Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by dlaloum

Fleib - interesting comment about MC's generating current - and there are phono stages that focus on current rather than voltage - Dynavector P75...

I'm not saying lower inductance is a negative by any means, but I do question quite specifically
1) What is gained by lowering inductance
2) At what point in lowering inductance has the gain reached its maximum point. (if taking the induction further down only gains 0.01% improvement is it worth it?)

Also a point of caution - the lower the inductance, the harder it is to match the two channels - when production variations are fixed values rather than % of the inductance, the error factor increases exponentially.
There are cost factors involved in mass producing low inductance cartridges. Possibly one of the factors keeping MC cartridge costs high might be the reject rate - they need to be hand made as too many are out of balance and have to be hand rebuilt until their channel balance is within the required tolerances... painful?!

Once inductance drops below 100mH (arbitrary number chosen) - what improvements are gained?
Once inductance drop below 50mH?, 25mH?, 1mH?
In an absolutist sense why limit ourselves to cartridges with a huge 0.1mV output - why not go down to 0.01mV and accordingly lower inductance? (perhaps with some circuitry onboard in the cartridge to minimise noise pickup and ampligy the signal)

bye for now

David
Hi Folks

Following on the earlier discussion about LO vs HO, and low Inductance vs High Inductance...

I used my Pickering stereohedron D7500S stylus in an XLZ7500 and a XSP3003 - basically the HO-High Inductance body vs the LO-Low Inductance body - using the same stylus,

I started by measuring Frequency response, and square waves at differing loads for each setup - and then set the loadings on both to a value that provided one of the better square wave results (minimised overshoot), along with almost identical Frequency response (within 0.2db of each other, and the 0.2db difference is at above 20kHz).

I then recorded a series of tracks with both, and adjusted the levels so both recordings have matched levels.

Not suprisingly they sound the same - are they truly identical... no, the LO body has higher noise levels by about 6db (a product of the additional gain required I assume)... but in terms of sound - I am struggling to differentiate between them.
I will be doing some more listening to these over the next couple of days, and will report my findings, but my initial "gut" response is - why bother?

The other thing that is worthy of note is that the XSP3003 is a low inductance high output design - 250mH.
So I am not comparing a 600mH+ design vs the 1mH LO cartridge.
That would be quite a different comparison - would be interesting having a Stanton 880 - 510mH body to add to the comparison.

Another aspect of this comparison was configuring the electrical loading to ensure that it was critically damped (no resonance) - with some drop off in the high end to balance out the cantilever's mechanical resonance slightly (m-resonance at 20kHz).

Other statistics I took showed that dynamics (peaks compared to average) were within the margins of error of my tools - no difference there either.

By the way - these two sound excellent, and I have been enjoying listening to them.

bye for now

David
Hi Lewm

I think the real clue behind LO vs HO designs is in the marketing info about the LO models (both pickering and stanton)

Cable length... ie cartridge loading.

With the LO, you can fit it on TT's with high capacitance cables (or long cables) and still get good results.

With the HO version and the higher inductance, keeping the C low becomes more important.

In the type of setup most of us here run, it is much of a muchness between them - but you do occasionally hear of people wanting to run 10m of cable between turntable and phono stage.... in which case the LO might just be able to pull it off. (if the low level signal is not swamped by interference picked up along the way).

As another aside, I did run the XLZ (LO) with 47k loading - and results were fine, at 1k or up load (including 47k) frequency response is about the same - but overshoot/ringing seen on square waves increases marginally. (not hugely by any means... maybe 20%)

bye for now

David
Sorry - what I meant was I picked up the data/statistics....

The family members that I have "picked up" ie that I own, are the XSP3003 (250mH) and XLZ7500 (1mH)

It would be nice to have a 980H or 880 to be able to compare the High Inductance version to the other two - but so far I am not discerning any difference. (yes I am sharing the D7500 stylus between them, I am also adjusting the loading to provide very closely matched frequency response (+/-0.2db between them) - so doing my best to eliminate variables other than inductance and output level.

This is pretty much the only cartridge family that I know of where this type of comparison is possible, and it allows a determination of whether inductance and level are truly a factor in sound quality - or whether it is in fact other factors that make the difference.

So far I am leaning very heavily towards other factors!

bye for now

David
Hi Raul,

yes perhaps it is a lost opportunity... and I did start out bidding on one... but then I thought about it, and thought about the issue of getting replacement styli...

And I decided against it!

Any day now I will have a TK9 and TK10 to play with.... and another low inductance design.

Hoping to find my Holy grail.... a stylus with mechanical resonance completely outside the audio range.

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib,

yes I accept the possibility - thorough testing of the theory will take a LOT more listening.... this will happen in due course.
I have however made some Square wave recordings and analysed the results showing almost identical responses... each cartridge will vary more widely on its indivual loading than on the difference between the two of them.
This is generally considered a good indicative measure of dynamics, transient and phase response.

But there will be much (!) more listening.

and once I work out how to set it up on the web properly, I will post comparative recordings - so people can listen to them on their own systems and make their own minds up. (it may be that my system limitations or my ear limitations make them indistinguishable.... others might find them to be chalk and cheese....- but I don't think so)

I also recently adapted some phase/group delay modelling into my cartridge model spreadsheet, so when selecting a loading configuration for a cartridge I can minimise phase variance...

Interestingly a default "average user" setup for an AT440MLa (422pf, 47k) results in both a noticeable amplitude peak in the lower highs, as well as a substantial phase anomaly in the octave just before that.... (the mechanical resonance will also generate a substantial phase anomaly so the real result will be far worse.... but I cannot measure or model that!)
The same cartridge that has an occasional reputation for excess highs, harshness, etc...
Set it up at 100pf and 34k and it becomes a wonderfully smooth tool of recording reproduction.

So many people are missing out on the potential of their systems due to default "standard" loading setups with high capacitance cabling exacerbating things.

bye for now

David
Very strange - they are claiming shibata tip?

I believe the ATN25 is an eliptical?

The (supposedly) ATN25 I have is definitely an eliptical (a very beautiful solid diamond naked eliptical - confirmed under the microscope)

I do have some ADC Magnesium shells - so I think the TK9E will have to shift...

To be seen what it does to the sound (maybe nothing given it is a servo damped arm...)

bye for now

David
Hi Folks,

another update on my 1000e/SAS vs TK9E/ATN25 comparison...

When trying to compare the same tracks I listened to in the morning, but now in the evening, and through headphones - the differences are almost gone.

The (or rather... my) speakers are clearly more revealing than my headphones/headphone amp.

And both cartridges are sufficiently good and sufficiently similar (both were set up with custom cartridge loading... for optimum frequency response flatness through the midrange and low highs - sacrificing high extension on the Shure, and suffering high boost on the TK9.... typical of both families)
The differences in the highs were audible through the speakers, and are effectively inaudible through the HP's.

The HP's I tried were my old Revox 3100 (Beyer DT880), Koss Pro4x, and Audio Technica ATHAD700....
A good sign for the two respective cartridges, a bad sign for my HP rig....
Any suggestions from the fraternity as to what HP's I should consider in my search for something as revealing as my speakers. (Stax is a bit too expensive at present...)

It means I can (currently) basically do critical listening only in the mornings - when I have the room to myself.

Putting the speakers on ends up with the other half putting her hands over her ears saying too loud, too loud. Her preferred volume is elevator music :-( .

bye for now

David

bye for now

David
An addition to the previous comment about Signet p-mounts

I have the TK6Ep and the TK4Ep - these are identical looking bodies from the AT102 family.
They can host their original styli or any of the styli from the AT102 or AT120 families (including AT152/155/150)

I have not seen the TK8LCp

The TK4Ep measures 521/522mH and 687/676ohm
The TK6Ep measures 565/567mH and 791/797ohm

as comparison from the same family

AT Realistic RX1500 507/515mH 630/632ohm
AT SLT96 522/521mH and 673/671ohm (really nice this one)
AT99sx 524/531mH and 660/559ohm
AT142LP 571/568mH and 781/780ohm

The SLT96 and AT99sx appear to be the same as the TK4Ep, the realistic is close enough to potentially be the same as well (allowing for production variation)

The AT142LP seems the same as the TK6Ep

My testing of all these using a common ATN440MLa stylus seems to indicate identical performance - using variable cartridge loading to adjust Frequency Response to match very closely before comparing.

Raoul - I am not totally convinced about the argument with regards to differing cartridge "generators" at differing pricepoints / quality levels.

My own testing/listening to the p-mounts mentioned here, and also adding a AT440Mla and AT150ea cartridge body to the mix (still using the same stylus) - seemed to indicate the same.

There are perhaps very subtle variations caused by changing the vibrational behaviour of the tonearm due to differing materials used and therefore differing damping/transmission of vibration. But these can equally be generated simply by exchanging headshells and are not indicative of the quality of the individual cartridge.

Higher priced cartridges seem to have much better channel balance on average - but not necessarily...
My AT150ea measures 346/370mH and 485/490ohm - that is quite an imbalance in % terms, where the economy SLT96 has 522/521mH and 673/671ohm.

How different would an AT14Sa fitted with a ATn20ss be from an AT20ss? - My guess is not at all.
(I have not yet tried comparing my AT20 and my AT14 both with a common ATN14 stylus... and perhaps include the TK7 as well)

The other key to this comparison, is careful measurement of the frequency respons, and adjustment of the cartridge loading of the cartridges to be compared so that the F/R matches very closely (within +/-0.1db).

I strongly believe that much of the "differences" are to do with cartridge loading - and that the choices the manufacturers made in searching for that punchy main market sound with WOW factor - were based on what the average person could be expected to have in terms of cartridge loading: 220pf at the phono stage, + 250pf of cable/tonearm capacitance and 47k resistive loading...
But the cartridges have much greater potential when fitted with the better styli, and with the cartridge loading adjusted for optimum results.

For those willing to invest the time and effort (and research and learning) to custom load their cartridges, there are real bargains to be had out there.

And the p-mounts are in no way inferior to their 1/2" mount cousins.

bye for now

David
Hi Raul,

I believe the Shure range at the time had in order from Top of the line down:

Ultra500 (optimised V15V)
Ultra400 (Oprimised ML140 with MR stylus)
V15VMR
Ultra300 (optimised ML140)
ML140
ML120

And there is some debate about the rankings at the top of that listing - with some believing that the Ultra400 outperformed the Ultra500 and V15VMR.

The Ultra400/300/ML140/120 were designed to have the same level of performance as the V15V series but at a lower manufacturing price. - Possibly using manufacturing methods that had not been available when the V15V was designed some 10+ years earlier. The styli/cantilevers used the same technology I believe, it was only the bodies that differed in manufacturing methods.

The end result was apparently very successful - and the ML140/120 designer did post on that topic on one of the forums.... he believes he matched and in some ways surpassed the V15V series with his design.

I have an Ultra300/400 body wending its way to me at the moment - and also an original V15VHRP with good stylus.
Once I get an Ultra400 stylus from LPGear, I will be able to compare these two as well. (another "round tuit" project)

bye for now

David
Hi Halcro

thanks for that - I have been keeping an eye on HP developments and the Audeze are up there....but they are more than I currently was planning on spending on HP's

Further testing has shown that my Sennheiser PCX450's are better at this than the Revox 3100....

I am doing some listening tonight using the PCX450's to see where things are at..

bye for now (and thanks)

David
Hi Folks,

as part of my own testing of cartridges... I have been recording the same AR demo record with each cartridge... and when trying several different loadings recording those too.

Today I finally got some of this up on the web...

Cartridges that I have up there already are:

Audio Technica AT440MLa
Audio Technica TK9E
Grado Gold1
Ortofon 320u
Pickering XLZ-7500-S
Shure 1000e with N97xE-SAS
Sony XL-MC104p

I have more coming... it takes time!

http://sites.google.com/site/zevaudio

Tracks are not complete... but there is a piece from every track on that record - and they are all normalised to the same level and time aligned as well - making it easier to pull them into multitrack software for A/B/C comparison.

Raul - with the TK9E running it at 83k definitely gave it more air - even when balanced with a slightly higher capacitance (to pull down the top end a little)
But I am not convinced the result is in fact more authentic to the recording. (both loadings I have used for the TK9E are online)

bye for now

David
Hi Raul

thank you for the encouragement - unfortunately it is only the tip of the iceberg....

If you could provide me with an additional 36hrs in every day that would help !!

But seriously - any feedback is very much appreciated, also peoples listening comments on the tracks...

I have recently been focusing on measurements rather than listening due to home limitations (WAF of the test recording - she refuses to have that record on when she is in the house!), and issue with transparency on the headphones.

Further tries with my headphones appear to indicate that one of my HP's shows the differences up where the others do not - still to be confirmed.

So right now - you guys out there can compare these tracks more effectively than I can here. (yes I have the original 24/96 high resolution versions - but still difficult at present..)

I will be posting up the Frequency response plot that matches each cartridge/loading combination and a square wave shot as well.... just more time required...

When you select the flattest F/R setting for any cartridge, and compare it to other cartridges where the same has been done - the differences become subtle.

bye for now

David
I have a puzzling quandary...

When I posted the compliance of my TK9e, it was based on measuring the resonant frequency using a laterally recorded sweep (from HFN Test)

When I did the same test using the vertically recorded track - the result was substantially different.

Is this expected? - Or should I check my setup and remeasure?!

I would have expected both results to be similar!?

bye for now

David
Hi Lewm,

I am trying to measure vertical compliance as that is what is most critical in matching the tonearm setup, and therefore selecting the right headshell weight for the cartridge...

The lateral vs vertical is the cutting/recording method - so I am unsure as to how the differing methods will cause to cartridge suspension to react.

I believe the right one to use is the vertical track, but I would have thought that a laterally cut sweep at the same frequencies should have resulted in a similar effect - but the resulting effect was quite different!

I do not expect both lateral and vertical compliance to be the same, although when the suspension is made of a symmetrical doughnut around the cantilever, it would be reasonable to expect equal compliance all around...

Thanks for the URL- LuckyDog on VE has been using this method to measure damping... I was planning on trying it out some time soon...

bye for now

David
Hi folks,

The discussion doesn't actually help me with guidance as to the best way to measure vertical compliance .... but I think I will stick to the vertical track... (makes intuitive sense!?) - and I may confirm using the other method...

Measurements are critical, if you don't want to spend your whole life listening to every possible permutation and combination - the trick is working out which measurements are really relevant!

In any case I got my Empire 999 up and running this week with a 1000Ze/X stylus, and my Empire EXL-10 with 4000D-I and 4000D-III... (measurements only at this stage... listening soon)

The 4000D's were disappointing - they have a cantilever resonance around 12kHz...

The 1000ZE/X shows promise - with resonance up around 20kHz.

It looks like the Quad cartridges tried to move the resonance downwards to keep the critical quad carrier zones free of phase variations - but this means that the phase variations associated with the resonance now sit well within the audible zone..... not so good.

The 1000ZE/X has a cantilever resonance profile similar to AT152LP, OM30, SuperXLM, AT20ss... good company.

bye for now

David
Hi Ct0517

I went looking for where one might place a link - without any luck finding it...

Where do you mean?

thanks

David
This is an interesting topic...
T_Bone - with regards to item 1) Lower moment of inertia with near zero friction...
Isn't that exactly what was being aimed for in the best arms of the late 70's and early 80's? The High Compliance is King era?
Like everything in analogue perfection is impossible - but there were (are) arms that achieve effective mass of under 6g... and a number that achieve around or under 4g. - I would assume that along with an effective mass of that level will come a much lower moment of inertia.

Lower bearing stiction I agree with - but lower friction not necessarily as a level of damping is valuable in assisting the control of the arm/cartridge resonances - it does need to be the right kind of friction.

And this is where we come up with the theoretical impossibilities - best from one perspective is zero friction, but achieving that will exacerbate another aspect (arm/cartridge resonance) so you either design some friction into the system or you design it as a minimum friction system and then attach an artificial friction system (fluid/servo damping).

With regards to a longer arm... the resonant frequencies will be altered - so differing arm damping solutions will be required - the more damping is applied (and I am talking HF damping rather than the LF fluid damping) - the more mass is added to the arm. - Another case where the gain of reduced tracking error through arm length needs to be balanced with increased mass which causes a different set of issues.

You can of course balance the increased mass with lowered compliance - but then you tend to also lower tracking ability at lower frequencies (more swings and roundabouts!)

I hate to say it but the vinyl world was, in the early 80's, racing towards linear tracking systems.... only to hit the brick wall of digital. The funding for R&D dried up overnight, leaving boutique development (which has not ceased, but rate of change/progress is very very low)
a) With linear tracking angular tracking error becomes a non issue.
b) with linear tracking the arm length can be minimal and therefore the arm mass can be reduced (eg: Revox Linatrack... the headshell is the arm!). Keeping in mind that a linear tracking arm transport can pivot or be positioned to travel directly over the record surface (like the many clamshell TT's with the arm in the lid, or the Revox) allowing vestigial arms.
Many current linear trackers have long(er) arms (and therefore higher mass) due to the arm tracking system residing off the record.

If we are talking about the ideal arm for some of the sophisticated cartridge - and aiming for high tracking capabilities, etc....
Why are we talking about prehistoric pivoted arm designs (flame proof armor activated...). Yes, crocodiles are a successful prehistoric dinosaur that survives to this day... but I'll take a predatory mammal as my preferred and more advanced/evolved choice. (and yes I know I am playing very loose with evolutionary concepts.... it's just a metaphor playing on common evolutionary mythology of linear "progress")

Why not instead discuss the ways to select, design, build or optimise a linear tracking arm - it is a better starting point ultimately for a perfect design.

Also the patents for all the great linear tracking arms of the 70's and 80's have all expired - all this technology is sitting out there begging for someone to use it!
And some of these patents include designs for systems that were never commercialised - and which were too difficult to commercialise without advanced digital control systems - which are now very economical.
eg: JVC patented a method of correcting for record centering (a la Nakamichi Dragon CT) - but using platter speed control in combination with arm mounted sensors... (ok not a directly relevant "arm" example, and it would require a very special kind of platter drive, with very precise speed control and perhaps a lower mass platter for rapid response - an interesting engineering approach which went off on a complete tangent from everything else....fascinating!!)
Revox had an electro-magnetic arm servo damping system described and patented for the Linatrack arm - never produced.
And there are the Linear tracking Sony biotracers - all that complex circuitry would now be built into a couple of digital control chips - making it simple and economical...
etc...

I look at this and I think that the whole discussion is talking about how to improve a dinosaur - a very effective dinosaur - but we have better starting points today than were common in the 70's.

bye for now

David
T-Bone - no don't crack open your previous FR-7.... taxidermise it, embed it a slab of perspex and put it on display in a museum case - with all the other dinosaurs.... then get a "modern" arm... (tongue firmly in cheek).

You are quite right, regardless of the approach everything needs to be designed to work together.
An ultra short ultra low MOI linear arm, would of course require an ultra high compliance cartridge, and preferably a very lightweight one.

So yes it is a question of appropriate MOI rather than small or large.

Regardless of the compliance and MOI level - there WILL be a resonance - given that it is a sprung system - and that is the nature of the beast. (unless you have perfectly flat records, and can therefore play them with an unsprung infinitely massy arm.... that is lala land material)
So you will always need various mechanisms to damp the resonances (even if they are well located and of relatively low amplitude, the resonance will always be there - and will be intermodulating with the desired signals - so it needs to be damped/controlled)

So 1) You need to have a properly chosen MOI to match compliance and other parameters of the system and 2) you need to have some form of damping to control the resonance.

But in selecting the appropriate MOI, and choosing which way to go - we should look at the advantages and disadvantages of Low vs High compliance designs.
Which may also include looking at the advantages and disadvantages of wire suspended cantilevers (usually low to mid compliance) to free moving cantilevers like the ADC's (usually high compliance.... exclusively high compliance?).

And obviously we need to discuss both lateral as well as vertical compliance.

And I think that discussion must begin with the cartridge and NOT the arm.... and going further, it must begin with the cantilever and its suspension and damping - and then work back from there. (possibly also including Platter/Mat as another source of damping that may influence the stylus)

Looking at it from my perspective - I think that the closest to ideal system has to be High and preferably very high compliance - free moving (no wire suspension) - and with an ultra light arm (lowest possible MOI) having minimum friction, with a controlled damping mechanism (I like servo damping, but fluid damping can also be controlled), in a Linear tracking arm...

And I can work through the logic of why I believe each of the selections to be the right ones in that list and in the right order within that list.

bye for now

David
A silly thought (perhaps) - MM went through its fall into shadow around the same time that the big (Japanese) LT manufacturers pulled out of the market.

Was Linear Tracking a logical development associated with high compliance MM?
The two do coincide, and the disappearance of mainstream LT also appears to coincide with the fall from grace of MM cartridges.

Is T_Bones comment about LT being an ideal solution to High compliance a marker to why LT rose to prominence.... and also perhaps to why it fell from favour when MC's became dominant (along with low compliance)?

Are the inherent compromises with pivoted arms least evident with low compliance, and the inherent compromises of LT's least evident with high compliance?

In particular I am thinking of short arm LT's with tracking happening directly over the record... Long arm LT's may be quite different beasts - my LT experience so far is with the Revox.

bye for now

David
Hi Stltrains,

Shure discusses the issues of tracking in their technical seminar paper from 1978...

They resolved it with the introduction of the damping brush...

ie: to at least some degree the solution was found to be damping...

Also where the arm/cartridge resonance is a mismatch - mistracking is a likely consequence as the resonance not only shifts in frequency but also (apparently) increases in magnitude. (I have not measured this aspect - so it is hearsay)

But it is clear that a high compliance cart. in a heavier arm will place the resonance close to the critical warp frequencies, and if that resonance and the warp frequency get close to coinciding.... then your stylus starts to take ski-jump lessons....

If the resonance is damped... this goes away - if the arm/cartridge are well matched (f=10Hz or thereabouts) the frequency is far enough away for the stylus suspension to handle it on its own. (although damping the resonance can still improve things)

I've seen a Shure V15VMR track spectacular warps on a light arm with the brush down....
On the other hand many cartridges have a reputation of requiring flat records to track properly on the ultra light revox linear tracking arm. (I will be checking this shortly with several cartridges.... with an without damping brush...)

My gut feeling from my own previous experience is that it is a matching and damping issue...

bye for now

David
Hi Folks,

I am very interested in the links between the ClearAudio's and the very very basic budget AT's

They point to the huge potential of these generators, and the fact that the limitations are NOT related to the generators but are related to the stylus and the resonance control - ie the generator mounting - shell around the generator - and the headshell/generator interface, as well as the resonance control between generator and stylus - in this case with the stylus permanently adhered to the generator.

The Clearaudio is "Clearly" a custom hot-rodded Audio Technica. And the results are apparently appropriately high end.

Given that the Virtuoso is using an Aluminium cantilever - one does wonder how much potential there might be in a basic AT95....
Perhaps with the HE or Shibata stylus mounted...

Getting top results might of course require hand picking a body from 10 or 20 of them for the best balanced channels in both inductance and resistance domains.

I don't know how tight production tolerances are, so I don't know whether you would need 5, 10 or 50 to get a single one that is sufficiently tightly specced.
Then there is the custom body to be built of anti-resonant materials (whether wood, metal or otherwise...)

When a professional company like ClearAudio produce something like this, they provide an excellent product for the well heeled - and the obsessive - but they also shine a light on a direction in which the ardent tweaker can head.

I also find it interesting Raul, that as per your usual practice, you listened to the Virtuoso at 100k ohm loading.

So I would like to point out, that regardless of the designers voicing intent - you re-voiced it to your personal preference.

After testing a lot of cartridges, I am finding that 100k seldom provides a neutral response across the frequency range, it almost invariably provides a substantially rising high end.

On the other hand it does tend to fill in the lower high end trough which appears to be common to all the MM's I have tested. (between about 8k and 13k or thereabouts)
So you trade off boosted highs (13kHz +) in exchange for improved neutrality in the 8k to 13k range.

This will artificially boost those frequencies that the older ones among us are less sensitive to (perhaps why it is popular?) - in addition to providing neutrality in a frequency range that we can all hear.

But I do wonder whether we can have our cake and eat it too - achieve both goals and a flat f-r across the range - using a hybrid digital/analogye system with digital EQ....

bye for now

David
Mea culpa - I was not paying attention... that 660ohm is impedance and not resistance... that should imply a resistance of less than 200ohm for a inductance of 420mH

This is quite exceptional - I know of not other cartridges that achieve a resistance that remarkably low for a substantial midrange inductance.

Given the wide disparity between original AT specifications and the Clearaudio specifications... in combination with the rumours of their own cartridge making equipment, it is perhaps not so far fetched to assume that there is some form of arrangement with AT, which includes AT supplying bodies, and some of the parts, but that CA perhaps manufacture their own coils?

An interesting cartridge....

Thank you Raul for raising its profile...

bye for now

David
Are you planning on opening up the "wideband" debate here Raul....

The topic is both heated, and difficult to pin down... not just from the cartridge end but also from the speaker end...
I just visited the Miller Audio website and pulled down the data from their testing of the Aurum Beta cartridge...

Based on those results... one observation is that the cantilever resonance is up past 20kHz (it peaks at 18k - no way of knowing whether it continues rising thereafter from that data... to me it looks like a peak between 21k and 23k)

Based on the test data, I estimate that Miller Audio are using a C load of around 400pf.

Now for the real kicker - the core response of stylus cantilever from 200Hz to 6kHz is the most linear that I have seen measured on any MM - they all tend to drop a bit, the best I've measured so far is the TK9... this is substantially better - I can only assume that this is related to the very low impedance.... reduced losses?
That the results in a reduced droop between 8k and 15k (which is filled out by LCR resonance).

Looks like I will need to hunt down a stylussless Clearaudio MM for further experiments!

Looks to me like a very sophisticated body - with relatively ordinary styli.. (in a range of stylus qualities and materials).

This is not your grandads AT95!

bye for now

David
Hi Raul,

I know a number of the cartridges we are interested in were originally specified for 100k, but I believe many of these had a dual specification.
100pf for CD4 and 40k for stereo.

When you think about it this makes sense:
CD4 has a low pass filter set at 15kHz - the 100k setting provides a more neutral frequency response up to 15kHz - and what is happening after 15kHz is irrelevant (for the front channels)
The rear channels are FM Modulated - so the main requirement is that there be minimal phase variation, and level is still above -15db at 50kHz.... flatness of response is not so important.

In Stereo mode, those same cartridge roll off the high end, providing a flatter response 20-20kHz, (eliminating or reducing the LCR resonance) - but response falls off relatively rapidly after 20kHz, and will be dramatically below -15db at 50kHz making it unusable for CD4.

I certainly understand the compromise you are making... and there is a very strong case to be made for the midrange and lower high end being far more important than the HF extreme.... and therefore 100k providing better results.

Sounds like your Phono stage implements the so called "neumann turnover" sometimes also called the "enhanced RIAA" EQ....
The JLTI I use does the same - I have implemented a calibration adjustment for when I do measurements, as the additional HF EQ does in fact have an impact on the high end (from 13kHz onwards the curve starts to diverge from standard RIAA - initially by around 0.1db, at 20k by 0.67db, 30k 1.7db - not totally critical for listening, but it does have an impact when measuring...

Bye for now

David
Another alternative for the Signet is the ATN152LP... that is the p-mount version of the AT155LC (AT152LP) stylus - identical in every way to the ATN155LC with the following exceptions: 1)no stylus guard, 2) slightly lighter plastic surround, 3) Slightly lower compliance - overall for a TK7 replacement stylus this might be superior to the ATN155LC - the lower compliance will work better with a heavier arm (which most people are using)... and the loss of the stylus guard removes a source of vibration, finally the reduced mass again is usually an advantage for a high compliance design like this one!

Going back to my request for data on the AT95.... I just woke up to the fact that the AT92 family (and all the various different names and numbers they go by) are the exact same engine... in a p-mount, and with a slightly different stylus surround, but the exact same plug.

So here is the data from a series of these that I have personally measured and own...

Cart. R ohm Z mH Z Bal R Bal
AT3472 403 435 0.0% 2.2%
MG-44J 424 442 0.9% 0.5%
AT3482P 403 428 2.3% 1.0%
DR250 395 457 2.8% 1.5%
DR200E 409 421 3.3% 0.2%
AT101P 409 428 3.4% 0.7%
Black? 411 465 5.4% 3.4%
PC-35 412 465 5.4% 1.0%

I have also included the variation between the Left/Right Channels in % terms for both R & Z.

I have no means for measurement of Impedance @ 1kHz

But this appears to confirm that the AT92/3600/95 family are the underlying generator in the CA MM family.

I have a plethora of these cartridges - and no decent styli for them !

Perhaps it is time for me to investigate their potential....

bye for now

David
For the transplant procedure Fleib is the man.... I ruined a possibly ok AT20sla needle trying it....

So right now I am in shell shocked state.... I will come back to this experiment later... (when I've recovered from snapping a good cantilever)

Fleib the thing to look out for is that strictly speaking resistance is a DC measurement and Impedance is an AC measurement and varies with frequency...
To properly measure impedance requires an LCR bridge and a variable frequency signal generator....

kconnor on Audiokarma did that for several Shure carts:

_________ M97-HE________V15RS____VI5xMR
50 Hz____ 824.6 ________479.5_____475.6
500 Hz____800.1 ________459.0_____454.7
1.0 kHz___773.2 ________429.9_____427.8
2.5 kHz___718.8 ________385.4_____385.3
5.0 kHz___663.2 ________350.3_____349.6
10 kHz___ 609.0 ________307.3_____306.9
15 khz____594.0 ________282.9_____283.4
20 kHz____597.7 ________269.2_____269.5

Which shows how the impedance varies with frequency.

Impedance specs are therefore only valid if quoted along with the relevant frequency at which they are measured.

DC resistance is what is measured by a multimeter... so one does expect a difference between the two.

My AT110 reads 517ohm and 603mH
My AT105 reads 516ohm and 575mH

(inductance also tends to vary with frequency... so there are some other gotchas in there....)

bye for now

David
Well in that case let me open with a fundamental question which has not been answered by any of the tests that have shown a difference in the presence of frequencies above 20kHz.

Are we sensing the ultrasonics (by whatever means) or are we sensing the intermodulation of those ultrasonics, which intermodulation is within the normal hearing range?

If the first - we can sense UHF - then we should all be trying to get wideband speakers, amps, cartridges & recordings.

If the secoond - we cannot sense UHF but we can sense its intermodulations, then the original IM is already on the recording within the 20-20k range, and frequencies above that will re-IM causing an additional level of distortion - and it is therefore undesirable.

None of the experiments I have read information on, have eliminated this possibility. It may in fact be extremely difficult to eliminate IM in this way as it may be happening anywhere along the chain from cartridge/cantilever right through to speaker/room.

But the current concensus is that we cannot hear/sense above 20kHz - and this has been established using various quite reasonable and repeatable tests...
From the two options above, occams razor would tend to point us to the simpler solution - we sense the IM, rather than the more complex one, we sense UHF.

Also from a posting I made earlier on Audiocircle

I don't know if you people have read this:

Summary - double blind testing shows no difference between 16/44 and higher res formats....

the AES Link:

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2

And further details of the test:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Further - this follows on some tests that were done much much earlier in which the AES set up a set of wideband speakers (going up to and beyond 80kHz!) and went to a lot of bother to make sure they had the linear amplitude as well as phase required to make the test valid (something the above test did not do!).

Then they made recordings of live occurences in the street - trees in the breeze etc... and had people listen to them with various Lo-Pass filters in or out - testing for the point at which people no longer heard the difference.... Double Blind fashion - results were statistically analysed.

Interestingly in this analysis at least one person could detect the presence or absence of the 80kHz filter - and as the frequencies came down from there many could hear the lower filters.

There was however no analysis to the best of my knowledge of whether they were hearing the high frequency or its intermodulations which are within the 20-20kHz range.... (both of which would have resulted in the exact same results in the tests...)

So :
1) The first test is showing that for the majority of people 16/44 is indistinguishable from HiRez Audio. (mind you the women in the test had a better differentiation rate at 35% than the men at 50%.... the women had a statistically significant ability to tell the difference - the men didn't)
2) The 2nd test implies the ability to hear well beyond 20kHz - and therefore a requirement for HiRez audio.... but it doesn't differentiate between IMD and the recording.... (very tricky that!) - however it does make the point that many/most people (even audio pro's) cannot hear beyond 20kHz....

Interesting isn't it?!?

Getting back to vinyl, although it has theoretically wideband performance, you can mathematically calculate the distortion generated by tracking error, as well as the needle width.... to achieve acceptable performance (in distortion terms) at 15kHz requires a Micro Ridge type stylus (side/minor radius of less than 0.35um).
To do the same at 20kHz requires ?? - not sure ... But I don't think any needle can provide an accurate distortion free picture of what is happening beyond 20kHz. (yes I know about CD4 but that was FM encoded and therefore not as subject to normal distortion.... but more subject to phase)

Further - to protect the cutter heads, the high end was frequently EQ'd downwards.... Shure did some studies analysing the spectral profile of hundreds of recordings.... on average 15kHz is more than 15db down.... and as the frequency rises, the amount of information continues to drop.

So even if you can properly reproduce it.... there is very little there to reproduce by the time you get past 25kHz and further up. (and we have not debated whether what is there is actual sound or distortion/intermodulation)

There you go.... an opening shot in the wideband discussion....

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib

Yes indeed - many have noted that Cartridges with drop off after 15kHz sound a bit dull, or cartridges with a rise above 15kHz have more "air"....

So we are sensing a difference - my point is that the question has not been asked as to whether that difference is a distortion or a reproduction of the original sonic event as mastered.

ie: are we detecting the intermodulation distortion of those high frequencies (the distortion products themselves being within the standard hearing range)... or are we actually hearing the high frequencies themselves?

The question is just as relevant for 15kHz to 20kHz as for wideband ultra high frequencies beyond 20kHz, in fact much more relevant, as most speakers and electronics WILL reproduce these frequencies... and recordings definitely include them.

If we are hearing the IM products - we are hearing a form of colouration of the sound - whether pleasant or not, it is a form of distortion.

Cartridegs like the Shure M97xE produce excellent sound up to around 15kHz - and if adjusted for optimum frequency response flatness up to 15kHz, end up with a very steep droppoff after 15kHz - which would result in less stuff above 15kHz to intermodulate with. (and yes I am ignoring phase...)

An argument can be put that for purposes of reproduction, the less extraneous frequencies you reproduce, the purer (more IM distortion free) the remaining frequencies will be.
And therefore an argument could be put that highest fidelity would be achieved with as restricted a frequency bandwidth as possible while meeting the needs of human hearing.

Translated in design terms as, make sure each piece of kit is wideband capable to maximise linearity in the desired frequencies... but try to ensure that frequencies outside the desired band are not fed into that wideband system...
is 16/44 digital doing us a favour by limiting the frequencies?

bye for now

David
Hi Folks

With regards to damping, vibrations and materials,"Cat's Squirrel"'s website http://qualia.webs.com/ has a lot of good information.

He has put a lot of effort into measuring the inherent damping properties of different materials with accelerometers, and also worked on modelling different combinations of materials.

The focus of his efforts was material selection for plinths, but would be just as applicable for armboards.

My favourite material is a resin/kitty litter hybrid, which is apparently incredibly effective - and of course like most resins it is moldable...

Some of the combinations are not obvious at all, yet very effective - If I recall correctly plywood with thin Aluminium facings is a very good three layer damping material... and quite thin at the same time.

In any case, a worthwhile resource

bye for now

David
On the topic of EQ....

I have been continuing experiments using Digital EQ...
The driver has been the search for phase linearity and the possibility of achieving linear phase as well as amplitude.

I was thinking about Square waves, and the manner in which phase and amplitude variations alter the shape of square waves.

Given that we do not have any test tracks that can effectively be used for real quantifiable analysis of phase, I am having to turn to a more subjective approach.
To that end, I started by mapping out the variation in a square wave when one applies + or - 4db of EQ at various frequencies... I did this both using linear phase filters (amplitude only) and minimum phase filters (traditional analogue phase+amplitude) - The test plots are up on my website for perusing /sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/.

I still have to take the next step which is also to do phase only variation by applying mimimum phase EQ then using linear phase to correct the amplitude - leaving the phase variation intact.

I got impatient, and took a look at what happens when I EQ a cartridges response using minimum phase (on the basis that most natural phenomena - such as resonances are minimum phase) - lo and behold, the square wave reproduced with that EQ in place (which took the cartridge to +/-0.5db from 70Hz to 19kHz) the Square wave became "squarer".

The problem remains of whether the test tracks are sufficiently accurate to allow accurate correction...

But they are definitely sufficiently good to improve existing default phase and amplitude linearity.

I still need to do the phase only plots so that I can get an understanding of what that looks like (I will also post the results up so people can have a look...)
The end result will be a set of pictures that show what each specific type of distortion of a square wave looks like...

From there one can take a look at a square wave output of a cartridge on a scope, and relatively quickly work out that there is a particular type of variation from flat, and roughly in what area of the spectrum that variation is...

I was not surprised at being able to achieve +/-0.5db, what did get my attention was the way the wave "squared up"...

With this reference tool (the reference plots) I can now read the many vintage reviews that show square waves, and get an understanding for the performance of the cartridges involved that I could not get before.

It now becomes abundantly clear, that a square wave with a large overshoot rise, is telling me that there is a high frequency resonance, the sharper that rise (and the squarer the top/bottom) the further out in frequency that resonance is....
But a cartridge that shows this overshoot, can also potentially cause phono stage problems, as the phono stage will be trying to pass an amplitude peak of possibly +10 or greater db... if insufficient headroom is available... other issues would then arise.

Another reason for "synergy" (and reverse synergy....)?

The arrival of advanced digital EQ (over the last few years) provides us with a new set of tools that can be used to optimise the performance of our cartridges in a search for the ability to reproduce the master....

If minimum phase can achieve 90% of what is required, then freeware like Electri-Q (posihfopit edition) can potentially be used as a high quality audiophile tool.

Raul - most of those old Equalisers were traditional analogue filters - which means minimum phase - and are therefore potentially the right tool for the job. (it's been there all along!) - that is assuming what I am seeing initially continues to be true - that minimum phase does in fact correct the square wave distortions that appear to be caused by phase non-linearity.

Bye for now

David

P.S. I really really want a properly designed test record for frequency amplitude and frequency phase testing!! (and impulse tests... )
Hi Fleib,

yep - I kept hoping for more - but this is what I measured...

They do have some response out at 35k... unlike the LCR resonance there doesn't seem to be a similar drop off after the cantilever resonance.

The problem is none of these mention their +/-db out to the very extended F-R, so they are not meaningful!
The denon test record I have goes out to 50kHz - so when I have a cartridge/stylus with some potential past the 27kHz I can measure with the pink noise track, I pull that out... but I have yet to find a serious contender...
I just ordered a NOS stylus for my Shure Ultra400 - we shall see....

bye for now

David
Hi Griffithds,

I was the one that mentioned the Ultra400....
Shure's last gasp attempt at high end MM was the Ultra range, TOTL was the Ultra500 - which used the same stylus as the V15VMR - the generator was the same too but mounted in a different metal mounting block.

Perhaps the improvement was caused by the body mounting - much like the CA cartridges currently being discussed and their wood bodies.

Certainly the improvement was not in stylus or generator as these were unchanged!

In parallel Shure designed a new range of generators, which they perhaps hoped would replace the V15 series...

These were the ML120/140 which shipped with HyperEliptical styli on Beryllium tube cantilevers. Design objective was to sound as good as the V15V but to leverage more recent manufacturing tech to achieve a lower cost.
The designer of these cartridges posted on Audiokarma a while back. - He claims that in some ways it bettered the V15V design, but in other ways it came a close second.

Shure also released the "Ultra" versions of these cartridges as the Ultra300 and Ultra400 - the Ultra400's appear to have been hand selected Ultra300's they both have MicroRidge styli on Beryllium cantilevers.

Unfortunately they were released when CD was just getting into its stride.... they made little impact and were not a great commercial success.

When Shure decided to resurrect the V15 as the V15VxMR - they used a more economical version of the original V15, but remained with the V15 due to the (highly marketable) reputation it had built up over 20 years.... so the ML series did not live long.

I managed to find an Ultra300 body economically some months back - and only in the last week have I managed to find an economical NOS Ultra400 stylus for it. (they are still available at LPgear for quite a reasonable $150, and $130 for the Ultra300)
I hope to have the stylus sometime over the next 2 or 3 weeks (the joys of international shipping).

I will post my measurement and listening results in due course....

I believe the ML120/140 and Ultra300/400 are a possible bargain that can still be picked up at reasonable prices due to its relative obscurity. - and original NOS styli are still available at reasonable prices.

bye for now

David
Hi Folks,

All this talk of the CA's superiority...

Looking at this technically there is nothing extraordinary about the generator in use - what is interesting is that the vibration control applied by the external body around the generator appears to take things up a notch.

But there are other examples of this approach - the Signet TK1/2/3/5/7 series, The AT13/14/15/20..., the Shure Ultra500... and the many many woodies out there (MM or otherwise).

BUT: exploring and in trying to understand the aspects of performance, I observed the generic dip which happens with all my cartridges in the 5k to 12kHz range.... querying this led to being pointed to BAS Speaker Vol 8 #4 & 5 where the Boston Audio Society team did an extensive series of cartridge tests looking at everything from rimble through cartridge/arm resonances to arm resonances, table isolation, feedback etc...
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-04-8001b.pdf
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-05-8002.pdf
and also discussion in
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-09-10-8106.pdf
(Thank you Snead for pointing me to these!)

Also the B&K white paper titled "Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in Turntables," (1977)

Particularly noteworthy was a Shure representatives comment that this dip is caused by cantilever flexion and twisting... designs that allow more of this show greater losses in this range, than stiffer ones...

A measure of cantilever quality?

This then points to the importance of using extremely rigid cantilever materials...

But also to the importance of keeping the cantilever very short...

This flexing would result in not only a drop in sensitivity but a subtle increase in various distortions... (where is the flexing energy going to?)

Should we be looking at designs using particularly short cantilevers? (or just focus on Ruby/Diamond cantilevers?)

The other things these extensive tests show is the actual measureable influence of arm resonances on the sound... and the importance of damping. (there is also limited discussion of overdamping - but this aspect is not developed)

Interestingly the arms/cartridges showing best results in terms of arm resonances are mounted on ultra light arms...
A reflection of engineering reality? or a reflection of the state of play in the late 70's / early 80's?

Getting back to the CA cartridges - the body mounting is directly impacting the arm resonant environment - apparently successfully so - it would be interesting to make these type of measurements comparing an AT95 or AT110 (similar AT family - basic plastic body surround) to the CA developed body surround... on the same arm obviously... I think this might uncover the "secret" of their vaunted sound.
And make that technique thereby available to all those of us willing to tinker with our cartridges/arms/setup.

Also if (as I suspect) that is "all" there is to the CA cartridges - then similar results should be achievable by varying headshells, using wooden "damper" shims, or other similar means... and with the flexibility of choosing any standard cartridge.

bye for now

David
Hi Nandric,

in researching cartridge and cantilever behaviour there are a range of distortions that are directly related to cantilever behaviour...

Specifically: cantilever resonance, and torsion/flexing.

The first I am starting to get a reasonable handle on ( and appears to be mostly unknown/ignored/disregarded by most audiophiles)... the cantilever resonance can influence both frequency and phase response octaves above and below the peak resonance point...

Numerous designers have used the cantilever resonance along with the electrical resonance to generate a near flat frequency response but there are problems with this approach.. the idea of combining a series of flaws to end up with a result close to the target is..... problematic!

The Shure M series are examples, so are most of the empires, and the Audio Technica aluminium cantilever cartridges.

The things that define the frequency of the resonance are the proportions and shape of the cantilever, along with the rigidity and speed of sound (closely related!) through the material.
Harder materials tend to have faster speed of sound and higher resonant frequencies (also achieved with shorter cantilevers...) - so there are advantages to certain shapes (tubes, tapering) - but many advantages come with materials - diamond, ruby/sapphire, boron and beryllium are all examples.

In the search for improved linearity, one approach it to move all resonances up and out of the Audio range - cantilever materials are key to this.

Another aspect of this, is that apparently torsion/flex in a cantilever (which happens more with the less rigid materials.... like aluminium) tend to lead to various forms of distortion - including the Euphonic second harmonic.

Here we start to divide into the usual subjectivist vs objectivist camps, and the reproducer-archivist vs musician/stereo-as-musical-instrument camps.

I fall relatively firmly into the objectivist and reproducer-archivist camps. So my goal is to reproduce the original master recording as best I can....
Thereafter if I want to add euphonic distortion to it (and distortion is by definition anything that was not in, or differentiates from, the original master!) I can use equalisation and other forms of sound tailoring to achieve it.

Excellent cartridges like the AT440MLa have cantilever resonances impacting on the sound at frequencies of around 10kHz - the tapered aluminium cantilever and its damping have been designed to control the resonance to best effect - but these styli do not achieve the level of quality that the ATN150MLX stylus does - substantially because of its boron cantilever (it has of course the same proportions, but the damping is varied somewhat) - so the MLx has its resonance peak above 20kHz (not far above though) and although it does impact on the audible range down to perhaps 15kHz, the impact is slight... and the cartridge sounds substantially the better for it.

Also knowing the material does not tell us about the shape/structure of the material.

Technics made boron tubes using a vapor deposition method, probably similar to the methods used by Shure and AT for their Beryllium tube cantilevers... the Technics literature of the time claimed that for a cantilever of the same shape and proportions, their Boron tube was superior to ruby/sapphire or diamond cantilevers. (in terms of raising the resonance to a higher frequency and increasing torsional rigidity)

So speaking theoretically the "exotic" materials have the edge....
Speaking practically in the real world - implementation is everything! - Digital implemented right is superior in every way to vinyl analogue as a recording and reproduction medium... but there are so very many digital systems that sound terrible!
And so many analogue systems that rise above their imperfections to sound great.

I admit to being on a search for a holy grail.... or at least a small collection of cartridges that I will settle down with for a number of years....

I do love the sound of the Aluminium cantilevered ADC SuperXLM shibata, and the beryllium cantilever AT20ss.
But I am still seeking cartridges that move the resonance totally out of the 20-20 range - and I have not found one yet. (maybe when I find it, I will discover it makes no difference, and the grass was always greener on this side of the fence...)

To summaries my (as usual) verbose posting.... the desirable qualities in a cantilever include torsional rigidity and higher resonance frequency, as a result aluminium is a less desirable material - in shorthand terms you can rank cantilevers by material Aluminium being the lowest rank, then Titanium (and perhaps carbon fibre?), and then the exotic materials.
Also cantilevers can be ranked by solid (lower) and hollow (higher) as well as straight (lower) and tapered (higher).

It does give us a handy way of looking at a cartridges specifications "sound unheard" and make some sort of judgement as to where it might rank in the cartridge sound quality continuum.
Essential given that many of us have no hope of hearing any of these cartridges without purchasing them.

So some of my criteria (flawed as they may be) in my search for the Holy Cartridge....
1) A cantilever that has a decent chance of placing the resonance around an octave beyond the audible range or higher
2) Low inductance (so as to also remove the electrical resonance)
3) a Body either designed for good damping or that can easily be modded/adjusted to improve its damping.
4) High tracking capability
5) Flat frequency response

And I prefer removeable styli - if additional rigidity is required in the stylus mounting, it can be achieved with a tiny amount of plasticine or blue-tack. - I do like those cartridges that screw the stylus mounting in (Technics 100/205 and TK9/10) for max rigidity while maintaining exchangeability.

Raul - my comments with regards to the AT13/14/15/20 and the TK1/3/5/7 - was related to the construction of their rather heavier metal bodies, as opposed to the closely related AT10/11/12 cartridges
AT was clearly doing something similar to what CA have done with their cartridges.
The differing stylus mounts also impact on the stylus/body vibration environment, with the signets having the better design for vibration control. - Which is not to say that a particular exemplar might not have a problem.... as I mentioned earlier, experiments with one or two thin threads of plasticine or blue-tack may make a substantial difference to some cartridges...
Best fitted between two rigid surfaces and in a very thin layer to maximise shear effec which is a valuable damper... between stylus and body is just about perfect. A tiny amount between cartridge and headshell may also help in some cases (more experimentation needed here...)

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib

quite agree... the Aluminium may sound more "musical" in certain circumstances - but that may be euphonic 2nd harmonic distortion.

Also a resonance beyond the audible range can alter the "overshoot" on a square wave test - basically it will exaggerate certain types of dynamics - making them more "audible" and possibly making the cartridge sound more "hifi" (or more musical depending on individual taste, and use of language!).

The ear is easily deceived - frequency variant compression applied only to frequencies above 14kHz can provide an illusion of additional detail and air...the lower level (as in amplitude) detail is raised up to a higher level making it more audible, while the peaks remain exactly as they are... Subtle, sneaky, often sounds very good - and absolutely inauthentic to the original recording.
One can of course argue that had Mozart and Bach had access to synthesizers they would have used those as part of their repertoir... but they didn't and making something artificially different from the original, does not reflect the intent of the artist(s).

Note: I am not saying that one particular material has this problem and the other has a different problem. But I do caution that most high end cartridge designers of the last 20 years have focused on a euphonic approach... (part of the movement that has also seen a resurgence in the use of Valves).
Designers of the 70's and early 80's were attempting to overcome the physical limitations of the medium and of cartridges to create a perfect replay/reproduction medium.

Once Digital took over as the main toolset for "perfect" reproduction (or the attempt of it) - Vinyl gradually slid off on a slippery slope to euphonics....
Clearly there is no point trying to make a perfect reproduced when the goal is a euphonic aural experience.
So we now have the phenomenon of a range of differing cartridges being tuned with different forms of designed-in colourations.... you can have your recording red, blue, green, or taupe - there is something for everyone, and a cartridge to meet every mood.
But very little to assist in analytically reproducing the master recording.

So I question designs like Miyabi (which I am doing without ever having heard one...- so this is not a specific attack!) - where there are aspects which appear at first sight of the design to be inherently flawed - I trust the response of many listeners that report a very positive, pleasant, euphonic experience - but I have seen little in the way of reports that might lead me to believe that these designs would effectively provide me with an untinted window on the original master recording. (and there is nothing wrong with that... if it is your goal)

Bye for now

David
Hi Dgob,

I agree that the environment is complex - but that does not mean that we should not aim for an appropriate goal....
Aim for the stars, you may reach the moon.

The alternative is to give up and accept whatever sounds "good" at the time... and depending on mood, weather, fashion, shift to a "better" option as the seasons change.

You suggest erring on the side of caution... but where do you sit in this great divide.... euphonist or archivists?
The one is never satisifed as there is never enough time to subjectively evaluate all options (after all a euphonists evaluation must perforce take weeks or months.... thereby limiting the number of cartridges one can listen to!) - and the archivist is searching for the perfect cartridge he knows to be physically impossible.... and knowing that still seeks for the best facsimile of perfection.

bye for now

David
Hi Nandric,

My first words were in the language of my grandmother, then I learnt the language of the country we were living in, we moved to another country when I was 3 - and then again when I was 8...
In some ways I have ended up as a Native speaker of 4 languages...
But without practice... it sits there in the back of ones mind rusting away.... - spending a month with speakers of any of these languages does wonders... it takes between 3 and 6 weeks before I start to really think (and dream) in the language....

There are definitely assumptions built into each language, and therefore there are inherent thinking structures that come with each of them...

Isn't the world a fascinating place!

bye for now

David
Nandric,

mmmm, remembering some Skinner and Chomsky readings from 20+ years back....
In my opinion (and based on my readings about linguistics, symbolic logic and the aquisition of abstract thought in children) - language provides us with the abstract tools with which to conceptually manipulate what we see and interact with.
Language therefore shapes our toolset... and as the old saying goes, to the worker with only a hammer, all problems are a nail...
If you have more tools in your toolset you can select a more appropriate one. Hence the importance of teaching children a more complete and extensive vocabulary, and introducing literature early rather than late (certainly before the age of 8). The more conceptual tools are provided in the very early years, the more a childs mind develops flexibility and the ability to pick and choose from a wider variety of conceptual constructs...
Language is a highly sophisticated form of abstraction, with concepts embedded deeply within it. Concepts that are assumed by 99% of that languages speakers without ever considering that they are making an assumption.
People with multiple languages and/or cultures or people who interact regularly across such boundaries rapidly become aware of these assumptions. (You get hit in the face a couple of times, you learn to duck!)

I agree that the mind is first - ie: the potential - but language is a relatively easy way of enabling a large chunk of that potential, with relatively minimal effort. (Music is another...)

One of the things I find sad about anglo culture... not just in Australia, but also in other English speaking countries - is that due to the dominant position of English today, these countries either do not teach other languages (in the majority), or do a piss poor job of it. It is simply not seen as important. (we are the empire, everyone speaks our language - why bother?)
All the English cultures are impoverished by this.
Almost all of my French cousins speak English, none of my Australian or American cousins speak French...

We don't really know our human potential, but we do know it is greater than what 90% of us achieve....
Having children grow up with many different languages, and many different forms of music .... shapes them.... for the better.

bye for now

David
Perhaps, having multiple tables, he is an analog agnostic?
Or maybe even a polytheist!
I believe catholicism, being the later rendition of the roman approach to mysticism, has a similar approach... and the temples could use this as a model...

Going into competition with the pastafarians... http://www.venganza.org/

The Temples of Theaudiology would have a seperate nook around the central nave for each of the principle saints/deities....

eg:
St Linn, patron saint of sprung belt drives
St Lenco, patron saint of idler drives

etc....

Before ordaining the first priests of course we would have to set up the Theological seminary of Theaudiology....

Requirement for entry would be an examination which might ask questions at random with reference to this thread....
(Raul's thread would be compulsory pre-reading for the entrance examination)

And the tax benefits are legendary....

Yours religiously (as I continue with my vinyl rituals)

David
Fleib,
so a member would be an Aesthete....

Hell is an audible hum and vibration problem.... obviously evident, yet completely intractable - all endeavours the eliminate it fail... no apparent source.....

bye for now

David
Thuchan can be our first hellfire and brimstone preacher....

You focus on punishment..... takes all sorts I guess!!

Plinko - strange that after talking about possible low compliance MM's the AT7V got missed!
But perhaps people are assuming that you are already aware of it given recent postings.
Nandric - Brimstone ... an archaic (alchemical?) term for sulphur.

The expression hellfire and brimstone, refers particularly to the variety of preachers who try to inspire their listeners to do the "right" thing through fear of the fires and sulfurous smells of hell... such preaching invariably involves much yelling and physical agitation....

The stick rather than carrot approach of religion...

With regards to the AT7V - what do you mean by "no problems?" - all reports have been very positive, it appears to be a low compliance MM design ... so possibly the trend of the next 10 years in MM... but I have not heard a negative report about it so far...

bye for now

David
Banquo363
With regards to aesthetic perception.... the question remains whether we are attempting to reproduce the carefully structured aesthetic construct of the artist(s) - (including mastering engineer), or whether we individually try to create a new aesthetic in our home or system. And to what degree we vascillate between the two extremes - and what balance we end up choosing.

To listen to a system with euphonic colourations, is conceptually wrong to me - it is like taking the Mona Lisa, and placing it behind tinted glass, because one prefers the way it renders the colours....

One may not LIKE the Mona Lisa, one might prefer Renoir, or Picasso - but the same thing applies.... if you view all of these through tinted glass, you will never perceive the picture the way that the artist drew it.

The other side to this, is that everyone has differing hearing sensitivity, and we may in fact be adjusting the various systems to compensate for our own personal variations (and failings) - and one also wonders whether the artists perception was also altered by their own variations and failings.... Which is the potential start for a completely different discussion.

My first listen (about 1 hour) to the Dynavector DV-23RS last night.... this cartridge sounds clearly different to all the others I have tried.
Much too early to get analytic about it - and I will test it thoroughly in due course... but there is definitely something to the short cantilever thing....
Other than the Decca, I don't believe I know of other short cantilever cartridges....

bye for now

David
Hi folks,

Fleib - could not agree more about cantilever impact on the frequency response...
My remote testing of Shure V15VMR-SAS (on Empirelvr's system) vs my own N97xE-SAS shows that the same cantilever structure and proportions can be tuned differently in the suspension and tensioning to result in completely different results.
I finally bit the bullet and ordered a V15V SAS - which is what I really wanted when I ordered a N97xE-SAS about a year back. - So I will test both in my own setup and see the difference.
Interchanging between an original Shure V15HRP stylus (beryllium HE) and the N97xE-SAS - again they are very different styli, and require completely different loading parameters.
The N97xE-SAS works best in a high capacitance configuration - I am currently listening to Madam Butterfly on the Revox - with the N97xE-SAS mounting in a V15HRP catridge, C=490pf R=47k - this provides an almost completely flat f-r to 15k and then a very steep drop off.
Any attempt to extend the f-r beyond 15kHz can only be achieved at the cost of a rise at 10k-16kHz (cantilever resonance area), and a drop at 6k to 10kHz (cantilever skew/twist loss zone).

On another topic - compating my Revox Linatrack arm to the JVC QL-Y5F... the high frequency response is pretty much the same, resonance frequency range (5Hz to 25Hz) reflects the expected mass and damping differences.

The JVC However shows a noticeably larger boost centered on roughly 300Hz and extending 1 octave each way (150Hz to 600Hz) - the exact magnitude and extension of the boost zone tends to vary a bit with cartridge (and perhaps headshell?) in use at the time, but is fairly consistent.

The Revox also shows a touch of boost in the same area, but whereas the Revox tends to boost by around 1db, the JVC boosts by around 2db.

I believe these are tonearm resonances.... is this consistent with other people's experiences?
What can be done about this? - Are there tweaks/adjustments that can effectively control this? (without wholesale arm exchange that is!)

I previously thought it might be an anomaly on the test records - but it has been consistent across a range of differing test records.
I have put a dab of plasticine (modelling clay) on the JVC arm in an attempt to damp vibrations - but if it is having an impact, it is clearly not on this frequency range!

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib,

just realised I had not answered your note...
My talk of 5 to 25Hz was simply stating the frequency range involved with the cantilever/arm resonance...

The frequencies I noted using the N97xE-SAS were 8.8Hz on the mid mass JVC, and 10.8Hz with the low mass Revox.

I also need to do further testing with the Revox to identify resonances - apparently the higher LF level on the Revox may be due to an arm resonance at 30Hz.... reported years ago by Empire who created and marketed a heavily modded version of the Revox - this was during Empire's Benz period - and they turned the ULM arm of the Revox into a somewhat heavier arm which suited the Benz mid compliance cartridges much better than the ULM Revox original.

bye for now

David
Delamostre1 - I am not familiar with the internals of the Y55F, but on the Y5F, I put as much Modelling Clay (plasticine) as I could fit in there, without blocking any air in/out or circulation - as the circuits still need to cool.

I also braced the bottom plate against the top of the plinth, by creating braces made of toilet roll cores (cardboard) cut to size and stuffed with more modelling clay... these are slightly taller than the space between plinth and baseboard (1 to 2 mm) - so when the baseboard is screwed down they are compressed.
Then I removed the original feet, and sat the TT on 4 feet, 3 in a trianle (2 front, 1 centre rear) and the fourth in the middle - so it helps with supporting, compressing and dampening the baseboard...
Also if you unscrew the subplatter molding, you may find cavities between the suplatter molding and the plinth - there were quite substantial ones on the Y5F... I filled them all with modelling clay - this added a further 250g above the plinth... and within the plinth I managed to put in about 2.7kg of plasticine.

These turntables are very much undervalued.... congratulations and enjoy!

bye for now

David
Fleib, you will recall that in my first attempt at a cantilever transfer.... I snapped that 15ss in two...

After the ensuing tears, I decided to put aside the cantilever transplant concept... at least till I work up the courage (foolishness?) to try again...

I did purchase a NOS ATN15ss from LPGear for my AT20SLa - and it is a truly lovely combination.... did a comparison last week of my Dynavector karat DV23RS, to the AT20ss (shorthand for AT20SLa with ATN15ss) ....
The DV23 is neutral, but dry.... lovely
The AT20ss feels softer, more organic... I think I prefer it...

Also compared the V15HRP with VN5xMR-SAS .... still preferred the AT20ss (but I have not finished messing with the loading yet, so it is not conclusive)

bye for now

David