Raul,
Get off the Sangria and show me where I said anything like what you are talking about?
Is this figment of your imagination the same as the one about you owning and selling an FR-66s and owning a Signet TK-7LCa and having a Victor TT-81 and TT-101 beside your TT-71 in your system?
If I want your help......I'll ask for it. |
Halcro - And yes......I have listened to the differences between the 230mm distance and the 231.5mm.........
However I don't think this will solve the problems you have described Suteetat?
I have plenty of 'play' distance for all headshells I have tried on both my FR arms to align for ALL the known geometries. Halcro I may have misread your post - this implied to me that you were suggesting that the pivot to stylus distance could be accommodated via the headshell, which it obviously cant. I assume you meant to say ALL known geometries for a mounting distance of 230mm? Thanks. |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " and these curves aimed to minimize tracking distotion in different sections of the LP. " ++++
correct and you can have as many curves as you want depending if you take IEC/DIN/JIS most inner/most outer groove as input to the equations or even your own values. You can " play " about to make calculations make the set up and decide which one works better for you.
+++++ " With the alignment jig that came with the Graham Phantom arm, I can see the difference in overhang of the 2 different alignment curves (forgot which 2) can be as large as nearly 1mm " +++++
that's the difference between Löfgren A and Löfgren B alignment.
+++++ " As such, I am a bit skeptical when some users of ultra accurate alignment jigs claiming they got considerable improvements with these jigs. It seems to me that, even with this ultra accurate alignment, you are simply trading less tracking distortion in a certain section of the LP for higher tracking distortion in other sections! " +++++
right and that is what I understand Dover posted, unfortunatelly always exist trade-offs.
Remember what I posted :
++++ " any change on VTF or VTA/SRA ( if we make those changes or the ones that happen during playback due to the LPs are not flat but full of waves. ) affect the whole cartridge/tonearm geometry set up meaning that distortions values overall the LP surface that were calculated on the choosed cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment has no " value " any more because the starting distortions calculated were on " perfect conditions/theory " in a STATIC way not DYNAMIC as during playback.
So in reality we are almost at random ( during playback ) about those tracking distortions generated on a pivoted tonearm choosed cartridge/tonearm alignment.... " +++++
Btw, Halcro you can manipulate any of the equations parameters only if you made the value changes in the other equations input parameters and the set up was made it with the new calculated parameters. If not everything is wrong, you can'T manipulate the overhang parameter with out the choosed equations new calculation. This is not aritmetic where you can add or rest somewhere and think that all is preserved but the overhang: mistake.
Anyway, I don't care what you are listening because I don't have to live with, as Dover I'm only trying to help.
Reggards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Since we are talking about alignments, I would appreciate to get some answers from knowledgeable members here.
As I understand, there are 3 popular alignment curves, i.e. Baerwald, Löfgren, and Stevenson, and these curves aimed to minimize tracking error in different sections of the LP.
With the alignment jig that came with the Graham Phantom arm, I can see the difference in overhang of the 2 different alignment curves (forgot which 2) can be as large as nearly 1mm. I would assume this difference is way larger than the accuracy built into even the cheapest alignment protractors.
As such, I am a bit skeptical when some users of ultra accurate alignment jigs claiming they got considerable improvements with these jigs. It seems to me that, even with this ultra accurate alignment, you are simply trading less tracking error in a certain section of the LP for higher tracking error in other sections! So, unless you are judging the performance by only a certain section on a certain LP, a considerable performance improvement over the entire LP seems unlikely!
I am not questioning the experience of other members, but just want to know if there is any technical reason behind that! Or am I missing something? |
Dover,
Enlighten me as to where you see me "suggesting" anything other than mounting the FR-64s at 230mm as recommended by Fidelity Research which should give the recommended overhang using the geometry selected by them.
Your preferred mounting distance of 231 will either give a different overhang or different geometry?
Your choice.....no problems. |
Now I understand your predilection for that Signet high distortion item.
But wait, best for you and best of all is that you will have a lot of fun in the next few years because you have to re-listen any single cartridge you own in any single tonearm you own.
Halcro, any one of us made and make mistakes almost every " audio life day " and is the best way to improve: when we are aware and fix our mistakes.
R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang... " +++++
so, all the advise you give to the FR set up is wrong. Why? because you are giving advise with foundation on what you hear on what you are aware and other that recomend the inherent distortions of the tonearm you are given advise on even higher distoritons you are hearing due to your absolutely wrong set up!!! ( as the Dover post pointed out. ) and it's almost sure that you followed and follow the same error/mistake with all cartridge in that tonearm and in other tonearms!
As you said: ¡ HORROR.....HORROR !
Certainly you have a deep misunderstood on tonearm/cartridge geometry alignment. It is not surprise because several people can't understand it.
There is no rocket science there is only Euclid geometry that even you can make equations " manipulation " through Algebra to change parameter values.
Well, the best of all is that now you can make the right set up to follow given advises.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, don't worry, no one was interested in a product made in Mexico (a small joke was created but all were happy when it was corrected). I am not ignorant but I am afraid that I forgot more than you will ever learn. Well, I know that you will never get it, but I am not in marketing, nor in photography nor in dealing with something :-)
Too bad for you
Regards and enjoy the music
S. |
Dear Syntax: As always you don't leave to be the marketing manager of that gentleman.
++++++ " (some here know it) and what amazed me totally was the amount of visitors, dealers and Importers who showed a very huge interest in that.... " +++++
I think that you can change a little your statement. When are we interest on something? well when we want to see/know on something new or when we are ignorant on the subject that the item gives a " solution ".
Dealers and importers mainly looks for $$$$$$ and visitors/audiophiles because a " new " item like several that we can see in any Audio Show.
Now, the ones that because that Audio Show buy/bought it they did or do it because a very high ignorance level because they don't undesrtand the whole alignment subject that Dover pointed out where a " Stupid VE " free protractor makes the job a good job an accurate job.
Why are you amazed when you are an audiophile and already knew on that item?, because after all these years are you still ignorant of the whole subject?
I don't see your post relevance other that your high ignorance level or that you confirm you are the marketing manager of that item. You are very good on that marketing job as very good photographer as you are very good car dealer. Good for you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover/Suteetat: +++++ " The problem with using protractors based on fixed pivot to stylus and overhang is that any deviation in mounting distance or cartridge/headshell constraints render the protractor useless.... " ++++
and not only that, we have to add here that any change on VTF or VTA/SRA ( if we make those changes or the ones that happen during playback due to the LPs are not flat but full of waves. ) affect the whole cartridge/tonearm geometry set up meaning that distortions values overall the LP surface that were calculated on the choosed cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment has no " value " any more because the starting distortions calculated were on " perfect conditions/thery " in a static way not dynamic as during playback.
So in reality we are almost at random ( during playback ) about those tracking distortions generated on a pivoted tonearm choosed cartridge/tonearm alignment.
+++++ " you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct. " +++++
absolutely right. The tonearm mounting distance is the " subject " down there.
Now, any one can " play " with the calculators/comparator tools you linked ( VE. ) to find out which geometry parameter set up like it you more ( lower distortions for example or that the cartridge could " fits " better in the headshell or whatever you imagine. ).
You can change effective length and choose between IEC/DIN/JIS inner/outer groove distance that will give you different set up parameters with different null points too.
IN the FR you could choose " whatever " you like on effective length till you can make overhang adjustement. Why 231.5mm and not 232.00mm ? Dover likes 231.0 and Suteetat a different one.
There are no rules about we can change the input values for the geometry set up calculations. Any change gives us different distortion values at outer/inner grooves and between null points but all these are in static mode in theory that during playback always change.
I like you Dover use a simple 20.00 dollars protractor, like you I think we don't need nothing more: is in practic useless. I think that in the past I used no less than 10 different protractors including the Denessen one. It makes a difference which one I used?, really not and not only because what I posted here but because cartridge/tonearm choosed geometry set up as critical and important as it is is only one factor of several other factros that has main influence in what we heard.
I know for sure for example that mounting a cartridge in a different headshell build material gives me more differences on what I hear that changing from 240.0mm to 241.00mm on tonearm mounting/effective length.
Way before we had therads/posts on that different geometry cartridge/tonearm set up/alignments I was and heard several top home audio systems here in México and USA too, in all of them and with LPs that I know very well I can't heard neither the owners that famous " inner groove distortions " because the choosed geometry alignment. I heard other things and confirm some other things like the importance to make a good overall set up independent on what geometry alignment we choose.
I think that we have to choose the alignment that wroks better in each one system with each one cartridge/tonearm combination.
Now, I think that information always gives us a better way of thinking and as better we can understand the whole cartridge/tonearm alignment as better we can decide what to do in specific, the next white papers on that kind of alignments is IMHO a good point to start for understand the subject but remember that all those equations and the values we achieve trhough the different calculators are the theory when everything is perfect and we know LP is far away to be perfect during playback.
This is something that I posted somewhere in the forum:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the only known " solution " to cartridge/tonearm geometry set up are the Löfgren equations ( 1938 ), all the other " solutions " are clones from Löfgreen ones ( Baerwald ( 1941 ) Stevenson ( 1966 ) and the like. ).
The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in error between these points.
The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking error of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method.
Both solutions are Universal ones and can be use it with any pivoted tonearm with slots in the headshell it does not matters the tonearm geometry design. If the tonearm is J or S shaped or what you " imagine " is not important for the set up.
This two Löfgren solutions/equations calculate ( in any set up ) the next set up parameters: overhang, offset angle, null points, linear offset and mounting distance.
These calculated parameters comes from the equations that have three known and only three parameters: tonearm effective length, most inner groove distance and most outer groove distance, there is no other single parameter need it or taked in count for the overall calculations: so the geometry tonearm design does not matters for this calculations, the only tonearm design factor important is that be a pivoted one.
Of course that you can make changes on this starting calculations parameters, this is that we can change the tonearm effective length for a different calculated set parameters or we can change the most inner groove distance tooo if we like it. Every time we made one of these changes we are changing too the traking error and tracking distortion values for that set up.
As you can see does not exist: that this or that kind of calculations is better for this or that tonearm, you are free to use it as you want: Löfgren A or B, there are no more, as I told you all the other " solutions " are mathematically identical to the Löfgren ones but only with different notation and arrangement.
It is ironic that for many of us Baerwald is more " familiar " name than Löfgren when was LÖfgren the creator of those two and only solutions.
The Baerwald solution is identical to Löfgren A as is the Stevenson B and the A has the difference that has the lowest distortions at inner grooves over the Löfgren solutions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
if any one of you want to know more deeper information the in this link you can read about, only make click on DOWNLOAD:
www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Halcro, thanks for your help. It is kind of strange, Air Tight sounds fine with 230mm P2S being close to the furthest point away on the headshell with Baerwald. I think that if my XV-1s can be mounted with plenty of wiggle room with both 230/231.5 mm as you have with no problem then I just assume it is one of Air Tight quirks. If I have similar problem with XV-1s then I guess I do have a problem (keep my fingers crossed!) |
Yes.....centre of Tower is Pivot point.
I do have the Dyna XV-1s which is currently mounted to one of my FR-66s arms..........but I also have 38 other cartridges ready mounted in their own headshells and all of them have been played on the FR-64s as well as the FR-66s.
In fact......with ALL my cartridges......I set them up on one of my FR-66s arms (which I can do very accurately using Dertonarm's UNI-Protractor).....and then simply swap them between 4 of my other arms (the Copperhead has no headshell and the SAEC WE-8000 S/T has its off-set angle built into the headshell).
My point being Suteetat......that I have had no mounting problem with over 40 cartridges in either FR arms......and I even had an Orsonic headshell which caused no problems?
Perhaps the Airtight is a 1 in 50 cartridge?........but something is certainly untoward in your experience? |
The problem with using protractors based on fixed pivot to stylus and overhang is that any deviation in mounting distance or cartridge/headshell constraints render the protractor useless. I prefer to use a universal protractor such as the 'Stupid' Universal here http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge-alignment-protractors.shtmlIt uses 2 inner and outer null positions and you have to adjust overhang and alignment of the cartridge together to minimise the error. Using a universal protractor will enable you to align for any mounting distance distance from 230-231.5mm. For the FR64S and Dertonams suggested 231.5mm, you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct. Going from 230mm to 231.5mm mounting distance is a tiny reduction in tracking error, but having said that I have mounted my FR64S at 231mm and it sounds much smoother than 230mm. The other factor in Dertonams recommendations is using an outer null point closer to the inner null point which will increase tracking error on the outer grooves but reduce it on the inner 2/3 of the record to provide better tracking of inner grooves. You can easily make your own protractor with revised optimisation of inner grooves by using the Baerwald template above and simply moving the outer null point/grid closer to the centre. Interestingly the Naim Aro that I own uses this same philosphy as Dertonams recommendation of optimising the geometry for the inner grooves. I prefer Baerwald A for all my pivoted arms including the Dynavector which was designed for Stevenson. |
Strange, actually, I should say that the problem is mainly with my Air Tight cartridge. Forgot to mention that Kiseki has 5 sets of mounting holes along its body so I have more range to mount the cartridge. Air Tight only has one set of holes to mount the cartridge. If I use 230mm, there is no problem and I have a bit of room to spare. Just at 231.5 only.
I assume that the center of the tower is where I would measure P2S.
May be it is just the Air Tight cartridge? I assume that all headshells have the same dimension, lenghtwise but assume that each cartridge will have a bit of a different dimension lenghtwise, as far as overhang is concerned.
On FR66s, I only try Koetsu with Oyaide headshell so far and I have a couple of mms to spare in front.
I did not have problem with Koetsu on FR64s in the past either but only at 230mm.
Halcro, if I remember correctly, you have Dyna XV-1s. I will try to mount XV-1s on one of my headshells and see how much wiggle room I have.
Now I seems to amass quite a few protractors, beside Feickert and Clearaudio, I do have 2 mint protractors for Reed and 10.5 arm. I have no idea what logarithm Clearaudio uses. Elsewhere on the net, someone mentioned that it looks like a Dennesen protractor but I am not sure if they only talk about the look or the actual null point. I burrowed my friend's Dennesen protractor once a long time ago and compared and I thought the nullpoint was pretty much the same. Generally I just prefer Clearaudio over Feickert just because it is much easier to see silver protractor with black line than black protractor with white line which my poor eyes really struggle to see especially with Koetsu and Air Tight cartridges where the stylus is hidden under the body of the cartridge. |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " The horror.........oh the horror " ++++
well, I don't know if you already understand the whole subject or not but I know that other " flat head " persons can't understand because they don't care about other that " I like it ".
I know that you are a wise man and that's why your post is some kind of surprise on what I assumed you are. I hope you are not like other " flat head " persons.
Of course that if you are not looking to get/arrive, listen and enjoy to that very last MUSIC/analog/digital frontier you can follow sticky in your very very old DISTORTIONS. The best of all is that you have a very large " land " to advance, is up to you to do it. Good luck in your trip to MUSIC HEAVEN.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
If you use the 231.5mm S to P distance for the FR-64s.......you will not be able to interchange headshells onto the FR-66s which is best set at 295mm.
I prefer to set my FR-64s at the FR recommended 230mm S to P to match the 295mm of the FR-66s.
And yes......I have listened to the differences between the 230mm distance and the 231.5mm.........
However I don't think this will solve the problems you have described Suteetat?
I have plenty of 'play' distance for all headshells I have tried on both my FR arms to align for ALL the known geometries.
Something appears amiss in your story? |
At the Munich High End Show is a Manufacturer with a new calculated Alignment System (some here know it) and what amazed me totally was the amount of visitors, dealers and Importers who showed a very huge interest in that. Whenever I was in the area of that their arguments were ALWAYS the same: way too much nonsense out there (I agree with that btw.). I also saw wrong alignments, Arms with a Geometry which made me wonder....and the discussions among audiophiles what .... everyone is a specialist with deep knowledge :-) |
Suteetat, It is not my intention to suggest that you should become a collector of protractors but I ordered by Yip from the Mint tractor exactly this distance:231.5 mm
I need to adjust just one cart and than use this sample to adjust the other headshells/styli with a caliper. This method reduces those precarious adjustment acts to two: VTF and anti-skate.
Regards, |
Hmmm... just wondering. I tried 231.5 mm P2S distance for FR64s and found that I could barely set overhang correctly
using Clearaudio protractor. Pushing the cartridge all the way out on the headshell (Kiseki Blue with Orsonic headshell, Air Tight with Ikeda headshell). If I use Feickert protractor,it fell just a touch short of Baerwald, nowhere near getting Lofgren nullpoint and Stevenson is the only on that I still have quite a bit room to spare.
I wonder if anyone else has the same problem or may be I am doing something wrong here. A friend has a Dennesen protractor that I want to try but have not had time to get it from him yet.
On FR66s, I only use Clearaudio protractor so far which is also barely fit but sounds the best I ever heard from Koetsu so I have not been fiddling around much with it yet. |
Endless repetition indeed Nikola.
The horror.........oh the horror..... |
Lew and I agreed that the necessary condition for repeating oneself is to do this twice. Otherwise ther would be no repetition at all. Newillekapadia obviously agrees with us. Now according to Lew 3 x repetition is not excusable. What than about endless repetition of, say, distortions? |
Dear Suteetat/Lewm: I think you are " right " on your thoughts and those opinions could not be in other way and the main reason of that IMHO is that: for how many years, maybe 20-30-40, almost all of us heard and today still hear those kind of distortions that we like it is it that we are accustom to it? it does not matters if are " right or wrong ".
It is obvious that if that kind of distortions is the " only " kind of distortions I heard/hear any other distortions generated by a different audio item can sound " sterile " or whatever.
My point/subject is that today we have real alternatives other than the LPs, alternatives where we can enjoy the music too.
In the past the only alternative to really enjoy MUSIC was LP no doubt about but I think that today we are showing a new " audio era " and we are lucky enough for live it:
never before the analog/LPs were at its today quality performance level and never before the DIGITAL was at its today really great quality performance level, along both facts never before our each one audio system was at so top quality performance level!!!!
So, in many ways these are the " golden years ". That some of us are reticent to accept the digital or SS today development to enjoy music does not diminish in any way those facts I mentioned.
Today I can " see " more ofr you with top digital units some of you with the lates DACs and some of you now are listening through SS electronics and even MM/MI cartridges. So things are changing for the better and is up to you to grow up in music's benfit or not.
From my part I'm enjoying all today alternatives. Maybe I have an advantage over some of you: I'm not " married/sticky " with any audio technology, I'm maried with MUSIC and its enjoyment and I always try to find out the " best " technology/alternatives to enjoy it .
What are you doing?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
I hope others may also be interested in a comparison between the 'classic' FR-64/66 and the new Ikeda's IT 407 and 345? As far as I know the 'general opinion' is that the 'classic' are superiour. However I noticed J.Carr's opinion (MM thread)that the IT -345 is the best tonearm ever made by Takeda.The reason mentioned is that Ikeda has (meanwhile) much better understanding of the resonances involved. I admire Carr very much and bought the IT 345 on his authority. However I am also reluctant to change the 'status' of my IT 345 from 'brand new' into 'second hand'. I hope for some empathy for the 'Hamlet' involved.
Regards, |
Lewn, that's exactly what I am thinking as well.
There was a thread awhile ago I think on audio asylum regarding professional gear and recording studio. Supposedly someone talked to Bob Ludwig (I think it was him or may be another major recording engineer) who said that he had compared live mike feed, DSD recording and analogue tape recording from the same mike feed and found that DSD is the closest to live mike feed but analogue tape sounded better. However, he did not say which sounded closest to the actual event nor did he say how it was better.
I found some digital recording that was then made into LPs sounded slightly different from its CD counter part but did not add anything much more and I generally prefer CD just for the ease of use. Some digital recordings such as DG Zimermann's Chopin ballades sounded quite dreadful on CD but rather good on LP. The more recent SFO Mahler Cycle with Michael Tilson Thomas and Paavo Jarvi Beethoven symphonies cycle were recorded in DSD but I found the LPs more enjoyable eventhough the SACDs are already very good. I think Jarvi's recording was remastered again specially for LP so it is not exactly the same as SACD but not sure about SFO Mahler's one. |
Apologies for the double post. |
Nandric, In order to repeat oneself, it is absolutely necessary to write or say the same thing twice. Otherwise, one is not repeating oneself. We have no choice. Three times is inexcusable, I agree. |
Lewm, This thread is representative of life.
You never know what is around the corner. |
This is likely to elicit another novella from Raul, but I think Suteetat hit upon something that I too think is very significant with respect to the question, "What makes the music sound real", in my listening room. When music is produced directly from an instrument or a vocalist, there are harmonics generated, both up and down the audio frequency spectrum. These come from resonances in the body of the instrument or of the singer, from room surfaces, the floor, etc. (Yes, real live music is partially composed of resonant frequencies produced en passant. Killing all resonance is not necessarily "good".) My thesis is that because microphones are not linear in their response with respect to sound pressure and with respect to bandwidth, much of this natural wide bandwidth energy is lost from the signal that gets to the tape or to the digital recorder. Thus downstream components of the reproductive chain that add benign harmonic distortion are not necessarily bad but can in fact serve to restore some of the "body" of the original performance. Thus very low THD solid state devices can indeed sound sterile. It's not that they have a sterile coloration necessarily, altho some do; it's more that they can be "too perfect". It seems to me we all know this, and it's what we are discussing. Why the best tube gear portrays a sense of depth and 3D that I don't hear with solid state is still a mystery to me, however. Perhaps that's another "distortion" I prefer. Then too, I have not auditioned everything available. Wasn't this thread about tonearms? Sorry. |
Or express a point on a 'reference', rather than keep talking about the virtue of a component several times. |
Dear Nevillekapadia: Certainly R2R always is a good option to make comparisons unfortunatelly we can't find out all the software we could need and that's why I took the digital road.
In the digital alternative like in a R2R does not exist both RIAA eq. proccess, no phono stage, no TT/tonearm/cartridge/vinyl and additional cables, so in these regards has lower distortions that permit to be aware easy on differences not only between tonearm/cartridge combinations but the whole system distortions level.
I prefer the today latest digital alternative ( latest DACs. ) becaus eis more easy more user friendly and has a very high quality performance level and we can find out a lot of similar LPs recordings.
In the other side R2R has its own problems we can attest for it if we compare a D2D recording against the same normal recording, I did this through the Shefield recordings that have the same recording versions in both formats D2D and through R2R: the difference is evident, higher distortions/noise through the R2R version. Other way where we can attest the same is through digital recordings LPs as the old Telarc ones where even that the signal was recorded through R2R what was recorded were 0s and 1s and this is whar is recovered trough the LP cutting proccess with no R2R high noise and distortions. We can hear all those " anomalies " that does not exist in the today latest digital alternative.
IMHO R2R/analog can't compete in the distortions whole subject against the digital alternative.
The R2R master tapes all suffer of time/aged printhrough and we never can be sure that all the recording information was recorded at 100% : always because the R2R it self and the tape system to recording exist information loosed or bad recorded in the other side through the digital alternative the recording proccess see only 0s and 1s!!! and if we take other digital alternatives as could be hard dics and the like we can be even better.
IMHO analog is non-accurate by it self it can't be in other way is part of the technology a very old technology. No, nothing is perfect and certainly digital is not either.
I don't know if you knew that R2R generate odd harmonics and even that " we love it ".
My take is that right infront our nose/ears exist a truly " new " world to improve our LP analog experience and the good news is that we all coul have access to it if we start that distortion adventure through lowering each kind of distortion in each audio link in our audio system: there is no other way or following sticked with that " terrible/desastrous " LP quality level performance we have right now.
I know we can be a lot better because I'm experienced it. Please try to think and try to take actions " out of the box ", this simple fact is the KEY to the New World!!!, all is up to each one of us.
Of course that some of us like the today audio life like to think that Earth is flat and nothing wrong with that because at the end each one of us have the privilige to choose their self MUSIC enjoyment.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Unfortunaly some are repeating themselfs twice. |
Roxy, Try to read between the lines. I assumed that non
of us is a shrink. |
Why not take a master tape reel to reel, played back on a well set up Studer machine (or any other decent tape player) and compare it to all the arms and cartridges combinations you think are 'right'. The one closest in performance to the master tape 'actual' recording is clearly more true and will do so on all other LP's. Hearing more out of the LP recording (piano more fuller and sustained note or more texture on strings) is then not a true sign and clearly shows that information is getting added on. This was not there in the first place on the recording.
Not many will have the capability of getting a RTR comparison, but having a good digital transfer in DSD or DXD playback could be another option for comparison. |
Why not take a master tape reel to reel, played back on a well set up Studer machine (or any other decent tape player) and compare it to all the arms and cartridges combinations you think are 'right'. The one closest in performance to the master tape 'actual' recording is clearly more true and will do so on all other LP's. Hearing more out of the LP recording (piano more fuller and sustained note or more texture on strings) is then not a true sign and clearly shows that information is getting added on. This was not there in the first place on the recording.
Not many will have the capability of getting a RTR comparison, but having a good digital transfer in DSD or DXD playback could be another option for comparison. |
Are you ready to pay for?
R. |
Unfortunately you just did. |
This thread looks hilarious. I would love to read the English translation. |
That other " play " with our money.
What if we start to be more deep selective when choosing audio items?, this could help if we know what select for. In this way all those compani9es that really does not help to improve the analog experience will disappear faster that we can imagine.
I think that the AHEE needs a deep cleanse for the better for that AHEE can grow up in the right direction.
R. |
Gentlemans: It is each one of us money what the AHEE is using to follow HIS/ITS corrupted analog trend!!!!!!!
Certainly each one of us are the ones that are paying and are paying not for what we want or what we need but what the AHEE decide is " better " for us!!!! VERY FAIR, DON'T YOU THINK?
R. |
Dear Thekong: I owned that MFA and heard the IO/FM/Boulder. IMHO no one honor in full the analog experience. Yes, you like what you like because that's what you learned but my subject is try to change a little about and see if it's worth, for me was and is full of rewards that " change ".
Why am I so in deep with analog when I know that digital alternative is so good today and growing up very fast?
Other than my 6-7K LPs the main reason is that through my today proccess I explained here I found out that the analog alternative still has land to explore if we improve substantial our system lowering each audio link distortions.
I don't have to buy the latest LOMC cartridges or the latest TT tonearm or electronics ( well it help me that all my audio friends are in the same " trend " that almost all of you and they bought the latest some borrowed cartridges to test it. ), with what I have now is ( for the moment ) enough due to that lower distortion system I achieved.
As I said: I want to explore the last boundary/frontier analog has for shows us and following the analog AHEE trend could be almost imposible to achieve that last boundary/frontier. Life is to short to be only an spectator, if we want to some day be enjoying that analog last frontier we have to be ACTORS and not mere lookerons.
IMHO, is time to stay away of that AHEE TREND tha's the wrong one and not because I say that. Take a look where we are " thank's " to that AHEE corrupted trend: with almost no grow in almost no single audio ling in the audio chain. Look at the other side look how fast growed and is growing the digital alternative when we analog lovers still thinking that the earth is flat and not because we are stupid to don't understand the earth is round but because the AHEE teaching and teached us that the Earth was and is flat!!!
We all are victims of the AHEE and that's why I say corrupted one becuase today they can change ( becausae they know everything I post here and in other threads and more more information that we can't imagine but that can help to start the growing up faster. ) its corrupted trend and they don't do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Rauls,
Thanks for your comment! Would certainly make an effort to try out your suggestion to see if it makes any difference to me.
Just to recap my phono progress since around the year 2000, when I got back into vinyl. I started with the Herron, than progress to the Pass Xono (yes, I know some members consider it grey and sterile, but not to my ears :-) ). In the meantime, I also tried out my friends Supratek, and got myself a MFA MC Ref preamp completed with the phono stage.
I was very interested in the Aesthetix IO Eclipse as I was already using the Callisto Eclipse, so I knew their sound character! The problem was that I never got the chance to audition the IO, that was until last week! Yes, the IO has a completely different characteristics compared to the Xono, and I found its performance vastly superior.
Now that I am so impressed with it, I just placed an order for a set. Is the IO the best? Probably not, but it is the best that I have heard (which may not be many, but at least including the high-end FM and Boulder), that is, of course, to my ears only! YMMV :-) |
Dear Thekong: I read that you have an Eclipse and if I remember in the past you use S.Frontiers that I can't remember if is SS. For years I used tube electronics and learned, slowly but learned, so I changed as you did it. Time to time I ask to my audio friends ( audiophiles and retailers. ) for a tube unit only to check if I'm losting on something and till today that technology has nothing new to offer especially at phono stage level.
So, I can see any contradiction. As you learn as you can change for the better and this is the main subject: " FOR THE BETTER ", did you?
The kong my advise regarding the DISTOTIONS subject was and is to re-set to re-think the whole audio information we have or at least forget it for a while and then start to build a system from " cero " with no pre-judgements but with a new mind trying to start to learn as if we learned nothing through all these years. Is the only way to really change for the better to really understand what means lower distortions and how that lower distortions system sounds/performs and when this happen you will live the audio experience of YOUR LIFE enjoying MUSIC as never before.
Not an easy proccess but worth to intent it. You have to have a test/comparison whole proccess with very defined LP tracks that we will using always: same tracks and same " grooves " on each test tracks. That proccess must include self tests, yes we have to test it our selfs to know if we can understand and take advantage on that new learning proccess.
Thekong, I already said the same to Suteetat: how many years do you have on audio and how many years do you have in your today audio/music learning proccess and how many years do you have trying to improve your home audio experiences?, almost all your life, so don't wait that what I'm saying could be achieved after a few months: NO way.
I hope that over time you and other persons interested in the subjects I pointed out could experience it listening what I'm hearing at my place because when we have the opportunity to hear words are almost useless. Welcome any time any of you to have some additional/different audio fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
For the kind of distortions Syntax mentioned we are not
qualified to judge. |
you don't change when you don't learn: learning is a proccess that can gives you a new " vision/status I can see that you don't move from that old tube technology even in the worst place to have: phono stage I dont know about the others, but I think there is some contradiction there! Since you have been wrong
.ah, lets say less learned, in the past, how can we, or even you, be sure you wont learn that tubes are superior tomorrow! Just like you have "learned" that digital can be superior to analogue! After all, When we have new information true information on that continuously learning proccess usually time to time yo could change for the better
Don't know where you got the idea that I am using a tube phono! Actually, I have been using SS phonos for the past few years. But then, I just placed an order for a tube phono, which is much superior to my untrained ears! I am not advocating others to use tube rather than SS, just that is my choice! Dear Rual, I really have nothing against you! Actually, I have followed your advice and got myself an Acos / Lustre 801, which I still keep. A good arm in its own right, but I prefer the FR64S! |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " How can we be sure you won't change your mind tomorrow? " +++++
you don't change when you don't learn: learning is a proccess that can gives you a new " vision/status " of things that you thinked you knwe very well. When we have new information true information on that continuously learning proccess usually time to time yo could change for the better: if not why spend time to learn if for no other thing that improve?
I can see that you don't move from that old tube technology even in the worst place to have: phono stage. Whatt did you learn that made that you don't move that you don't improve or grow-up about other that " I like it "?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Raul,
Yes, I agreed that there can be no discussion if one insists that he is always right, and any other who don't agree with him, wrong!
BTW, as you have mentioned, you also liked the FR66/64 once in the past! So, if we had followed your advice at the time, then we all have to make the change now! How can we be sure you won't change your mind tomorrow?
While I enjoy learning about the invaluable experience from other forum members, I would like to make my own judgment on the performance!
Since I have made my point, I would stay away from this subject! :-) |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " some forum members think differently! " ++++
sure they did because was not prepared for it: it naked everything and this fact is not a welcomed one when we can't undestarnd it when we can't understand why.
+++++ " as most of us (at least I) would certainly have our own preferences. " +++++
I think all have the same preference: MUSIC, period. You can prefer different kind of music but other than the kind of music if we know in deep how music sounds then there is no space for preferences: music sounds right or wrong it does not matters of preferences . The problem in audio is that as you almost all of us like to " hide " behind that " preferences/subjectivity " because is our " defense mechanism ". You use it in your other post when posted:
+++++ " If that means I like high distortion, so be it! " +++++
and discussion end it. Like that almost all your arguments and almost other people arguments, we have to take on the subjective hand when we really can't understand or think different from other person.
++++ " depends on our own hearing and preferences. " +++++
not preferences but own hearing because is an additional " voicing " tool. I can add too: " own deep trained hearing ", this is the difference between audiophiles as you and me or the ones that prefered to " keep his pricey items ".
Btw, the latest Essential version is still second to none but not on sale any more. I'm finishing a new design but not for sale either.
+++++ " I am not sure how your method of testing could totally eliminate personal preference and be completely neutral. " +++++
as I said you can't understand it so: how can you have an opinion on something that " I'm not sure how... "?.
Anyway, thak's for your time.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
So we had to reject those measurements other than the traditional ones that serve almost for nothing ___________________________________________________________ Hi Raul, Thanks for the detailed description of you experience! However, it seems, in the end of the day, your conclusion still only depended on your hearing! I am not sure how your method of testing could totally eliminate personal preference and be completely neutral. But even if you could, your conclusion might not apply to all of us, as most of us (at least I) would certainly have our own preferences. several years ago when we designed the Essential 3160 " second to none " active high gain Phonolinepreamp
.. __________________________________________________________ This is exactly one case in point! If I remember correctly, several years ago, when your Essential 3160 was introduced, you did a tour to some well-known members of this forum. I am not sure how many of them bought it finally, but at least some of them decided to keep their original equipment, some way more expensive than the Essential. I mention more expensive here not because I believe more expensive automatically means better sounding, but just to point out that those forum members could sell their equipment and purchase the Essential, should they wanted to, and still had cash left over in their pockets. So, price was not likely their concern. Please dont get me wrong, I am not trying to talk down on the Essential, as I have not auditioned it yet. As a matter of fact, I was following the development with interest. Only that there was no way for me to have a demonstration here in Hong Kong. So, my point is that, while you believe the Essential is second to none, some forum members think differently! Are they simply wrong, or have less trained ears? I would rather believe they just have different preferences! I found Soulution/Magico rather unmusical. Impressive sound but it does not move me emotionally ___________________________________________________________ Hi Suteetat, I have exactly the same feeling as you regarding the combo, but I don't think this is a matter of less distortion. If any system failed to move you emotionally, then there is something wrong, or in Rauls term, have distortion. Of course, all systems / equipment have distortion, it is just a matter of which set of distortion is more acceptable to you. In practice though, I find that electronics with a bit more distortion (say tubes vs solid state, very gross generalization here or digital vs analogue), the one with more distortion actually sounds more pleasing and actually give a bit more illusion of being there (but not neccessarily more accurate in absolute term ___________________________________________________________ There has been this never ending debate on tubes vs SS, and Rauls made it clear that he preferred SS. Yes, tubes definitely have more measurable distortion. But, if you are old enough to remember, when SS equipment was first introduced, they already had lower measurable distortion than tubes, but they just sounded sterile and hard, compared to the tubes at the time! Of course, SS has improved considerable since then. The same thing actually happened to LP vs CD, the perfect sound forever, remember? If I remember correctly, the audio industry started out measuring only THD, and when the result fail to correlate with peoples hearing / preference, they start measuring IMD. When that also failed, they found out that human hearing are more affected by odd order harmonics distortion rather than even order harmonics distortion. Till today, we still don't have a set of measurement that could tell us how a system would sound like to us! So, our search for better sounding equipment goes on, depends on our own hearing and preferences. I would think, whichever system / equipment can move your emotions better, is probably the better system for you! |
Dear Suteetat: Why I discovery the MM/MI alternative, the subwoofers necessity, the removable headshell tonearm designs, the DD alternative, the Digital alternative or that 12" tonearms are worst than 10" ones or the RIAA accuracy importance or the active high gain phono stage alternative against the SUT one or SS alternative against the " only " other tube one or the geometry alternatives we have to set up cartridge/tonearms or that cartrdige/tonearm is a little more important than TT as could be the phonolinepreamp, or, or, ....? ( btw, I have an answer/my answer for each one audio subject name it here. )
THINKING OUT THE BOX WITH OUT LEARNED PREJUDGES AND OPEN MIND TO TEST AND TRY ALMOST NON-ORTHODOX AUDIO PRACTICS.
I can tell you that I was one of the first audiophiles to brought Agon those and other " unique " subjects that as DISTOTIONS almost never were discussed here.
I think that you and me as many other audiophiles/music lovers wants to achieve and experiment the very top/last analog boundaries/frontiers in favor to enrich our MUSIC enjoyment but to get there first step is that mentaly we have to change we have to change our attitude and second step take ACTION on that new adventure to get there.
I'm seriously involved in that adventure for years at that level that even I design/build the audio link I need it if what is in the market can't help me to achieve those analog last frontiers.
I learned that analog has a lot more to shows us and that other than our self the main obstacle is our each one audio system because was builded with way different " needs " : So we have to start to build a new system that can helps to explore those great analog last boundaries that are waiting for waiting for showing each one of us the real analog that only a few can enjoy today.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10134&4#10134
that's what we are accustomed and if we just follow that AHEE trend we move/walk to no where.
How many years took to each one of us to be " here "? for how many years are we involved not only on music but in audio?: 10-20-40-50 years?. We can't wait that everything can change for the better in two months with system changes and only because Raul say so!!!
We all need time, need to understand and to take the right " road " to find out those analog last frontier.
Have fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Suteetat: It is almost imposible that almost any Q5/amp combination do not like it ( I only heard Q5/Boulder ) but we can ask for more than only " likle it ".
Now, you pointed out a main subject:
++++ " Impressive sound but it does not move me emotionally. " ++++
MUSIC has that unique characteristic that's to wake up our deepest emotions/feelings and if an audio system can't do it is because somewhere something is wrong.
The quest of what I'm trying to expose in your thread is to have that " impressive sound that moves us emotinally. I know we can get it: system low distortions and emotions are not against in between and when the system owns both certainly you are on " heaven " for the first time in your audio life, this IMHO is the Quest.
You are right that system with higher distortions like it us more than other with lower distortions. Why could be this?, not easy to say other that we are accustomed to those higher distortions all our audio life and it's not easy to switch to lower distortions. The point is that sometimes a good low distortion system link helps to lower the system distortions but at the same time could naked other system links that with the new low distortion link does not like what we heard.
Lower distortions is not a synonimous of top quality performance because depends on the audio item design, used parts in the design and excecution of that design, so we have to have the knowledge level and skills ( example: self test proccess. ) to know it that low distortion audio item is a " good " one can " transmit " MUSIC.
To achieve a system with lo low distortions and that " transmit " MUSIC is not only to choose " ingredients " the " best " or the high priced ones but is a proccess that take time and that we have to walk step by step and in that " road " we will find obstacles and you can be sure that sometimes we fall and we have to learn how to wake up again. So the proccess is at the same time a learning one and there are not rules for: plug&play but even that's complex is worth to take the adventure. We have to take the adventure with out misconceptions or pre-judgements even think " out of the box " always help and always help to know that not all what we already learned is necessary useful or true in that adventure.
++++ " Mounting it on FR 64s, I think that the contrast between Koetsu and Air Tight is not as obvious. " ++++
could exist different reasons for that and one is that in any higher distotions audio item differences always are less obvious.
I really appreciated you and Thekong your " concern " to know hwat I'm talking about with out any kind of ironic statements from your part or even some kind of gibe/taunt on what I posted. I say this because there are some gentlemans that everytime I touch the distortion subject in any thread they react in that way.
I always think that the best in our life is always ready to come, so the expectations growing up and the future is full of rewards depending what actions we take today.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.- |
