Andrew, and/or Doug, please fill us all in on the cartridge comparisons. Make sure Paul is there, I trust his ears! Doug's ears I'm not so sure about. Just kidding, Doug! I don't know if you've heard Doug's system before. If not I can safely say that you guys will have no trouble picking up on the differences.
Sorry to drift OT just a bit, but what Mark described with the Venustas sounds exactly what I hear from that model IC and speaker cable before break-in. Albert warned me that I'd probably mumble dirty things about these cables for the first 100 hours or so. After that they really start to mellow and blossom. |
Larry, my dog ate those rollerblocks. Or, my wife accidently threw them out with the garbage. Take which ever excuse you prefer for my not sending them back. ;)
Sorry for going OT. |
Mark! Do like I do. Throw eggs at those little trick or treat bastards! Get 'em before they get you, that's what I always say!
BTW, I'm in on that goils gone wild thing! |
Doug, or Andrew, were you using an outboard tansformer? I'm curious to know how you accomplished the load changes.
Thanks for the report Andrew! Maybe before too long we can do a 3-way comparison with the XV-1s, which I know to be a step below the Universe. |
Wait, those values are way to big for transformer loading. |
Hi Andrew,
I though that Doug may have run the MM inputs to get the 47K load. (that should suggest to folks how much Nick's MM stage can handle) I think that Doug may have had Nick build in some selectable loads and that's how he was able to vary the load through the MC stage. Mine is preset. Not a big deal, I was just curious.
What did you do to Doug?!? We haven't heard from him yet! :) |
Well said, Larry. Well said.
I picked up on the undercurrent several days ago and it became somewhat obvious why Doug was hesitating to post. I've been struggling with how to respond but I'm glad I didn't because I could not have said it better than what Andrew and Larry have.
The day I feel that I'm not getting Doug and Paul's honest opinions will be the last day I ever ask them for their input. And that goes for anyone else in this crazy hobby.
Best to all,
Dan |
Hi Raul,
I guess you really had something to say since your response got posted twice! :) Just kidding, I know you did some editing.
Doug did express much of the same reservations that you did concerning such a quick cartridge comparison. I think you did a very good job of giving the details of those concerns. In regards to the LF response of Doug's system I can tell you that his system system has plenty of chest vibrating low end response. Perhaps not what you would expect from a subwoofer, but still plenty deep and strong. I'm curious why you think there is something wrong with Doug's phono stage since the 47K loading sounded shrill in the HF. Isn't that what one would expect when loading an MC that much? I know from my own experineces that 47K usually makes things sound much like and old transistor radio. In fact, if 47K sounds good in Andrew's phonostage I have to wonder if that load is really being applied.
Ignoring the snipping that has occured, it does seem to me that it would be fun to re-visit the "O" after a few hundred hours of break-in. By then I hope to have my XV-1s broken in as well so perhaps there could be comparison of the 3 that may help some to grasp the differences in these cartridges. I know it would help me immensely! |
Hi Andrew,
I'd love a trip down to Hot 'lanta. It's been many years since I was there.
It seems to me that we can rule out a difference in arms since both you and Doug are using the same arm. I have also wondered about the arm position on Doug's Triplanar but it does sound correct with the Universe. It does seem that there is something reacting differently in your's and Doug's systems. That's what makes this such a crazy, nutty hobby!
Hi again Raul,
After looking up the specs on the Dunlavy's and the B&W 803 I can see that there is a difference in LF reach, although that is not what Doug posted as what he perceived was missing from the O. So we are all left wondering what could be the issue at 47K loading, but it's hard for us to say since we were not there to hear what has been described.
Tim, I don't think I read the same posts by Doug that you read. I believe that Doug on several occasions has stated that this whole exercise is nothing more than some fun between a few enthusiasts. He never offered his observations as anything more than what was heard with his system and two different cartridges in a few hours of listening. It seems that you and a few others have taken his words to mean that his opinion is the definitive word. You applied that spin.
While I do appreciate Doug's opinions I certainly am not ready to go along with the conclusions that some here have reached about disregarding the O based on these written comments when I have not heard this cartridge in anyone's system. The issue, from my perspective, has not been what Doug has had to say about the O. Many people are going to have different opinions on that. The issue here is that someone, one of us, has offered an honest opinion only to have their honesty and motives attacked by some. |
Great idea, Neal. When are you planning to make the comparison? |
Neil, I nominate Raul to be the host of a comparison meeting. That way we all get a vacation in Mexico and hear some really great reproduction! (Plus we can spend his money on cartridges. :) )
Perhaps I missed it somewhere in Andrew's posts, but was he also running VTA tail down when the 47K loading sounded good in his system? If that's true it seems to contradict the theory that this VTA setting is the culprit.
|
Doesn't matter for me, Neal, as I don't have a mono switch. I think for those more experienced at this the desire to use a mono recording is not as great. My experience is much like Andrew's, I have more confidence in the adjustments I make when using a mono recording. YMMV. |
Well, I mis-spoke and lead you guys in the wrong direction. I meant to refer to the angle of the tonearm as being tail down and not the actual VTA. Sorry to be inaccurate in my postings.
Andrew, you have absolutely nothing to appologize for!
Ya' know, that is a funny thing about posting on the net. We don't have the benefit of vocal tone inflections as well as hand and facial expressions. I really think that makes this whole blogging phenom quite a difficult communications challenge.
Then again you have folks popping by who take great pleasure in drive by pot shot postings.
And then you have the smooth talking, smarmy bastards that want to piss down your back and tell you it's raining.
Best to all,
Dan |
Hi Raul,
I am responding to you because part of me does believe that you are genuinely interested in helping to sort out the missing pieces to this puzzle.
I have conversed with Nick recently regarding other things completely removed from this thread. He is pretty busy these days with his main line of work. I don't happen to have the specs you are asking for either. But I don't think it is anymore "curious" that Nick hasn't responded than it is that Jim White, or Mr. Hagerman or any builder has ever responded to any thread as full of speculation as this thread is.
Be safe and happy,
Dan |
Hi Andrew,
Glad to hear the Tranny is working well for you!
I have also had good results using Neal's method for SRA and agree that it usually ends up that the bearing end of the arm is abit higher than level. Nice to know we're getting similar results.
As for azimuth. I could see where this would be very difficult using the mirror approach. Mostly due to not being able to get the right magnification in right place, much like Tim posted about. I did experience the setting of azimuth by ear when Thom, Doug and Paul were up. It was such a tiny amount of adjustment that Thom was making so not really far from having the headshell level. It seems that a really good mono recording makes this method easier. Alas, that is something I don't have in my stash. Seems like several folks tried the Wally tool a year or so ago and came to the conclusion that the "ear" method was just as good. YMMV.
Best,
Dan |
doug, I forgot you and Larry were in that group.
Andrew, it's not that the headshell has to be level. The important thing is that the headshell is in the same plane as the record/platter surface. Of course, this is assuming the stylus is at least close to perpendicular at this point. Just a place to start. If you go this route it won't matter what the bubble on the headshell says. If you try to level the platter and then level the headshell it comes down to how closely you can read the bubble. Kind of nit-picky, but it is simpler. Use the little block that came with the Triplanar to level the headshell with the platter surface.
The amount of change that I saw Thom make were in the very fine tweaky range. He used an Allen key and watched the amount of movement with the end of the key to judge how much movement he go. We're talking just nudging things on the threads. |
I agree, Andrew, we are on the same page. One advantage with the bubble level is that you can get quite close with the cartridge still mounted. And this method is not susceptible to variations if the platter is dished. When I do use the level I pick a spot on the platter, take a reading, then try to match the headshell to the same reading while it is over the same spot on the platter. Hey, it's just a place to start.
Using the block may require one to not have the cartridge mounted. I think the little guage that comes with the arm is close enough but I can understand the desire for accuracy. You might have luck with an engineer's square. These are machined to very close tolerences and can usually be found for just a few bucks. I'd be careful with one around the cartridge magnets though. |
Thanks for the link, Neil. That was very enjoyable! Speedy, my problem is that my "cartridge-eese" is still underdeveloped. :) |
Hi all,
I would say that we all seem to be moving in the same direction regarding vtf. As Doug mentioned the XV-1s is a heavy cartridge at 12.6 grams with a compliance of 10. I don't know exactly how that compares with the Orpheus, but it is heaver and lower compliant than the Trannys I could find in the cartridge database. I broke in the cartridge much like Neil advises, up around 2.5 grams, for the first hundred hours or so. After that I tried Thom Mackris' preferred setting of around 1.87, but have since settled in around 1.92. Could be that mile high thing at work in Denver. However, I am still dialing this parameter in and could end up higher. I'm trying to listen and let the cartridge tell me what it wants. All in all, it does sound like what Andrew is reporting.
This theory of running close to the edge (great song, btw) sits well with me also. Trying to balance the nimble sound achieved with the cart just off mis-tracking with the added authority of extra vtf. It's very much like trying to control a helicopter. If you've ever studied control theory then you've probably heard that the helicopter is a system that is always on the edge of stability, and I think we have a similar system with arms and cartridges. Too much control and the music becomes dull, too little and we crash in the grooves potentially damaging the record.
The o-rings work great for quick vtf tweaks. With the weight of the XV-1s the tiny ones alone don't work for AS, but I do think they work for a tweak here as well. Take about twice what Doug uses for the same change. The metal AS weight that comes with the Triplanar is maybe 2-3 mm up the shaft. Just far enough to allow a little buzzing with the HFNRR test track, (#6 I think). If I hear a little break up I throw on a couple of the o-rings for that LP. I have to believe that the compliance has a similar effect on the AS settings. I'll have to start logging some of this information when I tweak thinks so we can compare notes.
No, I'm not quite to the point of using sticky notes. :)
Merry Christmas to all! |
Andrew, I owe you big time! Your recent post regarding vtf has prodded me to re-examine my settings. The results are very impressive and have opened up a whole new side of my tonearm/cartridge combination.
I've spent the last day and a half listening to the changes with vtf at .1 gram increments, from about 1.92 to 1.99. The veil really began to lift at 1.95. I believe I've settled around 1.96-.98. But wait! There's more!
I don't know any other way to say it, but AS is a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum. What I have found is that by going into the same range with vtf that Andrew posted has greatly reduced the propensity for my setup to mis-track. Doug and I have discussed this effect in the past but I have to admit to being somewhat skeptical. Well, I'm a true believer now! I've replaced the 3.9 gram AS weight with what amounts to just under 1 gram with no mis-tracking on any of the LP's I own that used to cause me to bump up the AS. The increase in dynamics and resolution has my jaw on the floor! |
I will humbly assert my title is Zen Grasshopper as I cannot yet pluck the pebble. :)
Really good questions, Tim. I've been fortunate to receive several lessons from Doug and Paul in the art of sound characterizations. I also listen for what Doug refers to. I'm getting little snap-shots of what Paul listens for but I'm still not quite in tune. And what makes it worse is that Paul comes in from another room pointing out what is wrong! BTW, I noticed you have the Orpheus as well as Andrew. Can you post the cartridge weight and compliance just for reference?
This morning I'm finding that VTA did need to go up about 1/2 a turn. I believe this is in keeping with the SRA theory after more VTF is applied. Anyway, that's what it took to get back that hollow shimmer of the cymbals.
I feel like we should move all of this to another thread, but since Andrew started it . . . |
