Dear Raul, "This new protractor puts ( everything the same. ) the cartridge stylus position with more accuracy that any of the other protractors out there?, if yes then I want to " see " the comparison and if there are improvements on quality sound reproduction or could be that the difference in accuracy is so tiny that the audio system can't " resolve " or we could not hear it. IMHO these questions are critical and I think we need precise answers about from protractor's owners."
Translated into what we call plain language, you want someone else to buy one, make a careful comparison to Mint et al, and tell you that Dertonearm's protractor is decidedly better. Whom are you going to trust to do that?
By the way, think if you had to buy 4-5 Mint protractors for your 4 or 5 different tonearms. That's $400 to $500 right there, if I am correct in thinking the Mints cost $100 each, and you still don't have all the other neat features that help the tremulous and/or the vision-impaired to do the job right. It seems to me that for the owner of multiple tonearms, the DT protractor is not so expensive after all. |
Raul, For me it's ease of use that attracts me most to DT's protractor and the fact that I so far never invested in a Feickert or a MintLP type. I own a Dennesen that I bought maybe 25 years ago plus two of the Turntable Basics protractors, for different size spindles. That, plus the Stevenson protractor that I downloaded from VE for free, is all I have. This is partly because, like you, I have my doubts that super-precision makes much difference, but also because neither the Mint nor the Feickert addresses problems I have just seeing the tiny lines and the stylus and cantilever. I gave up using the Dennesen several years ago just because I cannot see the tiny dimple engraved in the alu base, nor the grid lines. This is not because I am vision-impaired in any real way; it's just normal presbyopia. When installing a tonearm, I do use the Dennesen for accurate pivot to spindle distance setting but not for aligning cartridges. Plus the Dennesen, or at least MY Dennesen, appears to have been cut for the smallest of the 3 possible spindle diameters. It won't fit over the Lenco spindle, for example. The TTB is really easy to use, but I am never sure that the line from the spindle is really pointing accurately to the pivot point. If you get that wrong, the alignment goes way off. It looks like the DT product solves all these problems in one go. Plus, if I bought the DT, I could sell my Dennesen and recoup at least a fraction of the cost. (I guess this sounds like I am talking myself into it.) |
Question for Raul, Timeltel, Dialolum, or anyone: I am going to re-wire my phono stage so as to provide variable loads at the MM input. I am thinking that 100K is the max load ever needed. Do any of you disagree? Do you ever use load resistance greater than 100K to good effect?
Also, on a more ethereal level: I have room on my selector switch for combining a fixed resistance with some added capacitance. Do you ever add capacitance when using a 100K load? If not, what amounts of capacitance are typically effective with a 47K load, where 47K alone (with no added C) is not already optimum. I have a 6-position switch. I am thinking: 100K, 68K, 47K, 47K + X capacitance, 47K + Y capacitance, 33K, respectively, for the 6 choices. Any better ideas appreciated. |
Dear Thuchan, Thank you, but you are talking about MC cartridges, and you are quite correct, added capacitance is never desirable with those. However, for reasons which are too arcane to re-hash here, having to do with the fact that MM cartridges have far more inductance than MCs, sometimes one does want to add a capacitative load to the MM input, with some cartridges and at some values of load resistance. (Note that we all agree that 47K is not optimum for every and all MM or MI cartridges. Some definitely like 100K better. Some like less than 47K.)
My "small loading tablet" will be a 6-position ELMA or Shallco rotary switch. |
Thanks, Timeltel, Raul, and everyone for your interesting responses. I must say I am surprised at the (high-ish) amount of capacitance Timeltel has found to be optimal with various different cartridges. Also, as regards the inherent capacitance at the input, we must also consider Miller capacitance. Here or elsewhere I was recently reminded that Miller is equal to the sum of the plate to grid and grid to cathode C multiplied by the gain, for a common cathode tube input and probably also for a standard analogous transistor input, that can add a fair amount to the 75pF we allocate for cables. So I have to ask Timeltel whether he uses tube or solid state phono and what brand. (Pentode or cascode input shields the grid from Miller effect, so there we do not have much input capacitance due to Miller.) What type of load C sounds best: polystyrene or silver mica? The latter seem to be popular these days for use in RIAA equalization. I only wish I had room for two rotary switches, one for load R and one for load C. Won't fit. |
Dear Timeltel, What's up? First of all, I made no statement about a preference of tubes vs solid state. As I am sure you know, ss gain devices have Miller capacitance too. I was only discussing Miller capacitance. I happen to own an Ayre p5Xe as well as an Atma-sphere MP1, and I like them both. In fact I also modified the input stage of the phono section of my MP1 to a hybrid cascode, with an MAT02 bipolar transistor on the bottom and an ECC99 vacuum tube on top, to get more gain and less noise vs the all-tube stock circuit. The amount of phono gain I have now is staggering. Even the lowest output Ortofon MC does not strain the system. Unfortunately, there is TOO much gain for most MMs, even when I cut back the gain by a little trick inside the dual-differential cascode topology. Thus I am using the Ayre for MM/MI cartridges. I am still trying to figure out where it was that I may have dissed transistors. I don't love them per se, but I don't dismiss or disrespect them either. By the way, the selector switch I am going to install is for a third (all-tube) phono stage I just bought, because it is kind of a legendary piece, out of production for 10 years. I am going to see if it can be made to outperform the Ayre with MM/MI cartridges.
As to my expression of surprise at the amount of added capacitance you suggested, it was only that - surprise. I in no way meant to indicate disagreement, because I have no opinion on this subject. Even if I did, opinion does not count where there are facts available. You are correct in pointing out that I did not do my homework by consulting tables apparently available on VE. That is because I did not know such tables were available. Had I done so, I probably would not have been surprised to read your recommended load parameters. Meantime, thanks for the factual input in your previous post. I take your guidance in this matter seriously. But there is no need to get into a tete a tete on tubes vs transistors. |
Dertonearm, I completely agree with every word you wrote. I also think that verbal arguments on the subject of tubes v transistors are about as worthwhile as arguing about one's religion vs another's. That's why I never intended to "go there". I am not sure I understand Timeltel's last sentence, but I hope he gets the point. Enough said. Apologies all around.
Now I have to go back and see what Nicola wrote. |
Nandric, You are reviving the argument. Bad. I will give you one surprisingly pragmatic reason why I generally prefer tube equipment: I know enough about it to build and repair it myself. I will leave out the other reasons while also insisting that I have shown in practice (Parasound amp and Ayre phono stage) that I am not at all close-minded when it comes to solid state. If it's good, it's good.
Timeltel, I guess there may be another term (i.e., other than "Miller") to describe the natural input capacitance of a solid state device, but it does exist. And I think it's even of a magnitude not terribly different from that of a vacuum tube used in a gain stage. That's all I was talking about above. |
Timeltel, Do you mean to say Rumsfeld read the book you mention, and did not realize how apt the title was with respect to his own work as our Secretary of Defense? Actually, there is no need to respond. Any humility you may see there is false. |
But here's the thing, Raul: The o-ring is made of a material that is dissimilar from the apposing metal surfaces. When the vibrational energy put into the headshell reaches the boundary between two dissimilar materials, a large fraction of it is reflected backwards, in this case back into the headshell. That might not be a good thing. This is why J Carr's suggestion of a metallic washer or ring seems better to me than rubber, altho the issue could be mitigated in the case of the headshell/tonearm interface, because there IS the underlying firm link between the two that constitutes also a partial metal to metal contact, which would permit some drainage of energy to the tonearm. As in all audio things, it's a trade-off, I think. |
Timeltel, But for whatever reason there are lots of audiophiles who despise the "sound" of sorbothane used as a footer or as a gasket. The usual indictment is "muddy". I have no opinion but have stayed away from sorbo for that reason. I have some very old big squooshy sorbothane feet that I have never used, in fact. |
Mine has got to be 25-30 years old and does have a small brush attached to the inside of the cap, just like Caig stuff. (I doubt I could find the Cramolin in my large house if I wanted it, but it always turns up when I am not looking for it.) |
Guys, I have never done any experimentation with headshells. It is only a year or so that I have owned any tonearm with detachable headshell, which i used to consider an anathema and now consider a convenience. So, if the headshell came to me with a rubber gasket, I am using the rubber gasket. If not, not. I am using Dynavector headshells on the DV505, Kenwood L07J headshell on its tonearm. The Denon headshell also has a very thin gasket of some kind, probably not a rigid one. |
Timel, In the end, you just have to listen. There's too much conflicting scientific theory to make a decision based on it. |
Dear Raul, Do all 3 of the headshells you cited above follow the AT trick of providing three pairs of threaded holes on the bottom side (not shown in any of the photos), to allow for some adjustment of overhang? I bought one of the MG series, and while it is nicely built, I am wondering whether I will ever be able to use it except by luck, if there is one pair of threaded holes that just happens to give me correct overhang. I can't understand what they were thinking in this design. If they are used on an SME with the base that is adjustable for overhang, then OK. Otherwise, problems. |
Raul, The other potentially maddening thing is that you secure the cartridge in the headshell only to find during alignment that you have chosen the wrong pair of mounting holes, not to mention that it is possible that none of the mounting positions will work for a given cartridge in a given tonearm. I will try it, however.
Timeltel, Sinatra also said with regard to his religious beliefs that he was for "anything that gets (you) through the night", including a bottle of Jack Daniels. I sang one of his tunes last Tuesday, when I performed for the first time in more than a year (Too Marvelous for Words, by the way). It went over well, I think.
You have correctly guessed at my feelings about Rumsfeld. |
DU, That's a beautiful piece. Hope you like it. I too have toyed with the idea of buying a 70s or 80s Japanese phono stage (usually in those days you got a full function preamp along with it). The main attraction for me is the built-in loading options for C and R and sometimes the choice of equalization curves. But there can be problems with the very old electrolytic capacitors in those beasts. Be prepared to replace them, if needed. Plus all the switches and potentiometers are old and may be noisy. Plus indeed there have been advances in transistor technology since those days. But please do not let me discourage you. The proof is in the pudding. And Luxman is one of the best of the best. (I was considering an Accuphase C200 or C200X. Those have lots of controls.) I still enjoy my Luxman T110 tuner that I bought new in the early 80s or late 70s. |
Because I use the supplied brush for applying Cramolin, and probably also because I used it to enhance the electrical contacts in my old Porsches (6V systems that needed all the V they can get), my original bottle of Cramolin is so filthy with junk that came off those contacts that I no longer like to use it. I use the Caig stuff to clean off oxidation and then I use the Walker silver paste. Love it. |
Hi Banquo, Sorry for your klutziness but it happens to us all once in a while. You wrote, "The cart had a muddy bottom end that drove me crazy, and it was deficient in dynamics." In what tonearm? |
Dear Banquo, Thank you for your response. I must say I don't understand why you cannot identify the tonearm in question, unless you heard the "muddy bottom end, etc" at a friend's house, and he cannot provide the info. Sorry to bug you, but it would be helpful to know. |
Banquo, Is it a Sony tonearm, can you tell? Some of those were pretty good though they are under the radar these days. They are designated PUA-XXX series, I think. Effective mass might be on the high side for an Empire, which may account for the "muddy bass". The 2251 was decent but I don't think it competed with the SP10; you'd have to go up higher in the Sony line-up for that.
I had totally forgotten about your tribulations with your SP10. Sorry. |
Dear Banquo, Anything Jean says and does is (1) brilliant, (2) revelatory, and (3) unappreciated by the rest of the audio world. I thought you knew that. Moreover, if it costs a lot (or more than he wants to spend) it must be crap. I do give him credit for his work to bring the Lenco L75 into the fore, however. I love mine, once I put it into a PTP and a slate plinth, both of which he now abhors. |
Hi Rich, There has not been much discussion here about modern day MM and MI cartridges, and it is certain that some of them are very very good. The thread per se is focused on vintage. I have curiosity about the upper end of the SoundSmith MI line, including their Susurrus (or however you spell it), but that one costs more than $4K. "The Voice" for much less money is also said to be excellent. The Clearaudio MM products might be good, altho I dislike their MC cartridges immensely. Then there's Grado. Apart from these 3 makers, I don't know of any other companies that are really trying to build and sell "high end" MM or MI cartridges. Oh yes, there is also the new iteration of Garrott Brothers in Australia; very interesting stuff there. And there's also some Japanese products. I think what we learn here is that those vintage MM/MI cartridges, which sold new for relatively low dollars, can compete with any MCs now available. |
Nothing happened to the Ayre. Decided to try the Silvaweld, because there was a great deal on eBay, and because I have a certain belief that the designer knew what he was doing. Plus, the Silvaweld got a fantastic review on Positive Feedback a few years ago, although that was of secondary importance to me. Anyway, I now prefer the Silvaweld. C'est la vie. |
Nandric, I really do think it's the other way around: The mind is with LOMC; the heart is with MM or MI. At least it is for me. |
Raul, I think there is a business called "Comet" in the US that is selling new DLS1 for less than $600. I thought I read that on Vinyl Asylum, where the DLS1 is also getting favorable mention, from Dave G, as well as from many others. |
The formal scientific definition of "synergy" is to say that the sum of the effect of changing two or more variables is greater than what could be expected from adding up their individual effects. If 1+1=2, that is an "additive" effect. If 1+1 = more than 2, then we have synergy. I have to say that it would take an astute ear to hear the difference between an additive and a synergistic effect, where something so subjective as the sound quality of an audio system is concerned. |
Funnily enough there are three A90s now for sale here. Life imitates art. |
Dear Raul, I agree with Nandric re your habit of listing here the interesting cartridges you find on eBay. I know you have only the best intentions, but what you are doing is quite likely to raise the cost for any one of us who may want to post a bid. Plus, we lose all the fun of the hunt. We know how to search eBay as well as you. It really does pain me to write this, because I am certain you only want to be helpful. |
Dear Raul, It would certainly help me, and probably everyone else here, if you could really explain what you are doing, if indeed it is correct to say that you seek lowest possible distortion without regard to highest possible happiness, in designing and implementing your audio system. I can only imagine then that you have a well equipped audio lab with much test equipment, including distortion analyzers and acoustical measuring devices, so as to obtain the best possible measurements from your electronics and in your listening room. Is this so? It sounds like audio Hell to me, especially since it is a well established fact that as regards electronics, "we" (meaning the audiophile faithful and the electrical engineers that love us) have only a faint idea what distortions are worth measuring. Surely, it is well known that lowest possible harmonic distortions of a sine wave resulting from a pure tone are not the key to Nirvana. Transistors do really well in such tests, however.
Having said all that, I also say that I have learned a lot from you by picking and choosing among the bits of advice you freely give, and I thank you for that. Carry on.
By the way, it seems intuitively obvious that Fleib's points about tonearm/cartridge matching are spot on. Yet, I also take seriously the testimony of Thuchan and Halcro that those big heavy FR tonearms can work well with MM cartridges. I don't know what to make of this paradox.
And Henry, there are only so many question marks available in the Universe. You are using them up rapidly. |
I confess I love my system, and it definitely does not suck. My system is better than it has ever been, and my hearing acuity is worse than it has ever been. Perhaps this is another definition of audiophile Hell of which I spoke above. What would LeFleur say about that? Henry, thank you for your good sense of humor. |
Slightly OT. If anyone wants to see a photo of my SP10 Mk3, go to my system site. Unfortunately, it appears that only one photo is allowed per piece of gear in a system. Raul or someone asked about photos, which is why I mention it here. |
Dear Atlasiris, I don't know where you live, but you seem to know where I live. In any case, I assure you that there are very fine people where I live, with scruples and good taste equal to yours. Raul and I have now been acquainted electronically for a couple of years, and I hope he knows that I hold him in high regard, while at the same time I feel free to disagree with him on several issues (not just the eBay issue). Raul can tell you that I have also defended him from some unfair attacks in the context of other threads. I don't know what more I can say to convince you that I am not and would never personally attack Raul here or anywhere else. I was/am just stating my opinion on Raul's practice of listing here his eBay "finds". You are free to disagree with me (and Nandric), as others already have, but please do not attack me personally in the process. In any case, I am sure Raul will continue to do whatever he wants to do, so to save you the trouble of using the eBay search engine.
Dear Shane, I am willing to part with many of the cartridges I have "stockpiled" in my earlier hysteria and gluttony, of which I am now cured. Contact me if interested. |
What? There is sex after marriage? |
My MMC1 comes with its own special adapter, I now know. Good thing, too. The unusual arrangement of the pins at the rear of the MMC1 make it unusable with a standard adapter. Ergo, that one on eBay that you just cited, Raul, may not be so desirable if one does not own the proper adapter. I guess it can be bought from SoundSmith(?) I seem to recall SS charges $50 for it. |
Raul, What is the effective mass of your Grace tonearm? Due to the relatively low output of the MMC1, I will want to feed its output directly into the MC stage of my Atma-sphere MP1, as I do for the Stanton 980LZS, which means the MMC1 could ride in my Reed tonearm with 14g effective mass. (Probably also the adapter adds a gram or two.) On paper, that's not the best match for a cartridge with a compliance of 30, but.... |
I was going to be done with this thread, but Raul, those two B&O cartridges are being sold by the same person. He has a highly inflated opinion of their value, IMO, whether or not they are "good" sounding. He also is carrying a 94.1% eBay approval rating. That sucks. I would not buy from him (and of course I don't have to, because I own an NOS MMC1). I have no thoughts of selling either of my B&Os until I have had a listen for myself. I was asking for the comments of others, but no one has come forth. So I conclude that no one is currently listening to a B&O. Peace. Out. |
By my calculations, Banquo spent a total of nearly $1100 on his listed acquisitions. So it is really up to him to decide, but there does remain the possibility that Thuchan is correct in this instance, especially if one buys a "used" MC off Audiogon from a reliable colleague. (The answer would of course be different for different ones of us.) |
Fact is, I cannot remember what I paid for any of the MM and MI cartridges I bought in the last 2 years or so. It's all a blur. I can ballpark it at best. As in, I paid "a lot" for my NOS B&O MMC1. I paid "a little" for my Acutex. One conclusion I think will hold solid from this experience is that any one of the better ones of these vintage cartridges will do a better job of tracking piano than even the best of the MCs in a high quality tonearm. Both attack and decay of individual piano notes are more real. MCs may have some superiority in other areas, however. Not sure what those areas are quite yet. |
Thanks for the tip on Soundsmith for an adapter. MM20CL sure looks like a Pmount sitting in its case, to me. Cripes, I haven't looked at the MMC1 in so long, I have forgotten what came with it; perhaps it has an adapter included. Mine is in original box. |
Dear Timel, Reading your excellent description of the sound of the MMC4, I got an eery feeling for the sound of those vintage straight-line B&O tts with B&O cartridges. (I have no idea what cartridges I was hearing in those days.) A very polite and correct sound but not sufficiently "earthy" or visceral to capture my fancy. This is what I summed up by using the term "hi-fi-ish". We'll see soon how the MMC1 and MMC20CL perform in perhaps a better turntable and tonearm. The MMC20CL in particular has many adherents. Raul, do you have any recollections of your impressions of these cartridges? I know you said back then that you ranked them ahead of their current equivalents being made by SoundSmith,
Another question is the P-mount adapter. Are there any recommendations? The adapter can have quite an effect on sonics. On eBay there is always the pfanstiehl version but little else to choose from. |
Dear Timeltel, My Irish friend tells me that an Irish seven course dinner consists of a 6-pack of beer and a potato.
So the MMC20CL will not work in the MMC1 adapter? Too bad. |
Dear Thuchan, When I contemplate what my poor wife has to put up with, I cannot wonder at the condition of post-marital sex. |
Henry, Both knees at once? You definitely do deserve a sponge bath from a "private duty" nurse.
Raul, I am sorry to have made that crack about your need to feel superior, but you must know it is very aggravating to discuss these matters with you, because you give no one room to disagree with your approach. And you are not really paying attention to my responses. |
Dear Raul and Dave, (1) The Reed tonearm and the MP1 phono inputs are within physical reach of each other using 3-ft interconnects, which is why I linked use of the Reed to use of the MP1. Plus the Reed has XLR connectors and the MP1 has XLR inputs. (2) I have set up my MP1 with switchable gain ("low" gain is good for cartridges with output between ~0.6 and ~1.5mV; "high" gain can handle any cartridge with output less than 0.5mV) and with switchable 47K, 1000R, and 100R cartridge loading. So if I set MP1 to low gain and 47K, should be fine with B&O.
Yes, Dave, I can run the 980LZS into 1000R; sounds very very good. |
Dear Raul, Within the US, isn't Sound Smith also an authorized repair service for B&O? Plus do they not manufacture cartridges sold under the B&O name, if there are any? |
"Of course that Lewm could try in his MP-1 but I'm with you about." Dave's view was that the load resistor on my MP1 input might be too low in value to suit the MMC1. If you noticed, I responded by saying I have switchable input resistors, 100R, 1000R, 47K (may change the latter to 100K). So that's not a problem. I also have two levels of gain available in the MP1; the low gain setting would probably work fine with the MMC1. I do also have an entirely separate phono stage for really high output MMs. However, I think the output of the MMC1 will be too low to drive the MM section of that phono stage. (Silvaweld SWH-550 just replaced the Ayre P5Xe for that use. The Silvaweld is amazingly good, but you might not like it, because it uses only tubes, including even a tube rectifier. It does also have a pair of MC inputs which surely would be capable of working with the MMC1.)
To me, the big advantage of solid state vs tubes in a phono section, lots of gain with low noise, is negated by using MM/MI cartridges, except for the really low output ones.
Meantime, listening to Ella Fitzgerald sing Harold Arlen via the Acutex driving the Silvaweld makes me think that you are quite correct, Raul. We don't need no stinkin' MC cartridges. |
Dave, I've only used it so far with the Stanton 980LZS, which is low-ish impedance. Actually, the input stage of the MP1 is a dual-differential cascode in its totality, as you know. Cascodes have high input impedance (I think) notwithstanding the fact that in our cases the lower device is a transistor. I will have to look up the math, but the input Z may be high, certainly higher than that afforded by a typical 47K or 100K load resistor seen in parallel. In fact, are you sure the MAT02 even by itself has a low impedance at its gate? Gotta check it. |
Dave is correct about my/our mods to the MP1 phono section. You and I once discussed this, Raul. Well, if the MMC1 does not mate well with the MP1, I can try it into the MC inputs of my Silvaweld. But the Silvaweld seems to use a JFET gain stage at its MC input which then feeds the all-tube MM stage. Conceivably there might be the same problem with noise using that input as well. If all else fails, I could use the MM input of the Silvaweld with a SUT. But we don't care for SUTs in principle, altho I am sure the proper one could sound great. I won't worry until I hear a problem in actual practice. |
Dear Raul, You wrote, "Well that korean Silvaweld design looks unimpressive but only looks as that because you are really impressed with!" Really? You have some information on the Silvaweld SWH550? Because I was unable to find any information anywhere on the net. I searched high and low for a schematic in fact. The only relevant info I found was the review on Positive Feedback by Brad Morricab. He reviewed, loved, and still owns the lesser version, the SWH450. Brad told me himself he never has heard the SWH550. So if you have any info on the SWH550, I would appreciate your sharing it with me. I never thought it would impress you; it uses tube rectification, tube voltage regulation, and of course an all tube circuit, apart from the jFET that is used to add gain for MC cartridges. I have not evaluated the MC gain stage, but the MM one is divine, after a few tweaks. However, no, it does not use coupling transformers or LCR phono EQ, unlike all the Allnic stuff subsequently marketed by Mr Park. It's quite old school in that regard. Downunder, no trafos in the signal path. |