I have tried to read everything available on the internet about Peter's SG cartridge and am very close to buying one because of their obvious design advantages.
I just have one simple question that I can't get answered.
I understand that a strict adherence to RIAA is not critical to SQ (i.e., +/- .1db is marginally audible and probably over-kill).
I understand the speed, coherence, sound staging,(et. al.) of the SG is well worth a mild response variance from RIAA. Peter has publically disclosed this variance as +/-1db between 50hz and 14khz.
What I don't understand is why there is no disclosure about the magnitude of roll off from 50hz down to 20hz and the magnitude of upward tilt from 14kz up to 20kz both of which are in the audible range and generally not disputed?
I understand that a displacement sensitive design will not require any where near the equalization of a velocity sensitive design and will thereby stay fairly close to flat with no phono-stage equalization; but on the ends of the sonic spectrum Peter admits the tolerance exceeds +/-1db but refuses to quantify this variance. He seems to prefer to simply tell us it doesn't matter. Peter is beyond brilliant, but I just don't get this approach.
This technology is phenomenal and the RIAA variance has spooked many an audiophiles unnecessarily only because it diverges slightly from what is considered the norm. In turn, many technocrats in the industry cant get their perfectionist heads around what they perceive to be a deficiency.
The best speakers in the world have several dB humps and troughs at their cross-over points that are measured and then viewed as "character" by the audiophile community. (Think if an archaic manufacturing practice led to a strict linear response definition at the expense of speed, coherence, sound staging and so on in the speaker market. Seems pretty silly right?)
I don't get why Peter doesn't simply quote variation for the entire audible frequency response range, own it for what it is, take away the big mystery, and rule the world.
I just have one simple question that I can't get answered.
I understand that a strict adherence to RIAA is not critical to SQ (i.e., +/- .1db is marginally audible and probably over-kill).
I understand the speed, coherence, sound staging,(et. al.) of the SG is well worth a mild response variance from RIAA. Peter has publically disclosed this variance as +/-1db between 50hz and 14khz.
What I don't understand is why there is no disclosure about the magnitude of roll off from 50hz down to 20hz and the magnitude of upward tilt from 14kz up to 20kz both of which are in the audible range and generally not disputed?
I understand that a displacement sensitive design will not require any where near the equalization of a velocity sensitive design and will thereby stay fairly close to flat with no phono-stage equalization; but on the ends of the sonic spectrum Peter admits the tolerance exceeds +/-1db but refuses to quantify this variance. He seems to prefer to simply tell us it doesn't matter. Peter is beyond brilliant, but I just don't get this approach.
This technology is phenomenal and the RIAA variance has spooked many an audiophiles unnecessarily only because it diverges slightly from what is considered the norm. In turn, many technocrats in the industry cant get their perfectionist heads around what they perceive to be a deficiency.
The best speakers in the world have several dB humps and troughs at their cross-over points that are measured and then viewed as "character" by the audiophile community. (Think if an archaic manufacturing practice led to a strict linear response definition at the expense of speed, coherence, sound staging and so on in the speaker market. Seems pretty silly right?)
I don't get why Peter doesn't simply quote variation for the entire audible frequency response range, own it for what it is, take away the big mystery, and rule the world.