Dan, as I've already said, I'd really love to hear a UNI if there's anyone in Tucson or Phoenix who has one? Decently set up? Please, invite me over?
I still intend to listen (with my Temper W) to the critical passages Doug identified on the Trio and Sonic Fireworks albums. (I've pulled them out, so that's a start ;--)
But it's become quite consistant now, that every time I run across someone who says they prefer the sound of their LOMC at the 47K load impedance, I eventually discover they've set their stylus at < 1 degree SRA or even < 0 degrees SRA!
Chicken/egg-wise, the "47K" generally happens first. The person installs a brand new phono preamp out-of-the-box, which 90% of the time is set to a default 47K. Then they start playing records, and adjusting the tonearm (SRA) up and down 'til the treble stops shreiking, and lo and behold, the tonearm is tilted backward! I KNOW! I USED TO DO THE SAME THING MYSELF! In my youthful enthusiasm to "see how it sounds" and my youthful ignorance of the mechanical/electrical requirements that must be attended to first, I unwittingly put the cart before the horse. And thought I was soooo cool!
Moral of the story: while age alone is certainly no guarantee of wisdom, youth is attended always by a certain amount of ignorance ;--)
. |
Raul,
We did not evaluate a broad range of VTA in Doug's system . Paul tried several setting within a small range but I beleive all of the settings put the arm lower than parallel. Although, I preferred one of these settings, we did not make large enough changes to evaluate the cartridge with a parallele or slightly elevated arm.
The first thing I'll do this weekend is to see how the sound changes when I adjust the arm to be slightly lower than parallel. Based on doing this in the past, I expect it to deteriorate.
We only had a mistracking problem with that one track and I haven't experienced it in my own system. Can an improper VTA accentuate this? My cartridge did get wacked around just a little bit after running through two revolutions on a highly irrelgualr warped record. however, I didn't perceive any sonic degradation after this occured. Therefore I think the cartridge suspension is ok. As far ar the mfg recommended break-in time of 30 hours, I would be skeptical based on a) advice from Ttranny owners, 2) Bad advice in the instructions on VTF and loading.
We changed the volume between cartridges since they had different outputs.
Andrew |
Dear Doug: I think is important to know one spec about your phonolinepreamp unit that could help to understand what are you hearing through it.
That spec is: inverse RIAA eq. deviation between 20 to 20khz.
The Andrew CAT has a manufacturer spec on this regard of: +,- 0.1 db from 20 to 20kHz.
Could you find it for us?
Thx in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I have the O in my system right now. I borrowed it from a friend. It does not yet have 100 hours on it, so I will withold judgment on its ultimate performance. So far, in my system, I rather like its sound. It has a good, well integrated and tight bottom end, a touch elevated in the midrange (relative to my Titan), and is a bit shut down at the very top (less "air" than the Titan). Then again, I really have not tried to optimize setup for this cartridge. To change loading in my phono stage, I have to take it apart and solder in different resistors. That is why I am sticking with 1k ohms right now. It is also set at very slightly low (tail down) for VTA. Actually, a friend lent me a custom phono stage that was built specifically for a Helikon and it sounds even better than my stage with the O.
I find it interesting how vigorous is the debate on the relative merits of the O vs. the Z, particularly when everyone's system is so different. When I switched to my friend's stage, the sound was completely different from that of my stage. I really can't see how any phono component can be evaluated other than as part of an evaluation of the complete system.
I've heard so many different, yet all enjoyable set ups to get into a "who's best" kind of argument. |
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.
|
"I really can't see how any phono component can be evaluated other than as part of an evaluation of the complete system."
This is a very critical point often overlooked and I wholly-heartedly agree with Larry on this.
I too did listen to a host of top flight carts - Urushi, Allearts MC1B, Dynavector Te Kaitora and XX2, and at the end of the day, the conclusion was similar to Positive Feedback's Roger Gordon, who concluded saying "Each of the three cartridges gives a slightly different view of the music, but all three views are equally valid and equally beautiful. I could easily live with any of them."
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/cartridges.htm |
I agree with the point made by Larryi and cmk that cartridge evaluation is part of the complete system.
However, that does not change the fact that some cartridges are quieter, track better, and retrieve more information than others.
Could most of live with a number of cartridges? Probably. If you could choose only one, what are your criteria? Mine are mentioned previously. |
Nsgarch wrote: Oh really? I wonder what Nakatsuka-san would think of a customer who thought him such a sloppy craftsman as to make a cartridge that had to be raked BACKWARD to achieve proper SRA? (to say nothing of the hurt feelings of the tonearm designer!)
I guess a proper comparison remains in the future . . . . Heh, more blind and incorrect assumptions, Neil. I haven't checked other TriPlanars, but on this one a slightly tail down arm results in a parallel cartridge and vertical SRA. That has been true with Denons, Shelters, Koetsus, ZYX's and now Trannys. We did not and do not play with negative VTA or SRA. I guess a post from you based on first hand experience remains in the future... |
Neil,
I was checking SRA before fine tuning by ear for years before you ever posted about it. Spare us your smarmy "advice".
BTW, Jon Risch published the SRA methodology that some here give you credit for back in 1999, long before you did. While I have mentioned Jon's article repeatedly you have never acknowledged his pioneering work, though you apparently don't mind taking credit for it.
I wonder if SirSpeedy includes plagiarism in his definition of dishonesty? He's our expert on that subject.
|
Doug: Neil. I haven't checked other TriPlanars, but on this one a slightly tail down arm results in a parallel cartridge Then I think you should send the whole TA back to Tri and have him check the headshell alignment. Something wrong with either the headshell or cartridge mounting hardware, perhaps the ZYX spacer plate. slightly tail down arm results in // vertical SRA. My SME is also tail-down with vertical SRA, but vertical SRA is not what we're after. So, once you found vertical SRA (as I explained elsewhere) then the TA post needs to go up about 6mm to achieve the nominal 1.5 degrees SRA. At that point the TA wand should be parallel, or even sligntly nose down. Put another way, and assuming a proper undamaged 23 cm.TA: were I to mount a cartridge and set the TA for vertical SRA (using my scope and mirror) and then after raising the TA post 6mm (to get nominal 1.5 degree SRA) discover that the TA wand was still sloping backward, I would return the cartridge AS DEFECTIVE (stylus improperly mounted in the cantilever)!! Intelligent mechanical design demands that tonearms (including unipivots and most straight line trackers) have their horizontal pivot axis ABOVE the stylus' point of contact with the record, and not below. This, along with the more recent move to underslung counterweights, insures mechanical stability of the entire system with respect to gravity (e.g. improving the ability to better track warped records ;--) My point is, that after going through proper setup procedure, including the use of a scope and mirror to determine vertical SRA (THERE'S SIMPLY NO OTHER PRACTICAL WAY TO DO THIS AT HOME!) still, if by some ironic miracle, one wound up with the correct 1.5 degree SRA, yet the cartridge and/or arm were sloping backward, then the cartridge and/or arm would need checking and service because one or both of them are defective or damaged. Frankly, I doubt there's anything wrong with either your arm or your cartridge, and I'd be more than happy to send you whatever tools you lack to carry out this VERY NECESSARY determination. Can you imagine trying to cut a record without watching the ENTIRE PROCESS through a microscope? Personally, I've NEVER met a cartridge that needed to be raked backward to achieve proper SRA, or that sounded better that way . . . . . unless it was loaded at 47Kohms ;--) . |
Dan,
As I just posted, we did not run the Orpheus (or UNIverse) VTA tail down in our setup. The only *cartridges* we've ever run tail down were Shelters, which most people agree prefer that attitude. We're chasing a false lead on this one.
Doug |
Neil,
Thanks for the offer. I have a mirror, a good lamp, 10x and 20x loupes, a 100x microscope and cards with reference lines at 0, 1 and 2 degrees. What other tools does one need to see and adjust SRA. (And yes, I understand that straight vertical is not optimal. Sorry for the shorthand.)
Are you EVER going to read or acknowledge that article I mentioned? You are not the only one who understands this, nor were you the first (and I certainly wasn't either). We should all give credit where credit is due.
You didn't by any chance read it in the smallest room of your house and put it behind you, I hope? :-) |
Now now Doug, let's not get testy ;--) I never upstaged Mr. Risch, not that there's anything "pioneering" about his his method, or mine for that matter. Both are pretty much intuitively obvious to anyone with a mechanical bent. I simply offered a technique which proves more accurate and reliable when calibrating a cartridge setup, which BTW, I discovered years ago due to a separate interest in optics.
N
. |
Dan,
In my system I run the tonearm with a slight tail-up. I haven't verified what the SRA is exactly. As I recall, we ran the O and Univ in Doug's system with a slight tail down. According to Doug this provides a positive vta/SRA.
Anyway, I'll try adjusting the tonearm up and down from my exisiting setting and report back.
All,
Please allow me to take the blame for walking into a premature comparison and maybe not an extensive of enough evaluation of system parameters. I realize that this has only caused controversy and ill feelings between Zyx and Tranny owners. There are a lot of emotions going back and forth and it's too bad to see this. You guys are very proud of your knowledge and I'm sorry to see this thread get so testy.
I realize that it was wrong to compare an unbroken in, quickly optimized O to the Universe given the competitiveness and fallout likely to occur. In retrospect, we probably should have kept our feelings between us until a more thorough comparison could be made. Oh well. i'm new to this club and I guess I'm learning the hard way.
Doug, Paul, Nsgarch and Raul are great guys and have a lot of knowledge that has enabled me to prevent many mistakes and optimize my system. Obviously not all:).
At the end of the day, I really like the sound of the Orpheus in my system. i'll let you know how it improves in another 100 or 200 hours. Maybe then we can make a more thorough comparison.
Andrew |
Doug, as a matter of fact, yes you do need some other (actually slightly different) tools. Loupes are out. Not strong enough and in any case too bulky to get their optics right in where you need them to be.
The 100x (pocket?) microscope is too strong (too small a field of view to see both the stylus AND its reflection easily) A 30x or (I prefer) a 50x scope is just about right as far as magnification goes. In addition, it has to be of a physical design that allows the objective to focus on the stylus without actually hitting the cartridge body. And it must be small enough in diameter to "find" the stylus in its optical axis without the barrel of the scope hitting the little mirror. This is a rather tall order, and I bought a half dozen scopes before I found one or two that I could use.
Also, bean bags are essential to get all the optics just right -- although a good strong Zip-lock filled with sand, salt or preferrably sugar (so you can suck any excess air out through a straw before sealing ;--) will work just fine as well. (see the pictures with my SRA post: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1140840022&read&keyw&zzsra)
I totally admit this procedure IS A HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS, TEDIOUS, AND FRAUGHT WITH DISASTEROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR DELICATE CANTILEVERS IF ONE DOES NOT KEEP THEIR WITS ABOUT THEM. But that's just the first time. (Unfortunately, by the SECOND time, you've probably forgotten all the little tricks you learned the first time!)
I've sent mirrors, scopes and even bean bags and Maglite to others who've had no touble using these techniques with great success (usually with a little telephone guidance from me.) So anyone who wants to borrow my stuff, just let me know.
N
. |
I will assume that the "O" has the same stylus and rake angle as the Temper. This requires the VTA to be set differently than most other MC. The tonearm should be a fraction lower at the headshell. Just the opposite of what the typical MC requires. No observation of the sound quality of the "O" is valid if the VTA is set incorrectly. And there is no way around this VTA requirement. It must be set like this, any other setting will degrade performace. Please read the Transfiguration instrution booklet and follow it precisely. Top Transfiguration cartridges do not sound as Doug desribed. The desription Larryi has written is quite spot on. |
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 |
Dear friends: As the " actors " of this controversial cartridge test post/posted about the situation has more fail and misunderstanding, example: Doug post that the O set up was made with the usually " VTA madness " that he likes and in other post Andrew told us: +++++ " we did not make large enough changes( speaking of VTA ) to evaluate the cartridge with a parallele...." +++++
Between other things that Doug or Andrew mentioned is how they match the volume gain for every time that they change the volume gain with each cartridge this volume gain was exactly for both cartridges due to its different output.
This subject is extreme critical because any small difference in the SPL is detected for our ears/brain and that small SPL difference could give us not small changes in the frequency response that could alter in a very sensitive way the sound perception.
Other issue that is related with the changes in the volume gain setting is that normally almost all the preamps change its frequency response when change the volume pot position and this alter the quality sound reproduction for both cartridges but in different way. Here the designer could explain us about in the Doug's unit.
I think that Doug don't read yet what I aked him: the inverse RIAA eq. deviation from 20 to 20kHz in his unit, this is extremly critical especially with top cartridges like the O and U. Here again I ask to the designer for he can give us his unit info: important!! ( It's curious that Mr. Doshi don't comes yet to this thread when we need very important information about his unit and for understand better what happen with this controversial cartridge test. I'm saying this because I read posts of Mr. Doshi in other lesser threads. )
All these subjects ( including others that I posted here ) are important and are related with what Larryi posted: +++++ " I really can't see how any phono component can be evaluated other than as part of an evaluation of the complete system " +++++ and Larryi if you don't mind: not only a phono component but any audio device.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Friends: Sorry for sentence mistake: " Between other things that Doug or Andrew mentioned ", it should be: not mentioned.
" yet what I aked him: ", will be: asked him.
Raul. |
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 |
I think it unlikely that Nick would post on a thread as pointlessly contentious as this one. Unlike many of us, he actually has a life! ;-)
Neither Andrew nor I have anything to apologize for, and it's a waste of time responding to people who don't read what we wrote before posting criticisms. For example, I've stated at least three times that we played the O with slightly positive SRA, but I'm still being told that we should have done what we did, or how to do what we did. Has everyone gone blind?
Nsgarch launched this thread to discuss the Orpheus. I have nothing more to add unless I hear one again, and I'm unlikely to share it here if I do.
Doug
|
Dear Doug: Sorry to disturb again. My last post was only to state that there are differences in what Andrew think was the O set up and in what you state about. This Andrew post confirm it: +++++ " We did not evaluate a broad range of VTA in Doug's system . Paul tried several setting within a small range but I beleive all of the settings put the arm lower than parallel. Although, I preferred one of these settings, we did not make large enough changes to evaluate the cartridge with a parallele or slightly elevated arm. " +++++, I can tell you I'm not blind and I'm not doing criticisms only for doing that but for trying to help to understand the results of that cartridge test: that's all !!!!
Btw, those three subjects: precise volume gain, frequency response with changes in volume gain and RIAA accuracy, are crucial in any two cartridge test and are very important to understand the results and if you can it will be nice that you share the info with us.
Doug, it is normal the reaction of all the people ( including me ) in this thread when the test's results are controversial like this ones, be patience.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
All,
I've been experimenting with VTA/SRA on my setup. Using a maginifying glass I inspected the SRA with the tonearm completely parallel to the record surface and determined that the SRA was slightly negative. Approximately ~ -1 degress (stylus tip pointed away from tonearm base). I had to raise the tonearm approximately 4.5 mm to achieve an SRA of approximately 0 degrees.
This improved bass extension, tightness and detail as well as high frequency extension and dynamic attack. I also hear a little more record wear noise which probably suggests it's tracking the grooves more precisely.
I suspect the system might now sound better at 100 or so ohms. I think Nsgarch may be right on compensating for high frequency losses by increasing loading to 47K. I'll try reducing loading next and report back.
Andrew |
Andrew,
I think you may have my comment about 47Kohm loading and negative SRA backwards. Let me explain it this way: If you have a MC cartridge at the correct SRA (stylus nicely locked into the forward-slanting groove undulations) and you set the load at 47Kohms, then you are feeding a perfectly wonderful signal (from the cartridge's output) into a perfectly horrible impedance mismatch. The effect of this particular kind of mismatch is to roll off the bass response more and more starting from about 1kHz on down -- leaving the highs (apparently) dominating.
Now, if you leave the load at 47Kohms, then the highs you are getting are essentially normal, but the bass is attenuated due to the impedance mismatch. The only way to (artificially) reduce those perfectly normal highs, so you can hear whatever piddling bass is still left after the impedance mismatch, is to severely disengage (unlock) the stylus from the groove, setting it to negative SRA in order to reduce the cartridge's HF output. And you wind up with a tonearm that slopes to the rear!
Talk about bassackward!!
47Kohms is ideal for MM cartridges. The Shure "V" series coils have an impedance of 1400 ohms! Times 25 that equals 37Kohms! So naturally a default preamp load of 47Kohms would make perfect sense. Similarly a little 2.5ohm MC coil only needs to "see" an impedance about 25 times its own resistance in order to transfer its energy. If you try driving a 47Kohm load with a MC, all those low frequency bass notes start to look like direct current at the preamp input and get dissipated as heat (if I still remember my electonic theory correctly ;--)
. |
Nsgarsh is right,once again(what else is new).He has proven,time and time again,to me,that it's OK to be open minded.I have always felt the 47k load was just fine,with my set-up,and my friend has been absolutely adamant about keeping his set there too!This has always influenced me,but when some folks go on a binge,enough times,even though you don't necessarily agree,it can influence some tinkering.Here,my not being so pigheaded has been a gain in sound.And,thanks to guys like Neil,I have alot to learn,still,and am now getting FAR superior sound,at 100 ohms.Thanks Neil!
Best!
Mark |
Wow, I have been travelling and have not seen this thread in some time. I am concerned by some of what I have read regarding Andrew's Orpheus. From the descriptions of the comparison to the Univ. I have to say that it sounds as though the cartridge either was not set up correctly, or is defective. First, so that there is no feeling of dissembling on my part, I should identify myself. As my nickname implies, I am certainly not trying to hide my identity, which Andrew correctly surmised rather early on. I import Transfiguration into the US and joined this thread primarily to correct some misinformation regarding availability from the distributor, etc. I believe Mark will bear out the fact that I described the sound of the Orpheus as accurately as I could, which is how I do things.
Andrew called me several times prior to his purchase and subsequently informed me that he bought the cartridge "slightly used" from someone in Europe. I cannot know without hearing it, but from the description by Doug and Andrew, I can say that that Orpheus was not behaving as I have heard it perform. The areas that Doug addressed in particular as weak points (bass, tracking, resolution) are, if anything, the Orpheus' greatest strengths. I am wondering if his cartridge did not suffer some damage, either in shipping, or prior to sale. This does happen from time to time, and, as we all know, these cartridges are very delicate. Unfortunately, this is also the downside of purchasing used or grey-market cartridges, as they have no guarantee, or dealer/distributor support.
However, it is very possible that it is simply a setup issue. "Smearing" and lack of resolution could be due to misalignment, improper VTA or VTF, or azimuth (which is very important with the Ogura stylus). Also, as I have said, VTF of 1.95-2g is important, and if you look at the image hifi review that Andrew posted, you will also see that the cartridge is quite sensitive to load. In my system, I have found 100 ohms to be optimal, though up another 100 or down 50 might work better in a given system. However, if you find things sound better at 47K, or even 2K, I would say there are problems, either with the cartridge, or with the system.
Also, to set the record straight on another point I noticed in the thread, I do not use a Graham 2.2. I used to have one, but am now using a Basis Vector, which seems a synergistic match with the Orpheus. I always liked my 2.2, though, and expect that it would work fine with the Orpheus, as it did with my first 3 Tempers. As you might know, Transfiguration builds the Nightingale cartridge for Graham, so he certainly believes in some compatibility there.
In any event, the sound experience described by Andrew and Doug just does not match either my experience with the Orpheus, nor that of anyone else I have spoken to. Generally, I get excited phone calls from former Temper owners, telling me how much better it is than either I told them it would, or than they expected. Even though he did not buy it in the US, I would offer to take a listen to Andrew's cartridge to confirm whether I think something might be wrong with it, or whether it might just be a setup or cartridge/arm compatibility issue. I have not heard an Orpheus in the Triplanar. The slightly stiffer compliance might possibly be an issue with a ball-bearing arm, though, the new damper seems to more than offset potential tracking issues I might have anticipated. In my experience, the Orpheus is the best tracking cartridge Transfiguration has ever made and is among the best I have heard.
all this said, I would not dare to claim that it is superior to the Universe, which is a fine cartridge indeed. It may also not have quite the level of filigreed detail the Univ. pulls out of a groove. I notice many of the things cited that the Univ. excelled at over the Orpheus were details that are not necessarily relevant to the musical experience, though, I can assure you, on my system, you can very easily hear the three distinct voices on the "Trio" album. That this was difficult with Andrew's Orpheus, leads me to believe that something is simply wrong with either his cartridge or his arm/table.
I am happy to answer any technical questions regarding cartridge issues and will continue to weigh in, only if I think misinformation needs to be addressed, or in response to technical issues.
I think it can be beneficial to have access to an expert (on certain things) when needed and offer what expertise I have. Looking back, I fear I may have chased away jcarr, when I assumed everyone knew who he was (again, not trying to hide his identity in a nickname), because he is one of the true experts out there in the knowledge and construction of phono cartridges.
I also just had to speak up, when it was claimed that the distributor was out of Orpheus cartridges, while I was looking at several on the shelf... I suspect this had to do with some lack of grey-market availability, which is another issue I would be happy to discuss sometime. |
I would like to add a final thought(by me),on this thread.A thread that I have attributed to,to it's detriment.
I have received correspondence stating my being counterproductive,as well as being productive(a 50/50 split,actually).
My initial reaction is usually to NOT turn the other cheek,when aggresively reacted to,BUT as I have gone back and re-read my posts,I simply feel that some may not care for my style,of "instigating"(a debate,hopefully).I don't believe I have actually called anyone any names,like I have seen,but the fact is that I HAVE hurt someones feelings!
I,personally,have always looked at this business of posting as "simply fun",and in reality never took it all that seriously,even though I have posted alot.Others appear to take it more seriously,and are offended,as it seems here.
Basically what I am stating,and hope the censors actually DO post,as it is pertinent to what has happened to this thread,is some folks take this stuff "seriously".For whatever reasons they care to,and I and others can't judge why!And shouldn't!!
I don't appologize for my actual statements,and care not,at this point, to re-build bridges( I never called names,or meant anything other than instigating controversary),but I AM MOST sorry that some folks have gotten offended by how I approached some posts.
People have "feelings" that cannot be easily seen,in the web-world.I am really sorry for not being more aware of that,in itself!!
Best!
|
Hi,
Well I think one can really be satisfied with the Orpheus cartridge.
In my system after checking out the Orpheus in the Graham Phantom ,Triplanar,VII Davinci
and Kuzma Airline I think the best match for this cartridge is the really Kuzma Airline at a VTF of 1.9 gr.
I also made a comparison between the Orpheus and the Temper W which is mounted on a Schroeder TA.
I think the improvement between the Orpheus and the Temper W is significant.
Regard KHA
ps: The best is owning both the ZYX Universe and The Orpheus. |
Bc3,
Thanks for your comments. I think to some degree the comments that Doug and I made have been misinterpreted or taken as absolute. Overall, I do not think that the difference between the cartridges was as huge as some may think it was. Therefore, I don't think it is a case of a broken cartridge. I think we just did not spend enough time optimizing the settings, e.g., VTA and VTF and the O was not as fully broken-in as Doug's Orpheus.
As I mentioned in the threads above, I was taken back at how different these cartridges sounded in each other's systems. In my system, it sounds very very good. It has incredible bass (especially at 100 ohms), is very clear, detailed, transparent and dynamic.
Unfortunately, the negatives comments on the O in this thread haven't been taken into proper context and the positives haven't received enough attention and appreciation. As truly incredible as the O sounds in my system, the Universe would have to be out of this world to really top it.
Anyway, the music is pulling me away. I'll try to avoid situations like this going forward.
Andrew |
Bc3,
One additional comment that I forgot to add to the previous post is that I have not experienced mistracking in my system like we did at Doug's system. As you mention, the O tracks very well in my system. |
Kha,
Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated.
Andrew |
On 9/19 I posted, "I still intend to listen (with my Temper W) to the critical passages Doug identified on the Trio and Sonic Fireworks albums. (I've pulled them out, so that's a start ;--)" OK. So it's been a month. I'm finally listening (with my Temper W, not an Orpheus) to Trio and Sonic Fireworks Vol 1., a print-out of Doug's review in hand.
First, let me say that after re-reading Doug's description of the Orpheus' performance (or lack of it), I would not even put that cartridge in the same league as my Temper W. If my W performed that badly, it would be on its way back to the factory or in the trash! I'm quite comfortable that Doug's at least semi-rational, and not THAT biased, so I have to conclude that something, somewhere! was indeed very WRONG! But I have no idea what. . . .
TRIO:
Dolly, Linda, and Emmy Lou -- count 'em: 1, 2, and 3. All clearly separate entities, even in close harmony. All instruments present, accounted for, and quite articulate. TRIO is actually one of my "go to" records also, because it's so amazingly well engineered. If something in a system is not right, it's immediately obvious. Can't comment on the track skipping, my copy is flat.
SONIC FIREWORKS VOL 1
Bass response (22 cycle pipe organ "flutter") was clean and powerful through the Martin Logan Depth subwoofer. Perfectly damped. No bloom or bloat. Definitely not boomy or smeared.
In the Copeland "Fanfare", the cymbal decay reads right through the bass drum punctuations -- complete transparency. The kettle drum tunings were well rendered.
In short, I'm certain now that the Temper W's performance would have left Doug nothing to fault, at least so far as the specific items he mentioned. In addition the amazing soundstage and top to bottom ease of presentation from this (now second rate?) cartridge just seem to get better and better.
But I'd still like to hear a UNI. Anyone in Arizona?
. |
Neil,
Glad you're getting those good results.
Remember that our findings were strictly comparative, an attempt to describe differences, not a statement about absolute performance capabilities. 99% of the cartridges in the world would do worse than an Orpheus or a UNIverse.
Remember also that Andrew's Orpheus was relatively new and we had little time for fine tuning the setup.
Drop in next time you're passing through CT!
|
Late on this thread ...
Can anyone tell me of a cartridge whose essential character did NOT reveal itself after 80 hours?
That's 240 record sides, folks.
I have never experienced a cartridge that didn't show its nature after 10 and wasn't stable (meaning substantially broken in) after 25.
I have to wonder if people aren't taking 80-100 hours to learn the cartridge's secrets and master its setup as opposed to it taking this long to break in.
After the RMAF, I'll give this thread a good read, but the above question HAD to be asked.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
I think this thread (specifically comparisons of the Orpheus to the universe)has gone awry.
From my listening the actual sonic differences between these two cartridges were much smaller than what people are perceiving from the comments made by Doug. I think their use of phrases like "virtually unable" and "flawed" are a little unjustified in absolute terms. These comments should really be taken in context to the Universe, which was properly set up....and has a reputation to uphold (sorry doug, couldn't resist:).
As Doug confessed, we did not have much time to fully optimize the O's settings. After the experiment, I evaluated the sensitivity of the VTA/SRA and found that I could produce bomminess in the bass with HF and LF smearing when the SRA was too low. Increasing the arm height in my system above the levels we used in Doug's resolved this.
This comparison was flawed in several respects all of which Doug and I mentioned above, and as I said before, I'm a little embarassed for perfroming such an experiment which has led to unnecessary controversy. I think you will see positive press on the Orpheus as more and more reviewers get a chance to hear it. People reading this thread should not assume the Orpheus is a poor design or poor performer.
Andrew |
Thom, I'll raise you 20 and call it 100, but basically I think you're correct. Whether it's 80, 100, or 125 really depends on the cartridge's suspension material, the ambient temperature, and the VTF.
Speaking of VTF, I now recommend breaking in cartridges at about 10% more than their max. rated VTF (up to 100 hours or so) By doing this you won't hurt anything but you gain two things: First, the break-in may take a bit less time (which doesn't really matter a lot -- you're going to play records anyway ;--) but second, and much more important, is that if you want to finally run your cart at max VTF (which a lot of folks are beginning to think sounds/tracks best with MCs) then by overflexing the suspension just a wee bit in the beginning, you can be sure that it will be operating at its rated compliance, even at max VTF.
As for your second statement:
"I have never experienced a cartridge that didn't show its nature after 10 and wasn't stable (meaning substantially broken in) after 25."
I just can't agree with that. In fact, my experience has been the opposite, i.e. I've always been "dissappointed" with my (new) cartridges until right around 50 hours when they begin to change just enough that I realize they're not always going to sound like shreiking banshees!
All this could change (i.e. maybe NO break-in period) if/when better(?) suspension materials come along -- already, Transfiguration advertises that their new suspension material is impervious to changes in temperature and humidity.
. |
Dear Thom: Yes, any cartridge show its nature after 10: it is a shadow but it is part of its nature.
The essential character after 80-100?, yes ( too ).
There are cartridges, like my Colibri, that take a lot more time to really know their " secrets ".
Anyway, in my case I take a little more time because I'm testing the cartridge with different tonearms and this is very time consuming.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul this is a little bit off-thread, but it's my thread, so what the hell?!
But I've been wondering: you try many many tonearm-and-cartridge combinations. So how do you remember from one to another so you can decide what you liked best? Do you make written notes? (I assume yes?) And what do you put in the notes (what qualities do you make notes about?)
. |
All,
I've received private comments from all over the map regarding my break in comments and should have known better than to bring this topic up in the final days before an audio show.
After the Audiofest I'd be very interested in starting up a new thread - with a "proper" title for archival purposes and quick searches ... something like "What's the average break-in time for a cartridge?"
Apart from a customer's willingness to put up with excessive break-in time, I think a manufacturer is behaving against his best interests by releasing a product with such extreme usage requirements.
That an otherwise fine cartridge like a Van denHul requires numerous trips across the ocean for "checkups" until it reaches adolescence is something that I find intolerable. Others may differ. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choices. If you are so smitten by its virtues, be my guest and pay the freight.
The problem with such products is that there are very few people who are dedicated enough to pursue this on an ongoing basis and this hurts the manufacturer in several ways:
(1) many people will give up on the product "prematurely" and it will get a bad name
(2) extreme enthusiasts may pursue what is necessary, but they will be viewed from afar like cult members who drank the Kool-Aid.
This latter point begins by hurting the manufacturer, but ultimately hurts the consumer because the industry as a whole becomes marginalized even more than it currently is . As fewer people are drawn into it, the industry contracts and there are fewer choices for the enthusiast. A vicious cycle perpetuates itself.
Lynn Olson and I were discussing active amplification. Lynn commented that this is the last step you take before you quit audio. Once you pass through that door, you seldom return. I've known several such audio burnouts who checked out of audio after such extreme behavior. Their last step before exiting? Tri-amped systems with active crossovers.
I received a pair of speakers last year which had a claimed break-in time of 400 hours - not for a complete break-in mind you, but merely to wipe the sleep from their eyes. Well, I faithfully found a spot to run them in - 24x7 for some two and a half weeks.
How many customers do we really think will do this before casting "premature" judgment on a product. I don't consider this to be premature, and hence the quotes around the word. To me, such a characteristic is a fatal flaw in a commercial product. Black Gate capacitors? Keep them too. It's in the manufacturer's own best interest to release a product that the customer can experience before they grow old and die.
If you purchased a Porsche, would you expect to have to wait 20,000 miles before you could enjoy it?
As much as I love leading edge audio, one has to have just a faint bit of practicality about it. At some point, we want to kick back and listen to tunes - n'est ce pas?
Regarding this tracking of an XV-1s at 2.5 grams ... please, please ... return to your setup parameters and don't bury your errors in excessive tracking force.
The XV-1s is an absolutely wonderful cartridge (on a Triplanar) at 1.87 to 1.89 grams. I'll give ya another .1 gram out of the kindness of my heart ... allowing for sample to sample consistency but at the same time having set up 4 samples which fall within a very tight cluster of .03 grams. .
Those of you who are coming to the Audiofest are invited to hear an XV-1s tracking at 1.87 grams. Tell me it isn't the best tracking MC you've ever heard. Maybe I'm not giving my turntables enough credit for this? Dunno ... The Universe for the record will track in the 1.93 ballpark.
Until after the 'Fest.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Thom, I don't think anything is gained by taking an extreme opposite position just to make a point. Some examples you cite, the 400 hour speaker or the 20,000 mile Porsche break-in, the NUMEROUS? van den Hul trips across the ocean ;--); these are erroneous statements and suggest ridiculous extremes that will make even obsessive audiophiles giggle.
There are many areas in life that, finally, must be approached subjectively. There are many people who explain things they COULD understand with a little effort, but who prefer superstition -- that's why so many rabbits have only three feet! There are firm scientific underpinnings for many of the routine conventions that people follow in audio, particularly in vinyl analog setup an playback. Other procedures unfortunately are the result of taste, superstition, or one time anecdotal experience.
Unfortunately, separating the "lore" from the science is not easy, especially for the newcomers to audio, exposed as they are to ads, salesmen, reviewers, and worst of ALL, other audiophiles! who seem to speak with authority and experience, but who in fact are merely repeating unsubstantiated "lore." I'm not referring here to you, as I don't know you that well.
I think in the area of audio setup/adjustment, break-in, etc., it's a matter of scientifically measuring/determining exactly how much is required to do the job, AND WHY!! -- and then using procedures that are repeatable, and which provide useful results under a broad range of circumstances, conditions and equipment. To me, other approachs (other than that FINAL ear tweak, if one has the chops!) are subjective, even romantic, and therefore, ultimately impractical.
As for the "average break-in time for a cartridge" -- I don't understand what a statement like that refers to? Certainly not to all the different cartridges out there in the world! I think what most of us would agre about, and what was mentioned in previous posts, is a general consensus about what the range is at this moment in time, and also what happens during the process.
And the concensus is: somewhere between 80 and 100 hours with today's suspension materials. This concensus comes from many many pairs of ears. Some experiencing only one cartridge break-in period, others like Raul, experiencing dozens of different cartridges breaking in. And I'm sure any scientist with experience in elastomeric technology would have no trouble explaining these empirical results. I think cartridge manufacturers downplay the break-in time for the very (marketing) reasons you mention. And that's OK. I mean, it's baloney, but it's OK, because if you use your cartridge for an average hour and a half a day for a couple of months, it's gonna break-in, isn't it? And if your hearing is sensitive and/or trained, you will enjoy experiencing the metamorphosis.
Some folks open a bottle of fine wine and pour. Others like myself, know one should let it rest first, but like me, don't know how long or why. I should probably ask soneone what the concensus is (for how long) and later on, if I really get into it, I'll ask why, so I can make a more refined determination.
. |
Dear Neil: " +++++ But I've been wondering: you try many many tonearm-and-cartridge combinations. So how do you remember from one to another so you can decide what you liked best? " +++++
What you liked best?: a very hard call. I have my own music sound priorities ( you can look at " my system " ) refered to live music.
First I don't try, yet, all my cartridges ( more than 30, I think ) with each one of my tonearms ( around 15-18 ): there is no time for do it. Now, I have a very good idea of my tonearms performance/characteristics ( this help me to choose cartridg/toneam combinations ) and the whole cartridges characteristics too.
I set-up the VTA/SRA and the other set-up parameters on an average way ( I can't do it like Doug: for each record ), usually with 180gr LP's. I have two records and two cuts in each one that are my references where I " measure /test " each combination: when the sound settle/right on those record cuts that's mean that the set-up is on target but this not tell me, yet, which combination meets exactly with my priorities.
What I tell you now maybe could sound a little sealy: from the combinations that I already have in very precise way, I like all!!!, I always enjoy the music with any one of them, of course that each one has its own " flavor " but that flavor always like me.
Right now I'm testing three MM cartridges: Empire EDR.9, Audiotechnica ATML 180-OCC and ADC Astrion. The Empire in the Micro Seiki MAX 282, the AT in the Satin unipivot and the Astrion in the Sumiko MDC800. I can tell you that these three ( extremely low price MM cartridges ) cartridges perform at the same level of many of my " big names " MC cartridges: I'm " startle " about, how comes ?: well this answer for other best time.
No, I don't take notes by hand, till to now everything is on my mind.
Yes, I have a lot of fun!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I wanted to give you folks an update on my Orpheus after further break-in and optimization of settings. In short it its sound is stunning! I'm loving life.
After using Nsgarch's method to identify the point of 0 degree SRA I increase arm height to achieve approximately +1.5 degrees. I am also now using a loading of 100 ohms. At this point I'm up to 1.92 g VTF. Although I don't consider this optimized yet as I haven't carefully experimenting with the recommnedations of higher VTF in the 1.97-1.99 g range. The cartridge also now has about 180-200 hours on it.
After this further break-in and SRA optimization I can now hear much larger differences between 47K and 100ohms and I'm prefering 100ohms a lot more. This loading has improved the tone and timbre of instruments and made it fuller sounding. 47K now sounds very lean and dry with out the realistic tone, body and natural sound I get at 100.
Overall this cartridge is very detailed, transparent,and open sounding. This has improved dimensionality drastically with a lot more depth, imaging and airiness. The dynamics have also improved considerably. Leading edge transients and attack are now very realistic. The most amazing thing about this cartridge is that it has all of these qualities but it has the most realistic tone and timbre of instruments. Some may call this beauty, etc. In other words it doesn't sound analytical AT ALL. I think the Tranny camp knows what I mean and this is what I was hoping for based on descriptions of the Temper Supreme.
I have to say that this cartridge sounds different and a lot better than it did 60 hours ago and with lower SRA and higher loading. My guess is that the loading to 100 ohms and further break-in were the main drivers to this improvement because my previous SRA was about 0.8 degree.
From my experiments with SRA around 0 degree I think the sound I heard at Dougs was mostly a result of an SRA setting too low. I find the sound gets muddier, less dynamic and dry sounding.
I have also gone back to comparisons to my CD player Wadia 861-SE with GNSC Statement mod and Virtual dynamics Revelation PC) with lp's and cd's of the same title. Where the difference weren't as dramatic before, the differences are now very apparent. Now the CDP literally sounds broken. I find myself i'm questioning if there is something wrong with it. In fact there isn't. this is just how good the analog rig nows sounds.
I owe a lot of thanks to Nsgarch. His persistence on pushing me to lower the loading and set SRA correctly payed off! You're the man!
Andrew
PS, I'll let you know how my experiments with VTF go. |
.
Andrew,
.
Congratulations on getting to a good place with the Tranny. It's nice to hear someone so happy with their system.
.
Rgds,
Larry
. |
Andrew,
It sounds like the Orpheus is breaking in nicely. The fact that it now sounds better at a more normal 100 ohms than at 47K is consistent with that. I've had new MC's that sounded okay at higher impedances OOTB, but needed progressively lower impedances as I put hours on them until they finally reached happiness at the expected setting.
I wish we'd had more hours to play with arm height during your visit. Your results make sense. Our cartridge also sounds muddy and less micro-dynamic when SRA is too low. Glad to hear working at this is paying off so well. I'd love to hear it again some time, optimized in your system for instance!
All the best,
Doug |
Dear Andrew: I think it is time to try the Orpheus. Glad to hear that everything finally settle down.
Yes, Neil is very experienced about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Review of the Orpheus in the upcoming issue of Stereophile. Stay tuned. |
Doug,
Thanks for validating my observations. The improvement from break-in is very noticeable and it feels like it is getting better by the 10's of hours now. Like it has passed a hump.
I agree it would have been nice to experiment with SRA. I suspect that we were closer to 0 SRA in your setup. incedentally, the instruction manual does recommend to set it to a positive SRA and that a parallel tonearm does not necessarily achieve this. I found 0 SRA with the arm lower in the back from parallel and a 1.5 SRA is achieved with the arm higher than parallel. As I mentioned, at this point the 47K does not sound very good. In the beginning I wasn't getting much ariness at 100 but was at 47K. Now I get a lot of ariness at 100. As mentioned before, everything else is better too. You should hear the bass now. Pretty amazing. Deep and defined. Not tubby like we heard at your place.
Please come visit next time you're in Atlanta.
Andrew |
Andrew - were there particular epiphany points during break-in (30 hrs, 60 hrs, etc.) where things really gelled, or have improvements kinda trickled in across time? Thanks for taking the time to post your reports.
Wrt to arm position and 1.5 degree SRA - probably good to remember that different arms on different tables will yield different relative up/down positions. With my SME V + Teres, 6mm up from stylus vertical still has the back-end of the tonearm down relative to the cartridge end.
On a side note, I tried checking azimuth via the 50x scope and first-surface mirror method. Yes, I had to tape the mirror to the table to cantilever it out from platter so I could position the scope. And I bent my flexible Littl Lite to bounce off the mirror right between the front of the scope and the cartridge. Got a decent image. But eventually I gave up.
One problem was the thinness of the cartridge profile viewed head on. It was hard to gauge the "equality of the X" across the real and reflected stylus. Nowhere as obvious as the side view for setting vertical SRA. Plus I was never sure the scope lens was absolutely perpendicular to a line bisecting the stylus head-on - if the scope is off just a little on either side, it makes a difference in perception of the angles. I suspect it might be do-able by someone with better eyes. 8-) Maybe a scope with a reticle or cross hairs might be helpful in setting the stylus at 90 degrees to the mirror surface.
But isn't it really the coils or engine we're trying to get positioned? Using the physical stylus position should get close on a well made cartridge, but even there, the stylus is probably no more absolutely guaranteed in the proper position relative to the coils than anything else on a cartridge. It was cool to do, but I think I'll stick with the meter method then ears.
Cheers,
Tim
|
Tim,
Good question. The improvements were probably happening gradually but I heard a large change in the 160-180 hours point as if it had passed through some wall. The sound is now much more natural and pure.
Based on your experience, it looks like the magnification methods is not appropriate for azimuth. I'm wondering about the Wally device for that.
Andrew |
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 |
