Dear Halcro, All I am saying is that if some medium mass tonearms sound good with a given cartridge and some others in the same category do not sound good, then the cause is unlikely to be related to effective mass per se.
Dear Raul, Would rather not reveal the cost of the Silvaweld "in public". I will send you an email. |
Dear Halcro, For what it's worth (not much), the Triplanar is firmly in the medium mass group, at 11 grams. Don't know about the Phantom, but my guess is that it too is in the medium mass group. On the other hand, most Reed tonearms longer than 9 inches will have effective mass at least a gram or two or three higher and on up into the high mass group, depending upon length and the density of the wood chosen. I don't know whether these numbers mean much re compatibility with your new flavor of the week cartridge.
Has anyone tried a mono MM or MI cartridge, particularly one of those AT products?
Dear Raul, FYI, I have been listening to the Lenco/Dynavector DV505/Acutex combo thru the Silvaweld. I have a long prior experience with the Ayre in that set up, so I feel competent to make a comparison between the two in my system. It is a bit unfair to the Ayre, which was never intended for use with such high output cartridges. (The Ayre has 3 gain settings; I have it set for the lowest level for use with MMs.) The Silvaweld uses silver mica capacitors in the RIAA equalization circuit, rather than the typical polystyrenes. I wonder whether that is a source of its transparency and musicality. |
Dear Timeltel, In your dissertation on wires Litzian, were you talking about headshell leads? IMO and IME, the best headshell lead is no headshell lead. Because of those poor quality connectors at the rear of the headshell and the poor connectors at the headshell/tonearm interface. I love the convenience of a detachable headshell, but my goal is to eliminate those physical two physical contact points that are in the signal path as a result of using any headshell. Raul runs leads direct from the cartridge to the rear of the tonearm (if not all the way to the preamp) and ignores those electrical contacts, which is a great idea that I plan to implement. |
Nandric, Thought you had a Kuzma Reference, not a Basis Exclusive. Or do you own one of each?
Raul, Your and Dertonearm's goal is a lofty and desireable one, but I view it/viewed it as virtually unobtainable, because the principles among us live thousands of miles apart and on the surface seem to have wildly different listening biases, based on the vast differences among us in our choices of gear. To have a common understanding, we each need to have heard the others' systems, I think. For example, I have a dear friend here in my area who like me prefers ESL speakers and tube amplifiers. I know the sound of his system quite well. Consequently, when he tells me that he likes or does not like the sound of a particular piece of gear or software, I know instantly exactly what he "means", in the sensory sense of the verb. I have two other local friends with disparate tastes in gear, but I have heard their systems many times, and we do have a common ground for a conversation. In contrast, I can only imagine how your system sounds. And my imagination may not be so accurate. Over years of reading his reviews, I think I arrived at an understanding of what kind of sound HP prefers, and I concluded that he and I have little in common on that score. Subsequent conversations with persons who know him personally suggest to me that my perception of his perceptions is essentially accurate. In other words, this takes a lot of time, if one cannot have direct access to the other guy's system. I am only beginning to have a vague idea of your biases based on listening to cartridges that you like and reading your description of their sound. That is, if you can own up to having any biases. |
Nandric, A belated apology. I was of course thinking of the Basis turntable line, not of the German-made Basis electronics. I understand now. |
Dear Dgob, My point was merely that there is no absolute truth or value to a phono cartridge, or as Santayanna wrote, history teaches us that history teaches us nothing. (This is completely irrelevant, but I love it.) I should think that any great philosophe has more to offer than does a phono cartridge and therefore is more worth the effort required to reach a common understanding. |
Dear Timeltel, I must confess I am a troglodyte in these matters. When I am enjoying a cartridge I tend to keep listening to it. So, yes, I have not yet tried the 315 or the MMC1 or etc. I do not much care for the pursuit of perfection in lieu of happiness. I have not been doing much listening these days, for one reason. |
Nandric, Hegel might think so. |
Dear Raul, I agree with you on stylus shape, except for one shape, spherical. Nearly every report or review I have ever read on cartridges with spherical styli suggests that spherical styli can do great midrange but not so great bass or treble. This is not to say that one could not be happy with "just" a fabulous midrange sound and only so-so bass and treble. |
Re Halcro's article, last fall I picked up an NOS Stanton 881S MkII, locally. I guess that's another one I need to put on my "must listen to" list. But I doubt it's any better than the 981LZS, which has a permanent spot in my heart. Timeltel, have you any experience with that one? |
Dear T, I bought the 980LZS (not 981; that was a mistype) from eBay in what appeared to be well-used condition. I therefore concluded before listening to it that the stylus must be worn or near to worn out. Right then, I could have bought an NOS D98S stylus for near $300 from a business in the Netherlands, thanks to Raul letting me know about it. I balked at the price, and within one week someone else bought it out from under me. The dealer had none left. Then I started listening to the 980, and it sounded just fine after some initial teething problems. The stylus assembly is a rather loose fit to the cartridge body, so I use a tiny elastic band to bind them together more firmly and probably to damp some resonances (an added benefit of the elastic band IMO). I am told that this loose fit is a typical problem with Stantons and can be rectified by tricky surgery. In any case, since then I have become quite happy with the stylus I've got, and I have never seen another true NOS D98S stylus for sale anywhere. Recently I was able to buy an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus, which I am told will work as well as the D98S on the 980. In Japan, you might have better luck.
Nandric and Thuchan, You guys might enjoy this "scientist joke":
The scientist wants to investigate the frog. He has trained the frog to jump upon the command "Jump!". Now he cuts off one front leg and gives the command to jump, and the frog jumps. Next, he cuts off the other front let and gives the command to jump, and the frog jumps. He then cuts off one of the hind legs and gives the command to jump. The frog makes a real effort and is able to manage a facsimile of a jump. Finally, he cuts off the one remaining leg and gives the command to jump. The frog remains motionless. From this, the scientist concludes that if you cut off all four legs of the frog, it becomes deaf.
This happens in science and is often a type of problem with our thinking in audio world. |
And where are Kierkegaard and Sartre in all this? Those are my guys. |
Dear Fleib, I assume then that you own a 980LZS. Yes? I am listening to mine in the L07J tonearm which is the installed tonearm on the Kenwood L07D turntable. It does sound a bit reticent in the highs, but I cannot tell whether that might be due to the old (Litz) wiring in the L07J and the connectors in the signal path. To me Litz wire typically sounds a bit that way per se. In any case, I have no complaints with the treble performance. I am waiting for an eruption from Raul, to your remark about the hi vs lo output versions of the 980. I have never heard an HZS, so I have no opinion about how the two compare. |
No. I've got a full-up L07D cum L07J tonearm that I like very much, not just the tonearm. I found that the table itself sounded much better after I installed an EMI/RFI shield under the platter mat (termed a "platter sheet" by Kenwood). I used TI Shield available from Mike Percy. I have been meaning to try it with my other dd turntables, but for sure it is a must-do for the L07D. The idea was not mine, came from reading the L07D owners website. The leader of that group uses ERS cloth. If you still have your Kenwood, you might give it a try too. |
Dear Fleib, Empirically, I would recommend against the ERS cloth and in favor of the TI Shield. For one thing, ERS cloth can be kind of lumpy; the platter sheet might not sit perfectly level on it. For another, the ERS cloth would tend to decouple the platter sheet/mat from the platter and thereby abrogate the designer's intent as regards dissipation of energy from the LP. But most importantly, TI Shield just measures way better for both EMI and RFI rejection than does ERS cloth. However, I have not compared one to the other. TI Shield needs to be grounded for optimal effect. I figure that is achieved via the large contact area between TI Shield and both the platter (below) and the platter sheet (above). |
Dear Raul, Since it is OK for you to rather harshly dismiss Thuchan's phono stage, and indeed his entire downstream amplification chain, and since it was OK for you to categorically dismiss vacuum tubes as a way to amplify music, I hope you will take it with equal grace, as Thuchan took your remarks, when I ask the rhetorical question, what are you listening to? Answer: You are listening to sound coming out of your speakers. You are not listening to your preamp or your modified Mark Levinson amplifiers. They are just generating complex AC signals that need transducing to be heard. How on earth did you select those speakers and that subwoofer, if your goal is as pure as you say it is? I posit that you made your choices subjectively. You are trapped, just like the rest of us, with your ears and brain. There are many many other speaker systems that would likely have lower distortion and flatter response than does yours, that employ much fewer distortion- and phase anomaly-inducing crossover components than does yours. Your whole rationale for stating that you operate on a higher plane than the rest of us falls apart when I consider your speaker system. But it's OK. I respect you anyway. I am with Dertonearm on this. |
Dave, I think the latest fracas is about how one selects one's components downstream from the phono cartridge, be it MM or MC or ceramic, even. As you know, I keep some good MC cartridges around as a reference. But even so, I am far from drawing any global comparisons between the two archetypes, because I have not heard many/most of the "very best" (i.e., most expensive) MCs and may not ever be able to do so in my own home system. Another thing is that we tend to lump MM and MI cartridges together. I think they may sound distinctly different but more like each other than like a good MC. |
I must must hear an Olympos. It is such a revered cartridge, and by people who have everything and have heard everything. |
Dear Fleib, I did not know that Mr. Lurne' founded a school. I do know that I heard one of his early turntable efforts that had a spring suspension, and I thought it was a very bad sounding, over-priced product. Possibly his later efforts have been better; it would have been easy to improve the one I heard by tossing out the springs. The thing was visibly bouncing whilst trying to play music. (The suspension seemed completely undamped.) But this is all OT. Yes, the platter (and platter mat) is a very important and often neglected determinant of turntable sound, IMO. There are as many opinions on how to make the perfect platter (and platter mat) as there are audiophiles. The negative opinions that some have regarding the vintage Japanese dd turntables may have as much to do with their typical heavy, dull-sounding rubber mats as anything else. First thing to do with a Technics or a Denon is ditch the mat (but keep it hidden away, for originality). And yes, the shield is something that you don't miss until you install one and hear the difference. I would not run my L07D without it. However, I think the shield is likely to be specific for dd turntables and maybe only for Kenwoods at that. Some guys were going to try it with Technics tables, but I never read a report on the results. (The better Kenwoods have a coil-less motor that is mounted right up high just under the platter, so my completely unproven theory is that the motor may radiate EMI upward and affect the cartridge.) |
Dear Fleib, You are quite correct, I am ignorant of the 3 turntables you mentioned, but I only commented on one model of one of those 3 brands that I listened to at least 15-20 years ago. I listened long enough and often enough to that one particular Lurne' turntable to form an opinion. If you noticed, I tried to allow for the probable fact that his products have favorably evolved since then. The earliest efforts of any designer are often best forgotten. Sorry if I offended you.
Having owned two belt-drive turntables with relatively undamped spring suspensions (Thorens TD-125 and early SOTA Star Sapphire III), I feel I can fairly say that they are not to my taste. |
Dear Fleib, I don't know whether the word "fair" applies. I just gave my opinion and qualified it so as not to include his more recent designs. For example, it would not be unfair for you to say I am balding. I tried to be fair, in fact, in the sense that I concede that what I heard so long ago may be totally irrelevant to Lurne's present work. Now, how are you going to mate the Teres rim drive to the Sota? Won't the Sota chassis get in the way? I once thought of using the Teres with my Nottingham Hyperspace, because that one has no interfering platform or apron that would impede contact between Teres and platter. |
Dear Nandric and Fleib, This here is a "chat" group. I am not a reviewer, and this is not Stereophile or TAS. There are so many unscientific, unsubstantiated, and "unfair" opinions stated on Audiogon discussion groups that we could throw out the website on that basis. All I said was that I had extensive listening experience with what might have been Lurne's very first design, many years ago, and I did not like it. IThe reason it failed as a design, IMO, may have been due to its apparently undamped spring suspension; pitch stability was poor. For all I know, Mr. Lurne' may now be the genius behind some of the greatest turntables available today. I have completely lost track of his work. Was not even aware that he is still in the business. It is often the case that flawed early efforts (if it is possible that I am correct about what I heard) are no indicator of future success or failure. Moreover, he may be an absolutely wonderful person whom I would be proud to know. Nothing personal was intended. But you're right, I should have stifled myself to avoid this brouhaha. Can you tell me what current products bear his stamp?
Hi Tim, I sold my Hyperspace long ago and have no interest right now in converting any belt-drive to rim-drive. In fact, I am quite happy with what I've got and will probably go to the great beyond with one or another or all of them. (Well, actually I know I cannot take them with me. Perhaps I can work a deal and take a nice cartridge, in case there is audio on the other side.) |
I really do enjoy all you guys, and I do apologize for over-apologizing AND for any unintended insults to Pierre Lurne'. We have been navigating a very delicate situation with our mentally-ill son. This may have caused me to over-post and to perseverate. Tonight I think we entered calmer waters, and I am very happy in fact. The minutiae we endlessly hash over is actually good therapy for me at times.
Tim, Have you seen the Teres motor in person? My only question about it is that it seems to rely upon its own mass to provide a force to hold the idler wheel against the side of the platter. But thanks to Mr. Newton, that also means the platter is pushing on the motor assembly. I wondered who wins.
Re my "thoroughbreds": Will someone please buy that friggin' L07D that's for sale on the 'gon? It bothers me that no one will pay that incredible bargain price. Or is this just an indication that the whole upper end audio market is in a shambles? |
Dear Raul, Spare me, please. I have not even had time to listen to music for a week, and you want me to spend my tiny amount of spare time re-fitting a dd turntable and building an outboard arm pod, so I can test YOUR theory to which I do not ascribe and anyway don't much care about? I am glad you're happy with your set-up. If it also makes you feel superior, that's an added benefit. Lets leave it at that. If you ever want to hear my SP10 Mk3 in a huge composite slate and cherry/baltic birch plinth, you are most welcome at my home. I won't be removing the Mk3 from its plinth, however.
Also, I did not mean to question the goodness of your Velodyne subwoof; I only questioned the idea of using a subwoof with a full-range speaker in what looks to be a normal size listening room. And that was only to point out that in the end you, like all of us, have made some choices based on your personal taste, not by the scientific method. |
FWIW, you can mount a second tonearm on the Kenwood L07D. There is a bolt-on platform at the rear for that. The L07D was sold with a blank platform that can be drilled to accommodate a wide variety of 9- or 10-inch tonearms. Plus, Kenwood made at least four different accessory platforms dedicated to one or another of the then popular Japanese tonearms. These accessory platforms are rare birds to find now. The second of the two L-07Ds that I own came with one of these special order platforms; after some research and with some help from T_bone, we think it is meant for an SAEC tonearm, cannot now remember which one. Plus, Vantage Audio in the UK will make a platform for anyone who is interested. Original Kenwood quality is higher, however.
The L07J tonearm that comes standard on the L07D is very good, too. Looks like it might have been made for Kenwood by M-S, since it resembles the MAS237 but with a J-shaped arm tube. Its Achilles heel, if it has one, may be in its internal (Litz) wiring and in the connector they used at its base for the downstream wires to the preamp. (It's not a DIN plug, has big fat pins.) I plan to bypass the whole thing with Audio Note or Ikeda silver, one of these days, straight to the preamp.
Consider that for the price of the L07D, you get a still state of the art 65-lb plinth that needs nothing, a first rate motor that is coreless and in that way may be superior to the SP10 Mk2 motor for audio (I make no judgement here), and a fine tonearm that is engineered to couple tightly to the plinth/bearing (for those of us who swing that way).
How to make this post on-topic: the L07J is giving my Stanton 980LZS a great ride. Signet has dominated the last several weeks worth of posts; I need to get one, I guess. |
Hi Dertonearm, Is it the very low bearing friction of the FR tonearms? That might be a factor with high compliance MMs. |
It would seem to me (without of course my having done any work to investigate it) that a resonant frequency higher than 10 Hz might be more problematic than a resonant frequency less than 10 Hz, for example the 4 and 5Hz figures that some mentioned above (but not lower), if the associated equipment is of very high quality (tonearm, turntable, turntable mount). Above 10Hz is likely to give an artificial boost to the bass response, or at least one is risking such a boost that could give a bloated indistinct bass. But it might also be beneficial in systems that are bass shy but where the added energy could be "handled". So, assuming good equipment that absorbs or otherwise dissipates the resonant energy, you could say that the "issue" of the calculated resonant frequency being too high or too low is over-stated.
I've got to mount my FR64S on something to see whether I can agree with the FR-lovers on its goodness with high compliance cartridges. Raul, I think the Technics EPA500 has similar low bearing friction to the EPA100. Do you think this is about bearing friction? You once posted something to that effect, I think. Also, I gather from your response to Dertonearm that you are still not a fan of FR tonearms.
Both of the Technics tonearms have trick spring-loaded counter-wts that are designed to spread the resonant frequency out, so that the peak energy is lower over a wider frequency range. Dynavector does something similar in a different way. (There is a weight on a spring mounted under the tonearm; resonant energy causes it to vibrate thereby dissipating energy of resonance. It is adjustable but no one knows how to adjust it and for what. The instructions in badly translated Japanese are quite opaque.) |
Thanks, Fleib, The other factor, which I have mentioned before, is the accuracy of the data we are given for tonearm effective mass and for cartridge compliance. We never know how fastidious tonearm makers are about calculating the figures that they then publish. We also never know the actual compliance of the actual cartridge we are trying to implement, unless we actually measure it. One of the guys on VA posted a very novel way of doing that, if one has the expertise and either a 'scope or a laptop with the proper software. We have all agreed at one time or another that 30-year-old cartridges are quite likely to have lost some compliance in their suspensions. The reason some of the mentioned "high compliance" cartridges work well in FR tonearms and their like may be nothing more than that. Plus, of course, low bearing friction and good energy dissipation. |
Raul, Who is pushing you to talk about FR tonearms? I don't even have an opinion yet about mine. I am trying to talk about your dogmatism regarding your equipment choices. It's OK to love what you have chosen to own, but that does not make everyone else's choices "wrong". I think you may be alienating many persons who are valuable to this thread. |
Dear Dertonearm, To elaborate on what I think T_bone was getting at, of the 3 basic types of cartridge, MM, MI, and MC, the MI type will tend to have the lowest moving mass, not the MC type. This is a matter of fact as told to me by Peter Lederman, to explain why he still pursues the design and production of top quality MI cartridges. I subsequently have read statements that are in agreement with this concept, from other independent sources. (You could argue that PL has a vested interest in making me believe that MI cartridges are superior in one way or another, but I don't think he was "blowing smoke", as we like to say.) Furthermore, it makes sense if you think about how each type of transducer has to operate. |
Dertonearm, Nice to know you might have been an admirer of my Grado TLZ. It was my one and only cartridge during the mid to late 80s. Over the years, I kept it in storage while I was preoccupied with a variety of high output MCs and finally low output ones. This thread stimulated me to resurrect the Grado from my bedroom closet. I experimented with it before going on to try others that Raul and others here were raving about. It seemed to have stiffened up during 20 years "in the closet". I probably should run it for several more hours on a test LP before making final judgement. However, the same Grado company still makes expensive MM or MI cartridges (I think the latter), albeit under the leadership of Joe's son. There has not been much comment here about those, probably due to the obsession with vintage types. But I am curious, since in its day the TLZ was superb, really better than any HOMC I wasted time with during the 90s and early 2000s.
Dear Nandric, To be precise, DT and we were discussing the moving mass of MI vs MC. I don't think there's any question that a typical MM would have a higher moving mass than either of the other types. Or perhaps you knew that and I misunderstood your post. |
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Dertonearm posited that the difference in observed capacity to pass a square wave was due to differences in moving mass, and in so positing, DT stated that MC cartridges have lowest moving mass. I only responded to that part; on average, MC cartridges do not have lower moving mass than MI cartridges. That's all I meant to say about that. So if MC cartridges were observed to pass square waves better than MI ones, it is not likely to be due to the MC type having a lower moving mass.
I always thought that capacity to pass a square wave was related most to bandwidth. In cartridges, bandwidth must be delimited by cantilever resonance, inductance, capacitance, etc, as well as by moving mass. |
Dear Nandric, I don't know about the totality of your report of what Mr Lukashek says, but yes, as far as I know the number of turns of wire in the coil is the major determinant of cartridge inductance.
Dear Travis, You got it..."Haniwa" was the guy or the company with the very novel MC cartridge. I will see if I can Google it based on that. I had one of his brochures here at home but in one of my cleaning frenzies I discarded it, apparently. |
Here it is:
http://www.kubotek.com/haniwaaudio/p_cartridge.html
Internal resistance (shown here as "output impedance") = 0.8 ohms!!! Inductance = 1.3 microhenries!!!! Yes, that's "micro", not "milli", as we are used to seeing for MM cartridges.
Yet, output is 0.35 mV and tracks at near 1.0 gm.
Probably you should not go near this cartridge if you are wearing a pacemaker, so powerful must be the magnet.
So sue me; the name does not begin with either N or K. But the distributor's name does begin with K (Kubotek). |
Dear Fleib, I heard the Sussuro in several systems at RMAF last October. It sounded consistently excellent, and IMO sounded less "mechanical" than some very expensive MC cartridges, including in one case the Ortofon MC A90, but this is far from a "judgement" of their relative merits; conditions did not permit that. The other cartridge I liked a lot in Steve Dobbins' room was the new TOTL Allnic Puritas. Really, really nice. A moving coil type, however. |
Dear Thuchan, Lest anyone else pick up on what you wrote, I did make a point of saying that I was NOT making a "judgement" of the MC A90 as compared to the Sussuro. To further quote myself, "the [listening] conditions did not permit that". Believe me, I would love to own either of those two cartridges. |
I have often seen the statement that LOMCs make current rather than voltage. Since I lack formal training in electronics (beyond college physics), I am always cautious about my own thoughts on these subjects, but it seems to me that this is marketing hype. LOMCs make current insofar as they tend to have a very low output resistance. So if you think of their output "power", P=current X voltage, the term for current would tend to dominate. But I would like to see some measurements of the current made by an LOMC compared to that of a high (voltage) output cartridge. I would bet that high output cartridges that are so-called because of their voltage output would also tend to make more current than a typical LOMC. Don't know but wonder about that.
At RMAF, I visited a room where a VERY low output resistance MC was being touted. And it had vanishingly low inductance. Yet the output voltage was quite reasonable, around 0.3mV, I think. It is a Japanese company and I think the name begins with N or K. A very interesting product that I meant to follow up on but forgot. The designer himself was in the room and seemed miffed that his cartridge was not getting a lot of attention. He also had bookshelf speakers that were quite novel in design and sounded very good. |
With regard to Acman's question, I am wondering whether or not there is some double-talk on that eBay ad. The seller is allowing us to think that the elliptical stylus on the cartridge is an original made-by-Nagatronic stylus that was offered as an alternative to the "triangular" stylus, or in late production after Nagatron may have ceased to supply the triangular one, This is all well and good, but he never comes out and says so explicitly. Therefore I wonder whether he is supplying an after-market stylus assembly, which could be good or bad. Caveat emptor. |
Nandric and Acman, I am a bit disappointed in the integrity of some who sell these unusual items. One company we know about says on their website that "all" their styli are NOS, when we know thanks to others that this is not so, at least for their "Acutex" styli. (I am not referring to Garage-a-records; I know nothing about them.) And this is not meant to cast any aspersions on the seller in the eBay ad. I was just suggesting that buyers should ask questions about the provenance of that elliptical stylus. |
Dear Dlaloum, So your Pickering would be equivalent, I think, to my Stanton 980LZS vs the HZS version. As I mentioned earlier I was fortunate enough to find an NOS Pickering 7500 stylus to be used eventually to replace the D98S stylus in my Stanton. (NOS D98S seems unobtainium.) I continue to enjoy the Stanton, but I have no idea whether or not my contentment is in any way related to the fact that my version is LO (vs HO), It is, however, interesting to learn of your own findings. Thanks. |
Sorry to learn of your terrible experience with Bluz Broz. They also are less than honest about the provenance of their Acutex styli. It seems it would be fair to say openly that none of us should do business with them in future. I wonder whether they know that to misrepresent items for sale via mail order can be prosecuted as "mail fraud"? I am not a lawyer; a lawyer told me this. You might want to remind them of this fact when seeking compensation for your trashed cartridge. Obviously, if it had been properly secured and packed there is virtually nothing that UPS could have done to damage it. |
Dear David, How are you measuring compliance? Thx. |
Dear Henry, Nice word, "furphy". But I think you defined it incorrectly, even though it is of Australian origin. The on-line dictionaries all define it as "an unsubstantiated rumor". You defined it as follows: " 'furphy'....unable to be substatiated under any objective criteria". There is a difference between "unsubstantiated" and "unable to be substantiated". More of a furphy is the idea that all direct-drive turntables sound best with no plinth. (Could not resist; fun intended.)
That's the scuttlebutt, and I'm stickin' to it. |
Dear Raul, Henry's response and others have prompted me to ask this question, finally and with due respect. How, indeed, have you obtained your training in listening to an audio system? The one thing I fear as I grow older (other than all the other usual things to fear) is that I will lose my hearing acuity. In fact, I already have lost some of it. I do believe that paying attention to what you are hearing and how you hear it, and continuing reference to live performances, can help greatly in overcoming nature's way of taking away our sensory prowess over time. But I am nevertheless curious to know what specific action you took to achieve your stated level of perception. Thanks. |
Dear Fleib, The phenomenon you refer to I think of as an analog to "intermodulation distortion" in audio equipment. I definitely have a diminished capacity to hear a single voice speaking to me when there is background cacophony.
Dear Nandric, 12kHz? You are an optimist. I wager that neither of us has hearing flat out to 12kHz. But then, there's Beethoven. |
My dear friend Raul, How can you be shocked at the rapid sale of all those Nagatrons? You advertised them here. It's perfectly OK that you did that, but the results should not surprise you.
Dear Fleib, "On the subject of hearing loss - a few years ago I read an interesting excerpt from an article by a research scientist doing studies of sound perception in deaf people. He measured physiological responses to stimuli applied to different parts of the body. I believe the hard skull structure around the ear was very effective in transmitting sound."
This is called "bone conduction". It was a well known phenomenon even when I was in medical school back in the late middle 20th century. Certain types of hearing aid rely upon that mechanism. But I am not sure whether it is significant for our ability to detect airborne vibrations. It's worth a little research to find out. |
Timeltel, Your opportunity for a Johnny Carson joke: How good is it? I have a second-hand 412 which I have not yet auditioned. |
Dear Timeltel, You quoted my favorite Carnack exchange, "Siss, boom, bahhhh". Always good for a laugh. |
David, Are you aware of John Ellison's method for calculating (vertical) compliance? Here is a URL: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/89/892332.html If I owned the needed equipment, this is the way I would do it.
I am wondering why you would necessarily expect vertical and lateral (horizontal) compliance to be equal or even near equal? Further, in terms of tracking and tonearm matching, I would think that vertical compliance is by far the most important factor, although I can see your coming response that the stylus tip is wiggling in the horizontal as well as the vertical plane. |
Dear Fleib, You obviously know what you are talking about. But is it not the case that, historically, published figures for "compliance" are for the vertical plane, notwithstanding the fact that Ortofon may now be publishing horizontal compliance numbers? Further, most internet discussions regarding compliance and tonearm matching are with reference to the vertical. Yes? If not, I have been "out in left field" for a long time. (This was often said of me when I was a young man, so it would not be surprising to find myself in that situation once again.) |