Dear all, does anyone like to answer and clarify the 2nd question raised by Peterayer's very interesting thread?
***Is there a sonic difference and what is the theory behind one versus the other?
I would think that using the latter method moves the counterweight closer to the arm's pivot point and effects how the bearing is loaded and possibly also the moment of enertia of the arm. ***
Because there is a very special dynamic behaviour involved here - one which goes far beyond counterweight vs. spring loaded VTF.
I just do not want to go ahead and being the "theoretical / math guy" again.
But there is a detail here, which has a very significant influence on the sound of the cartridge......... |
Hi Axel, the difference between the dynamic balanced status and the static balanced (.... I will not bore you or anyone else with the maths here - promised!) status will not be heard on "first sight". However - if you play a record which is warped, you will notice the difference much sooner.
The sound is more relaxed and more stable (reason why so many people address the dynamic balanced status as being less dynamical, less lively). Opera-recordings with large soundstage and a lot of action on stage will give another good example. The "picture" is more stable there too. The focus of the individual voices is better and the timbre always stable.
In the static balanced tonearm the moving mass of the tonearm puts a very dynamic force on the cantilever/suspension system as soon as the stylus begins a hill-and-valley rally on a warped LP.
In other words: - in a static balanced tonearm the VTF is always changing if there are ANY vertical differences in the surface of the LP (and there are in EVERY LP - to a larger or lesser degree).
It may sound more dynamic to some - but is in fact just "unstable conditions".
This applies to a dynamic balanced tonearm to a MUCH lesser degree. Thats why a given cartridge/tonearm combination does always sound comparatively "quiet" and more "relaxed" in dynamically balanced status.
Thats the reason why most of the top-of-the-line tonearms from the "big" companies of the 1980ies did feature dynamically balanced designs.
From the pure technical point of view the working conditions for the cantilever/suspension (...VTF) are much better (read: more constant VTF) if mounted in a dynamically balanced pivot tonearm.
This must NOT mean however, that all audiophiles will find the sound in their specific set-up better with dynamic balanced status. Some may prefer static balanced. |
Dear Axel, 12" to 9" in dynamic balanced status - well, there a a few points to be taken into account. First of all the 12" tonearm is - due to his higher mass and to the longer lever - more stable (= his tendency to leave balanced mode is slower.....). One the other hand the counterweight has either to be heavier or has to be moved further away from the bearing. I have compared my FR-64s, MAX-282, MAX-237 and FR-66s for their behaviour in static vs. dynamic balanced mode. All were used with 3 different FR-cartridges (FR-702, FR-7f and FR-7fz). All were aligned with the Denessen tractor which does result in more effective length on all 4 tonearms and the 2 zeros fairly wide spread and the 2nd zero close to run-out-grooves.
I personally do prefer the dynamic balanced mode due to a more relaxed sound and a more stable soundstage. The sound has a kind of "inner ease" compared to the static balanced mode. The static balanced mode gives however - on brief listening - a sense of more excitement, more dynamic sound. This is uncovered after a few record sides rather as "exaltation" and "over nervous". In a system with rather low efficiency speakers this may however be desired and will add some "life" to the sound of the system.
If your music-system is already rather on the "fast side of life" (= high efficiency speakers etc.) the dynamically balanced mode will show its sonic virtues.
To my ears the sound of the dynamic balanced mode does support the theoretical background.
Have a nice evening,
Daniel H. Kurt |
Dear Raul, guess it is rather a matter of how deep you dive into the subject (here: how much time and effort (you can..) spend to really evaluate the differences) and whether the comparisms are really done in a strigend way (only one variable - all others constant (which is VERY hard to maintain...the tracking force for instance, behaves different in static vs. dynamic balanced mode)).
I made my comparism in a 2 day run on one table, in one system and each of the 3 cartridges went through all 4 tonearms in both modi.
The tendency was clear and in all 4 tonearms it went in the same direction. Also the tendency was more obvious in the MAX compared to the FR. It was NOT a matter of tonearm length. Wheter 10" or 12" - it showed the same tendency. (2 other people joined the sessions - we all 3 agreed on the results)
There are differences between the two modes - whether you judge them positive or negative is a matter of point of view and the surrounding system and its sonic tendency. The theoretical advantage is clear, but the practical conclusion is a matter of taste and personal sonic preferences.
So Raul, - we agree on the topic.
Hope these comments are of any help to others. But I think everyone has to evaluate this for himself. And should again do so, after any significant change in any other part of his high-end chain. Results once evaluated are void if the circumstances under which they were found do change in a significant way (in simpler words: new speakers? new preamp? new amplifier? new TT? new cartridge? - try again - the results under new conditions may surprise you.....).
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Peter, Raul is right and I just want to add, that indeed you should work without damping. A tonearm which does need damping is mated with the "wrong" cartridge. Damping is used to solve resonance problems which have their roots in resonance frequency missmatch in cartridge compliance with tonearm effective moving mass.
Tonearm manufacturers too often use fluid damping devices to make their tonearms "universal".
Kind of adapting a SUV to all kinds of terrain (and claiming it will be top-class on every......) - from Indianapolis Speedway to rough off-road terrain in Alaska- by just changing the tires.
A tonearm mated with a cartridge with suitable compliance will NEVER need additional damping - and will always perform better without. |
Dear Axel, damping is always used to minimize the (always negative...) effects of unwanted vibrations sourced by resonance or torsion. Cartridge sourced vibrations are the result of too low compliance for the given effective mass of the tonearm. A hard (= low compliance ) cartridge can cause the tonearm and its bearings to vibrate to a degree which will have very pronounced effects on the sound. Damping is always used to reduce these unwanted vibrations (better: - to minimize their sound degrading effects).
But - these vibrations are the of a missmatch to begin with. Its not only a matter of the resonance frequency - its a matter of energy handling abilities and too small tires on a car with lots of torque and power......... now you ask the motor-management to reduce from 300 PS to 135 so that you can keep the car on the road.
The heavier carts do add another problem, as they do enlarge the effective moving mass quite considerably (as they are located at the farest point of the stylus-bearing distance) - a big problem with many of todays top-priced cartridges (good example: Koetsu's w/ stone bodies) which do feature too high "body mass" with comparatively high compliance. Thats why so many of the old Koetsu Black are cherished and still fetch new sale prices - they have by far the lowest compliance of all Koetsus and a "normal" weight. They do perform very well in almost all tonearms.
Damping may and will better the sound if your tonearm is matched with a cartridge which is not really ideal suited to be mounted in that particular tonearm.
But still - this particular cartridge would perform better in other tonearms, more suited to match its technical parameters.
In other words - damping is never needed and the sound will never benefit from its use IF cartridge and tonearm do mate well with each other.
We sometimes need damping, if you want to use a specific cartridge in a specific tonearm........ but it is never a happy wedding and not an ideal marriage.
Cheers,
Daniel |
Dear Axel, the DL-103 is a very simple cartridge with a lousy body. There have been a number of body modifications in the past 30 years - some by Denon, some by others. There even are several lead-body DL-103 around.
The compliance of the DL-103 is sometimes mentioned with 5 dyne, but it is usually 7-9. It is definitively "softer" compared to SPU or FR-7 cartridges. Todays DL-103 are ever increasing in compliance.
The DL-103 ws usually used in radio stations with fairly heavy and unsophisticated headshells. They added the mass missing in the DL-103's body. The DL-103 was once designed by Denon for their broadcast division and severed in japanese radio stations for over 30 years. It was mounted in those fairly heavy headshells and fitted to Denon tonearms with headshell adapter. The low body mass had no influence, as the headshell used was so heavy. |
Hi Axel, well - usually I did not get very sympathic comments here whenever I refered to math/geometry in analog playback set-up.
Maths would tell the story here too, but I will put it in more general words:
- the heavy cartridge body does add to the effective mass of the moving system (tonearm + cartridge + generator - NOT stylus) in a very special way. The body mass of a heavy cartridge can - and will - alter the effective moving mass extremely. Thats why the "regular" calculations (middle-mass tonearm + medium to high compliance cartridge ) are all a sudden null and void. One of the reasons why so many audiophiles aren't thrilled with the sonic performance of the high-priced (and heavy....) stone-bodied Koetsu's.
These cartridges are almost impossible to mate well with ANY tonearm.
High compliance - low compliance - medium compliance - these are are results of special requirements in the design of a given cartridge. This has to do with interaction between magnetic force, suspension material, cantilever stiffness, moving mass of cantilever/stylus and several other factors.
Jonathan Carr could write you a 2 pages post about these.
Coming back to this topic here, - and to concentrate the output.... - the cartridge bodies weight has such a big influence (if of considerable mass) on the behaviour of the tonearm and on its effective moving mass, that it can make it impossible to mate a particular cartridge with ANY tonearm.
A stone-bodied Koetsu will perform well in a very few tonearms. In these tonearm it does so, because these arms do feature outstanding energy transfer abilities and are extreme stiff and rigid. But even in these tonearms it is still a missmatch because the combination of high compliance PLUS high body mass is a NO GO for any tonearm. (God, - the Koetsu-lovers will kill me..... hey there! I like Koetsu's too, but would always go for the RSP....).
IGD - has nothing to do with compliance or mass alone.
Usually you are better off, if your cartridge is a good "tracker".
IGD can most likely be avoided, if your alignment goes for the 2 zero widely spread and the 2nd close to the run-out grooves.
IGD is a question of geometry and trackability. Many high compliance MMs do feature extreme trackability - but this alone does not mean low IGD.
Align a Shure V15VMR with IEC-geometry and play a DECCA SXL with Ravel Daphnis & Chloe conducted by Monteux:
You will get IGD even with the 100µm+ trackability of the Shure.
Because your Shure's stylus will already be close to its maximum error with the big crecsendi on the sides end.
An ultra hard 5-6 compliance FR-7 will easily go through those inner grooves without any distortion if mounted in a FR-60-series and aligned with a Denessen tractor.
Greetings,
Daniel |
Hi Axel,
the resonance calculator is fine and will work fine AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT DEAL with cartridges of extra heavy weight and/or on tonearms with extra long (10 - 12" ) effective length.
Why?
Because the extra heavy body is on the extreme end of the lever and therefor its add up to effective MOVING mass is very high. To calculate this you need more than just that 3-way calculator - you would need the effective length of the tonearm too and the added mass of the cartridge taken into account in relation to its distance to the pivot/bearing point.
As for the trackability of low compliance cartridges.
Most better samples SPU's and almost all FR-7-series cartridges I have heard (about 4 dozens so far) do easily reach the 70 µm and beyond if aligned and balanced perfectly in a well-matched tonearm. The FR-7-series performs usually around 2.5 to 2.7 grams VTF. EMTs the same. The SPUs do range from anywhere between 2.5 the lowest and up to 5 for some of the older style samples.
VTF alone doesn't tell you any story about trackability. High compliance can not go with high VTF - for obvious reasons. But low compliance doesn't nessecarily needs extra high VTF either.
So your general assumptions on the trackability of low compliance carts is wrong.
However - most if not all high ultra-compliance carts are MMs. They are - viewed as a group - better "trackers" than the MC anyway. But for different reasons than compliance.
So - the calculator mentioned is fine, as long as you deal with moderate weight cartridges in 9" tonearms. When the total length and/or the cartridge mass do increase considerably, it is a different story and the calculation is enhanced by a VERY dynamic factor. Thats why all these calculations fail as soon as you deal with say a Koetsu Onyx or similar.
The crux is the added mass so far away from the bearing point and its immense effect on the effective (NOT static !!) moving mass.
Hope this helps to clarify the point.
Cheers,
Daniel |
Dear Peter, the SME V is VERY rigid and has good energy transmission. The PC-1 is not that heavy and the SME V is a 9" tonearm with fairly loss mass at the end of the lever (the armtube widens towards the bearing - very good to lower effective moving mass and enhance rigidity).
Your settings seems fine to me - especially the antiskating being only 1/2 value of the VTF.
Enjoy your music,
Daniel |
