Nandric, What's the point, I didn't take the bait on aluminum so you get insulting? I doubt if Brakemeier has a patent. As far as I know he hasn't invented anything, but he takes credit for uni-din and on the web site makes some dubious claims about distortion reduction. If you want to tout Acoustical Systems there might be better ways than insulting people or crushing any dissent. I tend to believe Halcro's assessment is honest, but that does not mean I think any phono cartridge is worth $10,000. +
. |
If we could have a rational discussion of "damping", I would like to comment on Raul's long post covering that subject. There is more than one way to skin the cat (with apologies to Flier's cat). Besides damping spurious resonances one can also sink the energy that affects the magnitude of the resonance. This is what I think might be happening with the FR64S/66S. It may be that the tonearm is efficient at draining resonant energy away from the cartridge body and headshell. Because, as Raul correctly states, there is no impediment to energy transmission along the arm tube and back to the pivot and base structure, it may be that the energy is effectively drained away or "sinked".
Taking a lesson from the structure of my L07D turntable/tonearm, I took great pains to add mass to the arm board of the turntable where I have mounted the FR64S. Plus I use the B60 VTA adjuster, which also adds tightly coupled mass to the base of the FR64S. Perhaps for this reason, and/or because the Acutex cartridge I mounted on the FR64S just does not energize the headshell very strongly, I perceive no issue that I can attribute to resonance. And the sound is anything but the romantic euphonic one that I think R associates with "distortions". It is quite uncolored across the entire spectrum. (I have read that MC cartridges are most guilty of this "sin" of producing a lot of mechanical energy into the headshell and beyond.) Using a single material from front to back, as is done in the FR tonearms, also helps sink or drain away spurious mechanical energy produced by the cartridge.
I think this is an interesting topic. I also think that trying to kill resonance purely by damping can be a losing proposition unless done properly.
|
Dear @fleib: """"
How is an alignment an invention anyway? Find 2 nulls along the recorded part and you have an alignment. I used similar alignments 30+ years ago setting up Japanese tables. """"
As I said to Halcro the problem is that unfortunatelly majority of audiophiles did not learned the tonearm/cartridge geometry alignment subjects/premises by Löfgren but not only audiophiles but analog " guru " professional reviewers as MF or DS ( PF. ) and several others.
The ignorance levels in this regards is really high. The Löfgreen papers are of public domain and can be used for any one with out restrictions and coming from those papers we only see " number's manipulations " as the Stevenson one but does not exist any new method for tonearm/cartridge alignment set up not even new protractors where all are the same and only has real differences on its retail prices. I'm still with the unexpensive and very accurate MINT LP protractor, we don't need anything else.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
From Lewm: Besides damping spurious resonances one can also sink the energy that affects the magnitude of the resonance. This is what I think might be happening with the FR64S/66S. It may be that the tonearm is efficient at draining resonant energy away from the cartridge body and headshell. Because, as Raul correctly states, there is no impediment to energy transmission along the arm tube and back to the pivot and base structure, it may be that the energy is effectively drained away or "sinked".
While he is not a fan of the FR64s/66s, Jonathan Carr of Lyra has commented extensively on this principle of draining energy and it seems like a very valid approach: In general, my cartridge designs use the arm as a path to bleed off excess vibrational energy (after the energy from the LP groove is used to move the cartridge coils and generate an electrical signal, it serves no useful purpose and is best gotten rid of as quickly and completely as possible). Therefore, my cartridge designs definitely prefer arms with stiff, non-resonant armpipes, and bearings that are completely free of slop or chatter. If the tonearm doesn't fit the above requirements, the tonal balance of the cartridge is likely to turn brighter and harder, due to excess vibrational energy reflecting off the arm and getting back into the cartridge coils.
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=vinyl&n=165118 |
Dear @lewm : You are only " thinking " and that's it. I only want that you remember one after market item that was designed to " drain " energy/vibrations in a fast way to damps vibrations/energy and that was the tip toes that were builded by all metal aluminum with out any kind of real damping " mechanism ". Everyone bougth it ( including me ) and time latter I fallen in count that it was not a good damping device but the other way around.
What you need is to listen ( all the same but the tonearm. ) the FR vs a well designed damped tonearm and differeces goes straigth and ca easily heard.
In the other side if your " thinking " were true then what we need are all same metal TT's designs including its plinth and platfforms where are seated. You can ask for to any TT or tonearm today designer and see what answer can gives you.
Anyway, an after your post I'm still voting for well designed damped tonearms and not " mere tip toes ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @sampsa55 : Yes, that’s why JC posted in Agon he did not like the FR ones ( I have that post. ).
He asks for " non-resonant arm pipes " ( as any single today tonearm designer but Mr. Ikeda. So, are all wrong but him?????. In the best way you can ask him or Halcro or any one you want that prove in scientific way why non damped tonearm designs are better for the quality sound levels than non-resonant arm pipes/tonearms.) where FR has resonant arm pipes because is not damped. It does not matters how fast vibrations/resonances/noises pass through it resonates and no one can do nothing about, can’t stop the feedback too. Is a mess of tonearm. Why argue in favor? when seems to me that some of us only need to learn, that's all.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @sampsa55 : This is part of JC post I name it:
""" I agree that the FR-66S would be somewhat better than the SAEC, but truth be told, I’m not overly enamoured of the "S" family either (and I say this as the long-time owner of a 64S with Elevation Base and Arm Stabilizer). The stainless steel is great to look at, but less great to listen to, and when I run mine I prefer to keep a compression wrap around the tube. """
that " compression wrap " JC talks is a way to help damping the tonearm way resonant FR pipe.
He followed:
""" Yes, I’ve already done so with the Titan i. Likewise the Olympos. I agree that the results can be quite OK - as long as you wrap a damper strip around the armtube or take measures to dampen it better.... """
@halcro, he finalize his posts with:
"""
Finally, the headshell has a major impact on the sound, but I am sure that you are well aware of that. """
That very special build material wrap/strip was marketed by Sumiko and I owned and use it. Was extremely flexible and almost with no weigth for it self.
Almost all about damping in audio and its absolutely needs is only common sense not rocket science.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
I agree with Lewm that there are many ways of 'damping'....not only in relation to tonearms, headshells and cartridges but also platters, plinths, rooms, valves, casework and even cables.
Unfortunately, because of the lack of financial return and the moving nature of the technology......there is a dearth of real scientific study and/or published data for this broad hobby called 'audio'.
Every designer of every component for sale in audio, has a 'philosophy' and/or 'science' behind his product that makes it 'better' than what came before and that of his competitors.
If one bought a component based solely on the 'science' of the claims.....one would deserve the sound that resulted 👀
Despite the obvious knowledge of Jonathan Carr.....his Lyra cartridges are amongst the poorest I have heard in my system....on both damped and undamped tonearms....
So how to put that supposed 'knowledge' into perspective?
The most scientific and exhaustive analysis on tonearm design that has been University accredited, belongs to Continuum Audio Laboratories which resulted in the Cobra and Copperhead tonearms.
Using a design team of five eminent specialist scientists under the direction of Mark Doehmannn, they applied a suite of advanced software towards the modelling of both arms beginning with Finite Element Analysis using NASTRAN, PATRAN, and DYSTRAN whilst finalizing the designs in the complex process of Gradient Shape Optimisation using 'Reshape' from advea.com.
The four greatest 'universal' tonearms I have heard are the FR-64s, FR-66s, Cobra and Copperhead.
All four are 'undamped' in the traditional sense 😜
|
but that does not mean I think any phono cartridge is worth $10,000. + I agree Fleib.... And when you think that there are now $15,000 cartridges in the market place, the days of $20,000 cartridges are fast approaching 😱 When you consider that on the 'used' market, one can buy the FR-7f, XL-55, XL-88, MIT 1, Silver Meister (new), SPU-Ae Gold and MC-L1000 altogether, for less than the cost of the Palladian.....it makes no sense 🚫
I can happily listen to any of those great LOMC cartridges before even yearning for my beloved MMs.....
But when I return to the Palladian......I realise that this one cartridge combines every great attribute of all the wonderful cartridges I adore, into a single whole.
And then adds another dimension...
If I had only one cartridge......this would be it‼️ |
Since a number of us are quoting heroes, I feel I must quote one of mine, Black Adder.
Sir Percy: "The Spanish Princess' eyes are more beautiful than the famous blue stone of Galveston."
Black Adder: "Have you ever seen this stone?"
Sir Percy: "No, not as such My Lord, but I know a few people who have and they say it's very blue."
Black Adder: "Have these people seen the Spanish Princess' eyes?"
Sir Percy: "No I shouldn't think so My Lord."
Black Adder: "Neither have you possibly?"
Sir Percy: "No My Lord".
Black Adder: "So what you are telling me Percy is that something you have not seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen?"
Sir Percy: "Yes My Lord."
Black Adder: "You idiot Percy!"
|
Heroes ? These people are no heroes, just people who contributed something. Whether or not their contribution is appreciated is another question. These discussions inevitably lead to other things and this is no longer just about another overpriced phono cartridge. With some companies the name of the game is, 'whatever the market will bear'. The AS table looks impressive and probably costs a small fortune, but where's the perceived value in this cartridge, some special varnish on the aluminum cantilever? This is BS. I think the list price of Goldfinger is now $17K - 2g of real gold and a magnet array = the price of a cheap compact car. You know what P T Barnum said. Lewm, Your post about energy management reads like a page out of the Pierre Lurne' play book. I think we had this discussion before on a tonearm thread and some people make no distinction between different ways to deal with this. |
With some companies the name of the game is, 'whatever the market will bear' . I think with some cartridges the game may be even more sinister? There is a wealthy cabal of audiophiles worldwide, for whom the exclusivity that comes with 'high-cost'allows them to imagine that the 'pissants' can never hear that rarefied quality.... The higher the cost of a cartridge.....the smaller this select group becomes and you can see them on self-congratulatory Audio Forums (which shall remain nameless). I think Acoustical Systems may have erred in making the Palladian almost TOO affordable....for this group already dabble in cartridges costing $12,000 - $18,000. Had the Palladian been the first to cross the magic $20,000 barrier.....it would have already caused a stir and been seen as the next 'step forward'. I hope I'm wrong.....🙈 |
Dear Raul, According to every treatise I have ever read about the Tiptoes, the originals made of solid aluminum, they were not intended to be anti-resonance devices. They were/are meant to drain energy, but in one direction only. In other words, they are diodic in nature. If carefully placed at vibrational nodes on a shelf surface, they are supposed to transfer vibrational energy FROM the component INTO the shelf, but not vice-versa, ideally because the shelf is inert at the point contacted by the tip of the tiptoe. This has nothing to do with damping; it's all about dissipating energy. Using a stethoscope to survey the surface of a shelf, so as to locate the inert points on the shelf surface, I have observed this effect personally. If you don't take care to place the tiptoes correctly at vibrational nodes, then they lose their diodic property; energy can go in either direction, into and out from the shelf, and they are no different from raising your gear on alu blocks. The very best "tiptoe"-like device I ever owned were/are the Goldmund cones (no longer available). They have a core of amorphous damping material that feels like putty and an outer body of some dense metal. I still use them whenever and wherever it makes sense. One of the few tweaks I can actually "hear".
Were it not for the fact that I own and use an FR64S, I might take your critique very seriously, because "on paper" it makes sense. What I wrote above is based on my actual experience using the tonearm, and my experience is in contradiction to the theory you posit. Evidently, you had a different experience. This could be due to a difference in cartridge or headshell or in the construction of the tonearm mount. As noted, I am using it with an Acutex MI type cartridge; perhaps non-MC cartridges impart less energy into the headshell than do MC types. I am not using the FR headshell; I am using a lightweight aluminum headshell. Also, Halcro is using a carbon fiber headshell. For sure, this would make a drastic difference in the transmission of energy into the arm wand, compared to the clunky FR headshell and some others as well.
|
Dear @halcro : """ Cobra...undamped in traditional sense. """
Ignorance again. One of damping paths is the tonearm build materials choosed and the Cobra use very self well damped build material ( similar to the VPI 3d. ). Did you heard about arm pipe tapered tonearm design and the why’s of it?: tonearm shape is other paths of damping as appears in the Cobra one.
In the other side your comment on @jcarr works :
"" Despite the obvious knowledge of Jonathan Carr.....his Lyra cartridges are amongst the poorest I have heard in my system....""""
reflect only what you like: SOUND REPRODUCTION WITH HIGH DISTORTIONS, AS HIGHER THE BETTER.
Everywhere in your system tell us and your post after posts confirm it.
Why follow spreading that kind of ignorance level of what must be MUSIC enjoyment???
No one I respect and know as a true music lover and true audiophile spreaded that kind of comments on those great Lyra cartridge designs or puts in doubt the @jcarr professional and very high knowledge levels and skills on cartridge design or almost any other audio subject he has and made that comment only in favor to tell here that you are rigth when you always are wrong on those regards!!!!!!
Obviously that you did not think in that your " comment " on Lyra cartridges affects in no single way the credibility of JC but yours , that now is exactly where it belongs: AT CERO
Please do it a favor and think not only in what you posted in this thread but what you post/spread everywhere. Where are the benefits for any one on it?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Dear Raul, I have to laugh every time I read one of your posts that cordially begins with "Dear" so-and-so and cordially ends with "Regards and enjoy the music", yet in between the salutations, we find only vitriol. It would be OK to agree that we don't all agree on every topic and that failure to agree does not indicate that the other person has a fatal character flaw, which in this case seems to be love of "distortions". I don't know about you, but I am saving my anger for politics. This stuff just does not amount to a hill of beans. Relax and REALLY enjoy the music.
|
I take "undamped in the traditional sense" to mean no additional fluid or rubber type dampers used. In this case the quote was out of context and the name calling unjustified. Is this the same old argument about the FR/S arms? Might as well stop reading now. This could go on forever. Halcro, did you try the Palladian in another arm? Dirk Sommer who wrote the HIFI Statement review used a Thales Simplicity and an Acoustical Systems Aquilar on a Brinkman LaGrange. He said the cart is his analog discovery of the year. |
Dear @lewm : Stop to laugh because as always I only try to help, not vitriolo even if it looks as that.
Everything in audio/music is about any kind of distortions levels. The main difference between your home audio system and any other gentleman’s system is the distortion levels on each audio system.
Those kind of distortions levels can or not reflect the owner music/sound priorities and I said that " can or not " because you can or not really aware of all those kind of distortions and this depends on your audio self life training to detect all those kind of distortions levels or only a few.
That is precisely what could be happens in your next statement you posted:
""" Evidently, you had a different experience. This could be due to a difference in cartridge or headshell or in the construction of the tonearm mount. """
It has nothing to do with what you think but with what I posted here.
@bluewolf can’t understand how I can give an opinion on other gentleman’s systems that I never heard it and this is because he has not ( yet ) the precise training/experiences to know it but I can know that his system as the thread OP and what they posted reflect those high distortions levels that they are not yet aware of.
To learn we must be not only open to do it but try not stay sticky of what we own or what we learned through audio life.
Changes are not an easy way/path to follow but a must to grow up. We need to change to learn. Changes means not only about audio items but more important each one attitude.
Here in my country people say: "" the worst deaf/blind man is the one that does not want to ear/see. ""
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Apparently, one not only has to see, but to see only with your eyes.
|
deaf or blind... hear or see. |
Halcro, did you try the Palladian in another arm? Dirk Sommer who wrote the HIFI Statement review used a Thales Simplicity and an Acoustical Systems Aquilar on a Brinkman LaGrange. He said the cart is his analog discovery of the year. Quite a statement Fleib... It seems he was more struck with the Aquilar/Palladian combo that the Simplicity. Is that how you read the review? Dietrich was elaborating on the important elements of tonearm design because resonance is but a small factor.... He says the key to tonearm design is the ability to accelerate and optimise energy transfer without getting into self-( by the tracking process...) stimulated resonances in the audible frequency band. That's why it is about a WORKING spring-mass system and about using materials with superior propagation speed.Thats why it is about using bearings with ultra-low STARTING friction and as hard coupled bearings as possible. So far I've only tried the Palladian in the FR-66s tonearm.. Seems a perfect match...😎 |
Reading the review - Dirk Sommer did not set the Palladian on the Simplicity tonearm. Why not? Sure would have been a more interesting and relevant review.
He seemed to just compare the AS combo with the Simplicity with Trans Rotor/My Sonic Lab cartridge. |
My mistake about the arms. Apparently Brakemeier set up the cart on the Aquilar for Sommer. **But when I return to the Palladian......I realise that this one cartridge combines every great attribute of all the wonderful cartridges I adore, into a single whole.
And then adds another dimension...
If I had only one cartridge......this would be it‼️** Is this love or infatuation? We have an idea of what Halcro likes in a cartridge. He listed some of his favorites in another post and has been discussing this here and on other forums. Seems to me there is a difference in presentation between many MM and MC carts. You know what I'm referring to, an immediacy, a straightforward sound in contrast to a more soundstagey perspective. Of course not all carts conform, but we know what OP likes. So far, there is no perfect cart and I doubt if this is. I'm guessing the trade off is harmonic detail, texture and layering. Being able to unravel the Stephen Stills or Respighi implies omission, like the natural sounding presentation of a 103 with it's aluminum cantilever and conical tip. Of course this has a shibata and varnish on the cantilever which makes it special. I don't mean to imply this is not a great cart, but why the deceptions on the web site? I read about the arm and it says uni din can only be achieved on the 2 AS arms and it is the intellectual property of Brakemeier. Maybe their English is misstated, but the first part is an outright lie. 63.3 & 112.5mm are probably the easiest to achieve on any adjustable arm, regardless of factory alignment. Raul is absolutely right about this one. This alignment is Loefgren B moved closer to the label. I posted the comparison months ago on Audio Circle. Maybe Brakemeier means that if you use this alignment you're using his intellectual property and it's a no-no. Either way he would be well advised to remove that nonsense from the site. It's been my experience that people who can afford this stuff aren't stupid, but they might not care if the product does what they want.
|
So far, there is no perfect cart and I doubt if this is. I'm guessing the trade off is harmonic detail, texture and layering. Being able to unravel the Stephen Stills or Respighi implies omission,
Are you really saying that being able to enjoy a previously unlistenable record means that the cartridge is leaving something out, effectively hiding the flaws of the record? |
Obviously the words "guessing" and "implies" means it's conjecture, but it's a possibility, a likely one. There's no new technology here just a potted MC and apparently a very good one. Then again, perhaps it has some magical qualities, being able to discern the good from the bad and sort it out for you. Maybe it has no flaws and makes sense of things other carts can't, but is that likely? Find a master tape dub of the recordings in question and you'll find out. |
Being able to unravel the Stephen Stills or Respighi implies omission, like the natural sounding presentation of a 103 with it's aluminum cantilever and conical tip.
Always dangerous to speculate without hearing.....🚫 A trait of someone south of the border.....❓😎 The "unravelling" is definitely the result of extracting MORE information and somehow distorting 'less'.... I have the DL-103R and I can assure you there are simply no similarities. |
Obviously the words "guessing" and "implies" means it's conjecture, but it's a possibility, a likely one.
"Implies" is a logical conclusion, not a conjecture... Find a master tape dub of the recordings in question and you'll find out.
Why would he or anyone bother? If the cartridge makes previously unlistenable records listenable that alone should be great, but it also extracts more information. Most would be very happy and just enjoy listening. |
**I never understood why someone might prefer a "revealing" component? Is the objective to find flaws in recordings & other gear or to enjoy music? ** Revealing is to expose information otherwise hidden. Too revealing is a consequence of limitations in the equipment or recording. **"Implies" is a logical conclusion, not a conjecture...** Imply is a suggestion without direct evidence or explicit reference. I suppose you think "guessing" means it's a foregone conclusion, but it doesn't. We now have a grand total of 2 reviews including Halcro's. I said all along I believe his assessment, but we all have different sensibilities.
|
To divert a little.......
It is widely accepted (even by some cartridge manufacturers) that a low-compliance cartridge puts more energy into the tonearm....
My experiences through a dozen tonearms and over sixty cartridges of all types, show that high-compliance cartridges tend to sort the good from the bad tonearms far more readily.
Trying to understand why.........could it not be that the higher movement in the cantilever (both vertical and horizontal) results in an equally greater reaction (according to Newton) that the tonearm needs to oppose?
If so....it may indeed be that the higher compliance MM cartridges put more stress into the tonearm and thus require a better tonearm than low-compliance MCs.....?
Against all current folklore admittedly.....😱
|
Halcro
Wouldn't the amplitude (movement) of the cantilever be the same for both families of cartridge?
Maybe the observed differences have another explanation?
cheers |
Wouldn't the amplitude (movement) of the cantilever be the same for both families of cartridge? I see what you're saying Richard..... Of course the movement of the cantilever is governed by the groove modulation and not by the compliance..... Silly me 🤓 I can't understand then, why the arms I've ditched. failed the high-compliance MM test......👐❓ Regards |
Wouldn’t the amplitude (movement) of the cantilever be the same for both families of cartridge?
Not necessarily. In both cases, the stylus follows the groove, but there could be differences in the extent to which groove modulations move the cantilever relative to the tonearm and the tonearm relative to its pivot. A stiffer cantilever suspension could well mean less cantilever movement and more tonearm vibration. |
Halcro
maybe the reason is down to incompatable effective mass of the arm cart combo? |
A stiffer cantilever suspension could well mean less cantilever movement and more tonearm vibration. That's what I think most folk believe, thus putting more stress in the tonearm...... I'm still not totally convinced 🤔 Surely attaching an accelerometer to a tonearm to produce graphic evidence of the stresses would not be difficult? I'm sure Continuum did.... |
maybe the reason is down to incompatable effective mass of the arm cart combo? The FR-66s has the highest effective mass of any commercial tonearm produced. If there were no audible compatibility issues with it, plus its little brother FR-64s plus the DV-507/II plus the SAEC WE-8000/ST.....I can't see effective mass being the reason....? At any rate, it was not a low-frequency problem or arm vibration that ruled out the other tonearms. |
Sampsa 55, ''Implies'' is logical conclusion, not a conjecture''. This is correct provided we provided the premisse from which the conclusion follow. The logic state that a conclusion is true if the premisse is also true. But logic does not decide about the ''real truth''. Meanings or sense are about languge such that we understand what is stated. We need in addition the reference to the reality . The so called ''correspondence'' between statements and reality. However ''corespondence'' should not be seen as ''identity relation'' . This was the reason for Frege's curious invention that statements refer to truth values: the truth OR the false. Wittgenstein stated: ''for two things to say that they are identical make no sense and to say that everything is identical with its self say nothing''. |
Nandric, First of all, to imply is an English verb meaning by suggestion or supposition. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/implyInfer means to conclude from evidence, not imply. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infer*** ''Implies'' is logical conclusion, not a conjecture''. This is correct provided we provided the premisse from which the conclusion follow. The logic state that a conclusion is true if the premisse is also true.*** Not quite. The premise can be true and the conclusion false if the argument is faulty. This is like reading pedantic nonsense. Any statement or argument is true if you prove it to be so, or might be true without proof to the contrary. Taking one word out of context and changing the meaning of a statement or paragraph is a fallacy in itself. |
Dear @fleib : """
So far, there is no perfect cart and I doubt if this is...""" No, it's not. Perhaps cartridges are one of the audio system links where from almost started its design does not changed :
The essence of the cartridge design did not changed in the last 60+ years, in reality it's almost the same. The cartridge motor still are: LOMC, MM, MI, etc., still are using almost the same suspension design/dampers, cantilevers ( even in the past better ones with the berrilyum build material, diamond or saphire. Today the best cartridges use boron that was used on the vintage cartridges and in those times boron was used as tube not rod like today, tube is a lot better. ), today still use of Shibata or special ellipthical or Micro Ridge or VdH stylus tip, the LOMC vintage ones are a lot better trackers than the top today ones and this sole fact means that the vintage cartridges pick up more music information than today ones an at the same time means lower distortions. Today on cartridges there is nothing really new but very high prices. Even in the past existed better ways to do that: electret or electrostatic designs that today no one use and even almost no one knows about. Cartridge body materials does not changed: titanium, ceramic, aluminum, wood and the like are the same.
The magnets used and in use today are nothing new because platinum, neodinyum, samarium cobalt and syntetic ones ( that use today Dynavector. ) comes from 40-50 years ago. Same happens with the internal coils wire: cooper, silver, gold or blended materials nothing of this is new. One day I ask me what am I buying ( I was a " frenetic " buyer on today cartridges. ) ? better cartridges? not really, better quality performers? not really, cartridges that outperforms the other I bought? not really. Every single question I made the answer was nothing really totally new, sometimes what we have is something diferent and perhaps one single quality level cartridge characteristic but no single " today " cartridge came or comes with all better cartridge quality characteristics. Then I stop to buy the " cartridge of the month ".
Today the real experts on cartridge design/manufacturers are the ones dedicated expressely to design only cartridges and this fact made it that why they are the only true cartruidge experts designers. We have names as Ortofon ( the LOMC piooner manufacturer for more than 60+ years. Here is experience and not only on cartridges but they were and are really experienced on cutter heads designs of world fame . ) or Dynavector or Benz Micro or Vandenhul or J.Carr ( that even designed for companies orther than his own Lyra cartridges ). All them still works very hard trying to present something new some true and real cartridge evolution but the cartridge it self " essence " did not permited till today. Yes, all of them today has better quality performers but nothing really new. There is no new cartridge technology, new kind of generator/transducer principles. On paper the Palladian shows nothing new but old and if I follow the OP review then I know for sure how it performs and I know is more of the same and only the new kid on the block.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
richardkrebs
12-04-2016 9:25pm
Halcro
Wouldn’t the amplitude (movement) of the cantilever be the same for both families of cartridge?
halcro OP
12-04-2016 10:09pm
Wouldn’t the amplitude (movement) of the cantilever be the same for both families of cartridge?
I see what you’re saying Richard.....
Of course the movement of the cantilever is governed by the groove modulation and not by the compliance..... LMAO, what laws of physics are you plucking this from. I would expect that cartridge compliance, effective mass of the tonearm and bearing friction all play a role in both the amplitude and behaviour of the cantilever when navigating groove modulations. Halcro you have suggested before that effective mass does not have an impact before but you are wrong. An easy experiment is to change the effective mass of your tonearm by adding or subtracting mass - I have done this with your much vaunted FR64S and it is easy to hear consistent differences when altering the effective mass in a decent system. |
Sampsa 55
The tail wagging the dog....
Agree: That is where I was heading with the effective mass compatibility question.
Ideally the amplitude should be the same regardless of cartridge family.
If it isn't, there is likely a miss match with eff mass or there is miss tracking due to any number of reasons
cheers
|
richardkrebs
12-05-2016 7:31pm
Ideally the amplitude should be the same regardless of cartridge family.
That statement is not correct. Why would you expect a low compliance low output 0.1mv mc cartridge with a tiny coil attached to the cantilever to have the same amplitude as a high compliance high output output 5mv MM cartridge with a hunk of magnet attached to the cantilever when navigating a record groove. |
Because if the movement of the cantilever (at the stylus end) is not the same, then the stylus is not following the groove or the cartridge body is moving in anti phase Both very bad things indeed.
Yeah, you can go into groove wall deflection due to higher forces with a low compliance cart and other esoteric reasons, but "ideally" the movement will be the same in a properly set up system.
|
Dear @dover : """
Halcro you have suggested before that effective mass does not have an impact before but you are wrong...""""
obviously totally wrong but is not his culprit, things are that he just can't hear it: it's now aware of it. This is the problem with this gentleman is that unfortunatelly is a self negation/deny for him and just is not willing to change, willing to learn.
Dover, what you said about you and every single true audiophile learned when we studied audio in the very first steps: kindergarden.
Some of us are way sticky to " something " and we can't do nothing to be unglued.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @dover : You posted to richardkrebs: """
That statement is not correct... """
and he posted: """
Because if the movement of the cantilever (at the stylus end) is not the same, then the stylus is not following the groove..."""
things are that never is the same because the stylus cartridge follows the grooves in tiny different ways.
Compliance, cartridge cantilever/stylus effective mass and output are different as is each cartridge tracking abilities, amplitude can't be exactly the same.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Raul
yes, yes of course. I was not and Halcro was not talking about individual carts arms
We were talking about different families of carts, MM and MC
Further, I did not use the word "Exactly"
cheers
|
Seems to me this conversation is getting a bit strange. Someone is saying the mechanical amplitude of cantilever movements should be the same for different carts, or types of carts? That's a bizarre notion. Maybe you're looking at the stylus end of the stick? What really counts is the generator end. That's where the cantilever delivers the goods - excites the generator and converts mechanical movement to electricity. Compliance is a measure of springiness. Would you expect 2 cantilevers with different springiness, made of different material, and of different lengths, to vibrate/resonate and deflect the same? I think the reason you can get decent results with a 64S, is because the arm/cart resonant frequency with a 'normal' cu cart goes down rather than up. If you have a stable platform you can tune the combo with compatible headshell, tonearm wrap, damping, etc. and whatever works as long as it tracks and your woofers aren't jumping out of their baskets. If you use a low cu cart on light arm, the resonant frequency goes up and approaches or enters the audible band which results in intermodulation distortion. IMD can sound euphonic here, reinforcing the bass or midbass, although it can cause involvement many octaves above the resonant frequency. |
Flieb. Yes I was talking about movement at the stylus end and I'm pretty sure that this is what Halcro meant as well.
There is the very real risk of us all talking past each other here.
To rephrase my original question to Halcro. Why would a MM cart have any difference in stylus movement than a MC? This assuming both are set up correctly in a compatible tone arm. There was no hidden meaning in my question. What happens at the other end of the stick is, of course, a whole different story.
I could not agree with you more on your comments re resonant frequency.
cheers.
|
***Why would a MM cart have any difference in stylus movement than a MC?*** I don't think you can attribute any differences there to generator type, seems more like a function of stylus profile, contact area, groove height and that sort of thing. It might be nonproductive looking at it that way. There's another traditional line of thought as to energy transfer and motor type and it has to do with the nature of the beast. Because the coils are moving they transfer more energy and are more subject to returning energy. This kind of makes sense. The fixed coils in a MM are gigantic in comparison and you have a small magnet or two, wiggling. One thing is for sure, MM's are much harder to load, but they're tunable. |
Fleib and Richard,
If we agree that the movement is the same at the stylus for both high and low compliance cartridges......wouldn't the greater movement at the end of a high-compliance cantilever cause an equally larger reaction (Newton) which the tonearm sees?
Wouldn't that then put greater stress into the arm?
No-one can explain by physics.....why it is claimed that low-compliance cartridges put greater stress into tonearms....🤔
|
Halcro
Low compliance carts are stiffer, so it takes more effort to deflect the suspension when playing a record.
More energy in that has to be controlled by the arm.
Cheers
|
Low compliance carts are stiffer, so it takes more effort to deflect the suspension when playing a record. Hang on...... We've agreed that the deflection of the stylus at the groove is the same for high and low-compliance cartridges. Which means that the end of the cantilever must move more with high-compliance and less with low-compliance. Where does "effort" come into play in a physical sense? I don't understand the term "effort" in a structural sense either? Can you put it in an equation? |
