

Mmakshak - listen for overall sound, sleeping on it - your comments match my experience. It is not techical (although indeed very technical, small adjustments, nerdy measurements). It is mainly emotional. What is the impact of the music. This is what I go for, also. If a song I played the evening before breaks into my daily routine the day after, making me want to hum or sing, I smile and think: "got it"!

Dear @o_holter : """   but this is not the point in this debate, """"

of course it's not and I did not posted about because of that but only because that Atlas deserve the better, it has to be surrounded by premium items in the analog rig and PS is part of it as tonearm and the like. Tha's all.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

This delicate and extremely sensitive low output cartridge signal is degraded very easy and one form of that degradation ( exist several others. ) is the high noise in any all tube phono stage ( against any SS design. )

If playing at a normal volume, with our preamp you can't hear the difference in the noise floor as opposed to the Aux inputs. So I don't see this statement as truthful. Further, I've yet to hear any preamp that does not have a sonic signature; the solid state signature so far has been the most annoying. It seems a poor choice to have that imposed at such an early spot in the signal chain as the phono cartridge!

Raul - thanks, I appreciate your points in this debate, the Atlas maybe deserves better. Although my system is fairly good.
Larryi - would be great to try - but if this Lyra-constructed stage is so
grand, why did it go out of production?
Atmasphere - thanks, this is what I hear with other good new tube components also, like my Einstein The tube mk 2 preamp. There is very little noise and the component behaves nicely, it does not introduce shocks etc. Regarding the phono stage especially, I have had similar behaviour when all is tuned right, with the Aesthetix Io, not much more background noise in the phono input compared to the AUX input. Personally I am willing to sacrifice a few db in the noise floor to get superior tube performance.

Dear atmasphere: I'm talking of full tube active high gain designs. I don't care in the same unit how performs against the aux input. I'm comparing against a well SS top designed unit.

You have to defend what you have on sale and is your business.


"""  the solid state signature so far has been the most annoying. """"

with all respect your statement makes me think you still lives in the " stone era " because with well SS designed units it's totally untrue what you stated.

I live in México city and in one of my trips to USA we had a test in a prety decent audio system where by coincidence the electronics came from from you.
We were there 4-5 gentlemans that knowed ( other than the system owner. ) extremely well that audio system with LP tracks all knowed as their finger of their hands ( all of then tube lovers. ) and when we made it a change of unit in the Phonolinepreamp system link for a SS unit ( was the only change. ) they did not have to wait 3-4 LP tracks but from the very first one its opinion was unanimous: that SS unit outperforms yours by a very wide margin.

Btw, months latter the owner of that system bougth a SS unit in that system link and is what he has today. No more tubes in that system link.

I don't care if you still live in the " arcaic times ". Life changes every single day, everything is in movement and audio too and SS technology designs grow up a lot and you did not know this fact and obviously you don't know even today. As I said I don't care.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear @o_holter : "  I am willing to sacrifice a few db in the noise floor to get superior tube performance. "

with all respect that is a plain misunderstood. Exist no superior tube performance but additioal distortions, that's what you have it does not matters tht that's what you like because that's not the main subject.

It's not only about higher noise, look: the input cartridge signal travel inside your unit or a SS unit. In your unit exist at least 5-6 circuit stages where the signal must pass and at each circuit stage that signal is degraded ( we can't do nothing about, no one can stop the signal degradation. ) in a well designed SS Phonolinepreamp ou can do the same in no more than 3 stages ( all depend in the designer abilities. ), so te signal degradation is a lot lower and that's why I said that what you like is only those additional distortions ( not only higher noise levels. ).

Tubes are not for an active high gain phono stage ( as a fact is not for today demanding audio. ), no one can defend what has no defense. Forgeret what the " experts " said and say, I live for years with tubes till I fall in count that all what those " tube experts " try to sale or to educate  was totally untrue.

What road takes a phono stage designer, in reality two roads: hybrid designs or SUT as a pasive gain. In the first alternative the rough/hardest phono stage cartridge signal path is made it by the first SS stage in that hybrid design: with out this gain stage there is no phono stage at all and the same is true in those designs  that use SUTs as the high gain stage. Is that high gain stage what puts the unit signature that tubes degraded in higher levels than same SS circuits.

For years the " tube experts/reviewers " try to sale us their arcaic " ideas " with out take not that the audio world already change it for the better and not because tubes but even with tubes there are great and better SS alternatives. As a music lovers and audiophiles we have to grow up and enjoy our today times that are bettter than ever before. Tubes is not the answer is the today wrong answer.

No one has to feeel " bad " for those facts because that's the reality.

There are several examples around and subwoofers is a good one. You have to ask your self: why does not exist powered subwoofers using an external tube amps?, because it can't handle with the rigthness and aplomb only SS can and that's all and this means: tight low bass, with full feeled power and no overhang, taut bass, precise and well defined note by note, efortless feeling, uncolored sound, etc.

Anyway, I'm not against tubes ( as I said I live with and heard in my system several touted tube designs as the Audio Note  Kondo and the like. ), things are that I learned.

I'm not trying to diminish any tube audiophile system, no this is not my attitude.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Btw, I never was an Audio Note owner. I had in my system for almost a month the Ongaku ( over 100K. ) because the M´+exico distributor of this and other audio items was a close friend of mine as were other audio México dealers whom marketed: AR, C-J, Manley, Air Tigth and other very well regarded tube electronics.

I can say for sure that I know very well tube electronics " restrictions/limitations " that can't honor what MUSIC deserves.

To understand what MUSIC deserves we have to take in count two things:

how and which kind of sounds we have in a live music performance. Example in a concert music hall exist no adjectives used and touted by tube lovers as: softness, non agresive, non annoying, full soundstage and the like.
You can have that kind of quality sound if you are seated at 50 m. from the stage source, but this is not MUSIC. When we are seated at a few m. the MUSIC has a natural agresiveness, power, definition, precision and rigthness. Sometimes stridency.
Any piano player knows this and try to listen a trumpet player at normal levels seated at say 2-3 m. and you will undrstand what I mean.

the other thing is that what we have in the LP recordings was captured/pick-up for microphones even nearer to the source as we can't do it in a hall, sometimes very near field as in almost all the Three Blind Mice Recordings.

Only top well designed SS electronics can gives us the " reality " tubes only can gives you what you are accustom to that has nothing to do with that live MUSIC characteristics.

R.

Raul.....I am using s/s Ayre components.....These seem to work with any cartridge I've had on my table....Benz LPS, Ortofon Windfield, Lyra Atlas and Etna, etc.  Today I listened to a digital LP of the Bernstein Mahler 2nd.....the depth, air, and ease was simply outstanding.

Raul, my experience is different. I went from solid state to tubes, and have not looked back. It wasn't experts who told me this, it was my ears.

Dear @o_holter : What we/you like has nothing to do on what is wrong or right.

With all respect, please try not only to read what I stated in my last two-three posts but understand word by word what is posted there.

I'm talking not what I like or you like but what is the MUSIC live sound ( how it sounds at " nearfield " distance ( not at over 30-40 m. ) and how microphones pick up the MUSIC information in a recording session ( that sometimes are placed at  1.5 m. ).

Now if you think that tubes sounds the same as that then good for you but I can tell you that tubes can't honor those MUSIC circunstances/scenarios where the SS are closer to it.

Any instrument music player knows very well what I'm refereing on how live MUSIC sounds.

The main subject is not to convince you or who is right or wrong but how things are. Again what you or me like it is not important but what is the MUSIC and how we percieve it in a live event at nerafield position.

In the other side, please let me know what sound characteristics are the ones that you love in your audio system listening sessions. Can you?, thank's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear @stringreen : I know exactly what you mean. Subject is that some us are accustomed to a false model of kind of sound that is not close to what MUSIC sounds. 
This is the real problem. We can read in this and other forums recomendations like:
""" trust in what you like  "  trust in your ears " , but no one recomend to think how live MUSIC sounds at nearfield position and if we never had this experience it's useless to discuss/argue about.

Any one can go where are piano for sale  and play one key ( at real level. ) and hear it how it sounds and will understand the whole subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear @o_holter and friends: IMHO, the main subject of what some of us are posting here about MUSIC sounds is the more critical and important subject for any considerated music lover and real audiophiles.

Here I'm not discussing about audio system per se or trying to diminsh any one system but only try to understand ( for me too. ) what is our day by day reality. I want to repeat that I'm not against tubes but in favor of MUSIC and our home analog experiences.

I can be wrong and as a fact if I'm I want to know ( do you too? ), so any one opinion in this " free " audio world is welcomed.

Exist several audio subjects where all of us have diferent levels of misunderstood and this include audio item manufacturers and pro-reviewers as audio distributors.

Examples: when some one ask for a tube phono stage we can read answers ( through the threads. ) like this: " Herron " and the Herron owners or advocates to hybrids designs as the Herron things on it as a tube unit when it's not. Those hybrid units use tubes too but the whole unit signature comes from that FET input gain that puts easily 70%+ of that unit signature. After this gain stage the best we can do ( the manufacturer/designer ) is try to do the less harm to that cartridge signal and through tubes or SS stages that input signal is degraded some way or the other and tubes makes a higher degradation. So tube phono stages are only the full and all tubes designs.

Now, one of the main targets in any phono stage design and independent if is SS;tube or hybrid the used devices in the input gain stage and the follower stages must be matched with the kind of cartridge " motor " that phono stage is dedicated: for LOMC or MM, both electrically needs are diferent and for what exist in the active parts market we have bipolars, tubes or FETs.
Well LOMC demands for the bipolars and MM for FETs.

Only a few top SS use bipolars for LOMC cartridges and many comes with FETs ( that sound good but not at the same level that bipolars designs. Yes, we can her the differences. ) and all hybrids with FETs.
Question is: why FETs with MC instead bipolars?, because is way/a lot more easy the design with FETs than bipolars ( and tubes even more easy. ) where for example: we have to used matched bipolars and take care in extreme the way we make the polarization of those bipolar devices that with FETs we have to do nothing about we don't have to " worried " during the unit design. It's more complex of what I'm explain here.

Where learn I all those ( and many other things. )?. Many years ago when my friend and I decided to build a Phonolinepreamp for my audio system. A unit that was voiced for almost two years with different active devices and design topologies and was in those times when surge my Phonolinepreamp that with out ask one Agoner told me if we can build one for him and I say no but after a second email we accepted and other than me he was the first music lover and audiophile we share our unit and after that other six lucky gentlemans like this ( no, I don't sale nothing and don't build it anymore. Maybe some day, who knows.):

https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/1253

and read what this gentleman posted in other thread a few days ago:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/best-platter-mat-especially-for-dd-turntables/post?postid=135... 

Look my Phonolinepreamp has two totally separated dual mono phono stages: one MC dedicated with bipolars devices and the MM with FETs, both diferent designs and additional comes with integrated dual mono line stage and with a " perfect " RIAA eq.. NO, I'm not promoting nothing, all are examples of where are the foundation of what I post.


For music lovers and true audiophiles I think that we must to have a " simple " excercise:

attend for at least 2-3 weeks to 5-6 music live events ( mainly with acoustic instruments and voice is important too. Near field seated position.  ), play personally any acoustic instrument key or keys at real SPL and listen very very carefully on: music transients, instrument attaks, power, rythm, dynamics, overall tonal balance, top to bottom " colorations ", that natural music agresiveness and the natural distortion levels.

From there return to our audio system ( during the live tests time we don't listen our system. ) to evaluate how close or away is our system from the live experiences and what to do what to change or how fine tune the system for we can be closer than where today we are and this " fine tune " is almost endless and main system target. 
One main " parameter " for the excercise has success is that we must forgeret of all what we " learned " about tubes or about SS electronics and that we don't try that our fine tune goes and that sounds as what we are accustomed for years. NO, this excercise is to close a window and open a NEW ONE for the better.
That's what I did it when where in the long process to build my Phonolinepreamp, I was not thinking in all my tube experiences but neither with SS units, I was thinking only in how live MUSIC sounds.

The only thing I can say is that's worth repeat worth the effort with big rewards in favor of what we like: ENJOY MUSIC at the very top quality level.

Yes, we have to make a plan how to do it and have an audio system proved whole evaluation process.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

raul -

I have read numerous comments and opinions from you over the years.  Some seem reasonable, some interesting, some I don't necessarily agree with. 

I have owned to the Herron Audio VTPH-1 and currently, the Herron VTPH-2.  I have to disagree with your assessment, and description.  I'm not sure where you're receiving the design information or how your performing your own personal evaluation. 

IMO, there is no difference between the sound of the all-tube mm VTPH-2 section and the FET front-end loaded with 47k ohms for extra gain needed for the mc front-end to that all-tube VTPH-2.  No difference.  The FET front-end seems quite transparent and does not contribute a "signature" as you describe or it would be apparent when it is bypassed.  Therefore, to claim that the "sound" of the Herron is based on the FET section and that the tubes are compensating for the FETs is not accurate. 

And further to your post, and particularly toward Herron Audio equipment, I have heard nothing that more closely approaches the sound of a live performance than the combination of the Herron VTPH-2 and VTSP-3a(r03).  Nothing.  At any cost or availability. 

Can the Herron Audio components be improved? Probably. But IMO, nothing exists that is better. Nothing comes close is its cost.

Is there collection of electronics that actually fully replicates a live performance?  No.  All we can hope to do is get as close as possible.  We all have our own listening preferences, but in the end, nobody is actually performing in our respective listening rooms.



 

Dear bpolleti: Are you seriously?, I took Herron as an example and with all respect to you: if you can't hear a difference between a MC circuit with a gain input FET stage and other with out it then something is wrong down there:

- low system resolution,
- analog rig not up to the task,
- non adequated and full proved evaluation whole system test process,
- non educated ears or not know what to look for.

Btw, the higher ( against SS designs. )  output impedance on tube units or hybrids like your Herron gives a higher degradation to the signal that goes to the external line stage and if this is a tube unit then same happens when the signal goes out to the amps.

bpolleti, the Herron in not here under scrutiny ( I'm not criticize the Herron. ), main subject is way different. Stay calm and try to understand the main overall subject.

Just curiosity because tha's not the subject here and could be useless: how do you made the precise two diferent stages evaluation to say both performs the same?. Again, just curiosity and you can email me about if don't want it here and don't want to open another discussion " window ".

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul -

I have nothing to hide in private emails that can't be said in this thread.  I have made my comments public regarding my opinion of Herron Audion equipment.  Those views haven't changed.  When you're going to retract your comments, then it should be made on the forum, not hidden in private email. 

The evaluation was easy. Use the same cartridge into both inputs (the MC input is loaded with 47K ohms) adjusting the preamp level to account for the differences in gain.  

You stated that the Herron Audio phono stage uses a FET section that has a distinct sonic signature and uses downstream tubes to overcome that signature.  But there are no tubes in the actual phono stage itself, just the MC front-end. 

Of all the owners and reviewers discussing the Herron VTPH-2 I've encountered and/or whose comments I have read, none have ever claimed to have heard a sonic signature associated with the FET MC front end.  To the contrary, I can't recall any that have claimed the unit had a signature at all. 

But you must be right.  Thank you for pointing out our failures and shortcomings. 

Dear bpolleti: In the very first page of Herron site of the  model you own you can read this:

"""  "The Herron VTPH-2 gives listeners all the benefits of a tube unit with few of the failings and a text-book technical performance to boot. It offers a level of vacuum-tube engineering (carefully combined with solid-state circuitry) that's rare at any price, unheard of at this one." 
- Roy Gregory hifi+ issue 58  """

the input gain stage ( where the cartridge signal is " touched " for the very first time in the Herron. ) is a FET  ( SS ) gain cicuit and from there amplified signal goes to all the tubes on the Herron design.

In that same Herron site page you can read this:

"""  Tube complement(2 x 12AX7, 3 x 12AT7) - most popular, or
(4 x 12AX7, 1 x 12AT7)Gain MC Mode(2 X 12AX7, 3 X 12AT7) 64 dB 
(4 X 12AX7, 1 X 12AT7) 69 dBGain MM Mode(2 X 12AX7, 3 X 12AT7) 43 dB 
(4 X 12AX7, 1 X 12AT7) 48 dB   """

Enough.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

@bpoletti : Read this post, this gentleman owns the same PS as you. Check the date he posted and the first sentences about:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/mc-cartridge-loading/post?postid=1353089#1353089


R.

raul - Well, raul, you're wrong.  The FET stage is used ONLY for MC amplification.  Period.  The MM stage is all tube.  The FET stage just raises the input to the level where the MM section can optimally handle the signal.  The different tube complements are used to balance signal level.  This information is available directly from Herron himself in conversations with the owners of his products. 
 
The cited post says nothing about any differences between the FET stage and the MM stage except that the listener preferred the sound of his cartridge using the "infinite loading" available on the VTPH-2 MC input.  That would be through the FET stage.

Oh, but I momentarily forgot you're always right.  And you already said I can't hear anyway.

As I said, enough it's futile to go on with.

No, I'm not always right and I posted here about but some gentlemans like you just read but not really read and that's why your total misunderstood on the main subject.

R.

Rauliruegas, I am not sure I fully understood your posts. I own a Ypsilon VPS-100 phono and MC-26L transformer. I have owned the Lyra atlas in the past and have considered buying the SL version. I have owned several phono stages many being SS. At present l am using ikeda KAI, which I enjoy. But I miss the in your face of the atlas and have considered the addition. What stops me is I have become lazy as of late and have been listening mainly to my digital front end. Runs in cycles. Are you saying my system (phono) (rest of my system is SS) is a bad fit? I will admit I am getting older(60) and my hearing is not what it use to be. Although distortion seems to bothers me more then ever. My ikeda Kia rivals the best carts I have owned (and I have owned a lot). The atlas is the only one I miss. Your thoughts? I have temporarily posted my system for your responce. It is a "simple" one. After yrs of very large and complicated ones.
thanks 

Dear @whatthe : Please email me here: rauliruegas@hotmail.com

Appreciated,
R.

I've read this thread with great enthusiasm. Although I don't own an Atlas, probably never will, I find the comments here instructive for anyone.

I own an original Foz. I've since read on the Analog Planet, that the current Fozgometers are self-calibrating. I found mine to be helpful with my ET arm, since that arm isn't as user friendly as my VPI 3D in this area. I will say that my 3D is, as Stringreen says, very easy to set azimuth and once one gets it close, listening then adjusting is very easy. Therefore, using it to set azimuth for critical listening isn't the best way IMO on the 3D arm. (Having said this, I'm sure the Atlas is so much more resolving than my carts.....)

whatthe, Are you asking for another's help in setting up your system from someone that has no personal (listening) knowledge of said system in your room, does not know you?, and may have differing listening biases than you??? I just find this to be rather extreme. Just saying....

Thank you, Astro58go. My meaning starting this thread was to be informative for others also, not just Atlas owners.
Regarding solid state or tube amplification of the Atlas, opinions differ. I suggest we focus more on what can actually help, tweaks that can be done, whatever the gear used. Setup is often even more important. This is a great cartridge that deserves the best.

’This is an easy one for me. The biggest leap in sonic improvement for my Lyra Atlas has been to put a Thales Simplicity II tonearm onto my TW Acustik AC-3.

My TW turntable now sounds the best it has ever sounded, even my tube phono stage sounds much better now.

I am now a believer in tangential tracking tonearms.

cheers

I find with my Atlas, the greatest improvement is when I hit the 'mute' button......

Halcro - like in "silence is golden"? If the music is bad, no cartridge will save you...
Downunder - yes, the Thales arm looks very interesting. I had a parallel arm (Souther/Clearaudio) ten years ago but could never make it work. The Thales design seems in another class. Does it track ok? What was the arm you had before?
Yesterday I pulled out my Aesthetix Benz MC demagnetizer, and reconnected the batteries (they tend to go flat, if connected). I used it two times, both phono leads connected. Its been eight months since the last time. Did I hear a difference? Yes. Clearer sound. I find it interesting that the difference is easy to hear even with the small Fanfare 3 stage I use now (my main phono stage is on repair). 

Hi o_holter

Yes those Southers/Clearaudio's were known to have problems - I thiunk they work a lot better now.

  The execution and build quality of Simplicity II is superb - tracks perfectly.  The clarity, directness and stability the tonearm brings to music is uncanny.     My other tonearm is Graham Phantom.

  cheers

Downunder - nice to hear. A friend of mine has a Phantom, I found it a bit better than the SME V but not a revolution. Generally, going far up in price means that the performance improvement diminishes. But perhaps the Simplicity belongs to the exceptions. My Hanss T30 player can take an additional arm (Rega 300 type armboard) besides the SME V, and I am considering an investment, although I have been sceptical of the concept of two (or more) arms.

Dear @downunder :  """  I am now a believer in tangential tracking tonearms.  """

well, your tonearm is a pivoted design that tracks tangentially and this is not the same as all linear tracking designs we all now as " linear trackers ".

Been pivoted is a great advantage an additional advantage to its tangential tracking. Very good design!. Congratulations.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

PS: if you can please email me: rauliruegas@hotmail.com 

Hi Raul

thanks,  That is why I did not mention Linear tracking :-)

It is quite amusing that many arguments over different alignment curves like Baer, Loef and Stevenson and what sounds best.
  Here we have a tonearm that is proven with maths and splendid execution to reduce tracking error to 0.0006 % vs over 2% for all other alignment curves.

  yes, I am a believer,  as you can hear the difference in clarity and purity of the lower % tracking error.

cheers

Dear @downunder :  ""  you can hear the difference in clarity and purity of the lower % tracking error. ""

there is no doubt about because lower tracking error means at least two things: lower distortions and higher music information.

As always and your tonearm included the name in the tonearm/cartridge set up is accuracy behind that set up. The differences we can hear between Baerwald and Löfgren B are not because one alignment been superior to the other but because differences, minute differences, on each alignment set up.

I can remember when appeared the MINT LP protractor where every single gentleman that use it was and is totally satisfied and where all of them heard more or les what you stated and why is that: because the MINT LP is really outstanding?, no because for the almost very first time some one took in count tne meaning of ACCURACY. It's a bargain of protractor ( I think around 150.00 ) an unbeatable till today, it's dedicated protractor for the TT/tonearm/cartridge of the owner. We don't need nothing else.

But your tonearm is in a different league and my " hat off " for the manufacturer.

In the other side you are not hearing only the improvement of the tangential tracking in your tonearm but its overall construction and blend material building, bearing and many other things. Good.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

@downunder : That has a name: tonearm true engeenering !!!!!

R.

Downunder - I remember, trying to tweak the Souther arm, we got the feeling, although it looked nice in theory, it was hard to achieve in practice, whatever we did, the cart scated around in the groove (and as you can imagine my rather over-controlled SME V cured that). Happy for you, if the new Thales design works well.
Oystein

I use a kuzma 4pt for my Atlas. Have had a range of carts in the Kuzma, Benz, airtight, vdh etc. The Atlas is the best sounding, excellent dynamics, tonality and tracking.

I did have a sme 20 with the the smeV arm, but this was previous to me obtaining the Lyra. Obivously I found the  Kuzma TT (and ref313 arm I had initially) preferable  to the sme,  the 313 also tracked better than the sme with the same cartridge.

I use a mini oscilloscope with the set up to adjust azimuth. 

Have tried various phono stages with the Lyra, eg. Dartzeel, Thoress - I use the Ypsilon with Lyra's Erodition MC step up. I found the Erodition suits the Lyra better than the Ypsilon MC20 step up.

Dctom - Thanks for interesting information. I also enjoy the Atlas. For me, each step up in the Lyra line over the last twenty years - Clavis, Clavis DC, Titan, Titan i, Atlas - has been worth it. The Atlas shines through even when some components aren't optimal.

I used the SME V on a (modded) VPI-HW19 player for several years, and although it worked ok, the arm matches better with the Hanss T30 player I use now. It gives the arm a more rigid platform, more in line with the philosophy behind the SME V. I can compare since I have DSD recordings from vinyl using the two players with the same arm and Lyra cart. There is no doubt that the Hanss benefits the music (although the tonality is good in the HW19, pitch and stability is better in the Hanss, music seems to get a higher resolution with a greater level of detail). So, getting the Hanss player in a sense was the biggest "tweak" I did to the Atlas (and is much recommended if one can get it for a reasonable price). The T30 has two motors, six thin drive belts, heavy sandwich construction, magnetic bearing, 10 kg aluminium platter - and I think all of these contribute to the result.

Some people don't like the sound in this type of heavy platter, including Paul Seydor in the Absolute sound (2012), reviewing the T-60, a bigger version of the T-30. Seydor had a lot of nice things to say, and only one critique - he heard a certain metallic coloration or glare, and preferred using the player with a platter mat on top. He used a Graham Phantom II arm with an Ortofon Windfield. (Review here: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/hanss-t-60-turntable-and-graham-phantom-ii-supreme-tonearm/ )

I understand what Seymour was writing about. I can hear a bit of this glare too. Yet I mainly prefer the T-30 (with the SME V and Atlas) without a mat.

Since this may of be interest to others, and to be sure, I did a new test, over a week, trying out the best platter mats I have tried so far, the Japanese fo.Q rs-912 (recommended by Seymour - a set of two mats, thin and thick).

However, my conclusion is: I like the sound better without a mat - even with some "glare". This goes for most of my records. Sometimes, however, the LP is so hard-sounding (and engaging platter resonances, I imagine) that the music sounds better with one of the rs-912 mats.

Like Seymour, I find that the thin mat (with holes) works best; the thick (or the two combined) is too much.  So for example, when I want to play my worn mono copy of Dave Clark 5 In Session, the mat makes it more bearable. It functions a bit like a filter, and also goes some way into refining the sound. However, listening more closely, I find that I lose information. This is a no-no for me. So - even with a bit of glare, I prefer the "full" sound from the record directly on the platter.

I use a heavy (1kg) TT brass record weight rather than the light-weight clamp that came with the Hanss. This, also, is a bit of plus and minus (I miss the screw-down clamp design on the VPI), but mainly, it gives the music more body, it sounds fuller, and also reduces the glare a bit.

For a period, I tried damping the platter on the bottom, using Gladen Aero-Butyl, but the Hanss distributor warned me against this, since even if I applied the damping material evenly, it would still interfere with optimal balancing of the platter. So I took it off, again (quite some work). It did help the metallic resonance, but not so much - I don't hear a big difference without it. Maybe a sandwhich or composite construction would cure it better. With the VPI, I had the heavy (HW-19 version 3 or so) lead platter, but even if it was stable and gave deeper bass than the ones before it, I liked the sound better in the (hw-19 v 4) Black Knight platter.

It seems typical for the Atlas that kind of problem is less prominent than with earlier Lyra's like the Titan. At least, this is my experience. The Clavis was much "harder" than the Titan, and the Titan was harder than the Atlas. Hard in both senses - sounding hard, and hard to get right, to adjust to optimal sound. It feels like the Atlas is more "forgiving" of resonances, sibilances, etc. along with almost no mistracking - even as it is extracting more information from the groove. This is impressive. Even when using a "lowly" phono stage like I do now, the cartridge gives me clear informattion, what sounds best.

 

Platter mats - well, maybe too off topic....no reaction so far.

So, back to a main issue raised earlier in the debate. The Atlas needs a solid state Riaa to sound its best. Or at least, not too many tubes (Rauliregas). He may be right. I hope to be able to audition some s-state riaas in the near future, and will report back.

O-holter.....just reading the thread again.   I got rid of my SME V because it didn't have the ability to adjust for azimuth.  Sure you can shim the cartridge, but that is really unworkable.  When azimuth is set correctly, the soundstage widens, yet the instruments become smaller...life like and in their proper space in the sound envelope.  Depth is increased as is dynamic shadings.  These attributes are much too valuable to give away on an arm that can not accomadate for it.  These are the exact abilities that make the Lyra Atlas so special. I've head the Atlas on a few arms, and on mine - a VPI 3D.  All the top arms sound a bit different, but to my ears, none was better than on my VPI 3D.  I understand Harry is working on the addition of another pivot to make the arm even better....the mod is easily incorporated into all 3D arms, and has a modest price tag.

Rereading the thread:

Thanks Stingreen - I very much appreciate your contributions, and will do a new check. So far, however, the azimuth seems ok. Like Mmakshak commented above, it can be hard to judge, what is the cartridge, what is the speaker positioning, and so on - you need to sleep on it, and use your subconscious to get the whole system fully tuned to the room. This is an endless task. Happily it is also filled with joy - just listen to the music!
 
Ninetynine - the SME arm should be heavier, to be optimal for the Atlas. I am not sure. I tried some damping/heavier stuff but went back to the original. As often happens when I try to tweak the SME V.

Nandric - stylus shape is important - I did not get how this would translate to anti-skate and weight.

Some of the debate turned to mistracking - although not the main issue in my case. It seems that most users, including me, thinks the Atlas sounds great and seldom mistracks. As stated before, this thread is about getting optimal sound.

Raul has argued that the Atlas needs a solid state (or hybrid) phono preamp / riaa solution to sound its best. Too many tubes will not do. The debate - here as elsewhere - has turned to solid state vs. tubes. I agree that phono preamps are not the main subject of this thread, but a little discussion will not hurt. After all, the phono is a main part of making the cartridge sound good. But we should restrict this to phono stages actually listened to using the Atlas. Raul, have you heard solid state phono stages that serve the Atlas in a superior way?

All in all, with 3851 views on Audiogon and 98 posts so far (one of them calling our discussion "erudite"), I think the thread has been succesful. The group of Atlas owners / users is fairly small, but our discoveries and debates have a more general interest. Each of us are likely to be sometimes wrong, but together, we may be right.  So I look forward to more comments.

My Atlas plays very well. Recently I have bought a Spin clean washer, because I want to listen to music when I clean my records (my noisy vacuum record cleaner is in the basement, for now). Not surprisingly, the record washing results in better-sounding records. Also, for Atlas best sound and maintenance, I use the Zerodust, a light carbon brush now and then, each week, and the Lyra stylus treatment once a month or so. Demag ca every second month.