Hi Frank: Tha's all about: first hand info, great Frank.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Thom: I have severals headshells and many of them wuth the azimuth adjustement, but no: I don't have the Sumiko.
If I can, this weekend I would like to try the J Micro tonearm. I let you know about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi Flyingred: +++++ " mounted on the Schroeder Ref when compared to gimbal arms (Micro Seiki MAX 282 and Morch DP6) I thought the bass reproduction was slightly looser when they were mounted in the Schroeder compared to the other arms. " +++++
Yes, you are right: the bass reproduction is one of the " Aquiles heel " on the Schroeder tonearms, other way very fine tonearms.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dmailer: Congratulations !!!. Now, if you like the Shelther sound I urge you to go for the 90X, it will shine with your " new baby ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi Topoxforddoc: You have to have the MC2 Finish: it's a must!!. Nothing ( that I know and heard ) come close: real music !!!!.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Tom: +++++ " Of course, the Micro sounds like a machine..." +++++
I own all the differents arm wands for the MAX 282 and I already try each one with differents cartridges and never give me the impression of a " machine " ( very far from that ), right now I'm using the XP 282SM with the Goldbug Brier: stunning combination, rivals anything you already heard.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Frank: I read, through the Thom/Galibier web site ( excellent one ) and AA , all about the differents wood arm wands Self damping: long fibres, etc.. ) and their choices about effective mass/compliances that you already post.
I don't have an intensive experience in my own system with your tonearms but I have experience with wood arm wands ( like Grace tonearm ) and with wood build audio items: TT, clamps, cartridges, etc,, and the wood like any other material has it's own " signature ": a little " soft " sound reproduction, including hard wood like Ebony.
I wonder if the bass signature of your arms has to " see " with your wood arm wands choice instead metal ones, I think that the wood is the problem with that kind of low bass reproduction.
Frank, I don't want to be controversial here I'm only try to understand what really happen with the low bass Schroeder reproduction, because I think that it will be very difficult to fix it with wood arm wands.
Btw, you have a stunning design and this is not the point here. Do you already try other materials than the wood: a metal one? how they sound against wood?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Thom: Maybe you already know that the Micro tonearm instructions for set the overhang it's different from the universal two points setup, these two method give you two differents overhang and different sound reproduction. Which one do you use it? and when you are hearing like a " machine ", how much damping do you use? and which arm wand do you use?
Btw, other way to use the MAX 282 dinamically balance tonearm is in static mode balance: here are some differences in the sound reproduction.
All these issues are very important for the evaluation of this tonearm.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Frank: +++++ " Low frequency reproduction is quite strongly linked to the quality of the rendition of upper harmonics. This is why adding a "supertweeter" often improves the perceived bass quality of a speaker. " +++++
You are absolutely right: this happen when I add my Tannoy ST.
+++++ " Over the years many audiophiles have gotten used to an exaggeration of upper harmonics, resonant arms(platters, too), bad amplifiers(often solid state, sorry) and cartridges with high frequency resonance peaks as low as 12kHz(!) being some of the contributors. " +++++
THis is one of the " audio cancer " type.
+++++ " So, should I design my arms to match well with severly flawed components? Certainly not.
It is not this "HiFi sound" I'm trying to adhere to, but rather produce a component with as little a sonic fingerprint as possible. " +++++
I applaud you for this.
+++++ " But I do saturate the armwands with a variety of oils, some remaining liquid, others solidifying over a period of three to six weeks, until they all exhibit the same internal damping properties. " +++++
THis kind of care about speaks for your dedication on the research/design/build/test process: great!!!!!
I will have to look the opportunity to try your tonearm on my audio system: I deserve that!!!!!
Tks for your time and delightful explanation about. I think that all of us really appreciate that.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Thom: It is sad that Micro Seiki is out of business. The MAX 282 is only a product that speaks about this quality oriented company.
Btw, the MAX 282 use torsion bars instead the common spring for the VTF.
Tks for your answers. Always is pleasing that people like you really are on " target ", with audio items like the Micro tonearm.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear George: The Baerwald formula is totally right, overhang= 14.5.
The Micro Seiki manual operation specifications gives: 15 mm ( overhang ) for the 282 and 12mm for the 237 models respective.
Tks George.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear George: A big mistake for my part. Mi manual it's the same like yours: 12mm for the 282 and 15mm for the 237, sorry.
+++++ " A truly wonderful arm. " +++++
Yes, it is.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Thom: I never heard about Micro Seiki/PIlot pen.
Btw, I really like the LP on the MAX 282 and I agree with you about: " no perfect/build cartridge ".
I don't want to do a " controversial subject " about the " mechanical " sound of the MAX 282 against the Schroeder tonearm. My opinion is that under " some circunstances " that can be true ( I believe you ) but I think too that in different circunstances the " mechanical " sound can will comes from the Schroeder: nothing is absolute, all is relative.
Dmailer, I apologize for intrude on your thread. Sorry for that.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear George: +++++ " Micro Seiki does make a J shaped arm without headshell to which one could add an azimuth adjustable headshell. " +++++
Very good point. Till to today I never try my J shaped arm and I don't have nothing to say against the SC arms. I have to do it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: I already post in the past: I try to match cartridges/tonearms combinations with out take in count their resonance frecuency and till to now I 'm sucess about.
I'm not saying that the resonance frecuency is not important, it is but there are many issues others than the resonance frecuency that define the quality sound reproduction of " that " combination.
I can tell you many examples, one of them: the Ortofon MC 2000 is 11gr./20cu and I try with severals tonearms and with a very high mass SAEC tonearm was its best sound/match ( resonance frecuency: 4.5Hz ), right now I'm trying the MC 2000 with another high mass tonearm: Dynavector DV-505.
So, we have not to be " crazy " to meet exactly the resonance frecuency for an excellent performance.
When I ask to Jan Allaerts about the compliance of the MC2 Finish Gold for I can match with a tonearm, here is his answer:
+++++ " Hi Raul,,
The compliance from our cartridges is not relevant, if you have a good arm and turntable , you can track 300 µmm, with this cartridge so if you calculate and project this to compliance you get 70 but nobody believe that so, the important thing is the arm can work with cartridges from 10 Gr mass and more,
Second if you build in the cartridge set in full parallel to the record, first after ( with 180 our 200 Gr vinyl ) you listen to voice on a record and put the arm a little higher no lower settings and adjust you have the most air our room around the voice that play, that is the point you leave it normal is this 1 our 2 mm higher ( NO MORE )
Regards
Jan " +++++
I try my MC2 with seven tonearms and the best match is with the SME IV.
My experience tell me that there are some " things " that I can't explain in full scientific way or common sense about the " irrelevant " resonance frecuency issue: the MC 2000 example is not the only one: I test a cartridge/tonearm combination that its resonance frecuency is 10Hz and sounds only good and the same cartridge with other tonearm with 6Hz resonance frecuency sounds excellent. This can tell me that the resonance frecuency can be only that a: resonance frecuency value.
So, Sirspeedy/Flyingred: don't worry too much about. There are other issues that defines the sound reproduction quality: cartridge frecuency response, load impedance, tonearm energy dissipation, tonearm ringing, tonearm vibrational damping, tonearm wiring, tonearm bearing or not bearing, arm board, TT, phono preamp accuracy, etc, etc, ....
Btw, Thom my LP never sound better than with my MAX 282. We have differents experiences with the same cartridge and one of the reasons is that we have differents audio systems and maybe differents music/sound reproduction priorities.
The stereo home music/sound reproduction is a very complex process that have many " sides/faces ", that's is what do so interesting and always a challenge.
}
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Thom: The mass/compliance chart is a great service to all. It is the best advise to start about and I agree with you to " put some sort of advisory ..".
Well done.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Very good points Frank. Btw, I work ( for years ) hard with my system for to have " luck " about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Thom: Great!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
